Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:20, 26 January 2010

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

User:JCRB

User:JCRB has been disrupting Gibraltar articles to make a point for some time now. He has been trying to force his edit into the lead of the Gibraltar article for some time. Now he is trying intimidation threatening to report people. I suspect this is a sock puppet of User:MEGV and that he has used several IP addresses as well. Before this is dismissed as a simple content dispute see , this effort dates back nearly 2 years where he tried to fillibuster the opposition into submission. From the looks of his contribution history his behaviour looks to be disruptive on Phillipines related articles as well. Justin talk 00:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Without looking further into any other allegations, I'd like to point out that the JCRB account was created on July 17, 2007. The MEGV account was created on May 14, 2008. JCRB has 303 edits, while MEGV has had 59. I don't think MEGV would be a sock of JCRB, rather it would be the other way around. I'd also like to point out that both accounts have clean block logs, and MEGV hasn't edited since August 1, 2008. I don't think an sockpuppet report would be useful because the MEGV account has been inactive for a very long time. -- Atama頭 02:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I really do wish people would look into this further, because it is incredibly frustating that the DR process is being disrupted. I make the suggestion of sock puppetry because both used to log in within moments of each other, then proceeded to agree with one another. There are also a number of IP addresses involved as well. Justin talk 09:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is an odd form of "disruption". He is replacing the unsourced statement that Gibraltar is self-governing with a statement that it is non-self-governing sourced to the unquestionably reliable United Nations: . I'm bound to say that we could probably do with a bit more of that particular kind of disruption. Guy (Help!) 16:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You know what, this is exactly why every conspiracy theory nut or ardent nationalist swarms round wikipedia like flies round shit. People have taken the time and effort to explain why its disruption, its down below. People have independently looked at it and agreed, the information is down below. People have actually explained why its wrong in detail on the talk page of the article. Did you read any of it? No. Do you know anything about it? Obviously not, but you're quite prepared to wade in with a pair of size 10s and back the disruptive editor over the product editors who desperately do need admin help on an article that is literally besieged by people trying to advance their agenda using wikipedia as a platform. Marvelous, absolutely fucking marvelous. Justin talk 17:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You know what, what you can read down below is merely your own particular opinion on why the references provided aren't acceptable. However, reliable sources such as United Nations' resolutions usually have more bearing here than your peculiar POV. Finally, we could use a little bit more of politeness and a bit less of original research. Thanks. Cremallera (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

A peculiar POV of UN resolutions? I presume you're referring to the suggestion that the UN says that Gibraltar is Spanish is that the WP:OR you refer to? No that isn't a view I'm advocating. Funnily enough the view of the UN C24 is in the article, because I was one of the people that added it. But they we aren't actually speaking of UN resolutions are we, there is no UN resolution that specifies Gibraltar is a none self-governing territory. We're looking here at UN documents being abused for something completely different. Justin talk 21:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Whatever. I removed the contentious phrase from the lede since it had no cited source, was contradicted by a very credible source and the default for contentious and disputed material is to remove it pending formation of some consensus. And do you know something? After I removed it the article read so close to the same that I bet anyone who's not already engaged in the WP:PANTO will never know the difference. But you'll never guess what happened. Apparently I have to "discuss" in in a way that is not satisfied by a new section on the Talk page. My how Misplaced Pages changes: discussion now happens somewhere other than talk pages, maybe. Who knows. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Justin and User:Gibnews

User:Justin's accusations of "disruption" are an interesting example of hypocresy. For months this editor and User:Gibnews have blocked verifiable and neutral information about Gibraltar, preventing relevant information about its status or history from being included. A number of editors including User:MEGV (of whom I am accused of being a sock puppet), User:Imalbornoz and myself have attempted to include some dosis of neutrality (starting here , ending here ) with little or no success. The result is a biased article about a disputed territory which portrays only the British and/or Gibraltarian POV. Minimal or no reference to the Spanish (Andalusian) POV, or even the position of the United Nations is permitted by these editors. Issues like the arguable transfer of sovereignty according to the Treaty of Utrecht, reference to UN Resolutions on decolonization, or UN declarations expressing disapproval of the Gibraltar Referendum of 1967 have all been rejected despite reliable sources being presented. There has been constant opposition to citing the basis of the Spanish claims, specially territorial integrity and UN resolutions, as well as the San Roque issue. A complete overhaul of the article was suggested a few months back due to its overwhelming lack of neutrality. Again these editors blocked specific improvements. Up to this day they deny the Non-self-governing status of Gibraltar despite this being the definition given by the United Nations (my latest edit with reference to UN 64th General Assembly statement was again reverted). In summary, these editors permanently block any pieces of information which appear to oppose the British POV on Gibraltar. By constantly pushing their POV and refusing to include certain relevant facts, they are not only preventing the article from being more neutral and accurate, but they are disrupting the normal process of editing of the article. Finely enough, it is I who is accused of "disruption". JCRB (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem I see with your contribution, JCRB, is that it omits half the information. There are sources which affirm that Gibraltar isn't a self-governing territory. UN ones, for instance (which makes it a relevant POV, in fact). But your edition fails to acknowledge that other sources define Gibraltar as 'almost self-governing' (encyclopedia Britannica uses this wording, althought makes the exception of foreign policy and defense). Whether this information belongs in the lead section or not is arguable, at the very least. I myself think that there's a more appropiate section in the article to include these considerations. However, as indicated below by Atama, this has to be dealt with through discussion on the article's talk page. --Cremallera (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you disagree about what should be in the article, that's hardly a surprise. I've let Justin know that there's no point in sockpuppet accusations, everything else will have to be dealt with through discussion on the article's talk page. -- Atama頭 07:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think JCRB describes the situation well. Yes, there is opposition to rewriting the article on Gibraltar to show its a British colony of pirates on stolen Spanish soil. --Gibnews (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all I would actually welcome somebody independently investigating the allegations made by JCRB. He complains the article is POV, what he actually means is that it doesn't represent exclusively his POV. He claims the view of the UN C24 isn't represented, it is, he claims that the disputed nature of the territory isn't mentioned, it is (and we have an article dedicated solely to that). However, to properly understand the allegations made you need to have some understanding of the unique definition that the UN C24 applies to self-governing territories ie it bears no relation to the actual degree of self-government. I don't see Gibnews' intervention as particularly helpful, it may seem extreme to some but it wasn't that long ago that es.wikipedia did actually use the term pirates. Justin talk 09:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'd comment on Gibnews' tiny soliloquy above. But he can't be serious so, with due respect, I'll simply ignore it.
Atama, you've told Justin there's no point in baseless sockpuppetry accusations how many times already? Three? Four perhaps? I've been accused by him of being a sockpuppet more than once as well. So have Ecemaml and Imalbornoz in the past few months, as far as I remember. On the other hand, do you know how many times has he been accused of sockpuppetry by the aforementioned editors? Zero times. Quite frankly, all those editors' behaviour (myself included) isn't always exemplary, but reiterating this kind of unfounded accusations is as out of place as any other personal attack. Yet, he gets away with it every time he indulges in this kind of misdemeanour. One by one, it is 'just annoying', but when you look at the trend, it becomes gross.
I am not editing anymore nor discussing in the talk pages, as I am really tired of the constant disrespect and ridiculously vehement discussions over the most petty (and reliably sourced) issues. Yet, I am complaining here because previous notices and requests to cease this conduct have not been listened, dare I say. Sincerely, I concord with Narson here: I'd favour topic blocking everyone who has previously edited those articles (and I am one of these editors) to clear out some of this. To my disappointment, I put my best hopes on the moratorium. It is time, in my opinion, to be more expeditious. Thanks for your time. --Cremallera (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I've never accused you of sock puppetry. If you want to be precise I expressed my disquiet that given the messages on your talk pages you appeared to be co-ordinating your activities, including off-wiki by email, which is meat puppetry. Thats as far as it went. To be blunt as well, you're wading here in without being in full posession of the facts and I would suggest you ask Narson about MEGV and JCRB. You'll find it illuminating. Justin talk 09:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The action here seems to be focused on getting active editors who oppose a particular agenda being imposed on Gibraltar articles banned. This has been preceded by long tendentious arguments to bore the arse off everyone else interested, which has worked. As noted, another wikipedia did indeed recently refer to British pirates occupying Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it takes much effort to look through JCRB's past contributions on all articles. My observations are that this editor likes to push Spanish POV, and when challenged, becomes very stubborn and unpleasant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Philippines&diff=prev&oldid=334902097
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Spanish_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=331912740

Regualarly breaks 3RR which would imply regular edit warring. Good faith is obviously not assumed and bullies other editors into submission. Don't take this as a personal attack. I am purely stating my opinion from what I can see in the contributions list... _Will (Talk) 16:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It is exhausting to try to make the Gibraltar article more NPOV. As Atama has seen, it takes months to change even a little bit of the article. For example (regarding the Capture and the San Roque episode), only to include some facts that are in EVERY History book ABOUT GIBRALTAR is taking months (while other less notable historic facts go unchallenged). Regarding the lead, I think that unless someone else gets involved, it will be impossible to solve the current dispute.

I think there is a dispute between two POVs (JCRB's defending the UN and Justin and Gibnews defending Gibraltar's and myself trying to include all POVs propotionally). I would propose that someone helps to reach an agreement in order to include all of them proportionally (Justin and Gibnews have rejected any alternative of mediation, RfC, ... in order to solve this dispute).

I would also like someone to make Justin quit attacking other editors (he has accused myself and many other editors of sock and meat puppetry -and many other things such as nationalism, tendencious editing, disruptive editing, ...- without any consequence), using reversion as an editing tool (he has recently been reprimanded for doing it, but seems to go on , he even got blocked once for doing it some time ago), deleting other editors' comments in articles talk pages when he does not like them (several times he has deleted my comments, JCRB's, ...), making every little change in the article a long and painful process...

Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That is untrue, I was not reprimanded, I was falsely accused of something that I hadn't done and cleared. I did not use rollback inappropriately. I was blocked as a new and inexperienced editor nearly 3 years ago, when I mistakenly breached 3RR when misunderstanding policy thought I was reverting vandalism. Some people seem to like misrepresenting things it seems.

Also Imalbornoz is misrepresenting his edit, which pretty much is the same as JCRB and is giving undue prominence in the lead to something that is actually in the article with appropriate coverage. The article is neutral, he seeks to skew the POV of the article to favour his own.

Imalbornoz has edited tendentiously, he shopped round multiple forums pushing this same edit. And again the suspicion of meat puppetry was expressed when it appeared from talk page comments that 3 editors were communicating off-wiki to co-ordinate their activities. Raising that was a legitimate concern.

As regards his claim we've refused mediation, not true, he seems to think mediation is about forcing his will into the article. He has never shown any willingness to compromise. Now it seems there is a campaign to get rid of editors who dispute their editing agenda. I could be paranoid but it seems co-ordinated to me. Justin talk 23:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So what you're saying is we have three editors who appear to be using Misplaced Pages as a means to further their opinions in a real world dispute? JCRB, Imalbornoz, and Gibnews appear to be editing with a nationalist point of view, and if they cannot separate their nationatlist opinions from their Misplaced Pages edits, they will probably be banned from the cite.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Banned from the cite? Contravention of policy! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 07:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record: I do not favour a Spanish or Andalusian POV but a neutral point of view in the Gibraltar article. I've made this point many times in this and other Talk Pages. I sincerely believe in neutrality because it is a crucial element of accurate information. It also happens to be one of the policies of Misplaced Pages. But as Imalbornoz says "It is exhausting to try to make the Gibraltar article more NPOV it takes months to change even a little bit of the article". I agree. For over two years the two editors reported here have continuously rejected all constructive attempts by good editors to improve the article with small dosis of neutrality. What's more, in the case of Gibnews, he takes an academic discussion personally making aggressive ideological and political statements which are completely out of line (see his ironic comment above). In other cases, these editors twist solid arguments around and beat about the bush when presented straightforward and well-supported information. They imply sources are not "always" reliable, or "books can say many things". They will say "everybody knows that's not true", or in the case of the UN listing Gibraltar as a Non-Self-Governing Territory, well "it's because Spain is putting pressure on the UN". Judge for yourselves. In other words, it's not just their continous blocking of information they don't like, acting as if they own the article , it's their negative attitude, their lack of etiquette, and the complete absence of neutrality. Some specific points regarding the above:

• Here is an example of what I mean about favouring neutrality, and not a particular POV. If indeed there are sources that say Gibraltar is "self-governing" in "some issues" despite being listed on the UN List of Non-Self-Governing Territories, then a consensus phrase could be "Gibraltar is a partly self-governing British overseas territory" with a reference at the bottom of the page that explains both points of view and sources: the UN list on one hand, and the encyclopedia that says the opposite on the other.

• One of the points I made in the past is that the lead paragraph is very biased in that it reflects only the British POV. Indeed, it mentions the transfer of the territory from Spain to Great Britain under the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) but nowhere does it mention that according to Spain and some English-language sources this treaty only transferred the property of the castle and the fortifications on the rock, not the "sovereignty" of the territory, or "territorial jurisdiction" as it is called in Article X of the Treaty. The article goes out of its way to mention that the "majority" of Gibraltar residents oppose reintegration with Spain, and that Britain has committed to support their wishes (both of which provide legitimacy to the British POV) but no mention of the basis of Spain's claims: territorial integrity and a number of UN Resolutions mandating decolonization (UN Resolution 1514 (1960), General Assembly Resolutions 2070 and 2231 (1965) on "Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples) . There is no mention either of the UN decolonization process itself, or the Consensus of the Committee of 24 and the annual meetings that all parties hold. Why is all of this omitted? Again, my proposal for a more neutral sentence was to add "based on territorial integrity and UN resolutions on decolonization" (with a link to these). The sentence would read:

"Gibraltar was ceded by Spain to the Crown of Great Britain in perpetuity, under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, though Spain asserts a claim to the territory based on territorial integrity and UN resolutions on decolonization, and seeks its return."

• A final example of lack of neutrality which I pointed out some time ago, but was rejected by these editors is the sentence about the 1967 Referendum . It avoids mentioning the irregular nature of the Referendum, or the protest by one of the parties in the dispute, or the UN Resolution against it. The sentence simply reads "Gibraltar's first sovereignty referendum was held on 10 September 1967, in which Gibraltar's voters were asked whether they wished either to pass under Spanish sovereignty or remain under British sovereignty, with institutions of self-government". The sentence suggests a normal, legitimate vote by a sovereign nation, instead of explaining its exceptional nature: a referendum by a dependent, disputed territory. It was protested by Spain and declared a contravention of international agreements by the United Nations. My point back then (and today) was simply to add in the latter sentence:

"Although the UN declared the referendum to be a contravention of prior General Assembly resolutions, it led to the passing of the Gibraltar Constitution Order, granting autonomy in May 1969..."

I would appreciate outside editors to read our statements carefully and act accordingly. Let's see what happens to these renewed attempts to correct the biased tone of this article. JCRB (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

One hundred words or less please.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats part of the problem, see Talk:Gibraltar biased in this context means disagreeing with JCRB and a group of editors with an agenda of grinding down any opposition and having the burger their way. --Gibnews (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed that is the problem, the talk pages are filled with tendentious argument and its remorseless. You take the time to patiently explain things to people, assuming in many cases its a language barrier or perhaps the tendency for British constitutional matters to be unwritten isn't easy to understand. Then its straight back to the same point again. And again. And again. Its driven numerous people of the article, any effective progress on the article is stymied, the sheer frustration of it all is making people snappy. Can we please get some help here. Justin talk 09:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I see someone saying that I try to forward some kind of nationalist agenda in Misplaced Pages and with a Spanish nationalist POV. That is wrong and worries me deeply. In the current dispute, all the sources I have tried to include were either from the UN, from the UK Government, from the Government of Gibraltar or from Gibraltar newspapers (that does not look like a Spanish nationalist list of sources, does it?) If you look, all the cites I have brought to the talk page reflect the official position of those governments. I have never said in WP anything vilifying Gibraltar or the Gibraltarians (as Gibnews implies). Notice that no diff is provided. Of course, I can't provide any diff of my "not posting nationalist comments".

On the other hand, Justin and Gibnews have tried at all cost to remove any reference to the UN POV in the lead of the article, or to the complete POV of the UK Government about Gibraltar (which is not that Gibraltar is self-Governing, but that it has an important measure of devolved internal self-government).

I insist, there is no evidence that I am pushing a nationalist POV. If you think that there is any, please show me so that I can either clarify it or apologise and change it. Personally, I feel VERY uncomfortable when someone considers me a nationalist, that's why I try to avoid any nationalist attitude at all cost. --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No evidence? Never said anything to villify Gibraltar? Do I have to post your contribution off-wiki again? You're not pushing the UN POV, you're misrepresenting UN resolutions. You don't listen, you simply push the same line constantly, its reams of tendentious argument that is stymieing any progress. Justin talk 12:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There we go again. You take the time to explain the problems with the article, you give examples, you provide the references, and you propose a more neutral wording which is neither Spanish nor Gibraltarian POV. You do this to find a consensus and move forward, yet again these editors call it "tendentious argument" and "misrepresentation". No more to be said. I am also offended when accused of "pushing a nationalist POV". JCRB (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin, I am starting to feel VERY OFFENDED. REALLY. I said: "I have never said in WP anything vilifying Gibraltar or the Gibraltarians." So far, Justin has not been able to bring any evidence of the contrary, yet he keeps accusing me (and referring to "off wiki" comments out of context; are this kind of attacks usually accepted?). If I have vilified anybody for his/her nationality (which I am very sure I haven't), I will apologise (of course).

I find the word nationalist as very offensive and disruptive in discussions about Gibraltar - specially in discussions about Gibraltar. Meanwhile, through these repetitions, outside editors will come to the conclusion that, if I am so persistently accused and I am -in fact- discussing about a foreign territory, I must have a very strong nationalist POV. WHICH IS NOT TRUE.

Therefore, I would ask the admins whether is it possible that I make the following request: "If no editor brings a diff proving that I have pushed a nationalist POV in WP discussions, then I insist that Justin and Gibnews do not keep offending me and disrupting the discussion. I would also request that in case no diff is brought here, Justin and Gibnews apologise for those offensive and disrupting accusations."

Is it possible to make that request? And, if someone keeps accusing me of nationalism without any basis, is it possible to qualify that behaviour as disruptive? Thank you very much (and apologies for bringing these ugly issues to this page, but they have gone too far). --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You have kept out of actually editing pages and have resorted to long tendentious arguments on the talk pages preventing progress and creating new articles, but here is a a diff where you repeatedly reject a reference because it comes from 'a Gibraltar law firm' one which employs 70 professionals, has an international profile, and no connection with me. You have previously expressed the view that "The Peninsula of Gibraltar is a colony" and "it should be returned to Spain" and that "Spanish Minister Moratinos visited Gibraltar last week in order to negotiate how to mend some of Gibraltar's many disorders that have arisen under British rule (criminality, smuggling, tax evasion, ..." but I trust that reading the wikipedia page on Gibraltar and six months of discussing things for inclusion at GREAT length have modified that initial distorted view ? --Gibnews (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

If that is a way of saying that I have not "vilified Gibraltar or Gibraltarians" nor "pushed a nationalistic POV" in WP, then I am very glad.

Regarding the removal of the source, I quote my comment of 7 August 2009: "BTW, when I removed the lawyers' citation, I did it because I really thought it was immaterial (with all the respect to Gibnews and what seems a large and prestigious law firm); but the context of the "self-governing" citation seemed more commercial than informative, thus my -I will admit- sarcastic reference to the next sentence "Gibraltar is well placed etc." In fact, my next edit had the following tag: "Was reference to private law firm site (the next sentence in that page is "Gibraltar is tax-effective, well regulated, well placed and well developed.", maybe we should add it to the introduction too?)" In fact, the quote was so out of place in WP that nobody (not even Justin) defended that source as reputable. Honestly, I think this is not a very good diff to prove that I have made a nationalistic comment... It is also a bit embarrassing that you have not yet realised how out of place that cite was... ;-)

Also, you are quoting some off-wiki sentences by myself which 1) are out of context (and you know it because I explained them at length six months ago) and 2) about which I have apologised in WP several times in case I had offended anyone (the first one in the beginning of August and the beginning of my edits in WP -not 6 months later- just when we began to discuss about this and Justin brought those off-wiki comments to the discussion). I think that is very much out of place if what we are talking about is whether I have pushed a nationalistic POV in WP. I am a bit disappointed and offended by that.

I repeat that I have only insisted in including the UN's, the Government of UK and some Government of Gibraltar POVs. Obviously, that is not pushing a "Spanish nationalist POV"...

I insist, is there a way to stop people accusing me of pushing a nationalistic POV if no (serious) diff is provided? IT IS VERY OFFENSIVE. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I neither defended nor opposed that reference. And I will highlight you are not seeking to present the UN view, rather a somewhat perverse interpretation of UN resolutions to "prove" Gibraltar is Spanish. And that isn't a nationalist view point? Please also don't attempt to portray your comments as anything but sarcasm, you insult people's intelligence.

Again I ask the question, do I have to post the comments you made off-wiki and acknowledge as yours? Justin talk 23:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that Gibraltar is Spanish. It is British. So I have no intention to "prove" that Gibraltar is Spanish. I only say that, if the lead says that Gibraltar is a "self-governing territory" (a very respectable Gibraltarian POV), it should also include the fact that the equally respectable UN's General Assembly has listed Gibraltar as a "non self-governing territory" as per NPOV. Also, in that case, it should show the POV of the UK: the very respectable UK Government does not say that Gibraltar is "a self-governing territory PERIOD" but that it has an important level of "internal self-government" (that is, that Gib is self-governing except in the areas of defence, foreign affairs, internal security and the public service -which are not insignificant exceptions). This, I am sure, is not a nationalistic approach. But I have already explained this to you more than 20 times (this is not an exaggeration)

I have asked you already in the article 9 times to accept an alternative to just keep discussing with the same arguments over and over. Are you finally going to answer me and accept mediation, RfC or any other dispute resolution option? --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all the UN General Assembly has NEVER listed Gibraltar as a "colony", Gibraltar is on the list because the UK nominated it back in 1947. You have constantly and consistently misrepresented sources to advance an agenda. Secondly, the comments about the UN C24, who maintain it on the list due to lobbying by the Spanish Government, are included in the article. The article as written is NPOV. The UK Government actually says that Gibraltar is self-governing except for defence and foreign relations - the limits are in the article. So what you're asking is nothing to do with NPOV.

Back in June last year, whilst doing some research on the Economist website I came across the following unpleasant post of yours:

Even for a Spanish nationalist thats a pretty extreme expression of opinion. Your first edits were to remove the fact that Gibraltar is self-governing , , you then proceeded to try edit warring to keep it. You then proceeded to tie the talk page up in tendentious argument its nearly 156 kB long . None the less people engaged in good faith and tried to explain it to you, you've never once listened and still push the same line. It hasn't changed all the below were just this week.

The UN says no such thing, its a gross misrepresentation of sources to claim that it does. Similarly:

Again, the UN says no such thing, its a gross misrepresentation of sources to claim that it does. What is clear though is the POV agenda behind it. Now having a POV is not a problem on Misplaced Pages but what is a problem is disrupting the article with reams of tendentious argument to try and skew the article to favour a particular POV. Whats also a problem is lobbying for sanctions against other editors, claiming they're being "insulting" and that you're "offended" when all that has been done is to point out you're misrepresenting what you're setting out to achieve. The article is currently paralysed, nothing can move forward, so please can we have some admin intervention. Justin talk 12:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE, SOMEBODY HELP US!!!

This is very frustrating. I have been for six months asking for outside help in the discussion. Now Justin -even though he does not answer directly to me, after 10 times asking for his opinion on outside help in dispute resolution- seems to agree that some admin intervention is needed. Now is the moment...

(even though I have explained the previous comments to Justin many times, he keeps bringing them out of context -maybe to paint me as an extremist to outsiders of the discussion; so I will -boringly- explain them once again:

• The off-wiki comments were not a serious discussion trying to improve an encyclopedic article, but to -playfully, as you can see in the style- make fun of a (very coky) commentator in The Economist who pretended to be a translator from a very prestigious university, but kept making mistakes in Spanish while putting other commentators down laughing at their English. I am not proud of those coments and have apologise many times in WP for several months. I sincerely apologise here once more if they offended someone. Anyway I think they are not relevant in WP.
• You have just seen one clear example of what has been happening during the past 6 months: Justin says that the General Assembly does not list Gibraltar as a non self-governing territory. On the other hand, I have posted the following link like four or five times to Justin but he -maybe because the discussion is very heated- seems to ignore it. Please take a look a it:

I do not say that Gibraltar does not have any self-government (my opinion is irrelevant). I only say that the UN General Assembly lists Gib a non self-governing territory.

• Justin brings some of my comments on UN's resolutions (those were the texts where the "keywords" came from), and says that the UN "does not say so", but he fails to bring the UN texts just one line up from my comments where it is clear that the UN says that the referendum among Gibraltarians was a contravention of its resolutions (because it does not consider Gibraltarians as the people with the right to determine the status of Gibraltar, otherwise that referendum would be very happily accepted by the UN). I do not say that Gibraltarians are not the people of the territory (again, my opinion is not relevant). I only say that the UN says so.

Please, I am getting very tired of this discussion. I know that Justin and Gibnews and other editors from both sides are too. I am afraid that this will get too heated at some point. It has already been six months. I agree with Justin that we need some admin intervention to help us out.

Please... --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No the list is compiled by the UN C24 and adopted by the General Assembly, there is a big difference. And the fact remains that Gibraltar only ever got on that list because the UK nominated it and for no other reason. Misrepresenting it, is intended to give the list more credibility than it actually posesses. The article already includes this information, you're not seeking to improve the NPOV you're looking to skew it. You are abusing UN references claiming they say one thing, when they do not. Justin talk 17:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

It feels like Bill Murray's character in "Groundhog Day": I have just cited the UN list, then you say that it's not the UN official position as it's there only because it was listed by UK, then I'll say...

...that the fact that the UN website has a page that says (in capital letters in the source) "NON SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES LISTED BY GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN 2002" is as clear as sources can be, and that so is the sentence by Chairman General Mr Ban Ki Moon in the UN website:

Whereby (if you look at the General Assembly list) the 16 territories are: Western Sahara, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Montserrat, St. Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands, United States Virgin Islands, Gibraltar, American Samoa, Guam, New Caledonia 4, Pitcairn, and Tokelau (other 80 territories have made to the status of "self-governing" according to the UN, but -and you can explain it as you wish, and call it fair or unfair- the verifiable and notable fact is that Gibraltar obviously has not).

Then you'll say that this list is already in the article, then I'll say that indeed it is in the article but not in the lead (where it is said as an undisputed fact that "Gibraltar is a self-governing territory", when it is actually under dispute by the UN and some more), then you'll say that I only say that because I pursue a Spanish nationalist agenda, then I'll be offended, then you'll cite the off-wiki comments... (and that's where the radio alarm goes off and Sonny & Cher sing "I've got you babe" like in "Ground Hog Day" when the day starts all over again for poor Bill Murray).

Please, we need some admin assistance to make this dispute move on without anyone being blocked: after 6 months we've had enough of a try. PLEASE. --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The UN GA did not, as you infer, set up a working party with an atlas and a pencil to draw up a list of "none self-governing territories", they were nominated and listed by the colonial power way back in 1947 - verifiable fact. The list is now maintained by the UN C24 and adopted annually by the General Assembly. Big difference. The status of the list is not as you infer "suppressed", it is in the article with due prominence. The position is explained; the lead does not mislead.

The UN C24 definition of "self-governing" bears no relation to what the average person would consider "self-governing".

I only mention your original comments, because the comments this week are exactly in the same vein. Like how Gibraltar is "Spanish" based upon a perverse intepretation of UN resolutions. If you're "labelled" as a "Spanish nationalist", that may well because of the comments in the vein of a "Spanish nationalist" as to why Gibraltar is Spanish. Groundhig Day? Like when something is explained to you and you go but the UN says....when it doesn't. This one goes to 11. Justin talk 20:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin, please stop playing with words. The personal interpretations of verifiable information are secondary to the information itself. We don't care how or who set up the "working party" that put together the UN List of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The question is Gibraltar in on that list. Yes, the current lead misleads when it says that Gibraltar is "Self-Governing". This is quite arguable at best (specially as the UN says it is not). And please refrain from making accusations of "Spanish Nationalism", they are hardly justified. JCRB (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Then don't misrepresent UN Sources, Special Committee on Decolonization hears petitioner from Gibraltar as Spain opposes its removal from list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Justin talk 14:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar Articles

An idea that I ran past Atama to stop the disruption on Gibraltar articles, that I'd like to open up to wider community discussion.

To stop the disruption I propose:

1. Indefinitely semi-protect the articles to stop IP disruption.
2. Introduce a red card system, where any mention of nationalism or ad hominem attacks gets a yellow card, then a red card leading to a block. With an escalating scale of blocks, 24 hrs, 48hrs etc. A yellow card would last for say 24 hrs.

What would be slightly more difficult to deal with is the filibustering that has taken place, ie constantly returning to the same point again and again. Its gotten extremely tiresome for all concerned.

I'm imagining this would be a voluntary scheme that all of the editors would sign up to. I asked Atama if he would agree to be "referee" the process. I believe admin overview would be necessary as I suspect sock/meat puppetry may become an issue.

The people who I'd propose would be:

User:Ecemaml
User:Imalbornoz
User:Cremallera
User:Gibnews
User:Justin_A_Kuntz

Does this seem a workable suggestion? Justin talk 23:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't really make new sections if they are directly related to another section earlier up on the page. That and topic bans are much easier to enforce.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's my fault, I should have been more specific. I should have clarified that you should have added that to one of the two existing topics on ANI. I'm moving it for you. -- Atama頭 23:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that proposal gets to the root of the problem, which is that there is a very different perception about Gibraltar in Spain as a result of the active pursuit by its government of its sovereignty claim. Yes its simplistic and probably not in line with wikipedia policy to explain it like that. But its true Today on talk:gibraltar I've been informed politely that the real 'people of Gibraltar' live in San Roque, that the UN considers the current population mere colonists, and that the Government I elected does not govern the territory. This is what some want in Misplaced Pages. Its wrong. --Gibnews (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree to the proposal of a compromise to block anyone mentioning nationalism and ad hominem attacks. I would not limit the list to those five editors, in any case (there are several others -of several tendencies- who have engaged in nationalist and ad hominem attacks in the Gibraltar talk page).

In order to avoid filibustering, I think that the agreement should include the enforceable compromise to use dispute resolution tools (mediation, etc.) when a point has been repeatedly discussed. --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

disagree with blocking anyone as although the editors information may be wrong, apart from long tendentious arguments and the inability to compromise or agree there is not the sort of malice experienced from, for example Vintagekits who deserved to be banned and was. BUT the point of including anything on these pages is to try and involve some outside parties rather than to just open up yet another 100k of exchanges. I think all the involved parties have all said enough and its time to let someone else form an opinion. --Gibnews (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Justin, does your proposal include a ban on removing other people's messages in your talk page and stop using reversion as an editorial tool? It would be greatly appreciated. Otherwise, your proposal seems extremely faulty? --Ecemaml (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

And now for something completely different...

Right. How about standard discretionary sanctions, and start the process of topic-banning the edit warriors? It's apparent to me that people have completely lost sense of perspective, and have also forgotten some fairly fundamental Misplaced Pages principles. Such as: the solution to text that supports a POV you don't like is not to edit war back to text that supports a POV you do like but to say neither until you can reach a consensus about how the external dispute should be described here (WP:BATTLE, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS and so on). "Revert to consensus / stable version" is offten a red flag in cases like this, and telling people to "discuss" changes when they have already done precisely that, and have no prior involvement in the dispute, and have no evident ties to the POV you don't like, is not exactly indicative of a productive attitude. Incidentally, it also doesn't help when you say something is sourced from Britannica but Britannica does not use the term you claim, and actually says something that rather supports the opposite POV. The Spanish editors will no doubt claim that I am biased against them based on my nationality, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I think it's time to start dealing with this battleground mentality. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the cite you say doesn't support the text and it says "Gibraltar is an overseas territory of the United Kingdom and is self-governing in all matters but defense." Do you have java enabled? I don't have a POV I like, I would prefer it if the article would not suffer while there is an attempt to skew the POV. Thats whats at hand here. Oh yes people have forgotten wikipedia principles, the relevant one being NPOV, and some have gotten frustrated after trying to explain this and gotten more bad tempered than they should. What is helpful is a considered approach, not blundering in without understanding first. My apologies if I vented at you but thats precisely what you did. The problem with it, is you're encouraging further disruption. Justin talk 00:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin, you are being obstructive and disingenuous. The BBC News says "Gibraltar is self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign policy." - that is equivocal and the BBC is British anyway. The Chief Minister's speech was prompted by the UN's report stating that it was not self-governing, so unquestionably cannot be taken in isolation. The Telegraph (British) says "GIBRALTAR'S parliament approved an ambitious package of constitutional reform yesterday designed to give the colony almost complete self-government" - that's equivocal too. To state in the lead sentence that Gibraltar is self-governing based on two equivocal and one partisan sources, while ignoring the fact that the CIA World Factbook and the United Nations both say its not, is POV-warring of the worst kind. I have removed the statement again, I note you have reverted at least once more. Please do not do this. Your edit history shows a lengthy involvement with articles with contentious issues of sovereignty, and always on the British side. You are clearly not a neutral party here and should step away from the firing line and discuss matters on talk.

For now, I have left the opening sentence saying that Gibraltar is a British overseas territory. This is not sufficiently ambiguous to demand that we make a statement supporting either of the competing POVs regarding self-government.

I want to be clear here: a bald statement that Gibraltar is not self-governing is POV, and a problem. Equally, a bald statement that it is self-governing is also POV and also a problem - especially since the sources you provide are actually rather less good than those supporting the opposing POV. The logical thing to do is to simply remove the self-government status from the lede until a proper form of words can be decided, not to enforce one POV that is liked by the article WP:OWNers. To state that Gibraltar is self-governing based on these sources and ignoring - indeed without reference to - those which dispute it, is tendentious and disruptive.

I have done what you should have done in the first place, which is to start an RfC: Talk:Gibraltar#RfC:_Self-government.

I would ask that uninvolved admins should watch the article and swiftly enact blocks and topic bans against editors who display single-purpose and advocacy behaviour. I see several editors whose entire history seems to be around promoting the views of one or other side in articles where sovereignty is contentious, including Gibraltar and the Falklands. This needs to stop. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No, to be polite, you intervention has been unhelpful and your comments naive and ill-informed. Not only that but you've edit warred to impose your will on the article. As I have already indicated on your talk page I have no intention of edit warring. But I'd nontheless support those editors who return it to a NPOV.

Seeing as you mention the Falklands, where I am active, I have worked constructively with a number of Argentine editors to improve those articles. The improvements share information to ensure NPOV is maintained. I actually feel quite priveliged to address Darius as old friend. I have also gone to great lengths to explain the matter to a number of editors who have sought to skew the POV of the article, great lengths, yet they return to the same point again and again. Now that could well be based on the fact that they've only been taught 1 POV but there comes a point, when you see someone claiming that UN resolutions asssert that Gibraltar is Spanish, then you realise they're not interested in NPOV.

Again trying to remain polite, you've blundered into an area you don't know anything about, have ignored the point that editors have been misrepresenting those UN sources, funnily enough the one UN source you missed confirms that. But don't worry as I took the trouble to add it to the article. I'm not ignoring sources as you assert, seeing as the UN C24 list was introduced into the article as part of my edits, but rather ensuring they're treated with respect to NPOV. You're excision of those terms actually favours the editors who have tendentiously edited the article to skew the POV.

Not only that but ignoring the presumption of good faith, you've labelled the editors who work constructively in this area as "POV Warriors" to favour those editors who would pervert sources to advance an agenda and use Misplaced Pages as a platform to support their POV rather than maintaining a NPOV.

From my perception, all I see is an admin who hasn't looked at the problem, has jumped to conclusions and is failing to recognise their initial mistake. Ironically the only editor to breach 3RR is yourself. Do we take from that, that you're calling for uninvolved admins to impose a topic ban and a block upon yourself? Justin talk 14:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Just two points, Guy. First of all: "I see several editors whose entire history seems to be around promoting the views of one or other side in articles where sovereignty is contentious, including Gibraltar and the Falklands." As Justin kindly mentioned, we have been working in several Falkland-related articles. Even when my position regarding the topic is, obviously, pro-Argentine, we managed to keep the NPoV on the pages we have edited by checking both British and Argentine sources and discussing their reliability. Thus I think it's very unfair to include Justin in your 'list' of edit warriors.

Second point: the issue of self-government. My personal opinion is that the words speak for themselves; self-government, by definition, supposes a form of administration "not completely sovereign or independent". Therefore, I see no need of further clarification in the narrative, since self-government is at midway between "direct rule" (by a foreign power) and "total independence". The British sources questioned as 'partisan' are quite reliable as they only describe the naked fact of a political decision, not a posture.--Darius (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The idea of topic banning editors simply because someone has a different view and wants to enforce it sounds rather draconian and contrary to openness on the Internet. I and not advocating banning JCRB simply because he has been waging a single issue campaign to make the article on Gibraltar more supportive of the (dead in the water) territorial Spanish claim by denying Gibraltar's political progress.

Guy, do you realise when you attack the BBC, that it is not Gibraltar's national broadcaster? They most certainly have no bias towards Gibraltar and accept corrections to their online content when it is wrong. In order to make some editors happy, ones who believe Gibraltar should be Spanish, you could kill the present population its only a few thousand people who stand in the way. I trust you realise the point. But like censoring the fact that Gibraltar IS self-governing some might disagree with you. --Gibnews (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Darius, that is the problem with editors such as Justin and Gibnews. When they don't like certain information which is supported by (highly) reliable sources like the UN itself, they switch to personal interpretations or opinions. Please don't go down that path. The term "self-government" does not speak for itself. In fact it is quite controversial. Some would think it means autonomy, others complete independence. In both cases it carries a British POV by subtly justifying its colonial status or foreign rule. The question here is neutrality and verifiability, not personal opinions. The term "self-government" is inappropriate according to both these policies. Either both the British and Spanish POV's are included, or the issue is avoided altogether. JCRB (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You have yet to demonstrate there is any Foreign rule exercised by the UK Government. I don't see any and frankly would not put up with it. --Gibnews (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Rdm2376 starting mass deletions

This very long discussion, has been moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rdm2376's deletions. — Coffee // have a cup // ark //

Unitanode and good hand/bad hand

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archiving this now. Only issue still under discussion was prodding of unsourced BLPs by Unitanode, but per this it seems Unitanode will not be continuing that for the time being, so not really any need for administrative action or further discussion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This has recently been brought to my attention on my talk page(User_talk:Chillum#Continued_prodding_under_a_new_account_name). I am seeking outside scrutiny as I have already involved myself in what is essentially a content dispute. The short form of the story is that User:Unitanode started a rather aggressive {{prod}}ing effort towards BLP articles lacking references. Me and a few other editors made comments to the effect that he was being a bit careless in his application of {{prod}} tags. He has since created a new account and has been using that to add prod's to the same type of article.

The new account is User:Unitasock and the name is clearly chosen to not hide the fact that he is the same person. My concern is that he is effectively hiding these edits from anyone who has asked him to stop doing this. While seeing "Unitasock" makes it clear that it is Unitanode, those that know Unitanode have no way of knowing about Unitasock. My previous discussion with this user on the matter of prodding was not very productive so I am not leaving it to others to look at this issue.

I will reserve personal judgment other than saying it gives me pause for concern and leave it up to folks not involved in the current unreferenced BLP deletion content dispute(you know who you are). Chillum 00:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to correct the details as it was me that brought it to Chillums attention, the alternative account is marked as such and is not new as such, it is from Aug 2009, but it was the way unitanode moved from his main account when he was requested to stop to the alternative account in what looks like an attempt to continue with his actions without attracting attention to his main account. Off2riorob (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. My primary point was not the creation of the account but rather the manner in which the editing switched over when such editing was criticized. It gives at the very least the appearance of avoiding scrutiny. Chillum 01:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• I will recuse from further comment here, since I've had interaction with the editor in the last few days of which i idn;t think too much, but this look like blatant "good hand, bad hand" socking and bordering on trolling. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 01:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Respectfully request that the second account be retired. Durova 01:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)co

Brief explanation

1. My criteria for placing the tag is, does it have sources of any kind? If no, I tag it. If yes, I quickly check them, to make certain it's not just a fan blog or something of that sort.
2. If it has a source, I stub-ify the article to only the bare facts of the subject's notability, and remove the "unsourced" tag.
3. The reason I use Unitasock, is because it's contribution list is easier to cut-and-paste so as to create a holding area for the articles I've worked on (both PROD tags placed, and other work).
4. As someone mentioned here, I'm not trying to hide anything, as I'm keeping a log of my work on the Unitanode userpage, and a subpage listing all articles I've worked on.

I'm doing my best to work on a significant problem in the project. I have no problem with people coming behind me and working through the list to try to source these articles. UnitAnode 02:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Why did you move to your alternative account? Off2riorob (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

  Read #3 again. I use it because it makes it easier to keep a running log of my work. The Special:contributions list is basically uncluttered there, so it's easier to cut-and-paste from. Nothing sinister or nefarious about it. UnitAnode 02:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair explanation, and sorry to have speculated otherwise here. I'm not the one who brought the report and I would not have on the sole issue of having two accounts. I would encourage everyone to consider this particular question settled (but not necessarily the issue of prodding articles). - Wikidemon (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Mass-prodding

I also note that Unitanode and his sock have been warned not to engage in indiscriminate mass-prodding of unsourced BLPs pending the outcome of WP:RFC/BLP and has at this point announced that an intention to continue even though expecting to be brought to AN/I and blocked for it, and refuses to discuss the matter further. I am currently spot checking the latest round of PRODs, and will report back shortly on what the false positive rate seems to be. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Hiroshi Abe (astronomer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - viable nomination, could not easily find sources, appears to be non-notable. No obviously derogatory or controversial material in article.
2. Theophilus Adeleke Akinyele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - viable nomination - few sources and notability could reasonably be questioned. No obviously derogatory or controversial material in article.
3. Makio Akiyama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - viable nomination, could not easily find sources, appears to be non-notable. No obviously derogatory or controversial material in article.
4. Akufen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - bad nomination, clearly notable and easily sourceable. No obviously derogatory or controversial material in article.
5. Gianne Albertoni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - bad nomination, appears notable with hundreds (per google, which usually overstates) of foreign language news sources. Weak stub article, but no obviously derogatory or controversial material in article.
6. Karl Alpiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - bad nomination, appears notable with many news sources. Very short stub article with no material that could possibly be considered controversial.
7. Joanna Ampil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - bad nomination, appears notable with many news sources. No plausible controversial information.

I could go on but that's enough to convince me that most of these PRODs will not stand under the current deletion policy. That policy is being actively tested and debated at the RfC, and in the likely event that we do end up requiring all BLP articles to be sourced we will have an orderly procedure for making that happen. Making mass disputed content edits (or depending on how you look at it, mass invocation of procedure) while the policy is under active debate is pretty disruptive. On the mitigating side Unitanode has made only 20-30 nominations in this latest round, and none so far after being warned or after this report started. However, given the editor's announced intention not to stop unless made to do so, it pretty much forces either a block or an acceptance that an indefinite number of articles will now be prodded, which is either going to have to be undone, or if it stands would render the many editors' efforts at RfC moot. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I have removed your "resolved" tag because this is not resolved. Using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny most certainly is an admin issue and can require action. If you wish to give an opinion on this matter then please do, but I see no basis for resolving this mere minutes after it was posted. Chillum 01:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• At 23,49 tonight Unitanode made this comment on Lar's talkpage.. I'm not sure either. I'm prepared to have my block log sullied for this, though, as it's the right thing to do. Chillum is making it pretty clear that if I continue, he's going to block me. Not in so many words, but that's what's going to happen. UnitAnode ...at 23.50, one minute later he started to edit and prod under the alternative account. A clear case of delibrate avoidance. Off2riorob (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

To be clear I have no intention of blocking anyone I am involved in a content dispute with, I only said to him if he edit warred to replaced the {{prod}} tag and continued beyond warnings that the result would be a block, but not from me. He has not to my knowledge edit warred to replace any prod tags yet, I was responding to his hypothetical respond to them being removed. Chillum 01:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the timing and the actions, the account they're expecting to be sullied with a block is the alternate account, so it does appear to be using an alternate bad hand account to avoid scrutiny. There has been considerable discussion about this editor's civility on this issue as well, so there seems to be an overall breakdown in collaboration with other editors. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC) stricken by Wikidemon in light of explanation given above

Would you please stop trying to archive an active discussion less than 30 minutes old? It is very rude and clearly the matter is not resolved(you can tell because people are still talking). Chillum 01:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Refusal to listen to concerns about editing behaviour makes Unitanode ideal admin material, and he'll probably be an Arb this time next year. DuncanHill (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am seriously getting sick of your sniping. The above comment is unhelpful and unnecessary. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 02:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There's plenty of genuinely disruptive unhelpful and unnecessary behaviour going on, I suggest you concentrate on that. DuncanHill (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

And I suggest that you stop sniping - if you have specific concerns please start a new thread. Your comment above is not helpful in this discussion. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 18:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Something needs to happen here, Unitanode is again saying on his talkpage that he needs to get back to work and how it is some massive problem and there are 50 000 more to prod, at least he is keeping a list , I worked through the top half in a couple of hours and cited them all, some of them were clearly very notable people, very multiple external links supporting content, none of them were derogatory or libelous in any way. If this mission is continued we will fast become swamped with the work it is creating. Off2riorob (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody explain exactly what the problem is here? --TS 01:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to be a gadfly, but doesn't the recent ArbCom decision at least implicitly condone the actions he is taking? -- Atama頭 01:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(Resp to TS) Avoiding scrutiny, or operating a Good Hand/Bad Hand account? Not that this is necessarily the case, but the basis upon which other inhabitants of this board might review. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I should hope they're not encouraging systematic rule-breaking. It would be best if this issue can be handled here and doesn't have to go back to Arbcom so quickly. Wikidemon (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, if a quorum here finds that the user in question is performing "good hand, bad hand" tactics to avoid scrutiny and is being apparently careless in prodding (which upon inspection, I believe to be the case), we're well within our rights to stop the action if deemed disruptive. While I'm sure we're gonna' get a lot of "arbcom said this!" to excuse behavior, careless deletion and prodding wastes people's time and is disruptive, "good intentions" aside. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really condoning this action, that as I read it said, people should take their time and policy still applies, users should not systematically prod uncited blp articles, care should be taken in all aspects of editing, for example Unitanode prodded Paul-Marie Coûteaux this article, he is clearly notable. Prodding should not be done willy nilly like this, an editor should still take a little time to improve it first. Off2riorob (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Anybody tried asking? There's loads of possible reasons, editing from different locations, maintaining a separate watchlist etc. There is certainly no subterfuge over whom the account belongs to.   pablo_hablo. 01:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe that belongs in the above subsection where the socking is being discussed? ++Lar: t/c 02:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am unclear what the issue is with Unitanode putting PROD tags on things. Especially given the analysis above being a bit off the mark, it's not about whether the article COULD be sourced, it's about whether it HAS them... were there any that were prodded that actually were well sourced?

I am also unclear why anyone (with sufficient clue, anyway) would want to, at this time, remove PROD tags from unsourced BLPs without fixing them. I suggest that to do so would be really poor form, to say the least. I suggest folk not do it. Show the nasty BLP crusaders a thing or two about how wrong headed they are... by actually fixing things that have sat around for years unfixed instead of hanging out here on the dramahboards. ++Lar: t/c 02:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

@Lar, why the rush to PROD al 50,000 of them? Indiscriminate PRODding is frankly clueless. Surely it's due diligence to actually read the article and check any external links for something that establishes notability and, if none is found, to check for some and check the history and whatlinkshere before slapping a PROD on it. Judging by the speed and inaccuracy of Unitanode's tagging, I find it hard to believe that he's doing any of those things. I agree that many need to be deleted but mass-PRODding all of them does nothing to help this mess. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 02:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Which of his PRODs lacked sources as of when they were PRODded? That's the issue, not whether they COULD be sourced. Not his problem. All the articles I deleted and PRODded in the last few days did not have acceptable (in most cases, ANY) references. I checked the history of each one before I deleted it. I did not just run a bot. I skipped articles in the category that seemed to have sources. It's not my job to ADD sources. The COMMUNITY had 3 years to do that. I was just cleaning up a little. And now, many of the articles, once we imposed a bit of an actual deadline, have been sorted out. That's goodness. You need to rethink things a bit. ++Lar: t/c 02:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

First off being an unreferenced BLP last I checked was not a reason for deletion. Secondly {{prod}} is to check if something is uncontroversial to delete, this is clearly not the case. Finally the real issue seems to be Uni's insistence that he will re-prod any articles that the prod is removed from, and his flat out refusal to spend a mere 5 minutes checking if the article is salvagable. Arbcom does not dictate policy, only motions so unless consensus changes then neither should policy. Unless arbcom comes along and makes a motion that Uni is doing right I think we should just follow consensus. Chillum 02:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to check again. ANY unsourced material is subject to removal, and if nothing remains so is the article. ArbCom recently passed a motion validating this but it's not new news. ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see editors systematically adding prods to blps as crusaders of any kind, a robot could do that, something worthwhile is adding a reference to an uncited article, a robot couldn't do that. Off2riorob (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

since the user has a criteria, it cannot - by definition - be indiscriminate. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was going to say. Hasty, perhaps, but not indiscriminate. -- Atama頭 02:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Off: "crusaders" Me either. Obligated to do something that's needed doing for 3 years? Not me. Try again. ++Lar: t/c 02:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I was able to add information and references to Hiroshi Abe (astronomer), Makio Akiyama, Akufen, Gianne Albertoni and Karl Alpiger. Joanna Ampil is not tagged anymore. Information is online regarding Theophilus Adeleke Akinyele, but it requires subscription access. Warrah (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's very simple. Arbcom, with a handful of admin allies like Lar, have decided to say "fuck you" to community processes. Like Lar, they are not interested in adding sources to articles. Some people get their kicks from destroying rather than creating, and it's pointless trying to change them because they've got the biggest sticks. DuncanHill (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm. you forgot to mention those who like to remain complacent... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope we can avoid too much meta-conversation about what the policy is and should be. What is clear is that the policy is disputed right now, and there is a question about mass edits (and potentially use of tools) to favor a change in the status quo. As far as the "three years" and "complacency" arguments there is an active WP:RFC/BLP going on, with almost unanimous agreement to work towards a defined date where there will be no more unreferenced BLPs, so it's simply not the case that nobody is doing anything about it. Other pages are for policy work. The concern here is editing that if carried out to a wider extent takes the decision away from the community. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A genuine question

The fact is, without a reliable source, any statement is impossible to declare "uncontroversial". Notability has nothing to do with it. — Coren  04:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Coren, go and click the random article button. Keep clicking it until you find any non-trivial article where every single basic fact is traceable to an inline, immediately verifiable, obviously reliable, source, that makes that article, by your standards, 100% uncontroversial. I am guessing you will still be clicking by the middle of next week, and beyond, especially if you fixed each one as you went. If this is the true issue, prodding unreffed blps is not the solution, or even the start of a solution. MickMacNee (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Or even just flipping through FAs would be an interesting exercise. MickMacNee (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

More to the point, having a source doesn't make the statement any more reliable. Many of the best sources are behind paywalls, or in books. And lots of editors misrepresent sources, some intentionally, others through good faith misunderstanding. The only articles that are well sourced are the controversial ones, the ones in which you have two large groups of editors fighting tooth and nail over every source, what it means, and how much weight should be placed on it. Sourcing is one step. Having the article reviewed is another step. But it's all a continuum. And pretending that adding a source suddenly draws a bright line between acceptable and unacceptable is fallacious. Guettarda (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

MickMacNee, Coren would eventually come across Charles Fryatt . Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Every single fact in every single article should be supportable by the sources cited for that article, per WP:V and WP:RS (and by extension WP:NPOV). That does not mean that every sentence needs footnoting, if we have a couple of biographies cited then most of the background detail will come from them and does not need to be separately footnoted unless there is something unusual like a dispute, a fact only in one of several sources or a "WTF?" where the reader is likely to want to verify that specific statement. I do foresee a problem in those articles on individuals for whom Misplaced Pages is the first formal published biography and all the content is drawn from news reports and discussions of the individual's work. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to deduce my views on what should be done about subjects where we are the first to cover them in depth. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As a point of order, I personally believe that most every fact should, ideally, be sourced and not just sourceable. That would generate quite a few footnotes to be sure. Until that happens I'd leave the burden on editors wanting sources to question in good faith whether an uncited claim may in fact be problematic, rather than saying we should delete 90%+ of the content in the project. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• The source of Coren's question may be found here in the Soxred edit history report on his contributions and here in his edit history. Coren has only 1339 mainspace edits, total, in his entire editing history. His most recent 500 article edits stretch back to December 2007, and since becoming an arbitrator in January 2009 he has made exactly 73 mainspace edits. That's an average of less than two article edits a week, including minor edits. Coren, the answer to your genuine question is firsthand experience. Spend five hours a week on the back end of new pages patrol and encounter the unreferenced soccer biographies that might be inaccurate but certainly aren't pejorative. And if you can't manage five hours a week from your busy arbitration schedule, take a leave of absence from arbitration. It is vital that arbitrators not fall out of touch. Durova 16:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I hadn't made the connection that this odd stamement was made by an arbcom member. Indeed it is reminiscent of the perhaps mythologized anecdotes of the American president baffled by the new technology at the grocery store or the Supreme Court justice who had ruled on the issue many times who was shocked upon having finally to deal with the American health care crisis when a hospital initially refused treatment because they could not find her insurance record. If "subject to challenge if someone chose to do so" or "possibly incorrect" were a standard for what makes something controversial, then the word itself lacks definition. Everything under the sun is controversial by that standard, and sourcing would not change that. Personally, I have no problem reading a sentence to assess whether the factual claims made are problematic. For the vast majority of sentences it's pretty clear whether they are controversial or not. For cases where it's not clear on the surface, that's why humans talk and why Misplaced Pages has talk pages. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing "Standard"

Suck it up dude or don't edit here! Stewarts can do whatever they want these days, it's WP:IAR or WP:BLP or just WP:LAR... Pcap ping 09:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Stewards are reconfirmed every year. You could post your comment here. Ruslik_Zero 13:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That's an idea. But my point was more to show how remarkable and potentially destructive some proclaimed sourcing standards are. By the way, I am not the similarly named editor in these diffs.John Z (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

What exactly does my being a steward have to do with anything? Pcap especially seems to be way off in the weeds. ++Lar: t/c 04:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

My issue

I don't have an issue with Unitanode prodding unsourced BLP's - It's valuable work that he's doing. I do however have issue with him prodding articles and not notifying the original author - This is standard practice and simple good manners. Uni should take the extra minute to notify authors - they may even decide to source the articles. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've figured out a way to solve that problem, Ryan. Twinkle has an auto-notfiy function, which I'm taking advantage of in my work. Before this, I'd never used any of the gadgets, so thanks to Xeno for pointing out how Twinkle can be used in this regard. UnitAnode 21:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • As well as notification, it'd also be good if Unitanode learned how to do Google searches and add sources to articles, or is assessing notability and adding sources "someone else's problem?". Fences&Windows 21:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Gee, has anyone considered that maybe the author should source an article before posting it to live space? I know it sounds whacky, but some authors actually do it. Or do these authors just think that is "someone else's problem" too? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Just stop. I have a holding area for unsourced BLPs that I've worked on. If you wish to save them, look them up. If you wish to observe my skill at referencing articles I write myself, there's a list of them on my userpage. I'm under no obligation to do an article writer's research for him. UnitAnode 00:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I have to agree with Unitanode and Niteshift36 - the onus for references is on the editor who added them, not others to do it for them. Though of course, if you know the reference then it's good to add it in... - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 09:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
        • The onus for references is on everyone, and if you really cared about the encyclopedia, you would follow WP:BEFORE before prodding/AfD'ing. The editor who starts an article has no special status, there are no article owners. A wiki works by each one improving the work of each other, step by step. To argue otherwise is completely against the very basic concept of a wiki, every wiki, not only WP. --Cyclopia 13:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Well that's a nice philosophy, but not terribly realistic. What your summary boils down to is that it is everyones responsibility, but also nobodys responsibility. "Everyone" is supposed to do it, but when someone fails to do it when writing an article, who cares? Nobody says a word to the author, but they want to jump all over an editor that takes it on himself to follow the policy that any unsourced material in a BLP should be removed. If none of it is sourced, then no article should be there. And no, an author doesn't own the article. I didn't say any such thing. But they DO have a responsibility to source it. Just because you are willing to give them a pass and allow them to totally abdicate any responsibility for following policy doesn't mean all of us will. And while you're throwing around the "if you really care" line, consider that some might feel that caring is ridding the site of unsourced articles that can detract from the legitimacy of wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Cyclopia, carefully with the "you" comments. I've never even once PRODed an article. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 18:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Ouch, sorry. I meant it as a generic impersonal "you", but I understand the problem. My sincere apologies, I lost a bit of cool probably. --Cyclopia 15:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we please encourage Unitanode to stop?

I've de-prodded several of Unitanode's recent nominations, which (after examination - I did not do this blindly) were bad in that they were not remotely deletable under current policy. Can we please encourage Unitanode to stop, and block find some way to restrain the editor temporarily to avoid further disruption to the project if they continue? This deliberate provocation has gone past making a WP:POINT and just seems to be ongoing trouble now. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I second this one. Cleaning up after Unitanode has gotten extremely tiring. Among the editors doing the mass-prodding, Unitanode is the only one so far who's so indiscriminate he might as well be a bot. If he were a bot, I'd have long since asked for an emergency block. Ray 15:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I must concur. I'm willing to make the assumption that the PRODs are being made in good faith, but being an unsourced BLP is not a criteria for deletion and many of these subjects are notable. slowing down on the PRODs and taking time to look for sources cannnot be a bad thing. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 16:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• I won't be stopping. BLP requires that these articles be reliably-sourced. If you're willing to look up and add the sources, do so. I'm doing it my way, you do it yours. But if "yours" includes deprodding unsourced BLPs without adding sources, I would recommend you stop, as that is far worse than any supposed (and imagined) disruption of which you seem to be accusing me. UnitAnode 21:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are asked to stop you will be stopping Unitanode. Prodego 21:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I won't be. UnitAnode 22:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This isnt a matter of "I can do things my way, you do things your way". Unitanode, this is a matter of you being overzealous and applying your own interpretation of our policies upon everyone's articles. It's one thing to have your own opinion about policy and how it should be implemented, it is another to actually implement your opinion on your own. It clearly seems the majority is against your interpretation. If something is notable it is notable, being poorly sourced doesnt make it non-notable; it is clearly stated in policy that creating or adding to an article without knowing our "way of doing things" or our "proper procedure" does NOT invalidate a contribution. What you are doing is in fact saying "do it our way or dont contribute". If you dont like there being poorly sourced/unsourced BLP's, then YOU find sources for them; do not PROD them JUST because they are unsourced even though they are notable. If its notable it stays. Oh, and per IAR, Jimbo, and the very penumbra of every single policy in Misplaced Pages- NO the BLP policies dont REQUIRE that anyone MUST do anything; consensus determines what we may or may not do in each individual case based on consensus reached through common sense, which in this case has decided you are wrong on your interpretation.Camelbinky (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything close to a "majority" against what I'm doing. And even if there were, say, a 55-60% majority against it, that doesn't mean I need to stop. We're supposed to improve the project, even if a "majority" of the participants at ANI think I'm wrong. UnitAnode 22:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

UnitAnode continues to PROD unreferenced BLPs indiscriminately (apparently operating in something close chronological order by date of creation) after the above discussion. I've wasted about half an hour cleaining up perhaps 1/3 of the mess by selectively de-prodding some that did not appear to be viable PROD nominations and doing some assorted sourcing and improvements. I do think it's time to do something at this point - failing that, or if anyone wants to edit war or wheel war, this will go to Arbcom because UnitAnode seems to make clear above that all requests to stop will be ignored. Arbcom, if you look at the new wheel war case request, is taking a dim view of further provocation and use of administrative tools now that there is an RfC in place. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A wheel war would only occur if someone unblocks without consensus. If there's good reason to unblock consensus will form. Currently there are very strong indicators that a block would be preventative. The continued indiscriminate prodding is consuming other people's time to review. There's a historic precedent for the community taking action against an editor who systematically misuses prods and overwhelms the community's ability to correct inappropriate prods and provide references. Durova 00:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I mention that for the benefit of an involved administrator who has encouraged UnitAnode and who said they would unblock if UnitAnode were blocked over this, in case they missed Arbcom's latest pronouncements on the subject. Arbcom has said that grand gestures involving tools could quite possibly could lead to a loss of tools.- Wikidemon (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A disruptive editor is an editor who rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.. Unitanode, this means you. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Eppstein, that was the quote I wanted to use but didnt know where to find it. It is probably one of the most important pieces of policy that should be spread around more often and listened to by those that think "policy says X so I can do X no matter what the rest of you think". Consensus of the community-at-large in any particular discussion trumps EVERYTHING WRITTEN DOWN. Think of us as one big giant US Supreme Court, ultimately it doesnt matter what words are specifically written down in the US Constitution and how its interpreted by any individual judge, the Constitution only "says" what the Supreme Court ultimately says it says. The Constitution says I have the freedom of speech, the Supreme Court says that doesnt apply to "yelling fire in a crowded movie theater". Same with this situation, policy may or may not encourage or "say" you must (or can) PROD every single BLP that has poor sources/unsourced; but we the community says "no you cant because its disruptive". I hope this was a good analogy.Camelbinky (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Unitasock, please, please stop. This edit removed valuable information about Bob Elliott a nationally famous actor for decades, and the information removed was stuff like "he wrote a book" and "he starred in this TV show", where the best possible sources are the book and the TV show. There is no way that is improving the project. For the love of whatever deity you follow, stop. --GRuban (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No sign of moderation Last bad PROD at 22:58, last refusal to stop 0:35. Editor is flatly disregarding warnings by administrators. It seems it will go on indefinitely absent a block. Can we get some indication whether anyone is willing to do that or whether this should go directly to Arbcon? - Wikidemon (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And now thirteen deletion nominations for articles that had PROD tags removed, most with a deletion reason that accuses me of something. Could someone speedily close them all or just undo the nominations? Allowing them to run seven days will waste hours of editors' time each, and I don't want to have to defend myself or follow that many deletion discussions for clearly notable people. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I "accused" you of nothing. It was a simple statement of what had happened: you deprodded without any attempt to source them. It's a FACT, not an accusation. UnitAnode 02:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the situation and you know it. As I have said several times I selectively removed PROD nominations from articles that appear sourceable, verifiable, without any obvious BLP violations, and well-enough written that the material is usable. If you have a legitimate reason to claim in good faith that they are deletable under current policy you are free to nominate them for deletion, but that does not seem to be the case. Just so you know, you are upsetting me here. Per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA please don't use your AfD nominations as a forum to take potshots like that against me. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Unitanode, even granting that every single thing you are doing is a positive contribution improving the encyclopedia, this can still be disruptive. Adding a million perfect articles about notable topics would be a great improvement, but not if done at a speed that would crash the servers. The volunteers here are no less a part of wikipedia than the computers it uses, and if one contributor's actions are exhausting many others' ability to keep up, it is time to stop.John Z (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Have any of you bothered to read my userpage, where I explain my rationale, including how I decide to add a PROD, other work I do on these articles, etc.? I've PRODed about 160 articles in four fucking days! How is that disruptive in any way?!? I've done other types of work, including quickly formatting references as well as other things, to 60 or 70 articles. That there are itchy trigger fingers trying to block me for this is a sign of just how much of a dramapit ANI has become. It's more than a bit pathetic. UnitAnode 02:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have read your rationale. Might I, respectfully, suggest try looking for sources before you tag an article though? As I said at the RfC, in an hour, I've sourced 7 BLPs, taken one to AfD and prodded 2. I've come across Tour de France champions, former head of government and Olympic medalists by hitting "random page in this category". It take a little longer, but it's more rewarding. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 02:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(Mostly copied from talk page) I think the proof is the number of people who have asked you to slow down; a consensus or pretty near. The human servers are straining, and particularly about your edits. What you are doing could be OK and handleable in a normal context, but this is an extremely high load period. Every system dealing with such edits is extremely, unprecedentedly overloaded at the moment. In this context it makes good sense to start looking at the leading strains on the system first, even if they might not be enough to strain the system in normal times. I've seen people blocked in normal times for violating community norms about prodding who worked at a much slower rate than 160 in 4 days. You aren't working in a vacuum, but in a collaborative project.John Z (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleting unsourced or poorly sourced statements from BLPs is within policy. People need to internalize that. Deleting entire BLPs if they consist of nothing but unsourced or poorly sourced statements is within policy. People need to internalize that too. ArbCom gave a pretty clear ruling about this in the recent motion. Everyone who isn't clear should go review it. HOWEVER, in the interests of working to find a more optimal solution than mass deletion (even if that mass deletion is supported in policy, which it is), Unitanode is using PROD instead. Anyone who removes a PROD without sourcing the article acceptably, is, in my view, going against the spirit of policy, even if they think they have the letter of policy on their side. I suggest you not do that. Unitanode's (much milder than say, seeking a block, or starting an arbcom case, both of which are certainly within reason as valid responses) response has been to put the articles up for deletion instead. This is completely acceptable.

I'm seeing a disturbing pattern here of threats and harrassment of Unitanode. That needs to stop because it is completely unacceptable. If you see him making mistakes, point that out gently and kindly, but ... lead, follow, or get out of the way. "Can we please encourage Unitanode to stop?" says the section head... no... we should encourage him to continue and find ways to help him. ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I personally think PRODing is disruptive if you dont go by the criteria and follow "good practice" suggestions like finding sources yourself before PROD. That's not the question here though. Alot of us think you need to simply stop prodding everything you see that has no sources. Having no sources is not a reason to delete; being non-notable is the only reason I can think of that is even remotely related to not being sourced, but you dont need any sources to tell you whether or not something is notable. An unsourced article about Albert Einstein would still be notable... because he is notable... its inherent to the subject, not to the sources to "prove" it to you or anyone else. If an article exists and you dont recognize its notable LOOK IT UP; if you dont find anything that shows its notable in your due diligence THEN you might want to PROD it or take the issue to the most relevant Wikiproject mentioned on the talk page, or see if you get a response from anyone who has worked on the article. Yes, it takes time and means you have work to do... Oh well. If it means that much to you to get rid of articles you'll do some work; if it isnt worth the work then maybe you shouldnt be deleting articles. The benefit of all this is to slow you down and hopefully make you realize yourself if an article truly needs to be deleted instead of you tagging everything you find and making others sort out the truth about notability. This isnt a case of Kill them all; let God sort them out, we dont have a deity here who can sort out your PRODs quickly and save the Worthy.

No, deleting articles solely on the basis of unsourced is not consistent with our general policy that it is not required that you know our policy or procedure and that notability is main determinate NOT quality. Quality is NEVER an issue for deletion.Camelbinky (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want him to stop, just go ahead and revert... I have just been lectured on the fact that this kinda bullshit is a perfectly valid PROD-removal. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And he doesnt have the right to be doing things at a pace that overwhelms and creates undue work and stress on multiple users to "fix" his hasty decisions. The point is that a large group of editors has asked Unitanode to slow down, take a breath, and do some due diligence to relieve some pressure. Unitanode has shown contempt for this community request. This is plainly a violation of our policies as mentioned above.Camelbinky (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not "overwhelming" anyone. It's "annoying" some people who don't like it, and that's all. UnitAnode 03:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think it proper to assume good faith of the many above who have been trying to work collaboratively and say they are overwhelmed?John Z (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)like I said, go ahead and revert... you might wanna put "ahooha-oink, well-grown boink" in the edit-summary. Be creative, it's fun. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It is clearly disruptive to a fair few editors, to me it is the way it is being pushed in the way it is as if this is the best and only way to deal with it, there is a clear division running through the wiki as to how this should be dealt with, and , it is going to continue and get worse as it does, presently about three percent of them have moved off the list, some were mass deleted and some have been moved to incubation but if this is what is going to happen it is going to get worse and continue for many weeks and editors are going to be destroyed. Off2riorob (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, tough titty says the kitty, as the saying goes. AN emphasis has been placed on deleting unsourced BLPs rather than mealy-mouthing around with incubators, rescue squads, etc... ArbCom, Jimbo, a sprawling RfC, have all come down on getting rid of them. If I had more free time, I'd be doing it myself. Tarc (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus of the community trumps all in any particular discussion. Quite a large number have asked Unitanode to slow down and do some due diligence of his own. Therefore he needs to. Thats what this is about. Nothing else. Alot of people have asked something, a consensus was formed, and now he has to conform to it or face consequences. It doesnt matter what ArbCom has said about BLPs, IAR tells me I dont have to give a crap, ArbCom doesnt make our policies or make decisions for us that bind on us, consensus of the community in Misplaced Pages on an issue trumps EVERYTHING that comes before it regardless of what ArbCom has said in the past or present. My personal opinion on what he does- Unitanode adds no benefit to Misplaced Pages in what he is doing because deleting without doing any research is lazy and is throwing the actual work on others to decide if something is notable or add information. Unitanode should do some real editing and ADD information to articles and find sources for articles that have none. If an article has no sources then that's not a problem for Misplaced Pages, if it has information that is libel or false or the subject is not notable is a problem and then PROD or stronger is required. Quality is not an issue and never is. We are a work in progress. How about making it better and help in the progress instead of just deleting anything that doesnt fit your criteria of being "good enough"?Camelbinky (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, if you disagree, start mass-reverting. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Camelbinky, you are sadly mistaken if you think a two-bit AN/I thread full of bellyachers trumps what I noted earlier. Tarc (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And that's why Misplaced Pages is failing. "Consensus" is the bigest joke there is on this site. If Arbcom has said something regardeing BLP's then we need to at least keep it in mind. Should'nt common sense trump all other arguments?--Coldplay Expért 03:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• As Tarc points out, consensus doesn't trump BLP. UnitAnode 03:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • ArbCom doesn't write policy. ;) Durova 17:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Unitanode is restricted from prodding articles

Should include AfD as well given recent nominations of articles after PROD failed - Wikidemon (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Until the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people is completed and firm rules are established, Unitanode is restricted from prodding articles.

Note: This nonsense will have to be supported by a block, as I don't plan on stopping the work I've been doing because Ikip and a few others don't like it. UnitAnode 04:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. This disruption has got to stop. Ikip 03:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per my above statement.--Coldplay Expért 03:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The failure to follow WP:BEFORE makes indiscriminate prodding disruptive. THF (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

  Do you know what "indiscriminate" means? What I'm doing is not even close to "indiscriminate." If you want some proof, simply go to my userpage, read my game plan, and click on the work I've already done. UnitAnode 04:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

  Also, WP:BEFORE isn't policy, it's advice about process. WP:BLP is, and trumps it. ++Lar: t/c 04:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support I would be satisfied if he just slowed down and paid attention to the amount of deletion activity going on, and said he would listen when other people say they are overwhelmed.John Z (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • THAT's not an unreasonable request, I'd support that. As long as the requests to throttle back from people actually doing the work and not just the "we can do whatever we want and screw BLP policy" crowd. ++Lar: t/c 04:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I am very glad we can agree here, and I thank you for the unjustified compliment at Unitanode's talk page. Some of the hard workers who deserve it have requested restraint here. I made a suggestion here that might help exploit system capacity a little better.John Z (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support unless someone finds a better solution per the discussion above and repeated unheeded requests on editor's talk page. We have a process under discussion to address the entire problem in an orderly fashion, and going it alone wastes a lot of people's productive time. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose although as soon as the better process moves from from "under discussion" to implemented, then I expect Unitanode will stop on his own, and switch to the better process. There are a half dozen good alternatives, I'm not fussy which, but meanwhile there is harm being done every day by unsourced BLPs and time's a wasting. Unitanode is doing something about it, bravo for him. Ikip is a timewaster, and something ought to be done about it. ++Lar: t/c 04:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Better to put an end to this without any further contentiousness. Durova 04:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Conditionally oppose. The problem appears to have ended. If it resumes then consider the support reinstated. Let's all move on. Durova 18:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Consensus elsewhere leans towards support of this user's actions, AN/I caterwauling notwithstanding. Tarc (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Guess I'll oppose, for obvious reasons having to do with BLP problems, and solving them rather than doing nothing. UnitAnode 04:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Opposed to this kind of restriction for an activity that improves the encyclopedia overall. The RFC looks to be heading toward something similar to this in any case. Kevin (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Object per Kevin. –Juliancolton |  04:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support Both WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE strongly advocate trying to actually solve a problem prior to declaring it unsolvable and proding or deleting. Schmidt, 04:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for the simple reason that large numbers of people are doing the same thing and we've never ruled that simply listing something for deletion is improper. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support provided Unitanode doesn't promise to at least google the people whose biographies he wants to delete. Anybody proposing an article for deletion, at CSD, PROD, or AFD, has an elementary duty to check that the subject isn't, oh, the most famous expert in his field. Or a world leader. Or the most signficant pop star in half a continent. Expecting other people to clean up after the trail of destruction he's blazing is reckless, irresponsible, and extraordinarily rude. Ray 06:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support per WP:BEFORE, i.e. evidence must be demonstrated of having looked for sources and discussing with article creator before prodding any articles. Sincerely, --A Nobody 08:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • No it doesn't. Nowhere is this written in policy. BLP however, is policy. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of those editors who wish that article to remain on wikipedia to ensure it is up the the required standards. Viridae 09:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unsourced information in BLPs may be wrong, and if no-one can check what is wrong and what is right, it should go. This improves Misplaced Pages. Maybe restrict a bit so that the category does not overflow so massively that 'we' can't keep up with it, but it is still just prodding, anyone has 5 days to do something about it (maybe more if the deletion process can't keep up), and in the end, the admin who considers to delete it still can have a look. For those articles which haven't been googled yet, you might want to help Unatinode in providing sources for those. --Dirk Beetstra 08:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support This is a behavioural issue with this particular user; although I generally oppose using PROD as a means to resolve this issue, other editors appear to be able to do it without such a glaring number of false positives and a borderline-blockworthy attitude to good faith requests and correspondence. Orderinchaos 08:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support Though I'd accept an assurance from this user that they will start checking for sources and only prod articles that they can't find references for. Not bothered about the use of an alternate account for this and I note with some relief that they are at least informing the authors. ϢereSpielChequers 12:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose and shame on unethical people who are opposed to removing unsoruced, unwatched and unverified claims about living people.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support per WP:BEFORE and deletion policy, and because mass prodding does absolutely nothing to help BLPs. --Cyclopia 14:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

  So the fact that there are now dozens of previously unsourced BLPs that now have sources (based solely on the fact that I PRODed them "does absolutely nothing to help BLPs"? That seems ludicrous on its face. However, it's not at all a surprising claim, given the hysteria which some who oppose PRODing seem to approach the issue. UnitAnode 14:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• It was not the PRODding that helped -it was who, scared by your PROD, added sources, that helped. You're basically pointing a gun to articles yelling: "Source it, or it dies!", at an unreasonable rate. I think we could make a lot of good things happen in real life this way -say, taking people in the street, pointing a gun at their children and yelling "Volunteer for charity, or I'll blow their head off!" but somehow I don't think it would be an appreciated solution. What would help is if you do your homework before PRODding and then PROD only those for which you can't find sources, sourcing the others. Then I'd understand your actions. --Cyclopia 14:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

  With this reply, I hope that everyone can see what I meant when I used the word "hysteria." A simple question, Cyclops: would the articles now be sourced if I had not PRODed them? A simple yes or no, without the killing children metaphors would be appreciated. UnitAnode 15:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Probably no, but it is utterly irrelevant: mass PRODding without WP:BEFORE causes much more troubles than leaving the same articles unreferenced. But you don't seem to hear that. --Cyclopia 15:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

  Not "probably no", but definitely no. Now, is it important to have sources in our BLPs? Again, a yes or no would be great. Dissembling is not really that helpful. UnitAnode 15:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Probably no: you cannot have proof. About your question: It is more important to have the BLPs to work on, than to have sources, and it is more important to not clog the PROD process (making it essentially useless) and to do it following WP:BEFORE than to have these sources right now. In a few words: Unsourced BLPs are bad. Deleted BLPs just because someone fails to do homework and disrupted PROD are even worse. And no, I don't give simple "yes or no" answers to loaded questions. Things are not black or white. --Cyclopia 16:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

  That's madness. You just answered "probably no" to the question, "Is it important to have sources in our BLPs?" That statement alone makes the case that my actions are justified. As for having "disrupted PROD", that's just nonsense. The PRODs worked. Many eyes looked at the articles, and fixed the problems within a lot of them. If that is "disrupting PROD", then more people need to be doing it. UnitAnode 16:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• I answered "probably no" to your previous question about the addition of sources: you cannot say "definitely no", because you have no proof that sources wouldn't have been added, but it's a minor point (it's just to be pedantic, if you want). To your question about importance of sourcing, again, I answered that mass-prodding and making process unusable is way worse than unsourced BLPs. Again: pointing guns at people probably helps getting the work done, but it's not the correct way to get work done. --Cyclopia 17:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• In the RfC, Jimmy Wales has proposed giving as much as nine months to fix these articles. Most people willing to endorse a BLP-PROD solution also want time to fix it. Perhaps you should actually listen to the community rather than unnecessarily disrupting various processes because you don't like the community's timelines. You will probably get your way eventually, but you are basically screaming "I want it now, now, now, now, now!" Resolute 17:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support at least until an actual arbitration case is accepted by ArbCom to clarify the "BLP motion." Collect (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support: I have no problem with Unitanode prodding articles, if he searches for sources before he does. Joe Chill (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support. per failing to follow WP:BEFORE. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support: I just stumbled across this discussion, as I've been busy elsewhere, such as de-prodding and sourcing numerous prods from unitanode. Someone should turn him onto this cool internet site called "Google".--Milowent (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support: For the time being, right now it unclear how best to proceed with this and it is creating a fair bit of tension. Off2riorob (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support unless evidence is given that WP:BEFORE was observed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support as per my comment above. Even god himself proposes as much as nine months to fix the problem before deletion. There is no reason for the unnecessary rush and strain on resources just because Unitanode doesn't like the community's proposed timelines. Resolute 17:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Kevin and Git-R-Done. --SB_Johnny |  17:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support & I get the strong impression from the comments in the "Arbitration?" subsection below that editors thought they were commenting in this section. The continued mass prodding is disruptive, and UnitAnode can wait until the community decides whether or not to change policy. I thought that was essentially what ArbCom has already said about all disruptive activity. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support I wasn't going to support until I scanned todays AFD log. The work is noble, but you need to refine your methods. If you are unwilling to refine your methods you need to stop. If you are unwilling to stop, you need to be stopped.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration?

It's obvious that Unitanode and Lar that what they are doing is justified, even if the BLP RfC has not yet completed, and there seems to be no consensus on the speed with which to prod unreferenced BLPs. I think someone procedurally inclined should either open a new arbitration case, or extend the one on the PROD wheel war with this issue, because it's essentially an application on the ground of that attempt to change the PROD policy. Based on the above discussion, the community is unable to deal with this issue. Pcap ping 09:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• STRONG OPPOSE Look, you followed dispute resolution on this (with another Admin) brought it to the Arbs and they see no problem with it. Drop it, get down from the Reichstag and build an encyclopedia. You're beating a dead horse for crying out loud. The Arbs have spoken already on this issue. _{Naluboutes,Nalubotes} 12:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support As I stated earlier in this discussion, it was very easy to correct the articles that received Prod tags. Indiscriminate tagging doesn't help anyone. Warrah (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support per above comment. Mass prodding does nothing to help BLPs and the editor behaviour is absolutely disruptive. --Cyclopia 14:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support It is clear that ArbCom did not intend its resolution to be used as an excuse for more drama. Such acts contrary to BLP status quo policy, and contrary to any spirit of colloquy at all at the RfC are contrary therefore to the nature of how WP works. I also feel that "get out of the way" is a mode of debate copnducive to reducing the number of editors on WP quite substantially at a time when encouraging new editors is vital, Collect (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support It's clear that Arbcom's statement is being interpreted in different ways by different people. We need to ask them to explain themselves, and, if necessary, to enforce it. --GRuban (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Collect's comments. Resolute 16:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Wouldn't that amount to handing over the policy decision making to ArbCom? Durova 17:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Collapse because consensus appears to be that this is retaliatory and disruptive. Joe Chill (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

An observation

The above ban proposals seem to have degenerated into yet another inclusionism vs. deletionism debate. This is not appropriate. –Juliancolton |  05:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

More like a warmed-over Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/JB196 with wider attention. Durova 06:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I echo Juliancolton's concerns. Co-opting BLP into inclusionism-deletionism makes us all worse off. One of these things matters way more than the other.--Tznkai (talk) 07:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Inclusionism matters way more than deletionishm! Or is it the other way around? But in seriousness I agree that the discussion above isn't really useful or going anywhere. A couple of people (including me) have recently left longer notes on Unitanode's talk page asking that editor to dial back or stop the prodding for now, though I'm not sure that will lead to a change. Exacerbating tensions between opposing camps, so to speak, does not seem advisable when we're trying to come up with a way to work together on unsourced BLPs, and in that respect Unitanode's actions (and some of the responses to them) strike me as counterproductive. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm a deletionist, but I don't support mass prodding without individualized investigation. THF (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear, I consider inclusion-deletionism as one thing, and BLP another.--Tznkai (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It was definitely clear, I was just trying to inject a little (probably a very little) humor into the discussion, and I very much agree with you that discussion of BLP (which actually matters) should absolutely not be folded into the rather tired inclusion-deletionism debate. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And how do you intend to make that happen, exactly? If wishes were horses, and all, given that the rallying cry has already gone out to the inclusionists (and, to be fair, I suspect the inclusionists believe the same cry has been sent to the deletionists). Hipocrite (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't intend to make anything happen, and am quite confident I can't make anything happen (or not happen). My point is just that debating BLP should not devolve into a general debate about inclusion vs. deletion. Many people are not treating it that way which is good, but of course some almost certainly are and that's not good. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless I suddenly became an inclusionist overnight, Juliancolton is off base. There are overriding policy issues so let's assume good faith that most of this discussion's participants are not fronting for an ideology. Arguably, it poisons the well to dismiss a serious discussion on such sweeping terms. Durova 17:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Moot

It's worth pointing out (if it was not already above) that Unitanode has grown frustrated with the response to his or her prodding of unsourced BLPs and apparently is not going to continue doing that right now, per the comment here. As such it's probably not all that useful to continue talking about somehow preventing Unitanode from continuing with the prodding. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank goodness. If the problem has stopped then let's close this discussion for the present. Durova 18:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank goodness! If I had continued, some more BLPs might have actually gotten sourced. Can't have that... UnitAnode 18:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

MickMacNee

I frankly don't care what happens at the BLP RfC anymore but this surely can't be the sort of behaviour we accept around here. MickMacNee already has an appaling block log. I'm out of here, when I log out in a minute I won't be able to log back in, but I suggest you do something about this sort of thing because the only people that will eventually be left on this project if this is tolerated are people like MickMacNee. Is that really what you want? Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It's leaders 'lead', not 'leave'. MickMacNee (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As will you, if you don't watch out. Go away. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 04:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: "Go away" oh the bitter irony. should we start a ANI thread about this too? Keep in mind the arbcom ruled this summer that the comment "go away" was one of three edit diffs prompting an editor to be officially warned. Ikip 00:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, I was out of line on that last sentence. I apologise. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 10:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's more than ironic that all of this is going on during the Dramaout.  :) Woogee (talk) 05:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Dramaout ended 6 hours, 19 minutes ago. --Jayron32 06:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

was going on. Woogee (talk) 06:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I would prefer to see MickMacNee strike out the blatant personal attacks there, calling another person "incompetant" and making allusions that they should be shot in the head is probably a tad bit "over the top" and by tad bit, I mean "absofuckinglutely over the top". That has to stop, now. I will not block, but I would not oppose or object should another admin see this as a gross personal attack. --Jayron32 06:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

MMN's harsh rhetoric shows no sign of stopping I for one considered his earlier statement that editors mentioned above completely inappropriate, and part of an ongoing pattern. I'm heading off to bed right now, so I am not going to block and head off, but I would support a block by an uninvolved administrator. NW (Talk) 06:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing this at a time earlier than 2:00 A.M local time, I can see that that post was not not at all a violation NPA. The rest of my comment still stands though. NW (Talk) 04:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Full quote:

"*The Foundation has Section 230 immunity. All this talk of lawsuits is tedious b.s., the phantom lawsuit that will bring down Misplaced Pages if Something Is Not Done has been 'around the corner' ever since I've been here. It is activist propoganda, nothing more, nothing less. The reason the policy actualy exists, is one of ethics, not law. There is a difference. Namely, what you might think is ethical, others might not. As for arbcom making policy, what are people smoking if they genuinely believed before this motion that it was either community or indeed admin consensus that the simple existence of material, whatever it said, was 'contentious' as regards the BLP policy, or that under any previously imaginable interpretation of IAR/admin discretion/aggressive enforcement, this brief episode of Total War of the cabal against the community, was justified, let alone excusable. The wording of the motion is a pure retcon of the actual events. Go and read the evidence if anyone doubts it." 06:25, 23 January 2010.

Ikip 00:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Vyvyan, what evidence are you seeing that I am not concerning a block log? There is nothing on there that indicates that he was ever blocked for doing something wrong. Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see anything imflamatory other than that of those two edits. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

_Ummm... this?? You don't see a pattern here? Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I was on the wrong page I guess. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I was the editor who warned MickMacNee about this edit diff originally. The full quote (including the added oppose) is:

"*Oppose Most 'leaders' usually deliver eventually, or finally figure out that they themselves are the problem and step down, or ultimately they get shot in the back of the head. Failure after failure, for five years? You are no leader, you're incompetent."

The bottom line is general comments at a vague group of editors is usually not actionable as a personal attack. I am not aware of any times myself.

I was concerned that he was talking about leader, Bearian, who commented directly above him. He was not. I will ask MickMacNee to strike the comment again. Ikip 00:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Harsh rhetoric, but certainly no worse than some of the comments made by the BLP-deletionistas about the community in genreal. I do worry about the mentality of editors who cannot cope with strong criticism and come running for blocks when someone criticises them. DuncanHill (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I also worry about the mentality and mental well-being in general of people who think that "Politicians talk, leaders act" warrants an indef block threat from Arthur Rubin (self-reverted in his defence but not retracted), trolling by Sandstein, trolling by Balloonman and references to physical violence by MickMacNee ("shot in the head", "bang, bang"). If this constitutes normal behaviour in your eyes then I pity you. I wasn't going to log back in but the failure to see a problem here was too much. That's the last you'll ever hear from me. I put up with the block threat and the trolling but not the physical violence remark. I will not put up with that and neither will any other sane person. If you continue to allow and reward the behaviour shown by MikMacNee you'll end up with nothing but people who're willing to put up with such behaviour. I ask again, is this really the sort of people you want to attract to this project? I sincerely hope not but I frankly don't care anymore. Goodbye. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

'Incompetent' is in no way a personal attack, but simply a judgement of leadership capability (in a venue specifically asking for opinions on said subject no less). The shot in the head part was out of line- and frankly a pretty immature comment. --M 02:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What in MickMacNee's post was anything other than a loud and perhaps colourful declaration of his own opinion? If Giano had posted the same piece nobody would blink an eyelid. This seems like a non-event and IMO should be closed as this board is only for incidents requiring administrative attention. Orderinchaos 08:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Tadija

Tadija (talk · contribs) has been engageing in incivility and false accusations, sayng I'm a sockpuppet for another user, Human Rights Believer (talk · contribs), who Tadija has been also incivil too.

Nothing could be further from the truth - I'm not a sock for anyone, certainly not Human Rights Believer who is notorious for edit wars on other users. Please see my page user:apm2007 for the false accusation. Tadija is a Serbian nationlist who always pushes Serb POV in edits. Many thanks2007apm (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone want to confirm or deny the link between the two users? There is nothing suspicious, but nothing killing any suspicion. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)page

I had called for a checkuser Misplaced Pages:SPI on User talk:Tadija, however I note from my page 2007apm Tadija has withdrawn the accusation. I therefore consider this issue closed and request that no further action be taken by an admin. Many thanks 2007apm (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that a very stern warning should be given to Tadija. When I blocked Human Rights Believer he was fairly dancing in the streets about my action, which I have to say I am less than impressed about. See User talk:Tbsdy lives#Human Rights Believer. Mjroots has since warned him about being appropriate. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 07:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

My concerns was just because of these edits by 2007apm (talk · contribs):

• Evlekis, in my opinion your last comment was an agresssive personal attack on Human Rights Beliver and inappropreiate on wikipedia. Please refrain Same revert as blocked user, with similar way of addressing (Please refrain)
• Kosovo note removal
• Kosovo note removal

After being warned multiple times on his talk page (User_talk:2007apm#January_2010). Same way of disrespecting the advices and notices was reason for Human Rights Believer (talk · contribs) being blocked. I didn't say even one word to HRB, and my previews ways of editing can be check with admin Prodego (talk · contribs). Human Rights Believer (talk · contribs) was accused of WP:DE by other editors, and temporary blocked indef.

Also, 2007apm (talk · contribs) is trying to make problems for me here. I think that this is incivility and wiki stalking. It looks like wiki stalking is my personal filed of knowledge, as all my previous problem were wiki stalking by Sarandioti (talk · contribs), and his numerous socks, as Moreschi (talk · contribs), or Prodego (talk · contribs) can confirm. Even this action is questionable for me. Why 2007apm (talk · contribs) wanted admin assistance regarding my suspicions? Why is that important to anyone by him, or me? At the end, as you can see, i stopped reverting 2007apm (talk · contribs) questionable edits, as someone else already did it.

At the end, i am asking all that think that i did something wrong to address me, so we can together find best possible solution that we all agree for. That should be the way of wiki, isn't it? :) Sorry for any possible insults, it was far from my main idea. --Tadija (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly Tadija, a self proclaimed Serb nationalist (he even has a Serb flag on his page), is always pushing pro-Serb POV.

Secondly he engages, as some kind of lone warrior in an edit war against multiple editors http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Paka%C5%A1tica&action=history

Secondly, although he accuses me of wiki stalking him, in fact he has been wikistalking me, look at my talk page.

Thirdly, although Tadija has cleared his talk page talk, a review of his block log pagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ATadija shows he has a bad record.

Although Tadija claims to have been the innocent victim of wiki stalking by Sarandioti, I wonder if Tadija's agressive style was the cause of Sarandioti's so called stalking.

I would therefroe ask that Tadija be banned from editing my talk page and Kosovo related articles for two weeks. Many thanks Andrew 2007apm (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I recommend you two stop going at each other on this noticeboard, and let others look into the situation. You aren't going to solve anything by both continuing to argue and argue your case here, but you might both be blocked, so I suggest you take a step back and let others look in a judge for themselves.— Dædαlus 00:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As i told earlier, i am open for any kind of problem solving! I didn't want to argue, just was writing explanation of my actions. And, i am inviting 2007apm (talk · contribs) to solve any possible problem with me, here, on my, or users talk page. --Tadija (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

my restrictions

So I've been told I have to go here to get my restrictions modified/removed. I think I deserve to be part of the full community again. It's been almost a month.--Levineps (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

On what grounds? What have you done since the restrictions have been placed that show that the restrictions are no longer needed? --Jayron32 04:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The user has abided by the restrictions. How about lifting the restrictions on March 1, 2010 with relaxed probation until April 1, 2010. Relaxed probation means that the user should be aware of the concerns on the previous restrictions and try not to offend anyone during that additional one month. JB50000 (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Diffs and links to prior restrictions would be helpful. Not everyone knows what is going on here, so it is hard for uninvolved people to comment on the situation. Could you provide a link to the original discussion that led to the restrictions so we can all know what is going on here?!? --Jayron32 04:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Look at his userpage. That will show you the terms of the restrictions.--Coldplay Expért 05:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I dunno, his recent edits look in line with his restrictions, and I don't see any problems in the last 500 or so edits. However, I also don't think that 3 weeks is long enough for restrictions of this nature. I like JB's suggestion to revisit this in March. I'd also like to hear from Levineps a bit more on what he has learned from his prior problems and sanctions. Just showing up an ANI and saying "It's been long enough, take them away" does not necessarily give any indication that the user intends to abide by community norms. I routinely decline unblock requests which state "Sorry, I won't do it again" without any indication that the blocked user understands what "it" is, and I also don't see anything here that Levineps understands why the restrictions were put in place, or how he intends to avoid the problems that led to the restrictions in the first place. He has shown that he understands what his restrictions are, and appears to have followed them (for about 3 weeks or so) but I still don't see evidence that he understands what the initial problems were or what he intends to do differently to avoid those problems. --Jayron32 05:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

All I know about this is from this thread and what I see on Lev's user and talk pages, but: The restrictions are actually very modest, and except for "No new categories" are mostly just good manners. So the restrictions were apparently imposed because of category abuse. How has Lev's understanding of category policy changed in the last three weeks? PhGustaf (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

To show his good faith, maybe Levine could list here some new categories he has in mind. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion which led to the ban is here. I was the editor who reported the problem.

The sanctions were imposed not in response to a single incident, but after a prolonged period (nearly a year, I think) in which Levineps has created new categories and recategorised articles and categories at a prodigious rate. Much of this work was controversial, but Levineps repeatedly failed to respond to attempts by other editors to discuss his edits, or responded with rude or dismissive one-liners. When I finally startes reverting his disruptive edits, he repeatedly accused me of vandalism.

Nothing in Levineps request indicates in any way that he intends to behave differently than before, and his comment on Coffee's talkpage merely says that he has been restricted for a week without complaint. The disruption caused by his previous edits will take a long time to resolve, and I hope that the restrictions will not be lifted that has been cleaned up and Levineps can give some clear indications of how he intends to work differently than before. Like Jayron32, I see no evidence that he has learnt anything at all about why he he was banned, and I would oppose any lifting of the restrictions until Levineps can persuade the community that he really has learnt from this episode. So far I see Levineps using edit summaries, but no sign of him working collaboratively to resolve differences, which was the kernel of the problem before.

Rather than deciding now to lift the restrictions in March, I think it would be much better to ask Levineps to reapply in March, with a clear warning that a simple "I want to edit categories again" request will result in the ban remaining in place. If and when it is lifted, I hope that there will be a much longer period of probation than the 1 month suggested above by JB50000. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

How about this proposal. Levineps can re-apply on March 1. and if it his ban is lifted then he is on probation for another 3 months. Does that sound good?--Coldplay Expért 03:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User talk:Baseball Bugs—that it would be helpful to know what kind of category work Levineps has in mind. If he's just going to go back to doing what he was doing before, there's no point allowing it—now or in March. The category ban was not a "punishment" that he can "serve" by sitting out a period of time like a person can serve a jail sentence—it was kind of a last resort in a situation where the user was repeatedly causing major problems in the category system. Unless that changes the ban can't change. Good Ol’factory 04:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron32 and BHG. Given that the main problem was a lack of communication and responsiveness, I don't think the restrictions should be lifted unless Levineps can, at a minimum, expressly show his understanding of why the restrictions were imposed. The above request falls woefully short. It shouldn't just be a matter of him behaving by complying with the restrictions (though kudos for that). He needs to explain and prove himself through his own words, not by implication from his conduct. I don't think it particularly matters what category changes he wants to make, particularly not if the suggestion was to base the removal of his restrictions on whether he puts forth good ideas. He's completely free to propose category edits to others on talk pages while the restrictions are in place, and I can't think of a better rehabilitation than forcing him to go through that process. postdlf (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely understand why I was banned even if I disagree with all the restrictions put in place. I have definitely learned to communicate and when I do communicate to be more respectful. Even if I was trying to crack a joke or two, it might not have been the greatest idea. I think this period of time has also allowed me to be productive in other areas. I do intend to create as many categories (if at all) and would focus more on overcategorization. I also like the feedback I have gotten and plan to act on those changes.--Levineps (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's a start, but I'd like to see a a clearer acknowledgement of exactly what was awry before you were banned: for example, the problem before was not that you cracked a joke or two, but that you cracked jokes in place of any substantive communication. Let's see if you can improve things further by March. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, the unsourced BLPs are moving to a new namespace

How much can the article incubator hold? Mebbe *all* of the unsourced BLPs will fit. Example: Barry Stewart. Concerned, Jack Merridew 08:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The only issue I can see with this is that WP treats redirects as exact copies of the page it is pointing at, which nullifies the benefit of {{NOINDEX}}. Ideally these should be moved with the redirect suppressed to achieve the goal. MBisanz 08:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted or blanked? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 08:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The redirect in the mainspace should be deleted, the article should be left in the Misplaced Pages space unblanked if the goal is to maintain the content and keep it off google. MBisanz 08:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I believe that hundreds of cross-namespace redirects are being left behind. Looks like it's a script; it is going at quite a clip. Jack Merridew 08:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Has this mass-moving activity actually been sanctioned by the community, or the bot approvals group, or is this a freelance effort? If the latter, the account should probably be blocked ASAP. -- The Anome (talk) 08:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There have been proposals involving mass-incubating on the BLP RFC, but as far as I can see, none of them has so far gained very much traction. This does seem to be an unlicensed bot. Also, I'm not sure if Ikip was aware this would lead to the redirects being removed from mainspace - the result of his actions is that many potentially good articles may get hidden from mainspace and made harder to find for people who might actually fix them. Much harder than if they were in a prod queue or simply in the unreferenced BLP categories. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I blocked User:Ikip for running of the unauthorized bot for the page moves. He was also asked to stop, but kept moving pages. The block can be lifted without my permission just as long as he stops. User:Zscout370 08:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a bot - editor has a .NET wiki helper app. I'm going to unblock. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 08:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, is he stopping and what is this helper app he is using? User:Zscout370 08:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

He said on his talk page he will stop. User:Zscout370 08:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Chaos ensues; article has been recreated... see also: Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Australia/Barry Stewart Jack Merridew 08:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone also do me a favor, and delete this page , I cited it and put it back to the mainspace but the incubator version needs deleting. Off2riorob (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't do that please. It needs the history, so I just had to do a histmerge. Viridae 08:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps you could point me towards the correct way to do it? Off2riorob (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You cant do a histmerge yourself. If yu are going to edit the articles, do so while they are in the incubator and then move them back. Alternatively, move them back then edit them. Dont copy paste back into the mainspace, the history needs to go too. Viridae 09:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Non-admin view, but this should be paused ASAP while nothing in the RfC is even close to official. Was done during edit conflict. Though the incubator idea is "liked" it is certainly not a leading proposal. A total rouge/freelance move like this is highly disruptive and I'd argue an injunction from ArbCom should be filed requesting these sorts of mass-article changes be stopped for X length and/or editors involved in the original ArbCom case filing be specifically told not to given the already established view of acting without consensus, discussion or policy. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Following-up after quick actions here-- I'd still suggest an ArbCom injunction requested so that disruptions like this attempting to spark further mass community drama can be eliminated and the rogue nature of seeking this drama be heavily enforced. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I dunno. This was all noticed and corrected in about 20 minutes. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 08:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I deleted a good 50 or so of the cross-namespace redirects, then got bored and stopped. I didn't see any need to wait, since if people objected to the move they could always just move things back to mainspace (the whole article history is perserved in the moves, I wasn't deleting any actual content). No comment about the moves themselves. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 08:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr Ta bu shi da yu wanted me to comment here. I wanted to thank Rjanag, Ta bu shi da yu, Viridae, Zscout370's diligence in patrolling wikipedia. Without their often thankless work, we would be overrun by vandals. My apologies for not alerting ANI first, maybe I should have done that originally? I thought after the community overwhelmingly accepted WP:Incubator, and when the project was closed overwhelmingly keep, that moves like this, for unencyclopedic articles was accepted by the community

We have discussed this move at WP:incubation. A member of Wikiproject Australia set up a page based on what we discussed. We were all excited. Two projects were going to help solve the BLP unreferenced problem. I will continue to discuss this further, with those projects.

I didn't remove the redirects because as soon as those redirects are deleted, editors can't see the pages anymore in their watchlist. I think it is better to keep these redirects for two days only, so editors can see the move on their watchlists, prompting them to either move the page back or fix the unreferenced problem. But this seems like a concern, so I will delete all redirects.

I hesitate to bring this up, but I think it bears mentioning for those who don't know the history. Jack Merridew posted this ANI. Just a month ago, editors were reviewing Jack Merridew probation, after he had been blocked indefinitely for stalking. I spoke the loudest against Jack Merridew, because of continued harrassment (once called stalking). Future Perfect threatened to block me if I ever mentioned Jack Merridew again, he was criticized by Arbcom clerk Penwhale for this threat. irrelevant

Again, administrators, thanks for your diligence. Ikip 09:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable statement to me. No real harm done, though not sure about the article incubator issue. I think we can put this down to a reasonable effort at implementing something that had consensus, but still has teething problems. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 09:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

moar KAOS:

• Ben Oxenbould
• Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Australia/Ben Oxenbould

• Andrew Trimble
• Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Australia/Andrew Trimble

• Bennett King
• Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Australia/Bennett King

• Ben Pepper
• Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Australia/Ben Pepper

The above all need history merges. Please don't forget the talk pages. Regards, Jack Merridew 11:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Obviously it would be much easier to address the unreferenced BLPs while they are in article space. The out of process deletions and the moves are very disruptive. Any actual BLP problems should be addressed in the usual ways. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, it's all resolved now. I'm marking this as resolved. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 22:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Kenosis and LHVU

In exchange for some entirely sensible removals of irrelevant material (e.g. ; note that the talk page there has now sensibly been semi'd which pretty well confirms the correctness of the material) LHVU has blocked Kenosis, who has now left .

LHVU's ostensible reason for the block was a 1RR parole which does not exist .

Further discussion in various places including User_talk:LessHeard_vanU#Improper_block.28s.29. There is still time to fix this error by unblocking K, ideally with an apology William M. Connolley (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

To repeat some of the points I made in different places here: LHVU blocked Kenosis, McSly, and an anonymous IP under the mistaken impression that they violated an existing 1RR restriction. No such restriction was in force or advertised anywhere, in particularly not on the talk page or at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log. When this was pointed out to LHVU, he accepted the fact, but retroactively rationalized the blocks by reference to general edit warring. However, for edit warring, especially for first blocks, we usually require an ignored warning and continued edit warring. This has been standard procedure at WP:AN3 since about forever. A similar provision has been explicitly written into Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation#Remedy ("Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to these provisions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps"). Neither of the editors have received explicit notification about the probation, and neither has been warned about edit warring (McSly has been informed after the block). In short, I think the blocks are inappropriate and punitive. I'm particularly concerned that Kenosis, who has over 20000 contributions during the last 4 years, many in contentious areas, without coming into any (recorded) conflict with Misplaced Pages policies, has now been blocked due to what I consider very much a mistake by the blocking administrator. I want this block retracted, if possible with an explicit statement that it was mistaken in the block log. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:EDIT WAR and WP:TPOC amply justifies my actions - you do not remove other peoples comments (unless they are obvious vandalism) and you DO NOT EDIT WAR in any event. Yes, I misread the wording regarding edit warring in the probation page - however all parties had seriously violated the existing wording, and sufficiently that warnings were unnecessary. I would point out again, for the benefit of the readers, that no concern is being expressed upon the block of the ip, whose good faith edits were repeatedly deleted... I should remind all participants (and readers) that the need to comply with the various policies and guidelines regarding interaction with other editors is the same for everyone, not only those whose apparent pov contrasts to existing consensus. Do I make mistakes? Oh, do I!! Yes, it would have been better if I had more carefully studied the wording of the probation - and even better if participants on those pages were not in violation of the restrictions. There is a reason why the probation is in place. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You are still getting this wrong. Do you make mistakes? Oh yes you do. Do you correct them when they are pointed out? Oh no you don't - bang 'em up anyway looks like your answer. you do not remove other peoples comments (unless they are obvious vandalism) is simply wrong (part of your regrettably long history of failing to think before acting) - as an arb , you ought to understand policy better than that. Here is one obvious diff that demonstrates that you are talking nonsense. Now, will you please slow down and think before acting? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion the block on Kenosis was justified. He repeatedly removed other editors comments several times and was told that he would be reported to ANI if it continued. He did so again here and here. This after doing it several times before. The block on McSly was most likely OK, since he removed coments three times , , on the page. The block on the anon is interesting, since all the anon ip was trying to do was make a comment.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The slight wobble recently found in the Earth's orbit is the result of the entire Arbitration Committee suddently jumping up and crying out, "How did he get in?" - I am not an arb. Never mind, everyone makes mistakes, LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The question is, are you going to correct yours? Hal peridol (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Move along here, nothing to see. There are grave concerns about the removal of comments at this TalkPage going back over many months. The matter is currently at Enforcement (where, unbelievably, some are back-slapping each other for removing more comments), and anyone removing comments while the matter is still under consideration should expect an immediate block. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for my mistake of thinking LHVU an arb (see: error - corrected - apologised for. This is the right thing to do). As Hp asks - are you going to correct yours? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

that no concern is being expressed upon the block of the ip, whose good faith edits were repeatedly deleted - to be honest, I couldn't care less about the IP. Calling his edits "good faith" in my opinion violates AGF is no suicide pact. However, if you read what I wrote above, instead of what you think I wrote, you should note that I talked about all three users. Note also that WP:TPG used to list "Deleting (or better yet, archiving) material not relevant to improving the article" as acceptable behavior less than two weeks ago (and indeed Deleting material not relevant to improving the article shortly before that) and that was indeed fairly widely applied practice on the talk page in question. I don't know about you, but I would indeed expect a warning if I violated a recently changed and not widely advertised guideline. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The ip was suggesting an agreement that talkpage comment should remain for a minimum of a week; which is not a violation of WP:TALK or WP:FORUM. The ip's comments were removed, and not archived, contrary to WP:TPOC even if they were inappropriate - and then an edit war ensued! If your good faith is exhausted by a topic or an editor, then withdraw and allow others to try to communicate. I am flabbergasted that any editor with more than passing involvement in GW related articles are not aware of the probation - enough of the recent correspondents were very quick to point out my mistake regarding 1RR restrictions, for instance. I am stunned that those editors who have contributed to GW related articles over a long period are not aware of the general application of policies such as WP:EDIT WAR, etc. Strange, indeed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• "contrary to TPOC" - again, contrary to a new version that was introduced only two weeks ago and not advertised - I was certainly not aware of the change. Given that you were not aware of the details of the very probation you were trying to enforce I find it somewhat surprising that you apparently expect every editor to notice every policy or guideline change.
• "editor with more than passing involvement in GW related articles" - as far as I can figure out, Kenosis had not edited any climate change related article in the last year except for his contributions to global warming and talk:global warming, which started less than 4 weeks ago and were sporadic. He was not named as a party in the rejected ArbCom case (which included everybody and their kitchen sinks) or informed of the probation via the normal protocol. I don't know if he was aware of the probation, but I think your assumption that he must have been misguided - in fact, I see your flabbergasted and raise you one "baffled and flummoxed".
• We seem to differ in how to interpret WP:WAR - I'v not seen blocks without prior warnings for first offenders for a while. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I totally understand why LessHeard has blocked, but having reviewed the edit that William Connolley has highlighted suggests to me that the anon. was getting heated and not contributing much to the talk page. Certainly the revert could have been handled better though. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 22:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a clearly bad block. No warning and changing justifications for the block. Not good. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Per JoshuaZ. Durova 22:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:TALK, Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. Kenosis was acting in good faith by removing comments such as this, which contained personal attacks and wildly off-topic material that did nothing to improve the page. Kenosis even suggested other venues to take the content in edit summaries. Might be kind to at least apologize or acknowledge that the situation is quite a bit more complex. IMO would be better to unblock and apologize, lest we lose one of our more prolific and valuable content contributors over something as trivial as removing off-topic material from talk pages. Awickert (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies can't be forced. We aren't here to rub anyone's nose in a mistake. Durova 18:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No intention to force, which is why I said it would be kind. No intention to rub noses in the dirt either, as that's an unproductive (and unkind) objective. The block has expired by now, but an experienced editor would probably have backed off after a warning (making a block unnecessary), and in any case that experienced editor clearly felt offended. My concern is that Misplaced Pages has just lost a major contributor over this. Regardless of what happens in officialdom, an apology would be the good thing to do in hopes of not losing good editors. But I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. Awickert (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I will see that diff and raise you this. This being the ip's third attempt to raise a point, the previous two being deleted. You will note it is addressing a concern raised regarding the article, and further it is commenting on the removal of its previous communications. Both points are related to the editing of the article - it thus does not fall under either WP:TALK or WP:FORUM. It may be biased and in a caustic tone but those are not reasons to revert it without comment. I would also comment that exampling above the ip's "rant" there is no note they had by then been reverted half a dozen times; it is no point complaining of how the bear roars when it has been poking it with a sharp stick previously.
Then there is the matter of warning of editors who are removing content; I would point to User:Jojhutton's 2 reverts noting inappropriate removal of content, and his later notification to all parties there was an ANI thread (which was moved back to the GW Probation page). Also of interest is WMC's comment "@JJH: if someone has hit 3RR then there is a trivial solution: block them" (WMC obviously forgot to add "after warning them") when put together with 4 reverts by User:McSly in 3 hours, and 5 reverts by User:Kenosis in under 2.1/2 hours, which action by me WMC is complaining about - seemingly not so trivial after all. I acknowledge, again, that I was mistaken in referring to a 1RR restriction when giving my block rationales - but I think that, Monday morning (evening here in the UK) quarterbacking though it may be, that it is clear that all editors concerned including the ip had far exceeded 3RR and the two named accounts were warned that such removals were not in keeping with WP:TALK or WP:FORUM. Whilst I have every confidence that there will be no next time, because everyone is now very clear as regards the appropriate removal of content from talkpages which are under the Global Warming Probation, should such a situation occur again I shall endeavour to ensure that parties are properly warned before enacting a block.
Lastly I would like to make a couple of points; Firstly, the two editors subsequent comments are quite civil and - under the circumstances - understanding. I hope they will be continue contributing as before to the various articles. Secondly, should anyone have believed they have determined what my personal pov regards Climate Change / Global Warming and specifically the effects caused by human activity by these actions of mine discussed above are very highly likely wrong! - I feel that there is ample evidence of human induced climate and environment change. I just don't think that being inclined toward the existing consensus gives any editor the right to ignore policy, guidelines, etc. and to dismiss good faith contributions from editors not so convinced. Battleground mentalities do not help the cause of creating good articles, no matter which side of the debate it is coming from. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

K was absolutely correct to remove a pile of off-topic twaddle from the anon, unless you're really defending Dear Malcolm, is it? I had a look at the thing you directed me to, and, I did add my signature to the appropriate row, but I'm afraid I am not very interested in your thing over there! (Is it yours?) Is that, um, OK? (Or is this an official wiki position or something I don't understand, or?? Do I HAVE TO respond to that survey? Or?) as highly relevant to GW? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support LHvU for Arbcom. Obviously a good block. If there's a problem with take page comments then there are noticeboards that can deal with the issue. Removing and refactoring good faith comments by others is a big problem among the AGW cabal and needs to be addressed along with the COI issues and incivilities. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Dispute at Naturopathy

This could be viewed as a content dispute, but I am bringing it here because I believe it is actually an issue of fundamental policy. We have two editors, Jmh649 (talk · contribs) and QuackGuru (talk · contribs), who are reverting to maintain the text, "Non-scientific health care practitioners, including naturopaths, use unscientific methods and deception on a public who, lacking in-depth health care knowledge, must rely upon the assurance of providers. Quackery not only harms people, it undermines the ability to conduct scientific research and should be opposed by scientists". Their justification is that the passage is sourced. The question has been argued out on the talk page and noticeboards, with no solution. I hope to establish a consensus, clear enough that admins are willing to enforce it, that statements like this are absolutely out of bounds on Misplaced Pages. There are a lot of other problems with the article, but this is the worst. For what it's worth, let me add that I'm a scientist and pretty much always defend the scientific point of view, but I believe that statements like this only alienate people. Looie496 (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The reversion was actually of a large quantity of referenced text not just that line. This was without any discussion on the talk page as far as I could see.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You yourself emphasized those lines at Talk:Naturopathy#removal of referenced content. Looie496 (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes those were just the first few lines. I tried to start a discussion. Maybe we should continue on at the talk page as no reply's have been made.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way a discussion is already taking place here Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Naturopathy. Not sure we need to spread this out more?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Why am I being accused of "reverting to maintain the text" when I did not revert. Looie496 has not made any rational justification for deleting the text. QuackGuru (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I would advice Looie496 to discuss things and try to get a consensus before removing large blocks of referenced text.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I give up. The text can stay. Looie496 (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not a reasonable response. If you discuss the matter further on the talk page and justify why the text should not remain, then it's fine to remove if you can get consensus. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 22:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a reasonable response. I have too much to do to get bogged down in an endless content dispute. If this isn't treated as a policy issue, I don't have time for it. Looie496 (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Which policy are you talking about exactly? One cannot just walk in removed large blocks of referenced content without explanation and not have someone assume it is vandilism and revert.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV. Looie496 (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Roscrad

User:Roscrad is an SPA in the seemingly never-ending nonsense at Crucifixion in the arts. Multiple editors have tried in good-faith to engage the user in constructive conduct, but the user only makes unexplained deletions of content , , , trolling comments at talk , (translations: and ), and incivil comments to editors who tried to explain proper conduct . It seems obvious that the user has no intention of contributing constructively. User notified: . --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• User notified as required —DoRD (?) (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC) As linked above, I also notified user, but user reverted it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I do see that now. Well, they've been notified again. —DoRD (?) (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no problem. That's what redundancy departments are for! (And they reverted you too.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I thoroughly warned the user and again requested that they comment here, but they removed it. I am particularly concerned about a nasty comment left on another user's talkpage, and if anything like that happens again, any admin should feel free to block them. Likewise for the edit warring spelled out above. —DoRD (?) (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Just underlining that, see the edit history of the user's talk page. Even before you thoroughly warned them, two other editors also warned them extensively, much of it reverted. So there's no issue of the user not knowing. I find it hard to see any way the user intends to turn things around. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

A day later: user is making no constructive edits, but is continuing to play games with their user talk page, in a manner that appears to be thumbing their nose at the warnings they have been given. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me that they are being disruptive in bad faith. I have blocked them indefinitely, and have left a note on their user talk page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 23:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. That was very helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor responded with an offensive personal attack, I have now rolled this back and protected the talk page indefinitely. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 00:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Chapecoense

User:Chapecoense has been constantly changing the name of the players in the FC Barcelona season 2009–10. The previous seasons had the players name as they appear on their kit but he/she has changed them. It has been continued for the 2009-2010 season but he/she insist that they appear as he/she wants. Is there anyway something can be done to keep it as it has always appeared? (Angel Avendano 18:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)) —This comment is unsigned by Lafuzion (talk) • (contribs) without signing their name using four tildes (~~~~). Please sign your posts!

This is a content dispute that should be discussed at Talk:FC Barcelona season 2009–10 and, at this time, there is no need for admin action. I did, however, notify the user of this discussion as required. —DoRD (?) (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've attempted to discuss it but he/she is not cooperating and is doing as they please. Angel Avendano 20:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I will explain. I made up some guidelines as "Edmílson José Gomes de Moraes" for "Edmílson (footballer born 1976)", for example, in season 06/07. In 09/10, there is no need to put "V. Valdés" or "A. Iniesta," just because you are subscribed on his kits. It is simply "Valdés" and "Iniesta". Like "Eric Abidal is "Abidal" and not "E. Abidal", for example. Similarly, "Sergio Busquets" is just "Busquets" and not "Sergio". The problem is that he wants to put the name that appears on the kits, but that is always how the player is known.

Thank you for your attention, I just want to cooperate, but with consistency. Chapecoense - Chapecoense) 25 January 2010 (UTC).

Thank you for explaining. Please, however, take this discussion to Talk:FC Barcelona season 2009–10 and form a consensus. Not being a fan of football, I have no opinion either way, but before making such changes, you should at least mention it on the talk page. Thanks. —DoRD (?) (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been updating the page since the beginning with no issues and this Users comes out of nowhere and wants to make changes. Players are known by the names on their kits so it makes sense to put it as such. For example: Dani Alves is on the and his real name is Daniel Alves, if we're going to follow him then change his name to Daniel Alves. This is an issue that we shouldn't be discussing had he left it how it was. there was no need to change it. Angel Avendano 17:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Protection request

Thank you. History2007 (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Creation according to Genesis was protected for 3 days, now may need several more days of protection to avoid a revert cycle. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That you would start making changes to the article after that articles protection has lapsed, only to request protection from reverts of your changes, is nothing short of disruptive behaviour. Ben (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

And you would know from disruption, since you're pretty good at it. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ben Tilman has just entered the 3 revert zone, and 2 warnings have been issued to him now. Admin action is in order now, please. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Based on his comments on the article talk page, nothing will change 7 days from now. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The discusion has been productive. Two editors are attempting to force through the version they prefer while the discussion is still going on. That is not right. And that's why it's been protected for a week in their version. Auntie E. (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about Ben and that other guy. FYI, I'm not watching that page any more because, as with the Noah's ark thing, it's an endless loop and a waste of my time. Ben is absolutely determined that the very first sentence of any Old Testament article is going to assert that the story is a pack of lies (or a "myth", as he calls it). ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as you continue to misuse the terms in play, that's probably for the best. --King Öomie 21:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You and Ben know full well that the average citizen understands "myth" to mean "fairy tale", and that's why you're so insistent on it being in the first line of the article, to push a particular POV on the matter. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Belchman

Belchman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), for reasons best known to himself, has taken to insulting other users on ref desk, calling them "idiot" and "fool" and such as that. I was once blocked 5 days for calling other editors idiots. I advised him to retract, but as of a minute ago he had taken no action. Maybe someone with some actual muscle here could have a word with him? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

His edits on January 18th and recently before that seem normal. He next edited 6 days later, and took on a belligerent tone, name-calling 2 editors (Bus Stop twice, then me twice). I invited him to come here and he simply deleted that invite. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what good it will do, but I have issued a sternly worded final warning to cease and desist. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Blood Red Sandman 22:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that didn't take long. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Big overreaction here. A civility block was in order, but indef is way over the top. AniMate 22:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I took the view that he clearly wasn't going to contribute nicely. However, I won't oppose in the slightest if you choose to reduce the block. It's a judgement call. Blood Red Sandman 22:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

He's got some decent contributions under his belt. I'm going to reduce to 24 hours, with the caveat that anymore incivility will result in increased blocks. AniMate 22:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Just looked at your last post on his talk page. I'll reblock for 5 days. AniMate 22:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll happily endorse that. Blood Red Sandman 22:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't get what set that guy off. He makes the usual complaints against me, but he started by attacking Bus Stop, which made no sense. Maybe in the ensuing 5 days he can re-think his strategy. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd give him no more than 24 hours, if even that. I wasn't offended. I considered it intellectual jousting. These things happen. Sorry I didn't see this sooner. Bus stop (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to hear him explain why he suddenly started calling you names, just because he got challenged on his original premise. Calling you an "idiot" and me a "fool" is not intellectual jousting, it's like he went off the deep end over something trivial. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sock drawer at WP:Articles for deletion/Bosnian Royal Family

Proposing semiprotection at this AfD. Who knew that the Middle Ages in the Balkans could be so controversial? Recently I blocked User:Regionlegion indefinitely as a sock of Bosnipedian, due to a colorful and abusive edit war on articles about the kings of Bosnia in the 1500s. One of the comments by Regionlegion was "You are a lying Serb, as is your friend PRODUCER, as just exposed. Your Serb nationalist agenda to freak-control Bosnia articles will not be tolerated." The subject of the AfD, Bosnian Royal Family, was created by Bosnipedian. Due to the nature of the edits, it is nearly 100% likely that the IPs adding their opinions in the AfD are socks or meatpuppets of Bosnipedian/Regionlegion. There have been 20 IP edits so far. One of the IPs removed the AfD tag from the article. Does anyone object to semiprotection of the AfD? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Tagged it as a possible hoax. IconicBigBen (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Having skimmed it, the article is BS and the protagonist either autistic spectrum or a massive attention whore. Someone just needs to delete it as total crap and close the AfD before people start selling tickets to watch this latest performance. ninety:one 23:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, anyone notice how Bosnipedian and Bosnian Royal Family sound very simular? IconicBigBen (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Would definitely support semiprotection. AFD is being blitzed by anon accounts with some pretty amazing uniformity of viewpoint. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the AfD, and suggest someone take a look and see if it should be closed already. Most All of the IPs I've seen have been open proxies. -- zzuuzz 00:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Requesting premission to re-add the hoax template to the article now that the issue has calmed down? IconicBigBen (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be preferable for an admin to assess consensus from the AfD. I don't recommend adding the speedy tag. -- zzuuzz 01:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Problem is that the article passes "notability" easily, and is not a "hoax", but is horridly written with useless asides. Collect (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The notability is not so clear, when the article is full of speculation, synthesis and original research. Edison (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Bosnia had a ruler ("Despot" was a valid title, I suppose, for part of that period) who functioned as a monarch. This title was passed within a family ("royal family."). Most of the other stuff is excisable (not my slashing) but that does not remove notability per WP guidelines. Collect (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – Probably not the correct place for content review. Understand why it was noted here, but best discuss this further on the talk page of the article in question. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 23:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – In Soviet Russia, Amerikan high sckool artickles vandalize YOU!! –MuZemike 05:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – Other noticeboards exist specifically to handle these types of concerns. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 09:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards