Resolved

 – Many eyes on him and he knows the deal finallyI think Doc talk 11:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anber's user page contains an advertisement for his law firm. It goes against the "Promotional and advocacy material and links" section of Wikipedia:User_pages#Excessive_unrelated_content. As I expected, he completely ignored my notice on his talk page. CTJF83 11:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, at least the first external link, if not the second CTJF83 12:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a statement of what the business does; and we welcome declarations of possible COI &c. It's helpful to know what background editors are coming from. The brief text is a little enthusiastic but doesn't look excessively promotional to me, although it's very hard to describe any business' activities without at least one wikipedian thinking it spam. The text about university/political background seems even more positive to me - but folk don't complain about that. bobrayner (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How much more advertising can you get then, "I can be reached, 24hrs/day at 1-888-989-3946, or from jail at 613-755-4008"? CTJF83 12:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that last is a little egregious. I've removed the contact numbers per WP:NOTDIR item 3 (also WP:NOTWEBHOST item 1 and WP:NOTADVERTISING item 5). I don't see any real problem with the rest though. EyeSerene^talk 12:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok....the link to his law firm is borderline advertising...but I was mostly concerned with the phone numbers. CTJF83 12:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We traditionally allow a link or two to personal websites and the like. As long as it's not too promotional (ie it's not in a section that says "For all your legal needs visit www.suegrabbitandrun.com"), I think it's not worth bothering about. EyeSerene^talk 12:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. CTJF83 12:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those links are still a little too ad-like for my tastes. I think they should be toned down further. It might be less of an issue for a very active editor or if the page was noindexed, but this isn't an SEO platform. I notice davidanber.com does use keyword-stuffed urls[9] and I think the high search placement of wikipedia pages (despite nofollow) creates a COI for anyone desiring web visibility. Anyway it would look less spammy if the formatting and wording was made a bit more understated. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to let you know I disagree that my phone numbers violates spirit or letter of wiki policy and I will be reverting back my space. Until/unless there is clear consensus to change it, or unless there is some kind of ruling, I would ask that you please not disturb my user page. Also, as a final point you guys should consider the bad faith motives of Ctjf83 in raising this. He and I have been major contributors disagreeing over a content issue (see our edit histories). It appears to be clearly bad fait to start nitpicking someone's talk page after such a contentious debate and this should reduce the weight of his contribution. Anber (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Including the IP, let me be number four in favor of removing the contact information, against your one. Is that consensus enough for you? Any ill regard Ctjf83 you think has for you, doesn't at all change the fact that this clear advertising should be removed.--Atlan (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Advertising is advertising, whether I have a dispute with the user, am good friends with them, or they are an IP or an admin. Also you don't need a consensus when you clearly violate policy, of which I linked you to 1 and EyeSerene linked you to 3. You just need to be blocked like your 2 cohorts on AVGN episodes, due to your continued disruption of Wikipedia. CTJF83 22:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After that last statement, I think you should not be the one removing the information from his user page. There's no real urgency to the matter and whether we resolve it now or in a few hours doesn't matter.--Atlan (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's even close to borderline - it's advertising, plain and simple. Wikipedia does not exist for anyone's advertising benefit. The numbers should be removed. (Also, I know that the WMF is located in Florida, but if this advertising happens to contravene the rules of the Law Society of Upper Canada, is there any chance we could get in trouble? Law societies in Canada often have strict rules about where and how lawyers can advertise.) --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enough consensus for you? Take a look at WP:VAND, me removing advertisement is hardly vandalism. CTJF83 22:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and email addresses are not encyclopedic." Doc talk 22:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Doc9871. I believe a link to your website and saying you're a lawyer is probably as far as it should go. Adding phone numbers, what law you practice, addresses, etc, etc. is plain and simple advertising and shouldn't be around. Just my .02 Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 22:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I have once again removed the contact information, citing the consensus that has developed here that it was indeed unacceptable. I hope that will be the end of it, although let's leave this thread open for Anber to respond if he so wishes.--Atlan (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not believe there is consensus. My user page is not optimized to make it an effective advertisement at all. Anybody arriving at this page likely looked for me by name and therefore the phone numbers are relevant information. Just because it is not to some people's taste doesn't mean it violates the spirit or letter of wikipedia policy. Secondly, there is a guideline, I believe that gives deference to user pages. Thirdly, this was started by Ctjf83. I have pointed out obvious bad faith in him doing this and I think this should be taken into consideration. I would like more input from the wikipedia community before my page is modified and I will ask you to respect this before arbitrarily deciding that's the decision. Anber (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." [10] Doc#1 is correct. One does not find phone numbers in an encyclopedia. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 23:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EyeSerene had it right the first time: I was really just reiterating one of his main reasons listed above for deleting the numbers. There's simply no purpose to have those numbers except to advertise: why else on earth would they be there? WP:What Wikipedia is not is policy, Anber, and I for one cannot see consensus to remove the numbers changing no matter how much time passes (unless there are some changes to the policy). WP:NOTADVERTISING applies to "articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages." So it actually does "violate the spirit or letter of wikipedia policy". With this revert you have technically violated another policy It applies to any page, including user pages. WP:UP#PROMO would mean that the second exemption of 3RR would not apply. Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 02:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are getting community input, and the stuff on your page is outside community norms as you can probably find by comparing it with contact info on other user pages. If there's a link to your own site and your site has your phone number, there's no reason to put your phone number on wikipedia. There's also no reason for your advocacy blurb; it should be enough to say something like "I work as a criminal lawyer in Ottawa, Canada, and my web site is here" with your site instead of Wikipedia's. Anyway, why do you say anyone arriving at the page likely looked for you by name? That does seem to indicate an expectation that people are going to find your Wikipedia user page with off-wiki search engines, which creates reasons to want to optimize the page. The usual reason anyone should find your Wikipedia user page is because they're editing Wikipedia and they view the page for some reason related to your editing, rather than looking for you by name. People shouldn't care about off-wiki visibility of Wikipedia user pages at all, as I see it. And, I don't understand why you're so worked up about this if there is really no COI involved. I think Doc9871's points are well taken. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The repeated claims of "no consensus" are incorrect and starting to sound like WP:IDHT, and taken together with the reversions this is looking less and less like a good-faith error of judgement. Even if there wasn't a strong consensus in this thread (which there is), Wikipedia's policies are developed by consensus so the fact that there's a rule at all indicates consensus already exists. As I posted on Anber's talk page, our facilities are provided by charitable donation and maintained by volunteers; even giving the appearance of abusing these is very distasteful. Given the lack of cooperation on Anber's part I've added a noindex tag to their userpage to exclude it from appearing in search engine results; if as Anber claims the links and information are not on the page for advertising reasons, they shouldn't find this objectionable. I'd suggest that further intransigence will result in administrative sanctions on their account (frankly they're lucky not to be blocked already for edit warring). EyeSerene^talk 09:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a similar argument concerning Anber's user page happened in 2007, which resulted in the page being deleted. So unless Anber is suffering from memory loss, he is well aware that the advertisement was unacceptable.--Atlan (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're referring to Dynamic Legal Solutions? I've viewed the diffs; the article was blatant advertising and had to be deleted five times and eventually salted to prevent its repeated recreation. Given that, I think I'm justified in no longer assuming good faith. I've removed the spamlinks from Anber's userpage as well. The community does give some leeway in the matter of links on a userpage, but the important thing is not to take the piss. EyeSerene^talk 10:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was referring to his user page, which was deleted as advertising on June 19, 2007. But yes, there's also Dynamic Legal Solutions, and finally the David Anber article, which was deleted multiple times.--Atlan (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clarification (and sorry for my misunderstanding). Because the deletions are from a few years ago I feel they shouldn't unduly influence the current situation (many new users make mistakes), but as you note above they do serve to confirm that Anber can't plausibly claim to be unaware of consensus on using WP for self-promotion and advertising. Recreating a previously deleted userpage with similarly promotional content is also problematic. However, as far as I'm concerned as long as they don't restore the phone numbers and spam links (or anything similar) to Wikipedia there's no more admin action that needs to be taken at this time. I'd imagine they'll be cut very little slack if this becomes an issue for a third time though. EyeSerene^talk 12:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The debate from a few years ago was not a page created by me although I argued for it being kept. When the decision was not to keep it there was never a problem with me using my user page to describe who I am. I think you need to calm yourself down. Anber (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The noindex helps a lot. Is there a way to make sure it isn't removed? 75.57.242.120 (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Now hold on a second, after reviewing the consensus I was prepared to accept the removal of the phone numbers but the url links are acceptable. There are other users who agreed with that as well. Please restore those. Anber (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, please unprotect my page. I am prepared to accept the remvoal of the phone numbers but I have other changes I'd like to make to my page. Anber (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, there is no reason why my page, otherwise complying with policy needs a no follow code. This is not something done to user pages in general and this is unreasonably targeting my page. Anber (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to unprotect the page, this isn't an isolated incident. Anber likes to complain and revert until he gets his way. He should've been blocked for 3RR. CTJF83 20:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have never edited in bad faith and I accept the consensus over the phone numbers. I would like to make some other changes unrelated to this issue. Can an admin please assess this and unprotect my page; thanks. Anber (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that your userpage has been deleted for advertising before, I hardly think "unreasonably targeting" is a fair description. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use Template:Edit protected to get it changed. I have lost all good faith in you after this and AVGN episodes. Users need to be held accountable for their actions and just unprotecting the page shows Anber that he doesn't have to follow policy, consensus, and can just complain til he gets his way. CTJF83 21:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: All pages in wikipedia already serve all external links with nofollow (this prevents the link targets from getting any page rank from the wikipedia page). You can see this with "view source" on any page. The tag added to Anber's userpage is noindex, which additionally prevents the userpage itself from being indexed. I don't see why Anber cares about this, and his complaining about it (and his concern over nofollow) diminishes his credibility that he's not trying to use Wikipedia as search magnet. FWIW, I have long supported noindexing all Wikipedia user pages (I'd actually go a lot further than that if it were up to me). Anber, if you were concerned about nofollow because you thought you were getting page rank from its absence up til now, maybe this will put your mind at ease. We've been using nofollow for years so you were already not getting that page rank. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google "Anber". What pops up second on the list? I'm not surprised that it's his WP page, really. It's by design, and hasn't been buried... Doc talk 04:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Shows you know nothing about SEO. I couldn't care less if anybody arrives at my user page by Googling my name. 1) because when they do that they get my own web page first and 2) because if they google my name, they already know who I am which means I don't need to advertise myself. Sometimes the stuff people say is lacking in a bit of common sense. If I had SEO'd this page, I'd have stuffed it with keywords making it likely to be indexed by people looking for lawyers in my area (which currently it does not rank). Anber (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting. I guess the noindex hasn't taken effect yet and google still have an old cached version of the userpage; let's see after another day or so. I hadn't googled "Anber" but I'd tried "David Anber" during the discussion and got the WP userpage on the second Google result page, but more recently (last night) got it on the first page. It and "Anber" at that time showed the WP sub-headings as separate links in the google results, which I hadn't expected, and it really increased the hit's visibility, very effective. For some reason I don't see the extra links in the google result when I try now, so I wonder what changed. It also wouldn't surprise me if the section headings have extra weight computing SimRank between Anber's user page and other pages containing the legal terms in the headings, or otherwise figure into the TSPR that purportedly affects result ordering when people do multiple searches on such terms (like when they're looking around for a lawyer). Such concerns were part of why I suggested rewriting the sentence containing Anber's homepage extlink, to replace the legal keywords in the link text (that could associate with his url for sim-ranking) with a generic word like "here". (Plus, his version just looks spammy).

  Anyway, since Anber says he doesn't care if people find his user page by searching on his name and since it looks to me like his userpage layout is gaming the system, inserting the noindex tag as an administrative remedy seems fine to me and Anber should stop complaining about it. The page sure looks to me to have numerous optimization characteristics whether by coincidence or otherwise. FWIW, there's lots of other user pages in Category:Noindexed pages as well, though most of them seem to be tagged sock accounts. If Anber still thinks noindexing his user page is inequitable treatment, I'll be happy to support any proposal he might make to noindex all user pages per NOTWEBHOST. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:FAKEARTICLE would seem to apply here. WP:MFD anyone? N419BH 23:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anber will be pleasantly shocked I'm gonna say this...but no to MfD, as long as he doesn't have a phone number and it isn't overly promotional, there is no real problem. CTJF83 00:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must disagree; this page violates multiple points mentioned in WP:FAKEARTICLE, and has been on our servers since 2007. This either needs to be moved into mainspace and turned into a referenced BLP or it needs to be deleted. N419BH 00:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • What would cause him to meet GNG? It was deleted as a page once, nom it for MfD, and let the community decide CTJF83 00:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we bring this to a conclusion. I'll remove the numbers as originally asked, we'll leave no index tag and let's move on. I'd like to be able to edit my user page again. Anber (talk) 06:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, but I'm going to be incommunicado for a few days. If any other admin wishes to close this up (and reverse any of my actions in the process) then please feel free to do so :) Consensus seems to be that the status quo (contact numbers and links removed, noindex tag added) is fine; I'd note that Anber has agreed to leave the contact numbers out. However, others may not feel this goes far enough towards an undertaking to fully comply with policy including the use of self-promotional prose, layout and links. As a final note, the page protection is set to expire tomorrow. EyeSerene^talk 08:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin, but I feel EyeSerene's actions are perfect considering everything that has transpired. Anber has agreed to keep a few things off the page, and once the page protection is up and if he complies with keeping those things off his page, I see no reason why we can't continue on with our Wiki-lives. I'd really like to believe a professional business-person like David Anber is willing to keep his word and leave the objectionable material off his user page. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 22:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. In the meantime, as a courtesy, would you guys agree for me to strike my first name from several instances in this discussion. The irony is that when googled my user page will no longer show up (which, honestly, doesn't bother me all that much) but I would prefer if this thread wasn't a high ranking result (which it might be). Remember guys, my practice is how I put food on my table.Anber (talk) 05:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you are mixing work and Wikipedia then....To me that shows you are using Wikipedia for advertisement. CTJF83 05:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm You'd have to have them rev-deleted by an admin if you really didn't want them to show up, as simply striking them won't make them go away. Doc talk 05:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's becoming more and more obvious Anber is using Wikipedia for promotional purposes, and probably needs to be blocked. Him worrying about Google linking to this as opposed to his userpage took away any last bit of good faith I gave to him CTJF83 06:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Man, you got what you wanted with the AVGN thread, you got what you wanted with my user page, I know my web stats for my website support that I never got much if any traffic inbound from Wikipedia. Why can't you just be reasonable. I'd like to purge my first name from this debate - is there really an objection to that? Anber (talk) 08:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you add the external spam links that were removed once again.[11] I was starting to feel sorry for you and recommend a WP:CLEANSTART, but you are just defying consensus here. Doc talk 08:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does this defy consensus - numbers were removed and the no index was kept - the overall mood of the conversation (aside from a few people) was not to remove the links 70.26.42.104 (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Your epidermis is showing" - the IP is visible. An admin removed the links, and not one editor disagreed with that move even after he said he'd have no problem being reversed. Consensus was thus seemingly maintained with the link-removal-addendum. And as soon as protection expired they went up straight away. To some it would seem "defiant", especially with the prior reverts and all, but apparently it's not a huge deal. Doc talk 12:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same routine as over 3 years ago:

Anber advertises himself; People disagree; A discussion ensues; The discussion does not go Anber's way; Anber requests his name stricken from all records.

It didn't work 3 years ago, so again it seems Anber suffers from memory loss by going through this exact same routine again. Anyway, this page is not indexed by search engines I believe, so the point is moot.--Atlan (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can think of one attorney I won't look up should I find myself in an Ottawa courtroom, charged with a variety of crimes. Again, that is. ;> Doc talk 09:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Anber, ANI and all similar noticeboards are noindexed and won't appear in google search results (they will still show up in wikipedia's internal search function). Also, pages in edit histories are noindexed and won't show up in either google or wikipedia search, so revdel isn't needed just to get something out of search. Redacting it by normal editing is enough, and revdel is usually only used for stuff that's really private. There are ways to search edit histories but they are cumbersome and involve special tools. I notice you had some concerns in 2007[12] about unwanted wikipedia content showing up on googling you. I'm presuming those are resolved by now, but if not, we should try to take care of them somehow. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points as always :> But, oh, those pesky mirror sites. It's best just to not even try it, only then to regret it later... Doc talk 09:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just block him and get it over with? It's obvious he isn't here to be a constructive part of Wikipedia. He is here to sell himself. CTJF83 15:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Your suggestion that I be blocked is completely without merit. I have contributed constructively as a part of Wikipedia. After the previous debate several years ago, I was led to believe that I could have some flexibility with my own talk page. You have taken an absolutely toxic attitude towards me in this debate and in the previous debate and the weight of your rediculous suggestion will be treated accordingly. You just need to look to the avgn debate where, despite me coming out on the losing side, the editor who closed the debate pointed out that my contribution (the extensive summary of everyone's position) was useful to him. Let me tell you something, I got nothing out of it other than the satisfaction of contributing something to the debate on that topic. You're obviously a bitter person. I've given up on that topic and I've given in to your requests on my user page. A truly honourable person would call it a day; which comes as no surprise to me that you are not doing so, but making frivolous requests to have me blocked. Anber (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at his user page. It's not a user page, it's a resumé. Whether he gets blocked or not, an admin should wipe the contents of the user page and replace it with "This is my user page", or some such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, I wanted to add (this will likely be my last submission on this topic), I believe that my user page currently conforms to the consensus for what is reasonable for a user page. With respect to the links, I cite the following contributors:

• It's a statement of what the business does; and we welcome declarations of possible COI &c. It's helpful to know what background editors are coming from. The brief text is a little enthusiastic but doesn't look excessively promotional to me (bobrayner)

• We traditionally allow a link or two to personal websites and the like. As long as it's not too promotional [...], I think it's not worth bothering about. EyeSerene

In response to the above, CTJF83 wrote:

• Fair enough

This whole thing was started to remove my numbers, which I have agreed to and to respond to 'advertising' concerns, my page has been no indexed, which I have agreed to. At this point, there are 4 external links to the 4 areas of my personal life which I have delved into, I am content that they stay and in light of the comments above, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't. Anber (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you use me both as a bashing tool and to further your agenda....CTJF83 20:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now a Canadian IP, for their first ever edit, has restored the links. Cute. Doc talk 22:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Now reverted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is an admin to block Anber and protect the page...for being an ADMIN noticeboard, I'm not seeing too many of them. CTJF83 23:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AIV is getting backlogged too. They must all be watching the NCAA's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as Anber has once again restored the links, I must agree with EyeSerene, CTJF83, N419BH, and Baseball Bugs (and others) that at the very minimum the links should stay out. This is a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT situation at this point, seriously. More severe measures might be appropriate, and I would support them as well after his going on like this. Doc talk 05:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if we could find an admin to be more active/proactive in this discussion, again...for being an admin noticeboard, they are lacking significantly in this discussion. CTJF83 08:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the lot of us will get "combat promotions". Not. ;> Doc talk 08:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with what has already been said above. I think this page is a violation of multiple policies. Since the user keeps adding links back in that have been stated above should not be there makes this thread unresolved. The user page reads like a resume'. Reading the user page and esp. the user's talk page, I think this user has a bad case of I didn't hear that. I also find very concerning that this has been discussed in the past with the same kind of results. I think now we need to find an administrator that is active to act upon what the community is saying in this thread. If no administrator is found than I recommend to the editors here that someone should nominate his page for MFD which is probably a better solution. If the page is MFD and it ends with deletion it will make it much harder for this user to return the information that is unacceptable. I guess I am saying that an MFD is probably the best solution to this problem. Just my 2 cents, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• When this debate started the only problem was the phone numbers. There were several people who indicated that the links were borderline but okay. The reason they were okay is because I say a few things about myself, and then put a link at the bottom to those aspects of things which I discussed. It follows an encyclopedic format, and -- assuming the rest of my page isn`t overly promotional -- it is okay.

SINCE that moment, there was a sense that my page was trying to be used promotionally for search engine optimization. As a result a noindex link was placed. This in my mind, only strengthens my argument that the page is acceptable with the links. This is conensus of a number of users (at least 3 experienced editors, an IP or 2, and myself).

SINCE then, there have been a nuber of users who have come on and said otherwise. I don`t understand how they can claim the page as it exists now is a violation, but they take that position. I do not agree that this overwhelms the old consensus, however their comments are duly noted.

IF an impartial administrator is willing to review the entire discussion and conclude that the consensus is that links must go, I will abide by that result 100% and remove the links and not appeal that decision or revert it back at any point in the future.

UNTIL this happens, I will leave my links there as this was not the purpose of this ANI thread and there is consensus from the very people who started this thread that the links were ok. Anber (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly can't believe we're still discussing this. I am not an admin, but I've taken another look at Anber's page and I honestly don't see a problem with it as it is currently. I won't claim to know any of Anber's previous activities or past indescretions on Wikipedia, but I feel that makes me a lot more objective in this situation. Considering the noindex tag to keep him from using this page as free Google advertising, and the removal of his phone numbers, what's left is a bunch of information Anber plans on sharing with the rest of the wiki community as far as I can see. People can choose to visit his links or not. As I already stated, as long as the phone numbers remain removed and the page doesn't read like an advert for his law office (which it currently does not), I don't see what the problem is here any longer. Whatever he's done before, Anber has been rather conformist in what he's been asked to do thus far. I just think this discussion has gone on long enough. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 18:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring over one's own user page typically IS a sign of trouble. There have been plenty of words here. It's time for an admin to either shut it down or shut this discussion down, or both. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anber was blocked for a week, just as I posted the above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little bummed to hear that. I felt Anber was willing to make some concessions to his page and we in turn should have made some for him as well. Oh well, c'est la vie. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 18:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page still reads like a resume. It might help if he would change those links' descriptions to something like simply, "My home page". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block Reasoning

As people have noticed, i blocked Anber for a week for disruptive editing, and seeing the situation surrounding the block i believe that it is best if i post a rationale for doing so. First and foremost i must mention that I am not really against the links in question; If they violate a rule at all the violation is quite minor anyway, and they are not beyond what i call intolerable on a user page. The links are, however, not the block reason. The block itself is based upon the constant edit warring and insistence to retain the promotional bits - first by edit warring with eyeserene and CKatz, Which resulted in a full protection on the page, and afterwards by reinserting the links a total of three times the instant the protection got dropped.

I tried to message Anber after denying a page protection and a block request regarding Anber posted on my talk page, advising him to steer clear from any promotional bits (At least until the case was marked resolved and a final consensus was reached). Instead, the link was re-added twice which, when combined with the earlier edit warring and the in-progress ANI thread status, was beyond what i found justifiable as non disruptive.

I'd note that any admin may alter or undo the block without prior discussion if they feel it is incorrect, to harsh or otherwise no longer requires. I will not consider this to be wheel-warring, and frankly, i welcome a better solution then a plain block. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined an unblock request with a note that I read the above discussion as representing clear consensus that Anber may not misuse his user page for advertising.  Sandstein  21:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The block is ok. I left some advice about an unblock approach. I agree with those who say that CTJF83 should stop calling for remedies at this point, as it's coming across as hounding. Anything further CTJF83 brings to this should be issues we don't already know about, backed with diffs. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 06:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User has put a proposed new version of userpage on his talk page, still containing a spammy reference to his legal advertising company. The guy has contributed 65 edits to mainspace,[13] none of them substantial as far as I've looked, and I'm feeling like we've spent way too much time on this already. Rather than having us engage in yet more protracted discussions/negotiations about his userpage content, I'm inclined to propose just salting his userpage and letting him decide whether he wants to edit articles or not under those conditions. He is certainly not obligated. I've tried to discuss things on his user talk; I'm open to feedback from others about whether my posts to him were reasonable. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the user's denials, and given all the wikilawyering, it's pretty clear that his main focus here is self-promotion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Good block. Bishonen | talk 00:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Looks fine to me. bobrayner (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

Just to note that after extensive discussions with Anber, and after input from Excirial, Baseball Bugs and 75.57, I have unblocked. He has removed all personal details (other than userboxen) and cleared his talkpage, thereby removing all the material objected to. I have made it clear to him that if he puts it back, he is likely to be blocked indefinitely. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fair. He also said something about changing his user ID. That might be a good idea at this point also. It would show good faith on his part, towards avoiding any self-promotion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Noleander Nothing else ANI can do The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 05:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Unresolved

Topic ban conversation and surrounding issues moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Noleander per request at WP:AN. Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

ArbCom

I'd like to ask that an uninvolved admin close this discussion when the time comes, along with an opinion as to whether there's sufficient consensus for a topic ban. If there isn't, I suggest we take this straight to ArbCom. Taking it to a user RfC is likely to attract the same people who commented here, possibly with the same opinions. I see the case for a topic ban as pretty straightforward, but the clarity of the case seems to be getting lost amid the number of opinions being expressed; and perhaps there's too much reading to expect people to do. This is the kind of situation ArbCom handles well.

By suggesting this, I'm not trying to cut short or bypass this discussion. I'm still hopeful that an uninvolved admin will see sufficient consensus and strong-enough arguments for a topic ban. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having just spent two hours examining one of the charges against Noleander, I found that the case was far from being as straightforward as SlimVirgin claims; in the instance I examined, the Anti-Defamation League's own publication provides a clear justification for an article title for which Noleander was denounced.

I examined only one point of the evidence, and more than a dozen have been posted. Given the serious nature of the charge against Noleander, I hope that a closing admin will accept the need for more detailed scrutiny of rest of the evidence.

At this point, I suggest that the matter should go to straight to Arbcom, which provides a structured format for presenting and scrutinising evidence, as well as a neutral assessment of it. I also hope that Arbcom will consider some of the issues of conduct which have arisen in the course of this discussion, such as the allegations of anti-semitism which have been made at those who have expressed concerns at the way the matter was being addressed at ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Noleander. --JN466 03:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is there any way we can tighten the PROD procedures? They are becoming a back door way to avoid the scrutiny supplied by an AFD. A PROD was designed to remove rubbish, but as more people have discovered the process, it is becoming a way to avoid the scrutiny of an AFD to delete what you do not like. Please look at Ruggles Prize PRODed by User:RGTraynor. I only noticed it because I had scrolled way down my list that it had become a red link. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First article I ever wrote got PROD'ed and deleted while I was away from Wikipedia. Pretty irritating. Then again, it's easy enough to get a PROD'ed article restored. Why do you think this particular PROD was abusive? 28bytes (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather curious myself. For one thing, perhaps you're unfamiliar with WP:PROD. There is nothing in the policy mentioning, or discussing, "rubbish." The lead text is "Proposed deletion is the way to suggest that an article is uncontroversially a deletion candidate, but that it does not meet the more stringent criteria for speedy deletion." To imply that no user can file a PROD except out of malice and/or sloth is a poor way to uphold AGF. For my part, I presume that people filing PRODs do so on articles the deletion of which they genuinely do believe would prove uncontroversial, and that they apply this to articles they find fail of notability or sourcing in one fashion or another. I'm sure you would yourself prefer to be treated as if you didn't have ulterior motives or hidden agendas in your own edits.

For another, were you more familiar with PROD, instead of running to the admin who deleted the expired PROD and get him to reverse it, you would have done so through WP:UND, the proper avenue for attempting to reverse a deleted PROD.

Finally, if your purpose is to tighten up the PROD procedures, what are you doing here on the admin noticeboard? WP:PROD has a talk page, and that is the proper venue to discuss changes to the policy. Wouldn't you think?  RGTraynor  05:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:DEL#Proposed_deletion "If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking." So going to the deleting admin is totally appropriate. Monty₈₄₅ 05:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I find PROD a great process because it doesn't allow deleting rubbish in the case that any single Wikipedia user disagrees. No bureucracy, no extra rules - just "I think this should be deleted because..." and "Well I think that's a lousy reason to delete this." It's like AfD where a single keep !vote is enough to keep the article - until AfD that is. Zakhalesh (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Screaming abuse when it's used exactly the way it's supposed to be is odd. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. PROD doesn't mean avoiding scrutiny, it's a softer version of DB that anyone can contest if they disagree. Zakhalesh (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If anything, the Prod process needs to be tightened in the opposite direction of what Norton suggests. Tags shouldn't be removed willy-nilly without a valid reason or doing anything to address the reason it was prodded in the first place. Tarc (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. PRODs are mostly used in good faith to maintain the encyclopedia; messing with or obstructing that process for no good reason should be discouraged. Reyk _YO! 20:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never mind that Norton gave no reason for removing the PROD other than he thinks it should be at AfD instead, which strikes me as rather pointy. Certainly, if it has indeed been on his watchlist, he has made no improvements, nor attempted to provide reliable sources discussing it in the "significant detail" required, nor made any stab at defending the subject's notability.  RGTraynor  02:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not surprised. Prod removals should need a reason, because this nonsense is allowed otherwise. Shadowjams (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm a bit divided on this one. People who contest PROD don't always provide rationale for that, and it angers me a bit when they don't. However, one of the reasons I love PROD is that it has no special criteria to observe, and if we restrict contesting to those who can provide reason for removing the PROD, then there must be acceptable reasons and bad reasons. And if the line between these two must be drawn, guidelines are needed and someone neutral is needed to make the decision on whether the reason was bad enough to warrant restoration of the PROD. And if all this is implemented, PROD is no longer the nimble process for no-frills deletion, but just AfD where things are done differently. PROD is good the way it is. If the contester can't reason for keeping the article, well, that's only their loss when it goes to AfD. Zakhalesh (talk) 10:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• And ... there's the AfD Norton fought to see filed. I'm positively eager to see upon what grounds he defends the article's notability.  RGTraynor  11:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• What I never understood is why some editors act so put out and bewildered when their PRODs are removed by an article's creator or primary editor. I mean DUH, if someone came to me and told me that he was going to take away something that I worked hard on and/or cared about unless I tell them not to then dammit I'm going to tell them not to. Why is this so hard for people to understand? This is why if I see an article that I think needs deleted, I'll go straight to AFD if it has recent edit activity. PROD is for articles that nobody gives a damn about. (though that in itself is not a deletion rationale) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  What I never understand is why certain notorious contributors to WP's eternal notability war keep heading back to the boomerang shop for more ammunition. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Norton caused this to be undeleted, for some unknown reason, and then came here with claims of abuse of the PROD. If you're going to do this, why not express the reason at the AfD page. This sounds more like a way to be anti-PROD than anything else. That said, the PROD process does seem to as if it could be improved, and the Admin who undeleted this article had several suggestions to make it better User_talk:SchuminWeb#Ruggles_Prize. But asking for a reversal of PROD without any reason sounds as bad as the condemnation of PROD itself. (filed under Automated-Time-Wasters) -- Avanu (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I would like the documentation on prods made a bit clearer. I tagged a couple of articles for a prod, waited a week to see if they were deleted, then came here, perhaps impatiently, to "demand" their deletion... I thought I was doing the right thing but clearly wasn't.... could someone look into stopping people like me in the future :D

Oh, and while I'm at it, the process for nominating an article for AFD atm is ridiculously laborious, and also mistake prone for the careless (read the edit summaries of my recent contributions - I copied and pasted without realising I needed to edit the darn things till it was too late, and you can't edit an edit summary! (maybe we should make it so you can edit an edit summary, although this maybe leads to infinite recursion...)). I appreciate it couldn't be built into mediawiki easily so... how about having a bot to do it? You could go to a specific page monitored by the bot, type the article and the reason for deletion, and the bot would do the rest. Should be a piece of piss for any decent progammer! Egg Centric 21:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One word - Twinkle. It does AfD simply by menu - just click, type your reason, and it does it all for you :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DOH! And I already have Twinkle as well, just didn't know about the functionality! Cheers Bud :) Egg Centric 21:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PROD duration?

While I, as I said in my previous comments, like PROD and find it very useful, I've seen quite a lot of articles getting deleted within hours of getting PRODded. Not only cases that are eligible for speedy or have been previously deleted via XfD, but other articles as well. A common scenario seems to be not notable article that is outside the scope of CSD A7. I'm a bit confused on this one - should A7 be expanded to cover a wider range of topics so they get speedied instead of prematurely deleted after PRODding or the "grace period" before PROD deletion reduced, or should we retain the current time period and not let admins rush in before it has passed? Zakhalesh (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there are specific areas where CSD should be expanded then so be it, but PROD is specifically designed for areas where a) the subjetc matter isn't obviously a speedy candidate and b) nobody cares enough that it can go seven days without anyone arguing against deletion. Admins shouldn't be violating that at will, just as inclusionists should not be hovering over category: proposed deletion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree that policy shouldn't be violated, but on the other hand, policies change. I still think a few hours grace period is way too short, but that some hopeless articles just amange to get through speedy too easily. Events, for example. There cwas an article about some scavenger hunt held by citizens of a county. I couldn't find any hits on Google, sources listed by the creator were two specific citizens, the tone was off, but still, it couldn't be deleted by A7 because it doesn't cover events. Another case today was an article about a book that got "speedy prodded" possibly by error - the deletion was accompanied by the reasons of lacking notability (even though books aren't eligible under A7) and previous AfD that was actually speedy closed because the author deleted the article. I didn't contact the admins behind these because I wanted them gone as well, but I would still like some way to prevent actual PROD abuse, or a policy change that increases scope of A7 and other criteria. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion is there so that we don't need to carry complete no-brainers (pure vandalism, serious attacks, articles with utterly no context with which to evaluate them) around for that whole time; things which don't fit that category but which are still useless will be easily picked up by PROD. So long as we don't have editors reflexively removing PRODs from article they wouldn't otherwise be interested in for ideological reasons, PROD works fine in removing inappropriate content which is not total garbage. As I say, I'm more than happy for discussion over whether we can wipe out more rubbish through CSD if we can agree on extensions to the existing criteria. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the point. PROD is great the way it is, but admins are taking too much liberty when deleting articles after they've been PRODded - mainly, deleting way too fast, as the policy clearly states that 7 days should be waited instead of just a few hours. This seems to happen quite often when the concern is notability, while CSD puts strict limits on what subjects may be speedied per notability, and PRODded articles are usually outside these limits. Examples include non-notable events, gameguides and fiction. The question is whether they should be speedyable via the actual speedy deletion process, deleted by an accelerated PROD with grace period of 1 day or less instead of a week, or should the admins have the patience to wait 7 days. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My appreciation that that point was apparently lost somewhere in my pre-post editing. :) I agree that PROD should have a strict seven-day duration, and that I don't see any reason for admins to circumvent that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree with that. What if somebody created an attack page and a cohort of theirs sticks a PROD on it to keep it around for seven days? Speedy deletion criteria are specific. Even if a PROD is on an article, if the article should have had a db tag on it instead of a PROD, then the speedy criteria should be applied whether there's a PROD on it or not. Corvus cornix_talk 17:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that instance, remove the PROD tag and apply a CSD instead. That has no bearing on how long a PROD lasts for. GiantSnowman 17:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the deletion templates are mutually exclusive (and in the situation you describe, WP:COMMONSENSE would apply as well). PROD/AfD does not mean that it can't be speedied, and in fact, speedy deletion is not uncommon in AfD discussions as people more experienced/deletionist note that the page meets the DB criteria. But, if an article is not eligible for speedy deletion, it should not be speedy deleted - 7 days grace until decided otherwise. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the issue is something that doesn't match an existing criteria, but really needs to be deleted right now, we still have {{db|some reason}} (and various redirects). Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attack pages should be speedied regardless of any prod. WP: IAR works well in that situation. 86.146.23.51 (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even better, no rules have to be ignored. Nowhere is it forbidden to override "lesser" deletion with speedy, and I think some of our policies even mentions this explicitly. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – No tool use needed except "the power of reason", which is outside the scope of AN/I. 28bytes (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am involved in an incident I would like to have answered without ambiguity. This edit served destructive to my comprise upon seeing it. I can demonstrate that it was an unprovoked response, and that it had potential to negatively impact my good character, although not based on fact. My first attempt, and preferred venue, was to discuss on the users talk page to hopefully reach clarity. I did post this message in hopes of a reply. I also posted this comment to mark my objection.

During the interim I discussed some things with a user I have great respect for their opinion. Their good counsel, along with points I enunciated, well summarize the motivation for my bringing this matter here. Considering this discussion can give proper insight to context. When Townlake did reply, the answer left no regards to consider. Unless the lack of regard should be sufficient in itself. So I bring the question here, where I trust the best answer can be known. Should a Wikipedia user be subjected to such an assault that encroaches on liable. And should a statement with such potential be retracted? I answer no and yes respectively. My76Strat (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be no attack in that edit, but a comment on a debate about process in which your RfA was first brought up by others and the user was noting he thought it was a poor choice for reasons he stated. It was civil and germane to a policy discussion. His 'noted' response to your comment is likewise civil. What I do see is your statement "Should a Wikipedia user be subjected to such an assault that encroaches on liable", which seems borderline WP:NLT territory. -- ۩ Mask 04:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "Strat was as pugnacious as it gets at RFA" is very appropriate. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But pugnacious is not an insult, its a commonly used descriptive. Just this week the Financial Times and the Guardian have both used it in news, not opinion coverage. It describes a fighter, feisty, not willing to back down. These are things some are proud of, others dislike, and nobody claims is abusive. -- ۩ Mask 05:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)c[reply]

Just realized 'appropriate' could have a second meaning, so if i addressed the wrong one I'll point out that a long discussion of fixing RfA was set off with Strat's RfA as an example of one that should have passed. If the user disagrees with that central premise I'd expect him to address it in a way thats not a personal attack by still explains why they think this is incorrect. The user described, in neutral terms, what he had issues with in that regard. And then moved on. -- ۩ Mask 05:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict)My76Strat, in regards to your "encroaches on liable" statement above, please choose your words carefully, especially when dealing with issues such as these. I'm sickened to see all of the jabs taken at your writing, which I find a refreshing divergence from the usual writing styles I see here. I find it to make prolific use of metaphors, which many don't feel like decoding or simply don't make the same connection as you. That being said, the first diff you link, [14], can be interpreted in two ways. AKMask provides one view directly above. However, upon my first reading it, I found it to be insensitive and therefore having the potential to be found offensive. Saying "Jimbo sacrificed a little credibility" by using your RfA as an example for how the process was broken shows that Townlake didn't take your well-being into consideration in that edit. He goes on to state reasons for why he thinks it was justifiable that your RfA did not pass (stating his opinion on your handling of the RfA which in turn led him to interpret your character in that event not fit for adminship) and uses that reasoning to prove his first point on why Jimbo picking your RfA as evidence for the process being broken was not a good choice. However, in the process, he said you were "as pugnacious as it gets" as well as "obvious temperament" which demonstrates gross insensitivity. Whatever opinions one may hold on a matter, statements like those are not going to cut it.

Because we are restrained (I could go further and say "cursed") to communicating in text, many if not all of our intended feelings are often lost in the stages of typing and saving an edit, which is then read and interpreted at face value by the reader. The same can be said to Townlake's second, curt response, "Noted". This was also a poor decision on Townlake's part, which was insensitive at the least and intentionally hurtful at the most. He could have diffused the situation by (sensitively) explaining the edit in question, thereby allaying any fears My76Strat may have had about his intentions when he posted the comment on Jimbo's talk page. Instead, he left much to be desired. I echo RexxS's response to the conversation on his talk page linked above.

I have tried to explain this unambiguously while not elaborating in excessive length; if you would like further clarification, please ask. In conclusion, I urge you, My76Strat, to not take every potentially negative comment personally. It wears you out and doesn't help you in real life, which is more important than the wild place that is the internet. However, this isn't the first time I've seen comments from Townlake that have been insensitive in nature. I urge you, Townlake, to consider others' feelings (yep, we're [well, most of us at least] human editors that have feelings—yes, feeelings!) when posting comments on others. It's basic etiquette that can be easily forgotten and ignored and must be adhered to particularly closely on the internet where text allows for broader interpretation. Airplaneman ✈ 05:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My76Strat, please clarify: What admin action are you requesting?

Alternatively: If - upon reconsideration, and particularly re. the notice at the top here, "Are you in the right place?" - if you decide another venue is more appropriate, please state that here. Best,  Chzz  ►  11:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping by to note I'm aware of this thread. I've stricken the comment, and I see no benefit to discussing this "incident" further. If y'all feel like punishing me, I guess go for it. Townlake (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in seeing anyone punished. I would have preferred to resolve this matter on the talk page where I did make an attempt. And perhaps a lessor venue such as RfC could have been better. My only interest is to mark the effects as they occurred to me. And I think it is well worth noting that my RfA was never mentioned as an example until Townlake made the comparison. Otherwise it was merely focusing on a comment Jimbo had made "RfA is a horrible and broken process" which happened to be posted to my talk page. Never was there a foundation that my RfA was to serve as an example for any purpose. Until Townlake chose to advise against the dangers of lost credibility for the slightest alignment with my name. And to then present as fact, "Strat was" instead of "to me Strat was" as well as the fights I was said to pick. I just felt it was an offensive that professional conduct would not warrant. And I did notice the comment was stricken within short order of filing this ANI which almost gave me cause to withdraw it all together. The reason I decided to allow it to go forward, to hear these good replies based on policy and reasoned empathy, is because the retraction itself states a desire to avoid drama without giving indication as to proper conduct, and correcting an error. I am otherwise fully satisfied with the manner which this ANI has addressed the incident, and in full agreement that its purpose can be said to have been served. And I thank, wholeheartedly, those who have given of their time to provide valuable insight with their comments. I am very appreciative. My76Strat (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To further clarify, I had overlooked the link to resolve issues of civility which indicate WP:WQA as a better venue. And I did intend with choosing "encroaching" to avoid any appearance of of a threat. To the extent my actions are not congruent with my intentions, I apologize. My76Strat (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse that I wish to clarify this additional item. The result of my RfA was never an issue! There exists no platform, explicit or inferred, that it should have passed! The only issue raised is whether or not failing to achieve the criteria for success at RfA has any benefit by diminishing the value of the "person" who had tried. These are the very points being discussed under the thread. How could that context be sufficient to invite such a comment as Townlake was moved to append? And how could, not drawing a clear answer be looked upon as an option? These are the feelings which motivated me to ask for this single incident to be answered. Thanks for also considering these. My76Strat (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result of my RfA was never an issue! This is simply factually incorrect. The first post in the section contains, in prominence, a link to Jimbo commenting about your RfA, speaking about why the result is a problem and what RfA is now. -- ۩ Mask 00:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The prominent result, was a misconception that my value as a contributor was diminished. Not that the RfA had reached the "wrong result". The wrongs that intend to be considered are those which relate to humiliating a candidate for having tried. There simply is no reflection that I should have emerged as SYSOP. Only repeated sentiment that the destructive tendencies had no place. I suggest further that the comment from Townlake is an extension of punitive intent related solely to an attempt at RfA, I had endeavored.

When considering the negative innuendo that might contribute to the loss of an otherwise good contributor, is it impossible not to see that, exactly, this kind of conduct can contribute. Furthermore it is not unreasonable to expect the participants at RfA should be held exemplary in all regards. I approached the RfA as an encounter with an element functioning as cadre to the institutional purpose, which was to identify the kinds of people who could best serve the position being considered. I expected to return to a position of respect with regard to all manners of forward conduct, without accusations based upon RfA interactions. I have in fact interacted with administrators who gave stern admonition for conduct which constituted failure during the RfA. The subsequent interactions outside RfA reinforced however that I was valued at the contributor level.

And then the Townlake comment brings the question to full fruition. Even to the point that I should extend this effort hoping you might see fit to agree. This is exactly the conduct which should curtail if the desire to reduce the exodus associated with RfA is to anticipate success. To the extent I should be admonished further, please advise, because I must also endeavor to correct my own deficiencies, which first must become known. A final thought in this regard is that I miss the opinion of Townlake here, which is the unknown, I most wish I could have known. To the secondary concerns, I am keen, and compelled, but not unambiguously clear, as I would otherwise liked to have been. My76Strat (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are difficult to understand. Can you make clear what administrator tools you wish to be used here? 62.25.109.195 (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tool I wish to be used is the power of reason. And I don't want a false premise to govern its application. There have been statements here that somewhere it was suggested my RfA should have passed. This is not the facts I understand, and if you can show where that has been said please provide a diff. The only thing to my knowledge that has ever been said is that there is no need to destroy the candidates credibility because they didn't achieve SYSOP. Because if those things had happened, I suppose Townlake would have been justified. But that doesn't answer my allegation that it was unprovoked. Other than that close the thread as resolved. My76Strat (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be best to copy this information to the more proper venue WP:WQA, or is it best advised to let it close here? If there was even a way me and Townlake could have a conversation it would be great. but if this is the extent of the matter, I thank each for the time they have shared with helping understang this incident. My76Strat (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ya it's probably best to just let it go here Strat.. -- œ^™ 09:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then that is exactly what I will do, No hard feelings, and much appreciation for the help. My76Strat (talk) 12:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Looking for some assistance regarding the Kansas State University article. A bout a year ago, User:Spacini changed the name of the school in the lead from "Kansas State University" to "Kansas State University of Agriculture and Applied Science". A debate ensued and eventually went to mediation. Spacini opted to not participate in the discussion and the mediation resulted in the article retaining its original name. In retrospect, I believe Spacini moved along, but, when I got involved, I believed an IP was Spacini (violation of WP:GOODFAITH on my part?), but in any case, while I may be in error, more than one IP editor has gotten involved and their actions are WAY over the line with regards to civility.

No. Just one. Me, myself, and I. (this comment interjected by User:24.143.39.73)

Um, you claimed you use more than one IP, not me; I'm just reiterating the claim. Lastly, please sign your posts (if you've been editing since 2004, you should know this) and please post within your own comments and do not break up other users' comments. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, there are two issues in regards to this article. The first is the gross incivility involved. While I believe this is normally warranting a block (and warnings have been issued), this person seems to be hopping between IPs. The next best option I see is to protect/semi-protect the page until civility issues can be resolved. I personally don't care which version of the page is kept, but the incivility needs to stop; users attempting to abide by the mediation do not need to be told to "f*** off", "Get f***ed", "you anti-intellectual f***s. I leave s*** alone for weeks, hoping someone will have the gumption to f***ing research f***ing facts", etc.

Man, it's deserved. Do you have any comprehension of what you're doing to the totality of human understanding? I doubt it. (this comment interjected by User:24.143.39.73)

I helped build several articles that were featured on the main page. I think I'm doing fine. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second issue is the content and which version of the name should be kept. While the IP involved has cited Kansas state law for the extended name, I cannot verify any of their claims without links (and they have been requested). Those on the other side of the aisle point to many reliable sources while are readily verifiable online. Given this information, I believe the body of available evidence leads to keeping the article in its current state.

Really? How lazy are you? Pull up google and type in the statute. That ain't difficult. Or is it? Are you a simpleton? (this comment interjected by User:24.143.39.73) ((I am restoring several comments by the IP in the hope that admins will be motivated to deal with it, says Sharktopus)) Sharktopus^talk 00:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I and others have. You may indeed have a point, but that is being lost in your rants and completely inappropriate behavior. present your information in a format we can read (perhaps give us a link?). I find it hard to believe you've been editing for 7 years and this is the first problem you've had where you needed to provide a WP:RS. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look forward to your assistance. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant previous discussion occureed at WP:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-02-01/Kansas_State_University. I think the policy WP:COMMONNAME covers this: "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name." Sharktopus^talk 17:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but that only covers part of the issue. The first half is the over-the-top incivility. How best to address that? An IP block seems useless. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was in recent changes, saw the edit summary [15], put in some effort, and added to the talk page, with what I think is the appropiate reference, and gave suggested a compromise [16]; it was blanked, and while it may have been collateral damage as discussed with the previous mediator, whom I gave a heads up to the flare up [17], I've reqested feedback from BQZip01 and heard....nothing. If I can put it back, I'd like know; if it's uncivil, since the blanking was labeled such, I'd like to know that, too. I still think it was probably collateral damage, but being ignored makes that seem less likely as time goes by. Dru of Id (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My post has been restored (thanks, BQZip01), but I will note here: at no point in the statute are they used interchangeably. Dru of Id (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Yeah, it was an edit conflict and I guess I missed your comments when fixing it (?!?). Sorry about that. As for the "real name" My point is that Kansas state law uses both Kansas State University and Kansas State University of Agriculture and Applied Science to refer to the same institution. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And again, as I stated on the talk page, (the heading, by the way, from the site, and therefore not necessarily statutorily correct), athough I admit I haven't found a comparable Kansas state government version, at no place in the statutes themselves is it anything less than the full long name. But it should be good now, anyways, although I see that there was further drama. Dru of Id (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For fuck's sake. The appeal to the most commonly recognizable form is valid for redirects. Beyond that, ... fuck this. I'm going to "vandalize" this site from here on out by removing incorrect information and inserting correct information. To start, I'm going to keep correcting the misinformation perpetuated by some very stupid individuals. I'm certain to be banned for it. (this comment interjected by User:24.143.39.73)

Why are you cussing like that? It's not the end of the world whether an article gets one name or another, is it? Relax and just have fun with editing or take a break if you can't. -- Avanu (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For someone from a University, you'd think they'd be capable of making their point without resorting to profanity. I weep for the American education system. HalfShadow 01:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "actively aiding the dumbing-down of humanity". Ironic, ain't it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't wait until he does his thesis; it'll probably consist of him shouting "Fuck!" for twenty minutes... HalfShadow 01:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be poorly received in Kansas. They'd probably give him an F. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP based in Lawrence, and it could be he's just annoyed because University of Kansas was knocked out of the NCAA tournament. It seems unlikely he's a sock of Spacini. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edits themselves happened before the game, but not the profanity spree here. Interesting... Kansan (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a way to check whether this IP is also Spacini? The IP is not only wrong about the name, but also over-the-top rude and disruptive. I know at some message boards I've posted on in the past, they did range blocks on IPs that acted this way. Is that possible here? If so, I think this IP is a prime candidate for that type of thing. LHM 05:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • They initiated an SPI, but it was rejected. I don't know that the profanity-laced approach is Spacini's style anyway. However, it is alleged that manipulating the data IS his style. It is alleged[18] that Spacini changed the data on the Kansas State history page to conform to the way he wants the wikipedia article to read. Thus, unfortunately, rendering their website useless as a valid source for most anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another IP tried the same thing today. The article probably needs to be semi'd for awhile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My dad went to KSU so I saw this and felt I had to comment. This issue is important to me and also illustrates whats wrong with Wikipedia. When the person did not go through mediation, then the mediation should have tried to consider all of the points of both sides. Rudeness should count again an editor but the facts should determine the case.

I know KSU. KSU is the usual name but the "of Agriculture and Applied Science" is a valid name too. We should try to decide if there is a rule and to apply it to all articles consistenly. Instead, we resort to accusations of sockpuppetry. This is typical bad behavior so common in wikipedia...accuse those you don't like with being a sock. Granted that guy is rude but those who oppose him have faults.

If this is still an issue, it should be revisited. KSU is probably the best title but having the full name is probably the best for the first sentence. Ksuoaas (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a moment there. I admitted I might have been hasty, but when someone comes along and edits something in the same manner as someone else and hops between IPs (but adamantly refuses to get a user name so we can tell who is who), I think it is reasonable to consider the fact that a sockpuppet may be involved. As mentioned above, multiple IPs are now involved and, perhaps it may not be Spacini, but it may be someone else.

Let us also consider your comments about mediation. While mediation may not have come to the best conclusion, when two sides are invited to participate and only one side presents any evidence, it isn't hard to understand why they came to the wrong conclusion. If someone is sent to court on a charge of murder and the prosecution presents all the evidence unopposed (despite the defense having incotrovertable evidence that the prosecution is wrong), you cannot blame the jury for reaching the wrong conclusion. You blame the defense/client. The mediation was willing to consider all sides, but no opposing views were presented.

Lastly, we do have a rule regarding this: WP:COMMONNAME. That doesn't mean that the official name should not be presented, but that doesn't mean we delete the common name we've chosen to use and insert the relatively obscure legal name with no context or without references. I would have had ZERO issues with helping to include this information, but instead, the discussion started with "you anti-intellectual f***s..." and went downhill from there. This kind of elitist attitude is ALSO the bane of WP: "experts" who have no tact. Simply present your information, let people digest it and understand it. We cannot allow people to violate every componenet of WP:CIVIL, the mere basics of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:3RR, WP:EDITWAR, and a host of other key tenets of WP. This user has no one to blame but himself for the end result of the article; his behavior is completely out of line.

FWIW, I edited the article a short time ago to incorporate the points brought up. This could all have been addressed on the talk page and this whole mess avoided if said user had taken the time to discuss points in a civil manner; we can't tolerate this kind of behavior no matter if the person is right or wrong. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continued disruption

Request a block of the IP for gross incivility:

"When incivility rises to the level of disruption, personal attacks, [or] harassment...blocks may be employed, as explained in those policies."

Evidence: [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

He also has access to other IPs which should be investigated and given the same effective treatment.

Warnings galore have been issued (User_talk:24.143.39.73).

Enough is enough. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin please look over the recent activity of Igny (talk · contribs)? He seems to me to be more of a disruptive influence then a constructive one at the somewhat contentious and long-winded discussions occurring at Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states. Maybe if someone could talk him down, that discussion could stand a chance of reaching some sort of conclusion.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did[26]. Although, frankly speaking, I see no disruption here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do not think that moving an article without consensus is disruptive? Or making spurious 3RR reports? Or breaking 3r himself to war a POV tag into the article? He is being very disruptive. Tentontunic (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Physician, heal thyself...--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, are congratulations in order, are you an admin now? But thanks for your intervention with Igny. The sooner editors stay off admin talk pages and away from "reporting" each other, the sooner we can discuss whatever editorially irks us. Really, if things don't improve I'm going to request a six month ban on soliciting admin intervention and "reporting" editors on all EE topics and widely construed. Or, we could try it ourselves and stick to debating the issues at hand, and without reasoning which, after all is peeled away, resolves itself to: "My sources are impeccable, therefore editor X is 'disruptive' because they don't agree." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't want to get any more involved in this, but I just wanted to leave one last comment here. I wanted to state that the WP:RM is the only thing that brought me to the page. Once I landed there and read through the reams of comments in the actual "Requested move" section, I started looking around at the rest of the page and surrounding events. The two EW reports (to date) are symptomatic of the combative environment which currently exists here, and I see the RM as a precursor symptom of that environmental problem. As Peters (User:Vecrumba) notes above, the "occupation" page at the center of this is an Eastern European topic. I'm only vaguely aware of the fact that an arbcom case took place surrounding the topic, so I'll leave it to those of you who actually know what's up with that to draw your own conclusions about all of this. It looks to me as though several people here need something said to them, though. It might be good for everyone to simply step away from that article for a week or so, and come back to the issues with a fresh perspective. Other then that, I wish everyone the best, and hope you all can work it out. Regards,
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hop (film)#References is a lengthy list that contains a large number of links to Amazon, Wal-Mart and other commercial sites that confirm the existence of certain products but are also sales pages where one can buy those products.

I understand that under WP:ELNO, we cannot point External links to pages that primarily exist to sell a product. However, I've been told by a colleague editor (not involved with the Hop page in any way) that he reads WP:EL to say that since that page only refers to ELs, that commercial sales links are perfectly usable as footnote references. It seems anti-intuitive to me that links not allowed as "further reading" ELs would be allowed for the more stringent References. It also seems as if it would open the door to abuse to have the fifth-most-visited Internet site readily available to point to one's sales page.

Is there any consensus on commercial/sales sites being used for References? Thanks for any information. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the sales links in queston come from the retailers responsible for the sales (as they do here) then they're primary sources and ideally should be replaced. Nevertheless, they're reliable enough (assuming the retailer is assumed to be, as Amazon is), and so are fine on a temporary basis. Facts worth noting are worth secondary sources, though. This probably belongs on WP:RSN rather than ANI as not admin action is required. Best following up there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That section is borderline spam. For the most part, if the notability of those products can't be documented from secondary sources, they shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. Also, if the amazon links stay even temporarily, they should be cleaned up (remove the session numbers). Note: I fixed a typo in your link, so it works now. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. I'm still a little confused — the "temporary basis" thing in particular, since we don't have a little bracketed thing like <nowik>^{[citation needed]}</nowiki> for that. My impression is that a site we shouldn't link to is a site we shouldn't link to, for any length of time. Any thoughts? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead issue. I've replaced all the retailer links (I hope) to articles about the merchandise, or (in one case) a PR release announcing the product. It's very, very rarely appropriate to use retailer links as sources -- I'd be tempted to say never, but I suppose sometimes they may turn out to be the most useful way to demonstrate a product's existence or a market price. Now for the question that jumps out at me: Why is there a scary Patti Smith on the soundtrack to this film? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article on Malia Ann Obama. I know Obama is hated by some but that is no reason for Cunard to keep blanking out the article and making it a redirect. The article is long and has many references. There is an AFD debate. The AFD warning box says not to remove it but Cunard keeps removing it and blanking the page.

The basic problem was that it used to be a redirect 3 years ago when Malia was an unknown. Since then, several people have written the article. All of sudden...boom...it gets blanked out. There is an AFD. Discuss it there, I would think, not keep blanking the article. Kewlarticle (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked around and I thing the sensible thing to do would be to have a discussion on the WP:redirects for discussion. But the article should be kept, not blanked, until that discussion is completed. Otherwise, people can't see what they are discussing.

What we should NOT do is to let people blank the page and try to shove the discussion in some obscure discussion page of ANOTHER article (and they themselves don't discuss, just blank it out).

My teacher said that there are a lot of hot heads in Wikipedia and people don't discuss things like they should. I will tell her what I did and see if she is right. Because I will inform her, I will cease to post anymore in Wikipedia. I hope Wikipedia proves her wrong (by discussing thinks and not having people blank out articles). Kewlarticle (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Kewlarticle started, with his eighth edit, a completely meritless AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Bouvier Kennedy (3rd nomination) involving an article he did not want redirected and an unrelated article. He is probably a sockpuppet given his bizarrely selective knowledge of Wikipedia terminology and procedures (i.e., he had no problem posting a third AFD nomination for an article but expressed ignorance at the use of talk pages to resolve editing disputes), but in any event it is clear from the AFD nom and his escalating rants there that this is pure disruption. postdlf (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See how nasty this accusation is. In school, we are allowed to see Wikipedia but we cannot write it. So I've read Wikipedia for several years. My teacher says people are much nastier here and that when someone gets a job, they mustn't act like they see in Wikipedia.

I saw in the AFD board that a few people vote "merge and redirect". This is a valid vote so I can't see while those who blank the page don't just discuss it like rational people. But as I said, I will present this to my teacher to see if her "hothead" theory is true. So as not to contaminate the results, I will stop commenting in about 2 minutes. Kewlarticle (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history, the problem is that you are trying to override a previous decision to keep the article as a redirect. Using the AFD in this type of situation is procedurally wrong - hence the reason it is being reverted to a redirect and why Cunard is free to ignore that message. As has been stated on the AFD discussion (which really doesn't mean anything) you should first start a discussion on the Family of Barack Obama page to expand the redirect into a full article, instead of doing what you are doing now - revert warring - to override established consensus. --MASEM (t) 04:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BUT I see your point Masem but I did not override any decision. The article was there so I did more editing. Then when someone goes BOOM, blank it out, that is wrong. They should discuss it and only redirect after there is consensus. Since this is a vote in AFDs called "merge and redirect", I thought that's the best way.

It is very destructive to blank out an article.

It is also bizarre to be discussing an article on another article's discussion page. Boy, the way people act are not systematic and logical, I'll have to ask my teacher that in the morning. Bye. Kewlarticle (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OBJECTIVE TIME LINE

• article written in 2009.
• article redirected but there is no talk page discussion.
• article re-written on March 10.
• 17 days of it being re-written. The status quo is now an article.
• Boom, article blanked out. If they didn't want it, then since any discussion is 2 years ago, they should start discussing it on the talk page but they did not. That's where we should pick up. Or have an AFD where you can vote "merge and redirect". Blanking an article and calling for a discussion on ANOTHER talk page is bizarre.
• I also see that NONE of the people who blanked the article discussed it on the talk page or on the talk page of another article (some Family article)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kewlarticle (talk • contribs) 04:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One final comment. I think I have the good solution. I will run this by my teacher to see if I am fair and neutral.

I have voted "keep" in the AFD. Since I nominated the AFD, an administrator can close it as "speedy keep". Some administrator can then make sure the article is kept BUT, in the mean time, start a discussion in the WP:Redirects for discussion. They shouldn't blank it out because that would taint the redirect discussion. The alternative is to continue the AFD and have people vote either "keep", "delete" (probably not), or "merge, redirect". Kewlarticle (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, WP:Redirects for discussion does not serve the purpose you're asking for - that's meant to delete or rename redirects, not to instantiate a article over a redirect. That's what talk pages of the pages that redirects point to should be used for.

As to your "history", the fact that the article has been a redirect for several months doesn't get "overruled" by the fact it was edited on March 10 and only reverted back to a redirect recently. There is discussion on Talk:Family of Barack Obama about the need (or lack thereof) for the article on his children, and there appears to be no recent discussion to counter the use of redirects at this time. You need to gain consensus there before creating something against consensus. --MASEM (t) 04:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

← May I remind everyone that this is covered under the Obama-related article probation and this disruption is subject to ArbCom's sanctions. There is long-standing consensus to not have stand-alone articles for Malia or Sasha Obama, and instead redirect them to Family of Barack Obama. This has been discussed more than once, and the specific (and irrelevant) tieing of the Obama children to Patrick Bouvier Kennedy has also been discussed. I suspect that there is heavy-duty socking going on here, and I would ask that this be looked into. The "I'm going to ask my teacher" narrative also has been used here before, and I believe is misdirection and utter nonsense. Tvoz/talk 06:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, why not fully protect the redirect. Such a move would not prevent discussion of the issue on the redirect's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 07:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Tvoz/talk 07:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Redirect fully protected. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. John lilburne (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've fully protected the Sasha Obama redirect per this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the OP: Children of celebs ought to be afforded privacy, particularly they are in the public eye simply because of who there parents are, and ought to be allowed to grow up just like any other kid. Almost everything that is written about them is gossip, trivia, and ephemera. It will hardly ever have an long term relevance and will almost always be unencyclopaedic. John lilburne (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not to say that they will stay as redirects forever. It may be that at some point in the future Obama's children will attain notability in their own right. At which point, the issue of whether or not an article can be sustained may be addressed again. Mjroots (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chris. John lilburne and Mjroots, exactly right. Those are precisely the conclusions reached by consensus of the editors over there, several times. Hopefully this action will get the disruptor(s?) to move on. We appreciate the back-up here. Tvoz/talk 16:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just edited another issue but the problem is the same here. When people disagree in Wikipedia, they very often stop discussing and just accuse the other side of being a sock. As far as I'm concerned, this is a sign that the person has a weak position.

I can see both sides. Actually there are 3 sides. One says kids should not be covered. Another says this is a public figure. A third side is that President Obama has an opinion and some support that whether or not it meets Wikipedia standards.

It seems that there has been an AFD, a proposed redirect noticeboard discussion, and ANI. Seems like one side (the redirect side) is being heavy handed trying to force discussion into a somewhat obscure article talk page. A good way to resolve this would be to decide on the proper forum. Based on comments, it seems like AFD is the correct forum. Those are supposed to last 7 days.

I know, as is the custom, that people will be unable to disgree with me civilly and call me a sock. This is an insult as I am more articulate than the OP. Besides, I don't have an opinion on keep or not, just that this hasn't been handled well. When things are not handled well, it prolongs the problem, not resolves it. Ksuoaas (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, this has been handled exactly right. I forgot to mention here that you'd be coming back in complaining about people calling you a sock, under a brand new account, and that you'd pepper other places with the same nonsense. You've done it so many times before, I thought maybe you'd have gotten bored. Tvoz/talk 23:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who is thinking about a certain prolific sockpuppeteer obsessed with Obama? {{checkuser needed}} - Kewlarticle (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Ksuoaas (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), please. T. Canens (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you are not the only one at all. See here. Kewlarticle has been blocked as a sock of the banned user, as have a bunch of others via checkuser. Ksuoaas "appears" unrelated, but as the veterans of the Derek wars know, this happens sometimes, but does not necessarily mean it's not him. Means we have to watch behavior. At this point, eyes are on, and we'll see what happens. Tvoz/talk 20:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thanks. T. Canens (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I logged on today to find that Gregorik (talk · contribs) had first added the following to the Diva Zappa talk page [27], then added a notability template to the article [28], then blanked paragraphs of information, including two of the reliable sources used to help establish notability [29]. The article survived an AfD a little over a year ago, so prevailing consensus was that the subject met the GNG. After I undid the blanking, commented at the talk page and warned him to not blank cited information, he blindly reverted me, even marking this as minor [30]. Further warnings on his talk page were blanked by him, and then he began using a mocking tone. Someone who has been editing here since 2007 should know better than to blank references from articles and then respond with taunts. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He also appears to be engaged in an ongoing revert war with various IPs and accounts at Free Grace theology in violation of WP:OWN. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His stance appears to be somewhat slanted, I did no ill deed, but judge for yourselves. I wasn't mocking him. I do reserve the right to delete undue threats from my talkpage. And it's 2005, not 2007 (when I started here). Thank you. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 13:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If by "slanted" you mean "in favor of guidelines and policies as they stand as opposed to blanking references to make an otherwise acceptable article appear to fail notability", then guilty as charged. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some things I do stem from my taking part in WP:Countering systemic bias, a very neglected, but uber-important WikiProject. Wikipedia is almost hopelessly full of systemic bias, and articlas like Diva Zappa prove it. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 14:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have some of whatever you're smoking? What does systemic bias have to do with a this article? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much to do with it. I'm sorry you don't realize. "Critics of Wikipedia accuse it of systemic bias and inconsistencies (including undue weight given to popular culture)" (Wikipedia). Puffed-up pop culture articles like that one are the slow death of WP. Stuck-up officious behavior that tries to protect these unmerited articles based on rigid policies ("significant coverage" justified by a single NYTimes article etc.) only does damage. On a different note, I'm never "edit warring", not in the Free Grace article, not elsewhere. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 14:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be the WP:Countering systemic bias which is explicitly to "remedy omissions (entire topics, or particular sub-topics in extant articles) rather than on either (1) protesting inappropriate inclusions, or (2) trying to remedy issues of how material is presented"? Yes, Wikipedia overrepresents recent events and English-speaking countries, but the solution to that is to expand coverage of other areas, not to get rid of anything you happen to disapprove of. – iridescent 14:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"justified by a single NYTimes article" is proof you haven't even read the article. If notability was based on a single NYT article, it would have been deleted at the second AfD over a year ago. I don't see any NYT article used in Diva Zappa... did you mean LA Times? What we do have is three newspaper articles and two full magazine features, one in a knitting magazine and the other in a fashion magazine. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was speaking in general terms when I said "a single NYTimes article." Fine, let's make it 3 newspaper articles. She's still not encyclopedia material (and there are thousands like her on here). Your counter-arguments strengthen my own argument. But if I am the only one who objects unmerited daughter/son/spouse-of-rock-hero articles, I rest my case. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 14:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you can add WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to the list of guidelines you're either violating or don't understand. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article has been to AFD twice, if you disagree Gregorik, that is the correct forum - if you think you can bring a new argument to the table that has not been raised before. As it is, I'm not sure I can see valid rationale for deleting that material from the page... it seems sourced & germane, unless something else can be raised against it? As to Free Grace theology, could someone explain the issues there in more detail? It looks like an under trafficked article which is has heavy IP editing to it; has any attempt at discussion occurred? If not, why not? All of these discussion is for the relevant talk pages though; avoid edit warring and follow the WP:BRD process. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 15:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gregorik, this image seems to sum up your position and there's a lot of people who agree with you. However, I don't think the solution is to open up a can of whupass on one "crufty" article or even a whole lot of "crufty" articles. Doing so will only have you banging your head against the wall. The solution is to write more "actually useful stuff". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Been banging my head against the wall for years, and you're right that I should stop, and I do stop. To quote myself from the Diva Zappa talkpage, "no use in reverting or AfD, because fluff is here to stay". I'm familiar with that image, and I think it's right-on. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 11:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, i don't see this as fitting the category "crufty". It's that far more sneered-at category "subject more popular with women than with men". If editors really want to bring more women into the project they might think about losing the contempt for such subjects, and maybe even stop interpreting "notability is not related" to "women (and only women, and only ever women) who are related to a notable man are never notable unless they prove themselves in a traditionally male-approved field, WP:GNG be damned". --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 08:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used quotes around "crufty" because I meant it in a general sense, to describe what some editors view as "not useful stuff". I saw Gregorik use the term "systemic bias" and I suspected that this might have been the start of a "crusade" against cruft"not useful stuff". Now I have worked at AFD for years where a lot of these "cruftbusting crusades" have played out and I have seen the "crufbusters" burn out, retire, get topic banned etc. while the "cruft" stays. (User:TTN comes to mind). That's why I think that it's better (and probably a lot less stressful) that those concerned about "not useful stuff" just let the "fanboys" have their "cruft" (as long as it's verifiable cruft) and just simply go write more "useful stuff". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have normally nothing against "subjects more popular with women than with men", as long as they go a little deeper than In Touch Weekly material; say, Susan Sontag or Simone de Beauvoir. Diva Zappa's career in knitting may also appeal more to women than men, but belongs in a magazine, not an encyclopedia. But like I said, I'm done opposing. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 11:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you also done assuming bad faith and making personal attacks, as you did here [31] a short while ago? Or is that going to continue from time to time as some sort of ego compensation? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calling you a fanboy is not that bad; not really mala fide and not really an attack. Would an admin please close this case? ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 19:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) continually engages in editing that is driven and aggressive. Although I agree with and believe in being BOLD, this editor seems to typically minimize or ignore community input, trivializing editors and content that he disagrees with, or simply BOLDLY making changes despite objections. I have reposted my latest attempt to communicate with this editor, who makes literally dozens or hundreds of changes a day on Wikipedia, but seems generally unwilling to engage the community. I have seen this pattern emerge in the last few months, since I began editing on Wikipedia again.

Others have brought complaints: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive42#User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29_refuses_to_discuss_disputed_edits

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive100#User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive67#Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive64#User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29

And also, here is an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SchuminWeb#Ruggles_Prize

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#PROD_abuse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ruggles_Prize

Mr. Norton contested a PROD and then accused the editor who nominated it of abuse, and then finally jumped into the conversation hours (and dozens of edits) later.

As yet, I can see no change in this behavior. Below, as I indicated, is my latest attempt.

Richard Norton - please seek consensus

I know you have to have these pages on your watchlists. And we have an editor above who is questioning the scope of the word diaspora, and immediately thereafter, you go to work on the article adding an expanded definition.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norwegian_diaspora&diff=next&oldid=421156474

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norwegian_diaspora&diff=next&oldid=421156742

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norwegian_diaspora&diff=next&oldid=421156921

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norwegian_diaspora&diff=next&oldid=421157162

But why are you so averse to actually discussing this on the Talk page? This is the problem that I am trying to address with your editing. It is simply a one-sided thing that you choose to ignore others, and it isn't that you are not available, you have hundreds of pages on your Watchlist, and you make dozens to hundreds of changes to Wikipedia every day. So instead of getting support, you just decide. I don't see any references to support the changes made above. I actually went out and checked Google in order to answer the editor above. I am strongly in favor of reverting all the above edits, but I don't want to become an edit warrior, I want to see my fellow editor take the time to actually engage in the community. The above edits, and several others I have taken note of recently, in this editor's opinion have taken on an air of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, and I feel that it needs to be addressed. -- Avanu (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For example, "Norwegian New Zealander (Norwegian:Norsknewzealendere) are New Zealanders of Norwegian ancestry, the majority of these people were part of the Norwegian diaspora."

Later in the article it makes a mention of two settlements one starting in 1868 and the other in 1872. It also mentions emigration from Norway died down.

In the edits you added, you still haven't provided an answer to the editor above, and I am reluctant to modify the first paragraph ("The Norwegian diaspora consists of Norwegian emigrants and their descendants") without consensus to remove "and their descendants". -- Avanu (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• RFCU is the proper venue for this. Immediate administrative action to address the alleged problems is incredibly unlikely to happen. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with thumperward; this complaint is not about an incident. Please take it to WP:RFC/U. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will happily endorse an RfcU filed about this user in relation to his editing behavior, and I don't think I'm the only one.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to say that an RfCU will probably generate far more heat than light given that past ones on ARS members do little more than attract friends to support, but then I might be accused of being an antiARSite because I'm generalizing based on observed activity. Tarc (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using first -- my intuition (ended up at 3RR), and second -- the advice of admin Sandstein (he was being neutral about it), to him it sounded like I needed to file such a complaint at WP:Disruptive Editing (which I think is here). But if RfCU is the right place, we can try again. Again, I am not really interested in anything more than hopefully persuading Richard to work a little more with the community and less as a supersonic torpedo, zipping through articles at light speed -- which typically seems to leave a bad impression with many editors. -- Avanu (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a vastly clearer-cut case of RFC/U being the appropriate forum than the above case on Noleander, and to be honest I'm confused as to why both you and Tarc seemed considerably more sanguine in that case (where there was, and is, a reasonable chance of administrative action being both possible and likely to have an effect) than in this one (an editor whose actions on one particular article are of far less concern than his general modus operandi whcih happens to be supported by a bunch of like-minded users). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 20:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, Sandstein thought this was the proper place for a notification of WP:DR (fixed from DU to DR after checking). It can be moved to whatever forum or section is most fitting. -- Avanu (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate any help in making sure I actually properly file it this time. Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the RfC/U at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), and since I have never done one before, I can only hope it was done correctly. Please feel free to respond to this as you see fit. Also, thank you for advice and guidance for properly filing such cases. -- Avanu (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – indefblocked by --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeker02421 (talk · contribs) is an interesting character who has shown a longterm patter of introducing commentary into the Yahweh. The locus of the of the disruption is the user feels the common transliteration of "Yahweh" is incorrect in Hebrew as it "does not exist in any hebrew manuscript." This user is famous at Talk:Yahweh for producing largely semi-coherent rants Sample 1Sample 2 The most trouble some aspect is introducing rants in the article space and has been the most frustating to try and get the user stop. The editor either ignores this or asks us to disprove the point in his commentary. I am listing all recent examples here

• Latest Today March 28 2011 included "THERE IS NO HEBREW SPELLING OF "Y-a-h-w-e-h" THAT CAN BE FOUND IN ANY EXTANT HEBREW MANUSCRIPT ON THE PLANET EARTH."
• Feb 2 2011 included "it is possible that text found in this Wikipedia Article:Yahweh" may be completely "verifiable" according to the best 2011 sources, yet it still may not be absolutely true" and was Warned by ResidentAnthropologist
• January 31st "Since Wikipedia's policy remains "Verification not truth" I do not presently know of any Wikipedia rule that would prevent discussing the diety "Yahweh" as He is described in the New Jerusalem Bible on this Wikipedia Article:Yahweh!"

Thier talk page reveals this has been going on for quite a while and no amount talking or warning is getting the message through. I dont know if topic ban is appropriate or straigh out indefinite block but nothing seems to be working. The editor only drops in for maybe an edit or two month so anything and its almost always to insert this material in Yaweh. I cant find one constructive contribution to the article space in awhile. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 17:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaving aside the content of his contributions, he's basically putting talk-page commentary on the content directly into the article. Assuming he's been warned not to do that, it ought to be treated as deliberate vandalism and be met with reversion and accelerating blocks. That's probably enough for now.--Scott Mac 18:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repeated pattern repeated warnings hist talk page indicates the pattern of warning rather well. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 18:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. You've issued a final warning. Block him next time. His contributions are all to that article, so an indef block is likely to result in him simply creating a new account. Better to try to teach compliance by escalating blocks.--Scott Mac 18:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Facepalm That "final warning" was last month the last time he added it. He did again today that why I bought it here The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 20:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I read that warnings are proposed. However, this issue has been going on for at least two full years now. Seeker02421 comes up with his rubbish every few months, then he gets warned and sometimes banned for a few days. But he always comes back. I have conducted lengthy discussions with him but even after all this time the point of his argument still escaped me. His position seems to be that the identification of the biblical god depends on the usage of the "right" spelling. He seems to claim that if the name is different then another deity is meant. I think permanent ban would be the right procedure (there have been numerous "final" warnings already) ♆ CUSH ♆ 22:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Enough. There is no excuse for Seeker's behaviour. This is pure disruption; and as people have noted above, just the latest in an endless stream of disruption on this page from this user. The article takes account of his concern in sentence 2, which I thought he was happy with. Yet we're back to this nonsense again. This is not an attempt to enhance the encylopedia. It's gone on long enough; he's been warned enough. He's not some wet-behind-the-ears newbie editor. He knows full well what he's doing, and it needs to end. At the very least, we need to be looking at an indefinite topic ban from the community here. But given (as ScottMac points out above) that this is the only article he seems to show any interest in, perhaps the simplest thing just to do what Cush says and go straight to a permanent ban. I'm usually pretty liberal, and would usually argue for as low level approach as possible. But in this case enough is enough. Jheald (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • It could very well be a month or two before Seeker signs in agian their edit are infrequent at best. I suggest blocking indefinitely (but hopefully not permanently) and only allow an unblock if Seeker agrees to not repeat this behavior of inserting this commentary in the article. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 05:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be enough warnings on the talkpage. Given his hit and run tendencies, I have indefblocked - any admin is free to lift block as soon as user shows some kind of CLUE that adding this kind of material directly into the article is disruptive. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope fully this whack with the Cluebat will do the trick The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 16:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seank100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is refusing to listen to reason. As well as an open SPI investigation here, Seank100 has spent the last few days removing sourced content from The X Factor (U.S.) without explaination. He left a feable attempt on the article's talk page to justify his actions, saying that he works for Simon Cowell and that Cowell asked him to modify the article. Despite being reverted by multiple editors the user has blanked their talk page numerous times. Rather than clog this page up with all the revisions that have happened, I'll put the most recent removals of songs, here (4 edits removing stuff). Intervention is required as there is a clear reluctance to co-operate with others. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also am replacing content of his edits. As stated, he removes content with no reason. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the user is now persisting in the removal of discussions on the article's talk page... — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As well as removing a warning for same from his own Talk page (which, of course, is allowed...but, IMO, should be frowned upon.) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

99.125.86.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This is a contentious topic and needs some discussion, and possibly a delete, move, merge, redirect or something. But we have an edit-warring IP who is repeatedly blanking it and replacing it with a claim that Islam didn't exist before the 9th century - two people, including me, have now reverted the blanking and asked the IP to discuss it first, but they don't seem to be much in the mood for talking. I don't want to take any admin action myself, as I am involved in the content disagreement (albeit only in an attempt to get it discussed before action is taken) - and I'm off to bed very shortly. So it would be great if someone else could keep an eye on it and take whatever action might be needed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC) (updated -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

(Editing during my lunchtime) This discussion here may have something to do with this matter; it is too much of a coincidence, I think. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that "article" need some kind of context as to how it relates to Muslim history, as well as sourcing of SOME kind? Corvus cornix_talk 18:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no - the sources are in the articles of the subjects listed. Like listing "19th Century Philosophers", the references are to be found in the individuals entries in their articles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've always felt that kind of "sourcing" was sloppy. Making people jump through to other articles and trying to figure out on their own how it applies to the current article is just unprofessional, and makes it much easier to fudge sources. Mind you, unless it's controversial I suppose it doesn't really matter. But it's not a practice we should be encouraging. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following editors have, IMO, gamed the system to have their way when the broader Wikipedia community opposed a move request, something which all of them had supported.

• Mar4d (talk · contribs · block log)
• Athenean (talk · contribs · block log)
• Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · block log)
• Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs · block log)
• Huon (talk · contribs · block log)

Neutral and uninvolved administrators are requested to evaluate the situation, rectify it (by deleting List of South Asian inventions and discoveries and restoring List of Indian inventions and discoveries to a state where content was not removed due to "duplication") and take appropriate action against the editors per WP:GAME and WP:FAITACCOMPLI.

Timeline

• Around March 19th, Fowler&fowler made a move request to move the article titled List of Indian inventions and discoveries to List of South Asian inventions and discoveries (which was a redlink till very recently).

• By March 27, the move request had more or less failed but it was still open when Fowler&fowler encouraged User:Mar4d to go ahead and create List of South Asian inventions and discoveries. Mar4d did so soon afterward.

• On the basis of this newly created article/list, Gun Powder Ma started removing content from the original List of Indian inventions and discoveries calling it "double entries" because the same or similar content now existed in the newly created List of South Asian inventions and discoveries.

• Because the move request was still open and newer people were still arriving at the discussion to oppose the move ("WP:FAITACCOMPLI", 2nd oppose, "no consensus"), I pointed out that this was a case of gaming the system and WP:FAITACCOMPLI (also pointed out by another editor) and reverted the removals. My revert was then undone by User:Athenean.

Zuggernaut (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I was fooled by the proposed move template, which states: "The discussion may be closed after 7 days of being opened, if consensus has been reached." Seven days had elapsed, and consensus seemed to have been reached on a proposal almost everyone agreed on before the first of the "new" oppose !votes Zuggernaut links to arrived. RegentsPark pointed out that Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions actually has a little more to say, which I acknowledged here. I still don't think that implementing a solution which at that time almost anybody but Zuggernaut agreed on counts as gaming the system. Huon (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I too was under the impression that a valid consensus had been reached on the talkpage (Not counting a couple of !votes, it was 8-2 or something like that at the time). Moreover, Zuggernaut's revert undid several valid, unrelated intervening edits, which I found inappropriate. Combined with the absence of any talkpage posting by this editor, but instead canvassing [32] [33], and spurious accusations of "gaming the system", I deemed his revert disruptive and undid it. In general, it is my impression Zuggernaut has been disruptive in this discussion, as he has canvassed [34] in non-neutral fashion (note the wording), launched into personal attacks against others [35] [36], and largely been absent from the discussion only to return a week later to claim "consensus" (and then more canvassing). Athenean (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and support positions were running neck and neck right from the start and at almost no stage of the move proposal was there any consensus. So even before the new votes arrived it was clear that the move was doomed. As for Athenean and you not understanding the text in the move template ("The discussion may be closed after 7 days...) and pursuing another 'solution' with an identical title could have be viewed as a problem of competence if [you were newbies but given that both of you have thousands of edits on Wikipedia over the years, it is a clear case of gaming the system. You should be topic banned from editing articles on Indian history. I see that revert/edit warring has been a pattern with Athenean as is reflected by his block logs. More recently this person received an interaction ban as a part of Wikipedia:ARBMAC enforcement. A topic ban on Athenean will help us all keep the focus on improving articles in the limited time we have. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if anyone needs to be topic banned for the sake of progress, it is you, for canvassing, assumptions of bad faith, major incivility and general disruption on this topic (and now mudslinging by bringing up something completely unrelated to this topic). Talk about gaming the system. Athenean (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be under the impression that you will get away by obfuscating the situation. Let's wait until what other admins have to say and if either of us are not satisfied with the outcome of ANI, we can start take it through WP:DRR where Fowler is headed anyway and you can come along as well. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Zuggernaut, was not a part of the regular discussion on the Talk:List of Indian inventions and discoveries page. He has an old gripe with me from the Talk:India page and was there in the "inventions and discoveries" discussion for only one purpose, and that was to oppose me. Unfortunately for him, he managed to confess said purpose in one of the rare posts he made on that page. Said he, crossing in the process the line between reality and fantasy several times:

"It has nothing to do with your opposition to the project proposal and more to do with your patronizing and arrogant attitude which you have repeatedly displayed on Talk:India. In addition, I will scrutinize each and every proposal coming from you on my watchlist for your strong and demonstrated anti-India, pro-British bias. Your edits throughout Wikipedia demonstrate this bias and have included separating out Indians and British by ethnicity when the situation is ugly so you can put the blame on those of Indian ethnicity ..."

This means, of course, that if I support/oppose something, Zuggernaut will naturally oppose/support it, on the logic that I am demonstrating my anti-India and pro-British bias. What "India vs. South Asia" has to do with it, defeats me completely. If anything, "South Asia" is more American and international usage, Britain (still fondly remembering its Indian empire in the haze of after dinner pipe and port) would likely go for "Indian." As for the real discussion that began on March 1, there were some regular discussants; these were: Gunpowder Ma, Athenean, Huon, SSeagal, Mdw0, Wikireader41, SpacemanSpiff, Mar4d. In this discussion, Zuggernaut made two appearances, both on March 1 (his first ones); once in a humorous vein and the other to (predictably) protest my tagging the article. He then disappeared for three weeks, while the regular discussants labored through all the permutations and combinations of words in the various proposed names. They considered stopping the "List of Indian inventions ..." at 1947, they considered Gunpowder Ma's proposal to create a new "List of inventions and discoveries in the Indus Valley Civilization," ... Predictably, Zuggernaut was absent from all those discussions. However, when I finally proposed a page move, Zuggernaut was the first one to register an "oppose," confessing, in the process, the real reason (quoted above) for his appearance.

He then canvassed. At first, in this somewhat provocatively worded post on the "Noticeboard of India related topics" in the hopes that putatively "Indian" editors there would naturally oppose a page move in which their beloved "India" was being deleted. When the editors there didn't bite, he appeared in this discussion, accompanied by music from the Twilight Zone, on the Talk:India page. His fellow conspiracy theorist there has meanwhile added an oppose vote as well having been no part of the "India vs. South Asia" discussion.

Now for the page move and the votes. First, the page has not been moved. My proposal was not implemented. What has been implemented is Gunpowder Ma's proposal. That proposal had 8 support votes—not just the six who supported my proposal, but also Shovon76 (who merely commented on my proposal) and AshwiniKalantri (who opposed my proposal). We reasoned that there are 8 supports for Gunpowder Ma's proposal and only two opposes (among the regular discussants). The vote count one week later for Gunpowder Ma's proposal, which did not involve any explicit page move, was 8 to 2 not including Zuggernaut's drive-by vote. Sadly, for Wikpedia there is now a type of editor, of which Zuggernaut is a good example, who spends his energies not in adding content (Zuggernaut has added precious little (read zero) to the "List of Indian invention and discoveries" page), or for that matter to the India page, but in holding forth every now and then on the deep ideological biases involved in the work of those who actually add content, and in leaving no stone unturned in their path to help them trip. As the New York Times reported last year, a large proportion of Wikipedia editors left in 2010. I'm afraid that trend is only going to continue if Wikipedia doesn't stop a handful of disruptive editors from heeding the clarion call if their conspiracy theories. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Fowler&fowler. Zuggernaut was mostly absent from and participated little in the discussion, realized too late that a consensus had crystallized and is now trying to undo community consensus via the noticeboard. I don't see any bad faith on the part of the users listed above, all has been only done after lengthy discussions taking over two weeks. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh. Another tedious encounter with our modern-day Indian wiki-nationalists. Zuggernaut has arguably merited a page-ban for stalking Fowler - which is, self-admittedly, his entire reason for being there - and CarTick apparently lacks the ability to follow a coherent argument. Someone really needs to sort this out and deal with the issues of consensus-stacking, canvassing, harassment and disruption. Moreschi (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not Zuggernaut's first attempt at canvassing and will not be his last (there are at least two ANIs where this has been discussed), he has consistently used provocative language and posts to canvass his positions on WT:INB. The only reason he canvassed me (per Athenean's statement above) this time is because I had a mild disagreement with Fowler on this particular issue. I'm not entirely convinced that a name change is in order at the present time, although I can appreciate the arguments in favor. It's not a page ban that's needed but a topic ban that's required here. See the history on Talk:India where his proposal was rejected in September, then he comes back a few months later adding the same POV stuff in claiming that there was consensus in September, then in the face of complete opposition starts an RFC and keeps arguing the same points again and again. —SpacemanSpiff 18:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't commented on the move discussion (and would oppose it actually), but this Zuggernaut Vs Fowler thing is getting a little bit out of hand. Though Fowler doesn't help things with his sharp remarks and pithy edit summaries, Zuggernaut's behaviour is getting tiresome - he has a pretty strong POV on this issue. He has even suggested that projects to distribute wikipedia articles offline in india, go through the contribution history of articles to check for "known editors who have a known POV issue". Read the whole thing - he is actually suggesting a "pre approved editor list" for india related wikipedia articles that are selected for distribution. It gives me the creeps. Apparently, if you are non-Indian and you dont agree with him, you dont count; and if you are an Indian and you dont agree with him you are a "Brown Sahib". --Sodabottle (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps it is time for a topic ban on zuggernaut. I have opposed the move proposal but it is impossible to have a reasonable discussion on the merits of a proposal or on alternative titles when persistent POV pushers with an agenda are around. The persistent resurrection of topics that don't get consensus (see the Talk:India history pointed out by SpacemanSpiff above), the references to brown sabibs noted by Sodabottle (not, I am sorry to say, for the first time[37]), the long list of acronyms in the complaint above, these are all examples of an editor with a single minded agenda to insert his own POV into wikipedia. I suggest a topic ban on all articles related to Indian history. --rgpk (comment) 23:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

let us not forget the English nationalist POV pushed by Fowler. His edits across wikipedia promoting British East India Company, attempts to forecefully define Indian history to have started from English intervention and his recent attempts to separate Indian history from South asian history thus resorting to history revisionism requires a topic ban for Fowler as well. his relentless English nationalistic POV brings out the worst among other contributing editors. --CarTick (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DiehardNFFLbarnone (talk · contribs) is most likely a troll who should be blocked. Besides one bizarre edit from October,[38] he has only been active in the past three days, in which he:

1. undid multiple edits of an established user and accused him of sockpuppetry in the edit summaries.[39]
2. called somebody "trash"[40] in a biography and claims that it was appropriate "in the context".[41]
3. wrote in another biography "It's was a proven fact that he was awsome. Wikipedia decided not to take this down because it is true."[42] and claims the statement was re-inserted in accordance with community consensus on "the article's talk page".[43] That talk page has been empty for almost a year.

—LOL ^T/_C 01:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked them indef. This has to be someone's sockpuppet... Grandmasterka 01:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some admin, please check the contributions of Jane his wife (talk · contribs). Their edit summaries are especially charming. I smell the sock of a blocked user, esp. given the admission of not being a new user. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that's an overwhelming response. I've also just been told to "shut it". Drmies (talk) 04:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Jane his wife is completely off the charts. He's been reported for 3RR at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and doesn't seem to care — he's at about 5 or 6RR now. His press puffery, WP:PEACOCK terms, insistence on violating WP:DATED and other guidelines culminate in one of the most severe cases of WP:OWN I've ever seen. Plus, if you read his edit summaries on the Nicole Kidman history page, you'll see language and attitude that goes far beyond simple incivility. He also threatens to disrupt the page to make his "point." I haven't seen a rogue editor like this in many months. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked 72h. T. Canens (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This editor was blocked for 72 hrs, I believe for the edit warring. I am seriously concerned with this admission of not being a new account (see edit summary). The editor needs to explain why they have a new account and the name of the old account to show it's not sock puppetry going on here. I think socking is something that needs closure and proof that this is not a blocked or banned user. Thanks, T. Canens for your response to the edit warring but we need some other things taken care of which can be seen in the edit summaries of the Nicole Kidman article. For example, other than saying they are using a new account, they also admit to not using talk pages which is an important part of collaborations to articles. So why won't this editor use talk pages? I can't think of any good reasons for this attitude. I was editing in good faith as were the others. Something just feels seriously wrong now. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

72 hours is quite generous considering this dif. It's one thing to be new and not know how to use talk pages, it's quite another to say "I don't do talk pages". One of the core concepts here is collaborative editing and that means "talk pages" and this user is only willing to communicate through snide edit summaries. In my view, if you don't "do talk pages", then you don't do Wikipedia.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jane his wife (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sock account of DeadSend4 (talk · contribs). TNXMan 14:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Tnxman--thanxman. I love your blocks. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How odd. I was expecting his other socks to be names like "Daughter Judy", "His Boy Elroy", etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're showing your, umm, maturity. But since I'm admitting to recognizing the references, so am I. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to RevDelete those disruptive edit summaries, as other editors should not be following that example. –MuZemike 20:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RosinaR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continually acting disruptively at Chado Ralph Rucci (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). So far, xe has mainly been removing content without explanation (see [44][45][46][47][48][49][50] and many more, see page history/contribs), and whenever xe are reverted, they redo the edit, often with an edit summary like this:
"I am the public relations director at Chado Ralph Rucci. This is OUR page and we decide its contents. PERIOD. Rosina Rucci, NYC" ([51][52][53][54])
RosinaR has not once ever tried to explain the content removal/disruptive edits, only shouting loudly that it is his/her page, and that no one else can change it - which is a clear violation of WP:OWN. Multiple attemps have been made to contact the editor, but all have failed. Due to her decleration that xe is a PR director, then a COI is likely. Acather96 (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User clearly doesn't understand what a wiki is. Blocked 1 week, if disruption continues suggest indef block. I don't see much good coming from this account. -- œ^™ 08:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they fully understand that "public relations" is supposed to a way of cultivating positive responses, if that is the way they communicate; it is, of course, entirely possible that they are not telling the truth... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Jayne Cobb is their PR man? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not something for ANI. Seriously, you're dragging this here, while chastizing SV for commenting on a user on a policy Talk page? Take it up directly with her first. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Resolved

SlimVirgin, an administrator who should know better, is making personal attacks on another editor.[55] Is there anything that can be done by administrator intervention about this and discouraging more attacks in the future? Thnx. 75.47.156.100 (talk) 12:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I notified the editor.[56] 75.47.156.100 (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators take action against one of their own? That's rather too optimistic I think, knowing how this place works... But these unfounded personal criticisms have been going on now on and off for several weeks; I've learned to laugh them off, but they are becoming disruptive on what are already overcrowded talk pages, so I would encourage anyone wishing to make any more of them to make them on my user talk page where they won't get in the way of constructive discussion of the policy issues. (And the same should apply to personal criticisms of SlimVirgin, which have also been made by several people, including me, in the same period.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are not personal attacks; it's civil criticism, which may be wrong or right, but does not require admin action. Marking as resolved.  Sandstein  19:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you want to call it, it's personal and it is disrupting the talk page. I note that you did not refer to the personal aspect in your characterization of the remarks. Here's some excerpts,

"It's like pissing on a lamp post just because someone asked you not to, to be honest." (civil criticism?)

"The way you've been approaching this for the last few weeks feels like pointless male aggression..." (personal and sexist)

And remember, this is an administrator.

Your response has essentially sanctioned continued episodes like this by SlimVirgin. Do you feel similarly about other editors if they make similar remarks on policy talk pages?

75.47.156.100 (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Resolved

 – Returning troll blocked. TNXMan 14:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A new account has started up just tagging numerous editors of being socks here. I have no idea if their assertions are correct...or they're self-tagging (admitting to socking). Would someone please resolve this. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Man. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's started up again as User:Barry from New England. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone with more experience than me have a quick look at Mustafa Hijri? There's a seemingly incomplete AfD nom, a page blanking with request for speedy (declined as multiple editors) and possibly other issues. I've replaced the text from the last reasonable version, requested the blanker/nominator to use edit summaries and told him of my declining speedy. I'm offline for a bit, so could someone else take over? Thanks. Peridon (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the PROD he placed on the article and used its reason to complete the AfD nomination. I also left him a message on his talk page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please go explain to Doncram (talk · contribs) that "UNDO repeated unfriendly-in-my-view edits, including re-characterization of what this article is about, which is subject of the AFD. Let the AFD close, and discuss these suggestions at Talk, please." is not a valid rationale for blind-reverting good-faith edits? Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, yet another ANI by the Masonic editors, seemingly in general opposition to anyone else having anything to say about any topic touching on Freemasonry. Or whatever are their motives. I'm not going to round up all the previous reports. This relates to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Lodge of Iowa building‎. SarekOfVulcan's edits at the article did include some wording improvements, but mainly re-spun the article to be not about a notable building. Which is a subject of the AFD discussion, and/or should be discussed at article Talk. To ANI-minded editors, sorry i won't be able to participate in a big discussion here, or elsewhere, on Wikipedia today, have spent what time i can on this today already. Thanks. --doncram 17:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Did he actually just say "I'm spending all my time reverting because I don't have time to discuss", because that's sure what it sounded like. And I think my edits speak for themselves, and I'm darned sure that none of them say "delete me". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, all becomes clear. Doncram doesn't have to discuss with me because I'm always wrong.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a 3RR warning on his talk page. N419BH 18:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you were right about that, I'd agree with you... -Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did I mention I'm from Crete? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did. By the way, so am I. Or not. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now a member of the ARS has decided to jump into the fray casting personal aspersions. Corvus cornix_talk 19:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna say content dispute at this point, nothing actionable until someone breaches 3RR. N419BH 22:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sayerslle (talk · contribs) has severely breached WP:CIVIL on the 2011 Libyan civil war talk page - (diff [57]) and they have apparently been warned before (diff [58]). Can this be looked at? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 48 hours. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edit warring[59] on this article skirts several issues so I'm bringing it here as a central place. An WP:SPA IP editor has three times added a fringe claim that Bill Ayers wrote Barack Obama's autobiography, something rejected before by RfC, sourced primarily to articles by the theory proponent in WorldNetDaily and American Thinker - a BLP violation among other things User:Kauffner and I, the two named editors, are discussing this on the talk page but the IP has continued edit warring despite notices.[60] I'm not seeking any particular remedy, just help in taking the matter to the talk page. As I've noted, I won't revert further, but I'll appeal that pending consensus discussions we should not leave the article in a BLP violating state, or allow IP editors to force controversial material into Obama articles by edit warring. I'll notify the editors presently. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I warned the IP regarding the WP:BLP issue. I notice a new editor also trying to push a non-neutral viewpoint into the article as well. If the edit history looks ugly enough I'll ask for protection. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation precludes edit warring on Obama articles. The IP should be blocked. Corvus cornix_talk 19:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the IP as well as the various throwaway accounts. There is either meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry at work on this article. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

This user continues to insert inappropriate BLP violating content into Meghnad_Desai,_Baron_Desai article. The issue was discussed on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Meghnad_Desai.2C_Baron_Desai. However Ajaxyz continues to add his/her "critisism", edit-warring with multiple editors. I am afraid, an administrative action is necessary here. (Ajaxyz has been warned multiple times.) Ruslik_Zero 19:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ajaxyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked indefinitely for being a WP:SPA dedicated to adding badly written WP:COATRACK criticism to Meghnad Desai, Baron Desai via edit-warring. Can be unblocked via the normal process if they understand the various problems with their editing.  Sandstein  19:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a member of Wikipedia Farsi and English, a few days ago I became target of known vandal in wikipedia farsi after reverting his bad edits and reporting his sockpuppeting accounts. This user attempted to speedy delete topics which I was heavily involved with in Wikipedia Farsi, and then here. which led to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran Software & Hardware Co. (NOSA) usually this should have been defaulted to speedy keep as the user along with his suckpuppets were banned immediately after the AFD. however User:Wuhwuzdat voted delete in what I can only assume was in good faith.

Wuhwuzdat was the only editor with delete comment on the article, following this I wanted to know how i can improve it up to his standards so I left him the following comment in his talk page,

"Hi, Thanks for your vote in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran Software & Hardware Co. (NOSA), I appreciate your honest comment and will attempt to make it a less of a "steaming, stinking, pile of self referential spam" in near future. I would like to argue that while you may have 0 interest in such topic, Wikipedia is a place for information which might prove useful to public, and sharing a search able network of million of records is in the interest of scholars interested in Persian heritage. so is sharing information regarding free open source software and accounting software being used by a thousands of companies. In the article there has been an attempt to be as specific as possible and stick to the facts and the technical side as much as possible. either way I appreciate your honest opinion and will try to improve it.

Please also remember that while you may not care about who put up the article or why, according to Wikipedia, it is wrong to recognize vandalism, the user in question is a very well known abuser of the system in wikipedia Persian with more than 30 closed accounts and ips. Thanks 2:40 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)"

His response was to flush my edit, and say "you are correct, i have little interest in this subject". So i reflected this in the article for deletion as it seemed like he didn't care and the article was a good candidate for a snowball clause. at which time he decided to make things personal by breaking WP:OUTING rules and linking the article to removed edits by the banned user, also by proposing AFD for other topics edited by me such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pardis Technology Park, editing my user page, and finally by reporting me to intervention against vandalism falsely, which was removed by administrator.

I did notice that he was very good editor when I approached his talk page with good intentions originally but he has so far harassed me and made it very personal, breaking Wikipedia:HARASS and WP:OUTING rules and abusing the intervention against vandalism system. Could you please intervene as you see fit, and also remove the links and history of the personal outing as put forward by banned user and mentioned in Wuhwuzdat's post? also I would highly argue speedy keep at least for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pardis Technology Park based on WP:DENY as it is clearly an important technology park as referenced by United Nations document, and it is clearly a case of personal harassment. Thank you very much  Rmzadeh  ►  20:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• People are allowed to remove messages from their Talk page if they wish, and you should not use that fact to turn the AfD personal - the AfD will be decided by consensus, without any need to personalise things -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, and I don't see any evidence of outing - could you please provide a diff? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is no indication that Wuhwuzdat has done anything even remotely close to a breach of WP:OUTING. (The same may not be able to be said for the original nominator of the AfD or a sockpuppet thereof, but that's not the user under discussion here.) —C.Fred (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course anyone has the right to do with talk page as they please, that is not why I'm reporting this here, I am reporting him for harassment as outlined by him tagging other articles which clearly do not qualify as afd, and as him outing, and reporting me falsely for vandalism. this is clearly harassment

Isn't sharing a link to outing link the same as outing?!! so if a user wants to share personal information without getting cought all he has to is to make a user and share personal info, get banned and then link to that outing with his main account?! that does not make sense! he has clearly shared personal information by sharing a link to someones else's edit which shared personal information.

he has provided a link to a deleted history of outing in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran Software & Hardware Co. (NOSA) in an edit today starting with "In light of a deleted contribution by a sockpuppet, alleging COI"  Rmzadeh  ►  20:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not outing - there is no personal information disclosed about you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It's borderline, Boing, but I would say there was one tidbit that falls within the spectrum of possible outing. This would be less messy if Rmzadeh had put it a timely request for oversight rather than airing it here. I have revision deleted the edits in question (including one of my own, which came in between the posting of the information in question and its reversion off of the page and am putting in a request for oversight of the material. I will not comment further via talk page about the material in question (though if Wuhwuzdat or a user who feels (s)he was potentially outed by the edit would like to email me about it, I will respond). —C.Fred (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suppressed now. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, OK. it looked to me more like an unconfirmed question to me -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, and where did he report you for vandalism? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

here [61], I had a rollback shortcut in my user page as I was under the impression I could rollback! his edited my user page, and following that reported me to be inspected for vandalism. the edit was removed by admin as it was clearly not a case.

honestly you can't see any harassment in what he is doing? am I to believe him nominating a 2nd article edited by me for afd when it clearly does not fit the category and him reporting me as a vandal and "not" quite outing me by sharing a link with intention to put up personal information is not wrong at all?

Thank you C.Fred for removing the outing history, I was not sure which board to use, I found here to be a good tool. I will use the other board next time.  Rmzadeh  ►  21:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, yes, that was kinda pointy - but it was quickly resolved and I see no need for further action about it here. What I'm seeing here is two people getting a bit too heated with each other - and I have to say it looks like it was you who first turned it personal by taking the spat from his Talk page over to the AfD. You should have just ignored that (because he is entitled to remove your messages from his Talk page if he wishes) and not inflamed it further on the AfD. All I think that is needed now is for you to stick to discussing the actual article on the AfD page, and drop the personal arguments. And the second AfD? I'd suggest just letting it run - if the subject is considered notable, it won't be deleted. Both just cool down a bit, because nothing very bad has happened here - and I don't see any need for any admin action at this point -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will drop it here, it is however a little unusual that you are letting the 2nd afd run its course and not closing it due to its personal nature. Thank you both for your assistance in this matter, I will update you if the user makes any more personal attacks and will refrain from any attacks of such nature, as I have so far.  Rmzadeh  ►  21:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]