Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note:AndyTheGrump has been blocked indefinitely for making legal threats. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 16:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but per WP:LEGAL the statement that someone makes "a fraudulent attempt to whitewash Marxist terrorism, in effect turning the discussion into an advertisement for terrorism;"[15] is a perceived legal threat, and even much more serious one, because propaganda of terrorism, by contrast to libel, is a felony. In connection to that, taking into account that both Andy and Justus can be both considered as new editors, I request Access Denied to re-consider their decision.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin; I was only commenting. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 17:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secondly, I propose not to forget that this issue has only tangential relation to this thread, which has been initiated by Justus Maximus and it is de facto a renewal of this previous thread. Therefore, I propose to return to this topic, especially, taking into account that the norms of acceptable behaviour have been explained to Justus Maximus now, and the experienced editor who initially voluntarily decided to coach him/her through a collaborative approach by that moment gave up and does not see any value in continuation of a dialogue with him[16]--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I'll leave Andy blocked for now, since he rather dances around a really unequivocal withdrawal of the offending statement.[17] I can't blame him for being a grumpy Grump just now, though, and I hope people are watching his page and are prepared to unblock if/when he does withdraw it properly, for instance in line with Toddst1's crisp post. It's late in my timezone, so I won't be watching. But as I said, it would be nice to keep this editor. Bishonen | talk 22:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

Andy should now be unblocked, as he has withdrawn his threat of legal action. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 02:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Return to Justus Maximus

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

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

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

Perhaps [18] from one of those already in this conversation is germane, using the clearly problematic assertion "Firstly, before we continue I expect you to retract your libellous statements and legal threats. Are you going to do that?" on 17 October. As you note, accusing others of criminal activity is not acceptable, and sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, no? Collect (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh...that's one of those cases where I choose to solidly assume good faith in his intent and assume low clue in his word choice. I'd go for advising a little less strong word choice/rhetoric with that comment. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Perhaps JM would voluntarily go through a set of lessons (Mono's program comes to mind, but I believe it is still under construction, so perhaps one similar to it) with the objective of teaching him such core policies as Reliable Sources, No Original Research, No Personal Attacks, etc, to the point where he could explain what the fundamental meaning of these core policies are? At any rate, for the time being, he should be kept on a very short leash regarding personal attacks and civility (in line with the warning I posted on his talk page). Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 01:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

In particular, what the comments appear to ignore is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incivility and original research are wrong no matter who does it

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

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

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

Which 'Engels quote', JM?

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

The persistent refusal by Justus Maximus to conform to Wikipedia standards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems to me that a map like that could be useful, IF it were verifiable and not pushing a viewpoint. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you. I will post my response as soon as I can get it together. — JPMcGrath (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll let other people weigh in; I'm just not sure as to what to do. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sean Staunnery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Conor O'Stauner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are sockpuppets of banned editor Irvine22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Irvine22 and the history of the Dave Snowden article and it will become very obvious very quickly. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)|[reply]

I've looked into and caught one other accounts as well. TNXMan 21:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious quacking get the ban hammer out, you need to notify them both of this board still i think--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I raised this at AIV, but was referred here, instead. Is this possible to do? Should this be the DEFAULT action to someone who creates 2 or 3 or "n" unreferenced BLPs? We are banging our heads against brick walls otherwise, with a BLPPROD the only available response, but that is a treatment, lets cure this at the source... we shouldn't allow unreferenced BLPs to ever be created, let alone one user making lots of them.The-Pope (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ace16 sk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Can the ability to create pages be removed from this user until he/she understands that BLPs require references? I think the talk page notices show that he/she has been warned enough times. The-Pope (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I think the consensus has been to block users outright as opposed to revoking their "confirmed" status. –MuZemike 23:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And revoking their confirmed status wouldn't make any difference. Graham87 01:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you'd have to ask why not? Why use a sledgehammer when you can use a roadblock? The problem isn't their editting, it's their creating. Doesn't make sense to me.The-Pope (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide Reporting

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

Don't see anything wrong with doing that. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 23:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, let's report Rod. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

*sigh* another Malleus reference? Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 01:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

If it would be appropriate, would someone from the foundation please let us know how this situation turned out in the end? I think it would help alleviate some editors concerns if we know what the end result is, as I think we're all hoping for this to be resolved for the better. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 02:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

As we are discussing this I will reiterate the same advice I have given in the past (both on and off WP). Whilst we in LE are always happy to recieve notification of suicide threats such as this please do not simply report it as an emergency by default. These will always be acted upon as an emergency, tying up policy time and effort and risking taking away from other emergencies. They will wake up the ISP's and get log records and dispatch a patrol car :) Factor in how often this happens on the internet and you will not be surprised how often such responses occur. One common fall out is the poster/troll can be in trouble for wasting police time etc. Obviously; if the message seems urgent and clear then the right response is to call the police ASAP. But if the message is ambiguous, unclear or contains no immediate urgency then please report it as a routine matter. I realise that is something of a difficult distinction to make here, especially as non-experts, and so we should always err on the side of caution. But many incidents look a lot like trolling, so a little discretion will always be appreciated. Ultimately: we are not, and should not be, responsible for the actions of others. EDIT: although, to clarify, in this case contacting as an emergency was the right response. I'm only saying the above because of the vastly more vague suicide threats I've seen reported in the last few days :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was alerted to the existence of an ongoing school project by this unreferenced addition, including a fair amount of POV, to an article. (Admittedly, the article had no explicit references to begin with, but this isn't helping the situation.) Could someone inform Saurette (talk · contribs), the teacher, about the relevant guidelines and such, as I'm feeling too crabby to take care of it and I can't even recall where the WP-space page about such projects resides. I'll inform both JKeedwel and Saurette about the existence of this thread, though. Deor (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:School and university projects. Uncle G (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

71.249.61.177 (talk · contribs) was caught by the Zsfgseg filter. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 02:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:AndyTheGrump seems to have retracted his legal threats. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 02:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noted such in the thread a way up the noticeboard. He has now posted an unblock request. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xanderliptak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Alexander Liptak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
173.24.117.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Xanderliptak

I can take a lot of grief from users, but I won't have my integrity questioned. Xander has now gone too far. On wikipedia, in the second part of his new comments shown here,[19] he accuses me of having stolen an image and uploaded it to commons. His statement is an absolute lie, and I want something done about it. I have notified him, on both wikipedia and commons, although he may have signed off for the night. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh look, Xander's RfC/U was just certified. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, a mere 6 hours in, the meta-discussion on the RFC's talk page has already reached two levels of nesting, with people discussing the edits made to the discussion of the response to the RFC statement about the original dispute. Uncle G (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see a big problem here. You seem to be both engaging in bordeline uncivil and antagonistic behaviour. By stealing he obviously just means that there are possible copyright problems with the image - whether that is true or not should be easy to prove. I don't see grounds for a civilty issue here as you are both over the line. I also don't think there are grounds for a legal threat accusation. ·Maunus·ƛ· 03:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't claim Xander made a legal threat, I claimed he made a bare-faced lie. Until 45 minutes ago, I had NEVER uploaded anything to commons, so it's unlikely that "a group of editors" would have said I did at some point in the past. In fact, there has never been any such claim. Furthermore, Xander made his comment an hour before I uploaded my very first image at commons. Xander made it up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, one correction. Nearly 3 years ago, when I got my commons account, I uploaded 1 file, as a test, that was a photo I had taken.[20] I got some friendly advice on how to label it properly, and dat was dat. If that's the basis of Xander's accusation, he should be banned for incompetency. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• What is the something that you'd like done? Uncle G (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mixed him up with another user, he is taking this out of context. The other user already made it clear to him that it was a mix up on Commons, where he also took this issue. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... Just curious... you've apologized for making such an egrerious claim, or did you think that "the other user" making it clear was sufficient? ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 05:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He put his comment directly below mine, so it looked like he was accusing me. What would I like done? Well, it depends on whether he retracts his accusation or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only has he not retracted it, he has added more fuel.[21] So, is it perfectly OK for an editor to falsely accuse another editor of theft? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the lie. I see him admitting it was an error. "How many people have to tell you that it was a mix up? You two sound the same to me, I can't help mixing you guys up." Sounds like a mix up to me. Yes, I see his comment wasn't the nicest, adding fuel as you put is, but that's not calling you a liar. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so what do I want done? I want Xander sent away until he retracts that lie. His claim that he can't tell me apart from Roux is absurd. He posted it right below my comment. So until he retracts it, it continues to be directed at me, and I won't stand for it. Anyone here who knows me knows that I don't gripe about personal attacks very often. But when it's as naked a lie as this one, something has to be done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, I sympathize with your anger, but I doubt he will be "sent away". I'm certainly not planning to block him. I've asked him to strike the comment and/or your name within it. When he signs on, I hope he will do so. I am not seeing that this is a pattern. If it is, then the best thing to do is document it in the RFC. The best thing for you to do now is to disengage and de-escalate this. Go do something else for a few hours.--Chaser (talk) 06:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get truly angry very often, but this was one of those times. And it's already in the RFC/U, i.e. it's on the talk page right where he posted it, unless he's deleted it since I was last here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Uh, "Just word vomit about how you wish I was nicer to you both, with ROUX directing you like puppets on what to say, what not to say and where to sign." Accusing me of meatuppetry isn't okay. → ROUX ₪ 11:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If it's OK I'm just going to link to the diff of that, so it's easier to verify and see the context: [22] —Soap— 14:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least one person who has discovered Wikipedia does not seem to appreciate one Daniel Colegrove, whose article I have sprotected for a short time. The venom may spread over the talk page too. This is a BLP and, as real life beckons, I can't babysit its talk page -- yet I am reluctant to sprotect merely in anticipation of some nastiness. More administrative eyeballs please. -- Hoary (talk) 05:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin outside perspective The username alone there was indicative of a problem... seems reasonable, given the BLP issues going on there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the IP about one thing: I don't think he's notable. I'm nominating the article for deletion and watchlisting it.--Chaser (talk) 05:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I then contacted Cirt because he was the administrator who handled the original restoration of the article after this deletion review, if nothing else to merge the page history of Cornell literary societies to the fork The Irving Literary Society. Although, that's only one aspect of this tangle. However, he suggested [23] that the issue should probably be dealt with here. I will notify User:Racepacket and User:Cmagha of this discussion as well as the talk pages of the relevant articles. Voceditenore (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• I wouldn't blame the deletion review process per se. As poor as the "revised" article was (and still is in its current fork), it probably did have sufficient sources to minimally establish notability, at least for the mid-19th century Irving Literary Society at Cornell. Notability is the only remit of deletion discussions and reviews. They are not concerned with content and style issues unless there are BLP or copyright concerns. Content and style issues and COI concerns need to be addressed through ordinary editing. But whether there is eventually one article or two, the current title of the fork The Irving Literary Society is not suitable and should be moved back to The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University). As was pointed out at AfD: The Irving Literary Society, there are multiple distinct Irving Literary Societies in the US, several of which are more notable than this one, have a longer history, and are still in existence. Voceditenore (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a long-standing discussion on the talk page of Gadsby:_Champion_of_Youth about whether to write the article as a lipogram or not. The book is only notable pretty-much for being a lipogram and the argument is "It would better communicate the 'spirit' of the book." The problem that I (and others) have noted is that the article would communicate little else. It is difficult to read and would not allow mention of the authors name or even the fact that this is a novel and introduces incomparable difficulties in communicating what the lipogram is. This has been discussed, the article has been locked (which just caused everyone to not edit for two weeks while they waited it out. No new discussion, they just waited out the lock). These edits are clearly meant to support the article as a lipogram which was defeated by consensus on the talk page months ago (and that defeat was accepted). Is there some way to stop this once and for all? We have had an admin weigh in and they were simply ignored. Now what? Can someone please take a look at this article and advise us on a way to move forward with this? Thanks. Padillah (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no question at all that writing the article in this form to be "in the spirit" is a completely ridiculous idea. It'd be like writing On the Road as a stream of consciousness narrative, or removing the capitalization and periods from the E. E. Cummings article. Tarc (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(conflict: Tarc is mostly right but:) Virtually all of this diff was sitting at talk for 15 to 30 days and Padillah had many options to discuss phrasing in this past month. Padillah did not AFAIK formally affirm what is actually our longstanding WP:CON at talk (primarily Martin Hogbin's and my formulation, I grant), in which all contributions (lipogrammatic or not) should work only toward improving phrasing and quality. (This topic has a long and rich lipogrammatic history.) It is also invalid to say I wish to support cutting Wright or apropos information from this topic, as I did not fight any such inclusion in 2009 as various additional datapoints got built out. Padillah also, offhand, put back in a factual misquotation of linguistics journal Word Ways, indicating unfamiliarity with his topic. If this was a discussion about contributions not improving WP, okay; but it's not, and now I'm told about my "lunacy". Thank you for your thoughts. JJB 13:39, 25 Oct 2010 (UTC)

Well, in terms of writing the article as a Lipogram, any local consensus would be summarily overruled by the wider community consensus established in our manual of style guideline. Specifically the note about clarity of prose. Often we can establish exceptions at the article level; but in this case it is quite a divergence from the normal policy that it would need to be considered very widely. So the discussion is somewhat irrelevant; to write it as a lipogram would need full community agreement, and that is unlikely to happen (for the reason noted by Tarc) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the dumbest idea i've heard on wikipedia in a week, which is saying something. No, you can't form a local consensus to write lipogramaticaly, or with pictograms, or in pig-latin. An escalating series of blocks is the best way to deal with this if it goes further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs)

Agree with others above. We are an encyclopedia written in clear, readable, explanatory prose. There's no room there for style deviations this serious, and no way that a local consensus can override plain community norms like this. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea. For an example of why, see John J. Bulten/JJB's post above; that mangled style of writing is what a lipogram looks like. This kind of stylistic wankery is not suitable for a Wikipedia article.  pablo 14:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's something dodgy in general with that article. So many apparent sources, leading to so few places (most of them newspaper articles dressed up to look like book citations, to the work itself without page numbers, etc...) Will probably take a hard look at this myself.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bali, I'll happily assist, but kindly discuss to avoid mistaking anything, thanks. JJB 14:45, 25 Oct 2010 (UTC)

To be fair I'm not very good at ref clean-up but this is a remnant of when (get this) some editors tried to make the entire text, refs and all, lipogrammatic. There was, at one point, an effort to remove 'e' from links and refs and everything. So everything turned into a Harvard ref and that led to the mess you see before you today. You are correct to assume that this particular novel is not very notable; and is only that notable for being a lipogram. Padillah (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JJB should know that his using lipogram/mangled writing in articles or Wikipedia space is annoying and inappropriate, and the fact that he continues to do it here is disturbing as it has been brought up before, see [24]. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(conflict) @All: Whoa! Piling on! And hard words from Pablo X. Can you all stop fighting with that strawman for a bit, if you don't mind? This is not about making this topic into a lipogram. A good paradigm was laid down in 2009 and I am still using it. Assuming good faith, Padillah is too. If you want to work on phrasing, go for it. But attacking is not apropos on this board, thanks. JJB 14:45, 25 Oct 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, I thought that the section header was over the top, but after reading this, I have to agree. The novel is an artistic exercise, while the article is, or should be, an attempt to inform about the subject. Now, this is a volunteer project, and if a volunteer chooses to style their writing in this way, fine. However, there should be no attempt to impose, or even prefer this manner of writing within the article. If even one wiki link that otherwise would be in the article is lost due to this foolishness, the cost is too high. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Xymmax for this nonlunacy. JJB 14:45, 25 Oct 2010 (UTC)

"October" contains an "e". Wright would not approve.--SPhilbrickT 15:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to being treated as an RfC rather than an admin issue. As far as I can see no allegations of wrongdoing have been raised about anyone, there is simply a disagreement about the style of the article. It would therefore be more sensible to have an RfC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Agreed. Marking resolved with much the same advice. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user is launching personal attacks against a living person. I will not delve into the details as not give more work to oversighters. My removal of the attack was described as "vandalism" and reverted. More eyes needed. I would suggest full protection of the page.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What "personal attacks against a living person"? You not only removed 3+kB of other material that does not even mention a living person, you additionally restored a warning left by another user that Factomancer had removed. Your addition of that you "will not delve into the details" is incredibly dishonest and only meant to influence a reader into thinking there is material in there that is oversightable. There isnt, and the fact that you cant say what about the material you removed violates BLP is telling. nableezy - 13:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Factomancer said Jimbo Wales encourages pro-Israeli manipulation of wikipedia for money. She also implied that as an Objectivist, he hates Arabs like Ayn Rand did. Hope this helps. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first part of that is true, the second is not. She does write that Jimbo has encouraged Israeli manipulation, but she does not imply that he "hates Arabs". But if those lines are a problem Brewcrewer could have removed those lines. He didnt, he erased everything and reinstated a warning the user had deleted. nableezy - 14:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He reverted the edit that inserted the BLP violation, as you often do.

I think she does imply that Jimbo hates Arabs. Some more eyes on this should sort this out. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This should address your concerns. nableezy - 15:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you redacted the fact that Jimbo is an Objectivist (information that appears in his article) unless you were trying to blur the connection Factomancer is making with Ayn Rand and her alleged hatred of Arabs.

She also makes some personal attacks against other editors.

I think someone less involved than you should have a look at this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I blanked that he is an "objectivist figurehead", if you would like to reinsert it feel free. But the purported reason that brewcrewer blanked and then requested indefinite full-protection was BLP violation. Is there anything on that page that qualifies as a BLP violation now or not? If not, whats the problem here? nableezy - 16:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• (ec)Strong Support I agree. At this point in time, sending articles to AFD will be counterproductive. Whether the candidate currently meets N or not, all we are going to do is end up with a number of AFD's and long debates over notability---which in most cases will not really be determinable until next Tuesday anyway. EG An article gets nominated for AFD tomorrow. The AFD runs it's course. We have a lot of people checking out Doug's page at the last minute to find out who the candidate is. They see the AFD tag and join in the discussion. Suddenly we have a score of politically motivated individuals chiming in on a debate concerning notability. If the AFD ends in favor of keeping the candidate, but they fail to win what happens? Do we keep the failed candidate because we ran an AFD the week before the election and the people who joined in the conversation were interested in the debate? Or if the AFD ends in favor of deleting the candidate, but they do win the position, thus becoming notable---do we delete the article because the AFD said to delete? In other words, by the time the AFD comes to resolution, we will have a clearer picture of who really meets our notability guidelines. In the mean time, I agree with Flatterworld, if we send a lot of articles to AFD because they haven't won yet, we might get a lot of coverage. Any time debating these candidates right now would be wasted and would likely be riddled with people coming to the AFD pages from outside of WP. Let's just put a moritorium on them until after the election at which point we can better and more accurately assess who is worth keeping and who we have to get rid of. Plus, at this point in time, the person(s) who are likely to nominate these articles are going to be the ones who have interest in the elections---eg more motivated by politics than by WP policies/guidelines.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC) NOTEMoving ot Neutral I still think this is a good idea, but I just went through the last 3 days of current AFD's and 3 days worth of AFD's just prior to the 2008 election cycle. I was convinced that there would be some obvious examples showing how this had been abused, but I didn't see it being abused. Is it a concern? Yes. Am I willig to revisit it? Definitely, if you can show me how it was abused in 2008 and is being abused right now. So eventhough I can see the benefit of of the proposal, I'm not sure if I am convinced of the need.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)NOTE 2: Moving back to support.Tarc has decided to make this into an issue and has decided to be pointy about these cases. In any AFD the guidance should be for the closing administrator. The closing administrator shuold not be acting to delete these cases until next Monday or Tuesday at the earliest---at which point, having this discussion becomes a moot point. Any guidance provided needs to be based upon the final resolution of the election. Any !vote taken prior to that is guesswork as to what the situation will be at that time.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

(ec)You are exactly right, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, which is why we SHOULDN'T be deleting anything until after the election. At this point running an AFD is wasted time and energy. In the time that it takes us to run an AFD we will have a more conclusive answer as to whether or not somebody is or isn't notable.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • (ecx3)Until next week any discussion on these candidates is meaningless. Plus, if you are going strictly off of coverage, then any failed Senatorial/Governor/Representative from one of the major parties would be notable and this whole thing would be meaningless. Until next week, all people will argue is that there is a ton of coverage, but ignore the guidance about failed candidates.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It might be too early to close right now, but this does seem like a discussion which won't go very far unless something changes in what it is that is being asked/proposed here.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. We should not be an election campaign notice-board. Let the normal rules apply. JohnCD (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Per Flatterworld.--InaMaka (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support While I understand the concern that Wikipedia can be used for political promotion by non-notable candidates, a week out from an election the risk of ill-intentioned deleting outweighs it. Arbor832466 (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

  Tarc was the first person of the four people notified. Granted neutrally worded is the preferred manner, but he did notify people on both sides of the spectrum and did so promptly and in limited scale.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Doesn't this raise a BLP concern?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It doesn't have to be nominated with the intent of causing harm. In some cases it will be, but the reality is that the effect might be.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doesn't the fact the article exists pose another massive potential BLP problem. In that people could edit them negatively/positively. So for that reason we should summarily delete all of these articles to avoid any such problems. Ok, that was sarcasm, but I think there is strong rationale for imposing strong delete requirements on non-notable politicians in the run up to an election, it's easily the biggest example of "recentism" causing a groundswell of NN articles. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 17:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Who creates these?

Analysis;

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

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

Yes, and who is likely to nominate them for deletion? People using the project for political advocacy. And when it goes to AFD who is going to participate? AFD regulars? Wikipedia regulars? In many cases yes, but for the next week we are likely to get a strong dose of political advocacy intejected in there. It would be easier and clearer just to wait.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC) (NOTE:Redacted with italicized info added.)[reply]

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

Besides the Tea Party article where I've been asked to moderate, you'll find that I haven't participated in any political articles/afds/etc---I find them tedious and laborious--especially at this point in time where we have tons of people crawling out of the wood work to participate on these articles. I think we would be much much better served waiting a week until we know who won and who lost. But I will concede that this comment might have been taken too broadly, as many people might not be motivated from that perspective.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

So for the next week, we will get "Delete, candidate is only a candidate, has not won the position, therefore does not meet WP:POLITICIAN." Which, come next Tuesday is outdated because the candidate did win and is now the Representative/Senator/Governor of a state? Waiting a week, the time it would take the AFD to run anyways, will give everybody a much better picture of who really meets our Notability guidelines and who doesn't.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's because we can't predict that it is a waste of time to have these discussions. Any AFD started after tomorrow, the election will be over before the AFD is over. Any discussion that occurs BEFORE the election results is largely predicated upon the final outcome of said election. That being said, I did move to neutral above because I'm not convinced this is a problem needing an answer or an answer looking for a problem. In other words, I think sending articles to AFD this week is a waste of time, but I don't think we need to legislate not sending them to AFD.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Thanks to the actions of Tarc, ininstating support of the ban. It should be noted that anybody who !votes in one of his Pointy AFDs should do so from the perspective of not whether or not the article meets notability today, but rather will it when the time comes to delete it?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The earliest they can be deleted per policy is Monday night. The night before the elections. Any guidance provided re deletion/keeps will be premature/heated/and a waste of effort.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

And Resolute, what administrator with half a brain would delete an article the night before the election knowing that the candidate might win the next day? What kind of press would that garner wikipedia? I can see the headlines now: "Wikipedia Deleted the articles of 20 newly elected politicians due to notability the night before the election." At a certain point, common sense has to come into play. The only smart thing that an admin could do next Monday or Tuesday would be to relist the article.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Whelp, that's that

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Herbert
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott M. Sipprelle (2nd nomination)

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

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

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

And I would take this to be a case of being extremely WP:Pointy---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

If anything it will snow keep... and you might as well pull Scott's nom now and concede that he is notable.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Permanently banned user Techwriter2B (with whom you are well familiar) appears to have returned after a several month absence this time having registered using MY real name. I have nothing to do with registering this account which needs to be closed IMMEDIATELY as it constitutes and continues his/her egregious wikistalking of me.Centpacrr (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Send to OTRS for discrete handling. "Impersonation" is a direct WP Terms violation. Collect (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of Bruce Coopers in the world. Just check any online phonebook. MY name happens to be Bruce C. Cooper. If that's the same as yours, there's nothing I can do about it. Sorry. BruceCCooper (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The two edits made by this now banned sock (see below) were to references to me (User:Centpacrr), not another person with my name, and fit the longtime pattern of misconduct and impersonation of banned LTA Techwriter2B who has been wikistalking many other users for at least three years, and me personally (whom he/she was impersonating with this sock account) for almost a year. Those two edits were identical in character and content to previous disruptive wikistalking behavior of this LTA. Centpacrr (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocked as a sock of Techwriter2B. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]