Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contributor clean-up/Qworty

Instructions

I would like someone to simplify the instructions indicating that investigating the diffs, including the associated page history, and attempting to fix the problem(s) is best indicated by striking out the entry in question and making an indented note followed by a signature. The current instructions are far too esoteric for most editors and introduce unnecessary complexity. For an example of the kind of simplicity we should be striving for, please see my two completed tasks here. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with that, would you mind editing the instructions to govern this simpler approach?--My76Strat (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would feel more comfortable with you doing it, since you set this up. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay--My76Strat (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon a newbie's confusion here, but is this how it's supposed to work? The redirect takes you to the project page, which says nothing about Qworty, then you have to know that you're supposed to head over to the talk page - wouldn't it be better to simply redirect to this talk page directly? NaymanNoland (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er, never mind. Obi's informed me. For those as dense as I am: that page is a list of every edit made by Qworty. (In case you maybe think we've already addressed them all.) NaymanNoland (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the changes made to the instructions to ensure they are clear. Is anyone having trouble loading this page because it is so large and getting larger. Should it be broken into smaller pages and transcluded perhaps. Also I wonder if we should have volunteers for this effort listed on a participant page?--My76Strat (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just broke it down, to 1,000 per page. We could break it further if it's still slow. A list of volunteers and other tasks/notes could be added ot the main page now, which is nice and short and fast... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking Things Through

a) There is every reason to expect that a Qworty sockpuppet, apologist, or ally may "volunteer" to help "clean up." We know that Qworty allies remain enthusiastic editors here. How can we be confident that all Qworty edits have been reliably checked by actual checkers?

b) We should also check for stray occurrences of "Robert Clark Young" and references to his work.

c) What standards should be applied? Clearcut cases of abuse are easy to spot, and so are obviously good edits. How do we approach edits that are not obvious?

d) What about AFDs which Qworty or one of his sockpuppets initiated? How can these be reexamined?

Wikipedia's credibility clearly depends on the quality of its response to demonstrable blunders like the Qworty affair, necessitating a closer look as sorry problems such as these. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plz keep in mind that we're all volunteers here. "Wikipedia" doesn't or cannot do anything, at least not much. Volunteers who edit at wikipedia may choose to spend their time going through this list, but, for the most part, they won't... it's kind of boring...

If you suspect a Qworty sockpuppet is vetting this list, what they do here should be the least of our worries - the sock should be reported and banned.

If you want all of the AFDs Qworty voted on, they are here [1], which gives around 1300.

I don't think we need additional standards here - it's really just IMHO to review the edits made, look at the article today, and discern whether the edits made sense as an editor, with an understanding of policy. The bulk of edit's I've looked at so far were either innocuous or massive removals of unsourced content in BLPs that was later reverted and sourced. So in several edits, he was in the right per our policy, a bit drastic, but still, in fair play territory. But these scorched-earth campaigns almost always resulted in reverts and restoration of content and better sourcing. I think the really devious stuff we will find (like saying someone was an alcoholic) was perhaps more rare.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simple solution: After every ten or even hundred edits you check, double check some random edit that has already been classified. If you find one that looks like it might be a new Qworty sock, check the contributions of that editor, then raise the issue here. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should also check the edits to those pages that are most contentious first. I think Brad Vice, and any other novelists/etc with whom he had a dispute should be first on the list to get eyeballs on. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a fair bit of work on Brad Vice, as has Alf.laylah.wa.laylah - it's in decent shape. KEEPING it in decent shape might be an issue - might want to watch that it doesn't get vandalized. I have a question about sourcing, however: the only occurrence online of the Booklist review is on Amazon - is it acceptable to quote and link to that? (It's Amazon's own posting of the review - not the author's - so it's accurate. They always post the trade reviews themselves: Kirkus, PW, etc.) NaymanNoland (talk) 04:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can designate a team of three who only take second looks at random. If so we can add a small instruction line stating that they will comment and sign.--My76Strat (talk) 04:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: it's really only the revenge/POV edits that are problematic, no? My sense is that a lot of the work he'd done aside from his attacks and POV pushing are fine. But I guess where one stops and the other begins is the issue, for the community, now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - the problem is, if we want to be sure, we have to look at all of the edits. The bulk I've looked at are not really even "revenge" (or at least, doesn't seem that way), but just an extreme interpretation of the BLP/removal of non-sourced material. He literally in some cases left a bio with a single line - and I don't even think these are people he knew or had a spat with, they are just people who had a 100% unsourced biography that had been tagged for years, and he took a hatchet to it. In most cases, another editor has already reverted the changes and started to add sources.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have to keep in mind that one of Qworty's methods of settling scores was to use sourcing as a hatchet with which to decimate a page. The remaining fragments could then be left to wither, or could be sent to AFD. Sure, Qworty might have subjected articles in which he had no personal interest to the same treatment, but we can't know with whom he was (or thought he was) feuding. Some of his betes noires, such as neopaganism, were esoteric.MarkBernstein (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care if he had a personal grudge against the subject of an article, or its editor, or if he just enjoyed causing chaos and creating mayhem. It looks to me like a combination, and there might be other motives; I expect him to write a book or a series of articles about his little escapade. I don't think we should let him get away with his improper, biased, slash and burn activities and require the creators and editors of these articles to justify every change of his editing as if it were legitimate, when it can be demonstrated that over and over he deleted whole properly-done bibliographies, discographies, and filmographies, and whole reference sections, with no justification. I don't think we should encourage others to do what he has done by assuming his edits are good unless proven bad. I think we should delete them and return these articles to the pre-Qworty state; I trust the other editors to improve them in a proper and civil way as long as they are revisiting them. I have been doing so on many articles I have worked on, but I start by reinstating the work of the editors who's hard work he has gutted, THEN reviewing them. I think we owe his victims that much. Rosencomet (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP editing

We need to figure if it is appropriate or not to allow non-registered accounts to clear these articles. If it's not something that needs to happen, maybe we can semi these pages. I left a message on the editors talk page asking them not to continue until we answer this, valuing his or her time as well. ~~I am inclined to oppose the IP editing for intuitive reasons.~~--My76Strat (talk) 10:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have input regarding whether or not IP editors should participate in this clean-up. I asked the editor to wait for an answer and they were kind about their manner of cooperating, so I'd like to see what others are thinking here.--My76Strat (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's OK for IP editors to participate. It's not as if restricting it to registered editors is any guarantee that there won't be shenanigans. A registered editor caused the problems in the first place, and if anyone wants to interfere with the process they'd almost certainly get autoconfirmed and try to make themselves look legit in other ways first. Double-checking is probably desirable whether or not checking is done by an IP.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I struck my initial suggestion. I concur with Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. It would be great if one or two more participants would offer an opinion. Thanks!--My76Strat (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no apparent objection, I am going to thank this editor for his or her contributions and patience as well as invite them to resume editing the clean-up at their leisure. Thanks.--My76Strat (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I often do vandal monitoring and reversions, my gut instinct says to not allow anymore IPs to do this. While not all IPs are vandals, nearly all vandals are IPs.... We should also limit project membership to experienced editors. That's no guarantee of safety, since Young could easily have several username accounts with lots of edits which are still active, but it would lessen the risk. Whatever we do, these articles should be watched, as well as anyone who edits them. That includes edits to these project pages.

Here are some watchlists I have just created, and they should be monitored by project members. The main and all subpages should have watchlists. If these are not working or formatted properly, please fix them:

These can be copied to the main project page, and others can also be created using the same format. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In line with my thinking about editor experience, does anyone mind if I add the official user status to the username of each listed project member on the main project page? Here's mine: "autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 37737 edits since: 2005-12-18." (I use a script which gives me this information by hovering over any username.) Not only is "attempting to avoid the scrutiny of other editors" forbidden at Wikipedia, this project needs to be especially transparent, with no hidden agendas or COI. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to your questions about editor experience, i have been on Wikipedia longer than 7 years and my official user-status is "disgruntled." Catherineyronwode (talk)

LOL! Love it. Catherine, you have plenty of experience here, and I can understand your frustration. Keep up the good work. I hope this project can undo some of the damage. BTW, my script has this on you: "4120 edits since: 2006-02-21". -- Brangifer (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been on Wikipedia for ten minutes, but my official user-status is "not-Qworty". NaymanNoland (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another probable sock

Special:Contributions/Firestone a12. In contrast Special:Contributions/66.32.74.134 and Special:Contributions/68.70.77.226 were editing to combat the self-promotion. Without much success at the time because administrators were actively supporting accounts like "Firestone a12" in the fight against "vandalism". 5.12.68.204 (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that Firestone one looks like a duck. It added info about the iraq war arrests, which I haven't been able to see reported anywhere else. But, it hasn't been used in 2005, and didn't do much else, so really not worth any more ink. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important that any articles that were deleted as a result of a Qworty nomination be reviewed for vote-stacking via sockpuppets. If fake "editors" weighed in on these nominations, giving the false appearance of a consensus to delete them, when in fact most editors who weighed in voted to keep them, they should be restored. Rosencomet (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Rosencomet. See my list below of AFDs of bios of living Pagan and occult writers and also AFDs of articles on metaphysical topics that were brought forth by the "retired" User:Leibniz. As a result of those AFD discussions, some of these articles were kept, some deleted. I think that all of Leibnitz's deleted biographies of writers should be returned to the public database with appropriate tags for improvement, if necessary. I believe that there are many "sleeper" accounts still accessible to this proven anti-Pagan and anti-occult user.

Easy and less so

The articles that have hardly been edited since Qworty's last edit are, of course, the easy ones. They can just be returned to the pre-Qworty version. Others must be handled in such a way as to not delete proper edits by other editors subsequent to Qworty's actions. Some will have to be "disentangled". I've been working on the easy ones first, and intend to revisit the more complicated ones. I have been trying to be careful to mentioin that the actions I am taking are a response to Qworty's campaign in the edit summary, which is IMO a good way to save other editors unnecessary work. Rosencomet (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it's an interesting question though - which is better, having a BLP that is full of unsourced information of unknown provenance, or having a BLP which is drastically trimmed? Neither one is ideal, but the solution, a properly sourced, cited article, takes a lot of time. I'd be cautious about blindly reverting his changes though, especially on BLPs, if the stuff you return isn't sourced.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this instance, I think we should leave it up to the rest of the editors to properly assess the content of these articles, and act in an unbiased manner. I expect a fact that needs a citation to be tagged as such and given time for those interested in the subject to improve the article, instead of the wholesale gutting of data (some perhaps with a point, some totally invalid) with a personal agenda that Qworty engaged in. Rosencomet (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also say when there is a dramatic change, perhaps it's best to do what you can to revert it but leave a comment and leave it un-struck-out - that way, another editor will come along and double check your work. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's an entry that's full of unsourced info, but appears to be in good faith (rather than a puff piece), I think what Obi and Rosencomet are suggesting makes a lot of sense: revert, and mark it as requiring sources. A lot of the damage that Qworty did was simply this: slashing and burning good work, rather than improving it. NaymanNoland (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's an interesting question - I'm not totally convinced that having unsourced info about BLPs remain for years in the wiki is beneficial. This literally means that we have no way of confirming whether the information is 100% true or 100% false or somewhere in between. My gut would be to leave it deleted, leave a note about the deletion on the talk page, and leave it to editors there to restore properly with sources, unless you want to take the time to track down sources yourself. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the information appears sensible, useful, and harmless, then it should be returned to the Encyclopedia. It is clear that Qworty used the absence of references as a means to an end. Information that seems dubious, extraneous, or that might raise BLP issues should be discussed on the talk page. But if this project merely ratifies Qworty's edits and wiki wars under the flag of Qworty's use of policy, it will be widely perceived as a fraud. When in doubt, we know that Qworty engaged in revenge edits, so the presumption lies in favor of the deleted material. We should be careful not only not to rubberstamp Qworty's misdeeds, but also to be seen not to do so. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there was revenge editing, but as I mentioned before, there were other cases where it was a bio full of information of dubious sourcing that had been tagged for refs for several years. Qworty comes along, blows it up, and all of a sudden, references come out of the wood work. I'm not saying this is a good method, but in some cases, it did work. And no, if information is "sensible, useful, and harmless" but in a biography of a BLP, and has been tagged as needing refs for a decent maount of time, I'm fine with keeping it out. It can always be restored if someone actually does work and finds it. Again, this not rubber stamping, but it's also not saying lets blindly revert every single one of Qworty's actions - several I've seen were justifiable, just like several were probably vicious acts of revenge. This is all case by case. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MarkBernstein and disagree with Obi-Wan Kenobi on this. I would much rather see Qworty's activities totally reversed and any deletion or improvement of these articles left to other editors. I don't think we should legitimize Qworty's admitted campaign of attacks, edit warring, sockpuppetry and biased editing in ANY way. I trust the Wikipedia community to review these articles, which is happening even as we speak, and I believe we should not encourage future editors to slash and burn in the future on the basis that "sometimes it ends up doing some good". I would much rather err in the other direction than send such an unfortunate message. If any editor agrees with a deletion, they should tag it "citation needed" to give other editors who are watching these articles time to respond. Otherwise, you are just enabling his incivility. It can be easily demonstrated that time after time Qworty violated Wikipedia rules in his editing. IMO, it is wrong to allow his gutting of so much work by other editors and make them rebuild so much biased and improper action on the theory that some may be valid. Reverse his crap, and let responsible editors do it right. Rosencomet (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with Mark and Rosencomet here. Apart from everything else, if we leave things deleted, it's REALLY unlikely that anyone's going to dig them up and source them. It just kills a lot of hard work on the part of editors who may not have sourced things properly, but took the trouble to write them. Yes, sometimes when Qworty slashed unsourced things, it motivated people to source them - but these erasures don't fall into that category, and it's too late for that effect to kick in. Here we're dealing with things that Qworty slashed, but that DIDN'T then get sourced - so they're essentially invisible. I think we should revert, and leave them visible with a tag saying that they require sources. At least then they exist. And if a source can't be found, that's time to kill them again. NaymanNoland (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so let me get this straight.

1) tag BLP article with zero sources

2) 2 years passes, still no sources

3) Qworty does a hatchet job

4) Bad Qworty - revert

5) Tag again for zero sources

6) wait two years

7) NaymanNoland does a hatchet job

8) Good Nayman!??

That doesn't make any sense to me at all. Either source the material, or, if it was there and tagged already for 2 years, leave it out, and drop a note on the talk page about the edit, and leave it to other editors to clean up if they have time. Remember, we're talking about unsourced material in a BLP, which according to our policy can be deleted on sight. It's not the most generous thing to do, but it is legit...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when you put it like that, it sounds horrible. (Especially since you have me Qwortifying after the fact.) But surely there's a way of doing this that doesn't result in all sorts eternal unsourced silliness. Perhaps post a list of unsourced reversions? And if sources aren't added within a certain time period, kill them? I don't know if that's the way to do it - just improvising here. But there should be SOME way of adding a time bomb to reverted entries... NaymanNoland (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't think a hatchet job is ever the right thing; no matter who's doing it. I think it's worth mentioning that we are expected to get up to speed on clue as we reach for things to do around this site. uncredited material isn't automatically a terrible thing. If it's not otherwise contentious or being contested with a ^{[citation needed]} tag, or statements of notability that need wp:gng and wp:v, and written in a neutral tone, removing it is counterproductive.--My76Strat (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, Qworty wasn't just doing a hatchet job on tagged articles with no sources. He was deleting huge chunks of articles that WERE sourced and SAYING they were not sourced; bibliographies, discographies, filmographies, properly-constructed lists and reference sections, anything he wanted to delete, and lying about the justification. he was calling links dead that weren't. He was nominating articles about notable subjects for deletion following a personal agenda against particular groups, like Pagans.

No one is asking you to "wait two years". But in many cases, it is the TAG that was obsolete and should have been deleted. There's a difference between a general tag at the top of a page saying an article needs more citations or more inline citations - how many more? what's the standard? - which many editors are reluctant to delete, and a specific tag on a specific fact requesting a citation, which is what Qworty should have used, and WOULD have used, if his motivation was to improve these articles. But it wasn't, and we all know that now. And you may be allowed to delete unsourced material whenever you see it, but that's not the civil way to do it, and it provokes edit warring. I prefer to have some respect for other editors and try to work with them rather than spank them. I just responded to another editor this morning about the need for 2 references to be made into inline citations on a Qworty-gutted article I restored on May 22nd. I asked him for patience, and said I would get to it soon. Then I converted the citations, and supplied several others. Civility. It gets things done without attacking people's work, and makes Wikipedia a place editors WANT to put their time in. Rosencomet (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editorial standard

I have observed some editing related to Qworty where you feel the person would be fine making this man disappear from Wikipedia, and others who are passionate that nothing notable should be omitted. I hope that every person who participates in clearing these edits is dispassionately following the best Wikipedia editing practices. This is what's expected. If anyone has a wp:coi of their own, it should be said!--My76Strat (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've expressed my conflict(s) of interest a few times. I don't think any rise to the level of COI, as defined by Wikipedia. The most serious is that I've had a number of one-on-one encounters with this guy, here on Wikipedia, and I dislike him intensely. I'm not sure you could say that he's ever really attacked me - not in any way that left scars, at any rate. He was certainly instrumental in having me blocked a couple of times, but that doesn't in fact bother me - I'm not wedded to my status here the way that some people are. Another conflict of interest, I suppose, is that I'm quite familiar with some of the authors he's slandered: Barry Hannah in particular. And on a broader level, I despise anyone who does this to the literary community in general: it's truly destructive, and unbelievably petty. (I'm pretty close to that world.) So, I see these conflicts as sufficient that I don't directly edit his entry. But I'm probably being overly scrupulous: my suspicion is that everyone here is at least as conflicted, and in much the same way. My stance on Young's notability? I'm nowhere near convinced that he's notable as a writer, but I'm absolutely certain that he's notable as a vandal. I'm not being sarcastic here - I mean that. He's newsworthy, and should be in Wikipedia. (And if neutral people feel that I am in fact too biased to contribute to the project, I'll happily and gracefully bow out.) NaymanNoland (talk) 05:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between an interest and a conflict of interest. No one expects editors to be totally emotionless, dispassionate or to have no opinions, ideologies or interests. But we have to strive to edit that way, to transcend our personal issues and write encyclopedic articles. I frankly don't think Robert Clark Young is notable enough for an article as an author; I'm an old-fashioned Wiki editor and I usually look for three books (or at least one VERY notable, awarded, ground-breaking one) published by non-vanity presses (and reviews in notable publications would be nice). If he had that, I would not let Qworty's actions deny him an article, as much as it rankles me. I don't think his pissing off a bunch of Wiki editors for a few months makes him notable, either; it'll soon be yesterday's news, and most people don't know and don't care about such in-house stuff. But IF, and only IF, he is notable for some other reason (like as an author), the fact that prominent publications like Salon have picked up the story is justification for including it in his article, IMO. But frankly I'd vote to delete it until he gets more of his work published. Rosencomet (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another suspected Qworty sock who AFDs Pagan and occult writers

When i asked for a place to discuss a suspected Qworty sock puppet and to request administrative assistance, i was told to go to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qworty

However, the Qworty sock puppet investigation is now officially "closed" and archived at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qworty/Archive#Comments_by_other_users

Therefore, when i attempted to bring a likely sock-puppet sleeper account of Qworty's to the attention of investigating administrators, it was summarily deleted. No administrative response was given to address my evidence beyond a comment summary, in which User:Dennis Brown told me to "file a new case." No page on which to "file a new case" was indicted.

There seems to be no place to post this. Therefore i will post it in several likely places until i receive a response.

Sorry to be a bother, but Wikipedia's arcane rules of hierarchy and bureaucracy are not my forte and i am a busy person who took an hour out of my work-day to present this information in a helpful manner, so i actually do expect a courteous reply.

Dear administrators:

I believe that User:Leibniz is another sock puppet of Robert Clark Young. I say this not only because of the large number of AFDs Leibniz instituted for mainstream writers and for Neo-Pagan, occult, and metaphysical writers (myself included), but because of the similar use of contemptuous and uncivil language in presenting those AFDs.

Please review the following -- and note that there are more; this was all i had time to assemble, in the midst of my other work. As an expert in this field with 40 years experience in the writing, editing, and publishing industry (and i rarely claim that here, due to my natural modesty and desire to be "one of the gang"), i can assure you that each of these AFDs concerned either a notable author in the field of occultism or a competing author to Robert Clark Young. Not a single one deserved deletion. The programmatic nature of Leibniz's deletion-proposals and the snarky language accompanying the AFDs tells a story so much like that of Robert Clark Young that i urge you to attend to this matter and to deal with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Leibniz&action=history

A few samples:

15:21, 23 September 2006 (diff | hist) . . (+151)‎ . . N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Taylor ‎ / occult writer

13:36, 24 September 2006 (diff | hist) . . (+147)‎ . . N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Somers / novelist

15:28, 24 September 2006 (diff | hist) . . (+149)‎ . . N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carroll Runyon ‎/ occult writer

16:46, 24 September 2006 (diff | hist) . . (+178)‎ . . N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Zalewski ‎ / occult author

17:01, 24 September 2006 (diff | hist) . . (+271)‎ . . N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine yronwode ‎ / occult writer (me)

21:38, 25 October 2006 (diff | hist) . . (+185)‎ . . N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Doctrines ‎ / Satanic-occult group

20:56, 28 October 2006 (diff | hist) . . (+165)‎ . . N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joy of Satan ‎ / Satanic-occult group

19:07, 7 November 2006 (diff | hist) . . (+244)‎ . . N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pat Zalewski ‎ / occult writer

17:30, November 16, 2006 (diff | hist) . . (+217)‎ . . N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etheric projection ‎ metaphysical-occult concept; could have been merged with astral projection but was instead deleted with very uncivil language by all concerned

23:12, November 16, 2006 (diff | hist) . . (+164)‎ . . N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egregore ‎ / occult-literary teminology

12:17, 18 November 2006 (diff | hist) . . (+197)‎ . . N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Zimmerman ‎ / writer-professor

13:01, 18 November 2006 (diff | hist) . . (+258)‎ . . Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet(2nd nomination) ‎ / occult writer

16:57, December 18, 2006 (diff | hist) . . (+276)‎ . . N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elliot Benjamin / writer on esoteric cults

22:03, December 18, 2006 (diff | hist) . . (+308)‎ . . N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novelty theory / relates to well-known fiction writer

Some of the bios that Leibniz brought to AFD status survived their consensus review, and others did not. Some were deleted with very few comments, leading me to suspect that the entire consensus procedure was sock-puppeted.

The Leibniz account is still active and has been in use as recently as 2010.

If it is decided that the biographical article deletions proposed by Leibniz were performed under a program of vengeance-editing, it is my sincere request that any and all of deleted writer-bio articles that were inappropriately deleted due to AFDs brought by this man and his host of sock-puppets (who always supported his AFDs, of course) be reinstated. They can be tagged as lacking sources or as stubs, or as whatever a regular editor would find deficient about them, but they should be brought back to pubic view for further editing.

Thanks for checking. Catherineyronwode (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the data maintained by the checkuser database only go back a few months from the present. There is no way to run a checkuser on an account from 2006 or even from 2010. Determining whether an account from that era belonged to the same person as User:Qworty needs to be done on the basis of behavioral evidence. If the answer is unclear, the best path forward may be simply to rewrite the article based on the best available sources as of today. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The behavioural evidence is strong, strong, strong. Basically, i consider it proven to my satisfaction.

The problem with the Leibniz edits is not so much that we must go about fixing gutted Pagan and occult BLP articles as it is that we need help restoring DELETED Pagan and occult BLP articles.

Asking us to start over is disrespectful to the time we writers have spent on these deleted Pagan and occult writer bios. We need the original articles back online with their original edit histories so that we can review them and bring them up to current standards, if necessary

The deleted BLPs of Pagan and occult writers and other writers not only need to go back online, we must see to it that they NOT be subjected to the post-2010 citation rule for immediate deletion until editors have had time to properly ref them.

Please consider this a formal request from an editor of 7-plus years standing to an administrator who understands the magnitude of the problem: We need all of Leibniz's AFDs to be brought back to public view as of the date originally created so that the post-2010 citation rule is waived for the time being.

Thanks. Catherineyronwode (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For any pages deleted that you think should be restored, you should request undeletion here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion - but make sure to request that the page be restored to userspace, then you can work on them, add necessary sourcing, and then propose them once fixed at Articles for Creation. The editors there can give you an independent view on whether the articles are notable enough now. Don't request that they be restored to mainspace however - the admins there will not do it, for procedural reasons. Another avenue open to you may be deletion review, but if there was a clear consensus and notability was not established by the extant sources, this won't help you. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If you post a list here of the pages that were deleted, an administrator can review them and consider which should be considered for undeletion or for re-posting in your userspace so you can work on them without having to start from scratch. Not all the pages you list above were deleted (I know that you (Catherineyronwode) still have an article), so it would be helpful if you could list the specific deleted pages that should be looked at. Also, we can't just assume that there were no grounds for deleting these articles; they need to be looked at. Posting the list will enable that to happen. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for your responses, both of you, and i will create a list but note:

1. I stated clearly that not all pages were deleted (obviosuly mine was not).

2. With one exception, these were not pages that i created, hence placing them in my user-space would be to force me to deal with them, when all i was trying to do was to bring another Qworty-sock to your collective attention.

3. Even if i were competent to upgrade articles that were spuriously deleted which i did not create, my enthusiasm for helping Wikipedia out of this mess is very low. Having been a victim of it myself, both as a BLP subject and as a writer, and having seen my concerns laughed at, dismissed, ridiculed, and otherwise treated as nonsense, only to find that the problem was even bigger than my own research indicated, i think you cannot expect me to work on articles in userpace that i had nothing at all to do with creating.

Thanks for understanding. Catherineyronwode (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think when I said "you", I meant "y'all", as in, whoever cares enough can do so - and, obviously, any such articles in any userspace can be edited by anyone else - so it simply requires coordination - the fact that it is in userspace X doesn't mean it's all your responsibility. You may consider contacting the original article creators, or those who voted to keep back in the day, and redirect them to this thread, let them know there is a possibility to have the articles recreated in userspace, and if they're interested they should do so.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"my enthusiasm for helping Wikipedia out of this mess is very low" I'm not sure what you mean by this? Who, exactly, is wikipedia? Are you suggesting that the wikimedia foundation should put resources towards this, for example? It's an interesting idea, but best brought up on Jimbo's talk page. Otherwise, we're all volunteers here, just like you. You may also want to contact the article rescue squad, it's a group that likes to save articles that have been killed or are about to be killed, maybe they could help restore some of these articles that were deleted? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article_Incubator is another option. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tangential question: is anybody involved in this project an administrator? NaymanNoland (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NaymanNoland, i believe Newyorkbrad is an administrator.

Obiwankenobi, please leave me alone. I have no interest in debate.

Newyorkbrad, in the next section is one evening's pass by me through this mess.

Catherineyronwode (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not very civil, when all I ever did was attempt to help you.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for page restoration of 3 notable occult writers

Deleted New Age, Pagan, occult, and metaphysical PLP pages in which Leibniz had a vote or brought the AFD

1.

13:01, 18 November 2006 (diff | hist) . . (+258)‎ . . Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet(2nd nomination) ‎ / occult writer

Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet / occult writer - yoga teacher

currently exists at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mallarme/Patrizia_Norelli-Bachelet so i was able to peruse it and saw how easy it would be to fix it.

I request reinstatement of the deleted page and i promise that i can and will remove the cruft and edit it into shape with refs in one hour. She is notable.

2.

19:07, 7 November 2006 (diff | hist) . . (+244)‎ . . N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pat Zalewski ‎ / occult writer

Pat Zaelewski notable occult writer -- has written and co-written about a dozen books listed at amazon, non of them self-published (most are published by Llewellyn, a large occult publishing house) and in turn his writing is cited in other books:

Cited 1 time in this book: A history of the occult tarot, 1870-1970 Ronald Decker, Michael A. E. Dummett, page 368

Cited 5 times in this book: Tarot and the Magus: Opening the Key to Divination, Magick and the Holy Guardian Angel By Paul Hughes-Barlow

Cited 1 time in this book: Circles of Power: Ritual Magic in the Western Tradition By John M. Greer

Cited 1 time in this book: Path of Alchemy: Energetic Healing and the World of Natural Alchemy By Mark Stavish

I cannot write or improve his bio as i really know little about his area of the occult (The Golden Dawn lodges of the Western Esoteric or Ceremonial Magic tradition [my field is strictly folk-magic]), but i recognized his name immediately when i saw it. He and his wife Chris Zalewski (also deleted by Leibniz), created a tarot deck with which i am familiar.

I request reinstatement of his BLP page.

3.

16:46, 24 September 2006 (diff | hist) . . (+178)‎ . . N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Zalewski ‎ / occult author

Chris Zalewski is as well known, although not as prolific, as her husband. She is an artist and writer. She created The Magical Tarot of the Golden Dawn. She writes on tarot and on Enochian chess (a spin-off of four-handed, four-seasons, or chataranga chess that can be used for divination). She has co-written several books with Pat Zalewski, including The Equinox & Solstice Ceremonies of the Golden Dawn. I believe she too is notable, but i have run out of time to research her notability. If she is not notable enough herself, she should be given extended mention in any article on her husband, Pat, as they have co-written several books.

I will return with more of these in due time, but it may be a week, as i only have one day off for private writing and research. Wikipedia is a hobby. I am paid for my other writing.

Thanks.

Catherineyronwode (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you could provide any reliable secondary sources independent of the subjects that cover these individuals. Without an indication from independent and reliable sources that the individual is notable there is no basis for restoring the article. From a brief look it does seem Norelli-Bachelete is notable ([2] [3] [4] [5]) and her being the aunt of a former Chilean president, who may run and retake office in the upcoming election according to reports, makes it likely there will be Spanish-language sources. Unfortunately, getting many online secondary sources will likely prove difficult. I am not finding anything that would indicate the Zalewskis are notable.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Project name

I was wondering if keeping this project named after Qworty is ideal - it is more a matter of discomfort, rather than a solid problem, but I was thinking that it would be better to treat this as a "COI cleanup" or similar generic project in which Qworty's edits are being examined, as opposed to something only about Qworty. If it was more general we could document the procedures worked out here, and thus if we were in a similar position in the future we could have a record as to how to approach it as well as somewhere to keep it. This is likely to be open for a very long time, so there is a fair likelihood that a similar separate issue could arise before this one is completed. - Bilby (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a good idea. The main project page could be Wikipedia:WikiProject Contributor clean-up. The other pages would become sub-pages. I'd like to add that I started this page on an improvised notion of moving forward. I certainly have no objection and if a better project name comes up, that will be great.--My76Strat (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We'll still end up with a subheading using Qworty's username. This is internal Wikipedia business, akin to any noticeboard or other project. I don't see any problem. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Andrews

(Note: I moved this from one of the edit pages. However, for Lightspeed and Coffeepusher, please keep discussion here on-topic of the restoration of material inappropriately removed by Qworty. If there are other content disputes, those belong on the talk page of the associated article.) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Restored Andrews' career information that was deleted primarily by Qworty and also by Little Green Rosetta. The removed material is true, verifiable (even if sometimes the sources are not mainstream publications), and useful. This suggests that we should restore it. I also added new information about Andrews' last movie, as well as additional citation sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightspeedx (talk • contribs)

Information added by Lightspeedx has been removed by Howicus citing the original dispute resolution case where Lightspeedx was told by ~~two~~ three different editors, unrelated to the dispute, that those edits violated BLP guidelines. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits did not violate BLP guidelines. All the edits are sourced information. Explain in detail as to how her pageant titles which are well sourced, well documented, occurred in real life and earned by the late Ms Andrews violated BLP? Explain how mentioning her last film which she acted in violated BLP? Explain how mention of her stage work violates BLP? Explain how mentioning her pageant titles violates BLP. The dispute resolution I filed was so extremely contaminated by Qworty and Little Green Rosetta's views. Both of those were banned for doing exactly what they did on the Andrews article on others. So far no editor can back up with sourced evidence as to why the information should be deleted. All I keep hearing is people parroting Qworty that it should be deleted. If there is a content limit rule of x words on a page and the article violates that rule, then say so and at least we can finally agree on something. If you say it is contentious, then prove it with source that it is contentious or libelous. For example, if I placed information that Andrews acted in a particular film or won a particular pageant title, prove that I am making up lies because she did not win nor acted in any of it. You can never find that the information is contentious because she really did act in the film and she really did win the titles. They are not lies. What's damaging is your constant assertion that it's contentious but cannot prove it. Lightspeedx (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That information is contained in the dispute resolution case cited above. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To all who are reading this. Coffeepusher does NOT even know who Erica Andrews is. Is not interested in her work, never seen her in performance, doesn't know her from a piece of sand from the beach. He had never heard of her prior to his discovering of her article in April. He couldn't tell you how she was when she was alive if his life depended on it. Yet now he is suddenly her article's keeper. He's now decided he will become the #1 speaker for her article. All of you should really find this very weird that someone would be so obsessed with some dead entertainer whom he doesn't even know. I suspect he's transphobic or homophobic and have a need to use this article to push his agenda. For me, whatever you want to think of me through Coffeepusher's smearing - I am at least her fan, seen her in performance, met her when she was alive, researched heavily for her article and the bulk of what you see in her article was written by me (even after it was chewed up by Qworty, Little Green Rosetta and Coffeepusher). Lightspeedx (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To Coffeepusher, seriously dude, chill. Take a big chill pill and really re-examine why you are so obsessed with following me around and pushing your edits and agenda around regarding the Andrews article. For me, at least I have reasons - I am a fan of Andrews and I did work on researching for content on her and would like to see that her article has some integrity. You don't know Andrews, you don't really give a dang about Andrews and you are not in the least interested in her career. What's it to you about this whole thing? If it's a pissing contest you want me to partake in, I'm not interested. I really am not. You really have no need or reason to keep shadowing me. What's it to you if the Andrews article is shredded to bits or if it wins Featured Article status? Really. Go find something in your life to fill your time with. It's not worth you daily obsessing and jumping up and down trailing me around trying to diminish my reputation. Despite what you think, I'm not worth your time and I really don't care about you or what you think of me. Your obsession is not healthy. If you are transphobic or homophobic and really want to see to that the Andrews article gets beat up, then come on out about that. Please stop the nonsense. OK? Lightspeedx (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This personal attack on Coffeepusher doesn't belong here, or anywhere for that matter, and an ANI case has been opened. Please remove this. The original location is bad enough. It serves no purpose here. Remove this comment at the same time. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Independent Review of Books

I've been going through the list and see that Qworty has removed quotes from http://www.washingtonindependentreviewofbooks.com many times. Often the reviews do come across as promotional or could be considered peacockery, although this isn't always the case. The website is a nonprofit organization which seems to allow anyone to contribute reviews, so I'm guessing Q was justified in removing quotes from this website. Can anyone clarify the matter for me? Cheers. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 12:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]