Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cantors

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. &mdash; Xezbeth 20:17, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

User:Cantors
This vote is unusual, it is about the user page of User:Cantors who has re-inserted on it material from an article already voted for deletion because of contravening the guidelines in Vanity page, see Votes for deletion/Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs. It is also in contravention of What Wikipedia is not point 6: "Self-promotion...A very few somewhat famous Wikipedians have significantly contributed to encyclopedia articles about themselves and their accomplishments, and this has mostly been accepted after some debate. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is not acceptable...Wikipedia guidelines at User page state that "...A good start is to add a little information about yourself...Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page...Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage..." Finally, this user has also chosen a name that contravenes Username. See the Wikipedia log-in page to "Avoid usernames that are offensive, inflammatory, or confusing...Avoid choosing a username that is the name of a celebrity, or a political, military, or religious figure" such as Cantors, see also Category:Cantors. IZAK 02:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete contents and Rename user's name, for the above reasons. IZAK 02:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Doesn't belong in VfD. Moving deleted article content to user space is not unusual.  As you note, VfD does not customarily address user space.  VfD does not seem to be the right place for reporting a problematic user name.  If the username selection seems truly egregious, WP:AN/I might be a better place to try.  (Or maybe someone will have a better suggestion.) As a side note, the same content appears at User:Merlinzor.  I have no idea if that is considered an offensive user name. --Tabor 04:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, one of his other sockpuppets, User:Rabbis, has been blocked for making legal threats. RickK 05:53, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete industrial-strength vanity attack. (Personally, I suspect it's all the work of Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs himself.) Also delete the nearly identical User:Merlinzor page. --Calton | Talk 07:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Also User talk:Professor Kaufman -- persistent, he is. --Calton | Talk 07:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Clarification: By "delete", I mean all 3 re-created vanity articles and the associated photos. None of the three identities (Merlinzor, Professor Kaufman, and Cantors) claims to be Kepecs, which would be the only (marginal) reason for keeping the material there. I have no opinion on the user name "Cantors". --Calton | Talk 04:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 07:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ask user to take a different name. I'm undecided about the content of his page. - Mgm|(talk) 09:08, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I don't see any reason this guy shouldn't be allowed to have the user name "Cantors."  What the login page says is to "Avoid choosing a username that is the name of a celebrity, or a political, military, or religious figure or event or known Wikipedia user." (my emphasis)  That policy refers to the names of promininent individuals, not to the name of an entire profession.  For example, someone shouldn't take the user name "Billy Grahm," but there would be nothing wrong with someone taking the user name "Preachers," or "Choir Singer," or "Alter Boys."  The dude sings at his local sinagague and he was the first to take the user name, so give him a break!  Blackcats 10:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete User:Cantors, User:Merlinzor, and User talk:Professor Kaufman. Having one user/user talk page with this self-promotional material would be a borderline keep for me, but having three makes it clear that this person is using Wikipedia for something it was not intended for. Regarding the user names, I have no idea what's wrong with Cantors – it's not offensive, and it's just a word. Does my username imply that I am a robot? Should I have to change it because of that? A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  12:41, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * For other related VFD discussions, in addition to those already mentioned, see Votes for deletion/Victor Beck and Votes for deletion/Gary Krupp. Uncle G 13:23, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
 * Delete, wikipedia is not a web host. --W(t) 13:27, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
 * Delete User:Cantors, User:Merlinzor, and User talk:Professor Kaufman. While User: pages are normally not candidates for deletion, this continual promotion of vanity material has gone on for far too long.  From what I can tell it has been inserted (in various forms) into at least 10 different articles now by at least 5 different sockpuppets and another half dozen anonymous IPs.  Wikipedia is not a webhost, nor a forum for self-advertisement. Jayjg (talk)  15:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and Comment: I see no problem with a user having a name such as Cantors - as Blackcats says above, it is a religious rank or title, not the name of a religious figure. If I took User:John_Paul_II, that would be subject to censure.  However, claiming User:The_Pope is not offensive (perhaps implicitly, but it could have been done in good faith).  However, as user has been known to act in bad faith, contributing negatively to Wikipedia, I voted to delete. jglc | t | c 16:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - I guess I wasn't completely aware of all the other issues, besides him using the name "Cantors." It seems the main issue is that he's using his user page essentially as a web-hosting space without contributing much to any other articles.  I'd say then that the content of his user page (and talk, etc) could be removed and the page protected until the user has made say 250 edits, or whatever,to show that he's more serious about Wikipedia.  And then if he becomes disruptive, or is really not editing in good faith, then his user name can be blocked.  I just really don't think that blocking or user page deletion is warranted merely because someone has a name that's a religious title.  Blackcats 20:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What you all fail to realize is that there are three organizations that are really upset with what you have been doing. We have had board meetings regarding your insistance on deleting any mention of the Papal meeting, or its participants. The fact that we were in touch with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon leading up to the meeting, apparently means nothing to you. Your actions of eliminating all references to the one event deemed one of the most highly important events in Judeo-Christian history by both the Israeli government as well as the Vatican is quite odd. It has angered three organizations, The Jewish Ministers Cantors Assn, the American Seminary for Cont. Judaism, and Pave the Way Foundation. We collectively feel a terrible injustice has been done by your organization. There was an historical event that took place on January 18, 2005, where a sitting Pope (John Paul II) was visited for the first time in history by 141 very grateful Jewish clergy, who wished to thank him for everything he had done for the Jewish people and for the State of Israel. The event was reported across the country in many publications, as well as the Vatican newspaper, The New York Times, and was covered on Italian television. We inserted a paragraph into your encyclopedia, and your editors have consistently chosen to eliminate all mention of this event from any article that had contained it. They also removed bios of Cantor Victor Beck, President of the Jewish Ministers Cantors Assn, Cantor Eliezer Kepecs, Vice President elect of the JMCA, Gary Krupp, President of Pave the Way Foundation and others who were deemed important to this event and other events. Upon trying to reason with these ill informed editors, that this event was extremely important in Judeo-Christian developments, endorsed by the former Pope himself, the Israeli government, and Cantors and Rabbis worldwide, they choose to ignore it and have erased all mention of it from your encyclopedia, thereby altering important history. In addition they have erased all mention of the participants, and the one who brought us there- Gary Krupp, knighted by the Pope, and President and founder of Pave the Way Foundation. The remarks in the discussion pages, that your editors make about Rabbis and Cantors, are not only incorrect, but are on the verge of lible, such as "There is no such thing as Jewish clergy", and "Rabbis and Cantors are just lay-people, who are not ordained clergymen." Voting on deleting our user page User:Cantors, and all its associated pictures, stating this user name is offensive, is a violation of our civil rights and liberties. You have also written that the event and its participants were not notable. We are extremely upset at all these deletions, consistently signifying religious discrimination against Jews, Rabbis, and Cantors. In addition an encyclopedia which makes the claim that everyone can edit it, is misrepresentative of what is really going on in its pages. Many people, from various organizations have been offended by this act. We have had board meetings and discussed the possible solutions to the problem at hand. We would like you to right the injustices that have been done to many by your institution. You should reverse the injustices that your editors have done. We appeal to you now on a colleageate level. Thank you, -Respectfully submitted, Reverend Cantor Gary Buchwald, Secretary JMCA; Reverend Cantor Tyrone Bauer, board JMCA; Reverend Cantor Leslie Rimer, Treasurer JMCA; Reverend Cantor Victor I. Beck, President JMCA; Reverend Cantor Michael Trachtenberg, Treasurer elect JMCA; Reverend Cantor Ben Matis, board JMCA, Faculty American Seminary for Cont. Jud.; Reverend Cantor David Montefiore, President elect JMCA; Reverend Cantor Eliezer Kepecs, Vice President elect JMCA, Faculty and board American Seminary for Cont. Jud.; Reverend Cantor Yehuda Rossler, board JMCA; Reverend Cantor Ofer Barnoy, board JMCA; Reverend Steven Blitz; Reverend George Henschel; Rabbi Aron Griver, Board JMCA, Faculty American Seminary for Cont. Jud.; Rabbi Harvey Weil, Faculty American Seminary for Cont. Jud.; Robert E. Cohen, Dean American Seminary for Cont. Jud.; Gary Krupp, President Pave the Way Foundation; Mark Morris, board American Seminary for Cont. Jud.; Mona Morris, board American Seminary for Cont. Jud.; Michael Baum, board American Seminary for Cont. Jud.; Michael Eisenstein, board American Seminary for Cont. Jud.; Melissa Wind; Gary Laveman; Lillian Kessler. (Statement by 24.185.97.194, whose only edits are to this and related pages.) We never meant to be offensive to you, but what you have done to us, is quite offensive. - User:24.185.97.194, 23:00, June 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Deceptive activity can't be good for this project and it's community. I trust IZAK on this one. hydnjo talk 19:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the user name. Cantors isn't a religious figure, and could very well be the user's actual surname, as evidenced by the fact that there are four articles for people with that surname. Pburka 03:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Complex vote: The user should be allowed to continue to use the username User:Cantors per Blackcats. However, Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider and the user's placement of a full biography on two user pages and a user talk page violates that official policy.  Excessive content should be removed in accordance with Userpage.  Nevertheless, at least the first sentence on User:Cantors should be allowed to stay in any event because it is consistent with user page guidelines. --Metropolitan90 03:33, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * DeleteShameless self-promotion. Walkerma 04:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, request new userid and recommend block this user for at least a month. Users Merlinzor, Rabbis, Cantors, and Professor_Kaufman are, along with a plethora of fake accounts and complete IP anons, all the same person, as is evidenced by his/their uniform writing style, edit content, POV, etc., as can easily be concluded by reviewing their combined edit histories.  This user has engaged in pushing the completely unverifiable title "Reverend Cantor" in a dozen different (albethey related) articles, persistent insertion of images of copyrighted text into several articles, and destructively persistent insertion of irrelevant aggrandizing text into various other articles.  If this were a RfC, I'd go to the trouble of seeking out actual documentation for my claims, but there are a number of other editors here (with access I lack) who can attest to my unsourced claims on this matter.  As for the n00b User:Pburka's statement that Cantors could conceivably be a surname, I submit that the user in question is most likely not surnamed "Cantors" (in fact, while Cantor is a relatively widespread surname, "Cantors" is nonexistant as such), and further, is neither a cantor, nor a cantor in training.  This multinamed user has claimed to be a rabbi-in-training, which is, as anyone with 3 minutes of Jewish learning can tell you, a completely uninformed and patently ridiculous claim, for reasons I can go into if anyone other than the vandalism-prone user in question requests rationale for that statement.  Beyond that, it appears entirely likely that  is actually just another sockpuppet of the user in question.  All of that said, a study of the history of the discussions regarding the various VfDs of the articles this user has copied to his various sockpuppet userpages (in addition to those not yet reproduced there), reveals that the choice of the usernames "Cantors", "Rabbis" and "Professor Kaufman" were chosen in a deliberate attempt to establish (nonexistant) authority on the pet topic of this user.  This is a bad faith editor whose contributions have done nothing whatsoever to improve the Project, and in a number of cases (notably at Hazzan and a number of articles related to the Papacy of John Paul II) amount to nothing but outright POV-pushing vandalism.  Tomer TALK  07:09, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe you're confusing with someone else (who has a name like "Rabbi2b" or something like it), as I see no sign that Pburka has ever claimed to be a rabbinical student, and he/she has a fairly long editing history. --Calton | Talk 08:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe that, for whatever reason, you're completely confusing what I said. I did not say anything to the effect that Pburka made any claims about being a rabbinical student, rather that Pburka asserted that "Cantors" might be a surname, which as I said, it is not, and I then proceeded to further say that I think Pburka may be yet another sock puppet, given the shortlived (about 2 and a half weeks thus far), and not incredibly diversified (about half of this user's edits are to VfD pages), albeit prolific edit history, especially as compared to some of Merlinzor's other sock puppets.  In any case, Pburka's statement that it may be a surname in light of the supposèd fact that it's the surname of 4 people about whom WP has articles, indicates a failure to grasp the meaning of surname.  I'm not sure that votes of illiterati should be counted in a VfD.  Tomer TALK  10:44, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * No need to WP:BITE. Cantors isn't a common surname but it is the plural form of a common surname. There are four articles on Wikipedia about people with the surname Cantor. Two mathemeticians, one historian and an entertainer. There's no indication that this user contributed to any of those articles. While you may dislike this user, his name is not in violation of Wikipedia policy. If it were, we'd also need to delete and . Ban him for his actions, if you wish, but not his name. Pburka 20:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with your assessment of his username (to wit: It is fine, nonoffensive, &c.), but disagree with your citation of WP:BITE. That policy only applies to those users who are too new on WP to know better than to engage in actions which - for a more long-time user - may otherwise be considered egregrious breaches of wiki etiquette. User:Cantors shows every sign of not being a newcomer. jglc | t | c 20:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * My objection is not to the name itself, but to the fact that it, along with User:Rabbis and User:Professor Kaufman, are sockpuppets of User:Merlinzor's, and all of which were chosen specifically to establish unwarranted authority on the subject of the various VfD's in which this malicious user has been involved. Tomer TALK  20:38, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete the pages, but the user name is fine. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unreasonable use of the cur database. JFW | T@lk  22:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: If it is on one user page, I do not have any problems with it. But on three or four, that is a problem to me. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * a violation of our civil rights and liberties, eh? Wikipedia is not your personal web host. I didn't participate in any of the deletion discussions for any of the other articles, and I'm not sure how I feel about bios about the various rabbis, cantors, etc. and the notability of the event itself, but using user space in this manner is against Wikipedia policy. Worse still, taking this tone with the community – that we have "angered" several people/organizations (and by implication, we should be concerned about said anger), that incorrect statements of fact by some editors somehow constitute lible [sic], and that your civil rights are somehow violated by having your work deleted from an open-content, collaborative encyclopedia – is actually quite offensive to me. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  22:35, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * But your wasting our time Annon with the Cantor cruft mess. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment. One would think that with all of those names in play that a "Comment" by an anonymous user would seem a bit unseemly. A Userpage and a User talk page may provide for more opportunity for the community to discuss this issue. There is, of course, no requirement to establish a Userpage but my observations suggest that comunication flows more freely with a registered User than with an anonymous contributor. hydnjo talk 01:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: In an effort to put an end to the claims being made by the anonymous editsquad, I have sent the following email to vbeck_company@yahoo.com:


 * I'll be sure to post any response I get. Tomer TALK  02:38, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I got a response, which follows:
 * Tomer TALK 05:46, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Tomer TALK 05:46, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * One wonders how you know, if it's not your phone number, that people have been calling "at all hours of the day and night" and what the status of the supposed police investigation is -- assuming that anyone has been calling, of course. I also have to wonder why someone who lives in Tucson doesn't even know how to spell the name of the city. --Calton | Talk 14:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, the phone number has been been removed from here, but we need to check the edit history to see who added it and any sources cited. (BTW, I am in Casa Grande, AZ now, passed by Tuscon earlier today, nice place.) Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The phone number was listed on a VfD and on a VfU, by me, there's no need to go checking to see who put it out there. I cited my source as whitepages.com.  I also posted Cantor Beck's email address, which I got from his website.  Both are either public (telephone #) or public domain (website) information.  As for misspelling Tucson as "Tuscon", that appears to be an Arizona habit, as both Cantor Beck and Zscout370 have now both done it. :-D  Incidentally, I couldn't help but notice the veiled legal threat in Cantor Beck's email, which is similar to the similar threat made by User:Rabbis a week or so ago.  That said, it should be noted that Cantor Beck made no mention of any involvement by the organizations with which he is involved, which are cited by Merlinzor as being involved in writing these vanity pages.  Tomer TALK  15:34, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oops. Well, I am not in AZ now, but sorry about the goof. Also, can the legal threat posted by Rabbis be reproduced here for all to see (for comparison sake?) Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That is the rationale given by RickK here for this block, which was apparently as a result of this edit: . Tomer TALK  00:17, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight. You think that is perfectly appropriate for this Wikipedia to have duplicate articles such as User:Cantors and User:Merlinzor. If your position is that you may present a User or an Article under various Names then the community may present some opposition. A User is a User, not a User with as many names as he/she chooses. This is referred to as sockpuppetry and is discouraged. Please choose a Username so that your arguments will be more respected.  hydnjo talk 02:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that articles are not "respected" regardless of whether a username is applied or not. --Merlinzor 13:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Another suggestion: If this is getting too much, then could we shoot on sight any cantor-cruft that appears on here? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. We've wasted enough time on this nonsense already. Gamaliel 05:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * User:Cantors was blocked from making any changes to the article that you see here. In order to continue making edits, and continue refining the bio, we had to move the article to another location- this time, my userpage, which you are now attacking as well. Don't you ever stop attacking?? --Merlinzor 13:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * "Refine the bio"? Reaquaint yourself with Votes for deletion/Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs and its subsequent Request for Undeletion (the last version of the page before delisting can be found here): if Kepecs (probably, that is, you) wants an article Kepecs is going to have to actually do something noteworthy enough to earn one. Unless something dramatic happens in his life, Kepecs is not getting an article here, and since Wikipedia is not a webhosting service, putting pseudo-articles on the talk pages is not permitted, either. Don't like? Deal with it. --Calton | Talk 14:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you mean to say that Krupp, Kepecs, and Beck never did anything noteworthy? You deleted all of them. Especially Krupp, a papal knight, who meets regularly with the Pope and flies back and forth from Israel to Rome to the US, trying to bring the world peacefully together. Krupp, who arranged the papal meeting of 141 Jewish clergy. Krupp, a Jew, who is like an ambassador to the Vatican and who founded an organization that deals with this. In addition the papal event itself was completely deleted from your pages. --Merlinzor 15:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, so they met the Pope. Thousands upon thousands did so, but they do not have articles on here. Just because it means something to you does not mean it means something to us. I made Eagle Scout, but that does not entitle me to get an article on here. Plus, not every papal meeting is noteworthy at all. If you want a webpage to talk about all of this, that is your call. But on here, we have decided time and time again that the pages should be deleted. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * In 100 years, history will show whether or not their meeting was noteworthy. The point is that it isn't sufficiently noteworthy for Wikipedia.  Regardless of how much Krupp flies around the world, that's not an indicator of encyclopædicity.  He is not like an ambassador to the Vatican, as ambassadors represent governments.  Not only does Krupp represent noöne but the non-profit he founded, but Krupp is not a leader in any Jewish community, in fact he is widely regarded as at best misguided, at worst as a prophet of apostasy.  The deletion of the papal event itself was a result of the fact that you insisted upon text that effectively said that the meeting of 141 Jewish leaders with the Pope was the most significant occurrence in Jewish history since the construction of Solomon's Temple.  I have no problem with mentioning the event  in the appropriate article, and ONLY in the appropriate article , but the wording upon which you have persistently insisted is not appropriate for WP (which is why some editors have taken to calling it "cantor-cruft").  Tomer TALK  16:02, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. "We've wasted enough time on this nonsense already" © Gamaliel. - Sikon 07:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs
I'm confused. Would there be objection to this content in the Article Namespace rather than in the User Namespace? What is objectionable, the what or the where (or both)? hydnjo talk 21:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You did see this, right? Overwhelming consensus to delete, discounting socks – I count 14 delete votes out of 20 total legitimate ones, and I have a feeling the consensus would be even greater if a new vote were to be done. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D ; TALK  EMAIL  21:40, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Nope. I obviously missed it (I'm embarrassed to to say in front of the entire community). Feel free to take down this section as you see fit. :-(  hydnjo talk 22:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .