Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:Warriorboy85

Warriorboy85 (talk · contribs) has a long history of violating BLP with his contentious edits. He has a page full of warnings about edit warring and BLP violations, and he was blocked at one point for making legal threats. He retracted the legal threats, but he continues to edit with non-reliable sources, making BLP violations. Note: I don't have any dog in this hunt, I know nothing about the problems he's dealing with, all I know is the long history of edit warring and his recent BLP violations with accusations of criminal activity and non-reliable sources to support his contentions. Corvus cornix_talk 05:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs of problematic behavior? elektrikSHOOS 06:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

His whole edit history is problematic, but the most recent problem edit was [1]. Corvus cornix_talk 06:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Further unsupported BLP violation: [2]. Corvus cornix_talk 06:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a complicated something going on over corporate fraud and alleged corporate fraud and various companies or shell companies. Robert Rooks, a man convicted by the SEC of fraud, is at the center of some of it, as explained in a recently updated article on United_Assurance_Company_Ltd.. I don't think WarriorBoy has been doing anything intentionally of late, except not understanding our WP:PRIMARY policy. That's coming along though, and I think the user just needs some instruction about how we operate with sources, especially in controversial areas. I'm not involved here, but have been mediating of sorts between editors who are very well informed on facts but speaking past eachother. Eyes appreciated but I don't seen anything actionable for admins right now. Ocaasi ^c 08:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Unsupported accusations of criminal activity are not actionable? Corvus cornix_talk 17:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Maybe I'm missing something really obvious...it's happened before...but it looks to me like WarriorBoy85 is actually working on correcting potential BLP violations, seeking secondary sources for referencing, and otherwise working to improve the article. The trouble I see in the article Talk page seems to be arising from 173.75.81.106 (talk · contribs). Feel free to trout me if I'm misinterpreting things. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

What am I missing here? How is this not an accusation of criminal activity? Corvus cornix_talk 17:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not an accusation to state that someone was criminally charged, then direct the reader to Lexis Nexis to look up the specifics. Criminal charges, if they exist, are a matter of public record. If a television reporter states a person has been accused of a crime, and refers to a filing of charges by a district attorney, does anyone yell that the reporter is making the accusation? No. Now, if WarriorBoy85 had stated Brooks had committed a crime, but not provided any sort of support for that statement, you'd have a basis for saying he was accusing Brooks of a crime. In this case (and I haven't yet looked at Lexis Nexis to see whether there's actually anything there or not), he's just relaying his information. I'd prefer if WarriorBoy85 had provided direct citations to the court proceedings, instead of just saying "look it up", especially since (last I knew) Lexis Nexis was a for-pay reference system. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

<==So anybody can make any accusation and tell people to "go look it up" and that satisfies BLP? Corvus cornix_talk 22:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Please demonstrate that WarriorBoy85 is accusing someone of something. What this non-admin sees is WarriorBoy85 working on improving an article, and while he hasn't created an actual citation to support his reference (which I'd really like to see him do as a matter of resolving this), I have no reason to doubt his good faith. Do you have positive, demonstrable evidence to the contrary, something that proves bad-faith editing or blatant BLP violations? If so, please post it here so the admins can review it. I have off-wiki tasks to attend to, so I'm not going to be back to see this discussion for quite some time, but I'm fairly certain there will be interested parties stepping in. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually don't think there's any dispute about Rooks being convicted. In fact, both WarriorBoy and the ips seem to agree on that. However, there is disagreement over the role of Kimball Richard (or Kimball Dean Richard) that apparently goes back to a 2009 thread (partly here: [3]). Disputed family names and disputed company names and it didn't exactly come to an answer. I think all editors are now at least 'acting' in good faith, and we just need to stick to sources on the talk page for now. Ocaasi ^c 00:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

All I can do is shake my head and wonder why I bother. BLP is BLP, all accusations require reliable sources, which are not forthcoming. Do whatever you want, I'm through with this, but I'll expect equal lack of action the next time a BLP violation is claimed. Corvus cornix_talk 01:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This ANI is hilarious. WB85 obviously has a COI that has been problematic. It has been a mess trying to figure out is going on (I have been watching and am still completely confused). The diffs take some thought. I am inclined to let him keep on going since if he did it this long he deserves the credit. Nice work on duping the community, Warriorboy.Cptnono (talk) 08:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm still not seeing any evidence of bad faith editing, apart from not citing a source. And since the article is about a corporation, not an individual, I'm not even sure how WP:BLP applies. I ask again, is there actual evidence that he's accusing anyone, as opposed to reporting on accusations made by others? If not, the entire ANI report here would seem to be nothing more than a bad case of "consensus didn't go my way and I'm going to make someone hurt for it." That's not how Wikipedia works. (Congress, maybe. But not Wikpedia.)

Also, perhaps now is a good time to remind everyone that the absolute defense to libel is truth. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, another reminder to add, is that the WP:BLP policy does not exist for the primary purpose of avoiding litigation. (My mini-essay on the subject expands that slightly.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

What part of {a person's name} was criminally charged in Nevada 8 or 9 years ago, and those records are available is a sourced non-violation of BLP? Corvus cornix_talk 04:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You're ignoring the elephant in the room: Allied Artists International is an article about a corporation, not a person. Therefore, BLP does NOT apply. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you even reading what I'm posting? The name I redacted above is a PERSON, not a CORPORATION. Corvus cornix_talk 16:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I have read this entire ANI, the article in question, and WB's Talk page and contribution history, as well as several of the links from the latter two. There are two issues that stand out: WB85's WP:PRIMARY issues, as pointed out by Ocaasi, and a content dispute between you and WB85, as pointed out by the remainder of the exchange. Your incredulity and unwillingness to see anyone else's points don't change those two simple, stubborn, irreducible facts. Were I an admin (which, as should be clear by now, I am not), I'd be directing both of you to the dispute resolution process, with a further admonishment to WB85 to review WP:PRIMARY and include citations/references to support changes to articles. Since I'm not an admin, and since you don't seem to be interested in my input, I'm walking away from this topic, effective now. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. WB is posting accusations of criminal activity without supporting them with reliable sources. I do not understand why you don't see that, and I do not see what more I need to do to point this out. I'm tired of beating my head against a brick wall. I'm done. Do something or don't do something, but BLP is not optional. Corvus cornix_talk 19:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the details here but some of this discussion concerns me. We definitely shouldn't be telling people to go look up court records, particularly not in a BLP. If no one else has published details the these charges then they don't belong in the article. P.S. I briefly read [4] and it concerns me even more that in what seems like an incredibly complex case stuff may have been added or at least proposed to be added based on an editor's analysis of multiple court records Nil Einne (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That the article is not specifically a BLP does not alter WP:BURDEN. Moreover, this very clear advice would still apply: "While Biographies of living persons policies do not apply directly to the subject of this article, this article may have content that directly relates to other living persons, such as friends and family of people no longer living or living people involved in the subject matter. Controversial material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see the biographies of living persons noticeboard." Any other discussion about the matter would seem to be as useful or as relevant as rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Keristrasza (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Factlover1

I think that this editor's aggressive behavior toward other editors has become detrimental. See this thread at editor assistance for details. Danger (talk) 04:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

While I certainly don't condone the uncivil comments of Factlover1 I do understand their frustation. It was some way in to the thread before Factlover1 was pointed to OTRS, which is what they really needed, and when shown that, the response was civil. I understand that the vast majority of copyright breaches really do not have permission, but that is no excuse for lazy replies, especially at EAR which is supposed to be helping user's with this sort of thing. Factlover1 has been warned, they have the information they need, the thread is now closed, hopefully they will take note of the warnings and not repeat. SpinningSpark 09:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

If there were a line beyond which even the very frustrated may not cross, I would have thought that it would be a 650 word screed directed specifically at one other editor including such choice phrases as "group-think proto-nazi nerds" and "take your hypothetical light-saber and ram it out of sight" [5]. This oration was given after the editor was informed of the OTRS process; the editor was frustrated that zie was directed there, claiming that only people bloated with flatulence would care about copyright. [6] --Danger (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Other than a warning on their talk page, which I have now given to the editor, what administrative action where you looking for? SpinningSpark 22:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Had the user not directed that attack at me, but at another editor, I would have blocked them myself. I meant for my warning to be a final one. They had already been warned specifically for aggressive behavior by Jonathanwallace on their talk page [7] and by Orange Mike on EAR [8]. (NB: the notice that I posted on the editor's talk page did link to this subsection specifically. It just also provided a link to AN/I as a whole.) Danger (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The user also directed a few less severe attacks at me several times at Talk:Knut Hamsun's obituary of Adolf Hitler. They wrote: I now understand that Eisfbnore don't want people to see for themselves the real wording of Hamsun's obituary [9], Stop quibbling over four lines … Your limiting of what people can see for themselves in this case, contrary to what you claim, amounts to censorship. Stubbornly repeating that your censorship is not censoring, fails on its own unreasonableness … Don't get carried away in your personal preferences [10] and You're "Gaming the system" … Your stubborn denial of censoring … your demonstrated stubbornness against factual info on Wikipedia. [11]. Factlover1 aka 85.165.24.213 also wrote the following at wikiquote: Eisfbnore reveals his eagerness to censor Hamsun … This guy doesn't like facts … It's getting ridiculous not to conclude that the censorship by Eisfbnore it not a non-NPOV (Neutral Point-Of-View) violation based on negative bias towards Hamsun as an historical person [12] --Eisfbnore ^talk 23:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I would not want my comments to be taken in any way as restraining any other admin from blocking or taking any other action they feel appropriate in this case. SpinningSpark 08:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure if the user has taken note of the warnings they have received. In this reply, Factlover1 stated that they had just replied to "unfactual personal attacks" by other editors …(!) Additionally, they directed another attack at me: "This issue is still about one person, Eisfbnore, vandalizing the entry Knut Hamsun's obituary of Adolf Hitler". Eisfbnore ^talk 17:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, rcvd, to other comments above. "Eisfbnore" is using selective quoting here to misrepresent my statements. The original issue is still to keep factual content at the Wikipedia-entry "Hamsun's obituary of Adolf Hitler", which "Eisfbnore" continues to delete. Pls look it up. Discussion of this users comments aside, the focus should still be on the quality of the entry "Hamsun's obituary...". It appears that "Eisfbnore" is now using a complaint on tone to push aside attention to factual content at the "Hamsun's obituary..."- entry. Hope this improves the tone to refocus attention on the factual content on the "Hamsun's..."-entry. Factlover1 (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Factlover1 aka 85.165.24.213 has just breached 3RR over at Knut Hamsun's obituary of Adolf Hitler, whilst accusing other editors of editwarring and patent nonsense – just check the hist and the talk. It also seems that they have revealed my conspiracy in the previous post.^(irony) Eisfbnore ^talk 19:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours, which block has now been declined twice. SpinningSpark 22:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

User Rklawton "A dirty, rotten, low-life, disruptive trick"

Hi, all. I'm having a difficult time communicating with admin user Rklawton in a thread (link/permalink) at the talk page for our article on Prescott Bush, grandfather to George W. Bush. The conflict started after he and another user deleted the only mention in the article of the matter of Geronimo's bones, a single "see also" link to our article on the Native American Chief.

I'm not asking for help with the content dispute, which has to do with whether allegations should be included in the article that Prescott Bush dug up bones from a graveyard when he was stationed at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, in 1918, and then presented those to his pals in Yale's Skull and Bones society as being those of Geronimo, who was buried at Fort Sill in 1909.

I am asking for admin help, though, to prevent Rklawton's very aggressive, ownership/battleground behavior from continuing. After I objected to his post saying I was "sneaking around", and I provided further basis in policy for including the content, he wrote, "There's consensus not to add that kind of crap to this article, so it will be removed on sight."

By saying there was "consensus not to add that kind of crap" he appears to have meant anything critical of Prescott Bush, even if that criticism does happen to have been reported by every major news outlet in the United States, and been discussed at some length in at least three books. An investigation of this article's history gives me the strong impression that Rklawton, in concert with one other editor primarily, has been essentially standing guard over this article, intimidating other editors who seek to add any critical information.

( Editors who want to examine that assertion further should review this section of our article, which has been a special point of focus, and especially should compare the weight given there to the 2004 article from The Guardian − not quoted from at all, and dismissed as the work of a "conspiracy theorist" − to the weight given to this nearly illegible primary source and this 2003 statement from the Anti-Defamation League, quoted essentially in its entirety to dismiss the allegations in the later 2004 Guardian article as "an internet rumor". )

I next posted additional policy links and discussion to the talk page, and Rklawton responded with this post:

"a well considered and thoughtful reply"

Let me be more clear - this bullshit was removed previously from the article. Trying to re-add it via "see also" was a dirty, rotten, low-life, and yes - disruptive - trick. So the disruption was adding it - not removing it. If you want to add it back - discuss it here first. If you'd like to spend your time critiquing my editing, feel free, but Wikilawyering won't win you any points. In fact, Wikilawyering often backfires for reasons that should be obvious and don't bear repeating.

The "see also" link that Rklawton was objecting to here had been in the article, subject to some recent edit warring, for at least a year. He and another user deleted it on April 7th (UTC), I restored it, once, posting at length to the talk page about the policy basis for doing so, and he again deleted it, three hours later. I did agree on the talk page, btw, that a "see also" link wasn't the right place for this content, and stated my intention there, prior to Rklawton's comment above, to add it to the body of the article, something I haven't done yet.

I'm sorry to have to bring this here, but it seems pretty clear that Rklawton won't tolerate any critical information being fairly represented in this article if he can possibly help it, and that he's perfectly willing to try to bully other editors to prevent that from happening. I know he's an admin, but he's still obliged to conform to our policies disallowing personal attacks, battleground behavior, and article ownership, and I'd appreciate it if the community would take whatever steps are necessary to try to make him understand that. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I've no opinion about the content dispute, but obtaining the input of more uninvolved editors, such as via an RfC, might help. I agree, though, that the comment by Rklawton was strongly incivil and uncollegial, especially from an editor who as an administrator is expected to adhere to higher standards of conduct, and is in my opinion grounds for a block (though I am aware that many editors think that civility blocks are seldom useful).  Sandstein  13:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The real and only issue at hand is whether or not we should included sourced but debunked and absurd rumors in a biographical article. However, in a classic case of bad faith editing, an editor wanted to blow up an initial mild rebuke to obfuscate the real issue - that an editor is trying to push unfounded, debunked, and ridiculous rumors into a biographical article. My response was tongue-in-cheek (note the edit summary), and ended up serving to illustrate only that the editor is obviously oversensitive and should be roundly ignored. As for Geronimo, that particular matter had already been covered and resolved a couple of years ago, but rather than bring up new citations or rationale, he or she drags up the same old citations - bah! Even if this AN/I turns out "against" me - there will be material affect, so the editor wasting everyone's time here. I suspect he or she is hoping to gain some "sympathy" votes. It's a classic case of gaming the system - a process in which at least one editor involved appears to be a pro. For some *really* interesting examples of Wikilawyering ad absurdum, check out the article's talk page where an editor cites an unrelated arb com comment to justify his ridiculous notion that removing any neutral text from an article is automatically disruptive. And frankly bullying people and Wikilawyering are far more disruptive than referring to a rumor as bullshit and an editor's attempt to reinsert it into an article via the "see also" section as "sneaky". Rklawton (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Calling it "a dirty, rotten, low-life, and yes - disruptive - trick" is a bit more than just "sneaky". It's really not the kind of comment that has a chance of being taken as "tongue in cheek" either - the edit summary certainly didn't say that to me -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The personal attacks continue, I see. It seems unlikely that Rklawton plans to stop that, or to moderate his ownership behavior over the article, either. Re the content assertions he makes above, that this "was resolved" in this 2006 thread, that these are "unfounded, debunked and ridiculous rumors", and that I've "dragged up the same old citations," I'd only ask that editors look at the archived 2006 thread, at the high-quality sources I've cited at the talk page, and that they please note that of the nine reliable sources I introduced there, the first seven were from 2009 or later.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the rumour has been debunked by everyone - even the attorney for the heirs did not say he thought there was a scintilla of truth to the tale. Clearly the tale has a place in Skull and Bones but is of essentially zero relevance to Prescott Bush at all. By the way, the tale has Bush being one of six or seven doing the digging of an (at the time) thoroughly unmarked grave which the Army officials did not even know the location of, and restoring it to an undisturbed state. By the way, the lawsuit was dismissed - not only against federal oppicials on sovereignty grouns, but also against Yale and Skull and Bones. It seems one must have some basis for a lawsuit. Collect (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what's going on here as I'm new to this page. There seems to be a preexisting conflict between editors that they insist on conflating with this editing dispute. The content issue in question is one that is widely discussed in many biographies, newspaper articles, and other RS sources. Whether or not the story is true or the lawsuit was successful is immaterial. It would be nice if some outside party could separate the editing dispute from the conflict dispute, because I don't think anything will get resolved if it keeps firing up this personality dispute. Gamaliel (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I've never interacted with Rklawton before that I can recall, although Collect has been pretty unhappy with me since I took part in a discussion last year that ended in his being blocked. With respect to the actual article, you can see from its revision history that my previous involvement has been limited to two instances: In one edit I objected to the discrediting of an article in The Guardian as the work of a "conspiracy theorist", and on another occasion I removed copyvio text and then improved the subsequently-added cite/ref for the fact it had documented.

I'm not surprised to see Collect here, though: He's the other user who has, in my opinion, been standing guard over this article with Rklawton to remove or discredit any critical content. Between the two of them, for example, they've restored the characterization of The Guardian's article, by journalist Duncan Campbell, How Bush's Grandfather Helped Hitler's Rise to Power, as "An article relying on conspiracy theorist John Buchanan's work" at least seven times since February of last year.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19] Since I first noticed this, I've thought it rather curious behavior on Collect's part, at least, given his perennial claims at articles for conservative politicians that BLP policy prohibits the addition of this or that critical content.

I've never studied the matter, although it's my guess that there might be more to the Nazi finance issue than is present in our article currently. But you're perfectly right, of course, that it's not our role to determine whether the reports in this instance or any other are true, but merely to summarize the allegations made in reliable sources that are relevant to the subject, especially when they're so broadly reported.

I'd like to strongly reiterate, though, I'm not requesting assistance here with the content dispute. Rather, I've asked for assistance only because the personal attacks, battleground conduct, and (most problematically) article ownership behavior seem nearly certain to continue without intervention, and just as certain to prevent any collaborative resolution of the content dispute until they are addressed and resolved.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

When in doubt, make a slur on another editor. People who just look at your claim that somehow I was blocked for improper behaviour will not note that the block was viewed as unsupportable and improper. But then again, yoiu would not note this when making asides about others. The material is covered in the relevant article. Which is sufficient for rumours. [20] shows OhioStandard soliciting the block. King of Hearts trusted your version of the edit history, blocking me for a single edit long before the block. [21] and one editor (who is now an arbitrator) said two edits in over two days did not seem like "edit war." But then again, your sole aim was to get me blocked because your friend Screwball23 (who has a long block history) was blocked for actual edit war. Now can you let all this drop? Your attempt to raise a non-existent charge of edit war here is a gorss violation of polity. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh anent cleansing articles -- look at [22], and wholesale removal of RS sources at [23] when it suits his fancy. And, fun of funs, removing [24] from Prescott Bush presumably becasue it was favourable to him. Cheere. Collect (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Diffs one and two remove material attributed to sources which arguably are unreliable, while the third diff removes a copyright violation. Do you propose that editors seeking to include material supported by many clearly reliable sources in articles must therefore refrain from challenging the quality of any reference more authoritative than someone's blog, or are required to let cut and paste copyright violations stand? Chester Markel (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who's interested is welcome to examine the edits that Collect objects to above under a microscope if it'll make Collect happy. I'm sorry to hear, though, that my mention of the occasion that seems to have motivated his antipathy sounded like "a slur" to him; I didn't mean it that way, and I didn't intend to insult him by referring to it.

But his statement that user Screwball23 is "my friend" and that I thought Collect's block called for because of that isn't supportable. I interacted with Screwball23 six or seven months ago, I've made only this edit to any article he's edited, and I haven't communicated with him since.

Any editor can form his own opinion as to the basis for Collect's block, though, by examining the blocking admin's comments in the second diff he provided above. If Collect wants to address my involvement in that process any further, or better still, wants to try to work out a more collegial relationship, he's welcome to initiate a discussion on my talk page. I'd also suggest that it would be more productive to stick closer to the particular issue at hand: that of resolving the battleground and ownership issues that are currently in evidence here.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it'll probably be more productive if I refrain from responding to any further accusations from Collect, if I can reasonably do so. I'd appreciate it, though, if an administrator would take a look at a recent development (link/permalink) at another article. I normally enjoy editing here, but this kind of behavior is really beginning to impact that pretty seriously. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Fyi: Collect just posted a "Wikiquette alerts" complaint about me (link/permalink) citing, in part, comments I've made in this present thread.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

And the primary basis of that post was your ongoing incivility, wherein you appear to blame the entire problems of the world on me.  :) Noting also your forumshopping here about whether an extensive quote verging on copyvio and vaguely related to the journal belongs in an article thereon. Now might you post somewhere without invoking my name or following me to various articles? Thank you most kindly! Collect (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, he apparently managed to completely misread Jclemens comment -- he stated that 2 reverts in 2 days was not "edit warring" in his opinion. But OS seems to relish digging through Wikipedia's search function in order to assuage his own incivility. I rather think digging through every edit a person has made indicates something of an obsession. Collect (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the amusing irony of apparently being characterized by Rklawton as a "clueless noob" at WQA, of all places, this really is getting old. I'd be really glad if anyone wants to take the time to carefully examine the allegations posted at WQA in their context, but to try to keep from fanning the flames I don't intend to reply to the substance of Collect's or Rklawton's accusations unless an admin wants to ask me about some specific point.

It's probably safe to say that if any ordinary editor had exhibited the same degree of article ownership and ongoing attacks toward an admin as Rklawton and now Collect have felt free to employ here and elsewhere, and had repeatedly demonstrated every intention of continuing the same behavior, that the problem would have been dealt with before things got to this point.

I've tried hard to remain civil, and to address this issue on a policy basis rather than a personal one, but that approach hasn't been working, and this just keeps going farther off the rails. Will someone with the authority to do so please step in here to prevent this behavior from continuing?  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you would have better luck if you decided not to make every post about personal conflicts which you seem to attract? I find it quite tiresome to find my name in every post you make, and I suspect the same is true of Mr. Lawton. Collect (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I'm horribly ashamed for attracting so much conflict by reverting one edit and proposing the addition of impeccably sourced content to an article that you and Rklawton hold dear. It was hugely presumptuous of me to have forced him to become so aggressive and contemptuous like that.

I didn't intend to respond to you again, but an accusation coming from you that I attract conflict is just too ridiculous. People here are smart enough to look at our respective block logs, at the number of times others have found it necessary to start an RfC about either of us, or raise an issue here, at any other board, or at WQA about either of us. They can be trusted to decide fairly which of us attracts personal conflicts. It may save others some time, though, if I mention that your fresh new WQA complaint is the first time anyone's ever been motivated to favor me with that kind of attention that I can recall. I'd really welcome close scrutiny of that by neutral parties, btw.

I'm sorry that you don't like seeing your name in my posts: I tend not to address you directly because I've found doing so nearly always results in interminable, wrangling debates that I view as wholly unproductive. I don't intend any disrespect by it, but I'm also not willing to debate you endlessly, either. With that explanation, I'm going to return to that expedient: I doubt anyone here is really interested in seeing us argue.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

An RfC with 14 CANVASSED votestacking participants of which 3 are now permanently banned from WP, and another 5 have not appeared since on WP? Wow. All you can do is dredge up the past instead of looking at the present. Sorry OS, I happen to think you need a mirror instead of a microscope. Have a nice day. Collect (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• I have no idea about whatever is going on between Ohiostandard and Collect (although Collect's actions here certainly don't look good), but I took a look at the issue relating to Prescott Bush. I agree that it's a content/Wikitequette issue and not really actionable here, but I do see what appears to be a major failure to assume good faith on the part of Rklawton (and the personal attacks/implications of being "sneaky", etc.) on his part are unbefitting what I would expect from an administrator. Rklawton should have simply pointed Ohiostandard to the previous discussion on the issue of Geromino's bones - it was discussed in 2007 in what is now an archived portion of the talk page - and not proceeded to attack OS. Likewise, perhaps Ohiostandard could have looked there after being told "it was discussed" and attempted to bring the concerns to the talk page again. Kansan (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Kansan, for taking the time to sift this, even to searching the article archives yourself. I appreciate that, because although the exchange you've suggested re the archives actually did take place, your comment prompted me to search again, and that turned up an additional thread, from 2009, beyond the "2006" material I'd already seen. ( It actually includes a couple of 2007 - 2008 posts, too. ) I've now read the archive in its entirety, but I still didn't find anything that could remotely support Rklawton's statement, viz. "There's consensus not to add that kind of crap to this article, so it will be removed on sight."

May I also mention what seems to be a small misunderstanding that I think might stem from Collect's having started a WQA report? You wrote, "I agree that it's a content/Wikitequette issue and not really actionable here". If that's your opinion, it's fine, of course, but then I'm confused by the "agree", since no one had said that previously. The WQA complaint that was started didn't name Rklawton as a "defendant"; it was filed by Collect against me. His report says, with Rklawton's concurrence, that he believes I've insulted the two of them in this present thread, and also just him, Collect, separately.

While the name-calling and such that's been directed my way has been pretty troubling, it's the battleground/ownership problem that's most disturbing to me since Rklawton and Collect have made it clear that they think they've done nothing wrong, and that they have every intention of continuing the same behavior. As I wrote at the outset, "I'm not asking for help with the content dispute ... I am asking for admin help, though, to prevent Rklawton's very aggressive, ownership/battleground behavior from continuing." Again, I really appreciate the significant time and work you've put in to help sort this, very much. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I love the part where OS writes that he's "tired of being civil." I don't see how making personal attacks or feigning offense could be considered civil. Indeed, OS is one of the most unpleasant editors I've run across, though I don't keep a list. Never mind his Quixote-like quest to find some way to add a myth/rumor to a well written, high profile biographical article, his attempts at Wikilawyering are what puts him over the top. Seriously, how many people here enjoy wasting their time on that sort of crap? It's far more pleasant for one editor to call another a "jerk" if need be than to have him post an out of context and ridiculously applied quote from an arb-com write-up on a case unrelated to the subject or any of its editors in a bald-faced effort to try to intimidate or bully people into accepting his non-neutral point of view. In OS's case, he picked the wrong editor. I know an ass when I see one, and I'm not afraid to call him out on it or to stand up to him. Rklawton (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You've misquoted me. This is what you're referring to:

I've tried hard to remain civil, and to address this issue on a policy basis rather than a personal one, but that approach hasn't been working, and this just keeps going farther off the rails. Will someone with the authority to do so please step in here to prevent this behavior from continuing? – OhioStandard (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC) (emphasis added)

I'm guessing that your remarks represent a response driven by overcharged emotions rather than by any intentional malice, and that you'll think better of them shortly. If that occurs, and you'd like to delete your post in the next few hours, you're welcome to do so, along with this reply, if no one has responded below by then.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

clean talk page environment

Background

See talk discussion. IMHO basically maybe the discussion on a controversial topic covered by a {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} got a little overheat, both sides appear to be more calm now, so maybe no action is needed. Though there is a disagreement among editors on WP:NPA and WP:TALK interpretation.

Due diligence

• I am following Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and edited their account user page.
• I'm not familiar with Owain the 1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which prima facie appear to be a new and productive account registered on Apr 04 author of a new article and many productive edits.

Disagreement

“ Your comment "sounds like a thing a Thai would do with a knife" is blatantly racist, just saying. ” — User:Sean.hoyland, [25]

“ If you continue to break the rules I will report you though. Personal insults are not allowed here.I suggest you read the rules.I am done with you now. ” — User:Owain the 1st, [26]

Personally prefer clean talk environment. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This has ended as I will not be replying to this person again in connection with this dispute.I do not believe it is right for someone to brand someone else a racist for stating what some Thai people do, actually it is against the rules of this board to personally insult other members.I have already told the other member that.Owain the 1st (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Will you not be making anymore blatantly racist statements because that was really the outcome I was hoping for ? I take the alternative view that it's right to tell people who make blatantly racist statements on Wikipedia talk pages to not do it again. Perhaps I should have done that on your talk page rather than the article talk page but really what seems more important is that you not do it again. Since you haven't agreed to that because apparently you still believe that saying "sounds like a thing a Thai would do with a knife" about the murder of 5 members of the Fogel family is just fine, I don't have any reason to believe that you won't do it again somewhere else. Your attempt to blame your behavior on my knowledge of the country I live in wasn't very helpful. Sean.hoyland - talk 23:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a blatantly racist comment to me -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not too bothered what it sounds like to you frankly. It was not and personal insults are not allowed on wikipedia(not you). As for Sean..he clearly has no idea about the country that he claims to live in, I guess he still thinks it is the land of smiles and believe the TAT adverts.I was going to let it lie but now I am not as he continues to insult me.One more thing I never attempted to blame my behavior on anything, that is just some fantasy you have made up.What I did do was question your knowledge of Thailand and its people, totally different altogether,Owain the 1st (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying that Thai people aren't happy smiling people, they're murderers who slaughter innocent children? Insisting that your racist slur against the Thai people is accurate is not going to do you any favors here, you know (Disclaimer: I live in Thailand too, for about half of each year - have done for 25 years, and my family are Thai) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Making such such comments about a country/people is not appropriate here, so please do not do so again. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue is what to do with the extant unproductive comments on the talk page. I'd personally favour simply chopping the thread in question just prior to Owain's first comment on it, and unless there's a good reason not to I'll go ahead and do that. Obviously Owain should consider this a warning that further inflammatory nonsense of that type won't be tolerated. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I've just had a re-read of the thread, and I'd support removing from Owain's "Thai" comment onwards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Warning left with Owain admonishing him not to repeat this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 00:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

So no warning for branding people racists for sean then? I see how this works, just a witch hunt by the pc crowd. I deleted your warning. Have fun with the bullying.Owain the 1st (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Besides, Sean called Owain the 1st's comment, not Owain the 1st himself, blatantly racist. I think that the difference is important.     ←   ZScarpia   00:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Same thing.00:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owain the 1st (talk • contribs)

Actually it is not. Sean's comment falls within the realm of "comment on the content not the editor". --Blackmane (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually in the real world it is the same thing.Saying someone made a racist comment is calling them a racist..no way around that how ever hard you might try.So no punishment for the guy who breaks the rules on here and and personally insults me.But hey witchhunts are great ..You should all feel proud of yourselves.Owain the 1st (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Then gotta have a good long look at your comment and think about whether it's racist or not. I know neither of you but even to a bystander like me, that's still a pretty insulting comment to make about a nationality and definitely inflammatory. Wasn't Giornorosso banned recently for something of a similar vein? --Blackmane (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

People frequently utter racist comments without actually being racist - sometimes it's cultural, sometimes it's a poor communication of their actual meaning, sometimes it's meant as humour, etc. Opining that a comment is racist is not the same as opining that the commentator is racist. Should the editor who first suggested that your comment was racist be punished? Well, no, partly because we do not apply sanctions as punishment (and you haven't been punished either), but as preventatives - and they're not currently doing anything that needs preventing. And partly because it looks like there is a consensus here that agrees that your comment was racist. I don't know whether *you* are racist, and I make no claims either way - I simply note that from that comment, and from your now-deleted follow-up comments, you were expressing a rather jaundiced view of Thai people. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with my comment at all whatever you pc witchhunters think.I see what happens here you enforce a rule against one person and do nothing against the other person. Bit of a joke.Owain the 1st (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No one is "enforcing a rule" against you. We are simply asking you to consider whether something could cause insult to someone before you post it. Also, Sean.hoyland specifically says "Your comment...is blatantly racist...". And, as the other editors have said above, that is completely different to saying an editor is racist. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 13:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually you would be wrong as I have been given a warning and in the real world not cyber land if you said to someones face that they uttered a racist comment then you are calling them a racist.Try it in a pub someone time and see what reaction you get.Owain the 1st (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Using your own logic, if this was the real world and you made your comment to a group of Thai people, what do you think the reaction would be? Wikipedia is different to the real world. You were warned that if you continued to make inflammatory comments, a rule could be enforced on you. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 13:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes wikipedia is not the real world, I can see that from all the comments on here. Seems all the people live in some cyber world.I suggest they get out more into real people land.As for your bit about the Thais..I would give you an answer but do not want to be witchhunted over that as well by the pc crowd here.My statement was to do with the specific circumstances surrounding the story from the Palestinian media that a Thai person had been arrested for killing the family because they owed him money. I said it was something that a Thai person would do.As in a Thai person not the whole of Thailand and all you lot have jumped in for a witchhunt.I should post up scientific research into Thai emotional reactions, there have been studies but why bother.Owain the 1st (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This conversation is going nowhere. Why don't we stop beating this horse and walk away. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 14:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop accusing the admins and users here of engaging in a "witchhunt" because you got called out for making a racist comment or two. Also, this is Wikipedia, not the real world. Making comparisons as if Wikipedia is the real world is the main reason why so many POV-pushers, advertisers, and the like get indefinitely blocked in the first place. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 18:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Listen up, you do not tell me what to do.Got that? I do not care about your opinion of what is what.Got that? No interest to me whatsoever.Got that?Welcome to the witch hunt, guess you could not resist.YawnOwain the 1st (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

People telling you you're wrong on this page and you responding this harshly on this page is not a witch-hunt by any means. Stop using the term; you're going to end up taking an enforced vacation from Wikipedia otherwise. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 08:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Precisely because this is "cyber land", it is even more important that we must all be careful what we write so there are no misunderstandings. However, your comment could not possibly be misconstrued as anything less than racist. Basically, if I were to go to Thailand, point at "a" Thai person I could conclude, based on your comment, that that person would go kill someone because they owed them money, which ultimately is a sweeping statement that any one Thai person would be able to do such a thing. How can that not be seen as a racist comment? What we're trying to have you understand is that such inflammatory comments are not conducive to a collegial editing atmosphere. Non-admins like myself may not be able to tell you what to do and what to write, but you might want to think about what you do write if you don't want to be "witch hunted" and if you can't see what's wrong with that then you should go have a good hard look at yourself. --Blackmane (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The only misunderstanding is on all your parts.I suggest you go buy some Thai newspapers and see what happens in Thailand before even commenting.You need to have a good hard look at yourself.I am done with this witch hunt but I am sure you and your pc friends will carry on.Post whatever rubbish you want, I will not be reading it.Yawn. Owain the 1st (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you really not understand that making comments like "I suggest you go buy some Thai newspapers and see what happens in Thailand" is carrying on making racist generalisations? If you read English newspapers you'll discover that there are murders in England, so if an Englishman is implicated in a murder, is it fair to say "Yes, that's what an Englishman would do?" - or is that an inflammatory generalization? That events of type X occur in country Y does not justify the statement "Yes, X is what a person from country Y would do". The vast majority of Thais are not brutal murderers, so to suggest that brutal murder is what someone would be more likely to do simply *because* they are Thai is racist - and your constant compounding of the slur is not improving the way you're coming across here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

One could potentially take the analogy even further by saying "A Thai person did that? well he's human, that's what a human would do" which would tar the entire species with the same brush. --Blackmane (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Owain the 1st

I've got a huge concern with Owain's posting style at least on AN/I. He's responding to criticism of his comments with accusations of witch hunting, and from his posts above seems to not be interested in changing his tone at all, not to mention the fact he seems to be conflating meatspace and Wikipedia. Is he having similar problems on the talk page the OP seems to be referring to? —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 08:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Owain the 1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since Owain continues to reiterate his blanket characterization of Thai people, why is he still here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This thread is obviously not helping matters. If everyone drops it I imagine this issue will resolve itself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there's not much else to do here as long as Owain doesn't continue making such generalizations. I can live with the fact that he thinks everyone is wrong and he is right.--Atlan (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, no admin action can be taken at this moment. Who wants to bet that an indef will hit him in the future? --Blackmane (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

AFD + 7 Days = expired PROD?

It is not any big deal, as I do not care whether this particular AFD is reopened, but I am a little concerned that Instruction Erosion (the antonym of Instruction Creep that I just made up) could be happening here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolinson Ferdinando. Or maybe it is Creep, because the users are applying PROD rationales to AFD procedures. I note in particular that the AFD was Relisted and then deleted the same day; not unusual in itself of course... Anyways, messy. Anarchangel (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

That seems a bit odd. AFD's without sufficient commentary are relisted. If a prod tag is removed, it's not replaced and AFD is then required (unless speedy deletion can be applied). Am I missing something here - I can't see any way this is standard procedure. Was WP:IAR applied? Exxolon (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I've also notified the admin who deleted the article. Exxolon (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that this was a BLP PROD (which may not be removed without adding sources), not a normal PROD. The article was an unsourced BLP (though it did have two external links by the time it was deleted). Ucucha 01:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If no one opposed a deletion request in 7 days, it could very well have been a prod. So why not? Being at AfD only increases visibility. Prodego ^talk 01:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time getting my head around the sequence of events here as there is no article history. Can you restore the article & history so I can see exactly what the sequence of events was so I can comment knowing the facts rather than having to guess. Exxolon (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Created 3:04, 27 January 2011; BLP PROD added 3:10, 27 January 2011; removed 3:21, 27 January 2011; AFD nominated 18:16, 2 April 2011; deleted 5:53, 9 April 2011. Ucucha 01:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, without seeing the article & history I'm still a bit in the dark.The first question is did the two external links provide sufficient sourcing to satisfy the BLP-PROD policy requirements? Exxolon (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No, the BLPPROD was removed on 26 January, no links of any kind were added until 18 February, from what I can see. (I'm guessing I'm in a different time zone than Ucucha, but the basic point holds.)--joe decker^{talk to me} 02:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Not quite what I was getting at - did they provide sufficient evidence of notability that if the BLP-PROD procedure had been correctly followed the article would NOT have been deleted? (Note - it would be far easier to temporarily restore the article so we can see exactly what happened rather than having to rely on admins who can see the deleted article & history to answer individual enquiries.) Exxolon (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Done, it's here, I'll redelete when we're done. --joe decker^{talk to me} 02:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I would personally perform the delete on a BLPPROD if those ELs had been added either before or after tag placement, as neither source appears to mention the subject, and therefore does not verify any statement about the article subject. (At least in the simple case where the tag was never removed.) --joe decker^{talk to me} 02:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The sensible route would have been to redirect to La Bambas, this guy's band - something which I'm going to be bold and do now. GiantSnowman 02:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) - Thanks for restoring. Having looked through the articles history and checked the links neither of them would appear to be of sufficient quality to have averted a deletion under BLP-PROD had that have been followed correctly. This would seem to be then insufficiently clear explanation by the deleting admin who said "on AfD for a week with no comments, I'll consider it a prod then" and the closer of the AFD who said "The result was Deleted -BLP PROD was removed by author; AfD unnecessary. NAC by nom, housekeeping". What should have been said somewhere was somthing like "DELETED - Article previously nominated for deletion under BLP-PROD policy but process not completed due to premature ta wg removal by article author. Sourcing insufficient to satisfy BLP-PROD requirements and article would've been deleted had tag not been removed and not replaced. Relisting AFD not required as article should have already been deleted" or words to that effect - this would have negated this entire thread as it at least appeared that the admin was making policy on the fly by "converting" an AFDith no comments into an uncontested PROD. Exxolon (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Most welcome. And GiantSnowman is right about the redirect, without objection, I'll leave that be. --joe decker^{talk to me} 02:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

What you all should have done is taken advantage of the week long AfD to make these comments. But deciding on a redirect sounds reasonable. The deletion was done for the reason I gave. BLP PROD had nothing to do with it. I was indeed "making up policy on the fly" if you wish to call it that. The only reason the page wasn't already deleted was because of what tag was chosen to be transcluded on it. With no objections to deletion, I'll go ahead and delete, I don't see why the exact procedure will matter. Prodego ^talk 02:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I absolutely love you Prodego. An elegant solution attained with minimum fuss on personal initiative. Its a refreshing flashback to when we had a functioning community instead of endless rules and noticeboards. -- ۩ Mask 21:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to worry, AKMask. There are many such to love. I can agree it was inventive, though. The usual thing is to redirect after a No Consensus vote (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of environmental organisations topics). Or just redirect without an AFD at all (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vehicles of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000). Or to redirect the article before the AFD is closed as part of a deal within the AFD independent of closing ruling (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hands of God), on the condition of changes, which are then not implemented (Hands of God afd again, and the non-changes at Przeworsk culture and Lodz#World War II). Anarchangel (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• We've actually had this discussion before and the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Relisting straw poll supports Prodego's actions in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

  Thank you, while the principle seemed sensible, I'd seen nothing before that suggested that it was within any consensus, but that discussion looks pretty clear, and I'll be happy to have that option in my own AfD-closing toolbox in the future. --joe decker^{talk to me} 19:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

IP evasion by User:Zoupan

• User:Zoupan lately has been edit-warring on many Balkans-related articles and misusing sources on many of them. Since April 1 many of his edits have been reverts[27], so when he was warned about edit-warring by User:Kebeta[28] and source misrepresentation by me [29] he stopped editing. Three days later he returned as an IP editor living in Stockholm[30] and continued with similar edits, which made me realize who he is since he had been using a similar IP before leaving [31].

• I assumed good faith and gave him the chance to admit his identity[32], but after my question he stopped editing again. Three days later he returned with another Stockholm-based IP[33] and continued the edit-warring[34] on all articles he had been editing as Zoupan. A block or a sanction should be imposed to make this user accept consensus or at least stop him from making edits like the redirection of a large article he considers OR[35][36].--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This edit of yours is rather content dispute. You also precipitated yourself in removing all categories related to Serbia, when is clearly part of its history. Also, I fail to see any attempt of dialogue by any of you.

In all cases it´s rather about content dispute, and he is basically lone defending the Serbian point of view on those articles. From your recent edits I can observe you´re seaking some ethnically based association in order to block that user. I fail to see your so called "consensus" because no dialogue occured. WP:BRD has not been in use here, and you´re trying to block an user because you disagree with him. A good suggestion would be for some administrator to possibly intervene and obligate the editors involved to discuss the content instead of all editors edit warring without discussion, although the initiative can be donne without any administrative intervention, it simply requires good faith by the intervenients. FkpCascais (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Only a very small minority of the articles he edits are related to my edits so I'm not trying to block him because I disagree with him and as for Andrea Gropa he was deleting sources and trying to present him as Serbian and he was reverted not by me, but by someone else[37]. On Torlaks, Andrea Gropa, Vuk Kosača, House of Kosača, Zachlumia, . he's been edit-warring, deleting sources, redirecting whole articles without any kind of attempt to follow any wikipedia policy. When he got his final warning he decided to stop editing from his account and return once in a while only to revert others with IP evasion techniques. Kebeta showed good faith with the warning and I showed good faith again when he started using IPs for his reverts and not his account, but he decided to change the IP and continue the reverts.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

In the edit war over Vuk Kosača (exemple: [38]) I´m having hard time to understand why was he edit wared. The other users are actually removing all Serbian related cats for no reason, adding Bosnian and Croatian language at lead without any reason, and the content dispute seems nothing too much dramatic. In House of Kosača the situation is similar, with him having expanded the article and being reverted for allegedly "unreliable sources". Torlaks debate is well known, because more than an real ethnic group, they are rather a linguistical one. The article however should exist and he was wrong there to simply create a redirect, however a discussion could/should be made. In Zachlumia its also a content dispute, with his additions being reverted. I honestly think that no real aproach of dialogue was never made in any case. I think that rather than punishement, a discussion would be much more productive. Regarding the IP, well, WP:SPI? FkpCascais (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a content dispute on all those articles, but because of the IP evasion there's no discussion. The Kosaca family for example could be classified as Serb, Bosniak and Croatian, but because non of the users involved is discussing all that's left is the edit-warring.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The same IP has also several times deleted the whole content from the article Torlaks, after Zoupan was no more active there. I am shure that is User:Zoupan. Jingby (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but Torlaks are just speakers of Torlakian dialect, and the article Torlaks, claiming they are an ethnic group, seems to be simple WP:OR. In that case he is actually doing right, however a discussion should take place. FkpCascais (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not see such statement in the article. FkpCascais, can you please, point this sentence, where it is claimed, the Torlks are an ethnic group. Jingby (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

In the categories... Anyway, the article could be merged into Torlakian dialect and all relevant information from the Torlak article moved there. The Torlak article looks like pretending to be about an ethnic group without actually being it, and in my view not worth a separate article. We could have a WP:3O on that. FkpCascais (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you about a WP:3O on that. Jingby (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Btw, nobody even notified User:Zoupan about this tread. I did just now. FkpCascais (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I notified him on his 84. talkpage and given the fact that immediately after returning he went back to blind reverting [39] something should be done.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the blind reverts from the same IP (i.e. IP evasion by User:Zoupan) are fact again. Jingby (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for catching this and reporting it. Clearly Zhoupan is using IP's in order to edit war on numerous articles and a block is in order for this nonsense. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

None of this edits are dramatic or deserves admin reaction. This is content dispute, and as there was no 3RR violation, nor any other violation, this should be dismissed. User:Zjarri have a history of conflict based on numerous users ethnicity, and therefor, this is just one more way of POV pushing. "Remove incompatible ones." Also, user Zjarri is reported below. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 09:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Speculative physics theories being promoted in Wikipedia and Wikiversity

This morning, I got forwarded a copy of an email signed by Sergey Fedosin and sent to physicists around the world, encouraging them to read Wikipedia's article Strong gravitational constant.

If you Google sergey fedosin gravity you see zero evidence of third-party interest in his gravitational theory but substantial indication that his very speculative theories now feature in Wikipedia and in Wikiversity as well. Wikiversity: wikiversity:Nonstandard physics/Gravitomagnetism wikiversity:Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter

Also User:fedosin seems to be an SPA devoted to promoting theories of Sergey Fedosin in Wikipedia articles.

The AfD for Strong gravitational constant was withdrawn on a statement from fedosin that Nobel laureate Abdus Salam had written about the topic in 1993. I would like to re-open the AfD but am not sure how to proceed. I also think this speculative and non-notable material also should not be in Wikiversity. betsythedevine (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

We have nothing to do with Wikiversity, I suggest expressing your concern to them directly. Under the instructions at WP:DRV, it says that if significant new information that comes to light which wasn't there during the initial discussion, you should start a new AfD.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Also external links from the "fedosin" userpage on Wikiversity cite 4 Wikipedia articles which I think should get a closer look here based on WP:COI:

• Gravitational induction
• Strong gravitational constant
• Ball lightning
• Gravitomagnetism

If somebody here has a connection to Wikiversity, I would be grateful if you would look into it there. betsythedevine (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikiversity permits original research; see Wikiversity:Original research. Adrignola (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of Fedosin's wikiversity material has already appeared on, and been deleted from, Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selfconsistent gravidynamic constants and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter. Bm gub (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been notified about this, but I'm uncertain what you want me to do. You can see in my archives (User talk:Reaper Eternal/Archive 4#Ball lightning) that I tried to discourage him from linking to his own website after he asked me for help, but that is the only time I have ever seen him. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, which was very helpful. I have asked the closing admin about re-opening the Afd, as suggested, and also asked for advice at the COI noticeboard, which is probably where I should have raised this issue in the first place. If anybody wants to hat my query, I feel I already got the help that I asked for. betsythedevine (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Googling his name in cyrillic rather than romanised returns 6 or 7 editorally checked & published sources of material but no obvious third party cites of his theories. That's not to say they don't exist using some contraction of his name, but it might be better if a fluent russian reader or writer confirms they dont exist. There may be grounds for considering the material as fringe rather than non-notable. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It sounds a lot like both, if you ask me... --Jayron32 03:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/Stuart that it appears to be fringe. Am less certain as to whether it is also non-notable, but that may as Jayron suggests also be the case.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have notified WikiProject Physics. Hans Adler 07:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The list of publications of Fedosin is here. Nothing notable even in Russian journals. Ruslik_Zero 09:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• I can repeat here the same as at page

About e-mails. Yes I sent some e-mails of such text:

Good day. The article Strong gravitational constant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_gravitational_constant is under intensive discussion.

Please share your thoughts on the matter at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strong_gravitational_constant.

It was necessary because too little people discussed the article, only Bm gub, Fedosin and Robert a stone jr. In the letters as you seen no any evidence for acceptance of any theories.

Also about Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Selfconsistent_gravidynamic_constants. In Wikiversity is article Selfconsistent gravitational constants , which was reedit by me. I found it before in Russian Wikipedia in very bad condition. I think it may be useful.

About deletion of article "Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter". Up to now I do not understand why it was deleted. It was simple translation of Russian version.

Pages Fedosin and user page of Wikiversity user "fedosin" were made by physicist Sergey Fedosin and maintained by him personally.

About quantity of papers. I prefer more some good books then a lot of shot papers. Fedosin (talk) 10:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The Fedosin email that was forwarded to me contained that text plus an additional paragraph: "As you work in field of gravitation you could see my last paper about General Theory of Relativity at http://vixra.org/abs/1103.0109 " Whatever the intention behind sending it, I think the email implies that Strong gravitational constant is a legitimate Wikipedia article concerning a notable topic rather than a self-published physics essay. betsythedevine (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I note that viXra.org is evidently a site set up by people who were unhappy with the anti-crackpot safeguards introduced to arxiv.org, the legitimate preprint server for physics and mathematics. It hosts such gems as "The Gëdel Thesis 'about a Incompleteness of Formal Arithmetics' is not Proved and This Hypothesis is not Similar to the Truth", a paper (in Russian) that apparently tries to refute Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Hans Adler 13:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out vixra; it's revealed to me a whole new world of cranks who want their ideas to be more widely known, and I'm now looking through some of the stuff they've sneaked onto other wikipedia articles... This is fun. bobrayner (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Would that be sufficient reason to add vixra.org to the blacklist? If my research is accurate, that website's not on it. Yet. -- llywrch (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Several other language versions are also (slightly) affected. [40] Maybe it's even a case for the global blacklist? I don't know because I don't know what the trade-offs are. Hans Adler 23:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Although a vixra article by itself is unlikely to be a reliable primary source, or evidence of notability, it's easy to imagine such a link appearing legitimately in (say) a biography of a noteworthy fringe scientist, or an article about a theory that received wider notoriety. And there's the distant and never-yet-realized possibility that something on Vixra turns out to be important. I think the level of Vixra abuse is small enough to handle case by case. Is there some kind of bot that searches for "warning sign" links and posts to a noticeboard?Bm gub (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I was about to leave a note that after inspection of the vixra links so far I am also against putting it on the blacklist. There appear to be legitimate uses, and it's not even clear that the illegitimate uses outweigh them. A bot looking for such links would be great. Hans Adler 23:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah viXra is real joke of a site. It's a place for crank and nuts, and other famous scientists such as Jesus Christ to (pre?)publish their nonsense when they can't shove it on the arXiv. As for a compendium of links, gimme 5 minutes. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well from the March 17 database, it looks like the only instead of "vixra" on all of wikipedia was this, removed by Bobrayner a few hours ago, and here, and here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Unconventional editing by RaptorHunter

Following my edit, Swtpc6800 responded to my edit (one indent level in). User:RaptorHunter then edited against convention by injecting a response to my edit before Swtpc6800's edit. I fixed the edits to follow convention, and it is obvious to everyone who engages on talk pages that RaptorHunter's edit is still in response to mine. Unfortunately, RaptorHunter proceeded to revert my fix and in the process managed to delete my post, and then bizarrely ruin the ordering of posts altogether. Could an admin please have a look at this and restore the conventional chronological/indenting used on talk pages?  GFHandel.   23:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

As you can see here in my original edit [41]. I was replying to a post by GFHandel. What other users may have posted before I posted is irrelevant. I've never heard of any rule that posts aren't allowed to be threaded.

Futhermore, I implore GFHandel to WP:Assume Good Faith, when editing other user's posts. It is absurd that such a minor issue would hit the administrator's notice board before GFHandel even attempted to contact me on my talk page.--RaptorHunter (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You should not inject a response to a post before another editor's response to the same post. That is not fair on that other editor (in this case Swtpc6800) because it looks like that editor has considered your post. The way I fixed it is understood by all, and follows the traditions of editing on talk pages. Unlike your subsequent edits, my fix does nothing to diminish the semantics of your post, and you should get in the habit of following the conventions that help all editors to follow a debate.  GFHandel.   23:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look like his post was responding to yours directly. It's more likely he just indented too far. My post WAS directly responding to yours, so I put it directly after yours. --RaptorHunter (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Quoting you, RaptorHunter: It doesn't look like his post was responding to yours directly. That’s not credible. SWTPC6800 began his quote with I also think… Given how demanding you are that others make posts and edits to your satisfaction, perhaps you might rigorously practice what you preach. Greg L (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am demanding that users don't edit other user's posts. That's what got you blocked yesteday. [42] Now would you please quit WP:STALKING me.--RaptorHunter (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

RaptorHunter: Please don’t evade the issue by employing your patented “you were a poopy-head in the past”-defense; that’s just baiting. My block was undone in a matter of minutes and the closing admin offered that it was clear it was a goof-faith editing mistake on my part. This is about your behavior now and there are now a number of editors here frustrated with your manner of interaction. You should also know that an ANI is not the best venue for “a best defense is a strong offense”-strategy. Now… if everyone on that talk page operated on good faith, everything would be fine. And please don’t complain about being stalked (in that “I linked it blue so it must be true”-style) when someone at an ANI points out that your argument has logical holes. Just behave yourself please. Greg L (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You should preserve the chronological order of responses to the same post. The way I fixed it, it is still obvious that you are responding to my post. Swtpc6800 is an experienced editor and I'm going to assume good faith that he knew how far to indent. If Swtpc6800 outdents his post, then I'll restore your edit. Take it up with him.  GFHandel.   23:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I will add that RaptorHunter has ceased trying to undo my reformatting edit, and I thank him for that. As it stands, the article is not in need of attention from an administrator.  GFHandel.   23:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I am waiting to see the result here.--RaptorHunter (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thought I'd add in that at the top of every talk page it says "Put new text under old text". --Blackmane (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Extreme canvasing by RaptorHunter

Because of an ongoing RfC here at Talk:Hard disk drive, User:RaptorHunter (contribs) has been contacting over one hundred individual users of a cherry-picked user group on computer-related matters. Specifically, he contacted members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Linux because Linux, which has 2% market share, is one-half Ubuntu (1% market share). Ubuntu uniquely embraces an odd practice of using terminology unused with all the rest of the computer industry. The above-provided link to his contribs is a 500-edit summary showing the length of the canvassing.

RaptorHunter knows full well that Ubuntu uniquely uses this terminology, as he stated as much here in this ∆ edit yesterday and then launched straight into contacting each and every editor active in that project individually.

This is an extreme example of vote stacking that goes far beyond merely leaving general posts on the project pages of a wide assortment of computer-related projects. This 100+ canvassing of a highly targeted, cherry-picked group like this has rendered the entire RfC moot now.

I also think it is time to do a CU on this editor. The editing manner, tendentiousness, and the use of fighter jet names as screen names, plus the Revision history of Timeline of binary prefixes all suggest that RaptorHunter is Thunderbird2. The latter one was told by User:Gwen Gale (an admin) to desist with tendentious and disruptive editing over this issue of the “IEC prefixes” and he left the project. Now the same sort of editing pattern comes back under a different jet fighter name. This canvassing suggest that RaptorHunter is rather fearless, of the type that might be expected by someone who dropped in to pick up where he left off as Thunderbird2. Greg L (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this is not in the best spirit of editing at WP. RaptorHunter, when will you be posting similar notices so that the other 98% of OS users can have an equal chance to contribute? Drama certainly does seem to follow RaptorHunter as he moves through WP.  GFHandel.   01:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see my full response below: [43]

However neutral the message the sheer number of talk page messages should have had the canvass bells ringing in the back of your head. The policy clearly states that canvassing can be either a question of mass or of neutrality of message. There is no question that WP:CANVASS has been violated, only whether it was in good faith. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

RaptorHunter canvassed some editors from the group, not all editors. It looks like the editors contacted were more likely to agree with RaptorHunter's point of view in the RfC. The editors were contacted only after it was obvious the RfC was not going RaptorHunter's way. I don't think good faith has been demonstrated.Glider87 (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• And now RaptorHunter flat out deleted two entire posts of mine from the page at which the RfC is being conducted (∆ here). This is escalating levels of disruption. My leaving posts on the talk pages of computer project pages of a wide variety of computer-related projects (like Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Programming_languages and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_networking) was purely and simply an effort to obtain wide input from a wide variety of broad-based, generic, computer-related projects that represent the widest possible and most inclusive set possible. As my posts there said, we needed much wider participation on the RfC to discern a proper consensus. My posts—again—were on the talk pages of the projects. That is far cry from targeting over 100 individual users of LInux knowing full well that this is precisely the opposite of what I was doing and was trying to game the system because that 1% follows a practice that RaptorHunter likes but which is soundly ignored by the entire rest of the computer industry. Greg L (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Greg_L was trying to unilaterally and prematurely end an RFC. This is disruptive to the RFC process, so I reverted him. If Greg_L wants to post a message telling everyone that I sent out RFC notifications, he is free to do so. However, he can't just decide to end an RFC like that. --RaptorHunter (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That is vandalism. You’ve done this three times. You are deleting signed posts that I made. Where in the world did you get the idea you may do that?? Add your own posts. Don’t dare delete a signed post of mine again. On Wikipedia, the proper response to bad speech is *better* speech if you so very much disagree with someone. Greg L (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• And now RaptorHunter flat out deleted two entire posts of mine from the page at which the RfC is being conducted (∆ here). This is escalating levels of disruption and after doing it a second time is pure vandalism. One just doesn’t delete another’s posts.

  My leaving posts on the talk pages of computer project pages of a wide variety of computer-related projects (like Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Programming_languages and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_networking) was purely and simply an effort to obtain wide input from a wide variety of broad-based, generic, computer-related projects that represent the widest possible and most inclusive set possible. As my posts there said, we needed much wider participation on the RfC to discern a proper consensus. My posts—again—were on the talk pages of the projects and were directed to very broad-based parts of the computing world. That would have brought in a wide variety of editors from all over Wikipedia’s computer-related articles so that we could discern a true, project-wide consensus rather than have an RfC with only a dozen editors that are inhabiting an obscure article.

  The above-mentioned type of generic, broad-based notices of an RfC is far cry from targeting over 100 individual users of LInux. RaptorHunter knew full well that this is precisely the opposite of what I was doing and was purely trying to game the system because that 1% he contacted follows a practice that RaptorHunter likes but which is soundly ignored by the entire rest of the computer industry.

  His targeting over a hundred individual users from such a self-serving sub-set of the computing world (the Linux and its Ubuntu subset comprising 2% and 1% respectively) was clearly by design and his protestations to that it wasn’t canvassing and votestacking aren’t in the least bit credible. He got caught and his trying to explain away such extremely focused canvassing makes no sense unless it is viewed for what it simply is. Greg L (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not contact hundreds of linux users. I contacted every member of Wikiproject: Computing and only 18 linux users. There is no inherent bias in these users groups and my messages were neutral. --RaptorHunter (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

RaptorHunter canvassed a group of editors who were more likely to agree with RaptorHunter's point of view because those editors are interested in Linux. It looks like RaptorHunter be told not to edit any talk page or article related to this topic for one week is in order, a topic ban if you like. If RaptorHunter does not comply then a global account block would appear to be in order. Glider87 (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• (To RaptorHunter re his 02:04, 11 April 2011 post): Over one hundred users individually contacted? Who does that? It’s a marathon effort. And 18% of them were specifically targeted because they were Linux and are responsible for Ubuntu, which represents something like 1% of the computer OS market. This was only an accident that you canvassed the Linux crowd? You think “random” is a plausible explanation for all that Linux??? That sort of CYA just isn’t credible; it’s obvious what you were up to. Instead of what I was trying to do (invite genuine, wide, diverse input by posting generic notices on a half-dozen or so project talk pages in order to break the logjam and finally figure out what the whole community really thinks instead of a small cabal of combatants), you feared that very outcome (lots of normal editors participating in the RfC) and tried to stack the deck in one specific way. Greg L (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked RaptorHunter for a 3RR vio on Talk:Hard disk drive -- I take no position on whether he's correct in his interpretation of the canvassing guidelines. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you. His efforts to undo what he perceived as being “out of process” doesn’t seem credible. He deleted a signed post at the bottom of one section as well as a signed post and its entire section with those edits. He knew better.

  FWIW, I started that “un-advertised” RfC as a quick, informal way to seek a consensus and it grew from there. His proper remedy to my declaring that the RfC should be discontinued with my signed post would have been to make a post of his own below mine saying “Nyuh-uhh… is too valid.” He knows that.

  Please see my above rationale (00:51, 11 April 2011 post) for believing RaptorHunter is Thunderbird2, who was the prime opponent of the current MOSNUM guideline on this issue. If they are one in the same, then RaptorHunter-Thunderbird2 becomes a different matter because as T-bird, he was a single-purpose account that was exceedingly disruptive. I think he’s back. As I understand it, an admin can request a CU based on this sort of evidence. No? Greg L (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

  P.S. As User:Maunus wrote above, There is no question that WP:CANVASS has been violated, only whether it was in good faith. And User:Glider87 in his 02:21, 11 April 2011 post offered a sensible remedy to this; I ask that it be seriously considered. He wrote It looks like RaptorHunter be told not to edit any talk page or article related to this topic for one week is in order, a topic ban if you like.

  The canvassing of all those editors now must be dealt with over on the RfC. I’ve revised my post at the end of that RfC to say that it might be able to be continued if editors who had been directly contacted by RaptorHunter strike their !votes, and if the others would refrain from participating. It would be immeasurably helpful if RaptorHunter can be topic-banned for a week so that the RfC can be peaceably conducted.

  I was fully confident that a good, widely advertised RfC to the broad community would quickly settle the editwarring that RaptorHunter was employing to get his way. Whether it is editors tag-bombing articles or deleting whole sections, RfCs on whether the edits are appropriate have resolved such situations in as little as 24 hours for me. For those of us in the trenches, it’s clear that RaptorHunter saw writing on the wall once he was confronted with an RfC (no more gang of three to prevent the article from being compliant with MOSNUM) and he got darn bold in trying to undermine that process. It will take time to resolve this and it would be helpful if he stayed away until it’s done. Greg L (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• RaptorHunter sent me an email asking me to comment on the talk page debate. When I wrote in the RfC a detailed list of reasons against RaptorHunter's point of view the editor claimed because someone emailed me to comment my point of view was not valid. The editor then denied sending me an email in the first place. This is most irregular behaviour. It is difficult to assume good faith given the editor's actions. Fnagaton 06:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

  If that's the case, it's pretty blatant gaming of the system as well as partisan canvassing. bobrayner (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

What actually happened was User:Becksguy posted a message saying that User:Fnagaton received an email about this RFC. [44] I added my own message saying that this means his vote doesn't count. [45] I think this enraged Fnagton so he started claiming the email came from me, which is completely untrue. I never emailed anyone on Wikipedia. I have tried to dispute this with the editor on his talk page, but every time I do he deletes it and calls me a liar. [46]. I asked him to post the emails, but he refuses. You can read the exchange here [47] (end of the page)

Please note that whoever sent the email, did it before the RFC even started, so It's irrelevant anyway.--RaptorHunter (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sheesh people, use common sense. Greg L is disrupting that talk page quite a lot. The decimal/binary GB distinction is a constant source of confusion among computer hard drive buyers and it would be crazy for the article to not give necessary background and explain the issue, and it's perfectly reasonable for IEC prefixes to figure into the explanation. Could we just delete MOSNUM or something, to take care of this? (That's wishful thinking of course). It's not that having a MOSNUM is a bad idea, but MOS pages seem to attract tenacious wikilawyering editors who seem to think that editing a style guide turns them WP content czars with sweeping authority over every article in the whole project. The resulting disruption (how many arb cases already?) is a complete waste of everyone's time.

  Greg L says "This attempt to use the IEC prefixes in a computer-related article is precisely what MOSNUM’s guidelines are intended to prevent." Sorry, no, MOSNUM doesn't prevent anything, it just makes suggestions. Greg L also says "We won’t have the standard handful of IEC fanatics violating the clear intent of MOSNUM." Again what we really have is MOSNUM fanatics disrupting clear writing in an article. I have no idea whether RaptorHunter is socking/canvassing but Greg L is acting dictatorial. There's an info box at the top of MOSNUM that says "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions". The talkpage discussion should figure out the clearest way to present the info about hard drive capacity, and if that involves IEC prefixes, then so be it. It just means the hard drive article becomes one of the occasional exceptions-- MOSNUM does not take priority. It just says what to do if there's not a solid reason to do something differet (which there very well might be in that article). If Greg L continues this tendentious MOS battling he should probably get an edit restriction. Greg is showing extremely poor judgment. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Is that quacking I hear? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

And with just hours to spare, peace has broken out (∆ edit). As one can see at the bottom of this perma-link to Talk:Hard disk drive, resolution is at hand. It’s like Rodney King’s “Why can’t we all just get along??” It’s quite a departure from the old routine that was quite ubiquitous on that talk page lately. Greg L (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Having gotten some sleep since writing it, I see that my post above was a more aggressive towards Greg L than it really should have been, which I regret. But, having read the article talkpage, this still looks to me like a content dispute in which MOSNUM is being used as a wikilawyering device. Greg L doesn't seem to like the term "gibibyte" in explanations about hard drive capacity (specifically, why the capacity marked on the box differs from the capacity reported by OS software). It's true that general computer publications taken in the aggregate don't use the term very much, but focusing on the narrow topic in question, numerous RS's on the topic do use the term. I posted some cites and further comments on the article talk page. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Response from RaptorHunter

I contacted every member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing then started going through the list of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Linux (only 18 - not hundreds). My RFC notice was unbiased and neutral. You can read an example of it here [48]. There is no inherent bias in contacting member of computing or linux. Both would be interested in Binary prefixes. I do not think it follows that because Ubuntu uses binary prefixes, that any member of WikiProject_linux, would vote one way or the other. I am simply bringing more voices into a stalled RFC.

I would like to state that I never intended to violate WP:CANVASS. No where in that guideline is there written a maximum number of messages you can send out. What I thought was reasonable, others have labelled as "extreme". I thought that as long as I wasn't using a bot it wouldn't count as "mass posting". In fact, I posted every message manually. Of all those messages I sent out, only 3 people have actually contributed to the RFC: [49] [50][51] (all in the computing project) None of the linux users have responded yet. To me, this shows that notifications were reasonable. If this was somehow a problem, I would have stopped when told. But not one of the users I posted messages too have complained. The only complaint was this noticeboard incident from the most vocal users on the other side of the debate. I would like to remind everyone that User:Greg_L has been posting RFC notices on a whole slew of different WikiProjects as you can see here in his contribution history [52] For example he contacted Wikipedia:WikiProject_Apple. The apple OS does NOT use binary prefixes and has many more users than any of the linux OS's. This whole incident report is nothing but hyperbole.

--RaptorHunter (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Underneath all this is a messy, long-term, very lame content dispute that affects quite a lot of articles. I've gotten sucked into it now (on the "include the prefixes" side, following books I located) but I'm trying to run away. There's been an insane amount of debate on related MOS pages (index of 12 archived talkpages of madness) and the current issue is an attempt to enforce MOS on the hard drive article (the RFC asks mostly the wrong question, namely whether certain phrasing "violates" the MOS) but this just seems like a localized outbreak, out of many past and presumably future. The amount of obsessive-compulsiveness over the MOS is making it impossible to straightforwardly edit a not-that-complicated subject that there's no real factual disputes about. Several related articles are also somewhat screwed up about this not-exactly-earth-shattering issue. An earlier user RFC about Greg L is here. Greg continues (IMO) to show ownership issues. I don't think there's much for ANI to do right now, but it's not a pretty situation and will probably keep recurring and some drastic remedy may eventually be needed. For the immediate issue, Ruud Koot's comments on the talk page seem like about the most sensible to me. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Administrator PMDrive1061 and the Wendy Starland article

Reporting user claimed "sort of resolved", so the thread is unnecessary. PMDrive has said it won't happen again. With that, this is resolved. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
PMDrive1061 (talk · contribs) Wendy Starland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have serious concerns over an administrator's, PMDrive1061, handling over the Wendy Starland article. There appears to be misuse of admin tools and conflict-of-interest issues. PMDrive created the article (using a former username) in 2006 with the edit summary "Incredible talent, incredibly nice young woman. Initial entry; more to follow." (His userpage says "I've been very blessed to get to know and to work with some rather notable people and I've been privileged to create their articles", listing the Wendy Starland article as one of them.) The article PMDrive created was unsourced and promotional. Over the years it was edited by an editor called Wendystarland (Wendystarland (talk · contribs)) whose edits made the article even more promotional. An IP, 76.169.133.183 (76.169.133.183 (talk · contribs)), made similar edits, and deleted several comments and templates on the talk page. In December 2009, PMDrive made a comment on the article talk page, saying "I didn't know she'd created an account; if that account is hers, it would be a real asset to the article since she is certainly noteworthy enough for one. I hope to see her at the end of the month and if so, I'll arrange to work with her on bringing the article up to date. She is a genuinely nice person and it will be a pleasure to collaborate with her on this." PMDrive semi-protected the article for a month in March 2010, citing excessive vandalism. The latest edits at the time were made by IP 76, and these were not reverted. 76 continued to edit the article after protection had expired. PMDrive full-protected (see logs) the article on 6 September 2010 for three months (changed a few minutes later to six months), citing "Excessive vandalism: Protection requested per the subject". PMDrive used the semi-protected template, not the full one. There were only four recent edits to the page. On 2 September, an IP deleted a paragraph which began "Wendy Starland is solely responsible for discovering Lady Gaga", and which contained material sourced to court documents and unsourced material. This appears to be a legitimate edit. On 6 September, another IP, 68.173.47.206 (68.173.47.206 (talk · contribs)), made three edits, which had the overall effect of restoring the paragraph and reverting the previous IP's edit. 26 minutes after 68's last edit, PMDrive reverted 68's edits, then restored an earlier version (then added the full protection), and finally removed a paragraph, so that, bizarrely, the article was left in the exact state that 68 left it in. Whatever those edits were, it's not excessive vandalism, and neither is "Protection requested per the subject" a reason to full protect an article for six months. A comment by PMDrive on the talk page explains his reasoning further: "I was asked by Wendy to please lock down the article for awhile." In November 2010, I made a request to PMDrive unprotect the article, expressing some of my concerns over the protection; PMDrive then unprotected the article, saying that pending changes "ought to keep things in line". I then added tags to indicate problems the article had, and, when no action was taken, nominated it for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Starland), because of a lack of reliable sources. The article was kept (PMDrive said speedy keep), and PMDrive added a construction tag, saying he'll clean up the article. The tag was removed as stale when no edits were made. Wendystarland and 76 then edit-warred over the tags I had added. On 13 December, PMDrive full-protected the article indefinitely (after initially semi-protecting it), citing excessive vandalism. Again PMDrive used the semi template. As before, full protection was not appropriate here. PMDrive then reverted to an earlier version, removing all the tags I had added. On the talk page, PMDrive says, "There has been some ongoing and really heinous vandalism as of late. I have therefore locked down the article indefinitely until this blows over. Please contact me directly if there are any concerns." This is disingenuous, given that: the edits only removed tags and couldn't be called "heinous"; the edits were made by Wendystarland and 76; semi-protection and pending changes would have dealt with things equally well. PMDrive also removed some talk page comments, against the guidelines. In January 2011, Courcelles (Courcelles (talk · contribs)) removed the full protection, but kept the semi and added reviewer-required pending changes. PMDrive had retired by this time. In March, I decided to edit the article myself, and wrote what I thought was a policy-compliant (albeit short) version. On 6 April, PMDrive came out of retirement and rolledback my edit. He then indefinitely full protected the article once again, saying, "Page has been bombarded with vandalism; protecting per the subject herself". A comment was left on my talk page, in which PMDrive said, "I just came out of retirement after I got a phone call from Wendy Starland herself regarding her article. It went from a well-sourced and fleshed-out article to a nanostub." Another comment on the talk page appears to label my edit as vandalism: "Once again, I have locked down the page because of vandalism." Yet another comment, on a user talk page, says that the article had been "trashed". There were only two edits between those by Courcelles and the rollback. PMDrive then made a number of edits which (minorly) helped clean up the article. In one of PMDrive's edit summaries, however, PMDrive appears to describe a self-published book by Beckham House listing "The Greatest Female Jazz Singers of All Time" (in which Wendy Starland is included) as "legit" (see the book). Shortly after, an exchange took place between Courcelles and PMDrive (see respective user talk pages), in which Courcelles expressed concern over PMDrive's actions. PMDrive agreed, and removed the full protection. It's sort of resolved, but the behaviour is serious enough to bring to wider attention. I find it remarkable that an admin can so blatantly violate COI, the admin policy, and not understand our content policies of NOR, V, and NPOV. It seems to me that PMDrive is misusing their admin tools to lock down the version of the article preferred by Wendystarland and 76, on instruction by the article subject, and to keep out the edits that make the article policy compliant, merely claiming "vandalism" as an excuse to "lock down" the article. Christopher Connor (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC) How dare you. I mean, how freaking dare you. I explained my position, corrected the problem and you now pull this? You're the one who tried to run this article though AfD for no apparent reason and now you've seen fit to drag me through this kangaroo court. I made a mistake based on a a request by the subject herself, overstepped my bounds, fixed the problem and you saw fit to go back through the entire edit history and smear me over this. It's self-important people with no apparent life who, along with the drooling adolescent vandals, take all the fun out of contributing for fear of either getting trashed by the vandals or raked over the coals by the likes of you. You want a comment? Brother, I have one for you but I'm not going to sink that low. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict): OK, I have to ask, if it is "sort of resolved", then why are we here? Admins sometimes know when vandalism is incoming, how I am not sure. So, to protect a page as "vandalism" as been done by many admin who can see the incoming vandalism. Plus, it seems you are in the corner of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and actually asked to have the page unprotected to only nom it for deletion. That seems to show you really want this page gone. But again, if it is resolved between PMDrive and Courcelles, then I really see no point in beating the dead horse any longer. Let's move on. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC) As you say, it's pretty well resolved at this point. It's hardly necessary to drag up the entire history of the article again at this point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC) You know, in all the time I've been an administrator, I have never, ever done this sort of thing to a fellow admin. I did not mean to overstep my authority. I "unretired" at the request of the subject who is fearful about vandalism to the article being used against her during her current legal battle. Everything I have done has been above board. No sockpuppetry, no arguing, no edit warring, but yes, there was inadvertent wheel warring and unintentional misuse of my privileges. When I was alerted to the fact that I'd blown it, I pulled back without an argument. I hope this settles the matter; I am so angry I can hardly type. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)While I have not looked into the content part much, I do see PMDrive's behaviour a bit unadmin-like. I do not understand why parts of the talk page were deleted or why such a borderline uncivil reply was left just above. Though I also don't see much recent talk between the two editors over their problems before coming to ANI which is not encouraging. If PMDrive showed a history of such borderline behaviour on articles he is highly involved with, then there would be a reason for an ANI, but not yet. Passionless -Talk 05:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC) After what PMDrive has been through with various editors and now this, I think the above comments were understandable for someone who apparently has put alot of work into an article. If someone did the same to something I worked on, I would be just as pissed and I think you would too. I have, though, asked PMDrive to read his comments before submitting so he doesn't get in trouble. But, the above, understandable. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC) PMDrive, I can understand your anger, but...do you really consider it appropriate to refer to other editors as "self-important people with no apparent life"? Under any circumstances?  Chzz  ►  05:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Seconds after this was written, this thread was 'hatted'. However, PMDrive responded on my own talk [53] - which seems a reasonable admission that things got a bit silly here. I'm happy with that response.  Chzz  ►  06:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC) I've reverted the close, which I consider to be premature given the issues raised and a lack of resolution. The hat comment "nothing to see here" is clearly unhelpful, and didn't explain why this thread was no longer needed. I'd like a greater consensus from uninvolved editors that this thread is no longer necessary, and assurances that PMDrive will adhere to the policies. (I won't revert again if I'm reverted). Christopher Connor (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC) The only time admins will act against an admin is if they do something horrendously and blatantly wrong, which PMDrive didn't do. So I'm afraid you will not get any results from this ANI other than your beliefs in justice and ideals crushed. Passionless -Talk 06:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC) I do NOT believe this. I made an innocent mistake, owned up to it, set it straight and referred the subject to the proper channels in the Foundation, all the while treating you with respect. If you're lashing out because I lashed out at you, I'm sorry already. OK? Can we move along now? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

66.175.205.171

I think the 66.175.205.171 probably deserves a block for this edit summary and various other nonsense e.g. edit warring at New Israel Fund, an article covered by sanctions. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I left a single notice warning, but I agree this editor needs a timeout. Basket of Puppies 06:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Already blocked for edit warring but, if doug doesn't mind, I'll add a sub-note about civility. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 06:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

...to which the user responded in an unsatisfactory way. Let's see if a note from me makes any impression. <shrug>. - Philippe 06:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI -- at this point in time, non-admins can't see what the edit summary is that you are referring to.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It was a very vile PA, without a doubt it was correct to censor it. Passionless -Talk 07:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep -- I now know what it was. I would be supportive of this IP being blocked simply for the outrageous nature of his edit summary. If it doesn't happen now, I predict further disruption will follow and necessitate it, in very short order. Not even a close call, here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Sean -- unless someone beats you to it by blocking the IP permanently, you may want to leave mention of this AN/I at his talkpage. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I notified him when I posted it here. He deleted it. He would probably benefit from wearing mittens to avoid harming himself or others. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This person is not new to this. See the range contribs from 66.175.200.0/21. –MuZemike 07:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

From the nonsense on his talk page and edit summaries now I'd say it's just trolling :) S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

He may be back as Special:Contributions/66.175.201.175. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

After doing a little bit of research, this is banned user EverybodyHatesChris (talk · contribs). I am blocking 66.175.200.0/21 for 1 year. –MuZemike 06:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Article title capitalization fix over redirect

Resolved

Article moved. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe in the title of this article, Now I Lay Me Down To Sleep, the word "To" should not be capitalized. However, since Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep is currently redirected to the all-caps title, it seems an admin is needed to do the deed. Thanks and apologies if I missed a better board. Mackan79 (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This is thanks to the rather useless bot edit. Next time, I suggest you go to WP:RPM for these things.--Atlan (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, {{db-move|1=PAGE TO BE MOVED HERE|2=REASON FOR MOVE}} is a pretty speedy approach (ooh! pun!) to uncontroversial moves of this sort. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

137.61.234.225

137.61.234.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has continued to change things after his own ideas disregarding consensus. As I've mentioned on the discussion page for the article the two users that have likewise tried to change the name of the article are the same, a check was first done on svwp and then here on enwp resulting in four users blocked on enwp and seven (or is it eight?) blocked on svwp. Since the person behind these edits have kept multiple accounts up and running since 2004 on svwp where several have been elected administrators I suggest a block is done to this IP since the person responsible is unlikely to change the way he tries to change consensus. Last time the block was for only two weeks. I suggest that the block here on enwp matches the one on svwp, which is three years. A block, for it to be effective, shouldn't allow new users to be created or old ones loging in. Another IP used by the same person is 83.250.32.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and I suggest a one year block (same as svwp), shorter since it's semi-dynamic. GameOn (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

List of convicted Jewish criminals

There is no administrative action required here. If you believe an article has been unfairly deleted, go to WP:Deletion review. 28bytes (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I attempted to create this page, in a similar vein to List of convicted Australian criminals. I was adding the first entry when it was deleted: 12:07, 11 April 2011 Lectonar (talk | contribs) deleted "List of convicted Jewish criminals" ‎ (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP: POV magnet) I recreated, only for: 12:09, 11 April 2011 NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) deleted "List of convicted Jewish criminals" ‎ (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic: Bernard Madoff) Whether or not there is a good reason for this article not to exist, it should be clear that the reasons given so far have been spurious. Bob19842 (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Do you also intend to create a List of convicted Christian criminals? Or might that turn into a life's work? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC) No, but I wouldn't object if someone did. Bob19842 (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC) To break it down further, how about List of convicted criminals named Bob? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC) I doubt that would interest anyone. Bob19842 (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 'Australian' is a nationality: a matter of fact. 'Jewish' is an ethnicity and/or a religious faith: less clear - cut, and quite possibly less relevant too. Personally, I think that lists like this are highly suspect, for the same reason that List of Jewish Nobel laureates is suspect: an arbitrary intersection seemingly created by friends/foes of a particular ethnicity or faith to push a POV. Others seem to see this differently though, and I can't think of a policy reason why one should be acceptable, and not the other. I suspect that as long as arbitrary 'list of ethnicity X ys' and the like are allowed, we are going to have to put up with this sort of nonsense - to ban the 'negative' ones and allow the 'positive' ones would be a breach of NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC) No, we do not have to put up with it. Zeroing in on Jews, or any particular ethnic group, is not appropriate, as it carries an implication of "guilt by association". I might question the Australian one also, but if there are lists of convicted criminals by a wide range of nationalities, that could be different... although it sounds more like a category than an article. What can such an article say anyway? "These guys were Australian"? That's not an article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC) What is an Unconvicted Australian Criminal? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC) It simply isn't a notable thing to be Jewish and to be a criminal, and it ca be seen as an attack page. I will also note that the Australian article seems to be the only list focused on nationality alone found within Category:Lists of criminals. I think AfD will be seeing some activity today. Tarc (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Deleting admins notified. —DoRD (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC) There are several "List of convicted..." articles, but Australia is the only one that zeroes in on a specific ethnicity or nation. Astonishingly, it's been around for 5 1/2 years. But its creator is still an active user, so a question or two to that guy might be called for. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Would Nawlinwiki care to explain his deletion reason ("Madoff")? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Other than the article's content at the time of deletion being 'Bernie Madoff was convicted in bla bla biggest ponzi scheme in history'? Without knowing more that certainly looks like trying to duplicate Bernie Madoff (which incidentally was the content when it was originally deleted). Syrthiss (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC) It should be obvious that I had added the first name in a list and was not trying to "recreate" the Madoff page. Bob19842 (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Bob19842 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) It looks like this was the editor's first attempt at an article. Perhaps he should work on some other article of interest and see how it goes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC) If List of Jewish Nobel laureates is acceptable I think List of convicted Jewish criminals should be. Bob19842 (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks for giving away your true agenda. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC) To create List of convicted Jewish criminals? And why shouldn't I? Bob19842 (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC) I would prefer "List of Jewish criminals". Kittybrewster ☎ 13:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Bugs, stop it. That's a personal attack; please retract. Look, someone shows up here and sees several lists of criminals, and several list of Jewish whatever — it isn't far-fetched to combine the two, and when you mean to say someone is an antisemite, then say it, and don't "euphemize" it to "true agenda" or whatever. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC) It's the red-link himself who's talking in euphemisms. He's got some 'splainin' to do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC) What? You're talking in riddles. Seriously. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC) His argument is that he wants something to "balance" the article about Jews winning Nobel prizes. To me that's sounds like smack-dab, in-your-face anti-semitism. Is that clear enough for you? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC) The statement now is, thank you. But I think you are wrong. If "Jewish" is a valid determinant for a list (any list) I cannot see any reason why it should only be positive lists. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Feel free to argue against the list of Jewish Nobel winners. Its current existence does not require a "balancing" article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Just like Errant, I have. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC) The problem is that the "nobel laureate" and related list articles were well-protected at the recent AfDs and DRVs by a large group of editors, editors who would IMO strongly oppose a "Jewish criminal" list if it were ever to appear at AfD as well. In the latter case though, they would be correct to oppose it...and I would oppose it as well because it is the correct thing to do. We can't do a tit-for-tat "oh you kept your GOOD lists so now I am going to support the BAD list because of that". Tarc (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Where does Bob say "balance"? Kittybrewster ☎ 14:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC) He didn't; but that's his, y'know, "agenda." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC) He stated it clearly enough: "If List of Jewish Nobel laureates is acceptable I think List of convicted Jewish criminals should be", or the more-telling contrapositive, "If List of convicted Jewish criminals is not acceptable, neither should List of Jewish Nobel laureates." He's free to explain why he thinks there needs to be a "bad" to balance a "good". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC) He never said the counter-positive. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC) The contrapositive has the same truth value as the original statement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC) So, back to the point of the discussion. Is it helpful or useful to the encyclopedia to have such a list or category, and why? -- Avanu (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Well, he said "If List of Jewish Nobel laureates is acceptable I think List of convicted Jewish criminals should be. Bob19842 (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)" which kind of sounds like WP:OTHERSTUFF more than balance. Syrthiss (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Actually, my response had nothing to do with Bob, it was to the "If "Jewish" is a valid determinant for a list (any list) I cannot see any reason why it should only be positive lists" comment of Seb az86556. Tarc (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC) I didn't say "balance," either. I question any List of Jewish [] — but it strikes me as odd that people create all sorts of List of Jewish [], but as soon as it says "criminals," it gets nuked as "attack" and the creator is accused of having an "agenda." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Guilt-by-association is a BLP violation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Oh dear. I thought jews and Roman catholics were brought up to feel guilty. Original sin, etc. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Different type of guilt. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC) By the way... List of United Kingdom criminals List of United States criminals or would you care for something more of an ethnic flavor? :P List of American mobsters of Irish descent Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC) "Other stuff exists" is not a valid argument. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC) It is as much an argument as "doesn't exist" — no? :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Let's not forget the probably relevant List of Jewish American mobsters... Fram (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Was it created by a red-link as his first article? I doubt it. Besides that, there is plenty of coverage of the Mafia about the various ethnic groups that made up the American mob: Italian, Irish, Jewish, etc. Their ethnicity was considered notable by the mob itself. There's no ethnic notability connected with guys like Madoff, unless the red-link is trying to dredge up "the international conspiracy of Jewish bankers" as his justification. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC) It would be quite interesting to compare a List of Jews conned by Madoff (a lot) with List of Gentiles conned by Madoff. Madoff relied to some extent on the reputation of Jews as brilliant businessmen. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC) I would delete all these lists as having little in common and rely on category tags. Jeez. (a good way to start your list of Jewish criminals, btw. Convicted, too, they say). And I would agree that Bob would be better advised to find a different field for his first article (welcome to the wiki, I should have said). This would be like learning to swim by going to Dover and deciding to take a little paddle over to Calais.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC) I've participated in attempts to show some of these articles as ones that should be deleted in the past.. with little success. Frankly, if no one can produce a secondary source with sufficient detail on why a specific intersection is significant then it is not a notable topic. But that got squashed at the Nobel laureates article (apparently the 20% statistic was judge sufficient, although no detail discourse appears to exist on this fact, other than it exists...). Inflammatory topics like the one referenced in this thread definitely does need a decent level of sourcing to identify it as a notable intersection. my own view, of course, is that many of the lists are not notable intersections because being X isn't shown to be related to the committal of Y. Oh, they just happen to be X? Stick em in the list ;) --Errant (chat!) 13:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Does thte title mean that we assume that Jews not on the list have just not been convicted yet? The article clearly has no raison d'etre.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC) I love it. Their time will come. And then they will convict thee and me. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC) ...and they still poison the wells! While people are at it, what are the commonly known crimes the Jews commit? Exactly, they murder children and poison the wells. Not convinced? You just need to read en.wikipedia's article on well poisoning. You find three recent, well-sourced (pun!) reports about some people who say they saw Jews poisoning wells, graphical details included. And to make sure that this doesn't slip the occasional reader's eye, another article is linked as "see also" where these reports are reproduced. Where is the Jewish cabal controlling the world/media/wikipedia? Afraid to reveal themselves once more? Skäpperöd (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Some of the comments here seem more focused on whether they believe the topic of the article is 'nice' or not. A properly sourced and reasonable article is not wrong. The question here before us is whether a case can be made for having a list like this. If we have various criminals included in Wikipedia, then is a combined category of "Jewish Criminals" useful or helpful? I'm sure we have "criminals" and "jewish", but what is the specific rationale for having both? I don't see it as being inherently an invalid category, but I'm not sure I see how making a list is really useful. -- Avanu (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC) None of these are useful. It's the people who fear antisemitism at every corner, but happily keep the one that says the Jews control space... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Avanu, I think the category could be considered in terms of "is it useful". In terms of the list I think the usual notability criteria apply; i.e. are there any reliable sources discussing the link between Jews and being a criminal. I highly doubt there are.. if there were, then it is undoubtedly a valid topic. This is why List of Italian American mobsters is a valid topic. --Errant (chat!) 14:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Upon reading that I had to wonder if there are any reliable sources discussing the link between being Australian and being a criminal, apart from those written by English cricket fans. The existence of any of these lists is questionable by that criterion. HiLo48 (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Precisely. Italian Mafia, Irish Mafia, Jewish Mafia... all verifiably notable groupings. You'd be hard-pressed to find any valid attempt to group Jewish criminals in general - except by anti-Jewish groups trying to make a point of some kind. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC) I have no idea what anti-Jewish groups are trying to do in general. I do know that the discussion here is about whether this is a suitable article. I personally have never heard of people making a statement specifically about Jewish criminals, but that is merely anecdotal evidence. I would also appreciate, as an editor trying to make an effort here, that some of the snide remarks and little quips might be dropped from here on. I don't mind a legitimate discussion, but when it degrades to snarky remarks, not a fan. -- Avanu (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Your statement that "I'm not sure I see how making a list is really useful" is precisely to the point. It's not useful. Even more to the point, it's not verifiably notable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC) (←) Criminal organizations are notable. However List of Jewish Criminals (or List of {race/nationality/religion/group/association} Criminals) is not. At this point, however, List of Single Purpose Accounts Defaming a race/nationality/religion/group/association They Don't Like is getting pretty long. Let's put this to bed please. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Feel free to box it up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC) HiLo48 said: "Upon reading that I had to wonder if there are any reliable sources discussing the link between being Australian and being a criminal, apart from those written by English cricket fans. The existence of any of these lists is questionable by that criterion." Some might have found it appropriate since Australia was once a penal colony. I'm not sure though, and seems pretty strenuous at the least.-RHM22 (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Jesus Christ (so to speak). List of Australian Criminals makes more sense as a category, first of all, as that adds the additional notability requirement of the subjects already having articles. It's determined by nationality mainly because it's a list of people tried and convicted in Australian courts. List of Jewish Criminals doesn't make any more sense than List of Redheaded Criminals. --King Öomie 16:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC) I only know of one red headed criminal. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC) All gingers should be locked up, honestly, but that's straying down the tangent a bit... :) Tarc (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC) The 'List of Australian criminals' article fails the same notability test, I think. We see Wikipedia has an article on Jewish-American organized crime, but this has a clear notability. From the Notability guideline page, "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Convict era of Western Australia seems to have a reason, but the list of criminals is a bit of an arbitrary thing. -- Avanu (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC) I maintain that if you can have a List of Jewish Nobel laureates, a List of convicted Jewish criminals is also OK. This is elementary. Going off on tangents about "red hair" etc. is simply irrelevant. Bob19842 (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Why? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit war by 76.89.183.205 (talk) in Cheek kissing article

This unregistered user 76.89.183.205 (talk) has engaged in persistent editing without providing any sources and explanations and also has engaged in edit wars with other users in the Cheek kissing article, and is still continuing to engage in an edit war. Even though he is neither a registered user nor does have the authority to issue a block warning (as neither do I), this user threating me with this and also of escalating the edit war. --Menikure (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. You do have the authority to issues warnings - all Wikipedia editors do -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: Sorry I don't have time to look into it now (and I have no idea who is right or wrong) - but please make sure you do not revert again, as you already appear to be up to 3RR today yourself. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Menikure kept ignoring the discussion page which explains the reasons of why such changes have been made. The previous article consisted an unreliable source which was simply a blog page. Furthermore, the previous article included personal opinions such as referring the hitting of temples by men as "possibly as an attempt to masculinize the action" without a source. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cheek_kissing&diff=423503416&oldid=423498572 Menikure has been notified on his talk page several times about recent changes and he has been asked to check the discussion page and encouraged to join the discussion, which he basically ignored and kept reverting the changes. The discussion page can be seen on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cheek_kissing#Turkey with the explanation of the changes made. Also can be found is the user's talk page which consists the notifications: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Menikure#Cheek_Kissing:_Escalated I believe Wikipedia is not a place where personal opinions matter and it is no race that another side wins or loses. This user has also had history of similar policy violations which can be found in the archives and can be verified by his talk page. 76.89.183.205 (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

User: Menikure

The user reverts the previous article without discussing the issue on the discussion page of the article. The user was warned on its talk page, explaining the reason why s/he should contribute to the discussion page and why the previous version of the article was unacceptable. The previous article included an unreliable source which refers to a website which is written like a blog. It also had mispronunciation and again personal thoughts about the matter. Another issue was about the categorization of the country Turkey, which I included the reasons why such categorization change has been made. The country has been categorized throughout Wikipedia under the Europe continent and I kindly asked the user to follow the same guideline for the integrity. The source which is included in the new edit also refers the country in Europe. Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cheek_kissing#Turkey to see the inappropriate editing on April 11,2011. As it can be seen the user didn't contribute the discussion page but kept reverting the recent changes. It can also be seen that necessary warnings have been given on user's talk page. I tried my best to keep the dispute under control but it looks like the user is persistent on reverting the changes because of his/her personal opinions about the matter. The user has also had a record of several other complaints about him/her here and his/her talk page. Thank you for your concern. 76.89.183.205 (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Content dispute

This appears to be strictly a content dispute, the dispute being over whether Turkey is considered "southern Europe" or "Middle East". It's clear from the "Middle East" article that Turkey (which is primarily in Asia, not Europe) has long been considered to be "Middle East". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The IP is also at least a couple of notches past the 3RR boundary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It's also clear from the "Europe" article that Turkey is a European country. I cannot see what's considered "long" or what makes something "primarily" other than your own thoughts. 76.89.183.205 (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Rather than throw out blocks I've protected the page for a short while so that disputes can be worked out on the talk page. It is only semi-d because I think that is enough to stop the edit war but can be upped if needs be. All editors involved also need to remember that any edit that is intended to improve WP even if it is misguided or incorrect is not vandalism, and referring to them as such is frowned on :) --Errant ^(chat!) 13:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

User Anglo Pyramidologist

Resolved

 – Anglo Pyramidologist blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks, his talk page has also been full protected.

Unresolved

Anglo Pyramidologist (talk · contribs) continues to make personal attacks (in this case in edit summaries) despite being blocked for personal attacks five days ago [54]. See [55] and two other edits at the same article where his edit summary was "reverting vandalism by a darwinist (troll) who is deleting any source connected to a creationist or Christian, even on Biblical dates" and here [56] where he wrote (about a different editor "Undid revision 423492830 by AnonMoos (talk) reverting vandalism (note this user has also left me abuse on my personal page" - the so-called attack can be seen here [57] - I can't see that as an attack. I would have blocked but I've been involved in complaints about this editor earlier (pov issues mainly). Notifying him now. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I was just preparing something for WQA about this, but I was waiting on his response to my warnings. I'll just post this here.

This user is... well, he seems to be in a poor mood.

This unacceptable edit summary is found four times:

"reverting vandalism by a darwinist (troll) who is deleting any source connected to a creationist or Christian, even on Biblical dates"[58][59][60][61]

And this:

"reverting vandalism (note this user has also left me abuse on my personal page))"[62]

The 'abuse' in question, an exchange in which another user states a point and gets called a troll- [63]

And any given edit he's made to Talk:Dating Creation.

The problem, AP, is that you're personalizing everything. Every edit anyone makes in your sphere of interest, you're seeing as an attack on you. Calm down. --King Öomie 15:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

See also his comments at WP:FTN#Dating Creation where he is accusing another editor of lying. Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

And at Talk:Dating Creation#Biased Edits by a Darwinist/evolutionist (love the 'militant fundie Darwinist' bit. Dougweller (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC).

This editor has received warnings and a block, yet continues to make personal attacks against other editors. I would recommend a block of longer duration, only to be lifted if Anglo Pyramidologist agrees to refrain from further attacks. TFD (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

- Yes, i am entitled to revert edits to stop vandalism, which i put hours into researching. As i noted, my posted content was deleted by a self-confessed militant darwinist. I'm not sure why biased evolutionists are allowed to delete/edit material on related creationism pages. As for doug? Doug is another biased user, if you search for his name on google you find a 'skeptic' website he owns where he attacks or mocks what he calls 'fringe' science/archeology and he links to atheist/evolutionist websites like Talkorigins. I also noted he has a page up attacking pyramidology and other areas of alternitive sciences, but yet oddly doug is given power to edit all these (what he calls) 'fringe' sciences over wikipedia. Hardly neutral. I'm not sure what position doug holds, but i tried a day or so get help from him but he ignored. Probably because i have pyramidologist in my name and i am not an evolutionist. I am going to contact an actual admin to expose how this neutrality thing has got out of hand. Why are darwinists and atheists allowed on creationists pages? You tell me, would you let a neo-nazi on the Holocaust page or a biased communist on capitalism? The only complaints or issues i have raised are about neutrality. Also you should edit the above innacurate statement/lie, i was not blocked for personal attacks, i was blocked for accusing another user of being a sock puppet. I was then told to file a 'SPI' report, but since i don't know what that is (and i tried to ask the mods, but no reply) i don't see how i could have followed that up. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"militant darwinist" + "biased evolutionist" + "actual admin" = 48 hours. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Firstly, a content dispute is NOT vandalism. And secondly, this ANI issue is not about content anyway, it is about your abusive attacks on other editors. If you wish to dispute the content of an article, you are welcome to, on its Talk page - but not via abusive edit summaries (or personal abuse of any kind). You ask would we let a neo-Nazi edit the Holocaust page or a Communist edit pages about capitalism? The answer is yes, if they stick to our notability, sourcing, and NPOV policies. In fact, for example, a Communist might be better aware of valid notable criticisms of capitalism than would a free market capitalist, and if they added them in a properly sourced manner, they could make a valid improvement. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The blocked party clearly isn't learning. In lieu of his eloquent unblock request, I'm all for doubling the length of his block and removing his talk page access. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support increased block - the editor in question seems unwilling to listen and/or accept that their actions have been wrong. GiantSnowman 16:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • User's talkpage is full-protected (as opposed to the user being talkpage-blocked), because other people were "trolling" there. I didn't personally see any edits mocking or intending to provoke AP, but okay. --King Öomie 16:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I've suggested to the blocking admin that unprotection and blocking talk page access would be a better approach, as I don't see anyone else trolling there - and if others do, I think we should warn, revert and block them, rather than preventing valid edits to the Talk page by other editors (eg other notifications). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Whatever. I certainly didn't intend on trolling him, although I see how it might appear that way to the admin. I marked this as resolved, we all have better things to do by now, yes? Sven Manguard Wha? 16:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Thanks everyone. I'll note that he did ask me for help at 8pm my time last night - he says he is editing from home with the same IP his brother uses and they are being called sock puppets. I didn't respond mainly because I was busy (and spent most of today travelling) and I wasn't sure what to advise him or even what I thought about the situation. Then when I got home and would have tried, I discovered his attacks on other editors. Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Socking issue with the block of Anglo Pyramidologist

86.10.119.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has admitted that they are editing from the same IP as Anglo Pyramidologist and might have one other seperate account besides that editing from that same IP. See discussion of User talk:86.10.119.131#Identity causes concerns and complicates things in my book. HE claims they are several seperate people editing from the same computer The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Something about this IP doesn't quite rhyme. When he defends himself against allegations of sockpuppetry, he claims to be AP's younger brother and writes in a rather rudimentary English (e.g. [64]), but his other edits use a fairly "normal" language. Favonian (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed Extremely different from this post earlier today The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No, really? WP:LITTLEBROTHER? Well in that case let's unblock him with an apology. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikistalk further complicates things. British Israelism for example shows 86's last edit there to be 2nd of February Anglo Pyrmid follows up and works persistently on it on 4th of Feb. Christian Identity shows the same pattern Last edit by 86's on the 21st of March and AP picks it right up and 86 never edits there again. Here is another interesting coincidence their editing the same article together here. There is some serious off wiki coordination same articles same POV and several near identical edit sumaries here and here The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there an SPI open? A CU will be able to immediately determine if the point about Anglo editing from elsewhere is true, while the IP continued editing (obviously from the same place). --King Öomie 17:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a note, but "corrected spelling" is a bit too innocuous to really show the users at the same. I've probably used that edit summary before, as have at least half of the users who'll read this. lifebaka++ 17:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I try to avoid fixing other people's typos, but I actually fixed a link at the beginning of this thread, so I see your point. --King Öomie 18:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok look at these next few extremly simliar edit summary and tell me if I am crazy...

• "Corrected spelling"
• "Added paragraph on Carroll"
• "added more sources and new information on origins"
• "corrected spelling error"
• "corrected spelling error"
• "added key section on beliefs and tenets"

Looking on these edit summaries its the same style for the same acts The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - is there a reason why Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anglo Pyramidologist has yet to be opened? GiantSnowman 18:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I thought it wasnt necessary since 86 is pretty open about editing from the same computer as the other account. Typically when multiple accounts operate from the same IP then a block for one is a block for all accounts of that IP. Also IP wont be connected to Account per privacy policy. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• comment OK, just a note from the sidelines (as I generally avoid religious content like the plague), and I know that calling someone a troll is a big no-no (only established editors are allowed to do that); but wow .. sure seems like this guy got tarred, feathered, and run outta town on a rail in a huge hurry ... just sayin. — Ched :  ?  20:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • That tends to happen when people make multiple personal attacks in their first few edits on the site. Kansan (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• As well as continuing such silly behaviour in their unblock request... GiantSnowman 20:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Look, I don't deny that he needs to adjust his approach to successfully edit here - I'm just saying that I can think of 30+ "established" editors here that could have used the same language and not a word would have been said. As an "encyclopedia" that deals with WP:V and WP:RS types of things, this particular website doesn't always achieve the "welcome" factor that many political, or religious type of things might accept because we don't deal with the "leap of faith" beliefs. I'm just saying that talking to the guy might have been a better approach. Religious issues are always such hot-button topics, that they can quickly escalate into rough discourse. People are passionate about their beliefs (be they religious, political, or nationalistic in nature). I'm sorry, but saying someone is a "darwinist" or "creationist" just doesn't equate to a block to me. Yea, I know, the whole "you called me a troll" thing gets posted on these boards all the time .. well, if that's the worst that anyone ever calls me .. oh wait ... too late. Best of luck. Feel free to send him my way when his block is done, I'd be happy to talk to him. With only 400 edits, I wouldn't be shocked if he never even SAW WP:NPA or WP:CIV (although that last one seems to get used in only subjective circumstances at times.). Other than that, I have no desire to include myself in this little brew-ha-ha. — Ched :  ?  21:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and if you doubt how touchy the religious issues can be, take a walk over to WP:RFAR on any given day - there's a real good one going on right now revolving around some of the edits to various "Jewish" style articles. — Ched :  ?  21:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The IP should be blocked as it's just Anglo, pretending to be his 'younger' brother, in hopes of avoding the IP being blocked. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have opened an SPI, After some reflection I realized 86.10 has always been very cooperative with my inquiries and its odd behavior today is abnormal for the usual 86.10 The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

@GoodDay .. yep, that's what WP:AGF says .. always assume it's a trick. — Ched :  ?  22:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Kindness don't feed the bulldog. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

And vinegar don't entice the new editor. — Ched :  ?  04:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

AFolkSingersBeard

This editor, who has been registered for less than two weeks, has just returned from his third block. This time, it was for 72 hours, for edit warring.[65] I was also sanctioned for the same incidsent, for 48 hours, reduced to 18 after an appeal.[66] In the discussion, EdJohnston commented that "The behavior of AFolkSingersBeard is so blatant that he seems unlikely to have a long career, whether or not he is a sock".[67]

Since his return, this user has made three edits. Two of them were unjustified (and, in my opinion, POV) reversions of my latest edits. Obviously I cannot re-revert, because the articles are subject to 1RR under WP:ARBPIA. I am reporting the editor here because I believe that his behaviour is clearly recidivist edit-warring, and seems designed to entrap me into a breach of 1RR. I request that appropriate action be taken. RolandR (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the "Arab citizens of Israel" edit. At this point, there's no violation of policy, but I've left a warning to try to back up previous warnings and a notice that an indef block is likely to happen if this behavior continues. You're welcome to try for a temporary or indefinite ban if this continues. Nyttend (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Lapot cut and paste move

In June 2010, User:Vinie007 changed Lapot (senicide) into a redirect with this edit. They then cut and paste the article contents with this edit. I am asking if an admin could sort this out so that the page histories are merged properly. Thank you. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

 Doing... —DoRD (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done - I think it's all back where it belongs, but another admin may want to check my work. FYI, WP:REPAIR is all about dealing with this sort of request. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks good and thanks for the link. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible irregularities at AfD

Resolved

Can someone take a look at the comments being made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebionite Jewish Community (3rd nomination)? It seems to me that an opening statement by the nominator should be sufficient to make the case without repeated "clarifications" that may potentially influence the voting process. Once editors have cast their vote and made their statement, they shouldn't need to come back again and again to lobby for their position. I am requesting that all of these extra "comments" be removed from the record. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You do realize that AfD is a discussion, and as such a commenter can clarify their point if needed? I don't see where the nominator is lobbying one way or another within the AfD, and also I do find it curious that you are asking to have opposing viewpoints removed, since you wish to have the article kept. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) It is a discussion, I think it would be abnormal for somebody to make a point and, if that point was challenged, not return to make their case more clear. Nothing wrong in this AfD as far as I can see - this ANI just smacks of IDON'TLIKEIT. GiantSnowman 20:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong at all. It is perfectly normal for a nominator to take part in the discussion just like everybody else. I wonder where you got the idea that this might not be allowed, or even that it might be a good idea not to allow this. Hans Adler 20:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well I guess I stand corrected. We will proceed with the comments. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not wrong to discuss the !votes. It can be counterproductive to hector !voters or to accuse them of bad faith or partiality simply because they disagree with the nomination. This can give the impression that the nominator has opened the discussion for reasons unconnected with the betterment of the encyclopedia. Collegial discussion, however, is always appropriate. --NellieBly (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced Content Added by Anon

• 98.82.234.45 (talk · contribs)

User:98.82.234.45 continues to add unsourced content to numerous television stations after being asked to stop. I am hesitant to go on a revert spree, but with a slew of pages getting unsourced content added to them, I am unsure what else I can do. Requesting some help. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

NeutralHomer, do you think the info being added is actually wrong? (It's a bunch of stuff about advertising slogans from radio stations). If not, then AGF and talk to the person nicely about citing the info. I left a usertalk message, maybe someone else can continue the conversation if there's a response. It looks to me like someone with an interest in radio station trivia, or if something is amiss, my next guess would be someone in the advertising business with a COI. But the stuff being added doesn't look all that spammy at first glance. Anyway, don't bite the newbies. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The question isn't that it is wrong or not, it is unsourced content and could very well be OR. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

And this makes it different from 95% of the content of the articles involved in what way? Those articles are pretty much bereft of sourcing, especially in this area. If you want to clean up the articles, fine, but singling out one new editor for doing nothing different than what other editors have been doing is likely to do nothing but drive the new editor away. There's no sensitive content involved, and no indications found that the additions are dubious. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, for one, this editor isn't new by any stretch of the imagination. This has been going on for over a year now. Two, I am fairly certain we are looking at a sock of an indef blocked user, but can't confirm it with a CU. Three, yes, the pages do need more sources, but with very little people at WP:TVS, we can only do so much. If there were more people willing to source these pages, then I would be thrilled, but it is essentially only me and about one other person at the moment, so we are just cleaning up messes on the pages and together with working on other projects, we are stretched too thin. You want to help, please help and source the pages. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, which blocked user, and (again) do you think the info is actually wrong? Generally, "verifiable" on Wikipedia means that a source exists (or is presumed to exist) somewhere, not necessarily that the source is actually cited in the article. We generally only revert stuff if it's contentious or we think it's likely to be wrong. If you in your best judgment think that the edits are vandalism then I'd say go ahead and roll them all back, but post a message to WT:TVS saying what happened. Otherwise I'd say just make a note of the issue at TVS, so members can spot check a few of the edits at their leisure. If several fail verification then revert them all, otherwise don't worry too much. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I will say this again, it doesn't matter if the information posted is correct or not, it is unsourced and more-than-likely OR. It could be very well be correct, but without a source, it doesn't matter. I have run into that problem myself on GA articles. No source, no go. So until the anon gets a source, they should all be reverted. But I will need an admin for a few since they have been covered by other edits. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I watch a lot of the same articles, although only for one specific issue. I have to say that it's hard to believe the legitimacy of these edits. The user is adding slogans to TV stations across the entire country. A large number of these are adding "local versions" of national network slogans (see this edit as a representative example. These are not current slogans, and many of them go back numerous decades. There is no way that the IP has personal knowledge of the local slogans of hundreds of TV stations across the country. So either one of two things is true: 1) The user has a reference that says "All of the ABC (e.g.) affiliates used a localized version of Slogan X in Y time period"; or 2) The user is aware of the existence of a slogan used in multiple places, and thus is speculating/assuming it was used at all affiliate stations across the country. If #1 is correct, then the source should be provided. #2, however, seems far more likely to me. At least with most of the unsourced additions to TV network stations, it really seems like the person adding info (usually to just one station or stations in one broadcast area) seems to be working off of personal knowledge ("I remember seeing that..."). But this really feels like additions based on, at best, supposition, and, at worst, intentional fabrication of information. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

According to our policies, can't unsourced material be removed by anyone and its up to the person arguing to include it to find appropriate references and WP:CITE them? Heiro 04:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, if the info is challenged, which it sounds like this is. It's disruptive and not good editing to remove stuff indiscriminately just because it's unsourced, if it's uncontentious and doesn't seem otherwise suspicious. There's a Wikipedia fork called Veropedia which requires sourcing for everything, but on WP there's a combination of WP:AGF and WP:PRESERVE, so it's a matter of judgment. Discussing with other editors (like this) before going forward is a good thing.

In this example AGF is diminished because of Neutralhomer's sense that we're dealing with a block evader, and by Qwyrxian's issue with the content itself. NH and Qwyrxian are much more familiar with this TV stuff than I am, so I defer to their judgment on both issues. (My own guess would have been someone sitting around with a TV reference book, or someone at an ad agency that had some kind of historical records). Neutralhomer, did the blocked editor (before being blocked) know how to use talk pages? You might also privately identify the blocked person to a checkuser.

Next step I'd say is see if the person starts editing again without responding to the talk messages. I just added to the earlier message I left there, saying responding is not optional and that they'll probably get mass-reverted if they don't answer. If you do roll it all back, leaving a report with a diff at WT:TVS (so people can find the stuff if they want to check it themselves) seems like a reasonable PRESERVE gesture. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 05:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, being that the anon hasn't stopped editing or responded to 75.'s posts for comment, I don't think there are editing in a constuctive manner and really, that's when my AGF starts going southbound. I am still hoping the anon responds, but if they aren't responding to a fellow anon (ie: 75.), then I don't think they are going to. I will give them a couple longer and then I am going to revert what I can and leave the rest to the admins who can revert over conflicting edits. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• We went through this same issue with the IP last week, and I will repeat what I said last week to confirm NeutralHomer is correct; many of these slogans are indeed unsourced, and in fact, were never used on the air at all on many of the stations, especially the national ones, which in the past usually only aired them in minute-long promos with a channel number butted into the network's image song that filled unsold commercial time to prevent dead air (and aren't used anymore as direct response ads now fill said time and make money). There is no way to source this except for YouTube (tenuous as a source at best) or a station actually having a detailed history of what slogans they used on their website or an anniversary special, which few stations have. As I stated previously the slogans are usually unneeded in my eyes and easily are WP:CRUFT and sections with them should be removed, though I'd rather have consensus before pursuing that avenue. Nate • (chatter) 06:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I think I see--you're saying that person saw a logo on (say) the Podunk, NH local affiliate of ABC, and then went and put that logo into the articles of a bunch of other ABC affiliate stations? Yeah, that is lame. Although, if there's a Youtube clip of the specific logo on a specific station, that does seem to show that it was actually used there. As for the cruft issue, hmm, I'm usually more bothered by cruft connected with products that are actively being marketed, than historical cruft that nobody has a COI about any more. I also notice the person hasn't edited since I left those messages (it's late evening where I am) and the earlier messages left for them (at least on that page) weren't that informative. Shrug. I don't see a whole lot of urgency to this (there's no crazy BLP allegations or anything like that) but if you guys want to revert as a content judgment, I don't have a problem with it. I take it that nobody thinks at this point that we're dealing with an actual newbie (those should always get some slack and understanding). 75.57.242.120 (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
    • No, at first I did, but after some digging, it became obvious we have a sock on our hands. I just couldn't tell you whose sock, it is one of two people though. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Not to be rude, but 'It's one of two people, and I'm not going to share who I think those people are' type statements don't give us much to work with. You could be right, you could be wrong, but if you tell no one, we can't help you figure it out. If you don't want to say it publicly, maybe email it to one or two checkusers (they might not be able to a run scan, but they have more experience in recognizing socks than just about anyone.) Sven Manguard Wha? 06:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
        • I wasn't going to say because I didn't want to get accused of calling someone a sock of someone and it turn out to be they weren't, but if you want me to....OK. It is either User:Mmbabies or User:BenH. Both are prolific vandals, both have whole damn bedrooms full of socks and both have vandalized television station pages. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:RD#2 at Penleigh and Essendon Grammar School please

Several edits by WP:VOA account Goodoman69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and IP 203.100.244.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at Penleigh and Essendon Grammar School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) have the appearance of cyberbullying on individuals who may be currently enrolled and underage students at the school. I'd like to ask for those edits to be WP:REVDEL'ed according to criterion WP:RD#2.

The specific edits that I'd suggest to be deleted are:

[[68]], [[69]], [[70]], [[71]], [[72]], [[73]], [[74]], [[75]]

As for Goodoman69 and the IP, their edits have been undone and they've both been warned. I'll leave it to you to decide on whether anything further needs to be done, particularly as the IP's activities seem to have dropped off since. I'm informing them of this report now, not that I expect that they'll contribute to any discussion. -danjel (talk to me) 02:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

In general, best to see WP:OVERSIGHT and request action by email (they will know what to do if there is a mismatch between their powers and what is required), rather than mentioning things here where extra coverage is ensured. However, since it's here, best to leave it here until it's dealt with. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

True, but the people looking at it here aren't the target audience for the cyber bullying so I'm not so worried about coverage.

I actually think that, perhaps, we (and specifically we at WP:WPSCH) need to think about a specific policy in regards to cyber bullying. A large number of the instances of vandalism to school pages target particular students (i.e., cyber bullying), and we need a better reaction to it than reverts and warnings. They actually really need to be stamped out and removed.

Noted, in regards to WP:OVERSIGHT for the future. -danjel (talk to me) 07:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume that we don't routinely contact the schools themselves over this sort of thing? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

As a teacher, I wouldn't mind if wikipedia contacted us regarding instances of cyber bullying, but I'd have no idea how wikipedia, being largely run by volunteers would do it. I know what we would do once we had that information, but, acting on IP's and that sort of thing alone? Difficult.

Students are told to report issues, and we follow it up with organisations if necessary. I know of only one instance of a cyber bullying issue involving wikipedia being dealt with by the schools I work with though. -danjel (talk to me) 09:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Bizarre AFDs

Wuhwuzdat (talk · contribs) has nominated just about every fraternity Fraternities and sororities beginning with the letter Alpha for Prod or AFD. These drive-by twinkle nominations, including obviously notable fraternities, contained zero actual rationale--they all said simply "non notable organization." I attempted to discuss this with the user, who responded by opening a second afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Gamma (2nd nomination)) of an article I wrote, even while the first AFD was pending (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Gamma). Other users [76][77] attempted to discuss this with the user. Instead, the user posted aggressive comments on his talk page.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

These mass AfD nominations are clearly inappropriate, but Wuhwuzdat has not done so again since you asked them to stop. If it starts up again, a block to prevent further disruption seems warranted. — Satori Son 03:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Are they inappropriate enough to warrant a speedy keep close, where no other user advocates deletion? —C.Fred (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If they are inappropriate, then they should be withdrawn -- otherwise, the the disruption is ongoing.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There needs to be a larger discussion about the conduct of this user as a whole. They has been the subject of numerous previous discussions over bitey conduct and misuse of the deletion protocol. They've also been fairly unwilling to listen to other editors about their conduct. It saddens me that I see Wuhwuzdat here at AN/I on a what now feels like a monthly basis. elektrikSHOOS 03:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive76#User:Wuhwuzdat and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wuhwuzdat. — Satori Son 04:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Why not just ban him from listing AFDs? In the process of closing them recently, I've noticed a rather large number Wuhwuzdat nominated that were unanimous keeps but for his nom. There is the odd valid deletion result from him, but as a whole his track record seems pretty poor. The AFDs seem indiscriminate and bot-like, such as his spate of "non notable former model" deletion noms (not that being a "former" rather than current anything is relevant to notability), some of which were easily verifiable as current models (e.g., here and here). Then I saw the mass fraternity AFDs, which really seem beyond the pale... Why waste other people's time responding to these and closing them when he apparently hasn't exerted even minimal effort or thought in listing them, clearly hasn't followed WP:BEFORE (such as here, where multiple sources were found by the first commenter within two hours of his AFD posting]]) or bothered to write more than a generic WP:VAGUEWAVE for a deletion rationale? And then from what I've seen, he doesn't even bother to come back and participate further to explain or defend his nom. Force him to actually participate in AFDs as a commenter so perhaps he might learn how it's supposed to work. postdlf (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Suspension of Wuhwuzdat's Twinkle privileges

Within the past week, this user has also gone on a mass PROD spree for numerous bands, including one which clearly met WP:BAND and one which had previously been PRODed. This sort of massive-scale, drive-by tagging without any sort of regard for WP:BEFORE is detrimental to the project. I'd recommend temporary suspension of Twinkle privileges, as that's what all of the recent taggings have been done with, to help this user understand that this sort of behavior is unacceptable. elektrikSHOOS 04:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we just take it one step further, set a precedent and block per repeated violations of WP:BEFORE? –MuZemike 05:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see disruption here. The first AfD I picked out at random from the list he nominated was clearly justified. In the second case I looked at the organization might be slightly more notable, but the article had zero independent sourcing and lacked crucial information to allow even assessing notability. As long as there are cases like this among his nominations, I say it's worth looking at them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If someone is being indiscriminate, then yes, by definition there are going to be some positive results. I don't think you mean to say that, for example, if he listed 50 AFDs, out of which two were closed as delete and the rest as keep, then it's a good use of everyone's time? Presumably we have other editors who are capable of identifying and listing those two deletion candidates without also flinging the other 48 at the community to deal with. I don't know what his ratio of keep-to-deletes is; perhaps we should do a formal count. But the absolute numbers of improper nominations (mass listings with only vague wave rationales and clear failures to follow WP:BEFORE) should also be a concern. postdlf (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Uhh, because then you'd have every AfD gadfly on Wikipedia screaming for blocks for anyone taking articles there in future based on precedent? WWD was apparently asked to stop and then stopped. That suggests a block is inappropriate. Nevertheless, I wouldn't be opposed to removal of Twinkle here, which genuinely would be a preventative measure. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, Wuhwuzdat had already been placed on the official Twinkle blacklist as a result of a prior incident involving his use of Twinkle. As of right now, he's still listed on said blacklist. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

He's redefining the array value here (see here) without himself blacklisted, might undo that, or just block him for it... - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted his local morebits copy (a WP:IAR speedy delete!) as it was used to avoid the Twinkle blacklisting. Feel free to restore this if there is consensus that this was an incorrect speedy deletion of course... Fram (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Woah, that hacked twinkle has to be treated as an unauthorized bot used by an editor under bot restrictions (twinkle blacklist). Block and keep blocked until person agrees to stop the nonsense. Fram's deletion was perfect, I wouldn't have thought of doing it that way. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC) (Edited: if operation stopped some time ago then I guess blocking is not preventive). A pretty severe talkpage trouting is warranted though, IMO. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Self-promotion on nearly 50 articles and removal of tags for AFDs

Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs) keeps creating wikipedia articles based on publications from Billy Hathorn. I nominated three unnotable articles for deletion (here, here and here). In each one I've added tags and voiced my concerns about the contradicting sources, missing sources and so on, but have never received a reply back. Instead, Billy (the creator) of the articles keeps citing himself and removing tags without explanation.

For example, concerning the fact that two sources contradict one another I put the tag here, and when it got removed I again put it here. I posted the issues on the talk page here: Talk:Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary.

The creator the article's response was to remove the tags without comment and cite his own article. (His name is Billy Hathorn and the article he cited four times is "Austin Toliver Powers" by Billy Hathorn. It's the same article cited by himself in related articles like L. L. Clover (out of 19 foonotes, 10 are his).

To save an article from deletion, he lists the subject's books and citing himself three times (Hathorn adds Hathorn, "Powers and Clover.") I'd also like to point out there is no evidence of these books on google books.

If an editor cited himself a few times and was willing to talk about it that's one thing, but...

He has only published what appears to be three articles in local history papers, but has cited his publications in these articles: Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary, Earl Williamson, A. T. Powers, L. L. Clover, Barbara Staff, Robert L. Frye, John Tower, Ray Barnhart, Don W. Williamson, Tedford Williamson, American Baptist Association, Crane, Texas, James M. Collins, Tom Craddick, Frank Kell Cahoon, James A. McClure, John Grenier, Mangum, Oklahoma, Port Lavaca, Texas, Henderson, Texas, John N. Leedom, Sheridan, Arkansas, Jimmy G. Tharpe, Little Rock, Arkansas, Ernest Angelo, Somerset, Kentucky, Winthrop Rockefeller, Hot Springs, Arkansas, Jesse Helms, Plano, Texas, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Pine Bluff, Arkansas, Taylor W. O'Hearn, Sam H. Jones, DeLesseps Story Morrison, Orval Faubus, Edwin Edwards, Albert Estopinal, he even cites himself on other people's alumni pages here List of University of North Texas alumni and List of Southern Methodist University people. (Click on those and look for "Billy Hathorn.")

For those of you keeping track, that's nearly 50 articles he's cited his own three publications on wikipedia. That's just what I've found, there may be more. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

In 2006, for example he cited one reference in Edwin Edwards, which was his own MA thesis. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems like the venue you want is the Reliable sources noticeboard. It doesn't particularly matter if Billy's citing a publication he's written if it's considered a reliable source. It's not like he's hiding anything. 28bytes (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, repeatedly removing cleanup tags without any discussion (even ones which aren't specifically about lack of reliable sources, such as the removal of {{contradict}} where the contradition was clearly explained on talk) is problematic. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)