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. 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

Incident report against Caden and another user operating under three different IP addresses

Resolved

 – I think we're done here - KMF and Caden, stay away from each other please, and hopefully all will be solved. Black Kite 10:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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

---

68.50.128.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
76.114.133.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
162.6.97.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Caden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
KeltieMartinFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Yesterday, a user who was operating under IP address 68.50.128.120 was stirring up unwanted wikidrama towards me. This all stemmed from a month long debate about a certain information at Rebecca Quick which was ultimately resolved last week. But despite that, this user (who has also used IP addresses 162.6.97.3 & 76.114.133.44 as sockpuppets to evade blocks) felt the need to prolong this incident even though the hachet was already buried on this debate, resulting in unwanted wikidrama. I tried to ignore his comment by simply removing it, but he seems presistant on being obnoxious in his ways, and continue to bug me over a debate that is already done, gone, finished, over with.

As for Caden, this person was guilty of Wikihounding me in the past, trying to mingle into my own affairs here on Wikipedia when it was none of his business, and this is the proof [[1]] on that by adminstrator Georgewilliamherbert (at the very bottom of the page). We are three months removed from that particular incident, and obviously this user has not changed in his ways despite a questionable remorseful statement by him saying that he was “sorry” to me. The incident between me and this other user was STRICTLY between me and that other user. And ONCE AGAIN, here comes Caden stepping into my own affairs when it was none of his business, wikihounding me AGAIN, and looking to pick another fight with me ANY WAY POSSIBLE. This user has a negative history on Wikipedia, stemming from disruptive edits, picking fights with other editors, showing hostility towards other them, and stirring controversy in the Wikipedia community such as his references to the Ku Klux Klan in his user screen name. But don’t take my word for it. Go through all of Caden’s edit logs, talk logs and block logs. All of those pretty much explain themselves as to the type of editor Caden is. Once again, this person has gone to the noticeboard crying foul against me over his immature ways here on Wikipedia. No offense, but I find his actions very hypocrital.

The actions by anon 68.50.128.120 and Caden were obnoxious and unnecessary to say the very least. I try to pretend it never happened, but both seem persistance to have their ways otherwise. I will not tolerate childish behavior from these two users, and request an admistrator to issues warnings for their nonsense towards me. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I turned in the first two IP's since they went back to bad behavior once their previous blocks expired. I think the two registered editors have been at each other for awhile. It was peaceful for a couple of months, but maybe that's because Caden was offline. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh man, let me just first say that I was not notified of this report. Not cool. I really believe this is a case of the kettle calling the pot black. Alright peeps, here's how it goes: Keltie is not telling the truth. Yesterday he left personal attacks in his edit summaries towards IP 68.50.128.120 calling this editor "obnoxious". I left Keltie a friendly warning to cease the personal attacks towards the IP. The dude then responded by deleting my warning and proceeded to call me "obnoxious" in his following edit summary. I then placed a template on my talk page asking for admin help. Admin User:Chzz looked into it (see my talk page) and gave Keltie a warning to stop attacking the IP. The dude then removed that warning from his page and later went onto the page of another admin (User:AniMate) asking that I be punished. I have nothing against Keltie so I can't understand why he's here once again on ANI attacking me, twisting the truth and demanding action taken against me. All this report shows is that he's out to have me blocked like the last time. He's hated me for a long time I think but I don't give a rat's ass. The guy has a long history of attacking newbies, established users and IP's. Look at his talk page, look at his history and his edits. You'll see he's disruptive and fires off personal attacks like it's no big deal to him. The dude's been warned by several admins and several users for his disruptive behavior. He's no choirboy (he's been blocked before) but then again neither am I. I do not know what his rant over my signature is about. How the hell is my birthname a controversial reference to the KKK? Keltie should be blocked for that alone. It's offensive, untrue, immature but typical of him. It's yet another personal attack from good ol' Keltie. Furthermore, it's Keltie who has "gone to the noticeboard crying foul against me over his immature ways here on Wikipedia" many times before and not me. Regardless man, I've done nothing wrong here. Judge for yourselves. Caden ^cool 04:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Left a note for Caden reminding him that as per WP:USER, editors are permitted to remove messages and warnings at will from their own talk pages. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let me dissect this last statement by Caden for everybody here.

First disection...Caden said that I personally attacked an editor, 68.50.128.120, in my edit summaries.

Sure, the situation would have been different if I went to that editor's talk page and attacked him. But I didn’t attacked the editor. Putting comments in my own edit summary is not an attack.

Second disection…Caden said that I responded by deleting his warnings, and proceeded to call me "obnoxious" in his following edit summary.

Yes I did delete the warnings. Where is the rule that say I can’t delete remarks on my own talk page? As for the obnoxious part, I’m not going to deny it. Any editor who had past dealings with this person (and there are a handful of them) would agree with me that this Caden is a difficult editor. Difficult to the point of that one particular word I used to describe him. If I get a warning for calling Caden what I have been calling him, so be it. At least I’m honest about what I say, just like Carrie Prejean who, despite losing her Miss California USA crown, still has her dignity and honesty, and isn't afraid to express it. I'm not afraid to express my own opinions either. Caden is just fabricating remarks to make me and other editors look like the enemy, and him the victim.

Third disection...Caden said that he has nothing against me so I can't understand why he's here once again on ANI attacking me.

If he has nothing against me, then why in the world is he getting involved in my own affairs and Wikihounding me as he did in the past? Caden is known to get involved in arguments that didn’t involved him initially, but came in in the middle just to antagonize a situation more than what it should have been. I sense this is all fun and games to him. And he has done that twice to me in the past, first time was three months ago, and the other time was just a few days about. How is that having nothing against me? He says one thing, and does another. A contradiction on this editor.

Fourth disection...Caden said that I have been blocked before.

Indeed I have been once blocked before. Of course, Caden is not going to tell you the situation surrounding that particular block. Once again, it all comes back to this wikihounding incident he commited against me. He too was block for this incident. And in the end, an administrator DGG, unblocked me two hours later because he deemed my block as unjustified, rooting from a trouble-making editor, Caden. Take a look at my block log and see for yourself. Caden however, didn’t get unblocked. There was a debate about extending that block for the trouble he caused to me. I have never truly been blocked irrational behavior. That is something that Caden cannot say about himself personally.

Fifth disection...Caden said that he does not know what my rant over his signature is about. And how the hell is his birthname a controversial reference to the KKK?

Apparently, Caden is not just an irrational editor, but one who immediately jumped the gun before thinking it over first. Somebody read over my first statement of all this, and tell me exactly where did I say “birth” name? I said “user screen name”. There’s a big difference. As for as the reference to the Ku Klux Klan, I present to everybody exhibit A [[2]]. In this particular exhibit (at the bottom of the page), it will show that Caden at one time incorprorated the white supremacy group in his screen name, going by the moniker CadenKKK. He was given an blocked indefinately by administrator Hersfold for that screen name, only to be uplifted upon changing it. It does not excuse the intolerable behavior of Caden, resorting to something as uncivil as that.

Of course, I can go on and on about this editor, but I felt I made my point. This simply goes to show that Caden has not been telling the truth on everything he has done, and it takes a person like me and other editors and adminstrators to undig all of his wrong doings. He claims he has done “nothing wrong.” I’m sure I can find other editors and administrators who will say otherwise. I don’t hate him. I don’t hate people in general. But at the same time, I'm not the type of person who will tolerate such abuse and behavior as Caden has demonstrated in his relatively short period of editing on Wikipedia. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The three IPs listed at the top all geolocate to the same greater metro area. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that while I posted the second IP, it was not blocked, because it has not edited in several weeks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots

Attacking another editor is an attack. It doesn't matter if you do it on their Talk page, your Talk page, an edit summary, or some other place. Don't attack others, period. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay here's my reply in response to Keltie's post point by point:

First disection - Keltie "did attack" IP68.50.128.120 in his edit summary. This is his personal attack: "Undoing crap by obnoxious editor." How can he deny that? The evidence is there.

Second disection - Fine man you can remove warnings from your talk page but "you can't" make personal attacks in your edit summaries like you did again with me. Your edit summary was this: "Again removing crap by yet another obnoxious editor. One who has even worst dealings." That is a personal attack. You say I'm difficult, well I find you difficult and so have others. And yes, I too am not afraid to express my opinions man. At least I tell the truth dude and am not afraid to say it. I can't say that about you man.

Third disection - It's true I don't have anything against you. I don't like to see you attacking other editors in your edit summaries and that is why man I gave you a friendly warning. Dude you've received so many warnings from admins and other editors for the exact same thing, so I wonder why you chose to single me out yet again? I think this is the third time you've taken me to ANI man. It's obvious you have a grudge against me dude. Why else would you be canvasing 3 separate admins on their talk pages in attempts to achieve a block against me? You've been to the pages of User talk:Exploding Boy, User talk:AniMate and User talk:Chzz, ranting your bull. I am not wikihounding you Keltie so you can quit saying that man.

Fourth disection - Dude you were blocked for edit warring and so was I. It had nothing to do with me wikihounding you, so don't flatter yourself. Trust me man, I don't care what you believe. Dude I was never blocked for "irrational behavior" so quit it with the lies already. My block log clearly shows it was for a edit warring.

Fifth disection - First off my username is my birthname and you've known that for months dude. As for your KKK allegations it's misleading lies on your part as an attempt to distort the truth in the hopes that an admin will fall for it and block me or ban me. Whatever. If editors want the truth, they can read about that in the link you provided to my talk page. In short, it had to do with an old ANI (the report was not about me) where 3 editors called me a racist or made remarks that I was somehow associated with the KKK. All of it was abusive lies and not a single editor was blocked for those attacks. I remember well how Bugs enabled and helped to fuel the fires of hell on that ANI. It's no surprise to see that dude sitting here silently now. Anyway when I saw that the community was pretty much allowing the devious lies, the abusive attacks and the appalling accusations to go on, I got very upset and made a poor judgment on my part. I changed my username in anger to make a point and I was punished for that with a block. Hersfold and I worked it all out after I calmed down and not only was the block lifted but he also expressed to me that he understood why I got upset and why I did it because something similar had happened to him on wiki. Dude my block was for "disruption to make a point" and not for my signature. I am human and do make mistakes.

Here's my take. The dude is pissed off that I exposed him for incivility and for making personal attacks in his edit summaries. So in retaliation (like before) he's here on ANI (like before) and canvasing to 3 admins on their talk pages to achieve what he hopes to get. A block or a ban. Period. Caden ^cool 22:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

So, just why did you see fit to add "KKK" to your signature at one point? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

...maybe he was just agreeing with someone three times? Yes? HalfShadow 22:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe a really successful inning? Protonk (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I knew you when you were just an amateur tonk. Good think you didn't decide to go with that name, huh? HalfShadow 23:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's German; it means "The Bart, the." Exploding Boy (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Could people please re-read what I said or could you please read the link to this blown out of proportion lie? Listen, if you can't be neutral or fair then please don't bother causing me further harm here. Caden ^cool 23:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If someone labels you racist, adding "KKK" to your ID doesn't do much to dispel that notion, no matter how good an idea it may have seemed at the time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, are you still here? HalfShadow 23:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Bootlegtonk, perhaps? Also, explodingboy wins. Protonk (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Bugs you of all people know what happened on that old ANI that was filed against ParaGreen. Don't act dumb here please. It's insulting since you were the one who fueled the fire. And HalfShadow, I was protecting the use of freedom of speech on that ANI since I don't support censorship of any kind but in my attempt to do the right thing, it was twisted by Bugs and 2 others and changed into this whole KKK hate garbage and I was victimised from there. Caden ^cool

In fact later on Bugs thought it was funny and claimed he understood the whole thing. Here's what he said about it: I know Roux wouldn't want me to say this, but I kind of liked that signature of yours. It was too outrageous to be taken seriously. Probably better not to use it too much. But it was a way of mocking some of us, and pretty much deservedly so. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Caden ^cool 23:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That was 5 months ago, and since I didn't recall saying it (I do now that you brought it up), it's not surprising that someone who stumbled across it would fail to see the humor in it. Seems to me like you two should take your specific content issues to dispute resolution so someone can untangle it all. As far as personal issues, maybe a no-contact ban on both sides would be in order. It's working so far, between me and some other editor whose name escapes me just now. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

HalfShadow baiting Caden

Here, HalfShadow has been engaging in baiting Caden, who didn't respond very happily. I warned him, he responded with insults, I warned him against the incivility, and it continued. It doesn't look like he's going to stop any of the offensive behaviour anytime soon. → ROUX ₪ 00:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If Baseball Bugs, HalfShadow, and Protonk can't remain mature or neutral then can you please stop posting. This isn't a game. None of you are helping. Baiting me is not acceptable behavior on ANI. EB you're an admin who's been in conflict with me not only in the past but just recently. I really don't feel you should be commenting. I apologize if I'm wrong but I don't see how you can help. All I ask is that editors and admins review this report in a neutral/fair manner. I will accept any decision or not. I just want this report to be about fairness and it should focus on the evidence only and not be distracted by some who think this is all a big joke. It's not. Thanks. Caden ^cool 00:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Permission granted to dock my pay for skylarking on the job. I wasn't commenting on the substance of the complaint, just a diversion near the end. Doing so is not serious business. Protonk (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Same here, and in fact I was invited to comment on your behaviour but declined, so I think you should be counting your blessings. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Halfshadow is continuing his baiting and insults. → ROUX ₪ 02:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• I admit that I sometimes enjoy Halfshadow's wry sense of humor, but I do agree that the "Stimpy" remark was OTT. — Ched :  ?  11:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

KeltieMartinFan history of edit warring at Rebecca Quick

The disruption at Rebecca Quick was not from the IPs, and certainly not from Caden, but from KMF; the history of KMF's editing of that article reveals a pattern of attempting to exclude mention of her former marriage, initially because it was "trivial." Later, the argument became one of impeaching sources, yet similar sources were allowed as mention of the current marriage. In reviewing this, I looked over KMF's editing history and suspect a possible conflict of interest involvement, which would explain the otherwise puzzling situation that KMF was willing to edit war over what was, from the beginning, a known and non-defamatory fact supported by reliable source, the prior marriage.

Edits to Rebecca Quick, all the KMF reverts are in bold:

• 17:15, 6 May 2009 64.210.199.231 (→External links)

• IP is registered to NBC Universal.[3]

• 17:30, 6 May 2009 Mquayle (removed gossip reference).

• Mquayle registered 17:26, 6 May 2009. The current husband of Rebecca Quick is Matthew Quayle, the producer of Quick's program. This removal of reference to the identities of spouses stood until 7 July 2009.

• 21:49, 7 July 2009 162.6.97.3 restored a mention re the present marriage: "It is her second marriage."
• 12:57, 8 July 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 300875201 by 162.6.97.3 (talk) Not really appropriate to mention.) This began edit warring.
• 11:44, 17 July 2009 76.114.133.44 etc.
• 12:20, 17 July 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 302583314 by 76.114.133.44 (talk) Not appropriate to mention.)
• 12:25, 17 July 2009 KeltieMartinFan (talk | contribs) (3,945 bytes) (Undid revision 302587651 by 76.114.133.44 (talk) Again, inappropriate. Do not change it.)
• 12:41, 17 July 2009 KeltieMartinFan (talk | contribs) (3,945 bytes) (Undid revision 302588154 by 76.114.133.44 (talk) Unsource, rude, and inappropriate to mention of a living person.)
• Then Onorem intervened and revert warred against the IP, giving "unsourced" as the reason. However, there was mention of the former marriage already in source for the previous sentence, which stated: "She now lives in Haworth, New Jersey"[4]. The 2006 source is the New York times, and it mentions her husband, "she now lives (in Haworth) with her husband, who is a computer programmer." That would have been Peter Shay, we have the name from other sources. So there was no reference on the text itself, hence I understand Onorem's action. But there was adjacent reference adequate to establish a former marriage. The IP was blocked for edit warring.
• 162.6.97.3 was blocked] for "block evasion." (which is unclear, I found it likely that the two IPs are different users. I have a suspicion that one is the former husband, and the other may be a friend, but no proof of either.)
• 16:41, 5 August 2009 162.6.97.3 (See talk page for discussion) etc.
• 17:33, 5 August 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 306233866 by 162.6.97.3 (talk) Despite everything, this edit STILL does not have a source listed.)
• 18:51, 5 August 2009 162.6.97.3 (Please see talk page for discussion)
• 19:48, 5 August 2009 William M. Connolley (Protected Rebecca Quick: here we are again ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 19:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 19:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC))))
• 19:48, 5 August 2009 William M. Connolley (rv: as before)
• 22:53, 6 August 2009 Abd (actually, the source was already there. Add additional source.)

• The additional source is a newsletter of a local organization that had a photo of Rebecca Quick with her then-husband, Peter Shay. I put it in to balance other information in the article, from not-so-reliable source, mentioning Matthew Quayle by name, the current husband, also to establish more clearly that the "computer programmer" is a different husband than the "producer."

• 15:01, 7 August 2009 Bilby (removed unreliable (and unneeded) source)
• 20:01, 7 August 2009 Elen of the Roads (Reverted 1 edit by Bilby; No reason to assume 3rd sector source is unreliable unless you have evidence it has been hacked.. (TW)
• 20:28, 7 August 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 306659446 by Elen of the Roads (talk) Not an adaquate source. Like putting water in a gas tank.)
• 16:47, 9 August 2009 Elen of the Roads (Readded Cedar Run source. Talkpage consensus seems to be for it. Please discuss before removing again.)
• 18:26, 9 August 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 306997914 by Elen of the Roads (talk) I'm sorry. But two people (Elen and Abd) is not consensus.)
• 20:32, 9 August 2009 Coppertwig (Undid revision 307013795 by KeltieMartinFan (talk) Revert. Sorry, but one person (KeltieMartinFan) is not consensus.)
• 21:21, 9 August 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 307034753 by Coppertwig (talk) It's not only me, but I'm not about to list the names either. Way too many.)

Notice that the first edit warring was not over sourcing, it was over the bare mention of the prior marriage. This was supporting the earlier removal by, we may assume, Rebecca Quick's present husband. In the discussion begun by the IP, Talk:Rebecca Quick#Evidence that CNBC anchor Rebecca “Becky” Quick was previously married., KMF wrote, I personally don't oppose JohnnyB256 suggestion of excluding all of Quick's martial information on this article. I’m sure Miss Quick and those close to her would actually prefer it that way. What makes sense to me is that, indeed, Ms. Quick's current husband wanted the mention removed, and that KMF's tendentious attempts to remove any mention, plus, once it was obvious that total removal wasn't going to fly, at least any reference where readers would find the former husband's name, was based on KMF's personal support for Quick's husband, here "I'm sure" is based on actual knowledge. KMF has a history of editing articles related to NBC. There may be a conflict of interest, or there may merely be a tenacious and uncivil editor who is going to push as hard as possible for what the editor wants, to the extent of edit warring and, now, filing this AN/I report. --Abd (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I, too, noticed days ago that Keltie edits nearly any article to do with NBC (programs,hosts etc) which left me feeling there could be a COI here. I just finished reading the drama caused by Keltie on the issue over Rebecca Quick having been married once before previously (she's now on her second marriage), despite the reliable sources that supports that former marriage, Keltie fought endlessly to have it removed from the article (that's fishy). I had had a feeling days ago that there was a possiblity he may be employed by NBC or at the very least is associated in some way. So due to the possiblity of a COI, I mentioned my concerns to an admin called Chzz. The discussion of that is on my own talk page under the section"Question". It sure is a relief that at least another editor noticed the bizarre editing on every NBC related article . Caden ^cool 04:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't see much reason for assuming a COI. Not that there isn't necessarily one, but the early reverts were of unsourced personal information in a BLP, and you don't need a COI to want to remove material under those conditions. While it isn't exactly a big deal to have been divorced, a previous marriage was being mentioned without a source, and it is the responsibility of the editor re-adding the material to provide one. The later reverts (which I started) were to remove a self-published source (a newsletter) from the article, which is again in keeping with policy, and made sense given that Abd had provided a better source (New York Times) as well as the newsletter. - Bilby (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Bilby, the New York Times source was there all along, all I did was make it a bit more obvious, by referring to the "computer programmer." It was the standing reference for the text that Quick "now lives in Haworth, New Jersey," the only thing that I did that was new was to read it -- besides researching the background of this, which includes coverage of the May edits to our article article, by a "gossip column." (That's cited in the Talk discussion.) The Times said that she was married to a computer programmer. The newsletter was not a "self published source," it is independent confirmation, and might be, in fact, the source for the New York Times comment. It was the newsletter of a local conservancy or the like. It has a photo of Rebecca Quick, as well as her parents and husband. Is it impossible that there was an error in this newsletter? Sure, anything is possible. Frankly, an error of that magnitude, that the organization had missed the name of their celebrity guest's husband, seems less likely to me than what I see in reliable sources quite frequently, wherever I know the subject of the article. And like a major error in a major source, it would have been corrected. I added the newsletter to cover the possibility that the NBC producer had been a computer programmer in 2006. The newsletter is a supporting source that provides information necessary to kill that: the name of the former husband. Since the article doesn't name the present husband, balance would suggest that the former husband not be named either, but the additional source was evidence that there wasn't a coincidence. There is also the gossip column, but it apparently depends on the newsletter as a source. A serious journalist would have checked with legal records, were there any doubt. I don't think there is any doubt.

KMF is a disruptive editor, uncivil and willing to edit war over trivia, and bears watching. --Abd (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

extended comment by Abd

I'd say that the only reason that the newsletter reference isn't still there is that I don't edit war, and since nobody was claiming that the present husband is a computer programmer, Bilby's claim, that the extra source wasn't necessary, was sufficiently close to true to not be worth the disruption of contending about it. Coppertwig had accepted that argument, but I'm not sure that Coppertwig had considered the issue of confirmation of separate identity. As to conflict of interest on KMF's, I don't see how, from a review of the evidence above, Bilby can say "I can't see much reason for assuming" it. Not proof, as I noted. But the level of coincidence is high; were it important, more research could be done on the nature of KMF's edits; this particular sequence shows active edit warring to remove a piece of non-defamatory information originally removed, we may assume, by Quick's present husband (a clear COI involved in the real beginning of this) (or someone pretending to be the present husband, which, if it were a pretense, would simply increase the mystery). KMF edit warred in pursuit of the removal of this almost trivial information, and was grossly, gratuitously, and provocatively uncivil. Caden is naive and erred in restoring KMF Talk material that had been removed by KMF, but he was correct about the incivility. KMF also removed the edit warring warning I dropped on KMF Talk (KMF had hit 3RR in the second edit war) and then put it on my own Talk page, making it look like I'd been warned for edit warring until I framed it. Note that all of KMF's edits of consequence to the article were bald reverts, showing no attempt to find a compromise. KMF is a disruptive editor and, at least, bears watching. On the original arguments presented by KMF, if the first marriage was notable enough to mention in the New York Times, it is notable enough for the project in an article on the subject of the NY Times article. Notability does not expire. It doesn't belong in the article, but the photo in the newsletter conveys volumes about the history of this subject. If that man is an NBC producer, I'm the Queen of Sheba. Computer programmer? Sure. Makes total sense. All computer programmers are now allowed to complain, but I'm simply pointing out that some people are good at somethings, others at others, and the skills involving in being a producer include self-presentation, computer programmers generally don't care about that. --Abd (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC) The source originally removed by the IP that was certainly MQuayle was [5], which was eventually restored to the article (by Bilby?). This is a source for the new marriage, reported in January 2009. So this is, indeed, adequate to show that the reported computer programmer husband, as of 2006, was not Matthew Quayle, the additional source would then merely be for interest. I know I was interested to see that, and no original research is required.... --Abd (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is far from a core issue here, so I'll be very quick. The WP:BLP policy is pleasantly clear: "Remove any unsourced material to which a good faith editor objects;" and "... or that relies upon self-published sources". There was no source being provided for the claim that the subject had divorced in the article, thus it was reasonable for it to be removed. Personally, I would have tried to find a source and add it, but while that might be expected, it isn't required. Second, Wikipedia defines self published sources as including newsletters. Thus removing that as a source, when a better one was already being used, was perfectly reasonable. There is nothing in the newsletter valuable enough to warrant using a non-RS in a BLP. So while I can't comment on whether or not KeltieMartinFan has a COI, nothing in the editor's behaviour was unusual or speaks to that claim, as the reverts were firmly within BLP policy. If there is a concern, perhaps it is worth raising at WP:COI/N, although I doubt there will be much milage. - Bilby (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know why there is such an obsession, by all concerned, over whether this woman was previously married. Why does it matter? And when did wikipedia become the Midnight Star? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a curious mystery. :) Although, it should be said, editors have been known to argue over some odd concerns. - Bilby (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's looking more and more like this one needs to be added to that list. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with below). Actually, it's not odd at all, it only seems that way if possible COI isn't considered. In my various discussions of this, I repeatedly pointed out that admin and other response to this was reasonable, but reflected a lack of depth, which is normal. Most editors can't or won't put in the kind of time necessary to really understand what is going on. The information about a former marriage was sourced, but the reference was on the previous sentence, not the one re-inserted by the IP. Easy to overlook. I actually did at least two hours of research on this before seeing it. However,almost certainly KMF was aware. My hypothesis: one of the IP editors is the former husband, or possibly a friend of same. The former husband doesn't like being written out of history. And I can understand this, and if he was notable before, he still is. The IP editor who removed the reference to the article about the marriage, and the infobox reference to the marriages, was, almost certainly, the present husband, who understandably wants to preserve his wife's privacy, and who then registered and removed the infobox reference to the two marriages. KMF seems suspiciously aligned with the latter agenda, given the overall editing pattern. It is not a lame concern for those involved. However, if Quick wants reference to the marriage removed, the path would be through OTRS, not by edit warring to keep it out. My judgment, though, is that it belongs, it is adequately sourced; the wife is notable, a public figure, I don't think that can be undone. She was married before, so have been a lot of people, including me. It's no shame, and we know nothing about why that marriage ended, and, unless it appears in reliable source, I'm not going to even speculate. What was my concern here? It was about edit warring and a ready assumption that the problem was the IP editors, even to the point that it was assumed they were socks. That wasn't an unreasonable guess, but it may have been wrong. There was a problem with the IPs, for sure, but it wasn't what necessarily appeared, and there was more of a problem with KMF, who may remain active on other NBC-related articles. I'm not terribly concerned about the short IP blocks, they do little damage, and the IPs understand the problem and if they want to register an account, they can.

So, if there are no more problems, great, we are done here. I only brought up all this about KMF because of the aggressive filing of this report. --Abd (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You're making a lot of claims with no supporting evidence. What I'd really like to hear from you is a reason why her supposed previous marriage actually matters. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

User:KeltieMartinFan has taken no further action to alter or change the Quick article. Thus KMF's word should be accepted that the matter is finished.

A Quick edit-war did occur, with incivility by the major parties involved. That appears to be done as well.

Whatever exists between User:Caden and User:KeltieMartinFan is a pre-existing condition Completely Unrelated to the Quick matter. Whatever brings any other kibitzers here other than User:Bilby and User:Abd is unclear as well.

That said, while User:Abd has been helpful in much of the Quick debate, Abd is repeatedly over-amped about potential conflicts-of-interest in the matter. It also serves little purpose at this time to recount exhaustively all of the Quick edit-war particulars.

Finally, and amusingly, only User:KeltieMartinFan would vouch for Carrie Prejean's dignity!  :)

162.6.97.3 (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the fixed IP most strongly suspected, by me, of being the former husband. It hasn't actually been denied, but, as long as the IP doesn't edit war or offend in other ways, it's moot, it merely is one of a number of alternate hypotheses that do, in fact, show why this was of such earth-shaking importance to several editors. This particular incident is finished, but I put the evidence here for future reference, if it is needed. If KMF is sincere, indeed, it's over. --Abd (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Abd Please, please stop with the suspicions! :)

It may be hard to grasp, but edit-wars can occur without NBC employees or ex-husbands involved. And that is very much the case with the Quick matter!

162.6.97.3 (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it odd that Keltie remains so interested on practically every single NBC related type of article. Having looked through his history shows that he edits nearly every single morning program imaginable on NBC as well as other NBC programs, NBC personalities, you name it it's all NBC related. A few months ago Keltie was involved in an edit war over Katie Couric. No surprise there which leads me to believe more and more that if Keltie isn't employed by NBC, then he must be associated in one way or another. Either way it's a COI and seems to make a lot of sense based on all the NBC type of articles he edits. Unless of course he's just an obsessed fan of NBC. Caden ^cool 15:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

And what's your personal interest in this woman's marital history? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh Bugs, Caden wasn't writing about Quick's marital history, he was addressing KeltieMartinFan's editting behavior. Two different, & independent, topics. -- llywrch (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I say again - the two should stay away from each other. Period. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, Bugs. Caden and I should stay away from each other. And until three days ago, I was doing just that until Caden decided to barge in AGAIN on my own business here on Wikipedia. Just like he did three months earlier with the whole Amy Robach & Jenna Wolfe spat. It is Caden that you need to tell to stay away from me. Because I was staying away from him until he decided to bother me again. I even forgot about him until he pooped up on my talk page. As they say, actions speak louder than words. No matter how many ways Caden says he has nothing against me, and has no grudge...his actions clearly say otherwise. None of what Caden has said in the last few days have been honest and truthful. Caden said that HE has not been blocked for irrational behavior? What does he think edit-warring is? As for the KKK reference, where in his right frame of mind does he think putting that as part of his signature rational and acceptable in the first place? I might be difficult in my own little way, but I would NEVER stoop to such a low level like Caden did. As for Abd, he too is quickly developing a reputation that almost rivals that of Caden. None of what he presented in the last couple of days are evidences of disruptive behavior on my part. All Abd presented were actions by me that are legitimate and within Wikipedia policies. He is only boosting my reputation on here even higher. As for the whole conflict of interest accusation that both Caden and Abd are trying to accuse me of? At least I had my proof of your KKK reference when you accuse me of "lying" about it, Caden. You and Abd DON'T HAVE proof that conflict of interest exists with me and NBC. And I’m not going to say whether or not conflict of interest does exist either. Such petty accusations are not worth my time, and I don’t feel that I should be obligated to go easy on the two you, and let you two off the hook that quickly. If you two really want to go the extra mile with that accusation, be my guess. PROVE IT. It will give me great satisfaction to know that two editors who have it in for me will go out of their way, and spend a lot of their valuable time and effort JUST TO find out if I, KeltieMartinFan, have any type of association with the National Broadcasting Company, General Electric, or any of their subsidiaries. I will say this though to everybody, when the two of you were trying to dig up dirt on me and my "supposed" obsession with NBC, they clearly left out all my important and positive contributions on various shows and personalities on networks other than NBC, like ABC’s Good Morning America and their various personalties, CBS’s The Early Show and their various personalites, CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Erica Hill & Robin Meade, Fox Business Network’s Alexis Glick and Fox News Channel’s Gretchen Carlson, Alisyn Camerota & Ainsley Earhardt. Not to mention the numerous times I had to revert information caused by vandals on political commentator and Republican strategist Margaret Hoover. You don't actually think going through your edit log, Caden, that I can't figure out what type of personality you have, don't you? Just like you and Abd are trying to figure out what type of personality I have from my edit log? If you two still think conflict of interest is involved, I would care less. I’m not going to defend myself over you two in particular over this far-fetched accusation just to downplay my credibility on Wikipedia. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Everyone involved just needs to take a breather. Tempers are flaring and it's not doing anyone a bit of good. That said, I'm not inclined to believe Keltie has a COI simply because of his editing patterns. More proof is needed to show that a COI exists. I'm sure you could go through anyone's edit history with a fine tooth comb and find a pattern that appears damning. (I'm sure this was helpful in some minuscule way.) --clpo13_(talk) 09:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Zaxby again, now possible sockpuppetry

This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive558#User:Zaxby (previous evidence of sockpuppetry is listed there) which was allowed to be archived due to a lack of further response within 24 hours. There seems to be fairly conclusive evidence, based on the articles edited by Zaxby, the insertion of the name "Ryan O'Hara" into articles and the creation of imagined personas on user pages, as well as a general editing attitude of lying and making subtle but somewhat unnoticable changes to statistics for athletes, to believe that this user is another account of User:Thechroniclesofratman. There are at least four accounts for this user confirmed as sockpuppets since 2007, and possibly more (See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Thechroniclesofratman) that this is simply the latest in a long line of puppets. It seemed incorrect to me for nothing to be done about this and to simply let the previous discussion be archived so quickly.

Zaxby's behaviour in the previous AN/I report was blockable enough but was reversed after it was found that he did not have a recent final warning. However I believe his behaviour mixed with the fact that it is likely that he is a sockpuppet who previously vandalised and block evaded on multiple accounts makes it enough that something needs to be done. His efforts to "be a good editor" since the filing of the previous AN/I report are questionable at best, consisting mostly of warning others of vandalism, mostly overzealously or incorrectly, and making a few equally questionable statistics changes. The vandalism warnings are equally disturbing since one of Thechroniclesofratboy's potential socks was previously blocked for pretending to be an Admin while accusing other users of vandalism. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 02:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to add, as a reason for bringing this here once again, that CheckUser might be a bit useless in this matter because, if Zaxby's edits about O'Hara are to be believed, he's moved since his last sockpuppet account and therefore would likely have a different IP, evidenced by the completely different range when he edited previously without logging in. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 21:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by there being a lack of response here...? If I've made a mistake, it'd be helpful to know. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 10:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Your best bet is to take this to WP:SPI. Black Kite 10:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak to the sockpuppetry aspect, but I concur with 359's description of Zaxby's editing; consists of (a) welcomes to new users, but without any kind of actual welcoming information. Friendly, I suppose, but not too useful. (b) article space edits are 100% reverts, 1/3 correct, 1/3 borderline but needlessly aggressive, and 1/3 just plain wrong. (c) rather aggressive warnings to the people he's reverted. If he's been given a final warninf before, I think an admin should review and decide if blocking is appropriate, with or without sockpuppetry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Since attention was originally drawn to his account here and here, Zaxby has gone on a tear of leaving odd welcome messages, reverting users' edits, and being very bitey (often citing nonexistent WP policies), apparently trying to appear as a constructive editor. He's not succeeding. Deor (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Persistent incivility by User:Small Victory

We have a problem of persistent incivility by User:Small Victory. Civility issues are typically handled by WP:WQA, and a thread is posted there. However the persistence of this user's incivility may warrant an administrative assessment, as the incivility has become disruptive. A non exhaustive sample of some of the users uncivil comments is below.

Extended content

You've said some pretty stupid things before, but that has to be the stupidest. Every study that discusses the subclades makes distinctions between them and E3b -- major distinctions in terms of where they originated and how they spread. If that weren't the case, you would have no trouble producing a source that attributed E-V13 and E-M81 to Sub-Saharan African admixture. But of course, you can't. ---- — Small Victory (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC) - Talk:Genetic_history_of_Europe#Information_Suppression diff Stop your lies and distortions. And don't try to turn this around and make it about me. It's obvious that you're quoting selectively to emphasize admixture, and deliberately omitting anything that calls that admixture into question or finds it to be absent. That's the very definition of WP:Information suppression.... — Small Victory (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC) - Talk:Genetic_history_of_Europe#Information_Suppression diff You're the problem, not me. — Small Victory (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)-Talk:Genetic_history_of_Europe#Information_Suppression diff ...... My version of the 'SSA admixture' section is the most neutral. You yourself found virtually nothing wrong with it compared to Muntuwandi's, which you picked apart and argued against vehemently. Now all of a sudden you're taking his side and insisting that the data in my version is not properly sourced, even though I showed you that it is. Have you completely lost your mind? — Small Victory (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC) - WP:Articles_for_deletion/African_admixture_in_Europe diff Are you blind? I showed you the Table where almost all of the mtDNA figures come from. Try looking at it. At the far right you'll see a column called "Sub-Saharan". That's where the figures were obtained. — Small Victory (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC) - WP:Articles_for_deletion/African_admixture_in_Europe diff Either cite something specific in my version that's not properly sourced or keep quiet. I'm getting tired of your false accusations. — Small Victory (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC) - WP:Articles_for_deletion/African_admixture_in_Europe diff SOPHIAN, The Ogre and Victorius III all prefer my version. You did too before you inexplicably switched sides. Causteau has always supported my edits on this subject. Andrew opposes everything I do, but can never point to anything substantive being wrong with it (e.g. the reference to slavery is properly sourced). And Muntuwandi obviously doesn't like my version because it's too neutral. So including me, that's 5 against 3. And really it's 6 against 2 because you're schizophrenic. And until Andrew can produce something concrete it's like 7 against 1, which leaves Muntuwandi all alone with his OR and POV. — Small Victory (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC) - WP:Articles_for_deletion/African_admixture_in_Europe edit summary Removed Pdeitiker's ridiculous, incomplete and improperly sourced table. [Note: the table was actually removed even though it had references Small Victory has converted Absolute sample frequencies to percentages without disclosing the source of the numbers, once this was found out the material was promptly removed - the problem was that he scrambled the references in his citation such that they were difficult to follow] — 13:49, 10 August 2009 Small Victory Page History - Genetic_history_of_Europe] edit summary (Undid revision 306957357 by Jingiby (talk) Do you not understand what a combined sample is?) — 11:36, 9 August 2009 Small Victory - Page History : Genetic_history_of_Europe] edit summary (Sub-Saharan African influences: Pdeitiker, don't revert to Muntuwandi's version after coming out against it on the Talk Page.) — 12:58, 4 August 2009 Small Victory - Page History : Genetic_history_of_Europe diff Well, either you're mistaken about being "a person of reasonable intelligence" or you're just not trying. Because the charts are explained very clearly and even color-coded to make reading them easier. Basically, the colors represent genetic clusters that correspond to ancestry from major geographic regions (e.g. Western Eurasia, Sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia etc.). Populations that have more than one color are mixed, and the amount of the color they have indicates the level of admixture. It's not exactly rocket science. And anyway, difficulty of a subject has nothing to do with WP:OR. I don't know where you got that notion. — Small Victory (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC) - WP:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Analyzing_charts_-_break diff ... You're so transparent. You don't believe your OR allegation for a second. You need Europeans to have black ancestry to help you get over your inferiority complex. The evidence, however, shows that they have almost none. So your only recourse is to have it suppressed. That's why you started this thread, to dupe people who know nothing about population genetics into helping you get your way. If the evidence had shown what you wanted, we wouldn't be here right now. You're so dishonest and agenda-driven, it's disgusting. — Small Victory (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC) - WP:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Analyzing_charts_-_break diff Are you kidding me? It's clear that you still don't understand my analogy, even though I've explained it and corrected your misapprehension several times. What do I have to do, draw you a picture? LEARN HOW TO READ! And then you wonder why I talk down to you. — Small Victory (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC) - User_talk:Small_Victory#Tone_of_discussion [6] I didn't call you a chimp. I asked: "...would I have better luck explaining [the analogy] to a chimp?" The fact that you didn't understand that makes your claim that our "communication problems" might be my fault quite laughable. Again, LEARN HOW TO READ! — Small Victory (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC) - User_talk:Small_Victory#Tone_of_discussion PB666 yap 20:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC) diff You're quite delusional. That article was deleted because it was a WP:CFORK. And your POV-pushing, original research, 3RR violations and sock puppets had more to do with it than anything I ever did. In fact, the article was problem-free until you (and Andrew Lancaster) came along and started tampering with it. Let's remember that you're the one who's been blocked for repeated rule violations. My record is clean. So if anything, the deletion was a referendum on your approach. Take the hint. I can see you have trouble following simple logic. Using your example, if a sub-Saharan with E-M78 had offspring with a European, that offspring could not possibly get E-M78α because the alpha cluster is not present in any sub-Saharan populations. It's only present in Europeans. Therefore, E-M78α is not evidence of sub-Saharan ancestry. It can only be evidence of European ancestry. And the clusters of E-M78 are in fact completely independent lineages. A recent paper by Cruciani found that they each have membership in different unique event polymorphisms. The alpha cluster, which doesn't have an African origin, is monophyletic and corresponds almost perfectly to newly defined haplogroup E-V13 (see Table). Small Victory :This issue was already debated here when another obvious Afrocentrist tried to pull the same garbage that you're pulling now. He lost. Please refer to discussions 6, 7 and 8. ---- Small Victory (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Having been totally exposed and defeated, now he's just reinserting his OR and POV without even giving an explanation or trying to make his case on the Talk Page. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC) The debate about content is over. You've been proven wrong, and consensus has been reached. In fact, it was over three years ago when Yom tried to pull the same thing and was also defeated by consensus. (Notice that your pal Llywrch intervened there, but backed down when I explained everything and he saw that I was right.) The situation we have now is a "crazy Afrocentrist" (by your own admission) trying repeatedly to reinsert OR and POV into the article, and in doing so continually violating the 3RR. This has to stop. ---- Small Victory (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Are you delusional? After we arrive at consensus that you're guilty of OR and POV pushing, and we cease to indulge your nonsense as a result, your twisted Afrocentric mind interprets that as consent for you to reinsert your biased edits? Get real.The only "silence" here is yours, and it's deafening. You need to produce a source that uses E-V13 and E-M81 as evidence of Sub-Saharan African admixture. If you can't do that (and it's obvious by now that you can't), then you need to back off and stop vandalizing this article. ---- Small Victory (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Let's be very clear: Your OR and POV will never be included in this article. Ever. Not as long as we have something to say about it. And if not us, then someone else will come along to stop you. Because you're in the wrong. ---- Small Victory (talk) 08:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC) You've got a lot of nerve accusing others of OR given your track record. It's not a question of what the Auton study says, it's what it shows (or rather, doesn't show). Do you know what an admixture analysis is? Have you heard of the STRUCTURE program? I suggest you familiarize yourself with these things before making outrageous and idiotic accusations. Start with the Pritchard and Rosenberg papers referenced in this article......Small Victory (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC) I am discussing the content, but it's impossible to get anywhere with someone who's so clueless about science, and population genetics in particular, and more interested in advancing an Afrocentric agenda than learning anything. A graph is not "shaky ground". It's a visual representation of data, and you would know how to properly interpret the graphs in Auton if you understood population structure and the study in question. The dark green component is Sub-Saharan African because it makes up 100% of the Yoruba sample. Just like the red component is European and used in the study to detect European admixture in Mexicans. The reason African admixture isn't mentioned with regard to Mexicans (or anyone else) is because they don't have African admixture. And the graphs show that clearly. Get it? ---- Small Victory (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC) {{quotation|The Mexican sample in Auton et al. shows no significant Sub-Saharan African admixture. That doesn't mean that there can't be other samples in other studies that yield different results (do you understand anything about how science works?). In fact, here's a study that found some African admixture in certain other Mexican samples. More importantly though, note that it uses the Yoruba as representative Africans. Just as it uses Zapotecs as representative Amerindians because of their near total membership in the cluster of inferred Amerindian ancestry.Small Victory

I don't think any Wikipedian, who is acting in good faith deserves to be at the receiving end of such vitriol. This is all one way traffic, AFAIK, nobody has ever said anything mean to Small Victory. The isolated personal attack can be brushed aside. Some content disputes get heated and people say things, that they ordinarily wouldn't say. But Wikipedians shouldn't have to be at the receiving end of such abuse for months on end. I believe this user has met the criteria stated at Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#How_disruptive_editors_evade_detection. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I just notified User:Small Victory of this thread. Wknight94 ^talk 14:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I fail to understand how this will accomplish anything that the WQA and talkpage warnings to Small Victory wouldn't. He has been warned, and if he does not stop, he will be blocked. Those two should be enough, or else nothing will be. There is no immediate administrative assistance needed. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed ... and the OP was also asked not to use the {{Quotation}} format ... that entry alone on WQA was huge! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was huge, that is because SV has been uncivil on several occasions. Even on WQA SV in a half hearted admission of his incivility, refers to me as a "unrepentant Afrocentrist". This after he was given a warning. He is fully aware, that I resent being referred to by any ...ist. Furthermore, these warnings have been taking place for a while, and SV has ignored them. Andrew Lancaster posted a complaint User_talk:Small_Victory#Tone_of_discussion, over a month ago, starting on the 4th of July, [7], expressing concerns about SV's incivility. This seems to have been ignored, as he has persisted. Many other users have expressed concern as well. SV's incivility is so disruptive, so much that it has made it very difficult to collaborate with anybody. We are not editing on wikipedia, to be persistently insulted, denigrated and humiliated as has been the case. The touchy-feely WQA approach is an option, but Andrew and others have already tried such approach ,as I have mentioned above, and it didn't work. Administrative action should also be another option. SV would immediately understand Wikipedia's core policy of civility. I don't think it is fair, at least 10 of these personal attacks have been directed at me, and I have never said anything mean to him. It is not fair to give him a slap on the wrist and say forget about it, everything will be fine. That would be encouraging this type of behavior. What if all of us were to be uncivil, all order would break down. SV doesn't have exclusive rights to be rude. This is why administrative action would be very effective. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it was huge because you insist on posting using quotation tags, instead of just diffs. Someone cleaned up the mess on WQA, and I note someone has just top'n'tailed it here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree adding some formating does increase Kbs. If there was an easier way to communicate with editors who are unfamiliar with a specific incident, we would use it. Diffs are great, but they have their problems too. They are harder to read and sometimes there is an excess of text, so quotations help to zoom in on what is necessary. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about the formatting of complaints. If an editor does not follow the conventions, the material can be quietly rearranged & it should not be the subject of adverse comment. (In fact the current trend to require formalism in making complaints is disturbing: I consider it intimidating to less experienced users--in fact, the current way some of the admin boards are arranged, I would be hard put to figure it out myself, and I've been an admin 2 years now. This board in particular is in a sense a board for problems that don't fit anywhere else, and I am willing to discuss them however they are presented). We're here to deal with problems. In my opinion the consistent use of ad hominem language amounting to the level of insult by SV is a problem that does require attention. Whether he is right on the genetics is irrelevant here, it is a matter for article talk pages. He has no right whatever to make racist accusations against other editors. But has there been any since the 15th, the date of BWilkins' warning? DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Other than referring to someone as an Afrocentrist and then confirming calling them that, no ... and even that is a little iffy. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

SV seems to think that name calling is acceptable, I resent the caricature of Afrocentrism and SV is aware of that as I have mentioned it to him. His use of the term, indicates a lack of sincerity in his admission of incivility. Disruptive User's who evade detection often avoid gross breaches of civility, but their minor breaches of incivility are frequent enough to be disruptive. As I have mentioned before, the isolated breaches of incivility are normal, and can be brushed aside. It is persistent incivility that can bring collaborative editing to a halt I believe this is the case with SV. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DGG about formatting and procedure. The most important thing is to communicate the problem. We have brought this issue for the attention of the wider community as it appears to be affecting our ability to edit. What we would like to know, is whether the community feels these comments are uncivil, and if they are, whether anything should be done about them. The people at the receiving end of these comments, shouldn't be blamed for complaining about them. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wapondaponda is using exaggerated claims of incivility and personal attacks in order to deflect my criticism of his biased edits, per WP:SPADE. He doesn't want to be referred to as an Afrocentrist because he knows there's truth to it, and being exposed threatens his agenda here. At the moment, I'm the only person calling him out on it, so getting me blocked and out of the way is essential. His motives are so transparent, it's ridiculous. ---- Small Victory (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPADE is "advice or opinion", not policy. Every single editor has a POV - especially you. I'm not arguing that anyone is an "afrocentrist" or not. Discounting someone's edits, or bullying them because of a perceived POV is not in line with collegial editing. You have begun to use the calling of "afrocentrism" as a way to attack edits you do not agree with, and the editor who is making them, and you seem to believe it's justified - which it is not. You are welcome to perhaps define an edit as being "afrocentric" but not label editors as "afrocentrists" in order to discourage their edits. In the long run, keep in mind WP:CONSENSUS (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• OK, fine. His edits are Afrocentric then. ---- Small Victory (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have mentioned this previously, but SV is a single purpose account whose primary interest had been in the deleted Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe and since its deletion, now Genetic history of Europe. This is evident in his editing record which shows that in his 3 years on Wikipedia, SV has only edited 24 unique articles. The article Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe was one of those articles that is tucked away in an obscure corner of Wikipedia, and as a result didn't get much scrutiny. Because the article was SV's only interest, SV had very limited exposure to the wider community. As a result, he somehow believed that it is acceptable to be uncivil to other editors on Wikipedia. Since we stumbled upon the article, the topic has now gotten more attention from the community and SV has learned a few things about how Wikipedia works. For example, he has recently learned How not to engage in original research, and hopefully now, he will learn about civility. However, he continues with his confrontational approach, even with newbies to his topics per [8], [9] Wapondaponda (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

CORRECTION: Everyone who participated in that discussion learned that citing a chart which is explained in the study it comes from is in fact not original research. However, your attempt to have such evidence barred is information suppression. When will you learn not to engage in that? ---- Small Victory (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

SV, your constant refrain of "I didn't hear that" is becoming tiresome. You are the only person claiming that your interpretation of the chart isn't OR. Everyone else in the discussion is pointing out that it is OR. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Totally false. You're the one who's not listening. First of all, I proved with direct quotes that it's not "my" interpretation but that of the studies' authors. Secondly, TheFeds never believed it was OR. Neither did Shreevatsa. And Irbisgreif and PB666 didn't really take sides. The rest (you, Blueboar and Elen of the Roads) made very weak arguments, often based on poor understanding of the subject or misreading of policy, which I easily refuted. ---- Small Victory (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Original Research issue - I really think people have gone overboard with this, although I have erased edits because of the guidelines as a scientist I am kind of bewildered by the stance. For example, a scientist can take 1 observation of something in a sample size of forty and publish that as a 2.5% frequency in a population without given the variance. We know that the 95% CI on that is 0.125% to 12.5% for that measurement (IOW an occurrence of 1 in a much larger sample according to the binomial probability distribution can vary at 95% confidence over a 200 fold range, an occurrence of 0 has infinite fold range, or to make in laymans terms absences of evidence is not evidence of absence, in fact the binomial probability distribution basically proves this). In fact it would be easy enough for a wikipedian to have a template table for presentation of frequencies so that all one needed to do was enter "|observed1 = 1 |SampleSize1 = 40" and to have a line on the table produce "2.5 +/- 1.2% (or whatever)" so that the presentation is objective. But, I cannot, by the OR standards, do the appropriate statistics to make it a given percentage with a error range or (better as a 96% CI range for low occurences). However, I can present an inappropriate percentage if the literature cites it as such. IOW, for wiki certain versions of data are more or less a black hole. I agree that SV should not argue once it is determined something is Original Research here, but it is confounding at times how that decision is made. To the specific issue at hand - The data SV added were absolute frequencies converted to percentages [Formula: 100 * f_abs/N ] (WP - no original statistics). However, if Wiki had a specific guideline for dealing with absolute frequencies (for example state the 1SD confidence range or 95% CI) then I think it would be perfectly legitimate to present those frequencies, but with an error range. PB666 ^yap 16:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to be fair-handed in this discussion, I do realize that POV does blind editors to others points of veiw as we tend to agree and present POVs of authors we agree with; however Muntawandi, albiet with difficulty appears to want to work with others, whereas SV does not. I asked SV to improve his referencing so that material is not obscured in a 'Snakes nest' of references and he chose not to. In addition throwing a long list of percentages into the text is not really encyclopedic in its style particularly if data from several papers was given as a single reference. It was only in trying to sort out which data belonged to which reference that I found that a statistical conversion (original research) had been made on his part. The data given by SV and the other editor may both be correct (see above, its the way statistics works sometimes). If the guideline had allowed me to add a confidence range to his percentages or combine 2 different samples as one for a typed population, then I would have not deleted his data. PB666 ^yap 16:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Small Victory distorting this whole question into one of Afrocentrism is unfortunately typical of how he addresses all disagreements or perceived disagreements with others. It reminds me of the case where, when I told him he was out of line to call me a chimp, he wrote in an even more uncivil tone that "I didn't call you a chimp. I asked: "...would I have better luck explaining [the analogy] to a chimp?" The fact that you didn't understand that makes your claim that our "communication problems" might be my fault quite laughable. Again, LEARN HOW TO READ!" (In other words he only compared me to a chimp in terms of being sub-human in terms of comprehension skills. He did not call me a chimp as such, and therefore he is in the right to write abusively and my mis-wording just proves it: "And then you wonder why I talk down to you.") In summary, Small Victory often looses sight completely of what the point is, because he has constantly got this way of looking for an angry way to twist things into a personal attack. It is very distracting from actually editing articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• I wish to make some corrections here. Elen of the Roads, Muntawandi did not post using the quotations template, I did. I did not know there was an established method, and I think the repeated picking on this issue biting the newcomer (although not to wiki, this is the first time I have posted a complaint) after all it brought to attention an issue that needed attention. Nor was the thread designed to beat up on Small Victory, after repeated attempts to try to get admins involved in the constant edit warring and derogatory comments I decided it was time to take things a step further, it seems that the step was justified at this point based on the overall response. Muntawandi, there is a process here and you shouldn't use your POV as a reasoning for trying to get Small Victory blocked, he has been warned, and that would equate to information suppression. However, I do believe that there should be an admin whose better willing to survey what is going on pages to which SV and SOPHIAN posts to for a while, so that his behavior is followed up on. If (I) we had managed to attract better surveillance to begin with we would not be at this point, IMHO.PB666 ^yap 16:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Historicist, Israel-Palestinian / BLP vios

historicist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has returned to Rashid Khalidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to edit war a new WP:BLP vio to accuse Khalidi of publishing seven times a "bogus quotation", a claim not in the reliable sources. The history of this editor's efforts on Khalidi's page (and indirectly, Obama) and the Israel-Palestine conflict more generally articles spans quite a few AN/I reports, a couple blocks, and likely some other things of which I'm not aware. In the latest issue he's recreated a deleted article he had earlier created on the subject,[10] edit warred the article name,[11] and edit warred Khalidi's BLP to WP:3RR.[12][13][14] (the first edit re-introduced material recently rejected). He's gotten my warning[15] and chosen to continue edit warring. You'll also note from the diffs that this editor, who has repeatedly accused me of bad faith in the past, is now accusing me of censorship and whitewashing. I won't propose a remedy but we need some help here. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I see the editor has also been adding[16] the "bogus quote" content to other BLPs and adding[17][18][19][20] and edit warring to add[21][22] a WP:COAT-ish list of "see also" links to a number of BLP and other articles, which all have in common that they are incidents of claimed media bias against Israel. And now adding POV tags to the bio articles.[23][24] Some other editors and I have reverted most of these as a content matter, but this does seem to be part of a wide-reaching attempt to promote this issue. Wikidemon (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Adding information on a notable and well-documented falsehood to the page of the scholar who created the falsehood is hardly coatracking. User:Wikidemom has a trackrecord of removing well-sourced information on the grounds that I don't like it and bullying editors who he disagrees with by running to post on this noticeboard. It is not constructive behavior.Historicist (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have blocked Historicist (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for edit-warring; this appears to be a fairly uncomplicated breach of 3RR. This is a repeat offense for this user on Rashid Khalidi, and I will therefore notify this editor of the discretionary sanctions in effect on Israeli-Palestinian articles. I think this user is skirting a serious WP:BLP violation, absent reliable sources charging Khalidi with "creating a falsehood" (as opposed to citing a published quote which later proved to be false). That may be an issue more productively explored at the BLP noticeboard. I have declined the speedy-deletion request at False Moshe Ya'alon quotation, for reasons I've detailed on the associated talk page. MastCell ^Talk 20:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • And indef blocked for socking while blocked. nableezy - 16:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect speedy delete

Resolved

 – Nothing for an admin to do here, see WP:DRV, WP:AFD. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I truly hate to come here, because many users abuse this page to fight the Arab-Israeli wars by other means. However, the attempt by User:Nableezy to speedy delete a well-csourced article on a notable incident False Moshe Ya'alon quotation is against the rules.Historicist (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alleged_Ya'alon_quotation and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4. nableezy - 19:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy declined by MastCell. This is a content dispute, doesn't belong at ANI. –xeno^talk 19:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  Hrm, a shame, as the substance of the current version apears to be little different than the redirected by consensus version. Off to AfD #2, then? Tarc (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  It contains a reliable source specifically about the quotation itself that discusses the effects its (apparent misquoting?) had. –xeno^talk 20:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Honestly, it really is like watching a bunch of three-year olds argue, isn't it? HalfShadow 20:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said, nothing for an admin to do here. Pls gauge consensus at WP:DRV or WP:AFD. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

A reminder that all of these articles are under WP:ARBPIA. In terms of productive editing, all are welcome over at WP:IPCOLL.--Cerejota (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Admin User:RockMFR conflict of interest in block of User:Koalorka

Several days ago, Admin RockMFR (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Koalorka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) on Aug 15th [25] with a claim that Koalorka had vandalized the article Emu War. I reviewed and determined that this appeared to be a content dispute, not vandalism, and that RockMFR had an apparent conflict of interest due to content dispute, which makes the block a violation of blocking policy, in using blocking to win a content dispute.

The content dispute was basically edit warring over inclusion of a reference to the Emus (an animal) having won the war, which appears to be a valid external source if somewhat tongue in cheek (the whole incident is bizarre, to say the least). RockMFR believed it was invalid and that reinserting it was inappropriate; several other editors disagreed.

Sequence of relevant events:

• Aug 10 - RockMFR establishes his preferred version of article (and threatens to block anyone disagreeing) [26]
• Aug 15, 11:31 - User:Lt.Specht reinserts w/source - [27]
• Aug 15, 13:19 - RockMFR removes again [28]
• Aug 15, 14:48 - Koalorka reverts RockMFR with edit summary (Undid revision 308180598 by RockMFR (talk)That's a valid source. Please stop being so prejudiced against the Emus. It's specist.) [29]
• Aug 15, 15:32 - RockMFR reverts Koalorka w/o edit summary [30]
• Aug 15, 15:34 - RockMFR blocks Koalorka [31] and leaves message on his talk page [32]
• Aug 15, 18:45 - Koalorka objects on his talk page [33]
• Aug 15, 18:50 - Koalorka questions RockMFR's qualifications on his talk page [34]
• Aug 17, 20:27 - I noticed and leave message for RockMFR asking him to unblock, as he had conflict of interest in content dispute [35]
• Aug 18, 03:56 - RockMFR refuses, claiming again that it was "pure vandalism" [36]
• Aug 18, 12:26 - I notify RockMFR that I disagree and will be filing ANI [37]

I could just review and unblock myself, however I have both supported and argued against Koalorka in prior ANI incidents where he was abusive and where he was both baited and abusive, so I would rather put this up for further review. I believe I'm reasonably unbiased related to him but I'd rather get others' input than act unilaterally myself.

Koalorka does have an extensive block log for abusing other editors - but this does not appear to have included any abusive behavior, merely content dispute.

I believe that the content in question is questionable - a good faith editor could conclude it was not entirely appropriate, especially in an infobox - but clearly not vandalism. It appears to be the sort of content where an article talk page discussion is normal and necessary rather than an administrator simply wading in and threatening, and then issuing, blocks.

I would like further admin input on 2 specific points:

1. Was the content vandalism, or legitimately a content dispute?
2. Was the block an involved block by a content dispute involved administrator, which should be reversed?

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Would it be appropriate now to mock either the article itself for existing, OR the participants for this rediculous edit war, or can we just call the whole thing WP:LAME? Are we really having an edit war over whether or not the Emus defeated the Humans in what was basically a pest control effort with a good PR campaign? I mean, seriously now... --Jayron32 20:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a historical event, with sources... I think i'ts pretty bizarre, but c'est la vie.

    The block is the issue at hand, however. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Clearly bad block. Koalorka's on pretty shaky ground with that insertion, I think, but blocking without warning or attempt at discussion is not on. Steve Smith (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• There's a source, and there's an edit summary with reasoning behind it. Right or wrong, it's not vandalism. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I suggest that you read the edit history of the article more thoroughly. It's part of a pattern of ongoing silly vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• While it's possible to cleverly craft a somewhat lighthearted article about something, for too long people have been turning this into a joke article. The main culprit was the now-removed {{Infobox Military Conflict}} infobox on an article about a wildlife management issue. It attracted clever edits like "Casualties: Dignity" and "Winner: Emus". To call this simply a content dispute, with "sourced" edits, is a pretty superficial way of looking at it. While this is a slightly grey area, on the boundary between vandalism and excessive light-heartedness, I think RockMFR honestly believed it to be vandalism, and that is not an unreasonable opinion. I would not say that his previous removals of joke edits (which appears to be the only edits he's made to the article) mean he has a conflict of interest.

  While a week block seems an overreaction, I note Koalorka has something of a history, which might explain it. Perhaps unblock, noting the greyness of the area, but with a warning not to re-add the infobox back, and a request that RockMFR not use his admin tools on the article anymore, out of a concern over the appearance of involvement? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I think Floquenbeam has hit the nail on the head with this issue. The deal is, treating this like a military conflict is the central problem; and if the article were rewritten to remove all appearances of trying to treat it as a real militarty conflict, and instead took the actual proper point of view of treating this as a wildlife managament issue, it would solve all of these problems. The infobox itself is what lends to the rediculousness. At minimum, it has to go. I agree it is likely a bad block, given the blocking admins prior involvement, but a better course of action is to start an RFC where the light-of-day will expose the problems and get them fixed by uninvolved editors. --Jayron32 21:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    • An RFC? maybe I've missed it..but I haven't seen an RFC yet that has actually accomplished anything. They're not binding and often just fade into obscurity.--Crossmr (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks all for the input. I'm going to unblock and warn (Koalorka and on the article talk page) not to re-add the infobox, and request that if those advocating the infobox want to dispute that, that the proper mechanism is an article RFC rather than any further edit warring. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Joke edits are vandalism, especially when they are done repeatedly. There is no gray area here. Seriously, these editors (Koalorka and Lt.Specht) and are saying I am anti-emu. They are clearly not trying to make constructive edits or engaging in constructive discussion. Koalorka has a long block history, and has engaged in making these joke edits over a long period of time, hence the week block. If any admin believes that Koalorka's edits are constructive, they are free to unblock him, of course. — RockMFR 22:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Looks like I, or my other half, should take a look at this one... Rodhullandemu 23:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I've also been involved with this article, and agree that Koalorka and Lt.Specht's edits are little better than vandalism. Koalorka has also harassed me on my talk page over reverting this nonsense, claiming that "You cannot simply threaten to block people because you don't agree with the outcome of this vicious conflict" [38] (I made no such 'threat' - they seem to be refering to RockMFR's warning against this kind of behaviour) and "Why do you continue denying the Emus their history? This is prejudiced revisionism at its worst." [39]. Clearly such posts aren't from an editor interested in developing a good quality article. Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
    • As Admin User:RockMFR did have a conflict of interest he should not have blocked User:Koalorka, this is a clear breach of the correct usage of his admin tools. He should have pointed the problem out to an uninvolved Admin. The block should be reversed and if an =uninvolved Admin feels it is nessecesary to reblock then that is up to them, I would also admonish RockMFR for misuse of the tools. Also one week is excessive. Off2riorob (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Allowable, but not the most brilliant block. Reverting hoax edits does not cause an administrator to be involved in a content dipute. There is no bona fide content dispute. When people are having too much fun with a joke, it is appropriate to tell them to knock it off. The block made matters worse, I think, rather than better. Block should be reserved for more severe wikicrimes. Jehochman ^Talk 01:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with Jehochman.--John (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• WHile I agree with Jehochman; the "tell them to knock if off" method appears to have been tried here, to no avail, as the silliness continued with Koalorka continuing with such silliness as insisting on "Emu rights" and other such rediculousness. It was clear that Koalorka was intending to continue this patent nonsense ad infinitum. If he HAD let it drop, then a block may have not been necessary. --Jayron32 02:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with the "block" in principle, but also agree with the concerns of WP:INVOLVED. RockMFR would have likely been better served by bringing the matter here, rather than block themselves due to COI concerns, but I don't think there's anything actionable at this time. I trust GWH on the unblock, and hope that he will continue to monitor the situation. I'd personally have no objections to a passing editor marking this as resolved. — Ched :  ?  06:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • There's no "involvement" here. Nor any "conflict of interest" as claimed above. If you actually go through the edit history of the article you'll see that RockMFR has made no edits to it in its entire history other than reverting joke edits such as these, made by several editors, both with and without accounts. Reverting silly vandalism is not a conflict of interest. Uncle G (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not sure if George has forgotten as Koalorka is as yet still blocked. What is the outcome of this discussion? Off2riorob (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Given that George started this ANI post, isn't a significant 'conflict of interest' for him to declare it closed in his favour only two hours after the report was made and then go on to over-turn this block? Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• In addition to my above comment, I also think that this block is fine. Reverting vandalism isn't a content dispute, so there is no 'conflict of interest'. Koalorka has a history of being blocked and was warned for their behaviour, so everything seems above board to me. The initial summary of the events is also unfair to RockMFR - this vandalism had been going on for weeks and I was also involved in reverting it and semi-protecting the article to prevent IPs attacking it, so this wasn't an isolated incident or RockMFR protecting 'his preferred version of article' as the initial report wrongly states. Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm finding myself agreeing with NickD here; the whole article was a joke and non-notable, and Rock was clearly right to block Koalorka for his repeated edits to the article. I also think that GWH's initial report was misleading, and his unblocking of Koalorka without consensus; but it would seem that little will be done about him as per usual. Skinny87 (talk) 10:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• If I were to try to re-write this article, framing it as a serious wildlife mgmt effort with a goofy PR twist, would anyone have kittens about it? I'm more than willing to do the rewrite with a change in tone, but not if the end result is "BAD Gladys! (slap slap)".GJC 13:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Hmm. I'm amazed that this problem hasn't cropped on other articles like War on poverty (losing side: poor people) or War on drugs (winners: Mexican drug cartels). Hopefully, this isn't because Aussies have a better sense of humor than we US folks. -- llywrch (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• This block is one of the worst I have seen in my time here, this admin was wrong to do it and it is wrong to continue it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Um... since when is a blog a valid source? Some guy (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It's worse than that. As already noted, the purported "source" cited the Provocateur-silly-vandalized version of this article as its source in the first place. Uncle G (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Bad unblock, Georgewilliamherbert.

  There was very clearly no "involvement" here, and no content dispute, either. Some people wanted to insert silliness into an article and both RockMFR and Nick-D were amongst the many reverting their vandalism. I draw your attention to edit summaries such as the one for this edit that attempts to misrepresent WP:HUMOUR as an article content guideline, and "Be a little light hearted, humor can be placed in articles.", which very clearly show the silly vandalism intentions here. Indeed, I draw your attention to this silly vandalism, by the aptly-named User:Provocateur that provoked all of this silly vandalism in the first place, and that was cited as a source by the web-log entry that was later claimed to be a source for the article.

  Full marks to the editors without accounts who helped to combat this silly vandalism, alongside RockMFR and Nick-D, over the past eight months with edits such as this, this, and this; and to Alansohn for this edit. Applause also to the people who have, since this article's profile has been raised, edited it sensibly and expanded it. No marks to the people who thought that this eight-month edit history was anything other than some people mucking around, and two administrators, one editor with an account, and three editors without accounts, tirelessly reverting their vandalism, and using both the protection and blocking tools to combat persistence on the parts of the vandals. Uncle G (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Up front: I have a past history of disagreements with Koalorka, and I noticed the Emu War problem because I was watching his talk page. Beyond that, I didn't get involved in anything involving Koalorka directly, but I rewrote most of the article to make it factually accurate and un-silly. I would like to endorse what Uncle G and Nick D are saying, it seems to me that multiple editors were clearly disrupting the article to be funny and I can't believe anyone is taking their edits or their outrageous claims of pro-Australian biased revisionism seriously. As mentioned, they were using as a "source" a blog that referenced the article, which is circular sourcing. Much of the info in the article was blatently inaccurate and that's why I rewrote it.

Quotes from Koalorka after being unblocked: "The topic was so silly I could not resist." [40] . "Well, I am dismayed that the Emus are being denied their legacy, their valiant struggle will NEVER be forgotten. Wikipedia proves her systetmic bias yet again. I will disengage now." [41] Some guy (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments Uncle G, and for taking the time to look at the article's edit history. This misleading ANI report and the resulting unblocking is a serious case of administrator misconduct. George has basically used ANI to provide him with a fig leaf to cover wheel warring. I note also that George didn't notify other involved editors (such as myself) that this report had been made or post a notification on the article's talk page until after he declared that a consensus existed to overturn the block. Speaking as an administrator myself, this is exactly the kind of behavior that brings admins into disrepute. Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue was the block. We don't normally provide links to ANI discussions about user blocks on the relevant article talk page, though I see why it was of interest. There would have been nothing wrong with such a link - but as it's not customary, I didn't think of it. I see the point. Perhaps it should be customary in the future.

Waiting 2 hrs after posting on ANI, and longer after notifying the blocking admin, is entirely reasonable and normal. Calling this wheel warring is silly - there was no re-do of the original admin action, the administrator was consulted the day before the ANI report with a request to reconsider (or clarify), and I waited a normal time for ANI discussion before calling a rough working consensus.

Regarding the new issue that the source which was cited in the humor edits is apparently a blog, I missed that (the wordpress URL is a tipoff, but I spaced on that) - I clicked through to see that it existed and said what it said, but didn't notice that it was a blog or that it sourced back to the Wikipedia article. I was looking for valid URL and content described accurately, found it, and moved on. Had anyone (blocking admin, anyone else on article talk page, anyone in edit summaries on article) explicitly listed that it was an invalid source because it was a blog and referenced Wikipedia rather than independent sources, I would probably have chosen a different approach to start with. That's what talk pages and edit summaries are for - explain the reasons for something, so that uninvolved editors and administrators can understand the issues properly.

Yes, I can now see issues that I wasn't aware of - but you're essentially blaming me for being confused in what amounted to a sterile revert war on the article. Other editors and administrators aren't psychic. We go by what's on the log and in front of us. If you fail to explain yourself - when you edit, when you take administrative actions, when asked to clarify or reverse those actions - you have nobody to blame but yourself when independent uninvolved administrators miss issues or misinterpret actions.

My actions here have been described as intentionally misleading by the same set of you who failed to document your initial actions on the article. This is excessively ironic. I assumed good faith of everyone involved - please do so yourselves, look back at the record, and try and provide a bit more information in the future so that uninvolved parties can understand it better. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be arguing that it's other editors fault that you didn't do your homework on this. I gave reasons for reverting this vandalism in my edit summaries for the cases where I didn't just use the rollback function - in this reversion of nonsense added by Koalorka I specifically noted that the claim that the 'casualties' included "Australian dignity" was uncited (this was also clearly ridiculous). There was also a lengthy and ongoing discussion about the state of the article on its talk page at the time you decided to jump in which User:Commander Zulu had noted that the article's sources were blogs and a single newspaper story ([42]) (this discussion started after Koalorka was blocked, but should have been consulted before posting at ANI). Moreover, there's no need to start discussions of why vandalism is a bad idea on article talk pages - the standard response in clear cut cases like this is to warn the vandals, which RockMFR ([43]) and I ([44]) did and impose a block if they continue their behavior. Your statement that you had no way to know that vandalism was the issue is wrong - RockMFR told you that it was why he imposed this block ([45]) when you accused him of violating the blocking policy and threatened him with possible desysopping ([46]). As I said on your talk page, you have acted rashly on this matter. Nick-D (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

None of the edits from before there was a block adequately explained the source issue or justified the claim of vandalism, to uninvolved editors. I did review the article talk page prior to contacting RockMFR initially - I stand by my claim that the discussion there was not clear enough to those not already closely involved. Admins and editors have a responsibility to make things clear enough that uninvolved admins and editors can review and understand the situation with normal responsible due diligence. Many editors and admins up further in thread agreed with my concerns. Many disagree with the ongoing characterization of the edits as vandalism, or clear cut.

The response from the set of you is going beyond admins and editors legitimately trying to protect an article into WP:OWN violations, with a healthy measure of WP:AGF failure thrown in. Again - you owe the rest of the community enough communications to explain issues, when you do things, and when you're initially challenged by uninvolved concerned parties. Responses here were opaque until after I unblocked, at which point people seem to have taken this as an affront and decided to counterattack rather than trying to AGF and discuss communications failures which happened earlier. Edit summaries, block summaries, source challenges are all things where documenting your work matters. Waiting until an uninvolved admin comes along, spots an apparent problem, asks the blocking admin, asks for second opinions, and then unblocks is not good documentation practice. I should have seen the details laid out on first examination, in the revert edit summaries (none), article talk page (not specific regarding the particular edits), warnings on Koalorka's talk page (none), block note (opaque without detail), block message on user talk (opaque without detail), response to blocked users objection (none), or response to my uninvolved admins' query (opaque without detail).

We have all now wasted several hundred times more time than it would have taken you all to write down and document the issues, warn properly, and block with enough detail to justify it had he continued. There were a number of opportunities after it started, where catching up with the descriptions would have headed off any further issues or misinterpretation. It's disrespectful to the admin community at large if you document so badly that an uninvolved admin ends up doing something like this - lack of initial diligence and lack of following process more closely (clear warnings) equals huge time waste.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

These are absurd and overly defensive arguments. The vandalising editors knew perfectly well what they were doing and I don't think anybody felt the need to waste time explaining it to Koalorka, as he clearly did not care (and again was resorting to arguments of COI pro-Australian revisionism). I haven't been involved in the page for very long, but I certainly did not expect an unblock to come out of left field with no warning, so I wouldn't have thought "documenting" anything was necessary, but then again it was so patently obvious that several editors were engaging in disruptive behavior to be funny that I would never have anticipated the need to explain it to anyone.

Apparently a lot of the people who responded here (including you) didn't take the scant seconds to review the "source" and determine it was not a good one. You did succeed in so heavily misrepresenting the situation that other editors mistakenly believed Koalorka had good intentions of improving the article.

Removing/blocking blatantly vandalism-for-humor edits is not article ownership, and AGF clearly does not apply to people who are vandalizing a page to be funny any more than it doesn't apply to people reverting vandalism. OWNership? Really? Then how did I come out of nowhere and rewrite the entire article? You shouldn't be making accusations about miscommunication when you didn't post a notice at the article about the ANI until after it was "concluded". You expected people to make special provisions for you when they didn't know you were involved? Some guy (talk) 05:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

None of your edits were before the block, or were problematic, as far as I could tell or am aware. I'm sorry if it appears I'm objecting to conduct of everyone who's editing there - that's not my intention. My objections are limited to the warnings and discussion on Koalorka's (and to some extent Lt.Specht's) contributions, and Koalorka's block, which you were not involved in.

Serious efforts to improve the originally rather silly article have been made since this all started, and all those who have contributed, particularly including you, deserve credit for that.

I only mentioned you below because TSC did. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Your complaining about a lack of 'documentation' doesn't stack up. The level of warnings, etc, is about standard for the reversion of straight vandalism, especially in articles where this has been going on for weeks. Moreover, if you felt that there weren't enough details it was your responsibility to politely ask the blocking admin to explain the reason for the block after first carefully examining the diffs and sources. Instead, your initial message to RockMFR was to accuse them of being in breach of the blocking policy, threaten them with possible desysopping and demand that they revert the block immediately: [47]. When he responded to say that the reason for the block was vandalism you told them that you "strongly disagree with that" and took it here [48]. Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• i suggest a deeper look into GWH's history to see if there is a pattern of admin misconduct. his attempting bullying of User: Some guy, or his 30 day block of me for 'baiting' a notorious abuser might be a start. the common thread between User: Some guy and me being blocked? We both were involved in disputes with WP:Guns members. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • You are a WP:GUNS member, TSC: Wikipedia:GUNS#Participants. You edit firearms articles more often than I have over the last year at least... (as does Some Guy, who is not a project member but should be). Membership in a project or interest in a topic is completely irrelevant to abusive behavior or not. I have warned both Nukes4Tots and Koalorka over abusive behavior over the last few months and not disagreed with others' characterization of incivility, personal attacks and harrassment when it happened. The only common pattern here seems to be that WP:GUNS members seem to get along poorly in general, which is attracting a lot of admin attention (making me think I should consider withdrawing from the project; it would do well to learn from WP:MILHIST). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Please do not bring this argument here or involve me in it. Some guy (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon and Arbitration

Resolved

 – The committee has stated they would prefer additional community-imposed restrictions not be enacted as this would simply complicate and confuse matters. –xeno^talk 13:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: Casliber has filed a request for arbitration enforcement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Mythdon (talk · contribs) has been asked many times to refrain from making pointless requests and comments on Wikipedia:Arbitration and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration pages and subpages. Despite this, he has filed the 5th request for clarification on the same case, 2 weeks after he made the 4th request for clarification. This is really becoming a tiresome exercise. Understandably, ArbCom are reluctant to themselves restrict Mythdon from continuing this pattern of interactions with ArbCom. Reluctantly, I find that we're in a position where there is no other option than to propose that a community sanction be imposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sanction proposals

Discussion

I will be notifying the Arbitration Committee. I think that the Arbitration Committee has to make this decision. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I do take note however that Risker and Newyorkbrad are recused. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom notified. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that the very reason this discussion is taking place? –túrian^patois 05:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Also, ArbCom should be notified because it has stated it's lack of being pleased with my requests. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I'd already notified ArbCom of this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

And I've done so on their talk pages. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe the community does have the authority to enact sanctions themselves if there is a strong enough consensus for it, without having to go to ArbCom and making it official. Whether they or the community make the decision, it will make little difference. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the community has no authority to impose this sanction as it is a decision for ArbCom to make. I have this feeling that they will decline to let the community impose it, and have the community leave the discussion to themselves. I wonder what they'll say when they see this. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I made this proposal, only after doing all the research. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

But wouldn't ArbCom have to decide on this? Jimbo Wales founded the committee. Doesn't he retain jurisdiction over it? Would he have to approve of the community making such a decision? Would he take back to ArbCom? Would ArbCom take it back to themselves? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

On the second thought, it does make sense for ArbCom to have the final say in this, given that we're discussion Mythdon's ability to post requests for amendments/clarifications where they are the ultimate authority. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom requests everyone to try steps short of ArbCom intervention; I'm merely complying with that request. If I did not, there would be no difference between me and Mythdon, who would not with that request Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That is actually to try prior steps in dispute resolution before requesting arbitration cases. It's not applicable here. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It was this approach that led to the sanction proposals. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't bar an editor from access to dispute resolution. If the Committee doesn't like what Mythdon is doing on their pages, all they have to do is ignore it. Cla68 (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Then you can put yourself in the above section to state your opposition. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not what's happening here. Merely, Mythdon's access to dispute resolution is being limited until such a time he can use it appropriately. Unless you don't want the Committee to give timely responses, perhaps going back to the old ways of a previous Committee, ignoring it is not an option. It isn't merely the Committee who doesn't like what Mythdon is doing on those pages, as some statements would've indicated already. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• considering supporting this, and agree with the proposal in principle. My concerns are the wording of:

(a) Mythdon [...] is hereby prohibited from editing any Wikipedia:Arbitration and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration pages and subpages, broadly construed. This restriction shall expire after 1 month. (emphasis mine)

• I agree that much of this ongoing disruption should be addressed, but I am hesitant to support due to the phrasing which I bolded above. It would likely be more prudent to confine the restriction to only the existing sanctions as far as "topic". — Ched :  ?  06:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • That's ironically the same concern I initially had. But the rationale behind it is that this effectively gives Mythdon an opportunity to at least listen to what ArbCom was saying in the 5th request for clarification - which means that there should be no need for Mythdon to edit the pages himself. Carcharoth's comments may be helpful in this regard. I was also given the impression that the same problem would just move to any available on-wiki pages not covered by the restriction, if you get what I mean. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Mythdon has posted on all the arb's talk pages about this. I think it good the community discuss this issue. The mere fact that someone filed this shows how problematic his behavior has become. Right now the consensus seems to be that is is not a good idea for the community to ban someone from DR pages; that this should be left to arbcom. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• As I've already stated here, ArbCom reserves the right to apply any necessary sanction/restriction (topic ban/ban) especially that ignoring excessive and unnecessary requests and questions is not appropriate. The Arbitration Enforcement is enough for now. It is up to Mythdon to understand and assess the consequences of his actions. However, any further question about the nature of these consequences would lead to an automatic ArbCom action in order to put an end to this story. It should be noted that Mythdon should be held responsible as he refused mentorship and still doesn't show any improvement in communicating with others. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I admit that I'm not particularly knowledgeable on "ArbCom" matters, so I guess my question would be: To what degree do the arbs consider WP:INVOLVED to be a consideration here? (either collectively or individually). There certainly have been numerous threads at various talk pages, AN, AN/I in regards to Mythdon/Ryloung, Power Rangers, and the ArbCom sanctions, many of which I tend to just "scroll on by", but I can envision that some of the community may be finding it rather tiresome. I certainly don't want to step on the committee's toes if they are fully willing to handle it. (see SoWhy, mazca, Viridae, and AdjustShift comments above). If however the committe is desirous of community action, then I'm not opposed to a bit of "restrictions" being handed out. — Ched :  ?  11:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• I personally believe that WP:INVOLVED is quite explicit. I must just add that the criteria of the involvement of an admin differ from a case to another. I believe that the criteria for a case concerning general behavioral guidelines are less stricter than for a case involving complicated issues (POV pushing, etc...).
• I believe that this case can still be handled by ArbCom not because the community is not able to deal with it but it is rather a matter of continuity and avoidance of the establishment of interrelated and confusing or contradictory restrictions in complex ways which would require consequent unnecessary requests for clarifications.
• The main issue here is not merely a question of excessive requests by Mythdon but his inability to correct the mistakes which led to sanctions and restrictions. For this reason, ArbCom may expect further problematic behavior by Mythdon and it would be better if the community avoids any further complication by imposing new restrictions that aren't really necessary. Mythdon is free to request clarifications but there'd be no guarantee about the consequences of such exaggerated behavior. ArbCom has assumed good faith since the start of the case and it still does but for everything in life there are limits. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm content with what's been said. The arbs have read between the lines of this, and in their responses, have addressed a number of questions/concerns posed on this vexing problem. Pending any last questions/concerns that members of the community may desire responses to from the arbs, we're done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  Likewise. –xeno^talk 14:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

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

"Long term" vandal, short term solution

Today, I saw this edit from 66.84.180.196 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I recalled seeing similar edits in the past, and it turns out that they showed up on a different IP in mid June and before that in October 2008 on 66.84.180.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 66.84.180.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). None of the IPs have ever been blocked. All have been warned, and nothing came about because the user disappeared shortly afterward, only to appear months later on a different IP address.

As far as I can tell (from the gadget that allows one to search IP ranges), nearly every single edit from the range 66.84.180.0/24 has been from this individual. All have added [[Category:[Decade] animated television series]] to articles that are 99% of the time not cartoons. I have not found any IPs outside of the /24 that match the MO. Blocking this range from editing Wikipedia would probably solve any problems that may arise.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I blocked for 31 hours as I noticed the similarity to edits made almost exactly a year previously. I considered that this may be a vacationing vandal, but not so sure - despite a familiar range of articles being targeted - to place a longer block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 66.84.180.192/27 for 3 months. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Does that cover all of the other deleterious edits from the same individual that is only found in the /24?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Levinstein

Levinstein (talk · contribs · count) There are a couple of other admins keeping an eye on this, but I'd like to get more eyes on this (and I don't personally have the time today to do it). User Levinstein keeps creating pages regarding an alleged / convicted pedophile. Originally he did it in mainspace, and when it was deleted for being a wall o' text attack page, he recreated it in his userspace and usertalk. Those were deleted last night as attack pages, and user has reinstated it on his talk page.

He claims that the article is sourced, and from the searches I've done I can only find the first paragraph of one of the cited stories. Otherwise, its almost a cut and paste from a headline clearing house (which says its GFDL, so they aren't copyvio).

He's also jumped IMO immediately to bad faith land, accusing one of the original deleters Closedmouth of trying to cover up the person's crimes.

Thoughts? I'm going to go inform the editor of this discussion now. Syrthiss (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, bollocks to him. He clearly isn't here to write an encyclopedia, just to push this stuff. So I've permablocked him. ➲ REDVERS ^{It sucks to be me} 12:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• One day your meek manners and lack of decisiveness is going to be your undoing... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

My boy, you may take it from me

That of all the afflictions accurs't

With which a man's saddled

And hampered and addled

A diffident nature's the worst. -- Gilbert & Sullivan 14:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've tracked down two of the sources. One can be found on pages 261–262 of ISBN 9788170247913, and the other here. Uncle G (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE still applies. The wall-o-text could have been summarized as "This man is a pedophile! And he's still working at [X]! Something must be done! Here's a bunch of 18-year-old newspaper clippings!" --Calton | Talk 02:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Talk:Speed of light

David Tombe (talk · contribs) has been waging a vehement campaign at Talk:Speed of light and WT:PHYS to claim that the fact that the metre is defined in terms of a fixed value of the speed of light has invalidated much (if not most) of the science of physics. The speed of light in SI units has been fixed since 1983, <sarcasm>yet the scientific community seems to have been totally unaware of the tautology for 26 years until David Tombe decided to expound on it at length on Wikipedia.</sarcasm> This user's behaviour is disrupting attempts to improve the Speed of light article, a former featured article: it obviously falls under not only WP:SOAPBOX but also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience (lovingly known as WP:ARBCRANK). I feel that a topic ban is in order. Physchim62 (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What conflict resolution did you use before asking for a topic ban? Ussually that is a last resort as I understand it. Upon a review of the users talk page I don't see any warnings for using the talkpage or any recent warnings period. From my standpoint there doesn't seem to be anything that can be done here yet as not one whit of resolution of this dispute before running here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I notified the person in question they had a thread here as I didn't see he was notified on his talk page.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an ongoing problem with David. There was a WQA report about his behavior and a somewhat related, drawn-out ANI report that included him a little more than a month ago, albeit related to a different set of incidents. However, he seems to have removed from his talk page the notices and the resulting WQA advice given. I would add that David is not only disruptive on the talk pages but also outright uncivil with anyone who disagrees with him (essentially calling them idiots or accusing them of being part of a conspiracy to suppress the truth). --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't comment on speed of light, but the volume of traffic in the related WT:PHYS thread has been making it nigh-unreadable for other purposes for the last couple of days. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the dispute at speed of light was ongoing long before I got involved. I entered as a mediator in order to try and ascertain what the dispute was about. I discovered that it was about attempts to prevent another editor from elaborating on something important. The 1983 re-definition of the metre, in terms of the speed of light, has had a major effect on the concept of the speed of light. The non-physics readership will not be aware of this major change from the traditional approach, and so some kind of elaboration is necessary in the article. I do not see any basis here for an allegation of disruptive editing. I have not made many edits on the main speed of light article. As for FyzixFighter's opportunist intervention here, it should be noted that FyzixFighter has conducted a prolonged campaign of undermining my edits. The latest case involves removing referenced material from a history chronology. FyzixFighter's 'modus operandi' is to consistently remove edits of mine and then pose as a victim of incivility. He will go to the talk page claiming that he doesn't want to discuss the topic in question because I am being uncivil to him, and he will seldom engage in discussion of the actual physics in question. A closer scrutiny of FyzixFighter's behaviour will reveal that he is merely removing edits that contain physics that he wasn't previously aware of. David Tombe (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

David Tombe page banned

• I hereby implement an indefinite length pageban of David Tombe (talk · contribs) from Talk:Speed of light and Speed of light for:
  • Persistent disruption, soapboxing, circular arguing. [51][52][53][54]
  • General incivility and assumptions of bad faith. [55][56]
• I'll also log this sanction at WP:ARBPS Jehochman ^Talk 15:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC) and 15:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, Your example of my assumption of bad faith was the very passage which I have just written above in my own defence. The other examples which you have cited prove absolutely nothing at all. David Tombe (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with a topic ban. The first action should be to decide, on he basis of a consensus on the talk page, that a certain topic that has been discussed with David has been settled and continue to discussing this is not relevant to improving the article. Then, if David (or someone else) kicks off yet another discussion on the same topic, we can simply revert the talk page. Then, if David were to revert that deletion and edit war over the talk page contents, you have a more basic edit warring problem which can be brought there. Count Iblis (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Given that this falls under the Pseudoscience (WP:ARBCRANK WP:ARBPS) decision, this really should have been at AE. Anyway...could someone please provide a link where David Tombe was given a warning with a link to that same decision? Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting to see evidence regarding what crank science or pseudoscience Jehochman has in mind. My singular point on the talk page was that another editor should have the right to draw the very important distinction between the speed of light in the traditional sense, and the speed of light subsequent to the 1983 decision to define the metre in terms of the speed of light. That distinction needs to be made high up in the article, for the benefit of the non-physics readership.

Hardly a basis for a topic ban or accusations of crankery or pseudoscience. Can anybody see an edit of mine on the first history page of the speed of light article? David Tombe (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I imagine that the "crank science or pseudoscience Jehochman has in mind" is the same as the crank science that David has raised repeatedly here where every other editor has either pointed out (often repeatedly) the scientific errors or that it is WP:OR or both.--Michael C. Price ^talk 16:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I support Jehochman's action, but want to note that this has little to do with pseudoscience. It may be "bad science" or "crankery", but those aren't the same thing as pseudoscience. The reasons that Jehochman gave are the correct reasons. Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"I am not an admin"...but Jehochman appears to have acted quite properly, and in a timely fashion to prevent further disruption. My opinion itself is worth little, but I fully support him in this case. Doc Tropics 17:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I support Jehochman's topic ban. I keep seeing the name David Tombe coming up in connection with strange edits of physics articles. I reserve judgment on whether quite enough data has been collected in the present discussion compared to how a proper topic ban is presented. If Tombe has not yet been properly notified of WP:ARBCRANK WP:ARBPS, I support giving a proper notification, and then reissuing the ban if Tombe does not make any concrete promise of reform in the mean time. If it turns out that any formalities have been overlooked, consider refiling the matter at WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ed, The strange physics edits that you are talking about perhaps ultimately came down to one issue. That issue was,

The identification of one of the terms in the radial planetary orbital equation as centrifugal force.

I got into alot of trouble over that, but I was eventually proved correct. I can't think of any more off hand. But the current issue here seems to be because of the opinions that I have been expressing on the speed of light talk page. It's certainly not about actual edits on the main article. Ultimately, I have been trying to educate these guys about the fact that the famous equation c^2 = 1/(εμ) is purely a consequence of experimental measurement of the right hand side. They have been arguing against this and showing me Maxwell's equations, as if I had never seen them before, and they have all totally overlooked the fact that Maxwell incorporated the above equation into his own equations as a consequence of an experiment in 1856 by Wilhelm Eduard Weber and Rudolf Kohlrausch. I have shown them all the exact paragraph in the relevant paper. See page 49 of the pdf link at [57]. There is no bad science, or pseudoscience, or crank science going on on my part.

This vendetta has been motivated purely because they have all been proved wrong. When has anybody ever been topic banned from an article on such minimal input, when others who are actually engaged in an edit war on that page are not similarly banned? David Tombe (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Although Jehochman's first charge looks proven I am not convinced by the evidence provided that David has indulged in "General incivility and assumptions of bad faith." I would acquit him of that charge.--Michael C. Price ^talk 18:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As I remarked before, David has a history of incivility and assumptions of bad faith. See the WP:WQA report placed last month, the warning/advice resulting from the report, and other previous examples: [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]. Some recent examples appear to indicate that he has yet to understand that such behavior is wrong: [63], [64], [65]. I realize these aren't from the Speed of light dispute, but they do show a pattern of behavior that is disruptive. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm thicker skinned than some, but looking at the recent links I still see no violation of AGF. I do see someone who rates quite highly on the crackpot index and will never change. That should be the basis of the ban, IMO. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I can admit that, after dealing with the editor's not so recent behavior for awhile, my tolerance for being told I delete stuff because I'm afraid of the truth and for being compared to the thought police has become greatly diminished. I'll work on having thicker skin. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

So then according to Michael Price, the crank science in question was in the textbooks up until relatively recently, and we have not even established yet if it has been totally removed from the textbooks. The crank science that Michael Price has drawn our attention to relates to an experiment that appears in modern advanced level physics textbooks which I used as a physics teacher. The question being posed at the wiki-physics project page is exactly about whether or not that experiment has been removed. David Tombe (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• I logged this action in case it falls under WP:ARBPS. If not, the sanction is still appropriate in my responsibility as an administrator to protect the project from disruption.I could block the editor indefinitely. Instead, I chose to ban them from 2 of our 3,000,000 pages, a much lighter sanction. Jehochman ^Talk 22:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Severity is not the issue. If you're not following the terms of discretionary sanctions from that case, then it's an ordinary admin action and I don't see how it can be logged there. Those terms were specifically designed to avoid any action, without a warning. As the imposing admin, can you (or someone else) please provide a diff to where David Tombe was given a warning with a link to that case? Btw, was he counselled on taking steps to improve? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if it's what you're looking for, but the thread at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Experimental_determination_of_the_electric_permittivity contains, among other things, several instances of editors trying to explain to him what sort of references and citations he'll need in order to make a case for the changes he wants to make to speed of light. Lots of examples of him using circular reasoning and either not understanding or not acknowledging the points raised by other participants in the thread. If the WP:PHYS thread is still continuing in the same vein by the time the weekend rolls around, I'll put together a proper diff list for you and ask for further sanctions, but right now I'm going to hope that discussion will yield a solution. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No Christopher, This is just an opportunist swipe from you because I showed you to be wrong when you claimed that the equation c^2 = 1/(με) can be derived theoretically. I made my final statement on the matter at the wiki-physics project page. You yourself know the truth fine well, but you're never likely to admit it. You know that c^2 = 1/(με) is a numerical relationship which follows purely as a consequence of the experimental determination of the right hand side. David Tombe (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I rest my case. This is also probably a good example of civility and AGF concerns. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Christopher, You are rather presumptuous in claiming on your edit title that I received quite a bit of a coaching at the wiki-physics page, when in fact it was you that received the coaching. You previously had no idea how the numerical relationship c^2 = 1/(με) came to be in Maxwell's equations. And it seems that none of the rest of you did either. This is one big witch hunt because you were all shown to be wrong. And for you, this opportunistic swipe is just one big face saver. David Tombe (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually David, you have significantly shifted your position as a result of the coaching on the wiki-physics page (which is good) although you deny this (which is bad). BTW, although I earlier acquited you of violation of AGF you should be aware the recent statement (above) You yourself know the truth fine well, but you're never likely to admit it. violates AGF. I think you know what the consequences of this are likely to be. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael, In what respect did I shift my position? Can you please clarify this statement. David Tombe (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse per EdJohnston. There are many troubling examples that demonstrate problematic conduct, and attempts made by involved editors to reason with him, including both here and here. Btw, thank you Christopher Thomas for highlighting these examples. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed uncivil shortcut

For the record, I have removed and deleted the WP:ARBCRANK shortcut. This shortcut is uncivil and implies that people are "cranks" if they are sanctioned under this particular decision. Keep in mind that editors on either side of the Pseudoscience issue can be sanctioned; I am fairly certain someone whose agenda is promoting mainstream science is not going to appreciate being labeled as a crank. If someone wants to go updating the shortcuts used in the sections above, they can use WP:ARBPS or WP:ARB/PS. Risker (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Had that been tagged for speedy deletion, I would have declined it. I would prefer you undelete it and send it to RfD, please. I don't think your interpretation of the shortcut is the only or primary interpretation. Protonk (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I support Risker's speedy delete. It's a form of soapboxing, and totally inappropriate. It's speedyable under G10. Horologium (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's an exceptionally broad reading of G10. Protonk (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's not argue about non-essential details like a shortcut! Jehochman ^Talk 23:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

All hail political correctness. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Retaliatory edit warring at Carly Fiorina

Resolved

 – Blocked for 3RR --Smashville^talk 13:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(I've brought up the most recent flare up here at wp:an3, but I'm hoping more eyes can prevent situations like this in the future...)

For the last couple of years, I have had the article for Carly Fiorina on my watchlist. I've always found it intriguing how, every few months, someone comes along who thinks the article needs to be much more negative. Sometimes the content is reliably sourced, and if so, it stays. More often than not, it isn't.

Today, though, an even more interesting editor stopped by, with a position I wasn't familiar with: either I concede that his poorly sourced content can stay or he'll remove all other "supportive" content.

The article is a biography of a living person, and obviously has some additional "needs" as such. The subject of the article is in the news today, which I presume is why User:Rvcx stopped by.

In any event, the issue appears too complicated to be properly addressed at wp:an3, and wp:blp/n tends to not have enough eyes on it to handle the traffic it receives (unfortunately).

wp:blp is clear that it is necessary to revert to keep controversial, poorly sourced material clear from the article. However, User:Rvcx has gone through and removed any "supportive" content, and reverted (and is continuing to revert) to keep that content out of the article. This is clearly quite ridiculous, the article has been stable with most of its content for years, and the fact that it reached that point through the consensus of some very vocal editors only makes User:Rvcx's wholesale deletion of the content quite untenable.

I've begged and pleaded for more people to keep the article on their watchlist, but I haven't been very persuasive apparently. Please, please take a look if you have a second! And if you can just add it to your watchlist, I'd really appreciate it! user:J aka justen (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for 3RR. That last edit was just...pointy beyond pointy. --Smashville^talk 16:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Nemonoman

Nemonoman (talk · contribs) While looking at Parapsychology, I found some surprising claims, and checked them against the sources, and discovered that the sources directly conflicted with the claims being made. Further research discovered a pattern of abuse of sources, and I nominated the article for FAR:

Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Parapsychology/archive1

As can be seen, I provided detailed analysis of an entire section, line by line, showing that almost every claim was distorted or actively went against the source. For instance, here's the first bit of the analysis.

Claim

Evidence

"The practice of randomization and associated techniques such as "blind" administration of conditions were principally developed in the conduct of early psychical research, and have since become standard practice in scientific experiments."

Claims about blinding actively contradicted by citation; randomisation claims overstated: The Bulletin of the History of Medicine does not say any such thing. Its discussion of blinding begins in the late 18th century, and, several pages of chronologically-organised examples later discusses that the first use of blinding in psychic research began after 1884. It does say "From this point [after Richet befgan using blinding sometime after 1884], blinding quickly became an essential feature of psychical research, as did Richet's random selection methods (au hasard), which he used as an additional precaution to ensure concealment. 71 When university-sanctioned psychical and parapsychology research centers were opened in the early twentieth century, blind assessment and early forms of randomization were also an integral component of their research protocols." - However, it does not credit this work with any innovation in the protocols, randomisation, or any other blinding technique. The Isis source's main statement on the matter is that Richet's randomisation methods were groundbreaking, but also credits various other fields as well, such as the later work of R. A. Fisher, and Pierce's earlier work with using playing cards to randomise a study on the perception of small differences in weights. Hence, "principally developed" is somewhat of an overstatement.

I and others subsequently removed some parts of the article that had such sourcing issues.

This has caused Nemonoman to launch constant, evidence-free attacks against me, complaining at a variety of fora, and acting as if I provided no reasons for my actions. For instance, from the FAR:

“ In the past week, the editors above have edited Parapsychology with a meat cleaver and sledgehammer. The careful wordings and citations, the neutrality and consensus that successfully brought this article to FA has been successfully eliminated. Gone. The article is now canonical: Parapsychology is bullshit and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot or worse.

After a slash and burn of many long months of consensus editing, the fine editors above now note -- very correctly -- that following their POV edits the article is NOW a stinking heap of garbage. And having gotten it to this stinking state, they now want it de-FA'ed.

I am in total agreement with them. This article is no longer FA quality. Not in any way. Thanks guys! --Nemonoman (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

PS. You guys could turn this into a business.

”

and

“ Nor did it contain your many helpful new edits.

As to the info you removed, en masse, with no discussion, god bless you. Apparently you're comfortable that new info, including numerous citations, describing parapsychology in a reasonably positive light may be removed without comment. And that other information describing parapsychology in a skeptical light may be added without comment. Do we detect a pattern?

Some of us editors who regard it as good wiki-business to keep the article neutral were working that new material over. Apparently not fast enough to satisfy you, particularly when you had so much new skeptical material to add.

How much of this FAR is based on the actual quality of the article, and how much is based on a belief that the SUBJECT MATTER does not merit a Featured Article. That's something I'll be thinking about today. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

”

Having found no support there, he jumped to my talk page, heightening his rhetoric:

“ It would have been a nice courtesy to discuss your plans to FAR, and your reasons, on the talk page, just as it would have been a courtesy to discuss your extensive edits of the article.

In the future, before wiping the blood from your hatchet and heading over to FAR the work done by many editors who toiled for quality and consensus, please make some small note on the articles talk page, and your actions may be better received.

I agree that Parapsychology should be de-FA'ed following your edits. It is now full of (your) POV and no longer FA quality.

This is an interesting strategy. I'll have to remember it. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

”

Then, when I deleted his comment (somewhat poorly chosen edit summary for removal: "Removed fairly trollish comment" - silence would have been better on my behalf), decided to attack me on Talk:Parapsychology [66]:

“ I expressed my concern about Shoemakersholiday's major deletions and the FAR of this article on his talk page here. He removed those comments as trolling.

Scarcely.

This is the place to discuss big changes and big actions before engaging. To do so shows respect for other editors. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

”

This is, as you can imagine, getting very old, very fast. I suppose I should link Nemonoman to this after closing this edit window, and will do so, but I would appreciate a little help here soon. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 195 FCs served} 17:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

ETA: the behaviour continues unabated. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 195 FCs served} 17:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This appears to me to be a case of ownership on the part of Nemonoman, who is slinging around accusations of POV because someone is messing with his article, hoping that something will stick. This is backed up by his absence of reply to Shoemaker's Holiday's points, merely claiming that he should have been consulted first. Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

weird stalker

I'm not sure what can be done about this but this guy, an IP with an illustrious trolling career going back to January 2008 (with such informative edits as this and this, suddenly bounced into the discussion on Talk:Nurse Nayirah earlier this month. He has specifically targeted me and while I first was engaging his arguments and even editing the article in response to them, I excused myself from the conversation as he got more and more incoherent and began personally attacking me. In his most recent attack he made reference to events that took place on Wikipedia several years ago, indicating that he has been watching my account for a long time. I normally would not think the earlier vandalism entries were from the same person -- since August 09 he has been editing exclusively on the Nayirah article talk page -- except that a couple of the earlier edits suggest that indeed it is the same person. Since August he has only made two edits outside of the Nayirah talk page -- that was to contact two editors I had disputes with in the very distant past to ask for help on Nurse Nayirah -- including one who has long since been permanently banned for constant violations of Wikipedia policies but who recently returned as a sockpuppet and argued with me on The Spitting Image. It's possible the IP user is TDC, though I doubt it -- the IP address locates to South Africa -- but I find it really strange that he's making reference to disputes that happened years ago in order to personally attack me. Strangely, for all the argument he has produced on the Nurse Nayirah talk page, he hasn't once tried to actually edit the article. csloat (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User:HarryAlffa

Resolved

 – Almost nothing here that happened since the latest block - and that was over two months ago. Wknight94 ^talk 20:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

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

I want to draw the attention of the community to the behavior of this editor—please, see this RFC. I obviously do not like to be called "dumb", but it is not what concerns me the most. While I am relatively thick-skinned, other editors may be much more sensitive. Such manner of conducting discussions creates toxic atmosphere in the project and may forces editors to leave Wikipedia.

I have to say that that this RFC is not an isolated incident, and HarryAlffa habitually engages in such behavior. Just two months ago he was blocked (and in fact nearly banned) for a week for insulting others editors, however, apparently learned nothing from his block (see discussion, see also this and this). Below are some diffs from the past:

[67] (Nazi comparison),

[68] (others are incompetent),

[69] (comments of others are bogus),

[70] (shutting your face),

[71] (calling others imbeciles)

and the most recent one [72].

This editors seems absolutely incapable of conducting a civil discussion, without assumptions of bad faith, insults and disruption. WP:Banning policy states If a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point .... I want only to say that my patience is exhausted.

So, I propose to ban HarryAlffa from the project. Thanks. Ruslik_Zero 19:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I notified HarryAlffa of this thread. Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

First problem for me - and it's a biggie - all those links except the last were from before his latest block. You want him banned now for prior bad acts he has already "served time" for? Granted some of the rhetoric in those links and discussions are quite uncivil, but most of what I saw was before the last block. Anything else more recent? Wknight94 ^talk 19:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I was about to make the same comment. I'm no fan, being one of the editors Harry has implied are stupid or clueless, but that last diff is the only objectionable one I see in his history since his block. It is his behavior when someone disagrees with him that needs to be examined. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

His behavior have not changed much and it is only a matter of time before past incidents are repeated. Ruslik_Zero 19:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I believes he simply lives in a strange world of his own, making Wikipedia an even more stressful experience for him than it is for most. Recently I have experienced him as surprisingly relaxed. See his behaviour in his thread at WP:VPP#Artificial Intelligence User Accounts. But overall I am getting the impression that while he is clearly here to improve the encyclopedia, that's not the effect he is having. He is often absent over several months, which is probably why he is not banned yet. But I am not sure how proper it is to have this discussion, especially at ANI, rather than, say, AN, without a concrete recent cause. Hans Adler 19:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It is difficult for me to distinguish where he is serious and where he is just joking. Ruslik_Zero 20:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I am exhausted with Ruslik and his "playing dumb" as I quoth in the link he provided. I was seriously considering raising a WikiAlert on HIM for this, but thought I'd give him one more chance.

The discussion actually started here[73], but Ruslik refused to take part.

Is it really believable that he doesn't understand that you cannot use a comparative measure for significance of an alternative article title? How many times would I have had to re-explain this point, beyond the number of times I did already? Can you really believe that he genuinely believes a reference he provided using a "best option" search is insignificant? Can you intelligently call an in-print book an insignificant source? Can you intelligently conclude that a term used by scientists at conferences is not significant?

So how honest is Ruslik?

Calling my deconstruction of a straw man a Nazi comparison[74]?

Describing my polite appeal to reason, "Fear, uncertainty and doubt, and competence"[75] as calling others incompetent?

After someone created a heading "Suggest silence" aimed at me on the talk page, which was incivil in itself, and which Ruslik endorsed (his bold)[76], I asked a question "I thought you were shutting your face?"[77] when the originator chimed in again.

I said a comment was imbecillic[78], of one person, not "others imbeciles", note Ruslik's dishonest plural as well. AND I withdrew the comment - at Ruslik's suggestion.

I did not say comments of others are bogus, I said (in the third week of a debate) "Your claims of fact and your conclusions are equally bogus."[79], again to one person, not numerous.

This is propaganda, on Ruslik's part.

But back to "the most recent one [80]".

Is Ruslik playing dumb, or not? HarryAlffa (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've boldly marked this as resolved. One barely-problematic edit in the last two months is not worthy of taking up people's time here. Wknight94 ^talk 20:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. With your last edit you just confirmed what I stated above. Ruslik_Zero 20:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving Salford Docks to Manchester Docks while content exists on destination page.

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. — neuro^(talk) 20:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to have the Salford Docks page renamed to Manchester Docks to more accurately reflect the naming used for the area, but as there is content (disambiguation) on the Manchester Docks page, I cannot. Could this be looked into, as I'm not sure of the next move. Roobarb! (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This should be discussed first on the talk page. — neuro^(talk) 20:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:Requested moves is your best bet. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

2 Bad blocks

Right deep breath basically it all kicked off on O Fenian's talk page. Nja247 kept posting warnings, O Fenian kept removing which he is entitled to do, Toddst1 gives O Fenian a final warning for removing comments with a summary of "Revert. Harassment" and claims that O Fenian is making false accusations of harassment. Maybe O Fenian does feel harassed, O Fenian then calls Nja247 a power abuser, and Toddst1 blocks him for two weeks. He then adds back his warning that had been removed which he's not supposed to do and removes O Fenians comments, they are then added back by O Fenain and he removes the warning, Toddst1 disables O Fenian talk page editing. Domer48 then interjects and says that the block of O Fenian was bad, Toddst1 threatens Domer, Domer48 moves the conversation to O Fenian talk page to try and keep it in one place, Toddst1 blocks him for a month without warning. Nja247 then muddys the water on Domer's talk page with his past history which has no real relevance on whether a one month block is correct for what has happened which is, Domer questioning the actions of an admin, who responds by blocking Domer, Toddst1 reblocks Domer with talk page editing disabled. These two blocks are wrong. BigDunc 21:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that any interested admin check the actions in detail instead of relying on BigDunc's summary. It's mostly accurate, but there are nuances it misses. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nuances? So lets get it straight this is what it boils down too

• The initial two week block on O Fenian is way too excessive.
• The block on Domer 48 for questioning an admin's actions by the admin he was questioning was bang out of order, when he was trying to keep discussion in one place.
• The one month block on Domer is way too excessive.
• The re-blocking without talk page editing was done way too quickly. BigDunc 21:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to pretend to know the full story here, but I do not like people re-posting warnings on people's pages. It's kind of - well - harassing. You want someone to read a message - if they remove it - esp. in anger - it means they read it. Case closed. If this really went down the way it sounds - someone re-adding a warning over and over and over, then an admin blocking the recipient for removing it over and over and over because they call it - well - harassment - then the blocked guy's friend saying, "hey, what the hell did you block him for?!!", then the same admin blocking him as well ---- then I don't like it. Sounds like a bad cop drama. Admins are supposed to put fires out, not spray them with gasoline. Wknight94 ^talk 21:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, that's not what happened. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Let me clarify a couple of things here:

• I blocked OFenian for This comment after multiple warnings. 2 weeks is not excessive for an editor's 4th block. I stand by the block. The talk page editing was disabled after this edit restored the uncivil comments. I'm glad to stand by that.
• I blocked Domer for a variety of reasons, the biggest of which was placing my comments which were directed to him/her on someone else's talk page with my signature. It is the editor's 10th block. I considered bringing it here to discuss banning the problematic user. Toddst1 (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• You should have brought it here, blocking Domer only confirms to him that you are acting abusively. He claims you're abusive, and 20 minutes later you block him. An uninvolved party should have been asked to deal with this. Nev1 (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There was no abuse or bad cop drama here folks. Actually take time to read what happened and the extensive block logs please. There was no involvement in the typical sense of the word by Todd, and policy was being violated by those who are well aware of policy as they've been blocked for it multiple times. Good blocks and the actions are supported, and if they wish to appeal they can do so via email to ArbCom per policy guidelines. Nja²⁴⁷ 21:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow! The same justification as the recently retired DrKieran gave for blocking me! The "block record". Which is itself made up of a whole series of bad blocks! Now we have two Admins citing "block record" as reason for dishing out draconian blocks. Something needs to be done about this. I still have the last block on my "record" even though the Admin resigned because of it. Harrassing someone on their talkpage and then blocking them for removing the harrassment is just completely outrageous (whether by one Admin or two tag-team Admons) and frankly I don't think either Admin here have given any good reason why they should not have their powers removed. Sarah777 (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've read through Domer's posts (not Fenian's yet) and I disagree. The only objection Todd has raised is posting his message on O Fenian's page. It was an over-reaction to block for that. It wasn't unattributed, Domer wasn't posing as Todd and I think a block (especially such a ludicrously long one) was unjustified. Then you go and decide to poke Domer on his talk page while blocked. Nev1 (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Poke, you mean leave completely relevant comments for reviewing admins? Nja²⁴⁷ 21:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait, Todd, are you saying that quoting another user is now blockable? I wholeheartedly agree with O Fenian's block...but blocking someone for quoting you? Come on man...that's beyond lame. --Smashville^talk 21:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It was not indicated that I was being quoted. It was repurposing of my words out of context. Toddst1 (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly a quote: "This is harassment now on my talk page..." and it's right smack in the middle of a comment of his...plus, how is it out of context when it was a standalone comment by you? Then...once he's blocked, a message is posted to his page which he removes (and he is well within his rights to remove)...and he had his talkpage access removed? Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive...what action exactly was this preventing? --Smashville^talk 21:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (many times) I'm not as worried about the block for "stick your warning" as I am by the history prior to "stick your warning". Why did he get a warning in the first place? Why did he get a half-dozen warnings?! The warnings were for removing warnings it seems. And for calling the mass-warnings harassment, which is exactly what they become when reinstated a half dozen times. Hence my last sentence about putting out fires instead of spraying gasoline. And the long block log for O Fenian seems to be three short blocks for edit warring, not harassment and such. I don't like it. Wknight94 ^talk 21:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well unsure of what warnings you're talking about (and which user), but I never re-added anything to the user's talk page just for the sake of doing so -- all three notices were unique and polite and addressed different issues raised by the editor himself on the article's talk page. That's not harassment. I urge you to check each of the three removed edits and you will see each was completely unique and not re-added out of spite, etc. I don't work that way, I wanted to accommodate the user and sort it. Nja²⁴⁷ 22:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You filed a sock report on Domer not long before this all kicked off of course he will feel harrased, Domer has had 3 or 4 sock reports against him all proved his innocence and I would wager money that this one will too. BigDunc 22:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent unblock of O Fenian are there ant admins looking at IMO the worse block of Domer? BigDunc 21:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nja247 continues to poke Domer here BigDunc 22:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Noting relevant issues for reviewing admins is not poking. The user has a history of making ridiculous claims of admin abuse and it's something that needs reviewed. I suppose whilst it's already here it should be looked at. Nja²⁴⁷ 22:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the issue was posting Todd's comment rather than accusing him of abuse, it's not relevant and continuing to post is unambiguous trolling. Nev1 (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

On the available evidence neither block was warranted. (That may be a fault with the evidence, not the blocks.) For example Nja's justification of Domer's block refers to a single comment by Domer [81] citing a remark by an editor made elsewhere, relevant to that discussion. Other diffs cited by Nja are to his/her own comments, not to Domer's. At present the "gasoline" remark above seems apposite. Rd232 ^talk 22:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian unblocked without complete consensus

[82] - comments? Nja²⁴⁷ 21:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

His comments on the blocking admin's page say he's coming here next, so let's wait. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking me. This dispute stems from the Provisional Irish Republican Army article, which Nja247 initially protected for two weeks. However since protecting it this editor has involved themselves in the underlying dispute, then indefinitely protected the page subsequent to this. I made a protected edit request, which Nja247 personally disputed, despite my request being based on the fact that the book cited does not source the sentence that is in the article. No other editor was disputing whether the edit should be made or not at the time I made my request, or prior to Nja247 disputing whether the edit should be made, so he was involving himself in the dispute then subsequently indefinitely protected the page. There are also other comments made in support or objecting to a particular version, which can be seen on the talk page. This editor has very much involved themself in the dispute, yet still protected the page. They were aware they were involved in the dispute, as when a related page needed protecting a request was made here rather than protecting it themself, yet the indefinite protection occurred after this!

While some no doubt will view this next comment as a personal attack and probably reblock me I consider this relevant to the current chain of events. I find Nja247 smug, condescending and patronising. Due to this and his abusive actions as an administrator I wish to have nothing to do with him, and I am sick and tired of him posting on my talk page and I now consider it harassment, so if anyone can tell him to just leave me alone, and ideally leave the dispute over the article to someone else? To try and drum into him how I viewed his non-stop posting on my talk page I reverted it with a summary of "Revert. Harassment" in the hope he would then leave me alone. And that edit summary is worthy of a final warning is it? I do not think so, and neither do other people. So I removed it, admittedly with some colourful language, but nothing that in my opinion merited a two week block. O Fenian (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You use colourful language alot. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's bed time for me, however regarding the harassment by me today, see my comment here. As for the article dispute, just look over at the article's talk page and this users' consistent disregard for policy and aversion to any form of dispute resolution will become clear. Two other admins (Thatcher and TheDJ) and an experienced editor (Durova) have told him how to go about it (ie get consensus and seek mediation), but he doesn't listen. I've never edited the article, have remained completely neutral, and have only tried to encourage resolution per policy, and only become 'involved' due to a WP:AN3 report. Nja²⁴⁷ 22:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nja247 by arguing against an edit by someone involved in a dispute (except for policy based reason, such as OR, unsourced etc) you are involving yourself in the dispute, regardless of whether you have edited the article or not. BigDunc 22:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It is policy based, protection policy based. We do not edit the article to allow the party in dispute to put the article in their preferred state. They've been told this by me, two others admins and an experienced editor. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Protection policy specifically allows for reversion to a stable version if a contentious version has been protected, and as the addition is misleading and more importantly wrong and unsourced then it certainly is contentious. It's your, I'm not changing it attitude that has prolonged and inflamed the current dispute. BigDunc 12:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists. A quick look would have addressed that because we would have noticed that this issue involved this sentence here. Which was added by this POV edit warring IP, now know to be Cromwellian Conquest per this sock report a title supported in my opinion by both their edit warring [83] [84] [85] [86] edit summaries, talk page commentspersonal attacks and their sectarian rants in addition to their previous edit warring all being the same edit, [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97]. The problems had been pointed out [98] and discussion welcomed, with more detailed rationales also put forward [99] [100]. It was proposed and supported that the incorrect and misleading text be removed pending discussion [101] having outlined the problems above but this was repeatedly rejected by you. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked O Fenian

I regret to say that I considered the block to be profoundly unsound, so much so that I actioned an unblock before commenting either at the blocking admin's page or here. I am happy to place my reasons here, for review and revision (although, per WP:WHEEL, I would insist that there is consensus to either reblock for the violations or to reverse my actions as inappropriate - or both). My reasoning is;

• O Fenian is permitted to remove other peoples comments from his talkpage. Removing comments is an indication that they have been read.
• Persistently posting upon the same subject, and specifically the same aspect of the same subject, in short order - and when previous posts have been removed - is extremely poor practice, which may provoke an unfortunate response from the reader even where this is not the intention.
• The final warning issued by Toddst1 was therefore inappropriate - it is not the remit of an admin to determine any editors state of mind, and expecially to that contrary to to that expressed by the editor. If O Fenian was feeling harassed, or said he was, then per WP:AGF it should be assumed he was. In that O Fenian was providing a rationale which indicated his personal feelings for permissible removal of talkpage comments I cannot see how that it should be regarded as a personal attack. At most a level3 warning for incivility would suffice, but I would have regarded a personally worded level2 type to have been preferable.
• The block was inappropriately actioned, since the only edit by O Fenian subsequent to the warning

was to remove it, with colourful language directed at Toddst1. No further edits of those noted in the warning happened, except the above. However, Toddst1 blocked either on the basis of the one edit summary as noted in the warning or upon the reaction by O Fenian to the warning. Both rationales are wrong, since either there is no further transgression or it was directed at the admin who then blocked - and there is an acknowledged allowance to "letting of steam" immediately after a warning, etc., and an understanding that admins do not react to comments made by themselves. I have been looking at the PIRA/RFC edits by all concerned, and do not see anything that required more than a "pull it back a few notches" comments either there or on editor talkpages. I simply do not see that O Fenian did more than react less than perfectly at some ill considered postings on his talkpage, that the warning received was therefore excessive and the subsequent sanction was improper both in rationale and the person performing it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Could you now look at the block of Domer which came about when he questioned the bad block of O Fenian. BigDunc 22:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Regarding bullet two, you obviously jumped the drama gun and didn't read my comments. I won't repeat myself, so read this. As for discuss things with you first to avoid wheel warring, isn't that exactly what you did? Anyhow goodnight and get the facts straight mate first please in the future. Nja²⁴⁷ 22:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
    • isn't that exactly what you did? — Actually, no, it isn't. It's a disputed policy in practice, and people often make the argument that administrators should not unilaterally undo another administrator's actions that are the subject of on-going discussion without participating in that discussion beforehand, but the current formulation of the wheel warring policy is along the lines of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You block; another administrator undoes the block to restore the status quo ante; then you both discuss. It is exactly that that has occurred here in this case. Uncle G (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) @LHvU: Agreed. Pretty much 100%. I will acknowledge Nja's comment above that the same warning was not re-posted over and over, but as LHvU points out, there should be a common-sense limit to how many times one is contacted and/or chastised in a short time on their talk page by the same person for the same subject. Regardless, the block of O Fenian was not good and the unblock is good. I haven't even gotten to the other block yet... Wknight94 ^talk 22:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I suggest that you read the edits concerned carefully. What you will find is that far from this being Nja247 "chastising" O Fenian "for the same subject" the two editors were having a conversation, with one side of the conversation being Nja247 writing on User talk:O Fenian and the other side being O Fenian writing on Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army. This is a classic example of the disjointed conversations that happen on wikis. For your edification, here is the conversation made less disjoint:
    • 2009-08-19T16:54:03 O Fenian: "I find the summary above to be incorrect, and request that it be amended before anyone replies to this. […]"
    • 2009-08-19T17:05:46 Nja247: "I've put the user's comments in its own subsection, thus it's seen as their opinion. You should revise your comments to demonstrate your views on the situation, etc. See WP:RFC if needed. Cheers"
    • 2009-08-19T18:08:18 O Fenian:"This addition is just as misleading as the summary I have just complained about. […]"
    • 2009-08-19T18:13:39 Nja247:"The opinion given by Lot49a is just that. It's not a 'summary' as you put it. It's their opinion and if it's misleading that's really too bad. You're able to give your opinion of the situation as well. […]"
    • 2009-08-19T18:21:44 O Fenian:"If the "administrator" who abusively indefinitely protects this page is going to be allowed to present an inaccurate summary then blame it on someone else this is a waste of time."
    • 2009-08-19T18:25:14 Nja247:"If you wish to file a complaint against me then please see WP:ADMINABUSE. I've reworded everything as neutrally as possible and broke the sections up to accommodate your whinging. […]"
  • As you can see, this is not a repeated series of warnings. This is a conversation, with one participant addressing xyr interlocutor in the third person and on a different talk page. Nja247's contribution to that conversation started to go downhill at 2009-08-19T18:25:14, but that doesn't make it any less of a conversation. Uncle G (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• (ec)@Nja An editor is feeling harrassed by you (rightly or wrongly) yet you continue to add comments on to their page not very wise is it? BigDunc 22:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • O Fenian's "harrassment" edit post-dates the conversation that Nja247 and O Fenian had. There was no indication during that conversation, by O Fenian, that xe considered having it to be harrassment. Uncle G (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Firstly, I would comment that I had not realised it was a discussion - I did not pick up the thread although I had read all the comments. However, Wknight94 did not say "warnings" but rather the term "contacted and/or chastised" and referenced it being made in a short period. Notwithstanding that it was interaction, part of that interaction was O Fenian removing the content from the his talkpage. I am at a loss why firstly Nja247 was responding to article talkpage comments at the other editors talkpage, and secondly why they persisted in doing so upon earlier posts being removed. Had Nja247 reposted the comments at the article talkpage then there would have both been visible continuity, plus O Fenian would not have been able to remove the content. I have seen much that has puzzled me today, and I would be grateful if the parties could make things clearer to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the Pottery Barn rule applies here. It was pretty clearly a conversation when I read it. Toddst1 (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I posted on their talk page for the simple fact that's where it belonged. The disruption and sidetracking on dispute resolution did not belong on the article's talk page. Me telling them how to complain about me was more appropriate on their talk page. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

On their talk page over and over and over... He clearly didn't want you there as his reverts indicated. In case it wasn't clear enough, he cleared it up with this edit summary. The response was Toddst1 Twinkle-warning him for a personal attack - which seems odd to me. O Fenian lashed out at the ridiculous warning and then he was immediately blocked - for harassment?! And for two weeks no less! With the explanations above, I'm willing to put aside the issue of the repeated comments by Nja247 despite the repeated removals, and just focus on the last few actions. Since when is using the word "harassment" in a two word edit summary a "personal attack"? The "personal attack" warning seems ridiculous to me and the block was far too quick and too long. Then the talk page removal was too quick too. And then blocking Domer for similar outrage at the situation? For a month?! Ugh, the whole thing stinks. Wknight94 ^talk 11:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Domer48 also unblocked

Upon the basis that an involved admin actioned the sanction, Toddst1 was being questioned over their block of O Fenian I have also reverted the above block. Since I have already concluded that the initial block was improper I realise that my actions are not as neutral as I might wish them to be, but I am unable to reasonably undo one without being constrained to undo the other. I would, however, not consider it a violation of WP:WHEEL if another admin unilaterally reversed my unblock - although I would request that they place their rationale here for consideration and confirmation as I have. I will expand on what I see as a poor rationale for the block (and surprising poor one for the unblock decline, too) if asked, but would prefer other people to review the situation and come to their own conclusions and consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Concur with unblock. Would suggest to Domer48, however, that with a block record that long, stepping away from the keyboard might be a good alternative to lashing out at people, whatever the provocation might be. Black Kite 22:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

All I can say at the minute is thank you for that, if I say any more it will be too much. I’ll cool off first. I think this was bang out of order, but hey compared to this? Black Kite if I just just point out that this block is on my record now. The last one was for asking a question etc etc. But thanks for the advice. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Point of order: the last one was not for "asking a question". Move to strike. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

<redacted - I misunderstood> LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

For asking a question, that's your Diff on the block. No more posts for the night, cooling off period. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"The Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles." As I've said from day 1, that was the rationale for the block. Just because you said other things in that diff doesn't mean I used them to make my decision.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

For anyone not familiar with the history here, see GWH's detailed review of everyone's actions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

And for a detailed responce! Notice also the next sentence, which was left out above "Please provide a link?" You never did and never have. What was said about your actions in that?

"The block by SarekOfVulcan was problematic in duration, lack of warning, and conflict of interest, but not fundamentally flawed." "SarekOfVulcan bent admin policy here" "Archiving the talk page discussion was not a policy violation but was probably a mistake." "The second block on Domer48 bent Wikipedia:BLOCK#Conflicts_of_interest and Wikipedia:BLOCK#Duration_of_blocks." "The third block, restricting talk page editing, established that SarekOfVulcan is by now sufficiently involved and using questionable judgement that the voluntary admin powers restriction agreement Sarek announced above (not to use them against Domer48 again) is strongly recommended going forwards..."

Who was the first here to respond to this report? Who was canvassed by the Admin at the root of the problem? Who just happened to showed up on an article they never edited before after I had walked away from a dispute? On my detailed responce above, who was the first in to comment on it? The third Admin to be canvassed by the Admin at the root of this. It appears that certain Admin's seem to show up a lot around me, and have to mention them again in my responce. The block was over turned, and the report was rejected, but I really must be a bad fellow! --Domer48_'fenian' 09:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

One takeaway

Please, please, please if we can learn one thing from this: Admins should read and understand WP:UP#CMT. It's a bit of policy that is sound and well intentioned, but we still have too many people operating without understanding it. If someone removes a warning on their page, DONT replace it. No comment yet on the rest of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Protonk (talk • contribs) 23:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have read this discussion with growing disbelief. I believe there is clear evidence of abuse by both Admins involved. How much more of this must certain editors have to take? We need to clean out the stables here; I suggest both Nja247 and Toddst1 resign as Admins, or we should institute proceedings into their actions. Sarah777 (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

as for dealing with the admins involved, resigning is way too drastic. Every active admin makes mistakes. All that can be expected is to acknowledge them, and try to avoid them in the future. That's what we should want to see. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Per DGG. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite. There's no need at all to raise the temperature by suggesting the admins did anything but act in good faith based on the situation as they saw it. Rd232 ^talk 08:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that the latest vexatious report for a checkuser on Domer has been closed. How many times is that? Could we now block him because of his checkuser record as well as his block record? Sarah777 (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

@ Protonk: Again Protonk, it's been well established and accepted above that there was a conversation taking place, and I had not reposted any warnings. Each comment was unique and addressed a different concern raised by the editor. At no time had they said it was harassing until the final one when they did say that and I ceased. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

@ Sarah: Well if you've read the report and the clerk endorsement of that report you would have noted it was based on evidence that was available and was a possibility. I don't file frivolous SPI reports. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You described him as "the likely sockmaster" on another Admins page! Despite five earlier clearances by checkuser. And I sense no hint of reflection on the even-handedness of your actions. Though in the calmer light of the morning calling for you to resign was probably a bit severe - an apology (to the victims) might suffice; though I can't speak for them. Sarah777 (talk) 08:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, there was no evidence available, and therefore there was no possibility of the report being based on evidence. As you rightly point out, the accusation was made prior to the report and I rightly considered it harassment. What was the evidence? If this is not provided, it was just a fishing trip. Your post also highlights the fact that there was private corrispondence about me, which is also uncalled for. The only reason I can suggest is that having canvassed other Admin's [102] [103] offering accusations, and only being partially successful, they adopted a different approch. Having made these accusations about me, I note they did not get the same warning I got, even when I mentioned it. All I got was this another accusation, which I removed, for which I was blocked.--Domer48_'fenian' 08:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, the clerk made an honest mistake which I accept, therefore there is no clerk endorsement of that report. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

OK, so we seem to be reaching some consensus (possibly)

• both blocks undone and left undone
• Admins reminded of Wikipedia:User page#Removal of comments, warnings

If there are other issues or longer-term issues with the (un)blocked users, they should be addressed separately or elsewhere. If there is any serious suggestion (preferably by uninvolved editors!) that these incidents may have involved abuses by admins rather than mistakes (or perhaps mistakes so bad they require further examination, as opposed to run-of-the-mill "people make mistakes" mistakes), that should be addressed separately or elsewhere. So perhaps we can draw this incident to a close? Rd232 ^talk 14:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all concerned, it’s appreciated. One question though, is it possible to have the block removed from my log. Some have used it as an issue? I did ask the Blocking Admin, they declined with bad grace. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 15:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The answer I usually hear to that question is a simple "no". I think it would take involvement by developers and I don't know of any case where it ever actually happened. All the more reason admins need to be careful with their blocks. Wknight94 ^talk 15:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important though, it's happened often enough? --Domer48_'fenian' 16:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Please unblock this URL so I can create a new page

Resolved

 – Page was never protected; Buckheit was given instructions on how to proceed and has managed to create to article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Admin, I am trying to create a wiki page for a well-known tech company in New Jersey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical-Links I don't work for them, but I am associated with them for some communications related projects. I thought it would be cool to create a wiki info stub for the company, but unfortunately the page is blocked. Could you please unblock it? Thanks in advance. buckheit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckheit (talk • contribs) 21:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a matter for ANI. Take to Deletion Review. --Smashville^talk 21:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I have given you a nice welcome with a whole load of great links about editing/creating articles on Wikipedia. I don't think the article you noted is blocked, it's merely that you're too new to create an article. I believe that one of the links I gave you is for your sandbox. Feel free to create an article in your own sandbox space, make sure it's referenced with reliable sources, and that the company is indeed notable. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Or what the Canadian said...sorry, didn't realize 'twas a noob. --Smashville^talk 21:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's ok ... you admins have so much on your plate, you sometimes forget to check :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

??Since when are newly signed in accounts prohibited from creating articles? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

They aren't, nor were any of the plausible titles for this article ever protected. Buckheit seems to have merely been mistaken. In any case, Critical Links is up now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No edit summaries

Resolved

 – No admin action required. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

GAThrawnIGF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Thousands of edits since 2007, no edit summaries that I can see. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk to the user. This isn't an issue that admin tools are needed for. lifebaka++ 21:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Editors are not required to use edit summaries, though they are advised to. I don't think this is an issue for the administrators to look, so I urge them not to look at it. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

All collegial editors use edit summaries :-) I have dropped them a friendly note. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

While most (virtually all?) of us prefer that edit summaries be used, there are no policies or guidelines requiring their use. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Loop created for Louise-Marie of Orléans: totall mess

Help. Me and others have created a loop in directs and redirects that makes moving to a correct name impossible. The name should be Louise-Marie of Orléans, as is also stated in the genealogy of the Belgian Royals themselves: http://www.monarchie.be/en/monarchy/genealogy/index.html For further references: The title in the Dutch Wikipedia: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise-Marie_van_Orl%C3%A9ans_%281812-1850%29 The title in the French Wikipedia: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise-Marie_d%27Orl%C3%A9ans As translation: van=d'=of and may be translated

I could only make Louise-Marie de Orléans. Try Louise-Marie of Orléans or even Louise-Marie d'Orléans and you get redirects, and I cannot change of remove those pages. Furthermore there is a wrongQueen Louise-Marie d'Orléans. A very good redirect page Louise-Marie, but here she is only mentioned as Louise-Marie of France (1812-1850), French princess. There is also a redirect Marie-Louise of France that is unnecessary, and can be removed.

For short: it is a mess. And a good administrator is needed to change it to the correct namen/ sort it out/ stop the loop. --Eezie (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Louise-Marie is a disambiguation page, and it's fine (I did correct de Orléans' name there, though). I think I've sorted all of them to point at the right places, but I'm unsure if the proper title should be at "d'Orléans" or "de Orléans"... Let me know if I got it wrong, and I'll fix it presently. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I thought he said correct name was Louise-Marie of Orléans so that's what I just did. Sorry if I just compounded the problem. Hopefully not. Wknight94 ^talk 21:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In English, that name would be correct. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's Fault but Mine‎ and talk pages

Resolved

An anonymous user continues to make uncommented changes of both the article and talk page. I have attempted to leave comments, but the editor's IP address keeps changing. The talk page vandalism consists of removing discussions aimed at getting the editor to explain the changes that were made. The page was locked down for a week about a week ago, but when that ban was lifted, the editor went back to hacking the article. The talk page hacking never stopped. This is far beyond the three revert rule as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

King of Hearts has semi-protected both the article & talk page for 1 week. In the future, please use WP:RPP for this type of issue. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Ripper404

Resolved

Ripper404 (talk · contribs) has been warned several times about BLP violations, and was, in fact, blocked in February for repeated BLP violations. Today I was looking at edits he had made to Mark Wahlberg, an article he's edited in the past, and found a violation again. I warned him on his Talk page that he should stop the practice, since he's been blocked for it before, and This was his reply. I had not planned on taking any further action unless he continued the behavior after my warning, but his reply shows he has no interest in playing nice. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• 3 day holiday. Black Kite 22:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism on LGBT parenting article

There has been an issue on the LGBT parenting article with User:Destinero adding plagiarized text. The LGBT parenting talk page details the most recent incident (see section called Plagiarism Again) which led to a shutdown of the article and a 2nd warning being issued to Destinero. You can find information concerning the first warning here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive104#User:Destinero_reported_by_User:Tobit2_.28Result:_No_action.29 and both warnings on Destinero's Talk Page under the sections "editing warring on LGBT parenting" and "Please read this discussion and result carefully."

Fast foward to today. Recently, after the last incident calmed down, I attempted to repair the plagiarized text. Nevertheless, today, Destinero added it back, reverting the edit. Here is the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_parenting&diff=308757410&oldid=308209508

The plagiarized phrase in question is, "...documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment," giving us 21 words lifted verbatim from a source. Additionally, the article provides four sources for this statement although it has been lifted from one. The last admin to help out was Virtual Steve. Thank you.Tobit2 (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Why are you posting this again? HalfShadow 00:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Because there was no response previously. The policy guide on plagiarism indicates incidents should be posted here when editors refuse to comply with the policy.Tobit2 (talk) 03:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Note I am in the process of trying to work this matter out again - seeing if Destinero is willing at all to talk the matter through with other editors. I will post here again in the next day or two once we establish their position.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 06:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

User:LibStar

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#User:LibStar Ikip (talk)

User:TAz69x

This user continues to vandalize the fentanyl article by replacing information with unsupported material, and figures that are absolutely ridiculous. I attempted to inform this user in the article history, as well as this user's talk page to cease with the vandalizing, or else he/she would be reported. No Avail. This user ignores warnings, (I see he/she was already reported earlier for deleting information) and continues to vandalize the page. This user does NOT provide any impeccable references to support his/her claims. Please deal with this accordingly. Thank you. --Mishi4 (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

He's making drug information claims citing a specific source that has other numbers in them (the source contains the values he's replacing, not the ones he's replacing them with...). This could be citing the wrong source mistakenly and somewhat stubbornly - or it could be intentional vandalism.

I am not assuming bad faith but I have full protected the article for 24 hrs and asked him to clarify what source he's getting the 0.83 mg and 80 times relative efficiency number from. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

BLP, User:Intelligentsium

Unresolved

 – We've only got limited patience. Blocked. Socks cropping up now.

User:Intelligentsium This user frequently nominates articles for speedy deletion without any sort of consensus and does not assume good faith while working with other editors. I propose this user be blocked of their unwanted attitude. This user has also vandalized userpages. They violate WP:BLP all the time. --Mjp2515 (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not generally needed for CSD nominations. It would be wise to read up on the speedy deletion policy, if you haven't already. And, it would be helpful if you provided diffs of the edits in question. Until It Sleeps ^alternate 01:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) All I see are articles that you continue to recreate, at least one of which Intelligentsium nominated for WP:CSD#A7 and was then correctly deleted. Where am I going wrong, here? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 01:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I object to this unfounded accusation. The phrase "This user frequently nominates articles for speedy deletion without any sort of consensus..." indicates Mjp2515 does not understand Wikipedia policy - speedy deletion is there to bypass consensus. The statement "...does not assume good faith while working with other editors." is also untrue. My contributions speak for themselves in this respect. And when have I ever vandalized a userpage (Excluding my own)? Intelligentsium 01:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you created an article (twice), the total content of which was "Jai (Born August 4, 1993) who performs under the stage name"MR. MJP" commonly refered to as "MJP," is an Australian rapper from Wollongong, New South Wales". You "sourced" it with a ref that claimed to be from the Illiwara Mercury, but was actually that person's MySpace page. Unsurprisingly, it got deleted via WP:CSD#A7. And I've just deleted it again. If you're going to create an article about this person and it not be speedy deleted, it needs to establish the significance or importance of the person, preferably with reliable sources (i.e. not their own MySpace). Black Kite 01:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. He's tried creating it seven times. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 01:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: By "This user has also vandalized userpages.", Mjp2515 may refer to my posting of an autobiography warning on his user talk page. It was an honest mistake, and when he clarified on my talk page, I obliged him in removing the warning. Intelligentsium 01:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Mjp2515, please stop recreating that article, whether under the same name, or a different one. I have tagged it for CSD A7, and if you recreate it again, I will warn you only once. Until It Sleeps ^alternate 01:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have userfied it for him and left him a note. If it appears again though... Black Kite 02:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Look at the users recent contributions. You will see what they have done. The behavior is filthy and mud-blood. The wizarding community does not accept reliability of your ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjp2515 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

--Mjp2515 (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for that, now read the note I left on your talkpage, please, and decide if you're going to stick to the rules or not. Black Kite 02:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

BK, you're too nice. The only reason I haven't blocked him already is because of your first note on his talk page. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 02:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

He has again created the article... Until It Sleeps ^alternate 02:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

And Jauerback's blocked him indef. Definitely resolved now! Black Kite 02:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

He is now block-evading. User_talk:Mjp.09 has recreated Mjp. Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 12:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, I've filed an SPI report here. Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 12:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Maybe not.......Mjp2515 created Mjp and it was speedied a few weeks ago, but User:Mjp.09 appeared and recreated it about three hours ago. Do I detect a sockenpuppe.....?Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Mjp.09 indef blocked by Luk. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Anontalk spam again

Anontalk spam is back again, and it appears it's filter has been disabled too. Figured I give others a heads up about it. Momo san ^Gespräch 02:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Abuse filter #7 should be keeping track of it. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it set to disallow?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Serpentdove

Serpentdove (talk · contribs)

I am posting here to ask for an admin to review the edits of this user. They frequently engage in personal attacks and direct vitriol against other editors, despite being spoken to politely and civilly. They have also made frequent comments about libel and other editors being "libelers", and accuse them of harrasment. I've asked them to calm down and respect our policy, but my edits were simply removed. See this thread and the those below for some evidence of problematic behaviour: User_talk:Serpentdove#Proposed Deletion of Meco's Narcissism. Further diffs can be presented if required, but this seems enough for some educational action to be taken. Verbal chat 08:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I can unequivocally second Verbal's statements. This user has been met with polite and helpful comments from experienced editors but is somehow of the mindset that any comment is an evil attack on freedom and truth and responds with ranting and vitriol. I was myself apprehensive about filing for a review of their behaviour since it is so obviously disturbed and over-the-top, but now that Verbal has decided to do so I present my perspectives to assist in the evaluation of this. __meco (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I even initially questioned a speedy-tag by meco, replacing it by POV-check+wikify-tags. there was every attempt on my side to assume good faith and trying to give the author of mentioned article a chance to tweak it and remove the POV-tone. these actions were met with the same hostility. After a while, I gave up and re-instated meco's judgement (>"speedy").

I gave the author 2x uw-attack which s/he subsequently removed from his/her talkpage. rationale for uw-attack warnings based on these remarks:

Edit comment: "removed stupid claims, how can it be not neutral if I've fought to show he's "noteworthy"? dumb"'

On my talkpage: "libeler" [104]

On article's talkpage: "Noteworthiness is not by consensus you wannabe geniuses and word-misdefiners (...) you're whining your unnoteworthy jealous opinions" Seb az86556 (talk) 09:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(Actually, I had originally PROD'ed the article, but as the situation now stands I don't care whether the PROD is reinstated or the speedy tag remains. __meco (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

(Just saw that. Yes, my bad, wasn't sure which one it was Seb az86556 (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

I am posting here to respond to Verbal's subversive hypocrisy and taking me out of context in order to make me look like an unfriendly hypocritical fundamentalist Christian. He posts welcome notices when he disagreed with my edits AFTER I stated I was a Christian and long after my numerous edits which weren't noticeably related to religious matters till AFTER I started editing the Christianity page I find his magically religious-edit timed "welcomes" to be a form of harassment and which annoys me, and which is in violation of Federal Internal Laws concerning Internet harassment. I am also bringing to notice user meco's edit warring via user Seb az86556 and possibly user RadioFan. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring

Users meco and Seb az86556 are engaged in an apparent subversive edit war against me because I am a Christian and Verbal is aiding them with this complaint. Notice:

• 08:41, 20 August 2009 Seb az86556 (talk | contribs) (5,238 bytes) (author not allowed to remove tag per policy) (undo)
• 08:17, 20 August 2009 Seb az86556 (talk | contribs) (4,894 bytes) (fine, have it your way) (undo)
• 08:15, 20 August 2009 Serpentdove (talk | contribs) m (4,879 bytes) (you're being a pest) (undo)
• 08:14, 20 August 2009 Seb az86556 (talk | contribs) (4,897 bytes) (Undid revision 309029142 by Serpentdove (talk)no, do not mss w/ me, this is a goodfaith attempt)
• 08:12, 20 August 2009 Serpentdove (talk | contribs) (4,867 bytes) (removed stupid claims, how can it be not neutral if I've fought to show he's "noteworthy"? dumb)
• 08:05, 20 August 2009 Serpentdove (talk | contribs) (4,719 bytes) (→The Public's Acceptance of LaViolette's Theories: made explanation more understandable)
• 08:02, 20 August 2009 Serpentdove (talk | contribs) (4,697 bytes) (removed the absurd false contesting that Paul is not noteworthy)
• 07:58, 20 August 2009 Serpentdove (talk | contribs) (4,998 bytes) (added clear evidence that Paul LaViolette is more than noteworthy)
• 14:32, 19 August 2009 Meco (talk | contribs) (4,172 bytes) (Proposed deletion. We require some better publicity (i.e. in reliable sources than what this article is now supported with.)

Notice "meco" says "We"? Sock puppetry anyone? I showed noteworthiness of Paul and was allowed to remove the non-noteworthy template and no one contested my arguments on his talk page, yet then seb pops up to re-add another speedy deletion template and refuses to make any explanations as to why.

Notice my profile states that I am a Christian? I have been to the page of a repeat page vandal whom meco and others ignore and merely repeatedly warn. Yet when I, a Christian make comments no worse than one's like Sebs' "don't mss with me" and "fine, have it your way" I'm reported? They users are clearly biased and engaged in committing a hate crime against me using subversive means. As you know, bullying can be subtle, as can harassment. That I "punch" back when bullied should not be the issue, but the subversive harassment. These people are feigning deep offense to make their case and to misdirect you from the issue of their edit warring and not bothering to discuss what they are so concerned about. One must wonder why it was only AFTER I stated that I was a Christian that I was given Verbal's LATE welcomes and TWICE. Verbal's evidence is weak and petty and his lack of showing anything but a pathetic reference shows his lack of genuine concern for the truth and genuine morality. I hope you can see through the pretense of hypocrisy of this bully "We" gang.Serpentdove (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just joined the two threads together. The above is typical of this users interactions. Note to Serpent Dove, I'm not a US citizen. Also, I'm glad meco and I agree on something :) Verbal chat 09:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait. You're going on about sockpuppetry and conspiracy simply because of the use of the editorial we? It seems to me that meco was simply referring to the policies of Wikipedia that require establishment of notability using reliable sources ("we" meaning Wikipedians in general). I don't know (and I don't care) what other conflicts you have with meco (or anyone else, for that matter), but you're making a mountain out of a molehill by taking offense at a harmless pronoun. --clpo13_(talk) 10:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course I used the "we" meaning the Wikipedia community. I could have clarified this to Serpentdove at some point since this has become a recurring complaint, however, the sheer uncivility of the user's posts has made me decide simply to let the user crash and burn at their own behest. __meco (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Verbals confused state of mind

In what place did I say a single thing about you not being a US citizen? Clearly your logic is in question with random statements like that that have nothing to do with my oh so horrible mind-destroying politeness Mr. Concerned Verbal. If you are seriously this mentally weak, get out of Wikipedia and go back to your crib. And wow, you're happy that you agree with meco about something? Verbal, you're deliberately being annoying, that is harassment let alone Internet harassment. Grow up and get the chip off your shoulder. Stop trying to force everyone to love and appreciate whatever it is you do. Read Wikipedia's rules again and stop arbitrarily applying them whenever it suits your feelings. And STOP TAKING ME OUT OF CONTEXT. Don't libel me again.Serpentdove (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You might want to strike the personal attacks. You might want to strike the potential legal threat about "libel" above ... seriously. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

SD now appears to be disrupting the Edit warring noticeboard, and further evidence of problems diff (secure). Note that meco and I have nearly always disagreed in the past, that my religious POV is unlikely to be a factor here, and that I immediately apologised for reposting the welcome material, but did point out several useful links to policies. And it's Dr Concerned Verbal :). The US remark was about SDs reference to US laws. I initially thought this user was just going about things the wrong way and needed some pointers, but that hasn't helped I'm afraid. Verbal chat 09:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Would removing everything from Paul LaViolette article that doesn't comply with WP:V (which is just about everything as far as I can tell) help reduce the drama in the meantime pending it's almost inevitable deletion ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Editorial comment, etc.

For a guy who claims to be Christian, this Serpentdove doesn't act much like one. I have to assume the "I heart God" kinds of editorial comments on his user page are intended only to generate controversy and disruption. Looks like it's working, so far. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and in case it matters, he apparently evaded his block by using an IP address 75.172.195.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to make a minor correction.[105] Go figure. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Matthew 5:5. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently when God was handing out "meek", this snakebird was out to lunch. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

And did you notice his comment "God you guys are stupid and arbitrary. God you are humorless." Christians don't talk like that. That's a violation of the Ten Commandments. Onward Christian Troll-diers! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Extend the block

Take a look at his latest edit [106]. Again accuses Verbal of libel, of having a criminal mind, excusing rape, etc. Pretty vicious. Dougweller (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Socking and continuing to abuse other editors. I seldom agree with Baseball Bugs, but this guy looks like the leading light of Trolls for Jesus. Second the call for a longer block. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then. :)

"Trolls for Jesus". Perfect. I think it's clear he's not here to help build an encyclopedia and he should be chilled permanently. P.S. I removed my challenging comments from his talk page, since he was ignoring them anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm in agreement here. Having been following this since the initial edits, and in light of the user page and talk comments, I'm inclined to think that this is nothing more than a trolling account. Every action seems to be performed in order to incite further argument. --Cpl Syx (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to take away his right to edit his talk page. Oh, and don't forget to (short-term) block the IP address. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any good in extending the block for a definite duration. The talk page definitely needs to be locked down for a few hours. If there continue to be problems, simply block indefinitely. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I'd already blocked him indef. I think a quick read of the talkpage will convince anyone that the editor is not here for any useful purpose. No objection to anyone reversing the block length if they really think there's any point, though. Black Kite 13:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to tell that 75.172.195.7 is not serpent dove (I checked due to the concerns of socking). -- Luk ^talk 13:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how you could confirm that, but I blocked it short-term anyway. Since that was its only edit, it's hardly likely to cause any collateral damage. Black Kite 13:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hard to figure why that IP would come out of nowhere and make a cosmetic correction to an obscure item in an administrative page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I found the diff from Doug to be very funny, although I find it embarrassing when other (ahem) 'Christians' behave in this manner. He certainly blasphemes a lot (I'll avoid a slur against some denominations here)! I support the longer block, aware of the possibility of socking - though it should be easy to spot unless he behaves, but then there's no problem. I don't know why I got him so worked up, as I was uninvolved apart from filing this report. I agree that this was probably never a genuine account, and was probably here intending to make trouble like his. Shame, although amusing. Verbal chat 13:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm still cracking up over "Trolls for Jesus". Quite possibly the best thing I've read on WP this year. --Smashville^talk 14:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Jdisson

Resolved

 – Blocked indef.

Jdisson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I think we may be wasting our time on this one.  Skomorokh  11:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Aye. 3 months to think about his last block, and comes back and starts the same thing. No, I think not. Black Kite 11:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

A B C D E F G H I got a problem in Kalamazoo

Just as in this earlier ANI report, we've got an IP editor (69.209.113.108 (talk · contribs)) removing mentions of awards from the lede of articles without ensuring that the awards are mentioned in the body of the article. As in the first case, editors have attempted to discuss the situation with the IP on their talk page, to no apparent response. Both IPs are from the same ISP and location. Can someone get their attention? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Its not a clear cut case, unfortunately. I checked a few of their most recent edits (they stopped around 02:00, so nothing pressing ATM) and 3/4 had the information on the award included elsewhere. I fixed the one case where it wasn't...but someone has to go into probably each case and check for the award. That, or mass revert and make sure the IP understands what is needed if they reinstate. Syrthiss (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Concur that this user is problematic. User is taking WP:PEA as gospel, and removing words without any attempt to rephrase or to make sure the sense of the article is kept. Not sure that it rises to the level of blockability, but this user accused me of WP:OWN just because I disagreed and reverted. Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Aviation fellow 101

Resolved

This user is on a one sentence article creation spree. He has been warned or approached by a few people letting him know that he needs to expand but thus far only ignoring our requests. We need someone who can get through to him either through talking (which isn't working now) or a 24 hour block.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

User notified.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

User indefblocked by Wknight94, user log. Momo san ^Gespräch 13:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)...if only for the breakneck speed! If someone wants to counsel him a bit and he agrees to discuss, anyone is free to unblock. Wknight94 ^talk 13:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If I can, I'll talk with the editor and see if he's willing to change his article-creation habits and be unblocked. Thus far he has yet to respond to any talk page messages, though. JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 13:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be great. Now that we have stopped the river. The message might make it through now, Good luck!Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

He sent me an e-mail, FWIW, asking to be unblocked because he has a lot of airport info. Hopefully he'll figure out where his talk page is soon. Wknight94 ^talk 13:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I see they've all been speedied. I'd disagree, because they have context, and the coordinate info is meaningful content. It's possible that they're not notable, but it would seem like airports with ICAO designations would be notable by default. Thoughts? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Not convincedm although I take your point about the coordinates being context. I think they exist all right, but would they be notable......? Not convinced Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

We couldn't get him to explain any of it, that was our problem.2 people tried to talk to him and no replies.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

TAG is a great source of basic info on airports. Luepo, for instance, is not an AOE (airport of entry, ie it's not cleared for passenger travel or freight), has only one runway, is in private hands, and has less than the minimum facilities required for the lowest grade of commercial airport. The only thing it seems to have going for it is that the runway is tarmac, not dirt.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I fail to see how this situation is different from the previous ones we had at this noticeboard. Y'know, those about a user creating countless one-sentence stubs. [107][108] In those cases, nothing happened, in this case, the user got blocked. I'm confused. --Conti|✉ 14:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Then you failed to properly research the situation. Here, we have an editor whose first edits were creating stubs, and made no attempts (except that email referenced above) to communicate about them. The other two editors you linked to have been around for years, have long track records of positive contributions, and discussed their edits with people who were concerned. 68.231.16.173 (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say because a German politician stub is more likely to be a notable personage because of being a politician, whereas an airport location and 'So and so is an airport' isn't necessarily notable. Syrthiss (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Creating stub articles isn't a problem. Saying "So and So is an Airport" is when contacted for verification hoow or if the business was notable all requsts were ignored. This block isn't punitive just preventing any damage to the project. Also it would be lifted as stated above when he decides to have discussion with us.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If people decide that the stubs were okay, feel free to restore. I simply blocked to get his attention and, sure enough, he sent me an e-mail saying he didn't know where his talk page was, etc. He finally dropped a note there and hopefully some dialogue will ensue. Anyone can unblock if the situation looks better, and anyone can restore the articles if they seem salvageable. Wknight94 ^talk 14:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for an ublock now that he is having a dialogue with us. he was acting in Good faith according to his message he's just an airport enthusiast. We left a few links and that should help out!Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, already done. Wknight94 ^talk 14:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

How about starting some notability and stub discussion at WT:AV perhaps? Let our new friend know where that discussion is happening so he can get on board quickly. Wknight94 ^talk 14:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. [[109]]Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Persisting addition of copyrighted material to Spyros Vassiliou

Ezteban100 (talk · contribs) is currently ignoring all warnings against copy / pasting materials from this source to Wikipedia, in direct violation of WP:C. MLauba (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ezteban100 hasn't re-added the material (or made any other edit) since the final warning was issues about 45 mins ago. As such, there is nothing actionable (yet), IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Why would discussing NPOV on a discussion page[110] be ever considered Vandalism? Although I'm directly responding to a discussion in which the Editor argues AGAINST the inclusion of a link to the ENTIRE report at the center of the persons notability - there exists a group of three editors who work together and focus their efforts on these types of articles that seem to exist as political pawns. One author has enshrined a portrait of Obama center mass on his talk page and proudly boasts of his dedication to the Democratic Party[111], another carries a number of bumper stickers on his home page[112]:

This user knows that FOX News is not Fair or Balanced. This user watches MSNBC. This user is a liberal and doesn't understand why Americans have demonised the word. This user wants to TAX THE RICH to provide health care, education and welfare for everyone. This user supports immigration and the right to travel freely upon the planet we share. This user supports the legalization of all drugs for adults. This user's safety and liberty are threatened by all firearms. This user is sick and tired of Religion trying to hijack the government and wants stronger separation of church and state. This user voted for hope and change, not country first.

All edit primarily in articles like Acorn[113], et al, and are present on most of the political battlegrounds fighting for the left.

Any discussion or edit in the Susan Roesgen article at all seems to be responded to like Al Gore before the Supreme Court with everyone wearing an Elect Bush button on their robe - in reverse.99.144.250.128 (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion page comment you made seems almost like a personal attack to me. They are not allowed, but civil discussion is. Try to be kind to people, even if they seem like idiots. Also, we can't judge people here by their political views, but neither should people let them affect their judgment when editing. Kotiwalo (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

IP99, that was some good general advice from Kotiwalo; the tone of your comments could probably have been less confrontational. However, reviewing admins should note that IP99 does seem to have a legitimate point: this deletion of talkpage discussion by User:Gamaliel, and the accompanying Edit Summary are mistaken, misleading, and somewhat offensive (to the other participants). With no comment on the deeper issue, it seems appropriate to give both editors a brief chat and links to appropriate policy on behaviour. Doc Tropics 16:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Democratic Underground

There's an edit war going on here with multiple issues. Not sure what the best action is, but it likely needs admin attention. There's edit warring in process between Heresmyname (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Heresyourname (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Both accounts have only contributed to this page. So we have spa's with similar user names EW'ing against each other.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing a link to "A website devoted to mocking the members of the democratic underground where they are referred to as primitives". It fails WP:EL as it is not relevant to the subject of the article and intended mainly to promote a website. Heresyourname (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)