Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Snakefan55

• Snakefan55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Eastern brown snake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user has been nothing but disruptive, and clearly shows no intent to stop. The user has been doing lots of edit warring on snake topics like Eastern brown snake and doesn't show any intent to compromise or reach WP:CONSENSUS.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

While his edit warring is not wanted, yes, I must question the people reverting him when the changes he is making are correct. For example, on Eastern brown snake, he was changing it to say that the LD50 test is done on mice and not just on animals in general. Saying mice specifically is important, because it defines the specifics of the test and also the downfalls. "Animals" could mean anything. See this for one, though there's many other sources for the statement from a search. Silverseren^C 05:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

He inserts them without complying to MOS, and doesn't put his sources into the article, and insists on edit warring and other disruptive editing.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What exactly violated MOS in changing animals to mice? And do any of you guys that are reverting him actually check for the accuracy of the information before reverting his edits? If it's MOS problems, then explain those to him and fix the MOS issues, but I think I would also get extremely frustrated if I was adding in obviously proper information and was getting reverted for it. Especially since, from what I can tell, the source that was already there in the first place specified mice and not animals as it was, so the information in the article was already incorrect as it was. Silverseren^C 02:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not fully involved in this dispute. I commented on this, trying to settle it as a neutral 3rd party. If you'd like to know what the problems are, contact Materialscientist or another involved editor besides the user in question. I was just trying to make this user stop the edit warring, though I like the fact that Snakefan55 has stopped personal attacks.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Another thing to note: you must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion here (that's what the big orange notice on the edit page tells you). I have done this for you here; please remember to do so for any other threads you start here in the future. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Umm, Joe - please take a second look at Snakefan's talk page., JD did notify [1] him of this discussion.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 06:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that and you prevented my posting of that (see below) with an edit conflict. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It's really hard to avoid ec's on this page as it is quite active. :)   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 06:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Very true. Not a problem, though. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah, I just noticed that you actually did, though you did not sign your notification or make it really all that visible. It's best to place it in a new section, and always sign your comments using four tildes ~~~~ so the casual viewer will know who made the comment, and when. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I offered to debate people on numerous occasions... I have evidence that supports my claims..Jasper don has no idea what he is talking about and quite frankly he is a terrible moderator( or whatever he is). The only point I am trying to make is that the title of most venomous etc is extremely misleading as the tests are only conducted on mice...and ALL animals react differently to different venom's... Their is NO such thing as "the most venomous snake" or "2nd most venomous snake"...only the most venomous or 2nd most venomous to a particular animal.. Since we have never tested snake venoms on humans( or closely related primates) their is absolutely no proof that any snake is the most venomous to humans. So the title is extremely misleading.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakefan55 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It is no excuse for edit warring.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something but why exactly are you offering to debate people? This is the English wikipedia not some debate forum. Also note that Jasper Deng is not a moderator. There is no such thing on wikipedia. He? is just another editor like you. Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What he means is that other editors have refused to discuss his idea. Materialscientist (who I have notified already) supports this user's actual idea, but, refused to discuss it on his talk page, which led to this user complaining that no-one wants his idea accepted. If he had done it according to WP:MOS and WP:CONSENSUS, then his idea would surely be accepted. However, he outright edit wars a lot, and that comment (in the diff I provided in the original post) was the one that prompted this thread.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• @Jasper Deng: Bringing Snakefan55 to ANI and proclaiming "edit war" is a grave overreaction. Snakefan55 has a total of 41 edits, with the first being under four weeks ago. What is needed is someone sufficiently patient and with an adequate grasp of procedures to explain how things are done here. It looks like Snakefan55 could be a very helpful editor, but that's not going to happen with the current approach from onlookers. Johnuniq (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The comment worries me. The edit warring accusation was a result of his reverts on Eastern brown snake. However, I think if he learns not to edit war, he will be a perfect editor here, and may revolutionize our articles here. I'm not trying to get him blocked - that's too harsh.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree with the validity of his information for sure, but, it may be just time to give him a welcome template (even if he has one already).Jasper Deng (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

      A recent and long discussion at ANI (see archive 688) concluded that mentorship for Jasper Deng should be strongly encouraged. I suggest that you take more time to read my above comment, and not be so fast to reject my assertion that 'proclaiming "edit war" is a grave overreaction'. You have just repeated your mistaken opinion about edit warring, and I suggest that you seek the advice of a mentor before making any further comments here (yes, when an editor repeats an edit, that is edit warring, but when a new editor does a very small amount of it, it's a misunderstanding which needs to be explained, and does not need airing on a busy noticeboard).

      I have refactored User talk:Snakefan55 to remove the unhelpful templating, and have tried to offer some advice. Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

      • For me, it was that comment, but, now I know that this is an ANI issue only if the user was a regular (i.e. not new and has a thorough understanding of 3RR). Continue elsewhere.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request

At User talk:Vugar 1981, has been waiting for two days now and the editor seems to be getting a little impatient - anyone able to help? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Note the block occured because the user showed up 4 months from absence [2] to simply make reverts on Azerbaijani people (check history) without any discussion to the version by Ebrahimi-amir (talk · contribs). He appears after 4 months absent after the day a call went out for meatpuppeting in the Azerbaijan wikipedia: [3] by Ebrahimi-amir (talk · contribs) (an SPA account which simply added unreliable numbers to demographics which he claims to belong to in the talkpage) for blind reverts on the particular article Azerbaijani people. Both users failed to discuss any of their edits (where a discussion was opened on the talkpage about the random authorless self-published websites) and the reliability of their sources (which they actually manipulated by attributing false numbers to it). Given that there have been two Azeri-Armenian arbcomms in the area, I think admin took the correct action. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee, you're an administrator. What prevents you from reviewing the request? On the merits, I believe that the editor should explain why he suddenly made these unexplained reverts before we decide to believe his claim that he is not a meatpuppet.  Sandstein  18:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been an admin long and I don't feel experienced enough to deal with this one - I'm really just observing unblock requests as an educational exercise. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ditto here. My work is mostly in "deletion" and I have little experience playing "wikicop" so I'll just give my opinion. A true "meatpuppet" is someone who creates an account for the sole purpose of participating in an edit war, AFD discussion etc and has no editing history prior to that. The user in question here has previous edits. I didn't examine them in detail but most of them look gnomish. It's possible that his only mistake was answering a "call for help" at the Azerbaijan Wikipedia and he might not have even realized he was doing anything wrong. (I'm not sure how close the rules about canvassing/EW/3RR etc. over there match the ones here) He received no warnings about his reverts, as a matter of fact his talk page wasn't even created until he requested an unblock. Unless someone provides evedence that he's a problem editor on his home wiki, I would support an unblock or a shortening of his block duration here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

sulutil:Vugar 1981 rather makes the meatpuppet claim questionable. T. Canens (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Declined. See my reasoning there. T. Canens (talk) 05:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Jim Hawkins

For the record; just three minutes after this personal attack was posted on Talk:Jim Hawkins, from a BBC IP address, BBC presenter Jim Hawkins said on Twitter "I must not tease the Wikipedians. It's not their fault". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's probably down to you insisting against the advice of WP:DOB for many months that we must include his d.o.b. You should drop the stick and stop antagonising the subject of an article. Fences&Windows 02:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"Grow up and get a life, Mabbett" is not much of an insult anyway, certainly not without the smell of elderberries. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, Jim Hawkins does not want an article to exist at all. The article has been to AfD twice and consensus is that he is notable enough to justify an article on Wikipedia - basically, it's a control issue. Jim Hawkins has a Wikipedia account (Jimhawkins64 (talk · contribs)) so the use of the BBC IP to post an insult may be straying into sockpuppet territory. Personal attacks on Wikipedia are not acceptable per WP:CIVIL, although this is at the lower end of the scale. Off-Wiki attacks are not acceptable either, but these need to be addressed off-Wiki. In response to Fences and Windows, Andy Mabbet has not edited the article since December 2010, and that was only to update Hawkins' Twitter address. Consensus is that his Twitter posts are not to be used to reference his birthday, and that consensus has been accepted by those editors who disagree with it (including myself). Mjroots (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"Can we now drop the pretence that his birthday isn't known publicly, known at his instigation and discussed by him? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 7:29 pm, 19 March 2011, Saturday (1 month, 1 day ago) (UTC+0)". That post on the talk page was what prompted Hawkins' reaction. So he hasn't let it go. I get the impression that Andy is enjoying sparring with Hawkins too much and should leave that BLP well alone. Fences&Windows 19:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of issues on the talk page is what the talk page is for. The question was asked, and it remained unanswered for a month. The information was not added to the article (which would be "not letting it go") against the prevailing consensus that a WP:RS must be provided for this, which a Twitter post is not. I am aware that Andy also has a Twitter account. Should it be found that he has been taunting JH via Twitter re the Wikipedia article, then I would not look upon it favourably. Mjroots (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this the direction that we want to go

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism is now being canvassed for. If there is an equal and opposite project than I guess that they will offset each other (see Yin/Yang) but I am not sure that this project should be trending toward Conservapedia. Nor should there be canvassing to ask other editors to contribute in either direction. 216.160.141.128 (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"Canvassed for" what? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh... "canvassed for new members". Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There's also a Wikipedia:WikiProject Liberalism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the project as necessarily trending toward biasing Wikipedia. All projects at WP are open, and those interested in a properly neutral and documented coverage of US politics can appropriately join. (Though not stated, the US seems to be the focus, not political parties elsewhere.) I and many others have sometimes joined projects in which there was some doubt of their direction, andI have joined this one. DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's much chance of wikipedia devolving toward conservapedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's absolutely true that the founder of the Conservatism project originally had a US-centric outlook for the project, and steered it that way. Others have broadened the scope. I joined to help keep its scope as wide as possible and to help keep its focus on article improvement rather than advocacy. Political activism should never be encouraged on Wikipedia, only neutrality. Binksternet (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As long as there is a very clear difference between WikiProject Conservatism and say Conservapedia (i.e. the WikiProject follows neutrality and sourcing policies) there isn't a problem here. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the project's main page, it exists to improve coverage of topics related to conservatism. That's rather different to slanting articles towards a conservative perspective, so unless there is POV-pushing going on under this project's banner I don't see the issue. Nick-D (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The existence of the project isn't a problem, in theory, but perhaps the IP user is referring to the distribution of invitations to the project, which seem to be directed at editors whose contributions promote (inadvertently or intentionally) a conservative view, rather than simply at editors who edit articles on conservatism. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

...where the United States Constitution and Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations have both been tagged as being under the project's scope. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Which aren't specifically related to conservatism, which is presumably the concern. This is what we don't want. And Baseball Bugs, do you realise 'liberalism' in the Wikiproject name you mention means Libertarianism, which is usually seen as a form of conservatism?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 20:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That's "classic liberalism". Note that "Social liberalism" is also within the project scope. As regards the U.S. Constitution, it's definitely a topic of interest to liberals, conservatives, moderates, and just about any American with a reasonable education. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-Admin Comment) I wasn't aware of the fledgling Wikipedia:WikiProject Liberalism mentioned above, but for a year or two now there's been Wikipedia:WikiProject Socialism, without much complaint or problem. It is only natural that these groups should be build through the solicitation of editors demonstrated to have an existing interest in the topic. I joined the Conservatism project myself and have pitched in helping to estimate article importance and adding the template to appropriate Article Talk pages. Nor would I fret or try to micromanage decisions to put such things as United States Constitution under the group's "banner" — there are some pages which are tagged by six or eight different work groups. If a group feels a topic is relevant, the topic is relevant... Carrite (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Everybody in the world has a bias - whether it's left, right, green, anarcho-buddhist, or Peoples' Front of Judea. If we can harness those biases to a positive project, that's the best outcome we can realistically hope for. bobrayner (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Zombie433 evading ban

Resolved

 – he gone. --Jayron32 02:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Just two days ago, after a discussion here at ANI, Zombie433 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was banned from Wikipedia for continual block evasion and disruptive edits. He's taken no notice, and is now back with yet another new IP - we are now up to 48 IPs that we have found and tagged, plus God-knows how many more we haven't yet come across. Can stronger action be taken please? Regards, GiantSnowman 15:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken that new IP would have been stopped by the proposed rangeblock. 28bytes (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It would have, yes. But no rangeblock was ever instigated, due to concerns over 'collateral damage' - good-faith editors caught up by it. GiantSnowman 16:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to our world (say the administrators). Due to the nature of how this user (and the hundreds of thousands of others that also use the same ISP) accesses the internet, there is literally nothing we can do except play whack-a-mole with him regarding stopping him at that end. If his disruption were limited to a few select articles, we could semiprotect those; but it turns out that his spectrum of target articles is too huge; there's no way to pre-emptively semiprotect everything we think he is going to edit. So, back to whack-a-mole. Just a lot of revert block and ignore is all we have. Frustrating, yes, but given the limitations of this system, short of getting his ISP to cut off his service (chance of that happening before the heat death of the universe = nil) there's literally nothing more we can do than what we are already doing. So, revert his edits, report the IP and let an admin block it. --Jayron32 23:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What happened to the "pending changes" thing that would prevent IPs from making direct edits? Count Iblis (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It didn't go over well. See [4]. --Jayron32 23:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That said, this may be the kind of user that can be stopped via an WP:EDITFILTER. That entire process is something akin to black magic for me. Perhaps an administrator who knows how to cast the right spells can make that happen... --Jayron32 23:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Zombie433 still vandalising

I'd like to point out that blocked vandal User:Zombie433 is still putting false informations into the articles. He hasn't got a new usermane but now he is using a dynamic IPs, list here:[5] So now it's even harder to track him to revert his edits. Could you do a range block to finally prevent him from faking wikipedia? I already removed false information from hundreds of articles faked by Zombie433. I can't watch them all, and this cheater keep putting fake number of matches and goals to the articles I previously cleaned from his cheats like there:[6].--Wrwr1 (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

See several discussions above, where this is already an ongoing issue. It is not technically feasible, given the ISP he is using, to institute a rangeblock without knocking out an unacceptable number of positive contributors as well. Given that, we just need to be vigilant and revert and block him as he appears. Just report him at WP:AIV each time he shows up, reference the sockpuppet list for a comparison of IP addresses and behaviors, and revert all of his edits from that range. --Jayron32 01:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have run a CU again, and this vandal is the only person who has edited behind 79.213.64.0/18 for the past month at least. Why some people think this construes collateral damage is beyond me. But perhaps I forgot to read my daily dose of Dianetics this morning... –MuZemike 02:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month. I can second MuZemike's findings for anon parts. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Good enough for me. I was only passing on information above where people claimed there was collateral damage; being that I am not a checkuser I have to take prior claims to such as true. Thanks to MuZemike for doing the actual checkuser and to Elockid for doing the rangeblock. Shall we consider the matter closed? --Jayron32 02:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the help guys! GiantSnowman 15:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Allow socializing and Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Change CSD to userspace drafts

Would an admin (or admins) close and summarize Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Allow socializing and Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Change CSD to userspace drafts? Two previous closures include Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Welcome new users and Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Allow IP editors to create articles. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica Drama

Encylopedia Dramatica dropped its role as home of the /B/tards and is now "Oh Internet" which more akin to Know Your Meme than the old NSFW stuff. So We have a slow motion edit war between various "just auto-confirmed"/new accounts/trolls and Genuine Wikipedians over including EncyclopediaDramatica.ch A fork of ED. Genuine Wikipedians have removed it at least 5 times since I started watching this afternoon. However genunine content contribution is high enough so Page protection would be silly and harm the Wikipedia's coverage.... So can we black list "EncyclopediaDramatica.ch" or create an "edit filter" or what? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I requested semi protection the other day. LiteralKa (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

On not I think I am found one good faith Genuine Wikipedian who has added it in. Also ED was considered a WP:ATTACKSITE The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thankfully Wikipedia:Attack sites no longer has consensus. Protonk (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thats actually totally unrelated here. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to ED and WP:NPA#Wikipedia:No personal attacks#External links The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the NPA policy page refers to links which are disruptive or problematic while the failed policy "attack sites" refers to sites which where characterized as inherently naughty. Protonk (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm very hesitant to make a broad distinction between editors and "real" wikipedians. But if the article needs to be protected in order for this dispute to be settled on the talk page I'll protect it. Protonk (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, consensus is against them. LiteralKa (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thats fine. My question is simple. Is this something liable to be solved by normal discussion and would that discussion be moved along by a page protection? Protonk (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I hate to use that distinction but the reality is these largely our drive by hits by people who are upset OhInternet has replaced ED. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Since encyclopediadramatica.com is on the meta-wikimedia.org blacklist already, shouldn't websites that duplicate its content be added to it too? I've mentioned it at meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist#encyclopediadramatica.com, so I haven't received a response yet. Blacklisting the website is preferable to continually having to lock the article from any revisions, including improvements. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

ED being on the blacklist is a tangential topic. You can feel free to add ED mirrors to the blacklist but that doesn't really have anything to do w/ this dispute. Protonk (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I dont know what else to do here but bring it here The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I've already taken the .ch domain to the local spam-blacklist's TP after a user spammed MONGO's talk page with it. While it was there, another user reported two more forks of the same material, but I'm not sure if they're actively being used as of yet. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 00:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Surely ED is a caricature of Wikipedia, not an attack-site? It doesn't call for violent action to be taken against Wikipedia, it only makes fun of Wikipedia and its editors. Count Iblis (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

We had a whole Arbcom case over it actually which is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to ED. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

take note of the age of that case. At the time of the case the article was "permanently deleted" and no one envisioned that a real article would ever be created. Its bearing 5 years hence on any discussion which doesn't involve spamming someone's talk page w/ links to ED is minimal. Protonk (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The remedy stands just the same that why its been black listed. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and an arbitration decision made clear that the recreation of the article about ED was no longer completely ruled out, but did not change the ruling regarding its status as an attack site. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

And still the arb case has no bearing whatsoever on the conduct or content issue before us, nor does the blacklist. This is the same as any other site which is forked. We have difficulty determining whether the article should describe a particular fork, the old site, or all of them. See WoWWiki for a similar dispute (with no blacklist or arb case involved). Protonk (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WoWWiki&limit=500&action=history – I wouldn't say the WoWWiki article was significantly disrupted or spammed, and there was more discussing than reverting. I don't see the two events as comparable. Wowpedia also has sources. At the moment, ed.ch proponents are basing their arguments solely on their ideology rather than Wikipedia policy, precedents, practices, or sources. At the moment, ed.ch proponents are using come-and-go accounts to revert because they have the ability to revert without participating in the discussion. Their goal is to keep reverting until their opposition grows tired. They could afford having cheap throwaway accounts tarnished in image or banned. They could always call upon a friend to replace them. By adding ed.ch to the blacklist, they'll realize that they must obtain consensus before being permitted to add the link to the article. ed.ch proponents are going to avoid the negotiating table as long as it's as easy as clicking the "Save page" button to add the link back in. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not "it exists, so we must include it." WP:NOTLINK. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

ok? The article is currently protected. I have absolutely no objection to putting any ED mirrors on the blacklist. And I have no objection to keeping the article at the status quo until one of the mirrors garners some attention from some reliable sources. My point in this whole thread is to point out that the nature of the article subject itself has no bearing on the conduct of people pushing for one site over another. Nor does a 5 year old arbcom case. Protonk (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

To broach a content question, how likely is it that the ED page will ever be updated with a link to a fork should that fork remain consistent (and be mentioned in some sources)? Protonk (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

doubtful We can white list a single edit if It become prominent in RS to warrant as such. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I found it likely. The media loves Internet drama; they feel that it makes them sound trendy. Unfortunately, I can't predict the future, so it's wait and see for me. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• In a related question, someone ought to take "Oh Internet" to RS/N. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Can you please clarify? ohinternet.com isn't a reliable source. It's an user-generated wiki that's only a few month old and has less than a thousand articles. As far as I'm aware, there isn't any here trying to push ohinternet.com as a reliable source, and I don't see a point in a pre-emptive RS/N discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I was under the impression by the 90 seconds I spent looking at it when the drama llama came to town, that Oh Internet had an editorial and fact checking process prior to publication of content. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
      • And I was wrong they just canned the severe NSFW/legal stuff rather than instituting an editorial process. Oh well, that just leaves the relatively pathetic KYM until the internet culture studies people start grinding journal articles to get positions in New Media Studies or the latest name for the discipline. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration cases are binding unless there is a subsequent case that "overthrows" it...least that is what I had always thought was policy here.--MONGO 01:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• But the case doesn't have any bearing on the topic of discussion!!! Protonk (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

IN other words, you don't think there is anything disruptive or problematic?--MONGO 02:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Uh. No? This is a pretty simple naming dispute. Naming and Necessity gets at the core of our problem. The article on ED semantically pointed to an object in the real world that no longer exists. Now there is a dispute over whether or not it should point to a copy of that object. Obviously we have obnoxious people trying to insert the link to the mirror or beseiging the talk page. But none of that has anything to so w/ ED in itself. So whatever fervor has been whipped up in this thread over your eponymous arbcom case or some subsection of NPA is kinda beside the point. Protonk (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Linking to a mirror is the same as linking to the original website.   Will Beback  talk  02:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. My point in wikilinking naming and necessity was to hint at the reasons why site revamps are problematic for a living encyclopedia. We had a link to ED in the article but ED as it was when the article was (mostly) written no longer exists as a distinct object. Someone has forked it and put a mirror up so linking to that mirror is not the same as linking to the original because the original has changed in a fundamental way. Again, this is largely a content issue (the semantic dispute). Protonk (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So one group of morons is arguing with another...not surprising.--MONGO 03:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No, not really. ed.ch is founded by the ED audience, so it believes in the myth of ED, including its supposed invincibility and lack of accountability. They've restored articles deleted by DMCA and legal requests (eg. the "Madeleine McCann" article), and they have fewer qualms about including personal information. ed.ch is run by those who believe in the legend of ED – ED as the unflinching hate machine. The original ED sysops didn't believe in the myths and legends; we were more pragmatic and realistic, but the new site is run by the ideological. ed.ch is going to end up being fundamentally different from the original ED. Since ed.ch is editable, I wouldn't call it a mirror image. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Either way, thats some bored screwed up people that participate in that mess.--MONGO 03:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep EB as a source and prior Wikipedia / ED conflicts out of this. If ED is changing or forked then normal content policy, including edit warring prohibitions etc, applies to the article(s) on it (or its forks). Period. If we need to warn, block, or protect, we should do so to end the edit warring. Talk pages are for talk and consensus building, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like they don't yet know which ED will be the real ED...oh the drama.--MONGO 04:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, .. our drama's daddy can beat up their drama's daddy any day of the week. — Ched :  ?  08:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

USER at IP 90.220.41.77

This IP seems to exist solely to make sabotages to a couple of fictional article by adding his own fanfic. Mathewignash (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, please see WP:GRA for advice on how you could improve this request so that more people might respond to it.  Sandstein  23:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement analysis again [Moved from WP:FTN]

COI linkspammer Fugitivehunter (talk · contribs) making some rather sweeping POV changes there, including a legal claim in the lead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

UH I am posting to Ani since its including legal threats The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone should inform him that Revocation of our licensing is not permitted, which it looks like he may be doing by placing that Trademark sign on the article. If he persists, then block for WP:NLT, as continued attempts to revoke licensing is an implicit challenge to our content licenses, which is in effect a legal threat. –MuZemike 01:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I don't see any legal threats, I do see he's put a "Trademark" symbol next to "System Analysis", the gentleman's website says the same (I didn't check it for reliability), but that's about it. NO legal threats, no revolking our license, nor is there any prohibition against using the trademark symbol. Just my .02 KoshVorlon' _Nal^uboutes _Aeria ^Gloris 11:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Overlinking meltdown from 38.103.95.130

As you can see, this anon editor is a chronic overlinker who has been asked repeatedly to stop. Since his edits aren't vandalism per se, it seemed more appropriate to bring it up here than at ARV. I get the impression he doesn't even know his talk page exists so I'm a little at a loss as to how to encourage his enthusiasm into more productive edits. Millahnna (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'll check back in a few hours and again a day from now. If he starts back up again I'll block the IP. Looking at the contribution history it has been mostly this sort of thing for a few months. Protonk (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• The MO is similar to a known vandal, comparing it to the log of reports about The Verizon vandal. It's a different network, so it may not be the same person. However, if his edits are going to be disruptive on the whole, then he warrants a block to prevent further disruption. —C.Fred (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• This editor appears capable of contributing constructively, they just have a different idea of what merits linking. I was hoping that a bit of discussion and education would resolve things, but they do not appear to be interested in either and have continued linking as before. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, as Escape Orbit notes, some of their edits do contain constructive efforts. Sometimes it's buried within a batch of overlinking and sometimes it's isolated. But despite attempts to communicate (I've templated and added small notes to templates and Escape has dropped entirely individual messages of the non-template variety), they don't seem to get the idea. This is why I think they don't realize there's a talk page there. I honestly doubt they've seen a single message directed at them. Millahnna (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Conduct of Raintheone towards the G.I. Joe WikiProject articles

Withdrawn, being taken to RfC/U
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Per discussion below, this AN/I has been withdrawn and taken to WP:RfC/U instead. Just waiting for 24 hours of inactivity to pass for the bot to auto-archive this thread. Thanks. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Introduction The purpose of this Incident notice, is to report the disruptive behaviours of Raintheone vis-à-vis articles falling under the purview of the G.I. Joe WikiProject. At some point Raintheone became the WikiProject's self-appointed content supervisor, and his actions have quickly escalated from simply providing comments on the WikiProject and various article talk pages, to an active campaign of harassment including an Article for Deletion nomination (result: keep) on one of the most notable characters in the G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero franchise, and culminating in a Good article reassessment on one of our two GA-rated articles. I don't know what the source is of his enmity, and although I must assume that he was acting in good faith at the outset, it has become readily apparent that he's moved well beyond that. I also won't be addressing the specific points of the content dispute, as that has been discussed at length elsewhere, but will instead focus solely on Raintheone's conduct in this matter. I'm hoping that by bringing this to AN/I (as was suggested by an admin in the course of discussing the GAR) that we can resolve this situation and be allowed to edit the articles to the standard they deserve, rather than having to expend time and effort on administrative matters. AfD and Merge requests AFAIK, the earliest appearance of Raintheone in the "G.I. Joe space" was 24 February 2011. On that date in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fictional characters/Archive 1#Wikipedia:WikiProject G.I. Joe Concern thread, he posted "can anyone do a mass AFD on the non notable characters" and displayed an utter lack of courtesy by doing so with actually discussing it with the G.I. Joe editors first. Although it is not strictly required, the AfD guideline does recommend the notification of supporting WikiProjects and substantial contributors. This is a pattern he repeated with the Zartan AFD, and again with the G.I. Joe: A Real American hero (Marvel Comics) GAR, where both went up without any notification to interested parties. At one point, Raintheone made a post [7] where he suggested that "I think it may be best if you merge many character articles into a list of characters because they are not properley [sic] sourced. Some are fine, most are not. You also need to assess them on your own WP quality sclae [sic] and WP Fictional Character's". I would note that since then: over a period of about a week in mid-late March, one of our editors did in fact perform a quality assessment on every article in the G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero space, and a significant amount of merging of the G.I. Joe articles has in fact occurred, as can be seen here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, and here [8]. And while his attention may initially have been focused on the character articles it has since drifted onto the non-character articles (which in no way impacts the Fictional Characters WikiProject). Lack of Manpower Despite the fact that the G.I. Joe WikiProject has at most three active editors - including myself (who only became a regular/active Wikipedia editor since early March 2011, having posted perhaps 3-dozen edits maximum in the preceding two years) and another editor Cerebellum (who has been inactive for almost a month now, due to RL commitments) - we've still managed to accomplish much in a very short time frame (less than a month), including the aforementioned merges (kudos to Fortdj33) as well as our recent work to continue improving the article G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics) in the hopes of nominating it to FAC at some point. This despite that fact that we all have other interests and commitments both within Wikipedia, and of course in RL. Given our manpower shortages, especially when compared to the overall size of the WikiProject (at one point well in excess of 300 articles, now a somewhat more manageable 238 articles, as of 19 April 2011, and still shrinking), I would have expected some consideration, but Raintheone appears to be working to some internal deadline that he's failed to inform the rest of us about: Here [9], right off the bat his first statement is "So the merging has halted" (which I must emphasize, occurred shortly after the start of Cerebellum's inactivity, and my own increasing involvement in several other non-G.I. Joe articles) indicating on Raintheone's part, impatience with the WikiProject, despite our trying to explain to him on several occasions that claims of WP:NOEFFORT aren't particularly helpful, and the fact that in Wikipedia, there is no deadline. and in the AfD discussion [10] where he states that "At least something good came of this and it has had a little work done top it and some sources added", a further indicator that he was simply gaming the system in order to make us work faster (i.e. force us to work to his own timeline). Claims of trying to help Raintheone has also repeatedly claimed that he wants to help us out by finding better (i.e. more reliable sources) but other than a few half-hearted attempts, his default action has been to delete (for example [11]) when it became too difficult for him to actually find a better source rather than taking a less extreme action such as: redoubling efforts to help find an alternate source to back up the claim, or to delete the reference, but keep the claim, and let the claim be challenged independently, perhaps add a {{citation needed}} tag instead In fact, despite claiming to be searching for better sources, he later admitted that "anyway I always said you could find info on the net for the "pre net era" but I didn't look really" [emphasis added] ([12] near the bottom). When I challenged him on the fact that he hasn’t been helping us to find better sources, he came up with stuff like this: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], and [18]. And while I'll readily admit it may be useful somewhere in the universe of G.I. Joe articles (probably in one of the backbone pieces such as G.I. Joe), it's less useful in the context of the content dispute over the G.I. Joe character articles, and absolutely useless in supporting the G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics) article. GAR On the subject of the current GAR, I would note that the guidelines themselves state that "requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate: reviewers are rarely content experts, nor can they reassess a moving target. Wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment". The article in question was only passed into GA on 2 March 2011, and yet Raintheone feels that it has already drifted sufficiently in barely a month for GAR to be required. While I can see the value of a GAR when an article has been worked on by many editors over a protracted period, and with many random/unrelated edits, in this case of this article the vast majority (probably > 95%) of edits in the past month have been by Fortdj33 and myself, and with the concerted purpose of bringing the article to a standard that can withstand FAC nomination at some point hopefully not too far into the future (so in other words: hardly a series of random edits). And while I agree that the article isn't currently ready for FAC, it's unreasonable to put the article through GAR when it's still being worked on. Furthermore, the article recently underwent a thorough peer review at the end of March, so a significant amount of additional editing has been done over the past few weeks to address the deficiencies raised. It's interesting to note that Raintheone here [19] accused me of “You have just had a peer review and not started working on it, rather contesting the content to be okay. I just see complaining about the guidelines and no real indication of willingness to change” when in fact Fortdj33 and I have been working diligently to address those very points, and an examination of the article’s talk page and edit history would bear that out. Additionally, we lost a week of GAR working time waiting for Raintheone to properly enumerate the deficiencies he has found in the article. Although the GAR was posted on April 11, it was not until April 19 that Raintheone finally responded to my request for a specific detailing of all deficiencies which in his opinion needed to be addressed. On April 12, I posted the following: "Per the GA Reassessment instructions, you are required to "leave a review on the reassessment page detailing the problems with the article in comparison to the criteria, and save the page." As such, the burden of proof is yours. The rationale given at the top of this page is nothing more than a generalization of what you perceive the problems to be, and is lacking in specific details and the comparison to GA criteria as specified. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)" To which he responded: "That is individual reassessment not community. Rain the 1 BAM 02:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)" And to which I replied: "Community assessment: "If you believe a current good article does not meet the criteria, try reassessing the article yourself (an individual reassessment), and only request a community reassessment if a disagreement arises." Have you done actually done that individual reassessment, and if so, where is it? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)" Raintheone finally responded to my request this morning, and although I’ve been working throughout the day to address his review points, he has since added additional points to the list. I ask you: when will this end, as it seems that nothing can ever be done to his satisfaction? He's currently hiding behind the fact that it's a community reassessment to avoid taking responsibility over the final outcome of the GAR, but I contend that since he's the instigator, that he's responsible for it proceeding in an equitable manner, and should set a reasonable benchmark for the GAR to be closed. Conclusion The irony has not been lost on me, that if not for having to deal with Raintheone’s constant harassment of the G.I. Joe articles and its WikiProject editors, considerably more work - including researching more and better sources - could have been accomplished during this time. In conclusion, I think that he needs to remember that the editors are volunteers who freely give of their time and energy, and not some other editor’s slaves, and we'd appreciate some Administrator support in warning him off so that we can actually get to the work of improving the articles, rather than having to deal with matters like AfDs and GARs. Thanks for your time. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC) So, what do you want administrators to do here? Hmmm? --Jayron32 04:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Ideally, get him to back off the WikiProject in general, and the G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics) article in particular. Granted that he has a valid point over the reliability of some of the sources we've utilised, but that doesn't excuse the constant harassment we've suffered for the past month-and-a-half. I'd much rather be editing and improving article content, than be wasting my time fighting off AfDs and GARs. Since my goal is to get the latter article to FAC at some point, I'm sure that if the sources cited are inadequate (both qualitatively and quantitatively) the FAC reviewers will stop the nomination cold anyways. (P.S. I wasn't 100% sure if this was the right forum to post this to, but it was suggested by one of your fellow administrators). -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC) How do we get him to "back off"? Have you attempted any of the steps listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? Have you brought in outside editors to analyze the situation via a request for a third opinion or a request for comment? Have you attempted any mediation, such as WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDCOM? Admins can do three things, and three things only: We can protect articles, we can delete articles, and we can block users. We don't, however, hold any special "super editor" powers that make our opinions or decisions regarding user behavior or article content any more weighty than that of everyone else at Wikipedia. So, I state it again, what do you want us to do about this? I'm not sure there's anything blockable that's been done yet, and there's nothing that needs deleting or protecting. --Jayron32 04:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Per one of your admin colleagues, "Jake: if you have a problem with Rain's behaviour, take it to WP:RFC/U or WP:AN/I. - Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)". So that's what I'm doing. RFC/U didn't seem quite right in my opinion, as there has already been more than enough back-and-forth for many weeks now on the user and article talk pages. Also, this is a problem over user conduct, rather than over the content dispute (for which, I agree that Dispute Resolution would be more appropriate), which we are actually making some headway on. Rather than an outright edit block on him, aren't Admins also empowered to prohibit editors from editing specific articles? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC) No, such bans require a community discussion or ArbCom ruling. See Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Decision_to_ban. Admins do not have the unilateral power to enact a ban solely because someone asks for it. You are free to propose a specific ban, and ask the community at large (i.e. non admins too!) to discuss it, but admins have no special power in creating such bans out of thin air. Admins may enforce previously established bans which are being violated by users, but unless and until we have something to enforce, there is still nothing for admins to do here. --Jayron32 05:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Isn't his use of AfD and GAR as a blunt force instrument enough to warrant at least a temporary block? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC) RfC/U would make more sense to me. After all, the format you've used here is basically how you would present evidence at RfC/U. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Hm, very well. I'll need some time to reformat the submission, as the RfC/U template seems to be quite structured. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 05:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

User:71.174.128.244 at Causes of autism

71.174.128.244 (talk · contribs) is edit warring in the article and completely disrupting the talk page. He or she wants to add a point regarding one researcher in one vaccine/autism study who is being sought for fraud. Whether that negates the study or not, it leaves numerous others which have thoroughly debunked any link between vaccines, its ingredients, or anything about them with autism. Whether the non-notable researcher should be added to the article may be discussed, but edit warring and using the talk page as a forum is getting out of hand. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The article states that there is absolutely no link between autism and mercury in vaccines. Government employed experts in the Poling Vaccine Court case found a link, A study by Horning M.; Chian D,; Lipkin WI. referenced at the NIH here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15184908 references a link. A recent study by a researcher in Brazil also shows a link

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-study-verifies-mercury-in-flu-shots-is-toxic-118432874.html

The newest study about Thimerosal, from the University of Brazil, warns that while vaccines are essential to the well-being of children around the world, the use of Thimerosal should be reconsidered. The author, Dr. José Dórea, reviews the published science which demonstrates that infant exposure to the amount of Thimerosal in vaccines is toxic to human brain cells.

and this all started when I attempted to post a link showing that the author of a major autism mercury paper showing no mercury autism link, has been charged with fraud in connection with that research paper. This paper is one of the most referenced works on the subject.

Considering what I found in just a few hours of looking, the article is plainly in error. It is my opinion that someone is trying to control the content of the article to remove any references to the autism-mercury link. That person or persons may be employed by a vaccine company. If so it will not be the first time "content control" has been practiced on wikipedia, nor will it be the last.

As an example of the extent to which some authors are going to delete valid material I have had one of my additions deleted with the excuse being that material I copied verbatum ( a paragraphs worth) from a news article (to avoid objections of bias) were deleted as a "COPYRIGHT VIOLATION". That is plainly a bogus objection. Copyright laws not not bar the use of excerpts.

My objections to this kind of conduct on the talk page were deleted by the authors in an attempt to hide their less then exemplary conduct.71.174.128.244 (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYN, WP:COATRACK, WP:MEDRS, as well as WP:SOAPBOX. Your editing so far fails all of those. NW (Talk) 13:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I notice you refuse to answer the question posted above. Is copying about a paragraph worth of material from a news article "copyright infringement". Please respond. 71.174.128.244 (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, a sourcing problem, WP:UNDUE covers the problems of giving too much weight to certain sources above others. To the editor, have in mind the following scale, approximately from best to worse: meta reviews > reviews in notable journals > position statements of very notable associations > news pieces in major scientific magazines > reviews in minor journals > individual studies in notable journals > individual studies in minor journals. News articles from mainstream newspapers are somewhere there, very near the bottom of the scale, they can be bumped up if the author is considered reliable.

The "no link to vaccines" position have some very notable reviews and statements behind it, so it needs to be given a lot of weight in the articles. Trying to upset this balance with individual studies will simply get you blocked for ignoring WP:UNDUE. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I see two problems at that talk page, The IP is unaware of a number of important policies, most importantly, WP:SYN and WP:MEDRS, and has now been explicitly pointed to them by NW here, and myself there. Time magazine, prnewswire.com, and gordonresearch.com are not appropriate sources for medical claims in Wikipedia. Once the IP is familiar with those guidelines, they'll know what kind of content is appropriate to bring to Wikipedia medical articles.

Another problem is rudeness to the IP. I won't list instances. But could those responsible please try to be more patient. Unless I'm missing some earlier interaction not on the current page, on the face of it this is a new editor with a fairly commonly-held view, who's come here to correct an article in good faith. Politely explaining or explicitly pointing to WP:BRD, and WP:MEDRS/WP:SYNTH from the start may have saved a lot of angst and time all round. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

In the Poling case government researches found a link. Others have also consider mercury a causative agent. So the "no link at all statement" is plainly bogus.71.174.128.244 (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No, that's plain wrong. In the Poling case a whole series of vaccine shots in a short time may or may not have contributed to the outbreak of a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder that causes some symptoms also found in autism. The standard of proof in the Vaccine court is very low - the mere possibility of a link is sufficient. Can you provide a reliable source that supports the claim that Thiomersal was causally involved in the case? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Your question reminds me of Wall Street firms that regularly pay hundreds of billions in fines after complaints are lodged against them but "do not admit to illegal conduct". The Poling case was a complaint for damages (autism) caused by her vaccinations. The government paid up, and its own experts found the link - a "possibly" preexisting mitochondrial disorder which can also be "acquired". What the actual court records say is unknown since they are "SEALED". The government paid Poling 1.5 million and $500,000 a year for life. 71.174.128.244 (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz - In further response to the above I found the following while going over some of the studies I ran across which may or may not be what you are looking for.

With special reference to the Poling case and mitochondria - material from the body of a study printed in the Neuroendocrinology Letters October 2005 Vol 26 No 5. http://www.detoxmetals.com/content/AUTISM%20AND%20Hg/autism_reprint.pdf "It was also shown in vitro that low concentrations of thimerosal, which can occur after vaccination, induce membrane and DNA damage and initiate apoptosis (programed cell death) in human neurons (38). Humphrey and co workers (39) have shown recently that this apoptosis (programed cell death)is mediated by mitochondria in an in vitro study." I had to type it from the pdf file so pardon any spelling errors 71.174.128.244 (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Speaking on rudeness I find this well in excess of anything I have said

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Causes_of_autism&diff=424958219&oldid=424957932

Please go back to your vaccine denialist crowd and give each other a group hug. -- > User:Orangemarlin 71.174.128.244 (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Additionally THIS article at CNN HEALTH cited as anti mercury causes autism is actually pro that position http://articles.cnn.com/2008-03-06/health/vaccines.autism_1_childhood-vaccines-vaccine-injury-compensation-hannah-poling?_s=PM:HEALTH starts off with

"The parents of a 9-year-old girl with autism said Thursday that their assertion that her illness was caused by childhood vaccines has been vindicated by the federal government's decision to compensate them."

What was used instead was this quote "The government has made absolutely no statement indicating that vaccines are a cause of autism," said Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in a conference call with reporters."

The governments FAILURE TO TAKE A POSITION is in no way an indication that there is no mercury autism link.71.174.128.244 (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The way I read the article, the government did not fail to take a position. They refused to take a position, since there's more litigation pending. You'd be wise to not confuse the two terms, especially based on the larger situation. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Either a "failure to take a position" or a "refusal to take a position" is in no way an indication of the rightness or wrongness of a position. The editors I am in opposition to use that lack of a statement as proof for one side of the argument. By their logic a failure of the government to say that "water is wet" proves that "it is not wet". A plainly farcical position.71.174.128.244 (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

As one of the people having to deal with this IP on the talk page, I have to ask how much of this time wasting do we have to put up with before someone does something about his tendentious editing? They're trying to cite a press release from an advocacy group about a study they haven't read (and has no intention of reading) as well as a press release from a law firm on another advocacy website as reliable sources for medical information. Someone please stop the madness. Yobol (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

How about we start with you admitting that Poling has autism. At least according to her doctor, her parents and the US Court system. Something you refuse to recognize. see your objection below.

(cur | prev) 01:04, 20 April 2011 Yobol (talk | contribs) (67,181 bytes) (Undid revision 424948824 by 71.174.128.244 (talk) Poling not diagnosed with autism) (undo)

and "Content control" goes on. Latest objections to include material is that reference to primary research studies are not allowed per wiki policy. The autism article is full of references to primary research studies. Sound two faced? It sure does to me. Additionally prsnewswire is being objected to as an unreliable source. I wonder if other news outlets such as Reuters and AP are next on the list? http://www.prnewswire.com/ 71.174.128.244 (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand what a press release it is? NW (Talk) 18:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

A press release is designed to be skewed towards the releasing agency. They are not reliable sources by any means,so they are inappropriate to use as sources. The AP and Reuters are news agencies whom are obliged to oversee their reporting. Do not conflate press releases with news agencies. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 19:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. And PR Newswire, repeatedly referenced by 71, is not a news agency, but a channel for press releases. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Just as there's a difference between a press release and a scientific study published in a refereed or peer-reviewed journal. I'm waiting for a citation to the latter. Until then, 71's arguments appear quite WP:POINTy and WP:SOAPBOXy to me. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So why is OK to use a statement by a US government official that "no statement on the governments position has been released" as proof that there is no connection between vaccines and autism. That statement was most likely issued in a press release. 71.174.128.244 (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Prsnewswire has been adresed, not to my liking, but at least addressed - Now does anyone want to take a shot at the objection that no primary research studies can be used in the article when that article is full of references to such studies? Anyone? Anyone at all?71.174.128.244 (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

In the latest version of "content control" I have been told that studies published in the Annals of Epidemiology, Cell Biology and Toxicology, and Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons cannot be used in a wiki article.71.174.128.244 (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I get my butt chewed off around here, and we put up with this?????? Really, this makes sense how? I guess admins don't care, they just want to make sure I don't drop an F-bomb. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears clear that this noticeboard care more about the use of a four letter word than they do about the time wasted dealing with fringe POV pushers spamming talk pages and ignoring policies/guidelines. And they wonder why people leave this project. Yobol (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You guys wanted studies showing links between vaccines (aka mercury ) and autism. I am finding them for you. First you bitch that studies must be review studies and primary studies are not welcome when the article is chock full of primary studies, then you say studies in respected journals can't be used and now you bitch at the number of those studies I am finding. You seem to have a "content control issue". Wikipedia calls WP:OWN issue and you guys have it in spades.71.174.128.244 (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yobol, I guess Wikipedia prefers the random IP POV pusher than real editors, as long as the POV pusher does not say "FUCK". I may as well quit logging on, and just use some random IP address. Apparently, I can edit whatever I want in whatever way I want then. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Judging from the demeanor being displayed in that talk page discussion and in this thread, I would recommend that at least two editors, if not more, be given six-month topic bans from that article. Need names? Cla68 (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yet more "content control". After the complaint by Yobal above on the number of my posts, reflecting the ease with which I have been able to find studies supporting a Mercury/autism link, I have now been told that the issue is FRINGE and any article additions on that issue will be deleted. Aren't FRINGE positions supposed to be hard to find support for? I can certainly say that I have had NO PROBLEM AT ALL finding support for this position in reputable journals, both original research studies and review (or overview) studies.71.174.128.244 (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but our paranoid IP editor has completley lost me with "...vaccines (aka mercury )". Displaying such an ignorance about this matter, and science in general, while trying to push a fringe POV, says that it's time this whole thing was stopped. The IP editor is wasting a lot of good editors' time. Stop him doing it, please. HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Again I have had no problem finding studies in reliable sources showing a link between mercury in vaccines and autism. I have also had no problem finding complaints that the CDC used flawed studies to show that mercury in vaccines does not cause autism. Right this minute a major contributer to 3 of the 5 studies used to back that CDC position is on the run with $2 million in CDC money that he had supposedly spent on autism research. Usually when you vanish with research money you didn't spend it on the research you were supposed to do. Instead you "make up something".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/central-figure-in-cdc-vac_b_494303.html

A central figure behind the Center for Disease Control's (CDC) claims disputing the link between vaccines and autism and other neurological disorders has disappeared after officials discovered massive fraud involving the theft of millions in taxpayer dollars. Danish police are investigating Dr. Poul Thorsen, who has vanished along with almost $2 million that he had supposedly spent on research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.128.244 (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

First you said "...links between vaccines (aka mercury ) and autism", then you said "...link between mercury in vaccines and autism". They are not the same thing. I cannot tell if the problem is in your logic, knowledge, or English expression, but whatever it is, you are not presenting a coherent case. This stuff is important. It must be discussed properly if at all. If a language disability prevents you from presenting presenting your case, you should give up now. It's not the job of those who think your case is garbage to try to translate logical and linguistic garbage. HiLo48 (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor stumbling across this, holy crap. First of all, there is a lot of uncivil behavior going on all around but secondly, can we at least get page protection here? I favor the strongest possible sourcing requirements for medical articles, if Wikipedia is allowed to be turned into a fringe source we lose all credibility, and on a topic that is timely and medical we could get someone killed. HominidMachinae (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Reviving a discussion about a disruptive editor(s)

Users and dates active:

• 173.8.57.46 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) 8 September 2010 13:29 until present, with gaps
• 98.82.234.45 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) 21 March 23:42 until 17 April 18:26
• 98.82.167.40 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) 6 March 20:08 until 21 March 14:05

There may be more IP's that need to be collected here; I'm going to ask another two editors.

This is a followup to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive686#Unsourced Content Added by Anon, which was archived without final decision. To recap, this user or users is/are adding significant amounts of dubious, unsourced information to TV station articles. The vast majority of these involve changing information about the station slogans. A large portion of those are to add "localized versions of national slogans". See, for example, this diff.

Another subset of these edits is to change decades from the correct (per WP:MOS) version without an apostraphe (e.g. 1960s) to a version with an apostraphe (e.g., 1960's), as in this diff.

The first two IP addresses have been told on their talk page about the importance of verification, and 173... has been told that the "apostrope-ing" is against MOS. User(s) have never once responded to any communication.

These stations are all over the US, so this person is definitely not adding based on their own personal knowledge. My guess is that the person decided that since some stations used localized versions of a national slogan, then, automatically, all of them did, and thus is trying to systematically correct all of the entries.

Note that this editor, especially 173... is often making up to 20 edits a day on these subjects (and no other). Some of the edits may be legitimate. Given their breadth and the lack of communication, I am no longer able to assume good faith. I tried an AIV report this morning, but it was (properly, I think) declined, since this isn't obviously vandalism. I would ask that an admin block these three accounts for now, and then myself and other editors who are monitoring these pages will watch for any other IPs with similar editing patterns, possibly requesting a rangeblock at a later date if necessary. AGF is fine, but we have to have collaboration, which, of course, requires communication, or it's impossible to figure out the authenticity of these sweeping changes. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Excuse my tone, but I just looked over the previous AN/I discussion and I'm having a difficult time buying into why, minimally, this isn't simply being treated as a straight forward case of disruptive editing, I'm speaking specifically about [20] and [21]. What's the present count all-told in terms of the number of editors who have tried to even get this editor(s) to simply respond and failed in the attempt? Approaching a half dozen? Even leaving aside for a moment whether or not this is a sock in action; isn't it reasonable to expect that if an editor decides to continue to add material to the encyclopedia; whether it's referenced or not, and a half dozen other editors are asking for ANY form of discussion and being totally ignored that we need to do something to get that editors attention? Maybe they do have reliable source for all of this material; maybe they don't. One thing for sure; we'll have a difficult time making a determination about anything if they simply ignore other editors completely and carry on like the rest of us don't exist. Also; I'm not buying the argument implied in the AN/I that somehow we should abandon policy, guidelines and consensus for a particular type of article, just because a lot of articles in that particular class are full of crap. Lots of the edits that this editor is making are unreferenced statistical changes; since when have we abandoned the principle that those kind of potentially insidious alterations can be passed over in the hope that 'one day' maybe one of us will come across a reliable source to support them? In my opinion that's just lazy dereliction, and if that's the kind of attitude we continue to hold when it comes to 'certain types' of article subjects, we get the crappy encyclopedia we deserve. I say, if six editors want a discussion about sourcing with a single other editor and that editor ignores all attempts at communication and continues to add unreferenced material for months on end; it's time to put a 'halting mechanism' in place. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

swearing, disruptive edits

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

---

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

check his contributions where this user Orangemarlin he swears for no reason, and does disruptive biased edits, just a small list of examples:

"22:00, 19 April 2011 (diff | hist) Martha Beck ‎ (→Leaving the Saints: Fixed citations. Please review the quality of WP:RS and citations here. Don't fuck them up.)" 22:30, 19 April 2011 (diff | hist) Talk:Homosexuality ‎ (→Comment left at GA2 nomination, closed months ago: I'm glad we keep this crap out of the article.) 18:28, 19 April 2011 (diff | hist) Orthopathy ‎ (→See also: Orthomolecular medicine is a higher level of bullshit than Orthopathy. Prove that they're related.) much more swearing, bias and abuse to be found his edits!! he gets no warnings whatsoever?

He is also abusing the Periannan Senapathy article:

These are some of his edits on the senapathy article, check history of the article:

"Failed reliable source. Nevertheless his denialist opinion is disgusting" - The reliable source was not "failed", and here the user Orangemarlin is saying senapathys theory is disgusting. - This is clear bias.

"Fixed citation. Got nauseous looking up this crap book" - Here again he deleted a reference then he calims he got "naseous" by reading senapathys book which he calls "crap". 86.10.119.131 (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you see the orange warning when you edited this page? Yoenit (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Swearing is not a blockable offense. He's not swearing at someone, so it's not a personal attack. And his opinion on the sources is not blockable either. Just because you disagree with him, it does not follow that he deserves a block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

He has recieved no warnings at all. Secondly he has been swearing at people. Also he has been lieing about what edits he has been making, for example on the Senapathy article, there was a source which was a 1995 newspaper article which was called "Dissin Darwin a lone biologists challenges darwins theory" but OrnageMarlin just deleted it and makes no reference to that in his edits, he has this agenda. Hes a fundamentalist, not neutral i dont think he should be editing scientists who have different positions on origins, also on the senapathy talk page and related his comments are extreme and just mocking and laughing at senapathy. See his contributions. This is unaceptable behaviour, now let's say it was the other way round and a user headed over to an evolutionist scientist's article and deleted stuff just becuase he opposes it and in the edit section swears and calls authors book crap, he would be banned or blocked wouldn't he? It's all one way on here. Please keep wikipedia neutral 86.10.119.131 (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The IP, along with the editor "Rahulr7" who re-appeared after a 4 1/2 year absence in order to initiate the article, seem to be the primary author or authors, so it looks like he/they are getting a tad defensive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

An admin needs to look at this issue, also please look at the Senapathy article. His edits are not neutral as mentioned, he is calling senapathys books crap, attacking senapathy, deleting and lieing about edits, removing sources, just becuase he doesn't like senapathys theories. This is bias and against wikipedia policy. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you the editor Rahulr? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nothing to do with Rahulr. He appears to be living in India. He created the article. I did a bit of work on it, but then i noticed two other users deleting material on the page, one of them orangemarlin abusing the page and deleting the material and sources apparenetly becuase he finds senapathys book "crap" and his theory is "disgusting". Not neutral editing, the user is a fundimentalist who swears alot and deletes material which disagree with his own opinion. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing really to add, except the article is poorly written and filled with unsourced claims. Like "other scientists" agree or support, when I can't find a single one that does. I'm guessing the IP has COI with this [redacted] Senapathy who's reputation is not even notable enough to be quoted by anyone but creationists. I still can't find a high profile evolutionary biologist (think Dawkins, Myers, anyone) who even mentions him. Again, google hits on the Senapathy just brings back creationist blogs and websites. Furthermore, my comments are colorful when I'm passionate about something. I try not to attack editors, even ones that are highly annoying. Just how many times do I write "reply" before I decide a bit of humor and "colorful language" makes it a bit more fun. Oh, one more thing anonymous IP. I don't have to be "neutral", I just have to either find sources, dispute sources, or bring sources to the article. I did not write "Senapathy is a nutjob" in the article, because that violates all kinds of things. But in the talkspace, he's not only [redacted]. He's so non-notable (unnotable is not a work, so what is it? But I digress) that we're wasting bandwidth discussing him. One last thing anonymous IP.....call me a liar again, and my civility, such as it is, will go flying out the fucking window. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have removed insults against the article subject, per WP:BLP, which applies to all parts of Wikipedia and not just talk pages. The comments were defamatory. If they are restored I will block the restorer. Fences&Windows 21:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no comment on the original dispute, but Orangemarlin's most recent edit – the one above – does seem to include elements of being needlessly unpleasant and disruptive to prove a point. I can't see any other purpose to the rather unhelpful edit summary: "Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fucking fuck. Yawn.". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Considering the mental picture it paints, it's definitely TMI. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The concept posed by the article's subject seems interesting. One would think that if the guy had something unique and worth a deeper look, that he could have gotten someone in the scientific community interested enough to at least comment on it, i.e. to say why it's worth a look and/or to discuss flaws in the theory. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The scientific community's lack of interest makes perfect sense once you assume that they are all biased atheist evolutionist fundamentalists. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I can think of several more "-ists" you could list. :) Is it true that 90 percent of animals' DNA is the same for all species? Or did I dream that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, I'm not sure anyone cares but you and I, but yeah, it's a huge amount of similarity. I interpret that as the efficiency of evolution, in that small changes, mere percentage points, gives us birds and humans. It's little control mechanisms that make the big difference. Certain researchers, who obviously cannot be named, interpret that as either an intelligent design or something. I don't.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The swearing of Orangemarlin has got out of hand, this is immoral behaviour, offensive and not what i expect to see by a wikipedia editor. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Nor I, but it's really a smoke screen on your part. Focus on the problems with the article, not on someone's words. By the way, calling OM's behavior "immoral" is worse than any of OM's colorful metaphors. Don't do it again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok man, well with your logic, then this means right now i can head over to Darwins article and delete a source and in the edit section say his book is "disgusting" or "crap" just becuase my personal reasons say so and after i have done my edits i can say the f word as many times as i want and i can use any other offensive swear words and attack people in any article i edit from now on in the edit section, and also i can swear as much as i like and be biased and delete material on purpose. - This would not be classified as "immoral" behaviour by wikipedia standards or yourself, and it is all perfectly normal, and i get no warning for doing it whatsoever. Thanks for letting me know!! Thanks for updating me on how wikpedia really works. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well...immediately following this brilliant comment was this edit. I've given the IP a 3-hour timeout for a clear WP:POINT violation. — Scientizzle 19:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought I caught that and reverted it...I did add a comment via Twinkle to his page, gently advising him that this was a bad idea. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• I just wanted to note that i've asked a question on the talk page of Periannan Senapathy about his h-index. If someone could reply there, that might settle the notability question. Silverseren^C 19:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So where is everyone that was appalled at Giano's language and calling for Giano's head? Lambanog (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Spring break. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• What purpose does the swearing serve, other than annoying fellow editors who are obviously sensitive to it? GiantSnowman 19:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Clearly notable. A good deal of perfectly normal gene sequencing work. One of his papers, in a leading journal, has over 1800 Google scholar citations. Others have 86, 74, 68 ... Even his book has 13 citations in G Scholar-- most are in sources such as the Discovery institute,Lazlo, et al. but there's a serious reference to it in a very few papers. I shall rewrite the article according to NPOV by the end of the day. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• As for the dispute itself, Senapathy is apparently an example of a reasonable scientist who has drawn extremely unlikely conclusions in his own field based on a personal reinterpretation of long-known material. There have been prior examples of people--even molecular biologists--going on such unfortunate bypaths. His current theory is an ingenious attempt to integrate creationism with molecular biology--personally, I think it absurd, , but I also know that to use the terms being used above by OrangeMarlin -- "But in the talkspace, he's not only a nutjob, but I think he's demented." is a clear and outrageous BLP violation, and unless he apologizes forthwith, I shall block him to prevent his entering any further insults into this discussion. (I want to make it clear I think he's about as wrong as a scientist can be, but there is no evidence for either epithet, and even in WP or talk pace, that's improper language.As for the edit summary, I leave it to the community. We have often tolerated such from editors whom we know and like; I think its a mistake to do so. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I've removed the edit summary and the attack on Senapathy, and I've warned Orangemarlin for incivility. People seem to forget what WP:CIVIL says, so please go read it if you think that Orangemarlin's behaviour and comments here have been within policy, as they're plainly not OK. Fences&Windows 20:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I seem to remember a list of users who are personally exempt from following the Civility policy... Isn't Orangemarlin's name on that list? --Jayron32 20:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

we can deal with that if it continues. I would hope the comments here are enough to prevent that from happening. DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Can we be honest here? Whether OrangeMarling crossed the line or not (I don't know if he did, this is a general statement), nothing is really going to happen. Everyone knows by now that if you're a prolific enough content creator, you can get away with much, much, much more than anyone else. We tolerate a staggering amount of incivility and sometimes outright disrpuption by people with dozens or more articles, while new users are assumed to be POV pushing trolls. Now I am not going to name names here, I'm sure everyone has their own list, but let's not pretend that there isn't a double standard here. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Seriously, if anyone restores comments attacking a living person again I will block them. "Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved"; "administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of No personal attacks." Fences&Windows 21:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

DGG, whether Senapathy is notable or not, we could argue, but his notability seems almost exclusively for the creationist crowd. If the article was written like that, I'd have moved on. I do apologize for insulting Senapathy, but honestly, if he were standing right here, I'd say it to his face, but I guess that's a different situation. His science isn't what is suspect and unworthy of discussions. It's the conclusions. And as best as I can tell, his articles in peer-reviewed journals do not make the conclusions that his book does.

But, I really think you admins prefer sweet-talking POV pushers than those who actually do real work around here. Seriously, prove to me otherwise. But to threaten me with a block, because you disagree with my conclusions, and how I write them. Really, is that useful? Check my edits. Do I not create articles, remove vandalism, and such? I noticed something. Articles around here are in really bad shape since I was gone. That does not mean I cleaned them all up. It means you've lost tons of decent editors. I get frustrated beyond all belief with the absolute intolerable level of junk that I see in this place. There are out and out lies. There are editors who think that autism is caused vaccines, and push and push and push. Maybe they don't use the word "fuck", but who cares? It's worse than anything I would write to put in fabrications into an article. So the best you can do is threaten a block? I use the word "fuck" because it is just a word that's used all the time around my world. So, I'll stop using it, will it mean that life is beautiful? Is everyone going to dance in fields of wildflowers?

One minor/major point. Editor called me a liar. That's a real personal attack. I used the word "fuck", which is not. Don't get it DGG and Fences. I just don't get it.

I knew it was a mistake to stay around here. You guys seriously care about the silly issues and not the real ones: the poor quality of your medical and science articles. Seriously, it's clear you don't. You'd rather just cruise this arena, someone whines a bit, and you jump all over my ass. It makes no sense whatsoever. Now you're threatening to block as a PUNISHMENT. How helpful is that going to be? You think I'm going to stop saying fuck? Probably not.

So that you'll be happy DGG, I'll never use "fuck" again on Wikipedia. Anywhere. I'll stay away from the Senapathy article. I'll find other places to be happy. Are you satisfied? Because this feels wrong on so many levels. But I want to make you happy DGG, because you seriously should be blocking other editors who are ruining articles. But you won't, because they won't say "f***".

Please tell me this satisfies you, so that you will remove your threat of blocking/banning/whatever. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Civility is not a "silly issue". If you don't want to abide by the civility policy try Wiktionary. Kaldari (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Civility is not a silly issue, but the way civility is interpreted and "enforced" around here is frequently silly. MastCell ^Talk 21:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't it uncivil for a user to keep reverting edits, claim that there's a consensus, and not get DGG threatening them with blocks? Just because they don't write "f***"? I won't use that word any more, and I'll put on the sweet words. The POV pushers will still win, because I don't have their patience. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This is nuts. Scientists working in the field of climate change are accused of fraud and misrepresentation on a regular basis, and no one does a damn thing (unless they are contrarians). Now all of a sudden people have their knickers in a twist because someone has made a comment about a scientist with, er, a "highly novel and imaginative" view. I call [reference to bovine excrement redacted for the protection of those with a pretense of delicate sensitivities]. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

And this kind of thing too. [22] Mathsci (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

(Moving my post; the edit conflict system seems to be on the fritz.) Agree with OrangeMarlin. "Civil POV-pushers" get cut far too much slack and are given far too many "one last chances" (I'll refrain from giving examples, as needlessly disagreeable to users who have nothing to do with this thread, but ask and I'll e-mail some). And they harm articles infinitely more than cussing on talkpages does. "Fuck" is not "disruptive", it's normal language in some contexts in some cultures, though possibly not usually in creationist circles or 19th-century Swiss finishing schools for young ladies. "Fuck off", on the other hand, as spoken to a particular user, would be offensive. See the distinction? Bishonen | talk 21:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC).

Yes. And if someone tells me that the word 'hyena' offends them and I start using that word as often as possible (even though it is completely unnecessary), I'm not being very civil. Kaldari (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

However, a user being defamatory and cussing about the subject of a BLP kinda shows that that editor is also a "civil POV-pusher", just in the opposite direction. Silverseren^C 21:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Silver, I appreciate your rude commentary on my talk page. But, I guess you get to get away with that. If I went over to your page, DGG would block me. Have you read anything about the topic? Have you read the papers? The POV pushing IP guy just is making stuff up. Like "lots of researchers" support it. So, please, spare me your high and mighty thoughts. I'm going to have to disagree. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"However, a user being defamatory and cussing about the subject of a BLP kinda shows that that editor is also a "civil POV-pusher", just in the opposite direction." (emphasis mine). So now white is black and black is white and we always were at war with Eastasia? Is it 1984 again? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I am archiving this - there is no policy violation here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Tendentious editing

During the past few weeks I have been trying to improve articles like Battle of Burki and Lahore Front related to Lahore Front of Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 to at least B class with the available reliable sources. Lately an editor User:M.A.R 1993 who has a history of tendentious editing and refusal to get the point shows up every 2-3 days and makes changes into sourced data while sometimes removing references and/or adds unsourced data asking me to add more sources. Instead of working towards improving the article and adding sources himself he wants all sources that are present on the article should be removed and his unsourced data should be placed. There has already been a Citation overkill in infobox trying to convince him by providing sources but he still continues to revert sourced data specially in result section of infobox. I am at loss of ideas of how to convince him while he continues to harass me stating "INTELLECTUAL KILLING" and reverting addition of sources. The only two sources he has provided on talkpage do not even mention the battle. All of this exactly fits the description in WP:DDE and and so I have approached here as suggestes on WP:DDE.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, please see WP:GRA for ways in which you could improve this request so that more people might offer advice.  Sandstein  21:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Weird ip activity

Special:Contributions/81.164.209.246

This ip is going around removing and placing sockpuppet notices on various pages. Looks extremely odd. Please check it out. Ocaasi ^c 12:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to post here on the same point. The IP 81.164.209.246 looks to be either the banned user Editor XXV (talk · contribs) or is pretending to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

All three of us came to this page at the same time with the same question. I was wondering which drawer he fit in. He is currently edit warring with several users over the use of sockpuppet templates on other editors. Anyone with a checkuser bit care to take care of this? --Jayron32 12:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It passes the duck test. I'd rather not say anything more specific than that. Once it gets blocked, its work can be repaired. (P.S. I am not a checkuser. I'm going strictly by behavior.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I noticed this to, he keeps removing tags from Copyedeye, i notified NuclearWarfare who originally tagged the sock--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 12:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for disruptive editing. I don't see any connections to previously blocked accounts (yet), but if there is more activity, please let me know and I'll investigate. My spidey-sense says the IP is a proxy, but I can't confirm it. TNXMan 12:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. The higher-ups seem to think we should be more welcoming to our newest users. : / Ocaasi ^c 12:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Someone should post a "welcome wagon" banner just ahead of the block notification. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

We should be more welcoming, agreed. But when an editor's first edits (on this IP, granted) are removing a sock tag from a user's page, and when they have such intimate knowledge of the editor in question as to say categorically that they aren't a sock (quack), then they're clearly not a new user. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So, would it be considered disruptive to post a legitimate but implictly sarcastic "welcome" template on their talk page? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Honestly? I've seen lots of IPs who get not a "Welcome please register" message but a "So what's your username" message. As for the sarcasm - it's always really, really helpful, as we know. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it can be helpful, as it can sometimes aid in exposing the truth of a situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well the ip is correct that Copyedeye is not blocked. They were unblocked back in 2010, so whether or not they are a sock they are not an indefinitely blocked sock. Syrthiss (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

However, NW had tagged him as a "suspected" sock of the banned user Mantanmoreland (talk · contribs). Why he was unblocked but the tag remained, is up to NW and Bwilkins to explain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure why he was unblocked to begin with; Alison labeled him a highly likely sockpuppet. NW (Talk) 13:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I've left a note with the unblocking admin, User talk:Bwilkins, asking for his opinion on this situation. --Jayron32 14:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it appears I unblocked him. As can be seen from their talkpage, I had extensive interactions over a few unblock requests, and I think I even had their talkpage on my watchlist for a brief period of time. I believe that the unblock was based on WP:ROPE, at least as far as I can remember. I cannot speak to any possible relationship between the IP and this userid. If they have reached the end of their rope, feel free to tie the noose. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears he's trying to tell us that Mantanmoreland and Editor XXV are the same guy. That could be true or it could be a red herring. Socks, either way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If the editor was unblocked, they could remove the template themselves. There's no reason this other person needed to be removing such templates, and doing so is a tad suspicious. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Editor Bakhshi82 changing and removing editors' comments, and making threats

This user continues to change and remove editors' comments, especially mine, at Talk:Titanic (1997 film), as seen in this link, where I reverted him. His reasoning for continuing to do so is also in that link. I feel that his reasoning is unsound, as this is not some serious case of a personal attack. It is me stating my suspicion that he edited the article as IPs against consensus, and that he did it again once he could no longer edit the article as IPs (once it was semi-locked). He has been repeatedly reverted on this -- changing and removing my statements -- and yet continues to do so. He has also made WP:THREATS against me, as seen here. Administrative action is needed. Flyer22 (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It looks to me like Bakhshi82 correctly applied WP:AVOIDYOU. Commentary like that doesn't belong in an article Talk page, IMO. If you have suspicions of an editor trying to circumvent restrictions or bypass WP:CONSENSUS by seeking the relative anonymity of editing as an IP, it should be taken up on WP:ANI (like it is now) or off-wiki. That said, editing others' Talk-page comments is normally a fairly clear-cut no-no, as is editing against consensus. There's no doubt a content dispute exists, but gaining consensus SHOULD have resolved it. Those are my observations, anyway...I'll now step back and let the admins look things over. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

How could he have correctly applied WP:AVOIDYOU, if he is using that to edit/remove my comments? As you stated, it is "a fairly clear-cut no-no" to edit/remove editors comments in the way he has been doing. I also see nothing wrong in voicing on the talk page my suspicions about socking. I voiced my suspicions to bring it to the attention of others, and stated that I would take action if it continued. And whether or not I should have discussed his actions in a different forum setting or not, this is about the fact that he has continued to edit/remove my comments and has even resorted to legal threats. My suspicions of his conduct being expressed on the talk page does not excuse his horrid behavior, and administrative action should be taken to make sure he understands that he cannot continue to do this. Flyer22 (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think comparing an editor's editing pattern to another IP strictly falls under WP:AVOIDYOU since the guideline states "...when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack", especially when its destabilising the article, and Flyer's comments certainly don't fall under WP:NPA#WHATIS. I have to admit I shared Flyer's suspicions at the time that Bakhshi was socking, since that certainly appeared to be the case. I don't think it's out of order to politely warn an editor about socking if there is a pattern, but agree it's probably better done on the editor's talk page rather than in the discussion itself. Bakshi's alterations extend far beyond just refactoring the sockpuppet accusations though, which I don't think can be justified under WP:AVOIDYOU. Betty Logan (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have only one request. I want User Flyer22 to delete my username as a suspect in all her comments in the Titanic (1997 film) discussion page at this sections: Consensus and Rudeness and consensus. instead reporting IPs that acted against consensus she has done unlike WP:NPA and WP:AVOIDYOU and slandered me. She often used my username in her several comments as wrongdoer IP, and then she and her friends rejected my friendly editing that was according the rules of Wikipedia. Everything is visible at the talk page. My deepest thanks for your consideration.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have already denied your request. My denying your request does not give you the right to then edit/remove my comments and anyone else's who focuses on your behavior at the article. If you truly want me to put you through user check, then I will. "Me and my friends" did not reject your "friendly editing that was according [to] the rules of Wikipedia." We editors rejected your edits that went against objections/consensus/Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. Yes, everything is indeed visible at the talk page...as well as in the article's edit history. Flyer22 (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

about the my old comments i have to say maybe i wrote some fault texts but i changed that as you can also and at this time history of article isn't our main argument.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not the point. I did not want to change my comments, and you took it upon yourself to change/remove them...repeatedly. You even removed Betty's entire recent comment that mentioned you not engaging in conversation. I've only had to revert you once on removing my comments, as others kept reverting you for me. Those reverts should have told you that you were in the wrong. I was pretty much done with you...and would have left things where they were...if you had not continued to take it upon yourself to alter/remove my comments. I wish to hear no more from you on this matter, and would rather hear from administrators about this. This discussion becoming too long will only discourage some of them from weighing in, as most prefer short discussions or at least discussions they can get a good summary of without reading much...so that they can then weigh in easily enough. This back and forth between us is not helping matters. Flyer22 (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm so sorry but unfortunately all of your wording is an uproar from your delusion, Betty Logan removed his or her entire last comment by its own hands not me, ask him or her, and again sorry but, about the prolixity, this is you that like to reciprocate by too much writing but unfortunately unfair.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no delusion going on here. You removed Betty's comment, as the link at the top of this very section (my revert of your clear vandalism) shows. And yet you wonder why I don't trust a lot of what you state?

Seriously, is there no administrator willing to act on this? Is this user just allowed to continuously alter/remove comments because he objects to what may be stated about his conduct? Flyer22 (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I check that again, you are right, but i have no objection with his or her comment, When i reverted Frank i removed Betty's comment unintentionally, because we was editing in a same time, i will apologize Betty Logan on the talk page.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Enough, both of you.

Flyer22, please stop accusing them there of misbehavior. If you believe there is a case for sockpuppetry , take it to WP:SPI and file a case there. You've crossed the line into harrassing them on the article talk page. Please just stop.

Bakhshi82, removing comments in the middle like that is not entirely appropriate, and you should have come get administrator help rather than responding in that manner. Please do not do that again.

Both of you should probably try and avoid each other for a while, as you're evidently not getting along.

Please consider this a formal administrator first level warning. If you keep it up towards each other, I'll leave further warnings on your talk pages, etc. If you need more admin intervention you can continue to request it here on ANI. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

In what way have I harassed Bakhshi82 on the article talk page? My sockpuppet suspicions were voiced before Bakhshi82 showed up claiming he wasn't the IPs. When he showed up, he started harassing me, insisting that I alter/remove my comments. When I stated that I was willing to let the matter go but not remove my comments, he kept after me to remove my comments and started removing them himself. He is the one who kept altering/removing comments and making threats, and yet I am the one who was doing the harassing and am equally at fault? I most definitely disagree, and so do most editors at that talk page. "[N]ot entirely appropriate"? His altering/removing comments wasn't appropriate at all! I have no problem with this user, other than his going against consensus and removing/altering comments. But if this is how administrative action can work -- blame the actual one who kept getting harassed (I had no interest in removing my comments; and since Bakhshi82 kept coming after me to do so, it was harassment) -- then oh well. I suppose I just have to accept it. Bakhshi82 will continue to think he can do whatever he wants at Wikipedia without any sort of consequences for disruptive actions. Flyer22 (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This right here is exactly what I mean about harassment, and about only one of us not being able to let things go. Flyer22 (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate RevDel

Earlier, Fences and windows (talk · contribs) redacted an edit-summary from WP:ANI, and it appears to be this one – if I remember right, and it was just a short string of "fuck fuck fuck" etc., then it doesn't appear to meet any of the RevDel criteria. Simple childish swearing is really not "grossly" incivil, it's very ordinary. Furthermore, obscuring it from public view also obscures it from scrutiny. I'm not clear that any harm can come from it being visible (it's not libellous, it doesn't reveal personal info etc.) But the main thing is that it doesn't meet the criteria.
I tried discussing this with the admin in question but we didn't reach an agreement, so I thought I'd request further input here. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 20:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'll admit it's not that extreme, but I'd give it to Fences on criteria 3 (Purely disruptive material). Whatever. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  ...but that category is clearly intended to refer to things more than just words (as in, shock links, dangerous HTML, allegations etc.) – ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 20:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  • • (edit conflict) I believe that it was Elen who in her RfA gave an eloquent argument for civility being a standard interpreted by the individual and therefore, highly variable. There are some people that find a string of curse words to be highly offensive. Certainly if that's what the post was, nothing was lost by deleting it. In light of Elen's arguement I'd very much give the benefit of the doubt to the RevDeling admin. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  Actually I disagree on that... we are too lax with RevDel, and I have always been mildly uncomfortable with such fine-grain deletion control that does not really have community input (the same way the normal delete button is). Hence I think we should err on the side of caution in usage. Of course, AGF; F&W clearly found the summary grossly degrading. There is, I think, a small chance that the edit summary was directed at someone, I haven't read the thread in depth to check. But it seemed more a general rant. I think TT has a point that using RevDel in this case was not needed. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'd agree with the above editor; the edit summary can fall into criteria 3 of WP:CFRD. This also appears to be directly related to an above discussion. Can this be grouped as a subsection of that? elektrikSHOOS 20:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  No, because this focuses on a separate, admin-conduct, issue. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 21:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• The community is split on how to interpret RevDel, it has been for as long as RevDel has existed. It won't be solved here. In the mean time, no one is mentioning malice here. I don't see any reason to pursue this further then. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  I'm not alleging malice, but I'm asking that the edit summary is restored. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 21:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is RD3 being discussed? F&W's deletion cites WP:RD2 ("Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material"). And whilst I have no doubt about AGF, I personally don't think that particular edit summary should be interpreted as meeting the criterion. it isn't even swearing directed at someone, so much as general (extreme) frustration being expressed. Rd232 ^talk 21:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Enough of this! Behave yourselves. I'm looking at the conversation at F&W's page and wondering how much of this is about policy and how much of this is just childish bickering. At this point I'm favoring thinking it's only bickering. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  So far I'm counting three people saying that the edit-summary probably should not have been RevDel-ed so your rather peremptory, "Enough of this!" comes across rather unimpressively... ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 21:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  Right. This issue, by any stretch of the imagination, is not a big deal, but you've been trying very hard to make it one. More importantly, your conduct at Fences page was unacceptable. Let me repeat that. Your conduct at Fences page was unacceptable. It's becoming harassment. You don't like how the conversation went there, so you came here. It seems like you don't like the way it's going here either, where do you plan on going next? Sven Manguard Wha? 21:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  If you wish to start a thread complaining about my conduct, go ahead, though I'd advise you to read WP:AOHA very carefully first. I'd also advise you to think to yourself, "I wonder why none of the admins looking into this issue have thought to caution TreasuryTag if his behaviour is as flagrantly unacceptable as I think it is?" ╟─TreasuryTag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 21:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  Sven, you're not admin, so please stop acting like one. It is coming across as a bit pompous. I agree that the deletion for a simple f-bomb is overkill here, and this isn't the first time that trigger-happy RevDel actions have bene brought to An/I. Tarc (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  you're not admin, so please stop acting like one. Now that strikes me as pompous. Very funny! -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  Adminship is no big deal. There is no class system, classism, or classist behavior on Wikipedia. Administrators are normal community members with a few extra buttons, and don't behave any differently from non-admins. .... Any other myths we want to dispel here? Of course, if admins are really no different from other members of the community, Tarc's comment really isn't that persuasive itself. No real reason to give it more weight than that of any other community member. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  Sven, there is a caste system on Wikipedia. We try to fix it, but never get anywhere. LiteralKa (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  Ka, I am well aware of the caste system. I was being sarcastic, with a tinge of raw disgust. Wikipedia has half a dozen critical issues, however the one that will do the most to kill Wikipedia, and yes, I do believe it will kill Wikipedia before the project sees it's 20th birthday, is that our community is socially dysfunctional. There's hatred and racism, vicious political games, cliques, an insular caste hierarchy, vested contributors, and a system that does not punish incivility or reward kindness. The community is a cancer that is eating at the heart of the project. It bleeds off good editors. We lost Panyd and Chase me Ladies, I'm the Calvary recently. Panyd was committed, believed in the cause, and was trusted by the WMF with a budget. The Calvary was an Arb. Wikipedia chewed them up and spit them out with barely a thank you, and now they're gone. Mono left recently, for other WMF projects that are less volitile. Sure, Mono's devotion to WP:BRD was at times grating, but he did a damn good job. With those three gone, WP:CONTRIB is all but dead now. Other involved parties backed out when they saw the leadership bail. Our community's inability to function to a higher standard wiped out a freaking WikiProject, one with staff support. And that's just in the last few weeks. I've counted dozens of good people and soild hands who have left because of the community. As to the matter at hand, sure, Fences might have made a RevDel that was not the best. It certainly had a bit of opposition, however TreasuryTag fighting him over it on F&W's talk page the way he did, then bringing the issue here, the only thing that is going to accomplish is that it's going to inflate TreasuryTag's ego and make F&W feel shitty. How is that helping anything. It's hurting the project, and no one really seems to care about that because acting like a community isn't on anyone's priorities. Well, if this continues the community will wind up tearing it's own throat out; more and more people will bail and Wikipedia will become unsustainable. I'll be standing in the corner with barely a frown wispering "I told you so" as Wikipedia goes down in history as a failed social experiment. As much as this disgusts me, I know there is nothing I can do to change it. I'm only one disgruntled user. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  "Enough of this!" brings to mind a scene from Duck Soup. Although that edit summary serves no apparent value, it's also pretty much harmless. The usual revdel is presumably done for vile stuff posted by trolls. Presumably the reason for using it is part of WP:DENY, so as not to preserve it for the public to see. That doesn't really fit this situation. But he shouldn't have posted that edit summary, either. It's unfortunate that editors can't change their own edit summaries. I expect there's a way, if the developers could be pursuaded to program it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• My 2 cents. I don't think F&W should have used RevDel here as I think the bar should be quite high for doing so (and I think "grossly" isn't met here). I also think TT needs to take it down a number of notches. In particular taunting after being asked to not post to a user page is something he's done, and been warned about, before (to me for one, so I'm certainly not unbiased). I also _like_ F&W quite a bit, so I've a bias there too I suppose but still think the RevDel was appropriate inappropriate here. Hobit (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• Agree that this looks like pointless bickering. This issue is of less than crucial importance to the welfare of the project. Whether a string of "fuck"s is visible in a history somewhere or not is something that most people give an, er, flying fuck about.  Sandstein  21:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• What's "inappropriate" about somebody removing foul language that has only been placed to offend? GiantSnowman 22:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  It's inappropriate because it doesn't meet any of the criteria for the use of the tool. See WP:CFRD. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 22:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

My question is this: Is the encyclopedia going to benefit if we unhide said edit, or is this request for undeletion merely based on principle? –MuZemike 22:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It will benefit from having it available for public scrutiny, yes. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 22:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Because of the transparency issues with RevDel, the principle matters a great deal. It's not like deleting or undeleting a talkpage comment - higher standards should be applied. Yet I find it hard to imagine a non-admin getting support for removing the equivalent comment from a talkpage. Rd232 ^talk 22:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It was clearly an inappropriate revdel; there's no content that needed to be hidden, nor was it grossly disruptive. That said, I don't see much benefit to a big ANI drama-fest to restore it. Fences should be more careful about use of revdel, but I don't see much point in dragging this discussion out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with above. What's done is done. Let's move on. -- œ^™ 23:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe F&W shouldn't have RevDel'd it, maybe it was OK, I really could care less and see this kind of hair-splitting discussion as an annoying and unproductive waste of everyone's time. But now that it's gone, asking to bring it back is just downright silly. The community benefits not a wit from being able to "scrutinize" someone cursing. I recommend that editors do something useful, like editing an article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

While A) not asking for sack-cloth and ashes, and 2) agreeing that this is not a huge deal, there is concern on my part at the reaction. As adminstrators, we should all be receptive to the occasional tune-up, and be able to contructively discuss reasonable disagreement. When reviewing the relevant talk page, TT seems to be "calm enough" for lack of a better phrase. There's clear consensus that this was an over-zealous use of the tool. It would be nice to see some indication that F&W has noted the community's input. Is that a reasonable thing to ask? - 203.202.43.53 (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"not asking for sack-cloth and ashes" - quite, the point is not to be backward-lookingly fingerwagging, but to be forward-looking "let's agree not to do that sort of thing in future". And for those who want to close the discussion down quickly: one of the problems with RevDel, apart from it just being relatively new, is that lesser scrutiny makes for greater inconsistency of application, given the range of discretion the criteria permit. So when we get a particular incident that's debatable, it's worth discussing a little in terms of guidance for future decision-making. Rd232 ^talk 02:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Rude message from User:Saisharvanan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wangond#thanks_for_your_propaganda

--Wangond (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

{{uw-npa4im}} warning given. No objection if another admin wants to apply stronger medicine. Wangond, for future reference, please see WP:GRA for ways in which you could improve such requests. You also need to notify Saisharvanan of this thread.  Sandstein  22:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks, will follow the guide from now on.--Wangond (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

For reference: Saisharvanan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). The edit in question appears to be his only edit since 6 April, and he has not edited since (12 hours or so). I concur with the warning, and am happy to block if that warning is ignored. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 00:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised that Wangond is actually here. He has been edit warring in various pages. [23] [24] [25] His main objective seems to be POV-pushing his views on Indian related topics. He refuses to discuss issues at article talk pages (instead, he leaves "warnings" on a user talk page [26] and when "forced" to, he refuses to cite specific sources for his statements. I don't know if this is supposed to be in AN/I or not. If it isn't, please let me know where I'm supposed to bring this issue. Bejinhan talks 02:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the next time he does it, go to WP:AN/EW. Nightw 03:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Wangond is the editor that gave me a level 3 warning for supposedly violating NPOV. See WP:NPOVN#Just got a level 3 warning for my edit at Indus Valley Civilization -- where he's trying to keep out a view he doesn't like. Oh, I agree with the warning of Saisharvanan, but the issue raised by that editor looks real to me. Damn, he's again removed the view he doesn't like at Indus Valley Civilization, see [27] wher he continues to remove my fact tag and mention of Sharri Clark's views (he thinks including them violates NPOV). This is ironic since the sentence where I put the fact tag references Clark's webpage but the webpage doesn't mention the claims in the sentence, which Clark in fact doesn't support. Dougweller (talk) 04:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Conflictive behavior

There is a user (User:Tia solzago) who makes difficult any edition in articles related to political parties in Italy. For example, according to him the Berlusconi's party is not a right-wing party ! [28], the neo-fascist parties are not right-wing populists [29][30] the separatist government party (Lega Nord) is not a right-wing populist party [31], in this case despite all these references presented. Obstructs and reverses everything, but he don't present any single reference.

Appeals to consensus assumptions that have never been expressed. The problem is that (perhaps unintentionally) does prevail his personal opinion on the references and the common sense. In fact, he opposes giving no reasons. Maybe he is emotionally involved. He has already conflicts with other users [32][33](in this wiki, as in the Italian one) who makes editions in the article of the Lega Nord.

I don't know if is possible to ask him to abstain from reversing those articles. If this is not possible, I ask to an administrator to review these articles and references of each case, putting an end to this situation, in which is impossible to edit.

I don't know if this is the right place to express my concern. I'm new here and this user reverse nearly all my editions, in my opinion without any reason. Regards.--ForEverRome (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have notified User:Tia solzago of this thread, since you failed to do so. I understand you are a new editor, but that big orange box that appears when you edit this page requires you to notify any editor whose actions you are discussing. I have no comment on the substance of the discussion. Horologium (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It looks to me that Tia solzago is merely removing unsourced information from articles - what's wrong with that? If you are adamant that these political parties are indeed "right-wing" or "right-wing populist" or whatever, please add a reliable source to verify the information. Regards, GiantSnowman 00:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparent personal attack

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

This comment ("douchebag turdface") to another editor[34] is an apparent personal attack by an IP who has a short editing history. This editor has previously been warned about 3RR and personal attacks. I recommend a brief block to allow the new editor to read Wikipedia policy on edit-warring and personal attacks. TFD (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

To be fair to the IP, I did call him a 'halfwit' immediately beforehand. I'm inclined to think that this anon IP has prior history though - he seems to have a bee in his bonnet about me for some reason. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Some mild edit warring has occured too, but, I feel this IP just need long explanation.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If what I said was seriously offensive, and whoever I said it to actually feels bad about it (crying or something), I earnestly apologize. I had in no way meant to cause any sort of damage, and will not do this again, lest someone actually gets hurt. I just want to say that you really do not think about damage when you say something, and nobody can easily remember to accurately calculate all the effects of everything he says. Furthermore, I want to add that I do come from an environment where people use these words every few minutes when speaking, and nobody I know in the world outside of Wikipedia makes a big fuss about offensive words. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• IP173: I'm glad you're planning on changing your on Wikipedia behaviour to meet the community standards and continuing contributing to the community and the encyclopaedic project. Wikipedia strongly discourages incivility to other editors because it breaks down community editing, and detracts from the project of building a free encyclopaedia. Wikipedia may be more restrictive than other communities in real life, because as an online forum it lacks many of the mediating elements of real life (such as tone of voice, physical expression) which tend to detract from incivil words. Happy editing. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I only said that because I momentarily thought it would be illogical to joke with those words among friends while being so kind with those who deny Karl Marx's antisemitism. Just two different words. As urban dictionary states it, [35]. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Improper move of Espanola, New Mexico by copy and paste

The page Española, New Mexico was moved to Espanola, New Mexico by copying and pasting the content, which destroys the history. Also, the talk page did not get moved. Please help. Thanks. --69.99.142.40 (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, the permanent semi-protected status of the page was lost during the move. --69.99.142.40 (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed. NW (Talk) 03:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI: WP:REPAIR is there for just this sort of request. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Issues with User:Kwamikagami

We are having an issue with an editor adding hyphens to medical articles against consensus. Discussion took place here with 6 against the hyphens and 2 for them. Kwam was asked not to continue making these changes and to allow those who primarily write the article allow them to reflect usage in current medical literature. He continues here [36]and here [37] One of our expert contributors are having difficult with him. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I am with consensus, though a couple editors now don't want to accept that for reasons I fail to understand. At first, I was hyphenating all articles per the MOS, as long as that was supported by the medical literature. I agreed with the majority of editors at the time that we won't use normal English punctuation for cancer articles since the majority of journals don't bother with it, but there was one exception: we agreed that we should not call tumors "large" or "small" unless they are actually large or small. Mispunctuating "small cell carcinoma" (for one that may be quite large) is so misleading for those not familiar with the terminology (technically "small-cell carcinoma") that we agreed to continue hyphenating in such situations. That is what I've been doing. If Doc or anyone else wants to change the consensus, then we should get together and discuss it, and see if we agree it's medically responsible to tell patients or their loved ones that they have large tumors when they're small, or small tumors when they're large. — kwami (talk) 04:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)