Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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)

I would have to say that this is completely outside of anything that any reasonable person would say is compatible with acceptable behavior here. Exactly how much threatening behavior is this person going to be allowed to get away with? Herostratus (talk) 06:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know this discussion was taking place and perhaps it's too late already, but I think there is not an appreciation here of the situation with Bakhshi. The advice that he and Flyer avoid each other has some merit, but it's not an equal problem. I have edited at the Titanic (movie) page quite a bit, and he is difficult, to say the least. Has he changed other editors' posts? Yes. Has he made threats? Yes. He changed the article after a long and contentious process had resolved itself, but then his English is pretty spotty so he's not really in a position to offer stylistic improvements anyway. He was invited to offer his views and he declined. Now, perhaps Flyer was not correct in accusing him of sockpuppetry, but I find it very curious that the IP contributor never returned to claim that he was not Bakhshi. Instead, the socking just stopped, and Bakhshi returned. (Coincidence!) I note that he's returned today to Flyer's talk page with bad behavior. I think the editors here did not comprehend the situation very well and should look again. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we all agree that the sockpuppet accusation perhaps would have been better kept out of the discussion, but it's simply not true Flyer harrassed Bakshi. For a start Bakshi wouldn't come to the talk page so he wasn't even there to harrass! The only other direct communication Flyer had with Bakshi where she initiated contact was on his talk page to direct him to the discussion, and to inform him of an AN3 report which had been filed after his reverting (which she didn't file incidentally). I think we lost patience with Bakshi towards the end which perhaps reflects badly on us, but he did push it by putting the same peacock (and grammatically incorrect) terms into the article over and over, and we didn't get any assistance when we asked for it, so I don't think the deterioration of the situation can be entirely laid at Flyer's feet. I mean, it was just hard to deal with, it was a difficult discussion even without the added complications. I am sure Flyer would agree to handle SP accusations more appropriately in the future, but things wouldn't have gone this way if Bakshi had stopped reverting and joined the discussion, so maybe rather than allocating blame perhaps both Flyer and Bakshi would be best served by this discussion if Bakshi agreed to edit in a more collaborative manner. Betty Logan (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

OK seriously, do something about this guy. There is something really wrong with this situation. Millahnna (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently the editors of this page are silent in the face of Bakhshi's documented over the top misbehavior. This is appalling, if true. No one in a leadership position will say a word? What is the problem? --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

And the creepy continues. Meanwhile Flyer has left Bakshi alone and progress has been made on the portion of the article that started the whole mess to begin with. I'm a little disheartened by how this is shaking out. Millahnna (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ring Cinema, there really isn't any sort of formal leadership here. Us admins are just volunteers, and we're not obligated by anything but our own morals. I'm not surprised people left this alone; it looks mostly like a content dispute at first and now creepy, two things admins like to steer clear of. Anyway, I left Bakhshi a warning that his behavior is inappropriate. If anyone else feels like an immediate block is necessary, feel free. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I was under the impression that some editors have credentials to do things that other editors do not, which is a sort of leadership, whether de facto, ad hoc, or non-hierarchical. I don't think it's correct to call Flyer's complaint a content dispute, though. She didn't ask to have any content changed. She complained about two specific things (threats and illicit edits) that have nothing to do with content. Yes, it sprang from a content dispute, but almost everything does. Again, thanks for jumping in, even if it's not your usual portfolio. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

---

May I point something out? Here we have a dispute between two editors:

• Flyer22 has been a Wikipedian for four years. She has 46,000 edits (65% to article space). She has nine barnstars, five DYK's, four GA's, and many other accomplishments, all of which can be seen with a quick scan of her user page. In addition, she is an outstanding, fair-minded, erudite, and talented editor who works hard in a number of difficult areas, and has for years.
• Bakhshi82 has been a Wikipedian for less than a year. He has 165 edits (30% to article space). This is not counting whatever editing he has done under various IPs or previously-banned usernames. He is... not a good editor, let us say; I'll leave the particulars as an exercise for the reader, along with the assessment of this editor's mental state.

So when Flyer22 comes here with a legitimate complaint, what happens? She gets jumped and then hung out to dry. What a ludicrous spectacle. And you people wonder why established editors are getting pissed off and leaving. "Come to ANI"? Why yes sir I'll bring my next problem right to ANI, just as soon as I finish pounding in some tent pegs with my forehead, which will be a more productive and certainly more pleasant use of my time. Sheesh. Herostratus (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and simply searching User talk:Flyer22 for "Bakhshi82" shows sufficient reason to believe that the latter is not suitable for Wikipedia. No doubt someone could provide a link to a rule saying that nonsense must be tolerated because we are all equal, however simply removing the source of the nonsense would seem to be a more helpful procedure. Johnuniq (talk) 04:30, 24 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 [1]and here [2] 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)

Sorry to break in here Doc James ... Kwami, with all due respect, that's just FLAT WRONG. There was NEVER any consensus - your "imaginary" consensus (or as you call it on your Talk Page, "silent consensus" - LOL!!!) was something you PREMATURELY and UNILATERALLY declared after (IMO) "bad faith vote counting"!

Importantly here ... it's highly prototypical, and part-and-parcel, of your little personal idiosyncratic modus operandi, as I will explain in GREAT detail (below, in a minute). Tell us, as Doc James asks, out of your "imaginary/silent/rigged consensus", JUST EXACTLY HOW you came to hyphenating "squamous-cell", "clear-cell", and "basal cell" ... JUST TO NAME A FEW? I won't even TALK about "salivary gland--like", and probably OTHERS which I intend to run down here soon. Huh? Huh?

And if ya knew SQUAT about what you were talking about, you would know that >90% of small cell lung cancer patients have WIDELY disseminated disease at the time of discovery, and are GONERS anyway, and that tumor size has VERY little correlation with survival ... not to mention that YOU KNOW the "confuse them" argument is merely flotsam you're trying to grab onto because you're drowning. NOBODY with >12 functioning neural connections is going to be confused by the lack of hyphen, because ITS DRAMATICALLY OBVIOUS from the CONTEXT what the "small" means, PLUS no one will JUST look at Wikipedia if they are researching a small cell cancer diagnosed in them or their loved ones. Your rationale just doesn't pass the "Sniff Test", and YOU KNOW IT! You have caused MASSIVE problems in a NUMBER of areas - look at your own Talk Page! UNREAL!!!

In one of the edits above you returned "Squamous-cell". I seem to read the opinions of other differently than you and have asked the users to clarify. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I may have restored that in a revert of a pointy edit, rather than picking through the changes, but I don't recall purposefully hyphenating such forms after agreeing not to. — kwami (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

But there's the problem in a nutshell. Although Kwamikagami is perfectly aware of the strength of opposition to the changes he makes, he continues to do so (as in the "Squamous-cell" case), then uses weasel terms to explain away such cavalier editing behaviour: I may have restored ... – there's no "may have" about it; I don't recall purposefully hyphenating ... – nobody's complaining about his memory, just his editing against consensus. If he can't manage to edit without causing problems on medical articles, and can't recognise when he causes a problem, then it may be time to consider whether he ought to be editing medical articles at all. --RexxS (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's ridiculous. I reverted a pointy edit. I didn't waste my time sifting through and manually reverting only the pointy bits, I simply reverted. If you want to go in and individually restore the other bits, be my guest. — kwami (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I intend to post on this at great length this weekend, after I complete a full investigation of the problems this gentleman has caused A LOT of people, and am thus prepared to be more accurate and detailed, but I would quickly add and emphasize that THESE sorts of comments are part of Kwami's particular modus operandi. He MASSIVELY screws stuff up with THOUSANDS of edits and page moves without the SLIGHTEST concern for what others might think or attempts to contact them for discussion, in areas he knows DIDDLY SQUAT about, and then when confronted, agrees to stop or alter his behavior, while just continuing on doing the same things again, and when caught again, says "didn't do it on purpose", throws out arguments that are intellectually dishonest (my opinion, given the irony of his obviously high intelligence contrasted with his inane excuses and reasoning that a third-grader wouldn't swallow), and then puts forth sources to back his argument that prove FALSE when checked, and covers THAT by saying "well, for some reason I can't access that page right now". Look, I hate being mad, confrontational, and uncivil, but Kwami has ENRAGED me with this stuff! Its obvious its a "power trip" ... BET: Anyone shows me a link where Kwami has ADMITTED he was wrong, apologized, stopped what he was doing, and fixed the damage WITHOUT 500 MAN HOURS AND 3 TERABYTES OF B.S. ARGUING, I will mail you $50 cash U.S. Grrrrr.... Regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a wider problem than medical articles. In March I made a report at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive684#User:Kwamikagami moving ship class articles from XXXX class format to XXX-class format reported by Toddy1 (Result:). The problem there was that Kwamikagami was moving ship articles to a hyphenated form of the name, even though the matter was still under discussion, and no consensus had been reached; he had been asked to stop, and agreed to stop, but carried on anyway until the ANI was brought. The discussion of the ANI turned into a discussion of whether the names should have hyphens, for which there was no consensus. On that one too, Kwamikagami had a weasel explanation of why he had carried on making the moves even after agreeing to stop; and he was criticised for it. But nothing was done about his behaving in this way.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I love this. I was following the MOS for ship names. I was using the forms already in the articles themselves! — kwami (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(undent) I think what would be fair is for Kwami to remove all the hyphens from medical articles that he added from everything but "small-cell" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This thread may also be of relevance here. This is the third time that Kwamikagami has had their actions in respect to moves brought here in as many months. I've no idea how many of these moves have required the admin bit but I suspect some of them have. Kwamikagami seems regularly to find what they think is a clear consensus when othersthink the consensus is unclear at best. They then seem to often act on this "consensus" despite being involved. Once could just be a mistake, but three times seems to suggest a possibly worrying pattern. Dpmuk (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

With all this wiki-lawyering over petty stuff like hyphens, how did Kwami ever get to be an admin, and why is he still an admin? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Kwami does a lot of great work. Just needs to be more receptive to feedback that is all and careful with his interpretation of others comments. When one makes as many edits as he a few issues are sure to occur. Thus hopefully he will act upon the suggestion above...Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, "small-cell" has been objected to by a regular editor of the relevant page. (Reliable sources are divided, about 3 to 2, in favor of non-hyphenation/not following standard grammar.) The hyphen in "non-small cell" is the only hyphen that has gone uncontested so far (Kwami advocates for double hyphenation there; standard grammar is either two hypens or one en dash and one hyphen). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

How does this hyphen stuff benefit the readers? It shows the same way, either way, in the search box. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

For the fraction of readers who understand the grammar rules, the hyphenation makes it immediately obvious that a small-cell tumor is a tumor composed of small cells, rather than a small tumor composed of cells. The majority of readers do not know the grammar rules and thus receive no benefit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Kwamikagami persists in promoting his own agenda and ignoring the consensus that we achieved at WikiProject Medicine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"One of our expert contributors are having difficult with him."

— Doc James

I disagree. Several of our expert editors are having problems with him. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Noetica's analysis (please comment after my post, not within it)

There is be a genuine inconsistency between WP:MOSMED and WP:MOS on such hyphenation. But there is also at least one problem within WP:MOSMED itself (and with its linked resources). Some excerpts:

1. For punctuation, e.g., possessive apostrophes and hyphens, follow the use by high-quality sources.
2. Where there is a dispute over a name, editors should cite recognised authorities and organisations rather than conduct original research.
3. [A note to 2:] Examples of original research include counting Google or PubMed results, comparing the size or relevance of the varieties of English, and quoting from personal or professional experience.
4. [At WP:MEDRS, linked from 2:] PubMed is an excellent starting point for locating peer reviewed medical sources [and so on, with nothing contradicting].

Is PubMed to be used in settling names for content and titles, or not? If it is, how can counting, weighting, and evaluating the kudos of sources listed there not be considered original research?

And at the top of WP:MOSMED:

• This page proposes style guidelines for editing medical articles. The general rules from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style also apply when writing medical articles.

As for WP:MOS, it is the central resource for guidelines on punctuation. It gives great detail at WP:HYPHEN (see also WP:ENDASH and WP:SLASH) for the matter in question here. It does not delegate any matter of punctuation to subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style. Arguably therefore, especially if such a subsidiary page is not well coordinated with WP:MOS, and if it contains contradictions and uncertainties, WP:MOS is the one to follow.

WP:MOS includes this guidance at WP:HYPHEN:

• A hyphen can help with ease of reading (face-to-face discussion, hard-boiled egg); a hyphen is particularly useful in long noun phrases where non-experts are part of the readership, such as in Wikipedia's scientific articles: gas-phase reaction dynamics.

It goes on to show specifically how this is managed; and the guidance is pretty standard for high-quality publishing. In light of the facts laid out above, I conclude that:

1. Kwami is justified in applying guidelines from WP:MOS, as he has done.
2. WP:MOSMED and its linked resources need to be made non-contradictory.
3. There needs to be a discussion at WT:MOS to resolve the current inconsistency between WP:MOS and WP:MOSMED.

Noetica^Tea? 23:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

" Is PubMed to be used in settling names for content and titles, or not? If it is, how can counting, weighting, and evaluating the kudos of sources listed there not be considered original research? "

— Noetica

From WP:NOR (first sentence): "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research." This describes article content, not article titles.

The next sentence: "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists." The point of using PubMed is that is indeed providing reliable sources.

Next: "That includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." Using PubMed to advance the position is using the sources; the name of the article is itself used by the sources—that's the whole point.

To summarize, WP:NOR is not applicable to the naming of article titles. Even if it was, the use of PubMed would not contravene that policy.

To answer the first question: Yes, PubMed is a good way to settle disputes in content/title names. WikiProject Medicine already has consensus on this matter.

Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:TITLE. The policy describes five criteria: recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency.

Let's compare "Non-small cell lung carcinoma" with "Non-small-cell lung carcinoma":-

1. Recognizability: "Non-small cell lung carcinoma" is more frequently used and more recognizable.
2. Naturalness: Are readers really more likely to type in "Non-small-cell lung carcinoma" rather than "Non-small cell lung carcinoma"? I don't think so. Readers are more likely to use the more commonly encountered variant.
3. Precision: In this context, "precision" refers to unambiguous naming of the topic. This isn't a problem for either title—thus a draw.
4. Conciseness: Both are equally long—another draw.
5. Consistency: Until Kwamikagami came along, consistency favoured "Non-small cell lung carcinoma". His interference has muddied the waters. Let's call it a draw.

Overall, that's 5–3 in favour of "Non-small cell lung carcinoma". Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens are irrelevant in the search box. Whether you type with or without, you'll still get the same results. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, you're referring to #2: Naturalness. The second part of the criterion is "a good title should convey what the subject is actually called in English". "Non-small cell lung carcinoma" still wins here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

When oncologists say "non~small~cell carcinoma", the grammatical parsing is conveyed with intonation, not with hyphens: there would be a different intonation to "(non-small) cell carcinoma" than there would be to "non-(small cell) carcinoma". Similarly, "small (cell carcinoma)" would be accented differently than "(small cell) carcinoma". Neither hyphens nor the lack of hyphens is really part of the name, but intonation is—and we can't write intonation. Although not perfect, hyphens are an attempt to capture this distinctive intonation in writing. Therefore (2) 'naturalness' supports hyphenation, because that's how the name is actually pronounced. Anyway, most readers for which this matters will be new to the topic, and for them it wodn't matter which is used, at least not in your sense. For those familiar with the topic, the meaning is also clear either way so it still won't matter. I also take issue with (1) recognizability. The hyphenated form is obviously more recognizable for the literate (i.e., anyone who has a high-school level of written English), and this isn't Simple English WP where we need to assume that our readers may not be literate. If we accept your conclusion that 3–5 are a draw, then as I count it we have 2–0 in favor of hyphenation. And the potential for real confusion among naive readers if we don't hyphenate. — kwami (talk) 10:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, I object IN THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE TERMS to Kwami counting up "the score" (i.e. "2-0 in favor") on ANYTHING having to do with this issue. In previous "votes", so to speak, in discussions on this issue, it was OBVIOUS that Kwami does NOT make a good faith effort to "count the votes" correctly, and neither will he accept consensus when its staring him directly in his face. Just the fact that he is STILL persisting with this stuff is CONCLUSIVE evidence of that, because at a previous EXTENSIVE discussion on this - kindly linked by Doc James above - it WAS QUITE OBVIOUS that the physicians and medical experts posting, as I recall from memory User:Uploadvirus, User:Jmh649, User:WhatamIdoing, User:My_core_competency_is_competency, User:Axl, and User:Colin were AGAINST his position, and only his "compadre" and fellow linguistics expert User:Tony1 - neither of whom know DIDDLY SQUAT about lung cancer and its literature best I can tell - User:Tony1 was in favor of his position. I submit that there is NO QUESTION that he is resisting this consensus beyond ANY level of reasonableness, and probably will not stop without being served a court order from the ICC.

I am also going to state that, in my opinion, he has been misleading (at best) in providing evidence to justify some of his actions. Yesterday, I went to expand a stub I had begun on Salivary gland-like carcinoma of the lung - of course, it had been altered to "salivary gland--like" (i.e. a freaking "double dash" thing)!!! Mouth agape, I think to myself "Sweet Jesus, if THAT version appears anywhere in the lit, I will eat my living room table sans ketchup!". So I ask him about it, and he replies with some book cite. So I check it, and he was WRONG! The book was even goofier, having some idiocy like "salivary-gland--like", or maybe even including $, &, and # in there somewhere, I don't remember. I do remember checking all 4 instances of this tumor name occurring in the book, and NONE of them matched what he said it was. When I called him on it, citing a specific page, he replied with something like "I couldnt get that page on my computer, the page I looked at said what I said". I haven't had time to double verify his denial, but as I recall nopw, the page he quoted was misleading (I think, will recheck this).

Another issue worth considering here, IMO, is his attitude about fixing problems he has caused. At least twice he has been asked to go fix a bunch of these lung (and other site-specific) cancer articles, and at least once he AGREED to, then DIDN'T - rudely demanding he be provided a list of what to fix (note: obvious answer is "damn near every one you ever done"). Also, at least once, he told the requesting person [paraphrasing] "go fix it yourself" in a tone that ticked me off severely.

I will post much more cogently and extensively on this later, am in a hurry this morning, so I apologize for the crude way this is argued. And I ALSO APOLOGIZE TO EVERYONE, including Kwami, for the way this has gotten out of hand. I HATE FIGHTING WITH ANYONE. TTYL!

With best regards to all: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The 'freaking "double dash" thing' is actually an en-dash; and this example is very much like "New York–London flight" from The Chicago Manual of Style. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The general point here seem to be that Wikipedia should reflect the real world. If physicians are mostly illiterate with respect to English writing subtleties, let them have their cake and eat it. Wikipeidia is usually not the appropriate place to right great wrongs. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"Salivary gland-like" should be a hyphen, not an n-dash. The n-dash is used as shorthand for actual words, such as "New York to London" in your example, or "1876--1901" being short for "from 1876 through 1901". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Is "salivary" modifying "gland-like"? Or is it (salivary gland)-like carcinoma, i.e. "salivary gland" is an open compound [3] here just like "New York"? Perhaps you should read the article before commenting... Tijfo098 (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, (salivary gland)-like. And, yes, silly me for believing what I was taught in grade school. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps someone should read The Subversive Copy Editor; review. Perhaps we need to make a Homo editorialis barnstar. ;-) Tijfo098 (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Kwami says above that the grammatically correct forms are "obviously more recognizable for the literate (i.e., anyone who has a high-school level of written English)".

Problem: Data disagrees.

I know zero people who never attended university that actually understand or follow the most basic hyphenation rules. In my experience, a clear majority of university graduates don't know the hyphenation rules. And as a relevant piece of proof, I remind you that basically 100% of the high-quality reliable sources for these subjects—the very sources that are getting it "wrong"—are written and edited by people with not only university degrees, but with advanced degrees. So unless you are prepared to define MDs and PhDs and DOs as being outside the set of "anyone who has a high-school level of written English", this simply isn't true.

More importantly, when words quit being descriptions and start being separate entities, then their names sometimes stop following the grammar rules for descriptive phrases. It's File Transfer Protocol, a specific thing, not "file-transfer protocol", any old protocol for transferring files. Similarly, it's Small cell carcinoma, a specific thing, not just any old carcinoma involving small cells (and, by the way, there are lots of carcinomas that have small cells and are not SCC). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's not make this into a content dispute

It's not. The problem is not the content dispute, it's the continued disputed edits and page moves by an editor (who is coincidentally an admin, but that's only relevant insomuch as he should know better) who has already been brought up for this before. ANI discussion should only concern how to make that problem go away. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no getting around the fact that, at some point, there has to be a decision about "what's correct" in terms of these hyphens and n-dashes and such. From the contradictory comments in the previous sub-section, it's not at all clear that there really is a "right" answer. Yet everyone involved "thinks" they have the one right answer. How do you fix that problem??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Modus Operandi of Kwami, a "Serial Wiki-Rapist" (By Uploadvirus)

Kwami's overall BEHAVIOR is an EXTREMELY important issue here! HE'S AN ADMINISTRATOR, and therefore, owes a SPECIAL DUTY to observe standards of conduct and procedure, and should be held to a higher standard of expectations and performance than "plain vanilla" editors and other folks around here.

Basically, I submit that Kwami has REPEATEDLY and CONSISTENTLY, over time and in a NUMBER of subject matter "areas" of Wikipedia, followed a particular course of conduct that - in my opinion - is (a) very obvious to anyone who looks, (b) absolutely intentional, (c) extremely disruptive and damaging, and (d) contumacious beyond belief, and is suggestive of someone on a "power trip" who needs to be "defanged". His modus operandi can be summarized in several steps:

• STEP 1 - MAKE UNILATERAL, MASSIVE, CONTROVERSIAL CHANGES TO ARTICLES/GROUPS OF ARTICLES, AND DOING LARGE-SCALE PAGE MOVING, WITHOUT PRIOR NOTIFICATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND/0R AGAINST CONSENSUS

There's NO POSSIBLE WAY Kwami can argue - in GOOD FAITH and with INTELLECTUAL HONESTY - that he does not CONSISTENTLY and REPEATEDLY pick an area of subject matter (i.e. cancer and ships, to name two), and then just ROCK AND ROLL on it, cranking out MANY HUNDREDS of controversial edits, inserting hyphens and stuff in article titles, text, links, and templates; and moving NUMEROUS pages around, WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING A SINGLE SOUL.

There's NO POSSIBLE WAY he can deny that HE KNOWS this is EXTREMELY RUDE AND INCONSIDERATE, because he's been TOLD numerous times, and has been around FOREVER. There is also NO WAY can he deny that HE KNOWS that this behavior flies in the face of the "core spirit" of Wikipedia, which is COLLABORATION.

It would be bad enough if he was doing this kind of thing in an area in which he has considerable expertise, such as languages. HOWEVER, it is PARTICULARLY ENRAGING when he goes around doing it in subject areas about which he knows DIDDLY SQUAT! For example, his "justification" for his hyphenation in cancer is that "the reader might be confused and think small cell carcinoma means that the cancer is small, which is dangerous".

Is THAT argument in "good faith" and "intellectually honest"? Get serious - AIN'T NO WAY, JOSE! NOBODY researching small cell lung cancer is going to ONLY use Wikipedia for their research, number one, and number two, the context in the Wikipedia article AND the context in EVERY OTHER ARTICLE immediately makes it clear "small" refers to the CELLS, not the TUMOR SIZE!

My POINT, ladies - inject surprise *smooch* for WhatamIdoing - and gentlemen, is that his behavior and arguments are knowing, intentional, contumacious, and in bad faith. And he throws out RIDICULOUS "excuses" and "justifications" when trying to weasel out of it when he's caught red-handed. For example, see the previously posted criticisms by Doc James here on this topic and on Kwami's own talk page in his discussions with me - he says "I don't remember", or "it might have been an accident", or "I can't seem to pull up that page from that source right now". The latter one occurred when I CAUGHT him "mistaken" (lying?) about a change he made when I checked his source and proved him wrong! IT'S A PATTERN, happens all the time!

• 2. WHEN NOTIFIED OF OBJECTIONS TO HIS EDITING FROM OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES, HE IGNORES IT, AND CONTINUES TO PERSIST IN HIS CONTROVERSIAL EDITING, BOTH BEFORE AND DURING DISCUSSION

Again, this has happened repeatedly, and he has been called on it repeatedly. Yet it never seems to change his modus operandi. In one instance I recall well, Doc James caught him. Check for yourself - the evidence is there, and its clear! And be sure and look at the INCREDIBLY EGREGIOUS stuff he pulled with regard to SHIP NAMES, which wasted 40 trillion man-hours!

• 3. PREMATURE AND UNILATERAL PROCLAMATION OF "CONSENSUS

He REPEATEDLY AND DELIBERATELY misrepresents other peoples arguments on controversial topics when their opinion is ADVERSE to his position ... but incredibly enough, seems to have NO PROBLEM AT ALL in correctly interpreting their thrust when the person agrees with him EVERY SINGLE TIME. Now ... either that's what I call "bad faith-type, deliberate lying/fraud", or else its the most unGodly statistical anomaly I've ever seen - you make the call!

For ALL THE EVIDENCE YOU NEED for conviction on a charges of (a) gross misrepresentation of opinions, (b) attempted bad-faith "vote rigging", and (c) being feloniously condescending, just read over the relevant part of his talk page - where he tries to spoon-feed me a GIANT helping of CRAP - and compare it to the relevant arguments found [[4]].

And BOY, within about a MILLISECOND of him getting one or two comments even REMOTELY in his favor ... he unilaterally declares that IT'S VOTING TIME! Then of course HE "counts the votes", using his (I believe deliberate) "misinterpretations" of positions, and VOILA! He announces "WE HAVE CONSENSUS" on [what he wanted]!!!

Not a believer? Just take a quick look at some of the previous discussions on this (and other) topic(s), particularly the one at Kwami's own talk page! Here, he alleges "consensus" - including something he refers to as "silent consensus", LOL! - by DELIBERATELY (apparently) misinterpreting peoples posts/opinions. When Doc James looked, though, the TRUE "vote count" was 6-2 AGAINST him (!).

Go look at THAT, and also some of the MASSIVE problems he has caused in OTHER areas. Go talk to some of the OTHER authors he has "sodomized" (figuratively speaking) ... THEN come back here and tell me - with a straight face - that he's acting IN GOOD FAITH. Explain to me and the other victims of his shenanigans how ANYONE of good faith and intellectual honesty could POSSIBLY interpret those arguments the way HE does! It's a CROCK, and it's OBVIOUS, and it's ENRAGING, and it NEEDS TO STOP IMMEDIATELY. AGAIN I submit to you - this modus operandi is consistent and very obvious to anyone who looks with an objective eye.

I personally would LOVE to see ANYONE show me ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE where Kwami solicits the advice and input from AUTHORS in the area he's about to rape PRIOR to the assault. Personally, I believe he AVOIDS involvement of others because 99% of them are NOT going to like "their articles" (note the quotes), but you can BET that Tony1, or another linguistic sycophant, will show up SOMEHOW, no matter whether the subject is lung cancer, quantum mechanics, or nose picking. Another interesting coincidence and, I guess, and just ANOTHER statistical anomaly, no doubt.

• 4. GALLING DUPLICITY AFTER "AGREEMENT" ON "TEMPORARY STANDARDS"

In the "cancer articles" case, his "falsely finagled consensus" limited him, BY HIS OWN REPEATED ADMISSION (see Doc James links) to doing ONLY "small cell" and "large cell". Well, even that TICKED ME OFF SEVERELY, because I KNEW it was a freaking SCAM on his part ... but I thought to myself "he's an ADMIN, he's a "power monger", "holier than thou", and "he AIN'T gonna stop ANYWAY"(like in the "ships incident". So I just "laid there and took it".

Well, what does he do? Starts hyphenating and en-dashing EVERYTHING IN SIGHT AGAIN! Giant-cell, squamous-cell, basal-cell, clear-cell, salivary gland--like" ... on and on and on. MAN OH MAN, WAS I LIVID!!! I say this partly to illustrate that for SOME people, like ME, Wikipedia is one of the funnest things they do, and when folks go screwing around with "their stuff" (NOTE QUOTES), especially when they know ZERO about the area, ITS A SERIOUS QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUE!

Quick example: in Kwami's B.S. excuse "you can't tell them that the tumor is small in small-cell lung cancer" ... well, if he knew DIDDLY SQUAT about SCLC, he would know that in NEARLY ALL CASES, the tumor size really means NOTHING in the big picture for >90% of patients - SCLC has almost ALWAYS already disseminated widely to brain, bone, marrow, liver, other lung, etc. BY THE TIME ITS FOUND, and tumor size is VERY loosely correlated with outcome!

Net result? Given theres only perhaps 1% of folks who are so dumb they get "confused" without the hyphen, i.e. those who don't "get it" via the context and their review of other sources, well >90% of these "confused" folks ARE GONERS ANYWAY. Therefore, statistically we have (0.01)(<0.10) => to >99.9% of folks, IT DONT MATTER. And besides, what ever happened to the "no medical advice here" idea?

• 5. REFUSAL TO FIX "MESSES" HE'S MADE

Boy, THIS also REALLY TICKS ME OFF. After he's mucked up like 500 of the articles in your area, and then is FORCED, more-or-less at GUNPOINT, to agree he mucked them up (through "inadvertence" of course, LOL!), then you foolishly get to thinking "HEY, COOL, this dude made like 6000 edits on the articles in only 3 days, so he oughta be able to fix things back right pretty quickly."

Well, WRONG AGAIN!!! He won't do SQUAT, except leave you hanging and insult you a bit. Oh, hey, he'll PROMISE to fix them - but never DOES. He ALSO pulls crap like "send me links to which ones you want fixed and I'll fix them". Hmmm ... AMAZING that he can FIND them to muck them up with no problem, yet has NO CLUE where they are when he's supposed to FIX them! Now ... I'm supposed to believe he's saying this in "good faith"? He's a long-time admin, with a 14 googleplex edit count, but yet ... DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO USE HIS EDIT HISTORY? Surrrrrre, I'll play stoopid, to keep the peace. Grrrrrrr. My 8-year old grandson wouldn't swallow THAT bologna!

- -

• 6. BAD FAITH ARGUMENTS FOR JUSTIFICATION OF CHANGES MADE

I'll admit that THIS particular accusation has somewhat less evidence to support it, but to paraphrase Andy Warhol, "I may not be able to tell you exactly WHAT a pile of B.S. is, but I KNOW IT WHEN I SMELL IT." Given (1) Kwami's high intelligence and analysis skills, (2) the fact that half the human race has explained it to him, and (3) the context and (4) "non-exclusivity of sources" arguments above, Kwami's "might confuse the reader" argument just DOES NOT pass the "smell test"!

In brief summary, (a) context will ALWAYS make the "parsing" clear, (b) NOBODY is gonna look JUST at Wikipedia ONLY, and (c) the non-hyphenated versions are consistent with >90% of the GOOD literature, INCLUDING THE WORLD STANDARDS ... ICD-10, ICD-O-3, WHO Tumor Histological Classification Systems, etc. AND I SUBMIT HE KNOWS THIS - he's just been busted AGAIN, and is about to drown, and his "arguments" are like him grabbing at the only flotsam he can find!

• 7. RECIDIVISM VIA SYSTEMATIC OCCURRENCE OF IDENTICAL BEHAVIOR IN OTHER AREAS

Kwami has done THIS SAME THING MANY TIMES! To me, he's the Wiki equivalent of a "serial rapist". Just look at his Talk Page, and here on this board! Check around!

Well, I'm sick of wasting time on this. 95% of the folks posting here know more about all this than I do. I just wish SOMEONE would DO SOMETHING about this. This dude is THE SINGLE MOST DEVISIVE AND DAMAGING PERSON that I have seen on here since I've been here. I will say this, in closing, if you want me to "go away and never come back", just show me ONE INCIDENCE of this schmoe ADMITTING he was a douche and then going back and fixing it. There's about a 99% chance I'd have a fatal heart attack, and that would be the end of Uploadvirus whining.

I rest my case for now, but I will tell you this - if he continues this "serial rape", and continues flaunting his idiocy like he has in the past, then instead of busting my hump writing the best cancer articles I can, I will spend some SERIOUS time investigating his activities more completely since Day One, and will take his nonsense to the highest levels, until SOMETHING is done! This CANNOT, and WILL NOT CONTINUE. Kwami, YOU HAVE MET YOUR MATCH! LOL :-O

Best regards, and sorry for the verbosity: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Alan Liefting gratuitous removal of notable people from category, edit warring etc.

He's systematically going through categories and removing people from categories of things they worked on. He seems to be doing this fairly arbitrarily, even when the people are verifiably referenced to be highly on topic, and he's doing it when they're not referenced from any other subcategories.

It seems to be either essentially deliberate category vandalism or somebody has seized his account or he's got some kind of problem, (or he's just being a total idiot.)

He's even trying to edit war the changes through, and he's unable to point to any policies or guidelines consistent with what he's doing.

Other users have complained about similar issues on his talk page.

I wouldn't mind too much, but he seems to be mass-removing stuff from categories. And he doesn't think he's doing anything wrong, but everything I know about the category system says he's lost his mind.

Help?

e.g. he's removed Gerard O'Neill from Category:Space colonization, but looking at the bio and the main article at Space colonization he's in both. Alan Liefting has also removed Konstantin Tsiolkovsky who more or less invented this theoretical field. [5], and there's loads of others.

I'm going to go with an RFC anyway but is there anything an admin can do to slow this stuff down, otherwise there's potentially going to be a heck of a lot of reverts until an RFC can get to grips with the rights and wrongs of this, he seems to be wrong, and prolifically so. Potentially we're looking at having to go back through this guys edits over months or years and reverting thousands of edits.

Many thanks!Rememberway (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

See also: User_talk:Alan_Liefting#Removal_of_categorization, Talk:Gerard_K._O'Neill#Categories.Rememberway (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

There should be a new category created to hold the people who advocate or theorize about space colonization. I think Alan Liefting is correct in removing people from the category space colonization, because individual biographies are not article topics of colonization. Binksternet (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree you could do that, but there's no policy or guideline that you should do that, and he's not anyway, he's just deleting them all out of hand. What he's doing is essentially indistinguishable from category vandalism, and he's doing it fairly fast, using semi-automatic tools.Rememberway (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

And I don't think you're correct that biographies are not categorically on-topic, are you saying that (for example) the Wright brother's biography shouldn't be part of the aviation categories?Rememberway (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless you're planning on making a category called People involved with space colonization, where exactly do you think these biographies should be categorized? It is common practice to add biographies to the categories of what they're involved with. Silverseren^C 03:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the Wright brothers should be in the category "Wright-Patterson Air Force Base" or "Gliding in the United States".

The new category could be "Space colonization advocates" or similar. Binksternet (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Why shouldn't they? Their experiments with gliders led to their development of the airplane; and a portion of the current Wright-Patterson was a testing ground for them in addition to having been named for them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You could do that, but instead this bozo is just deleting stuff completely.Rememberway (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I've struck out your personal attack, please do not make such comments. Silverseren^C 03:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a lower-stress approach for people who advocate such changes to make the split category and recategorize biographical articles, rather than just remove categories from biographies...

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I second Binksternets opinion. It is rare to see biographies in the categories in which they are involved. There tends to be a subcat for biographies eg. Category:Botanists, Category:Astronauts. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Space advocates is appropriate for any space colonization advocates. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

So why are you deleting categories then? You've invented your own personal policy that doesn't actually exist in reality and then gone on a deletion spree.Rememberway (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Anybody could do that with anything. I could arbitrarily decide to remove every 50 th sentence from long articles. There's no policy that says I could do that, but there's no policy that says I can't, and the articles are long enough already right? The articles should have been shorter already. Right? Let's do it then!

That of course is ridiculous. How is this category deletions not the same type of thing? This is an arbitrary deletion spree. The things you are deleting are nearly always related to the category you removed them from. You also did the same with Category:Futurology. This isn't somebody acting normally, this is somebody doing bad faith deletions, the Wikipedia is being repeatedly damaged by your actions. And you are completely unrepentent, and apparently intend to carry on deleting.Rememberway (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Rememberway has been quite belligerent from the start. I have been called a vandal, accused of edit warring, called an idiot and now a bozo. This person is not assuming good faith. It is also a bit rich to accuse me of edit warring when Rememberway is doing exactly the same thing. I have explained my edits in edit summaries and on the talk page. Also, I am attempting to explain the rationale for my edits, although I must admit I am probably not making it clear or covering all the points that I should. Rememberway seems to want clear policy of guideline for categorisation yet there is no prescriptive guideline. In the absence of this I consider what is best for the reader, on unwritten convention or on consensus. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Question: When you removed the category on Gerard's article, did you add the Space advocates category to it? Silverseren^C 05:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I was not aware of that category initially. It is a more approp category than Category:Space colonization and the article has been in that category since before this issue was raised. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC

There is also Category:Space advocacy. Maybe these categories could be reorganized some way. Category:Space colonization is a fairly large category containing a lot of vague subjects, fiction, etc. which are all fine, but O'Neill was most associated with what I'd call a narrower subtopic that seems worthy of a (sub)category of its own. Basically "space colony engineering" or something like that. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Space advocacy contains lots of biographical articles that should be in Category:Space advocates (as per the categorisation guideline). I think the category structure is about right given the low number of articles but Category:Space colonization needs cleaning out (which is the issue here) and a Category:Space colonization organisations is possibly needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Btw, Alan, it's really quite disruptive to do a lot of repetitive operations without prior discussion. There's a WP:BOLD principle but it's intended for actions like single edits, that can easily be undone and discussed. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority of my "repetitive operations" are uncontroversial. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously this one is not. Could you try to be a bit less abrasive about it? You've removed a bunch of categorization info without moving it anywhere else, which could be viewed a WP:PRESERVE problem. Binksternet's suggestion of making new categories is reasonable. But I think it's best to open a discussion at WT:SPACEFLIGHT or some other appropriate place, about how to deal with these categories.

I don't think "space advocates" is necessarily the right place for these biographies. The category I'm imagining should contain, say, both Gerard O'Neill and Henry Kolm (Kolm was a magnet expert associated with O'Neill's mass driver lab), whether or not Kolm was personally a space advocate (I don't know if he was). You could also do some constructive populating of the categories rather than depopulating. For example, obvious missing persons include K. Eric Drexler, T. A. Heppenheimer, etc. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully my addition below is not too long for this venue:

First, I do not agree with User:Remeberway's name calling. I do not consider that to be productive. However, I understand this editor's frustration. I have also recently had encounters with Alan Liefting. I have to agree with 69.111....'s characterization that Alan Liefting may come across as abrasive. It is difficult to nail down what rationale Liefting adheres to when removing categories from articles on a large scale. [6] He adheres to guidelines and policies, and then he doesn't adhere to guidelines at the same time. He refuses to provide supporting documents or figures for the rationale he employs - which becomes frustrating. Although it is probably true that he uses the AWB bot only on occasion this is not stated in the edit summaries, and it is supposed to be noted in the edit summaries. Second once his edits had become controversial, he continued to edit as if there were no objections (see previous diff). Especially with the AWB bot it is explicitly stated what to do pertaining to controversial edits, guidelines and policies, and mass editing [7].

The main theme, when communicating with Liefting, is that he is not communicating. Instead he rigidly asserts that he is right and the other editor is wrong - period (see previous diff and [8]. I noticed he mentioned that User:Rememberway is edit warring. As I see it, the edit war actually begins with Liefting edits. He shows no inclination to acknowledge or respect established editors who work on, edit, watch, and protect (large) groups of articles where categories are suddenly being removed without explanation [9]. When his edits were reverted by an established editor (me) he reverted those. These edits included articles, images, and the category:Metamaterials category page. Sorry to say but sudden removal of categories from pages and images on my watch list disrupts my editing. In any case, I reccomend that once Liefting sees that an edit has been reverted that he leave it alone and move on. By his own admission (here or somewhere) he has done thousands of edits, most of which have been uncontroversial. So I am sure there are many more uncontroversial edits ahead. Why stop and fight with other editors who put sweat and tears into articles.

Also, in the first diff is a bit of controversy over edits with User:Andy Dingley. Dingley and I discussed possible solutions on Dingley's talk page [10], [11] ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN3

Fini...Nothing else to see here...it is dealt with ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Could I please have the community take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ohnoitsjamie reported by Pi (Talk to me! ) (Result: )? Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC) I have closed the report (permalink) with a 24 hours edit-warring block for Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Because the blocked user is an administrator, and blocks of administrators are at times controversial, I ask the community to review the block. In addition, Ohnoitsjamie has blocked the IP editor they were edit-warring with for 31 hours, which to me looks like an abuse of administrator tools in order to win the content dispute and the edit war. I invite comment about whether this matter requires escalation.  Sandstein  13:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Sound block on the 3RR - failure to engage in dispute resolution and use of edit warring by Ohnoitsjamie to "win" content dispute, dealt with as with any other class of editor. As for the use of admin flags to block the other party, there is no suggestion or evidence presented that this is a pattern of abuse by this admin and unless such practices come to light I suggest that this is regarded as a one off and the matter concluded with no further action. If evidence for such a pattern emerges, it can be revisited at that time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Reasonable block, but in my opinion, no escalation required -- the IP's first edit summary could be taken by an uninvolved admin as an indication of bad-faith editing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC) The block was correct imho, per arguments mentioned by LessHeard vanU. Escalation is probably unnecessary at this point but a huge {{trout}} is justified for Ohnoitsjamie's block of the IP. The IP might have edited in bad faith but an admin shouldn't block any IP they previously reverted over content disputes - even if the block was necessary. That just helps those who believe all admins are corrupt power-abusers. Regards SoWhy 13:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC) When you begin your editing by deleting a whole section with the rationale of "This is an abomination and a disgrace to Jewish culture" and keep deleting it while making the same accusations, you're a vandal. Blatant vandalism is an exception to 3RR and to the involved-admin policy. Nyttend (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC) True, but that only applies to the first edit by the IP. The subsequent four ([12], [13], [14] and [15]) were not vandalism but reflected a content disagreement, and it is for edit-warring about them that I blocked Ohnoitsjamie.  Sandstein  18:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC) It seems like it was a bit stale, and although I understand it at least appears to be a content dispute I can kinda understand Ohnoitsjamie's reaction after that first edit. I wouldn't have blocked myself, but I'm not the admin; I'd say reducing to time served would be fine. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC) I'll repeat the comment I made at the 3RR page: "I thought "being right" (in the absence of reverting vandalism) wasn't a defense to edit-warring. Is that not right? Regardless of Jamie's reason for the revert (if it wasn't reverting vandalism) and whether or not he engaged in talk or left appropriate messages... didn't he break 3RR? If so, why wouldn't he being treated like any other editor breaking 3RR?" DeCausa (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC) I don't care if he's an admin, or whatever- we all have knee-jerk reactions sometimes, and shit happens. That's all; I wouldn't feel the need to block someone over an isolated instance. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Jamie's treatment of 69.116.44.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was definitely WP:BITE. I think that's a more serious issue than an isolated instance of edit warring (assuming it's isolated). I left a note on 69.116's user talk trying to explain the situation. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC) There's a broader issue here about Jamie's behaviour connected to WP:BITE, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. (See also WQA threads here and here.) The admin corps need to nip it in the bud before it gets to be really problematic. DeCausa (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Actions by Melesse

I have noticed that Melesse (talk · contribs) has tagged MANY images with FURs when none are needed and nominated images that are ineligible for copyright (Examples from the past 50 edits: [16] [17][18] (more available in user's edit history)). I understand the motivation to fix and applaud this user for the initiative to fix images, however, I believe this user's actions are becoming disruptive through spurious deletion nominations and labeling images copyrighted when, in fact, they are not. I've attempted to discuss this issue with said user politely on their talk page recently...twice ([19][20]) and requested cessation. To date, all I've gotten in return is silence, though this user has opted to say things to other users.

At this point, I'm at my wit's end. Images that are perfectly fine, but are missing a simple label, are being sent to deletion and others are inappropriately being labeled with FURs and being removed from articles where they are NOT in violation of policy. Since this user will not talk to me, I think this is the best avenue to seek assistance. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Looking at the first three diffs, it appears that two things have happened. One, Melesse does not know about {{PD-text}}, and two, the images were not tagged as PD-text, they were tagged as copywritten. In light of that, I would think the best course of action would be to explain PD-Text to Melesse, as technically Melesse's actions would be correct if not for that somewhat hidden factor. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "Copywritten"? Do you mean "copyrighted"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
    • These are the tags that should be on the items: {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademarked}}. I discovered this problem while working on images... on the Commons they are correctly tagged and over here they are incorrectly tagged. Now we know why: this user has been tagging images for years and has apparently tagged many of them incorrectly. I will have a go at explaining to Melesse. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Yeah, sure, whatever. <rolls eyes>

@Diannaa: Thank you.

Looks like this problem is solved. I recommend a back massage for BQZip01 while this gets sorted out. I don't see bad faith here, just someone who was doing what seemed like good work to them but with only 80% of the picture filled in. Hopefully this will all settle down and go away. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Diannaa, for your full and clear explanation. The previous one, to me, translated to "Some images are marked as fair use but they're really not, for unexplained obscure reasons that you're expected to know." Melesse (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Sven: user BQZip01 has now been notified of the outcome. Unfortunately we now have an unknown number of files with incorrect templates --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, Melesse, your answer "Sorry, I didn't know and all that gobbledeegook that BQZip01 wrote on my page was just too confusing/vague" doesn't hold water for me. I've addressed this issue before on your page. I even offered to help you sort through images and REDUCE your workload Your response was, effectively, "go pound sand and leave me alone. I don't care." I've pointed this issue out for over a year and you didn't listen until the issue was brought up at ANI, so I think your "who? me?" response is misleading.

However, if you are true to your word, then I see no reason to continue this discussion further. I will consider the matter resolved. I stand by my offer of assistance to help you look through images. All you need to do is provide me a link on my talk page and I'll help with the assessment (format can be as simple as you want; I'll know what it's for). — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Continued edit-warring by User:BogdaNz

Hi all. User:BogdaNz has continued to edit-war on German battleship Tirpitz and has all but refused to discuss the issue rationally, despite efforts by several editors to reach a compromise. He has been blocked twice for edit-warring on the article, and has resumed the activity. Can someone please handle this? Parsecboy (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

pls go watch discussion,you changed at least 3 times the number in characterisitic without starting a discussion,you changed everything without starting a discussion and nobody sayd nothing I taked citations from biggest historical research book about Tirpitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by BogdaNz (talk • contribs) 15:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

My edits are supported by reliable sources. That is not the point, however. The point is you refuse to discuss the issue rationally, you refuse any attempt to reach a compromise, and you continue to edit-war. This is unacceptable. You have been warned by me and several other editors to stop, and yet you continue. If you persist in your tactless handling of this situation, you will find yourself blocked indefinitely. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hm, looking at the history of German battleship Tirpitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), it seems that there is a persistent edit war mostly about the ship's specifications (length, speed etc.: [21]). The edit war is between BogdaNz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the one part and mostly Parsecboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an administrator, on the other part. The numbers being warred over are not accompanied by inline citations, but the confused talk page discussion leads me to believe that the contributors use differing numbers from different sources.

BogdaNz has been blocked twice already, on 16 and 18 April 2011, for edit-warring on the same article, and has continued edit-warring where he left off as soon as the blocks expired. This means that a time-limited block is not sufficient to prevent continued edit-warring. In addition, BogdaNz's talk page contributions are nearly unintelligible (e.g. [22] [23]), which raises WP:COMPETENCE issues. I have therefore blocked BogdaNz indefinitely. Any administrator may unblock him if they are satisfied that BogdaNz will stop edit-warring, cite sources correctly and make intelligible talk page contributions.

But I believe we should discuss whether Parsecboy should not likewise be blocked for edit-warring. He has made many reverts that simply exchange one uncited set of numbers for another, rather than adding inline citations to the contested numbers so as to allow their verification. What do others think?  Sandstein  16:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

My figures are supported by citations in the prose (which is the norm). I have repeatedly attempted to discuss the issue, all to no avail. Parsecboy (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No, the norm is that "material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed, through an inline citation that directly supports the material." That's from the lead paragraph of the policy WP:V. And being right is not among the exceptions to the prohibition against edit-warring listed at WP:EW#3RR exemptions. It follows that you can be blocked for edit-warring even if you reverted unsourced or incorrect edits.  Sandstein  16:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No, the introduction and infoboxes are typically not cited, provided the information contained therein is cited elsewhere. I've written 23 FAs, you don't need to quote WP:V at me. But, while we're quoting policy, just above that section is the line "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring." Parsecboy (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

An infobox is like the introductory paragraph: as long as its information is cited elsewhere, we don't need additional citations there. Moreover, WP:V and other sourcing policies are definitely important: there's a good reason that {{uw-unsor4}} is a redirect to {{uw-vand4}}. Nyttend (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of style infoboxes don't normally need citations, but as soon as a fact is contested, it is nonetheless a good idea to add an inline citation, even if the same fact is already referenced somewhere else (which I'm not sure is the case here).  Sandstein  18:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Unintelligible talk page comments + well-written additions to articles = copyright violations. I will start going through their contributions. No comment on the edit war issue at this time. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Science in medieval Islam

Hello. There's a lot of history here; I don't care to go into it unless I have to.

Bottom line, Science in medieval Islam was stubbed several months ago. I have just begun to rebuild the article, and User:William M. Connolley is reverting all my changes, complaining about the sidebar I added and the meaning of a word I used in the lead sentence. The problem is, the other editor is not just deleting the sidebar and/or changing the word in dispute, he is reverting all my changes - which are beginning to include cited material as well as formatting and other small changes in wording.

This article has lain untouched for some time. I discussed I was going to work on it and laid out a plan, at which time the OP went to the article and began making changes. Later that day, I began my work, which didn't involve his changes, and he has been reverting my changes daily the past three or four days since (once also by another editor). I am just beginning work on it. Every day I have to restore my changes and get through these tangential issues before I can get down to work. Then I have to be careful how I edit lest I get caught between revisions by an undo or something else. Now I have to come here to ask ANI for help.

In other words, I have been followed and singled out for attention by this other editor, and his actions are disrupting my editing. There is one other person involved, but my main concern at this time is the actions of User:William M. Connolley. My work would be easier, and the end result would probably be better, if I was not under siege for the duration of my effort. I would welcome serious criticism, but the amount of work to be done here is substantial and these revert attacks are pointless and destructive.

Thanks for your time.

Aquib (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a bit of history on the talk page, for other editors who are not familiar with this case. While WMC's points do have merit and should be discussed, I find the wholesale reversion troubling, as well as the very prickly comments that he made on the talk page. On the other hand, Aquib, have you considered just making the non-controversial changes first without introducing the sidebar or the word "formally", which WMC opposes? Add the things you can both agree on, and discuss the other things on the talk page while you do that :-). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC).

Thank you for your constructive suggestion, Lankiveil. I will defer these 2 changes for now in the interest of the article. However, I hope you agree the final result should not be influenced by the fact there is someone prepared to totally revert out all my work in order to gain leverage in content discussions. The article will suffer if such tactics are employed. Best regards -Aquib (talk) 00:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

As might be expected, there is a much bigger story behind this issue. Some background is at WP:Jagged 85 cleanup where evidence is available to show that there have been thousands of edits involving the undue promotion of Islamic and other non-European scholarship and achievements, with severe misuse of sources (misrepresentation; reporting only one side; quoting out of context; inventing claims). Attempts to cleanup the mess are hampered by editors who do not acknowledge the situation: Wikipedia is hosting plausible yet false material that is being mirrored to hundreds of sites, and the hard-to-access sources which seem to justify the material are often found to fail verification. Johnuniq (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked very closely at the situation, but it does look as if Aquib's edits are reverted wholesale with edit summaries that only refer to tiny details that could easily have been changed directly. Full reverts with justifications that could only justify partial reverts is what I usually see when editors with no particular knowledge of a field try to prevent more knowledgeable editors with a fringe POV from distorting articles.

Islamic science is actually a mainstream topic. It's well established that at some time Islamic countries had a florishing scientific culture that had an impact on contemporary Christian countries. On the other hand it's also a topic that is attractive to fringe nationalists (similar to Indian mathematics).

I don't have the time to look at the content (and this is not a good place to discuss it), but one thing seems clear: If WMC and others at that article feel uneasy about Aquib's work because they can't check it, then that's a valid concern that must be made explicit to be resolved one way or the other. Full reverts that mention minor aspects as a pretext are not constructive at all. Hans Adler 09:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

@L: Aquib has a long history of disruption at this article, going all the way up to his failed arbcomm case. Meanwhile, I don't know what you mean by "prickly": do please clarify yourself. But I notice you have no problem at all with the bad faith of William, you seem to have a personal interest in disrupting my edits - can you explain your asymmetrical response, please? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Note also this kind of thing Does the Islam sidebar make you uncomfortable? implying a sort of facile, covert anti-islam sensibility on the part of WMC.Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The declined arb request is here. Aquib's part in it doesn't look good at first glance, but I haven't checked into it closely. Tijfo098 discusses Aquib a little bit there.[24] 69.111.194.167 (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Are "first glances" into involvement at Arbcom a justification for violating our principles? Then I would direct you to the other editors involvement there in connection with the topic of Climate change.

As for the remark regarding the Islam sidebar. The Islam project has a significant historic and scientific interest in this article. This exchange struck me as odd. There is no question this is a sensitive topic. I will agree we all need to keep AGF and stay focused on the content. But this all has nothing to do with whether wholesale reverts are an acceptable tactic in article development.

Aquib (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

User Truthcon misbehaving on article Bo Lozoff

Hi, there is a difficulty with User:Truthcon, who may be the same person as User:Exconfan, on Bo Lozoff. The editor keeps removing the same bit of text that includes sensitive material which has previously been established through consensus. I do recognize after studying WP:VAN that Truthcon's edits do not count as vandalism as I stated in my edit summaries and that I should have exercised more patience with this editor than I initially did.

Truthcon is totally non-communicative. He or she has been asked multiple times to bring his or her changes up on the discussion page before changing the article again but simply keeps making them without even so much as an edit summary. I placed a welcome message and a warning on User talk:Truthcon Thursday which Truthcon did not respond to at all but deleted the same text once again this evening.

Thanks in advance for addressing the situation. Floorsheim (talk) 02:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Should we report it to WP:SPI to see if they are sockpuppets or possibly block Truthcon for disruption and going against project consensus if necessary? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You could do both, although if it's that obvious, they might turn it down unless it's suspected there is a sockfarm. In any case, an editor with "truth" in its name typically has a short life at wikipedia, as it tends to be focused on righting some great wrong, and nothing else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The first thing you should have done is notify Truthcon of this discussion as required. I have done so and asked them to explain why they're removing the content. Further deletions without communication can probably be treated as disruptive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and my apologies. -Floorsheim (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Persistent anon ignoring attempts at communication

189.5.159.86 (talk · contribs) has been primarily active in mixed martial artists' record tables. Most of their edits either add unsourced content (example) or contradict given sources (example). I've been trying to communicate with them for over half an hour (see this revision of their talk page), but they've been ignoring me so far. Should admin action be taken? —LOL ^T/_C 03:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Block'em, that'll get his/her attention. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Admin accusing me of vandalism

User:MrDarcy, who claims to be an admin, is accusing me of vandalism because I redirected this practically unsourced and almost totally OR article to the article on the book. Nothing on his User or Talk pages identifies him as an admin, and when I gave him an nor1 warning for reverting me, since the version he reveted to was totally OR, he called my warning "cute". He also claims that "Deleting an entire article without discussion, as you have done, is tantamount to vandalism." ([25]). Since there is nothing on his pages to indicate that he is an admin, and since his revert of my redirect (without so much as an explanation to me) reverted to the OR version, I felt my comments to him were justified. And apparently AGF no longer applies if an admin feels you're a vandal without any justification. Corvus cornix_talk 05:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Admin Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 05:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

That is as may be, but nothing on his pages lets anyone know he is, nor does it have anything to do with his ABF accusations against me. Corvus cornix_talk 05:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

So, the category listing at the bottom of his user page didn't do it for you? Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 05:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

He posted the admin template over 2 years ago. He's got the little admin world globe in the upper right corner of the user page - in addition to the category. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Both of which are completely meaningless. In the world that is Wikipedia, the only sure fire way of telling whether someone is a bone fide admin, is that obscure link above, which I would guess it takes the average user a year or two to learn about. And in this particular case, if you aren't aware of it, an admin whose user page soley consist of the admin cat, is likely to look a little sus. MickMacNee (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I would definitely call redirection of an article with valid references without any discussion to be vandalism. Close to it, at least. Silverseren^C 05:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently there is no such thing as assumption of good faith? Corvus cornix_talk 05:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with assuming faith at all. It has to do with your action itself. Now, maybe vandalism is the wrong word, but your action wasn't valid and was disruptive and was, thus, reverted. Silverseren^C 05:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless I am exonerated of the charges of vandalism, this will be my last day of editing on Wikipedia. Corvus cornix_talk 05:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Look, you were bold, he reverted, and next you should have discussed (see WP:BRD), but not with a stock warning template. No big deal - just move on. — Satori Son 05:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, forget the vandalism. It wasn't vandalism, that's the wrong term. Let me ask you something. Do you believe that your action of redirecting the article is valid? Do you think the subject of the short story is non-notable? When in a simple search, I found critical commentary here (pg. 74) as the third result, the first two results being the book itself? Silverseren^C 05:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You weren't charged with anything. You were accused of vandalism. GoodDay (talk) 05:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Goodbye. Corvus cornix_talk 05:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? One person accuses you of vandalism, and when they don't apologize, you take your ball and go home? Maybe Wikipedia isn't the best place for you... --Jayron32 06:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the lack of response by Corvus to my comment above kinda says a lot anyways. Silverseren^C 06:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I feel obligated to bring up WP:BOOMERANG. That is all. elektrikSHOOS 06:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much. Silverseren^C 06:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Corvus Cornix got very frustrated. It happens. I notice that this editor has 33,000+ edits over more than four years. I left a friendly message on this user's talk page. Perhaps others might consider doing the same. Kind words are never wasted. Cullen328 (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This is stupid. I'm really sick of the word vandalism being thrown around. You can package it any way you want, six ways from here to Sunday, but you've just improperly compared an editor to someone who replaces a page with "JOHN IS GAY AND HAS NO PENIS." See WP:HITLER - it's childish, people; find new terminology. Unless you really do lack the self-control to go name calling because of your biological WP:MASTADON reaction. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's better to say that Corvus' actions were definitely not vandalism, but that they were disruptive. Silverseren^C 06:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

MrDarcy is an admin[26] but it's inppropriate to use terms like "vandalism" if some sane justification is given for the edit. I don't think the redirect was really warranted for that particular article, despite the admittedly skimpy sourcing. For other sorts of articles it would be appropriate. It's a matter of editorial judgment that (for me anyway) is based mostly on how contentious and/or potentially promotional the article content is. The NOR template was also inappropriate (WP:DTTR). Corvus Cornix, if you're stressed out about Wikipedia, taking a break for a while is good way to restore perpective. Come back when you feel ready. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The admin said it was tantamount to vandalism,[27] and when someone chops an article unilaterally and without discussion, that's a reasonable conclusion to draw. Corvus copped an attitude, posted a gratuitious warning template, and falsely claimed that the admin wasn't identified as such on his user page. Hard to figure what's up with that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, "tantamount" means, in essence, "equivalent to," so let's not split hairs and pretend that he wasn't being accused of vandalism just because he was accused of something merely "equivalent to vandalism." It doesn't mean "almost" or "kinda, but not really." And while he chopped the article without discussion, he did offer a perfectly rational explanation in his edit summary that made it extremely clear that not only was this not vandalism but that this was the action of an experienced editor. That said, it's clear that Corvus acted improperly in this little episode, primarily in his followup actions after the redirect (the unfortunate warning template bit, etc.). Most of us have gotten carried away at one point or another and I certainly hope that this doesn't end with an editor with over 33,000 edits and no existing block log quitting Wikipedia! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what I can't figure. It's really a minor incident. Why did the guy go ballistic? I'm guessing he needs a few days away from wikipedia. That can be good therapy when some situation gets too annoying. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Let me just make an overall comment that it is my hope that experienced users make an investigation of a subject before redirection or deletion nomination. In this case, as I showed in a link to a reference above, I find it doubtful that any research was done whatsoever. If it is believed that the article in question is non-notable, then the obvious course of action after that would be to also redirect the rest of the author's works as well, because the article is question is described as being the most famous, most well known, and most commented on of all of her works. It is for this reason, along with the references that were already given in the article before redirection, that it is shown that the action of redirection was clearly disruptive. Silverseren^C 07:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Actions taken in good faith are rarely "clearly disruptive". If you're not able to refrain from casting such aspersions on editors then you're best spending your time on a project other that Wikipedia. Corvus's resignation is an overreaction, but your participation in this thread has not been helpful. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Everyone makes mistakes; yes, there should have been more careful consideration before redirecting, there should have been a quick review of the redirectors contribution history before even thinking about using the term "vandalism", and there should have been a realisation that templating the other party was a bad idea, and certainly the response to the warning was non optimal. This is an example of how a cycle of bad choices has resulted in the potential loss to the project of a good contributor. BTW - are we sure MrDarcy is an admin? I do not recall any AN/I discussions demanding his flags... perhaps we should start one here, now, to ensure that they are properly noted as a sysop? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

LHVU, yes, MrDarcy is an admin since 2006, see my link above, also here. Is that what you are asking? 69.111.194.167 (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MrDarcy -> [28] -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 12:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the way I read LHvU's comment, he was referring to the fact that most admins would've been brought here by some disgruntled user calling for them to be desysopped, and as McDarcy apparently hasn't, added a sarcastic/joking remark that maybe such a discussion should start. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether the edit was performed by an IP, a brand-new user, or Corvus Cornix, it was not vandalism - it was an editorial decision, perhaps wrong, with which the admin disagreed. "Vandal" and "vandalism" should not be thrown around loosely: the practice debases the word while poisoning the overall atmosphere; it forces an editor to defend himself rather than address the dispute; it is a quick, lazy way to avoid real discussion and explanation; it bypasses BRD, arriving at anger rather than consensus. Users should be discouraged from making ill-founded accusations of vandalism. Admins should be admonished. Jd2718 (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

'very cute, but incredibly misplaced', 'completely out of line', 'tantamount to vandalism', 'This MUST be discussed here' ??? This is the supposed high standard of conduct we expect of admins? It's no surprise Corvus cornix believe this guy was an imposter (although his decision to redirect an article in this state stating "nothing indicates what makes the story notable", when it has four references supporting a very long Interpretation section, seems to me to be equally poor). In conclusion, Corvus, stop being such a drama queen, and MrDarcy, perhaps think about an Wikipedia:Administrator review. And no bed time stories for either of you tonight. MickMacNee (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of trouts to go around here

CC starts by making the article into a redirect and clearly stating his reasoning. Valid editorial action subject to BRD.

MD reverts per WP:BRD. Again a valid editorial action.

A trout for CC for reverting the revert using the rollback tool instead of going to the talk page.

A trout for CC for slapping a "welcome to wikipedia" tag on the talk page of an experienced editor instead of just saying his peace.

A trout for MD for using the "V word" to describe CC's actions on the article's talk page.

A trout for SS for throwing around the very same "V word" in this thread.

A trout for me. The time I used writting is going to make me late for work :( --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Bangladesh Armed Forces

I have been engaged in a somewhat frustrating dialogue with User_talk:113.150.9.211, which has not been helped by that user exercising his right to remove content from his talk page. The dialogue has extended over several articles but with reference to this one it originated with this series of edits made by him.

I regarded those edits as being potentially POV pushing and also potentially libellous, as well as clearly being uncited and possibly a copyright violation. Consequently I reverted them here and left a {{uw-unsourced1}} warning on the user's TP. The user blanked that warning and replied with a threat to block me here. The IP user also said that I had not given him enough time to cite, although the bulk of the disputed content appeared to have been inserted as a copy/paste.

I then explained my position with regard to issuing that warning in a series of messages here. These were also blanked and the situation at present stands with a [29] message from me following a further insertion of the material by the IP user, again without citations. It is now over 2 hours since that last insertion of the material into the article and it remains uncited.

To summarise my concerns:

1. at least some of the material may be a copyvio, although I have yet to prove this
2. it appears possibly to be part of a campaign by the IP user to push his point of view across various articles, for example here at Kader Bahini (in this instance, reverted four times by three different users (including myself). I note that one of the IP's responses to a message left by me included the statement that "I understand your reason's for deleting anything that implicates India's wrong doings, that is fine", which seems to suggest a recognition of possible POV (and also does not assume my good faith - I'd never heard of this group before etc).
3. the additions are uncited
4. it may be libellous, if any of the named participants are still alive: an accusation that someone is/was a war criminal is an extremely serious matter, especially if they were not prosecuted. I have no idea if they are alive or were prosecuted, but did refer this to the IP user and got no meaningful response. I don't know enough about the subject to confirm/deny myself and past experience with articles involving the India/Pakistan/Bangladesh area have shown me that searching for named people can bring up more irrelevant hits than relevant ones due to the personal naming conventions in those countries. I appreciate that these events happened quite some time ago.

It is because this is such a wide-ranging sets of concerns that I have brought the matter to this board. I would appreciate thoughts on this issue.

Note: above originally posted at Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard but moved here - I was in two minds regarding the most appropriate board, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted it as it clearly needs reliable sources. I was reporting on that here when Chrome froze my edit page (which it does at times when I click on the tildes at 'Sign your posts on talk pages: and then I got distracted. I note the IP threatened to block Sitush [30] which is mildly amusing but I also see they removed (as they are allowed to do) a copyvio notice here [[31], Sitush, I think this should be left open to allow the IP to respond. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Urgent: article with NPOV tags on main page

Sathya Sai Baba, an article with multiple NPOV-section tags, has just been added to T:ITN because of overwhelming consensus in support at WP:ITNC. However, as the article contains these neutrality and dispute tags, it's not suitable for the main page and should be pulled post-haste until the tags are resolved. I've already left a note for the posting admin, but on the off chance that they went offline, could another admin handle it? Thanks, Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It was removed, then reposted, by Fox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who gave the reasoning that the person's notability meant it outweighed the NPOV and factual accuracy tags to post on the Main Page. I strongly disagree with this and feel we shouldn't be displaying problem articles on the main page regardless of the person's notability. Requesting further admin input. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The NPOV tag can go FWIW, unless anyone raises new concerns. Once a dispute is expired it is supposed to be removed because otherwise it can be misused as a badge of shame. I took a look over the section and removed one of the worst paragraphs. The rest looks marginal but fine... mostly needs some TLC and rewriting. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Failure by User:LemonMonday to assume good faith.

I have become tried of User:LemonMonday failure to assume good faith. I asked him here to AGF after this edit. He was then warned by User:Ged UK to stop the personal attacks here. All of this is to no avail as today again he has attacked me here. Bjmullan (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact. There's frankly a shit-load of evidence out there that would support an RFC asserting that rather than civil and respectful discourse and collegiate and policy clueful consensus building, the inevitable disputes that arise from the continued systematic removal of this term from the pedia are as ever being 'won' by good old fashioned tag teaming and game playing, what with WP:BISE having been abandoned, having been completely overwhelmed by massive amounts of TE, and a complete unwillingess of admins to get involved beyond what will be the inevitable outcome here, the elimination of the more wiki-naive half of the battlefield, leaving the other half completely free and clear to continue in the time honoured fashion. MickMacNee (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

A Rfc is required, indeed. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• LemonMonday is now indefinitely blocked until they can convince another admin that they will not make further personal attacks. I have no objection to any other admin lifting or otherwise varying my sanction, upon that undertaking being given. I do not feel they need apologise for past instances or for being blocked, just as long as they say that they will stop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Checking my watch for how long it takes for LevenBoy to arrive (unless of course he see this post & chooses to stay hidden). GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

And let's not for one minute believe BISE was any use either. That venue, as much as it can be called a discussion venue at all, did at least sometimes grasp the basic idea that to respect the NPOV, first you go with the sources, and in the case of disagreement, you go with the balance of sources. In this 'case' though, we have 2 reliable sources saying BritishIsles, and one saying UK & Ireland. And all three of course, from the British Imperialist press (stop sniggering at the back). So, if BISE was still in operation, we'd no doubt by now be onto page 30 of a long tedious discussion covering the same old bollocks. All this to decide who gets to 'win' on an articlce not one of the warring parties even give a shit about, and have never editted before. LM in his naivety still seems to think BISE still exists, yet we have infact regressed back to the good old days where simple POV was an OK excuse for reverting your content opponents, which rather predictably sets off a train of the usual tag teaming and edit summary insults masquerading as 'civility', and these sorts of ANI reports, which as we see are quite effective at eliminating the dumber side of the dispute, leaving the other side completely free. I understood infact that there was some general santion logged somewhere about all edit warriors of the term get insta-bans. I wonder where that went for this article. I guess it's no longer important. Anyway, I digress. We were discussing a failure to assume good faith Bjmullen, no? Or are we all done now? MickMacNee (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Somekinda 'shut-down' needs to be in place for about 1-year, where British Isles can neither be added, deleted or replaced in any article. Violators can get 3 chances 'per article' & if still breaching, a block is placed. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)