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

Pmanderson's claim that the current spelling of Marseille is POV-pushing

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

His disruptive edits: [1], [2]

This user has been reported on project pages mutliple times for tendentious edits and for creating problems, Now, without any support from WP:RS, he is suggesting that one of the two major cities in France after Paris, Marseille, is normally spelt in English with an "s". He has tagged the page twice now to suggest that this spelling violates WP:NPOV. It appears that he has decided that his next major battle on wikipedia will be over this topic. As far as I can tell, from his past editing history, he has no interest whatsoover in the content of the article or WikiProject France.

The same "argument" (whatever it is) would presumably apply also to Lyon, for which the old-fashioned spelling in English has an "s". Pmanderson has not brought up this city ... yet. Pmanderson's activity seems to be an attempt to disrupt wikipedia to make a WP:POINT.

On the talk page of Marseille—and I will not repeat the arguments or the links here—it has been carefully explained that most major English-speaking newspapers, the Encylopedia Britannica, British airlines, travel guides in English and the British and US consulates in Marseille all now adopt the spelling without an "s". This has made no impression on Pmanderson - it seems that he believes that he is simply right and doing a huge service to wikipedia in righting a terrible wrong. The issue has no real importance, but he has made it so. Straight WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct.

I have reported this bizarre activity here in the hope of nipping it in the bud. It could be the straw that breaks the camel's back, from the point of view of ongoing problems with this editor. It certainly seems to be "his style". His block log speaks for itself.[3] In this case he has made an unsupportable but hardly very interesting claim seemingly devised to waste other editors' time. I am unable to see any possible benefit editing of this kind could have to this encyclopedia. Mathsci (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Marseilles and Lyons are perfectly normal English spellings, as used in the Oxford Dictionary of the World, for example. DuncanHill (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Not only "normal", but also common in English. Pmanderson has only himself to blame for acquiring a reputation that allows bringing his actions here based on a vague handwave toward his past problems, but in this content dispute he would seem to be correct, even in the argument that you have invented on his behalf without asking. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) True, but that is hardly the point. As with Mumbai/Bombay and Calcutta/Kolkota, things change. The US government is not pedantic.[4] [5] Tagging in the way Pmanderson did was clearly not a helpful approach to improving this encyclopedia. It does not quite rise to the level of tagging articles like Europe, for example, but it was not far off. Mathsci (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually the U.S. Government is pedantic; the Board of Geographic Names tends to prefer systematic forms to what English-speakers actually use (as the guideline on geographic names explains) and in principle their decisions are binding on the Federal Government.

But this complaint is another effort to settle a substantive dispute by false claims of misconduct. As the move discussion on Talk:Marseille would indicate, the fundamental issue here is my unwillingness to simply accept the opinions of a major contributor to an article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree at all. Pmanderson's edits today have nothing to do with calm and reasoned discussion. He has chosen to adopt a battleground attitude on an article, in which, until today, he appeared to have absolutely no interest. I am currently on wikibreak, so have only a few articles on my watch list. Pmanderson's edits today on Marseille are amongst the most dire I've seen in almost five years of watching the article. Mathsci (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Recommend WP:DR. Nothing else to see here (other than to note I just blocked PMA for similar activity, but hasn't edited the project space since). Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I was surprised to learn that Marseilles is now being spelled "Marseille" in English. This must also come as a bit of a shock to the citizens of Marseilles, Illinois, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

As my recent edit at Talk:Marseille will show, the (current) French spelling seems to be catching on with the sort of columnist who laces his prose with malfamé and bistronomie. It is still a less common usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the POV-title tag. There may be a good-faith discussion of which spelling should be used, as happens from time to time with many geographical names, but this cannot reasonably be framed as a "POV" issue: no "point of view" is promoted by using the spelling "Marseille" as opposed to "Marseilles" or vice versa, except on the sharply limited issue of which is the correct spelling. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

But there are two - which is why dispute resolution will be welcome: The point of view there are no distinctive English forms of names - and even more seriously, that the anglophone Governments do and should determine English usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a legitimate article title/requested move issue that is subject to dispute resolution on the basis of which title better comports with our guidelines on geographical names. Appropriate dispute resolution seems already to be well underway with the RfC/RM discussion that is now taking place on the article talkpage. Adding the "POV" tag does nothing to advance a decision as to which article title should be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Little enough in all honesty; but if we cannot even protest the entrenched territorial cliques which seek to use articles to promote a political or (as in this case) a linguistic program, we have very little hope of checking them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

What "political programme" is this here to promote? Who are these ""entrenched territorial cliques"? What is wrong with my "grasp of the English idiom"? Mathsci (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

For third parties (and on the off-chance that this is ingenuous):

• As I said, "in this case a linguistic program": that the characteristic English forms of names should be downgraded, and English be subjected to Government standards.
• Well, to begin with: "grasp of the English idiom" isn't idiomatic; neither is "dire" (unless you're writing Tolkien parody); nor is Marseille; the reactions of anglophones in this thread alone should have been enough to make the last clear.
• And as for the clique entrenched on the territory of the article: I invite any curious reader to look through Talk:Marseille and see how the self-declared "most frequent editor" has been behaving. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting now that English might not be my native language and that is why I have not agreed with your point of view? Mathsci (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If English is your native language, you have an abominable grasp of idiom; if it is not, you have an abominable grasp of idiom, but this would be explicable. I believe l'idiotisme anglais would be correct French; but I will defer to a literate native speaker. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

But really, if having a tag added twice is "amongst the most dire" things to happen to the article in years, the real complaint here is that I have not immediately conceded to Mathsci's opinion and his grasp of English idiom on his article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

See above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

My Webster's, dated 1994, gives Marseilles as the preferred and Marseille as a secondary spelling; Lyons as the preferred and Lyon secondary; and Rome (not Roma) as the English name for the Italian city. So it seems that the "Marseille" and "Lyon" spellings, without the "s", are the ones that writers have actually tried to impose on us, to override the traditional English spellings "Marseilles" and "Lyons". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This input is welcome, but would be better placed on the article talkpage, where the requested move discussion/RfC is in progress. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson's continuing disruption on Marseille

Pmanderson's conduct continues to be disruptive. As well as adding various other drive-by tags and dramatic notices of innacuracy, [6][7] he just tagged a reference to Thucydides in the article, claiming that Thucydides did not mention Massalia. But that claim is wholly inaccurate, since I checked the reference directly in Thucydides and also in a secondary WP:RS, a very long recent history of Marseille (in French). This second bout of tagging is as disruptive as the first. I cannot guess what Pmanderson's motives for this type of editing could be, but at first glance it appears to be unrelated to improving the encyclopedia. He has now reinstated the questioning of the quote from Thucydides. I find the edit summaries that he left with his talk page diffs extermely aggressive without provocation. [8][9][10] It seems that Pmanderson is questioning a number of statements which are not in doubt, although, as always, could be better sourced. On the other hand—and I think he has decided to take this as a personal attack—I pointed out that he himself probably does not have access to a detailed history of Marseille. I do, but at present I see no point in using my own history sources to edit the article when overnight it has been transformed unrecognizably from an anodyne backwater into a full-blown toxic WP:BATTLEGROUND, (In RL I am very busy finishing off a research paper, which probably will be linked by another user to one of the mathematics articles. That partially explains my wikibreak from articles.) Maunus has written that the tags are not merited.[11] He wrote in his edit summary: " Probably the tags should be removed altogether this looks like someone is trying to make a WP:POINT". That is my feeling too. Mathsci (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed before that Pmanderson is quick to tag. It would be helpful if he could use the tags as a last resort only (i.e., when prolonged discussion has failed, or when he has looked for sources and found none, but removal is being reverted), and then only if the text leaves verifiability or neutrality issues. We shouldn't use tags to signal that we personally dislike something. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for intervening SV. The Peloponnesian war is one of the texts that has been studied to death (we had to read book IV at grammar school in England) and there are numerous commentaries. The particular seven word sentence referring to the colonisation of Marseille has generated pages and pages of comments. Here is one example that runs over three pages (310-312). [12] More modern ones place the history in the context of recent archeological discoveries and in fact are unsurprisingly in agreement with most of what is in the article. The ancient history of Marseille seems to have some kind of fatal attraction.[13] Mathsci (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This appears to match a textbook definition of WP:POINT - I have asked PMA to explain his reasoning and intent.

As a rule, not the sort of behavior a recently blocked, historically multi-blocked editor under all sorts of additional scrutiny should be engaging in. At all. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This statement is another effort to settle a content dispute by spurious conduct charges. In addition, it alleges that I said things I did not say, and do not hold.

While waiting for the RM to settle itself, I read through the article, and found the ancient history section seemed most implausible. It cites three sources.

• Thucydides is claimed to support the settlement of Marseilles in 600 BC. He does mention the Phocaean settlement at Marseilles, but gives no date. (I have now said three times that he mentions the settlement; all this is on the talk page; therefore Mathsci's assertion above is false.)
• A book called Vintage; the History of Wine is cited for trade between Massalia and Rome in 500 BC. It actually discusses the trade around 125 BC.

These claims, therefore, I tagged as failing verification, and added Talk:Marseille#History to discuss them.

The proper response to such tags, I thought, is to answer them; to fix the article, to convince me I am wrong, or to convince a consensus that I am mistaken. Mathsci did none of these; instead he reverted; so I restored them until one of the three appropriate means of resolution can be done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Tagging can often be seen (rightly or wrongly) as simply a way of signalling that we didn't get to make the edits we wanted. It's best to do it only after trying everything else, including prolonged discussion, and looking for additional sources yourself. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the the existing sources don't support the text, and my relatively careful phrasing has been read to assert something I have never said, I doubt additional sources will do any good. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A quick Google Books search shows several sources for the founding date, including this from George William Cox, published in 1874 (p. 156), which helpfully cites its sources in a footnote. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is another footnote in a more recent text dating the founding of Marseille to c 600 BC. [14] It is one of many. What is interesting here, and a reason for administrators to keep tabs on Pmanderson, is that this time he has chosen to disrupt in a disproprtionate and uprovoked way a neutral and uncontentious article, amongst the main wikipedia articles on France. I made a simple edit modifying "historically" to "in antiquity" in the lede [15]; then very shortly afterwards Pmanderson appeared to tag the section of the article concerned with classical antiquity. Pmanderson appears to be more interested in other editors than in content. Mathsci (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, this date is likely taken from Jerome's Chronicle, which provides the date of 598 BC.[16] Whether or not it was the actual date... Well, that requires performing a source criticism of Jerome's work & an archeologist's interpretation of the numerous excavations of the city. But to determine that requires someone to pursue that angle in the secondary literature. -- llywrch (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Who was right and why in this dispute is beside the point here - all that can be resolved at the talk page. What is relevant here is how the dispute was handled.

If you add a tag in good faith and that tag is removed, especially with someone with whom you're already disputing, I suggest presuming WP:AGF and the R in WP:BRD and proceed with D. Do not engage in yet another edit war, no matter how sure you are that you are correct. This is an edit war

(cur | prev) 18:08, December 14, 2010 Pmanderson (talk | contribs) m (77,945 bytes) (Reverted edits by Mathsci (talk) to last version by Pmanderson) (undo)

(cur | prev) 17:50, December 14, 2010 Mathsci (talk | contribs) (77,826 bytes) (Undid revision 402439004 by Pmanderson (talk) tagging seems inaccurate) (undo)

(cur | prev) 17:21, December 14, 2010 Pmanderson (talk | contribs) (77,945 bytes) (→Prehistory and classical antiquity: not really.) (undo)

Again. No matter how sure you are that you are correct... don't edit war. Just don't. Take it to the talk page. I've learned that lesson without ever being blocked; how many more times does PMA need to be blocked to learn that lesson? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

As this kind of information about the early origins of Marseille is copious and freely available in academic sources, there was no rationale beyond simple disruption for the edits of Pmanderson. At least PHG did his research properly even if he was at that stage pushing Greek colonistation of Provence a little too far. I would hope that Pmanderson might take note of what NYB, SV, GWH and Maunus have told him and drop this habit of disrupting wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. Mathsci (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note the participants in the Franco-Mongol case; I know all about PHG. This continued series of personal attacks, to defend an innacurate rendition of a local history of a century ago, is indefensible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Request to block Pmanderson for removing sourced content and continuing his tagging campaign

• Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has been warned for tagging the article by four administrators, Newyorkbrad, SlimVirgin, Maunus and Gerogewilliamherbert. He has now added tags and removed a substantial amount of sourced content. [17] What he has written contradicts one of the main sources,

• Duchene, Roger; Contrucci, Jean (1998), Marseille, 2600 ans d'histoire, Fayard, ISBN 2213601976

I have no idea why he is behaving in this way after the mutliple warnings he has received, but his block record speaks for itself. Mathsci (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I have, as requested by SlimVirgin, on Talk:Marseille, found other sources; I have added them, with input from third parties; my sources may be seen in this exact reversion, which looks like Mathsci's fourth in the last 24 hours; see the history of the article. (There are better sources, which I could add shortly; but why bother when they will only be reverted.)

Please deal with this disruptive WP:OWN violation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I have reverted Pmanderson's later "essay-like" additions because they conflict with known sources. The legend of Protis and Gyptis was removed, despite being sourced. The legend has the same status as that of Mary Magdalen being conveyed on a sailless boat without rudder or oar from the Holy Land to Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer in the Camargue and then, following her death in a cave on the Sainte-Baume, being wafted by angels to Aix-en-Provence and the site of the cathedral of the St Sauveur. But the provencal legend is well sourced and discussed carefully in those sources. it can therefore be included in a wikipedia article (as a legend). Pmanderson included a phrase about a "romantic idea" that seems to be of his invention. But wikipedia is not Pmanderson's blog , he can't act as a historian here, and he should be editing according to the usual rules of wikipedia: no special rules apply to him. He should avoid removing sourced content just because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. His approach is unscholarly and adversarial. Nobody expects to read Marseille and suddenly come across a little essay on the history of Marseille "according to Pmanderson", an unknown author with unknown credentials. There are excellent sources and Pmanderson is simply not using them. Some of the principal ones happen to be in French: I don't find that in the least bit surprising. Once sources are known to exist on the history of Marseille, it's not a great idea to dismiss them and then attempt to cobble together the history from fragmentary sources elsewhere. Pmanderson seems to have a bee in his bonnet about French sources and possibly even the French: that does not in any way excuse his disruptive behaviour. Some of the comments levelled at me, which I have ignored, indicate that he thinks that I am French, which is not the case. Although on en.wikipedia, we do not use fr.wikipedia as a source, editors concerned with WikiProject France usually do pay attention to the corresponding articles there, which usually are written prior to the English version. (Exceptionally that was not true with Chateau of Vauvenargues but fr:Église_Saint-Jean-de-Malte_d'Aix-en-Provence has no English equivalent: that would be an article that I would normally consider writing, although not if I'm scared off WikiProject France by hostile editors like Pmanderson.) In the case of major cities, the French language articles can provide a useful guide to missing content. When the two corrsponding articles become widely divergent and contradictory (as was the case with Pmanderson's personal essay on the history of Marseille), alarm bells will normally ring. That is just common sense. Mathsci (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson is misrepresenting his own actions. He removed a lot of sourced content that he didn't happen to like. His actions are as disruptive as those that have resulted in previous warnings and blocks. He certainly didn't seem to like the legend of Protis and Gyptis, which he removed, That is a short section that I rewrote and sourced. Certainly SlimVirgin was not suggesting that he remove content that he didn't like, that he restore his tags and that he rewrite the ancient history section as a personalised essay from fragmentary sources. Pmanderson is not righting a great wrong. He is just attempting to manufacture a WP:BATTLE by editing in as awkward a way as possible. It is a classic case of disrupting WP to make a WP:POINT, as others have already commented. Mathsci (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci is telling great and small untruths. As his revert-warring will show, I retained the fable of Protis and Gyptis; what this good soul omits is the consensus of the sources that it isn't likely to be true - whether or not Massalia was founded in 600 NC, it wasn't founded like this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest that this be resolved by sticking closely to academic secondary sources? It would make sense to write up a brief suggestion for that section, together with the sources, and post it on talk for discussion. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

PMA and Mathsci both blocked for 48 hrs for edit warring

IMHO - Both stepped clearly across the line. PMA backed away incrementally from his prior behavior but not from disruptive editing of the article. He did engage on the talk page, but kept butting heads with people. Mathsci kept reverting without adequate talk page involvement.

Both parties are longtime users with extensive experience with dispute resolution. They both know what we expect of editors participating in a content dispute. Neither chose to act in accordance with our policy and community standards. Both are blocked for 48 hrs.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with the Mathsci block, George. It seems to be a "pox on both your houses" response, which can often be unfair. PMA has a history of this kind of approach, and a long block log as a result. I'm less familiar with Mathsci's editing, but looking at the diffs, he seems to have reverted three times between Dec 13 and 15, [18] [19] [20] and he brought the issue to AN/I to request help. I can't see how those reverts alone can fairly trigger a 48-hour block. He has only two previous blocks, both in 2008 and both regarding the same issue, as I recall, and it had nothing to do with edit warring. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

We have a problem here in that George blocked Mathsci and PMA for 48 hours, then went offline. So now at least one of them (perhaps both) is arguably unfairly blocked with no one to sort it out. I'm reluctant to unblock Mathsci, because I would also have to make a decision about PMA, and as he's someone I've disputed issues with in the past, I don't feel uninvolved enough. But I'm not happy about seeing Mathsci blocked for 48 hours for three reverts in three days, accompanied by talk-page discussion and considerable provocation (in my view) from PMA. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Review and additional input on Mathsci's unblock request would be useful at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm highly inclined to grant Mathsci's unblock request. After review of this thread and the Marseille talk page, I'm not seeing any grounds for blocking him. Courcelles 04:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Mathsci_.28conduct.29, Mathsci's engaged in "borderline edit warring in May [35][36][37][38] and June.[39][40][41][42] This editor was also formally reminded not to edit war in the Abd-William M. Connolley arbitration." To simply say that there was nothing to do with edit-warring or there was no grounds for blocking is questionable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said, Ncmv, I'm not really familiar with Mathsci's editing, but I do feel this is a long block for a small number of reverts, and without warning that I can see, especially as he was making other edits that appeared to be improving the article by adding sources, e.g. here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If there is an unfamiliarity with the user's editing, then obviously it's going to seem like there are no grounds for a block whatsoever. I think the fact that he was warned in an arbitration ruling, the fact that the behavior was identified again in a more recent arbitration ruling with clearer terms (borderline) is quite sufficient to the point that you would expect the editor to avoid doing the same - without yet another warning. His restriction from that recent ruling was in the process of being lifted so he should be especially mindful of what not to do. What I am saying is that it is incorrect to assert that a block was unjustified (which is what you seem to be saying - according to Mathsci). GWH was familiar with the user's editing, and with the arbitration, as far as I am aware. All that said, Pmanderson did misuse rollback as well, and does seem to have been making pointy edits, so on the grounds that the block has served its purpose (as time served) and that per his unblock request, he will be more mindful of his reverts (and avoid that behavior in the future), I'd support Mathsci's unblock. (I'd oppose an unblock on the grounds that the block was unjustified.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at the narrower picture here, with some awareness of the wider one, but it was justified here specific to the recent incident (IMHO).

PMA took the issues in good faith to the talk page, but kept doing things very nearly alike what he'd been warned was disruptive and told to stop.

Mathsci did less disruptive stuff, but kept doing it and didn't go to the article talk page to discuss it in good faith. He was engaged in other discussions there, but not with PMA on the key disruption points over the period he was reverting. Mere participation in talk page discussion (which Mathsci did over that time period) doesn't mean he was discussing what he was reverting enough to avoid it being at least marginally a sterile revert / edit war. PMA's larger disruption explains but does not justify Mathsci responding with repeated reverts rather than engagement.

Mathsci has responded reasonably and deescalated. He was seeking outside review prior to the last actions. Reduction to time served would be reasonable. I'm going to do that now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Confirming - Mathsci is now unblocked, reduced to time served. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've been around Mathsci for a long time. He is an extremely good content contributor (I'd go as far as to say one of Wikipedia's best) who is mostly sensible but has a tendency to get prima donna-ish in some situations, and whose approach to DR isn't always the greatest. I'm less familiar with PMA but I think I've seen him/her around the mathematics refdesk and s/he is also pretty good. I didn't even try to read this mind-wobbling dispute much, so I can only think of this. Can't those two have WP:TEA instead of fighting? Anyway, I'm all for unblocking Mathsci if (without having to admit fault for edit warring) he says he's ready to edit again and that he can maintain calm discourse going forward. On general principles, that's probably also the right approach for PMA. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC) OK, Mathsci is unblocked now, which is good. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• @ GWH: Thanks for unblocking me and responding to other administrators promptly.
• General comment Slimvirgin's comment about secondary sources is a key point here and very well made. Most detailed material concerned with the history of Marseille is not surprisingly in French, since it is the history of a place. Writing about Porte d'Aix required buying the 50 page detailed booklet: I did not use the article on fr.wikipedia at all. (Looking at the French article now, it would be an idea to incorporate the newly added photographs of architectural details in a gallery, as happened at Arc de Triomphe, a move which I helped instigate.) I know of nowhere else where the detailed information could be found. The same applies to the history section in the article about Marseille, which I believe was originally a largely unsourced direct translation of the French wikipedia article. Often it can be the case that a book cannot be found on the web. The anecdotes about Francois I and the stranded rhinocerus on the Chateau d'If and the story about Louis XIV arriving on horseback and ordering his troops to fire a cannonball through the city walls are items a casual reader might tag as being unlikely. However, they are recorded in WP:RS. I cannot see any merit in using outdated texts from around 1900 to write history, Again that problem arose with Auguste Pavie, in connection with PHG, and although Pavie's own journals are available on the web, these are primary sources which can only be used in conjunction with secondary sources. In that particular case there was a recent illustrated monograph on French explorers (in french) which I used as the principal source for writing the article. The book is not available on the web except for snippet view.[21] Mathsci (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Powerchip

Resolved

 – Article speedied as purely promotional. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked 58.106.54.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) temporarily for legal threats. However, I am concerned that they may have true concerns regarding article content. I would request more experienced editors to take a look at the recent flurry of edits to determine if any of them need to be reverted to avoid trouble for Wikipedia. I have e-mailed the foundation and will notify the IP of the post. Thanks Tiderolls 03:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems closer to AFD or Speedy Deletion than anything. It looks like some legit concerns The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article and removed the unsourced negative stuff. I agree with TRA that we probably have a deletion candidate on our hands here.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a retraction of sorts on the IP's talk page. If another admin wishies to unblock I won't scream. However, I don't think this would help the present situation. Tiderolls 03:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it's still a legal threat (against the "poofters"). --Mkativerata (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Article at AFD see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powerchip The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just waded through the page history. What a mess. I've made two revision deletions but other admins might find cause to do more. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I took out six more versions. No way am I going to let that stay in the history. - KrakatoaKatie 05:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) The AfD is being hit by anon IPs and SPA accounts, one of which is making "statements" about someone's wife. Can someone look into that and block as necessary? One of the IPs is clearly also double voting as an SPA account. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I just speedied it -- it appeared purely promotional to me, and the opinion on the AfD was unanimously for deletion anyway. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• I've also salted the founder's bio, since it was created today for the purpose of attacking him. If notability is established, it can be unprotected. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Don't forget chip tuning, where that same person is mentioned. Uncle G (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I removed that and linked to here from talk:chip tuning. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

User abusing other editors

Among other disruptive actions, Humaliwalay (talk · contribs) is constantly abusing me and my edits [22], [23], [24], refusing to maintain civility by filling my talk page with many bogus warnings [25], using unreliable openly Shia-centric websites as refs which only provokes sectarian edit-wars.[26] [27]. Talk about a fearless no-respect-showing disruptive user [28], who even edit-wars with admins [29], [30].--AllahLovesYou (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I just asked you to have break, that was intended to calm down your aggressive and editing. "Need some break" is not abusive statement rather accusing someone wrongly of abusing other editors is an attack of accusation. You even claimed in the headline that abusing other editors, can you bring any abusive word which I used in front of us? I am in discussion with admin Dab here[31] where is the edit warring? - Humaliwalay (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I asked this on the article talk page, but someone needs to explain to uninvolved parties why the website is so bad as to not be a usable source.

I see that it seems to be a mildly advocative "Shia and Sunni aren't so different" site, on first impression, but I suspect there are levels I am not understanding on reviewing it briefly.

There appear to be very vehement feelings about it - those need to be explained.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

IMO comments of [[ASE were more abusive as they tend to encompass whole community and definitely those comments point that per se user's comments, Indo-Aryans are some what inferior to Semitic-Arabs in addition those comments tend to defile dignity of Shi'a community by accusing them of forging lineage links.

But, imo, everybody should stick to the point and refrain from attacking believes, communities, nationalities, individuals, etc.

Finally, al-islam.org can be relied upon as it contains reliable articles such as [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], etc which are work of reputed Shi'a, Sunni & Western scholars. May be we should be cautious while referring to it as this website is an online library and all content at this website may not be NPOV or academic (as in the case of physical libraries) but that does not discredits importance of the website as source.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 19:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Who made the comment "Indo-Aryans are some what inferior to Semitic-Arabs", and where is the diff? A per se attack on another editor's culture/ethnicity/*ism is not acceptable, and editors really ought to keep such opinions to themselves while on WP. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Did I use "per se" right? I love needless latin.

The term per se means "by itself". Not sure that applies here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I also have a question: Why is it that the Arabic word for God File:Dcp7323-Edirne-Eski Camii Allah-ds.svg resembles a Viking ship? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

i have no answer to bugses question but i think per se is correclty used here. "per se" might mean "in itslef" but it is generally used to mean "without reservation or explicativeness", such as the legal term "negiglgly per se" which means "to negligct without reservation or reason". you could say that the attack was "per se" because he didnt say "SOME iNDO-aRYANS" were inferior but NOT all of them since the remark itself was unqualified. however, you might have done better to use another greek Phrase, ad hominem which means 'against the homan' or against the person you is talking to. User:Smith Jones 03:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, ad hominem ("toward the man") would seem to be the proper phrasing here. Per se means "by itself" or "in itself"; separated from the rest of a particular discussion.

Can you provide the diff for Indo-Aryan being inferior to Semitic-Arabs? I'm not seeing it. I did find one reference to the theory that Iran's Muslim leaders are Indo-Aryan and hence not descended from Muhammad's family. If he made a broad and seemingly racist comment, I must have missed it. Although much of his argument has to do with sourcing, so he might have been talking about the quality of sourcing rather than the ethnic groups. But without the diff, I can't tell. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the comment was made, then I conclude that "per se" was correct. Even if it's in a religious context, it can easily be misconstrued. And if not misconstrued, then whoever said it could have been making a point outside the religious context. In other words, hypothetical person who made that comment: don't do that. Xavexgoem (talk)

AladdinSE made the comments which I pointed out in my previous comments which can be found here, notably after I pointed out this I was reported for SPI by ALY which may be point out that these users if not SPs are working in collaboration and are not in Good Faith. I'll try to respond any further queries but my responses may be slow as I'm too much busy in my real life (I'll be back, may be after more than 12 hours). --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 05:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That was what I saw. The actual quote is, "In fact, all the mullahs and Ayatollahs around the world, especially in Iran, claim de[s]cent from Muhammad and Quraysh when statistically they are not even Semitic Arabs but Indo-Aryan people and therefore cannot be descendants of the family of the Prophet." Where are you seeing anything about "inferiority" there? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

92.14.73.142 and 92.14.116.65‎;

Resolved

 – IP's have been blocked, so it appears no further action is needed or necessary. Whose Your Guy (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a clear case of being the same person, despite the latter IP being blocked for a month. Do i need to go through SSP? Simply south (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for vandalism 24h; seems to be dynamic IP so not matching the earlier 1mo block. Pretty obviously the same guy. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait, changed it to 1 month based on further research. I don't know if it'll change faster than 24h. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

What if i encounter them again under another IP which i think will happen judging what's happening? Simply south (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV or ask for a rangeblock here. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat

Resolved

 – RabidMelon is the now-blocked puppeteer and all socks have also ben blocked - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Made by user RubinAttorney at Harry M. Rubin.[41] Edward321 (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, advice to contact the WMF at their contact page. Don't think there is anything else to do here. --Jayron32 01:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does that article look really socky? And if RubinAttorney is an actual attorney, I'll eat my hat. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked both User:RubinAttorney and User:RabidMelon as obvious socks of one another. RabidMelon restored the legal threat after it was removed. --Jayron32 01:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, maybe the page could be SPed for a bit? An awful lot of "new" account activity there. HalfShadow 01:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

There are 2-3 other accounts (then I stopped looking) with a similar MO in the last few months, and with no edits to other topics. I suppose since they're serial, rather than concurrent, it isn't a huge deal. But if they show up again now that the most recent accounts are blocked, then semi-protection or an SPI for an IP block might be in order. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Another sock was created, so I've protected the article for a week. This looks like a long-term problem, and evidently they've found the IP reset button, so we might be looking at long term semiprotection. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The article in its current form appears to be very neutral; if anything, it's largely positive. Perhaps the complainant is of the impression that BLP's require their subjects' "permission". Otherwise, if the complainant could state what specific objections he has, that would help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Article looks spammy to me. I always want to delete such articles, but I know how hard that is. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
      • It could always be modified to cut out the spam and/or nominated for deletion. Not by someone threatening to sue, though, but by someone challenging notability or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
        • I can't edit the article due to protection, and I hate getting sucked into such things anyway. But I notice it is currently sourced mostly to press releases and what I'd consider to be primary sources. If you AfD it, I'll support deletion, but WP practice in this area is so screwed up that it's likely a lost cause. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 07:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
        • I changed C. M. Rubin (about Harry M. Rubin's spouse) to a redirect. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 07:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
          • If you take out the questionable stuff, how much would be left? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
            • You're basically asking what it would take to make that guy's advertising page acceptable to Wikipedia. I'm much more interested in deleting it on the grounds that we don't do advertising, than in spending probably 2 or more hours cleaning it up for him for free (and it would still be an ad, even after that). There's basically nothing in it sourced to high quality RS, but on the other hand, most of it is just fluff rather than being really contentious, so wiping the content indiscriminately (leaving a minimal stub) would be a bit pointy. I'd instead have to carefully weigh and research each bit of fluff for possible relevance/retention, rewrite stuff carefully to tone down the spamminess, check around for better sourcing, etc. I think we're not here for that, or at least we shouldn't be. The article is IINFO, a COI vehicle, and a drama magnet all at the same time, and it's just not worth it and we're better off without it. IMO, articles like this should be speedy-deleted and if an unconflicted editor later wants to write a neutral article about the person from scratch, they can do so. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Samuel_Adams_(beer) (partly about same guy, and his buddies) needs cleanup too. I hate Wikipedia sometimes. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 11:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) There seems to be quite a bit more at play here. The "RubinAttorney" account was created on the 16th. The "RabidMelon" account was created Sept 11, 2009, and has edited almost exclusively... articles about a children's author named Cathy Rubin and a book she wrote... which Harry M. Rubin is named as an editor for, as well as the Harry M. Rubin article. Going back through the history of Harry M. Rubin shows a looooong history of SPAs, probably all related to these same accounts. I'm going to file an SPI on them, but I'm wondering if we have either someone with a COI here or someone who has an unhealthy obsession with this family? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

SPI concluded quickly, puppeteer and sock all blocked. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest PROD or AfD for the article. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Kurdo777 reverting Binksternet

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Binksternet blocked for 2 weeks. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

---

I am wondering what should be done about User:Kurdo777 who has demonstrated a consistent pattern of edit warring behavior in which he makes out-of-hand total reversions to any of my substantial contributions to articles which touch upon Iran in 1953; reversions which are not accompanied by talk page discussion or any attempt to build consensus. The diffs listed here are only the most recent spate of reversion interactions stretching back for many months on the 1953 Iranian coup d'état article. His usual reaction to a substantial edit of mine is 100% reversion.

• Reversion of my contribution to Darioush Bayandor, 02:17, December 14, 2010
• Reversion of my contribution to Darioush Bayandor, 21:49, December 15, 2010
• Reversion of my contribution to Mohammad Mosaddegh, 22:53, December 15, 2010
• Reversion of my contribution to Mohammad Mosaddegh, 23:22, December 15, 2010
• Reversion of my contribution to 1953 Iranian coup d'état, 21:29, December 15, 2010
• Reversion of my contribution to 1953 Iranian coup d'état, 22:45, December 15, 2010

I have indicated on his talk page that edit summaries are not the only place for noting why a revert is taking place, that the better way to resolve content conflict per Wikipedia:Edit summary is to participate on the talk page. Since then, Kurdo777 has not discussed any reversions of my work on an associated talk page and has even made null edits so that he can use the edit summary to put my edits down further. One of his edits listed above includes the edit summary "Rv - This is unacceptable. You reverted all my edits for no good reason", an ironic statement considering his consistent use of the 100% reversion, and an incorrect one considering I had adjusted my version to correspond with one of his disputed points, to leave out the Macmillan biography bit which stated that Bayandor was a lecturer.

I have been discussing on Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état a new book about the topic, a scholarly book by Darioush Bayandor, an Iranian diplomat who makes non-mainstream conclusions, and Kurdo777 routinely works to marginalize the book's author and import, calling it 'fringe'. At Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#1953 Iranian coup d'état, User:Rocksanddirt told Kurdo777 to stop using the 'fringe' label to try and suppress a minority viewpoint, but in this edit to Mohammad Mosaddegh, he once again uses the fringe accusation and reverts my article improvements in their entirety.

Kurdo777 and I both were blocked in April 2010 for edit warring at 1953 Iranian coup d'état and since then he has not allowed any of my substantial content contributions to stay. This looks to me to be a personal vendetta, with Kurdo777 dead set against anything I might bring to the table on 1953 Iran topics, especially anything from the new book by Bayandor. It is unacceptable behavior in a fellow editor, not collegial, and bad for the project. I wonder whether Kurdo777 should be blocked or topic-banned to stop the harm that he is doing by his edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The truth is the exact opposite. I am surprised that Binksternet decided to file a complaint against me, given his own behavior and record. He cites Rocksanddirt's comment to me as some sort of proof that he is right, while ignoring the fact that 3 other editors, in the same discussion, told him that Darioush Bayandor should not be given any weight in this article. (Example [42]) This exemplifies his tendency to ignore what he does not like to hear, ignore consensus, and engage in edit-waring while violating various Wikipedia polices dealing with sourcing. A simple count of the revisions on this article, shows that Binksternet is the party responsible for most reverts, and may have had twice as many reverts as me in the past year. He has a habbit of reverting, instead of discussing, to make his desired changes. He also abuses automated revisions which are meant to be used against simple vandalism, to edit-war in content disputes. That is why he was recently blocked for one week for excessive reverting and disruption. [43] [44] Kurdo777 (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. I previously blocked both Binksternet and Kurdo for this kind of edit warring on 1953 Iranian coup d'état. However, I have since come to the conclusion that Binksternet is the main instigator and culprit of the edit wars on the article and related pages. He ignores content-related polices, overlooks consensus, and tries to forcefully implement his POV-ridden changes onto these articles. Today, for example, he was told told by no less than four different editors/administrators (on the article talk page and fringe theories noticeboard) that a book that he is trying to introduce to these articles as a reference is in fact a fringe source. In addition, he has been told that the author should not be given any weight for now, yet he continues to attempt to introduce to the source to one of these articles despite the consensus against it. Binksternet has also been stalking several editors who have opposed his view on 1953 Iranian coup d'état, into other related and unrelated articles, which he had never edited before. Given that the sheer volume of Binksternet's reverts, and that since my block in April, Kurdo has stayed clear of trouble, while Binksternet has been blocked twice for edit warring and disruption, I would recommend a warning or a short block for Kurdo, and a minimum two week block for Binksternet - given his failure to have learned anything from his last block which was one week long. Khoikhoi 03:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Brief view of the recent history of the articles provided above:

• Darioush Bayandor - on the 15th Binksternet makes cosmetic changes, one not-quite-so-good (changing ref name="economist" to ref name=Economist) and changing Pahlavi dynasty to Shah Pahlavi (something which had been reverted previously). Reverted by Kurdo, who made the first revert against the dynasty -> shah on the 14th. Also on the 14th, removes references to Bayandor's theories as being "revisionist" (Economist). 2 reverts by Binksternet on the same day.
• 1953 Iranian coup d'état - Binksternet changes an image caption that had read "According to the CIA's declassified documents and records, some of the most feared mobsters in Teheran were hired by the CIA to stage pro-Shah riots on August 19, 1953. Other CIA-paid men were brought into Tehran in buses and trucks, and took over the streets of the city." to read "A Tehran weekly printed a photo of armed men and soldiers with a tank.". This article again has 2 reverts by Binksternet on the same day.
• Mohammad Mosaddegh - adds contextually relevant though questionably sourced material, changing "More popular than ever, a greatly strengthened" to "Politically strengthened by his reinstatement as prime minister and by a favorable decision made by the International Court of Justice endorsing Iran's position on oil nationalisation", with the Bayandor source. I don't actually see any problem with this, but it's followed by another source altogether and may be seen to create an impression of WP:SYNTH to bolster Bayandor's presence throughout these articles. I'd AGF on that, since the edit did provide context.

This could easily be construed as tendentious. The image caption change reeks of white-washing. Both editors are skirting around 3RR. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked for 2 weeks, per Khoikhoi and myself. Kurdo's reverts were within reason, but I encourage them to seek mediation in the future. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, there are Binksternet's reverts and partial-reverts on the same pages, during the last two days, many with misleading edit-summaries like "trimming", "wording" etc, and often coupled with smokescreen-type of edits like fixing the referencing format or a technical edit of some sort, in order to hide the nature of the edit (revert) :

• Darioush Bayandor Revision as of 22:37, 13 December 2010
• Darioush Bayandor Revision as of 01:17, 14 December 2010
• Darioush Bayandor Revision as of 17:21, 15 December 2010
• Darioush Bayandor Revision as of 21:39, 15 December 2010
• 1953 Iranian coup d'état: Revision as of 15:43, 13 December 2010
• 1953 Iranian coup d'état: Revision as of 22:24, 13 December 2010
• 1953 Iranian coup d'état: Revision as of 21:26, 15 December 2010
• 1953 Iranian coup d'état: Revision as of 21:58, 15 December 2010
• 1953 Iranian coup d'état: Revision as of 22:20, 15 December 2010

Kurdo777 (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Dylan Flaherty and Sarah Palin

Resolved

 – User:Dylan Flaherty is topic-banned from Sarah Palin and related articles for 2 weeks

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

• Dylan Flaherty (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia:WQA#Dylan Flaherty
• recent: Talk:Sarah Palin#Africa (part I), (part II), (part III)
• archived: Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 42#Carl Cameron leaks, Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 43#Africa: Continent or country?

On December 9, an editor questioned on Talk:Sarah Palin why there was no mention in the article of an anonymously-sourced 2008 report that Palin believed Africa to be a country. The material was originally considered in 2008, and most agree the consensus was to not include the material due to sourcing issues. (The material has remained absent from the article since.) The recent inquiry triggered a new round of discussions, and the two ensuing conversations wound up with twelve editors generally opposing inclusion and four editors generally supporting inclusion. I think the reasonable interpretation of the discussion would be a consensus against inclusion, due to the poor sourcing.

One editor, User:Dylan Flaherty, however, has gone around and around, posing generally the same "questions" and using various debate tactics repeatedly — and interpreting the resulting exhaustion from every other editor as a wp:silent-endorsement of his "position." Although he has sought and been advised of several potential dispute resolution options, should he still wish to push for including the text despite consensus, he has thus far not pursued any of those options. Instead, he has just announced that "there is a consensus in support of insertion" of the material, and presumably plans to move forward unilaterally.

The article has long been subject to general sanctions and article probation, precisely due to this type of wp:blp-be-damned, point-of-view warrior-mentality. He has basically indicated on his talk page that he will not recognize any consensus from the editors that he believes "guard" the Sarah Palin article, and I think his intent now is to simply drive any editor that doesn't agree with him away through ad infinitum debate. Given the sheer amount of tabloid scheiße editors at the Palin article(s) must regularly sift through, I think his tactics to drive away any remotely objective editor can be particularly harmful (and are not unique, see User:Scribner and User:Manticore55 in particular).

User:Dylan Flaherty has previously been advised of the general sanctions and article probation in place at Sarah Palin, and I will also notify him of this posting. jæs (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

User notified. I've also let User:KillerChihuahua know about this post[45], given that she has been one of the primary administrators in handling issues relating the general sanctions imposed on the Sarah Palin article, although her talk page indicates she may be away tending to real life at the moment. jæs (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a slight correction. I was the one who used the term "guard" at Dylan's talk page. And, as I state at the articles talkpage, most recently the discussion had developed to a point where a spot for inclusion, if approved, would be logical. I'm sure more discussion will follow.Buster Seven Talk 05:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I think I'm supposed to respond here, but I'll keep it very short:

The question of whether, where and how to insert the Africa gaffe is not currently settled, as there are multiple editors arguing on either side. Apparently, the trigger for this report is that I offered to put together the proposed text for insertion, which I is something I was actively requested to do. I have not changed the article, and do not plan to do so without a clear consensus, so I'm not sure how this is a violation of anything. Having said that, it has become obvious that the discussion is not going smoothly and we are not moving towards any sort of consensus. For that reason, I believe that this complaint is, to put it mildly, premature and inappropriate. I would instead suggest that we handle this in the right venue: an RfC on the content dispute. Dylan Flaherty 05:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No, Dylan, we absolutely do not need to start an RFC over whether to include anonymous gossip in a BLP. You've already been told to stop beating the horse -- it's turning into glue. Cut it out before you find yourself restricted from the subject. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, it is not the case that I am the lone voice, and it is also not the case that this is about gossip. I can show diffs in which I explain that the notable aspect is the McCain campaign's post-election treatment of Palin, and I can show diffs of people requesting dispute resolution. Quite frankly, the tone of your input here is an example of why we need dispute resolution so much. Dylan Flaherty 05:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You're correct that you're not the "lone voice" that has argued for inclusion over the past two years (although you are in the overwhelming minority). The distinction, though — and the reason I've raised this issue here — is that you're the one editor that is using a nearly daunting amount of wikilawyering and tendentious "debating" to, as best as I can tell, exhaust every other editor to the point at which they surrender and allow the content to be included, notwithstanding wp:blp and actual consensus. jæs (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I meant that I am not the only person who is currently favoring some movement in the direction of inclusion. It is presently an unsettled controversy among editors.

I'm not speaking of what the consensus might have been two years ago, as that doesn't matter one bit. Past consensus is not binding on the present, and that's a good thing because our views change as we learn more. It is only in retrospect that it becomes clear how the Africa gaffe incident marked Palin's split from the GOP. Only now do we have the hindsight to see why it was important and where it fits into her story. Two years ago, I would have agreed with omitting this incident, but now we know better.

We do not have a consensus today, and we need to get one. However, trying to get me topic-banned is not a productive step in achieving consensus. Moreover, your claims about my behavior, in addition to being less than accurate, open the door to an analysis of your own behavior, and I don't think you would benefit from that. You have been highly aggressive in trying to derail and shut down this discussion. Dylan Flaherty 06:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's perfect. It would be far more useful to find out what Palin has to say nowadays about Africa, if anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The point I've been trying to make is that it was never really about her knowledge of geography, but rather the politics of the leak. I somehow suspect that, if she were quizzed today, she'd do just fine. :-) Dylan Flaherty 06:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Please note: The link above to the WQA is misleading, the report was opened by Dylan about another editor for less-than civil commments. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Dylan Flaherty is certainly not the only editor who sees things the way he does. I involved myself actively in that thread for a few days, but withdrew after finding it virtually impossible to have a meaningful conversation with any who opposed my perspective. Points and compromise suggestions I politely made were responded to with totally tangential or irrelevant comments, at times quite abusive. As a non-American it was an interesting and educational insight into American politics. I saw people who would aggressively and irrationality defend their favoured politician's purity and brilliance, with no interest in sensible discussion. Seeing no evidence that such editors would ever accept anything I said, I judiciously withdrew, but kept an interested eye on the article. It's important to note that the absence of active editors from a discussion does not mean an absence of interest. HiLo48 (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, HiLo48. I had wondered where you had gone off to, but correctly concluded that you had been driven off by the harshness of certain responses. I'm sorry you were compelled to withdraw and I certainly don't hold that against you in any way. I can only express my hope that you might be willing to participate in a more structured discussion, such as the RfC. Dylan Flaherty 07:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. That discussion was a very very frustrating experience. I admire your patience (even if driven by boredom.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Oy vey. You have a clear point of view regarding Sarah Palin. It's evident in your absolute unwillingness to listen to anyone — other editors, administrators, uninvolved parties — who take the time to calmly, rationally explain to you that anonymously-sourced gossip is absolutely unacceptable for a wp:blp, no matter what level of unsourced synthesis you might be able to conjure up. You can't debate your way around or through such an obvious wp:blp violation. And while I admire your pugnacity and delicious sense of irony, your efforts are damaging to biographies, drive neutral editors away from controversial articles, and ultimately hurt Wikipedia. jæs (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That out-of-context link does not accurately reflect my view of Palin. Regardless, I believe we are all entitled to holding our own opinions as well as to making suggestions regarding article content. It would be very easy to find pro-Palin quotes from you, particularly if I wasn't picky about context and accuracy, but I would never deny you the opportunity to collaborate simply because we are not already in full agreement.

I think we've also established that it's not a WP:BLP violation, so please do us the courtesy of not bringing up arguments that have been shown to be false. Thank you. Dylan Flaherty 07:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Eh? Where a consensus found the claim not be to includable in a BLP, and the BLP rules have significantly tightened since then, it is odd that you, as a single editor lacking clear consensus, can rule that it does not violate BLP. Amazingly enough, BLPs do not contain every single snipped about the person - the material must be of some significance to the person, and must, if challenged, have a strong reliable source which is not questioned. Meanwhile, becoming a denizen of the noticeboards as a topic is not wise, and a large cup of tea is prescribed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to say to this, as it is riddled with factual errors. This is not constructive. Dylan Flaherty 11:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I won't even bother addressing your attempts to imply, falsely, that I'm anything but neutral when it comes to this subject, but I once again admire your irony. But I do wonder exactly how many other editors and administrators have to try to convince you it is a wp:blp issue before you will actually acknowledge that fact? (I also find this comment from a few minutes ago to be not at all subtle. I suspect you didn't intend for it to be, though.) jæs (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You have twice now attempted to imply that I am not neutral. The point is that editors are not expected to be neutral, articles are. Simply having an opinion does not disqualify either of us. Dylan Flaherty 08:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

When editors clearly can't separate their personal opinions from their editing of a controversial article for a biography of a living person, there are serious ramifications for this project. If you cannot edit the article neutrally and objectively, that certainly ought to disqualify you. jæs (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You have offered nothing to support your claim that my suggestions for editing are anything but NPOV. It helps if you prove your claim instead of assuming it. Dylan Flaherty 09:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Alright you two that's enough. Disengage. Dylan, if you want to add a sentence into the article about Palin thinking Africa is a country, find a reliable source for it, and state why you think adding such a sentence would improve the article. Make your case on the talk page, and see what happens. If consensus is that the sentence should not be included, respect that. If you have already done this and the consensus is that the sentence should not be included, stop beating the dead horse. N419BH 08:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that reliable sourcing is absolutely essential. It turns out that we have no trouble finding reliable sources for both the original report and the analysis of its significance. Dylan Flaherty 08:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• I noticed this at WP:WQA#Bonewah where Dylan Flaherty reported what they thought was a uncivil comment, namely this edit. I had a look at the issue and noticed the repetitive attempts at Talk:Sarah Palin to record an alleged blunder by Palin re knowledge of Africa. Given that the article is under probation, and given the extremely low quality of the arguments in favor of introducing the Africa material, I recommend that an admin let people know that consensus has spoken, and the issue should not be revisited unless a new reliable source appears (and it would be even better if WP:DUE could be explained, i.e. you need more than one report before suggesting that Palin does not know the status of Africa). Johnuniq (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but calling me a liar is indeed uncivil. Moreover, the issue is not the alleged blunder, but the actual report. This is a delicate issue, so I feel that it is vital to do the necessary research to get the facts straight, prior to offering suggestions. Dylan Flaherty 08:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, no one "called (DF) a liar" and iterating that claim here is bound to get the WQA revisited to your possible detriment. You appeared to take umbrage at one of the mildest reproofs imaginable on WP, and then iterate how "uncivil" the other editor is. One more cup of tea is called for. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you make claims that are false. The term tossed at me refers specifically to intentionally misleading, which is to say, lying. Note that, in contrast, while I am stating that your claims are false, I am not claiming intent, so I am not calling you a liar. I hope that clarifies the difference. Dylan Flaherty 11:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

N419BH - Many suggestions have been made on the Talk page. My reason for leaving it was that consensus is clearly impossible. I tried to present a different perspective and was howled down by those who cannot conceive of an alternative to their view that the content MUST NOT BE THERE. (Some of the comments to me were quite rude.) I am not American. This gives me both an independence from American party politics, and another perspective. I was not just ignored. I was attacked. Forget about consensus. It cannot happen. HiLo48 (talk) 08:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

HiLo, I am quite sympathetic, but I must tell you that I felt much the same about Tea Party movement, but a long mediation forced both sides to the table and yielded a mutually acceptable compromise. On this basis, I believe an RfC has some potential here. Perhaps I'm an optimist, but I'd like to give it a try. Dylan Flaherty 09:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone suggested confining it to the 2008 election page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, the suggested location is the end of the election section. Its significance is not for the election, but for the transition. Dylan Flaherty 08:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The alleged statement is presumed to have possibly affected people's voting choice, yes? And if not, why does it matter anyway? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That was my initial thought, too, but I was mistaken. The gaffe itself was supposed to have occurred during the campaign, but Cameron was not allowed to mention it until afterwards, as it was given to him "off the record". Instead, it came out just as McCain conceded, as part of an effort by his people to lay blame at Palin's feet. This, according to reliable sources, had the effect of distancing Palin from the GOP mainstream and eventually leading to her role in the Tea Party movement. As I said, the significance is in the transition. Dylan Flaherty 09:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, just read the proposed content. The usual badly sourced BLP mud slinging content. I suggest as a resolution an admin leaves Dylan a strong but polite note to drop the stick and back away slowly, there is no way the content (at this stage anyway) is able to pass BLP concerns. Sourcing is pants (mostly news from the time as far as I can make out with nothing but trivial coverage). Significance is not established (no indication of the relevance or significance). etc. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I did read your comment, but I'm sorry to say that you made some serious factual errors that undermine your conclusion. A key one is that you denied that anyone provided RS's for the "thrown under the bus" analysis. If you go back and read it more carefully, you'll see that there are two you missed. Dylan Flaherty 09:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I read all the sources in those three parts, perhaps I missed it. Care to post them both again? Stick them on my talk page. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Dylan Flaherty 09:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As a point of order, I requested that jaes not post further to my talk page. They have violated this request. I am requesting that an administrator take care of this. Dylan Flaherty 09:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that Dylan find a way to stop making increasingly regular appearances as the subject (or reporter-turned-subject)[46] of so many threads that concern disruptive editing. Dylan isn't even four months old here, yet it's becoming "old hat" already seeing him surrounded by controversy. It isn't looking like a "rosy" future at this rate. Jus' sayin'... Doc talk 09:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You have said nothing about the subject of this report. Instead, you are bringing up your general opinion of me my editing "style", which is not relevant. On the whole, I do not find your comment helpful. Dylan Flaherty 09:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I wish you would find it helpful. I have no negative opinion of you as an editor (or a person) whatsoever: your editing "style" is the issue. You must have noticed a few "objections" to it by now... Doc talk 09:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, the reason I don't find it helpful is that it does nothing to resolve the issue that this report is about. At best, it is harmless commentary. At worst, it is mudslinging. In neither case, nor any in between, is it productive. While I will assume good faith here, I cannot conclude that it is helpful. Dylan Flaherty 09:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Since you clarified your intention, I redacted my original comment. Dylan Flaherty 09:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that :> After being here almost 3 years and never been the subject of even one AN/I/WQA/AN/3RR/etc., maybe my advice truly isn't helpful. I can't keep you out of them... so go with your instincts! Cheers :> Doc talk 09:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not denying that your advice may be helpful in a general context. However, my feeling is that offering it here in the place of an analysis of the situation that was reported is not helpful. I hope I have made this distinction sufficiently clear. Dylan Flaherty 09:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have to again contribute my comments from the thread, since everyone else is just repeating their stubborn opinions. I'm in Australia. The "Fact" that Palin does not know Africa is a continent was widely publicised here. No refutation of that "Fact" has arrived here. I acknowledge that some editors believe it should be refuted and have some evidence for that claim. This is a global encyclopaedia. (Hence my spelling of that word.) To have an article about Palin and not mention that rather sensational "Fact" would make it look like the article has been censored. Hence I proposed mentioning both sides of the story. This proposal has nothing to do with US politics, apart from making the description look complete. Believe it or not, the rest of the world does pay attention to US politics. Let's tell the full story. HiLo48 (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You're an American. "Methinks he doth protest too much". Doc talk 09:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Doc, that's a silly response. Do assume good faith. If you want, I'l scan my Australian birth certificate and post it here. You have to start trusting us foreigners! HiLo48 (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm an Aussie and I support HiLo48's post. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 09:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What it boils down to is that Dylan just wouldn't take No for an answer. And the basic reason for that was that editors failed to grasp the subtle difference of Dylans request from what they were percieving. And now he is being charged with wasting editing time and harming WP. But lets look at where this took place. Talk:Sara Palin. There are 62 Archives at Talk:Sara Palin; 61.5 since Aug 29, 2008. Almost 62 archives in 28 months. I challenge someone to find another WP article talk page with as many in such a short time. My point is that conversation/discussion at Talk:Sara Palin is looooong-winded. It takes time and effort to shake out the wheat from the chaff. Its a part of the "scene" there. This African gaffe stuff is nothing compared to the Bridges to Nowhere discussions. Editor:Dylan may have stepped in some dog-droppings here and there, and upset an editor or two, but I hope administrators can consider the nature of the Sara Palin article and the development of an obviously talented editor. Buster Seven Talk 10:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I think I'm beginning to notice something here. The actual story of Palin's Africa gaffe would, if it were true, make her look ignorant. It get the impression that some people get this far into the issue and then stop. They immediately react to a perceived attack and they never go any deeper, so they miss the point.

Yet, if they kept reading, they would understand that the significance is not that the story makes her look bad, but that the story is intended to; that it was told by the McCain aide to Cameron precisely because they wanted her to look bad. In this context, Palin comes across as a sympathetic figure, scapegoated by the establishment so that McCain doesn't have to take the full blame for losing the election.

Wikipedia is not here to praise or damn Palin, but to report on the facts. If we report that the gaffe was claimed and then explain what it means about her relationship with the GOP mainstream, we are just doing our jobs. Dylan Flaherty 09:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the sources you suggested and did a bit of digging; I agree, there is content here. On the other hand the "Africa gaffe" is a minor part of that, worth probably less than a sentence as part of the overall story. (but this is not the place for such a discussion really - we should figure out if admin action is needed, and if not then move on) --Errant ^(chat!) 09:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't yet posted my proposed paragraph, but I assure you that the Africa gaffe does not get more than a sentence, and is presented only in context, without being declared true. I believe the best action at this point is to allow the RfC to proceed and to watch it carefully. Dylan Flaherty 10:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that what Dylan is proposing (on this page) is synthesis--taking a relatively minor incident (which is rather sketchily sourced, as all of the media reports refer to a single reporter's claims about the statements of anonymous staffers), and extrapolating that into a discussion of Palin's relationship with the Republican Party establishment. Unless there is a reliable source which explicitly links the two issues, we can't say that, because it's original research. Horologium (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Horologium, I would appreciate it if you would do me the courtesy of visiting User_talk:ErrantX and reading the two sources I posted there. Dylan Flaherty 10:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Horologium and Errant - did you actually read my posts? Nothing you have posted indicates that you are paying any attention to what I have posted at all. This has been my frustration all along. Those who don't want the content repeatedly post stuff that simply does not take into account what others have said. It's really bad manners, and guaranteed to occasionally lead to less than ideal interactions. Why behave in such a confrontational way? Dylan is being attacked here for alleged unacceptable behaviour, but bad behaviour is all over the place on this topic. Please try a little harder, all of you. HiLo48 (talk) 10:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have read what you have written, and simply dismissed it out of hand. You aren't paying attention to what others have been saying, and you mistake media assertions for facts. The only person who has claimed that Sarah Palin doesn't know that Africa is a continent is an anonymous McCain campaign staffer, whereas multiple McCain staffers have stated, on the record, that the claims are false. Horologium (talk) 10:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You have totally missed my point. My opinion of what Palin said is irrelevant. When I said "Fact", it was to highlight that without any further information, everyone, all over the world, who has only heard the claims that she did say it will believe it to be true. And will wonder why WIkipedia is hiding the story that they have all heard. That you're happy to have the world know only one side of this story, the side that makes Palin look silly, stuns me. Because the world does know that side of the story, and not the refutations. HiLo48 (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You must have dismissed it out of hand, since you didn't take the time to understand that the very fact the claim was made is the point. We don't really know whether it was true, although it's entirely plausible that it was a misstatement or misunderstanding on her part rather than a reflection of actual ignorance about Africa. But, as you admit, you just dismissed it out hand. Dylan Flaherty 10:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(after many E/C)Yes, both of these sources explicitly state that their source was Carl Cameron, and neither have much to do with what you claim to be trying to achieve here (since they date from less than a week after the campaign ended in 2008). I have addressed this on the article talk page, but you haven't bothered to reply to my concerns. Horologium (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, I fail to see how you could have viewed a 6.5 minute video in less than 4 minutes. I have to suspect that you did not watch it. This is strengthened by the fact that you made some basic factual errors just now. In particular, the video very clearly states that McCain leaked negative information about her for two days, which is exactly the point. Please understand that this is not a vote, and that the weight of your comments cannot exceed the merit they earn by virtue of reflecting serious scholarship. Dylan Flaherty 10:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't have to watch it this time; I watched it after you brandished it on the article talk page earlier. If you were actually coming up with new stuff, it would be a different story, but you're recycling the same links. Horologium (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I agree that you only have to watch it once. However, that one time, you do need to watch it all the way through and pay close attention. Dylan Flaherty 10:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Dylan Flaherty may be right about this. Google Books search[47] finds lots of mentions of the incident, including some by respectably uninvolved authors, plus Palin herself apparently discusses it on page 87 of her autobiography "Going Rogue". Palin is a major public figure (she may even be the next US president) and as such, we should take a firmer stance about her biography's neutrality than we would about biographies of semi-private people whose biographies tend (for good reason) to get tilted in their favor. Assuming the allegation is false, the reliably sourced info about who spread it and why they did it sounds potentially relevant to her biography. We have a whole article about the birther movement for about the same reason. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 10:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm yeah... youtube and the Huffington post are REALLY reliable sources(!) Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 10:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Do me a favor: remove your face from your palm and actually look at the video before declaring it unreliable. Thank you. Dylan Flaherty 10:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If you knew ANYTHING about our policies you would know youtube is NEVER even REMOTELY considered a reliable source. PERIOD! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 10:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Good to know. Now, tell me, have you ever heard of this minor cable channel called MSNBC? If so, do you think it's somewhat reliable? Dylan Flaherty 10:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright infringement. That's one reason why YouTube is an unreliable source. Arf arf... Doc talk 10:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I will note for the record that you did not answer the question. I think you're done now. Dylan Flaherty 10:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Doc ignoring what others post, eh?. Trademark behaviour it seems. HiLo48 (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Barts1a; just for edification :) Youtube can definitely be a reliable source. The issue with it is twofold is that a) it is often self published material (which either is not reliable, or must be used with care) or a) the content is not adequately licensed, and you are right, we do never link to copyright infringing material. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing more authorized uploads which seem reliable; and more aggressive protection of copyrighted info. However, youtube is still primarily for entertainment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the link is just presented here for your convenience. The actual RS is the cable broadcast itself. Dylan Flaherty 10:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Where would one access a cable broadcast other than on youtube? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, but the answer is "your local cable provider".

Accessibility is distinct from reliability. We have articles that reference books that cannot be found online. In this case, someone who would prefer not to use YouTube would need to contact MSNBC and request video of the broadcasts for that time period. Of course, some people would use YouTube for verification, even though we wouldn't necessarily want to link to it. Dylan Flaherty 11:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Shazam! My local cable provider is piping 2-year-old MSNBC shows to my TV on request? I did not know that! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, for something like that you need print sources by not-too-partisan writers. Page 6 of "On rumors: how falsehoods spread, why we believe them, what can be done" by Cass R. Sunstein might be an ok source (shows up in Google book search but there's no preview of that page). Snippet: "In 2008, many Americans were prepared to believe that Governor Sarah Palin thought that Africa was a country rather than a continent, because that ridiculous confusion fit with what they already thought about Governor Palin. ..." 67.117.130.143 (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but do you know what would be even better than non-partisan writers? A report from a partisan journalist who would be expected to be hostile towards Palin but is instead sympathetic!

I don't know of any TV journalists more partisan against the GOP than Keith Olbermann. Now check out the video and see it for yourself. Dylan Flaherty 10:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(after multiple EC) We don't even need to discuss copyright infringement, we need to note that Olbermann is on the same level as right-wing crazies like Glenn Beck, and I seriously doubt that any of the people pushing the Olbermann clip would similarly support clips of Glenn Beck on the Barack Obama article. Horologium (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for making my point for me. Dylan Flaherty 10:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This is quite subtle. jæs (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What's unsubtle is your attempt to repeatedly introduce material that is irrelevant. In fact, I redacted that comment immediately, so quoting it at all is an act of bad faith. Shame on you. Dylan Flaherty 10:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You "redacted" your personal attack with the edit summary of "true, but out of place." Seriously? It's remarkable to me that, when it comes to your inappropriate behaviour, everything is irrelevant or out of context, or the mere mention of it is "intimidation." Shame on me, indeed! jæs (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What I redacted was not, in fact, a personal attack at all. Note how no persons were mentioned. However, even if it had been a personal attack and I removed it without prompting, it would be inappropriate to post it here without that context. I'm not sure why you posted the other links, as they only make you look bad. They show, for example, how you were ordered not to post on my talk page but you did it anyway. Dylan Flaherty 11:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan Flaherty, Please note this... Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 10:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I certainly didn't hear you say whether MSNBC was a reliable source, and I didn't hear you reply to ErrantX's correction about YouTube. Dylan Flaherty 10:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That certainly looks like a refusal to get the point to me. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 11:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record... Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 11:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming this ANI thread is an exception until it's completed. Or is it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but I would have dropped the stick by now... Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 11:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not a stick, so no. Dylan Flaherty 11:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thus you're sticking to your story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. :-) Dylan Flaherty 11:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban

I believe that the topic ban laid down by User:Gwen Gale is unreasonable and unjustified, so I am requesting that she lift it. If she won't then I'm requesting that someone else override her. Dylan Flaherty 11:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

To be specific, I consider my edits on the talk page to be persistent but productive and in good faith, hence not disruptive. Dylan Flaherty 11:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Your comments as a result of it above are. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 11:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I was not banned for my comments, and actually, they're not. Dylan Flaherty 11:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You're overinvolved and staying away for 2 weeks sounds like a good idea. There is more sourcing for the Africa thing now than there used to be, so other editors can find and use it if they determine that it's worth reversing an earlier decision to not include the material. Just find something non-Palin-related to edit for a while. Variety is healthy.67.117.130.143 (talk) 11:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This behavior of Dylan Flaherty's is completely in line with my experiences with him on other pages. His behavior reported here brings contention wherever I have seen him edit. In expectation of his usual personal attacks for my having said this, let me add that numerous editors have the same experiences as I do. It is good to see that some people are not dismissive of his behavior. I am certain disciplinary action taken here is well deserved. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: The topic ban is fully and 100% in effect. Any additional discussion here, or anywhere related to Sarah Palin will result in an escalating series of blocks. This topic ban is in effect for a period of 2 weeks. Additional similar transgressions will lead to longer topic bans. Final answer. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If so, then it's probably time to box this up. Oh, and also to block the rabble-rousing IP, farther down, who's trying to encourage socking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Unreasonable block topic ban

While in the middle of discussing an issue, I was put on a topic ban that prevents me from defending myself. I find this highly unreasonable and request that the ban be removed, at least for the context of this page. (I apologize if this seems unclear, but I am not allowed to speak of the topic of the ban.) Dylan Flaherty 11:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been informed now that I am not banned from Sarah Palin-related topics on this page, so I will continue this matter in the previous section. Dylan Flaherty 11:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry for you but the editors here thought they are gods that no one can put them down.. they dont respect anyone and even their co- editors have errors they try to help him/her by masking the errors... this is what they are.. they are as corrupt as as their souls and minds are... if you entertain them further you'll get stressed and you'll be unhealthy at the end.... the best way is to trail them and give them the correct punishment that is outside of wikipedias rules... the best idea then.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.185.182 (talk) 11:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Naturally, you're from Chicago, a city known for its impeccable integrity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN/I is not the place for you to be a snarky bigot to IPs with impunity. Keep it to yourself. Jtrainor (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Now, wait... Are you saying Chicago is not known for its impeccable integrity? Them's fightin' words, son - Chicago is my favorite city. It sounds like you've got your own bigotry issues that you need to address before lecturing others. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, apparently BWilkens says I can't speak of the forbidden subject of horror anywhere, so I won't. Instead, I will request that the ban be lifted. If I get blocked for requesting the removal of a ban, then we'll have reached new levels of perversity. Dylan Flaherty 11:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"What is your fascination with my forbidden closet of mystery?" Oh well: good luck :> Doc talk 11:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If you don't know the difference between a WP:BLOCK and WP:RESTRICT by now there may be little hope for you ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction, but please note this extract from WP:BAN:

Wikipedia's hope for banned editors is that they will leave Wikipedia or the affected area with their pride and dignity intact, whether permanently or for the duration of their ban. As such, it is inappropriate to bait banned editors, or to take advantage of their ban to mock them.

In other words, don't kick a man when he's down, especially when you tripped him in the first place.

To clarify, I believe that preventing me from defending myself is unreasonable, that the topic ban itself is unreasonable, and that any sort of block or ban or restriction is entirely inappropriate. This is a content dispute that multiple editors have requested an RfC for. By topic-banning, you are disrupting this process, among other things.

For these reasons, and all the ones listed above, I am requesting that the topic ban be removed and the discussion be unlocked so that it may continue. Dylan Flaherty 11:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, you're mixing up a WP:BAN and a topic ban. Don't. This is not a ban. You have been given permission to improve your editing and understanding of policies by discussing it directly with User:Gwen Gale - take advantage of that. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been asked to first discuss this with the original banner. So long as that discussion is ongoing, please consider the unban request here to be on hold. Dylan Flaherty 12:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The ANI discussion is concluded, so no further defense from you is necessary. At Talk:Sarah Palin, there is a clear consensus that the information you are interested in will not be added. Here at ANI, there is an equally clear consensus that it is time for you to accept that consensus, and find other ways to improve the encyclopedia. Part of participating in disagreements at Wikipedia is recognizing when you have lost, which means not having to have large number of administrators inform you that the argument is over and you did not win it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As it turns out, you are mistaken about the consensus. There is, in fact, no consensus right now, and the process of arriving at one has been substantially delayed by these mistaken administrator actions. Part of participating in Wikipedia is understanding that terminating a discussion prematurely to declare a winner is poor sportsmanship. Dylan Flaherty 12:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment from the peanut gallery: Closing an ANI discussion after less than 8 hours seems odd, to say the least. And the fact that it so quickly resulted in a topic ban is even more dumbfounding. -PrBeacon (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

PrBeacon, if you wish to follow the conversation on the talk page of the administrator who did this, you'll note that the basic argument is that I need to shut up and accept consensus. My problem with this is that, as the number of dissenting voices clearly showed, there is no clear consensus at this time. Rather than supporting the natural formation and enforcement of consensus, the ban silenced the debate and propped up a failing consensus.

That's why I've asked for an unban so that I can launch the RfC that people have been agitating for in the last week. I will continue to try to get through to her until tomorrow evening, at which point I will be forced to give up and return to this page. It's easier for the ban to be lifted by her than anyone else, but we don't have to do things the easy way, given the questionable nature of this ban. Dylan Flaherty 15:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's try this from the top. As the discussions have stalled, I am once again asking for this topic ban to be removed. It serves no positive purpose and only delays the RfC that we need to gain a consensus. Once the ban is removed, I will immediately file an RfC. Dylan Flaherty 18:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose removal of topic ban. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That's great, but why? Do you have a reason? Dylan Flaherty 18:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - could be longer for me. Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you volunteering to be topic-banned? I don't understand. I also don't see any stated reason. This is not a vote. Dylan Flaherty 18:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose removal of topic ban. Sarah Palin is not an obscure subject, and this user has already stated his case. He seems now to be arguing that the topic ban must be lifted because others cannot reach the right consensus without his participation, which I do not think is the case. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Thank you for offering a reason. I think if you look at the banner's talk page, you'll find that they admit there is currently no consensus. If an RfC proceeds without me and arrives at the conclusion that we should exclude the Africa incident, this will be a glass consensus that shatters as soon as I am ungagged. Dylan Flaherty 18:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

One person does not make or break a consensus. No editor is so indispensable that an inability to participate in a discussion, precipitated by his own actions, renders said discussion invalid. Horologium (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose removal of topic ban. I think taking two weeks to calm down, organize your thoughts, and carefully prepare an RFC on the subject before getting back into public discussion is well recommended. There's no hurry to add the disputed text. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 18:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose removal of topic ban, largely for the reasons outlined by FisherQueen. Horologium (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x3 Oppose removal of topic ban. Banned user shows evidence that he is willing to use tactics which aren't conducive towards collaborative work, including a refusal to "get the point", a willingness to repeatedly use the same arguements and tactics ad nauseum, even in the face of significant opposition, and a willingess that by sheer volume and repetition, he will somehow make his points the consensus view rather than his own personal view. I don't see where the Sarah Palin universe of articles has benefit from this persons behavior; indeed if he does have any valid points they will likely eventually be incorporated by others, he provides nothing uniquely valuable to the articles except his own disruption therof. (post Edit conflict addendum) The belief that your participation in the RFC would somehow cause such a landmark shift in consensus is the exact reason why the topic ban is needed here. Your opinion is exactly as valuable as anyone elses; and your opinions on the matter are already public record, and have not generated much support. The fact that an RFC has started is unlikely to magicly change consensus on this issue merely because you get to make the same tired arguements there again. --Jayron32 18:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oppose If an RfC is truly required, it will most certainly not hinge on any one single editor to get started. As there is a serious and ongoing case of WP:IDHT, the topic ban is amply justified. MLauba ^(Talk) 18:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose removal of topic ban. If a user fails to drop the stick and continues to ignore people who point out he is wrong then this is a needed step. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 22:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• As I articulated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benjiboi, I think there's a reasonable chance this user is a sockpuppet of Benjiboi, although the ongoing behavior here makes me question my initial suspicions. A checkuser might be appropriate if there is ongoing disruption sufficient to enact a topic ban from a contentious area. Jclemens (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Could we have a CU on this? I have not a clue as to what the outcome would be. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Thanks for pointing that out Jclemens. This Dylan Flaherty user account does have a precocious knowledge of Wikipedia, as evidenced by its very first actions; this person did not start editing Wikipedia on the first day the account was created, so there is some past history which is being deliberately hidden. No idea what that means, but it is suspicious. --Jayron32 19:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit, the overlap is interesting, but Dylan Flaherty's editing style is substantially less collegial than that of Benjiboi. I have interacted with Benjiboi on other contentious topics (particularly Matt Sanchez); he was not so quick to stonewall and wikilawyer. Plus, he's been around long enough to know that an RFC is going to draw lots of attention; if he were planning to continue to edit, he'd lie low and not call for an RFC. I don't buy it, although the account creation date, the knowledge of certain arcane policies, and the editing overlap is startling. (The fact that he still doesn't seem to have a grasp of posting diffs offsets some of that.)Horologium (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Guess I must say, this was Dylan's third edit. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

! I think he can safely say that he's SOMEBODY's sock. JClemens says Benjiboi; my first guess would be User:Scribner, who has a history of disruption on this article and a similar focus on politically-fraught topics. Horologium (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting theory.[48] 67.117.130.143 (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, that we have 3-4 disruptive editors who are known to edit from the same political point-of-view as this, and also have a pattern of refusing to back down when faced with overwhelming consensus against their edits, among them Grundle2600 and ChildofMidnight. Now, this obviously isn't Grundle, totally not his style. He doesn't even try to hide. It could possibly be CoM; CoM does hide, but this guy doesn't seem as abusive towards others as CoM usually is. Scribner is an interesting connection... What we do know is this is somebody who is not as new as his account indicates. --Jayron32 21:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Nevermind, this guy has the opposite political viewpoint. Darn it, I have such a hard time keeping track of the difference between American political rhetoric. And I am an American... Urgh. --Jayron32 21:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Is clear evidence of socking enough to get a checkuser involved without knowledge of the sockmaster's identity? N419BH 21:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Will the claim that Dylan is or is not a sock be verified and the results presented here or is there another forum for that? Unverified charges stated by administrators have an increased sticking power. I'm not sure what to make of these sockpuppet claims. I would rather know than suspect. Buster Seven Talk 21:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

JClemens has posted a link to the SPI for Benjiboi, in which he addresses some of the possible links between Dylan and Benjiboi. I'm not sure who is doing all of the C/U stuff, but if they are reading everything, rather than just the list, they'll notice what JClemens has posted and run the check. Horologium (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

A CU has not been run on JClemens request at the SPI. Given the size of that SPI request, and the number of discussions going on there, it may have been missed. --Jayron32 22:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I suggested a cup of tea for him. DF, however, seems to respond with such by an increased argumentativeness. Here is a user who appeared as Minerva, spinging forth from the head of Zeus. Until we find out who Zeus is :) my usual opposition to draconian measures is vastly reduced. [49], [50], [51], and (a personal favourite) [52] posted in response to a suggestion that a cuppa would help. Collect (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

So, Jayron. That means no report is forthcoming? As the example above shows, some editors will begin to assume and state that the claims of sockpuppetry are factual...without any evidence.Buster Seven Talk 22:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I made so claims other than his argumentativeness. Which is reasonably clear. Collect (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Really!?! Dylan Flaherty 22:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice the conversation has shifted to whether or not Dylan is a sockpuppet. We all can see that he may argue a bit too much! Buster Seven Talk 22:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(←) For what it's worth, Dylan responded elsewhere that his account is not a sock. I also recall him mentioning recently that he is not editing under a pseudonym, and that he had some concerns about his on-Wikipedia activities becoming associated with his real life identity (at which point I suggested he exercise his right to vanish and select a pen name). I don't know what to make of all of the information above, especially the peculiar nature of his earlier edits, but I suspect it may just be simpler for us to wait for the checkuser conclusion rather than speculate. jæs (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of topic ban, and recommend an extension beyond the original 2 weeks. The massive "I don't get it"-ism has simply wasted more time than anything. Sometimes WP:COMPETENCE raises its ugly head. At the end of 2 weeks, he still will not understand WP:CONSENSUS ... or indeed, any of the WP:5P. His chat with User:Gwen Gale was supposed to help enlighten him - he simply refuses to take any advice like an adult would/should. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. I have made the same observation regarding the User:Gwen Gale chat. Truly striking. It is amazing how User:Gwen Gale continues to respond as well as she does. I hope to learn from User:Gwen Gale. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

LAEC, please stop piling on. You already had your say earlier, although that too should be qualified. You have your own share of contentious editing, and not just in discussions with Dylan or me. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You followed LAEC to Southern Poverty Law Center, and Dylan followed shortly afterwards: both you and Dylan have an astonishing talk-to-article edit ratio there, with way more arguing than editing the article. Neither of you much like LAEC either. If I had to pick one editor as a possible Dylan master, it would be PrBeacon (talk · contribs). The wikistalk is impressive[53] (interest in giving talk page advice but no article edits at Koch Industries for PrBeacon[54] stands out to me as a minor "oddity", especially when one considers that Dylan started editing both the article and talk page after that), and I'm not seeing much in the way of edit overlap (I could be wrong). If a CU is run, I'd put my money here. Doc talk 06:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Then you'd lose. I didn't follow LAEC anywhere and your various accusations are ridiculous. Is this your way of trying to weaken an ideological opponent (DF) and anyone who dares to offer a modicum of support? Or perhaps the timing of your comment here is more than coincidental to another editor's disruptive exchange [55] elsewhere. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Can someone verify that a CU is in fact being run? I see alot of conjecture..."if a CU and when a CU and should a CU"...but I don't see any hard evidence that a CU is taking place. Thanks Buster Seven Talk 06:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Eickman

User:Eickman has repeatedly added a link to his personal webpage into the Son of perdition article. He was questioned about it here and here, advised against it here (which he responded to here), and then warned here and here. And yet he has added the link repeatedly, the most recent occasions being here, here and here. StAnselm (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

All this is sectarian nonsense from two individuals--StAnselm and Tawain Boi--to try and suppress the full release of factual information on Wikipedia representing all viewpoints on the given topics, including those of various Jewish groups, higher critics, minor Christian movements like the Unitarians and Idealists, etc, etc. And if you don't believe it, take a look at the articles before I started editing them versus after. (Better yet, take a look at what these two characters did after my last block for fighting with them over minority viewpoints--they immediately moved in to reduce the articles back to their sectarian positions.)

The pages are "Son of Perdition," "Historicism (Christian)," and "Book of Daniel."

Ike Eickman (talk) 08:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As the diffs provided by StAnselm demonstrate, this has nothing to do with sectarianism. A range of editors have objected to your idiosyncratic POV edits and your repeated breach of Wiki policy. One of your sources was rejected as a WP:RS by the WP:RS noticeboard. You included it anyway. It was taken out, and you were informed that the WP:RS noticeboard had rejected it. You put it in again. Despite a number of editors informing you that it was not a WP:RS, you continued to include it, along with a link to your own book, which you advertise on your talk page. You are also blocked more than once for repeated abuse of other editors.--Taiwan boi (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

1) This is all about sectarianism.

2) I have included no "idiosyncratice POV edits" anywhere on Wikipedia--I've represented all groups and all points of views.

3) The finding of the "reliable sources" was unreliable, as the reviewers nor the requesters knew anything about Unitarian or Idealist theology or the significance of the source.

4) I have included no "link to my book;" I linked to a sound definition of triunism which is obtuse or overly complicated in the other sources listed.

5) You have repeatedly demonstrated that you know little to nothing about the subject matter, as per your latest questions regarding typology, declaring that none of the sources say anything about "multiple applications in multiple contexts" when that is precisely what "typology" is, i.e. a prototype points to a FUTURE person, object, or action.

Why you're still meddling is anyone's guess.

Ike Eickman (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what I wrote. I pointed out that none of the sources say anything about "multiple applications in multiple contexts" with regard to the son of perdition. You really need to address the numerous problems with your edits, and start adhering to Wiki policy.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Eickman you have been repeatedly asked for sources to support your various positions by the other editors. Linking to your own website and advert for your book simply does not cut the mustard. If you are sufficiently notable and mainstream as an academic in this field then your book could be a secondary source, but you would need to demonstrate that degree of notability. Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not about sectarianism, this is about Eickman (talk · contribs) and his personal attacks and his failure to use reliable sources for his assertions as well as his insistence on original research and synthesis, not to mention citing himself in a clear conflict of interest. If Eickman can't be civil and can't abide by other Wikipedia policies then there is no place for him or his edits here. Elizium23 (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Hometown Kid

User:Hometown Kid keeps inserting chart-peaks to the Rick Ross discography without providing sources. I recently cleaned up the discography of Rick Ross as it was lacking sources and had a lot of unverifiable peaks. I have warned the user four times already at his talk page that he should not insert peaks if he cannot source them. Instead the user persistently keeps inserting peaks again that cannot be found in the currently provided sources and refuses to follow WP:V. The user claims at his talk page that he views Billboard's charts on weekly bases and updates peaks accordingly, but again refuses to follow wikipedia's policy and continues to alter Rick Ross dicography in a similar manner leaving messages of this kind in edit-summaries, 1, 2. I'd appreciate it if someone could approach this user in a way to help that discography remain sourced and verifiable. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Harout72 is removing some valuable chart data simply because they're not verified, and I already explained to him the reason why the sources don't prove all the chart positions he keeps removing. I told him instead of removing the unverified positions that he should put an asterisk beside each one showing that they're unverified, Drake discography is an example of what I'm talking about in the other chart songs section. Unlike Harout72, I've been always checking the billboard charts every single week that's they're updated, I've seen those chart positions before and when I add or update positions on wikipedia I usually include in my edit summaries that I'm updating it or adding it in because of what I saw. Also I would advice this guy to actually start check billboard charts every thursday when they're updated and stop heavily depending on the the verifiability of the sources provided. Thanks.Hometown Kid (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly advise you to read up on Wikipedia's verifiability policies, before you get yourself in trouble. --Carnildo (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Question to administrators

What is the next step I need to take, because Hometown Kid keeps on making the same exact edits, again leaving all his inserted peaks unverifiable.--Harout72 (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) grave errors

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive657 § Something_Unusual

Last Dec 15, CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) removed a statement in the public opinion climate change citing that this is the sentence by savillo as shown below.

1. (cur | prev) 18:20, 15 December 2010 155.99.230.57 (talk) (24,690 bytes) (→Issues: see talk page Talk:Public opinion on climate change#Sentence by Savillo Removed) (undo)

Savillo did not write this but his comment was used as a reference. The statement that was removed blamed the IPCC and if you go to the reference citing the comments of Savillo- there is no mention of IPCC. IPCC is a very sensitive issue and Cac 155.99.230.57 (talk) will just state freshly that this Sentence by Savillo removed. What kind of editor is CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk)? Does this person has the immunity to blame a statement to someone in the reference even the the author of the reference did not write it? and the reference's comment does not support the statement? It shows that CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) has a low IQ, doesnot analyze the situation, an imbecile or an idiot. Blaming someones statement to the author of reference is a very grave error and ought to be punished severely.I know CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) is old to be taught how to and to feel sorry for therefore she/he has to suffer the consequences. Documents are documents and she has to face them. He/she is highly irresponsible, worthless, uneducated, unethical, not urbanized and a bullshit!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.185.187 (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The contributions from this group of IPs, including 69.31.68.51, 69.22.185.186, 69.22.185.187, 69.22.185.189, and 69.22.185.191, have been largely incomprehensible, but it is obvious that they need to learn about a number of Wikipedia's policies, including WP:RS, WP:NLT, WP:NPA, & WP:TPOC. As most of the recent IPs have been within one range, I wonder whether a range block would be appropriate? If not, a block for the last of the list would seem to be a minimum requirement. - David Biddulph (talk)

il garbagio
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Referring to the above CaC is of course mentally retarded ... why hire Cac for this job? am just a visitor to this site but like to comment...in addition who are you david to block the ips can you do that? or I'll piss at your smelly breath.. Wikipedias are not as smart in containing all the ips of the world...they cant even contain their immorality online!!! or flush their bad breath with pisses or HCL to have a good smart look.. am incomprehensible? am I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.108.38 (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, have a look at [56]. Attacks and garbage being thrown around by the same series of IPs, all from the same ISP. Perhaps a rangeblock/checkuser is in order. I've blanked the attacks and vulgarities from that talk page- Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have just rangeblocked 69.22.185.184/29 for a week. Um, at least I think I did. I think I followed the instructions, but I'm not sure how to tell whether it actually worked (first time I've done a rangeblock). Looie496 (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The justification of the fault of CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC) who comes from the University of Utah or uses the IP of the Univ of Utah has been deleted in the Talk Page of Public Opinion on Climate Change. It was clearly written there. Now the users page of CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC) cannot be retrieved because it is owned by the Univ of Utah-- who cares if it is owned by U of U... as long as the user is irresponsible and has committed a crime... the user is always a criminal and will be charged..U of U you better look for this user and fire this user from your univ... This user is extremely a shame to your institution... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.70.39 (talk)

Brave acts can be ruined by accidents! Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

See also this recent A.N.I. thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive657#Something_Unusual, which involves these same IP users (both "CaC" and the 69.xx IPs). Same users, same article (Public opinion on climate change). From the above comment, it looks like an even bigger rangblock may need to be placed. (?) This IP user (69.xx) also does not seem to know or care about WP:No legal threats, WP:No personal attacks, etc. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It is demeaning to use or cite Savillo's statement without his permission. If he wants to write something he'll have it published authored by him. So pls donot use him to play the tug of war between those who are in favor of IPCC and those who are not. When he makes his comment there was no mention of IPCC but Cac meant the opposite when Cac stated that the removed statement was Savillo's and it was clear from the beginning that it was not his... this is another display of plain stupidity among the editors of wikipedia supposedly a useful reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.68.51 (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup, a better rangeblock may very well be helpful here... :-( [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 06:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Probable sock

Resolved

 – Obvious sock is obvious... and blocked. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like User:SantaColemanFan is probably another sock for the list at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ECW500/Archive. (He helpfully left me a hint at my Talk page, here) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes this editor needs to be blocked. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

did hea ctually TAG HIMsELF!? as a sockpuppet? i gues that saves the checkusers some time!! User:Smith Jones 14:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I tagged the socks userpage. The sock put a sock tag on someone else's talk page. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, he tagged my page to suggest I was one of his socks - kindly leading us straight to the ducks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

All of the ColemanFans (other than my account, of course) are created to harass me. I guess I was one of the first (if not the first) to give him a vandalism warning, so this has been going on for a couple of years or so. Thanks for blocking him. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit war/socks? at Edward Wyckoff Williams

Would someone be able to quickly stop what's going on here - sorry I'm a bit busy, and don't have time for a proper 3RR and all that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Closer look - it looks like there's been a continual edit war going on since the end of October! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Fully protected the page to expire in 1 week while the situation is discussed here. Made sure to protect the wrong version. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As you were doing that, I was blocking one user for violating the username policy (impersonating a username). TNXMan 17:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that James.DC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) gets a message pointing out policy on edit warring and dispute resolution and that we leave the protection on the page to expire in the hope that things will calm down in the interim. Off to eat, I'll take care of it if nobody else has by the time I get back. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Editor made aware of policy and dispute resolution. Warned to not engage in further edit warring when protection expires. I've watchlisted the article and would encourage a few more admins to do likewise. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, folks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Review of appeal closure

• A recent appeal from an topic ban extension by Captain Occam (talk · contribs · email), closed by me.
• The thread where the sanction being appealed was imposed.

Could a few more administrators put eyes on this and share their thoughts here regarding Captain Occam? The matter about MathSci is being discussed at an arbitration clarification thread. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Vassyana for posting this thread. One other discussion that I think admins ought to look at is here.

Although I didn’t state in that thread which arbitrator I was referring to, the context should make it should be fairly clear. Relevant diffs are here (describing the personal connection between these editors) and here (in which the arbitrator makes a proposal about the editor to whom he has this connection.) According to HJ Mitchell’s comment in the thread in Jimbo’s user talk, Roger Davies should have recused himself about this. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Will you give it a rest, please? Go do something positive, edit an article, upload an image, contribute something to the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Deliberate block evasion by IP sock

• 66.71.97.39 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 66.71.97.40 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Antony1103/Archive

I'm reporting two IP addresses used for socking and block evasion. I had tried to counsel this person not to do this, but they have stated unambiguously that they intend to evade the block: [57]. Beyond that, I think it's pretty self-explanatory if you look at the two IP talk pages and the archived SPI case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Notified: [58]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

66.71.97.32/28 would be the range to block here. It's pretty small, but perhaps it would take care of this? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Trypto, do you think there is any chance this editor will do anything useful if unblocked? The history is somewhat difficult to parse. Looie496 (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

HA (the blocking admin from SPI), thanks. Looie, I'm conflicted about this. It really looks to me like this person just wants to edit in WP:WikiProject Aquarium Fishes, and they did some medium-competency work on Calcium reactor in the past. So, when I first got involved, my hope was that they would make a clean start and become a policy-abiding contributor. And there does seem to be some perception on this person's part that no one except me is willing to listen to them, and they just want to put their past behind them. But you will see at their talk that I tried very hard to get them to do this the right way, and they are pretty determined to ignore my advice. And I don't know the whole story of what got them blocked originally (the SPI archive seems to be incomplete). So I'd be hard pressed to endorse an unblock at this point. Previously, HA suggested to me at his talk to use WP:OFFER, but no unblock any time soon, and I suppose I could be talked into agreeing to mentor them if they came back under a pretty strict editing restriction (ie, no editing outside of aquarium fish), but I'm not confident about that, given what has happened so far. I'd be very much influenced by what other, uninvolved, community members think. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(I haven't done the rangeblock yet; I'm curious to see that others think as well.) — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

About that rangeblock, I should note that they say that they are at that IP through the end of the month (probably university semester), but will move to another IP in January. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• And now: TonyPSU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam). --Tryptofish (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Blocked. Here's the part I'm not getting: in this edit, the user stated that "I went back to my account and protested the block", but I see no evidence of that on User talk:Antony1103. They were told on User talk:Toner89 (a confirmed sock) to go try on the original account, but all they did was blank their talk page. I don't really want to invoke WP:CIR here, but this is just getting worse and worse. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Nassim Nicholas Taleb

There's something of a conflict of interest at Nassim Nicholas Taleb. User IbnAmioun (talk · contribs) wtites, on his own user page, "I just make sure that some contentious material related to someone related to me (NASSIM NICHOLAS TALEB) whose INTERESTS I represent is properly dealt with.". That user edits only Talib-related articles. There's the possibility that Asim samiuddin (talk · contribs) and YechezkelZilber (talk · contribs), both of whom seem to concentrate their efforts on Talib-related articles , are connected to IbnAmioun, but that's speculative at this point.

The general editing pattern is to praise Talib to the point that the hype becomes embarrassing. I've tried to dial the hype back a bit. I've only made 3 small edits to the article itself, all of which have been reverted. The discussion on Talk:Nassim Nicholas Taleb, though, is amusing.

There's a WP:OWN problem. Part of the problem is that Talib uses many neologisms in his writing, and IbnAmioun objects to use of the standard terms. ("Taleb, let me insist again, ran "protection protocols" rather than funds.") There's also a long-running controversy in the financial press over whether Talib's funds actually made much money for the investors. (This is a generic problem with hedge funds, incidentally, because they don't have to report their results to the SEC. It's not just Talib. But it offers an opportunity for hype, by focusing on the "up" years.) Mentioning Talib's detractors in that context, even on Talk, gets IbnAmioun very upset. And then there's just pure hype, like the infobox reading "Fields: Aphorist, essayist, epistemologist, statistician, risk engineer and trader". I changed that to "Hedge fund manager, essayist, statistician", per a New York Times references, and Talib's team had a cow.

Taleb is a noteworthy character, but the hype level here has been cranked up to 11 by his team and needs to be turned down a bit. Help from Wall Street types would be appreciated. --John Nagle (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What a mess. Tagged with Advert, Cleanup, and COI for now. Needs going through with a fine-toothed comb to remove all the puffery. I can't even figure out who the guy is because of all the flattery. N419BH 21:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a horrible mess. Most recently, IbnAmioun tagged an edit as "VANDALISM" in an edit summary because the editor was trying to maintain an NPOV. I've blocked the guy for 31 hours for NPA violations and his years-long history of other inappropriate behavior, ranging from WP:OWN to the shameless COI to the repeated history of legal threats (veiled and otherwise) (if anybody feels that a block is the wrong way to go, feel free to revert me and discuss it here). This isn't even the first time his behavior has ended up in this forum! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

hello mike,

IMHO this vandalims case is a good example. The success in 2007 is a widely reported news piece, with no one ever arguing it wass untrue. Now user Nagle edited this never doubted piece of news to "claimed success". I cannot argue whether it counts to vandalism exactly, but it seems to be out of line, and i can emphasize with someone seeing it as unacceptable Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

is this a veiled legal threat? N419BH 21:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I chose to assume that it was not when I reverted that edit. I do, however, think that there's a long term problem with the Taleb article and IbnAmioun's edits there; see previous discussions of various isues:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive544#Legal threats on talk page of Taleb
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive545#Nassim Nicholas Taleb
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive551#Legal threats on talk page of Taleb

At the very least, IbnAmioun has a COI on the subject of Taleb, and he should be encouraged to follow policy when editing that article. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not a legal threat, but it's sure as hell evidence of a severe "OWN" problem of the sort we can't continue to ignore. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) IbnAmioun is requesting to be unblocked, reasoning: "Representative of person under DANGEROUS smear campaign." I take that to mean that he claims to be Mr. Taleb's lawyer. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems that this situation has been going on for years. IbnAmioun is currently blocked for 31 hours; it seems very likely that he'll go back to POV-pushing in this article as soon as the block expires. It also seems that this isn't the first time he's been at ANI, with no significant change or improvement. Personally, I think that a much stronger hand is called for. I've added the article in question to my watchlist, and I'm perfectly happy to do the 'escalating series of blocks' thing on his very next biased, uncivil, or WP:OWN edit... but would it be easier, given the history, to just impose a topic ban now? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The conflict on Taleb's page can be traced to a few finance professionals who seem to be particularly incensed about Taleb and his success. I am a finance professional myself, and I have edited many other pages. The amount of vandalism on Taleb's page is astonishing, either through simple profanity or through the dispute of facts, even when the links to stories are clearly provided or are easily accessible on the web. Nagle itself seems to have an issue with Universa, ignoring articles like the one published by Bloomberg on Oct 14 2008 (available on the Bloomberg terminal, and copies of the text are available on the web). That kind of selective edit is more like a personal attack than a concerned effort for style and substance. MCarr (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to hype or discredit anyone here. Its obvious that Taleb evokes strong sentiments of all kinds from all kinds. The man has been under smear campaigns and even threats (death threats as well)- Nagle's behaviour seems to border on obsession ( and I do admit it concerns me) the way he seems to discredit and obsessively ask for "audited numbers".such information might be private or only specific people might be privy to it. All I say is if there are issues with the article- lets discuss it in a civil manner. The guy keeps screaming for "numbers" and "proofs" when the article itself does NOT refer or include them. Lets solve this silliness and move on. Asim samiuddin (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Asim

To be fair, the subject area seems to be infested with SPAs of many sorts, not just those promoting Taleb. See the fun at this afd from a few months ago. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems that I was tagged as a SPA by you; I have edited articles since 2006, and although my day job has not allowed me to dedicate enough time to diversify my edits, the aggressive editing on the related subjects does attract my attention. MCarr (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I tried to make a few edits on that page but quickly backed away because of the fan club protecting it. I have enough of this type of behaviour to deal with on other pages. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, a thread on this subject has been open for a day or two at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard.[59]. I was not aware of the prior ANI history with this article, and recommended dispute resolution.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

ANY neutral involvement in the taleb entry is desirable.  The more people from here editing the Taleb entry the better, anyone coming from this page has no prior opinion, making the whole thing balanced and neutral Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(Ibnamioun is paranoid and he may have reasons as some cases were looking as if editors have a direct want to degrade taleb. In this case, for example an old case of reporter error was digged up in an argument that felt pretty much anti taleb. As the saying goes, every paranoia has its source) Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Help

Can an admin please delete this revision? It is outrageous and very disturbing. Nowyouseemetalk2me 01:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Also removed the link from your post. Nakon 01:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Nowyouseemetalk2me 01:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem with the revdel, but blocking the IP was sort of useless since the nasty vandalism occurred 2 years ago and the IP hasn't edited since then. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I must have missed that, sorry. Unblocking. Nakon 01:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

CAT:RFRD. Especially for an old thing like that, email discretion is probably preferable to ANI urgency. Rd232 ^talk 02:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Stalked for a long time

I have been stalked from Commons to sv.WP to en.WP and back and forth for a long time by User:Pieter Kuiper. Before I created my user account, he had also stalked other editors, particularly User:EmilEikS, who quit those three projects because of it and turned his watch lists over to me. The stalking is always due to some kind of retaliatory urge on the part of Kuiper that he does not seem to be able to control, despite the fact that he has been warned many times by administrators about that and about uncivil behavior in general toward many other editors also (unconnected to me). The most recent occurrence in my case is this one, where Kuiper, blocked now for a month on Commons, puts in a brief appearance on this project, as usual only to try to find something to try to to irritate me with on en.WP. I have tried to get Commons adiministrators to help as you can see here. Can somebody please help us to get a ban enforced on interaction between us as started by either of us? I have never once started it, only reacted. I hope the links given here will lead to an investigation of this user's history, which pretty easily should reveal the inordinate amount of sarcasm and ridicule he always resorts to. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I spent a couple minutes looking into this. Previous ANI:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive618#Confusing_behavor_from_User:SergeWoodzing_-_is_this_truly_correct.3F
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive518#Pieter_Kuiper
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive606#User:Pieter_Kuiper

I've had some interaction with Pieter Kuiper in the past. He is knowledgable but very abrasive. There was apparently some conflict between Pieter Kupier and SergeWoodzing and/or EmilEikS on Swedish Wikipedia, discussed here with reference to sv:Diskussion:Sofia_Magdalena_av_Danmark though I don't read Swedish. 85.226.44.13 appears to be another svwiki editor, or at any rate I don't know who s/he is. 66.127.52.47 in this discussion is me. Physchim62 was one of Brews Ohare's angrier antagonists in that branch of drama, and Pieter Kuiper was beating him up over some dumb errors he had introduced into physics articles. Pieter Kuiper's reversion of "Vermland"[60] appears bogus[61] and may be retaliation for SergeWoodzing's removal[62] of a somewhat risqué cartoon from Sophia Magdalena of Denmark and other editing of that article, which was possibly also the subject of an edit war on svwiki. On the enwiki talk page, 85.226.44.13 made an angry post but nobody else seemed to care.[63] Some kind of DR is called for. I haven't looked into the Kuiper-Woodzing conflict enough to have a view of whether placing an interaction ban would amount to taking sides in a content dispute, and I haven't looked at SergeWoodzing's edits enough to say he's innocent himself, but Pieter Kuiper is acting at least moderately inappropriately. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

User:GageSkidmore

Copied from WP:AIV:

"*GageSkidmore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - vandalism after final warning. I understand if it is decided that Gage wasn't warned enough, but I want to point the personal attacks Gage made against User: Jj98 andUser: Ctjf83. Gage is taking the nomination for deletion of New Kidney in Town way too personally. JDDJS (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly where he attacked another editor(s)? Also, you are taking the deletion of that article too personal (create two AFD) Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 05:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Check Ctjf83's talk page and Jj98 was attacked on the New Kidney in Town deletion page. Both are clear personal attacks. The only reason for him not to br blocked for a limited time is the lack of warnings he had (but I doubted he would've listened even if he was warned considering he deleted my warning with the summary "I don't need to be lectured") JDDJS (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This edit here [64]

and here [65] and this one here [66]. JDDJS (talk) 05:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

that is not vandalism for say "vandalism after final warning" (even the word with "v"). Also link 1/2 is not a personal attack, tell someone is not welcomed is not an "attack", and for the link 3, is a sarcasm, which is not an attack, just is a strong irony, why you don't take this to ANI innstead?Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 06:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :::Here he denies doing anything wrong [67] and here he shows he doesn't care about being warned. [68]. I believe this shows that he needs to be blocked to learn a lesson. JDDJS (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess ANI is a bit more appropiate. JDDJS (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)"

And so now the discussion continues here. JDDJS (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The comment on Ctjf's page was not a personal attack. He and I are close friends, and I was only expressing my distaste with his voting to redirect the article. Additionally, I'd like to retract my comment about the other editor. Gage (talk) 06:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• No vandalism or personal attacks have been made. Request this be closed posthaste as unnecessary and no admin attention is needed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)