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

71.239.23.70 at Piccolo (Dragon Ball)

Resolved

 – Now he's just randomly screaming at people. I think enough time has been wasted here. HalfShadow 21:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

71.239.23.70 (talk) came in demanding that Piccolo (Dragon Ball) be renamed to Piccolo Jr.. Despite the fact that several editors informed the IP that "Piccolo" is the name used by the work in which the character is from, the IP continues to insist that it is wrong and that even the original creator is wrong in no using "Piccolo Jr." It's pretty clear by his/her comments, such as this one, as well as several attempts to edit talk page archives that the IP is only here to harass other editors and is not interested in contributing to the improvement of Wikipedia, much less this particular article. —Farix (t | c) 21:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look like he's made any edits since this report. Does anything need to be done here? GlassCobra 14:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

He/she has been editing under different IPs, such as 75.22.138.39 (talk). —Farix (t | c) 23:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you please block the IP or something? --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 16:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

IT'S not fair. I've had enough of him being called that fucking fake name. --71.239.23.70 (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if I remember right, he was only called that maybe a few times, during the original Dragon Ball. Throughout the rest of the series, including Dragon Ball Z and GT, he's reffered to as simply "Piccolo." As well, following your logic, he should have been renamed twice during the series, when he absorbed the powers of Nail and Kami. Since the use of his name is primarily "Piccolo" and not "Piccolo Jr.," then I see no reason to alter anything about his name simply because he was the child of the original Piccolo.--Iner22 (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

But he is a Piccolo Jr. The characters from the "Dragon Ball" series have to call him that name. He should be called Piccolo Jr. forever. Piccolo Jr. is not his full name or nickname. The only nicknames he has are Ma Junior and the Namekian. He doesn't have a last name. He never had a last name. He's just Piccolo Jr. the fifth and final nephew of Kami, the fifth and final son of King Piccolo, and the fourth and final brother of Cymbal, Drum, Piano, and Tambourine. He's not King Piccolo reincarnated, because first, he can't have his own child be his reincarnation. That's stupid. Cymbal, Drum, Piano, and Tambourine would then call him dad and father, which he's not. Second, reincarnations always have their past self's same facial structure, stature, and voice. Piccolo Jr. doesn't. And third, reincarnations are always portrayed by the same actor and actress who portrayed their past selves. Reincarnations are always described to be like that and are always like that. Kami and his evil twin brother King Piccolo were voiced by Takeshi Aono in the Japanese Dub, while Toshio Furukawa voices Piccolo Jr. in the Japanese Dub. Kami is his uncle. King Piccolo is his father. And Cymbal, Drum, Piano, and Tambourine are his brothers. King Piccolo and Piccolo Jr. are two different characters. So please, I want his biography changed back to way it was I had written it. --75.22.138.39 (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Now you see the type of rants we've had to put up with. He/she just keeps going on and on repeating the same points over and over and over again, despite multiple editors points out that the points are completely wrong. Its as if that by restating the points, he thinks that they will somehow become the truth. —Farix (t | c) 04:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

72.22: Could you provide reliable, independent sources of information which can be verified backing your contention? If so, then discuss them on the article's talk page, reach a concensus, and then have the article changed. If not, then the information in the article should clearly stand as it is. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any sources. I just know the truth about Piccolo Jr. and his family. And I'm a boy by the way. --75.22.138.39 (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No sources, no Wikipedia. "I just know" = original research, and is not permitted on Wikipedia. For example, I just know that my wife is the sexiest woman on the planet - still, no entry on Wikipedia for her. I just know that the kid who works at my local variety store is stealing beef jerky, but no article about it. I just know that Dirt 2 is the most awesome game like, anywhere, but it's not anywhere in the article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I just want him to called Piccolo Jr. forever and have those stuff about him and his family be true. It's not that hard. --71.239.23.70 (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This has been goin' on for almost, if not more than a week. Those of us who were on the article page have been trying to explain it to him. But I guess in his deluded world, his word is more important than the original author. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 13:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm just throwing it out there but he also vandilised the page. However, he reverted his own edits. but reverted his own edits. Click here for the history. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 13:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

He's a Piccolo Jr. That's his correct name. Stop calling him that fucking fake name. --71.239.23.70 (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a deluded world. I don't hate Akira Toriyama. I like him. I'm not saying his series "Dragon Ball" sucks. I still like the series and that's it. Me editing articles is not vandilising it, just fixing it up. --71.239.23.70 (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding false information is vandilism. If you like and respect Akira Toriyama, then you would respect his story. Facial structure and voice actors have nothing to do with it. If you continue to act this way, you will be block. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 16:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

But he's a Piccolo Jr. for crying out loud. He's not a reincarnation. I didn't add false information. Eh, Eh. Weighted Namekian shoes he wears. Not brown light-weight footwear or shoes. Weighted Namekian shoes. They're weighted. Weighted Namekian shoes that he never wants to take off. He’s keeping it a secret that they’re not weighted and never wants to take them off during a fight and have his bare feet shown, because it would embarrass him if he took them off. --71.239.23.70 (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Where are you gettin' this information? Do you have proof? I highly doubt it. Which Dragon Ball series are you watching? Because you're obviously not watching the same one I've been. Piccolo's King Piccolo's reincarnation. He doesn't have weighted shoes. The only thing weighted are his cape and turban, as shown in episode 3 of DBZ. You have no proof. All you're doing is spouting out nonsense, and I'm seriously annoyed of it. We've been trying to explain to you all of this for over a week. And we've made no progress. You keep making these statements as if you've never seen the series, but you claim you have. I honestly don't believe you. I just think you're nothing but a fanboy who believes their fanfic ideas are canon. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 16:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

He's not King Piccolo reincarnated. First, he can't have his own child be his reincarnation. That's fucking stupid. Cymbal, Drum, Piano, and Tambourine would then call him dad and father, which he's not. Second, reincarnations always have their past self's same facial structure, stature, and voice. Piccolo Jr. doesn't. And third, reincarnations are always portrayed by the same actor and actress who portrayed their past selves. Reincarnations are always described to be like that and are always like that forever. Kami and his evil twin brother King Piccolo were voiced by Takeshi Aono in the Japanese Dub, while Toshio Furukawa voices Piccolo Jr. in the Japanese Dub. King Piccolo even says this line before he dies. "Good luck my son. Get revenge on my demise. Destroy all of my enemies." Stop calling him that fucking fake and stop saying weighted shoes. They're called weighted Namekian shoes. His weighted Namekian shoes are weighted. He just never wants to take them off forever. He’s keeping it a secret that they’re not weighted and never wants to take them off during a fight and have his bare feet shown, because it would embarrass him if he took them off. His name's FUCKING PICCOLO JR.! --71.239.23.70 (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Any sort of proof? --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 17:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

King Piccolo says the "Good luck my son. Get revenge on my demise. Destroy all of my enemies." line in the FUNimation Dub of "Dragon Ball" and I just know that the others are true. Can you leave me alone on this now, please? --71.239.23.70 (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

FUNimation's dub isn't accurately translated half the time. No, I will not leave this alone. You have no way to prove any of this. You know why? BECAUSE IT'S NOT TRUE! You can't just say something and have nothing to back it up. In the Japanese dub, Piccolo refers to himself plenty of times as King Piccolo early on. When he was born, he retained all his memories as King Piccolo, though he still refered to him as a different person. Akira Toriyama's artwork has improved during the course of his manga, which is why they don't look like eachother, not to mention the fact that he wanted his audience to know the difference. Also, Piccolo doesn't age due to King Piccolo wishing for eternal youth. And though they're voiced by two different people in the Japanese version, in the FUNimation dub, he's only voiced by one. Though FUNimations dub is entertaining, it's not 100% credible considering it's translation is not 100% like some of their other shows. You've failed at proving your ridiculous accusations and lost. This discussion ends here. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 18:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, besides the fact that you have no reliable source, I'll take a different tack: My name is Brad. My dad's name is Brad. My grampy's name is Brad. Does that make me "Brad Jr"? Nope. What name does the character go by?? Piccolo or Piccolo Jr? What does he call himself? What do others call him? Who the hell cares about his paternity, really. Millions of people in the world today are effectively something "Jr" ... but that's not our name! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

STOP CALLING HIM THAT FUCKING FAKE NAME! IT'S PICCOLO JR.! PICCOLO JR.! PICCOLO JR.! PICCOLO JR.! --71.239.23.70 (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That's enough of that, thanks. HalfShadow 21:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you guys are simply being trolled, especially after that last post. Can we please just WP:RBI?--Atlan (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I just wondered what took you guys so long. —Farix (t | c) 01:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 22:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Would anyone have an objection if I blocked the IP user for this ridiculous behavior? I think anyone who has read further than the "W" in "Wikipedia" would understand that behavior like this is totally beyond the pale, especially on a noticeboard watched by a good portion of the admin corps. Leaving this individual unblocked, while it fulfills WP:DNFT admirably, also sends the message that foot-stamping, high-pitched whining, and cursing are somehow acceptable. Well, they're not. Yeah, I know--"preventative not punitive"--but this is a recent edit which could be repeated; and also, it's preventing other users from thinking they can have this kind of tantrum with impunity. (Edited to add: Nevermind--I'm just gonna be WP:BOLD. Blocked for 31 hours. Any admin who disagrees, feel free to undo the block...)GJC 01:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Good block. My only question is why you didn't block for a longer period of time (which I would have done after just seeing the above mess), given the user's history of immaturity, but oh well. MuZemike 04:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There's something on the IP talk page that purports to be an unblock request. Along with not using the unblock template, which means I only saw it because the talk page was on my watchlist automatically after the block, the user claims that -I- "made" him "lose his temper"--which is kinda rich, since I arrived well after his head asploded. Oh--and he still claims that his is the "right" interpretation of the work, and thus of the character's name. There may be more letters in "tendentious" then there have so far been years in this editor's life, but it certainly an accurate descriptor of his editing style. I think we may be dealing with something on the order of Time Cube, Jr. here. (MuZeMike--the ONLY reason I didn't block for longer is that it's an IP, IP's release and renew, other users caught in block, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Believe me, this behavior deserves a WAY longer block, but policy stopped me.)GJC 15:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I can assure you that his imformation isn't right. Plus he couldn't provide any proof, which I knew he couldn't. He wanted the article to be called Piccolo Jr. when in the series, he was never called Piccolo Jr. The only reference to that is in FUNimations release, when the Saga was called the "Piccolo Jr. Saga". In the FUNimation dub of Dragon Ball, for some reason, they refer to him as Junior (in the Japanese version, he was refered to as Ma Junior because that was the name he entered as in the tournament. Ironically, he was called Ma Junior in the 'Majin Buu Saga' in the FUNimation dub of Dragon Ball Z, which was dubbed before the 'Piccolo Jr. Saga'). In the end, in personal oppinion, he was nothing more than a troll and a vandal. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 15:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's no need to convince us, or offer proof for exactly HOW wrong he is; forgive me for the inevitable twinge of rudeness in what I am about to say, but we honestly don't care if he's right or wrong. We care very much indeed, however, about whether he can provide "proof" (aka verifiable sources, written by independent media in an editorially-monitored publication. He could call the character "Dale Earnhardt Jr.", for all of me, just as long as he can present a citation for that info from an independently published, editorially-monitored source by an author knowlegeable in his or her field. Anime dubs are not reliable sources; fan-written blogs or forum posts are not reliable sources; most especially, an editor's rock-solid, bone-deep conviction that They Know What Is Correct Information And Everyone Who Says Different Is Totally Wrong, is not a reliable source. That last, in fact, is pretty much the dictionary definition of original research, and we put about as much value on original research as a fruit-fly puts on a cheesesteak. Ultimately, if reliable sources can't be found for a piece of information, then it probably doesn't belong in the article at all--in other words, unless there's a reliable source showing the existence of the character-name controversy, it shouldn't be mentioned at all, and the character should be called whatever he's commonly known as in-universe. GJC 06:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys. How're you doing today. I'd like to apologize to all of you, even you Ryu from Monday. I'm now alright. --71.239.23.70 (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Continual re-creation of deleted article about 'Team Touchdown'

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to put this - if it's not, I apologise.

A group of editors have been trying to re-create the same article, all about a non-notable group/club in NSW, Wales.

The deletion log entries are as follows:

• 13:18, 16 November 2009 Redvers (talk | contribs) deleted "Team touchdown" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
• 10:24, 17 November 2009 JohnCD (talk | contribs) deleted "Team touchdown" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
• 10:40, 18 November 2009 User:Peripitus (talk | contribs) deleted "Team touchdown" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team touchdown)
• 05:17, 19 November 2009 User:Acroterion (talk | contribs) deleted "Team-touchdown" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
• 05:44, 19 November 2009 User:Amorymeltzer (talk | contribs) deleted "Team touchdown FC" ‎ (A3: Article that has no meaningful, substantive content)
• 07:27, 19 November 2009 User:Gogo Dodo (talk | contribs) deleted "Team touchdown FC" ‎ (A7: Article about a group or club, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
• 07:28, 19 November 2009 User:Gogo Dodo (talk | contribs) deleted "Team-touchdown" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
• 19:36, 19 November 2009 User:Kinu (talk | contribs) deleted "Team / Touchdown" ‎ (A7: Article about a group or club, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

The editors involved include:

• Deanops (talk, contribs)

• Blocked: 09:26, 19 November 2009 DMacks (talk | contribs) blocked Deanops (talk, contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing)

• Special Operations (talk, contribs)
• Horse M (talk, contribs)

One of the variations is already protected from creation:

• (Protection log); 10:41 Peripitus (talk | contribs) protected Team touchdown [create=sysop] (expires 10:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)) (repeated recreation)

Is it possible to SALT using a regexp?
Something like T[e|E][a|A][m|M][*][T|t][O|o][U|u][C|c][H|h][D|d][O|o][W|w][N|n]*

I doubt that they are going to stop trying to recreate the article, as they have been so persistent so far!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• This [[1]] too for a little background. Users were editing a disambiguation page and adding their soccer club info repeatedly.. - 4twenty42o (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note All three of the above editors have been notified of this thread, included the one who is currently blocked -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I had nuked another variant (same regex):

• 09:25, 19 November 2009 DMacks (talk | contribs) deleted "Team Touchdown FC" ‎ (recreation of unreferenced article about non-notable subject that has previously been deleted after AfD)
• 09:06, 19 November 2009 DMacks (talk | contribs) deleted "Team Touchdown FC" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team touchdown)

Their repeated recreation after salting of previous spelling (after *its* AfD and then recreation) and associated cloning at Touchdown Jesus is what led me to block Deanops. DMacks (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Further to 4twenty42o's link, 2 more editors need to be added to the list:

• Feelin' Fine (talk, contribs)
• 144.131.87.72 (talk, contribs)

• I have left ANI notices on both of these editor's talk pages -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• (E/C) PimpdaddyMcPhee (talk · contribs) (blocked), Insertnamehere10 (talk · contribs), 124.149.98.97 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 121.218.220.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are also involved in this fiasco. Horologium (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have left messages on the talk pages of all except the first, which was indeffed. Horologium (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• There is also Team Touchdown, which I have deleted and salted, from user Team Touchdown (talk · contribs), for whom I planned a username block if he tried it again; he has had the article on his userpage. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team touchdown. I think we just continue to delete, salt, and block: they are under-14s, they'll get bored in a day or two. JohnCD (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I have filed a SPI case on the involved parties included from this thread. MajorMinorMark (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how much good that will do; I suspect these are meatpuppets, not socks. IIRC, Team Touchdown is a made-up football group; this is probably a bunch of guys trying to get their little club on WP. GlassCobra 23:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Another oddity: Insertnamehere10 (talk · contribs) was created by Horse96 (talk · contribs), an account with no edits. Horse96's only activity was creating Insertnamehere10, four minutes after creating the original account. The similarity of the name to Horse M (talk · contribs) caught my eye, as did the similarity of Special Operations (talk · contribs) and Deanops (talk · contribs). Horologium (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Millsy360 (talk · contribs) vandalised my talk page 3 times in quick succession: 01:46, 01:49 and 01:54. In between the last two, another editor came out of nowhere (only made one edit since creatign account): Bam.bam0406 (talk · contribs) 01:52. Bam.bam0406 has made no other edits, but I'm guessing it's another sock - the co-incidence is too high! MajorMinorMark, do you want to add those two to the SPI? -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 02:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• One more sock User talk:Millsy360 just found that one on the touchdown jesus article posting the same club crap on a disambig page [[2]] and vandalizing a user page [[3]]. - 4twenty42o (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Semi-protected Touchdown Jesus for a day, to prevent the socks from continuing there. JamieS93 02:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Another sock User:BananaMcFats. On a vandalism spree. Crafty (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• And another User:Jumpinpimp. Crafty (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Beat me to it but now the user is adding creating Teem Touchdown and adding the club stats to the Pumpkin pie article. - 4twenty42o (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• User:Angrytown, has jumped out of the sock drawer.--SKATER ^Speak. 05:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • BananaMcFats, Jumpinpimp, Angrytown all indef'ed, and added to SPI page. DMacks (talk) 05:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Confirmed - a whole bunch of accounts at the SPI case here - Allie ^❤ 06:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• They're back...

User:Monochrome Scope (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

...and blocked. DMacks (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wdford and colloidal silver, again

• Medical uses of silver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wdford (talk · contribs)

Could some administrator please take a look at the issue and decide whether Wdford has transgressed the limits of acceptable disagreement and is eligible for a topic ban? I had better things to do than to continue the controversy the last two weeks, but after an uninvolved editor commented on the low quality of the lead paragraph, I decided to clean up "the mess" that Wdford created with his previous edits to the lead. However, this only resulted in another edit war. His first edit since then made no sense at all, his second edit added a some information that was giving undue weight to some aspect, so I had to revert them both. His edits since then, aren't any better, he is actually confusing the (accepted) medical use of silver in clinical appliances with the (ineffective and potentially toxic) use of silver as internal medication - but I don't want to do any more reverts at the article today. Based on Wdford's edits I can only come to the conclusion that he is either trying to promote a partisan POV (advocating the use of silver as medication) or utterly incompetent, probably rather the second. In any case, he is making it imposible to work on the article, not only for me, but also for editors like MastCell. And now consider the previous history of the issue:

• Even before me or Wdford joined the discussion or started to work on the article, there were already two threads on it on the fringe theories noticeboard: 1, 2 and at least one thread one this noticeboard 3. So without doubt this topic is a contentions issue, and and a third editor was actually banned, first from the topic and then permanently for using a sockpuppet trying to avoid the topic ban.

• I have been in previous controversies with Wdford, and I can reasonably suspect that he is simply started to work on this controversial article to harass me. But this issue is actually less complicated than the preceding ones (it is not a race-related political issue, after all), so it is easier to establish why his edits are promoting a partial POV and are generally of a low quality - and I am tired of giving up on articles and running away from controversies anyway.

That said, I think the controversy at the article will continue until either one of us is banned. Or should I give up on this article to and wait until Wdford sabotages my work at a fourth article? Please take a look at this issue and decide on the appropriate steps. Zara1709 (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I've created another section at the article talk page here. My description of the problem there is probably more concise. Zara1709 (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, this is beyond pathetic. As I have repeatedly stated, I am merely trying to get a balanced article, which gives due weight to the very important and valuable contribution of silver to medical practice, whereas Zara has repeatedly tried to focus the article on colloidal silver and argyria (a relatively small percentage of the total topic.) All my edits work toward that objective, as can clearly be seen from the history pages. Throughout this endeavour Zara has come up with a range of excuses to revert valid, relevant and sourced material which highlight the medically-proven usage of silver, while continually dragging the focus back to her own POV of colloidal silver and argyria - despite me pointing out several times that her own sources admit that the argyria risk is minimal. I have never tried to indicate that colloidal silver is a wonder-drug or to hide the fact that it has downsides, I have merely tried to put that all in perspective, using reliable sources. There is no content dispute here, just one editor who wants to give undue weight to the relatively minor negatives and downplay the relatively important positives, and who takes personally all attempts to show a properly rounded picture of the topic.

I don't know what happened with first edit - it looked fine on the preview.

I have not confused anything - my latest edits actually made the distinction even clearer, by splitting the two points into separate paragraphs.

The previous "fringe" history is not all that relevant to this prticular complaint, because the scope of the article has since been widened significantly, and my contribution has been largely on the expanded side of the scope. I have not removed the contentious issues, merely tried to reword the lead section to put them in perspective against the much larger positive contribution which silver makes in the broader sense - exactly as envisaged when the scope was broadened to begin with.

There has not been any previous harassment as alledged by Zara, merely disagreement over weighting - where once again some of us dared to argue for balance against Zara's personal preference. This is just a play for sympathy, by an editor who often resorts to protests at ANI when she can't get her own way on an article.

Wdford (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

How about trying mediation? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Wdford, you can not honestly attempt to deny that Lansdown (2006) is talking about silver used in "water purification, wound care, bone prostheses, reconstructive orthopaedic surgery, cardiac devices, catheters and surgical appliances.", whereas Fung & Bowden (1996), are talking about "oral colloidal silver proteins as mineral supplements and for prevention and treatment of many diseases". You can also not honestly attempt to deny that you wrote this:

Fung and Bowen also point out that “Indiscriminate use of silver products can lead to toxicity such as argyria.”[8] Argyria is a condition in which the skin irreversibly turns blue or grey (from accumulated silver), which can be socially debilitating but which is not otherwise harmful. However , per Lansdown, “Silver exhibits low toxicity in the human body, and minimal risk is expected due to clinical exposure by inhalation, ingestion, dermal application or through the urological or haematogenous route.

With the word "however", you are creating a juxtaposition, where in fact none exists. Honestly, you are unable to even read and understand two short article abstracts in medical journals. What makes you think that you could meaningfully contribute to an article, when we already have a medical expert (MastCell) working on it? The only reason MastCell stopped working on the article was that he was driven off by at least one fringe advocate (DHawker), who was finally banned from the article after several months. This is the end of the line, Wdford. If you can't admit that your capabilities aren't up to the task of writing an article based on reliable sources (which, in this case, are articles in medical journals) you need to be banned from working on the topic, so that other editors might create an acceptable article. Zara1709 (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no juxtaposition, and none was intended. Lansdown agrees with F&B that it requires large-scale use of silver to cause argyria, and my quote shows that - you have simply left out the second sentence of that quote, which I included and which makes it all quite clear. The Lansdown quote however goes further than F&B, to speak about the toxicity of silver generally, whereas that particular F&B quote was only dealing with argyria. I am happy to remove the word "however", as it does not affect my argument or the intended sense of the paragraph.

PS - the Lansdown quote clearly includes ALL silver exposures, exactly as I said. Similarly, that particular line of the F&B quote clearly refers to ALL silver products as potential causes of argyria if used excessively, which is consistent with all other sources on that topic. I understood the two sources perfectly well, and I included them in the article to mean exactly what the original authors meant. My capabilities are seemingly quite sound actually - my only flaw is that I don't agree with your POV.

Wdford (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"There is no juxtaposition, and none was intended." Wdford, do you want to push this into a discussion on the meang of the word "however"? Your comment on the article talk page is only correct in one respect: Your version of the article is rubbish. You are still failing to see that we have two sets of reliable sources. One set is about "colloidal silver", and its use as alternative medicine. The other set is about various acknowledged external medical applications of silver. Because we have two different sets of reliable source, Floydian and MastCell were discussing whether it is such a good idea to have one article on these two different types of use - which is an important and necessary discussion. I personally haven't made up my mind in that matter yet, because I know that, as long as Wdford - who isn't actually able to understand this difference as he has illustrated with his comments here - is making edits to the article, we're not going to get that distinction establish there at all. If we want to have an article based on the most reputable sources available (medical journals), Wdford has to be banned from the topic. Zara1709 (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not failing to see anything. What Zara refuses to acknowledge is that the distinction between drinking colloidal silver and the other medical uses of silver is already made abundantly clear in the article as it stands - using her wording and her sources. We don't need a special article to pound on colloidal silver, as the unproven effectiveness and potential toxicity thereof are accurately stated here already, in dedicated sections. The only remaining problem is to agree on how much weight in the lead section to give the negative coverage of colloidal silver, vis a vis the weight to be given to the many other valuable and effective medical uses of silver. I think the lead is currently appropriate, by including a clear statement that silver is not toxic unless you overdose repeatedly over time (a view backed by reputable medical journals as well as government agencies, as my sources clearly show), but I am open to any other wording that gives the positive uses due weight. Wdford (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This kind of edit made by Wdford today [4] seems unhelpful. Mathsci (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you feel this is unhelpful? The information is relevant, it's valid and it's factually accurate - and it helps to give the reader a more rounded picture. If it's genuinely problematic I'm happy to reword it, but I am interested to know why it might be considered to be "unhelpful"? Wdford (talk) 08:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, the special sort of rounded so beloved of those who support crank theories. We know quite a bit about that on Wikipedia. But you're in luck, driving off the cranks usually takes many months and the burnout of one or two advocates of the mainstream view. Since the cranks never give up, you'll ave your preferred version in the end even if you get banned and another person writes it. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The UK NHS uses silver dressings and silver creams in hospitals very often, especially burns units, to reduce risk of infection. See, for example, Aquacell. This is evidence based, approved by NIChE, not quackery, etc. Just thought I'd mention it. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The medical use of silver is not a crank theory - try actually reading the many reliable sources included in the article. It would help hugely if those who claim to "know quite a bit" about wikipedia would actually read the material before commenting on it. Colloidal silver is a minor portion of the greater medical silver debate, and while I fully agree that the claims made on behalf of colloidal silver are thusfar unproven (and my edits never tried to hide those facts), at the same time there are many reliable sources that praise the value that silver adds to medical practice in a range of other uses - please see the article for a large sample of such sources. The quality of the article depends on the subject being reported objectively from all sides, in terms of wikipolicy, and an objective review of medical silver clearly shows that silver adds far more good than harm. An objective review of the reliable sources also shows that even the much-maligned colloidal silver products are not harmful unless consumed in quantity over a sustained period. All I want is balance - expose the cranks, but don't over-state the position, and don't try to throw the good out with the bad. Wdford (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Well, the diff I provided seems to have been some form of copy-paste, almost doubling the length of the article. In the diff I gave, there are TWO sets of references, external links, foreign language categories, etc and other content sections duplicated. Please look at the contents for your diff:

   * 1 Biological effects of silver
   * 2 Use as disinfectant and antiseptic
         o 2.1 Use as disinfectant
         o 2.2 Silver compounds in the treatment of external infections
         o 2.3 Silver compounds in medical appliances
   * 3 Other medical uses
         o 3.1 Historical applications
         o 3.2 Current alternative medicine use
         o 3.3 Government regulation
   * 4 Literature
   * 5 References
   * 6 External links
   * 7 Biological effects of silver
   * 8 Use as disinfectant and antiseptic
         o 8.1 Use as disinfectant
         o 8.2 Silver compounds in the treatment of external infections
         o 8.3 Silver compounds in medical appliances
   * 9 Other medical uses
         o 9.1 Historical applications
         o 9.2 Current alternative medicine use
         o 9.3 Government regulation
   * 10 Literature
   * 11 References
   * 12 External links

There probably was some kind of inadvertent error involved as well. Mathsci (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I see now - I thought you were referring to the two lines of content I added. I don't know what happened here - the edit looked good on the preview before I saved it, but I only checked the section I was actually editing and I didn't notice it was duplicating the entire article. I can't explain how this went wrong. It certainly wasn't deliberate. Apologies for the inconvenience. Wdford (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll go for a full revert of the lead

In the discussion above, both NotAnIP83:149:66:11 and Guy are right. Medical products containing silver are used in the treatment of wounds to prevent infections - but there is also a product called "colloidal silver" which is currently marketed as an alternative medicine, and which has no proven benefits, but may, after prolonged intake, result in making you look like a zombie. And I am only exaggerating a little bit here. Colloidal silver was also used as a conventional medical treatment until sometime in the 1940s or 50s, and some physicians who had to deal with cases of argyria heavily criticized it then. One of them (BRYANT (1940)) writes:

Despite the warnings that have appeared occasionally in the literature, many otolaryngologists still deny the danger of the production of generalized argyria from the use of silver-containing intranasal medication. [...] The physician who has seen even a single victim of full-blown argyrosis, with its typical generalized pigmentation of the skin, giving the patient a bronzed blue or slate color which has been described aptly as the appearance of a corpse suddenly come to life, must necessarily have been impressed with the importance of preventing such a condition."

I just thought that I provide you with this quote - for an article in a medical journal this is quite well-written. In any case, if among the medical uses of silver, some are explicitly advised against the article must make a clear distinction between these uses. The question of the article is not: Is silver good or bad for your health? I know that probably many people approach health issues this way, but to me this attitude seems to be profoundly stupid. I mean: Is Vitamin A good for your health? Of course, some intake of Vitamin A is necessary to be healthy, but this doesn't mean that you can't overdose it. The question of the article is: What kinds of medical uses of silver are there?, that is, if we want to keep the current title. Some of these uses are acknowledged from the medical profession, but the use of "colloidal silver" is not approved at all and potentially dangerous. So I am trying to get this distinction into the article and make it "abundantly clear". While I was doing this, I was in an almost constant confrontation with Wdford, who obviously had difficulties with making this distinction (he was using a source that was only dealing with acknowledged medical uses of silver in the section on colloidal silver, e.g.) Currently we are (again) discussion this issue in the lead. I personally think, that this issue is quite simple.

Generally, if you haven an article on a medical product which only has "minimal" side-effects, is there any reason, why would you want to mention that fact in the lead? I haven't done any work on medical articles otherwise, but let's check for example the article on Antibiotic. There is a section on "Side effects" in the article, but side-effects are not mentioned in the introductory paragraph. If, on the other hand, you have an article on alternative medicine product, which is advices against because of a complete lack of effectiveness and potential side-effects which are at least "cosmetically undesirable", you have to mention that in the lead paragraph. Not to mention it would be a violation of "wp:fringe". That said, currently the article Medical uses of silver is dealing with both kinds of medical products. So, unless we want to split the article and create a separate article "Colloidal silver" again, its lead paragraph should mention the acknowledge medical uses of silver and that there is also a 'medical' product called colloidal silver, which has dangerous side-effects. It should give a short explanation of these side-effects and possibly also mention when and why it was used as a medical product (which is a matter of interest, if it is not an acknowledged medical product.) I think that the preceding version of the lead paragraph achieved all this. If you take a look at Wdfords version, however, you will see that he moved the sentence on argyria away from its previos place between the two sentences on "colloidal silver", which doesn't make any sense, since only these colloidal silver preparations are known to cause argyria. He also added a quote: "Silver exhibits low toxicity in the human body, and minimal risk is expected due to clinical exposure..." which is true for the various clinical applications, but likely not true for these "colloidal silver preparations". The abstract of the article quoted is certainly not talking about colloidal silver.

That aside, Wdford didn't even bother with creating proper reference tags. His intermediate didn't address the concerns I have just raised at all. So I think another full revert would certainly be in order. Usually, of course, I wouldn't write such a long justification of a revert, but usually I wouldn't involve the ANI either. If you look at Talk:Medical uses of silver, you will see that this pattern has been going on for weeks now. Wdfords makes some edits to the article, which are highly problematic, I revert them and justify my revert on the talk page. But then, however, Wdford just makes a few more problematic edits at the article. From my previous encounters with him, I would come to the conclusion that he probably is going to keep this up indefinitely. Since I don't want to give up on the article, I need to attract some more attention into the issue, so, if that doesn't resolve it, I can start a RFC/U or an Arbitration Request. Zara1709 (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't start an arbitration case. You'll just bring more bureaucrats into the picture who know nothing about the subject. The medical uses of silver is no longer a fringe theory article, and shouldn't be treated as such. A relatively small section of the article should concern colloidal silver, including mentioning its history, and its historical usage. Argyria should then have a proportionate amount of the proportionate amount on colloidal silver. It would also be very helpful if either of you could find an article with a dosage or time frame to come down with Argyria, as every source makes it quite clear that it is a condition that comes from lengthy, heavy, and repeated exposure. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You are so completely wrong, Zara. The abstract of the article quoted is most very certainly talking about colloidal silver. Lansdown actually mentions colloidal silver by name. In fact, to quote Lansdown exactly: "Silver exhibits low toxicity in the human body, and minimal risk is expected due to clinical exposure by inhalation, ingestion, dermal application or through the urological or haematogenous route. Chronic ingestion or inhalation of silver preparations (especially colloidal silver) can lead to deposition of silver metal/silver sulphide particles in the skin (argyria), eye (argyrosis) and other organs. These are not life-threatening conditions but cosmetically undesirable. " Without a doubt Lansdown was including colloidal silver in that abstract. Your blatant misunderstanding of this abstract is thus clearly not a justification for yet another of your tedious full reverts.

None of my edits ever obscured the fact that colloidal silver is “not approved at all and potentially dangerous.” To state that I have “difficulties with making this distinction” is a flat-out lie, and a contravention of WP:NPA. Repeating your lie is not going to change the reality.

You claim it is necessary to warn about the risk of argyria, yet you consistently resist any effort to indicate that the risk from argyria is actually very slight, and the wording you keep reverting to reads as though any contact with colloidal silver could cause argyria. Since Lansdown was clearly including colloidal silver in the general statement that silver has low toxicity, if you absolutely MUST mention argyria in the lead at all then you need to state that the risk is minimal and that the safe daily dose is substantial.

Per the FDA in 2009: “However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a chronic oral Reference Dose (RfD) of 5 micrograms (µg) of silver per kilogram (kg) of body weight per day (5 µg/kg/day) based on a review of 70 cases of argyria that were associated with oral and other uses of silver compounds. For a 70 kg person (or about 154 pounds body weight), this would be about 350 µg of silver per day.” 1ppm is 1 milligram/litre, so colloidal silver at 10ppm would contain 10mg/l, or 10000µg /l. There are 5ml per teaspoon, so there are 200 teaspoons per litre. 10000 divided by 200 equals 50, so there would be 50µg per teaspoon. This equates to a maximum safe dosage of 350/50 = 7 teaspoons per day of colloidal silver at 10ppm. This also includes a significant safety factor. Assuming 30 days per month, the safe dosage is over a litre per month for a 70kg person, FOR LIFE.

Wdford (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm shocked that Wdford feels no shame in continuing his Wikistalking of Zara1709 - wait, no I'm not. I'm shocked that no one is going to step up and defend her and the encyclopedic qualitiy of the articles on medical subjects under assault by paid disinformation agents - wait, no I'm not. Carry on! Hipocrite (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This totally unsubstantiated allegation of being a "paid disinformation agent" is a blatant personal attack. It also demonstrates extreme bias, and a refusal to consider the validity of the edits in question. It is clear that Hipocrite is aptly named. Wdford (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wdford, I intentionally abstained from strong polemics in my last posting. I was trying to de-escalate this, but you apparently failed to notice. When I am saying that you "obviously had difficulties with making this distinction", I am only describing your behaviour as I am perceiving it. You shouldn't be accusing me of making personal attacks, but try to understand why I might describe your behaviour that way. But, as you illustrated often enough previously, you are unable to accept criticism. In the discussion here, you missed the subtle irony of Hipocrite's comment. And you are still not able to make a proper distinction between the different medical uses of silver, or at least you are unable to balance the weight that has to be given to each one. You write, that I would "consistently resist any effort to indicate that the risk from argyria is actually very slight.." On the article talk page, MastCell explained the medical concept of toxicity quite well a few weeks ago:

Perhaps a brief refresher on the concept of toxicity would be useful, at least as the word is generally applied to medical questions. The toxicity of a drug is generally considered together with its effectiveness; the two can't be easily divorced if one is trying to be - what's the phrase you used? - academically honest. For example, cisplatin is a highly toxic drug, but if you have testicular cancer, then it can save your life - so in that circumstance the toxicity would generally be considered acceptable. On the other hand, if a substance is completely lacking any evidence of effectiveness for any condition - as colloidal silver is - then any toxicity is excessive, because there is nothing to counterbalance it on the other side of the risk/benefit equation.

If you look at the quote I have given above from an article from 1940, you would have to admit that the risk of argyria from using colloidal silver is, from a medical perspective, not "very slight". There are other medical uses, for which Lawnsdown 2006 states that the risk expected is minimal. You stated in your edit summaries, that you intended your edits to "balance" the lead paragraph. What kind of balance is that supposed to be? You have just admitted, that even Lawnsdown 2006 mentions colloidal silver and that it has undesirable side-effects, although Lawnsdown's article, as far as it can be concluded from the abstract, it aiming at discussing the acknowledged medical uses of silver. Likely the main reason Lawnsdown is discussing the side-effects of medical products containing silver in the abstract is that he is aware of the promotion of "colloidal silver" as alternative medicine miracle cure. So you have admitted that even the reliable sources that are not dealing with colloidal silver as such are discussing its dangerous side-effects. I mean, the article is from a compilation Biofunctional Textiles and the Skin, Lansdown can't possible have written an article about colloidal silver for such a compilation. We have to balance the different aspects in the article the same way that the reputable sources do it. There are articles in medical journals specifically about colloidal silver, and there are other articles about different medical uses of silver, which, as you yourself have pointed out, also discuss colloidal silver and its "undesirable" side-effects. What does this mean for our discussion of "balance"?

I have previously explained why I don't think that we need to mention in the lead paragraph that "minimal risk is expected due to clinical exposure [to silver] by inhalation, ingestion, dermal application or through the urological or haematogenous route." I mean, we are trying to have a concise lead paragraph, aren't we? Also: Pointing out so prominently that some medical products involve only "minimal" risks looks weird. Have your ever seen a packet of pills with a big warning sign: "Only minimal risks expected."? If you look at the edit history of the article, you will see that Wdford explicitly added material on the antiseptic and disinfectant properties medical uses of silver, because he was "not allowed to reduce the paragraph on colloidal silver". The material on these uses needed to be expanded a little, but I personally didn't do that previously because I wanted to look for more reliable sources on that first. Wdfords version, as it stands now, is giving undue weight to these uses. I see no reason why we would need to mention that "minimal risk is expected due" to these uses, and Wdford hasn't attempted to give any reason, aside from his unexplained concept of "balance". So I have to remove some sentences again. And I am sorry for bothering the ANI with this issue, but I honestly think that Wdford has a problem with his conduct as an editor, and that someone needs to intervene here. Zara1709 (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, despite MastCell's intermediate edits, I came to the conclusion that it was almost impossible to fix the problems with Wdford's edits without a full revert. I don't know how long I can put up with this, but I am unwilling to accept that Wdford sabotages of my work at yet a 3rd article. Zara1709 (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Zara can't "fix" my edits, because they aren't broken. If toxicity is important enough to appear in the lead at all, then its important enough to be dealt with fairly and objectively. I will supply even better references to support the EPA safe dosage, and I have no problems with MastCell's various improvements to the wording. Zara has no valid basis to repeatedly revert a lot of valid and referenced material. Wdford (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wdford, I wrote a 6000 byte statement trying to explain the problem with your edits. If you are of the opinion that my concerns are unjustified, you at least have to attempt to make an argument. I'll revert again. If we can't get an administrator over here to deal with the issue, could at least someone lock down the article for a month or so? Zara1709 (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

My argument is utterly straightforward, and I have made it many times already since I started working on this article, but you choose to pretend otherwise. Here it is yet again:

• This article is about ALL the medical uses of silver, not just colloidal silver, and the lead should reflect this broad scope with due weighting to ALL the different aspects.
• Silver has many different valuable medical uses, while colloidal silver is only one aspect. This should be reflected by due weight.
• When it comes to mentioning the toxicity of silver, be it re colloidal silver and other forms, per policy the lead must summarise all aspects objectively and with due weight. To mention argyria three times in the lead, without actually putting argyria in context or clarifying the actual risk, does not constitute due weight.
• Your arguments for suppressing the fact that silver is minimally toxic do not hold water - a couple of extra lines to clarify the very important safety aspect is well justified in an article of this nature, which some people continue to believe is a "controversial" subject.

Instead of repeated mass reverts, why don't you accept that the valid and reliably referenced material is valid and reliably referenced, and work constructively with others to finish it off?

If you agree to mention argyria only once in the lead, with a wikilink, and leave the rest of it to the body of the article, then I am happy to streamline the rest of the lead likewise. However, if you insist on padding up the lead of this article with repeated mentions of argyria, then proper context is necessary and appropriate.

If you persuade other editors to split off a separate article dedicated to colloidal silver, the EPA safe dosage would still need to be included.

As we appear to have reached consensus on everything else, I will request some admins specifically to mediate on these remaining issues.

Wdford (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Colloidal silver deserves the main weight

Wdford, your statement: "This article is about ALL the medical uses of silver, not just colloidal silver, and the lead should reflect this broad scope with due weighting to ALL the different aspects." is wrong on a fundamental layer. If you look at the reliable sources that we have present at the article, you would have to admit that they devote quite some weight to the discussion of "colloidal silver". Your attempt to shift the focus of the article away from "colloidal silver" can therefore only be explained as 1) a lack of editorial skill at your part, or as 2) a deliberate attempt of promoting a fringe POV by selectively quoting the sources, or, and that would be even worse, as 3) part of a strategy to harass me. In any case, you need to be banned from the article. Zara1709 (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Zara is very wrong in suggesting that colloidal silver "deserves" most of the weight. Those sources that specifically discuss colloidal silver obviously focus on their chosen topic, but even those sources admit that the risk of argyria is small, and that argyria is not actually harmful. There are also a great many sources that focus on the various other aspects of silver in medical usage, and a number of those sources have been included also - as any objective person could easily check. I am not attempting to shift the focus away from colloidal silver, but I am attempting to give due weight to the many positive uses of silver as well - as I have said repeatedly from the beginning. The accusation of lack of editorial skill is a contravention of WP:NPA. The accusation of selectively quoting sources is not only WP:NPA but its also hypocritical, as Zara has been cherry-picking sentences since inception, while my sources are all reliable, valid and consistent. Finally, the accusation of harrassment remains as baseless as it ever was, and I'm sure any objective admin would agree that my edits have contributed significantly to broadening this article in line with the agreed expansion of scope - in the face of fierce resistence throughout. Wdford (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just an administrative note that I've reported Wdford (talk · contribs) at WP:AN3. MastCell ^Talk 18:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Zara's statement. The bulk of the article has been rewritten from the very heavily sourced colloidal silver article,[5] and as such can be expected to contain the bulk of those sources, with exception of several introduced when a section was moved from silver.[6] In addition to this, most of the rewriting of the article to its current format has been done by Zara and Wdford (with a handful by Vsmith, Hipocrite, and myself).[7] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

At least the article is full protected now, that could actually give us the time needed to discuss the issues. I mean, currently the lead paragraph says, among other, that the use of colloidal silver as conventional medication was discontinued in the 1940s due to "the development of safe and effective modern antibiotics..", which is misleading. An uninformed reader might conclude that colloidal silver simply was less efficient than antibiotics, whereas in fact colloidal silver never had any confirmed positive effect to begin with. My version was more exact (although I probably didn't find an optimal wording). Wdford then also added another source to the article, before it was locked down. The way that is currently worded, this is a misquotation. The one article quoted, judging from its abstract is only talking about localised corneal argyrosis, i.e. a discolouration of the eye due to accumulated silver. And even if the quotation was correct, someone would still need to copy-edit Wdford's writing a create a proper citation in the references. All Wdford did was cut&paste the URL.

And these are not isolated incidents. Wdford hasn't done a single edit to the article ever, that wasn't problematic in at least some aspects. After November 13, cleaning up after Wdford became to boring for me and I waited, to see if he would make any more edits. In fact he didn't. Then, on November 21, an uninvolved editor commented on the article talk page on the low quality of the lead paragraph. I then decided to fix the problems in the lead paragraph that Wdfords edits from a week before had created, but Wdford changed the lead paragraph again not even six hours later. What am I supposed to make of this? I almost get the impression that Wdford has been making bad edits intentionally, to pull me into an edit war. When I didn't revert him, he didn't continue editing. Under this impression, I think that the various solutions suggested here by various people wouldn't work - the only thing that would work is a ban of Wdford from the topic. Zara1709 (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

User: Lapsed Pacifist

Requesting a closer look at actions of user Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

This user is the subject to 2 separate RfARs:-

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist which resulted in them being banned from editing articles related to the conflict in Northern Ireland
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2 which resulted in them being banned from editing article relating to Corrib gas controversy and placed them under an editing restriction of 1RR and required to discuss and content reversions as well as encouragint them to use edit summaries.

These RfARs found that Lapsed Pacifist had engaged in habitual POV editing, edit warring and other negative behaviour.

LP is currently the subject of a RfE.

Since their last RfAR, LPs behaviour has carried on barely modified.

• They have failed to make correct use of edit summaries eg.here. and have continued to make reversions without discussion.
• They have been petitioning on talk pages of related articles for introduction of material [8], [9]. In this example they have named a Garda Siochana Superintendent as being subject of a disciplinary procedure on a talk page, despite them not being named in the ref supplied. This was advocating a breach of WP:V and was OR.
• The Irish section of this diff contains edits which push the bounds of what is acceptable under the 1st RfAR as does this edit.
• During recent WP processes, LP has failed to engage in any meaningful way, not making a statement at the RfAR or RfE or responding to communication attempts by admins.
• LP returned from their first block this week to create this article: Afri (organisation). On the face of it, not a problem but a quick google search reveals they are involved in campaigning against the Corrib gas project. Its even on the front page of their website to which a link is provided. IMO it was created in the hope another editor will come along in the future to add details on the Corrib gas controversy and is in effect soapboxing by proxy. Next up LP picks up where they left off in this edit war. This edit while not in breach of any remedies, is pushing the boundaries again and considering they have been topic banned for conducting a campaign against a gas pipeline, its certainly against the spirit of the remedy. Its incredible that all this has come on the day they have returned from a block.
• The block log shows they have been sanctioned from violation of terms of remedies multiple times and twice in the last week. inc. an unambiguous violation of their topic ban here. Despite this they have failed to recognise it as a problem.

Lapsed Pacifist has repeatedly tried to game the system. The actions of this user aren't those of someone trying to reform their behaviour and it seems the the remedies from RfAR are not working in modifying LPs approach. Instead LP is gaming the injunctions and continuing to push the limits of what they can get away with. 2 blocks in 3 days and a number of other edits that push the limits of acceptability show a continued pattern of disruptive behaviour. They continue to push the boundaries of what is acceptable and indeed past it in not discussing reversions as well as continuing to seek the razors edge of acceptability.

In the interests of conciseness, I have kept this here as short as possible but a closer look at Lapsed Pacifists activity will show a long history of troublesome behaviour. Examples here do not even scratch the surface. Just their talk page alone shows poor interaction with the community.

I realise that LP and I have a bad history but this is aside to their problematic behaviour. I'm requesting a review of the user as suggested by another admin here. GainLine ♠ _♥ 21:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made Lapsed Pacifist aware of this discussion. GiantSnowman 21:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this the correct place for this? The user is still blocked, so will be unable to comment here, block expires in a couple of hours, wouldn't a RFC User be a better place? Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

probably the ideal place is to continue the discussion at WP:Arbitration Enforcement, where it seems to have been essentially ignored. Since the discussion seems to be here instead, I note Arb Com originally said: "If Lapsed Pacifist edits any article from which he is banned, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. " The current short block is for the sixth violation. Given the information there, and here, I suggest we follow their advice & extend the block to one year ard log in at AE. . If this is regarded as too much of a jump from the previous ones, then 6 months. I would agree to pausing this, though, until LP can comment--which will be tomorrow.. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Procedurally speaking, I think that RFC/U is the correct place for this manner of discussion. Basket of Puppies 00:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

How so? If this is a violation of the topic ban, then WP:AE and either a block (a long one as DGG recommends) or not. RFC/U sounds like a step backwards for someone twice banned by arbitration. Wknight94 ^talk 00:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the topic bans must certainly be dealt with by the appropriate board of the ArbCom. However, a more broad community review should be filed at RFC/U. That's what I meant. Sorry for being so vague! Basket of Puppies 01:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I KNOW I have heard this guy's name before. Idk where. I do know that wp:banned users doesn't have him listed, but I could have sworn that is where I learned is name. Anyway, yeah, if he is violating his restrictions he ought to be banned. --Rockstone (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

In fairness to Lapsed Pacifist two of the examples quoted above by Gainline couldnt be seen as connected to the Corrib Gas Controversy. I first came across Afri when they were erecting plaques on Famine graveyards in Ireland.{There's one in Kells eside the Wellington?)lighthouse) monument Their primary interest is raising awareness in Ireland in the third world hunger. They are a small advocacy NGO, any involvement in Corrib isonly one of their anti MNC activities. It is not their reason for existance, The Centre for Pulic Inquiry issued many reports and was attacked by the Irish Government not about Corrib but because they were initiating a report into Dublin Port and Docks which would have further impigned the then Govt. leader/(OR). He didnt edit anything to with the Corrib reports. Just my 2 cents.Cathar11 (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cathar. What are being described as violations are not as clear cut as some are making out. A discussion on this has been initiated on my talk page. Certainly, more clarity is necessary here. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2:-

• Remedy 3.1) Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs) is topic banned, indefinitely, from articles related to the Corrib gas project, broadly defined.

Centre for Public Inquiry is part of the Corrib gas controversy category.

• Remedy 5) Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs) is subject to an editing restriction for one year, namely is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should Lapsed Pacifist exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

There have been a number of reversions without any discussion, in fact there was only one input into a talk change that vaguely resembled a discussion before being blocked including a direct request from an admin to explain a reversion being ignored.

How much more clarity is necessary? Perhaps some constructive input into the RfE or here would help. GainLine ♠ _♥ 17:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist is already "banned indefinitely from articles which relate to the conflict in Northern Ireland." On 16:45, 24 November 2009 Lapsed Pacifist (talk | contribs) m (4,250 bytes) (moved List of terrorist incidents, 1992 to List of non-state terrorist incidents, 1992. [10] This move was made with no discussion, but the article contains two IRA bombings in its list. This is a breach of the Northern Ireland topic ban. Snappy (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Harrassment II

• 166.205.139.4 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

He's back as IP. 166.205.139.4 GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Who is back, what are they doing, where are the diffs, and where are they doing it? Frmatt (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's that one guy. (Seriously, though, a link would have been nice.) — Gavia immer (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's quite likely, more then one person aswell. Whoever it is, he/they are cowards. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Not an admin, so I don't see that there's a lot I can do here...but I'll keep an eye on this for a little bit and help out where I can. Frmatt (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

My edits are quite little: Spelling corrections, grammar, sentence fixings. Anyways, your help would be most appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you touch base with Jehochman and see if the rangeblock applied last time can be expanded/shifted/whatever to meet the new IP? Some people's kids just don't get the message. =/ Tony Fox (arf!) 18:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Just notified him. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank goodness the anon has chosen to revert my edits, as I'm not a prolific editor. Finding & reversing his reverts is quite easy. By bugging me, he's quite limited to what he can do. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The anon is known for 'bothering' Barack Obama related articles, too. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Dealt with. Jehochman ^Talk 19:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Here's another IP (166.205.131.82) by my harrasser, or as I call him the 'Little GD'. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have seriously notified the IPs about this discussion. ([11] [12]) GoodDay, what you did wasn't really notifying them...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 19:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

My AGF with that anon, eroded immediately in mid-October. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

List of marjas

There are two users (or possibly the same one) that keep removing on person on the list although he meets the appropiate criteria to be a marja. Both have breached the three revert rule, and have no intention of even establishing a concensus, although being invited to. One is User:Linux4ns and the other is an anonymous user with the ip address (173.34.93.7). Thank you.--عيسى (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Both Linux4ns and the IP have been made aware of this discussion. GiantSnowman 18:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Echoing GiantSnowman, I've notified Linux4ns. Basket of Puppies 18:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yousef Sanei is definitely a marja. But it turns out, he's a man so nice we've written about him twice. We also have the vastly inferior Grand Ayatullah Saanei article, sourced only to the ayatollah's own website. Its been marked proposed "merge" for yonks. I propose some bold admin redirect the "Ayutollah (sic) Saanei" article to Yousef Sanei and protect the redirect.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done I agree, the article was a self-published shed. Rodhullandemu 19:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The person they seem to have the problem with is actually Reza Hosseini Nassab. Although not very well know, he does meet the criteria of publishing a resala.--عيسى (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your information Giant Linux4ns (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What I did in editing those pages simply reflect my ideas. I did not vandalize in the articles. I just changed them in a way to exclude misleading information. That is my idea and I will continue to keep Wikipedia clean and accurate. Sometimes I forget to login and that's why my IP might be shown, but I do not think that would be a major issue. The discussion pages are full of my opinions and reasoning; and I try to specify the reason for changing each and every article.

Thanks for discussing this. Linux4ns (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of NPOV, your ideas are not relevent. Also, you must establish a concensus before editing. Until you can provide viable evidence to show Mr Nassab is not a marja, He will continue to remain on the list.--عيسى (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Brother, we raised many serious questions in his Persian discussion page, all have not yet been answered properly. I just didn't have time to translate them for English discussion pages. I will do so in near future so that we can have you elaborate on those matters. --Linux4ns (talk) 07:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Un-needed, eccentric, and aggresive, "help"

After a long period of having him give comment over my shoulder while I tried to rebuild R1a, an article which had a long history of problems, and which I brought to a stable form, User:Pdeitiker went unilateral almost 2 weeks ago and started to over-write the entire article in order to make a WP:POINT to me personally (ad hominem though not an attack in any simple sense), about how to be encyclopedic in writing style. I should, he says, be pushing myself to get articles to GA standard. If I do not he will take actions. But, not only are his edits very ill-informed and written in poor English according to the other active editor of R1a in recent time User:MarmadukePercy, but also this User's record shows, that his writing style, and his talkpage manner, are not good according to everyone he has contact with. His behavior is also constantly on the limits of Wikipedia policy, both on talkpages and while editing articles. Diffs of just some examples...

That it is to make a point to me personally:

• The page will not self-improve if you also do not self-improve. [13]
• Again, this should be your baby, and there are about 6 days left before GA occurs, if by that time we haven't gotten around the basic issues of style and working, then I might replace the sections. However I would hope that you will take the initiative at this point, looking at other GA articles and these edits go about making the repairs yourself. I will focus on the lede, henceforth.[14]
• Of course the althernative is I could wait this out and plop a new lede and nomenclature section in before review. This should be your baby, your kind of like a food critic that never lites a stove to boil a pot of water.[15]
• [16]
• Andrew, the time for arguing is over. Either the page improves or it does not, Marmadukes criticism aside, this page has existed since 2005, that is 4 years, and it is still start class. WP:BOLD is exactly for these circumstances where things do not move along. I have set a deadline, if you guys want to tag team revert what I do that is fine, I am not starting an edit war. Both of you agree with each other, if you cannot, in agreement find a way to bring that pages quality up to standard, then please step back. Read the class guidelines and work toward bringing the pages quality up. The reason the page is still start class is because of all the unwarranted speculation dressed up as theory.[17]
• Thank you, since this is the first Y-article to challange at this level, keep in mind that the concepts and structures we use here may be precedences for reorganizing that page. This is mainly for Andrew's benefit, because I will not take part in the process of elevating that page.[18]

Note consistently giving WP:DEADLINEs for action.

• I am giving you ample opportunity to make the requested corrections in your own words. Since you are here arguing with me then it indicates you desire not to make the change and therefore justifies the reversion. Simply stated you are acting in abstinence to the guidelines. [19]

Pretending his advice, and deadlines, represents the demands of some sort of authority in Wikipedia (various forms) who is watching:

• you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with Wikipedia [20]
• [21]
• If you do not start following the MOS I will simply revert your edits back to my last edit. Your edits are clearly exemplary of WP:OWN because you do not want review the guidelines before making edits and/or reverting edits and will be a stumbling block for GA review. You must familiarize yourself with WP:MOS in progressing further until you do so further discussion here is futile. Am I making myself clear?[22]
• If I had split off R1a1a article the article would be done now and in compliance with WP:MOS, you are simply creating the need for more edits and more reorganization because you refuse to read the MOS. Get your act together! [23]
• There can be no doubt, you clearly have a problem complying with Wikipedia guidelines. If you cannot comply with wikipedia guidelines please stop editing.[24]

Accusations of bad faith, instead of properly responding to attempts to communicate about article-related concerns. For example:

• Again, I do not see it that way, you lace all your comments with ad-hominim attacks. I was simply trying to provide you with a template by which to go forward and you dragged me into this refute that, explain this, why is yours better than mine, and highly nit-picky attitude. (This is about a draft which he supposedly made for discussion [25], and which he later, after not answering any of the concerns, did post into the main article [26].)
• Again this level of critique can be consider an ad-hominim attack and aligns itself with statements you have made which align with WP:OWN. [27]
• It could almost be interpreted that by excessive points of discussion you might want to obstruct the improvements or replacement of your text, is this your intent? [28]

Showing that the threats of massive unilateral edits is real; in areas where he is either not well-informed about the reasons for previous consensus, and where he knows that he is definitely or probably editing against consensus.

• See his first edit on E1b1b, the deletion of a whole sub-section which in an area he was not familiar with, in context of his first talkpage comment there.

Note that the reason for investigating was a call for opinions about a COI accusation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Andrew complains about my actions on the E1b1b page but here is what I added to that page, reminding everyone that I am extremely skeptical of the Y-DNA work. I have no vested interest in Y-DNA at all. I was only trying to help him and other editors on the pages out. E1b1b_ancestry.png, E1b1b_phylogeny.png, Y_Hap_EM-81.PNG, Y_Hap_EM-123.PNG, E1b1b1a_phylogeny.png, Y_Hap_EM-78.PNG

All of these images were made from Wikimaps and scratch. Some of these images, I might add replaced images that were uploaded by Andrew and were deleted from Wikipedia for copyright violations. In addition I found errors in Andrews source of data which I reported back to him. I have always been trying to help Andrew. I helped to rewrite key sections of that page and that appeared to stabilize an edit war between Andrew and 2 other editors. Again Andrew does not see eye-to-eye with me on the cause. My opinion is that instead of adding gobs of data to these articles, he should be working, first, to make the material in the articles available to a general reading audience. If his thoughts and analysis are understood, IMHO, this would go a long way to stopping the perennial edit wars. He does not look at the issue like this.PB666 ^yap 03:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Splitting of R1a article [29], [30], etc, though not understanding how the information about the two new split subjects should be split. (See, before the split, [31], my responses to proposal, [32], [33] after the split [34], and my explanations[35], [36], then: [37].)

Talkpages are a major problem with this editor. There are so many examples there is not point giving diffs, though I can, of:-

• he frequently leaves comments unsigned
• he comes back to edit his remarks long after they have been responded to, making it impossible to follow discussion
• his indenting seems almost random
• he is prone to writing extremely long responses
• his responses are so poorly written some times, that their intended meaning can only be guessed at
• his responses very often do not stick the point, and are not responses as such at all (a characteristic which is particularly frustrating in such long postings)
• he often seems not to read the responses which come back to him, but to go one writing postings anyway

I have also now had cases where he seems to have deliberately decided to edit my own postings in order to change the overall impression to the casual reader: [38], [39]

There are several practical problems.

• First we have a complete over-write of the article. Here is a diff to my last version before ceasing to edit R1a, showing the style of changes: [40]. The differences are not to do with the science, but by both our accounts to do with style. I believe this is the opposite of improvement.
• Second I have a sort of variation on the stalker theme here, except that this person believes he is some kind of kung-fu master mentor, putting me through difficult experiences in order to make me strong. PDeitiker is already announcing publicly that he wants me to work on R1b next, according to his model [41]. Needless to say, I can not improve articles while this is happening.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Regardless of the content dispute, Pdeitikers removal of entire sections from talkpages and marking the edits minor are completely unacceptable for a start. (See [42], [43] as noted above) Exxolon (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It is only a start. I should perhaps point out that I am not well versed in how many examples I should give here, and I stopped when I started finding it too long. There are many more, but they are so easy to find if you look at his talkpage, mine, and R1a and its talkpage.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, concerning content, I think there is no dispute in any simple sense. The talkpage remarks show User:Pdeitiker constantly asking me to explain the subject matter, and when pressed concerning the knowledge reflected in his own edits, he has constantly pointed out that he is mainly teaching me about encylopedic style, and giving me a template of how to re-write more Y haplogroup articles in the future. He has indeed become quite annoyed about my argumentative nit-picking about things like "wordage" which can be fixed later in his opinion. Here is a draft of a section which he supposedly made so I could raise concerns: [44]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If your objective was to annoy, then you succeeded. What I saw Andrew was when I went about changing what you had done you became increasingly childish, and the more I attempted to change the more WP:OWN became an aspect. But Andrew I am not holding a grudge against you, I understand where you are coming from, the problem is you are going to have to shift your attitude for these pages to improve, because as long as you balk at Wikipedia guidelines and attempts to apply them to articles, you will have very little success at promoting and getting others to help you protect your pages.PB666 ^yap 23:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you do these people a favor and show them examples of your behavior over the last week. hmmmmmm. This would be a real nice test of your objectivity, particularly as a NPOV editor.PB666 ^yap 23:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You are the one making an accusation. Why don't you show a diff? I have not even been editing in this period. Concerning being an NPOV editor, the record shows that throughout many discussions, you have always treated me as one until I disapproved of your article split attempt. (Your first comment: "You are however right, I knew this was going to be complicated deal and I was hoping to create the page in a sandbox. However, it was already created."[45]) After I asked "please let's first create a situation where we can understand what we are reading" you immediately posted on my talkpage accusing me of WP:OWN[46]. Since then you have been a textbook disruptive editor, out to make a wp:POINT--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• BTW, if you review 72 carefully you will note that I did not remove an entire section, I moved that section to a new section as there were getting to many offsets. Some, very few passages of mine and Andrews comments were deleted. So to clear up that issue, no entire section was deleted from the talk-page.PB666 ^yap 05:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I removed those sections from the talk page because they were false statements made by Andrew against me repeatedly, when I finally showed him that these were indeed false statements I removed the argument only those specific aspects of the argument that pertained to the false statements.

Andrew has:

• acting more and more inappropriately with me
• I have tried my best to keep the argument civil
• he continues to push incivility and inappropriate remarks. Even on the present talk-page, saying I was wrong or did not understand even though I retained his good faith edit of a cladogram that was an improvement of my edit.
• He has been hesitant to improve the page following guidelines.
• He keeps claiming an issue regarding section titling was solved when the only person now on wikipedia part of that discussion was him. The other participant noted "In closing, I would like to remind everyone that the hierarchical haplogroup nomenclature, like the field itself, has been changing very rapidly; to illustrate this, take a look at Y haplogroup trees from 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, early 2008, and mid 2008." which is in agreement with my POV that section heads should use the version of clade representation which is least likely to change, least likely to break Page#section wikilinks.
• he does not want to repair his reference style, which has everything in the reference list truncated to {{citation |last = Author et al. |....
• When I converted the WP:MOS undesired bullet list to paragraph form, he reverted it.
• And BTW Andrew has also forgotten on two occassions to sign his talk page sections
• He has constantly gotten into edit-wars with other people, particularly on the E1b1b page, the page has not really improved since July when I tried to help him improve the page.

Andrew has blamed me for:

• wanting section headers that would be stable.
• Not explaining to him things found in WP:MOS (such as frowned upon bullet list and number lists)
• For changing my position when better evidence has come forth warranting a change of position.
• For changing the subsection ledes to make them more explanatory. The section lede for being reflective of the articles size and content in the article. PB666 ^yap 23:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Accused me of making false statements when in fact he was making false statements, when I showed him his false statements he did not apologize, and in fact I deleted those false statements as much as I could from the page without rendering on the other issues. PB666 ^yap 23:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• This is the way it has been for the last week or so, I am trying to help prepare this article the best that I can for GA refereePB666 ^yap 23:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Again you should read his comments about the applicability of WP guidelines throughout the discussion.PB666 ^yap 23:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You guys are going to have fun with this one.PB666 ^yap 23:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Since we are digging back into the past, take a look at this page Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA) and this page Haplogroup_E1b1b1a_(Y-DNA). These are the better versions, this is what I had to deal with in Late june. I worked on the first few sections of E1b1b trying to improve readability but gave up because the task was just a nighmare. This is what I was asked to walk into and referee [47], very little progress has been made on making either page more encyclopedic since I last edited those pages. Compare the E1b1b then with the R1a page now, and you can see at least some influence of what my intentions are. What you really need to ask Andrew is why isn't he working one making his two favorite Y-DNA pages more encyclopedic, more accessible to the casual reader. This is really the very heart of the issue, when I have pushed the encyclopedias agenda, what I have gotten is a very unpleasant response.PB666 ^yap 07:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You are indeed pushing your interpretation of the encyclopedia's agenda: fighting against Harvard citations, "et al.", bullet points, numbers in fraction form etc, and using any number of indirect ways to make a big WP:point. It is a good definition of why I have come to ANI instead of an arbitrator or the Wikiquette forum, in order to discuss you as a disruptive editor with an on-going issue. There are people who believe that being an extremist for a good cause is not being an extremist. That approach does not work on Wikipedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Nearly every edit warrior on Wikipedia believes that their POV is the Wikipedia POV.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'll start" one: The current state of the article is better than it was a month ago. two: It is policy that if references are done consistently in one style in an article, we add additional references in the same style, rather than change everything to whichever style we prefer. three: We do not remove our opponent's comments from a talk page four: it might be a good idea for both of you to work on something else for a week or two. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• DGG I selectively removed the comments from the talk page because they were false statements that were eventually proven to be false that Andrew admitted that he did not remember that he had placed yet another bullet list, the one I corrected to paragraph form. I refactored in what I thought were wiki guidelines, to remove unnecessarily inflammatory material when it is no longer germane to any discussion. That issue was resolved, IMHO, and we no longer needed to deal with who reverted whose correction of a bullet list. It was done in good faith.PB666 ^yap 00:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Also, DGG I disagree with you on the references, at least as they were being used. There were so many Harvard references dropped into text of certain pages that the pages almost became a dirty laundry list of Harvard references. It becomes a readability issue when referencing is abused. For articles that require alot of references clearly end notes are preferable. However I have no problem with Harvard reference system either alone or with end notes. The problem I have with the references is the current format used for almost all the Y_DNA pages is not complete reference. They simply place first1= Author1 et al. and don't fill out the author list. You cannot convince me that this is an acceptable alternative referencing system. In the case of some of my complaint, they don't even provide PMID even though PMID is available, try finding some of these papers online with one author's name and no PMID or catalog source. I stand by my critic as an expert on these types of publications, that particular usage of Harvard referencing is unacceptable, anywhere.PB666 ^yap 00:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

the way to deal with references lacking PMIDs is to add them. arguments or reverts over reference format are rarely a good idea. If you do want to make major changes in that, then discuss it on the talk p first and get consensus. Some scientific journals still list first authors only. I agree its not ideal, but it';s not something to fight over. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hundreds of references, you got to be kidding. Its actually worse that that, I showed Andrew how to capture references with PMID using the diberra template filler, which had been offline for months about the same time I came across the E1b1b page, which is easily converted to the citation style, with a couple of minutes of cutting in pasting in MSWord or Wordpad, you can have at least a four author, et al. reference. He acted as if i had committed high treason for suggesting that change. I went through the process step by step. He got very upset, I told him repeatedly that I was not suggesting he stop using Harvard referencing or the citation style, I was suggesting he improve the references, he got even more upset. Again even though I think the cite journal template is better I went out of my way to show him how to get complete citation template references quickly, and he got very upset. I don't think that is right. The tools are available, the process was explained, its not difficult, there was no reason for him to get angry. I have actually tried to use his references to find papers, and after failing I had to end up using a different search strategy. Referencing should suffice to find an article by modern methods, if it does not suffice then they should be improved. If I was truely interested in Y-DNA I would go about this process, but I am trying to be neutral in the assessment of how these articles improve, and I don't have the time to clean everyones dirty laundry. He needs to know how to improve these problems with these pages by himself, as it looks that no-one else is going to work for higher level improvements. I have done enough by showing him a quick and easy way how.PB666 ^yap 01:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a timeline of what has happened. Sometime in late October an author by the name of Cardenas2008 created a page called R1a1a. After reviewing the complexities of the R1a page I concluded that a split was probably the best way to quickly improve the understandability. However Cardenas2008 had only copied and pasted the R1a page on R1a1a. As a result I rewrote the R1a1a page so that it reflected the R1a1a aspect of R1a only, and I moved materials off the R1a page. Andrew and MarmadukePercy got very upset.

Andrew, instead of requesting a merger, unilaterally blanked that page, removed my content, and reverted the R1a page. I allowed this to occur under the commitment that he was going to make the R1a page more suitable for a general audience. I had been wanting to go ahead with the improvement of that page for a week or so before, but he had us waiting for some unknown latest paper. Well he finally got the paper (from me) and so I said there is no reason to wait any longer, either you can make the page understandable with this new information, or it needs to be split. He did do that, he worked on rewriting various sections, however these new sections and many aspects were not following the Wikipedia guidelines. Finally he had improved the understandability of the page that a split was no longer necessary, IMO. There were still issues, it was a borderline B-class article and he continued to argue with me about things like what number of Harvard references in one sentence too much, what is the better style for authors in the Citation template, etc. So I simply nominated the article for GA review to see what outsiders might say needed improving.PB666 ^yap 00:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

So I requested he change the format on these sections while I worked on the figures and tables for the page. What happened instead was he began throwing up smoke, all kinds of diversionary tactics, all kinds of new remarks for me to respond to, eventually I said enough is enough. It became increasingly difficult for me to help him work toward a better page when I was getting a constant barrage of rhetorical questions which aligned themselves with a WP:OWN attitude. I was up until 4 AM trying to satisfy his critiques of the 'nomenclature' section when what I really wanted was for him to make the improvements. I commented on a bullet list that remained uncoverted, I waited a considerable amount of time for him to convert this to paragraph form, and when he did not I converted it. He promptly reverted my edits. In all of this, none the less, I have continued to try, maybe not succeed, but to push in the direction of trying to bring this article up to GA status, not only for that purpose, but also so these editors will have something to look at when improving the Y-DNA articles. I want this article to be reviewed by outside referees so that we can get some desperately needed outside input as what are the best recommendations for improving the Y-DNA pages, i am less concerned about getting every single factoid correct or writing the most perfect explanation (which is the focus of his complaints). Because it is quite obvious from observing and listening to editors that there is a lack of clarity about guidelines. I would also like to see the comments about what I have added, for my own sake. However, to just dump a dog's breakfast at their feet and say help us fix this would not be fair to them or us either. Andrew continues to use the 'you don't know diddly' issue, however most of the people have commented that what we have done, together, has improved the readability and understandability of the page, which means despite the complaints here, the page is progressing. Not in the way I would like to see it progress, but in a high-testosterone kind-of-way.PB666 ^yap 00:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Andrew will calm down after the comments come, and we see that we all have defects that need to be fixed. I have no problem with the critique myself, I think we need guidance looking forward because they way the project has been dealing with conflict in the past is not productive, IMHO.PB666 ^yap 00:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As a user involved in this page over the past few months, I agree with Andrew Lancaster's assessment. Incidentally, Andrew and I haven't always agreed on things, but our dialogue has been civil, and we have worked together successfully. As soon as Pdeitiker appeared, the rules of the game seemed to change. Everything was personal; everything was a deadline; and every change became a slugfest. No matter what his genetics 'expertise' is – and I have reservations about that as he got backwards the most salient point concerning ancient Y-Dna in the Underhill paper – Pdeitiker seems to feel he can do it all. This despite the many comments on his user talk page from other editors complaining about his verbose writing style. My point is this: wikipedia editors have their strengths and weaknesses. The best editors here recognize those, and play to them. I know something about language – though Pdeitiker has insulted me on that score – and presumably he knows something about genetics. The best way for an article like this one to progress is for editors to respect each other's background. I have found this particular user high-handed, arrogant, and unwilling to listen. As Andrew Lancaster says, Pdeitiker seems to regard himself as the 'Bruce Lee' of genetics kung fu masters. He'd do better if he swallowed a dose of humility and came down off his high horse and deigned to work with others.That said, I am anxious for this article to be improved. I would like to go to work on improving its language, but fear that as soon as I do, 'Bruce Lee' will revert me. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please improve the language, I am only going to work on the lede, probably tonight, I will improve as far as I can and that will be it. OK, I will not revert your edits, if you want to look at my posting history I seldomly revert, I have never been cited by the 3RR and I generally always give people a chance to defend their reversion before I change them. I threaten to revert more often than I revert and I have kept my word about not splitting the article even though it was a violation of wikipolicy for Andrew to blank R1a1a page after major edits without calling for a merger. There are many areas such as the infobox, such as the bullet list in Eastern European migration section, such as the list of frequencies in the Second second that I have left untouched, there are many areas of the article that can and should be worked on and R1000R1000 and others have been making alot of edits, so why shouldn't you.PB666 ^yap 02:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

On the other issues, I have found myself immersed (more or less drafted by Andrew and Muntawandi) into wiki-war after wiki-war since July over terribly designed and written articles, and I am frankly tired of this. I have a 25 year perspective on the failures of Molecular Anthropology, and at the top of the list of marginal science are the Y-chromosomal studies. However Y-chromosomal studies are troubled, if you catch Andrew with the right timing he will say pretty much the same thing, the molecular clock is still greatly questioned, estimates range from 25 kya to 140 kya, and even if it worked NRY sequencing is rarely done, and comparative genetics is even more rarely done. And the STR dating that is used may be off by a factor of 3 fold. OK, so I have good reason to keep Andrews comments at a distance, why waste good thinking on bad data. The problem is that Andrew brings up the weaknesses of these approached when it is convenient for him but denies these issues when its not convenient. So again I keep his word at a distance. Caveot Emptor.

But for Wikipedia the problem is much worse, witness the last 3 months - there is alot, _and I mean alot_ of race-based promotion within HGH and including Y-DNA topics.

Here are some clear examples of riding over wiki-guidelines:

• Wiki-guidelines say clearly the long bullet lists are unwanted, and yet instead of building clades someone drops a long dirty laundry lists dressed as a cladograms into pages.
• Even when cladograms are made, such as in the R1b page they are not simplified and broken into understandable pieces instead they become a cobweb of confusion.
• Why are Y-DNA pages always involved in conflict, because editors are working to their own self-interested goals and not improvement of the encyclopedia.
• Why have I been asked to intervene in articles so poorly written that it is difficult to understand the core of the debate????PB666 ^yap 02:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I would encourage both of you to read wp:TLDR, wp:dispute resolution, and wp:five pillars. And that entire mess was TL, DR. I tried though. I did. I don't really see anything the admins need to do, here, though the TLDR thing might have just meant I missed it.- Sinneed 03:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• YOu didn't this is more of an arbitration issue anyway. I refactored my comments, thanks. PB666 ^yap 04:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The short version is that User:Pdeitiker is editing disruptively in order to make a WP:point. You only need to look at his own explanations of his intentions. This is NOT a content dispute as any glance at the diffs will show. Note that Deitiker gives no diffs above. His vague and confusing remarks are however clearly given in order to imply things. For example consider whether his vague accusations about my behavior match anything: I have not even edited R1a since Deitiker began his long threatened series of non-consensus edits. My bad behavior is just no agreeing with him. Unfortunately it seems that if you want to write disruptively on a scientific article all you need to do is make your talkpage postings long and confused, in order to put admins off.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly another false statement, guys, right here he has made this statement in front of you and now you know what the problem is. Here is R1a page before I began trying to make the page more encyclopedic [48] and this is the page after my last edit, on the lead this evening[49]. This is a combination of both mine and Andrews work, I am not taking credit for it all, The cladograms, however 80%, 80% and 100% my work, the table, Andrews but I reformated, the other two tables are mine entirely. Many many edits in the distribution section culling out alot of unnecessary material. It is generally agreed in the talk pages that the page is much clearer and much easier to read now.

The core issue here is that I am pushing the interest and the goals of the encyclopedia and Andrew does not like this, he thinks that he, not wikipedia guides should be the major determinants about what goes on a page and what is improved. Just look at his favorite E1b1b page, read the last sections, those which I have never worked on. Is it encyclopedic, is it appropriate for a general purpose reader? Here within his last statement is the core of our dispute, its not about content, its about making it accessible. As per motive, Andrew told me one time that he does these pages as a reference for his own personal studies, I have no problem with that desire, but the key desire should be to make the pages suitable for a general purpose encyclopedia. And I thank Andrew for saying this, because if he hadn't disclosed the above I would have had to go hunt down diffs. You saved me the effort, the bias is quite clear, my improvements were constructive, just too encyclopedic for you. The reason Andrew is here guys is that he tried to elicit negative responses to my changes and everyone agreed so far that the page has improved, both with his and my changes. Without getting a clear green light from the editors of R1a, he got frustrated and came here, that is closer to the truth.PB666 ^yap 08:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Give diffs for accusations? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have not said that I do these pages as a reference for my personal studies. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• As you and I both know there are only 3 editors who've commented on our disagreements, you, me, and User:MarmadukePercy. We form a consensus of 2, and you are the non-consensus writer. Such small numbers of editors is a frequent problem on specialized articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• This is yet another false statement. Aside from the comments here these are two comments from the talk page comparing the two versions (Which Andrew has primarily reverted to his version, with some improvements)

It could look half as good as either version and still look supremely superior to Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA). As far as this and that I favour as much explanation as possible for those learning, including long section titles for those who might be easily overwhelmed and need to keep going back to the top of the page.

— DinDraithou (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that there aren't any real substantive differences between the two version. Disagreements seem to be about presentation, prose and semantics. This paragraph appears to be more complex than it needs to be. Apart from the aforementioned paragraph, my initial impression is that both versions would be acceptable, especially when compared to typical wikipedia articles.

— Wapondaponda (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Unsigned remarks and quotes inserted by PB666. I note that both these people studiously avoided expressing any opinion about your first round of recent edits over mine. They just expressed positive remarks that this article, which you keep describing in panicked terms as a load of unencylopedic crap, that has to be changed urgently or else, has been a lot better lately, and is a lot better than other haplogroup articles. They are also explicitly saying that this was already before you started changing it, although you have implied that I should probably be banned from Wikipedia for this work! [50]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Example of your approach to listening to others: You proposed a draft; I commented as requested and you called me argumentative for doing this; then you inserted it with even the most obvious errors that had been pointed out still in place.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think this level and hostility of tone desires a reply, anymore. It is clear that if you compared the last version of my lede (above) that the previous version that I felt it was a draft in style and layout, I did not treat it as a fixture on the page, and a recommended others to edit this and improve it. Every attempt to work with you became increasingly inappropriate and hostile, for that reason I started ignoring your comments, it was clear that you did not want your wording to change, the attitude was WP:OWN and the reversion essentially proved the point. I don't think I need to make any further comment here, if your desire is to continue the hostile commentaries then we need to move this on to Arbitration as I recommended. Your current version contains a large and reader unfriendly run-on sentence so I wonder why you are pointing out specific errors of mine? What type of adrenalin is bringing out your repeated hostility?PB666 ^yap 13:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Name an example of hostility of tone. You answer every concrete point with these emotional accusation, on the talkpages, and this is your constant pattern since I asked you not to try splitting the article until we had understanding of R1a itself: [51]. So it is much more simple than you make out: you are a disruptive editor, because you constantly fill talk pages with such accusations when people are trying to discuss edits. To treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated. Concerning arbitration you've raised this many times and I've told you each time to put your money where your mouth is or else stop making these diversionary accusations. I am only asking for what Wikipedia policy normally demands. Answer good faith criticism rationally, and do not make accusations lightly.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is one, the most recent example of a great many: Regarding the evidence I put forward concerning the conversation between Andrew and Swin (quoted above) in an effort to create the most stable section names:

Why are you scared of moving this discussion to WP:HGH? If as you claim no one is reading it, then we'll see right?

— --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This is pure and outright bullying, schoolyard level. Andrew is trying to drive this discussion off the page, because all of the evidence points to him having a problem with the wiki guidelines for stable section naming.PB666 ^yap 14:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I just want to add, why am I keeping the discussion in R1a talk page here are the traffic statistics for R1a and here are the traffic statistics for [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Human_Genetic_History], I previous brought my reasons to Andrew with statistics, and even so he continues to bully on the issue. To the best of my ability I have corrected page or answer his critiques with reasonable explanations, this response is very typical of his recent behavior.PB666 ^yap 15:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's put this side subject (which is about a policy which affect many articles) aside. Please see my response here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Genetic history of the British Isles is among the worst and most awesomely misinformative of all articles, in case anyone here is looking for one to smash up in their fury. Sorry for the interruption. DinDraithou (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Not an interruption - you prove my point, but the only article I want to 'smash up' on is the mtDNA Eve page, that is improve.PB666 ^yap 04:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Pdeitiker is a knowledgeable editor and many of his edits have definitely helped to improve wikipedia. However Pdeitiker uses an unconventional idiosyncratic editing style. This approach typically involves quite a bit of verbosity and an abundance of technical detail. It is possible that the use of technical detail may be to intimidate other users who may be less knowledgeable about the subject matter. A similar but unrelated dispute took place on several threads in Talk:Mitochondrial Eve, such as this section and this section.

The nature of the problem is not blatantly obvious since many of the articles are quite technical. I believe that Pdeitiker can be an even more effective contributor if he addresses the concerns that numerous editors have expressed about his editing. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am very well aware of this, the problem with the mtDNA page is that - when I came across the pages a couple of months ago, it was a disaster, many blatantly false statements and complete misrepresentation of the literature. It has lost its featured article status and probably would not have even qualified as a GA, certainly not from WP:HGH point of view. I asked people who were editing that page to go about repairing the damage, the answer was don't talk to us 'fix it yourself'. I am perhaps not the best person for the task because I have been following the up and down roller coaster of mtDNA since 1994, and I am all-too-aware about the problems in the popular literature, and the level of debate in the primary literature, particularly recently with regard to mutation rates and clock consistency. I have now added to that page the essense of what should be considered, a key point of the remake of the page were recent literature that reflected on topics misrepresented in the previous page (e.g. what are the limits of the TMRCA, what is the relationship of population size, and was or was not there a population bottleneck). It is going to be an extremely difficult task for me to bring out the quality of that page, particularly since there are 100s of papers that reflect on the topic, many of them recent. As I have finished the draft of that page one author within the field read the page and sent me more references, so I need to encorperate these other lines of thought. The issue for mtDNA and the TMRCA is a complicated issue, the primary reason is that as one approached the extant population by traversing higher branch points, the mutation rates go insane. At some point in the near future I want to bring this article up for GA review, due to its high importance, which means exactly-I need to get rid of the technical lingo without getting the page back to a ill-written 'popular science topic' page. Any specific aspect of the page you think can be improved I would be happy to have a critique of the technical lingo, this page really needs it.These new additions reflect also on the popular media, for example the Current "PBS NOVA: Becoming Human" series which talks about the evolution of humans in 'Oasis' in Southern Africa. PB666 ^yap 18:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Having read the Y-chromosomal Adam pages, there are similar problems. This one should be easier for me since I have a more distal perspective.PB666 ^yap 18:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think these replies show the problem well, and my reason for posting here. In other words:

• On current trends more articles and their talk pages are headed towards the condition of Mitochondrial Eve, which is not good. Only a few Wikipedians so far have come into close contact with Pdeitiker and all apparently come to the same conclusions. But for the time being he feels quite justified in continuing as he has been doing. He has come to describe himself increasingly aggressively as representing the true aims of Wikipedia, improving the style and wording of these articles, and accusing others of using too much jargon and poor style. He also accuses others of unacceptable behavior on talkpages, in long postings that fill those talkpages. He reacts to words like "this is wrong" with accusations of personal attack and WP:OWN. But admins should look at what he has achieved at Mitochondrial Eve, and its talkpage.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Pdeitiker's verbosity and confused style, as in above response, might put people off, but is essentially his own personal talking to himself and trying to understand a subject and work out what he thinks, even when he is writing directly into the text of articles (or slightly less problematic, filling articles with invisible reminder notes). It is essentially textbook WP:OR.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel that my accusation that OR underlies what PD666 generally describes as his "pushing the encyclopedias agenda" (see above). I will try to keep it short by saying that he admits that his opinions about what is good and bad in the literature is guiding this pushing. Remarks indicating this can be found peppered throughout all his talkpages discussions, but for example see above:

"I have a 25 year perspective on the failures of Molecular Anthropology, and at the top of the list of marginal science are the Y-chromosomal studies. However Y-chromosomal studies are troubled, if you catch Andrew with the right timing he will say pretty much the same thing, the molecular clock is still greatly questioned, estimates range from 25 kya to 140 kya, and even if it worked NRY sequencing is rarely done, and comparative genetics is even more rarely done. And the STR dating that is used may be off by a factor of 3 fold. OK, so I have good reason to keep Andrews comments at a distance, why waste good thinking on bad data." (PB666 on this page above)

So, I know it is confusing, but OR is playing a role in all this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

user:Xenos2008-racism, accusations of illegal acts

• user has been blocked for vandalism and incivility 1

• user has (following the block) made racist comments to the effect that Greek people are assholes and peasants

2

• user has been warned on at least three occasions by an administrator user:Henrik

3 4 and by myself user:Anothroskon 5

• user then proceeded to make further racist comments to the effect that Greek people are nationalists and racists

5

• User has finally accused me of belonging to a far-right, semi-legal group and of having threatened him in public, the latter of which would be illegal in my jurisdiction. 6

• I had taken the user to WP:AE but the case was deemed to be unimportant since the user was at the time for a long time inactive. This is no longer the case and in any event the user has commited what would appear to be further breaches of WP policy in the mean time. Thanks.--Anothroskon (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• User has been notified. 7--Anothroskon (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• I am not active on WP: I am responding to allegations of racism by Greek nationalists. I have given up trying to remove the biases and falsified history on WP. Xenos2008 (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Dude... if you want us to take you seriously as a troll, you're gonna have to try harder than that.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, this is the first time I think I've laughed in the Administrator's Noticeboard /Incident section! --Rockstone (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This section is a constant source of comedy for me.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

He called them peasants? Next thing you know, he'll be calling them upstarts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm always partial to varlets. --NellieBly (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately not entirely funny. I have left the user a warning. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually something weird was going on with this editor the time he was active: personal attacks & rascist comments [[52]], talking always about a fictious Greek propaganda scenario and his personal problems with the academic community in Greece [[53]].Alexikoua (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If any of you are serious (and you can be sure that the Greek editors are not) to understand what this is about, I suggest you ask any foreigner living in Greece. Personally, I have fewer problems than most, so the last allegation by Alexikoua is malicious and indeed typical of how Greeks deal with foreigners. I do not have a personal agenda and am being attacked for not supporting Greek propaganda: this also is typical of Greek behaviour on the internet and generally. If you do not know anything about Greece, then do not be so foolish as to think it resembles the USA or Europe. It is a Balkan country. Xenos2008 (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please mind that user:Xenos2008 means this last part to be a slur and not as a simple geographical fact. In his mind being Balkan probably amounts to some sort of personal defect, never mind about being Greek as well. As I said on the talk page I could produce evidence to the effect that Greeks are neither more nor less nationalist, racist, peasant or assholes than any other group of people but that would imply crediting his position as something other than a racist rant. --Anothroskon (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that Anothroskon is a Greek and his opinions and so-called evidence are part of the problem, not the solution. Xenos2008 (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a desperate need for more non-Greeks to be editing Greece-related articles, and a great deal of leeway should be given to such editors, given the inevitable hostility they will come up against. However, I know that administrators seem to prefer articles to be wrong and quiet, rather than right but busy with edit wars, reverts, and controversy. Meowy 21:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Meowy, would you be willing to clarify what you mean by the "inevitable hostility" statement and whether this is tied to one particular nationality as you phrased it? I am asking for a clarification to avoid a potential misinterpretation as a simple ethnic insult. Thanks. Antipastor (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. There is way for non-Greeks to get involved with editing Greek-related articles without having to go and make general stereotypes of Greeks. Are you also saying that in order to encourage non-Jewish people edit Jewish-related articles, we should put up with anti-semitism? Of course not. Same thing here. Xenos2008 has been told to edit without degrading Greek people (and saying all Greek people have a peasant mentality, or that we shouldn't expect rational arguments regarding Greece because it is a balkan country - whatever that means - is degrading, insulting, and not constructive). Xenos2008 has been warned by administrators after this thread started. He chose to ignore that warning and continue making such comments in his posts on this thread. Wikipedia should not have to put up with this behaviour. Singularity42 (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a person, so has no say in what it should put up with or not put up with. The content of articles is all that should matter, and is all that the users of Wikipedia care about. If Xenos2008 knows enough about Greeks to touch at some sensitive points in their self-identity, he probably knows enough about Greece to make a positive contribution to Greece-related articles. BTW, when the complainant talked about being accused of committing "illegal acts", I was assuming they were sheep-related ones - now that is a general stereotype of Greeks! The comments Xenos2008 has been making are not actually stereotypes, they seem to me more like internal criticisms that I (would hope) Greeks make about fellow Greeks (or that any society might make about its self-perceived negative qualities). OK, they are probably not helpful to the editing process, but to compare them to anti-Semitism is completely OTT. Meowy 03:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a community, and the community can say what it will or will not accept. There are plenty of examples of that. The community can say it will not accept repeated offensive behaviour that ignores warnings, including making broad, offensive stereotypes about Greek people. This includes broadly saying Greeks have no respect for Wikipedia and that Greeks have a peasant mentality, that the entire Greek society is racist, that other editors complain about his/her behaviour solely because they are Greek, that a Greek person cannot follow a reasoned argument, simply because they are Greek, that it is typical of Greek people to attack anyone that does not follow a Greek nationalist agenda, and Greece should not be taken seriously because they are a Balkan country (whatever that means), and that editors should ignore another editor solely because the editor is Greek. Wikipedia as a community does not have to accept this type of behaviour, especially after the editor in question has been warned but still continues. And what is wrong with comparing to prejudice against other enthnical/religious groups? Isn't that what is happening here? Singularity42 (talk) 04:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I gotta back Singularity here. Racism and culture wars are not welcome on Wikipedia. Going down that road leads to blocks. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

User:HkFnsNGA

This user is continuing to be disruptive in specific AfD nominations such as the most recent being Louis Lesser. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 22:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the user. GiantSnowman 22:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I did the same thing without knowledge of you doing it. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 22:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

To be specific, this user has been trying to use Wikipedia to propagate an elaborate hoax surrounding an individual named Louis Lesser (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Lesser). Research has shown that the person and his company exist or existed, but nothing supports some of the grandiose claims made (e.g., he was a "mentor to Warren Buffett and Kirk Kirkorian [sic]"). Several users, myself included, have poked holes in Mr. Lesser's alleged story, but HkFnsNGA has tried to back up the claims with sources that only tangentially mention the subject. User has also been trying to promote an individual named Eric Diesel (which is a redirect to the Lesser article), including creation of an article called Cal Trans Pet Cemetery, a major POV article whose primary source was a local CBS affiliate's investigative report. The same information was also placed on the main California Department of Transportation article. Not sure what action is requested of admins here, though, other than a block as a vandal/hoax propagator. KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking this is an issue for WP:RFCU. KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I need someone to compare him to. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 22:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I might just have a prospect for that job, User:67.101.114.227. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 22:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

All information I put in abuot Louis Lesser is true. I just spoke to him on the phone. He is 93 years old. He is willing to let a high level person at Wikipedia call him. He just told me he flew Imelda Marcos and Ferdinand Marcos to Hawaii, and buried Ferdiand Marcos there. I have personally seen photos of Lesser with young Buffett. I just scanned the Louis Lesser Enterprises, Inc. June 20, 1963 Annual Report into my computer. If you show me how, I can upload it. I am also willing to speak on the phone. I am in San Francisco, and I will bring this stuff to the Wikimedia Foundation. Either I should go to jail for fraud, or a lot of people owe apologies to me and to Louis Lesser. Please let me know how best to proceed. HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

We can't use phone conversations as reliable sources under any circumstance, since there is no way to verify the actual contents of such phone messages. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 02:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I supplied hundreds of news articles and no one read any of them. I scanned the Louis Lesser Enterprises, Inc. June , 1963 Annual Report, and if anyone looks at it, there will probably be a lot of apologies for calling me and Mr. Lesser a fraud. I am a person who reads to disabled seniors. I am not a technoperson. Writing an article should not result in being called a fraud. At first, the person nominating said Mr. Lesser was not partners with JFK in Barrington Plaza. Then after cheking, they said Barrington Plaza was not the largest urban renewal project in western US. Then after checking, they said Louis Lesser was not the Los Angeles City of Hope Man of the Year in 1961. Then they said he was not once one of the wealthiest persons on the planet. After each accusation of fraud and hoax, I answered, as best as I could, and no one EVER apologized for calling me a "hoax", or a "fraud". I supplied hundreds of news articles on the AFD page. No one read them! The SEC itself lists Mr. Lesser as having one company alone worth $1.5 Billion before 1982, when he stopped it. No one bothered to apologize for flat out calling me a liar. Then finally, someone said Ferdinand Marcos was in a mausoleum in Pilippines. That may be true, if they moved the body, but I spoke to Mr. Lesser just abuot half hour ago and he described flying BOTH Imelda Marcos and Ferdinand to Hawaii, while Ferdinand was alive (I was an anit-Marco activist, so I certainly dont find this a flattering fact) and that Marcos died in Hawaii in a hotel Louis Lesser set them up in, and Louis Lesser buried Ferdinand IN HAWAII, and was at the funeral. I believe Louis Lesser, not the editor who says I am a hoax and a liar. Why wont someone tell me how to upload the June 1963 Louis Lesser Enterprises Annual Report, which will end the controversy? And instead of an apology for being called a "liar", "hoax", "fraud", etc., perhaps all of these editors can read the HUNDREDS of links to news articles I put on the AFD page, and we can move on. HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This guy can't even stop himself from being deceitful about things one can easily check - like the number of sources present in that AfD (I did go look to see if he added such; he hasn't). One way or the other, this ends with him blocked indefinitely - so can we just go ahead and do it, please? — Gavia immer (talk) 03:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Gavia immer, here is one list of news articles, each of significance enough for notability [54]. Why did you say it is not on the AFD page? Why did you call me "deceitful"? You can also do a similar Google news archive search for the many other articles on this great man, Louis Lesser. Please check and take back calling me "deceitful". HkFnsNGA (talk) 03:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A google search is not a reference - not one, certainly not "hundreds", and the existence of people named Louis Lesser doesn't make your article less of a fantasy. — Gavia immer (talk)

Gavia immer, please apologize for calling me "deceitful". Maybe I did not use the word "reference" correctly, but there are are hundreds of news articles here [55], and they are not on a name "Louis Lesser". They are all on just one of Louis Lesser's companies, "Louis Lesser Enterprises", here [56], and they span decades, with major stories on major developments. Please reconsider your opinion, or at least glance at the story headlines. HkFnsNGA (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I was accused of being a "fraud", a "hoax", "decitful", and even lying abuot Lesser flying Marcos and his wife to Hawaii, which I based only on his telling me this. But Wikipedia's own article on Ferdinand Marcos verifies Mr. Lesser's story. I will post this at the AFD page. From the Wikipedia article itself - "The Marcos family and their associates went into exile in Hawaii, USA and were later indicted for embezzlement in the United States. Marcos died in Honolulu on September 28, 1989, of kidney, heart and lung ailments. He was interred in a private mausoleum at Byodo-In Temple on the island of Oahu" HkFnsNGA (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The part you quote doesn't contain the words "Louis" and "Lesser". Neither does the rest of the Marcos article. I wonder how you feel this confirms your article is not a hoax.--Atlan (talk) 06:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Time for me to chime in. HkFnsNGA has posted many articles, most recently in re Louis Lesser - and not a single one of them can be used for sources. So far, I have watched him make quixotic claims and beg for assistance in fixing the article, and what admittedly got my goat was when he insisted that a magazine article (see the AFD) was about Louis Lesser. In short, it didn't even mention his name. I call for a ban on this user as I feel he is disrupting the project by simply trying to lead us on and waste our time. This is something I don't deal well with, admittedly, without becoming quite irate and snappy. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• I say it's a little too soon for a ban; we should probably block him for a while though. --Rockstone (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I misread the "BE BOLD" guideline. I have taken suggestions of all editors on the AFD page, and I deleted the entire article, then am building it back up one sentence at a time, as the other editors asked me to do. I have no intention of being disruptive, nor of perptrating a "hoax". All of the information I put in was based on old newspaper articles I was shown, and other photos and documents. Everything in the article is now from a reliable and verifiable source, and I will continue building the article as other editors asked me to do. HkFnsNGA (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Don't think that there is much need for administrative intervention here. Louis Lesser is not a hoax, and clearly is/was a notable real estate developer. It looks like a case of someone notable, but now somewhat forgotten, with stories told about him that may not be true or only have a small kernel of verifiable truth, and an overenthusiastic new editor unfamiliar with wikipedia's ways.John Z (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't entirely agree with that assessment of the situation, as some of the stories were so grandiose that they can't be explained away by ignorance of policy. I do agree no administrator assistance is needed, other than the act of closing the AFD.--Atlan (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd say wait on the AFD as usual - it seems that Hk has gone ahead and rewritten the article, removing the unsubstantiated claims. So now he's working toward building this. I don't see notability at this time, but if he changes mymind, then there you go. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Off2riorob after multiple extensions of good faith

Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Off2riorob has been blocked multiple times for disruptive editing. His most recent block was of a duration of 3 weeks. He has made promises to stop, and was warned that he would face an extended block if he edit-warred again after violating this promise.

• He was twice given extensions of good faith, after he promised not to engage in disruptive editing again - and he has reneged on those comments.

• Off2riorob is again engaging in disruptive editing 21:37, 23 November 2009, and 22:09, 23 November 2009.

I think that enough extensions of good faith have been given at this point in time. Some other form of action is appropriate instead. Cirt (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Where are the diffs of disruptive behavior? I looked at the two diffs provided above and I support the removal of that content 100% based on well establisehd policy. It is clearly undue weight and primary sourced, just as off2rio stated. As far as the content dispute those involved still need to use dispute resolution, but why are paragraphs and paragraphs of Bill Moyers opinions sourced to Bill Moyers appropriate for Karl Rove's article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Extensions of good faith given to Off2riorob

1. 16 April 2009 - 72 hour block for disruption at WP:GA article was reduced to 48 hours, after Off2riorob agreed in the future to seek out dispute resolution instead of be disruptive [57].
2. 29 September 2009 - Sanctioned with parole of 1RR per page per day for 5 weeks, instead of being given a "lengthy block". [58]

Prior disruption and blocks

See prior ANI threads detailing disruption by Off2riorob and blocks:

• 14 March 2009 - blocked 24 hours for disruption of a WP:GA article.
• 16 April 2009 - blocked 72 hours for disruption at same WP:GA article - Off2riorob was then given a good faith reduction of that block to 48 hours, after Off2riorob agreed in the future to seek out dispute resolution instead of be disruptive [59].
• 25 April 2009 - Blocked 72 hours, for disruption at same WP:GA article.
• 29 April 2009 - Blocked one week, for disruption at same WP:GA article.
• 19 July 2009 - Blocked 2 weeks, disruption at Tony Blair.
• 21 August 2009 - Blocked 3 weeks, block log edit summary by admin Chillum: edit warring yet again
• 29 September 2009 - Off2riorob sanctioned to 1RR per page per day for 5 weeks.

Comments by admin Chillum

• 25 August 2009 - Entry in his block log by admin Chillum (talk · contribs): "User gave word not to edit war in the future, reducing block", which was citing this comment by Off2riorob: [60].

• 22 September 2009 - Comment by admin Chillum: I am considering you to be fully aware of our edit warring policy in the future Off2, and will not be considering warnings to be needed in the future. You gave me your word that you would not edit war as a condition of your last unblock, given that you have not kept this word I will not be extending that offer next time you are blocked.

• 29 September 2009 - When I brought Off2riorob's disruption to Chillum's attention, Chillum responded: It looks like edit warring to me. If I was not taking a break from my admin tools currently then I would likely hold Rio to his prior promise. . Perhaps another admin will feel the same way I do, but my buttons are currently not being used.

Comments by admin Moreschi

• 29 September 2009 - I think we have the choice between a lengthy block, an indefinite block, and a 1RR per page per day revert parole.

---

As this user has engaged in disruption at an article I worked on improving quality to WP:GA, I would appreciate other administrators taking a look into this matter. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: I see that Off2riorob was also given a notice re edit-warring on yet another article [61]. Cirt (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment re Off2riorb's "good faith" (by nonadmin who has been recently sanctioned at ANI) - While it is clear Off2riorb's passionate involvement may get the better of them, I do not think "good faith" should ever be doubted. That is certainly not an excuse for not following through on promises, but I have never seen any action (however wrongheaded, though I am apparently 'one to talk' on that score) that did not clearly seem motivated by an attempt to conform what was happening to the ideals of Wikipedia: i.e. Good hearted, sometimes wrongheaded, loves Wikipedia. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is his actions after being given extensions of good faith in instances where he could have rightly received more strenuous blocks instead, not his motivations for those inappropriate actions. Cirt (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Popping in for clarification: back in April when I made the request that Rob's block be shortened, trust in his promise to avoid edit warring in future was the act of good faith. Rob's subsequent good faith (or lack of it) isn't at issue here, only whether he resumed edit warring. Durova³⁶⁹ 02:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Although I'm not familiar with Off2riorob's conduct in the past and conduct at other articles I can attest to his behavior and edit waring over at Karl Rove. He has been making a ton of very illogical changes and inputting his POV into the article. He has been actively hostile and unwilling to determine the consensus of other users. I think this quote of his below sums it up the best:

Give over, I don't need any consensus to remove this content, it is cited to primary sources and is clearly being given undue weight here..

I'm not making that quote up. He did actually say this in his edit summary after I reverted an edit of his that blanked a section of the page. To understand whats currently going on at Karl Rove you have to know that another disruptive user Malke 2010 who had been blocked previously for edit waring at Karl Rove had recently said the following on the talk page after a discussion was in progress on a recent series of edits by the two:

Yes, Off2riorob, you can go to the noticeboards, but the admins know all about Jusdafax, et al. Off2riorob, please take my advice. These old boys are arguing with you so that you waste your time defending your position instead of editing the page! It's a distraction game. If they make you look at the noticeboards, then you aren't editing the Rove page. Editors do not need to get permission from Jusdafax/Chhe/Soxwon/editor du jour to make changes to the page. Wikipedia is for everyone. We don't genuflect to anybody here. If you have something you want changed, Off2riorob, then go ahead and change it. You are wasting your precious time trying to obtain consensus from people who are determined never to give it to you. It's a game they play. Go round in circles until the new editor gives up and leaves. Well, I for one am not going anywhere and I hope you won't go anywhere either. If they revert your entries, report them for edit warring. Just don't take the bait. Make a statement on the talk page about what you plan to change, and then change it. Wikipedia is fun, it's for everyone. Edit away!

They didn't like how the discussion was heading so Malke 2010 put Off2riorob up to making the changes again anyway...which curiously enough he did. I reverted it. He then blanked the section again. And then Soxwon reverted it. The truth is that Malke 2010 has been just as disruptive as Off2riorob. These two disruptive users have somehow managed to find each other and are know colluding to input their opinions into more specifically politically related articles and removing factual information that they deem unflattering. I think both of them should be blocked, but you'll have to read the archives in the talk page to form your own opinion since this business has been going on for a long time.Chhe (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think s/he is a good faith editor, but the emotional involvement is a real issue. S/he just issued a general accusation on the talk page of British National Party that s/he would not be forced off the page by "IRA editors". So far despite requests no withdrawal or apology but that might just be time difference. The edit history on that page is very similar to that reported above. Someone needs to mentor this editor, or at least give them some advise. --Snowded ^TALK 01:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Having read the recent edits, I agree with Snowed. The intention may be good, but if it leads to this kind of behaviour it becomes disruptive no matter how good the intentions are. Calling other users "IRA editors" (WP:NPA, refusing to remove it when called upon, and blanking long sections under discussion with the motivation "Give over, I don't need any consensus to remove this content, it is cited to primary sources and is clearly being given undue weight here" (WP:OWN) are all troubling tendencies. The user has repeatedly evaded long blocks or even indefinite blocks by promising not to repeat this kind of behaviour, yet we see the same thing repeated over and over again.Jeppiz (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Allow me chime in and also urge a substantial, no-nonsense block for the disruptive Off2riorob. I will add to the evidence his uncivil comment yesterday on the Rove talk page, made to me: ...If you dispute my comments here I will move my issues to the relative noticeboards. Off2riorob (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC) This statement demonstrates palpable contempt for the core structure of Wikipedia, in my view, in that it openly proclaims cooperation with others is not his concern, and that should I disagree on the talk page I will be taken to "the relative noticeboards", a comment clearly designed to intimidate and chill disagreement. Since Off2riorob has a long pattern of this type of behavior, with lengthy blocks and various broken promises to behave, I submit that this disruptive editor is overdue for, as mentioned in the comment(s) above, a long or indefinite block. Jusdafax 02:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

My interaction with the editor was feeling that (s)he was attempting to WP:OWN the Alan Grayson article. 1 2.Scientus (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree, that's the term I was looking for with the Karl Rove article. Thanks. Jusdafax 03:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Despite extensive warning and civil requests this editor continues to make very uncivil accusations and act in a very poor way. Calling others "IRA editors" and continually attacking others rather than addressing the genuine concerns of other edits needs to stop. This editor seems to feel they are here to fix the deficiencies of other editors. If this disruption continues a block may be the only remedy and it seems from the above that this has been long term problem. Verbal chat 06:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I looked at the diffs in question and I support the content's removal 100%. It is clearly undue weight and primary sourced just as off2rio suggested. As far as the content dispute those involved still need to use dispute resolution, but why are paragraphs and paragraphs of Bill Moyers opinions sourced to Bill Moyers appropriate for Karl Rove's article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• You miss the point. We are talking about a long-term pattern of disruptive edits, and not just at the Karl Rove page but several others mentioned above. Please look at the bigger picture here. Jusdafax 06:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI isn't for "long term patterns" of anything. There was no edit warring on Off2rio's part. And not only is he in compliance with all our policies, but his edit is absolutely correct. I'm happy to post the mass of undue weighted he said she said, he said, she said, he said, she said, that was removed, because I don't think any reasonable editor could argue that such a mass of tabloid commentary belongs in an encyclopedia article. I think what's clear from this discussion is that Off2Rio needs to be on his best behavior and on his toes, because right or wrong people are going to come after him trying to get him blocked. This certainly isn't the first time we've seen ANI boards used to smear and go after editors whose viewpoints aren't "appreciated". His removal was proper, and it's unfortunate that it was reverted, but he hasn't made content changes since. The discussion on the talk page is ongoing (and clearly supports the content's being gutted down to a sentence or two). I don't see the problem. Couldn't the discussion have continued with the mass of undueweighted content removed or posted to the talk page for discussion? I see people remove content all the time, and it seems it's only when an editor's view aren't popular that we see them dragged to ANI for this kind of witch hunt. I suggest slapping a trout on the editor who initiated this thread and all those dredging up past mistakes trying to impugn an editor for making perfectly reasonable changes to article content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record CoM, I think you are right about the content issue on the Rove reported here, although being right on a content issue does not remove to discuss matters on the talk page. I am concerned about actions on another article and the IRA accusation which is unacceptable. Ideally this editor needs some advise and help to become productive. Endorsing edit waring and deeply negative comments will not help them. --Snowded ^TALK 07:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually aware that Off2rio is not a perfect editor, few of us are, but there are two diffs put forth at the top of this thread and they look entirely appropriate and certainly don't amount to edit warring. This is a content dispute. The polciies and guidelines, as well as the discussion on the talk page clearly supports Off2rio's position, so perhaps he should be encouraged to be more patient. But the problematic editing in this case seems to be from those creating and formenting an ANI report that's being used to dredge up a bunch of old issues. There just isn't edit warring that I can see in this case, and if there was the 3rr board would have been the appropriate venue. I also find Cirt's canvassing of every editor that's ever had a disagreement with Off2rio very problematic (most of them don't appear to have any involvment in this issue whatsoever). This thread should be closed post haste before things turn any uglier, and Cirt and the others pursuing off2rio should be cautioned to behave in a collegial and collaborative manner in the future and to refrain from the pursuit of confrontations with those with whom we disagree. We need to be civil to one another, and this is no way to resolve a dispute or differences of opinion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

My only real dealing with this editor is the issue outlined above. The main thing the struck me was that he responded to the block politely and with reason. While this editor does have a spotted history of disruptive editing, attempts to reason with this user can be productive(at least for a little while). ^Chillum 07:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, Off2riorob (talk · contribs) has a pattern of disruptive editing, saying he will stop, being extended good faith for these types of statements, and then violating his pronouncements about said behavior. Cirt (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, please provide diffs of the problematic editing. I see two edits, a removal of content and a single reversion back to that version. The edits are explained in the edit summaries and supported by policy. When I looked at your edit history, I found canvassing of numerous editors who've had disagreements with Off2rio in the past, but who don't appear to have any involvement in this dispute. I reiterate my suggestion that you abide by the spirit of our civility policy and show more consideration and collegiality to your fellow editors in future. This report does not put you in a good light. If you want to suggest better editing approaches to Off2rio, please do so in cordial and considerate fashion rather than seeking out confrontation and trying to dredge up old conflicts. The title of this thread is also highly confrontational and provactive. A more appropriate title might have been "Are these edit summaries appropriate?", but you probably should have tried to communicate your concerns directly with your fellow editor first. Take care. Happy Thanksgiving. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight, I apologize if my edits are seen by you as canvassing, my intention was to notify editors that had previously warned or blocked the user in question. When the recent reverts and disruptive editing by Off2riorob are taken into account with his own self-professed statements in the past about doing this again in the future, we see the problem. Please also see this comment by Prodego (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to go out, I see very little of substance for me to reply to here and ChildofMidnight has defended my case pretty damn well. Off2riorob (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that this is a good faith user who's a little overenthusiastic and a bit too sure of their own judgment. I agree that some of the diffs provided show editing in compliance with policy. I think what's needed is a little more willingness to listen to others and accept consensus.

  Perhaps Off2riorob would agree to seek a mentor?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The mentoring option has already been tried. Please see [62]. Cirt (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

When I was asked to look into the above issue as an uninvolved admin I did see disruptive editing that warranted a block. Reading this section I think that uninvolved admins, including myself, feel that no action is needed at this particular time. ^Chillum 20:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

At least in the case of the Alan Grayson article, I can vouch for Rob's equanimity. Scientus, who has here slandered Rob, has engaged in a disruptive edit war in the Grayson article, blatantly pushing his own POV while accusing anyone who disagrees with him to be 'pov pushers'. Trilemma (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Cirt, but I don't think your two examples (21:37, 23 November 2009, 22:09, 23 November 2009) provide any evidence of disruptive editing. Any link that contains the substring "blog" is deeply suspect here, for good reason. - Pointillist (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Threatened by another editor

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.

Enough. This back-and-forth isn't helping. Time to go through dispute resolution.

---

Resolved

 – A statement of intent to use a normal Wikipedian dispute resolution venue does not constitute a threat.

Durova³⁶⁹ 02:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

On the Ed Gein talk page, one of my posts was badly misrepresented by Wildhartlivie. I responded with the following:

Again you misquote me. I said no one has produced an authoritative source that uses "3 or more" as the definition of a serial killer. Does the Department of Justice use this definition? Does the American Psychiatric Association? The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law? The FBI? If so, cite them. They're reliable sources. Some random crime writer is not.

Wildhartlivie responded directly to this post with:

I'm going to say this once. If you cannot post on this page without attacking or disparaging myself or Crohnie, then I will proceed to open a WP:WQA case against you

Now, I know that complaining about being misquoted isn't an "attack", nor even remotely similar to an attack. Therefore, Wildhartlivie's response can only be taken to mean that any time I counter anything she says, she will wreak revenge on me. This statement of an intent to improperly use WP processes to silence me is a clear threat. Please take appropriate action. --Sift&Winnow 01:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

...Well, this is disappointing. I was hoping it would be a death threat or at least something interesting. This is just lame.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you did not attack Wildhartlivie and no, Wildhartlivie did not threat you either. What do you want administrators to do?Jeppiz (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This reminds me of a question on Mock the Week, "What is 9?", to which the answer was "At what point does serial killing become a 'spree'"? But seriously, the FBI and criminologists have definitions of "serial killer", and AFAIK, three is the minimum requirement. So sources permitting, this debate is unnecessary. Find them, please. Rodhullandemu 01:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Goto http://www.fbi.gov/publications/serial_murder.htm#two - last paragraph: "In combining the various ideas put forth at the Symposium, the following definition was crafted: Serial Murder: The unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same offender(s), in separate events." 67.183.232.99 (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sift&Winnow, "I will open a WQA against you" is not a "threat"; it is a statement that if you disparage the users mentioned, they will engage in the appropriate WP:DR mechanism. It is clear from the discussion on that page that the users feel disparaged; though there is no CLEAR violation of WP:NPA,the tone of your talk-page discussion is, IMHO, needlessly confrontational and condescending. Please refrain from talking down to other editors when they disagree with you, and you will not need to fear the "threat" of WP:WQA.Thank you...GJC 02:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie was not responding to the entire talk page, but merely to my comment regarding finding an appropriate source regarding the definition of a serial killer. As my comment was not in any way disparaging, Wildhartlivie's "statement" was completely unwarranted and a blatant threat. --Sift&Winnow 03:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

She was responding after your comment about finding an appropriate source. Correlation does not imply cause, nor does proximity; just because she responded after your comment does not mean that her response concerned ONLY your most-recent comment. The tone of your comments to the other editors on that talk page, as well as on this AN/I page, is not collegial; whether you meant it that way or not, your tone is condescending. Edit summaries like this one do nothing to assuage concerns re: whether or not your confrontational style of communication is intentional, either.GJC 15:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Although this is marked resolved, it is entirely proper to note that I was not, nor have I been, apprised of a posting here about me. According to the explicit instructions when posting here: You must notify any user that you discuss It is required that the person against whom someone is filing a complaint here be notified.

This is part and parcel of why I came here to request assistance from administrators. Crohnie stated quite clearly on the talk page "Please refactor your comment above to remove comments about editors, thank you." And yet, that was posted before Sift&Winnow made the comment in response to Crohnie and myself that included "I am constantly amazed at the amount of functional illiteracy that exists in WP" followed by his specifically stating "Lastly, except for the well-deserved first sentence of the previous paragraph, I never cast any aspersions on anyone." Sorry, folks, if no one considers that an attack, what does it take to make it one? That is why I posted here to request assistance, but in return, all that was done was lock the page down and tell us to "talk". As I said then, and I will repeat it, that has failed. Since no one wanted to help and told us to go away and "talk" about it, and the disparaging tone continued, then yes, I stated unequivocably that I will file a WP:WQA case to avoid being talked down to and treated as if I, and other editors, are somehow deficient in understanding. We were trying to address the slapping of countless fact tags, even for paragraphs that were already clearly stated as being sourced by one source for the entire paragraph. But again, you know, don't notify the editor against whom the post was made here and tell us to go away and fight it out.

What is it that Sift&Winnow wants? For me to be blocked and banned for clearly saying a WP:WQA will be filed? That isn’t a threat, but it is a reality if we continue to feel disparaged. The first thing he did when he went back was to claim I was misquoting him ‘’again’’. The first time he claimed he was misquoted was when Crohnie included in ‘’her’’ post a response about a demand for response within a week. No one said Sift&Winnow said that, the post was a general response to both him and the other editor.

And for the record, the question about the use of the term "serial killer" was in regard to a statement in the article that said although Gein didn't meet the definition of a serial killer, he is still considered one. In fact, Gein confessed to killing two women on separate occasions, while spending the rest of his time robbing graves to make "girl suits", some of those who opposed the statement have said Gein was found guilty but insane, so his confession means nothing, it may have been made up. That is the whole issue about serial killing, which is basically beside the point now. [[User:Wildhartlivie|Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Stating that I was misquoted is hardly "disparaging." As I have repeatedly stated, my interest is in an accurate article. Given the highly controversial nature of the article, and in some cases, the possibility of libel issues, it is important that every assertion be supported by a reliable source. I have been trying to verify the citations. Many of the ones found at the ends of paragraphs don't support all the facts in the paragraphs, only some. This is not the place for rehashing the same comments over and over. You previously stated "I am not interested in discussing anything further with you". If you are now interested in doing so, the appropriate place is the Ed Gein talk page, not here. --Sift&Winnow 14:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What is a threat? "I'm going to find you and hurt you" / You're going to suffer because of this etc. "Please stop $X or else I'll have to it so $noticeboard" isn't a threat of violence, it's just a threat of asking someone else for their opinion. Do you feel threatened by a WQA? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 07:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Winnow, this is not a threat in terms of the harassment policy. The harassment policy explicitly excludes this type of situation. "Statements of intent to use normal Wikipedia processes properly, such as dispute resolution, are not threats." Administrators are not going to block anybody just for stating an intention to file WQA. Wildhartlivie can file the request if s/he wants, and if an uninvolved Wikipedian decides it's unactionable the matter will end there. The threats clause of the harassment policy was written to deal with statements such as I know where you live and I'm coming to get you, which rarely occur but require immediate attention. Out of respect for the people who do face that type of dilemma, please try dispute resolution (mediation perhaps?) to iron out your disagreements about content. Durova³⁶⁹ 16:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to iron out this dispute, but it's impossible to do that when Wildhartlivie says "I am not interested in discussing anything further with you", then continues to repetitiously vent in various and sundry forums. --Sift&Winnow 17:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is nothing that requires administrative intervention in terms of the tools right now, so it would be a good idea to let this thread archive and pursue the matter some other way. There are plenty of types of dispute resolution. Best wishes. Durova³⁶⁹ 17:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not "continue(s) to repetitiously vent in various and sundry forums." In fact, and to the point, I posted a request for assistance here when Sift&Winnow became disruptive to my attempt to work out the myriad fact tags he added to the article, rendering any comments he makes regarding effort to "verify the citations" a singular misrepresentation of what was occurring on that article yesterday. I have not started a post anywhere else. In fact, Sift&Winnow posted here claiming I was threatening him, which he has been told multiple times now is not the case. In fact, he failed to notify me at any time about this page's post, which I had the courtesy to do when I posted my request for assistance. In fact, a totally unrelated editor bothered to tell me I was being discussed here. I have only replied to this thread, which is not by definition "various and sundry forums." In fact, that is a lie. But I put it to the page - how can one in any sort of good faith attempt discussion when this is occurring? He has ignored and refused to remove his self-admitted disparagements on the Gein talk page, although more than one editor has requested that he do so. He is cherry-picking a portion of the post I made about his behavior on the page. What I said was, in essence, he is disrupting efforts to address those tags, he's refused to remove what two people have told him is objectionable commentary. I also said "That renders the efforts moot and at this point, all of your actions and edits are completely pointy. Take a break and allow people to address issues that may or may not be valid. At present, it is impossible to do anything because you are disrupting the efforts to address what might be a problem." Only picking the introductory sentence of the post to dismiss me is disengenous. I'm sorry folks, but that is so much bull. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you just proved my point. Don't you think it's about time to cool off? Durova, what dispute resolution would you suggest at this point? --Sift&Winnow 19:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I am responding categorically to the mistatements and false claims you are making about me, although you do not acknowledge that, nor do you seem inclined to accept that a) a statement about filing a WP:WQA case is not a threat; b) you have baldfaced lied by claiming I continuously "vent in various and sundry forums." I have a right to respond to such claims, especially when they are factually wrong. You don't even seem inclined to admit you failed to notify me, despite my stating it at least three times and kept pushing that something be done. Dispute resolution isn't the forum because the issue is your poor etiquette and deceptive posts here. I do note, however, a pressing need for you to have the last word here, so go at it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Editnotice for Wikipedia talk:About

Requesting that an editnotice phrased similarly to the existing box with warning exclamation point be added for Wikipedia talk:About due to its long history of unconstructive edits from anon IPs or very newbie editors; (mostly misdirected posting of random encyclopediform content, which by far drowns out legit posts). --Cybercobra (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Absent some strong evidence that people read and follow edit notices I'd just as soon semi-protect it. Protonk (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I requested that once before, but it was denied. In full disclosure, Wikipedia:About is currently semi-protected, and protecting both a page and its talk is discouraged by the page protection guidelines, but I think a case can be made for applying WP:IAR here. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Also, I'm not sure where it is stated, but there is some general suggestion not to use too many page specific edit notices. Here's what I suggest. We semi the talk page but add a sub-page where IP's can post. In order to do that, we can leave a link at the top of the page which opens the new page in a preloader a la WP:REFUND. If you look at the blue link you can see it opens the new page with Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Intro as a set of instructions. So long as people watchlist the IP page, we can have some not-as-bad outcome. Protonk (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
      • That sounds like a good solution to me. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Let me know on my talk page what you want the pseudo-edit notice to say and what you want the name of the sub-page to be called and I'll drum it up for you (or you can if you want). Protonk (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Signing without a signature

Is it ok to post a comment at a talk page or at AN/I and then simply date it but not actually sign it with their name (preferably containing a link to their userpage and/or talkpage)? I've seen someone doing this and it seems counterproductive to read comments and not know who is making them but I don't want to bother them if it's acceptable. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:Signature is the relevant policy. Sadly, it appears to only say that people "should" sign, but not that signatures are required. more. Do you think they are doing it maliciously or do you think they just forgot (if they forgot, there's a uw- template for that)?  7  09:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you'd find a community consensus to change that to must. Its been my experience that people who don't use signatures end up being admonished for it.--Crossmr (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

People should sign their posts with username as well as date. Sometimes, however, failing to do so is just a mistake. If you accidentally sign with five tildes instead of four, the timestamp appears without the username. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Just tell them to sign, if a user is new it usually takes a few weeks to grab the consept of signing. Who's the user? Secret ^account 15:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Since this is a perennial problem that occasionally involves stubborn editors who refuse to abide by SIG, why not make it mandatory? Is there any good reason to not do so? Deliberate failure to do so is usually part of disruptive behavior and should not be tolerated. It should be a default requirement that a sig contain username, time, and a proper link to their user page, at the very least.

I'm also wondering if complicated sigs shouldn't be forbidden, as we could cut our server park in half/third(?) by requiring basic, simple sigs. Those servers aren't cheap! Just take a look at how many bytes are used just on complicated sigs on any talk page. They often use more bytes than the message itself. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm disinclined to support making it mandatory if it will only be made so in order to "deal with" otherwise disruptive users. As for your second suggestions, see WP:PEREN. Also, in my opinion the overwhelming majority of signature disputes are tempests in a teacup. We expend a preposterous amount of effort on enforcing SIG already. Let's not expand that. Protonk (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The specific instance I noticed involves an editor who appears to be well-established and problem-free. I didn't know about the five tildes thing... all his other signatures seem normal so the instance I noticed last night was probably just a typo. As a general rule, I would support mandating a signature containing, at minimum, name plus a link to user and/or user talk page. This should be SOP. Without it, it's impossible to communicate directly with someone making a comment. It's important that everyone be able to communicate with each other and know who is speaking. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly mandatory for discourse. For instance, I could not sign my posts here and so long as I respected threading, you or (critically) a third party could understand that there was a back and forth (that's without signbot). I'll grant that it is pretty annoying and that editors who don't sign commonly fall into two camps: those how don't yet understand the norms and conventions and those who refuse to agree to them or are incapable of agreeing to them. We want a mechanism for dealing with the latter camp without bothering the former too much. In my experience we occasionally treat signature issues with problematic editors as a means to convict them of income tax evasion, rather than deal with the underlying problem. Protonk (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Except no one would know who made those posts without going to the history. If several people weren't signing their posts it would be a serious pain to piece together. For civil discourse, I think its absolutely necessary. For newbies, we obviously wouldn't ban them at the first indiscretion, we would treat it like any other editing issue. Give them some good faith reminders, etc. but if they've been reminded 5 times to place a signature and still won't do it, we need to look at why, same as with the second group.--Crossmr (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, but the worry is that when wikipedians get together and determine rule ABC is mandatory, enforcement of rule ABC tends toward the draconian. More worrying is that we have a tendency to lose perspective when dealing with mandatory. Having a sig is important. Having a sig that follows SIG is likewise important. A violation of either of those guidelines merits a response but doesn't merit our standard response, which is a 20 page long AN/I thread about how valuable sigs are with about a dozen comments that everyone should go back to editing articles (and that's the best case, we can also have superfluous and drawn out SIG RfCs). I'm merely saying that our traditional stance toward sig contributes to that hysteria. Protonk (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(←) Perhaps we can rely on the specific page guidelines to override the soft "should" in the signature policy. For example, this page says "Sign your post with "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automatically." at the top. I think we could safely argue that signatures are mandatory on such critical pages which already include specific instructions, without going to the lengths of enforcing it on every other page.  7  04:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one wondering if it would be too WP:POINTy if we all started signing our replies in this thread with five tildes ... ? — Kralizec! (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sukiari (talk · contribs)

Resolved

Could an admin please have a look at this editors contributions and the edit warring report at WP:AN3. I'm brining this to ANI as the editor is continuing to revert new editors (over 14 reverts in around an hour), which restore copyright violations and BLP violations. Due to the general slowness of AN3 I thought I'd bring this ongoing problem here. Thanks, Verbal chat 10:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. NW (Talk) 10:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Verbal chat 10:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

... and unblock requested. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

121.73.7.84 and Colon cleansing

121.73.7.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been very active at the article's talk page. Every thread has been started by this IP and it is mostly a repetition of personal discontent, tirades, and philosophical objections that are violations of WP:talk. Please review this editor's activities related to this subject. It would be tempting to just delete or strike their comments, but a topic ban might be more appropriate. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the IP about this discussion. GiantSnowman 15:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! You beat me to it. I got pulled away from my PC for a few minutes. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian

Resolved

 – content dispute - not ANI issue Toddst1 (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm in a dispute with user:Collectonian over the width of the episode list for How the Earth Was Made. I believed it is a trivial matter which could be resolved easily but it just opened up a can of worms with this individual who is frothing at the mouth over it now, accusing me of edit warring and making threats. Our dispute is over the table width of the episode list, which I set at 100% so it spans the page, she set it at 70%/65% citing that the infobox pushes the table down and creates too much white space under the section headers. I told her I don't have this problem when I view the page and even showed her an example, but she stated something about following "standard screen size" and "known issues". I asked if she could post a link to what exactly the "standard screen" size is, and if this is an issue on Wikipedia, to point me to the discussion about it. No, I get told "You are the one making a ridiculous edit war instead of bothering yourself to ask why it was done like that in the first place." and that I'm making threats against her - I guess when I say if I get reverted again I will take it to arbitration is considered making a threat nowadays. They also say Making threats doesn't exactly make me inclined to care about your view at all - yeah that's really working to help resolve the problem. This article I might add, was something Collectonian had placed up for deletion originally. Seems they are making a lot of fuss over an article she wanted to get rid of in the first place. Could someone else get involved in this here? If someone else tells me I'm wrong here, then I'm wrong and I'll accept it, but I think this person's argument is completely invalid. Here is a link to our "discussion". I'd also like to point out her first entry of the her discussion page - right at the top in bold letters - which shows her condescending attitude from the get go. Cyberia23 (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I notified Collectonian about this discussion. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no major response this over the top response from Cyberia23, who honestly seems to be getting worked up and hysterial over what they themselves claimed was a "trivial" matter. And how exactly is it condescending to tell people that I will remove, without response, rude comments. If it was so trivial, why even edit war over it. And my having put it up for AfD is completely irrelevant. The community agreed it was notable, and I withdrew that AfD. That does not some how mean that I am no never allowed to improve the article. I have had another article that I AfDed once, it was kept, and I instead greatly improved it and its now a GA. It is also not the only one I have turned around and improved and helped with after I'd originally nominated it for AfD. Since I did withdraw the article, I went through and made appropriate MoS fixes per the Television style guides and my own experiences working with media articles. For those wanting to read the original discussion from my talk page, here is the link as I have removed it.[63]. And, as a side note, I filed a request for protection on the page last night[64], which is still currently open. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless I'm completely missing something (diffs of inappropriate action would be appreciated), this looks like a content dispute and has no place on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That's about the sum of it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

THIS IS NOT RESOLVED! THIS IS NOT A "CONTENT" ISSUE! If this doesn't belong here then tell me where it's supposed to go. This is a matter of who is right and who is wrong regarding whether or Wikipedia editing is to cater to specific computer monitor size as Collectonian claims. I provided a link above in my opening statement that went back to our discussion of this matter on Collectonian's talk page which she has now deleted in an obviously suspicious attempt to cover it up. She is now trying to turn the tables on me by playing innocent and making it look like I'm the one throwing this out of proportion. Here is the link to the version of her talk page before she deleted the comments to see what I am talking about. Page down to As for the reversion war going on at How the Earth Was Made this is what I am talking about [to cater to 1024 width monitors]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberia23 (talk • contribs)

WP:3O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.96.7 (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

And a big whopping WP:AGF!! Toddst1 (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

And could someone get me a pizza? Please? HalfShadow 18:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As a note, the RPP was completed and the article protected for 3 days, and Cyberia23 posted to the article talk page and 3O, though neither is particularly nicely worded and ignores my having shown her the "proof" she demanded. Talk:How the Earth Was Made#Episode table width dispute and is continuing to make bad faith remarks on my talk page[65] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Pizza for Halfshadow! Mjroots (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

←I am attempting to mediate this dispute, which is still ongoing, but essentially revolves around setting an explicit width on a table for aesthetic reasons. There are other minor points of contention, but I am going to hang around there for a while and see if I can deescalate the argument. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

To close out the thread, despite Scjessey's fervent efforts to mediate, Cyberia23 continued with a series of personal attacks and namecalling and has unfortunately been blocked for 24 hours. Thanks to SCJ for valiant attempts. Toddst1 (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:H Debussy-Jones

This is a new account (two weeks) that obviously has been around the block regarding Wikipedia before. The talk page is collecting quite a bit of polite requests from myself, Jeni, AVraham, Bwilkins, Wildhartlivie, etc to stop making odd edits contravening WP:LAYOUT and other Wikipedia norms. The polite advice is not being taken, the talk gets archived immediately, and the stubborn behavior continues. The "new" user does not appear to recognize or accept that their changes are real problems and annoyances for people with non-standard browsers and ADA devices. There is nothing blockable here at the current time. As a warning, administrators will be acting on this in the future. Perhaps something more stern than polite requests from users might head that off. Miami33139 (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

H Debussy-Jones has been notified of this thread. Singularity42 (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

My thanks to Singularity 42 and JamieS93 for notifying me about this thread.

The status of my account has been looked into by ArbCom member John Vandenberg, who reported his findings here. Since he looked "quickly", if another CheckUser feels the need to investigate, I'm more than happy for that to happen. As I said before, for reasons of my own, all I ask is that the name of my previous account not be publicly revealed, unless the CheckUser feels it is necessary to do so.

I'm not sure there's anything else to address in Miami's post, since it all appears to be about a (potential) content dispute about style, and was posted before I'd even had a chance to read and respond to his last note on my talk page. I'm left with the feeling that the purpose of his note isn't actually to get administrator action, but to act as a cudgel to coerce me into accepting his pronouncements without discussion. I'm always more than happy to discuss my edits with other editors, but perhaps others will understand why I blanche at doing so under duress. Sach (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks and vandalism from suspected sock IP/account on American Idol

Resolved

 – both editors blocked: Billy as VOA, schoolip for vandalism after release of block Toddst1 (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Billywilliam (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 216.215.223.102 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Dear admins, Please help User:Jusdafax and I at American Idol dealing with an IP and account that I strongly suspect is the same editor:

• November 17th: User:PhilKnight blocked the IP.
• Today, the new account's sole edits have been to insult PhilKnight at American Idol for which I warned him at User_talk:Billywilliam.
• After, these warnings the previously blocked IP showed up and started making vandalism edits to the article for which I warned the IP on its talk page.

I therefore suspect that the account and IP are the same person viciously insulting PhilKnight while disrupting the page of one of the highest rated programs on television. Please help! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

School Role Accounts?

I noticed

• Special:Contributions/Gfs6gradeA
• Special:Contributions/Gfs6gradeB
• Special:Contributions/Gfs6gradeC
• Special:Contributions/Gfs6gradeD
• Special:Contributions/Gfs6gradeE
• Special:Contributions/Gfs6gradeF

I'm not sure what to do with these. They appear to be some kind of school role accounts. The edits seem constructive, but accounts like this probably run afoul of our shared account guidelines and policies. I have left a message on the talk page of the first account asking for the teacher to contact me. Gigs (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the edits are constructive, but they're probably role accounts. It may be helpful to point the teacher(s?) responsible to Wikipedia:School and university projects too.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 19:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I left that link on the talk page of the first one. Gigs (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am stunned that these "students" haven't shown forms of vandalism. Doesn't mean that I won't be keeping an eye of them. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 22:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I can see you have WP:AGF memorized. Killiondude (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

AGF, like any other policy, has to be read and applied with a bit of common sense. We all know that edits from schools are very often vandalism so I completely agree with Pickbothmanlol. RaseaC (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Like most experienced editors, I am aware of vandalism and its sources. Nevertheless, announcing that bad behavior is expected from students is an excellent way to invite it. Acting as though good behavior is expected and is the norm sometimes encourages it. WP:AGF applies to individual Wikipedia users, and can be lost only by individual Wikipedia users' behavior. Policy does not permit creating exceptions to WP:AGF for categories of users. It is not Wikipedia's policy to Assume bad faith#From IPs, Assume bad faith#From students, Assume bad faith#From liberals, or Assume bad faith#From other suspect groups. There is a word for that kind of attitude: prejudice. —Finell 02:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I created these accounts for the teacher. There are 60 students. It seemed reasonable to create only 6 accounts rather than 60. The lesson plan is how to use, and edit, Wikipedia. Fred Talk 00:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Who is using the accounts - the teacher only, or 60 students? Cirt (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There was a fair bit of discussion, including confirming (as best I understand it) that the request was bona fide, how they would be used and supervized, the class purpose, how it would be organized, and "no testing by making bad edits". The requestor gave a full summary of how they would be using it, who controls the accounts and the logon/logoffs, and the approach they'd aim to follow. However Fred Bauder's more up to date with the specifics if that matters. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be best to add a note explaining this on the user page. Triplestop x3 03:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

user:Hipocrite and WP:NPA

Resolved

 – Doesn't seem to be anything to do here and doesn't matter who was or was not acting like a dick since both parties seem to have dialed back the rhetoric. Probably best to avoid direct interaction for a little while.

--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The following personal attacks from user:Hipocrite certainly cannot be ignored[66][67]:

I'm not saying "can't we all just get along." Honestly, I wish you, and a host of other people who are interested in using this project to push their views would just shove off. I don't think you doubt for a second that you were, in fact, being a dick. Being a dick is not acceptable. If you are a dick, people, shockingly, might call you a dick. That might make them dicks also - but it certainly doesn't make you not a dick. Hipocrite (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn’t tolerate such blatant and unprovoked incivility between editors. Granted, this stemmed from a less than cordial message I left previously, but I apologized for that. WVBluefield (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If Hipocrite was a new user, he would be blocked immediatly for such attacks, statements like this should not be tolerated being said by anyone.

If no one does anything, which will probably be the case, I would say start a R F C 2, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hipocrite was in 2006. Ikip (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say you are mighty thin-skinned for what you dish out. Hipocrite called nobody a dick, he gave out good advice - "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", or, in this case, bad behavior by others is no justification for joining in. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"for what I dish out" and what exactly do I dish out? I may be less that cordial and jolly with editors with a long proven track record for edit warring and incivility, but I think had I stooped to this level I would have been banned permanently. WVBluefield (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Coming from a random editor, I'd say that you were asking for it. You can't report someone for voicing their opinion back, especially an opinion that's barely harsh at all. He didn't attack you personally, and there are far worse things to report people for. Gpia7r (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you really claiming that this was not a personal attack on me and if it was that I was aking for it? WVBluefield (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified User:Hipocrite of this discussion. Crafty (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I probably shouldn't have called him a dick so bluntly, but, let's be honest, he was being a dick. He should probably stop being a dick. I should also probably stop being a dick. In fact, a general reduction of dickish behavior would likley be a good thing. I suggest that people start with themselves, as opposed to someone else. Thanks for the feedback, I guess. Hipocrite (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

PS - I don't know why this was being brought here, as I decided I wanted nothing more to do with WVB after his parthian shot ("did I hit a nerve?"), thus resolving our interactions - there will be none. Hipocrite (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

For those who may not know it, Hipocrite is merely demonstrating the views articulated in WP:DICK. My advice to all involved is to just drop the whole thing and take the advice being discussed. No biggie in the long run, eh? --GoRight (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think over the past couple of days it has been strongly reenforced to me that wikipedia editors can justify any behavior, no matter how many rules, no matter how bad the behavior.

RE: "He didn't attack you personally"

"I don't think you doubt for a second that you were, in fact, being a dick. Being a dick is not acceptable. If you are a dick, people, shockingly, might call you a dick."

And then of course, Mr. Schulz, blames the person reporting this. Ikip (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Who is this "Mr. Schulz"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

To your last dying day! When you're a Jet, If the spit hits the fan, You got brothers around, You're a family man! Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite has acknowledged that the comment was inappropriate (albeit not in the most helpful manner since he reiterated the attack), so let's not escalate the feuding. We should all try to be as collegial and considerate as possible this holiday season. If someone gets out of line, just ask them to please focus on content and sourcing rather than other editors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior should not be tolerated. I'm disappointed with those who don't take wp:civil to heart.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Per Child of Midnight's suggestion, I have left the mild/friendly civility and assume good faith messages accordingly. Hopefully that will be sufficient. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just noticed the edit summary of "GTFO," which is abbreviated form of "get the fuck off," to be a bit needlessly hostile of a reaction to an editor's civil attempt at discussion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Tim Kaine and related legal threat.

Please see this comment and this thread at BLPN: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tim Kaine.  – ukexpat (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty bluntly a legal threat, especially the last sentence. I've indef-blocked. Got some project work to do this afternoon, so other admins are free to adjust, etc., if it's felt necessary. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Internet tough guys crack me up.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that the editor in question has posted some queries on his talk page - if others could weigh in on the comments there, I'd appreciate it. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I left them a message that they are not going to be unblocked until the retract the comment. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 07:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

HarryAlffa, yet again

I've a real concern with the manner in which HarryAlffa (talk · contribs · logs) is presenting his questions at the ArbCom election candidate statement pages. The posts use leading questions juxtaposed with out-of-context quotes from entirely unrelated discussions. I've certainly no desire to "hide" the ANI matter (it actually demonstrates the real problem) but the recent posts seem to be more for the purpose of causing trouble for people Harry has disagreed with (such as myself) rather than for serious examination of the ArbCom candidates. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified HarryAlffa of this discussion. GiantSnowman 21:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Harry does seem to have some kind of weird crusade going on lately and honestly I'm having a hard time making heads or tails out of it. Obviously his questions he had posed earlier were blatantly problematic, the latest batch are somewhat less odious but still seem to have some kind of agenda behind them. I'm not sure whether it crosses the line in to disruption and therefore warrants any kind of administrative action, but it does leave me scratching my head. Shereth 22:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Fyi - on his talk page, after I explained how he'd failed to AGF and broke CIVIL and NPA on the earlier arbcom candidate questions: [68]. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Also User:HarryAlffa/ArbCom/Wikipedia:Politeness Police which uses creative typography to call admins "cunt"s. I am leaning towards excessive disruption and exhaustion of community patience. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

He requested that be undeleted and userfied for use in an upcoming Arb case.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. But the fact remains - he has in his user space an essay article which he wrote (largely, with some additions by others), in which he in the original draft and all subsequent drafts uses typography to describe administrators as cunts.

"I'm going to use it as Arbcom evidence" is not an automatic overriding exception to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.

His arbcom case-in-waiting at User:HarryAlffa/ArbCom is further disruption.

I am extending the block to indef. The evidence that he is not by and large here to further the creation of the encyclopedia is sufficiently detailed now.

If he wants to take the pages and file them as an Arbcom case - if they take it, he can be unblocked to participate in that. If the community or another admin override, fine. But IMHO the limit was passed a few days ago. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Convenience links to earlier ANI discussions regarding HarryAlffa

• [69] August 2008 – Solar System
• [70] [71] June 2009 – WT:Linking
• [72] August 2009 – First ban proposal
• [73] August 2009 – Trans-Neptunian object
• [74] October 2009 – Aurora (astronomy)
• [75] November 2009 – WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:HarryAlffa/ArbCom
• [76] November 2009 – WP:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/Ruslik0/Questions for the candidate

HarryAlffa is at 521 article space edits (1776 total) [77] and has had three 1-week blocks. That's 1 ANI thread in 65 article space edits and 1 block in 175 article space edits. I am not convinced that the editor's reasons for being here include building an encyclopedia in a collaborative environment. It seems to be in everybody's interest that he stops wasting his time here. Hans Adler 22:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I blocked this editor for 1 month - or roughly until after the ArbCom elections are over and the results announced. This seemed like the most obvious and logical solution to a clear problem. I recommend someone remove his questions and comments from the various ArbCom nomination pages. Tan | 39 22:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I got one of the questions, and left one because Fritz had partially answered it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

...and Georgewilliamherbert extended it to indefinite. I don't particularly disagree with this, but this isn't the first time GWH overstepped. I really wish you'd stop doing that, George. At least discuss it here- or with me on my talk page, first. Tan | 39 23:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see you declared it up there. I still wouldn't mind if you at least paid lip service to "discussion with the originally blocking admin" first. Tan | 39 23:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I was doing final review and in process on deciding that when you did. If I were unblocking I'd have asked first and discussed, but a more extensive block based on more of the history didn't leap out as a "clear first", though I see in retrospect where you're coming from. I don't recall that "someone blocks for more specific and shorter duration while you're preparing a longer block, what's the etiquette" came up in the now long ago block / unblock admin courtesy discussions. But I think that I agree that notification and discussion with the first admin, except in cases where it's literally pushing block button and you don't notice at all first, would seem to be the best choice.

Without an exclusive or warning "I'm working on this" sort of coordination system we sometimes step on each other a bit, but communicating more proactively is a good thing, and I didn't do the best I could have here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have only answered one small part of the questions. I am happy for the rest of the questions asked by this user, or all of them, including my minor and inconsequential reply, to be removed by an uninvolved user. As I'm sure you'll appreciate, I don't want to fiddle with the questions being asked of me at an election. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Request on election misconduct

This particular incident seems to be wrapped up, but I'd like to encourage those who have issues with editors' conduct surrounding the ongoing ArbCom elections (or any other matters related to the elections) to drop a note at the election talkpage so that those of us trying to keep things running smoothly are aware of them and can respond quickly and consistently. Mahalo,  Skomorokh, barbarian  22:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

96.5.144.227 - school block requested

Resolved

 – Blocked 3 days, but yes, this does belong at WP:AIV. –xeno^talk 22:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing over the last few days with obscene material - IP should be blocked until interest by this person wanes. Nasnema  Chat  22:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

'We're sorry, Mario, but our Princess is in another...aw, you know how it goes...' HalfShadow 22:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagreement about what is meant by "revert"

First off, I am here seeking clarification, rather than for anything to be actually implemented. That's not to say that I'm after a hypothetical opinion or I'm asking just out of interest, but please tell me if I'm in the wrong place.

The background is this:

The article British National Party has been placed under 1RR (this has caused some controversy, but that's another story) by User:Elonka.

I asked another editor to self-revert on an edit which I believe breach that, but the user claimed his edit didn't count. Elonka seemed to back him up on this.

(The material in question has since been further edited by another user, and I now don't have a problem with it, so I'm not actually concerned about getting any action taken with regard to the originating incident).

The issue is that I'm finding it difficult to understand what defintion of the word "revert" Elonka is going by (see discussion at User_talk:Elonka#BNP). As far as I do understand it, she seems to think two things:

• 1) That admins have, in many cases, wide discretion to count or not count something as a revert based on the quality of the edit and/or whether they think the editor is in good faith;

• 2) That only edits that take things back to a state of affairs identical to one that previously existed will normally count as reverts (possibly with the exception of cases where admins use their discretion to say otherwise). For example, if editor A types "black", then B changes it to "white" then A changes it to "black" then B changes it to "blue", A has reverted, but B has not. In fact, B can go through as many colours as she or he likes, as long as they never duplicate. Elonka distringuishes B's edits as changes rather than reverts.

It may be that I am still not understanding Elonka properly, but I think I am getting close now.

It seems to me that, if Elonka's view is right, then there are all sorts of weird implications. Firstly, it looks like, if I am careful, I can evade 3RR simply by ensuring that none of my edits ever take things back to how they were previously. As long as I can think of new ways of phrasing things, new facts to add etc then, whatever else I might be doing wrong, I am immune from 3RR. Once everyone cottons on to this, then 3RR will be meaningless.

Also, it seems like Elonka thinks that admins should get actively involved in editing disputes by deciding whose edits are best and what will and won't count to their reverting tally. This surely can't be right.

Most importantly, if what counts a revert is a matter for subjective judgement how can I have confidence that the 1RR will be enforced impartially? And editors are bound to try to test the limits surely?

My view is that, with common sense exceptions (eg vandalism, typos) "revert" covers any example of one editor deleting text that was inserted by another editor. Anything else and there doesn't seem to be much point in having RR regimes.

If I'm wrong about this, I'd like at least to be able to clearly understand why and what the actual position is.

Just to point something out with regard to policy, the definition of a revert for WP:3RR is "any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part". There's another definition here: Help:Reverting "Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors". The 3RR policy specifies, however, that it is it's own defintion, not the help one that is to be used. (Why is one defintion for 3RR and one for other purposes I don't know). Surely reversing is reversing, regardless of whether you go back to an eariler version (?).

Lastly, I hope I don't give the impression of just being here to make a point. I think it's importnant and I want to be able to edit with confidence.

Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a pretty clear example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. See the extensive discussion that I've already had with FormerIP (talk · contribs) at User talk:Elonka#BNP. Recommend closing this thread. --Elonka 23:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, I heard, I just didn't agree with what I heard or get the explanations I was after, which is why I have brought it here. --FormerIP (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, Elonka's definition of a "revert" on her talk page is correct, and I'm a little confused why this isn't clear by now; she's spent quite a bit of time stating it fairly plainly. In your black-white-blue-green example above, no one has reverted. However, there is some common sense involved. If someone writes "the sky is green", then that might not be a 1RR violation, but if it's blatantly gaming the system, they can easily be blocked for gaming the system, 1RR or no. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

FormerIP, I think you have a way too rigid interpretation of the 1RR restriction. It's there to force the editors to work on the article in a cooperative manner. Blocking users because they are partially reverting each other while working in such a cooperative manner is the opposite of what it is trying to accomplish. I believe Elonka rightly took no action enforcing 1RR.--Atlan (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Good Lordy I agree with Elonka again! A revert is, clearly, a revert. A re-write is just that. And reverting by re-writing is gaming. Seems pretty clear to me. The difficulty arises when Admins have to decide which examples of re-writing are, in fact, gaming reverts. That is not an easy question. Right up there with "what is life?"! Sarah777 (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As the other involved party I shall post the 'reverts' ion question so as to give a contecxt to FormerIP's point.

First version [[78]] vsersion before former IP adds this

[[79]]I felt this was not strickley accurate as to what the source said [[80]] so changed it to this wordking.

[[81]] At no time did I revert any edits, nor return the page to a previous version. This stems from my refusal to self reveret as told top ay FormerIP[[82], this carrfied on for some time. With FormerIP basicly refusing to accept I had breached the 1RR rule (despite admiting at first I was the wrong person).Slatersteven (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Grawp sock messing up AIV

Resolved

 – Blocked 31h by zzuzzz. –xeno^talk 23:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

65.92.127.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Can someone please deal with this? Why isn't AIV semiprotected? Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 23:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't help with the first part, but AIV isn't semiprotected because that would prevent anonymous users from reporting vandalism, and we don't want to prevent anyone from reporting vandalism. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, This user is User:ScienceGolfFanatic and not Grawp. Triplestop x3 03:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible IP Address Spoofing and Script Edtting?

We have had a rash of odd looking vandalism hits in the Ancient Near East area the last month or sowhich, to me at least, seem to bear all the hallmarks of IP Address Spoofing, and perhaps of editing via scripts. I include some examples, the first ones simple, and the second group more complicated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/164.116.219.23
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.124.106.131
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/134.173.161.70
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.185.68.230
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.76.160.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/78.150.49.216
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.90.186.228
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/122.173.245.248
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/116.77.129.248
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/95.35.64.202

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.115.20.110
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.115.20.35
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.115.23.200
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.115.23.180

I would that that someone using an IP Address annonymizer like TOR, combined with an automated editting script, could cause some major damage in a hurry on Wikipedia. Perhaps there is a simpler explanation. Thoughts? Thanks. Ploversegg (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)ploversegg

The first examples seem to be just normal vandals. The edits about robots to Babylon and its talk page seem to be someone who is either very confused, or running an AI robot. The former I think. Both pages have been semi-protected, so I guess we'll have to wait and see if it reoccurs. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to ask: what would you say are the "hallmarks of IP Address Spoofing"? It isn't really possible to spoof IP addresses, you could connect via a proxy, but the IP address shown in the page history is still the true IP address you are editing under. There was one case, a long time ago, when there was a way to successfully spoof an IP, but that is no longer the case. Prodego ^talk 01:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it takes a lot of talent to spoof IPs and I doubt anyone would do it just to insert random gibberish. Triplestop x3 03:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool! I just thought I'd ask as I hadn't seen this kind of odd editting pattern before. Most likely I just didn't notice before. Thanks for your help.Ploversegg (talk) 06:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)ploversegg

Logish??

Resolved

 – user blocked for persistent hoaxing/vandalism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping someone can help me out here. A user continues to add information about a language that doesn't show up in WP [83] [84], and the only google hits come back to a blog [85]]. I don't want to go and revert the edits (I'm AGFing here), but I'm thinking that this one falls under WP:DUCK. There's also the fact that this user seems to be a vandalism only account, but it all revolves around this "Logish" so I'm hesitant to go straight to AIV and would like further input. Frmatt (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(more) I've issued this user warnings before (see the link above), but those were for obvious things (bad articles, etc...). I'm just trying to AGF here before setting them up for what will probably be an indef-block. Frmatt (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

User has been notified [86]. Frmatt (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The edit can probably be safely reverted; per Wikipedia:Lead_section#Alternative_names we don't really need to include an obscure language name. Triplestop x3 03:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

After seeing the Google cache of Praise Day, [87], I did want to revert their recent edits, so I've done it. No written language mixes Chinese characters with with such a large mix of other scripts at random. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, quite obviously a case of hoax vandalism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

He also had a speedied article on Logish language, which confirmed that it was literally "something made up in school one day". Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit war at Anarchism

Anarchism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), one of the most contentious and contended articles in the site's history, has been placid the past year or two, but a slow-burning edit war is in process at the moment. This talkpage thread has relevance. Uninvolved admin eyes solicited.  Skomorokh, barbarian  04:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you or somebody familiar with the article list the involved users with any relevant diffs for each, and state which policies you think they are violating. Then it will be possible to understand what corrective actions might be needed. Can you also notify any of those editors about this thread? Jehochman ^Talk 04:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It ain't rocket science, J.  Skomorokh, barbarian  04:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Eduen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be edit warring to add content that is opposed by multiple other editors. Is that the limit of your concerns, or are there others?

Could you notify Eduen of this thread, please. Jehochman ^Talk 05:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Eduen should be well and truly aware of this thread by now.--The Shower Singer (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Though the others involved in this edit war should also be notified. Just to be fair.--Eduen (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Consider me notified.. - 4twenty42o (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the irony is rich in reading a report titled "Edit war at Anarchism" on ANI. There ought to be a rule... Toddst1 (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That thought crossed my mind when I saw this topic pop up on recent changes.. Seriously though there are several editors there that would appreciate some insight from one of the veteran editors wandering the hallways.. - 4twenty42o (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of the article I'm leaving this one alone. Toddst1 (talk) 06:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive User Number Three

Please see the earlier thread, which links to an even earlier one. The next sockpuppet trolling my talkpage is W221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – note the similar name to Q333, and the fact that their first edit was to leave a stupid message on my talkpage. Could they be blocked, as above? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 06:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Done both, but please create a page like User talk:TreasuryTag/IPs and link it to your main talk so that IPs/new accounts not named W221 can leave you messages. :-) Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, will do. Cheers! ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 08:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Pullister

Resolved

Pullister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

Pullister created its account at 22:29, 24 November 2009[88] and then launched into the usual POV pushing and edit warring. This is not a new user. This is a user who has been here for a very long time and knows exactly how the place works. Looking at his edit summaries, we see a familiarity with Wikipedia policies and guidelines during his first 24 hours, except that he turns them on their head and doesn't actually adhere to them. I don't know who it is, but I've responded to many of his edits on his talk page with detailed explanations as to why they were reverted. I think it is obvious that this is a SPA used only for edit warring and disruptive editing. Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This is another blatant Scibaby sock (the third in 24 hours which I alone have blocked). The others were right on the same edits and same article --BozMo talk 09:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

80.58.205.98

Resolved

 – Blocked. Bencherlite^Talk 11:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping this will get eyes quicker than AIV (where he has already been reported) but this IP is in the middle of a vandal spree- he's had final warnings but continues to replace the content of a variety of pages with obscene comments. Can someone block him please? HJMitchell You rang? 11:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Help please to fix a redirect typo

Resolved

 – Fixed the redirects and the transclusions ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 13:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I made a typo when moving an AfD to match the article title, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Lawrence ((entrepreneur)) has an extra set of parenthesis. Should be (entrepreneur) not ((entrepreneur)). I don't think it's a high volume issue but it would be nice to fix. -- Banjeboi 13:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What needs fixing? You moved the page and now there's a redirect.... --MZMcBride (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't transcluding correctly at the main AfD log. It is now. ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 13:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

New user blocked

User:Black Kite has blocked a new user User talk:Boneyarddog citing (Disruptive editing: New account reverting on 1RR article; blocked as an obvious sock; may be unblocked with suitable evidence that it isn't CU will likely be useless, so not used.) This editor has made two edits one a revert and the other an explanation of their edit. Now there is no evidence that this is a disruptive editor or that it is a sock, so how can an admin just indef block a new account without any valid reason. BigDunc 13:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, I can't see any evidence of you taking this to Black Kite first, nor of Black Kite being informed about this thread after. Have I missed a couple of diffs? ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 13:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)