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

User: Gabi Hernandez

User: Gabi Hernandez has been repeatedly warned for persisent disregard of image policies, and adding controversial un-sourced material to soap opera related articles. Warned numerous times. Continues to still disregard policy. Rm994 (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This case is a bit difficult to follow, since the user has cleared off warnings from her talk page several times. But from what I'm seeing of her contributions, a block or at least a stern warning--in both cases, with the next sanction being an indefblock--is in order. Blueboy96 23:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Myself and others have tried numerous times to be patient, offering helpful advice, not assuming bad faith, but she refuses to heed warnings. She does not understand that her refusal to follow guidelines creates more work on other editors who have to "clean up" behind her. Rm994 (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Request from Chuck Marean for review of ban

Banned user Chuck Marean (talk · contribs) has asked for the following to be copied from his talk page:

Please move this appeal to ANI for consideration. I understand why I was community banned and I’ll do constructive edits instead. My community ban was because I did some major edits without a consensus and sufficient preparation. For example, I reworded a Current Events blurb to say the victims of the Madoff investment fraud had not received a government bailout (when the references merely stated they had lost a lot of money). I’ve been thinking of ways to find consensus, such as working in my user space and getting my edits reviewed, looking at edit histories to try to find out who wrote what I want to edit, mentioning the edit idea on the article’s talk page, and putting forth more effort when reading sources and writing. I apologize for editing Current Events without knowing for certain I had a consensus. Rather than asking, I supposed everyone would agree with my edit. I believe it is uncivil to call people disruptive or vandals or uncivil or stupid or not neutral or bad editors, and so forth, although I can understand a writer being upset when someone else edits or corrects his writing. So, to improve my editing, I could ask if I have a consensus and I could read the policies I haven’t read and I could find and read a book on how to find sources and so forth. I think my community ban is no longer needed, as I’ve just explained. Chuck Marean 08:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

For reference, the most recent AN/I discussion seems to be here. JohnCD (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the guy who thought it was a news item that the European Union existed. Also, the issue with Madoff was nothing to do with bailouts - the user thought it was 'biased' to report that Madoff had pleaded guilty to criminal fraud by running a Ponzi scheme, and been sentenced to a lot of years in jail for it. Marean thought the article should only say that Madoff had somehow managed to accidentally go bankrupt. Basically, he did a lot of edits that inserted utter nonsense (or possibly an alternative reality of some kind) into articles, causing a lot of time end effort to be wasted. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Unban request does not show that he understands the problems with his edits, and as Elen states above, it also misrepresents the proximate reason for the ban. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Yes, I was the Admin who blocked him. However, reviewing the WP:AN/I thread that led me to this sanction, I find that he simply didn't get it then & I have to wonder whether he even gets it now. (WP:NPOV doesn't mean that if someone confesses to a crime, experts have verified that he did the crime, & a legal court found him guilty & threw the book at him for the crime, Wikipedia must say something a lot less definite & incriminating.) But if he can find a mentor who will help him understand the actual problem, I'm willing to withdraw my objection. But according to the earlier thread, he already burnt out one mentor by that point. -- llywrch (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No per that AN/Bernie Madoff thing that got him banned in the first place. I'm sorry, lack of clue is one thing, but complete and willful ignorance is another. –MuZemike 18:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

But enough about [personal attack on politician redacted]. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMPETENCE. I remember the ban and this editor just isn't able to be productive. I think he actually means well, but as mean as it is, even well-meaning people who harm the encyclopedia can't be allowed to edit it. -- Atama頭 02:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose after reading the long AN thread; I think he still doesn't get it. There's a large gulf between being bold and being completely wrong. Mr. Marean was completely wrong, to the point that not even the person whom he cast in a better light Bernie Madoff would agree with his edits. Big deal; revert and move on; except that Mr. Marean didn't get it at that point, and continued on AN to insist he was correct in his edits. Even in this unblock request there is an undercurrent of 'you just didn't understand my edits'. Further, that he wants to be unbanned and read policies is again, wrong. Read the policies first, understand them, and (now that his talk page is unlocked), try proposing edits there. If he can propose constructive edits that actually line up with reality for a while, then ask to be unbanned. Until he proves he can make constructive edits, I can't help but think this request is putting the cart before the horse. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Quite simply put, I believe he is simply saying what he thinks needs to be said in order to get unblocked. He still has not admitted that he made any mistake, simply chalking up this to 'not having consensus'. I'd like to say that a mentor could help, but if he can't understand what was wrong with the edits by now, I don't think a mentor will be much of a help. Sodam Yat (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I remember him, oppose, as mentioned above WP:COMPETENCE. One doesn't get community banned for a minor disagreement on the rules. A willfully ignorant and incompetent person, who I thought quit possibly was just a really clever troll playing Forrest Gump.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

[2]I think this article should be called Elizabeth II of England, because whoever heard of the United Kingdom? Everybody knows what England means. It’s the southern half of one of the British Isles. I know which one my money's on. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

'Whoever heard of the United Kingdom'?! You're shitting your Uncle HalfShadow, right? That's Newfie joke dumb. HalfShadow 20:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, he's either too incompetent, or a plain ole garden variety...... you get the point. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Nobody lost money underestimating the intelligence of the US public," to quote one of our sages. We have people who doubt Hawaii is part our nation, so I'm no longer surprised at the ignorance of my fellow citizens. (I don't know what those eople think the 50th state is in that case. Canada? God, if that were the case, I hope those 34 million people would rate more than 2 senators & 2 representatives.) -- 21:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's the 50th of our 57 states, don't forget. -- Atama頭 23:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Err... 57 states? I think you'll find there are at least 60. The 50th is Hawaii, and the 51st is Whoever-Heard-of-the-United-Kingdom. Rapido (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Reject appeal; he still doesn't get it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Oh sweet Jesus, oppose. This is one we do NOT want back. --Smashville^talk 22:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose He's either monstrously stupid or a clever troll; either way, we can do without him. HalfShadow 22:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Weak Oppose I feel bad for the guy, but I have to concur with the above. It's not worth the effort if he is going to act like that. Wikipedia is not for everyone. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment It's worth mentioning that the user has requested mentorship (on the condition of their return) on their talk page. Swarm^(Talk) 01:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I note that the diff he cites as some of his best work was immediately reverted for destroying the formatting [3] on the Character Formatting section of How to edit a page. I think he would need a tutor, not a mentor. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I've been misreading, but didn't he have a mentor when he was blocked? --Smashville^talk 16:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I seem to remember something like that, and maybe something about them giving up in frustration. [4], ah ha, yup, here it is. I think it was actually part of the reason this editor retired last year. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what: In the interests of fairness (just in case Chuck has had a Flowers for Algernon experience, how about asking him (a) to say how he'd explain now what Madoff had done (because I honestly still don't think he understands); (b) to explain why he now thinks that changing the article title to Queen Elizabeth II of England would be a bad idea; and (b)select a couple of topics where he'd like to make edits, and tell us what those edits would be. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, he's answered [5]. There's definitely a WP:COMPETENCE issue here - a troll would have given much better answers. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Another piece of information Chuck's request for a mentor did receive a response, so I asked that person "do you know what you are volunteering for?" After a second look, the mentoring offer was withdrawn. (This Wikipedian should not be shamed or embarrassed for his generous offer: he sincerely wanted to help, but once he understood his challenge, realized he didn't have the spare time expected to help someone like Chuck.) It would take someone with a lot of patience & experience to help someone like Chuck to be a productive contributor, & anyone I can think of with those qualities is already fully committed -- or would be of more valuable use doing something else, for example refereeing any of the numerous ethnic/national content conflicts on Wikipedia. I'm beginning to think it's time to put a fork in this thread -- llywrch (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Anyway, as he now says he thinks Wikipedia is only for reading, he doesn't need to be unblocked for that. (At least I think that's what he said. It's rather hard to follow) Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Nah, they said they plan on reading up on the manual of style and policy. Anyway, it doesn't look like their ban has a snowball's chance of getting lifted, and consensus is unanimous. Can we consider this an official "no"? Swarm^(Talk) 22:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Matt Lewis

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

---

I need to say up front that I am very much not an unbiased party to this, but could someone take an objective look at this comment on another editor's talk page: [6]? User notified: [7]. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I've forgiven Matt. GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

GD, you should be taking note too - you simply change track too much, and too easily sometimes. It's really disconcerting. I was pushed into losing my rag today by Tryptofish, and I think this is just a thinly veiled attempt to get me out of his way. Why speak for someone else otherwise? He has canvassing people today to revert me past where he can go (being up to 3RR) - that says it all I think. As it happens, GoodDay is one of the few friends I have on Wikpedia (if I have that many) so talking to him in that manner is something I wouldn;t do to Joe editor. He can say or do whatever he wants in reply. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I still think the comment was beyond the bounds of CIVIL, and nothing said above makes it acceptable, nor does Matt seem to understand that it was not acceptable. Yes, Matt and I are at odds with one another, but no, I did not make this report to get Matt "out of the way". And that canvassing claim is a very big stretch. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I want to add that I am only at 2 reversions in the matter to which Matt refers. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "big stretch" at all - It was cut and dry. If I filed it with evidence you would be pulled up on it, esp given the context. I just don't capitalise on people's mistakes the way you clearly do. You clearly asked two editors on their Talk pages, one after the other, to help you when you were on 2RR. One had already stated he wasn't interested on editing on the article, the other hadn't edited it for a while. Your relief when another editor did eventually assist you was palpable. You said you had almost given up! Then you file this AN/I on the very person you wanted reverted!

It's continual abuse of the spirit of Wikipedia by someone who never seems to properly adhere to the rules. It's like they are not there to you, as if you've seen to much in life to be effected by trivial technicalities, and you feel that CDA is 'far too important' to Wikipedia to be held back by awkward hindrances like abiding by the wider consensus, and technical editing rules. I'm bang on here - I've seen you too long now.Matt Lewis (talk) 10:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I consider the matter closed. GoodDay (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That is generous of you GoodDay. For the record, whilst I may have led a sheltered life, User:Matt Lewis is without question the most uncivil regular editor of Wikipedia I have ever come across. See for example, User talk:Matt Lewis#RfC/U notice, the background to which was an RfCu he took out against me. Whether or not that was justified is another matter, and clearly as I am an involved party I intend to say nothing further unless requested to do so. Whatever the outcome here I can only suggest that uninvolved parties pay some attention to this ongoing issue before it escalates further. Ben MacDui 13:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I became aware of the RfC/U when I went to Ben MacDui's talk page. It was never certified and I offered to close it (when I finally did 71 hours had passed, much longer than the required 48 hours). For this I received a fair amount of invective from Matt Lewis, whom I strongly urge to focus more on writing the encyclopedia and less on drama. If this is the way he treats his friends, continued behavior of this sort seems destined to lead to blocks or worse. His work on articles is good, and he should focus more on that. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Matt Lewis hasn't made a substantive edit to an article for weeks. He's been doggedly engaged with CDA since December, and this took over from an obsession with the British Isles Naming controversy. Matt, are you here to build an encyclopedia or to create drama? Fences&Windows 15:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, sorry for not pointing this out in my previous comment. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ask anyone involved in the British Isles naming controversy and ask them if I'm "obsessed". This is kangaroo court now. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

(speaking as someone who has recently run into Matt Lewis during the CDA process) Matt Lewis has an unfortunate tendency to fly off the handle at the slightest provocation, mistaking disagreement and differences of opinion for personal attacks on him. This thread on Matt's talk page is unfortunately illuminating. Matt filed the (above-mentioned) ill-advised RfC/U; three days later it was deleted by Ruhrfisch after failing to attract a second certifier. Normally, this would be a bit of uncontroversial housekeeping. Matt's immediate response was to attack Ruhrfisch and threaten another RfC/U ("this time [with] some oomph behind it") aimed at Ruhrfisch.

• This thread seemed to have a bit of tension behind it, but it was chugging along until Matt burst out with his "All this work you are making me do...is frankly an abuse of another human being".
• This discussion is interesting. Matt had started a poll about how to word some portion of the CDA text. When later analysis found that the poll outcome was ambiguous, he began going around asking the editors who had voted in the poll to clarify their intentions. (So far, so good, if a bit bureaucracy-heavy.) Matt's stubborn insistence on having Sswonk guess at his state of mind at the time he voted is counterproductive, as is his attitude in the ensuing discussion.
• This thread contains another pair of RfC/U threats, this time aimed at Tryptofish (another CDA proponent). "...I'll tell you right now that if I'm not happy with your reasons for disputing people's clarifications (and there is no way that I could be I'm afraid) I will take you to rfc/u and put eveything I have behind it." "If he does I will use an rfc/u on him..."
• From the same page, a few days later. In an ironic twist, I believe he's overreacting to my observation that he doesn't have a good grasp of when RfCs are appropriate, or an understanding of what happened to his uncertified RfC/U of Ben MacDui. This time, it's a screaming threat (my italics, but otherwise his formatting: "IF YOU EVER GROSSLY MISREPRESENT ME DIRECTLY LIKE THIS AGAIN I WILL TAKE AN RFC/U OUT ON YOU. I AM ALLOWED TO DO THAT. DO NOT SUGGEST THAT I AM NOT!. Who are you to suggest that people are not allowed to do as many RFC/u's they feel they need to?"

He sees Wikipedia's dispute resolution tools as blunt instruments — cudgels to be used to try to get his own way. (In the last two weeks, he's threatened three RfC/Us, and filed one more.) It's a decidedly destructive and disruptive attitude. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I commented on you saying that before, and now I will issue a Warning on your talk page. I've taken far too much of your anger towards CDA, and you are basically an aggressive man. In short, I've had it up to my neck with your endlessly sour comments that blame me for every little 'damning' detail you either see, or think you see. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I've known Matt on wiki for a couple of years now and very early on had a wee run in with him. I have come to realise though that Matt is here because he wants to improve Wikipedia, whether that's articles or in this case policy. I have also come to realise that he can come across occasionally as a little confrontational but, I believe that's because he really cares about this project. I think it would progress things further if everyone laid off the 'he said that but he said this' type of discussion. If everyone could draw a line under any bad feeling from before and talked in a more collegiate manner then this Ani thread could be archived. Anyone? Jack forbes (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Jack, I appreciate what you say in a way, but please don't remind me of our 'run in'! It reminds me of what people can achieve when they set out to get someone blocked (which you did admit later was your intention at the time). I swore while arguing with you, you were upset and told an admin you would resign, and bang, a block. It tought me a lessson, and I've been as careful as I can not to swear at anyone ever since. But we both know what GoodDay can be like with his sudden retractions, and I'm supposed to be one of those giving him advice. I do take the responsibily for asking his opinion in the first place (which I so very much value, before he so-bizarrely always changes it anyway), but it's the pressure from people here that lead me to lose my temper. Tryptofish, Jasdafax and Tenofall are bullies in their way - and they are all here doing a job on me. The evidence of all our behaviour is out there, and I'm happy to stand by all of it. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Jack, for what it's worth, I share your impression that Matt is motivated by a sincere desire to improve Wikipedia. But I see a chasm between the desire and the conduct, and that chasm is hardly wee. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A chasm? After the way behaved yesterday? I have always stood by policy - when have you? Seriously. When have you on CDA? You've placed CDA in some kind of 'twilight zone' where policy is concerned. My responses to you have always been just that - responses, based entirely on what you have said or what you have done. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

He is not the least civil wikipedian. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Faint praise Kitty(!?), but welcome I suppose. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is claiming that at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Jack, I must respectfully disagree. I also am hardly uninvolved, but I feel I must fully agree with Tryptofish and others who express deep concerns. As just one example, Matt Lewis has come to my talk page with shocking and hostile contempt for me and my beliefs. He also repeatedly violates my request to respect my wishes that he refrain from further posting on my page... the only person I have ever had to ask this of. I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that one is entitled to keep unwelcome parties from repeatedly disfiguring one's own talk page.

Looking at some of the other diffs here, of which I suspected but was previously unaware, reinforces my impression of a classic internet bully. Ben MacDui is correct, the time has come for uninvolved eyes to assess the ongoing methods of an editor I now view as overdue for strong corrective behavior. Ten of All Trades, Rhurfisch and Fences and Windows also make good observations. My thanks in advance for any consideration others can give to this matter. Jusdafax 19:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Jusdafax, that is full of exagerations designed solely to stick mud on me. You banned me from your talk simply because you didn't like me continuing to develop CDA, and you would not listen to my arguments. Jusdafax and TenofallTrades arevery much involved in this matter. Jusdafax - where do you get off man? Do you treat people in the real world with the contempt you have towards me for strongly disagreeing with your very much un-hidden attempts to ignore all consensus regarding CDA? What is it about CDA that people feel it is their right be 'tough' and ignore policy? The quality of people invlolved in CDA makes me seriously wonder if Wikipedia can handle such a serious process. Would you do this to an admin to try and get rid of him, Jusdafax? That is a serious question. You keep commenting publically that I have personally destroyed CDA, but all my work has been to various people's concerns. All this is really making me think really hard about whether CDA can possibly work, given not the 'angry rabble', but simply Wikipedians in general. Are Wikipedians in general wise enough to use CDA wisely? 20:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be overly concerned. I've seen a whole lot worse and more get swept under the rug in the past. Goodday seems to have wanted to let this go and so it should be done. If any of you had previous concerns, then it should have brought up then, not now. Too many here seem to take editing wikipedia way too seriously. It should be a part time hobby, rather than an obsession. Now lets all move on.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm struggling to let this go myself now. The fact that I stand up for myself (or have lost my temper on occasions) does not mean that I've not been treated like crap. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I started this thread, and so perhaps I should now say the following about where we stand. Clearly, GoodDay is satisfied that the matter is over, and I also think that there is now zero rationale for any kind of preventative block; indeed, a good outcome would be for Matt to contribute usefully to the CDA debate. However, I think the comments of multiple editors here have set a marker. Matt should take away from this that he has been warned to control his anger, and to avoid the conduct described above. If he should fail to do so in the future, then sections like this one will appear again, with more serious outcomes. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A few seconds after I wrote that, Matt wrote his own comments here. Perhaps I spoke too soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: This AN/I has actually demonstrated why CDA just cannot work. Ironically, it's pretty much (and as close as we'll get to) the 'working example' that Kim Brunning wanted. It's amazing that it took this to bring it home to me.

Think about it: How this AN/I was started - not even by the 'supposed' victim. The way people I've disagreed with have just 'popped up' to stick the knife in. The things they have said - the exaggerations and sheer length they are willing to go (even with evidence of their own behaviour). Their mates coming in to join them (I can prove this). The fact that I'm not someone who ever wants to reverse AN/I on people (depite what people are saying, and what I've had to do in CDA at times).

Basically, we have 6 of the 10 CDA 'signatures' already. It's just too easy to bring a good man down.

Four people speaking against me here are admin, and what MacDui has said above has personally shocked more than anything on Wikipedia (which kind of echoes his own words). And an admin underneath him almost-unbelievably painted me an "obsessive editor" over the 'British Isles naming dispute' I've worked so very hard to help resolve! What on earth is that about? Are people not allowed to help Wikipedia?? MacDui comments were a stab and a half - what if admin behave like this at a CDA? How can the Bureaucrats realistically 'save' an admin that other admin line up against? Where does it leave those admin if the admin is 'saved'? Admin themselves (so sadly ironically) just do not behave well enough for CDA to work.

The RfC/u I filed on MacDui was over one thing - policy. In starting CDA behind everyone's back (and reverting my objection) he abused policy big time. All my edits at CDA have been over policy in some way, often above what I would rather see, and all addressing the concerns I've seen people raise (including the always-angry Tenofalltrades - and who else has done that?). I've cried "consensus people!" countless times now at CDA. But too many people so 'into' CDA just don't want to get their own 'obsession' out there. There seems to be no taste for properly addressing the central Canvassing matter at CDA, other than from me. That in itself should be concerning enough.

CDA as it stands (and possibly any form of CDA) will be just like this very AN/I. Who wants that? Do we really want this ? I'm a decent editor - the very nightmare scenario for CDA. There must be better a form of Admin Recall out there than this.

Run the early CDA, or whatever version of CDA you want to - my vote is to Oppose. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If anyone's interested, it's all about the speed other admin came to blanket-support MacDui here. Canvassing is the only thing that can make CDA work, but it won't work against admin and the way they interact with each other. Where will that leave the Bureacrats who are supposed to judge daft admin attacking admin? CDA will simply stink before, during, and after the process. And the liklihood of a decent admin having to endure the indignity of a CDA is simply just too strong, strong editor canvassing rules or no (and it looks like it will be 'no').

The irony (almost too strong to see) is that it's the general poor quality of admin (not wickedness as such, just poor quality) that makes CDA an unworkable solution, not simply the "mob rule" of editors, which is typically brought to light by CDA's critics. No Bureaucrat will want to deal with it in such a public forum. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think your answer is plain: you're now here only for the drama, even if you don't realise it. You are not some kind of martyr, and WP:CDA will not destroy Wikipedia. Remember those things called articles? You should go and edit some. Fences&Windows 00:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As I strongly complained to you on your Talk page the first time you said I don't edit enough articles (which is rubbish), this second time must simply to have a 'pop' and wind me up at the same time. It is typical admin auto-WP:ABF towards someone who's actually edited all over Wikipedia. Drama is effectively not caring what the boring truth really is - so who is it who's being dramatic here? I've created articles, edited over all kinds of areas, and done a variety of things on Wikipedia, including improve guidelines, and plenty of non-article stuff. I'm not running for the sheriff badge, so there is no reason I should have to do anything just to please someone like you anyway. In my opinion there is SHOCKING 'administration' around here, and it's getting more and more easy to say as times go by on Wikipedia. It's called not having a leg to stand on.

The above long statement is me bowing out of something I've put over 100 hours of productive work into (a lot of which is still there, improving a CDA which cannot work). It is called dedication and hard work. WTF should I 'edit articles' in between? I chose to make the statement here, as this is where I had the epiphany. Standing by the sidelines and being negative or cynical is no work at all - I've put in serious hard work listening to people and working on solutions - and I've got crap for it all the way from pop shops like you. CDA has attracted too few serious editors. It is not attractive enough, and this actual AN/I has proved to me that it cannot work. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedia is not therapy. Perhaps this thread has reached the end of its usefulness. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Which reads, Wikipedia is not therapy. If a user has behaviour problems that disrupt the collective work of creating a useful, encyclopedic reference, then the editor's participation in Wikipedia may be restricted or banned. These problems may be caused by personal immaturity, an inability to properly apply Wikipedia's policies, poor social skills, or other reasons.

And you think that is an equal and fair response to my comment above? Don't feel too comfortable by the gang, Tryptofish.

Those kind of essays so rarely get used in good faith do they. If you believe I'm mentally unstable and deserve a block, you ought to have the courage to openly say it, and not insinuate it through a cute link. This AN/I was a shocking thing to do to someone, and you knew by the time you did how GoodDay felt too - you should really be seriously ticked off for bringing him into it, when you knew full well that he didn't want to do it. It was just pure opportunism, after canvassing for meat puppets (belated apology or no) had failed to get you what you wanted. I've always had Policy on my side - and it is easy to show how you have consistently contravened it, esp by constantly ignoring clear consensuses - so you won't get me blocked for any thing I've done wrong, you will only get me blocked by winding me up and trying to make me lose my rag. I'm not great at spotting that, and I do wonder if you haven't been doing that for a while now. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Would an administrator close this report, please? GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't require an admin. Archiving at the wish of all parties. Looie496 (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

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

WikiClique

An apparent Serbian nationalist account, User:FkpCascais, and yet another sock IP (193.206...) are actively plotting ways to see how they may do harm to me and/or my reputation. [8] I've already been attacked by the creation of an offensive mock account, User:DIREKTOR SPLIT. [9] They seem to think I am a "notorious Croat nationalist propagandist", even though the last bunch who shared their goals were Croats accusing me of "anti-Croatian" edits (they are both wrong obviously, and this is why I may be a frequent thorn in the side of Balkans nationalist agendas). User:FkpCascais' edits happened to get blocked into place on the Chetniks article, and taking that as a validation of his revert-warring method of inserting unsourced controversial edits, the User has spread his POV-pushing activities to other "unsuspecting" articles, again entering POV Balkans nationalist edits contrary to presented sources and contrary to consensus.
(The editors are generally pushing for the removal of mention of the fact that the WWII Serbian nationalist movement, the Chetniks, have in fact collaborated with the Germans. This is unsourced, and is contrary to a large number of scholarly publications.)

The small "clique" is another in a long line of folks who seems to believe the best way to expedite their agenda on the Balkans articles is to provoke me and get me out of their way post haste by ganging up and listing out-of-context any negative aspect of my editing they can possibly find (in addition to the by now customary edit-warring and harassing used for the promotion of their goals and agendas). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

And what are admins supposed to do here? Btw, DIREKTOR, what is your relationship with User:PRODUCER? You have quite an overlap in your editing:[10]. Fences&Windows 14:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I rather think he hopes admins will apply the spirit of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions or one of the other ArbCom decisions regarding the various nationalistic disputes centred around Eastern Europe and/or the Balkans. I believed it common knowledge that there are blocs of editors who are "enthusiastically engaged in promoting certain viewpoints while deprecating those of others not so similarly enthused by use of their editing of articles and other spaces" and other editors such as DIREKTOR and PRODUCER who also edit largely within that group of articles. Requests at Admin Noticeboards for intervention in a real or imagined policy or restriction violation is quite common (although generally directed at DIREKTOR than by him). Perhaps it has only been me that noticed them these last few months? Oh, well, I may as well take a look... LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have warned both parties at User_talk:FkpCascais#DIREKTOR and the ip's talkpage. I would note that neither were advised of this discussion, so have linked to it within my warning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Fences&Windows, you made a very good point. There is very real possibility that User:PRODUCER is a sock puppet of User:DIREKTOR. I think that this claim should be investigated by an administrator as soon as possible. We all know what must happen if this claim is true. --Иван Богданов (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Now the above is much more typical of the usual DIREKTOR related posts to the noticeboards - a whole lot of innuendo and nothing (such as another SPI request) to back it up. Иван Богданов, please consider yourself under the same restrictions as FkpCascais above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm too much busy to launch an SPI request myself, but someone else should do that. Thanks to Fences&Windows, evidence to back it up is here - [11]. Similarity is just too big to be an coincidence, isn't it? --Иван Богданов (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You think? No chance of simply two editors who contribute to similar areas? Any other "coincidences"? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

And they just have to be named for movie supervisory positions, in all caps. parallel evolution?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

There a number of copycat similarities between their userpages as well, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are the same person. I found a similar situation with User:Comrade Graham and User:Chargh, who signs himself as "Comrade Hamish Wilson"—they are twins. At my suggestion they added that info their pages. Pcap ping 12:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I am constantly being accused of being Serb nationalist and a vast number of similar nonsence. We have a very big problem here. User:Direktor just gathered Croatian made sources that (with some minor manipulation) cover his pushing of an entire movement (the Chetniks) and their commander, D. Mihailović, being considered a Nazy collaborators. The problem here is that by my edits, that simply clarify that the situation is not that simple, are putting in danger the personal interess of one editor (direktor) in doing his best to show them as Hitlers best friends... Direktor, as a Croat, and Tito enthusiast (Yugoslav Communist dictator), obviously pushes the articles to a total denegration of a Serbian Monarchic resistence movement, and its leader. Mihailovic was even condecorated by the USA and France for his efforts in WWII (a post-mortum trial was also held in the USA), so how can he be showed simply as collaborator? Aren´t we having here a completely different version, an article recently edited by one editor, in his way, and a complete blocking of any attempt made to try to put the article in a more NPOV way??? Please, don´t get too emotional with Direktors obvious manipulation and just see the facts. Other people have also contacted me in my talk page complaining abpout him, and, I didn´t knew, it was his 4th blocking! I have never had one before... His edits and the insistence in a sole collaboration side of the story are very untrouth and offensive to me (as a Serb-Jew) and to the USA and France politics (meaning they condecorated a Nazy friend, how ridicoulos. Please, can someone chek this. FkpCascais (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think anyone that has any knowledge of the activities of User:PRODUCER and myself knows that PRODUCER is not my sock. I mean, feel free to check up on that if you like, but this isn't the first time this issue has surfaced. I've reported and/or participated in the block of lierally dozens of socks "of all shapes and sizes" during my years on Wiki, and even if I were stupid enough to create a sock, I certainly would not call it "User:PRODUCER" when my account is "User:DIREKTOR". Also, my account is not named after a movie supervisory position - it is not in English (note the "K"). My username around here means something like "executive". But all this is besides the point... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's within the realms of possibility that one of the Direktor/Producer usernames was creating having seen the other as inspiration, but I believe that's as far as it goes (if that). I've never suspected them to be accounts operated by one editor. It's true that Direktor has also occasionally crossed the WP:3RR bright line, but I've always found them to be reasonable and cooperative and their block log should not be taken as an indication that they aren't editing productively and in good faith. I'd echo LessHeard vanU; if there are specific allegations you'd like to make, file an SPI; otherwise, please drop the accusations. WP:DR has some useful suggestions for resolving content disputes. EyeSerene^talk 09:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I just launched an SPI request (it can be seen here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DIREKTOR) about this issue. I hope that this request would help to put an end to speculations about User:DIREKTOR, User:PRODUCER and the relationship bethween them. I also hope that answers to these questions would be known to us very soon. --Иван Богданов (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Proofreader77

Unresolved

 – Pages blanked by User:Gwen Gale, but...

I realize and respect the fact that User:Rodhullandemu's blocking of PR77's use of his talk page was reverted based on him being an involved admin, but I feel the time may have come for someone uninvolved to examine that question. I have this user's talk page watchlisted so that I can see when there are any actual developments or unblock requests, but the user keeps using his talk page for things like this, posting rhetoric to support his behavior and posting "status updates" when nothing has actually changed. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:20, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)

With due respect they don't seem to be WP:Hearing that the, to borrow a word from the Arbcom case, bizarre communication after repeatedly being told to knock it off is unhelpful and disruptive. It may make sense to apply a short block or some alternative way that they can email for unblock if such a system is acceptable and also won't be abused. -- Banjeboi 20:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'd just leave it until the steam runs out and in a month or so archive it all. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. No one is unblocking him; he is de facto banned from this site. After everyone has forgotten all about him, we'll bag and tag the pages. Tan | 39 00:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• No need to unblock him (ever) and no need for the talk page to be unblocked either when it is being misused. Lock it down and let him email his unblock requests in. Clear misuse of the talk page when blocked calls for it to be locked down. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Good riddance. Maybe now he'll think about his approach and hopefully see what he did wrong, and why it was wrong, and promise to never do it again if unblocked(although unlikely).— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I love the overpoliteness on Wikipedia. "Good riddance! Maybe now he'll um... you know, see that he was wrong and promise to be better. Yeah!" Hehe... Just saying. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:12, 21 Feb 2010 (UTC)

The user was getting on my nerves, to say the least with his incessant refusal to admit he had done any wrong, or was in the wrong at all.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone want to clean out the peculiar user subpages? In particular, SandboxA is bordering on an attack page and serves only to celebrate an unwelcome attitude. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I did send it to MfD a while back, but I withdrew after he got advice to keep such evidence gathering off-site. Obviously he didn't follow through. Pcap ping 08:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thought about it at the time, but I'm neutral on keeping the sub-pages for a few weeks: I shut down and tagged the user and talk pages because he was using them only to soapbox, rather than talking about what might be done towards an unblock. Given he can still email admins and arbcom about all this, while I guess it's unlikely he'll be unblocked anytime soon, I didn't think things had yet gotten to the threshold of a clean sweep through his userspace. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I "courtesy blanked" the content. It remains in the history. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppets?

Resolved

 – Not Proofreader77

xx.xxx.xxx.xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Perhaps, perhaps not, either way, I think it's a little strange for this IP to come out of nowhere and return 77's page to normal, where they have never edited such a page before. Would a CU mind looking into this?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

[Insert your favorite obscene oath here.] Gimmetrow upped this jerk's block to a month; I extended it to indefinite. It's one thing to call people "idiots" or even "fucking morons". It's another to throw inexcusable slanderous comments around as this anon did. Whoever this anon is, he/she/it can find something else to do than edit Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

IP's usually aren't blocked indefinitely, because the person behind a particular IP can change. Also, unfortunately, vandals say things like that all the time. Evil saltine (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Fwiw, based on the geo-location and the communication style, I doubt that this is Proofreader's sock. More likely, IMO, to be someone who holds a grudge against Gwen Gale and just went about insulting her and undoing her edits at Proofreader's page. Abecedare (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've had word through email, from another admin who looked into this wholly unbidden by me, that a CU has found, so far as they can tell, that there is no link at all between the IP and Proofreader77, which I take as happy news. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Nefer Tweety

User Arab Cowboy used a sockpuppet to repeatedly violate his topic bann and restriction. He also went to the Asmahan talkpage to defend his own edits he had made as the other account. Because of this he was topic banned for half a year from the articles and talkpages involved in the case.

The account Nefer Tweety has repeatedly removed the strike outs from the sockpuppet comments that user Arab Cowboy did. I would like to point out that the Asmahan article is on probation.

Copt: [12][13]

Coptic Identity: [14] [15]

Asmahan: [16][17] "to get rid of you and your sick stalking." this article is on probation and im sure this comment is disruptive and a violation of the principles of the case. Account Nefer Tweety has several times violated the principles with no action taken against him: [18]

While removing the strike outs he also defends Arab Cowboys sockpuppet claiming it is not a sockpuppet although it has already been confirmed by several admins that it is: [19] [20] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Response by Nefer Tweety

The complaining editor, Supreme Deliciousness, was convicted of meatpuppetry on the same page, Talk:Asmahan, for making the exact same edits “corrections” to which another editor has responded.

Arab Cowboy attempted to stop Supreme Deliciousness’s stalking by using a legitimate, fresh start account. So, if there was any puppeting involved, it was the meatpuppeting on the part of the complaining editor.

On Talk:Copt and Talk:Coptic identity, Supreme Deliciousness continues to stalk another editor and strike out his edits for no legitimate reason. He had no previous input to those articles at all and only continues to strike through the other editor’s comments as a form of harassment by stalking, which is the main violation of the principle of Decorum of the Asmahan case. I am not subject to the remedies or principles of the Asmahan case, but Supreme Deliciousness is, and he has been violating those principles through meatpuppetry and harassment of other editors.

Supreme Deliciousness should be permanently banned from Wikipedia for his persistent disruptive practices and harassment by stalking. Nefer Tweety (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

There has been no meatpuppet invitation, and I have already been blocked for that misunderstanding when I asked a neutral editor to get involved.[21] This ANI request is about your violation of the principles, and you removing the strike outs from comments made by a confirmed sock puppet. Comments that a sockpuppeteer did defending his own edits. After he created the second account he simultaneously continued to use the Arab Cowboy account editing articles and making posts at talkpages with both accounts at the same time and to repeatedly violate his topic ban and restriction with the other account.

The admins have already concluded that it was not a clean start attempt [22] [23] Therefor his bann was not lifted. And yes, you are subject to the principles of the case as you have been mentioned as an involved member of the scope of the case and you have been warned before by an admin for violating the principles. [24] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Nefer Tweety blocked 24 hours

Per my rationale at User talk:Nefer Tweety#Your editing privileges have been suspended for 24 hours. I am unconvinced by the logic of Nefer Tweety's response - an editor that is topic banned is not permitted to have their edits (or that of their sockpuppet) reinstated; otherwise the ban is pointless. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Without opining on the merits of the block, we need a less black/white rule about this: I had a devil of a time once where a banned editor made a good edit/addition to an article that improved the article substantially, got reverted because the banned editor was banned, and then was told that I could not independently choose to so much as add the source that the banned editor used with my own words, because then I was "reinstating a banned editor's edits." It's not like banned editors have leprosy, and we shouldn't cut off our noses to spite our faces if the underlying edits improve the encyclopedia. THF (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You are allowed to take personal responsibility for such an edit, but you (especially you as a known activist in some areas) should not assume that your judgement of what is a good source is necessarily unbiased. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

What Guy said - an independent editor may take ownership of an edit previously made by a banned editor, usually in respect of a content contribution (per Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Editing on behalf of banned users). It should be apparent that the new "owner" has confirmed the veracity of the content, and its compliance with policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

In the case of the Nefer Tweety account, it is far from being an independent editor, he have a long history of performing the same edits as Arab Cowboy which can been seen here: [25] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU, your judgment was misguided. I am not topic-banned on the Copt and Coptic identity and I was not banned from editing Asmahan at the time Medjool was used. So, at least on Copt and Coptic identity, I could have reinstated those edits myself. Supreme Deliciousness had no business striking out my edits on those pages and as NT correctly pointed out, he just did it for harassment. Medjool was indeed a CLEANSTRAT account regardless of what others think. I did not defend my case against the charge of sock puppetry for reasons that I will not disclose at this time, however the charge was absolutely false. For you to build upon that false charge is propagating that falsehood. I ask you to please reinstate Nefer Tweety and stop Supreme Deliciousness's violation of the Principles of Asmahan through the harassment of other editors. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

My review of the case is that you are topic banned from articles relating to Asmahan broadly construed - that is relating to ethnic or cultural identity in the region - and Medjool has been indef blocked as your sock, which indicates that it was used contrary to WP:CLEANSTART. Therefore you were incorrect to have used Medjool to edit Copt/Coptic identity and Nefer Tweety should therefore not re-instated the edits. I see in all these matters your interpretation is at odds with everyone else (except where it limits Supreme Deliciousness' editing). Please try to understand, your viewpoint of what is appropriate is what is at issue - at least Nefer Tweety seems to have accepted my rationale. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The comments here show that Arab Cowboy used his sock puppet to repeatedly violate his topic bann and restriction and the arb admins have concluded that there was no "clean start" attempt. He used his sockpuppet to perform several edits at Coptic and Coptic Identity against his topic bann and restriction. Nefer Tweety, after he removed the strike outs from the puppet comments at Asmahan (which Arab Cowboy is banned from including talkpage) Coptic and Coptic Identity talkpages, Nefer Tweety also carried out the same edits as Arab Cowboy had made with his sock puppet in violation of his restriction and topic bann at the Coptic article and Coptic identity article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for a very trivial request

Administrator User:Gamaliel is WP:HOUNDing me on pages he has never edited before, like Talk:American Liberty League, and when I complain about his inappropriate behavior, he posts cover-ups over my talk-page comments while making personal attacks against me and threatening me. Might a third-party request him to disengage and undo the templating? Many thanks. THF (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Those are some pretty serious accusations. What proof do you have of "posting cover-ups"? this? I do not see how that comment was constructive in any manner to building an encyclopedia. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This, not the reversion you refer to (which was a reversion of an IP-editor, not me). I see Gamaliel's insults and taunts and WP:HOUNDing of me in an eight-month-old conversation on a talk-page of an article he never had edited as far worse than my complaining about being insulted and taunted and hounded, but I leave it to others to deal with. I disengaged from Gamaliel after our dispute, but he's been following me around. I'll leave American Liberty League as well, and won't respond at User talk:Jayjg or this page further. THF (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

"The author, Charles A. Beard, is deceased. This edit appears to be the source of the plagiarism. We should remove or rewrite those sentences." This is the comment that THF takes as "evidence" of my harassing him. Note that this is the only "interaction" that I've had with THF following his block. I've even avoided preexisting discussions on pages we've both edited. Does anyone here think that this is any sort of harassment? Does anyone here think that his response is in any way appropriate? Gamaliel (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It was an eight-month old talk-page discussion that was resolved, and Gamaliel intervened to say that I was countenancing a violation of WP:COPYVIO -- when if he had bothered to read the discussion he was intervening in, he would have seen that the text was written not by Beard, but by a living author who plagiarized the Wikipedia article. So, yeah, I'm a little insulted that G comes onto the page to insult me, and then further insulted when he taunts me for being blocked, then further insulted when he personally attacks me, then further insulted when he covers up all my talk-page comments when his talk-page comments (such as "You are incapable of acting as an adult") were far more incendiary. I've been trying to disengage, and he's insisting on creating wikidrama, and even asking (on [[WP:MULTI|multiple pages) for me to be blocked? What the heck? THF (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of countenancing a copyvio, I thought you were mistaken about the identity of the author. I'm utterly baffled how you can get "THF wants to violate copyright" from "We should remove or rewrite those sentences". If you had not assumed I was attacking you with an innocuous comment and had not invented an insult out of thin air, no "wikidrama" would have occurred. Gamaliel (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I left a message for User:Jayjg regarding THF's behavior, since Jayjg advocated unblocking THF early, but we might as well hash it out here. I made an innocuous talk page comment and I don't deserve to be attacked like this for it. If THF is going to engage in the same behavior that got him blocked, then he should be reblocked. Gamaliel (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Diffs? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

THF's talk by Gamaliel:

• 15 Feb - warn to stop posting on his talk
• 11 Feb - a DTTR tag

Talk:American Liberty LEague by Gamaliel:

• Feb 20, Feb 20, Feb 20, Feb 20 - tagging comments as inappropriate
• feb 20 - a reply

Nothing else this month.

Gamaliel's talk by THF:

• Feb 17 - EW warn
• Feb 15 - the last of several in an ongoing conversation about wikiquette
• Feb 14 - the last of several in an ongoing conversation about dispute resolution
• Feb 11 - 3RR warn
• Feb 11 - accusation of an uncivil edit summary
• Feb 11 - an invitation to self-revert over an edit on a BLP

That seems to be the extent of it regarding Talk:American Liberty League and interaction between the two. SGGH ^ping! 22:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

At least recently. SGGH ^ping! 22:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• A fleeting barnstar for SGGH, fleeing behind the barndoors for THF and Gamaliel, and will any remaining sysop please turn out the lights when you leave - I'm off on a break! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this isn't resolved. THF insists on restoring his unwarranted attacks on me. Throwing up your hands isn't dealing with this situation at all. Gamaliel (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm only one of many admins - and if I wish to throw up my hands and withdraw that is what I shall do. Someone else can review it. Ciao, LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

My comments were a reaction to a different person placing a "closed" tag on this discussion and were directed at everyone, not a specific individual. Who specifically intervenes is immaterial. Gamaliel (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If Gamaliel can provide diffs illustrating an attempt to resolve any disagreement through dialogue prior to simply cutting out THF's talk page contributions they that would help also. I wouldn't suggest doing that in a dispute you are involved in yourself. If he is launching personal attacks in places other than your talk, keep you hands clean and let a third party take a look at it. If THF is overplaying his hand (which I would say is a concern) then he also needs to reign in in a little. I would advise both parties to desist in any conversation or dispute over anything for quite some time. Allow a third party to take a neutral look at the article in question and allow the community to naturally improve it. Better the article goes slightly away from your interests than it leads to a wiki-fight that has its own ramifications (cough, blockings).

THF is being overly aggressive with his "attempts" to rectify the situation, and needs to stop following Gamaliel around and bring issues to his talk page which, I feel, are more just to get at Gamaliel than actually rectify problems with the edits. Gamaliel is being a little OTT by redacting all the comments on the article talk page too. I am inclined to view this as over-pushing by THF that has gone too far, and which hasn't been handled quite as well as it could have been by Gamaliel (perhaps he/she has had enough). That's how I see it. I want to hear from User:Jayjg though. SGGH ^ping! 13:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It's clear there's bad blood here. Since THF and Gamaliel don't normally interact much, I would recommend avoiding each other wherever possible, and if they do happen to bump into each other, using liberal applications of civility and good faith. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It's clear that any such application would be one sided. As I noted to you on my talk page, following his block I've already been avoiding major battlegrounds, I've already been quite careful not to say anything but the most innocuous of statements when he is around. But if he's going to take "We should remove or rewrite those sentences" as a vicious personal attack, then I don't feel that hoping for civility and good faith is going to be of any use here. SGGH said I could have handled it better, and I'd like to know of a way of handling this individual that goes beyond meekly accepting his attacks and avoid any article where he participates, some of which are articles I've edited and made major contributions to for years before he showed up to turn them into battlegrounds. Gamaliel (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No matter what the pressing, why dig yourself further in by redacting comments on an article talk page? In my opinion it should be straight to a third party. Nevertheless, if Gamaliel avoids conflict, that means that if any conflict occurs from now on, THF would clearly be the one seeking it and therefore he can be dealt with. SGGH ^ping! 16:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly reasonable to remove or redact personal attacks directed at myself or any WP editor. Gamaliel (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you find perfectly reasonable, it is simply my view that it exacerbated the situation when it should have been a third party's decision to do so. It was an article talk page not your user talk page. That is just my take on the situation, I shan't be drawn into debating it with you. I am of the opinion that both users need to cease fire, and if one user continues to comment negatively towards the other, then at least the other user's hands will be clean and clear action can be taken. I would expect THF to abide by that informal agreement too. My two cents. SGGH ^ping! 18:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to debate or trying to draw out the conflict, but what is the point of not removing attacks? Should I simply allow him to attack me and say and do nothing? If I refrain from removing his attacks, will you or someone else intervene? Gamaliel (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I (or another admin) most certainly will. That is what I am saying, you see. Draw the line here, and that means that anything that takes place after now will be "stepping over the line". SGGH ^ping! 21:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. I won't remove or respond to further attacks but instead I will bring them here. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. I have left a message on THFs page explaining the informal agreement you have made (and by extention, he has now been entered in to). Hopefully that shall be the end of things. Regards, SGGH ^ping! 00:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

just not sure ....

Main debate --> Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes/10th discussion
I am just not sure here about the guidelines. I would like some admins that know more about what is allowed and not allowed when it comes to deleting valid contributions to articles..You may have seen this in other noticeboards, but i think its time that admin sees what is going on..See if Admin can answer if your allowed to deleted infoboxs at will as a project guideline... I just dont think a WikiProject can mass delete things at will. Most of you have probably seen this debate before, but i would say what is going on is mass sanctioned vandalism (i use this word loosely as there edits are all done in good faith), just wrongly executed i believe. Anywas if this is not the place for this i am sorry, but this is the type of thing that i think the community should solve so the debate stops. Buzzzsherman (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I have also requested assistance from the Wikiproject council. This needs immeadiate resolution, IMO, as it has been dragging on for years. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't see this noticeboard being the right venue for that....--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok sorry i just though admin could answer the deleting question..O well i will move one

thanks Jubileeclipman this is here not out off malice..Its here because like you i think it has to be answered and put to rest.So i am asking all i can to solve it regardless of the out come. Buzzzsherman (talk)

Admins are now involved, anyway, so no problem. --Jubilee♫clipman 15:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This probably isn't an ANI issue but the debate has been restarted afresh: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers#A new perspective if any one here is interested. Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 17:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User:SuaveArt evading WP ban and harassment

Resolved

 – IP blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

When SA was editing on Wikipedia, he also was posting comments to the Wikipedia Review website as "NotARepublican55." He made no attempt to hide his identity there as he included his WP username in his profile (which created auto links there to his WP user-related pages: talk, contributions, etc.). Other editors can attest to this fact if need be. Having been exposed firsthand to SA's behavior, I refused to believe given his inability to follow one WP community-imposed rule (that of not having contact with me before his ban) that he would follow his ban from WP. It seems my suspicion has been confirmed. Please note the first paragraph of the Wikipedia Review post by NotARepublican55/SuaveArt here (IMPORTANT NOTE: the user edited the post on Wikipedia Review after receiving notification of this AN/I in an attempt to remove incriminating evidence. Unfortunately, the user failed to realize that the original version of his post was retained in posts by other people who quoted it. See here and here. The timing of the attempt is uncanny.):

I left a note on AN. Here's what I think happened - there are actually (at least) 2 separate Giuseppe Provenzanos - one was a 19th Century Sicilian gangster (http://www.onewal.com/w-proven.html), the other one is a former President of Sicily and current professor who was in office from 1996-1998. The Wikipedia page contained the bios of both men scrambled into one article.

Now, please note the following edits to the AN about the issue by anonymous IP 94.136.35.108:

• Diff #1
• Diff #2
• Diff #3
• Diff #4
• Diff #5

Same topic, same information, same board.

It strongly appears that SA has evaded his WP ban (and possibly has lied in regards to vandalism done under that IP). Seregain (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Pretty ducky to me. The edits on the IP also pick up about a month and a half after the ban. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what that first sentence means, but you're off on your time. SA's permanent ban started on Feb. 1st[26], and the regular editing for the IP begins only two weeks later.[27] Earlier if you include the two acts of vandalism on Feb. 4th. Seregain (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Kevin was refering to WP:DUCK, as in, "If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck". Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay, Thanks. Seregain (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I just got this message on my talkpage. If you want to compare IP addresses between me and that account, go right ahead. Not sure exactly what this users' problem is, but just he seems to be stalking me obsessively (as well as this other user) ever since I made an edit to List of controversial video games which he disliked. He also falsely accused me of vandalism to Wii Sports because of older edits by this (shared) address which I was not even aware of (and for the record - every time I connect I load a different IP)). For all I know based on his "edits", he may be an actual ban evader. --94.136.35.108 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

For the record, Seregain has lied about the "Notarepublican" quote that he linked above. It mentions the AN/I thread (long with several posts by other users), but doesn't mention that "Notarepublican" started the topic.

"Hmm according to the thread on WP:AN - there are actually (at least) 2 separate Giuseppe Provenzanos - one was a 19th Century Sicilian gangster (http://www.onewal.com/w-proven.html), the other one is a former President of Sicily and current professor who was in office from 1996-1998. The Wikipedia page contained the bios of both men scrambled into one article." - "Notarepublican"

--06:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.136.35.108 (talk)

"This post has been edited by NotARepublican55: 33 minutes ago" How convenient. Seregain (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL So in other words you still have no proof that I am "Notarepublican" (or even that "notarepublican" is a banned WP user). You're just speculating blindly based (I guess) on an edit to that video game article I made. Sure makes sense. Like I said, go ahead and do and compare IPs if you want, but you shouldn't used WP:AN/I as a forum for "speculation" about WP users. Since you lied in your OP and haven't provided any evidence, personally I think you should be banned for stalking, but that's my opinion.--94.136.35.108 (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Why did you edit your Wikipedia Review post to hide the incriminating evidence after finding out about this AN/I? Seregain (talk) 07:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Why did you create that account on WR to impersonate "suaveart"?

I didn't. My accusations are backed by evidence. Yours are not. Seregain (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I do have proof that you changed it if you really want to try to keep dancing your stupid dance. Seregain (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait. "...but doesn't mention that "Notarepublican" started the topic"? So with that, you're claiming Fram (the user who started the AN/I) is NotARepublican on Wikipedia Review despite the fact that NotARepublican is known by me and other editors to be SuaveArt, who is banned? Seregain (talk) 07:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You've still not provided proof of that (or anything). You say "you just know" this or that. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I'm sorry if I was angry with you, but I would appreciate it if you start a formal "sockpuppet investigation" WP:SPI instead of spreading these kind of rumors here.--94.136.35.108 (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Since my posting of this, SA has engaged in harassment against me as evidenced by my talk page history. Seregain (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

IP checker evidence? You're essentially harassing and libeling someone now. You've been proven a liar in your OP assertion, asked to provide evidence, but just repeat your claims, claim "harrassment" even though you're the one stalking (at least) 2 or 3 different people not only on Wikipedia, but on other forums. You deserve a good ban.-94.136.35.108 (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be best to not attack like that 94.136, and to not call others trolls in edit summaries. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 07:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Another editor compounded the problem by issuing a 3RR warning to both for deleting and reposting comments to Seregain's talk page. The deletion was allowed, the reposting was edit warring. Both of them were kind of uncivil in the process, but 94 seems to be ahead in the uncivil wars so far. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for that, and I have disengaged from his talk page. This isn't the 1st time that this user has made a false claim about me being a vandal, so it appears as though he's targeting me (as well as some other users) just because he had some problem with some edits I made to a video games article the other day.. Nevertheless I shouldn't have reinserted the talk page comment and I'll let it be.--~~

I have only been deleting 94.136's harassment, which it is. If that's wrong to do on my talk page (I know it's not wrong to do with my user page), then I apologize. Seregain (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, now I'm starting to wonder if "notarepublican" (On WR) is Seregain. Looks like me might be trying to impersonate another user here for all I know. I think this "evidence" should be taken to WP:SPI where we can clear this up, but that's my take. Personally I don't appreciate his individual's harrassment.--94.136.35.108 (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The both of you have been firing various shots and accusations at each other. Beware of claiming someone is a sock unless you're fairly certain based on specific evidence. To put it another way, be sure you "have your ducks in a row." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I find it ironic that Seregain, who is blatantly obviously a sockpuppet, is raising this issue. Whether Seregain's original account is still in good standing I don't know, but this account is unquestionably not the user's first and the user is very obviously on a mission. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a checkuser should open the box and find out who all of these cats are, and put this fight to rest one way or another. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to note that 94.136 altered the title of this AN/I (which I have just reverted) to something against me.[28] This is something that SuaveArt used to do with previous AN reports about him. Seregain (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I just got on, but I had both users contact me when I was sleeping last night. Seregain asked me to find the part where the IP messed around with the post here. IP then asked about 17 minutes later for me to perform a checkuser on him, something which I can't do. I told him that, so we shall see their response when they come back on later today. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Kevin, I was asking if you saw the original Wikipedia Review post that I quoted above as the user changed it after this AN/I was posted. It doesn't really matter now, though, since the original post was retained in quoted replies on WR. Seregain (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As someone who is very familiar with SuaveArt as I spent a good bit of time trying to get him to wise up, I will put my account on the line to say that the 94 IP is SuaveArt without a doubt. He is acting exactly as I would expect knowing his behavior. Quack, quack. Auntie E. (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I am an uninvolved editor and know nothing about the situation here. I just want to point out a change in the header made by an IP and the edit accusing Seregain of being a sockpuppet. -WarthogDemon 19:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Well he is. However, SuaveArt is blocked and likely banned by now due to serial block evasion. Guy (Help!) 19:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• As is this IP now.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Agree that there was sufficient evidence of ban evasion. Also agree with Guy that an investigation into Seregain's past account(s) would not be inappropriate--methinks Seregain doth protest too much. Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Guy's accusations are baseless and hinge on nothing more than SA's observation that my first edit was a "well-formed" AfD. Like it's hard to create an AfD when it's got automation and clear directions. Seregain (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

BIG Vandalism coming soon...

Resolved

 – Link is broken now - issue appears to be resolved. Arctic Night 09:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

4CHAN /b/ http://boards.4chan.org/b/res/199826604 As of right now, they are gambling to see which Wiki page they will attack. Please monitor this and immediately lock whichever page they decide on. They will vandalize the page someone suggests if their post number ends in "03". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.0.81 (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Danke. So how are things in Flowery Branch, Georgia these days?

Just peachy? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, things are fine. Admin, feel free to remove this comment/thread if the aforementioned link is 404 and/or when their mess has been cleaned up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.0.81 (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Link appears to be 404-ed now. Although I'm not an admin, I feel that this can be marked resolved anyway as per request of reporting user. Arctic Night 09:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking of manually archiving this under WP:DENY. Nothing we can do except keep an eye out at this point. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

They have one of these threads almost every day lately. —Soap— 11:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

And its always a minor event. Gotta love that abuse filter--Jac16888^Talk 15:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

And the Frenchmen wearing balaclavas and smoking cigarettes. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 01:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Isn't pointing out that 4chan will vandalise a page (despite the fact that they never do this, oh no) sort of like pointing out that a severely retarded person will probably lose control of their bowel functions at some point during the day? HalfShadow 20:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone think this has to do with the excessive vandalism here? -download ׀ sign! 20:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Since when has 4chan never vandalized a page? That's kind of backwards. They do indeed do it quite often.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sarcasm is a new and frightening concept to you, isn't it? HalfShadow 01:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm hearing Charlie Brown saying something to Violet now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Reset 1rr restriction for user Radiopathy

• Radiopathy notified
• Abecedare notified
• Xeno notified
• Zero0000 notified
• John Cardinal notified
• Timothy92834 notified

Radiopathy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) George Harrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user was placed on a 1rr restriction at 22:36, October 29, 2009 UTC for 6 months. They were also blacklisted from twinkle per their using it to edit war. They have since violated it several times, and have created maybe two ANI threads requesting it be rescinded, which were both declined. I will try to find and link said happenings if required. Those happenings, however, are not at what is at issue here. What is at issue, is his most recent behavior, where he violated his 1rr restriction, and even violated 3rr after being told by an admin and another user(not me) that he was at fault. The timeline is as follows(earliest at top):

• 00:45, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 makes a change
• 00:48, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts with edit summary: a) factually incorrect & b) too lengthy for lead in any case
• 00:55, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts
• 01:01, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy warns user Timothy92834 of vandalism with level 1 warning
• 01:04, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts(1rr broken) with edit summary: rv vandalism
• 01:14, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts, adds more info, with edit summary: Added information about Harrison's cancer battle and death with references
• 01:04, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy warns user Timothy92834 of vandalism with level 2 warning
• 01:34, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy explains his position on User:Timoth92834's talk page
• 01:36, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts(2nd past 1rr) with note about earlier explanation(take note of the edit summary here, which speaks of possible automation)
• 01:43, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts with edit summary: Edits are factually correct and include multiple references.
• 01:48, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy warns user Timothy92834 of vandalism with level 4 warning
• 01:48, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 posts to article talk page
• 01:49, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts(3rd past 1rr, 3rr broken) with edit summary: rv vandalism
• 01:53, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts with edit summary: Added back in references and documentation
• 01:57, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reports User:Timothy92834 at WP:AIV for vandalism
• 02:08, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:John Cardinal replies on article talk page
• 02:16, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Zero0000(admin) declines report with content dispute tag, telling RP that the edits are not vandalism
• 02:18, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts(4th past 1rr, 2nd past 3rr) with edit summary: rv vandalism
• 02:24, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts with summary: Vandal adding incorrect information and remove references
• 02:32, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts(5th past 1rr, 3rd past 3rr) with edit summary: rv vandalism
• 02:39, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts, with edit summary: Added back referenced material and deleted personal opinion
• 02:40, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy replies to admin User:Zero0000's decline, disagreeing with them
• 02:42, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts(6th past 1rr, 4th past 3rr, 1st past 1st admin warning) with edit summary: rv vandalism
• 02:44, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts with edit summary: removed vandalism. Added back referenced material and deleted personal opinion
• 02:45, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:John Cardinal reverts with edit summary: Take content dispute to TALK!!!
• 02:48, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy posts to User:John Cardinal's talk page telling him that it isn't a content dispute(second time RP has been told that it's a content dispute)
• 02:48, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts with edit summary: removed vandalism. Added back referenced material and deleted personal opinion
• 02:52, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts(7th past 1rr, 5th past 3rr, 2nd past 1st admin warning)
• 02:57, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts with edit summary: removed vandalism. Added back referenced material and deleted personal opinion
• 03:00, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts(8th past 1rr, 6th past 3rr, 3rd past 1st admin warning)
• 03:01, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts with edit summary: removed vandalism. Added back referenced material and deleted personal opinion
• 03:03, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts(9th past 1rr, 7th past 3rr, 4th past 1st admin warning) with edit summary: rv vandalism
• 03:05, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts, with edit summary: removed vandalism. Added back referenced material and deleted personal opinion
• 03:05, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy posts to User:Timothy92834's talk page, asking user to discuss their edits
• 03:06, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts(10th past 1rr, 8th past 3rr, 5th past 1st admin warning) with edit summary: rv vandalism
• 03:11, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts with edit summary: removed vandalism. Added back referenced material and deleted personal opinion
• 03:14, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts(11th past 1rr, 9th past 3rr, 6th past 1st admin warning) with no edit summary
• 03:18, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Zero0000(admin) fully protects article with edit summary: Protected George Harrison: trying again, blocking for 2 days ([edit=sysop] (expires 03:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 03:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)))
• 03:27, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Zero0000(admin) deletes report with edit summary: article protected for 2 days, situation under control for now :)

There is a bit more, but I don't believe that is needed. Per the above, I am asking that his 1rr restriction be reset back to 6 months instead of the 2 that are left.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy's statement

Radiopathy •talk•

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like Black Mirror

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 05:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Radiopathy = blocked for a week, so I don't think a statement from him will be swift in coming unless copied from his talk page. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 09:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Double EC: Nevermind, Daedalus is a step ahead of me. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 09:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Already taken care of. A section from his talk page is transcluded here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Easy call, by the looks of it. Guy (Help!) 12:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

What I don't get is that someone blocked the newbie who was most likely never aware of any of the policies. Too bad. May have just scared away a potential good editor. Oh well, damage is done now.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how Radiopathy missed the sundry inline (and handily online) citations eleven times. The edits he was reverting were straightforwardly not vandalism. This said, further down the article does say the LA County death certificate listed metastatic non-small cell lung cancer as the cause of death, although the source cited there, while mentioning lung cancer, says nothing about a death certificate. Hence, it looks to me as though Radiopathy, at least, truly believed the sources supported lung cancer as the cause of death but made a very big string of mistakes by reverting a good faith edit eleven times. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like User:Radiopathy is retired again. I guess he trying to break Brett Favre's record.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Disregard it. His attempts to retire never stick. I don't know how MO regarding them, but discussion should continue.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, he likely hasn't really retired, and is only using that tag as a way to halt discussion in lieu of oh, he's required, I guess the proposal is moot now. ..Especially considering that he posted his unblocked request(04:40, February 21, 2010 UTC) after he replaced his talk page content with a retired tag(03:49, February 21, 2010 UTC). Retired? I don't think so. Discussion, as said, should continue.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Daedalus969, his "retirement" should be irrelevant to this discussion. He's done it before on several occasions when he gets frustrated with other editors. As for the other points, I have no doubt Radiopathy was doing what he thought was best. However, as shown before, Radiopathy doesn't care when his ideas cross with policy. I'd support the 1RR completely, as the edit warring line appears to be very blurry for him. Dayewalker (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The block of Timothy92834 was completely appropriate. I may be the editor who Daedalus969 is referring to when he wrote above, "and even violated 3rr after being told by an admin and another user(not me) that he was at fault". If so, that's not correct: I didn't tell Radiopathy he was at fault. I did say it was a content dispute, and not vandalism, and while I agree with the block of Radiopathy, Timothy92834 is more at fault than Radiopathy. Timothy92834 ignored messages from Radiopathy, me, and Zero0000 to stop reverting the page and discuss the issue on the talk page. He made no attempt to do so. I don't think he is a true newbie; he has few edits from his account, but his edits indicate someone who knows how wikicode works, WP policies, etc., more than a real newbie would. If he comes back after the block and repeats the revert, he should be blocked again.

Both users were wrong to call each other's edits vandalism, and that is an ongoing issue with Radiopathy. In some cases, if he disagrees with a content change, he calls it vandalism, and then feels free to revert at will without regard to 3RR (and more recently, his 1RR restriction). It's too bad; he has made a lot of good edits and defends a lot of articles from real vandalism. In this case, I think he was correct to revert the original change(s) by Timothy9283. The sources are not air-tight either way and discussion was required. On the other hand, Radiopathy should have used other means to respond when Timothy92834 repeated the edits and refused to discuss the issue. Radiopathy did try ANI, and was told it was a content dispute, which was true, but not the whole story. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

At first blush I did worry that the block of Timothy92834 might not have been called for, but when I looked into it, saw he hadn't heeded the messages and only fed the edit war with Radiopathy. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy, please explain your position more clearly. As it is now, it is rather vague.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Some background: I first came across the editor while handling 3RR reports at WP:ANEW in Oct'09 and since then have had occasion to: (1) block the editor for 3RR violation; (2) lift the block early assuming good faith after emailed and on-wiki assurances that the editor would not edit war anymore; (3) apply a 6 month 1RR restriction after consultation at the 3RR board since the editor resumed edit-warring within hours of being unblocked! (4) caution the editor at least twice for subsequent violations of 1RR; (5) block the editor twice for violation of 1RR and 12(!) RR. What's amazing is that I have had to take so many admin actions w.r.t. Radiopathy even though I don't follow his/her contributions, nor do we have any apparent overlap in the articles we edit or watchlisted. All these actions were solely in response to occasional patrolling of the 3RR board, or complaints posted on my talk page by other editors - and thus possibly represent only a fraction of the infractions. Abecedare (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Support/Oppose reset of 1rr restriction back to 6 months

This section is to make support or opposition of the proposal easier to follow.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - For the reasons already stated above.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Extend it, to indefinite ideally, since he seems to be having trouble acquiring WP:CLUE. He can ask for a review when some months have gone by without incident. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Extend to indef, per Guy - though frankly, I'm not convinced that 1RR alone would necessarily be sufficient either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• I have to agree that an indefinite 1RR restriction is needed, which can be lifted once the editor has clearly demonstrated that they can avoid edit-warring without such external limits. (see more detailed background above. Abecedare (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Since 1rr is a helpful notion for any editor to follow, most of the time, I see no worries about making this indefinite until he shows some willingness not to edit war. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support I think 12 months is appropriate now. Good job on this Daedalus, both sides went overboard there. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Extend to indefinite, user clearly incapable of getting the message per previous ANI thread. GlassCobra 19:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Stars4change, again

• stars4change (talk · contribs)

Stars4change had numerous problems discussed at this previous ANI thread (since it's relatively long, I'm just going to start a new section rather than drag the whole thing out of the archives). In summary, they are incessantly using talk pages as a soapbox, they've been warned, blocked, and warned again, have promised not to continue their behavior, yet the behavior has obviously returned. I saw them at Talk:Capitalism#Child_labour, making some questionable comments based on their history. Took a look at their contribs and found more soapboxing since they promised to stop, including: [29], [30] and [31]. A lot of rhetorical "do you think you could add this?" comments. I don't know why they don't seem to be getting it. Can someone take a look please? Thanks, Swarm^(Talk) 12:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this kind of soapboxing is not what wikipedia is for. It would be one thing if they were actually adding useful content to the encyclopedia but this constant railing against capitalism (and promotion of fringe material such as The Black Book of Capitalism and When Corporations rule the world) is not helpful. I would suggest a User RFC Soxwon (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I think it's beyond that. They've received a ridiculous amount of warnings, been brought up previously at ANI, had admins personally warn them, gotten blocked, received more last warning templates and have been talked to by more admins. I don't see what a User RfC would do at this point. They have shown that they understand what they're doing yet have continued doing it.

I get the impression that admins, for whatever reason, are reluctant to deal with this. Swarm^(Talk) 04:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This has been presented several times but archived without action. If no action is taken this time I will take it to Arbcom. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent Iran-related edits

Can someone please scrutinise the recent edits by myself, 119.154.44.87 and 119.154.2.165 (who are probably the same person) to Academic publishing and Science and technology in Iran? I reverted the anon IP edits in good faith because I thought the anon editor(s) was/were pushing a point of view and the non-POV material was already adequately covered, but I've been reverted twice. Obviously the POV material must go but I am a bit concerned that I might be taking things too far by a full reversion. In addition I've now been accused racism on the articles' talk pages so there's a real risk of drawing other editors in to a nasty little fight. andy (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The source has questionable reliability, and the Iran article was definitely not a NPOV, it was obvious that the editor was pushing a Pro-Iran POV. I believe there was nothing wrong about your reverts. I'll post something on the talk pages of both users. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Left messages on both talk pages. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Actually I now have some doubts (apart from the racism thing). I don't know why you say the source has questionable reliability - it's very widely quoted by reputable secondary sources. andy (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Further, I now think I was wrong about the reversions (apart from the racism thing). Tidying would have been better. I'm concerned that this is an administrators notice board but the response and action is only from a rollbacker with much less editing experience than I have. I could have done it myself, which is why I came here looking for admin advice. andy (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalistic renaming

Kitarora (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is going nuts with renaming of articles to stupid names. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the same guy as Edward Seler (talk · contribs) - see Sleeper page-move vandal a few reports above. Same creation date - 19 Mar 2009; same approach - no edits till today, ten innocuous edits to get autoconfirmed, then a spree of page-move vandalism. If we get more of these, might it be worth looking at user creations for that day and blocking any who have never edited? JohnCD (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If you ask me (not that anyone ever does), any newly created user that doesn't do anything within some reasonable time period, maybe a week, should be automatically rubbed out, as they are probably either forgotten by their creator or are up to no good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It's User:JarlaxleArtemis. Got it covered by an edit filter now. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

SPI backlog

Could a couple of checkusers please go over to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and clear the backlog there? Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that any uninvolved admin can also help out in blocking and tagging socks or otherwise determining that no sock puppetry is going on. See WP:SPI/AI for admins' guidelines on handling socks. –MuZemike 19:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I should note that MuZemike is correct in that the backlog area doesn't need checkuser assistance. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Dwanyewest

The above mentioned user has done a number of questionable things associated with a flurry of recent AfD nominations:

• Canvassing: He is inviting those who do not like these particular articles to the discussions. See also this request that someone who seems to be arguing to delete in one of the discussions come join two others Dwaynewest nominated.
• Indiscriminate copying and pasting of comments: Regarding this reply, User:Dwanyewest has actually posted that exact same "It fails..." line across a host of Afds: see for example [32], [33] (the MAIN villain in a series with multiple episode appearances and that was made into an action figure that appears on a top ten list), [34] (one of the principal locations of the He-Man universe with appearances on television, in cartoon booklets, and as at least one playset that yes, I still have somewhere...), [35], [36], [37], etc. In fact, he nominated about THIRTY articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements from the C.O.P.S. and Masters of the Universe franchises with near copy and paste nominations. Writing the exact same worded nominations and subsequent comments for episodes, characters, and locations does not feel right. These are not the same things. Moreover, the characters and locations vary considerably one from the other, i.e. how could the same worded argument possibly apply to a henchman with no action figure and who appears in one episode versus the main villain with multiple episodes versus the main villain's headquarters that also appears in comics and as a playset and especially when checking Google Books, these same characters and locations get different amounts of sourcing? What is more, I am seeing no reason presented as to why many of these could not be merged or even redirected as they are not hoaxes, libelous, or copy vios and a clear redirect location exists. Additionally, the same "original research" line is being applied to even ones that actually do have out of universe information sourced from a secondary source or two. I do not see any reason why per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE merges and redirects are not being discussed and considered first and it does not even appear that sources are being looked for prior to the nominations or that the individual notability of each article is actually being considered. It looks more like as someone said in one of them, the nominator is just indiscriminately mass nominating from categories.
• Double voting: See for example this in a discussion concerning an article he nominated.
• Removing friendly notices from the talk page: See for example this.

Warnings from other editors concerning AfD behavior include: from Jmcw37, from Janggeom, fromJJL, from DGG, from Dream Focus, from EEMIV, etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Dalejenkins, possibly? –MuZemike 19:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I share the concerns over Dwanyewest's flurry of inadequately considered AfDs and PRODs. He seems insufficiently familiar with the procedures and policies. See also the discussions at the Martial Arts project's page. JJL (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

He has been here for too long in my opinion to be Dale. I could be wrong though if Dale never edited his other socks on this IP, thus escaping the checkuser's attention. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• I will grant that there have been a couple of them that were questionable, but by and large, many of the articles I've personally looked at were a bit questionable. First, making the big issue about PROD's is a tempest in a teacup. So what, it got PROD'D. PROD's are ridiculously easy to contest and they give you 7 days to do it. All prod's are listed at the prodsum page. I became involved in this when a number of martial arts related prods were removed, not by addressing the reason for the prod, but with a cut and paste message telling him to go to the martial arts project to discuss it. I expressed my disapproval of that at the MA Project page. But the end result was good. We all reached common ground, constructed a plan to methodically clean up articles in the project and so overall, the outcome was positive. The other thing that I've observed in the process is that some people are of the opinion that a trivial mention of something is enough to establish notability or that a couple of trivial mentions can be added together to equal significant coverage. Then they take that opinion and (sometimes rudely) begin making accusations of bad faith actions. Rubbish! The AfD discussion is where that can be debated. People can, in good faith, hold one opinion or the other and dabte it and see what the community decided. I've nominated things that I still, to this day, don't feel have significant coverage, but the community feels a one paragraph review is significant. Ok, I have to accept that the consensus opinion differs from mine. Likewise, I've nominated things that others argued hard hhad significant coverage, but the community disagreed with them. That doesn't mean that they were acting in bad faith to argue the keep. Let the process function and abide by the consensus. But this is a non-incident and my biggest fear is that Dwaynewest will end up with some ridiculous sanction over what he believes is good faith action and something I don't see as being that disruptive. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Unless he is a sock acting in bad faith I would advise him to continue on. Most of the articles he has nominated shouldn't be here in the first place. ThemFromSpace 22:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You advise him to continue double voting and spamming discussions with copy and pasted comments? Or how about in some cases, not even providing a reason? Nothing that he has nominated should be redlinked. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning in the edit summary that he is PRODding an article would be most welcome. He removed criticism in this regard from his Talk page. I missed some PRODs I would have wanted to have known about in this way. JJL (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Let's have a look at A Nobody's accusations one by one, shall we?
• First the accusation of canvassing. Dwanyewest contacted two people, one whose advice he was asking, and one whom he'd had previous discussions with about the articles in question. You'd have to try pretty hard to assume bad faith to infer canvassing here.
• Next is the claim of copy & paste comments at AfD. When you're nominating many articles which all suffer from very similar problems, it is only natural that the nominations will be similar. Insisting on original wording for each one seems to me to be an unnecessary and pointless restriction, especially since A Nobody has never shied from flooding AfD discussions with copy & paste comments himself.
• I've seen many discussions where the nominator has cast a single "delete" vote themselves, and nobody has ever complained before to my knowledge. Not an issue.
• Removing notices from your talk page is allowed. A Nobody does it on his own talk page quite regularly.
• Dwanyewest corrected himself when it was pointed out that he hadn't provided a deletion rationale, and now the editor who objected agrees the article should be deleted. No need to whinge about it on ANI.
• That brings us to the multitude of people complaining on Dwanyewest's talk page. I'll point out that EEMIV didn't object to the articles being nominated, just that the nominations weren't completed properly. Most of the other complainers were the usual suspects from the Article Rescue Squadron claiming D hadn't done enough searching for sources before nominating. And that brings me to the major issue. I've looked at a number of D's nominations and examined a good number of the "sources" being presented there as reasons to keep. They're mostly crap. Irrelevant fluff being presented to us as substantial coverage. I mean, just look at this load of rubbish sampled from several of the articles in question: a blog, a book that does not appear to contain the information claimed, an Amazon page where the DVD is for sale, a single paragraph advertisement on the Disney site, and two single-line snippets from TV guides [38], [39]. Pretty feeble, if you ask me. And if anyone can tell me what this is supposed to prove I'll be eternally grateful. If this is the best the pro-keep side can do, then I think it's pretty clear that the subjects of these articles are pretty well non-notable and the fervent objections of the ARS ring pretty hollow.
• So to sum up, not one of A Nobody's litany of bitter complaints against Dwanyewest has any merit. If anything D should be barnstarred forthwith, and the perpetrators of this attempt to mislead the Wikipedia community with bogus sources admonished very strongly. Reyk _YO! 10:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Reyk's totally false comment above is deliberately misleading and consistent with his battleground distortions of reality to advance his biased agenda: "I'm off to fly the Deletionist flag over at AfD", "keepmongers," repeated use of WP:JNN and WP:ITSCRUFT, etc. We are not naive. That is why no neutral observer does not correctly sees the problems of these indiscriminate nominations, as the carelessness is revealed in the double voting, not providing an edit summary until told to, copy and paste spamming, etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Everything I have said is correct. Address the points instead of attacking the editor. Reyk _YO! 18:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I cannot address distortions. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Yet this whole attack on Dwanyewest is a distortion. I have refuted all your points, you have failed to address a single one of mine. Oh, but wait, I used some snarky language in a discussion once so I must be wrong. Reyk _YO! 18:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
          • You are attempting to defend the indefinsible. You have not refuted anything, just presented a bias and inaccurate distortion of what is pretty clearly indiscriminate nominations that violate WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
            • Whatever you think. I feel I have made some pretty convincing arguments, and drawn attention to the misuse of sources that's been happening lately, that I hope the closing admins here will take note of. You can continue to point your fingers at me and go "OMG an evil scary kitten-eating battleground deletionist" or you can actually argue the point. I won't be holding my breath. Reyk _YO! 18:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
              • • I am happy to argue with objective and neutral points, not ones that are presented as part of "flying the Deletionist flag," i.e. that are inherently slanted. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
            • It's the violations of WP:BEFORE, the lack of informative edit summaries on PRODs/AfDs, the malformed AfDs, and the general lack of understanding of policies [40] that's most problematic for me, though the volume of the flood of martial arts nominations is also an issue--there's only so much time and energy to keep refuting AfDs of notable pages. JJL (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I propose that A Nobody be banned from raising new matters at AN/I or other similar venues until he has substantively, and constructively, addressed the myriad matters raised in his own RfC/U. ++Lar: t/c 19:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Protected user subpage

User:Tennis expert/Date delinking arbitration evidence could probably do with being unprotected and courtesy blanked as there is a more neutrally worded version of this content in the date delinking arbitration case. The user appears to have retired. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

He was actually indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Anyway, I've gone ahead an blanked the page - I haven't unprotected it, but anyone can if they feel the need. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'd forgotten. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Likebox deceptively sourced infraparticle

• Likebox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)
• Headbomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)
• Finell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)
• Infraparticle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

If I may intrude here, but this is about me after all ...

I place my comments first, because I am, after all, the one affected. I ask that you not move them.

1. let me start with this: I have never deceptively sourced, or badly sourced, an article in my life. I have explained this to the blocking administrator, who agreed that he or she misinterpreted my comments. Nevertheless, I still have two blocks --- 3 months for vandalism and 1 day for edit warring--- on my record. I will say it here unequivocally: I am proud of these blocks.
2. It is difficult for me to believe that Headbomb, who read the sources provided, knew a few of their contents, and discussed one of them in depth, could possibly believe that the article was deceptively sourced. I used the sources to answer a few of his questions about Noether's theorem, and resolved one of his confusions about the electromagnetic current. If he thought they were deceptive, why didn't he say so on the page? Why didn't he give an example of a deceptive source?
3. The questions headbomb were asking were at too low a level. It would be as if an article said "Abraham Lincoln, the American president who led the U.S. to victory in the Civil War, was gay." And somebody then said "Oh yeah? You say he was American? Prove it!" The issues raised by headbomb and Finell were at too low a level for the artice, and the sourcing that I was providing ended up describing things that are not relevant for infraparticles, but just general background knowledge, things everybody needs to know. The only relevant source was Buchholz, the rest of the sources were a joke. This was exactly what I said on Wales' talk page. I can't understand how people misinterpreted it.
4. In the discussion below, Count Iblis raises the issue of sourcing mathematical derivations. These should be sourced not equation by equation, but in logical blocks, to texts that contain the same argument. The discussion should be paraphrased mathematically. There is no dispute about this. The citations to Buchholz are the block-cite for this article.
5. It is imperative that frivolous administrative actions such as this not be consequence free. I have had three specious complaints against me in the past few weeks: 1. Outing Brews ohare 2. IP socking 3. purposeful vandalism. This type of harassment is very bothersome.

I place my comments first, because I am, after all, the one affected. I ask that you not move them.Likebox (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Headbomb (who brought up this complaint)

Infraparticle was stubified after a deletion discussion (linked in the top of Talk:Infraparticle) to remove OR and other unsourced material. A while after, Likebox restores the old version, triggering a revert war between several editors (myself included) over whether unsourced material is appropriate. This also triggered several discussions over at WT:WikiProject Physics, and him filling an erronous WP:3RR report (here).

After several discussions, Likebox gives in and begins sourcing the article. He later admits during a rant on Jimbo's page that he deceptively sourced the article in order to prove some point, and that he's proud of his blocks.

Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I also request protection of the stub version of Infraparticle to allow us to ensure that the text reflects the sources. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I now request protection of the tagged version of Relations between heat capacities, Methods of contour integration, and Helmholtz free energy, based on the admission of Count Iblis that these are deceptively sourced as well. I don't know if a block is in order, but a strong warning sure is at the least. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You really do not get it, do you? I used only three examples out of many hundreds of articles containing good explanations that are difficult to source. Count Iblis (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that's creative: POINTY, disruptive, bad data, edit war. Most people just try one or two. I recommend an indef block. Rklawton (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is what you get when you demand sources for trivial statements. I will admit right here that many of my contributions to Wikipedia have also been deceptively sourced. I have written derivations that are just as OR as what Likebox has done. But my work has been on more elementary subjects and I'm a less controversial editor. In my case it wa susually others who put in sources over my objections, precisely becuase I'd rather have no source than a deceptive source. But in my case deletion of derivations/explanations was never an eiisue. In this case, however the explanation was going to be deleted unless it would be sourced, which is a ridiculous demand. Count Iblis (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Rklawton, Headbomb and Finell are the two who are in the wrong here. They were edit warring in a ridiculous way, by repeatedly removing an essential paragraph of the article. Count Iblis (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Example 1 Relations between heat capacities is improperly sourced. Why? Because someone demanded sources for trivial mathematical derivations. The source does not cover the derivations at all (it wasn't me who put in the source).

Example 2 Methods of contour integration is improperly sourced. I'm not involved here, though.

Example 3 Helmholtz free energy, largely rewritten by me is not adequately sourced. If it were made a demand to correct that, then I could put in some sources, but then the sourcing would be improper in the way Likebox meant. Count Iblis (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

After seeing this diff and in the light of their previous block history and the above, I've now blocked Likebox for three months. -- The Anome (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see how this is justified. Headbomb and Finell are ultimately to blame for escalating a minor problem to a huge ridiculous conflict. Headbomb, who unlike Likebox is not an expert in quantum field theory, some time ago made the mistaken judgement that the article was larglely nonsense and put it on AFD. The AFD discussion was conducted mainly by non-experts who decided to keep the article but remove an unsourced paragraph. Likebox restored that paragraph because as an expert in the field he knew that it was correct and also necessary for the article. Why headbomb decided to through in his weight and edit war over that paragraph, I cannot comprehend. Count Iblis (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If they think the block is unjust, Finell can post an unblock notice on their talk page if they wish. The normal conditions will apply. -- The Anome (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Likebox you mean? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• I would suggest anyone who is caught purposefully adding improper refs should be blocked on sight for sneaky vandalism. That type of deception is not allowed. β^_command 01:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Two wrongs don't make a right. There is clearly a problem here, but this is not the way to sort it. I suggest that all the editors involved find somewhere to discuss this, and attempt to resolve these issues in good faith before this escalates any further. -- The Anome (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well as far as I was aware, the problems stopped when sources began to be added, and we were all collaborating on the article. The revert to the stub is simply a precautionary measure because the sourcing has been deceptive (I've set a draft of the unreliable version on the talk page so we can keep working on it, and readers aren't mislead). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• To be fair, the block record quote is taken out of context. Somebody was trying to use his block record as reason to disallow his edits. HalfShadow 01:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This was yet more edit-warring after a history of repeated blocks for the same reason. The quote suggests that they are completely unrepentant about this. -- The Anome (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

But LIkebox did not edit war, he stuch to 1RR as his probation demands. In this case, Headbomb is really in the wrong, not in the sense of violating Wikipedia's rules, but by defending such an unreasonable position. From the POV of an expert in the field like Likebox, this is extremely provocative. Count Iblis (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes he did, see the WP:AN3 thread. Where he admits to 2RR (and still unconvinced he's not the IPs). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is silly, as nearly every editor at sometime violates WP:POINT in order to make a point, as here. It's not vandalism to put in a cite for some mathematical transformation to satisfy some bunch of people who wouldn't know if it was needed or not. And it certainly cannot count as vandalism if you admit it later, to make your point, as here. Likebox wasn't "caught"-- he "turned himself in," after making his point. And his great sin? Adding cites for math steps inside the article, which explain the transformations in the proof, but aren't per se relevant to the article subject. So what? How else to get people who merely want more cites for a long article, to listen to the fact that use of experts on WP has major flaws? Yes, an "expert review needed" tag exists, but where are we paying attention to it, when we really need it? Not here. (I see no tag). Do I have to remind everybody that editors who actually understand any siognificant quantum field theory on WP, can be counted on one hand? I'm not one of them, but I know enough of it to recognize when somebody knows a lot more. The rest of this looks like people totally ignorant of the subject, who are flexing their wiki-muscles simply because they can. I see no vandalism (an unhelpful cite is not a vandalism-- it's simply an unnecessary cite). Even if there was vandalism (made-up cites, say) this is an IAR case, inasmuch as clearly Likebox's purpose is, and was, to improve WP. That is all the defense he really rationally needs. He was trying to write a detailed explanation of what an infraparticle is, and nobody would let him. SBHarris 01:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Please take this to an RfC

This has clearly gone beyond a simple edit war, and beyond simple admin intervention. Both sides have a point, and it's not my place to say which is right, nor is this the venue to sort it out. I suggest you file an RfC, and take this to arbitration. I'll reduce the block to 24 hours to let Likebox participate. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment. -- The Anome (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not beyond simple edit war or admin intervention, because that's all it is. All articles that've been found as potentially misleading should be tagged as such, and work can continue on the talk pages. If things turned out to be inaccurate, or badly sourced, the article will be rewritten and new sources will be found. If the articles are accurate, and correctly sourced, then tags will be removed. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

But did you really find anything? Likebox makes a comment and you happen to find what Likebox mentioned. I mention three examples and you have happen to find exactly those three (out of the many hundreds). And what I and Likebox mean is that the explanations cannot be sourced in the way you would like to see, not at all that they are misleading. Why not end your crusade right now and get back to editing? Count Iblis (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like Headbomb to stop tagging the three examples I mentioned. I simply mentioned them because these articles are vulnerable to the same problem that we have with infraparticle, albeit the articles are mostly at undergaduate level. Any article that does some nontrivial explaining will suffer fromm the same problem. usually editors collaborate and accept that you cannot source every clarification to make the material understandable (because a textbook will write for students). The three articles I mentioned are either not sourced in the way headbomb wanted for infraparticle (but this has never been seen to be aproblem by the involved editors), or they are sourced in a i.m.o. misleading way (the sourcing has been done by others over my objections). Count Iblis (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

To be very clear about this, I can easily expand the list of examples to a few hundred Wiki articles. Count Iblis (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do, I'll add {{accuracy}} to these as well so it adds them to the physics cleanup listing and reminds the readers to be careful when reading to particular articles. Using general references is fine, but certainly not references that have nothing to do with the sentence/passage supported. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

We're only talking about general references that suggest more than it should be. When I rewrote the thermodynamics articles in early 2008 I started a few discussions about the problems with the previous versions. Why Wiki-policies regarding sourcing alone were not enough to prevent huge errors etc. etc. That fell on deaf ears. I made some suggestions at the time onn how to improve the situation, but people did not want to listen. Half a year ago, I tried again by writing up WP:ESCA, and again what we saw was a knee jerk rejection by people who don't like these ideas. Anyway, the articles in question for which these ideas are necessary exist. I put in quite some effort to remove a huge number of stupid errors from thermodynamics articles. Likebox has done a lot of work on field theory articles, the article on the Ising model and other advanced topics. But to reject all these efforsts just because they seem to be incompatible on some very minor policy points is just ridiculous. Everything is verifiable from appropriate textbook but, of course, with going through the derivation, as any physics student has to do, not from literal quotes. Count Iblis (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Likebox's editing of Infraparticle should be dealt with here

I don't have time right now to discuss this at length or to look up old diffs. I will make a few quick points:

1. Let's limit this AN/I to User:Likebox and his editing of Infraparticle. I don't know enough about User:Count Iblis's conduct or the other articles he cites as examples, and that sounds like a broader topic. User:Likebox's conduct in connection at Infraparticle is, on the other hand, simple and can be handled easily here, without an RFC.
2. I don't know about the other articles that Count Iblis raised, but the challenged content that Likebox added to Infraparticle was not simple, basic, obvious statements about elementary physics. It was advanced physics with long blocks of equations.
3. When other editors objected to Likebox adding unsourced content to Infraparticle and reverted his material, he admitted to adding misleading sources to keep his disputed, challenged material in the article. He didn't just admit it; he bragged about misleading the other editors: "At the moment, the opponents can be distracted by smoke and mirrors."[41] Talk about hubris!.
4. In its context, Likebox's deceit was a tactic in his edit war over Infraparticle. Given Likebox's admitted disdain for Wikipedia's core policy of Verifiability, his deceptively using false source citations to evade that policy, and his block record for prior edit warring, he should be blocked until he demonstrates that he will abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, whether he likes them or not. Likebox's conduct jeopardizes Wikipedia's reliability, which is the reason for the Verifiability policy in the first place. Likebox's edits can no longer be trusted, and we cannot assume good faith when Likebox himself admits to conduct that is bad faith.
5. Likebox's deceit wasted other editors' time. Late last night, assuming that Likebox's source citations were in good faith (I don't have easy access to the sources themselves, so I assumed that the cited sources supported the statements for which they were cited), I spent almost 2 hours copy editing the content he added, adding missing wikilinks, fixing incorrect wikilinks, and fixing Likebox's citations (many of his citations were incomplete and therefore uninformative to the reader, he filled citation templates incorrectly, he cited a preprint without citing the published journal article, etc.). Headbomb spent time doing the same. (Almost half of what I did didn't get into the article because Headbomb made a lot of the same fixes at the same time, so I had an edit conflict when I tried to save a big block of edits. I copied my edited version to my user space to reconcile it later with what Headbomb did). All wasted time.
6. Likebox has additional relevant history that implies that his editing of Infraparticle has a particular POINT:
   • A few months ago, Likebox had a bitter edit dispute with lots of drama over his attempt to insert his own mathematical (or logical) proof into an article. I think it was Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Likebox claimed that his proof was a simpler equivalent to existing, published proofs. But, the proof was his own creation, i.e., OR, and other editors disputed it. I vaguely recall that there was a dispute about another of Likebox's proofs in another article.
   • During or in the aftermath of this dispute, Likebox and a couple of allies, including Count Iblis, then proposed to weaken Wikipedia's policy on OR. More drama, but the proposal was defeated by a very substantial consensus.
   • Around the same time, Likebox was one of 2 or 3 supporters of Count Iblis's ESCA policy proposal. The core of the proposal was that science articles should be edited, and editing decisions made, based primarily on "reasoning from first principles", rather than based primarily on reliable sources. A very substantial consensus defeated that policy proposal on the ground that it would seriously weaken the Verifiability policy. So, ESCA was converted into an essay. (I haven't done a detailed comparison, but my impression is that the current ESCA essay places more emphasis citing sources than did the defeated policy proposal). (Despite that resounding defeat, Iblis proudly proclaims on his talk page that he edits science articles as though ESCA were policy.)

Likebox's conduct here is a serious example of gaming the system. It cannot be tolerated, and a severe sanction is required to stop Likebox's willful violation of Wikipedia's policies.—Finell 05:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Finell, for your "few quick points". Perhaps you and Headbomb need to cool off? Infraparticle was making progress, which you've succeeded in reversing. Great work guys! --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was trying to help in that process too, when I thought that Likebox's sources were for real. He made fools of us, so it is back to the drawing board with the article, since Likebox's content cannot be trusted until every line is verified, or until someone competent and trustworthy rewrites it from scratch.—Finell 06:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Since this is a more concise version of all the brouhaha above, the only thing I have to add to this are links of convenience:

• Talk:Infrared
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Infraparticle
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Help_regarding_infraparticle
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Political_protection_for_technical_content
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Repeated_addition_of_unsourced_content_at_Infraparticle
• User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#An_old_quote

Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I also had in mind the diffs for my item 6, Likebox's relevant history. It's all just a vague, but unhappy, memory.—Finell 06:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find [42] summarizes the most recent iteration of the Gödel's incompleteness theorems trainwreck, which has been going on for quite literally years. 71.139.6.157 (talk) 06:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me address this for the record: "During or in the aftermath of this dispute, Likebox and a couple of allies, including Count Iblis, then proposed to weaken Wikipedia's policy on OR. More drama, but the proposal was defeated by a very substantial consensus. Around the same time, Likebox was one of 2 or 3 supporters of Count Iblis's ESCA policy proposal. The core of the proposal was that science articles should be edited, and editing decisions made, based primarily on "reasoning from first principles", rather than based primarily on reliable sources."

To be clear, ESCA or some other guidelines along the same lines are necessary for certain class of technical articles where simply sticking to sources is not good enough. In no way is anyone saying that sources should be ignored. To the contrary, in addition to sticling to sources, you need to do more nonrivial work. The essay gives some suggestions on how to act. I have discussed problems with thermodynamics articles to death here on Wikipedia a long time ago and it was my rewriting of them which ultimately led to ESCA about a year later. ESCA in its original form, took for granted that we all know that things should be properly sourced. The later version emphasize this more, precisely to deal with the comments from other editors who mistook it as licence to do OR. Count Iblis (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Outside inside view

Disclosure: I have met Likebox personally, and consider Count Iblis and Headbomb to both be allies of mine here at Wikipedia.

I think that this dispute argues for the need to have a Wikipedia:Science council. Both sides make good points, but both are talking past each other. Count Iblis and Likebox are correct that the rules for citation and prose control in mainstream science articles are necessarily relaxed due to the difference between pedagogical prose and primary source prose. At the advanced level of the best science articles in Wikipedia (and here I speak of mostly physics and astronomy articles of which I am familiar) the sourcing is at best approximate in order to accommodate the prose style of this encyclopedia. Headbomb is correct that sources are absolutely necessary, but it is not necessary that the reader of our articles must necessarily immediately understand the connection between the sources and the prose of the article. I could refer to a number of science articles that are Featured Articles where this is the case, but I won't for fear of stoking the fires.

In part, what's happening now with the maturity of Wikipedia is a need for quality control. There are cases where a novel approach should be excluded as original research and there are cases where a novel approach should be viewed as simply an appropriate paraphrase and simplification of sources that are not original research. It takes an expert to decide which is which. We are simply not equipped here at Wikipedia to determine that.

In this particular dispute, I believe that Count Iblis and Likebox are actually correct, though they are combative. Unfortunately, knowing the culture of Wikipedia, I'm afraid that what will happen is enforcement against the behavioral issues associated with these two valuable editors rather than what should happen which is a careful consideration of the results of the editing. The article is in better shape in the way Count Iblis and Likebox want it to exist.

ScienceApologist (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Block review

I am concerned the block is based on a mistaken reading of Likebox's statement here. The blocking admin evidently read this as an admission that Likebox himself had deliberately inserted false references. However, the way I read the statement, he was merely saying that references inserted by others had been false or irrelevant. The statement seems to have been taken out of context: it was evidently in response to Finell's preceding statement that "As a result of[...] work on the article by me and other editors [...], Infraparticle is now reasonably well sourced". Evidently, Likebox's response that "The "sourcing" of infraparticle was a joke" referred to those additions. – If this is true, the block seems fundamentally misjudged. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Almost. Likebox was actually saying that he inserted the references in spite of them being asinine. I've been on that end of the stick in writing here. While not the nicest thing to say, he was certainly not saying that there was anything intrinsically wrong with the references he provided, only that they were boneheaded and seemed to detract from the content of the article.

Imagine writing an article about Abraham Lincoln for the Simple English Wikipedia and having a bunch of editors complain that they didn't understand the words you were using. "Abraham Lincoln was the sixteenth president of the United States." you write, but they don't just want a source for that fact, they also want a source for the fact that the United States has a president and that there exists a number sixteen. Is it possible to find such sources? Of course. But if you are a historian trying to write about Lincoln, looking for such sources is really, really annoying. You might find some sources and insert them, but you'd find it ridiculous. The sourcing is a "joke" because it is so idiotic. That's what Likebox was saying. Nothing more. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I'm beginning to understand his point. He's explained it here himself now. Given this statement, I think we can safely say the charge of deliberate falsifying of sources should be dropped. This leaves the charge of edit-warring against consensus to be assessed. (Note: I only now notice Anome had actually already reduced the block from 3 months to a mere 24h for edit-warring, so maybe this part of the discussion was moot anyway, but then Anome didn't say he did so because he had dropped that serious accusation). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that's my fault. I already changed the block length and reason yesterday after reading the discussions many paragraphs earlier: I should have added a comment here when I did it. I still think this issue is just the tip of a much large science article iceberg, and I suggest that all involved should take this to an RfC. -- The Anome (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: I've now unblocked Lightbox, in response to their unblock request. -- The Anome (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Artw giving fair warning or a personal attack?

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

I'm not sure where to post this, but I've had altercations with this user in the past, so I thought here would be best. This particular user is maligning me personally on a variety of article talk pages:

• [43]
• [44]
• [45]
• [46]
• [47]

So I put it to the board, is this sort of activity okay in light of WP:BATTLE? Should action be taken against this user? Should the notice be refactored?

I have thought for some time that it might be a good idea that whenever an article gets mentioned on a noticeboard that a notice be left on the talk pages of the relevant articles. But this to me looks like a character assassination.

ScienceApologist (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a bit over the top. I've suggested that Artw might want to self-revert some of the inflammatory language there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This editor has a habit of following editors he disagrees with around and making unfounded accusations, especially of canvassing for posting to a relevant noticeboard. He often goes too far, in my opinion, and definitely has a battle mentality. See his response to this thread on his talk page, for example. Verbal chat 09:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've certainly had a lot of trouble with the general behaviour exibited by contributors to WP:FTN, that's true. The advice given in that message is a result of that. And you certainly make yourself the center of any entanglement there and we've clashed several times, as we are doing currently over your odd interpretation of GNG over on the Jim Tucker page. I think you'll find this mainly comes from overlapping interests and the fact that editors that don;t agree with your methods are allowed to look at WP:FTN too.

Anyhow, the message is changed, os this is all fairly irrelevant. Artw (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced the uncivil and OTT material with a {{rpa}} tag. Artw can refactor to remove the incivility as he sees fit. I've left the notification that the article is being discussed at FTN, as there is obviously no problem with that. Verbal chat

• Artw has simply reverted the removal of the personal attacks, in effect repeating them, with the edit summary "Are you an admin? No, I do not believe so. Don't do that". I now believe that further actions is needed to stop continuing problematic behaviour, and that the attacks should be (re)removed. He has also made false accusations on User talk:SarekOfVulcans talk page. Verbal chat 19:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've modified the text slightly so no individual user is identified.

Please note that User:Verbal is substituting his own version, I shall be reverting his changes as vandalism. Artw (talk)

Stating that you will be reverting changes that are being discussed here "as vandalism" is hardly likely to earn you support. Perhaps refactor the paragraph under discussion along the lines of "Please make sure any content you wish to retain is cited to reliable sources." Rlendog (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that removing a version that that has anything personal removed borders on admin abuse, but it's clear there's probably not much point to following it up. Artw (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Please cool down, the edit summary "Removed notice regarding FTN, not happy with the version their pet admin favours" is uncalled for. Verbal chat 21:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Offensive comments by NSH001

"We can not allow nazis to use dignified Palestinian cause as a platform to launch racial hatred. I beg you all to reproduce this cartoon all over Internet. Let's say louder that we are fighting against those racist Jews who deny human rights to Palestinians, AS WELL AS racists who deny human rights to Jews" Carlos Latuff, 27 December 2002[1]

Today I came across an argument at the Talk:Carlos Latuff page between a number of editors about whether Latuff is a Holocaust denier. In the argument, User:NSH001 made extremely offensive comments that I believe are clear grounds for sanction, including comparing Israel to the Nazis (defined antisemitic by the European Fundamental Rights Agency), inappropriate soapboxing and incivility. I believe that, while all the editors in the dispute appear confrontational, the particular comment by NSH001 crosses all red lines on Wikipedia. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 02:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have just noticed Yn's notification on my talk page. I am extremely busy at the moment, so it will some time before I am able to respond properly, but I just want to say for now that this accusation of "antisemitism" against me is a particularly foul, obscene and malicious libel, wholly without foundation, the very opposite of, and totally contrary to, both my record in real life, and on Wikipedia. Disgraceful. --NSH001 (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have issued an arbitration enforcement warning (WP:ARBPIA) to NSH001 and advised him to stop the inflammatory political commentary, but do not believe that further administrative action is required based on this single edit.  Sandstein  19:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the bigger problem is the sourcing used to attempt to call a living person a Holocaust denier, but that's just me. nableezy - 20:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not quite clear to me which edit you refer to, but such problems should be discussed at WP:BLPN.  Sandstein  20:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Nableezy. NSH001 may have engaged in a little soapboxing, but I see nothing "extremely offensive" in his commentary. Trying to characterize Carlos Latuff a holocaust denier using sourcing that does not support that conclusion is however a huge problem. Tiamut^talk 20:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Its also a slanderous lie given that Latuff is the author of this cartoon:

Tiamut, I am afraid you cannot understand how Offenbach it is to compare Jews to nazis. latuff is an anti-Semite and the Holocaust denier. That cartoon you proudly added here only proves the point that latuff is an anti-Semite. He did not even bother to say "racist Israelis" he just said "racist Jews".--Mbz1 (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Arnoutf distort the facts in and owns the Fethullah Gulen Biography

Resolved

 – reporting editor blocked as obvious sockpuppet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I started working on Gulen's biography recently and quickly realized that it is not that possible. I would like to raise my oncerns and let the admins be aware of the User:Arnoutf's inappropriate edits on Fethullah Gulen's biography:

1. User:Arnoutf owns the article. He does not prefer collaboration. He declare wars, instead. He does not accept requests for discussions and does not bother convincing others about his edits. He gives impression to naive editors that all other editors should convince him to be able to edit the article.
2. Not surprisingly Arnoutf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was already blocked before due to his edit wars on this page but he does continue exactly the same way.
3. Many naive editors are alienated by his disgusting POV pushing. Among recent a few: VndlRepellent, Hatice w, Madaya2000, meco, Icaz... His main tactic seems to be filing a sockpuppet case immediately once something he dislikes goes on. Surprisingly, his tactic has been working very smoothly. Unfortunately, as far as I could see, most of these editors are blocked indefinitely without a checkuser confirmation by some admins.
4. User:Arnoutf does not improve the article nor working on it. He just blocks others from doing so. He only reverts the uncomfortable facts in his perspective from the article. Please see the history page for many such logs.
5. User:Arnoutf distort the facts based on his seemingly racist/nastionalistic prejudges. Although the islamineurope reference does not mention "segregation of Turks" in this example, he add this incorrect, falsified information deliberately into the article and linking to the reference as if it is mentioned in the reference. A true encyclopedia editor would consider this as the most embarrassing behavior.
6. Arnoutf (talk) is vandalizing the page by blanking verified information and valuable scientific references regardless of the warnings. He is doing this at any time a change against his POV is made and fight back to push his POV. The history page is full of such similar logs.

These are many US based academics working on the area. I would like to suggest inviting an expert, based on newer wiki policy of biographies. Thank you. Wronghumor (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Fernanoteroleono

Resolved

 – Blocked by User:Blueboy96

User:Fran Rogers has been adding incorrect information into two articles with a strong pro-transgender bias (see WP:NPOV). [48] and [49]. He is inserting information that says that men being attracted to men is heterosexual when, in fact, it is homosexual.[50] He then banned me twice for correcting those errors. He is also censoring discussion of his misdeeds, even going so far as to delete it from the page history. This is a very common tactic of corrupt administrators hoping to stay in power. He even created an edit filter to disallow criticism of himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernanoteroleono (talk • contribs) 03:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I was actually going to mention something about this, Fernanoteroleono (talk · contribs) has been creating a ton of re-re-redirects for some reason regarding this article, it seems disruptive. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused here. Are you trying to say you're a sock evading a block? I'm not sure if WP:DUCK or WP:FOOTS applies more here... --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

tagged most of them. Creating redirects with ', ", and whatnot won't help your cause. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, making these redirects will not prove the argument. Indefinite block right off the bat without a warning seems a bit harsh, but a week is warranted after a proper warning. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

After Grawp any pagemove vandalism is a long-term block offense (since it's harder to reverse a move than an edit), especially when coupled with the breaching experimentation. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 03:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Chances are in this case the user will just get bored and not make any more accounts, but if they truly have an issue, an account ban isn't going to stop them from being disruptive. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I guess it's irrelevant. User was blocked by Blueboy96. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi all. Say 'hi' to JarlaxleArtemis (talk · contribs) .... again! - Alison ^❤ 03:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

...I can't believe I mentioned him when we were discussing him. Now it makes a bit more sense - Fran Rogers has been going thru legal proceedings to get JarlaxleArtemis out of our hair, so it's only natural that he goes after her on a public page. —Jeremy ^{(v0_0v Boribori!)} 08:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh...Doesn't it get annoying to block and re-block the same person over and over again? I don't know the history of this person, maybe they can't be rehabilitated to the point where they can be a productive editor, but has anybody ever tried? Doc Quintana (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

For your entertainment Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the only way to rehabilitate this type involves a chainsaw and several garbage bags... HalfShadow 04:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If rehabilitation or even the attempt at rehabilitation isn't possible, then you're right, it's best just to indef block, and revert without the drama. They'll come back and the cycle will continue, but the damage to the encyclopedia can be minimized, and that's the key thing. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This kid needs to find a girlfriend or something, jesus christ. Wiki is not World of Warcraft. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

But seriously, would you wish him on any woman? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've edited the section header to something more... appropriate. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 06:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I was confused for a moment when that section header popped up on my watchlist as I thought that some editor was being bold. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Too bold. I changed it to something more fitting of how Administrators should purport themselves. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Jazzeur/sandbox

DASHBot keeps removing the fair use image from User:Jazzeur/sandbox, and User:Jazzeur keeps reverting it. I asked them how many times they were going to revert to include the fair use image in their User space, and they have not responded. Woogee (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I reverted. It seems not only totally pointless to edit war with a bot, but it's also against WP:NFCC to have fair use images in userspace. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Jazzeur reverted DASHbot at 21:33 and 21:44, and removed the bot's talk page notice at 21:47, but hasn't edited since. Woogee posted their comment on Jazzeur's talk page at 21:53, and less than two hours later (23:25) posted this here, without checking to see if Jazzeur has been active or not. How about giving this person time to come back and start editing again and respond to the message? Coming here so soon hardly seems like the best course of action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The article on which that image is FU is Down Beat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which has been tagged as unsourced since April 2008. It contains little other than laundry lists of the hall of fame inductees cited individually to the magazine's website. We do get the amazing and singular fact that this magazine rates things on a one to five scale (surely a unique feature, especially for a music magazine) but sadly this, too, lacks an independent source. Guy (Help!) 13:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I always thought that a user could do all the testing that he wanted with a private Sandbox page. However, it appears that the Wikipedia ayatollahs have decided otherwise. So I will not revert such aggressions by DASHBot in the future.

Concerning user Guy's editorial comment above, it is totally irrelevant to the incident being discussed here.

Case closed.

--Jazzeur (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Mserard313

Resolved

 – Blocked for edit warring. In future, do not post in multiple places, as your post to WP:AN3 was good and the most relevant board to make the report. NJA (t/c) 11:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Mserard313 has been vandalizing the Socialist Party USA page today, and he will not her reason. He has warned numerous times, and he still continues to disregard wikipedia policy. My solution is to block him! --TIAYN (talk) 08:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Note, this is still going on, please do something quick. --TIAYN (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

With this edit he proved that you didn't want to collaborate with me or discuss the future of the article. Stop claiming i don't want to collaborate with you, when you never collaborate with me. After being warned of edit warring, i tried to find a peaceful solution, instead he continues to claim that i am biased towards the article, and of course, instead of replying on the talk page he replies by continuing the edit war. --TIAYN (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Jbnewell block review

Resolved

 – Block modified, will seek a new block here if required rather than handing out myself

I have blocked Jbnewell (talk · contribs) for two weeks. I would like a review of how I handled the situation.

On the article 2007 Balad aircraft crash I reverted these edits which were all POV-pushing or unsourced. Perhaps the reaction from the Brig can go, but otherwise the edits were all clearly in need of removal. In so doing I also caught up this edit, which was promptly redone. I left Jbnewell a welcome message and apologised that his edit was caught up in the revert of the IP. His response was to reveal he was the IP and try a rather weak insult. I've been called worse than a jackass in my time. Regardless, I left him an explanation and stern warning. But no, I'm still an idiot.

Two weeks too harsh? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm just back from a long hiatus so take what I say with a grain of salt. I think it is a bit harsh. You have a new user who is contributing albeit improperly. It's a learning curve. His comments on your page are stern but still in keeping with being bold. I might have asked another admin to ask him to tone it down if it was offensive but I do think a two week block is a touch much. If I am missing something please say so. JodyB _talk 12:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This looks pretty heavy-handed to me. A new user posting to your user page rather than talk is clearly not vandalism. You profess an interest in aviation accidents so it would seem that you have some content involvement here. Basically you're saying that calling someone a jackass is worth a stern final warning and when they retaliate by calling you an idiot, they're off the site because you're an admin? There's a thousand other admins to review behaviour directed at you. Yes, way too harsh. Franamax (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Too harsh; I don't think you should've been the blocker when incivility was directed at you (and again directed at you after you warned him for it). That said, I appreciate how the user might've appeared as POV pushing. So although I would support a modification to the block, I would oppose completely reversing the effect of this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Not particularly concerned that you did the blocking, as this isn't really a situation where being uninvolved is crucial, though deferring your complaint to another admin for action may have been prudent, especially as you seemed unsure of whether you were doing the right thing (ie this review). Anyhow, I would recommend a reduction as well. 24-31 hours total block time. NJA (t/c) 13:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

In accordance with the feedback, I shall reduce the length. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalistic renaming - cont'd

Resolved

 – Changed to indef by Zzuuzz. Franamax (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandal account details redacted - username may be mistaken for existing editor; details remain in history. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalistic renaming of articles, like that one a day or two ago. Currently blocked for only 31 hours. Needs to be indef'd, as obviously vandalism-only. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Marek69 in breach of WP Policy

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

---

I can get a new IP address as many as 20 times a week due to AT&Ts crap DSL "service" here, if it can happen to me, I imagine it happens to many people! Sending a warning to an IP address and it being there since Oct is a bit of an overkill as this means anyone and anyone who receives this IP address is also going to receive the warning. As active as you appear to be in Wikipedia I would think this is not the first time this has come to your attention. The system as it is can cause more than an irritated person such as myself. Let's say for example that I am a regular contributer but do not want to be a registered user (you can pick your own reason for a person not wanting an actual account)then my IP address changes to one attached with a plethora of warnings for being rude lewd and crude in the edits and posts made to Wikipedia... You can see where I'm going with this?

Surely there must be a better method of keeping track of the true offender and not just assigning it to an IP Address that can be picked up by anyone of tens of thousands of AT&T customers?? At the very least you need to address the issue of having these warning expire when a new person receives the IP Address? I know for a fact there is a way to do this as I was a moderator for an RC Truck Enthusiast Forum for 6 years and we did this. (I don't know how but the owner of the site was most adamant that the new "owner" of an IP Address not be saddled with the sins of the previous "owner" of the IP Address).

I just moved to this area and this is another way I know this warning was not aimed at me, but as far as it being an "irrelevant" issue, I disagree completely, it is your responsibility to not be giving MY IP Address any type of warning that does not belong to me.

My first visit to Wikipedia should not be tainted with a warning to someone who had this IP Address 5 months ago. (by the way, some more advice if you are up to it, your warning should warn of nonconstructive not unconstructive edits, unconstructive is not a word)

I'll check back here for your thoughts on this issue (hopefully I can search for the Subject/headline? thus the JEDI)as by morning I will have lost this IP address and be assigned a new one... Very irritating as my Firewall has to be re-set to my new IP Address EVERYDAY! But with my luck, I will be stuck with this one... My point in writing to you!

75.17.193.129 (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)NEW IP ADDRESS GUY

I have the same problem and have already complained. Marek69 has been in trouble for this very same thing already. Warning messages such as this should be deleted after a week to 10 days ( I am in same position and it is not very nice to be greeted with a Warning when you log on. I too want to edit anonymousely and NOT have an account. DO SOMETHING about Marek69.212.87.68.130 (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm also having problems with Marek69. He has given me lots of messages for stuff I havent done!!

I make constructive edits but I still get messages about pages I havent edited!! I sent Marek69 a message about this, but he told me to open an account. I dont want this! I want to edit anonymously as an IP and I support everyones rights who want to do the same. Why should we be forced to have an account???!!

Right, I have never edited the pages Marek69 says I did so why should I have to put up with this???. I DEMAND you give me a full apology for all the distress you have caused me and ALL the other people you have harmed. You are acting agaist Wikipedias policy and condemning innocent people to misery. And you dont even have the common decency to reply to us here. You just IGNORE us, yes? This is a breach of WP:CIVIL (do I have to remind you) and by leaving these mesages for innocent newcomers you are breaching WP:BITE.

Marek69 hasn't even been polite enough to reply to me, let alone give me the FULL apology I require! This is intolerable!! What are the powers-that-be going to do about this situation??

Yours apealingly and sincerely 92.27.228.98 (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Funny, how these three "separate" posts were added at one time, by one IP. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have also had trouble from Marek69. He had given me warnings for edit witch I havent done!!

When I log on I have message from Marek69 about "unconstructive edits". I have never made "unconstructive edits" !!!!

He doesn't reply. Why - I tell you why - he is wrong and rude ignorant38.116.200.85

IP 38.116.200.85 got blocked after he got warnings from Marek69 witch he didn't do. Is this fair?? 86.182.255.19 (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

BUT IP 38.116.200.85 should get a apology. As I should too 86.182.255.19 (talk)

If you received warnings that you know weren't intended for you, ignore them. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what you've shown of Marek69s actions. --Onorem♠Dil 15:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Archived; trolling. EyeSerene^talk 15:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Declined - Marek69's edits are in line with our vandalism fighting policy. You have an option to avoid these messages; it's not our fault if you do not wish to use this option. If you edit through up to 20 IP address a week, then you can't really make claims about besmirching "MY IP address" as if it was something that followed you throughout your editing career here - as you have already demonstrated that it does not. Lastly, Some IP addresses are static, some are not, and the choice is up to the ISP - it's not something we can determine ourselves. Since many IP addresses *are* static, we need to maintain a warning history so that we can determine appropriate block lengths when necessary. As a result, removing warnings isn't something we can automate, though we can and will do it on a case-by-case basis. Since we offer a reasonable alternative and top of page notices about the issue, I don't think we'll be changing our approach any time soon. Rklawton (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've also blocked User:92.27.228.98 for trolling. Rklawton (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

We obviously came to the same conclusion then :) Apologies for my not noticing your previous post had been removed. EyeSerene^talk 15:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

What I like about this is the fact that they don't even respond in a chronological order, which almost never happens in a regular AN/I post. That and they all come out at the same time. God, I love this stuff called drama. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Vandalism by an IP account and his/her (possibly) 4 sockpuppets

User talk:Ukexpat referred me to the WP:AIV, buy I can't seem to get it posted, so I'll put it in his/her page as well as a few others.

"I was referred to WP:AIV from the Help Desk in the event of continued vandalism.

The articles affected are:
Caribou (musician) and Richard Manitoba.

I believe there is one person using 4, possibly 5 accounts for vandalism.

The one with the oldest record is Special:Contributions/Urbanshocker.
It has a record of 29 edits, most of Manitoba (disambiguation), as well as Caribou (musician), and Richard Manitoba.
It’s been blocked for 1 week.

The account with the most recent activity is: Special:Contributions/User:66.65.94.122.
13 out of its 15 edits where of Caribou and Richard Manitoba.
A few days ago, it was blocked for 31 hours.

After it was given its last warning a few days before that, Special:Contributions/Richeye came into existence. It made 6 edits: 5 of Richard Manitoba, 1 of Caribou (musician).

After the blocking of User talk:66.65.94.122, and within minutes after User:Urbanshocker was blocked came Special:Contributions/User:69.115.14.50, and Special:Contributions/Bxbmber‎ less than 5 hours after that. Each have only one edit: Richard Manitoba, same vandalism.

All remove my edits to Richard Manitoba, which has been sourced and supported by others; or add a non-sourced superfluous line in Caribou (musician)about Richard Manitoba being his legal and stage name.

I admit I lost my temper over this, and vented here Wikipedia:Help desk#How do I deal with this edit fight.3F, Though I’m feeling a bit better.

I request the following:
(1) that all of these accounts be blocked
(2) at the very least, be marked as sockpuppets—I suppose of the account with the earliest history (though I’m unsure what WP policy is of this)
(3) and mostly the 2 articles (with my edit) be protected. One might also include Manitoba (disambiguation) which he vandalized in the past.

Thank you."
70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been through the diffs and histories of the above articles/editors. The upshot is:

• Bxbmber indefblocked as a sock per WP:DUCK
• Richeye also indefblocked as a sock for same reasons
• Urbanshocker's block increased for block evasion
• IP addresses left for now because IP addresses can change and it's likely that, given the multiple other accounts, Urbanshocker has already moved to another
• Named accounts and one IP appropriately tagged (a category exists at category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Urbanshocker where the software will automatically add any new accounts that are found and tagged)
• Richard Manitoba semi-protected for 1 week. Note that this will also prevent you from editing it; you can request the other editors there to make your edits for you during this time if they are policy compliant (or create an account!)
• Manitoba (disambiguation) and Caribou (musician) not protected at this stage becuase I don't feel there has been enough recent activity to justify protection

I think that's everything - hope it helps. Further content removal vandalism can be reported to WP:AIV for a quick response, but be sure to mention the socking and block evasion. It's likely that Urbanshocker will also be indeffed if it continues. EyeSerene^talk 20:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Lar's allegedly less than civil section headings on his talk page

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

---

No administrator action necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs) 20:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

---

User:Lar keeps making what appears to be insults on other users as revisions of comments on his talk page. While I suppose it is okay for someone to ignore a talk page comment or remove it, changing the heading to insult someone else is rather lame as it only enflames the situation and raises tensions as people have pointed out in the threads. See for example:

• Switching "Please stop deletions immediately" to "GWH makes an unreasonable request and an inapt characterization"
• Switching a request for an apology to "Noroton makes an unwarranted demand for an apology"
• "Hippocrite and a miss"
• "Dave souza twists things around"

Such immature edit summaries as "tough noogies" do not seem all that helpful either. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you presumably found all those easily because I have a no deletion policy on my talk page, unlike some editors such as yourself, who sweep anything unpleasant away as fast as they can, and further, I have a bot indexing everything, since I have nothing to hide, unlike some editors, possibly such as yourself. See user:Lar/Pooh Policy and User:Lar/Eeyore policy for more on how I do things on my talk, which includes refactoring section headings as I see fit. But more importantly...

"I propose that A Nobody be banned from raising new matters at AN/I or other similar venues until he has substantively, and constructively, addressed the myriad matters raised in his own RfC/U." Put your own house in order first. ++Lar: t/c 20:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Lar, could you explain how you determined that changing section headers in this manner would enhance your collaboration with these users? Do you believe it to be a non-confrontational practice (I would tend to disagree)? Do you recommend that other users adopt similar practices? Christopher Parham (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

These questions strike me as somewhat skewed in their underlying assumptions. My talk page has circa 350 watchers, and the policies and practices I use there are designed to enhance collaboration with all the users that participate there, not just whoever starts a section and chooses the heading. Note, I've changed the heading here too, as A Nobody is making an allegation, not a statement of fact. ++Lar: t/c 20:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you be fine with me changing the heading further to "Lar being somewhat of a douche on his talk page"? (This is a hypothetical question designed to enhance your understanding of the underlying concern) –xeno^talk 20:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; I'm operating under the assumption that you recognize that edits like this would naturally antogonize the person to whom they are directed. Could you explain how using the section titles to score points against another editor enhance your collaboration with 3rd party users of the page (against, for instance, renaming the section to a dry description of the content within)? You obviously are free to refactor your talk page, including naming section titles, but it seems most productive to do so in a way that is nonconfrontational. Your manner appears to be the opposite, deliberately confrontational. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is this here? WP:WQA is thatta way. Jehochman ^Brrr 20:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Involved admin using their powers in a BLP dispute

A BLP concern has been expressed about the inclusion of WP:REDLINKs for amateur athlete on 2010 United States Women's Curling Championship. These women are private citizens, amateur athletes who are not competing at the highest level of their sport (which in curling would be the Olympics and World Champsionship) and per WP:ATHLETE do not qualify for an article much less a redlink with it shiny target for vandalism. Responding to these BLP concerns, I removed the names of most of these non-notable amateur athletes. One of the editors who reverts this was an admin, User:Earl Andrew. I then started a section on the talk page where the BLP concerns were clearly laid out. Earl Andrew not only ignored these BLP concerns and revert back but also protected the page under the auspices that my actions were vandalism. I know that at least one of the women involved has filed an OTRS so the BLP issue is being escalated on that avenue. What concerns me here, and the reason why I'm bringing this to AN/I, is an involved admin using his powers in a dispute involving BLP issues. At the very least Earl Andrews should have gotten an uninvolved admin to look at the matter. Can an uninvolve admin look into Earl Andrew's behavior and counsel him on how to handle these types of BLP issues in the future? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

A national championship is clearly the top level of a sport so that argument is fallacious. Also, almost all curlers are amateurs, even those competing now in the Olympics (only the Chinese teams and two of the British men are full-time curlers, the rest all have day jobs), so their amateur status is also irrelevant as an argument. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. For US Woman's curling it is the Olympics and World's are the top levels. Nationals are distinctly the third rung down on the ladder. These woman only need to sign up for a spot to be one of the 10 teams that compete in nationals, except on the rare year when more than 10 teams sign up. This is not like Canadian curler where they have to go through club, region and provincial play downs. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I bow to your knowledge of the actual situation. I agree that there's no reason the names should be redlinked, as there's no reasonable certainty that an article on them will pass notability requirements (and an article can always be created if they move up in status), but I do think that having their names there is reasonable. My suggestion, then, is to leave the tables in place, but remove the redlinks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Admin is clearly involved, so I unprotected the page. They should use WP:RFPP if the content dispute persists.

That being said, I'm not entirely sure I understand how this is a BLP concern. If the list of participants is sourced, it seems fine for inclusion (even if they don't have individual notability for their own articles - in this case, wouldn't simply delinking be a better choice?). –xeno^talk 20:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the objection is to the redlinks, not the names themselves. Tarc (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but reporting user is deleting the names outright [51]. –xeno^talk 20:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yea I see that now, lopping off the 2nd, 3rd, etc... finishers. Well to Agne27 then, would you object to a non-linked entry for the others? Tarc (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The OTRS ticket mentioned above: ticket:2010022210032133. Endorse Xeno's unprotection of the page. NW (Talk) 20:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The BLP issue is both the redlinks (which per WP:REDLINK we shouldn't have for non-notable subjects like these amateur athletes) but also the prominence of Wikipedia pages showing up on Google searches. The presence of a redlink is an invitation for people to create an article with personal details or vandalism. Also, as I've been informed by some of these women (who contacted me because they know I'm a Wikipedian) there has been a rash of cyber stalking so having their names so prominently featured on Google searches is a concern in this regard. It is highly unusual for the Vices, 2nds and leads of a curling team to have their names published. Normally the teams are just known under the skip name. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no BLP issue for simply listing the participants in the tournament when they are clearly listed on the USCA site. The listings here are merely the names, and don't include anything else (unlike the USCA site, which lists their hometowns). I do agree that removing the links for those unlikely to have articles created is a good thing, but I don't see how listing their names in any way violates the BLP policy.

Also, please stop edit warring on that article. If you continue, you will likely be blocked for it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The website of the organization that run the Collegiate Cheerleading Championships list the rosters for the events but would we ever dream of including the roster name of all the participants in those articles? What about the rosters for the Texas Football Classic? Neither of those events are the highest level in cheerleading or football, just as the woman's nationals are not the highest level for curling. We wouldn't make those edits because there would be valid BLP concerns to listing the name of non-notable athletes and no encyclopedic benefit--only the potential for harm to the subject whose name is being listed. Plus, as another editor astutely noted, there are no independent 3rd party sources that list the rosters only the organization-much like how local softball organization list the rosters of teams on their league. That doesn't give justification to invade the privacy of non-notable amateur athletes who are not competing at the highest level of their sport. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Creation of new biographical articles introducing BLP and sourcing issues

Following the removal of red links from List of male performers in gay porn films, user:Ash has begun creating biographical articles for male porn performers, in some cases recreating previously deleted articles. Ash appears to be working through an alphabetical list, and rather creating stubs for award winning performers, they are attempting to create full BLPs. I identified a number of common problems with these articles related to sourcing and BLP issues:

• use of unreliable sources for birth dates, birth names, alternate names, etc
• introduction of red links which identify the linked name as a porn performer
• inclusion of "filmographies" which are lists of direct links to porn retailers
• inclusion of an excessive number of links to porn sites as sources or external links
• undue promotion of studios in performer biographies

I proposed a number of common sense "guidelines" (for lack of a better word) for discussion. My hope is that we can avoid both BLP problems and friction between editors by following some simple set of agreed "guidelines", which are based on a review of female porn performer BLPs and the underlying policies and guidelines of WP:BLP, WP:EL, and WP:RS. Thus far, the discussion has been highly polarised.

For some months now I have been trying to bring more attention to the area of gay porn BLPs, with little success. Even what should be a simple discussion of the reliability of a source has become farcical: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gay Erotic Video Index (relist). At this point, any suggestion I make is taken as an attempt to delete or minimize gay porn content, which is not at all my intention. Even my suggestion that stubs be created for every award-winning performer was perversely characterised as an attempt to delete content. We don't appear to have these problem with BLPs of female porn performers, which I suspect is due to the larger pool of editors active in this area. If editors and admins familiar with WP:BLP could take a look at the suggestions referred to above and the recent creations by Ash, it may help to reduce the drama becoming associated with this area. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion war: Please stop this

Resolved

 – RfC under preparation, a much more productive step in dispute resolution. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

To whom it may concern:

It is obvious at this point that Verbal is engaged in a contentious deletion campaign against outlines, in which he is trying to circumnavigate Wikipedia's accepted deletion discussion venue (WP:AfD).

He tried to redirect Outline of Indonesia which has the same effect as deletion.

Previously, he renamed Outline of geography to List of basic geography topics and stripped it of formatting that matched the formatting in the rest of the outlines. Then a few days ago, he redirected the outline link ("Outline of geography") to the non-outline page Geography. So the outline link, which is embedded into the overall OOK's structure, no longer led to the corresponding outline content. That is, he purposely made a major branch of the OOK's tree structure disappear. That's vandalism.

He blanked Outline of England with a copyvio template.

His most annoying tactic so far is to rename outlines to an earlier name, and then remove the formatting common to the set of outlines, genericizing them. The latter wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't any opposition, but there is - yet he keeps on doing it anyways. Outline of life extension is a recent example. See also Outline of culture and Outline of poetry.

Verbal, if you don't like outlines, then nominate them for deletion. Quit trying to delete them by unacceptable methods, and please stop trying to convert them to non-outlines. I oppose your whole anti-outline edit warring campaign, and your systematic efforts to disrupt the WP:OOK and the stand-alone outlines that comprise it.

I originally posted this notice on Verbal's talk page, but he deleted it rather than reply to it. As he is unwilling to address these concerns (the various methods he has been using), I see no other recourse than to post the issue of his behavior here for wider discussion.

The Transhumanist    20:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Moved from AN –xeno^talk 20:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There's another side to this story that should be carefully reviewed before any adminstrative actions are taken. A strong case can be made that every "outline" of something is merely a mistitled list that is being esparanzaed into mainspace. Hipocrite (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, isn't AfD the place for their value to be decided, not by subterfuge (if that's what's happening)? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

An interesting argument. I think a careful review of previous outline AFDs will show the obvious failures of AFD to deal with this issue. Hipocrite (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe I have, perhaps a half-dozen or more times, suggested an RFC on outlines. Was there ever one? –xeno^talk 21:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No idea. Has Verbal been notified of this thread by TT? Hipocrite (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've done the needful. –xeno^talk 21:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No, there was not. The draft at User:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft never appears to have been advertised or taken live. Hipocrite (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear gods, why not? –xeno^talk 21:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the worst things about this User Verbal is the demeaning uncivil way he removes good faith comments from his talkpage with comments such as he used here, nonsense, he has left the reporter no option apart from to seek discussion of the issue elsewhere. Off2riorob (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing what was placed on Verbal's talk page - it was a direct, word for word copy of the initial complaint. I don't believe talk pages are designed to host "To whom it may concern:" requests written with the subject of the talk page in the third person. Talk pages are designed to communicate with the individual editor of the talk page, not to petition his TPW's to get him to stop doing something. Perhaps Verbal could have been more diplomatic, but I'm not sure how any of us would react to someone reverting our good faith edits as vandalism dropping something like that on our talk pages. Hipocrite (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I would support the creation of a neutral RfC on Outlines (specifically), as I have requested several times. Thanks, Verbal chat 21:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I support the existance of outlines, but I agree that an RfC is necessary to clear this up. Highfields (talk, contribs) 21:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not fmailiar with the specifics of this, and given the way these things go not expecting anything much to come of it, but there has definately been an unfortunate trend amongst some editors to finding ways to delete articles without properly bringing them to Afd.

Given that the articles existance has been put into doubt one solution may be to simply put it up for AfD yourself and see how it pans out. The attention from univolved editors tends to fo a lot of good and in the event of a keep result you have a very strong case for defending the article. Artw (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I highly advise against that. Nominating articles for AFD such that you can get "keep" results is a waste of other's time, and a violation of WP:POINT. If you don't want something deleted but are worried it will be, you can watchlist it's nonexistant AFD page. Hipocrite (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's cutting to the chase. AfD is basically Wikipedia as it should be, in that it's at least half way community based rather than working via the machinations of shadowy apparatchniks. AN/I is certainly so rabidly deletionist that I wouldn't expect much good to come from a discussion here.

But possibly i am having a day of low faith in admins. Artw (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, if I'm not mistaken, Artw was addressing Verbal, who apparently wishes "delete" votes. Artw is right, AfD is precisely where Verbal should take the issue. Nobody has yet to nominate the entire collection of outlines for deletion. If someone wants to get rid of outlines, as a whole, AfD is the place to do it. AfD'ing the whole lot would attract a great many participants. Discussions elsewhere about outlines, including those at the Village Pump have gone nowhere because they only attracted a handful of people, not enough to establish community consensus on such a large and centrally placed component of Wikipedia. The Transhumanist    21:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, I was not addressing Verbal. It is my opinion that if someone is trying to delete something while avoiding AfD at all costs then AfD is a valid place to take it, leaving your own vote as neutral and giving the doubts about the article expressed as a reason.

It should not be so, but it is so. Artw (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The admin User:Karanacs is working with us (anyone interested) to slowly develop that RfC into an acceptable state. Please direct comments on an Outline RfC to User talk:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft. If we could have more discussion, and less agitation-for-immediate-action, that would be great. Neither Transhumanist nor Verbal are being particularly helpful for moving things forward, in a positive manner, currently. Wet flapping Trouts for both - nothing else to see/do here. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User:DBaba

DBaba (talk · contribs) is again pushing his POV at Cave of the Patriarchs massacre, and disregards my objections stated at length on the talk page. He has admitted in clear words to having a POV against Goldstein in [52] and [53]. I have recommended him to refrain from editing this article because of that. [54] He states himself that he insists on editing against my reasonable objections. [55] In the past he has accused me of being racist here on wp:ani [56] I see no option but to ban this user from this specific article, because in contrast to other editors involved, he does not care for consensus seeking. Debresser (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)