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:Snakefan55

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this the direction that we want to go

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assuming "conservative" and "liberal" to be used in the US 21st century sense, libertarianism is often seen as a form of conservatism by liberals, and seen as a form of liberalism by conservatives. Conservatives don't favor legalizing heroin and prostitution or completely open immigration. Libertarians do. Liberals don't removing all regulations from business and abolishing the income tax. Libertarians do.) Guy Macon (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

USER at IP 90.220.41.77

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

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

Overlinking meltdown from 38.103.95.130

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

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

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

• I agree. I've written something on the IP's userpage (thereby creating it), on the off-chance that s/he knows s/he has one of those. A long shot, I know. Bishonen | talk 14:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC).

User:71.174.128.244 at Causes of autism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copying a sentence let alone an entire paragraph from another source without a comptabile license and presenting it as wikipedia text is completely unacceptable and should never be done for copyright and plagarism reasons. Let me repeat that, you can waste a tremendous amount of editors time by copying a paragraph as presenting it as wikipedia text. Please do not do so in the future. It may sometimes be acceptable to quote a paragraph, making it clear you are clearly quoting from a source rather then just pasting it into the article as wikipedia text but from a look thru the history that was not what you were doing. Nil Einne (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That paper does not seem to mention the Poling case at all. And the paper is not saying what you think it says. Do you actually read your claimed sources, or do you just perform keyword match? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One day,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This finding seems pretty darn definitive to me: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170 "Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine prior to 1999 (from vaccination record) had a threefold higher risk for parental report of autism diagnosis compared to boys not vaccinated as neonates during that same time period."

as does this one:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Induction%20of%20metallothionein%20in%20mouse%20cerebellum%20and%20cerebrum%20with%20low-dose%20thimerosal%20injection%2C "As a result of the present findings, in combination with the brain pathology observed in patients diagnosed with autism, the present study helps to support the possible biological plausibility for how low-dose exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines may be associated with autism."

and this review study is chock full of references to other studies supporting mercury as a cause of autism http://www.detoxmetals.com/content/AUTISM%20AND%20Hg/autism_reprint.pdf. Some of those referenced studies were included in this report http://www.autismboulder.org/pdf/ScienceSummary.pdf to the Colorado Senate with a recommendation that mercury compounds be removed from vaccines. IT also bitches about the poor quality of the studies done in Denmark and used by the CDC. You know! (or may be you don't) the ones that were either contributed to or co-authored by that guy who just ran off with $2 million in CDC autism research funds.71.174.128.244 (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there hasn't been much edit warring on the article. Just really one editor who gone overboard on the talk page of the article. I guess you could protect the talk page, but has that ever worked? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That editor is getting kind of annoyed by things like Yobal refusing to admit that Hannah Poling had autism. Autism is defined by US law. If you have the 3 required symptoms of autism then you have autism Poling had all 3 of those symptoms. Poling had all 3 of the required symptoms. Therefore by US law she had autism.71.174.128.244 (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so lawyers get to make medical diagnoses? That's cool, as long as doctors get to sue them. :P MastCell ^Talk 18:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No! Doctors make the diagnosis, partly so that the autistic kids are legally eligible for government programs to help them. Since no cause for autism is recognized, then entry into the programs requires the showing of the symptoms of the disease. 3 symptoms are required and a number of others are optional. If you get a cold and you go to the doctor, does he determine if you have a cold by checking for symptoms, does he stick a pin in a voodoo doll, seek guidance through prayer, flip a coin, check out his tarot cards, or some other method? Any doctor I go to had BETTER check for symptoms, otherwise he will never ever see me again.71.174.128.244 (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

swearing, disruptive edits

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

---

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

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

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

He is also abusing the Periannan Senapathy article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And this kind of thing too. [2] Mathsci (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tendentious editing

Lately an editor User:M.A.R 1993 who has a history of tendentious editing and refusal to get the point shows up every 2-3 days on Lahore Front and makes changes into sourced data while removing references and/or adds unsourced data. Instead of working towards improving the article and adding sources himself he wants all sources that are present on the article should be removed and his unsourced data should be placed. There has already been a Citation overkill in infobox trying to convince him by providing sources but he still continues to revert sourced data specially in result section of infobox.

Based on his persistent descriptive editing it seems that it is impossible to convince him. The only two sources he has provided on talkpage do not even mention the battle. All of this exactly fits the description in WP:DDE and and so I have approached here as suggestes on WP:DDE.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Thanks for the advice.

Well the following is the list of diff where the editor mentioned has removed references, removed/changed sourced data and added unsourced data in it's place.

• 1st diff
• 2nd diff
• 3rd diff
• 4th diff
• 5th diff
• 6th diff
• 7th diff

--UplinkAnsh (talk) 04:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I've commented on the article talk page and warned M.A.R 1993 about the likely consequences should they continue edit warring. EyeSerene^talk 12:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Weird ip activity

Special:Contributions/81.164.209.246

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enough, both of you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inappropriate RevDel

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

This discussion has outlived its usefulness. The deletion has been undone, and an excellent suggestion been made that contentious RevisionDelete actions should be reviewed at WP:DRV instead of here - this would surely be better. Hopefully someone will pick up that suggestion and move it forward. Rd232 ^talk 15:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  This discussion is just screaming IAR, to me. Was it "letter of the law" to remove the edit? No, probably not. Was it harmful to the encyclopedia to remove the edit? No, it most certainly was not. Could the edit have been offensive to another user? Yes, it could have. Is there a point (that actually has an impact on what we're here to do) to restoring the edit? Nope. To me, this entire discussion is a waste of time over the epitome of a non-controversial action. What's the saying...? "Let sleeping dogs lie"? TT, I commend you for knowing quite a few of the ins and outs of policies and user essays of Wikipedia, but there has to be a point where IAR takes control of the situation. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 09:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  You can't IAR admin policy. What do you think is the point of laying down specific numbered criteria if it is perfectly acceptable to simply ignore them? I also suggest you read over the last case of "admin redacts edit summary which wasn't grossly incivil" – ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 09:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  Could you please not use the phrase "I also suggest you..."? Perhaps you aren't aware, but that comes across as being awfully rude. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 09:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  I think it's perfectly polite, much more so than several alternatives which spring to mind. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 11:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Why, though? What useful purpose does it serve to "have it available for public scrutiny"? Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 09:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

see this kind of hair-splitting discussion as an annoying and unproductive waste of everyone's time. I recommend that editors do something useful, like editing an article. Interesting advice... ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 12:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Co-sign. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 09:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

I want to note that Prodego has gone ahead and made diff in question visible again. There's a thread going on here and a thread going on on Fences' talk page, and neither seem to be helping the situation. Without weighing in on my personal opinions regarding RevDel policy - please, let's accept this and not turn this into a deletion war or an even worse waste of our collective time. WP:CIVIL, I say. Let discussions about general RevDel policy stay at WP:VP or elsewhere. My two cents, Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 06:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC).

So, I suppose we should be revisiting this RFC, because if people are able to hide behind our own policies or our own licenses, then we have a problem. –MuZemike 06:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Of all my comments in closing that RFC I think the most pertinent to this (and it is urgently needed) is Dpmuk's suggestion that we need some sort of formalised accountability to RevDel. Even though there is a clear and strong support for admin discretion over the use of the feature I think it is perfectly legitimate to question Revision Deletions in this way (ignoring that fact that this particular instance generated a little too much heat...). The scope of RevDel is still ill defined and only by setting precedents over turning (or upholding) edge cases can we figure out what level of use is acceptable to the community. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought, but we already have WP:DRV for reviewing the other kinds of deletion; wouldn't be unreasonable to use it. If consensus favors it, of course. lifebaka++ 12:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

My two cents here, which I will put in unusually blunt terms for me:

• Although some of the participants have expressed concerns in good faith, starting and pursuing this thread was a poor use of the community's time. Of the top five or ten or fifty problems facing Wikipedia, the occasional rev-deletion of a borderline edit or edit summary that consisted entirely of childish vandalism and added no value to the encyclopedia, does not appear anywhere on the list.
• In general, Treasury Tag starts a fair number of threads on this noticeboard, apparently simply because he enjoys starting threads on this noticeboards. These contributions often have little value and he should direct his efforts elsewhere.
• We have a limited amount of project-wide administrator time. There are important things that administrators need to be doing, and which are not getting done on a timely basis (my personal cause is for more admins to monitor the unblock-l mailing list, which frequently hears from completely innocent users or would-be users caught up in range blocks; every one of these needs an immediate response before the user gives up and we never hear from them again). Diverting our energy into sideshows is not only undesirable in itself, but it gets in the way of things that actually need doing.
• Sven Mangard's concern about improving relationships throughout the community has merit. However, the tone of much of his rhetoric above ("the community is a cancer") is exaggerated and distracting. More seriously, some of his statements or speculations about why some of our colleagues are not active right now are, at best, misinformed. That's not helpful either; please don't do it again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  As always, if Newyorkbrad wishes to start a thread complaining about my conduct, or even discuss it with me on my talkpage, he is more than welcome. However, continually floating into ANI threads I start to disparage me doesn't come across very well and disrupts the flow of those discussions; in this case, there is a clear consensus that the admin action I complained about was, indeed, wrong, so it cannot be said that I am pointlessly muckraking. I resent and deny the allegation that I "simply enjoy starting threads on this noticeboard," and point out that I made all reasonable attempts to settle this issue with the sysop concerned before coming here as a last resort. I ask Newyorkbrad to strike the quoted passage. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 11:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  I've responded to TreasuryTag on my talk. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Rude message from User:Saisharvanan

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

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

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

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

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

I'm surprised that Wangond is actually here. He has been edit warring in various pages. [3] [4] [5] His main objective seems to be POV-pushing his views on Indian related topics. He refuses to discuss issues at article talk pages (instead, he leaves "warnings" on a user talk page [6] and when "forced" to, he refuses to cite specific sources for his statements. I don't know if this is supposed to be in AN/I or not. If it isn't, please let me know where I'm supposed to bring this issue. Bejinhan talks 02:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

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

I agree. Wangond is the editor that gave me a level 3 warning for supposedly violating NPOV. See WP:NPOVN#Just got a level 3 warning for my edit at Indus Valley Civilization -- where he's trying to keep out a view he doesn't like. Oh, I agree with the warning of Saisharvanan, but the issue raised by that editor looks real to me. Damn, he's again removed the view he doesn't like at Indus Valley Civilization, see [7] wher he continues to remove my fact tag and mention of Sharri Clark's views (he thinks including them violates NPOV). This is ironic since the sentence where I put the fact tag references Clark's webpage but the webpage doesn't mention the claims in the sentence, which Clark in fact doesn't support. Dougweller (talk) 04:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Embarassed that I did not catch that last night - and I see that you warned Wagond about disruptive editing. He, also, has not edited since posting here, so we'll see what he says. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Conflictive behavior

There is a user (User:Tia solzago) who makes difficult any edition in articles related to political parties in Italy. For example, according to him the Berlusconi's party is not a right-wing party ! [8], the neo-fascist parties are not right-wing populists [9][10] the separatist government party (Lega Nord) is not a right-wing populist party [11], in this case despite all these references presented. Obstructs and reverses everything, but he don't present any single reference.

Appeals to consensus assumptions that have never been expressed. The problem is that (perhaps unintentionally) does prevail his personal opinion on the references and the common sense. In fact, he opposes giving no reasons. Maybe he is emotionally involved. He has already conflicts with other users [12][13](in this wiki, as in the Italian one) who makes editions in the article of the Lega Nord.

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

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

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

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

As can be seen by page history, in the last three weeks in Lega Nord there was an edit war. Discussions about edits can be find here an also here and user GiovBag was blocked two times for his behavior. It seemed strange to me that a new user did, as his first actions, the same edits of GiovBag, but I limited myself to rollback him and, after, I wrote him to explain my actions. About my other edits: The People of Freedom is a centre-right party, as written in incipit, and no right wing. Neo-fascist parties are clearly right-wing, but I'm not sure that they can be defined "populist", so I asked about sources --Tia solzago (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing strange. I live in Rome, Italian politics interests me and I know quite the evolution of right-wing parties and movements in Italy. I often see these articles and I am witness to the "conflict" in the article of Lega Nord. This user (GiovBag) was blocked by edit war, and it's fine. But he gave many references demonstrating that the Lega is a right-wing populist party [14], [Der Spiegel, BBC, [15], [16], [[17],[[18], [19], [[20] and internationally is considered in that form. But instead of accepting the references, they oppose and reverse, showing no reference to prove otherwise. Now the articles only shows the official position of the parties. But, there is no party in the world that defines itself as populist, because is considered pejorative. Some of this references, speak also about parties as Allenza Nazionale, Fiamma Tricolore, La Destra. There also this reference, [21][22]. All parties and movements that are born from neo-fascist MSI are considered right-wing populists, including Alleanza Nazionale. And the PdL is considered a Right-wing party, euphemistically called "center-right" in Italy, to dissociate from the fascist past. In fact, the "Right-wing" is divided in "center right" (moderated) and "far right" (extreme), but is always "right-wing". --ForEverRome (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Tia solzago has my support. I always accept contributions by new users, but ForEverRome's behavior is a little bit disruptive and I too have the suspect that he may be a sockpuppet of GiovBag. Of course The People of Freedom is not a right-wing party by European standards. --Checco (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The spectrum of right-wing politics ranges from centre-right to far right. [23]. No more words. If for you the PdL is not Right-wing party, is understandable that you are unable to see what the LN really is. Bye.--ForEverRome (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparent personal attack

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

This comment ("douchebag turdface") to another editor[24] is an apparent personal attack by an IP who has a short editing history. This editor has previously been warned about 3RR and personal attacks. I recommend a brief block to allow the new editor to read Wikipedia policy on edit-warring and personal attacks. TFD (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I only said that because I momentarily thought it would be illogical to joke with those words among friends while being so kind with those who deny Karl Marx's antisemitism. Just two different words. As urban dictionary states it, [25]. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Do note that personal attacks are strongly discourage on wikipedia, it doesn't matter whether you use your work mouth or even if they aren't seriously offensive. And yes this includes the halfwit comment Andy made about you. In otherwords, just don't do it Nil Einne (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Improper move of Espanola, New Mexico by copy and paste

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

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

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

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

Issues with User:Kwamikagami

We are having an issue with an editor adding hyphens to medical articles against consensus. Discussion took place here with 6 against the hyphens and 2 for them. Kwam was asked not to continue making these changes and to allow those who primarily write the article allow them to reflect usage in current medical literature. He continues here [26]and here [27] One of our expert contributors are having difficult with him. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Doc James

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

Nylandbookings

I've just reverted an edit by Nylandbookings (talk · contribs) [28] at one of our MOS articles. He's created 2 articles about himself, Nyland The ODS and Nyland The O.D.S. - probably copyvio from [29] or similar. I'm going out soon, anyone else want to deal with this? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Updated Arbitration policy (final draft)

The final draft of a proposed update to the existing Arbitration policy is available. It has received extensive community review already but all editors are cordially invited to review the final draft and comment. The draft is here.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

User:Sharona26 article creation, copyvios

Resolved

 – Stwalkerster (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked user; articles have been deleted. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sharona26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is on an article creation spree of which the text is copyrighted and copied/pasted from IMDb. Despite warnings, the user continues to create the articles.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Votestacking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Latin American‎

Pablozeta (talk · contribs) has been posting neutraly worded messages to several users [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] several of whom voted "keep" in the recent Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/White_Argentine where Pablozeta was also admonished for canvassing, and apologized saying that he did not know the rules[40]. Apparently he still doesn't realize that contacting editors with known views is still considered votestacking even though the message is neutrally worded, although the policy makes it abundantly clear. He has not contacted any editor who voted delete at the White Argentine Afd. How do we deal with this at the AfD?·Maunus·ƛ· 13:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked: User talk:Pablozeta#Canvassing block.—Kww(talk) 14:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike

I'd like to get support for placing a 1RR restriction on July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike. It's a brewing problem featuring two editors that have been blocked for edit-warring on related topics in the past, V7-sport (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Iqinn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), now with Gregcaletta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) joining the fray. I already blocked and unblocked V7-sport over this article, but from looking at it, I worry that any action taken against just one party is going to inevitably have the effect of taking sides. Note that despite blocking V7-sport, I also restored his latest batch of edits when they were blindly rejected by Gregcaletta.

I'd like to propose a 1RR restriction for the article, and put a nice prominent edit notice informing people of the fact.—Kww(talk) 13:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you forget to mention Randy2063 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) an editor well known for talk page filibuster and political motivated reverts and uncompromisable POV. (at least my opinion)

Look he just reverted all the edits at BA that were previously well explained by GC one by one in his edit summaries the same change that were reverted by his buddy V7-sport 2-3 times. An unnecessary revert while things are clearly under discussion. IQinn (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If those were "well-explained", I'd hate to see "poorly explained". That's the same batch of V7-sport's edits that I restored. Still, that's part of the reason I am asking for support on a 1RR restriction: too many people making too many reverts.—Kww(talk) 19:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I've been loosely following this since I declined Iqinn's unblock request the other day, so I can see where this restriction might improve the situation if it will force them into discussing rather than reverting. —DoRD (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

IP 63.138.68.4

IP 63.138.68.4 has been adding "John Cavalli" to numerous unrelated articles - apparently this man was a musician in the 1960s, a painter in the 1600s, a scientist in the 1930s, an Australian wrestler a (think of anything) User:Frosted14 has just issued warnings whilst I was writing this post - block please. Arjayay (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty static IP, so blocked for 1 year. WP:AIV should be able to handle this in the future. NW (Talk) 16:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Nwoo5000

Resolved

 – user blocked for 31 hours by Woody (talk · contribs), many thanks! GiantSnowman 19:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Nwoo5000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Neil Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A number of problems with this one - the user in question has admitted to being the subject of the article, so we have obvious COI issues. Nwoo5000 also continues to add unreferenced information, as well as advertising a shop he owns on the same article. User has been warned a number of times by myself, and other editors have also reverted his edits. However, I am now up to 3RR so won't touch the article again (last edit was by Nwoo5000, who undid my edits) and as the editor refuses to listen/understand, I've been forced to come here - any admin help would be appreciated. Thanks and regards, GiantSnowman 17:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If he is Neil Wood, the best thing for him to do would be to put the information about himself on his personal website (if he has one), which the article could then reference. Presuming he's notable for his football career, there's no reason the article can't have a link to his official (personal) site in the EL section, is there? He can link to his shop on his personal site. I couldn't find any references to Neil Wood owning Barocca Interiors on the web anyplace, though, so we ought to make certain he is who he says he is before we even consider mentioning that in the article. 28bytes (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Aside from that, though, it looks like he's just broken 3RR with his last revert of Argyle 4 Life's revert. And he's already been warned about edit-warring, so... 28bytes (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

He hadn't been warned about the 3rr rule or explicitly told he would be blocked etc if he carried on. New users can't be expected to know this. If he continues to revert then yes, I will block him. Lets see if he discusses it first. Woody (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

He just reverted again -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours by Woody. 28bytes (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Legal threats by DeadSend4

Please see this edit. Nymf _hideliho! 18:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I posted this separate section at the same time, so I've merged the two sections.

I'm not one to start trouble, but while discovering an incident brought up about me (though not by name) on the Wikiquette board, I happened upon this apparently resolved bit. Since his unblock request was denied following the Wikiquette conclusion, he's been accused of a sockpuppetry complaint (I know nothing about it, just what I'm finding). In response to the sockpuppetry, he made the following legal threat (bottom of the page).

I do believe this user feels he was wronged in some way. It sounds like he may not be familiar with how to behave here, and it might be worth determining if this threat is real. He is blocked and currently unable to comment other than on his talk page. I will stay out of this from here, but can you please look into it? CycloneGU (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If the editor isn't actually a sock of ItsLassieTime, he's doing a good imitation. ILT was full of anger and bluster and threats... and denials... in connection with entertainment-related items. Tell him to rescind immediately, and if he won't, then indef and take away talk page privileges. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Since I am the admin that opened the SPI case, let me state that I was alerted about the possible socking through this thread on my talk page. Tenebrae (talk · contribs), who alerted me, provided links that help started the case. Willking1979 (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Just discovered this thread regarding DeadSend4.This sheds more light on the situation. Willking1979 (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is this last sentence a threat of violence? Nymf _hideliho! 19:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider it one, but it wouldn't take much modification to get there. :-( --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't consider it a threat of violence, but that's just because 14 year old kids routinely use the, "You wouldn't say that shit to my face" phrase all the time on the interwebz without actually being able to back any of it up. Seriously, let's not make a mountain out of a mole hill and just deal with what is actionable.... mainly, the sockpuppetry and legal threats. Although, I don't know how a minor can afford a lawyer, but I digress. My guess is this is just some kid who feels the need to flex his e-muscles on other wiki-editors because he doesn't understand there are some actual rules around here. Mostly harmless, IMO. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 20:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)