Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Prom3th3an (talk | contribs) at 12:58, 24 August 2009 (→‎C.Kent87's unblock request). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    Incident report against Caden and another user operating under three different IP addresses

    Resolved
     – I think we're done here - KMF and Caden, stay away from each other please, and hopefully all will be solved. Black Kite 10:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    68.50.128.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    76.114.133.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    162.6.97.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Caden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    KeltieMartinFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Yesterday, a user who was operating under IP address 68.50.128.120 was stirring up unwanted wikidrama towards me. This all stemmed from a month long debate about a certain information at Rebecca Quick which was ultimately resolved last week. But despite that, this user (who has also used IP addresses 162.6.97.3 & 76.114.133.44 as sockpuppets to evade blocks) felt the need to prolong this incident even though the hachet was already buried on this debate, resulting in unwanted wikidrama. I tried to ignore his comment by simply removing it, but he seems presistant on being obnoxious in his ways, and continue to bug me over a debate that is already done, gone, finished, over with.

    As for Caden, this person was guilty of Wikihounding me in the past, trying to mingle into my own affairs here on Wikipedia when it was none of his business, and this is the proof [[1]] on that by adminstrator Georgewilliamherbert (at the very bottom of the page). We are three months removed from that particular incident, and obviously this user has not changed in his ways despite a questionable remorseful statement by him saying that he was “sorry” to me. The incident between me and this other user was STRICTLY between me and that other user. And ONCE AGAIN, here comes Caden stepping into my own affairs when it was none of his business, wikihounding me AGAIN, and looking to pick another fight with me ANY WAY POSSIBLE. This user has a negative history on Wikipedia, stemming from disruptive edits, picking fights with other editors, showing hostility towards other them, and stirring controversy in the Wikipedia community such as his references to the Ku Klux Klan in his user screen name. But don’t take my word for it. Go through all of Caden’s edit logs, talk logs and block logs. All of those pretty much explain themselves as to the type of editor Caden is. Once again, this person has gone to the noticeboard crying foul against me over his immature ways here on Wikipedia. No offense, but I find his actions very hypocrital.

    The actions by anon 68.50.128.120 and Caden were obnoxious and unnecessary to say the very least. I try to pretend it never happened, but both seem persistance to have their ways otherwise. I will not tolerate childish behavior from these two users, and request an admistrator to issues warnings for their nonsense towards me. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I turned in the first two IP's since they went back to bad behavior once their previous blocks expired. I think the two registered editors have been at each other for awhile. It was peaceful for a couple of months, but maybe that's because Caden was offline. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh man, let me just first say that I was not notified of this report. Not cool. I really believe this is a case of the kettle calling the pot black. Alright peeps, here's how it goes: Keltie is not telling the truth. Yesterday he left personal attacks in his edit summaries towards IP 68.50.128.120 calling this editor "obnoxious". I left Keltie a friendly warning to cease the personal attacks towards the IP. The dude then responded by deleting my warning and proceeded to call me "obnoxious" in his following edit summary. I then placed a template on my talk page asking for admin help. Admin User:Chzz looked into it (see my talk page) and gave Keltie a warning to stop attacking the IP. The dude then removed that warning from his page and later went onto the page of another admin (User:AniMate) asking that I be punished. I have nothing against Keltie so I can't understand why he's here once again on ANI attacking me, twisting the truth and demanding action taken against me. All this report shows is that he's out to have me blocked like the last time. He's hated me for a long time I think but I don't give a rat's ass. The guy has a long history of attacking newbies, established users and IP's. Look at his talk page, look at his history and his edits. You'll see he's disruptive and fires off personal attacks like it's no big deal to him. The dude's been warned by several admins and several users for his disruptive behavior. He's no choirboy (he's been blocked before) but then again neither am I. I do not know what his rant over my signature is about. How the hell is my birthname a controversial reference to the KKK? Keltie should be blocked for that alone. It's offensive, untrue, immature but typical of him. It's yet another personal attack from good ol' Keltie. Furthermore, it's Keltie who has "gone to the noticeboard crying foul against me over his immature ways here on Wikipedia" many times before and not me. Regardless man, I've done nothing wrong here. Judge for yourselves. Caden cool 04:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Left a note for Caden reminding him that as per WP:USER, editors are permitted to remove messages and warnings at will from their own talk pages. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, let me dissect this last statement by Caden for everybody here.

    First disection...Caden said that I personally attacked an editor, 68.50.128.120, in my edit summaries.

    Sure, the situation would have been different if I went to that editor's talk page and attacked him. But I didn’t attacked the editor. Putting comments in my own edit summary is not an attack.

    Second disection…Caden said that I responded by deleting his warnings, and proceeded to call me "obnoxious" in his following edit summary.

    Yes I did delete the warnings. Where is the rule that say I can’t delete remarks on my own talk page? As for the obnoxious part, I’m not going to deny it. Any editor who had past dealings with this person (and there are a handful of them) would agree with me that this Caden is a difficult editor. Difficult to the point of that one particular word I used to describe him. If I get a warning for calling Caden what I have been calling him, so be it. At least I’m honest about what I say, just like Carrie Prejean who, despite losing her Miss California USA crown, still has her dignity and honesty, and isn't afraid to express it. I'm not afraid to express my own opinions either. Caden is just fabricating remarks to make me and other editors look like the enemy, and him the victim.

    Third disection...Caden said that he has nothing against me so I can't understand why he's here once again on ANI attacking me.

    If he has nothing against me, then why in the world is he getting involved in my own affairs and Wikihounding me as he did in the past? Caden is known to get involved in arguments that didn’t involved him initially, but came in in the middle just to antagonize a situation more than what it should have been. I sense this is all fun and games to him. And he has done that twice to me in the past, first time was three months ago, and the other time was just a few days about. How is that having nothing against me? He says one thing, and does another. A contradiction on this editor.

    Fourth disection...Caden said that I have been blocked before.

    Indeed I have been once blocked before. Of course, Caden is not going to tell you the situation surrounding that particular block. Once again, it all comes back to this wikihounding incident he commited against me. He too was block for this incident. And in the end, an administrator DGG, unblocked me two hours later because he deemed my block as unjustified, rooting from a trouble-making editor, Caden. Take a look at my block log and see for yourself. Caden however, didn’t get unblocked. There was a debate about extending that block for the trouble he caused to me. I have never truly been blocked irrational behavior. That is something that Caden cannot say about himself personally.

    Fifth disection...Caden said that he does not know what my rant over his signature is about. And how the hell is his birthname a controversial reference to the KKK?

    Apparently, Caden is not just an irrational editor, but one who immediately jumped the gun before thinking it over first. Somebody read over my first statement of all this, and tell me exactly where did I say “birth” name? I said “user screen name”. There’s a big difference. As for as the reference to the Ku Klux Klan, I present to everybody exhibit A [[2]]. In this particular exhibit (at the bottom of the page), it will show that Caden at one time incorprorated the white supremacy group in his screen name, going by the moniker CadenKKK. He was given an blocked indefinately by administrator Hersfold for that screen name, only to be uplifted upon changing it. It does not excuse the intolerable behavior of Caden, resorting to something as uncivil as that.

    Of course, I can go on and on about this editor, but I felt I made my point. This simply goes to show that Caden has not been telling the truth on everything he has done, and it takes a person like me and other editors and adminstrators to undig all of his wrong doings. He claims he has done “nothing wrong.” I’m sure I can find other editors and administrators who will say otherwise. I don’t hate him. I don’t hate people in general. But at the same time, I'm not the type of person who will tolerate such abuse and behavior as Caden has demonstrated in his relatively short period of editing on Wikipedia. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The three IPs listed at the top all geolocate to the same greater metro area. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I should point out that while I posted the second IP, it was not blocked, because it has not edited in several weeks. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots
    Attacking another editor is an attack. It doesn't matter if you do it on their Talk page, your Talk page, an edit summary, or some other place. Don't attack others, period. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay here's my reply in response to Keltie's post point by point:

    First disection - Keltie "did attack" IP68.50.128.120 in his edit summary. This is his personal attack: "Undoing crap by obnoxious editor." How can he deny that? The evidence is there.

    Second disection - Fine man you can remove warnings from your talk page but "you can't" make personal attacks in your edit summaries like you did again with me. Your edit summary was this: "Again removing crap by yet another obnoxious editor. One who has even worst dealings." That is a personal attack. You say I'm difficult, well I find you difficult and so have others. And yes, I too am not afraid to express my opinions man. At least I tell the truth dude and am not afraid to say it. I can't say that about you man.

    Third disection - It's true I don't have anything against you. I don't like to see you attacking other editors in your edit summaries and that is why man I gave you a friendly warning. Dude you've received so many warnings from admins and other editors for the exact same thing, so I wonder why you chose to single me out yet again? I think this is the third time you've taken me to ANI man. It's obvious you have a grudge against me dude. Why else would you be canvasing 3 separate admins on their talk pages in attempts to achieve a block against me? You've been to the pages of User talk:Exploding Boy, User talk:AniMate and User talk:Chzz, ranting your bull. I am not wikihounding you Keltie so you can quit saying that man.

    Fourth disection - Dude you were blocked for edit warring and so was I. It had nothing to do with me wikihounding you, so don't flatter yourself. Trust me man, I don't care what you believe. Dude I was never blocked for "irrational behavior" so quit it with the lies already. My block log clearly shows it was for a edit warring.

    Fifth disection - First off my username is my birthname and you've known that for months dude. As for your KKK allegations it's misleading lies on your part as an attempt to distort the truth in the hopes that an admin will fall for it and block me or ban me. Whatever. If editors want the truth, they can read about that in the link you provided to my talk page. In short, it had to do with an old ANI (the report was not about me) where 3 editors called me a racist or made remarks that I was somehow associated with the KKK. All of it was abusive lies and not a single editor was blocked for those attacks. I remember well how Bugs enabled and helped to fuel the fires of hell on that ANI. It's no surprise to see that dude sitting here silently now. Anyway when I saw that the community was pretty much allowing the devious lies, the abusive attacks and the appalling accusations to go on, I got very upset and made a poor judgment on my part. I changed my username in anger to make a point and I was punished for that with a block. Hersfold and I worked it all out after I calmed down and not only was the block lifted but he also expressed to me that he understood why I got upset and why I did it because something similar had happened to him on wiki. Dude my block was for "disruption to make a point" and not for my signature. I am human and do make mistakes.

    Here's my take. The dude is pissed off that I exposed him for incivility and for making personal attacks in his edit summaries. So in retaliation (like before) he's here on ANI (like before) and canvasing to 3 admins on their talk pages to achieve what he hopes to get. A block or a ban. Period. Caden cool 22:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So, just why did you see fit to add "KKK" to your signature at one point? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ...maybe he was just agreeing with someone three times? Yes? HalfShadow 22:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Or maybe a really successful inning? Protonk (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I knew you when you were just an amateur tonk. Good think you didn't decide to go with that name, huh? HalfShadow 23:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's German; it means "The Bart, the." Exploding Boy (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could people please re-read what I said or could you please read the link to this blown out of proportion lie? Listen, if you can't be neutral or fair then please don't bother causing me further harm here. Caden cool 23:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone labels you racist, adding "KKK" to your ID doesn't do much to dispel that notion, no matter how good an idea it may have seemed at the time. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bootlegtonk, perhaps? Also, explodingboy wins. Protonk (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bugs you of all people know what happened on that old ANI that was filed against ParaGreen. Don't act dumb here please. It's insulting since you were the one who fueled the fire. And HalfShadow, I was protecting the use of freedom of speech on that ANI since I don't support censorship of any kind but in my attempt to do the right thing, it was twisted by Bugs and 2 others and changed into this whole KKK hate garbage and I was victimised from there. Caden cool

    In fact later on Bugs thought it was funny and claimed he understood the whole thing. Here's what he said about it: I know Roux wouldn't want me to say this, but I kind of liked that signature of yours. It was too outrageous to be taken seriously. Probably better not to use it too much. But it was a way of mocking some of us, and pretty much deservedly so. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Caden cool 23:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That was 5 months ago, and since I didn't recall saying it (I do now that you brought it up), it's not surprising that someone who stumbled across it would fail to see the humor in it. Seems to me like you two should take your specific content issues to dispute resolution so someone can untangle it all. As far as personal issues, maybe a no-contact ban on both sides would be in order. It's working so far, between me and some other editor whose name escapes me just now. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    HalfShadow baiting Caden

    Here, HalfShadow has been engaging in baiting Caden, who didn't respond very happily. I warned him, he responded with insults, I warned him against the incivility, and it continued. It doesn't look like he's going to stop any of the offensive behaviour anytime soon. → ROUX ₪ 00:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If Baseball Bugs, HalfShadow, and Protonk can't remain mature or neutral then can you please stop posting. This isn't a game. None of you are helping. Baiting me is not acceptable behavior on ANI. EB you're an admin who's been in conflict with me not only in the past but just recently. I really don't feel you should be commenting. I apologize if I'm wrong but I don't see how you can help. All I ask is that editors and admins review this report in a neutral/fair manner. I will accept any decision or not. I just want this report to be about fairness and it should focus on the evidence only and not be distracted by some who think this is all a big joke. It's not. Thanks. Caden cool 00:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Permission granted to dock my pay for skylarking on the job. I wasn't commenting on the substance of the complaint, just a diversion near the end. Doing so is not serious business. Protonk (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Same here, and in fact I was invited to comment on your behaviour but declined, so I think you should be counting your blessings. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    KeltieMartinFan history of edit warring at Rebecca Quick

    The disruption at Rebecca Quick was not from the IPs, and certainly not from Caden, but from KMF; the history of KMF's editing of that article reveals a pattern of attempting to exclude mention of her former marriage, initially because it was "trivial." Later, the argument became one of impeaching sources, yet similar sources were allowed as mention of the current marriage. In reviewing this, I looked over KMF's editing history and suspect a possible conflict of interest involvement, which would explain the otherwise puzzling situation that KMF was willing to edit war over what was, from the beginning, a known and non-defamatory fact supported by reliable source, the prior marriage.

    Edits to Rebecca Quick, all the KMF reverts are in bold:

    • IP is registered to NBC Universal.[3]
    • Mquayle registered 17:26, 6 May 2009. The current husband of Rebecca Quick is Matthew Quayle, the producer of Quick's program. This removal of reference to the identities of spouses stood until 7 July 2009.
    • 21:49, 7 July 2009 162.6.97.3 restored a mention re the present marriage: "It is her second marriage."
    • 12:57, 8 July 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 300875201 by 162.6.97.3 (talk) Not really appropriate to mention.) This began edit warring.
    • 11:44, 17 July 2009 76.114.133.44 etc.
    • 12:20, 17 July 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 302583314 by 76.114.133.44 (talk) Not appropriate to mention.)
    • 12:25, 17 July 2009 KeltieMartinFan (talk | contribs) (3,945 bytes) (Undid revision 302587651 by 76.114.133.44 (talk) Again, inappropriate. Do not change it.)
    • 12:41, 17 July 2009 KeltieMartinFan (talk | contribs) (3,945 bytes) (Undid revision 302588154 by 76.114.133.44 (talk) Unsource, rude, and inappropriate to mention of a living person.)
    • Then Onorem intervened and revert warred against the IP, giving "unsourced" as the reason. However, there was mention of the former marriage already in source for the previous sentence, which stated: "She now lives in Haworth, New Jersey"[4]. The 2006 source is the New York times, and it mentions her husband, "she now lives (in Haworth) with her husband, who is a computer programmer." That would have been Peter Shay, we have the name from other sources. So there was no reference on the text itself, hence I understand Onorem's action. But there was adjacent reference adequate to establish a former marriage. The IP was blocked for edit warring.
    • 162.6.97.3 was blocked] for "block evasion." (which is unclear, I found it likely that the two IPs are different users. I have a suspicion that one is the former husband, and the other may be a friend, but no proof of either.)
    • 16:41, 5 August 2009 162.6.97.3 (See talk page for discussion) etc.
    • 17:33, 5 August 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 306233866 by 162.6.97.3 (talk) Despite everything, this edit STILL does not have a source listed.)
    • 18:51, 5 August 2009 162.6.97.3 (Please see talk page for discussion)
    • 19:48, 5 August 2009 William M. Connolley (Protected Rebecca Quick: here we are again ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 19:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 19:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC))))[reply]
    • 19:48, 5 August 2009 William M. Connolley (rv: as before)
    • 22:53, 6 August 2009 Abd (actually, the source was already there. Add additional source.)
    • The additional source is a newsletter of a local organization that had a photo of Rebecca Quick with her then-husband, Peter Shay. I put it in to balance other information in the article, from not-so-reliable source, mentioning Matthew Quayle by name, the current husband, also to establish more clearly that the "computer programmer" is a different husband than the "producer."
    • 15:01, 7 August 2009 Bilby (removed unreliable (and unneeded) source)
    • 20:01, 7 August 2009 Elen of the Roads (Reverted 1 edit by Bilby; No reason to assume 3rd sector source is unreliable unless you have evidence it has been hacked.. (TW)
    • 20:28, 7 August 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 306659446 by Elen of the Roads (talk) Not an adaquate source. Like putting water in a gas tank.)
    • 16:47, 9 August 2009 Elen of the Roads (Readded Cedar Run source. Talkpage consensus seems to be for it. Please discuss before removing again.)
    • 18:26, 9 August 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 306997914 by Elen of the Roads (talk) I'm sorry. But two people (Elen and Abd) is not consensus.)
    • 20:32, 9 August 2009 Coppertwig (Undid revision 307013795 by KeltieMartinFan (talk) Revert. Sorry, but one person (KeltieMartinFan) is not consensus.)
    • 21:21, 9 August 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 307034753 by Coppertwig (talk) It's not only me, but I'm not about to list the names either. Way too many.)

    Notice that the first edit warring was not over sourcing, it was over the bare mention of the prior marriage. This was supporting the earlier removal by, we may assume, Rebecca Quick's present husband. In the discussion begun by the IP, Talk:Rebecca Quick#Evidence that CNBC anchor Rebecca “Becky” Quick was previously married., KMF wrote, I personally don't oppose JohnnyB256 suggestion of excluding all of Quick's martial information on this article. I’m sure Miss Quick and those close to her would actually prefer it that way. What makes sense to me is that, indeed, Ms. Quick's current husband wanted the mention removed, and that KMF's tendentious attempts to remove any mention, plus, once it was obvious that total removal wasn't going to fly, at least any reference where readers would find the former husband's name, was based on KMF's personal support for Quick's husband, here "I'm sure" is based on actual knowledge. KMF has a history of editing articles related to NBC. There may be a conflict of interest, or there may merely be a tenacious and uncivil editor who is going to push as hard as possible for what the editor wants, to the extent of edit warring and, now, filing this AN/I report. --Abd (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I, too, noticed days ago that Keltie edits nearly any article to do with NBC (programs,hosts etc) which left me feeling there could be a COI here. I just finished reading the drama caused by Keltie on the issue over Rebecca Quick having been married once before previously (she's now on her second marriage), despite the reliable sources that supports that former marriage, Keltie fought endlessly to have it removed from the article (that's fishy). I had had a feeling days ago that there was a possiblity he may be employed by NBC or at the very least is associated in some way. So due to the possiblity of a COI, I mentioned my concerns to an admin called Chzz. The discussion of that is on my own talk page under the section"Question". It sure is a relief that at least another editor noticed the bizarre editing on every NBC related article . Caden cool 04:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see much reason for assuming a COI. Not that there isn't necessarily one, but the early reverts were of unsourced personal information in a BLP, and you don't need a COI to want to remove material under those conditions. While it isn't exactly a big deal to have been divorced, a previous marriage was being mentioned without a source, and it is the responsibility of the editor re-adding the material to provide one. The later reverts (which I started) were to remove a self-published source (a newsletter) from the article, which is again in keeping with policy, and made sense given that Abd had provided a better source (New York Times) as well as the newsletter. - Bilby (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bilby, the New York Times source was there all along, all I did was make it a bit more obvious, by referring to the "computer programmer." It was the standing reference for the text that Quick "now lives in Haworth, New Jersey," the only thing that I did that was new was to read it -- besides researching the background of this, which includes coverage of the May edits to our article article, by a "gossip column." (That's cited in the Talk discussion.) The Times said that she was married to a computer programmer. The newsletter was not a "self published source," it is independent confirmation, and might be, in fact, the source for the New York Times comment. It was the newsletter of a local conservancy or the like. It has a photo of Rebecca Quick, as well as her parents and husband. Is it impossible that there was an error in this newsletter? Sure, anything is possible. Frankly, an error of that magnitude, that the organization had missed the name of their celebrity guest's husband, seems less likely to me than what I see in reliable sources quite frequently, wherever I know the subject of the article. And like a major error in a major source, it would have been corrected. I added the newsletter to cover the possibility that the NBC producer had been a computer programmer in 2006. The newsletter is a supporting source that provides information necessary to kill that: the name of the former husband. Since the article doesn't name the present husband, balance would suggest that the former husband not be named either, but the additional source was evidence that there wasn't a coincidence. There is also the gossip column, but it apparently depends on the newsletter as a source. A serious journalist would have checked with legal records, were there any doubt. I don't think there is any doubt.
    KMF is a disruptive editor, uncivil and willing to edit war over trivia, and bears watching. --Abd (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    extended comment by Abd
    I'd say that the only reason that the newsletter reference isn't still there is that I don't edit war, and since nobody was claiming that the present husband is a computer programmer, Bilby's claim, that the extra source wasn't necessary, was sufficiently close to true to not be worth the disruption of contending about it. Coppertwig had accepted that argument, but I'm not sure that Coppertwig had considered the issue of confirmation of separate identity.
    As to conflict of interest on KMF's, I don't see how, from a review of the evidence above, Bilby can say "I can't see much reason for assuming" it. Not proof, as I noted. But the level of coincidence is high; were it important, more research could be done on the nature of KMF's edits; this particular sequence shows active edit warring to remove a piece of non-defamatory information originally removed, we may assume, by Quick's present husband (a clear COI involved in the real beginning of this) (or someone pretending to be the present husband, which, if it were a pretense, would simply increase the mystery). KMF edit warred in pursuit of the removal of this almost trivial information, and was grossly, gratuitously, and provocatively uncivil. Caden is naive and erred in restoring KMF Talk material that had been removed by KMF, but he was correct about the incivility. KMF also removed the edit warring warning I dropped on KMF Talk (KMF had hit 3RR in the second edit war) and then put it on my own Talk page, making it look like I'd been warned for edit warring until I framed it. Note that all of KMF's edits of consequence to the article were bald reverts, showing no attempt to find a compromise. KMF is a disruptive editor and, at least, bears watching.
    On the original arguments presented by KMF, if the first marriage was notable enough to mention in the New York Times, it is notable enough for the project in an article on the subject of the NY Times article. Notability does not expire. It doesn't belong in the article, but the photo in the newsletter conveys volumes about the history of this subject. If that man is an NBC producer, I'm the Queen of Sheba. Computer programmer? Sure. Makes total sense. All computer programmers are now allowed to complain, but I'm simply pointing out that some people are good at somethings, others at others, and the skills involving in being a producer include self-presentation, computer programmers generally don't care about that. --Abd (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The source originally removed by the IP that was certainly MQuayle was [5], which was eventually restored to the article (by Bilby?). This is a source for the new marriage, reported in January 2009. So this is, indeed, adequate to show that the reported computer programmer husband, as of 2006, was not Matthew Quayle, the additional source would then merely be for interest. I know I was interested to see that, and no original research is required.... --Abd (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is far from a core issue here, so I'll be very quick. The WP:BLP policy is pleasantly clear: "Remove any unsourced material to which a good faith editor objects;" and "... or that relies upon self-published sources". There was no source being provided for the claim that the subject had divorced in the article, thus it was reasonable for it to be removed. Personally, I would have tried to find a source and add it, but while that might be expected, it isn't required. Second, Wikipedia defines self published sources as including newsletters. Thus removing that as a source, when a better one was already being used, was perfectly reasonable. There is nothing in the newsletter valuable enough to warrant using a non-RS in a BLP. So while I can't comment on whether or not KeltieMartinFan has a COI, nothing in the editor's behaviour was unusual or speaks to that claim, as the reverts were firmly within BLP policy. If there is a concern, perhaps it is worth raising at WP:COI/N, although I doubt there will be much milage. - Bilby (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to know why there is such an obsession, by all concerned, over whether this woman was previously married. Why does it matter? And when did wikipedia become the Midnight Star? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a curious mystery. :) Although, it should be said, editors have been known to argue over some odd concerns. - Bilby (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's looking more and more like this one needs to be added to that list. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict with below). Actually, it's not odd at all, it only seems that way if possible COI isn't considered. In my various discussions of this, I repeatedly pointed out that admin and other response to this was reasonable, but reflected a lack of depth, which is normal. Most editors can't or won't put in the kind of time necessary to really understand what is going on. The information about a former marriage was sourced, but the reference was on the previous sentence, not the one re-inserted by the IP. Easy to overlook. I actually did at least two hours of research on this before seeing it. However,almost certainly KMF was aware. My hypothesis: one of the IP editors is the former husband, or possibly a friend of same. The former husband doesn't like being written out of history. And I can understand this, and if he was notable before, he still is. The IP editor who removed the reference to the article about the marriage, and the infobox reference to the marriages, was, almost certainly, the present husband, who understandably wants to preserve his wife's privacy, and who then registered and removed the infobox reference to the two marriages. KMF seems suspiciously aligned with the latter agenda, given the overall editing pattern. It is not a lame concern for those involved. However, if Quick wants reference to the marriage removed, the path would be through OTRS, not by edit warring to keep it out. My judgment, though, is that it belongs, it is adequately sourced; the wife is notable, a public figure, I don't think that can be undone. She was married before, so have been a lot of people, including me. It's no shame, and we know nothing about why that marriage ended, and, unless it appears in reliable source, I'm not going to even speculate. What was my concern here? It was about edit warring and a ready assumption that the problem was the IP editors, even to the point that it was assumed they were socks. That wasn't an unreasonable guess, but it may have been wrong. There was a problem with the IPs, for sure, but it wasn't what necessarily appeared, and there was more of a problem with KMF, who may remain active on other NBC-related articles. I'm not terribly concerned about the short IP blocks, they do little damage, and the IPs understand the problem and if they want to register an account, they can.
    So, if there are no more problems, great, we are done here. I only brought up all this about KMF because of the aggressive filing of this report. --Abd (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're making a lot of claims with no supporting evidence. What I'd really like to hear from you is a reason why her supposed previous marriage actually matters. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User:KeltieMartinFan has taken no further action to alter or change the Quick article. Thus KMF's word should be accepted that the matter is finished.
    A Quick edit-war did occur, with incivility by the major parties involved. That appears to be done as well.
    Whatever exists between User:Caden and User:KeltieMartinFan is a pre-existing condition Completely Unrelated to the Quick matter. Whatever brings any other kibitzers here other than User:Bilby and User:Abd is unclear as well.
    That said, while User:Abd has been helpful in much of the Quick debate, Abd is repeatedly over-amped about potential conflicts-of-interest in the matter. It also serves little purpose at this time to recount exhaustively all of the Quick edit-war particulars.
    Finally, and amusingly, only User:KeltieMartinFan would vouch for Carrie Prejean's dignity!  :)
    162.6.97.3 (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the fixed IP most strongly suspected, by me, of being the former husband. It hasn't actually been denied, but, as long as the IP doesn't edit war or offend in other ways, it's moot, it merely is one of a number of alternate hypotheses that do, in fact, show why this was of such earth-shaking importance to several editors. This particular incident is finished, but I put the evidence here for future reference, if it is needed. If KMF is sincere, indeed, it's over. --Abd (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Abd Please, please stop with the suspicions! :)
    It may be hard to grasp, but edit-wars can occur without NBC employees or ex-husbands involved. And that is very much the case with the Quick matter!
    162.6.97.3 (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it odd that Keltie remains so interested on practically every single NBC related type of article. Having looked through his history shows that he edits nearly every single morning program imaginable on NBC as well as other NBC programs, NBC personalities, you name it it's all NBC related. A few months ago Keltie was involved in an edit war over Katie Couric. No surprise there which leads me to believe more and more that if Keltie isn't employed by NBC, then he must be associated in one way or another. Either way it's a COI and seems to make a lot of sense based on all the NBC type of articles he edits. Unless of course he's just an obsessed fan of NBC. Caden cool 15:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And what's your personal interest in this woman's marital history? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh Bugs, Caden wasn't writing about Quick's marital history, he was addressing KeltieMartinFan's editting behavior. Two different, & independent, topics. -- llywrch (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I say again - the two should stay away from each other. Period. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You are absolutely right, Bugs. Caden and I should stay away from each other. And until three days ago, I was doing just that until Caden decided to barge in AGAIN on my own business here on Wikipedia. Just like he did three months earlier with the whole Amy Robach & Jenna Wolfe spat. It is Caden that you need to tell to stay away from me. Because I was staying away from him until he decided to bother me again. I even forgot about him until he pooped up on my talk page. As they say, actions speak louder than words. No matter how many ways Caden says he has nothing against me, and has no grudge...his actions clearly say otherwise. None of what Caden has said in the last few days have been honest and truthful. Caden said that HE has not been blocked for irrational behavior? What does he think edit-warring is? As for the KKK reference, where in his right frame of mind does he think putting that as part of his signature rational and acceptable in the first place? I might be difficult in my own little way, but I would NEVER stoop to such a low level like Caden did. As for Abd, he too is quickly developing a reputation that almost rivals that of Caden. None of what he presented in the last couple of days are evidences of disruptive behavior on my part. All Abd presented were actions by me that are legitimate and within Wikipedia policies. He is only boosting my reputation on here even higher. As for the whole conflict of interest accusation that both Caden and Abd are trying to accuse me of? At least I had my proof of your KKK reference when you accuse me of "lying" about it, Caden. You and Abd DON'T HAVE proof that conflict of interest exists with me and NBC. And I’m not going to say whether or not conflict of interest does exist either. Such petty accusations are not worth my time, and I don’t feel that I should be obligated to go easy on the two you, and let you two off the hook that quickly. If you two really want to go the extra mile with that accusation, be my guess. PROVE IT. It will give me great satisfaction to know that two editors who have it in for me will go out of their way, and spend a lot of their valuable time and effort JUST TO find out if I, KeltieMartinFan, have any type of association with the National Broadcasting Company, General Electric, or any of their subsidiaries. I will say this though to everybody, when the two of you were trying to dig up dirt on me and my "supposed" obsession with NBC, they clearly left out all my important and positive contributions on various shows and personalities on networks other than NBC, like ABC’s Good Morning America and their various personalties, CBS’s The Early Show and their various personalites, CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Erica Hill & Robin Meade, Fox Business Network’s Alexis Glick and Fox News Channel’s Gretchen Carlson, Alisyn Camerota & Ainsley Earhardt. Not to mention the numerous times I had to revert information caused by vandals on political commentator and Republican strategist Margaret Hoover. You don't actually think going through your edit log, Caden, that I can't figure out what type of personality you have, don't you? Just like you and Abd are trying to figure out what type of personality I have from my edit log? If you two still think conflict of interest is involved, I would care less. I’m not going to defend myself over you two in particular over this far-fetched accusation just to downplay my credibility on Wikipedia. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Everyone involved just needs to take a breather. Tempers are flaring and it's not doing anyone a bit of good. That said, I'm not inclined to believe Keltie has a COI simply because of his editing patterns. More proof is needed to show that a COI exists. I'm sure you could go through anyone's edit history with a fine tooth comb and find a pattern that appears damning. (I'm sure this was helpful in some minuscule way.) --clpo13(talk) 09:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent incivility by User:Small Victory

    We have a problem of persistent incivility by User:Small Victory. Civility issues are typically handled by WP:WQA, and a thread is posted there. However the persistence of this user's incivility may warrant an administrative assessment, as the incivility has become disruptive. A non exhaustive sample of some of the users uncivil comments is below.

    Extended content

    There is a developing situation with an editor. He has increasingly insulting people both on the page history summaries, talk pages and other wikipedia pages.

    Examples (bolded by PB666):

    • diff You've said some pretty stupid things before, but that has to be the stupidest'
    • diff Stop your lies and distortions
    • diff You're the problem, not me.
    • diff Have you completely lost your mind?
    • diff Are you blind? I showed you the Table where almost all of the mtDNA figures come from. Try looking at it.
    • diff Either cite something specific in my version that's not properly sourced or keep quiet. I'm getting tired of your false accusations.
    • diff And Muntuwandi obviously doesn't like my version because it's too neutral. So including me, that's 5 against 3. And really it's 6 against 2 because you're schizophrenic.
    • edit summary Removed Pdeitiker's ridiculous, incomplete and improperly sourced table. [Note: the table was actually removed even though it had references Small Victory has converted Absolute sample frequencies to percentages without disclosing the source of the numbers, once this was found out the material was promptly removed - the problem was that he scrambled the references in his citation such that they were difficult to follow]
    • edit summary Do you not understand what a combined sample is?
    • edit summary Pdeitiker, don't revert to Muntuwandi's version after coming out against it on the Talk Page
    • diff You need Europeans to have black ancestry to help you get over your inferiority complex.
    • diff Are you kidding me? It's clear that you still don't understand my analogy, even though I've explained it and corrected your misapprehension several times. What do I have to do, draw you a picture? LEARN HOW TO READ!

    And then you wonder why I talk down to you.

    • [6] I didn't call you a chimp. I asked: "...would I have better luck explaining [the analogy] to a chimp?" The fact that you didn't understand that makes your claim that our "communication problems" might be my fault quite laughable.
    • diff You're quite delusional. That article was deleted because it was a WP:CFORK. And your POV-pushing, original research, 3RR violations and sock puppets had more to do with it than anything I ever did. In fact, the article was problem-free until you (and Andrew Lancaster) came along and started tampering with it. Let's remember that you're the one who's been blocked for repeated rule violations. My record is clean. So if anything, the deletion was a referendum on your approach. Take the hint.

    PB666 yap 20:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I can see you have trouble following simple logic. ... Small Victory
    • This issue was already debated here when another obvious Afrocentrist tried to pull the same garbage that you're pulling now. He lost. Please refer to discussions 6, 7 and 8. ---- Small Victory (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The debate about content is over. You've been proven wrong, and consensus has been reached. In fact, it was over three years ago when Yom tried to pull the same thing and was also defeated by consensus. (Notice that your pal Llywrch intervened there, but backed down when I explained everything and he saw that I was right.) The situation we have now is a "crazy Afrocentrist" (by your own admission) trying repeatedly to reinsert OR and POV into the article, and in doing so continually violating the 3RR. This has to stop. ---- Small Victory (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you delusional? After we arrive at consensus that you're guilty of OR and POV pushing, and we cease to indulge your nonsense as a result, your twisted Afrocentric mind interprets that as consent for you to reinsert your biased edits? Get real.The only "silence" here is yours, and it's deafening. You need to produce a source that uses E-V13 and E-M81 as evidence of Sub-Saharan African admixture. If you can't do that (and it's obvious by now that you can't), then you need to back off and stop vandalizing this article. ---- Small Victory (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's be very clear: Your OR and POV will never be included in this article. Ever. Not as long as we have something to say about it. And if not us, then someone else will come along to stop you. Because you're in the wrong. ---- Small Victory (talk) 08:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've got a lot of nerve accusing others of OR given your track record. It's not a question of what the Auton study says, it's what it shows (or rather, doesn't show). Do you know what an admixture analysis is? Have you heard of the STRUCTURE program? I suggest you familiarize yourself with these things before making outrageous and idiotic accusations. Start with the Pritchard and Rosenberg papers referenced in this article......Small Victory (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am discussing the content, but it's impossible to get anywhere with someone who's so clueless about science, and population genetics in particular, and more interested in advancing an Afrocentric agenda than learning anything. A graph is not "shaky ground". . . . . . And the graphs show that clearly. Get it? ---- Small Victory (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • .... that yield different results (do you understand anything about how science works?). In fact, here's a study .....Small Victory (talk)

    08:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Wapondaponda (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[section refactored by PB666][reply]

    I don't think any Wikipedian, who is acting in good faith deserves to be at the receiving end of such vitriol. This is all one way traffic, AFAIK, nobody has ever said anything mean to Small Victory. The isolated personal attack can be brushed aside. Some content disputes get heated and people say things, that they ordinarily wouldn't say. But Wikipedians shouldn't have to be at the receiving end of such abuse for months on end. I believe this user has met the criteria stated at Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#How_disruptive_editors_evade_detection. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I just notified User:Small Victory of this thread. Wknight94 talk 14:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to understand how this will accomplish anything that the WQA and talkpage warnings to Small Victory wouldn't. He has been warned, and if he does not stop, he will be blocked. Those two should be enough, or else nothing will be. There is no immediate administrative assistance needed. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed ... and the OP was also asked not to use the {{Quotation}} format ... that entry alone on WQA was huge! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it was huge, that is because SV has been uncivil on several occasions. Even on WQA SV in a half hearted admission of his incivility, refers to me as a "unrepentant Afrocentrist". This after he was given a warning. He is fully aware, that I resent being referred to by any ...ist. Furthermore, these warnings have been taking place for a while, and SV has ignored them. Andrew Lancaster posted a complaint User_talk:Small_Victory#Tone_of_discussion, over a month ago, starting on the 4th of July, [7], expressing concerns about SV's incivility. This seems to have been ignored, as he has persisted. Many other users have expressed concern as well. SV's incivility is so disruptive, so much that it has made it very difficult to collaborate with anybody. We are not editing on wikipedia, to be persistently insulted, denigrated and humiliated as has been the case. The touchy-feely WQA approach is an option, but Andrew and others have already tried such approach ,as I have mentioned above, and it didn't work. Administrative action should also be another option. SV would immediately understand Wikipedia's core policy of civility. I don't think it is fair, at least 10 of these personal attacks have been directed at me, and I have never said anything mean to him. It is not fair to give him a slap on the wrist and say forget about it, everything will be fine. That would be encouraging this type of behavior. What if all of us were to be uncivil, all order would break down. SV doesn't have exclusive rights to be rude. This is why administrative action would be very effective. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it was huge because you insist on posting using quotation tags, instead of just diffs. Someone cleaned up the mess on WQA, and I note someone has just top'n'tailed it here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree adding some formating does increase Kbs. If there was an easier way to communicate with editors who are unfamiliar with a specific incident, we would use it. Diffs are great, but they have their problems too. They are harder to read and sometimes there is an excess of text, so quotations help to zoom in on what is necessary. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The section above was refactored using mostly Wilkins version.PB666 yap 16:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't care less about the formatting of complaints. If an editor does not follow the conventions, the material can be quietly rearranged & it should not be the subject of adverse comment. (In fact the current trend to require formalism in making complaints is disturbing: I consider it intimidating to less experienced users--in fact, the current way some of the admin boards are arranged, I would be hard put to figure it out myself, and I've been an admin 2 years now. This board in particular is in a sense a board for problems that don't fit anywhere else, and I am willing to discuss them however they are presented). We're here to deal with problems. In my opinion the consistent use of ad hominem language amounting to the level of insult by SV is a problem that does require attention. Whether he is right on the genetics is irrelevant here, it is a matter for article talk pages. He has no right whatever to make racist accusations against other editors. But has there been any since the 15th, the date of BWilkins' warning? DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Other than referring to someone as an Afrocentrist and then confirming calling them that, no ... and even that is a little iffy. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    SV seems to think that name calling is acceptable, I resent the caricature of Afrocentrism and SV is aware of that as I have mentioned it to him. His use of the term, indicates a lack of sincerity in his admission of incivility. Disruptive User's who evade detection often avoid gross breaches of civility, but their minor breaches of incivility are frequent enough to be disruptive. As I have mentioned before, the isolated breaches of incivility are normal, and can be brushed aside. It is persistent incivility that can bring collaborative editing to a halt I believe this is the case with SV. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with DGG about formatting and procedure. The most important thing is to communicate the problem. We have brought this issue for the attention of the wider community as it appears to be affecting our ability to edit. What we would like to know, is whether the community feels these comments are uncivil, and if they are, whether anything should be done about them. The people at the receiving end of these comments, shouldn't be blamed for complaining about them. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the issue of Science. I want to try to explain the basic problem in as simple a lingo as possible so that we can understand the malicious nature of the edit-warring that goes on.
    Background

    Background. The story goes like this, back in the 60s Molecular anthropology began, it largely used highly indirect measures of quantifying similarities and differences between humans. In 1980 to 1987 is was found by AC Wilson and company that diversity in humans was far less than other species of extant apes, humans had the diversity of a smallish isolated subspecies of ape. In 1987 Wilson's group found that for mtDNA, all diversity appears to flow recently out of Africa. The Y chromosomal diversity was later established, and it was basically found that both have undergone fixation recently. In 1996 Tishkoff et al established that there is, at least, evidence of gene flow from Africa into Europe, but, at that time, the appearance was not statistically attributable to recent migrations, simply that Europeans had more markers that are found in SSA than Europe than peoples further to the east. The HLA mirrored this point of view, however in specific instances, such as Sardinia and the Basque, there was sufficiently unambiguous genetic types to assert a conclusion. A conclusion has been drawn by on researcher, Arniaz-Villena which has drawn criticism because of a sub-Saharan/Greek claim. He used HLA-DRB1 as his support, however if one looks at HLA A-Cw-B haplotypes, many studies, have shown links between Western and Southern Europe and Africa that appear to exclude West Asian intermediates. The question has become, now, what part of Africa. The intensity of these patterns is either not visible with mtDNA and Y, or the punctuate pattern of Y (such as in the Pasiegos) is credited to strong drift.

    Here is an example of how interpretation difficulty arises. Ethnic Sardinians represents a more discrete subpopulation of humans and can be defined by the collapse of gradients seen in both Europe and Africa. Consequently, by HLA it clusters independently of Europeans despite being in Europe. The HLA type A30-Cw5-B18 is qualified by three different studies as being of paleoNorth African (i.e. not-Berber origin since Berbers would be of paleo NE African), its frequency ~20% and examining of Sardinia for other N.African haplotypes brings the level to about 30%. There are three aspect of the haplotype that make it of probable N/NW African. A*3002, Cw5-B18, B18-DR3. The problem is that because of its early study in Sardinia A30 was not resolved into A*3002, while it almost certainly is A*3002 or a derivative. However, the level of Sub-saharan Y and mtDNA in Sardinia are low, and all Y of possible recent African ancestry or mtDNA of African ancestry are well below 30% (for Y 30% of males). A30-Cw5-B18 could be a very ancient haplotype of N or NW african origin. At the current level of understanding ~10% of mt or Y (at maximum) may be of direct/recent N Africa origin. HLA on the other hand, preserve diversity and the effect on allele population or ploidy is technically 4 times that of Y or mtDNA and so drift affect this locus less. In practicality, because of a known selection for diversity the 2N rule would register this locus as being >>4 times that of mt and Y since HLA albeit refuse to fix. HOwever, disease and diet are known to select HLA. And for DR3-DQ2 there appears to be a preference for our ancestors who lived in coastal areas and routinely ate shellfish. It is known, at times for example in Guatemala, DQ8 violates the rule and is close to saturating frequency (at 80%). DQ8 might also be under coastal/maritime selection. Which interpretation of the 'facts' is correct? or is the actual level of genomic contribution somewhere in between? So that results of different publications battle each other. Its not the fault of scientist, this is the way genetics plays-out.

    The proponents of the use of Y or mtDNA claim HLA is under-selection. However, the biggest problem with Y chromosome is that its TMRCA for humans is 1/2 to 1/3rd the TMRCA for mtDNA, and in fact its TMRCA occurs after humans expanded from Africa by both physical and molecular anthropological methods. Consequently, Y chromosomal tracking is problematic as hegemony and cultural selection have been presented as playing large roles in frequency distributions. What makes the problem worse it is established that when invasions or migrations to occur, there is a preferential expansion of Y 'types' found in the invaders (relative to other markers) and a reduction of local Y 'types' frequencies.

    On the other hand mtDNA is frequently preserved in local populations, and this would be a good sensor except for the fact that many older branches thought to be ancestral to Europeans are also found in North Africa, and this could be the result of Northward or Reverse gene flow. However it has been widely reported that mtDNA are underselection Gonder MK, Mortensen HM, Reed FA, de Sousa A, Tishkoff SA. (2007). "Whole-mtDNA genome sequence analysis of ancient African lineages". Mol. Biol. Evol. 24 (3): 757–68. doi:10.1093/molbev/msl209. PMID 17194802. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) is probably the best most recent example). There is a very active scientific discussion at the moment on mtDNA selection and its cause, this is not settled science. IOW neither Y or mtDNA are immune from the selection critique each can introduce bias into arguments of the amplitude of a given ancestry/migration.

    With regard to selection, very few studies, despite reporting 'selection' (i.e Tajima D statistic), have actually determined selection coefficients or modeled selection for the selection they claim to exist. F. Ayala is the only example that comes to mind in 'myth about eve' Science 1995 and due to an oversight in evolutionary mechanisms, he apparently got it wrong. Noone really ever knows how much selection occurs at a given selectable locus. Many things under selection in the past are not under selection now, and so we have difficulty measuring real-time rates in humans. Given this editors need to decide how to handle and present evidence and make it encyclopedic.

    One broad point about the history of molecular anthropology is that errors have occurred when people have relied solely on one data set (for example Y chromosome dominates the discussion on the Genetic history of Europe page. The best situation is to present as many different factual perspectives, accepting that each brings its own bias, a level of that we currently can't quantitate nor should we pretend that we understand it, so that we are not biasing the discussion by trying to focus on that source we believe to be least biased. My opinion is that editors on these pages be allowed to represent the various facts in support of POV providing the least opinion (or 'discussion-styled' speculation) and that each factoid set be represented without the nitpicking and harassment of presenters of other fact sets. PB666 yap 19:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Layman's version : So that the basic Edit War is between Muntawandi, which adds alot of interpretations from the literature that are speculative, and SOPHIAN (currently blocked) & Small Victory who is trying to delete these addition and use a 'the most anti-afrocentric markers and finds a way of discounting all other markers (even though the problems with the markers that are being used are well-known and discussed in the literature). This is the reason this EditWar cannot be resolved. I am very familiar with the two POVs, I was a participant in sci.anthropology.paleo from almost the day of its propogation on the UseNet. These same points of view were present (e.g. in Egyptology) prior to the broader acceptance of Molecular Anthoplogy, they are all-but independent on facts or accepted results. A-case-in-point there were many people who believed that Neandertals were humans immediate ancestors for Europeans because there was no possible way they could have recenting ancestry with 'those [racial epitath]' and this belief has continued despite saturating evidence to the contrary. The point I want to make here is that in unmoderated forums of expression, it is the unwillingness of participants to control their obsessional support modern mythos that ultimately has caused the 'content crash' in the USENET sci.* groups and a principal reason that higher-level content providers have moved to more moderated groups. 'Wikipedia' should be aware of the danger of unmitigated POV behaviors and should exert its moderating presence with greater speed as this POV war has been moving from page to page. Most of the time editors can work together, but in some areas the topic is contentious and plays into extremist subcultures within modern societies and, consequently, needs a bit more surveillance than most pages.
    I don't agree that Muntuwandi should have brought this issue here, yet, but I have to say the Small Victory is continuing with insulting behavior (over exactly this issue I describe above) after this issue was brought to WQA and he was warned and brought here, so that I think with his latest edits on Genetic History of Europe, he clearly is thumbing his nose at the arbitration process. Muntawanda has already stated he has difficulty self-moderating his POV, and it is clearly evident of the hostile style in which Small Victory defends his POV that bring us here. I apologize that this discussion has attracted so much attention, but we do need more active administrations where-ever these two engage each other.PB666 yap 19:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wapondaponda is using exaggerated claims of incivility and personal attacks in order to deflect my criticism of his biased edits, per WP:SPADE. He doesn't want to be referred to as an Afrocentrist because he knows there's truth to it, and being exposed threatens his agenda here. At the moment, I'm the only person calling him out on it, so getting me blocked and out of the way is essential. His motives are so transparent, it's ridiculous. ---- Small Victory (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:SPADE is "advice or opinion", not policy. Every single editor has a POV - especially you. I'm not arguing that anyone is an "afrocentrist" or not. Discounting someone's edits, or bullying them because of a perceived POV is not in line with collegial editing. You have begun to use the calling of "afrocentrism" as a way to attack edits you do not agree with, and the editor who is making them, and you seem to believe it's justified - which it is not. You are welcome to perhaps define an edit as being "afrocentric" but not label editors as "afrocentrists" in order to discourage their edits. In the long run, keep in mind WP:CONSENSUS (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have mentioned this previously, but SV is a single purpose account whose primary interest had been in the deleted Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe and since its deletion, now Genetic history of Europe. This is evident in his editing record which shows that in his 3 years on Wikipedia, SV has only edited 24 unique articles. The article Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe was one of those articles that is tucked away in an obscure corner of Wikipedia, and as a result didn't get much scrutiny. Because the article was SV's only interest, SV had very limited exposure to the wider community. As a result, he somehow believed that it is acceptable to be uncivil to other editors on Wikipedia. Since we stumbled upon the article, the topic has now gotten more attention from the community and SV has learned a few things about how Wikipedia works. For example, he has recently learned How not to engage in original research, and hopefully now, he will learn about civility. However, he continues with his confrontational approach, even with newbies to his topics per [8], [9] Wapondaponda (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    CORRECTION: Everyone who participated in that discussion learned that citing a chart which is explained in the study it comes from is in fact not original research. However, your attempt to have such evidence barred is information suppression. When will you learn not to engage in that? ---- Small Victory (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    SV, your constant refrain of "I didn't hear that" is becoming tiresome. You are the only person claiming that your interpretation of the chart isn't OR. Everyone else in the discussion is pointing out that it is OR. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally false. You're the one who's not listening. First of all, I proved with direct quotes that it's not "my" interpretation but that of the studies' authors. Secondly, TheFeds never believed it was OR. Neither did Shreevatsa. And Irbisgreif and PB666 didn't really take sides. The rest (you, Blueboar and Elen of the Roads) made very weak arguments, often based on poor understanding of the subject or misreading of policy, which I easily refuted. ---- Small Victory (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Original Research issue - I really think people have gone overboard with this, although I have erased edits because of the guidelines as a scientist I am kind of bewildered by the stance. For example, a scientist can take 1 observation of something in a sample size of forty and publish that as a 2.5% frequency in a population without given the variance. We know that the 95% CI on that is 0.125% to 12.5% for that measurement (IOW an occurrence of 1 in a much larger sample according to the binomial probability distribution can vary at 95% confidence over a 200 fold range, an occurrence of 0 has infinite fold range, or to make in laymans terms absences of evidence is not evidence of absence, in fact the binomial probability distribution basically proves this). In fact it would be easy enough for a wikipedian to have a template table for presentation of frequencies so that all one needed to do was enter "|observed1 = 1 |SampleSize1 = 40" and to have a line on the table produce "2.5 +/- 1.2% (or whatever)" so that the presentation is objective. But, I cannot, by the OR standards, do the appropriate statistics to make it a given percentage with a error range or (better as a 96% CI range for low occurences). However, I can present an inappropriate percentage if the literature cites it as such. IOW, for wiki certain versions of data are more or less a black hole. I agree that SV should not argue once it is determined something is Original Research here, but it is confounding at times how that decision is made. To the specific issue at hand - The data SV added were absolute frequencies converted to percentages [Formula: 100 * fabs/N ] (WP - no original statistics). However, if Wiki had a specific guideline for dealing with absolute frequencies (for example state the 1SD confidence range or 95% CI) then I think it would be perfectly legitimate to present those frequencies, but with an error range. PB666 yap 16:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tried to be fair-handed in this discussion, I do realize that POV does blind editors to others points of veiw as we tend to agree and present POVs of authors we agree with; however Muntawandi, albiet with difficulty appears to want to work with others, whereas SV does not. I asked SV to improve his referencing so that material is not obscured in a 'Snakes nest' of references and he chose not to. In addition throwing a long list of percentages into the text is not really encyclopedic in its style particularly if data from several papers was given as a single reference. It was only in trying to sort out which data belonged to which reference that I found that a statistical conversion (original research) had been made on his part. The data given by SV and the other editor may both be correct (see above, its the way statistics works sometimes). If the guideline had allowed me to add a confidence range to his percentages or combine 2 different samples as one for a typed population, then I would have not deleted his data. PB666 yap 16:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Small Victory distorting this whole question into one of Afrocentrism is unfortunately typical of how he addresses all disagreements or perceived disagreements with others. It reminds me of the case where, when I told him he was out of line to call me a chimp, he wrote in an even more uncivil tone that "I didn't call you a chimp. I asked: "...would I have better luck explaining [the analogy] to a chimp?" The fact that you didn't understand that makes your claim that our "communication problems" might be my fault quite laughable. Again, LEARN HOW TO READ!" (In other words he only compared me to a chimp in terms of being sub-human in terms of comprehension skills. He did not call me a chimp as such, and therefore he is in the right to write abusively and my mis-wording just proves it: "And then you wonder why I talk down to you.") In summary, Small Victory often looses sight completely of what the point is, because he has constantly got this way of looking for an angry way to twist things into a personal attack. It is very distracting from actually editing articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wish to make some corrections here. Elen of the Roads, Muntawandi did not post using the quotations template, I did. I did not know there was an established method, and I think the repeated picking on this issue biting the newcomer (although not to wiki, this is the first time I have posted a complaint) after all it brought to attention an issue that needed attention. Nor was the thread designed to beat up on Small Victory, after repeated attempts to try to get admins involved in the constant edit warring and derogatory comments I decided it was time to take things a step further, it seems that the step was justified at this point based on the overall response. Muntawandi, there is a process here and you shouldn't use your POV as a reasoning for trying to get Small Victory blocked, he has been warned, and that would equate to information suppression. However, I do believe that there should be an admin whose better willing to survey what is going on pages to which SV and SOPHIAN posts to for a while, so that his behavior is followed up on. If (I) we had managed to attract better surveillance to begin with we would not be at this point, IMHO.PB666 yap 16:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes SV has been warned, but this is not his first warning. The spotlight is on SV right now, so he may be more careful with his edits. But what will happen when the spotlight is not on him. The number of times he has used uncivil language, despite warnings, seem to indicate that he is quite comfortable insulting people who don't agree with him. One way to end incivility in these disputes is to prevent uncivil editors from editing. However, SV's type of incivility rarely results in disciplinary action, because he avoids crossing the line, though he is consistently very close. Should such a pattern persist into the future, then a case for disciplinary action would be justified. These are just the first steps, so that there is a record of complaints about SV's incivility. His rudeness has made the possibility of collaboration a very difficult prospect. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd just like to point out (since my name is mentioned above) that Small Victory's presentation of the outcome of the OR debate is at odds with the version prevailing in this instance of reality. All I had to do was cite the policy, his own response verified that the breach of it was clear (I won't rehash the argument, you can go and read it here [10] ) - SV says this is a weak argument. The Feds explained that what he was doing was OR - SV prefers to read it as saying that he isn't. The hand that feeds you explained that what he was doing was OR - SV just disagrees with him. And so it goes. It appears to be no good talking to this chap, his behaviour is as one who has their fingers in their ears and is going "La la la, I can't hear you!"Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing at Talk:Speed of light

    David Tombe (talk · contribs) has been waging a vehement campaign at Talk:Speed of light and WT:PHYS to claim that the fact that the metre is defined in terms of a fixed value of the speed of light has invalidated much (if not most) of the science of physics. The speed of light in SI units has been fixed since 1983, <sarcasm>yet the scientific community seems to have been totally unaware of the tautology for 26 years until David Tombe decided to expound on it at length on Wikipedia.</sarcasm> This user's behaviour is disrupting attempts to improve the Speed of light article, a former featured article: it obviously falls under not only WP:SOAPBOX but also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience (lovingly known as WP:ARBCRANK). I feel that a topic ban is in order. Physchim62 (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What conflict resolution did you use before asking for a topic ban? Ussually that is a last resort as I understand it. Upon a review of the users talk page I don't see any warnings for using the talkpage or any recent warnings period. From my standpoint there doesn't seem to be anything that can be done here yet as not one whit of resolution of this dispute before running here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I notified the person in question they had a thread here as I didn't see he was notified on his talk page.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an ongoing problem with David. There was a WQA report about his behavior and a somewhat related, drawn-out ANI report that included him a little more than a month ago, albeit related to a different set of incidents. However, he seems to have removed from his talk page the notices and the resulting WQA advice given. I would add that David is not only disruptive on the talk pages but also outright uncivil with anyone who disagrees with him (essentially calling them idiots or accusing them of being part of a conspiracy to suppress the truth). --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't comment on speed of light, but the volume of traffic in the related WT:PHYS thread has been making it nigh-unreadable for other purposes for the last couple of days. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, the dispute at speed of light was ongoing long before I got involved. I entered as a mediator in order to try and ascertain what the dispute was about. I discovered that it was about attempts to prevent another editor from elaborating on something important. The 1983 re-definition of the metre, in terms of the speed of light, has had a major effect on the concept of the speed of light. The non-physics readership will not be aware of this major change from the traditional approach, and so some kind of elaboration is necessary in the article. I do not see any basis here for an allegation of disruptive editing. I have not made many edits on the main speed of light article. As for FyzixFighter's opportunist intervention here, it should be noted that FyzixFighter has conducted a prolonged campaign of undermining my edits. The latest case involves removing referenced material from a history chronology. FyzixFighter's 'modus operandi' is to consistently remove edits of mine and then pose as a victim of incivility. He will go to the talk page claiming that he doesn't want to discuss the topic in question because I am being uncivil to him, and he will seldom engage in discussion of the actual physics in question. A closer scrutiny of FyzixFighter's behaviour will reveal that he is merely removing edits that contain physics that he wasn't previously aware of. David Tombe (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    David Tombe page banned

    Jehochman, Your example of my assumption of bad faith was the very passage which I have just written above in my own defence. The other examples which you have cited prove absolutely nothing at all. David Tombe (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree with a topic ban. The first action should be to decide, on he basis of a consensus on the talk page, that a certain topic that has been discussed with David has been settled and continue to discussing this is not relevant to improving the article. Then, if David (or someone else) kicks off yet another discussion on the same topic, we can simply revert the talk page. Then, if David were to revert that deletion and edit war over the talk page contents, you have a more basic edit warring problem which can be brought there. Count Iblis (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that this falls under the Pseudoscience (WP:ARBCRANK WP:ARBPS) decision, this really should have been at AE. Anyway...could someone please provide a link where David Tombe was given a warning with a link to that same decision? Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm waiting to see evidence regarding what crank science or pseudoscience Jehochman has in mind. My singular point on the talk page was that another editor should have the right to draw the very important distinction between the speed of light in the traditional sense, and the speed of light subsequent to the 1983 decision to define the metre in terms of the speed of light. That distinction needs to be made high up in the article, for the benefit of the non-physics readership.

    Hardly a basis for a topic ban or accusations of crankery or pseudoscience. Can anybody see an edit of mine on the first history page of the speed of light article? David Tombe (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I imagine that the "crank science or pseudoscience Jehochman has in mind" is the same as the crank science that David has raised repeatedly here where every other editor has either pointed out (often repeatedly) the scientific errors or that it is WP:OR or both.--Michael C. Price talk 16:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I support Jehochman's action, but want to note that this has little to do with pseudoscience. It may be "bad science" or "crankery", but those aren't the same thing as pseudoscience. The reasons that Jehochman gave are the correct reasons. Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "I am not an admin"...but Jehochman appears to have acted quite properly, and in a timely fashion to prevent further disruption. My opinion itself is worth little, but I fully support him in this case. Doc Tropics 17:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I support Jehochman's topic ban. I keep seeing the name David Tombe coming up in connection with strange edits of physics articles. I reserve judgment on whether quite enough data has been collected in the present discussion compared to how a proper topic ban is presented. If Tombe has not yet been properly notified of WP:ARBCRANK WP:ARBPS, I support giving a proper notification, and then reissuing the ban if Tombe does not make any concrete promise of reform in the mean time. If it turns out that any formalities have been overlooked, consider refiling the matter at WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ed, The strange physics edits that you are talking about perhaps ultimately came down to one issue. That issue was,

    The identification of one of the terms in the radial planetary orbital equation as centrifugal force.

    I got into alot of trouble over that, but I was eventually proved correct. I can't think of any more off hand. But the current issue here seems to be because of the opinions that I have been expressing on the speed of light talk page. It's certainly not about actual edits on the main article. Ultimately, I have been trying to educate these guys about the fact that the famous equation c^2 = 1/(εμ) is purely a consequence of experimental measurement of the right hand side. They have been arguing against this and showing me Maxwell's equations, as if I had never seen them before, and they have all totally overlooked the fact that Maxwell incorporated the above equation into his own equations as a consequence of an experiment in 1856 by Wilhelm Eduard Weber and Rudolf Kohlrausch. I have shown them all the exact paragraph in the relevant paper. See page 49 of the pdf link at [17]. There is no bad science, or pseudoscience, or crank science going on on my part.

    This vendetta has been motivated purely because they have all been proved wrong. When has anybody ever been topic banned from an article on such minimal input, when others who are actually engaged in an edit war on that page are not similarly banned? David Tombe (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Although Jehochman's first charge looks proven I am not convinced by the evidence provided that David has indulged in "General incivility and assumptions of bad faith." I would acquit him of that charge.--Michael C. Price talk 18:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I remarked before, David has a history of incivility and assumptions of bad faith. See the WP:WQA report placed last month, the warning/advice resulting from the report, and other previous examples: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. Some recent examples appear to indicate that he has yet to understand that such behavior is wrong: [23], [24], [25]. I realize these aren't from the Speed of light dispute, but they do show a pattern of behavior that is disruptive. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I'm thicker skinned than some, but looking at the recent links I still see no violation of AGF. I do see someone who rates quite highly on the crackpot index and will never change. That should be the basis of the ban, IMO. --Michael C. Price talk 08:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I can admit that, after dealing with the editor's not so recent behavior for awhile, my tolerance for being told I delete stuff because I'm afraid of the truth and for being compared to the thought police has become greatly diminished. I'll work on having thicker skin. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So then according to Michael Price, the crank science in question was in the textbooks up until relatively recently, and we have not even established yet if it has been totally removed from the textbooks. The crank science that Michael Price has drawn our attention to relates to an experiment that appears in modern advanced level physics textbooks which I used as a physics teacher. The question being posed at the wiki-physics project page is exactly about whether or not that experiment has been removed. David Tombe (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I logged this action in case it falls under WP:ARBPS. If not, the sanction is still appropriate in my responsibility as an administrator to protect the project from disruption.I could block the editor indefinitely. Instead, I chose to ban them from 2 of our 3,000,000 pages, a much lighter sanction. Jehochman Talk 22:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Severity is not the issue. If you're not following the terms of discretionary sanctions from that case, then it's an ordinary admin action and I don't see how it can be logged there. Those terms were specifically designed to avoid any action, without a warning. As the imposing admin, can you (or someone else) please provide a diff to where David Tombe was given a warning with a link to that case? Btw, was he counselled on taking steps to improve? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No Christopher, This is just an opportunist swipe from you because I showed you to be wrong when you claimed that the equation c^2 = 1/(με) can be derived theoretically. I made my final statement on the matter at the wiki-physics project page. You yourself know the truth fine well, but you're never likely to admit it. You know that c^2 = 1/(με) is a numerical relationship which follows purely as a consequence of the experimental determination of the right hand side. David Tombe (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I rest my case. This is also probably a good example of civility and AGF concerns. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Christopher, You are rather presumptuous in claiming on your edit title that I received quite a bit of a coaching at the wiki-physics page, when in fact it was you that received the coaching. You previously had no idea how the numerical relationship c^2 = 1/(με) came to be in Maxwell's equations. And it seems that none of the rest of you did either. This is one big witch hunt because you were all shown to be wrong. And for you, this opportunistic swipe is just one big face saver. David Tombe (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually David, you have significantly shifted your position as a result of the coaching on the wiki-physics page (which is good) although you deny this (which is bad). BTW, although I earlier acquited you of violation of AGF you should be aware the recent statement (above) You yourself know the truth fine well, but you're never likely to admit it. violates AGF. I think you know what the consequences of this are likely to be. --Michael C. Price talk 09:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael, In what respect did I shift my position? Can you please clarify this statement. David Tombe (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Endorse per EdJohnston. There are many troubling examples that demonstrate problematic conduct, and attempts made by involved editors to reason with him, including both here and here. Btw, thank you Christopher Thomas for highlighting these examples. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ncmvocalist, What about my attempts to reason with Christopher Thomas? What makes you so sure that Christopher Thomas was the one that was correct in the dispute? David Tombe (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    David Tombe, I was purely referring to the conduct issues and approach, rather than who was correct in the content issues. Jehochman has been extremely generous by imposing a restriction that still leaves you with the ability to responsibly edit any other pages on Wikipedia - there's a lot to choose from. I suggest that rather than let this privillege go to waste, you should reflect on your approach in the various examples users refer to, and find ways to improve it if you encounter similar situations. This may involve reviewing fundamental Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ncmvocalist, I was not particulary active at the speed of light article. I heard that in other areas of wikipedia, a person was given a 3 hour block for very definite incivility, and that caused a huge backlash that lingered for a while. What exactly is so generous about an indefinite topic ban for an article that I wasn't even active on at the time. I was nothing to do with the recent edit war there. And let's get these supposed incivilities into perspective. Under severe provocation, I doubt if anything I have said on this thread amounts to anything worth talking about. On the contrary I have seen no end of assumptions of bad faith being directed at me on no evidence at all other than empty inuendo, such as flashing a lengthy physics debate at a non-physics readership. Nobody seems to be worrying about the freedom of others to go around calling me a crank. So if you are going to make inuendos about my conduct issues and approach, I need you to be more specific. I do not accept Christopher Thomas's self appointed status as a physics arbitrator and I discount his allegations totally. David Tombe (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Does it matter that an uninvolved Admin supports the page ban as appropriate? Or am I beating a dead horse by offering my opinion? I've read this thread & the related one at WT:PHYS, which show at the least David Tombe is violating no original research; at the most, he is being disruptive over insisting on the inclusion of his own idiosyncratic understanding of physics. Maybe he should have a look at working on some of the 3 million other articles on Wikipedia: for example, I can't imagine working on the biographical stubs of physicists would lead to the same issues that these two articles did. -- llywrch (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Christopher, That's enough of your assumptions of bad faith. You have misinterpreted the situation there too. There was an issue about whether or not Maxwell's use of centrifugal force to explain magnetic repulsion is an admissible topic for the article entitled 'history of centrifugal force'. I was suggesting that it is an admissible topic. End of story. You are coming here making malicious allegations because of a debate at WT:PHYS that didn't go your way. You come here in front of a non-physics audience acting as if you and the others at WT:PHYS are the three wise men, and that you had a big problem not being able to explain some issue in physics to me, and you assume that everybody will automatically think that you must be right. Drop it. Why not go to Uncle Tom's Cabin and stir up a civil war there? David Tombe (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    No Llywrch, You have got it so badly wrong. Let's finally hear what the truth is. The WT:PHYS thread contains a query regarding changes that have taken place in the textbooks since 1983 in relation to the re-definition of the metre. This change seems to have had the effect of reversing the direction of a well known equation in physics. That equation is c^2 = 1/εμ. This equation is an empirical equation which reads from right to left. It's origins lie in an experiment that was performed in 1856 by Wilhelm Eduard Weber and Rudolf Kohlrausch. The equation links experimentally determined values in electromagnetism to the speed of light. Since 1983 however, this equation has been reversed and now reads from left to right. We now use a defined speed of light to define the quantity ε on the right hand side. The argument at WT:PHYS involved the attempts of about four editors to persuade me that the equation c^2 = 1/εμ follows from Maxwell's equations. All of them, with the exception of Christopher Thomas failed to comprehend the fact that Maxwell himself incorporated the numerical relationship from the 1856 experiment by Weber and Kohlrausch. Christopher Thomas at first tried to say the same thing as the other three. But when I pointed this fact out again, he backtracked and said that the experimental bit is only needed for the numerical relationship. I told him that that is exactly what I had been saying. Christopher Thomas then came to ANI and claimed that many people had been trying to reason with me but that I didn't acknowledge or didn't want to acknowledge what they had been saying. He then started to discuss gathering evidence with a view to what sanctions would be appropriate for me. The actual thread at WT:PHYS was then actually presented as an exhibit of evidence to prove that I was being disruptive. Christopher Thomas was obviously totally confident that the non-physics readership here would believe everything that he said. I then defended myself against this malicious allegation and gross assumption of bad faith, as a result of which I was then accused of assuming bad faith for likewise doubting that he didn't want to acknowledge the true facts. It seems that accusations and allegations are fine when they come from some editors, but that from other editors, even a defence can be taken to be an assumption of bad faith. So my question to you, Llwrych is 'Just what makes you so sure that Christopher Thomas is right?' All these allegations about crankery and pseudoscience are an attempt to hide the truth of what was discussed at WT:PHYS. And all these allegations of incivility are just rubbish. David Tombe (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I made no such backtrack. The relevant posts are here and here, and say the same thing in slightly different ways. This is an excellent example of you misunderstanding what editors are trying to say to you. After the second try, it became clear that useful communication was unlikely to be possible, so I stopped participating in the thread. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry Christopher, but that just doesn't wash. If it was merely a case of you failing to persuade me of something in physics, then why come to ANI to make a serious allegation and to talk about sanctions, and with such a confidence as if it was already decided beyond any doubt that you were right, and as if it was a matter of certainty that everybody here was going to believe you. Your allegation against me is one big sick joke. David Tombe (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    David Tombe, which of my statements are you saying "No" to? That an uninvolved Admin supports the page ban? Or that I'm beating a dead horse? Or perhaps my understanding that you are promoting original research? If you are not promoting original research, then please share with us a reliable source which supports your assertion that the redefinition of the meter in 1983 is both relevant to the importance of this equation & notable. Otherwise, kindly submit your findings to the appropriate periodical for review and publication & drop this line of argument which has gone on far, far too long. You have been banned from editting those pages, & so far you have not said anything which addresses that ban, let alone convinced me that it is not the proper solution. -- llywrch (talk) 06:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Llywrch, You have got two closely related topics confused here. The discussion at WT:PHYS related to an issue at the vacuum permittivity page. The isse there was about whether or not the experimental determination of electric permittivity was removed from the textbooks subsequent to the re-definition of the metre in 1983. I was basically asking a question, and the first answer that I received was from Steve Byrnes, who suggested that the experiment in question is indeed still in the textbooks. But then Headbomb came in and formally stated the 'new physics' position as regards units and definitions, which we all know anyway. I reminded him that the equation in question is an experimental result. The argument with other editors then followed. This particular ANI thread was opened up by editor from the speed of light page because of opinions that I was expressing on the speed of light talk page. I was backing up an number of other editors on the issue that the re-definition of the metre, and its affect on the speed of light needs to be clarified for the benefit of the non-physics readership. Sources pointing out the tautology in the new definition were provided at that discussion. Chritopher Thomas then entered this thread as a 'novus actus interventus' and changed the subject to the discussion at WT:PHYS. He held up the very existence of this discussion at WT:PHYS as an exhibit to prove disruptive behaviour. He boldly assumed without any question that the entire non-physics readership here would accept his verdict on the matter without any doubt. He seemed absolutely confident that nobody here might remotely suspect that Chritopher Thomas could be wrong. David Tombe (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not confusing any topics here. I am not addressing the merits of your idea. I don't know why you seem unable to comprehend that. I was -- & still am -- limiting myself to its appropriateness for Wikipedia. And to repeat myself again, your obsession with this getting this idea into Wikipedia is clearly a violation of the rules of Wikipedia: No original research. Unless you can show that this is not some discovery of your own -- that this is a matter of interest in at least one article published in an appropriate periodical or electronic forum -- you are heading towards more serious sanctions. And answering every mention that this is not appropriate for Wikipedia (due to concerns about original research, notability, etc.) with yet another explanation of this idea only accelerates your journey to this regrettable destination. -- llywrch (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No Llywrch, I do not have an obsession about putting this point into the article. I was merely backing up Brews ohare. When I first went to Brews's talk page a couple of weeks ago to ask him what this dispute was about, I didn't even know anything about the 1983 definition of the metre. As you can see from my recent dialogues with Brews, I was a bit confused as to what the argument was about. But I investigated the facts and then realized that Brews had a very legitimate point. It annoyed me to see how everybody was ganging up against him and trying to sweep his point under the carpet. So I joined in at the talk page to emphasize that point. I made very few edits to the main article, and I had already stopped editing on the main article well before the recent edit war. I was nothing to do with the recent edit war when the page was locked. I have ended up being the only person to be banned from the pages in question. This fact demonstrates a gross act of bias on the part of the administration, and I am currently appealing to Jimbo Wales to have the ban lifted as a matter of principle. Meanwhile, I have been advising Brews ohare to show his sources, quote from them loud and clear so that all you administrators can hear, and then quietly pull out. Because it is a waste of time for Brews and others to have to keep repeating themselves to people who are clearly incapable of being coached, or who don't want to know. David Tombe (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I regret this ban on D Tombe, and think it is unwarranted. He has a different view from orthodoxy on several issues, but that does not mean his contributions are not useful. He has added helpful discussions of historical matters in the past, and on this page speed of light has simply sought to gain attention for some misconceptions by many of the editors contributing at the moment who are unable to argue points logically or by reference to sources and would rather settle matters by this sort of administrative action executed by an administrator who is perhaps not able or perhaps unwilling to delve into the details of the matter. This block should be rescinded. 03:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    Brews ohare, your comment might be taken more seriously were you to properly sign your post. As for the question of "obsession" & "good faith", the matter would never have reached WP:AN/I had he let the matter go long before. Or at least respond to this discussion in the expected manner -- addressing the points, rather than repeat the discredited matter. Both of you are getting tedious on this issue. -- llywrch (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Llywrch, This is a demonstration of your total bias. You said that I should have dropped the matter long before. You obviously haven't even studied this prolonged argument. I was only involved for a very short time. And when you say that I should have responded to the discussion in the expected manner, what exactly was that supposed to mean? Can you please clarify that statement. Please pick out the very best example that you can find where I have not responded in the expected manner. Some of us here are a bit too long on the tooth for these silly games in which one lot of editors are free to express their opinions and deliver insults, and where another lot are considered to be cheeky if they dare to answer back. Drop it Llyrwch! David Tombe (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Removed uncivil shortcut

    For the record, I have removed and deleted the WP:ARBCRANK shortcut. This shortcut is uncivil and implies that people are "cranks" if they are sanctioned under this particular decision. Keep in mind that editors on either side of the Pseudoscience issue can be sanctioned; I am fairly certain someone whose agenda is promoting mainstream science is not going to appreciate being labeled as a crank. If someone wants to go updating the shortcuts used in the sections above, they can use WP:ARBPS or WP:ARB/PS. Risker (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Had that been tagged for speedy deletion, I would have declined it. I would prefer you undelete it and send it to RfD, please. I don't think your interpretation of the shortcut is the only or primary interpretation. Protonk (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I support Risker's speedy delete. It's a form of soapboxing, and totally inappropriate. It's speedyable under G10. Horologium (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an exceptionally broad reading of G10. Protonk (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not argue about non-essential details like a shortcut! Jehochman Talk 23:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All hail political correctness. --Michael C. Price talk 08:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    IP sock evading page ban?

    Since David Tombe was page banned, 72.84.67.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) suddenly surfaced. This IP has a total of 4 contribs, all today. The first is a diatribe here against the admin who page banned Tombe[26] (since deleted). The other 3 are edits (since reverted) to Speed of light, from which Tombe is page banned. Coincidence? —Finell (Talk) 20:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Finell, I want to be quite clear about this and I'm getting sick of all these malicious allegations. That IP server is not mine and I did not make those edits. I don't get involved in matters to do with the speed of light in inertial frames of reference. And I have seen many edits in the past from a variation of that number. I haven't checked it, but I'll bet that it comes from Virginia. Please don't make accusations until you have got your facts straight. David Tombe (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's trivial to check this either way via CheckUser, and a serious enough issue (potential ban evasion) for checkuser to be worthwhile. Anyone care to do so? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Finell, I've just noticed that you have written about this on the speed of light talk page. Since, I am not allowed to defend myself on that page, I'd be obliged if you could return there and explain the situation fully. David Tombe (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it's a Verizon IP address that resolves to a company based in Virginia. David, whether or not it was you, you must admit it reeks of duckism, so don't jump all over people. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    BWilkins, All I'm seeing here are words like 'disruptive editing', 'crankery', 'assumption of bad faith', 'incivility', and now 'ban evasion'. There was no disruptive editing because I wasn't even in the front page history log of the article in question. There has been no crankery because all I have been saying is that c^2 = 1/(εμ) reads from right to left, and not from left to right. The allegations of 'assumption of bad faith' have all been based on defensive comments that I have made against another person's assumption of bad faith on this very thread. I have been accused of not seeing sense when coached by many. The truth was that the many in question came to me one by one claiming that Maxwell's equations proved c^2 = 1/(εμ). I told each one in turn that Maxwell himself got that result from an 1856 experiment of Weber and Kohlrausch. One of those many was Christopher Thomas who then came to this thread to discuss sanctions as a consequence of that interchange. The incivility has already been firmly dismissed by one of my opponents who has been referring to me as a crank. Nobody bats an eyelid at the insults and assumptions of bad faith that come at me from others. And now we are hearing cries of ban evasion because some anon edits the article and speaks up in my defence. And now you are telling me not to jump all over people! I've worked very hard to get some physics articles written more accurately for the benefit of the readership. There is no need for this kind of carry on. David Tombe (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If there is evidence of ban evasion, checkuser should be requested. There's not much point in alleging something unless efforts are made to resolve the accusation. Jehochman Talk 13:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The evidence that David Tombe was responsible for the edits by the IP 72.84.67.16 seems to me to be extremely weak. I expect that a request for checkuser would be refused. The editor behind the IP seems likely to me to be the same one responsible for piping up in support of David Tombe in the previous AN/I thread where his activities were discussed. The IPs concerned on that occasion were 71.251.185.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 72.84.65.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 72.84.66.220 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 71.251.188.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), all of which are Verizon's. Several other editors pointed out then that it was unlikely to be Tombe ([27], [28], [29], [30]).
    —David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    David W., Thanks for pointing that out. And come to think of it, why were the anonymous's edits here at ANI deleted anyway? Is it only the edits of critics that are allowed at ANI? David Tombe (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    The edits of this user and the IPs certainly do dovetail quite nicely though when viewed in totality. This certainly is WP:DUCK territory. Tarc (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tarc, Go and check when I last edited the speed of light article and ask yourself 'is there any connection between the contents?' David Tombe (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: David Tombe evidently had some issues logging in, and edited this page logged out a couple of times a short while ago. His IP is therefore on public record, and resolves to BTNET in the UK. The Verizon IPs are unlikely to be him - although who they are beats the hell out of me. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    To set the record straight, I am not David Tombe, however I would like to be him, and admire him very much. What I admire most is his dedication to the integrity of truth in physical science. This is contrasted to the generally poor quality that I find in the typical Wikipedia article. In short, David seems to be a lot smarter than you guys in general. I do think that Brews Ohare is on the right track as well. I am a long time student of physics and science and it makes me cringe to read a Wikipedia article. I generally find numerous mistakes, mistsatements and general distortions of fact every time I read one. I certainly would like to see the poor quality of the articles improved. It seems to me that the conspiracy of editors is to keep the errors and misstatements in the articles. So David Tombe is my hero, because he is one of the few brave fellows who really is trying to do something about the poor quality of Wikipedia, while the rest of you editors seem to like the way it is, full of errors and misinterpretations. I vote to keep Mr Tombe here working away, busy keeping you guys honest, and demanding that the quality of Wikipedia live up to the users expectations.72.64.57.234 (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And the best of British to you Mr. Yank. David Tombe (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is either an elaborate ruse or some kind of really creepy Wiki-otaku. Tarc (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The only Wiki-Okatu here is on the part of the editors obsessed with the removal of legitimate criticism of the pervasive mis-statements and generally biased viewpoints presented in Wikipedia. The Wiki-okatu here in smearing Mr Tombe is pretty unsavory and it shows clearly that Wikipedia has a bias and it is the intent of the editors to maintain that bias so they can stroke their own egos. Now that's Wiki-okatu for you. By the way, is it my imagination, or just a fact that there is a Wiki term to apply to any situation when the editors want to eliminate other legitimate editors that are better informed? They just accuse them of some obscure wiki-something. That is really Orwellian in my opinion.72.64.36.217 (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't a wikipedia term; otaku is a Japanese term for excessive-compulsive fanboyism. Tarc (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I though it just meant obsessive compulsive silliness. But if it isn't a legitimate wiki term why mention it? Are you trying to create a new one? Don't you have enough of those already? Plain english is always sufficient, don't you think? The complusion to denigrate others on this site is clearly evident here. I am wondering why you don't just get to work and fix the mistakes in the Wiki articles?72.64.36.217 (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LibStar

    Moved to Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#User:LibStar Ikip (talk)


    Dcasanovax: adding OR, leaving insulting messages in edit summaries

    Dcasanovax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) After I reverted this edit to the Romanians article (because it added info sourced from wikipedia and some personal website, on a very contentious subject), Dcasanovax reverted and returned with this edit summary - tu ai o mare problema comportamentala baiatule (Romanian for: "you have a huge behavioral problem, my boy" (note how the edit was marked as minor). He returned with another revert, which has for its edit summary: uuuu dar cata indolenta si vai ce ocupatii interesante ai si tu ("my, but how much indolence and gee what interesting occupations you have"). This I interpret as harassment.

    What's more, considering the focus of his edits, his jingoistic Romanian mindset, his instant familiarity with wikipedia subtleties, and his immediate jumping to insults (see his contributions for more eloquent samples), I strongly suspect that Dcasanovax is a sockpuppet of User:Bonaparte, User:Greier or another one in the pack of blocked/banned users (additional clues: Bonaparte has a long history of edits related to Romania's international affiliations, Romanian economy and what is, per this, his place of residence, Cluj-Napoca city - which gives us the bulk of Dcasanovax's contributions so far; unless I'm mistaken, Greier was also from that city). Dahn (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want action on possible sockism, WP:SPI is thisaway. If this has to do with uncivil edit summaries, WP:WQA is thataway... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How about we do both here instead of starting two new threads about what may be a clear-cut case? It's not like I have every waking moment to waste on this editor, and I believe both my rationales are equally validated (and similar to the several other cases on this page where admins have already intervened). Dahn (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, how's this then: it appears you have a content dispute, and that you're both edit-warring - apparently both reaching WP:3RR violations. You deleted what appeared to be a wide range of edits, to which s/he replied "you have a huge behavioural problem" - which can also mean "you're behaving very strangely...[by deleting my edits]". S/he re-added them, and you promptly deleted again. At that point they made a comment about "interesting occupations", which can also mean many things - none of which are harassment. So, there's no incivility - only potential blocks on both of you for edit-warring. Now, you're trying to make a case for a sockpuppet, but you can't even guess exactly which one it is. Not all admins have the ability to see IP addresses, and WP:SPI is the only place that you can find someone who can - you were advised to go and make your case. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't think I should find it an insult when someone tells me I have a "behavioral problem" (as per the term used in psychology) and discusses my "indolence", and you don't find it problematic that an editor comes out of nowhere and informs me that s/he's been following my edits, fine. I'm just not gonna bother changing that kind of attitude, but we could all do without the lecture. For one, I'm not "reaching" any WP:3RR violations, "apparently" or not. Also, what I have deleted was a condensed number of edits which were either unsourced or sourced from wikipedia itself and a personal site. And finally, it's really not my fault that a cluster of the most disruptive wikipedia editors come from Cluj-Napoca.
    Lastly, BWilkins, I don't much like to be patronized (starting with the "thisaway" and "thataway" comments), particularly since I only use this page when I identify potential problems for the project, and even more so since I have a good standing as a long-term contributor and I have other things I'd rather do on wikipedia. This kind of problem is usually sorted on this page (it's been the case with several of Bonaparte's sockpuppets, who were often identified starting from the uncivil comments they made); assuming that I should both identify the problem and then go through the whole bureaucracy to restart this on any number of levels, just because you won't find it alarming that someone is editing in the manner described above, simply isn't realistic. Dahn (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Dahn, you don't get it. Personal attacks are not only allowed, but encouraged. Those who object to the attacks are the ones who get slapped down here. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa there - I work my ass off dealing with violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL because I heartily believe in them around here. I asked another Romanian editor about the translations, and they provided quite different ones that were much more tame. The words used were quite likely intentionally readable differently, but I always WP:AGF in that kind of case, and there was no way in hell I was slapping anyone down. I acknowledge and second Sandstein's block below related to nationalistic edit-warring. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've looked at Dcasanovax's few edits and have found them to be generally unproductive - a typical Eastern Europe nationalistic edit warrior. In combination with the personal attacks, that's sufficient for me to have indef-blocked the account. I don't object to an unblock by any admin who believes the editor is not a sock and ready to contribute productively.  Sandstein  23:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock attack

    Resolved
     – Nothing to see here, folks. MuZemike 19:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    personal attack from recently unblocked User: Koalorka

    User: Koalorka just returned from a block that was shortened under controversial circumstances. Since his questionable unblock, he has returned to prove that he is clearly not ready to discontinue his abuse: comma ... it is not my goal to match wits here with stubborn basement dwellers...You've proven time and time again that you're not at all interested in contributing anything of value to Wikipedia...your persistence in stalking people in matters completely unrelated to yourself is astounding. I count 6 blocks for harassment/NPA in his block history so far. I have not interacted with him directly in the past 6 months or more; however, he has decided to go out of his way to attack me in a discussion that was about an admin possibly misusing his tools -- the discussion was not directly about Koalorka. The unblocking admin even admitted that he did not object to Koalorka being characterized as abusive. there is definitely a pattern of abuse here. Theserialcomma (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And once again I've had to notify the user in question about this thread. Notification is MANDATORY, not optional. Exxolon (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the heads up. Further evidence that the user has no interest in anything content-related. This is a normal response for Theserialcomma, every time his disruptive editing patterns and wiki-stalking are pointed out, the user responds with a barrage of ANIs, RFCs and any other imaginable means of suppressing their opponent. My editing history stands on its own merit. Most of my blocks comes from foolishly responding to provocations such as this. Koalorka (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could I suggest just...you know...thinking this stuff about him. Not actually typing it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    more unprovoked personal attacks. further evidence that this user has no interest in collaborating in a civil manner. after 6 blocks for NPA you'd think someone would learn to relax, you know, their personal attacks. Theserialcomma (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to as that if the ANIs and RFCs are meant only to harass you, why have you been blocked so many times? If they were solely a means of personally attacking you, wouldn't Theserialcomma be the one to be blocked after these? Kotiwalo (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not specifically referring to my case. Theserialcomma has previously been blocked for harassing and baiting others, I'm simply pointing it out now because he recently made statements against an admin he's clashed with before. The difference being, I don't start ANIs for the sole purpose of retribution. Koalorka (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ETA: I'm not going to begin digging up diffs, as I'm not really interested in crusading against him. My words were simply meant to advise those unaware of his numerous clashes with a number of editors involved with WP:Firearms, going back to a minor content dispute which I vaguely remember. Since then he's been involved in close to a dozen ANIs. He's developed a pattern of behaviour that is contradictory to "progress". Pointing out a disruptive trend is not a personal attack. I understand that my wording may be perceived as being snide and contemptuous. Koalorka (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    which part might be perceived incorrectly, the part where you said it is not my goal to match wits here with stubborn basement dwellers]? i could see how that might be perceived by some as a personal attack and not just "pointing out a disruptive trend". by the way, i have reported probably 10 people to ANI/ANE/etc., for incivility, edit warring, all sorts of things. That is what you do when users are abusive: you report them to admins. That is what I will do to you every single time you make personal attacks against me: You get reported. you've been blocked 6 times for NPA, sockpuppetry, and whatever else. you've been told repeatedly to stop and you won't. how long of a block do you need to stop making unprovoked personal attacks? [[31]] [[32]] Theserialcomma (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to share my opinion that from what I've seen, a significant portion of theserialcomma's activity on Wikipedia is being extremely hostile to others and trying to get other people in trouble. I think this is just another entry in a long line of ANIs he has filed against Koalorka. Koalorka isn't very friendly either, but it seems to me that theserialcomma repeatedly baits him and also files ANIs in the persuit of harassing him. But it would probably be good to get the opinions of other editors with more experience dealing with the two of them. Some guy (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, ANI is his third most favourite editing spot [33]. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how you derive that information out of that page. Some guy (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Click on the link marked "most frequently edited pages" towards the bottom of the page. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, never noticed that. Some guy (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • are you people kidding me. you are making ad hominem attacks on my character which is irrelevant to the fact that koalorka made an unprovoked personal attack. i have not interacted with him at all in the past 6 months. he came onto an admin's talkpage to attack me. he is an abusive and uncivil user with 6 NPA blocks. the amount of times i've supposedly used ANI doesn't have anything to do with whether the user i just reported was uncivil. was he? either it's acceptable behavior for someone with 6 NPA blocks or not. incivility has no place here, and lame ad hominem attacks against the claimant is just poor argumentation. was it uncivil? are koalorka's unprovoked words acceptable? regardless of what you might think about me, i think i was attacked by a serial abuser and i reported it. that is what i tend to do. i believe that is what you are supposed to do. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to stalk him everywhere and incessantly attack him or try to get him in trouble. You had no connection in any way to the ANI discussion regarding Koalorka but you jumped in to attack George for supporting Koalorka. If you're actively trying to get Koalorka in trouble by constantly stalking and baiting him, your motives are bad. I agree that Koalorka is often hostile and not very good at working cooperatively, but this is a very inappropriate way to deal with the situation. If we were in kindergarten and I stole your lunch and you punched me and I told on you and you got in trouble and I didn't, would that be fair? You behavior is intrinsically tied with the equation; you are trying to dodge scrutiny to focus the blame on Koalorka. Some guy (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, see my comments above. Personal attacks are not only allowed, but encouraged. Those who object to the attacks are the ones who get slapped down here. The person making the attacks gets coddled and tutted over because someone has the nerve to think that personal attacks shouldn't be tolerated. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What? That's a damn far stretch of my words. I'm not really saying that Koalorka shouldn't be scrutinized, I don't want to make a decision either way about that, I just think Theserialcomma's motives should be questioned for all the reasons I've already said. I had a difficult battle a few weeks ago where an administrator tried to blame me for Koalorka attacking me, and I had to continuously argue that I wasn't baiting him and the whole thing was utterly ridiculous, but in the end Koalorka's block was upheld. EDIT: I don't care any more. Anyone can feel free to accept or ignore my comments. Some guy (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no opinion about the underlying issue(s) or the contributions of any other involved editor, but I have blocked Koalaorka for 24 h for the "basement dweller" attack combined with his exhibiting continued battleground mentality in this thread. Personal attacks are not to be tolerated under any circumstances.  Sandstein  22:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I would say that Sandstein's block is consistent with the relevant policies. Chillum 00:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All right, I'm sorry for throwing my hat in, I guess it was somewhat hypocritical of me. Some guy (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban of Theserialcomma and Koalorka

    (Copied on WP:ANI and the users' talk pages and Wikipedia:Editing restrictions)
    I'm going to one-up that. Every location in which Koalorka and Theserialcomma are butting heads has multiple uninvolved administrators participating. Their interactions have overwhelmingly been either baiting or attacking each other, and completely unrelated to article content, for a while now. Given that there's always an admin looking over their shoulder, they have no need to be reporting each other to ANI or WQA (or 3RR or anywhere else - someone else who can act will notice), and that they are unable to interact in a constructive manner, and that both have risen to the level of disruptive in responding to the other...
    Koalorka and Theserialcomma are topic banned on each other. Broadly construed, neither may revert each others' edits, follow up a talk page comment by the other, comment on the others' talk page, or report the other to noticeboards.
    If one violates, and no response is forthcoming within twelve hours, the other may make a single line notification to an uninvolved administrator with a link to the topic ban and the diff of the particular edit which violated it. If no response is forthcoming within 18 hours, a second admin, and if no response is forthcoming within 24 hrs a post to ANI with the same information. In no case may either party engage in additional discussion unless asked direct questions by uninvolved admins.
    You both go to your corners and stay there. If one comes out swinging, they go down. If you both start swinging, you both go down.
    Lest there be any question about it - this disruptive behavor on both of your parts has at this point exceeded community patience and the sum of your positive contributions to Wikipedia. Stop, or your tenures on Wikipedia are at the end. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    While this strikes me as a good solution, was there any discussion about it anywhere? Some guy (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. It's within admin discretion to do this. The community may, of course, override it at any time. Discuss away if you have comments or concerns. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it? That doesn't seems substantiated by Wikipedia:Ban#Decision_to_ban. Some guy (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The policy is a little ambiguous as written, but similarly to how any administrator can indefinitely block someone, topic bans have similar dynamics.
    We can and often do have a community discussion / proposal prior - and if one is done, and a consensus is reached, the topic ban then is something that has to be appealed by Arbcom or by a second community discussion, not a single admin's fiat, even a well thought out and well justified one.
    Topic bans outside of areas Arbcom has designated can be issued by an admin - but are subject to revocation by an admin, or by the community.
    Admin can do this - admin, community, or arbcom can override.
    Community can do this - arbcom or community can override.
    Arbcom can do this - Arbcom has to override, or Jimbo, technically.
    Admins do it by individual WP:BOLD initiative more often than the community - every few weeks. Not every day, but we fortunately don't have all that many deeply divisive disruptive users. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    GWH has a conflict of interest here. I complained about his ability to admin fairly yesterday, and so this is no surprise. Please show diffs that justify this, and also i would like an uninvolved admin's input Theserialcomma (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As I have stated on Theserialcomma's talk page, I don't believe I have a conflict of interest, but I think it's entirely appropriate if other uninvolved admins review and the community comments. I think that the situation has made the necessity of this edit restriction self-evident - many community members, beyond myself, are expressing that they are at the limits of their patience with all sides. This is fundamentally protective to both parties - if they do not stop, they are likely to end up indefblocked soon, and this is the cleanest and fairest way to get them both to stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    as i said LONG before you punitively attempted to punish me with a topic ban for ME getting attacked, WITHOUT DIFFS! i have no faith in your ability to admin fairly. i'd appreciate some diffs to justify this topic ban, and an uninvolved admin's (not jeske couriano!) input. and please provide diffs. thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oddity on WP:AE

    Today, because I have WP:AE on my watchlist due to a sudden interest in the arbitration case I was a part of, I saw that Sephirotix (talk · contribs) had added an enforcement request against Seha (talk · contribs), an administrator on other language projects. I removed it and posted the user to AIV as it was the user's only edit and have found that it is Zepceteam (talk · contribs), who was reverted somewhere for spam by Seha on a project where Seha has sysop. I don't know about any blocks, because I can't find any done anywhere relating to the user.

    So this is now a crosswiki drama session that the English Wikipedia could do without, and perhaps the external link could be added to the meta blacklist.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Now he's doing stupid things at WP:RFAR to try and bring punitive measures against Seha. Would someone please block this user to prevent further disruption at arbitration pages and advise him that this is the English Wikipedia and not whatever project he was (initially) blocked from?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He has now started Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#.3C_Seha_.3E.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Legal threats by Milomedes

    In Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses, Milomedes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made the following legal threat in an apparent attempt to intimidate editors who were claiming that User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses may constitute a copyright violation:

    DGG (04:11) provided evidence that there is not a copyright violation risk, using the US 4-pt test. Independently, you have placed yourself in the position of being legally required to provide evidence that there is a risk of copyright violation.

    Why? Because your claiming of "risk" (along with four previous posters who similarly claimed "probably" (00:15), "possibly" (12:41), or without condition (23:06), (12:19)), alleges that Jack Merridew's uniquely link-transformed Atwood quote is not a fair use. If the quote is not a fair use, then you and the other four posters also allege that Jack Merridew has committed an illegal copyright-violation tort. If you (or the others) can cite reasonably believable evidence of not-fair-use – no problem. But, if you (or the others) cannot cite believable evidence that Jack Merridew is a civil law violator, then that is a libelous (written) defamation. Technically, evidence of truth is a defense to a claim of defamation.

    If you can't supply believable evidence, I suggest that you strike your claim. If not striking as a matter of silver rule courtesy that you wouldn't want someone else to do the same thing to you, consider that in theory, all five of you could be pseudonym-outed and face a jury in a Florida civil courtroom. [34]

    In defense of his statement, Milomedes offered only the following wikilawyering explanation:

    If you actually read WP:NLT you'll see that it applies to people who consider themselves to be a victim. It also reads, "A polite report of a legal problem such as defamation or copyright infringement is not a threat..." " I'm simply warning you of your theoretical legal problem that has nothing to do with me. See shooting the messenger fallacy.

    "In violation of our policy on copyrighted material" it is then." Firming your position, but still no evidence?? Considering your attitude, note also this sentence: "Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified." Milo 10:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC) [35]

    As language such as "consider that in theory, all five of you could be pseudonym-outed and face a jury in a Florida civil courtroom."[36] is neither "polite" nor necessary for the purpose of reporting "a legal problem", and is indeed designed to create the fear of a lawsuit that Wikipedia:No legal threats is designed to prevent, I ask that Milomedes be blocked indefinitely, per the provision of the policy which states that "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding." Thank you. Erik9 (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I just did a cursory glance over the MfD and it doesn't look pretty, but one thing that stood out to me especially was the incivility and the sarcasm that was starting to occur, and as such some civility warnings/blocks may be in order, I have to go for now and don't have the time to read all of the discussion to verify the legal threat so I'll leave blocks/warnings for civility and legal threats to another admin :(. Best, Mifter (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything looks ok to me, no violations of any kind by me anyway. A very interesting debate. Erik9 even took his case to Meta where he didn't succeed, so this is just one more forum stop. Milo 03:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, you're the one whose edits are under question. Whether they appear alright to you or not is irrelevant. Not the fact of the matter is, on wikipedia, you are not allowed to threaten people the way you clearly did there. It is a clear violation, and you should be blocked until such threats are retracted.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any threat. Since when can't warnings be given? Please cite the line of WP:NLT that you claim I'm in violation of. Milo 03:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Statements such as "consider that in theory, all five of you could be pseudonym-outed and face a jury in a Florida civil courtroom."[37] can hardly be considered "warnings" of genuine legal problems. Furthermore, as you know, Wikipedia:No legal threats has no line numbers, and doesn't define exactly what constitutes a "legal threat", lest the definition be wikilawyered. Using graphic language to inform me of the fact that Jack Merridew may obtain my real identity, and file a defamation lawsuit against me serves no legitimate purpose, and appears to have been done for the express purpose of intimidation. Erik9 (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are 'defamatory' or 'libelous', that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended." MastCell Talk 04:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be glad to discuss the context of this passage with someone else, but since we have a personal conflict, please move on. Milo 04:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no need to discuss anything with me. I quoted a line of policy, without comment. Your response is interesting. MastCell Talk 04:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok; and, it's just a matter of neutral jury selection. Milo 05:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It IS a legal threat, and Milo-whatever should either retract it immediately or be blocked for it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, BB. I enjoyed our last discussion, so we get along fine. So, you've decided that I'm guilty without hearing the argument? Milo 04:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going by your own words. It doesn't look like an "I'm trying to help you" kind of message - it looks like a "cease and desist order" - which you have no business doing. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To put it another way, if you had said something like that to me, I wouldn't have bothered filing an ANI report, I would have merely told you to stick it where the moon don't shine. Ya follow? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    BB, your reputation as the second-toughest judge at ANI suggests that I'm not going to be able to persuade you that what I did is within the WP:NLT rules, no matter what points I cite. You don't like what you see, and I guess that's enough for you.
    But from my point of view, I'm a rule follower, so I read the rules. If they say I can do something, or don't say I can't do it, plus applying the rule principle as best I understand it, then I proceed.
    I don't know how else one can do anything actively worthwhile, such as debating a critical Wikimedia Foundation Mission resolution, during a remarkable two-week MfD like this one, without following rules in light of principle. That's always been my understanding of the written Wikipedia method. Milo 05:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say this is far past warning, which would have sounded more like "Hey guys, might want to be careful that this isn't being defamatory". Also, the tone/context does seem to indicate that its being used not to help the editors mentioned, but to intimidate them into backing down from their position. This needs to be retracted and I'd think anything further in this vein would result in blocking. Shell babelfish 04:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you willing to discuss my reasoning, or have you made up your mind? Milo 04:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever your reasoning, this goes too far. Please try taking this feedback on board and ensuring that any future attempts to warn people about legal issues don't cross the line. Shell babelfish 04:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We also have a personal conflict, so please move on. Milo 04:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As a general question, why are we discussing this here? It certainly appears that Milomedes has made a comment intended to intimidate, and consensus here appears to be that it violates WP:NLT. If this is the case, he should be blocked, and this discussion should take place on his talk page where he can clearly retract his statement. As this is going here, we're allowing him to come to ANI, wikilawyer about his conduct, and then dictate which editors he will allow to discuss this with him. That doesn't seem like the best way to handle a violation of a policy. Dayewalker (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. Indef blocked for making legal threats. If he should make a full retraction in an unblock request, any admin may unblock him without consulting me first. --Jayron32 05:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure I see a clear legal threat here. Unnecessarily heated rhetoric and unclear responses when asked? Yes. And that needs addressing. Shell Kinney has it just right: Please try taking this feedback on board and ensuring that any future attempts to warn people about legal issues don't cross the line... But if Milo makes a statement that he did not intend to intimidate and did not intend to suggest that he was contemplating any legal action, that would sort the matter out as far as I was concerned. ++Lar: t/c 16:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In this dif: [38] he states "If you can't supply believable evidence, I suggest that you strike your claim. If not striking as a matter of silver rule courtesy that you wouldn't want someone else to do the same thing to you, consider that in theory, all five of you could be pseudonym-outed and face a jury in a Florida civil courtroom." Threatening to out users in front of a courtroom is probably as clear a legal threat. Couching such threats with meaningless qualifiers such as "could be" or "in theory" does not make it any less of an attempt to use the threat of legal action to intimidate. --Jayron32 16:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the diff, yes, but thanks for reminding me. My interpretation of it differs from yours. It's excessively heated, filled with hyperbolic rhetoric, unhelpful and ought not to have been said by Milo. But I differ in interpreting it as a clear legal threat. I hope that clarifies my position. ++Lar: t/c 16:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That understandable, as you strongly opposed my position in the MFD in which the legal threat occurred [39]. Please disclose such conflicts of interest when commenting in future AN/I discussions, so that you aren't incorrectly regarded as an uninvolved administrator. Erik9 (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm no less uninvolved than you. My support or opposition of a position in the MfD has no bearing on my ability to evaluate whether something is a legal threat or not. Does the fact that I characterized the DrV as legitimate and needing to be run to conclusion (supporting you) similarly disqualify me from having opinions? Or do you only raise CoI when convenient? I am surprised that you continue to use this tactic of casting aspersions on others. You really ought to know better. It's getting quite tiresome, and I had hoped that after this apology to me you had turned over a new leaf. Please review WP:AGF again ( since the last review you were encouraged to make didn't seem to do the trick).
    To reiterate the substantive matter, I find Milo's contributions to that MfD to be quite unhelpful and distractive in general (they did not really advance the debate), and that specific comment as particularly so, but I didn't find it as a threat. YMMV. By the way, yours weren't so great either. And neither were mine. ++Lar: t/c 17:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you characterize endorsing the MFD closure that I'm seeking to overturn [40] as supporting me, then you have a curious definition of the term. My statement that you're involved in the MFD is purely descriptive: as an involved administrator, you would be prohibited from blocking or unblocking Milomedes yourself. Therefore, your comments should not be construed as contributing towards the consensus of uninvolved administrators who can take action with regard to this report. I'm certainly NOT accusing you of attempting to downplay an explicit, graphically worded legal threat just because it was made against someone who you opposed in a content dispute. To summarize the issue on commons: after I filed a MFD against his user subpage, Jack Merridew responded by accusing me of being a "hypocrite" who "quite possibly" had child pornography on his userpage [41]. To Jack's dismay I'm sure, the image was ultimately validated as being of an adult, freely licensed,[42] and not considered to be pornographic by commons editors.[43] While I did overreact to the accusations, my response was understandable given the circumstances. To construe an apology as an admission of wrongdoing is profoundly ungracious, though perhaps no more so than your initial "acceptance".[44] Erik9 (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My support of your position was in this phrasing, repeated in its entireity: "I agree with Eric about the mechanics of the process here... this DRV is appropriate and should be run to its conclusion. Taking this matter back to MfD, absent time passing or some policy change/clarification, would not likely result in a different outcome and would be pointless"... Drew was seeking to stop the DRV you started and I opposed that. Perhaps you missed it? We can disagree about what the outcome should be while agreeing the DRV is legit. That's what I was referring to. I am afraid that your summary of what transpired on Commons fails to include a large number of salient points which weaken your position. I support or oppose things based on the facts, which is why when you are correct about things, you'll get my support, as you have done many times already, whether you realise, acknowledge, or thank me for it or not. But, regrettably the converse doesn't seem to be the case. I think the ungracious one here is you, you seem to overreact, cast aspersions on motives, and generally assume bad faith of me when it's unwarranted. That was what I had hoped you were going to stop doing when you apologised. However, none of that is particularly relevant to this question of legal threats. Milo's blocked. He should stay blocked until and unless he clarifies what he meant, and it is clear to the satisfaction of the community that no threat is intended. That I don't myself see it as a threat doesn't mean it doesn't need clarifying. ++Lar: t/c 18:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comments at the deletion review overall did not support my position. If I had noted that you were an involved editor in the MFD with regard to your concurrence with taking the matter to DRV at all, then I would also have to note your involvement in response to your endorsement of the MFD closure. Of course, I did neither. If my comment "That understandable, as you strongly opposed my position in the MFD in which the legal threat occurred" is to be construed as "overreact[ing], cast[ing] aspersions on motives, and generally assum[ing] bad faith", then you are in essence disputing the entire basis for administrators to recuse themselves from acting upon matters in which they are involved: administrators aren't considered to be able to fairly and impartially decide the correct administrative action when they are involved. If you wish to hold yourself out as some exception to the principle which justifies the "Conflict of interest, non-neutrality, or content dispute" section of Wikipedia:Administrators#Misuse_of_administrative_tools, then I respectfully disagree. Erik9 (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Your comments at the deletion review overall did not support my position" -- didn't say they did, please review what I did say. I gave an example of support which you disregarded in your haste to try to discredit my statements. Look, this is a side issue but by your theory of when to apply involvement, you're not qualified to comment on this either and shouldn't have raised this matter here. Horsefeathers. Neither of us are exceptions to any principles, I just think you are misapplying them. And casting aspersions while doing so. The main issue here is whether Milo should remain blocked pending a clarification and or recanting, and we're in agreement on that, aren't we? ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not claim that involved administrators are unqualified to comment, but only that, since they are forbidden to take administrative action, their involved status should be clearly disclosed[45], so that they are not incorrectly regarded as uninvolved administrators contributing towards the consensus of administrators permitted to act. This principle is not contravened by my placement of a report here, or the manner in which written: since I am not an administrator, I could not reasonably be construed as an uninvolved administrator. Erik9 (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see it as a "threat" per se. He's not implying that he will sue. It could be as interpreted as a threat though, so it definitely merits a warning. I wouldn't block over just that statement though. Evil saltine (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right: "He's not implying that he will sue": he's implying that Jack Merridew will sue, and using graphic language to describe the contemplated legal proceedings. Legal threats are not acceptable simply because they are delivered on behalf of third parties. Erik9 (talk)
    I understand; we block for perceived legal threats as well as actual threats. Evil saltine (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at it this way; if you are in an altercation with another person, and he says to you "I hope nothing happens to you in your sleep tonight", apropos of nothing, how should you take that? He statement was clearly meant to intimidate people who took up an opposing viewpoint from him by introducing the threat legal proceedings for those that opposed him. Carefully couching the language to avoid the first-person pronoun does not make it less of a threat. --Jayron32 17:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a gray area... not everyone sees it the same way. However, that a number of people see it that way suggests it needs clarifying to remove ambiguity, and if Milo won't respond satisfactorily, he should remain blocked. ++Lar: t/c 18:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is in the gray area too, I would have more firmly warned at this point but don't contest the block's legitimacy. It's a legitimately preventive block - we have an apparent or credibly possible threat, we need to prevent harm to the community from legal issues being used as a hammer. Hopefully Milo will clarify and/or retract and someone can unblock. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:No legal threats was written, as I understand it, specifically so that users could not use the treat of legal action to coerce and intimidate others -- this strikes me as a transparently obvious attempt to do so. There is no requirement that the words "I'm going to sue you" be used. Milomedes is not a newcomer by any stretch of the imagination, and is surely well aware of the community's history of swift, strong response even to a hint of a legal threat. They could just as easily have used less charged language, and chose not to. They could just as easily have redacted their threat, and chose not to. I for one consider both choices significant. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Messianic Judaism

    Focus of dispute, or action in dispute

    We are currently trying to find a good way of presenting both the fact that mainstream Judaism does not recognize Messianic Judaism as Jewish and the fact that Messianic Judaism view itself as Jewish. One editor has been unwilling to include the latter in the article's lead paragraph despite the mention of the other in the lead paragraph. This editor also accuses the Messianic Jews of predatory behaviour and "deceptive practices" and uses these accusations as the rationale for her behaviour.

    Involved parties and confirmation they have been notified of the discussion

    User:Lisa

    This user was notified on Talk:Messianic Judaism. The notification was added in this revision: [[46]]

    Description of the dispute and the main evidence

    This comment from User:Lisa appears on Talk:Messianic Judaism section "Questioning the lead". It exemplifies this editor's unwillingness to allow the mention of the Messianic Jewish view of Messianic Judaism's relationship to Judaism into the lead paragraph based on

    a) a misuse of WP:FRINGE, which applies to fringe theories within academic fields of study, not to fringe groups within established religions.

    b) non-neutral POV accusations against the Messianic Jews.

    Here is the comment:

    Josiah, how the group views itself is mentioned within the article. But since it's a fringe view, it does not belong in the lede of an encyclopedic article. Please be aware that the current lede is a compromise worked out over a long time. Were it up to me, the lede would read something like this:

    Messianic Judaism is a Christian group which preys on Jews, particularly those with a limited Jewish education, in order to convert them to Christianity via deceptive practices. Judaism views the worship of a person as idolatry.

    I think that's an accurate description of the group, and can easily be supported by reliable sources. However, MJs and their supporters can bring MJ sources that say otherwise. Hence the compromise lede. Of course, the problem with such compromises is that someone from one side or the other of the debate will show up long after the compromise has been achieved and, not realizing that it is a compromise, will view the compromise position as a place from which to start. It isn't. I'm happy to go back to something along the lines of what I wrote above, if you like. Then we can thrash this out and wind up back with the compromise language. Or we can save ourselves a lot of time and edits and leave it alone. Your call. -Lisa (talk) 04:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks for your consideration. JosiahHenderson (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by other involved parties (Please include diffs to substantiate your claims)

    I'm willing to let the quote Josiah presented speak for itself. For the record, I'm uncomfortable with the compromise lede, but I support it because it is the compromise. -Lisa (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by uninvolved editors

    I'm confused by the use of WP:FRINGE here. Would this policy be used to prevent users from describing the claims of Scientology in that group's article? Shii (tock) 05:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Remarks by closing editor
    This appears to be a RFC, the OP needs to read Wikipedia:Requests for comment but it could also go on the Wikipedia:Content noticeboard, which is what I'd recommend. It doesn't belong here. Dougweller (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Block list collides with copyvio

    I tried to flag a copyvio at ‎Role of media in marketing, which is copied from "REMOVETHIShttp://www.ehow.com/how_2109071_understand-role-media-marketing-business.html". But the block filter won't let me mention an external link to "ehow.com" in a copyvio template. Nor will it let me mention it here, hence the "REMOVETHIS". Maybe that block filter needs to be turned down from "kill" to "stun". --John Nagle (talk) 06:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've nuked the page as a copyvio. In future you can put the link inside <nowiki> tags and the filter won't block it. ♣ Ameliorate! 07:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued readding of unsourced material

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

    User:Rgowran continues to add this section to Jack Van Impe. Willking1979, myself and admin OlEnglish tried to explain it to the user that is needed sources, probably violated BLP and NPOV among other things on Willking1979's talk page. The user readded the section and it is now an ongoing discussion on my talk page. Could someone have a look at the situation? Maybe if he hears something from an admin he will accept it. Thanks! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User has been notified. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    • Admin: Please read complete dialog here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rgowran There should not be a concern for liability as my entry was only about the actual statements made by Van Impe in an August 5, 2009 program, which is currently available to view on Van Impe's website. The quality of the writing and the information was at least as good as the information currently in the Van Impe article. My entry complied and passed every WP brought up to me. The information in my entry is accurate, unbiased, pertinent and recent. I did not mean to get into an "edit war", to which I was at a disadvantage since there were two users to just myself. Also, the one user, WillKing1979, if you look at his user page, you can see he has a political agenda. Thank you for taking the time to hear my case. --Rgowran (talk) 06:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That last bit about Willking1979 having a "political agenda" is just a bunch of crap. Why cause he is a Republican? Hell, I am Democratic leaning Independent, I have a better chance of having a "political agenda" then Willking1979 does. But neither of us do...this is just a way to get the heat off you for edit warring and adding unsourced information over and over. Ain't happening Buckwheat. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    • Admin: The problem they are having is that they are ignoring the facts. If you would please read the entire dialog at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rgowran you will see that my entry passes all the criteria. It is true, honest, unbiased, just the facts of what has happened recently on Van Impe's program. I did not slant my writing against Van Impe, I only stated what he himself said, along with a link to document what I entered. Also, I am just mentioning that I do not find my Wikipedia user page a good place to push my political agenda. I try to keep it completely unbiased. I do not begrudge any that do, I am just stating that you can see they could hold a bias. --Rgowran (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    • Admin: I feel there are anger issues with these censors. I always believed in Wikipedia and its unbiased information. And if you have read the entire dialogue at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rgowran, you will see my entry was accurate and unbiased. The anger is coming from other users with such threats as "reporting me for vandalism", "page protection". They really are looking to censor me. And to accuse me of cherry-picking is ridiculous. That is why I put a link to Van Impe's program archive. There are many more outrageous comments, however I had no intention on writing a novel on the ludicrous statements of Van Impe. What I wrote about his show, was based on a portion of the last half of Van Impe's show. He spent a good deal of time on the subject of robots and cyborgs and I never took words or ideas out of context. I am certain none of these other users have even watched the entire August 5, 2009 episode. --Rgowran (talk) 07:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • He is right when I says I haven't watched the episode. I don't watch people who spout off about robots and cyborgs and New World Orders and crap. People like that don't need television time, they need a funny farm....but that doesn't cloud my judgement on my decision to remove the information from the page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just reading the information is enough to say it doesn't need to be included. Then comes the multiple policies you break. Just let it go. The information in that section is unsourced and biased. Wikipedia is not a forum. –túrianpatois 07:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is wrong with you that you cannot understand? My point is that what I have quoted Van Impe is true, not that what he says is true. I have been explaining this over and over and you still do not understand. --Rgowran (talk) 07:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And no policies were broken. None. I have fully explained that. --Rgowran (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BURDEN. Yeah, every policy listed was broken. –túrianpatois 07:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Homer and Turian are right, Rgowran. I'd suggest you just let this one go, or take it to the relevant talk page to continue the discussion. Just making a blanket statement that you've not broken any policies isn't going to sway anyone. Dayewalker (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You can quote as many WP's as you like. None have been broken. Then entry needs to be reposted. --Rgowran (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Dayewalker, you have not read all the posts. I have already explained that none of the WP's have been violated. I looked them up and my entry did not deviate from any of them. What I stated is strictly what was stated by Van Impe himself. Along with a link to substantiate it. --Rgowran (talk) 07:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And why is there such animosity and anger over this? What is the fear? I am not giving this up based on mob mentality. --Rgowran (talk) 07:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Again... WP:BURDEN. –túrianpatois 07:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    First is a "jihad", now it is a "mob mentality". It is neither. We have politely explained to you the rules, you have disregarded them, disrupted several pages and wasted our time. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It is totally verifiable and easily verifiable. That is why I put in the link. NO VIOLATION. --Rgowran (talk) 07:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As I stated above (and on your talk page), simply denying what everyone is telling you is not helping your case. Everyone here is trying to explain the problem with your edit, and all you're replying with is that a) they're not, and b) no one else has read your talk page. No one needs to read your talk page to see that edit violates several wikipedia policies.
    Again, please stop. Just saying you don't believe all of the other editors isn't going to work. Dayewalker (talk) 07:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I just removed half the article - unsourced BLPs should be stubbed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So it is not the rules, it is the other editors. Since I have provided proof that the entry abides by the WP's, now I should just go away because the other editors say it doesn't belong. No. Can't do that. --Rgowran (talk) 07:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No rules have been disregarded. For some reason, someone (some people) do not want the entry in, regardless of the fact that it is completely verifiable, true and well sourced. And one wants a block now. So if we block the truth... --Rgowran (talk) 07:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Simply saying it doesn't violate policy doesn't mean a thing. You may not see what's wrong with your edits, but quite a few other editors do. That's generally a sign that you need to re-evaluate your position. --clpo13(talk) 08:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also sounds like we have a pusher. It is not properly/effectly/well sourced in any manner. Just giving a link is not correct citing or prove that it is verified. –túrianpatois 08:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    How is it a disruption? I came here to plead my case, and I get a barrage of editors telling me off. I want someone with some real knowledge of Wikipedia and its policies to take a look at my entry and its link for validation. It passes every WP thrown. Funny how I am accused of disruption. If you would have just let me say my piece and leave it at that, it would not be a disruption. I am only defending my entry. There doesn't have to be the constant reply back to everything I say. You said your piece, and I said mine in defense, and you had to constantly come at me with more WP's, so I checked them and my entry passes them all. I will not let this go. I am totally in the right, according to the Wikipedia policies. You saying that I am not, does not mean you are right. The policy matters, not your opinion. --Rgowran (talk) 08:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    But the link I provided does validate my entry. Because my entry was based on a quote form a TV program, which I linked to in Van Impe's archives. It is what he said and it was in context. It is ok to put back in. --Rgowran (talk) 08:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_about_winning. Despite the fact that multiple editors have told you to not include it, you still fight for it? WP:GETOVERIT! –túrianpatois 08:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Another outside view...let's remember that the views of Mr. Van Impe are of his own personal opinion. They are not indisputable facts, and on most of the stations and networks the program airs on, those organizations are very clear that Van Impe's views are his own and do not reflect the views or opinions of their management as they lead in and come out of the opening of his program (especially in the fact that he pays to air his program on many stations). Rgowran, the editors are correct. There is absolutely no need for this information in this article, and neutrality must be maintained, no matter how off-base his statements may be. I urge you to stop because there are so many guidelines that this talk about robots violates, and of course we know he doesn't agree with the president (that's a given considering his worldview). Nate • (chatter) 08:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Since Rgowran has mentioned a few times that he has no intention of giving this up which seems to include both edit warring and refusing to listen to more experienced editors attempts to help him understand policy, I've given him a short block hoping to get the point across. Shell babelfish 08:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say we reached apoint where this is self defeating. The user has been told repeatedly and insists on not listening. They will clearly be right back at it when their block expires. I have therefore varied the block to indefinite - meaning an undermined period depending on when the user confirms that they won't readd the material to the article without a consensus on the article talk page. Otherwise I'm afraid that we will be here in 24 hours wasting even more time on this guy. Ball is firmly in his court now. Spartaz Humbug! 10:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Folks, since I am now wide awake, I believe based on what happened in the last few hours, an indef block was the right thing to do in this circumstance. Prior to today, the now-blocked user's last edits were in 2007. He seemed to not understand the BLP policy, among other policies, which has come a long way since 2007. Willking1979 (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good block. There's something fishy about the Rgowran account. 2 edits in summer 2006, creating an article. 2 edits in spring of 2007, attempting to blank that article (he should have been indef'd then and there). Then nothing until yesterday's activity. He's got some 'splainin' to do. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Any checkusers viewing this may want to note that Rgowran has just admitted to having multiple accounts and will edit again: [47] Willking1979 (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To prevent damage to the encyclopedia, this user should be CU'd.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing of interest on his IP. -- Luk talk 07:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps it was intended as a joke, but ...

    Resolved
     – User blocked for 24 hours for personal attack

    Mr. IP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I really don't get that kind of humor. I've asked for a retraction, but no response. I voted in the RfA in question, so I don't feel I can act. The editor's talk page reveals at least one (not recent), shall we just say strong allegation against another editor at the Village Pump, which was later removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Simply ignoring him will do. It's rather bemusing how people like him strive for attention by making controversial claims. —Dark talk 11:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe because the vote was an astounding 141 to 0, he figured it was safe. Although maybe he should change his user ID to IPONU, as he tries to rain on the nominee's parade. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see how anyone could see that as a joke. This is a serious legal matter. — neuro(talk) 14:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is a pattern on the part of this user, then it must be assumed to be a string of personal attacks. If he does not explain himself, he should be expunged from wikipedia, as such comments are way over the top even if their author thinks they're funny. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This warrants an immediate block for a serious violation of WP:NPA - this goes way beyond acceptable. Darkfalls - we do not help the encyclopedia by ignoring this kind of thing or brushing it off. Exxolon (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Add this [48] into the mix and we've got a serious problem here. Exxolon (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The user's approach to things is a bit fishy in general. I also posted the RfA thing to WQA, so presumably someone will put that fish on ice soon. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've redacted and indented his comment. I have not blocked him at this time in the absence of continued pushing of this comment - but certainly leaving that comment to stand is simply not acceptable. There's a line between making a joke and making an egregious, libellous personal attack - and that line is several miles behind that comment. If someone else feels this is immediately blockable I won't take issue with it. ~ mazca talk 14:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the original comment opening this section could certainly be read, in isolation, as a metaphor for the user it's addressed to allegedly transgressing Wikipedia norms and rules, rather than the law. Without evidence as to a different intent, I'd be inclined to ignore it. Much more problematic to me is the other comment directed at another editor, "please limit yourself to molesting helpless animals rather than molesting our encyclopedia". That is equally difficult to take as a serious accusation of anything, but it is way out of line. The question needs to be asked: is this a longer-term pattern or a bad hair day? Rd232 talk 14:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw that too. It was enough to make me reach for the block button, but for the fact it wasn't terribly recent.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    His rant over at the deletion discussion page might provide a clue as to what he's on about. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you give us a diff?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm talking about this, from April 14, which was the final edit after several he made to that statement that day. You can get details from the contribs list at the top of this section. [49] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That came 9 minutes before his "molesting animals" comment that Exxolon referred to earlier. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (unindent) nothing to see here that can't easily be cleaned up. Redacting the comment was fine, and I've moved the ensuing discussion to the talk page. And it doesn't matter whether it was libelous or not, this is as likely to end up in court as a twig or a leaf are to tackle an elephant. However, the wider behavior of the editor in question may well be a serious problem. I'm not familiar with this one at all, or am I? On the user page, the editor claims "After nearly 7 years at Wikipedia under various accounts and names... I prefer to edit under my IP addresses....I will now be using this account to [do things IPs cannot do]...and agitate for the sake of anonymous users throughout the encyclopedia." That seems to be a claim of widespread sockpuppetry - if any of those IPs are being disruptive, or if the registered account is disruptive (as it clearly was with this joke), that's textbook good hand / bad hand behavior, using multiple accounts to further disruption. Self-styled rogues out to prove a WP:POINT about Wikipedia are an occasional problem here. This one seems to be vowing to stir up drama. Perhaps a CU is in order? Wikidemon (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite. Mr. IP's edits are severely disruptive at the very least, and I think there is more to it than 'the very least' as well. — neuro(talk) 17:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care what page this was done on, or which user made such a comment. It is a clear and egregious violation of our personal attack policy and as the policy suggests I have blocked this user for 24 hours. We need to protect Wikipedians against such attacks, not ignore them. Chillum 18:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good block. Tiptoety talk 18:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse block. — neuro(talk) 19:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Interestingly, it is almost exactly 1 year since this account was last mucking around at RFA, at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danielfolsom 2 here and here. Uncle G (talk) 04:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wladthemlat

    From almost the very first of Wladthemlat's edits [50] 80% of his "actions" are reverting. He uses Twinkle since the day he registered, and links to wikipedia guidelines and whatsoever like an "old" editor. I am pretty sure, looking at his all edits: [51] that this an account of an existing user (or someone's who were previously blocked indef for doing this, like User:MarkBA) and it is registered for only one reason: edit warring and disruptive editing and whatsoever. (Jones121) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.4.31 (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No real urgency as they haven't edited in over a week. If they come back it might be a concern. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Contimm User issues

    Contimm (talk · contribs)

    Hello administrators, i have a concern that i would like to bring to you before the situation gets out of hand. I eddited the Lagos and Abuja Pages, I added many new up to date photos of the skyline, appertment blocks, street level, tourism ect. however some other users felt that two of my photos (the apartment ones) were pointless in the article and therefore the went ahead and deleted them. Now i am still fairly a new "member" on wiki so i not knowing the rules undid all their editing and we went back and forth. Eventually we discussed the issue and i edited the text to correspond with the apartment photos. But just yesterday another user User:Contimmstarted removing many of the photos on the Lagos and Abuja pages. I would like you guys to please discuss with him the policies on wiki and urge him to discontinue this behavior. Thanks allot and i hope that this issue is resolved asap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.237.201 (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    One thing I notice is that giving the images odd sizes (250x250px) causes page formatting problems. I also noticed that you and your regular account Kehz99 (talk · contribs) seem to be in an edit war over the pages, have ownership issues and have not once bothered to use the article talk pages to discuss the edits. And you forgot to notify Contimm, which I have done for you. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And User:Kehz99 issues

    Dear Administrators, and Kehz99,

    This is Contimm. I would like to vehemently deny the extent of the allegations made against me. I explained all of my changes in great detail to Kehz99 (aka 67.191.237.201) on the talk pages of both. I only deleted a couple of pictures that were either of low quality or irrelevance. In one case, I moved a picture to a more appropriate page. Please see the User: Kehz99's user talk for my explanations. He keeps deleting my explanations from his UserTalk page so you may need to look into the history. You will also note from the Lagos history page that User: Ankimai and User: Quantpole made similar changes to the page previously and were both unfairly 'undone' by Kehz99 (aka 67.191.237.201). I would actually like to counter and report the behavior Kehz99. Instead of actually looking at what changes I had made, and editing where he saw fit, he simply undid my whole revision - this is incredibly unfair and disrespectful. I ask you to please review the changes made to the Lagos and Abuja articles and decide for yourself who is in good faith. I also would suggest that you look at the Hartford, Connecticut page (I wrote a number of sections and added almost all of the photos), as well as my contributions to other articles. You will see clearly that I am acting in good faith.

    Sincerely, Contimm (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Date linking by User:203.97.255.42

    IP editor 203.97.255.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been advised many, many times to stop turning dates into wikilinks, but never takes any notice and continues to do so.–Signalhead < T > 13:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have given them a final warning for their continued disruptive editing. Many of their other edits are good edits, it's just this one topic that they seem to be stuck on. Canterbury Tail talk 13:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sherurcij

    Resolved
     – Discussion moved elsewhere

    User:Sherurcij has been making unwarranted personal attacks against me in a number of AfDs. Taking this as an example he accuses me of attempting to censor Wikipedia and of being an ideologue attempting to destroy the records of my "idealogical enemy" because I failed to nominate US bases for deletion at the same time. Anyone who knows anything about me will know that I am a) British, b) a Liberal Democrat and c) about as right-wing as Jimmy Maxton, making these comments incredibly offensive to me. Considering Sherurcij's stated aim on his userpage to attempt to record everything vaguely Al-Qaeda related I'd say this is him bringing his POV and bias in. I have repeatedly asked him to withdraw the comments and he's made no attempt to do so, or even respond to my points. Ironholds (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If you would like to have civil dialogue on my talk page, I'm open to discussions with you; but speaking on AFDs is not really the place to have a 200-response discussion on our views of each other. You accused me, for example, of bearing "[a] desire to document the worlds arseholes on Wikipedia" and suggested that is why I thought it was improper for you to say that stub articles dealing with military training centres belonging to al-Qaeda weren't notable, even though they were sourced, neutral articles (which I did not create, as a point of interest, nor did I ever edit so far as I know). I have worked on Assuming good faith from you from the beginning of my knowledge of you, but it is a continued pattern over the past year that I am finally at wits' end and point out that I feel you are using fallacious logic to try and delete articles you "don't like" rather than honestly "have no opinion towards and just want to improve the project". Nobody has ever suggested you are American, and if you take offence to my suggestion that you apear to "bear a personal dislike of the article's subject and feel it is "unworthy" to merit an article" then you are free to dispute it. It's not really the type of issue to ramp up to ANI in my opinion, but c'est la vie. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 15:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "the past year"? I don't recall us running into each other any more than a month ago. The articles are not sourced to the requirements of WP:N, specifically the general notability guideline, something I brought up that you didn't respond to. I disputed your personal comments - again, another thing you failed to respond to. Ironholds (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) For context, for outside readers, this is following the Snowball Keep of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Abu Masood camp which Ironholds nominated, and after the AFD was closed against him, he proceeded to nominate the six other camps for deletion with the same rationale, and I answered with "Strong Keep per Snowball Keep of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Abu Masood camp; these seem to all be nominated by the same person, attempting to perform Damnatio memoriae...", which he interprets to be a personal attack, while I consider his actions to be "disrupting WP to make a point" and an example of the "If at first you don't succeed in deleting something you dislike, just nominate again and again". (edit conflict) Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 15:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    no, give the full sentence - I consider a personal attack to be accusations of deletionism, censorship, trying to destroy things I don't like and bias. I don't see what the WP:POINTy element is, nor the "if you don't at first succeed.." - My nominations this time around contained a better argument than the previous (fails WP:N), which is the reason I nominated these ones - I wasn't trying to prove a point, I honestly feel that a) these articles shouldn't be here and b) the new nomination argument does make a significant difference. Again - how have we interacted over the past "year"? Ironholds (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Iron, this probably belongs at WQA. Sherurcij, WP:AGF is not optional and applies most of all when dealing with people who take actions that you may disagree with. Do not keep making comments like the one linked above. Protonk (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Rightyo - sorry, I read these things a lot but I rarely submit them. I'm going to mark this as "resolved" for now simply because discussion has resumed on talkpages and elsewhere and I don't want to waste youse lots time. Ironholds (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lisa in violation of editing restrictions?

    Under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines, LisaLiel (talk · contribs) "LisaLiel is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should she exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, she may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.". Looking at the history here I see three reverts on this page since the 19th. The last time (July) I asked her about editing restrictions I had no reply, so this time I'm bringing it here. I think I would be justified in blocking her but I'd prefer other opinions first. I'll notify her now. Dougweller (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't WP:AE the correct venue for this? → ROUX ₪ 17:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The reverts do look to be counter productive, Historicity? Is this a word?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Protonk (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If I'm on the wrong page, apologies, this is more complicated than I thought. Dougweller (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This *does* seem to violate Lisa's 1RR per week restriction. Doug would be justified in taking action. Lisa's been invited to reply here, and if there's no promise of improvement, a block is appropriate. Simple restrictions can surely be discussed here at ANI. WP:AE is good for messy cases or subtle issues. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Having been a party to the Alastair Haines arbitration, I'd encourage everyone here to pick a better battle. The substance of the arbitration restrictons had to do with higher level content disputes. From my vantage Lisa is certainly abiding by the spirit of those restrictions, and a quibble over history vs. historicity shouldn't really count as an issue here. Is she technically in violation? Perhaps, but Wikipedia isn't administered by machines. I'd request you give her a pass here.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, but did you take into account the 2 reverts on the 19th? I should have pointed to them in particular. I don't have any great desire to block her, just to know what the story is. She's replied to my notice on her talk page. Ah, this is not a statement about whether her reverts are right or wrong either, as I'm not sure she was wrong. Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Arbcom's editing restrictions create no benefit if admins aren't willing to enforce them. If SkyWriter thinks this particular restriction has become obsolete, let him file a motion with Arbcom. Until they undo the restriction, Lisa should follow it. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ed, please understand that I'm not arguing against enforcement of Arbcom rules -- but that I'm merely arguing in favor of taking into account the context those rules applied to. As the person who actively requested that Lisa be included in such enforcement in the first place I think I am qualified to advocate on her behalf now. She's simply not reproducing any of the actions that led to those restrictions. While she could theoretically be observed to cross the path of the letter of that restriction, it's only an accident of the brevity of the specific wording of those restrictions. If I knew nothing of the context of that Arbcom I'd have to agree with you on technical grounds and argue for a mechanical application of them now. But I DO know better. I was there. Even Doug is granting that she wasn't wrong -- which to me means that she was only doing something that you or I could have done. A violation? Yes, but can we save the Arbcom enforcement for something the enforcers wouldn't have done themselves? Thanks.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also -- just to add, I reviewed the passage that Lisa deleted, and it appears that she was trying to remove a passage that was both irrelevant to the article and somewhat antisemitic as well. I'd agree with Doug that she was not wrong in this instance. I would have deleted that as well. You seem like a decent chap -- and you'd probably delete it too.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent)It seems the text in question which Lisa removed twice in 1 hour is this: [52]. It is not obviously anti-semitic, and whilst it may belong in a related article rather than that one (a related article which may not exist yet) it isn't wildly off-topic. Certainly nothing to justify breaching editing restrictions. A warning may be sufficient rather than a block, but it has to be acknowledged the restrictions were breached without good reason. As to whether a warning may be sufficient, it has to be observed also that another editor (not the one who added the text) had said the text was justifiable the day before Lisa removed it twice. Rd232 talk 23:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rd -- from what I understand the restrictions are set to expire in less than two weeks. Could we give Lisa a pass on this? It's technically a single violation. Maybe a finger shake or something? It's a little silly to come down full force for a second revert less than two weeks before she's up to the 3 reverts the rest of the world can do.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, the one-year restriction was imposed last September, and Lisa was only once blocked for violating it (in October). So at this point a warning and a reminder that edit warring does not require there to have been more than 3 reverts in 24 hours (that's just one measure of it) may suffice. However the incident suggests that any admins who hang out where Lisa edits should probably keep an eye on her when the restriction initially runs out, to see if she suddenly returns to the behaviour which led to the restriction in the first place. Rd232 talk 07:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For Godssake give Lisa a bit of leeway on this. She reverted twice on the 19th, and again a few days later on an edit that was totally unrelated. As someone who's been far more active on that page than she has, and who's taken the other side (meaning that Lisa's been reverting me), I haven't taken any offense at her edits at all. Give her some slack, please! PiCo (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ultima-series character articles and User:Dream Focus

    This is a rather drawn out event. User:Dream Focus has been waging a one-man campaign against merging Avatar (Ultima), Lord British, and The Companions of the Avatar into the List of Ultima characters, despite all applicable information already been merged there. Any attempt to improve the articles by removing peacock words, game guide material and rewording of in-universe content to be in line with Wikipedia's policies has been met with claims of wiping out half the related article,[53][54], and accusations of attempting to destroy the article and force a merge. Previous link will also show the user attacks anyone disagreeing with his opinion as "trying to destroy articles" and claims any motions is detrimental to wikipedia. This is compounded by his insistence that an AfD on Avatar (Ultima) that resulted in a closure of "keep without prejudice to a merge discussion on the relevant talkpage(s). No reason to list this at AfD", that the AfD was closed as keep only. He is also insisting that majority voted against merging the article, despite consensus through several discussions that they should be merged until sufficient sources exist or at least strongly considered in the case of the AfD, and also despite being informed that wikipedia is not a democracy several times.[55], [56], [57]. He is also insistent that despite their current condition, the articles are "fine", and insistence that through three sources that briefly solely discuss the death of Lord British by a player in Ultima Online, that the whole series of articles meets notability.[58]. Requesting a topic ban on Dream Focus for this subject so at least progress can be made to move forward and do proper work on the material to have it agree with existing policies and consensus.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I was about to request this myself. There was no consensus to merge. Most people that commented were against the merge. But a small number of people argued nonstop with me, then went ahead, and did it anyway. The edit history at Lord British has been erased apparently. Please tell me if a small number of people can ignore the opinions of a greater number of people, who are against the merge, and do it anyway. Dream Focus 18:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Examples of bad faith accusations on the part of Dream Focus: [59] (borderline), [60], [61], [62]. As shown above (by both Kung Fu Man and unwittingly Dream Focus), Dream Focus fails to understand basic policies regarding consensus and (lack of) democracy. In addition to constant bad faith accusations, his repetitious arguments are disruptive in my opinion. An RFC was opened to gain further opinions and avoid edit warring; Dream Focus proceeded to fill the RFC section break with a large section full of turgid, redundant arguments, despite only one uninvolved editor commenting. This made the dispute seem more complicated and messy than necessary, thus making it harder to gain uninvolved editors. bridies (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit history of Lord British has been returned, I assuming that just a brief error. Anyway, at the start most people were against the merge, then a massive amount of arguing back and forth took place, they determined to ignore the consensus of the majority, trying to force their own will. Please read through the start of the discussion, and not just selective edits taken out of context. Dream Focus 18:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One man campaign? Please there were several editors who were opposed to the merge.
    Peregrine Fisher against a merge [63][64][65],
    A Nobody in AFD [66] on other pages.[67]
    wwwwolf in AFD[68]
    DGG in AfD [69]
    FeydHuxtable in AfD[70]
    Ikip in AfD "weak keep to merge" [71]
    Offliner [72]
    Xxanthippe [73]
    Abductive, only one is a clear case for merging[74]
    When someone says something so contradictory to reality, it is only natural to question everything else that person says.
    Kung Fu Man's evidence is non-existent, there are no personal attacks here, Dream Focus stayed within all applicable guidelines.
    Kung Fu Man's Link 1: Notice how Kung Fu Man has 11 edit diffs between this edit, this is the actually amoount of material that Kung Fu Man deleted,[75] This edit link is misleading and I am ask Kung Fu Man to strike it and apologize for the deception, Dream was right: "use talk page before you try to wipe out half of an article" Kung Fu did "wipe out half the article"
    Kung Fu's link 2,3,4: [76], [77], [78] Meaningless, I don't see the relevance, if anything they show that the merge's are controversial.
    Kung Fu's link 5: [79] content dispute.
    I don't see the evidence for a topic ban. What policies warrant it?
    User:Bridies edit diffs, summed up, Dream is arguing inclusion, deletion. Not included are the other two editors in the argument, Kung Fu and TTN:
    "Really, I mean, you whine and moan about the evil deletionists destroying such important information, but do you honestly even care about anything more than the principal of these characters having articles? It is so annoying playing this whole game with people like you, who go on and on about how important this stuff is, and then when its all over, the articles just sit in the same poor state for years."[80]
    Kung's personal attacks, WP:NPA: "apparently Dream Focus wishes to assume bad faith, conspiracy theories (yes I said it, deal with it) and onwership" [81] etc.
    If anything, we need to reconsider address E&C2 again and whether TTN is following the guidelines of this arbcom, and whether E&C4 is necessary. Ikip (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No one else repeated those non-arguments ad nauseam in conjunction with disruptive editing. bridies (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I quote Kung: "User:Dream Focus has been waging a one-man campaign against merging" one man. he didn't say "Dream Focus was the only one repeating these non-arguments ad nauseam in conjunction with disruptive editing." He said that Dream Focus was the only editor against merging, this is false, and I ask Kung Fu to strike it, along with the other deceptive edit diff.
    "Disruptive" is the complaint always used by any society to silence those who they disagree with, unless you have some actual policy violations, "disruptive" means, "I want to silence Dream because I disagree with him". Hardly compeling evidence for a topic ban. Ikip (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am content to let the talk page discussion speak for itself. bridies (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What we did have is TTN illicit support to try to stifle what he calls "an inclusionist" in the discussion and lo and behold we wind up here... If you cannot out argue someone, just start up a distraction drama thread that waste's the community's time and improves no articles in the process... Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not waste administrators' time with such threads. More editors seemed to support keeping the articles than merging and so fixating on Dream Focus is beyond unwarranted and unfair. Just because he interprets policies and guidelines differently and in a manner consistent with how many article builders interpret them does not justify starting needless drama here. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose topic ban on AfDs also

    Resolved
     – He's not about to be topic banned. Protonk (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    If we're discussing topic bans for Dream Focus, may I propose that they are banned from AfD discussions? Aside from the apparent failure to understand basic policies as noted above by Bridies, Dream Focus fairly consistently makes comments at AfD which suggest that they feel that policies should be ignored in favour of "common sense" (as defined by Dream Focus). They frequently make comments which suggest they have difficulty confusing existence with notability. Look no further than the essays on their user page for evidence that they do not respect the policies which all other editors are asked to abide by. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The policies I abide by, the suggested guidelines are not absolutely required, you able to follow the policy of ignoring all rules, and using common sense, as defined by the Wikipedia guideline of common sense. And stay on topic please. Dream Focus 18:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond ridiculous. Dream Foucs is someone who actually makes thoughtful rather than drive-by WP:ITSCRUFT or WP:JNN style of non-arguments at AfDs. He does excellent working at actually improving content and only gets in disputes with those who rarely do any actual article work, but just act as self-appointed judges who again just go around tagging articles for deletion. Dream Focus is one of the best editors on Wikipedia, who simply "gets it". Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So I "rarely do any actual article work"? bridies (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All I see here is yet another distraction from actual article improvement. If Dream Focus does "not respect policies", it is only nonsensical ones inconsistent with the whole purpose of a paperless encyclopedia and foisted upon the community by a vocal minority. And the funny thing is, Dream Focus at least had the majority support of his stance with regards to these articles... Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But he did not have consensus. I am not going to repeat the talk page discussion all over again as it can speak for itself. I like how you dodged my question: do I "rarely do any actual article work"? bridies (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no consensus to merge. No consensus means we default keep. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing about my lack of article work? bridies (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are Dream Focus' arguments from the most recent three AfDs in which they participated: [82], [83], & [84]. I think they speak for themselves. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are some damn good arguments of his! And certainly much better than say sarcastic and therefore baiting or a textbook example of WP:JNN. Yeah, so of all the participants in those disucssions, you take issue with someone who actually writes out original discussion specific comments and actually discusses sources!? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you actually read that second one? First of all, he was claiming that something was notable because it was mentioned in a magazine which was a primary, not secondary source; and followed that up by claiming that it didn't matter anyway because fictional things don't need to have real-world notability. This, sadly is typical of DF's AfD comments; if he can't think of a good reason, he'll claim that the rules don't apply anyway. Black Kite 19:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of Dream Focus's arguments are rather non-standard and involve some unusual interpretations of policies; but they're a long way short of disruptive. I was one of the first to agree that some of Dream Focus's early AfD participation was unhelpful and confrontational, but all I'm seeing from these recent diffs are someone stating an opinion in a civil manner. I would most definitely oppose an AfD topic ban at this point - I often disagree with his rationales, but generally they're at least founded in reason and stated maturely. ~ mazca talk 19:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I'm not suggesting banning him from AfDs either, just pointing out, as you say, that he probably needs to give it a rest with the confrontational approach to anyone whose idea of "improving the encyclopedia" doesn't agree with his sometimes unconventional standards. Just reading through some of his screeds on User:Dream Focus will probably give you an idea. Black Kite 19:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Yeah, I do get your point - you somewhat got screwed by Wikipedia's wonderful non-threaded discussion, in that my statement was rather pointed towards the section as a whole rather than you specifically! Generally, I haven't noticed any particularly objectionable AfD comments from him recently, so while he clearly has some strong and unusual opinions (per aforementioned userpage) he's presenting them reasonably at AfD. ~ mazca talk 19:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean screeds and confrontational approaches like on User talk: Black Kite? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that's right. The difference being that I never edit-warred or disrupted the encyclopedia in defence of my views. Which is the point here, I think ... Black Kite 19:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It takes at least two to edit war and at least one or two of Dream Focus's opponents go about things far more disruptively. After all, nothing like argument about sources with those who admittedly "don't have the attention span to productively work on building articles. I can spend an hour chopping down a character list, but I get bored after five minutes while looking for sources." Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Opps, I just noticed A Nobody beat me to the quote, although he got the wrong version.
    I joined the project to improve an encyclopedia; it is no longer an encyclopedia, but largely a collection of trivia which would be rejected as too cruft-ridden and badly-written to display to the world even by the most amateur of fansites. Having nearly 3,000,000 articles is nothing to boast about when a good percentage of them are an embarrassment. Unfortunately, the expansion of trivia is now being helped by a collection of editors who game the system to produce AfD results like that with a combination of canvassing, vote-spamming, cluelessness....[85]
    I am sorry you feel that way. Ikip (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A published magazine is a reliable source by any reasonable standard and again, his comments are far better than a number of what others have "contributed" to those same discussions, so by that logic, multiple editors from those AfDs would be bannable. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends on the circulation of the magazine. ++Lar: t/c 19:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A topic ban is not warranted at this time. But that one was even suggested ought to give Dream Focus pause. Dream Focus needs to take the criticism they are getting about approach in AfDs on board, because some of the diffs given above evidence a serious lack of understanding of process or a reliance on spurious arguments. ++Lar: t/c 19:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If my arguments aren't valid, why do most AFD I participate in end in Keep? And why exactly are we going off topic on the AFD thing anyway? I won't take pause that someone who I've seen in some AFDs, decided to suggest such a thing, since I have done nothing wrong in those arguments worthy of a ban, and thus the suggestion too ridiculous to be seriously considered. Dream Focus 19:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I started the sub-topic because it seemed to be a related issue (it involves a similar type of action and argument on your part). If there's no appetite for banning you from AfDs right now, that's fine, I can wait. In the meantime I've pulled out some choice AfD arguments from your contribs going back only to the beginning of the month. I'm hoping that admins will start to see the problem here: [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], & [91]. They are chronological. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the problem with the diffs you've specified? Evil saltine (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the silliness at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of diseases and conditions with unusual features about renaming it to "List of diseases and conditions that at least 5 Wikipedia members state are interesting to read about" isn't productive, but I don't think a topic ban is appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, without dissecting each example, two of the arguments conflate existence with notability, all of the reasoning for keeping is specious, and none of the arguments are based on policy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Delicious carbuncle, this entire charade is getting embarrassing, and not for Dream Focus. After looking at all of the above links, I looked at one of your links[92] and I once again said, SO WHAT? This is evidence of an editor voicing his opinion civilly on an AFD. SO WHAT? There will be no ban today, that is for certain, and everytime when you attempt to attack Dream, he can point to this AFD and say, see look, this is what this guy tries to use against me as evidence, and your case will collapse. It is getting to the point of harrassment here. This is a content dispute that should not be on ANI. I am closing it for this reason. Ikip (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, anyone who looks at that diff and then sees that Dream Focus is talking about the subject of the article once being a guest commentator on a news program and being quoted once in a relationship advice column might agree with my assessment. I just threw up diffs from the last three AfDs in which he or she had participated. It's rare that they will argue based on policy or guidelines, and almost any perusal of their contributions makes that point for me. You seem to be implying that I've attacked Dream Focus before and that I will attack him or her again. I haven't done so and don't intend to do so in the future. Suggesting that they be banned from AfDs isn't a personal attack and is intended only to improve AfDs discussions, not to punish Dream Focus. Please don't forget that the original discussion of a topic ban remains above. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Back on topic

    We're not going to find consensus to ban Dream Focus from AfDs. His rationales are often odd, but I'm sure he feels the same about users who tend to vote delete. That being said, there does seem to be a fair amount of edit-warring that occurred today on these Ultima related articles. I'm not sure what needs to be done about that and think some outside input is necessary. Having peaked at some of the other articles on the Ultima franchise, I don't see the merge as a bad thing since those articles could definitely use some referencing. However, that's just my opinion and probably belongs on the article talk page. I'm more concerned about the back and forth merging on the merge and the breakdown of communication between involved editors. AniMatedraw 20:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree with AniMate above. The edit-warring here is a concern, and it does take (a minimum of) two to tango. Dream Focus' editing style, personal philosophy, online manner etc are tangential, and best addressed elsewhere, if anywhere.  pablohablo. 21:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked Sockpuppet with Nationalistic Attacks on Talkpage

    Resolved

    User_talk:Romandrumanagh

    This user was blocked as an abusive sockpuppet. His "retiring" message included a nationalistic attack - and in fact, he made a similar statement against an Irish admin.

    I removed the most recent attack, but they were re-added by another editor.

    I suggest that this page be deleted, or that someone else remove the offensive comments. I would take this up with the editor who re-added them, but as they (and an admin I had never met before) are currently playing tag-team "beat-up on on the neutral WQA helper and include pure bullshit while doing it" on my talkpage, I would rather disengage from them. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    problem solved. --Jayron32 19:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Was this a good unblock?

    Resolved
     – unblocking Admin has replaced the unblock message with a satisfactory one Dougweller (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to draw attention to a discussion at AN with me starting to participate here which I think should have been here. An Admin bundled together several blocks by another Admin for username violations, and one of those was the block of Bottracker (talk · contribs). After a discussion in which I didn't take part as I hadn't noticed the name, this user was unblocked with the message:
    An unblock and an apology The two admins who blocked you were completely unjustified in doing so. There's a consensus at the Administrators' Noticeboard that you did nothing wrong, and you should have been welcomed for your contributions, not blocked. This was a Wikipedia process that went way out of control. I apologize sincerely on behalf of Wikipedia. I understand it's probably far too late to have any effect, but I've unblocked you. If you're willing to give Wikipedia another try, I'll offer to help you, especially in uploading your images. rspεεr(talk) 20:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

    The problem is that I originally blocked the user for personal attacks and copyvio problems after he'd deleted a number of notices without discussing them (hoping that would bring about a useful discussion). In the event, two unblock requests were declined by two other Admins (a fact not mentioned), and a 3rd Admin, the one involved in the other 4 blocks, blocked his talk page mentioning as more or less an aside a possible problem with his username. I'm not happy about this and feel that I should have been notified and that the discussion didn't report accurately the chain of events. I feel pretty strongly that the apology is over the top and that it's pretty clear that 'did nothing wrong' is not the case and not even consensus at AN.

    As I've said, I think this probably shoud have been raised here, and now that it's gone this far I think it does need to be discussed here, although of course I may be wrong in which case apologies and slap me with a trout (although I'd prefer a mackerel). I wouldn't terribly mind being told my initial block was wrong (although I'm not convinced any other attempts would have worked), just that to not involve me at all and then make that 'apology' is not the way to go about reversing a block. Dougweller (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think it's a great unblock, though I understand the rationale behind it. However, I definitely don't see a need to split the discussion between two noticeboards. AniMatedraw 19:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Doug, I'm no longer an active administrator, although I see fit to call out discrepencies and ills that are brought up and discovered. I don't see a reason that this is split off from the AN thread; there is a specific reason that I posted it at AN, which I elaborated on there. seicer | talk | contribs 23:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Kite has been very helpful and the issue is resolved, with a new unblock explanation by the unblocking Admin. Dougweller (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Lester Coleman

    I bring this here because I'm not sure whether it calls for semi-protection or a block. This article, about a convicted con artist, has repeatedly been a low-level source of trouble: an editor, who may be the subject of the article, tries every so often to remove sourced material from the article or add unsourced information that exonerates Coleman. Since it seems possible that the reason for this is to use Wikipedia to add credence to false information, we need to be particularly vigilant about this. Anyway, currently 68.59.124.204 (talk · contribs) has been carrying on the campaign and ignoring warnings to stop. I will notify the IP about this section. Looie496 (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I tend to agree with Looie496 on this one. The vandalism seems to be continuous, organized, and narrow in its scope. Prior to its most recent history, the article existed alongside a second dubious article proclaiming the existence of a separate entity, or twin brother, whose life and accomplishments so closely paralleled Lester Coleman's life that it soon became obvious that a single entity, or a biased cabal, was working diligently to falsify information and to give credence to some truly well-crafted fiction. —Merry Yellow (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have protected the page for 1 month. That should encourage the offending IP to use the talk page more appropriately. Lets see where he takes it from here. --Jayron32 02:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    UFA on page for four hours without reply

    Resolved
     – Blocked. Thanks. Evil saltine (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Can one of you please take care of the Empiresfade report on WP:UFA? Joe Chill (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the quick response, Evil saltine. Joe Chill (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem =) Evil saltine (talk) 05:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    High profile vandalism alert

    A review of an Edinburgh fringe performance may not be the most likely place to start an investigation into Wikipedia vandalism, but this one states "The show's liveliest sequence comes when Holmes invites the audience to devise its own salacious rock-star rumour, and then updates the relevant Wikipedia page (Mick Hucknall's, in this instance) accordingly". Jon Holmes may not thank the reviewer for giving that example as it points directly to this vandal edit and therefore to the IP responsible: Special:Contributions/88.107.194.233. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem at Caster Semenya

    History. Some editors and IPs don't believe the subject should be called a she. Can some admins keep an eye on this. I don't feel like reverting anymore. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: there seems to be a general consensus on the talk page that female personal pronouns are appropriate. It looks like it's just The Homosexualist who objects. His reasoning is that the page must remain gender-neutral as there are no specific Wikipedia policies that cover this situation. --clpo13(talk) 01:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, lately. It's a BLP, so a certain amount of extra care is needed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SoxBot malfunctioning

    Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SoxBot IV shows the bot is approved to clear out the sandbox every 12 hours. It is currently clearing out the test templates (X1-X9) every 3 minutes. This is interfering with some testing I am doing at the moment. The owner doesn't appear to be around at the moment, so could someone put it on hold for the time being please (2-hour block or some such)? Thanks, 81.110.104.91 (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note, the owner has left a prominent warning on the bot's user page: "WARNING: If you block this bot, please TURN OFF AUTOBLOCK, so that the other Toolserver and ClueNet bots keep working." 81.110.104.91 (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I have a solution for you - please see User talk:X!#SoxBot_on_test_templates. Thanks.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The bot is doing this because your edits are removing the sandbox header. AFAIK, it's supposed to/was approved to do that. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately that isn't properly noted. I had the same issue. There is nothing in the header that says don't remove the header. I had previously talked to him about that and he mentioned he was going to update the warning or something, but apparently that didn't happen. There needs to be a new warning for headers as this can be quite confusing to people trying to test something out who aren't familiar with this.--Crossmr (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the innards of the template (only visible during page editing) *do* say 'Please leave this line alone (template sandbox heading)' and 'Feel free to try your formatting and editing skills below this line' - but I agree that it could and should be made much clearer. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we make an editnotice that helps explain this? — Kusma talk 10:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Living Biography dispute

    There is a dispute occurring at the moment on my living biography page. Since I am the subject of the entry, and my credibility is at stake, I have tried to satisfy the objections, which have resulted in multiple flags at the beginning of the article.

    After a long and detailed discussion in 2006, in which the decision was to 'keep' the entry/article, it has operated without incident until now.

    Recently I have been involved in an Australian national social activist campaign for a review of the Family Court Act in my country. This is extremely controversial amongst father's rights groups, who brought in some amendments to our FLA in 2006.

    Initially the flags were only on one segment in which the new Family court material was added. Now the flags are everywhere, including at the beginning of the entry, giving the impression that the whole entry is not credible.

    I believe these groups are trying to discredit me through wikipedia by putting multiple flags on the entry.

    As I satisfy each of the objections, somebody is putting back the old wording and using this as an excuse to remove the material and citations, which evidence the claims made.

    Is there an experienced administrator available who can arbitrate this dispute?

    --Barbbiggs (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Your edits came across as grandstanding. Please do not accuse people of attempting to discredit you. It is a simple case of trying to improve the encyclopedic value of Wikipedia and limit soapboxing. Any thoughts on the article from anyone (including admins if needed) are of course appreciated. The flags are there for reasons. I also deleted 2 this afternoon. You shouldn't have been making edits to your article as discussed since 2006. This has caused a knee-jerk reaction from some editors who might have an agenda against you (I don't know their motivation) but it is hard not to view the article critically when it has been so poor. I think it would be appropriate for admins to review the history and talk pages since it has unfortunately not been corrected through other means.Cptnono (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The tagging did appear to be unnecessary, and I've removed them from the header as such. We don't tag with the conflict of interest flag simply in response to someone editing their own article, there must be significant (even if subtle) deviations from neutrality to justify it, and that just didn't appear to be the case in reviewing the article. I've added the article to my watchlist, and I'll look more in-depth through the history. It's probably a good idea that the issue was brought here, so that administrators and other editors can add it to theirs, as well. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, J! The use of citations are still a concern for me but that has been getting cleaned-up so losing the flag was probably a good call.Cptnono (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The tagging may well have been required at some point, but as you acknowledge, it didn't appear to be necessary at this point. Just two points:
    • User:Cptnono, it is important that we alway seriously consider Ms. Biggs concerns, and we have no policy explicitly forbidding her editing the article (although, as you suggested, wp:coi certainly recommends not doing so in order to avoid the resulting issues).
    • User:Barbbiggs, it would, nonetheless, be better if you posted the changes you would like to see on the talk page of your article, where other objective parties can implement them. I will keep your article's talk page on my watchlist, and I would be more than happy to work with you and the other editors at the page to help neutrally implement any changes you believe should be made.
    Again, it's my hope that administrators and other editors will do the same. Should I be missing in action, in the future, and should either of you need to bring up issues with this article, you can also try wp:blp/n, a noticeboard specifically geared towards issues involving our wp:blp policy on the biographies of living people. user:J aka justen (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the second set of eyes. Just to clarify, primary promotional edits caused by COI can result in a block (Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Common rationales for blocks#Disruption-only} so I again recommend that Ms. Biggs keeps her edits to the talk page due to the history.Cptnono (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct, re: promotion- and disruption-only accounts. I don't believe any administrators would assume Ms. Biggs edits, to date, to have been lacking in good faith, so I don't think that would apply there. Nevertheless, I agree, that it should always be strongly encouraged that individuals use the talk page to recommend changes to their own biographies, to avoid any unnecessary concerns or confusion. user:J aka justen (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible legal threat by IP?

    Forgive me if I'm way off the mark here (I haven't had too much experience with this particular issue before), but would this constitute a legal threat? It almost looks like a strange sense of humour, but I thought bringing it here might be advisable just in case. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, Revert, Block, Ignore but don't make them feel more important than our usual vandal. -- Luk talk 09:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RedPawl

    Besides a number of nationalistic edits to Cornish related articles, eg several like this one] where he changes the fact tha Cornwall is a county of England to claimining it is a 'nation of the United Kingdom', he has at three times called another editor a Fascist and/or revealed personal information about that editor: [93] [94] [95]. Dougweller (talk) 04:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hmm...since RedPawl literally just got back from a 3RR block and continued the same reverts, I've just reblocked for 72 hours. He's already been warned about edit warring and personal attacks but doesn't seem to be responding to the notes left on his talk page. Shell babelfish 05:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Problematic newbie editor

    M. Abdollahi (talk · contribs) is new here and has stirred up a bit of trouble in the past few days. I think he generally means well, but is, well, totally clueless. He's created and recreated an article that has been speedied several times, has uploaded a number of obvious copyvios, and started an RfA on himself the first day he appeared on-Wiki. Also found and tagged a couple copyvios over on Commons. Can someone try and help him out a bit? <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm looking into it. The situation doesn't seem too bad -- he wrote some unreferenced articles. This is in a topic area (Iranian television) where many other unreferenced articles already exist. I'm not saying that this is a good thing or that we should care about WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but the guy deserves a chance to figure out reliable sources. I'm going to try to help him. rspεεr (talk) 06:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree, I think he has good intentions and just needs some help. We have a dearth of Iranian modern culture stuff, so hopefully he can help out. The kids show looks cute, wish I could find some refs for it! <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 07:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "Saint"?

    Resolved

    An IP insists on adding the title "saint" to Jack Kevorkian. At first I thought it was vandalism, but now s/he throws in citations from the Church of Euthanasia and the Church of Reality. I checked wp's naming conventions and am at a loss... Any opinions? Seb az86556 (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia doesn't designate people as saints as a title in the name when they're famous for other things in addition to sainthood. See Thomas More, Joan of Arc, and Charlemagne. Durova306 07:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Seb az86556 (talk) 07:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    C.Kent87's unblock request

    Raising this here since the blocking admin, Seddon doesn't seem to be around (the unblock req is pending since last Thursday). The user has been blocked after this Sockpuppet Investigation, where he was found using multiple accounts. After a second look, I confirm the connection and the fact that he has used his alt, Cali567 in a deceptive manner on several occasions. He's promising to stick to a single account in his unblock request, and considering his contributions I think we can give him a second chance. What do you think? -- Luk talk 08:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I personally feel that he can afford to wait a little longer for Seddon to review. This will not only give Seddon the chance to comment and act if he so wishes, but also the user concerned some time to reflect rathor than re-entering the editor pool immediately with little or no time to seriously apprehend that he was in the wrong and that he needs to be follow wikipedia's policies and guidelines more carefully. More or less I feel a reduction in the block is warrented, perhaps to the duration of a week from the original date, but I would not go as far as to remove it all together. Prom3th3an (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-term persistent block evasion

    I'm referring to User:PIO/Luigi 28. This user was blocked in March 2008, and has since simply continued to edit with no problems for seventeen months. Occasionally he creates socks like User:Ciolone, User:Barba Nane, User:Agazio, User:Ustashi, and most recently, User:Ducatista2, but he knows he does not really need them. His edits have often destabilized articles, he has attempted to WP:HARASS me by posting my information on many occasions (me being the one reporting his socks), and he has been known to openly brag about Wikipedia's supposed inability to do anything about him and his disruptive edits. His newest sockpuppet, User:Ducatista2, was blocked a couple of days ago, yet here he is again on Talk:Republic of Ragusa following me around.

    The guy is a menace. I'm not sure if he's right, that is, I'm not sure if something can be done about finally enforcing his block, but I really am damn curious. What good is it to ban a guy if he can still do things like edit-war on article talkpages? [96] (btw, I'd like to request someone semi-protects Republic of Ragusa as a temporary fix) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There may also be a connection with banned User:Brunodam, since User:Ducatista2 removed a Suspected Sock notice from one of Brunodam's (suspected) socks. [97] Rd232 talk 10:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nah, I think they're just good buddies. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Brighton Institute of Modern Music

    Hi all. I've just been contacted by Brighton Institute of Modern Music regarding their Wikipedia entry, specifically these changes, apparently by a disgruntled student editing as Thee Undead (talk · contribs). The institute reverted the edits, and I've added back an accidentally removed paragraph - could another admin please take a look at this, and determine whether it's appropriate to block the user and/or semi-protect the page? More eyes on the article's changes would also be good. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Undead should be blocked immediately to prevent the repeat of his libellous statements and only unblocked if he agrees not to repeat them. ah I see this is quite stale.. if he returns.. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tyciol's redirects, revisited

    It's been two weeks since Tyciol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked for excessive creation of bad redirects without showing any improvements or acknowledgement that the redirects created were harmful. No action has been taken to the 5000+ redirects I have listed here (some are deleted already but that was because the revision lag was old or something). Surely, these should be examined and deleted if necessary.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Local Children's Television Series (United States)

    I'm kinda new to the Wiki world, so I'm not sure if this is the right place for this. If not, my apologies. Anyway, the article List of Local Children's Television Series (United States) is having a lot of edits done by people trying to add false information. In particular, they're trying to edit in information regarding a non-existent children's show called Candle Cove. They've reverted edits I and others have made trying to remove it (I didn't make the edits while logged in, however) and also edited/reverted user comments regarding the situation. The television show in question is a fictitious one created by a website called Ichor Falls as part of a short horror story. Here's a link to the story- http://www.ichorfalls.com/2009/03/15/candle-cove/. If there's an actual existing show by this name I'm unaware of it, but no one's produced any evidence regarding its existence either. Anjldust (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The link in question is List of local children's television series (United States). ➲ REDVERS It sucks to be me 12:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, I'm now watchlisting the article. I've done the research - crappy YouTube video, brief attempt to make it trend on Twitter, various self-answered questions on Yahoo, the full "lets make an internet meme" bollocks - and it's all a hoax. So far, the article isn't getting hammered badly enough to warrant protection, so a watching brief seems fine. Mostly IP action, plus one otherwise-seemingly-useful editor adding it (I'll warn them). ➲ REDVERS It sucks to be me 12:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I warned the 2 IPs that added it and cleaned up the talk page. Doesn't look to be serious, but I expect a couple more attempts before they get it.--Crossmr (talk) 12:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=309776269"