Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

My User Talk Page being compromised

I have a user/editor that continues to attempt to make edits on my own personal talkpage. This user reported to the admins that I was writing personal attacks on his page. I have since left that users talk page alone. Here is when I was warned...The user and I got into a personal attack debate and the user contacted a admin who issued the following to me.

Extended content

Civility Note that civility here is not optional. This edit is not called for, and recurrences could lead to you being blocked. Kevin (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC) I have not made any contact with the user and I wish not to do so, however the user will not leave my personal talk page alone and now I recieve daily interactions such as these below... [edit] Welcome Back Wow, were you on vacation? I see you've also developed other interests and learned some HTML, great! You'll be a much more productive contributor now. McCoy has gained a lot of weight, I know why, that is a positive as well.--Victor9876 (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC) [edit] Advise It might be helpful to blank your talk page and begin aknew.--Victor9876 (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC) [edit] Last Request to blank Carrt. I have asked you politely to blank your talk page. You have a right to blank your own page or not. I am amending my request to ask you to blank only my exchanges with you on your talk page. If not, I will ask an admin to do it. Thanks in advance for your co-operation.--Victor9876 (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Carrt81"

The user Victor9876 took it upon themselves to make edits on my personal page as shown here

01:28, 12 July 2009 Victor9876 (talk | contribs) (21,954 bytes) (I have blanked the issues requested below. If you revert this back, a request from an administrator will be made. I urge you, consider blanking the rest.) (undo)

This is my personal talk page..and the user Victor9876 put those responses on my page and then requested to have them taken off. I refuse since its my talk page. I can do what I please with it. Besides if I was asked not to make contact with the user, why I ask is the user contacting me. I just want this user to leave my page alone. What is the ruling on personal talk pages? If Victor9876 didn't like what they put on my talkpage maybe they shouldn't have done it in the first place. I was going to revert Victor9876's changes to my personal talk page but Victor9876 threatened if I did that, that a Admin would be contacting me. I just want my personal talk page to be left alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrt81 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I am someone who is relatively adamant on the rights of users to keep their talkpages as they wish. That being said, reading between the lines I'm guessing the two of you didn't hit it off very well? It would be an excellent gesture of peace for you to blank the section he is complaining about, and move on from the issue. → ROUX ₪ 05:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This user keeps contacting me so if this will make peace and ensure that this user won't continue to make contact with me or my page than its a small price. comment added by Carrt81

You shouldn't be made to feel bullied about your own talk page, IMO. His threats carried no weight at all. /shrug Tarc (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• On deeper investigation, it's looking like some truly bizarre harassment from Victor9876 a few months ago. My advice above still stands, if you feel like forgiving him. The edits remain in the page history more or less forever, so if he starts it up again you can easily find them. → ROUX ₪ 05:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you Roux...Yes Victor9876 has been at it for a while. The user has been banned before and has had multiple usernames. I was going to keep my talkpage the way Victor changed it but an Admin came in and reverted what Victor had done. Carrt81
  • Daedalus is not an admin (nor am I). Victor has used multiple usernames? Do you mean abusively, or has simply used different accounts? → ROUX ₪ 05:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, Daedalus isn't an admin. I agree with what he did, though. Whatever you'd like to do with your talk page is completely your decision, whether you'd prefer to delete it and get rid of any drama or maintain it as a record of your harassment. There's absolutely no policy the other editor can use to remove it, so don't worry about any of their threats. The choice is yours. Dayewalker (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Understood. Thank you very much. Yes I just wanted to document everything. Carrt81 (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• • You said that Victor was banned under a previous username, and has used multiple accounts to avoid his ban. What was that banned account(s) so we can put the pieces of this puzzle together? If possible, you may want to file a WP:SPI report, or if that is too complicated, just leave the info here, and it can be dealt with. Creating new accounts to dodge a block or a ban is not allowed, and that in itself can be dealt with. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 06:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Carr has left a list on my userpage. At least one of the named users I recognised as being a long-term and very constructive editor, so I'm not sure what exactly is going on here. → ROUX ₪ 06:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Here, [[1]], Carrt81 is being disengenuous. My prior edit name was DetroitNews9, but I could not log in and the password was forgotten, so I created Victor9876 and wrote down the password to prevent future mistakes. Carrt81 has compiled a list that is not exact and purposely uses the same argument that I misused Houston McCoy's name. That is not true and that issue was over with long ago, but he keeps bringing it up. My suggestions recently on his talkpage were genuine, even if he wants to portray them as threats, which there clearly aren't, and stalking, please re-read the link I provided. He recently returned from an a lengthy time of not "harassing" me, and provided a link on the Houston McCoy page with an error in spelling, which I corrected and in an attempt to prevent mistakes from the past, asked him to blank his talk page of my replies to his old harassments. He did not acknowledge me, even though he has edited after the requests, so I know he got the messages. Now he wants to play the victim and obviously get me in trouble. To defer that, I mentioned in the blanking comment that if he reverted the page, I would contact an admin about blanking the page. So, what is his point here? I suggest reading the whole history and look at Carrt81's comments from the past as well. I just didn't want history repeating itself as Carrt81 is apparently doing by acting like a victim. Also, there is no value in the old posts and reflect bad faith between Carrt81 and myself. Look from the beginning of his talk page when I tried to help him as DetroitNews9. Carrt81 has taken and portrayed these issues way out of context.--Victor9876 (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't really 'order' another user to blank their user talk page or get an admin to do it for you. You can ask and that editor may do it as a courtesy, but he's not obliged to do it. I think the best thing now would be for both of you to forget what happened in the past and try to get along, as suggested above by Roux and Dayewalker. ≈ Chamal ^talk 10:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not sure that every aspect of things is being presented here. Looking back at user contributions, way back on October 20, 2008, Carrt81 was the first of these two usernames to contact the other [2], to which Victor9876 replied here. It went back forth a few times, but nothing overtly antagonistic was noted, but it seemed to go sour between them. There is no evidence in the contribution history of Victor9876 that he contacted Kevin at all, but Kevin did leave a warning at Cartt81's talk page about this edit which was quite contentious and include the comment "you can just do the world a favor and walk in front of a bus". At that edit, Carrt81 also accused Victor9876 of having various usernames and suggested a number of extremely offensive ones to use. Victor9876 didn't attempt to hide the existence of a former user account, (Detroitnews9). Just in passing regarding the list of IPs and usernames that Carrt81 accused Victor9876 of having used, the IP numbers that I checked are located in the western United States, the eastern United States and in Burlington, Ontario Canada, and almost none of the IPs have been used here since 2006 or early 2007. It appears that some old issues that vastly predate the registration of the user account Carrt81, have spilled over from some past dispute onto others and thus makes me wonder if Carrt81 had a previous account. Some of the present argument extended to some unexpected posts to my own talk page [3], including one where he/she gave a list of "banished usernames" - the Victor9876 and Detroitnews9 mentioned above, an administrator in good standing, Johntex, of being the same person [4], and another editor in good standing on Roux's talk page. All of this is over issues relating to the same articles, all of which Carrt81 has also edited, as have I. Just a comment. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

Now Carrt81 has pushed the envelope on Roux's talk page - [[5]], he is now claiming that I impersonated Houston McCoy, the officer who shot and killed Charles Whitman. This meme he has created has crossed the boundary of sound judgment and prudence. Unless he retracts this statement, or proves it, I will seek an administrative banning of Carrt81. History - I was power of attorney for Houston McCoy for several years and recognized early on that he was suffering from PTSD, a mental illness that strikes some people who have been involved in a traumatic event that effects their ability to function as before the incident. Such is the case of McCoy. I had him diagnosed, and helped him get SSI, at a great cost to myself and my own health. Before the 40th Anniversary of the tower event, I was in Menard, Texas, helping prepare for the media onslaught that was coming. I have most of Whitman's records. McCoy didn't like the way WP was portraying his character (with good reason from past history with the made for TV movie "The Deadly Tower" with Kurt Russell, where a character that resembled McCoy was used in a cowardly manner to promote an Hispanic officer who kills Whitman with several gunshots to the back), so he had me create the Houston McCoy user page and he picked the name and password. This was all done at the Menard Public Library. The librarians will recall our few visits there. As I have stated previously, with Carrt81's knowledge, McCoy was computer illiterate at the time, and wanted things changed that could be verified. I did the best with what I could with verifiable information on the net, and to my knowledge, never crossed any WP rules. However, McCoy's daughter became aware of the account and blamed me for all the didtortions regarding her father. She butted in after nine years of silence on her part, and totally undid everything I had accomplished for and with McCoy. The relationship became strained, and eventually, my POA was mutually withdrawn, after the media in Austin honored Martinez exclusively and gave shoddy accounts of McCoy and the whole history of the tower tragedy. The daughter took over completely, (if you think a father is going to choose you over his daughter for any reason, you are fooling yourself), and I helped her with speeches, information about Whitman and the tragedy to advance the honors and awards given recently to all the officers and civilians. I have over 300 emails to verify this, mostly from her employer's email address in Texas. I was receiving no compensation for my time or efforts. Eventually, the daughter got all the credit for the awards and bringing the officers together, she was instrumental, just not the only source. The daughter also gave me information that was concerning to me, but refused to reveal the source so I could try and set any record straight that may have been in error. All of this is mentioned because Carrt81, echoes the daughters behavior, remarks, quick temperament and has tried to post information, that was privy to only a few individuals, her and myself being two of them. I am not saying Carrt81 is the daughter. I am saying there is a glaring similarity to their language and communication skills (or lack thereof).--Victor9876 (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the passage above should be oversighted for BLP violations, Victor9876 should be indef-blocked for involving Wikipedia in legal issues, and the matter should be referred to Mike Godwin. I'm not an admin or I would immediately take action myself here. Looie496 (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You have raised a serious concern Looie496. How is the above a Biography of Living Persons violation?--Victor9876 (talk) 03:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I'd say that blatantly is covered under BLP as "negative unsourced information about a living person." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have hidden the above per Looie's comment. An admin is needed ASAP to sort this mess out. → ROUX ₪ 03:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

First, there is an AN/I now brought by User:Carrt81 involving my blanking a portion of his/her talk page. I did it after asking Carrt81 to please blank a certain section containing previous material from a war we had in the past. This was done after noticing an error in spelling to a contribution on the Houston McCoy page. There had been a few months absense by Carrt81 and I hoped the animosities we had with each other was over, thus the requests to blank certain material. After a few requests were made, Carrt81 refused to answer my requests in any form. At that point, I broke policy and blanked the requested sections myself, only dealing with my user name. Was I justified in doing so? Not according to policy, which led to a flurry of other editors who only saw the violation and not the reasons behind it. Which is my segway into explaining why the policy, though well intended, may need a tweek to help others not respond in a manner that is disruptive to all, and help eliminate some AN/I issues. The suggestion is this: the user talk pages are set-up now to reflect only one thread of a two party conversation or response. This leaves each editor with the choice of blanking or not blanking their own page or any portion thereof. I had blanked all of Carrt81's negative and abusive material from my page and expected an in kind response. He refused and I did blank the portions requested. It would appear that a more adequate policy would be to have the conversation threads follow each other to both user pages. That way, if there is any desire for one to blank their own page, the other will still have the threads intact and any conflicts that arise, like with my actions, an admin and contributors can see and follow the conversation in its entirety, rather than the individual diffs and contribution histories that appear and require a tedious process of verification, which most contributors don't do, they just react. This would eliminate edit wars and policy wars that have arisen from my actions. Mind you, I expected this reaction to a certain degree, but there is one user who has used the policy to start his own war, and that can be eliminated by the threads following each other. Also, it would allow any complaints to be looked at in an instant, and remove assumptions and accusations of inappropriate behavior, or verify them. I have used this as a watershed issue and not as a mean spirited action. In other words, I purposely broke policy to show why the change needs to be made. It is my hope that you will review the AN/I and all the activity it has brought. Hopefully this will lead to a revamp of the talk page issues and allow the policy to be more effective. In return, administrators jobs will be easier and everyone will be able to follow the history of the thread and not just one users actions. Hope this helps. Either way, this issue needs to be addressed. Also, the above BLP issues are not in the articles, and yes they are negative in nature, but true. My history in the articles have always been to provide accurate information, where verifiable sources are available. For that reason, I am limited by WP policies to post other information I have, which is out of the public domain.--Victor9876 (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)|} I have posted the above for the admin who reviews this AN/I.--Victor9876 (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC) One of my acused sockpuppets has confronted Carrt81 on his talk page [[6]], proving I am not a sock of that user, or JohnTex, another accused sockpuppet.--Victor9876 (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC) That's really not "evidence" of anything at all. Further, from your collapsed section above: "n other words, I purposely broke policy to show why the change needs to be made." is a direct admission you violated WP:POINT. Really, you're digging the hole deeper this way. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC) As I mention below the section, it is for an admin to review. It doesn't say comment please HandThatFeeds. In fact, if you read the comment again, this is exactly the type of exchange it suggests putting an end to. I'm using WP:Ignore all rules to help improve the system.--Victor9876 (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Carrt81 admits mistakes to Sbharris [[7]], how many more mistakes has he/she made? Look from the beginning of his/her contribs. I tried to help and got insulted. I got called names and even was told I was going to be a project of his/hers. Yes, there was a civil war, but I tried to make amends and now I am here as a witch hunt by a user who claims to have researched McCoy and knows more than I do. Carrt81 even posted a list of alleged users as my sockpuppets, and now he has been bitten. Fine, just prove knowledge as I have with some substantial contributions and move on. Let's end this charade and get back to useful energy spent onarticles and not false allegations. It wouldn't hurt for Carrt81 and myself to avoid each other. We can't be all things to all people.--Victor9876 (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Your continued insistence that only an "admin" comment is contrary to reality, and indeed, if you continue following what seems to be related to this essay, I would suggest that admin action will be forthcoming ... in your direction. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC) If you check above Bwilkens, an "admin" had already been called for and "coming in my direction" - so in anticipation of that, I composed the collapsed article with an attention note below it for the "admin" who is due to arrive. I had hoped that would be honored, of course, anyone can read it, but just like the one responder who selected one passage to bring into the forum (out of context), I had hoped to not make it a public debate. It was just an explanation of a problem I see with the WP policy. I was being bold in my attempt to bring the problem to the foreground for an "admins" review. I don't recall "insisting" on anything, I don't own the page. Just to make sure that I am grounded in "reality", were you calling me a WP:Dick which was buried in your essay link? The suggestion is there, however, the explanation says that doing that is being a Dick and that there may be a high level of testosterone in the accuser which leads to another term that I would prefer to not suggest that you are over a potential misunderstanding. Can you clarify your position please? Thanks!--Victor9876 (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Final point Obviously, I did not call you a dick - if you feel that your actions fit the bill, then you're merely doing that yourself. I merely suggested you read an essay to ensure you weren't getting there. You have been told to never edit someone else's talkpage the way that you did, I expect you have learned this lesson (WP:IAR does not matter in this specific instance). You have also been suggested to stay away from this editor completely, and vice versa. You have no authority ever to dictate what someone keeps as an archive, unless of course it violates WP:BLP, WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL. Based on this, are we done here? This pointless drama has gone on far too long. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I understand completely. Now is this AN/I over so everyone can return to some normalcy or abnormalcy, whichever they prefer?--Victor9876 (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Sock needs a block Resolved Pat Wynnon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is obviously Scibaby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I've started an SPI, but Wynnon is editwarring over the inclusion of the sock tag on their userpage, and is doing the usual disineguous "Who is Scibaby?" stuff. Pls block, and a CU can clear out the drawer via the SPI. → ROUX ₪ 23:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC) PW blocked indef. Tan | 39 23:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Ta. → ROUX ₪ 23:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Roux on blocks of fox in socks. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Except "Roux" is pronounced "roo". :D weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC) roo on bloo of foo in soo???--Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 12:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Sacre bleu! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC) I have never been to the Soo. → ROUX ₪ 17:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Soo? Si. Yikes. Now I'm channeling Mel Blanc. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Repeated false Accusations and Insults by User Supreme Deliciousness (SD) Ever since I became an editor on Wikipedia, User Supreme Deliciousness has been falsely accusing me of being a sockpuppet of another user, Arab Cowboy. SD has even made a formal request for investigation, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Arab_Cowboy, the conclusion of which has shown that Arab Cowboy and me are unrelated editors. Yet, SD has continued to make these false accusations and to call AC and me liars on this Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asmahan#Identity_Section and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asmahan#Sockpuppetry_Allegations. SD’s false accusations and insults are not acceptable. He is stifling my freedom of expression and impeding my ability to freely contribute to Wikipedia. He should be reprimanded, blocked, or banned altogether. --Nefer Tweety (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC) That is not, in fact, what the SPI said. It said that there was not enough evidence to justify looking at your information. → ROUX ₪ 23:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict, as usual) While the US Congress may not make a law abridging your freedom of speech, Wikipedia can - a policy, that is. That said, I looked through the threads you linked to, and I can see no admin action necessary or even remotely warranted. Tan | 39 23:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Tan, do we take your response to mean that SD's false allegations and insults to be acceptable behavior on Wikipedia? Shall we start calling each other "liars" and other names? What kind of civilized discourse would that leave us? --Arab Cowboy (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC) I hear the voice of the duck, calling "Plaxico!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Nothing has shown that you two are related or unrelated yet, just that there is currently insufficient evidence to warrant CheckUser. MuZemike 00:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC) I am still waiting for some replies: do we take your response to mean that SD's false allegations and insults to be acceptable behavior on Wikipedia? Shall we start calling each other "liars" and other names? What kind of civilized discourse would that leave us? The burden of proof that Nefer Tweety is my sockpuppet is upon SD, and if he has "insufficient evidence" to support this accusation, then he should be reprimanded for making it, especially that he has already done so through a formal route. And to start calling NT and myself "liars" will open the door to a very different kind of dialogue on Wiki pages. Tan has stated that Wikipedia can stifle a user's freedom of expression by policy. What kind of violation has NT or myself committed to warrant that action? --Arab Cowboy (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Were I an admin, you and Nefer would have been blocked some time ago for the sheer obviousness of the fact that you are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Perhaps it's a good thing I'm not. → ROUX ₪ 04:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Roux, obviously, it's a good thing that you are not. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC) There is no such thing as "freedom of speech" here. There is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. Maybe you should just focus on good editing, and leave the personal stuff alone? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC) The "logic" of some of the users here is pathetic. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 05:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC) From where are you getting the idea that there is "freedom of speech" here? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Forget the constitution if you so desire, but to intimidate users through allegations of sockpuppetry and lying is not the sign of civilized behavior. If you find that to be an acceptable norm, then so be it, but from the way the answers have been coming here, it's more like a madhouse than a place to have an intelligent discourse. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC) "Forget the constitution" is a red herring. How do you figure the constitution comes into play here? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC) AC, knock off the disruption here. This constitutes an only warning. Tan | 39 05:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Exactly, it doesn't. It wasn't I who brought the constitution into play here. It was Tan who brought up Congress and the Constitution in the first place, and diverted attention from the real issue. On your user page, you state, "Wikipedia is a community, not a crazy den of pigs!", yet you have shown it to be exactly the latter. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Blocked for 72 hours. Tan | 39 05:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Easy folks! I am not AC, I have no idea who this person is! Honestly, it is kinda funny to see that some users still think we are the same, even though I tried to clarify it!!! Is there a way I can prove it, as obviously what I keep repeating isn't of much value :( --Nefer Tweety (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC) With edits so close together, this would be a good time for a checkuser to take another look at these two redlinks and see if there is any additional evidence tying them together. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC) There was a sock investigation, but it was declined due to lack of evidence. How does one go about reopening it? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Well, now Nefer Tweety is on AC's talk page, offering help. And there's the usual calling for "thorough investigations" into my "abuse of power". Meanwhile, a second unblock request is pending - anyone want to tackle it? Tan | 39 14:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC) They are acting, at the very least, as meatpuppets. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC) It wasn't a second unblock request: this individual didn't like my decline & removed it. (And he & Roux edit-warred over this for a short while.) For that reason, I've gone ahead & protected his talk page for the remainder of his 72-hour block. Since an uninvolved Admin might consider this a conflict of interest, review of my acts welcomed -- & I'm stepping away from this matter unless further developments require my input. -- llywrch (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC) The version you just recently reverted - this one - seemed to have both the request you declined and a new, second unblock request. As far as I see, he does have the right to an appeal of your decline. Perhaps reconsider? Or am I missing something? Tan | 39 16:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Well no, I am. A nearlier version here had him deleting the decline, & the following comments to AC & Roux's reverts convinced me that they were edit warring over this template. He does have the right to appeal my decline; I never meant to imply otherwise. I'm reverting my change & the protection -- & won't intervene again. -- llywrch (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC) You might want to leave a note on his talk page explaining the situation. Tan | 39 21:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC) I left an apology. Does that work? -- llywrch (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Well, sure. It was clearly a mistake on your part; I was just suggesting that you leave an adequate explanation of the block on his page. Tan | 39 04:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I'm in huge trouble for this Resolved  – Editors have worked through the issues in a collegial and cooperative manner and are moving forward on improving the encyclopedia accordingly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Self-reporting. My edits: moving discussion[8], moving discussion[9] The Fat Man Who Never Came Back's edit: this is not "discussion"; these are, quite plainly, lulz. do not refactor or otherwise fuck with our lulz, Durova. you're treading on thin ice, young lady.[10] My edit: restore move: commentary is admittedly disruptive[11] I post to his user talk:[12] The Fat Man Who Never Came Back's edit: You're in huge trouble for this....[13] He has not replied to my attempt at polite communication. Seeking independent review and opinion. Durova277 14:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Comment: Durova's moving of threaded commentary to the talk page conformed to accepted RfC formatting guidelines. The reverts and even more so the edit summaries by The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are incivil, disruptive, ownerous and incomprehensible. ("Lulz"? This is an encyclopedia, not a website for lulz.) He should be blocked if he keeps this up.  Sandstein  14:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC) OTOH, he did mention your youth... style points? Anyway, if shenanigans like that continue, sanctions should ensue. Tan | 39 14:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC) As I see it, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back made a disruptive comment in his edit summary. To be fair, you responded with a sarcastic comment on his talk page that didn't really address the conflict. If I had found a message on my talk page like that I wouldn't have known how to immediately respond to it, and neither would I have seen it as "a polite attempt at communication". It's quite possible that I don't understand the seriousness of moving this text, or the immediate trouble that is sure to follow anyone who does so. IMHO, both parties are at fault. a little insignificant 14:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Sandstein, I have significant respect for you as an admin, but anyone who has spent as much time on this "project" as yourself should have long ago relieved himself of the delusion that "this is an encyclopedia, not a website for lulz." Look around.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC) technically TFMWNCB is not an admin so your edit summary was incorrect Syrthiss (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Whoops, you're right... I keep forgetting, sorry... a little insignificant 15:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) I agree with the above. The revert, and edit summary seem to be pretty uncivil and disruptive. I've gone ahead and informed The Fat Man Who Never Came Back about this thread. - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Thank you. I was attempting to lighten the tone, rather than attempting sarcasm. Durova277 15:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Please bear in mind that I ad an edit conflict, so I was actually agreeing with Sandstein & Tan :). I can't see a big problem with your message. - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Alternately, Durova, you can be satisfied in the knowledge that people agree that you are technically in the right, but then just let it go as not worth the drama. C'mon people, this is not Utopia, we can allow things to get slightly messy and imperfect without threats of blocking and sanctions. Durova's response on his talk page was perfectly fine. It's all a joke, it isn't hurting things that much, TFMWNCB pushed the joke a little too far when reverting a second time. But let's go find something else to do. Also, I wish someone would call me young man. It's been decades. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC) If ever there were a page that needed some lulz, that would have been it. Nonetheless, Durova's edits were proper from the prescribed format point of view. Let's drop this now. Incidentally, given the number of times that he seems to come back here, I call BS on the Fat Man's username. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC) So I come to back to AN/I from time to time. Big deal. I like my name. If you found out I had a svelte, Pilates-toned physique, would you complain?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Agree wholeheartedly. I don't want to see either one of two editors blocked over something like this. a little insignificant 15:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Ignore him Durova, you are definitely not in any trouble. It clearly states at the bottom of the page [[14]] that discussions should be taken to the talk page. And his personal remarks to you are also unnecessary. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)) I'm sure Durova is relieved at your reassurance that she is not in trouble. Thank you.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks all for the swift responses. This looked like the kind of thing that could turn hot, so was mainly seeking third party intervention before any blockable action happened. If the threaded commentary was correctly moved, would someone reinstate the move please? Other than that, would be glad to mark this resolved. Durova277 15:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Why. So. Serious? ViridaeTalk 22:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC) User:Norcalal & User:Highspeed These users have worked together to make disruptive edits including vandalizing my talk page, and wikistalk articles I have created or contributed to and nominate them for deletion. I have blocked User:Highspeed as a sock of User:Biaswarrior per WP:DUCK as Biaswarrior had engaged in previous similar stunts, but Norcalal considers that I am biased against him and so I'll let an uninvolved admin figure out whether he's a sock, a problem, or whatever. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC) I fail to see where Norcalal has 'vandalised [your] talk page'. Would you please back this up with a diff(s)? — neuro(talk) 18:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC) He posted this to Highspeed's talk the same day that Highspeed vandalized my talk page, it's clear who the personal attack was refering to. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Long thread on the larger topic here, WT:WikiProject Cities#Systematic inclusion of GNIS unincorporated communities. Pfly (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC) That provides some background, but that issue and vandalism/wikistalking/sock puppetry is what we're discussing, unless you think that others in that discussion are involved? I don't but maybe you know something more, please advise. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Wassermann Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive547#User:Wasserman. An IP editor, User:172.131.130.5, has been editing identically to the edits for which User:Wassermann was brought to task in the above section. Behavioral evidence alone is obvious, although I misread the block log and thought Wassermann was still blocked, and reverted all the edits. Is a longer term user block combined with the appropriate IP anon range blocks called for or not? -- Avi (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Looking at Wassermann's contribs, he hasn't edited under his main account since June 25. Agree with Avi--the quacking is getting awfully loud. Indef might not be too harsh at this point, considering his block log. Blueboy96 22:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC) This account has been a problem for a long time, and this new editing looks like the same kinds of problems as before. He was most recently blocked for a month. Either a much longer block or an indef would appear appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  23:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC) The IP's just AOL, so not much to be done there; I'd indef the guy, but I'm not particularly fond of yellow-badgers, so I'm way biased. --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I too agree with an indefinite block: socking, long term bad edits... let's just get it over with. Triplestop x3 01:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I've blocked him indef. Blueboy96 13:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Removal of POV and Cite check tags on Kosovo article Resolved  – Purely an editorial dispute, no need for admin intervention.--Aervanath (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Hi, User:Dbachmann, an admin, has unilaterally removed the tags here, with the reason "rm stale templates. There is the usual nationalist noise on talk, but this doesn't establish that there is any bona fide issue. If there is, use inline tags to help localize it." The POV tag is dated December 2008. The Cite check tag is dated February 2009. I have been here for a couple of months, in that time no substantial edits have been made to merit the removal of the tags. I explained my position to the said admin here and was asked to inline tag all the non-neutral and dubious cites on the article - a move which would mean over half the article is tagged. This was explained to the admin in his talk page. The admin also accused me of improper conduct on Wikipedia, an notion I reject. The said user did not agree with my views and thus branded me a Wikipedian who gives the "usual nationalist noise on talk". I would agree that my actions have not always been proper, but my presence in the article is necessary to counter other points of view. The said user has assumed bad faith on other occasions, but I would like a response to this incident. Regards, Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC) I observe Kosovo with amusement, and can only condone dab's actions here. If the article is really that bad, please go and inline tag it. ninety:one 23:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC) The article beings; "Kosovo is a disputed region in the Balkans." This, in its self is a POV statement as according to 62 nations (mostly English-speaking nations), it is a country located in the Balkans. Why shouldn't I be allowed to address these points without being called a "nationalist". Why should we remove the tag when a Serbian POV has been allowed to override the article and thus un-due weight is given throughout. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)). No, it's an NPOV statement because it fairly describes the existing situation. While Kosovars have unilaterally declared independence from Serbia and 62 nations have supported this, Serbia still claims Kosovo as a province and not even a plurality of the world's nations have given their support to its declaration of independence. Until Serbia drops its claims and nearly all nations have accepted Kosovo as an independent nation, then it's quite fair, objective, and NPOV to say it is a "disputed reason". If you could provide reliable sources confirming that Serbia has accepted Kosovo's independence and given it such recognition, then your POV would become NPOV. As it stands, there is no reason for administrator action in this case. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Perhaps you guys could formulate some compromise wording that is acceptable to all - I doubt that we would use the phrase "Israel is a disputed region in the Middle East." because a number of countries do not recognize Israel; or "Iran is a disputed region in the Middle East." for similar reasons; or "[North/South] Korea is a disputed region in Asia." or anywhere else. Perhaps using facts rather than the ambiguous weasel-word "disputed" such as Kosovo unilaterally declared independence from Serbia, 62 countries recognize such independence, and XX countries recognize Kosovo as a part of Serbia. or something else. I'm not sure any admin action is required here? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Friends, my comment was with regards to the tags being removed, this discussion on here highlights the point I'm trying to make -- that the Kosovo article still has outstanding issues which have not been resolved? What do you mean this case has been "resolved" when none of the users commented on the topic I discussed (?) The said administrator removed the tags without any consensus on any issues having been resolved since February or December respectively. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)). WP:V and citations Over at Talk:Sacha_Baron_Cohen#Cleaned_up_Family_section, User:J M Rice has said that the "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged" part of WP:V means that all material that doesn't fit this description doesn't generally need a reference; he has thus now twice removed all citations from an entire section of Sacha Baron Cohen. Surely all biographical information, especially on a WP:BLP, needs at least one reference, even if this material hasn't been challenged? All Hallow's (talk) 02:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC) This is a content dispute, and thus not appropriate for AN/I. Please try dispute resolution. I would suggest asking for a third opinion. → ROUX ₪ 02:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I echo the sentiment. Mediation may be necessary here, judging from the article talk page, but I can't see any administrative action being appropriate here. Law type! snype? 02:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC) User:Inurhead This user has been a minor problem for some time now, being a single-purpose account that exists apparently only to promote and maintain positive comments and puffy text regarding the film The Hurt Locker and people connected to it. This has been going on since mid-2008, including a series of edits that add glowing comments, excessive details, selectively chosen review quotes, delete negative remarks, add non-standard formatting, and so on. Editors who challenge his edits are usually reverted, often with misleading edit summaries. I have had to constantly watchlist the article, and to also review all changes to it by this editor (including following up on reviews and references to ensure they are used correctly). Today, after dealing with the latest problematic changes, I noticed that Inurhead had begun to indiscriminately revert other edits I had done in articles unrelated to anything he had seen before, This included restoring spam links and incorrectly placed material. Anyway, long story short, I don't feel comfortable acting as an admin in this case because of the past history of having to clean up after this guy, so I'd appreciate a third pair of eyes to review it. Thanks in advance. --Ckatzchatspy 03:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I've given the user a (veiled) warning, and with luck it won't happen again. If it does, let me know. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Ckatz is a bad faith, Bad Lieutenant of Wikipedia. He trolls around certain limited sites and deletes and undoes the neutral hard work of other contributors. He should be thrown out of Wikpedia forever. Seriously. This guy is VERY, VERY bad news and so much so that other users have created third party thesaurus entries to describe exactly what a "Ckatz" is. Please, if anyone of authority at Wikipedia has an ounce of integrity, back track this user and see where he has chased certain contributors and maliciously deleted their material. Ask yourself, why has he chosen this one single movie to pick on? Why not TRANSFORMERS or BRUNO? Or any number of films? Inurhead (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC) That's not acceptable. Nor is this rather eyebrow-lifting talk page. → ROUX ₪ 07:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I think the fact that the guy chooses to use hate pages by banned users as a way to justify his actions speaks volumes to the problem here. As far as I'm concerned, Inurhead has had more than enough chances to try to cooperate within the parameters of what is expected. He's a single-purpose editor who is determined to promote a particular pet topic, and he is completely unwilling to tolerate input from others. Frankly, I could care less about the foul garbage he spews when his work is questioned; his most recent toxic blast on his talk page is proof enough of where he is coming from. However, I certainly don't think this attitude should be tolerated. --Ckatzchatspy 08:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I've focused on one small part of the changes noted above - the release date. From what I could tell from looking at WP:FilmRelease, the correct release date for the film is 2008. I've opened a section on the talk page, left a message on Inurhead's talk page [15] about the warring and pointing to the talk page. Inurhead has deleted that message, plus others on this topic. Yup, the year is a minor aspect, but if the user won't even attempt to discuss that, let alone anything else, on the talk page, it's not worth the time to go into the other topics raised above. At least today (so far), the edit summaries from Inurhead has been polite, so I guess that's some sign of hope. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Time for a WP:BAN There have been a number of user and talk pages recently created which are apparently tracking some sort of game, and using Wikipedia as a free web host. Sockpuppet case is here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ILMORGAME/Archive. And there's an example of this foolishness is at User talk:ILMORSEASONTWO. This user (or users?) clearly have zero interest in contributing to Wikipedia and are determined to take advantage of Wikipedia, and do not respond to attempts to discuss the situation, except with the occasional profanity. I suggest that this content and those creating it be banned, and that any of these pages be deleted on sight without further attempts at discussion, as it has been made clear that they do not respond, but simply move on to a new name. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Try WP:MFD? --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC) That's not a response to the last sentence of the post above. Hell, it misses the point entirely. --Calton | Talk 04:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Well, it would at least get the pages deleted in the meantime. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC) We went through this identical situation a few months ago. Suggest an admin has a word with everyone involved, informs them that this is not what Wikipedia is for, and deletes any and all pages related. If they continue after this, ban 'em all. → ROUX ₪ 04:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Aasi (A sub Clan of Chadhar Rajputs)...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aasi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aasi I, Shehzad Asif Javed, President,The Club Group of Companies, Pakistan belong to a prominent Aasi family of Jhang and i head the aasi tribe, whenever i tried to write down my name at that page it always goes for speedy deletion, You are requested to solve the issue... Regards. Shehzad Asif Javed shehzad@theclubgrouppk.com Removing unreferenced material about living people? Sounds good to me. This is not the "solution" that Shehzad Asif Javed is looking for, but I stuck an {{unreferenced}} tag on the article and removed the section where a few names were listed as "Prominent Aasis" with no sources or even explanations. rspεεr (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC) And the OP IP promptly reinstated the list.--64.85.211.140 (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC) This is a symptom of a huge number of South Asian articles. Lots of lists of names, puffery, and little to no sourcing. I mentioned this at the Village Pump just the other day. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Apparent AfD trolling? Resolved  – No admin intervention needed here. Now play nicely. the wub "?!" 07:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC) User:Moondyne is rapid-fire copying and pasting across multiple AfDs, including even four of these copy and pastes in even under one minute, i.e. nowhere near enough time to actually read the individual articles under discussion, the comments in the respective AfDs, and to verify whether or not sources exist (checking Google News in at least some of these cases show that they do...). Anyway, see [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], and [23]. As I am not sure what to make of this and thus seek a neutral opinion as editors should be making serious considerations when discussing articles, especially ones being actively improved as seen at Talk:List_of_Home_and_Away_characters#Addressing_articles_on_individual_characters and as such it is discourteous to those of us actively working on these articles to treat with them in a copy and paste across even four articles in under one minute rather that checking for sources (some of these actually are sourced, incidentally) per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Trolling? I can assure you I at least scanned them all before !voting. I opened several Firefox tabs to save going back to the deletion sorting page which is why it my have appeared to you they weren't read. Posting this problem here is ridiculous and an inappropriate use of the ANI noticeboard. –Moondyne 07:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Beyond ridiculous; beggars belief even. For those who don't know, Moondyne is a long time editor and former administrator, who has never demonstrated any propensity to troll or disrupt, and has many times over earned the good faith A Nobody can't be bothered assuming. Hesperian 07:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC) It gets old when some of us have been working on articles to see these kind of rapid fire copy and pastes that demonstrate neither knowledge of the topics under discussion or effort at researching the individual articles and considering what specifically is out there for the specific articles under consideration. Editors in discussions do not just repeat the same thing tirelessly as doing so is not a discussion. A discussion considers what the participants have looked for and what specifically they have found and how it might be used in each individual case. When I see four copy and pastes done in one minute's time, it is hard for anyone to see how that adds anything to the actual efforts to see what can be done with these articles over on the wikiproject page and yes, rapid fire copy and pastes across AfDs is rarely a sign of anything constructive, but as I do not like outright accusing, I included the question mark above. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC) At least the section heading is accurate. Reporting somebody at AN/I for voting to delete something that you want kept is indeed "apparent AfD trolling". Hesperian 07:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Verily. → ROUX ₪ 07:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Actually, I don't personally want all of those to be kept and I wouldn't bother here if it was a mere concern about some disagreeing with me. I noticed a slew of rapid fire copy and pastes across multiple discussions, including even four of these in under a minute, which from past experiences with accounts that have done that at AfDs, naturally seems suspicious, and as such asked, not asserted, if others thought something of it here rather than just declare as much to the user. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 07:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC) In other words, "I came straight here to Drama Central because I didn't want to cause unnecessary drama." Hesperian 07:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I came here because I saw something that struck me as odd (applying the exact same comment to articles for award-winning performances as to ones that truly are not all that notable) and was hoping for good faith input if it is okay to just say the same thing in rapid-fire fashion without more carefully considering these differences. My hope is that if it is a bit haphazard, a fair admin would politely advise the user to be more careful. I am not asking for anything beyond that. If I was, I wouldn't have a question mark in the section heading and would be far more declarative. Ideally, the user would see that some of these can be sourced and join in our efforts to improve those we can so that we can work colloboratively together to improve our project. Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 07:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC) You should do more than just "scan" them, but check for sources and discuss specific sources rather than simply copy and paste the same comment that does not necessarily apply uniformly to all half dozen plus articles, let alone providing no valid reason why at worst we would not at least redirect these verifiable articles as deletion is an extreme last resort. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC) We know that you hate to see any article deleted. We get it. But get over it. It happens. Also, what Hesperian said. I certainly see no admin action needed here, and this should have been dealt with via a conversation with Moondyne. Framing a good faith vote as some sort of action against 'some of us who have been working on articles' is repellent; there is no grand conspiracy to destroy work, and this sort of thing is precisely why a) the inclusionist/deletionist identification needs to stop, and b) why groups like the ARS should be turfed as promoting divisiveness. I suggest this be closed and you be stringently warned against using AN/I to further your extreme positions. → ROUX ₪ 07:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Hoaxes and libelous content should be deleted and I have nominated and argued to delete those sorts of articles. My concern here is not about wanting to delete, but about copy and pasting the exact same comment across four discussions in under a minute when it does not adequately consider the individual merits of each article. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Oh. My. God. Moondyne holds exactly the same opinion about four different articles on four different characters from the same TV show. Time for a community ban then? Hesperian 07:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Why are you descending into hyperbole? I certainly did not call for a community ban. I asked what the deal was with this rapid fire copy and pasting that did not seem to reflect careful consideration of the individual articles in question. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I certainly don't see the need to read every word of every article in that walled garden to form a view of which ones are minor characters and non-notable. –Moondyne 07:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Well, I agree that some are not easy to fix, but take one for instance where the actress won an award and was nominated a second time for her performance, i.e verifiable real world information about the reception of that character's depiction. They are not equal in notability and thus do not deserve the exact same comment. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 07:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC) If the actress won an award then the actress is notable. Not the character. Sheesh. → ROUX ₪ 07:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC) They go hand in hand, because the coverage of course includes it being a notable depiction of the character. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Yeah um no. → ROUX ₪ 07:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC) By any reasonable standard, yes. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Is there any good reason why you didn't, y'know, just talk with Moondyne? → ROUX ₪ 07:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I wanted to see what someone totally neutral from either of us thought. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 07:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC) In other words, you couldn't be bothered? You'd rather stir up some drama? Please. The correct response is to talk to the other editor first, rather than accuse them of some underhanded conspiracy against poor hardworking editors. → ROUX ₪ 07:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC) You are the one stirring up "drama" with this feigned outrage. I asked a question; if someone thought his approach okay, then they could say as much and then that is that. I didn't come here demanding action. I saw something odd that didn't seem right and hoped a neutral and fair party would see what they thought and if they agreed it was just going down the Afds indiscriminately would caution against that, or if not a big deal, suggest as much and that's that. Why you are reading beyond that is beyond me. People should be able to not feel bullied out of asking questions when they see something that doesn't feel right and not everyone who posts here does so expecting or desiring some kind of needless uproar. There is no reason why one fair minded admin could not have politely said either "Yes, that does seem strange; let me ask him" and then archive the thread or "Well, not too big of a deal; just check with him instead" and then so be it. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Feigned? I assure you not. Your final statement is telling; "just check with him instead." There is no good reason why you did not. None whatsoever. You have been here more than long enough to know that. → ROUX ₪ 07:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I have seen several accounts who actually do troll AfDs with rapid fire copy and paste deletes and are indeed now blocked for it, which is why I am suspicious when I see it again. Yet, I do not want to assume that is the case. And anyway, I am not an admin; I cannot make any final judgment myself. Thus, I cannot imagine why it would be a bad idea to in good faith first ask for a neutral admin to see what he/she thought, i.e. for advice. And in the interest of transparency, rather than email someone, just post it here. There is absolutely no reason why on an admin board such as this it should have to descend into anything unpleasant. I was not calling for sanctions and certainly not for any kind of public humiliation of the user, just for a neutral admin's thoughts, because I did not want to just post an accusatory message on the user's talk page if it wasn't warranted nor a more friendly request for clarification if my suspicions are more correct. Where else, other than email, can we ask a random established admin what his or her thoughts are? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 08:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC) What part of 'discuss it with the user first' have you not understood in your multiple years here? Bah, forget this nonsense. → ROUX ₪ 08:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I wanted advice from an admin as to what approach to take in this case. If there's an admin advice board I am unaware of, please let me know. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC) If in each AFD the same reasons for deletion apply "Minor character, no real world significance," how is Wikipedia improved by making the Delete argument be phrased differently in each case? There is no WP:ELEGANTVARIATION guideline which says that the next AFD has to have different wording "Lacks real world significance, and is nothing but a minor character." Edison (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC) My concern stemmed from the shear speed of the copy and pastes. I usually spend several minutes on any Afd I comment in: 1) to read the discussion; 2) to read, not just scan, the article to see if I agree/disagree with the comments in the discussion; 3) to see if I can find any sources on Google News, Google Scholar, Google Books, Amazon.com, Academic Search Complete, and J-Stor; 4) if I do find sources, to add what I can, or if not at least make some grammar or stylistic fixes as evidence that I did review the article and so that if it is kept, then I at least did something to improve it. One cannot do these things for four articles in one minute's time and a fifth article in the next minute. And when I do argue to delete, I vary my arguments to fit the circumstances and discuss where I looked for sources and the results of my searches a la Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Warriors Trial, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baba Shanti Giri, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrie Petrelli, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chihuahua heights, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geometric Negative Value Theorem, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Scott Hilk, etc. Moreover, my concern was that while some of those did concern minor characters, others did have real world cited significance, such as for one performance that won and was again nominated for an award, i.e. the same copy and paste wording did not accurately apply across the board. Doing more than just a scan of the articles would have revealed as much. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC) User:Drawn Some seems to be wikistalking User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) Don't know when I first noticed, feels like a few weeks on a slow burn, but it seems to be ramping up and certainly seems to be the very definition of wikistalking. Drawn Some (talk · contribs) noms numerous items, articles, redirects, etc. that Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) created or works on for deletion and then, when they aren't deleted, works at removing content that just survived the XfD. I don't care why they feel this behaviour is acceptable - it clearly isn't. Could some non-involved folks take a look and see if this is alarming? Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has stated in numerous XfDs that this sure feels like being wikistalked. Personally I would take that as a strong hint to back off. -- Banjeboi 07:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Hmm, I just noticed this too - on checking today's RfD log every current nomination is one of RAN's redirects nominated by Drawn Some. Most of them are at least vaguely reasonable rationales, but it's still rather worrying and does suggest an element of wikistalking. ~ mazca talk 07:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I feel rather involved as being pretty active with the Article Rescue Squad which Drawn Some seems to not approve, I think Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) also does ARS work but I only pay so much attention unless something seems troubling, like this situation. Clearing out unneeded items is fine, within reason - they are just redirects so really I'm not sure I agree with the urgency to removed them. Coupled with an ongoing pattern and Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) statements they feel wikistalked I would say there's no winners here. IMHO Drawn Some should simply disengage and walk away. -- Banjeboi 08:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC) It does seem odd to start something like Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29 and to then mass nominate redirects of that user for deletion. Why complain about an editor and then when the complaint doesn't build momentum start targetting the articles or redirects he has worked on? You would think if Drawn Some really was concerned about Richard, Drawn Some would avoid him, not of the millions of articles and redirects we have make it a point to go after those created by Richard. After all, you will not see me start nominating articles an editor I am in conflict with created for deletion as doing so would be needless escalation if not counter to the purpose of the complaint. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC) User:Mikhailov Kusserow and RfA irregularities Mikhailov Kusserow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Michel Mapaliey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Jauarbeck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Jauarback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Tnxmen307 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kateshortforbob (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Skomorokh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) At Kateshortforbob RfA, impersonator accounts JauarBeck and Tnxmen307 (now blocked) voted supported. Jauarback, another impersonator account, voted in Skomorokh Rfa. Today, Mikhailov Kusserow voted support in both RfAs. In his votes he included <noinclude> tag, effectively hiding the support and neutral sections on the main RfA page. Mikhailov had previously been blocked for abusing sockpuppets on RfAs w/ a supposedly alternate account Michel Mapaliey (see spi), but was unblocked because he supposedly didn't know that it was against the rules. This does not look reasonable to me. Both accounts had been registered for almost 2 years, and even if he really did not know, it's commonsense not to vote twice. Now combined w/ his recent actions, I see too much of a pattern to assume good faith. I believe administrator intervention is needed at this point. Rami R 07:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Is there any actual evidence to link Mikhailov to those impersonation accounts? I agree that circumstantially he could be involved, but it doesn't look clear cut at the moment. ~ mazca talk 07:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Beyond what's listed here, no. I'd ask for a checkuser, but the SPI page suggests that for ongoing votes ANI is preferable. However, even w/o the impersonator accounts, I'd say that something too fishy is going on. Rami R 08:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)  Confirmed that the following are mutual matches for each other: Backslash Forwerdslash (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Tnxmen307 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Jauarbeck (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Jauarback (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Queengirlq (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Siabeff (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Don't Feed the Zords (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) IP's already blocked. I have not checkusered Mikhailov Kusserow or Michel Mapaliey at this time. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Could you throw in Free Hans (talk · contribs) and Bullrangifer (talk · contribs) to see if there is a connection with these two accounts, as well? MuZemike 15:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Hmmm... I guess I should be flattered. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC) probation, or something at Talk:Centrifugal force Nearly a year ago I initiated this RFC , and ended up giving up in disgust and un-watchlisting the page. Random Wiki-happenstance led to me viewing the current talk page today, and guess what? Nothing has been resolved in over a year of argument. I'm no physicist, but it looks to me like the same conversation spiraling on and on endlessly, mostly with the same users who were doing the same thing last July. The talk page sometimes sees 100 edits in a day, from only three or four users! Personally, I'm not going to wade back into this mess, but I thought a post here might prompt... something, anything, some attempt at sanity through article probation or other WP:SANCTIONS or, something else that can end this madness. Honestly, this is one of the most screwed up things I've ever seen on Wikipedia, a circular argument that never ends, and users who apparently never tire of arguing on the same subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Ah, so you visited WP:WQA today :-) The problem when people who are involved in the sciences is this: in science, you're more important the more you write many scientists have different points of view on any given topic all scientists are right These corollaries cause all the problems. (Note: the second is the only one that is actually true). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I've popped over there and said that my gut feeling is that this saga won't stop without a topic ban. It is probably time to do something about it, it's been going on far too long and the discussions on that talk page would put anyone off from trying to edit the article, and we shouldn't allow that situation to persist. Dougweller (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC) This showed up at ANI in November last year (here) and was eventually closed after David Tombe and Brewers_ohare resolved to take their discussion off-wiki. Those two users (plus a couple of others) are clearly still up to the same endless arguing; I'm thinking topic bans may become necessary if this doesn't abate. ~ mazca talk 12:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC) The pattern I am seeing at Centrifugal force and related pages is one of long term POV pushing by David Tombe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Basically, David Tombe is attempting to bring Wikipedia into line with his own peculiar views about physics. This is being resisted by several users. Recently, David Tombe has been [forum shopping in an unsuccessful attempt to gain an advantage over FyzixFighter, who is one of those resisting David Tombe. Cardamon (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Alright, it seems others are seeing what I see, let's take this to the next step: Topic Ban on User:Brews ohare and User:David Tombe Should these two editors be banned from editing this article and it's talk page, and related articles due to their extremely prolonged arguments on the talk page? Support Beeblebrox (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Support topic ban for David Tombe only. Cardamon (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Having watched this play out for a while but being otherwise uninvolved, I believe a topic ban for David Tombe only would be the best approach. Looie496 (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Oppose I see no reason to assert that the article proper is excessively edited, and I tend to think that long discourses on article talk pages are not intrinsically evil. A solution in search of a problem. Collect (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC) As an interested party, my view is that the discussion is just normal WP back and forth. Brews ohare (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC) As an interested party, my view is that the argument has gone on much longer than necessary because the controversial material in question was initially opposed as a knee jerk reaction on the erroneous belief that is was unsourced original research. Although that idea has now been dispelled, the momentum of those who opposed the material in the first place has kept the argument going. A wider investigation needs to be conducted before individual editors are singled out for sanction. This needs to be done by editors that are knowledgeable about the content matter of the dispute. David Tombe (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Article probation Should the article and talk page Centrifugal force be placed on probation, with editors subject to WP:SANCTIONS? Support Beeblebrox (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Oppose A solution in search of a problem - I see no reason to object to the number of edits on the article page, so it boils down to being upset at excessive use of a talk page - which I think is insufficient to invoke any specific actions. Collect (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Banning people from entering into discussion is always going to be a bad idea, and will never solve any underlying issue/problem. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 17:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Further discussion I haven't informed the involved parties about this thread, out of concern that they would jam up this page with their usual fifty or sixty edits to make one point, but I guess somebody should probably tell them. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC) It's worth noting that the for first four years this page was on Wikipedia, the page was archived five times. In Talk:Centrifugal force/Archive 6 from April of '08, we can see the genesis of this conflict as these two come onto the scene. The next seven archives are mostly these two going back and forth, although it's worth noting that User:WolfKeeper and User:FyzixFighter are also significant contributors to the fray. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I've informed both users. [24][25] Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC) You really do need to let people know about this page. IF they are excessively verbal that would strengthen any point you were trying to make. I have no particular comment to make, apart from to ask editors/admins to look at brews contribs to the 'wavelength' discussions. Perhaps someone could help brews contribute in a more constructive manner? 87.113.86.207 (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I've taken the liberty of analyzing the last 100 changes to the article, ending with this version. Seven users have one edit each, including four IPs. One user has two edits, and another has three; a third has six. The remaining eighty-two edits are accounted for by three people. These 100 edits took place over a period of thirty days, of which fourteen days passed with no edit; but the article has been edited every day from the ninth onward, with 79 edits in those six days, or thirteen edits a day. Only seven edits are not by the same three people mentioned above, and of that, and four of those are two IP vandalisms and their reversions. Mangoe (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Reply to opposers The problem as I see it is that this overly long horribly belabored debates intimidate users new to the page, and it seems the two main antagonists are never going to agree. While I realize the need to discuss changes, this endless circular debate has the effect of making previously uninvolved users not want to join in to such a protracted debate. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC) If you can't be bothered to follow the discussion, you shouldn't raise this problem (unless the problem is a straghtforward disruption of wikipedia, of course). Neverending discussions in physics topics can be effectively dealt with by letting an expert to take final decisions. If you are no an expert in physics, you are not the right person to get involved here at all. Count Iblis (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC) As one of the involved editors, in my view there are two issues with respect to David Tombe that make it difficult to work cooperatively with him. The first is David's complete disregard for reliable sources. The long talk page debates are due in part to other editors trying to teach David correct physics (and him teaching them his version of physics) usually without directly talking about sources. For the last little while I've tried to eschew such behavior and to keep strictly to quoting and discussing sources. This has had very limited effectiveness. However, it was through a source provided by another editor that I became aware of the Lagrangian mechanics usage of the term which I was previously unaware of. The second and more problematic issue is David's interactions with editors that disagree and resist his fringe POV pushing, which the report I made at WP:WQA touches upon. When a request for a source results in something like this, what can you do? Since I'm an involved party, I won't "vote", but I definitely support a topic ban for David Tombe. --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC) My two cents, from a somewhat-involved editor: An argument with David Tombe about physics is like an argument with Jim Marrs about who assassinated JFK. If this was an argument about whether JFK was killed by aliens, we would have long ago banned the editor who was actively researching and promoting fringe theories. But David Tombe, who is actively researching and promoting ([26] [27]) his own fringe physics theories, is still here and still editing. Why? I don't know. Probably because most administrators don't know any physics so can't follow what's going on. --Steve (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Editing physics and math articles requires extensive discussions I've not interacted a lot with Brews, but from what I've seen he has the right approach toward editing physics articles. There was a dispute on the wavelength article that we at wikiproject physics were alerted to. When I took a quick look at the talk page there, I saw that while Brews was arguing on the basis of physics, the others shot that discussion down by citing from other sources and disputing things based on wiki law procedure etc. Now, if you're dealing with a kook who doesn't know much about physics, then sticking to wki law may be appropriate, any discussions of the actual physics would be a waste of time. But Brews is an expert in physics and there can sometimes be difficult issues that one has to talk about even in case of elementary physics topics (usually this then has to do with finding rigorous definitions). Let me give one typical example of a article in which things went terribly wrong. It was never discussed here, precisely because there was never a dispute between editors. The article Helmholtz free energy contained many mistakes for many years, until 2008. Not just small minor mistakes but huge mistakes that were never corrected. this was the latest flawed version, the section "mathematical development" was totally wrong. And similar mistakes were corrected by me in many other thermodynamics articles, so it was a systematic problem. The only realistic way this error could have been corrected earlier is if someone had questioned the derivation and discussed that on the talk page, basically the way Brews goes about his business. The tradional wiki way of arguing on the basis of sources alone does not work well for these sorts of topics. The error is most conspicuous when you actually study the equations using paper and pencil and write about any problems on the talk page. The fact that what was written is in conflict with the literature would not easily lead to someone noticing the error. It may als be the case that there exist sources in which the erroneous derivation can be found. It is well known that in engineering and chemistry texts you can often find flawed derivations. Of course, there are then other textbooks in which you can find the correct derivation. The problem is then that if you have someone who is resisting the correction being made, he could always dispute your source in the basis if his source. If you want to discuss the actual physics to settle the dispute, he could shoot that discussion down. This is how Brews is being treated and that is completely wrong. Count Iblis (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Comment: I disagree. It would seem to me that the core Policies effectively insist that we absolutely do not derive any equations ourselves, obviously this is WP:OR and not WP:RS, no matter how correct your derivation. If "expert[s] in physics ... dicuss the actual physics to settle the dispute," you are then conducting research, and using the talk page of the article as your secondary source. Obviously this will not work. The issue of errors in existing secondary sources seems well-handled by WP:NPOV. I think the erroneous approach that User:Count Iblis advises here is a common and systemic flaw in articles on science and engineering. IMHO. Eaglizard (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC) The core policies clearly led to severely flawed articles on thermodynamics and then Count Iblis came along in 2008 and rewrote them based on his notes he uses for teaching. So, it seems to me that I would be justified to invoke WP:IAR here. The articles I'm talking about were so flawed that any Prof. who teaches this subject who would have stumbled on the pages, should have warned his students to ignore the pages. Worse then not having studied a subject is having it learned wrongly. Note that when we at university discuss teaching this subject with grad students and think about problems for students, we sometimes discuss things on the blackboard amongst ourselves. Is that "original Research"? Of course not! Why can't we look everything up in a book? We do do this, but a book doesn't always give you all the relevant details. Some subtle things are sometimes missing, some details are found in some other chapters. Note that the very reason why students are given difficult practice problems is precisely because you need to actually solve problems yourself to master the subject. Writing a wiki article that explains things from first principles is as hard as teaching the subject at university. This can thus only be done by someone who is expert enough to be able to derive everything from first principles. And he must actually derive everything that goes in the wiki article himself to be absolutely sure it is explained correctly. The mathematical derivation is the ultimate verification, not the citation to some book. Because what's in the book "Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics" on page 432 is only verifiable to someone who has the necessary physics background to be able to understand this book and has read the first 431 pages. So, a statement quoted from page 432 in isolation is not really a good verification of any statement. Count Iblis (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC) This is not a good excuse to ignore all rules. But it is a good characterization of Brews's attitude that whatever he can derive, or whatever connection he can show to the topic, is fair game, whether he can find in support in sources or not. Dicklyon (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I agree with many of the points made by Count Iblis, but especially the last. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is lack of authority, and that is why a derivation is very important in WP: it provides credibility. Some editors think math is gobbledy gook, but in fact it is a succinct language devised to avoid logical error, or enable error to be traced back to the initial assumptions. It is not window dressing. It is exposition. It is not equivalent to its conclusions because it helps make the concepts clear. Brews ohare (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Some comments from Brews_ohare I agree that a lot of debate has circulated on the various centrifugal force pages, which include Centrifugal force; Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame); Reactive centrifugal force and so forth. This debate is not all about the same thing, however, and none of these debates requires intervention limiting editors or topics for discussion, as is detailed next. One subject has been a revolving discussion between D Tombe and various editors over the intuitive aspects of centrifugal force. D Tombe has his own perspective, and this discussion has generally not adopted his view. Nonetheless, IMO the articles have benefited by these discussions in becoming clearer and in adding particular examples that arose from these discussions. At the moment, this discussion is not prominent on the Talk pages. Related to this discussion is the desire by D. Tombe to eliminate Reactive centrifugal force on the basis that it is not distinct. I don't think that is supported by anyone else, and is not a topic consuming great space. A second subject, also involving D Tombe, is the status of the planetary orbit example as a significant departure from other examples, warranting special discussion. This debate is presently ongoing, and I do not wish to state an opinion upon its eventual outcome. It is largely a judgment call upon the significance of this topic and whether it warrants a lot of attention. That might be settled "objectively" by google counting, by logic, by eloquence, or by WP lawyering such as this present attempt to curtail discussion. A third subject, that involved many editors over a long period of time is the so-called "curvilinear Centrifugal force". This is a terminology that is rather mathematical in origin and relates to the use of (for example) polar coordinates, and to the interpretation of the radial equation in terms of centrifugal force. This particular issue has proved very difficult to deal with. The debate has been correspondingly extensive. At the moment, it has somewhat calmed down with the introduction of the Lagrangian approach to mechanics, which appears to subsume the "curvilinear Centrifugal force" as a special case. Unfortunately, this topic will arise periodically because there are schools of opinion that take the view that "curvilinear Centrifugal force" is the only kind, and with sources that refer only to this interpretation. Thus, the talk page often is a long discussion that eventually acquaints editors with the existence of disparate sourced viewpoints. That discussion will recur as editors believing in the "one and only one" centrifugal force show up. I do not think any action to suppress this discussion by banning editors from participation makes any kind of sense. Censorship may well lead to a complete distortion of the articles by removal of one point of view in favor of the others. A fourth subject of recent origin concerns the inclusion of the topic of absolute rotation in the article Centrifugal force. Here again, my view is that this is simply a normal WP discussion, and it is at least so far, not long-lived. It is not a suitable subject for any action in banning editors. Brews ohare (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Some comments by David Tombe I might be able to summarize the root cause of the dispute. It lies in the fact that the literature does not give a consistent view on the subject matter, and that the slant in the literature has been changing even in recent times. So part of the dispute even involves a conflict between two generations. On the issue of sources, we should take note of the very valid point that Count Ibliss has made. He correctly pointed out that sources can be used destructively against a person who has an overall comprehension of a topic. This is especially true when the literature contains a wide selection of confused and contradictory sources. This dispute is not a simple case of any particular editor ignoring sources. The approach which I have wanted to promote (The Leibniz approach) is found in the modern literature. It is legitimate and its authenticity is no longer the subject of the dispute. But the Leibniz approach is not the approach which is being pushed as an introductory approach to centrifugal force in most modern textbooks. I have already conceded that point. The question is how to introduce the Leibniz approach into the article at the right level, bearing in mind that it not simply history. The article has improved alot as a result of this ongoing debate. All editors involved have learned alot. A topic ban on any particular editor would merely give unfair advantage to a particular point of view. David Tombe (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Comments by uninvolved user Collect Scientists are prone to disputes. This is a given. Are those disputes as seen on article talk pages wrong? No. It is how scientists work. It may not be how some writers on other stuff work, but it is a fact, and trying to use topic bans and the like is not the way to go in my opinion. In the case at hand, neither editor appears anxious to lose the colloquy with the other. That is sufficient, in my opinion again, to drop this matter. Collect (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC) More Coments From An Involved User It seems to me that the idea of censoring Mr Tombe, an editor who seems to be the most informed of the editors and who has worked very very hard to make this article a physically accurate and meaningful one, is misplaced. The problem is not Mr Tombe but the inability of the other editors to actually open up to the fact that their ideas may not be as correct as they beleive. I wonder why censorsip is necessary if the ideas of Mr Tombe opponents are able to stand alone by themselves. Obviously they can not stand up to his criticism. I oppose censorship of any editor of wikipedia. Mr Tombe has done more for wikipedia and been appreciated less than any editor I know here. Instead of censoring him you should be giving him an award for his efforts to get the correct physics into this article. I oppose this proposed action. That would seem to go against the purpose of wikipedia, don't you think?71.251.185.49 (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC) his efforts to get the correct physics into this article - unfortunately Wikipedia is not about "correct" physics. Wikipedia is about the physics in reliable sources, even if that physics is incorrect. You'll see this happen with newspaper articles. They'll be used to support something in an article, but the correction printed a few days later (which might totally destroy the newspaper report) does not get mentioned. 87.113.86.207 (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Comments by involved user Dicklyon I've been actively involved in these disputes at Centrifugal force, too, and just saw this via the notification to Brews. In these articles, David Tombe is the outlier who has been forcing the protracted debates for 15 months or so. He is unyielding in his illogical and wrong-headed misunderstandings of all that the sources and other editors say. Brews, on the other hand, is also pretty much unyielding, and generally responds to David's and others' pushback by adding more and more mathematical and explanatory content, usually in runs of several dozen edits in a day, bloating articles and sections to big messes out of proportion to their relevance or importance. I'm sort of unyielding myself when I see people doing stuff like that, which is why I've been in an edit war with Brews at Wavelength (and now also Wave and Dispersion relation), where he has actually been a much bigger problem than at Centrifugal force. If I had my way, I'd say ban both of them on any topics where they've demonstrated an inability to collaborate with other editors. Of course, I'd risk having someone judge me the same way, so I haven't pushed that approach. I've tried to get help via Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Need more opinions at Wavelength and other sections there, but what little I got, Brews felt free to ignore. He continues to work hard on expanding the article, which is not all bad, but which makes life very hard for anyone who doesn't want to just let him run away in his idiosyncratic directions with it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Whether an explanation is out of proportion is a hard call. Maybe in a printed encyclopaedia one weighting applies, and in WP a different weighting for this simple reason: the printed case is written by one or maybe a few authors who can set the balance as they see it, and let's say for the sake of argument, make a sound judgment. However, that same article on WP would not fly because there are readers & editors that have different questions than those addressed (whatever their importance in some Platonic universe) and there are controversies that crop up that must be addressed somehow or they will go on forever. The basic points are these: WP is an interactive encyclopaedia with a very diverse audience. It is not a print encyclopaedia. Dicklyon complains about my bloated expansions; I have my complaints about his unduly brief oversimplifications. Brews ohare (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC) But hard calls can be made in collaboration with others. On Wavelength, you proved your ability to go it alone in the face of unanimous opposition. On Centrifugal force, which I created as a summary-style alternative to the messes you had created on the Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) and other articles, you insisted on bloating it similarly. Nobody supported you in that. Dicklyon (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I was not under the impression that this forum was a soap box to present personal opinions of each other, which cannot be supported properly without far more detail than a newspaper banner. It's objective is to assess the discussion at Centrifugal force, as I have done above Brews ohare (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Admin incident involving 3RR block being lifted on basis of personal attacks The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. Resolved  – nothing to see here. Admins are allowed to revisit their blocks and change their mind. Snide whiney complaints will be ignored Spartaz Humbug! 20:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Extended content A rather clear cut case of a 72 hour block issued for edit warring was lifted by an admin, William M. Connolley, here upon the blocked editor making personal attacks against the reporting editor in an appeal to the block here. Are personal attacks against reporting editors now an accepted defense against 3RR blocks? Admin User:William M. Connolley is apparently worried about being de-sysopped, as noted here. Yaf (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Oh dear. weburiedourdramainthegarden 12:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Well, to be fair, he did self-revert and offer to talk here. weburiedourdramainthegarden 12:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC) And then he reverted another 4 times or so, while making the same changes, showing the self reverts were not in good faith, since he continued edit warring. 6 Reverts or even 5 reverts in much less than 24 hours is clearly in violation of 3RR. As for making an offer to talk, you might take a look at: this. Yaf (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC) No opinion on the case as a whole yet, but I also see no personal attack in SaltyBoatr's unblock request. Plus, Yaf's method of apparently trying to cast aspersions on WMC's authority as an admin by mentioning the (entirely unrelated) arbcom case, does not cast a very positive light on his conduct here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC) The MedCom case recommended for ArbCom was a case of the same editor "offering to talk" once before. It is entirely related, since it was about the same POV edit warrior and his "talk", regarding the exact same article for which he is now edit warring. Looks very much related to me. Yaf (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC) We seem to be talking about different things. I was referring to your snide remark about WMC being "worried about being desysoped". Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Just the facts, sir. He made the statement, not me. As for the personal attack, the comment regarding "And, the reporting editor Yaf is one who flatly refuses[28] to follow WP:DR.", which is entirely false, hence is a personal attack the way I see it. Also, the mention of me removing a note from my talk page after the block was granted. The note was removed from my talk page prior to the block being issued. The personal attacks through lying about facts regarding an unrelated editor (Yaf) to escape a block seem rather clear, but perhaps I am just taking the falsehoods personally, being they were directed at me. Yaf (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Asking here in the bright light of day: Yaf, will you agree to full good faith participation in the procedures outlined at WP:Dispute Resolution to resolve our dispute? For my part, I make such a commitment wholeheartedly, here publicly in front of these witnesses. Yaf, do you make this public commitment? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I'm not seeing any personal attacks in the unblock request. This looks like your usual soapboxing, Yaf, against WMF. seicer | talk | contribs 14:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Stating that someone "flatly refused" is a personal attack? No. Not even close. Tan | 39 14:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC) You know, it might be. Using the word "fuck" in an exasperated sense already is. Sceptre (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Contrary to Yaf's original assertion, my block of SB wasn't clear cut. Unusually, I did it on the basis of the reported diffs, rather than on looking through the history myself. Because of that, I missed SB's self revert. That made the block questionnable, and on another inspection I couldn't see 4 clear R. Furthermore, Yaf's failure to mention the self-rv showed bad faith. So I unblocked SB, because I was no longer happy to sustain the block. William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. User:Kiss-the-cop I want to query whether any action is warranted to deal with the actions of User:Kiss-the-cop. I don't think I have come to the admin noticeboard previously, so please redirect me if this is the wrong place to raise this issue. As can be seen here, the user now has had multiple speedy deletes, as well as a bot-generated warning about vandalism (the nature of which I can confirm), all in response to a very limited number of edits in recent days. User contributions, limited though they are, appear to be either creation of pages that then get deleted, or vandalism. An example is here. Thank you. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC) The last three edits appear to be vandalism, so I have given the user a final warning. Normally I'd say that WP:AIV would be the place for your concerns, but given the nature of article creation, speedy deletions, and now a pattern of vandalism, AN/I can certainly be of service. I really hope the user decides to consider the warning, but the pattern indicates a downward spiral. Law type! snype? 12:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Massive AWB use to remove image placeholders Stephen (talk · contribs) is removing hundreds or thousands of image placeholders. Another editor and I have expressed our concern about this, asking for a reference to a discussion on the subject. Can we revoke his AWB rights till he answers? Do you perhaps have other suggestions? Debresser (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Short answer: No, admins are approved by default. Long answer: I left this message on his talk page - if this task has consensus, you should file a BRFA so the edits can be done with a bot flag, if this task doesn't have consensus...well, then you shouldn't be doing it! =) He's not presently editing, so no immediate action is required, but I think a BRFA would be Stephen's best bet. –xenotalk 16:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC) It actually appears there may be some consensus for this. File talk:Replace this image_female.svg#Proposal to suspend all further use of this graphic on article pages Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 1 Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AmeliorationBot 2 While there isn't a clear consensus to remove the images, it appears there is one that they shouldn't actually be used.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Yes, there's loose consensus not to continue adding it, but doesn't that final link somewhat prove that removing the image en masse doesn't enjoy consensus? –xenotalk 16:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC) (ec)I've been removing the image placeholders when I come accross them as well. Mainly I've based the removal on this conversation, which states at the top: "From 11 April to 23 April 2008, a centralized discussion considered the appropriateness of using "from-owner" image placeholders on biographies of living persons. A carefully structured discussion clarified the objections to this practice as well as its benefits. There was significant opposition to the use of images such as Replace this image female and Replace this image male. 35 editors (66%) agreed with the question, "placeholder images should not be used at all on the main page of articles", however, only 14 editors (45%) agreed with any particular recommendation". Although I do think they look slightly garish myself, I have no strong aversion to them and was removing them based on what appeared to be concensus that they should not be used. Perhaps there is a more recent discussion that I missed? ponyo (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC) That bot request above was more recent, and it seems that the main objection was that there were too many ways for the bot to break things. I would urge that these removals not be reverted until a consensus to put them back in is obtained, since the consensus for having them there seems weak-to-nonexistent.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC) If consensus truly exists for these not to appear on articles, could we not just replace the image with a single transparent pixel? –xenotalk 16:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I hate those bloody single-pixel images. Let's not, and say we didn't....--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC) On the one hand, I'm a touch uncomfortable seeing AWB used for anything that even smells a smidge controversial. On the other hand, there seems to be consensus that these images shouldn't be used (I say that having supported their use, previously, mind you). It was a good experiment, but hasn't worked out as well as we hoped it might. If there's consensus not to use them, why on earth wouldn't we remove them? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Uh, because we like arguing about whether or not to remove them? ;-) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Mhm, it seems to be a catch-22 situation. No consensus to add them, no consensus to remove them. I support the removal, though if someone wants to edit war to keep the placeholder on I'm not gonna bother reverting the guy, it's a silly thing to edit war over. Wizardman 21:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Respectfully disagree, part of the non-consensus here is that they do work. Some see them as ugly, a POV and style issue IMHO, but they remain in the area of things we wish we had a better alternative for so leave them until we do. I like them and wouldn't use them if they didn't work. Until a better alternative - likely an image not seen as "ugly" - is produced there seems not overwhelming consensus to remove them. -- Banjeboi 21:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Indeed, have you read the anecdotal evidence at User talk:Stephen? "I work WP:OTRS, and we get several image submissions per day, almost all of which are for articles with the placeholder image. It really does work for getting us free images. Sandstein 15:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC) " –xenotalk 21:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Precisely. No consensus to add means: don't add any more. no consensus to remove means: don't remove them either. C'est simple. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Not exactly, I see no directive or concensus to forbid adding them, that would seem to be the same reason there is no consensus for removing them. There is just general dislike of their appearance from everything I've read. -- Banjeboi 22:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC) copyright news Resolved  – Again... ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 17:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I bring this article to your attention, with the hope that people can "do stuff". I'll mention it on the copyright notcie board too. I have no connection with the NPG. It's a shame that they seem to have had such trouble, eh? http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23719265-details/NPG+launches+legal+battle+against+Wikipedia/article.do 87.113.86.207 (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Yeah, we know all about that. It's been being discussed for several days. See WP:POST. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 17:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC) At some point, the judiciary in these kinds of cases are going to say, "If you upload images, you assume the risk for them being copied. Case dismissed." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC) That logic doesn't work ("upload a picture? People can treat it as public domain and copy it" doesn't make sense) and it would be a public policy nightmare for them to decide in such a way. Members of the judiciary also don't "pass law" as such (see the void principle) and would only be able to interpret existing statute, much of which is against us. Ironholds (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 76.95.66.209 (talk · contribs) I blocked 76.95.66.209 (talk · contribs) on the basis of his behavior over several days, as detailed below. I strongly suspected that this was an IP sock of MataNui44 (talk · contribs) and set the block length to match the named account's 3RR block. MataNui44 was blocked for the third time for edit-warring on July 10 at 04:24. 76.95.66.209 appeared to continue a conversation begun by MataNui at Talk:Code Lyoko a few hours later, becoming abusive [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. After MataNui44's block was reviewed by FisherQueen (talk · contribs) he turned up on her talk page to advocate for MataNui44 and to campaign for a retroactive 3RR block against The Rogue Penguin (talk · contribs) [34]. Increasingly hyperbolic comments ensue [35], [36], [37], and demands for punishment [38]. I tried to engage the editor at that point, resulting in further escalation, unfortunately [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. Losing patience with a catalog of incivility that would have had many editors blocked long since, and believing per DUCK that this was MataNui44, I blocked on the primary basis of long-term incivility and assumption of bad faith and set the block length to coincide with MataNui44's one-month block. Since I'm the one that blocked him, and given his general demeanor, I doubt that any attempt by myself to convince him to modify his behavior will succeed. A sanity check on the DUCK test would be useful as well, as that influenced the block length. As an aside, Code Lyoko could use additional eyes; it's been in and out of full protection and has been the scene of a great deal of conflict. Admins are free to modify my actions if a consensus is apparent. Acroterion (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC) User page to article space redirect Resolved  – User page reverted again and fully protected. BJTalk 22:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Can somebody please explain to User:Otterathome that it is unacceptable for him to redirect his user page to the article Autofellatio in protest over the supposed failure to apply WP:NOTCENSORED on that article? He seems disinclined to take my word for it. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I've undone his redirection again. Definitely a WP:POINT violation and also a violation of the spirit (if not the letter) of WP:USER. Exxolon (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I've also notified Otterathome about this thread. Exxolon (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Not to mention that cross-namespace redirs aren't allowed. → ROUX ₪ 19:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC) It also violates Wikipedia:Redirect#Abusive_redirects. Exxolon (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Only if they are from an encyclopaedic content namespace to a non-encyclopaedic one, e.g. from the article namespace to the user namespace. There's no blanket prohibition, and there are many cases of cross-namespace redirects between project and user spaces, both of which are not part of the encyclopaedia proper. The better points to make are (a) if someone redirects xyr user page somewhere, it really has little to no effect on the encyclopaedia proper, or indeed on any other editor; and (b) it's a bit daft to protest that an article isn't as one wants it by making one's user page the same as the article that one doesn't like. Uncle G (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure I really buy that. Redirecting a user page to a non-user page or non-user space page goes against the very reason for user pages, which is "to facilitate communication among participants in [Wikipedia's] project to build an encyclopedia." Also, WP:R#DELETE tells us that redirects must not cause confusion, must not be nonsensical, and must not cross name-spaces. It's one thing to redirect a user page to a user talk page (although I can't see a particularly good reason to do so unless the user is banned), but there is no situation where I can see it being proper or useful to redirect a user page to a non-user page. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Nukes4Tots back from a week-long block and back to uncivil behavior Resolved  – Blocked one month ACB by Tanthalas39. — neuro(talk) 22:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC) after returning from a week long block [[44]] for WP:NPA, i noticed that User:Nukes4Tots has been reverting some run-of-the-mill content disputes with the edit summary "RVV" (revert vandalism). I warned him about misusing the edit summary 'rvv' in cases where it is not actually vandalism, as that could be construed as uncivil, and he deleted my warning as 'destalkerized. go away.' I wasn't sure if he understood the message I was trying to convey to him, since I used a generic template to send the first message, so I left this personalized message with another example of when not to use 'rvv' (the misused rvv this time was here.) he then reverted my message with the edit summary rvv. I don't believe that he has interests in working well with others. furthermore, he is leaving what could be construed as racist edit summaries. someone tried to add the mexican flag to an article and his edit summary was rv: el bandito. someone tried to add the filipino flag to an article and he reverts it as rv: filipino bandit, rv: cambodian bandit, filipino bandit strikes again, rv: filipino bandit, filipino bandit strikes again, turkish bandit. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Obviously hasn't learnt. I'd say block for a month, with the emphasis that it is his last proper chance. If he's not willing to contribute properly after this then I'm perfectly happy with an indefinite block or community ban. This might seem a bit hardarsed, but people failing to treat week-long and month-long warnings as enough of a hint aren't likely to change. Ironholds (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I recommend checking the datestamps on the diffs given above before leaping to any conclusions. Uncle G (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC) yep. rv: el bandito was done today. the rest were provided for context of the pattern of his behavior, and hence are older. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Let's see. SPI that was inexplicably taken over by ArbCom with no information provided to the community, a staggering number of AN/I threads, significant block log for edit warring and personal attacks and refusal to learn from same... This user is not here to contribute in any meaningful way. Suggest community ban. → ROUX ₪ 20:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Works for me with all that. I note that arbcom haven't touched it. Should we give them a heads up about this thread? Ironholds (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Yes, their comment should be invited due to the socking issue. That needs to be clarified before a ban (if implemented) happens, as multiple accounts may need to be banned. → ROUX ₪ 21:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Blocked for one month. Tan | 39 21:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Harrassment needs correction post haste! This change to my user page [45] alerted me to this creation [46] by this "new" editor [47]. What do I want? I would like the user in question to be blocked. I would like the material oversighted/deleted, then I would like a checkuser to investigate the situation and figure out who the owner of YackThompson2 is and block the owner. How do I go about getting those things done? And if someone with the power to do them reads this can you go ahead and do them. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 23:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Clear such pages and tag with {{db-attack}} in the future. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Edit warring on Arbitration RFC More eyes, please, before we have a political purge disguised as a guideline. rootology (C)(T) 23:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)