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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enough, both of you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK seriously, do something about this guy. There is something really wrong with this situation. Millahnna (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently the editors of this page are silent in the face of Bakhshi's documented over the top misbehavior. This is appalling, if true. No one in a leadership position will say a word? What is the problem? --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

And the creepy continues. Meanwhile Flyer has left Bakshi alone and progress has been made on the portion of the article that started the whole mess to begin with. I'm a little disheartened by how this is shaking out. Millahnna (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ring Cinema, there really isn't any sort of formal leadership here. Us admins are just volunteers, and we're not obligated by anything but our own morals. I'm not surprised people left this alone; it looks mostly like a content dispute at first and now creepy, two things admins like to steer clear of. Anyway, I left Bakhshi a warning that his behavior is inappropriate. If anyone else feels like an immediate block is necessary, feel free. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I was under the impression that some editors have credentials to do things that other editors do not, which is a sort of leadership, whether de facto, ad hoc, or non-hierarchical. I don't think it's correct to call Flyer's complaint a content dispute, though. She didn't ask to have any content changed. She complained about two specific things (threats and illicit edits) that have nothing to do with content. Yes, it sprang from a content dispute, but almost everything does. Again, thanks for jumping in, even if it's not your usual portfolio. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

---

May I point something out? Here we have a dispute between two editors:

• Flyer22 has been a Wikipedian for four years. She has 46,000 edits (65% to article space). She has nine barnstars, five DYK's, four GA's, and many other accomplishments, all of which can be seen with a quick scan of her user page. In addition, she is an outstanding, fair-minded, erudite, and talented editor who works hard in a number of difficult areas, and has for years.
• Bakhshi82 has been a Wikipedian for less than a year. He has 165 edits (30% to article space). This is not counting whatever editing he has done under various IPs or previously-banned usernames. He is... not a good editor, let us say; I'll leave the particulars as an exercise for the reader, along with the assessment of this editor's mental state.

So when Flyer22 comes here with a legitimate complaint, what happens? She gets jumped and then hung out to dry. What a ludicrous spectacle. And you people wonder why established editors are getting pissed off and leaving. "Come to ANI"? Why yes sir I'll bring my next problem right to ANI, just as soon as I finish pounding in some tent pegs with my forehead, which will be a more productive and certainly more pleasant use of my time. Sheesh. Herostratus (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and simply searching User talk:Flyer22 for "Bakhshi82" shows sufficient reason to believe that the latter is not suitable for Wikipedia. No doubt someone could provide a link to a rule saying that nonsense must be tolerated because we are all equal, however simply removing the source of the nonsense would seem to be a more helpful procedure. Johnuniq (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Issues with User:Kwamikagami

We are having an issue with an editor adding hyphens to medical articles against consensus. Discussion took place here with 6 against the hyphens and 2 for them. Kwam was asked not to continue making these changes and to allow those who primarily write the article allow them to reflect usage in current medical literature. He continues here [1]and here [2] One of our expert contributors are having difficult with him. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I intend to post on this at great length this weekend, after I complete a full investigation of the problems this gentleman has caused A LOT of people, and am thus prepared to be more accurate and detailed, but I would quickly add and emphasize that THESE sorts of comments are part of Kwami's particular modus operandi. He MASSIVELY screws stuff up with THOUSANDS of edits and page moves without the SLIGHTEST concern for what others might think or attempts to contact them for discussion, in areas he knows DIDDLY SQUAT about, and then when confronted, agrees to stop or alter his behavior, while just continuing on doing the same things again, and when caught again, says "didn't do it on purpose", throws out arguments that are intellectually dishonest (my opinion, given the irony of his obviously high intelligence contrasted with his inane excuses and reasoning that a third-grader wouldn't swallow), and then puts forth sources to back his argument that prove FALSE when checked, and covers THAT by saying "well, for some reason I can't access that page right now". Look, I hate being mad, confrontational, and uncivil, but Kwami has ENRAGED me with this stuff! Its obvious its a "power trip" ... BET: Anyone shows me a link where Kwami has ADMITTED he was wrong, apologized, stopped what he was doing, and fixed the damage WITHOUT 500 MAN HOURS AND 3 TERABYTES OF B.S. ARGUING, I will mail you $50 cash U.S. Grrrrr.... Regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Doc James

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

Noetica's analysis (please comment after my post, not within it)

There is be a genuine inconsistency between WP:MOSMED and WP:MOS on such hyphenation. But there is also at least one problem within WP:MOSMED itself (and with its linked resources). Some excerpts:

1. For punctuation, e.g., possessive apostrophes and hyphens, follow the use by high-quality sources.
2. Where there is a dispute over a name, editors should cite recognised authorities and organisations rather than conduct original research.
3. [A note to 2:] Examples of original research include counting Google or PubMed results, comparing the size or relevance of the varieties of English, and quoting from personal or professional experience.
4. [At WP:MEDRS, linked from 2:] PubMed is an excellent starting point for locating peer reviewed medical sources [and so on, with nothing contradicting].

Is PubMed to be used in settling names for content and titles, or not? If it is, how can counting, weighting, and evaluating the kudos of sources listed there not be considered original research?

And at the top of WP:MOSMED:

• This page proposes style guidelines for editing medical articles. The general rules from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style also apply when writing medical articles.

As for WP:MOS, it is the central resource for guidelines on punctuation. It gives great detail at WP:HYPHEN (see also WP:ENDASH and WP:SLASH) for the matter in question here. It does not delegate any matter of punctuation to subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style. Arguably therefore, especially if such a subsidiary page is not well coordinated with WP:MOS, and if it contains contradictions and uncertainties, WP:MOS is the one to follow.

WP:MOS includes this guidance at WP:HYPHEN:

• A hyphen can help with ease of reading (face-to-face discussion, hard-boiled egg); a hyphen is particularly useful in long noun phrases where non-experts are part of the readership, such as in Wikipedia's scientific articles: gas-phase reaction dynamics.

It goes on to show specifically how this is managed; and the guidance is pretty standard for high-quality publishing. In light of the facts laid out above, I conclude that:

1. Kwami is justified in applying guidelines from WP:MOS, as he has done.
2. WP:MOSMED and its linked resources need to be made non-contradictory.
3. There needs to be a discussion at WT:MOS to resolve the current inconsistency between WP:MOS and WP:MOSMED.

Noetica^Tea? 23:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

" Is PubMed to be used in settling names for content and titles, or not? If it is, how can counting, weighting, and evaluating the kudos of sources listed there not be considered original research? "

— Noetica

From WP:NOR (first sentence): "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research." This describes article content, not article titles.

The next sentence: "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists." The point of using PubMed is that is indeed providing reliable sources.

Next: "That includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." Using PubMed to advance the position is using the sources; the name of the article is itself used by the sources—that's the whole point.

To summarize, WP:NOR is not applicable to the naming of article titles. Even if it was, the use of PubMed would not contravene that policy.

To answer the first question: Yes, PubMed is a good way to settle disputes in content/title names. WikiProject Medicine already has consensus on this matter.

Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:TITLE. The policy describes five criteria: recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency.

Let's compare "Non-small cell lung carcinoma" with "Non-small-cell lung carcinoma":-

1. Recognizability: "Non-small cell lung carcinoma" is more frequently used and more recognizable.
2. Naturalness: Are readers really more likely to type in "Non-small-cell lung carcinoma" rather than "Non-small cell lung carcinoma"? I don't think so. Readers are more likely to use the more commonly encountered variant.
3. Precision: In this context, "precision" refers to unambiguous naming of the topic. This isn't a problem for either title—thus a draw.
4. Conciseness: Both are equally long—another draw.
5. Consistency: Until Kwamikagami came along, consistency favoured "Non-small cell lung carcinoma". His interference has muddied the waters. Let's call it a draw.

Overall, that's 5–3 in favour of "Non-small cell lung carcinoma". Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens are irrelevant in the search box. Whether you type with or without, you'll still get the same results. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, you're referring to #2: Naturalness. The second part of the criterion is "a good title should convey what the subject is actually called in English". "Non-small cell lung carcinoma" still wins here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

When oncologists say "non~small~cell carcinoma", the grammatical parsing is conveyed with intonation, not with hyphens: there would be a different intonation to "(non-small) cell carcinoma" than there would be to "non-(small cell) carcinoma". Similarly, "small (cell carcinoma)" would be accented differently than "(small cell) carcinoma". Neither hyphens nor the lack of hyphens is really part of the name, but intonation is—and we can't write intonation. Although not perfect, hyphens are an attempt to capture this distinctive intonation in writing. Therefore (2) 'naturalness' supports hyphenation, because that's how the name is actually pronounced. Anyway, most readers for which this matters will be new to the topic, and for them it wodn't matter which is used, at least not in your sense. For those familiar with the topic, the meaning is also clear either way so it still won't matter. I also take issue with (1) recognizability. The hyphenated form is obviously more recognizable for the literate (i.e., anyone who has a high-school level of written English), and this isn't Simple English WP where we need to assume that our readers may not be literate. If we accept your conclusion that 3–5 are a draw, then as I count it we have 2–0 in favor of hyphenation. And the potential for real confusion among naive readers if we don't hyphenate. — kwami (talk) 10:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, I object IN THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE TERMS to Kwami counting up "the score" (i.e. "2-0 in favor") on ANYTHING having to do with this issue. In previous "votes", so to speak, in discussions on this issue, it was OBVIOUS that Kwami does NOT make a good faith effort to "count the votes" correctly, and neither will he accept consensus when its staring him directly in his face. Just the fact that he is STILL persisting with this stuff is CONCLUSIVE evidence of that, because at a previous EXTENSIVE discussion on this - kindly linked by Doc James above - it WAS QUITE OBVIOUS that the physicians and medical experts posting, as I recall from memory User:Uploadvirus, User:Jmh649, User:WhatamIdoing, User:My_core_competency_is_competency, User:Axl, and User:Colin were AGAINST his position, and only his "compadre" and fellow linguistics expert User:Tony1 - neither of whom know DIDDLY SQUAT about lung cancer and its literature best I can tell - User:Tony1 was in favor of his position. I submit that there is NO QUESTION that he is resisting this consensus beyond ANY level of reasonableness, and probably will not stop without being served a court order from the ICC.

I am also going to state that, in my opinion, he has been misleading (at best) in providing evidence to justify some of his actions. Yesterday, I went to expand a stub I had begun on Salivary gland-like carcinoma of the lung - of course, it had been altered to "salivary gland--like" (i.e. a freaking "double dash" thing)!!! Mouth agape, I think to myself "Sweet Jesus, if THAT version appears anywhere in the lit, I will eat my living room table sans ketchup!". So I ask him about it, and he replies with some book cite. So I check it, and he was WRONG! The book was even goofier, having some idiocy like "salivary-gland--like", or maybe even including $, &, and # in there somewhere, I don't remember. I do remember checking all 4 instances of this tumor name occurring in the book, and NONE of them matched what he said it was. When I called him on it, citing a specific page, he replied with something like "I couldnt get that page on my computer, the page I looked at said what I said". I haven't had time to double verify his denial, but as I recall nopw, the page he quoted was misleading (I think, will recheck this).

Another issue worth considering here, IMO, is his attitude about fixing problems he has caused. At least twice he has been asked to go fix a bunch of these lung (and other site-specific) cancer articles, and at least once he AGREED to, then DIDN'T - rudely demanding he be provided a list of what to fix (note: obvious answer is "damn near every one you ever done"). Also, at least once, he told the requesting person [paraphrasing] "go fix it yourself" in a tone that ticked me off severely.

I will post much more cogently and extensively on this later, am in a hurry this morning, so I apologize for the crude way this is argued. And I ALSO APOLOGIZE TO EVERYONE, including Kwami, for the way this has gotten out of hand. I HATE FIGHTING WITH ANYONE. TTYL!

With best regards to all: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The 'freaking "double dash" thing' is actually an en-dash; and this example is very much like "New York–London flight" from The Chicago Manual of Style. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The general point here seem to be that Wikipedia should reflect the real world. If physicians are mostly illiterate with respect to English writing subtleties, let them have their cake and eat it. Wikipeidia is usually not the appropriate place to right great wrongs. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"Salivary gland-like" should be a hyphen, not an n-dash. The n-dash is used as shorthand for actual words, such as "New York to London" in your example, or "1876--1901" being short for "from 1876 through 1901". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Is "salivary" modifying "gland-like"? Or is it (salivary gland)-like carcinoma, i.e. "salivary gland" is an open compound [3] here just like "New York"? Perhaps you should read the article before commenting... Tijfo098 (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, (salivary gland)-like. And, yes, silly me for believing what I was taught in grade school. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps someone should read The Subversive Copy Editor; review. Perhaps we need to make a Homo editorialis barnstar. ;-) Tijfo098 (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Kwami says above that the grammatically correct forms are "obviously more recognizable for the literate (i.e., anyone who has a high-school level of written English)".

Problem: Data disagrees.

I know zero people who never attended university that actually understand or follow the most basic hyphenation rules. In my experience, a clear majority of university graduates don't know the hyphenation rules. And as a relevant piece of proof, I remind you that basically 100% of the high-quality reliable sources for these subjects—the very sources that are getting it "wrong"—are written and edited by people with not only university degrees, but with advanced degrees. So unless you are prepared to define MDs and PhDs and DOs as being outside the set of "anyone who has a high-school level of written English", this simply isn't true.

More importantly, when words quit being descriptions and start being separate entities, then their names sometimes stop following the grammar rules for descriptive phrases. It's File Transfer Protocol, a specific thing, not "file-transfer protocol", any old protocol for transferring files. Similarly, it's Small cell carcinoma, a specific thing, not just any old carcinoma involving small cells (and, by the way, there are lots of carcinomas that have small cells and are not SCC). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's not make this into a content dispute

It's not. The problem is not the content dispute, it's the continued disputed edits and page moves by an editor (who is coincidentally an admin, but that's only relevant insomuch as he should know better) who has already been brought up for this before. ANI discussion should only concern how to make that problem go away. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no getting around the fact that, at some point, there has to be a decision about "what's correct" in terms of these hyphens and n-dashes and such. From the contradictory comments in the previous sub-section, it's not at all clear that there really is a "right" answer. Yet everyone involved "thinks" they have the one right answer. How do you fix that problem??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate articles (sorta)

A W Khan and Abdul Waheed Khan (UNESCO official) are clearly the same person. Frankly, moves and merges are not my specialty. Anybody wanna give me a hand here? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Both articles appear to be based on copies from Kahn's UNESCO bio. Since the copying is extensive and foundational, I tagged them with {{db-copyvio}}. There is some independently contributed text such as the infobox that could be restored and used, after a rewrite and revdel. Flatscan (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

A W Khan was deleted; Abdul Waheed Khan (UNESCO official) was listed at WP:Copyright problems/2011 April 22. Flatscan (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by Barnstarbob (formerly Vegavairbob)

At Chevrolet Vega, an article that if it is not in fact 'owned' by Barnstarbob (formerly Vegavairbob) is very close to be 'owned by' him (85% of the edits to the article are by that editor only, few if any edits by others are allowed to remain in the article, discourages others in editing), and editor who is extremely close to the subject matter (features his own photographs, uses photographs of his own cars and structures the article around promotional material from the manufacturer as well as advertising) -- the editor Barnstarbob, has recently been changing my edits to the discussion page, discouraging my edits, and is now making person attacks (see: "You are a conflict and pain in the ass.") – or this: "you are... clearly in need of help." The editor has a long history of having been warned about his editing behavior. The attacks go too far. 842U (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This User has tried in two discussions to label me "owner", and now conflict of interest. He starts a discussion in Project Automobiles, does not participate, then proceeds to do whatever he wants regardless of discussion results and failed at getting any agreement on his "charges", then in the article talk page, referring to me as Barnstarbbob/Vegabob he has failed again at getting anyone to agree with him on a conflict of interest charge. His edits don't conform to Wikipedia standards for neutrality and prose although his contribution was not deleted. His agenda is basically just to create havac, although finally he has stopped the biased, framed edits. I changed only my name in his discussion edits as follows Barnstarbob/Vegabob to Barnstarbob because, like his article edits, there is a tendency for him to "frame" information towards his agenda or opinion. (Barnstarbob (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

Others have in fact concurred that the article is owned. 842U (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You are lying. It has been determined in the discussion you started, but didn't participate in, that I work with other Users on this article and do not delete or revert other User contributions including yours.(Barnstarbob (talk))

My rely to 842A in the article discussion page should sum up the problem I'm having with him and his endless, unfounded accusations. It just doesn't stop. There is no agreement by any User as to his accusations, in his previous Project Automobile discussion, or current article discussion. He just won't stop harassing and must have his way, regardless of discussion results. My reply should be read in full, it covers his accusations and my defense.

Barnstarbob/Vegabob, You've used your own photographs. I have no photos of mine in the article. You've used photos of your cars in the article. I have no photos of my cars in the article. You've built the article around promotional photos from General Motors and Chevrolet. I haven't. You've reverted all of my edits as well as pretty much everyone else's. And you only include the input of others when it aligns with your pro-Vega bias. Do any research on the Vega today and sources paint a very clear picture of the car as poorly engineered, poorly built and damaging to it's makers. And still you don't include that information in the article. You can accuse me of Ownership if you'd like, there's no evidence. Your COI is clearly imprinted in the article. And even if we just look at this discussion here, clearly others agree. Furthermore, your statement "You are following your own agenda and are clearly in need of help." is a personal attack. Wikipedia does not tolerate personal attacks on editors, and I certainly will not either. 842U (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

842A Aren't we on the defense now. How do you like it for a change. Ok, You need help with your editing - hope that's not too personal. You are not following Wikipedia guidelines for neutrality and prose. Now, (here we go again) I have contributed over 700 images to Wikipedia. I took 18 photos of the article's 51 images. There are 28 GM and Chevrolet images; the rest are charts and Common images. 4 of them are of cars I own. That is 4 out of 51 images. You must be kidding. Your accusations are again, flawed and biased (like some of your editing). the photo of my Vega Panel truck was included in the gallery only because there was no rear shot of a wagon (or panel) from any source. Without that image included, a rear view of the wagon/panel would not be in the article. My other car, a Millionth Vega, is featured alone, and with the Vega's competitors from the 2010 Motor Trend Classic magazine's Gremlin-Vega-Pinto comparison photo shoot, of which is a free-use photo taken by me, with my Cannon camera. Obviously Motor Trend's photos taken and used in the magazine would not qualify for free use or inclusion here. These are useful for the article, as they show the car with its competitors (for the first time in over 35 years), and images of the Vega milestone car, past or present, are not available elsewhere for free use inclusion. Just because I happen to own that car is no justification for not using its image, which was already concluded in your discussion. (you just don't give up, do you?...more rehash.) All the article's free images are high quality and depict the sections and text of the article. When I started work on the article in Feb 2009 there was one image, the only one in Commons. Clearly since the article's inception - August 2004, images were not available to Users, with only one included in the article for five years. There wasn't even enough text to include additional images, for years, although a gallery could've been used, but wasn't. Well, images were available to me and I used the highest quality photos and images to depict the text I added to the article. This has been covered in discussions; it has been determined that the images used throughout the article are beneficial to the article whether I took some of them or not. Stop beating a dead horse with your accusations. Now, again, I do not delete other User contributions, and have not deleted your actual contribution to this article - mostly negative non automotive sourced criticism to which I've added auto press criticism, and reverted my deleted auto sourced praise. However, it is you that has made unjustifiable deletions. You've deleted complete sections on a whim without notice. Like I said before, The article will remain neutral and unbiased. All the factual information, positive - Awards and Praise sections, and negative - Problems and Criticism sections explain the Cars history - and its status - while it was being produced and sold, as well as its current status. There isn't bias or lack of neutrality as concluded by the discussions. The facts (and reviews), past and present are presented in a neutral way without opinions expressed by any User as per Wikipedia standards. And stop attaching Vegabob to my Username to "frame" your case. Framing isn't beneficial in articles or discussions of the articles. It has been determined two years ago and in current project discussion that my knowledge of the subject does not conflict with Wikipedia's article objective of neutrality, and I've followed all suggestions in discussions to that end. You are a Wikipedia User, as I am. You should spend more time contributing to, or improving articles, instead of wasting time here, rehashing your failed agenda. You should've participated in the Project Automobile discussion you started. Nonetheless, clearly the outcome of the discussion wasn't to your liking. Based on the lack of interest or feedback this time, it is also clear Users have probably had enough of your endless, unproductive and unwarranted accusations. (Barnstarbob (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC))(Barnstarbob (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

Regardless of who is at fault here, I will block the next person calling someone a pain in the ass. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Understood. That edit was quickly reverted by me almost immediately.(Barnstarbob (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

• Hullo, Bob, long time no see. I certainly recall your WP:OWNership issues in your previous incarnation - and if it appears that it has started up again, I shall be reviewing your contributions and interactions. I strongly suggest that you make a real effort to improve your interpersonal and editing behaviours if there is not to be a return to the old ways. Regards, LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Edit warring over the Vega? The Cadillac, I could see. But the Vega??? That's like edit-warring over the merits of the Zayre chain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Everyone knows Ann & Hope was much better! You'd have to be crazy to shop anywhere else.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Winterreise

Someone - sometimes as an IP sometimes as new user Ephoph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (say that name out loud...) - keeps removing a small section from Winterreise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which is correctly sourced. They give no edit summary, nor have joined the conversation I've tried to start on the talk page. I think I've done as much revert as I'm allowed, so that's what I'm coming here. I don't think its straightforward vandalism, but its as much use as :-( almost-instinct 17:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Well, what they keep removing is hardly well-written (weasel words), but such uncommunicative behavior is hardly conducive to a positive environment. Then again, you're asking for administrative intervention (and you are right that we can't really claim vandalism yet) but I see no evidence of for instance warning templates or other explanations, or a pointer toward the talk page. Talk more to them. I've placed a welcome template on their talk page and reverted the IP (and I gave them a blanking-2 template); that's about all we can do right now, I think. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I was looking at the edit history and saw that someone had deleted the following sentence: "It has been claimed that it would be impossible to write this work without having experienced similar emotions in reality." I happened to agree with this person and figured that I would join the cause. I do admit though that it is my fault for not being communicative. I apologize for that. Now to justify myself... I am not concerned that the passage isn't properly sourced and/or referenced. What bothers me is the relevance of the sentence. Just because someone somewhere claimed something doesn't make it important or pertinent to the topic. I could easily find a written source of someone claiming that the moon was made of cheese, but I wouldn't add that to the Wikipedia entry of the moon. The sentence in question tells us about the opinion of some random person and doesn't really help us to better understand Schubert or his song cycle. Also, the sentence is essentially outdated romantic ideology. We no longer refer to composers as 'Genius' or 'vehicles of God' in serious, academic discourse. Similarly, we shouldn't picture Schubert in his room pouring out his emotions on sheets of paper. Instead, we should be discussing the devices he used to create such a well crafted work. P.S. I'm sorry you don't like my name :) Ephoph (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that that sentence, while referenced, is strictly some guy's editoral opinion (unless he was there in the room when Schubert was writing his stuff) and doesn't belong in the article. Regarding your user name, you need to change it to something else before someone else does it for you. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's best to discuss that kind of change on the talk page after it's been reverted once. Don't keep reverting. Walter Rehberg (the person cited in the bit being removed) seems like an ok source to me. Maybe the phrasing could be adjusted somewhat (inline attribution and a little more context might help) but if he had something to say about the composition, it seems informative to add it to the article, even as a data point in the way Schubert criticism has changed over time. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Pirate Cat Radio

87.166.190.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has removed a certain group's external links from Pirate Cat Radio, and then removed references, with the summary "Wikipedia must remove comment of legal matters as they interfer with an ongoing matter." I'm not sure what's going on there, but it seems like an attempt to re-factor a Wikipedia article to support an alleged legal dispute; there was related edit warring involving that group in the same article in February by low-edit-count users. I have not gotten in the middle of it; I'm just bringing it to administrators' attention because I noticed the recent edit activity and the phrase "Wikipedia must" was a red flag for me. --Closeapple (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I jumped in enough to restore part of the text, since it traces back to Mission Loc@l, and they appear to qualify as a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Editor has jumped IP's - I've restored your version. [4] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Both IPs are GeoLocating to Berlin and Pirate Cat Radio is out of San Fran, I call BS on this one. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The Berlin thing might have something to do with this (3rd to last paragraph). 69.111.194.167 (talk) 10:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Urartian language

An anonymous editor with a constantly changing IP address keeps re-inserting a claim or a wording that is not contained in the sources that he is adding to support it (the claim being that "by 500 BCE Urartian appears to have been confined to the elite, while the common people spoke (proto-)Armenian" - no specific date and no "elite" being mentioned anywhere in the sources). I compromised by adding and tags to his footnotes, but he keeps deleting my tags, while ignoring my request for quotations. By this point he has broken the 3 Revert Rule ([5], [6] [7], [8], [9], [10]), also reverting a vandal fighter, User:Avillia in the process, but I'm not reporting him primarily for that, since I think the problem is deeper than that - he is generally uncooperative and refuses to respond to concerns about sourcing and to grasp that the sources he adds need to support the exact claim being made and not just mention the topic. He also deleted the entire phonology and grammar sections as a collateral effect of his edit warring several times ([11], [12], [13], [14]), despite being alerted as to the fact that he was doing so ([15] [16]). As another example of his uncooperative attitude - he also insisted on adding "Urartian" in the category "Armenian languages", which by its very definition ("Armenian and its most closely related relatives") excludes the language. The only justification he has given is that the category page includes the title of the article, so apparently the categorization is correct ([17]). When I pointed out to him that the title of the article appeared on that page automatically as a result of his adding the category, his only response was "rv vandal editor". --91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a typical "glorious ancient history of our glorious people" content dispute/edit war, possibly within the scope of WP:ARBAA2, but conducted almost entirely among (changing) IPs. I've semiprotected the article for three months. This will force the participants to register accounts, which will facilitate the management of any continued dispute. The dispute itself needs to be resolved via WP:DR, not here, though I tend to agree that edits like this are vandalistic insofar as they remove much content for no clear reason].  Sandstein  20:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually already have a longstanding account, I'm just too lazy to log in with it and make most of my edits with my IP, even when I create substantial portions of an article as I did in this case. However, I don't think the other IP will register, especially since you have protected the page in his preferred version (whatever his reasons to prefer it, the content-wise differences had minimal nationalistic relevance) - unless I use my account to revert in a few days. I still maintain that his refusing to provide quotes (from online sources he has cited!) and deleting requests for such are tantamount to refusing to follow WP:V and should justify a block.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That's me.--Anonymous44 (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I recommend that you always log in to edit, as not doing so may be considered an abuse of multipe accounts (it makes edits harder to track), and that you revert the article only to the extent needed for vandalism repair (reinserting the big chunk of deleted text). The rest is a content dispute and needs to be resolved via WP:3R, perhaps by asking for a WP:3O.  Sandstein  21:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't abuse multiple accounts, I only have one IP and I don't use both my IP and my account in edit wars (nor am I often engaged in such). In this case, however, I can clearly identify myself as being the same person as the IP in my edit summary. As for the content dispute - I assume that by WP:3R, you meant WP:DR? Again, I'm pretty sure the other person won't feel any pressure to add the requested quotes from the online sources or even to talk to me as long as the article looks the way he wants it to, as it does now. He had plenty of time to copy and paste those quotes (if they existed, which they absolutely don't) before the semi-protection. As for the large chunk of text, don't worry, he eventually stopped deleting it after I took the pains to provide him with a new version to revert to, which included both his favourite unsourced claim and the large chunk of text. But - again - I think DR is too good for a content dispute on such a low level, where one side essentially refuses to follow policy, doesn't even write meaningful edit summaries, inserts unsourced claims and refuses to source them.--Anonymous44 (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This SPI might be relevant, though too many IPs for me, hard to follow. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about Aryamahasattva, but I am now certain that the user I encountered is actually the well-known Armenian nationalist troll Ararat arev, banned for 3RR, block evasion and sockpuppetry. The IP addresses come from the same area as the IP addresses listed in the block log - the Los Angeles area - and his field of interests (Armenian nationalist issues) is the same. Various other related articles such as Hurrian language and apparently Urartu have also been semi-protected because of him ([18]). Under these circumstances, I think his edits should be reverted without further ado, because even if he registers with a new name, he would still be blocked. Any thoughts? --Anonymous44 (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Paulrightsgenie

Paulrightsgenie, a promotion-only account, continuously readds copyvios to Sam Munson, The November Criminals (2010 novel), and a predecessor article despite multiple warnings and no attempt to satisfy WP processes. Multiple instances of CSD tag removal. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't immediately match the user's edits to what you report. Can you please provide diffs for these allegations and a link to the source of the alleged copyvio? (See also WP:GRA).  Sandstein  21:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I can't because Sam Munson has been deleted since I listed this here, and I'm not a sysop, and I'm judging the two November Criminal articles on the basis of the warnings on the users talk page. The user did, to their credit, finally rewrite The November Criminals (2010 novel) enough to avoid the copyvio and after removing a BLP prod at the Munson article once, provided a RS before removing it the second time. I'm willing to wait to see if s/he recreates the Munson article before pursuing this, but if s/he does then I may ask to have some history restored. Good enough? Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, should they continue to paste copyvio text into articles, a block may be necessary.  Sandstein  21:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the reference and have nominated the article for deletion. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

fwiw, I think there were still considerable traces of probably copyvio promotionalism, so I rewrote the article, and added references to 3 major books reviews, & a NYT education section article about the book--in addition to their book review. Drmies, perhaps the AfD should be withdrawn. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Alan Liefting gratuitous removal of notable people from category, edit warring etc.

He's systematically going through categories and removing people from categories of things they worked on. He seems to be doing this fairly arbitrarily, even when the people are verifiably referenced to be highly on topic, and he's doing it when they're not referenced from any other subcategories.

It seems to be either essentially deliberate category vandalism or somebody has seized his account or he's got some kind of problem, (or he's just being a total idiot.)

He's even trying to edit war the changes through, and he's unable to point to any policies or guidelines consistent with what he's doing.

Other users have complained about similar issues on his talk page.

I wouldn't mind too much, but he seems to be mass-removing stuff from categories. And he doesn't think he's doing anything wrong, but everything I know about the category system says he's lost his mind.

Help?

e.g. he's removed Gerard O'Neill from Category:Space colonization, but looking at the bio and the main article at Space colonization he's in both. Alan Liefting has also removed Konstantin Tsiolkovsky who more or less invented this theoretical field. [19], and there's loads of others.

I'm going to go with an RFC anyway but is there anything an admin can do to slow this stuff down, otherwise there's potentially going to be a heck of a lot of reverts until an RFC can get to grips with the rights and wrongs of this, he seems to be wrong, and prolifically so. Potentially we're looking at having to go back through this guys edits over months or years and reverting thousands of edits.

Many thanks!Rememberway (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

See also: User_talk:Alan_Liefting#Removal_of_categorization, Talk:Gerard_K._O'Neill#Categories.Rememberway (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

There should be a new category created to hold the people who advocate or theorize about space colonization. I think Alan Liefting is correct in removing people from the category space colonization, because individual biographies are not article topics of colonization. Binksternet (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree you could do that, but there's no policy or guideline that you should do that, and he's not anyway, he's just deleting them all out of hand. What he's doing is essentially indistinguishable from category vandalism, and he's doing it fairly fast, using semi-automatic tools.Rememberway (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

And I don't think you're correct that biographies are not categorically on-topic, are you saying that (for example) the Wright brother's biography shouldn't be part of the aviation categories?Rememberway (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless you're planning on making a category called People involved with space colonization, where exactly do you think these biographies should be categorized? It is common practice to add biographies to the categories of what they're involved with. Silverseren^C 03:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the Wright brothers should be in the category "Wright-Patterson Air Force Base" or "Gliding in the United States".

The new category could be "Space colonization advocates" or similar. Binksternet (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Why shouldn't they? Their experiments with gliders led to their development of the airplane; and a portion of the current Wright-Patterson was a testing ground for them in addition to having been named for them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You could do that, but instead this bozo is just deleting stuff completely.Rememberway (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I've struck out your personal attack, please do not make such comments. Silverseren^C 03:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a lower-stress approach for people who advocate such changes to make the split category and recategorize biographical articles, rather than just remove categories from biographies...

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I second Binksternets opinion. It is rare to see biographies in the categories in which they are involved. There tends to be a subcat for biographies eg. Category:Botanists, Category:Astronauts. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Space advocates is appropriate for any space colonization advocates. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

So why are you deleting categories then? You've invented your own personal policy that doesn't actually exist in reality and then gone on a deletion spree.Rememberway (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Anybody could do that with anything. I could arbitrarily decide to remove every 50 th sentence from long articles. There's no policy that says I could do that, but there's no policy that says I can't, and the articles are long enough already right? The articles should have been shorter already. Right? Let's do it then!

That of course is ridiculous. How is this category deletions not the same type of thing? This is an arbitrary deletion spree. The things you are deleting are nearly always related to the category you removed them from. You also did the same with Category:Futurology. This isn't somebody acting normally, this is somebody doing bad faith deletions, the Wikipedia is being repeatedly damaged by your actions. And you are completely unrepentent, and apparently intend to carry on deleting.Rememberway (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Rememberway has been quite belligerent from the start. I have been called a vandal, accused of edit warring, called an idiot and now a bozo. This person is not assuming good faith. It is also a bit rich to accuse me of edit warring when Rememberway is doing exactly the same thing. I have explained my edits in edit summaries and on the talk page. Also, I am attempting to explain the rationale for my edits, although I must admit I am probably not making it clear or covering all the points that I should. Rememberway seems to want clear policy of guideline for categorisation yet there is no prescriptive guideline. In the absence of this I consider what is best for the reader, on unwritten convention or on consensus. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Question: When you removed the category on Gerard's article, did you add the Space advocates category to it? Silverseren^C 05:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I was not aware of that category initially. It is a more approp category than Category:Space colonization and the article has been in that category since before this issue was raised. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC

There is also Category:Space advocacy. Maybe these categories could be reorganized some way. Category:Space colonization is a fairly large category containing a lot of vague subjects, fiction, etc. which are all fine, but O'Neill was most associated with what I'd call a narrower subtopic that seems worthy of a (sub)category of its own. Basically "space colony engineering" or something like that. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Space advocacy contains lots of biographical articles that should be in Category:Space advocates (as per the categorisation guideline). I think the category structure is about right given the low number of articles but Category:Space colonization needs cleaning out (which is the issue here) and a Category:Space colonization organisations is possibly needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Btw, Alan, it's really quite disruptive to do a lot of repetitive operations without prior discussion. There's a WP:BOLD principle but it's intended for actions like single edits, that can easily be undone and discussed. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority of my "repetitive operations" are uncontroversial. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously this one is not. Could you try to be a bit less abrasive about it? You've removed a bunch of categorization info without moving it anywhere else, which could be viewed a WP:PRESERVE problem. Binksternet's suggestion of making new categories is reasonable. But I think it's best to open a discussion at WT:SPACEFLIGHT or some other appropriate place, about how to deal with these categories.

I don't think "space advocates" is necessarily the right place for these biographies. The category I'm imagining should contain, say, both Gerard O'Neill and Henry Kolm (Kolm was a magnet expert associated with O'Neill's mass driver lab), whether or not Kolm was personally a space advocate (I don't know if he was). You could also do some constructive populating of the categories rather than depopulating. For example, obvious missing persons include K. Eric Drexler, T. A. Heppenheimer, etc. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN3

Fini...Nothing else to see here...it is dealt with ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Could I please have the community take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ohnoitsjamie reported by Pi (Talk to me! ) (Result: )? Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC) I have closed the report (permalink) with a 24 hours edit-warring block for Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Because the blocked user is an administrator, and blocks of administrators are at times controversial, I ask the community to review the block. In addition, Ohnoitsjamie has blocked the IP editor they were edit-warring with for 31 hours, which to me looks like an abuse of administrator tools in order to win the content dispute and the edit war. I invite comment about whether this matter requires escalation.  Sandstein  13:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Sound block on the 3RR - failure to engage in dispute resolution and use of edit warring by Ohnoitsjamie to "win" content dispute, dealt with as with any other class of editor. As for the use of admin flags to block the other party, there is no suggestion or evidence presented that this is a pattern of abuse by this admin and unless such practices come to light I suggest that this is regarded as a one off and the matter concluded with no further action. If evidence for such a pattern emerges, it can be revisited at that time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Reasonable block, but in my opinion, no escalation required -- the IP's first edit summary could be taken by an uninvolved admin as an indication of bad-faith editing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC) The block was correct imho, per arguments mentioned by LessHeard vanU. Escalation is probably unnecessary at this point but a huge {{trout}} is justified for Ohnoitsjamie's block of the IP. The IP might have edited in bad faith but an admin shouldn't block any IP they previously reverted over content disputes - even if the block was necessary. That just helps those who believe all admins are corrupt power-abusers. Regards SoWhy 13:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC) When you begin your editing by deleting a whole section with the rationale of "This is an abomination and a disgrace to Jewish culture" and keep deleting it while making the same accusations, you're a vandal. Blatant vandalism is an exception to 3RR and to the involved-admin policy. Nyttend (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC) True, but that only applies to the first edit by the IP. The subsequent four ([20], [21], [22] and [23]) were not vandalism but reflected a content disagreement, and it is for edit-warring about them that I blocked Ohnoitsjamie.  Sandstein  18:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC) It seems like it was a bit stale, and although I understand it at least appears to be a content dispute I can kinda understand Ohnoitsjamie's reaction after that first edit. I wouldn't have blocked myself, but I'm not the admin; I'd say reducing to time served would be fine. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC) I'll repeat the comment I made at the 3RR page: "I thought "being right" (in the absence of reverting vandalism) wasn't a defense to edit-warring. Is that not right? Regardless of Jamie's reason for the revert (if it wasn't reverting vandalism) and whether or not he engaged in talk or left appropriate messages... didn't he break 3RR? If so, why wouldn't he being treated like any other editor breaking 3RR?" DeCausa (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC) I don't care if he's an admin, or whatever- we all have knee-jerk reactions sometimes, and shit happens. That's all; I wouldn't feel the need to block someone over an isolated instance. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Jamie's treatment of 69.116.44.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was definitely WP:BITE. I think that's a more serious issue than an isolated instance of edit warring (assuming it's isolated). I left a note on 69.116's user talk trying to explain the situation. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC) There's a broader issue here about Jamie's behaviour connected to WP:BITE, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. (See also WQA threads here and here.) The admin corps need to nip it in the bud before it gets to be really problematic. DeCausa (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Actions by Melesse

I have noticed that Melesse (talk · contribs) has tagged MANY images with FURs when none are needed and nominated images that are ineligible for copyright (Examples from the past 50 edits: [24] [25][26] (more available in user's edit history)). I understand the motivation to fix and applaud this user for the initiative to fix images, however, I believe this user's actions are becoming disruptive through spurious deletion nominations and labeling images copyrighted when, in fact, they are not. I've attempted to discuss this issue with said user politely on their talk page recently...twice ([27][28]) and requested cessation. To date, all I've gotten in return is silence, though this user has opted to say things to other users.

At this point, I'm at my wit's end. Images that are perfectly fine, but are missing a simple label, are being sent to deletion and others are inappropriately being labeled with FURs and being removed from articles where they are NOT in violation of policy. Since this user will not talk to me, I think this is the best avenue to seek assistance. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Looking at the first three diffs, it appears that two things have happened. One, Melesse does not know about {{PD-text}}, and two, the images were not tagged as PD-text, they were tagged as copywritten. In light of that, I would think the best course of action would be to explain PD-Text to Melesse, as technically Melesse's actions would be correct if not for that somewhat hidden factor. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "Copywritten"? Do you mean "copyrighted"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
    • These are the tags that should be on the items: {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademarked}}. I discovered this problem while working on images... on the Commons they are correctly tagged and over here they are incorrectly tagged. Now we know why: this user has been tagging images for years and has apparently tagged many of them incorrectly. I will have a go at explaining to Melesse. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Yeah, sure, whatever. <rolls eyes>

@Diannaa: Thank you.

Looks like this problem is solved. I recommend a back massage for BQZip01 while this gets sorted out. I don't see bad faith here, just someone who was doing what seemed like good work to them but with only 80% of the picture filled in. Hopefully this will all settle down and go away. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Diannaa, for your full and clear explanation. The previous one, to me, translated to "Some images are marked as fair use but they're really not, for unexplained obscure reasons that you're expected to know." Melesse (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Sven: user BQZip01 has now been notified of the outcome. Unfortunately we now have an unknown number of files with incorrect templates --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, Melesse, your answer "Sorry, I didn't know and all that gobbledeegook that BQZip01 wrote on my page was just too confusing/vague" doesn't hold water for me. I've addressed this issue before on your page. I even offered to help you sort through images and REDUCE your workload Your response was, effectively, "go pound sand and leave me alone. I don't care." I've pointed this issue out for over a year and you didn't listen until the issue was brought up at ANI, so I think your "who? me?" response is misleading.

However, if you are true to your word, then I see no reason to continue this discussion further. I will consider the matter resolved. I stand by my offer of assistance to help you look through images. All you need to do is provide me a link on my talk page and I'll help with the assessment (format can be as simple as you want; I'll know what it's for). — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks and accusations of bias based on my nationality

• Foxhound66 (talk · contribs)
• Chief of Defence Force (Singapore) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Foxhound66 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly violated WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN and WP:AGF on Talk:Chief of Defence Force (Singapore) and my talk page because he doesn't like the [[way the article is written, claiming I have "Singaporeanised" the page and "[made] the article biased".

There was a content dispute a few weeks ago, in which he got his way because an RFC and a MILHIST peer review both attracted little to no response and I decided not to pursue the matter. After I left the article for a few weeks and returned, he accused me of wanting "to mess this article up" and told me to "go and get a dictionary", and when asked to be civil, he responded by saying he didn't want to be given the Wikipedia rules "unless [I] know the differences in meaning" of two words which triggered the content dispute. I then requested HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to intervene, and HJ posted a message to Foxhound's talk page, only to have it removed immediately.

I returned to the article yesterday to clean up bare URLs in the references, only to be again aggressively attacked by the user over my alleged incompetent writing and bias, despite the fact that he's now also contributed significantly to the article because of what he saw as being bias, to the extent of owning the article by attacking all the edits I make to the article.

However, the attacks based on my nationality go beyond belief and are clearly now a personal attack. As an admin has tried and failed, and Foxhound continues to assume bad faith and make attacks, I am asking for admin intervention. This is no longer a content issue, but a behavioural one on Foxhound's part. And I'm not willing to be attacked simply because I'm Singaporean and have an interest in maintaining this article on a Singaporean military position. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I have left a strongly worded warning regarding the personal attacks on their talkpage. Bring the issue back here, or my talkpage, if it has no effect. As for the content/bias dispute - other than commenting that well sourced material should always be included, according to WP:Due weight - I suggest that you instigate one of the many content dispute resolution processes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated. I didn't come here to seek input on the content dispute, merely intervention in the behavioural dispute, which has happened. Thanks, will update if it continues. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Continued edit-warring by User:BogdaNz

Hi all. User:BogdaNz has continued to edit-war on German battleship Tirpitz and has all but refused to discuss the issue rationally, despite efforts by several editors to reach a compromise. He has been blocked twice for edit-warring on the article, and has resumed the activity. Can someone please handle this? Parsecboy (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

pls go watch discussion,you changed at least 3 times the number in characterisitic without starting a discussion,you changed everything without starting a discussion and nobody sayd nothing I taked citations from biggest historical research book about Tirpitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by BogdaNz (talk • contribs) 15:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

My edits are supported by reliable sources. That is not the point, however. The point is you refuse to discuss the issue rationally, you refuse any attempt to reach a compromise, and you continue to edit-war. This is unacceptable. You have been warned by me and several other editors to stop, and yet you continue. If you persist in your tactless handling of this situation, you will find yourself blocked indefinitely. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hm, looking at the history of German battleship Tirpitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), it seems that there is a persistent edit war mostly about the ship's specifications (length, speed etc.: [29]). The edit war is between BogdaNz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the one part and mostly Parsecboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an administrator, on the other part. The numbers being warred over are not accompanied by inline citations, but the confused talk page discussion leads me to believe that the contributors use differing numbers from different sources.

BogdaNz has been blocked twice already, on 16 and 18 April 2011, for edit-warring on the same article, and has continued edit-warring where he left off as soon as the blocks expired. This means that a time-limited block is not sufficient to prevent continued edit-warring. In addition, BogdaNz's talk page contributions are nearly unintelligible (e.g. [30] [31]), which raises WP:COMPETENCE issues. I have therefore blocked BogdaNz indefinitely. Any administrator may unblock him if they are satisfied that BogdaNz will stop edit-warring, cite sources correctly and make intelligible talk page contributions.

But I believe we should discuss whether Parsecboy should not likewise be blocked for edit-warring. He has made many reverts that simply exchange one uncited set of numbers for another, rather than adding inline citations to the contested numbers so as to allow their verification. What do others think?  Sandstein  16:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

My figures are supported by citations in the prose (which is the norm). I have repeatedly attempted to discuss the issue, all to no avail. Parsecboy (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No, the norm is that "material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed, through an inline citation that directly supports the material." That's from the lead paragraph of the policy WP:V. And being right is not among the exceptions to the prohibition against edit-warring listed at WP:EW#3RR exemptions. It follows that you can be blocked for edit-warring even if you reverted unsourced or incorrect edits.  Sandstein  16:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No, the introduction and infoboxes are typically not cited, provided the information contained therein is cited elsewhere. I've written 23 FAs, you don't need to quote WP:V at me. But, while we're quoting policy, just above that section is the line "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring." Parsecboy (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

An infobox is like the introductory paragraph: as long as its information is cited elsewhere, we don't need additional citations there. Moreover, WP:V and other sourcing policies are definitely important: there's a good reason that {{uw-unsor4}} is a redirect to {{uw-vand4}}. Nyttend (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of style infoboxes don't normally need citations, but as soon as a fact is contested, it is nonetheless a good idea to add an inline citation, even if the same fact is already referenced somewhere else (which I'm not sure is the case here).  Sandstein  18:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Unintelligible talk page comments + well-written additions to articles = copyright violations. I will start going through their contributions. No comment on the edit war issue at this time. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Science in medieval Islam

Hello. There's a lot of history here; I don't care to go into it unless I have to.

Bottom line, Science in medieval Islam was stubbed several months ago. I have just begun to rebuild the article, and User:William M. Connolley is reverting all my changes, complaining about the sidebar I added and the meaning of a word I used in the lead sentence. The problem is, the other editor is not just deleting the sidebar and/or changing the word in dispute, he is reverting all my changes - which are beginning to include cited material as well as formatting and other small changes in wording.

This article has lain untouched for some time. I discussed I was going to work on it and laid out a plan, at which time the OP went to the article and began making changes. Later that day, I began my work, which didn't involve his changes, and he has been reverting my changes daily the past three or four days since (once also by another editor). I am just beginning work on it. Every day I have to restore my changes and get through these tangential issues before I can get down to work. Then I have to be careful how I edit lest I get caught between revisions by an undo or something else. Now I have to come here to ask ANI for help.

In other words, I have been followed and singled out for attention by this other editor, and his actions are disrupting my editing. There is one other person involved, but my main concern at this time is the actions of User:William M. Connolley. My work would be easier, and the end result would probably be better, if I was not under siege for the duration of my effort. I would welcome serious criticism, but the amount of work to be done here is substantial and these revert attacks are pointless and destructive.

Thanks for your time.

Aquib (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a bit of history on the talk page, for other editors who are not familiar with this case. While WMC's points do have merit and should be discussed, I find the wholesale reversion troubling, as well as the very prickly comments that he made on the talk page. On the other hand, Aquib, have you considered just making the non-controversial changes first without introducing the sidebar or the word "formally", which WMC opposes? Add the things you can both agree on, and discuss the other things on the talk page while you do that :-). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC).

Thank you for your constructive suggestion, Lankiveil. I will defer these 2 changes for now in the interest of the article. However, I hope you agree the final result should not be influenced by the fact there is someone prepared to totally revert out all my work in order to gain leverage in content discussions. The article will suffer if such tactics are employed. Best regards -Aquib (talk) 00:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

As might be expected, there is a much bigger story behind this issue. Some background is at WP:Jagged 85 cleanup where evidence is available to show that there have been thousands of edits involving the undue promotion of Islamic and other non-European scholarship and achievements, with severe misuse of sources (misrepresentation; reporting only one side; quoting out of context; inventing claims). Attempts to cleanup the mess are hampered by editors who do not acknowledge the situation: Wikipedia is hosting plausible yet false material that is being mirrored to hundreds of sites, and the hard-to-access sources which seem to justify the material are often found to fail verification. Johnuniq (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

User Truthcon misbehaving on article Bo Lozoff

Hi, there is a difficulty with User:Truthcon, who may be the same person as User:Exconfan, on Bo Lozoff. The editor keeps removing the same bit of text that includes sensitive material which has previously been established through consensus. I do recognize after studying WP:VAN that Truthcon's edits do not count as vandalism as I stated in my edit summaries and that I should have exercised more patience with this editor than I initially did.

Truthcon is totally non-communicative. He or she has been asked multiple times to bring his or her changes up on the discussion page before changing the article again but simply keeps making them without even so much as an edit summary. I placed a welcome message and a warning on User talk:Truthcon Thursday which Truthcon did not respond to at all but deleted the same text once again this evening.

Thanks in advance for addressing the situation. Floorsheim (talk) 02:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Should we report it to WP:SPI to see if they are sockpuppets or possibly block Truthcon for disruption and going against project consensus if necessary? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You could do both, although if it's that obvious, they might turn it down unless it's suspected there is a sockfarm. In any case, an editor with "truth" in its name typically has a short life at wikipedia, as it tends to be focused on righting some great wrong, and nothing else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The first thing you should have done is notify Truthcon of this discussion as required. I have done so and asked them to explain why they're removing the content. Further deletions without communication can probably be treated as disruptive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and my apologies. -Floorsheim (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Persistent anon ignoring attempts at communication

189.5.159.86 (talk · contribs) has been primarily active in mixed martial artists' record tables. Most of their edits either add unsourced content (example) or contradict given sources (example). I've been trying to communicate with them for over half an hour (see this revision of their talk page), but they've been ignoring me so far. Should admin action be taken? —LOL ^T/_C 03:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Block'em, that'll get his/her attention. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Admin accusing me of vandalism

User:MrDarcy, who claims to be an admin, is accusing me of vandalism because I redirected this practically unsourced and almost totally OR article to the article on the book. Nothing on his User or Talk pages identifies him as an admin, and when I gave him an nor1 warning for reverting me, since the version he reveted to was totally OR, he called my warning "cute". He also claims that "Deleting an entire article without discussion, as you have done, is tantamount to vandalism." ([32]). Since there is nothing on his pages to indicate that he is an admin, and since his revert of my redirect (without so much as an explanation to me) reverted to the OR version, I felt my comments to him were justified. And apparently AGF no longer applies if an admin feels you're a vandal without any justification. Corvus cornix_talk 05:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Admin Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 05:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

That is as may be, but nothing on his pages lets anyone know he is, nor does it have anything to do with his ABF accusations against me. Corvus cornix_talk 05:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I would definitely call redirection of an article with valid references without any discussion to be vandalism. Close to it, at least. Silverseren^C 05:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently there is no such thing as assumption of good faith? Corvus cornix_talk 05:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)