Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

Resolved

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

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

---

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

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

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

I turned in the first two IP's since they went back to bad behavior once their previous blocks expired. I think the two registered editors have been at each other for awhile. It was peaceful for a couple of months, but maybe that's because Caden was offline. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh man, let me just first say that I was not notified of this report. Not cool. I really believe this is a case of the kettle calling the pot black. Alright peeps, here's how it goes: Keltie is not telling the truth. Yesterday he left personal attacks in his edit summaries towards IP 68.50.128.120 calling this editor "obnoxious". I left Keltie a friendly warning to cease the personal attacks towards the IP. The dude then responded by deleting my warning and proceeded to call me "obnoxious" in his following edit summary. I then placed a template on my talk page asking for admin help. Admin User:Chzz looked into it (see my talk page) and gave Keltie a warning to stop attacking the IP. The dude then removed that warning from his page and later went onto the page of another admin (User:AniMate) asking that I be punished. I have nothing against Keltie so I can't understand why he's here once again on ANI attacking me, twisting the truth and demanding action taken against me. All this report shows is that he's out to have me blocked like the last time. He's hated me for a long time I think but I don't give a rat's ass. The guy has a long history of attacking newbies, established users and IP's. Look at his talk page, look at his history and his edits. You'll see he's disruptive and fires off personal attacks like it's no big deal to him. The dude's been warned by several admins and several users for his disruptive behavior. He's no choirboy (he's been blocked before) but then again neither am I. I do not know what his rant over my signature is about. How the hell is my birthname a controversial reference to the KKK? Keltie should be blocked for that alone. It's offensive, untrue, immature but typical of him. It's yet another personal attack from good ol' Keltie. Furthermore, it's Keltie who has "gone to the noticeboard crying foul against me over his immature ways here on Wikipedia" many times before and not me. Regardless man, I've done nothing wrong here. Judge for yourselves. Caden ^cool 04:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Left a note for Caden reminding him that as per WP:USER, editors are permitted to remove messages and warnings at will from their own talk pages. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The three IPs listed at the top all geolocate to the same greater metro area. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that while I posted the second IP, it was not blocked, because it has not edited in several weeks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots

Attacking another editor is an attack. It doesn't matter if you do it on their Talk page, your Talk page, an edit summary, or some other place. Don't attack others, period. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, just why did you see fit to add "KKK" to your signature at one point? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

...maybe he was just agreeing with someone three times? Yes? HalfShadow 22:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe a really successful inning? Protonk (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I knew you when you were just an amateur tonk. Good think you didn't decide to go with that name, huh? HalfShadow 23:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's German; it means "The Bart, the." Exploding Boy (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Could people please re-read what I said or could you please read the link to this blown out of proportion lie? Listen, if you can't be neutral or fair then please don't bother causing me further harm here. Caden ^cool 23:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If someone labels you racist, adding "KKK" to your ID doesn't do much to dispel that notion, no matter how good an idea it may have seemed at the time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, are you still here? HalfShadow 23:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Bootlegtonk, perhaps? Also, explodingboy wins. Protonk (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Bugs you of all people know what happened on that old ANI that was filed against ParaGreen. Don't act dumb here please. It's insulting since you were the one who fueled the fire. And HalfShadow, I was protecting the use of freedom of speech on that ANI since I don't support censorship of any kind but in my attempt to do the right thing, it was twisted by Bugs and 2 others and changed into this whole KKK hate garbage and I was victimised from there. Caden ^cool

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

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

HalfShadow baiting Caden

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

If Baseball Bugs, HalfShadow, and Protonk can't remain mature or neutral then can you please stop posting. This isn't a game. None of you are helping. Baiting me is not acceptable behavior on ANI. EB you're an admin who's been in conflict with me not only in the past but just recently. I really don't feel you should be commenting. I apologize if I'm wrong but I don't see how you can help. All I ask is that editors and admins review this report in a neutral/fair manner. I will accept any decision or not. I just want this report to be about fairness and it should focus on the evidence only and not be distracted by some who think this is all a big joke. It's not. Thanks. Caden ^cool 00:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Permission granted to dock my pay for skylarking on the job. I wasn't commenting on the substance of the complaint, just a diversion near the end. Doing so is not serious business. Protonk (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Same here, and in fact I was invited to comment on your behaviour but declined, so I think you should be counting your blessings. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Halfshadow is continuing his baiting and insults. → ROUX ₪ 02:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• I admit that I sometimes enjoy Halfshadow's wry sense of humor, but I do agree that the "Stimpy" remark was OTT. — Ched :  ?  11:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

KeltieMartinFan history of edit warring at Rebecca Quick

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

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

• 17:15, 6 May 2009 64.210.199.231 (→External links)

• IP is registered to NBC Universal.[3]

• 17:30, 6 May 2009 Mquayle (removed gossip reference).

• Mquayle registered 17:26, 6 May 2009. The current husband of Rebecca Quick is Matthew Quayle, the producer of Quick's program. This removal of reference to the identities of spouses stood until 7 July 2009.

• 21:49, 7 July 2009 162.6.97.3 restored a mention re the present marriage: "It is her second marriage."
• 12:57, 8 July 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 300875201 by 162.6.97.3 (talk) Not really appropriate to mention.) This began edit warring.
• 11:44, 17 July 2009 76.114.133.44 etc.
• 12:20, 17 July 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 302583314 by 76.114.133.44 (talk) Not appropriate to mention.)
• 12:25, 17 July 2009 KeltieMartinFan (talk | contribs) (3,945 bytes) (Undid revision 302587651 by 76.114.133.44 (talk) Again, inappropriate. Do not change it.)
• 12:41, 17 July 2009 KeltieMartinFan (talk | contribs) (3,945 bytes) (Undid revision 302588154 by 76.114.133.44 (talk) Unsource, rude, and inappropriate to mention of a living person.)
• Then Onorem intervened and revert warred against the IP, giving "unsourced" as the reason. However, there was mention of the former marriage already in source for the previous sentence, which stated: "She now lives in Haworth, New Jersey"[4]. The 2006 source is the New York times, and it mentions her husband, "she now lives (in Haworth) with her husband, who is a computer programmer." That would have been Peter Shay, we have the name from other sources. So there was no reference on the text itself, hence I understand Onorem's action. But there was adjacent reference adequate to establish a former marriage. The IP was blocked for edit warring.
• 162.6.97.3 was blocked] for "block evasion." (which is unclear, I found it likely that the two IPs are different users. I have a suspicion that one is the former husband, and the other may be a friend, but no proof of either.)
• 16:41, 5 August 2009 162.6.97.3 (See talk page for discussion) etc.
• 17:33, 5 August 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 306233866 by 162.6.97.3 (talk) Despite everything, this edit STILL does not have a source listed.)
• 18:51, 5 August 2009 162.6.97.3 (Please see talk page for discussion)
• 19:48, 5 August 2009 William M. Connolley (Protected Rebecca Quick: here we are again ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 19:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 19:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC))))
• 19:48, 5 August 2009 William M. Connolley (rv: as before)
• 22:53, 6 August 2009 Abd (actually, the source was already there. Add additional source.)

• The additional source is a newsletter of a local organization that had a photo of Rebecca Quick with her then-husband, Peter Shay. I put it in to balance other information in the article, from not-so-reliable source, mentioning Matthew Quayle by name, the current husband, also to establish more clearly that the "computer programmer" is a different husband than the "producer."

• 15:01, 7 August 2009 Bilby (removed unreliable (and unneeded) source)
• 20:01, 7 August 2009 Elen of the Roads (Reverted 1 edit by Bilby; No reason to assume 3rd sector source is unreliable unless you have evidence it has been hacked.. (TW)
• 20:28, 7 August 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 306659446 by Elen of the Roads (talk) Not an adaquate source. Like putting water in a gas tank.)
• 16:47, 9 August 2009 Elen of the Roads (Readded Cedar Run source. Talkpage consensus seems to be for it. Please discuss before removing again.)
• 18:26, 9 August 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 306997914 by Elen of the Roads (talk) I'm sorry. But two people (Elen and Abd) is not consensus.)
• 20:32, 9 August 2009 Coppertwig (Undid revision 307013795 by KeltieMartinFan (talk) Revert. Sorry, but one person (KeltieMartinFan) is not consensus.)
• 21:21, 9 August 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 307034753 by Coppertwig (talk) It's not only me, but I'm not about to list the names either. Way too many.)

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

I, too, noticed days ago that Keltie edits nearly any article to do with NBC (programs,hosts etc) which left me feeling there could be a COI here. I just finished reading the drama caused by Keltie on the issue over Rebecca Quick having been married once before previously (she's now on her second marriage), despite the reliable sources that supports that former marriage, Keltie fought endlessly to have it removed from the article (that's fishy). I had had a feeling days ago that there was a possiblity he may be employed by NBC or at the very least is associated in some way. So due to the possiblity of a COI, I mentioned my concerns to an admin called Chzz. The discussion of that is on my own talk page under the section"Question". It sure is a relief that at least another editor noticed the bizarre editing on every NBC related article . Caden ^cool 04:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't see much reason for assuming a COI. Not that there isn't necessarily one, but the early reverts were of unsourced personal information in a BLP, and you don't need a COI to want to remove material under those conditions. While it isn't exactly a big deal to have been divorced, a previous marriage was being mentioned without a source, and it is the responsibility of the editor re-adding the material to provide one. The later reverts (which I started) were to remove a self-published source (a newsletter) from the article, which is again in keeping with policy, and made sense given that Abd had provided a better source (New York Times) as well as the newsletter. - Bilby (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Bilby, the New York Times source was there all along, all I did was make it a bit more obvious, by referring to the "computer programmer." It was the standing reference for the text that Quick "now lives in Haworth, New Jersey," the only thing that I did that was new was to read it -- besides researching the background of this, which includes coverage of the May edits to our article article, by a "gossip column." (That's cited in the Talk discussion.) The Times said that she was married to a computer programmer. The newsletter was not a "self published source," it is independent confirmation, and might be, in fact, the source for the New York Times comment. It was the newsletter of a local conservancy or the like. It has a photo of Rebecca Quick, as well as her parents and husband. Is it impossible that there was an error in this newsletter? Sure, anything is possible. Frankly, an error of that magnitude, that the organization had missed the name of their celebrity guest's husband, seems less likely to me than what I see in reliable sources quite frequently, wherever I know the subject of the article. And like a major error in a major source, it would have been corrected. I added the newsletter to cover the possibility that the NBC producer had been a computer programmer in 2006. The newsletter is a supporting source that provides information necessary to kill that: the name of the former husband. Since the article doesn't name the present husband, balance would suggest that the former husband not be named either, but the additional source was evidence that there wasn't a coincidence. There is also the gossip column, but it apparently depends on the newsletter as a source. A serious journalist would have checked with legal records, were there any doubt. I don't think there is any doubt.

KMF is a disruptive editor, uncivil and willing to edit war over trivia, and bears watching. --Abd (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

extended comment by Abd

I'd say that the only reason that the newsletter reference isn't still there is that I don't edit war, and since nobody was claiming that the present husband is a computer programmer, Bilby's claim, that the extra source wasn't necessary, was sufficiently close to true to not be worth the disruption of contending about it. Coppertwig had accepted that argument, but I'm not sure that Coppertwig had considered the issue of confirmation of separate identity. As to conflict of interest on KMF's, I don't see how, from a review of the evidence above, Bilby can say "I can't see much reason for assuming" it. Not proof, as I noted. But the level of coincidence is high; were it important, more research could be done on the nature of KMF's edits; this particular sequence shows active edit warring to remove a piece of non-defamatory information originally removed, we may assume, by Quick's present husband (a clear COI involved in the real beginning of this) (or someone pretending to be the present husband, which, if it were a pretense, would simply increase the mystery). KMF edit warred in pursuit of the removal of this almost trivial information, and was grossly, gratuitously, and provocatively uncivil. Caden is naive and erred in restoring KMF Talk material that had been removed by KMF, but he was correct about the incivility. KMF also removed the edit warring warning I dropped on KMF Talk (KMF had hit 3RR in the second edit war) and then put it on my own Talk page, making it look like I'd been warned for edit warring until I framed it. Note that all of KMF's edits of consequence to the article were bald reverts, showing no attempt to find a compromise. KMF is a disruptive editor and, at least, bears watching. On the original arguments presented by KMF, if the first marriage was notable enough to mention in the New York Times, it is notable enough for the project in an article on the subject of the NY Times article. Notability does not expire. It doesn't belong in the article, but the photo in the newsletter conveys volumes about the history of this subject. If that man is an NBC producer, I'm the Queen of Sheba. Computer programmer? Sure. Makes total sense. All computer programmers are now allowed to complain, but I'm simply pointing out that some people are good at somethings, others at others, and the skills involving in being a producer include self-presentation, computer programmers generally don't care about that. --Abd (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC) The source originally removed by the IP that was certainly MQuayle was [5], which was eventually restored to the article (by Bilby?). This is a source for the new marriage, reported in January 2009. So this is, indeed, adequate to show that the reported computer programmer husband, as of 2006, was not Matthew Quayle, the additional source would then merely be for interest. I know I was interested to see that, and no original research is required.... --Abd (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is far from a core issue here, so I'll be very quick. The WP:BLP policy is pleasantly clear: "Remove any unsourced material to which a good faith editor objects;" and "... or that relies upon self-published sources". There was no source being provided for the claim that the subject had divorced in the article, thus it was reasonable for it to be removed. Personally, I would have tried to find a source and add it, but while that might be expected, it isn't required. Second, Wikipedia defines self published sources as including newsletters. Thus removing that as a source, when a better one was already being used, was perfectly reasonable. There is nothing in the newsletter valuable enough to warrant using a non-RS in a BLP. So while I can't comment on whether or not KeltieMartinFan has a COI, nothing in the editor's behaviour was unusual or speaks to that claim, as the reverts were firmly within BLP policy. If there is a concern, perhaps it is worth raising at WP:COI/N, although I doubt there will be much milage. - Bilby (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know why there is such an obsession, by all concerned, over whether this woman was previously married. Why does it matter? And when did wikipedia become the Midnight Star? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a curious mystery. :) Although, it should be said, editors have been known to argue over some odd concerns. - Bilby (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's looking more and more like this one needs to be added to that list. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with below). Actually, it's not odd at all, it only seems that way if possible COI isn't considered. In my various discussions of this, I repeatedly pointed out that admin and other response to this was reasonable, but reflected a lack of depth, which is normal. Most editors can't or won't put in the kind of time necessary to really understand what is going on. The information about a former marriage was sourced, but the reference was on the previous sentence, not the one re-inserted by the IP. Easy to overlook. I actually did at least two hours of research on this before seeing it. However,almost certainly KMF was aware. My hypothesis: one of the IP editors is the former husband, or possibly a friend of same. The former husband doesn't like being written out of history. And I can understand this, and if he was notable before, he still is. The IP editor who removed the reference to the article about the marriage, and the infobox reference to the marriages, was, almost certainly, the present husband, who understandably wants to preserve his wife's privacy, and who then registered and removed the infobox reference to the two marriages. KMF seems suspiciously aligned with the latter agenda, given the overall editing pattern. It is not a lame concern for those involved. However, if Quick wants reference to the marriage removed, the path would be through OTRS, not by edit warring to keep it out. My judgment, though, is that it belongs, it is adequately sourced; the wife is notable, a public figure, I don't think that can be undone. She was married before, so have been a lot of people, including me. It's no shame, and we know nothing about why that marriage ended, and, unless it appears in reliable source, I'm not going to even speculate. What was my concern here? It was about edit warring and a ready assumption that the problem was the IP editors, even to the point that it was assumed they were socks. That wasn't an unreasonable guess, but it may have been wrong. There was a problem with the IPs, for sure, but it wasn't what necessarily appeared, and there was more of a problem with KMF, who may remain active on other NBC-related articles. I'm not terribly concerned about the short IP blocks, they do little damage, and the IPs understand the problem and if they want to register an account, they can.

So, if there are no more problems, great, we are done here. I only brought up all this about KMF because of the aggressive filing of this report. --Abd (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You're making a lot of claims with no supporting evidence. What I'd really like to hear from you is a reason why her supposed previous marriage actually matters. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

User:KeltieMartinFan has taken no further action to alter or change the Quick article. Thus KMF's word should be accepted that the matter is finished.

A Quick edit-war did occur, with incivility by the major parties involved. That appears to be done as well.

Whatever exists between User:Caden and User:KeltieMartinFan is a pre-existing condition Completely Unrelated to the Quick matter. Whatever brings any other kibitzers here other than User:Bilby and User:Abd is unclear as well.

That said, while User:Abd has been helpful in much of the Quick debate, Abd is repeatedly over-amped about potential conflicts-of-interest in the matter. It also serves little purpose at this time to recount exhaustively all of the Quick edit-war particulars.

Finally, and amusingly, only User:KeltieMartinFan would vouch for Carrie Prejean's dignity!  :)

162.6.97.3 (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the fixed IP most strongly suspected, by me, of being the former husband. It hasn't actually been denied, but, as long as the IP doesn't edit war or offend in other ways, it's moot, it merely is one of a number of alternate hypotheses that do, in fact, show why this was of such earth-shaking importance to several editors. This particular incident is finished, but I put the evidence here for future reference, if it is needed. If KMF is sincere, indeed, it's over. --Abd (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Abd Please, please stop with the suspicions! :)

It may be hard to grasp, but edit-wars can occur without NBC employees or ex-husbands involved. And that is very much the case with the Quick matter!

162.6.97.3 (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it odd that Keltie remains so interested on practically every single NBC related type of article. Having looked through his history shows that he edits nearly every single morning program imaginable on NBC as well as other NBC programs, NBC personalities, you name it it's all NBC related. A few months ago Keltie was involved in an edit war over Katie Couric. No surprise there which leads me to believe more and more that if Keltie isn't employed by NBC, then he must be associated in one way or another. Either way it's a COI and seems to make a lot of sense based on all the NBC type of articles he edits. Unless of course he's just an obsessed fan of NBC. Caden ^cool 15:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

And what's your personal interest in this woman's marital history? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh Bugs, Caden wasn't writing about Quick's marital history, he was addressing KeltieMartinFan's editting behavior. Two different, & independent, topics. -- llywrch (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I say again - the two should stay away from each other. Period. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Everyone involved just needs to take a breather. Tempers are flaring and it's not doing anyone a bit of good. That said, I'm not inclined to believe Keltie has a COI simply because of his editing patterns. More proof is needed to show that a COI exists. I'm sure you could go through anyone's edit history with a fine tooth comb and find a pattern that appears damning. (I'm sure this was helpful in some minuscule way.) --clpo13_(talk) 09:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Zaxby again, now possible sockpuppetry

This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive558#User:Zaxby (previous evidence of sockpuppetry is listed there) which was allowed to be archived due to a lack of further response within 24 hours. There seems to be fairly conclusive evidence, based on the articles edited by Zaxby, the insertion of the name "Ryan O'Hara" into articles and the creation of imagined personas on user pages, as well as a general editing attitude of lying and making subtle but somewhat unnoticable changes to statistics for athletes, to believe that this user is another account of User:Thechroniclesofratman. There are at least four accounts for this user confirmed as sockpuppets since 2007, and possibly more (See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Thechroniclesofratman) that this is simply the latest in a long line of puppets. It seemed incorrect to me for nothing to be done about this and to simply let the previous discussion be archived so quickly.

Zaxby's behaviour in the previous AN/I report was blockable enough but was reversed after it was found that he did not have a recent final warning. However I believe his behaviour mixed with the fact that it is likely that he is a sockpuppet who previously vandalised and block evaded on multiple accounts makes it enough that something needs to be done. His efforts to "be a good editor" since the filing of the previous AN/I report are questionable at best, consisting mostly of warning others of vandalism, mostly overzealously or incorrectly, and making a few equally questionable statistics changes. The vandalism warnings are equally disturbing since one of Thechroniclesofratboy's potential socks was previously blocked for pretending to be an Admin while accusing other users of vandalism. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 02:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to add, as a reason for bringing this here once again, that CheckUser might be a bit useless in this matter because, if Zaxby's edits about O'Hara are to be believed, he's moved since his last sockpuppet account and therefore would likely have a different IP, evidenced by the completely different range when he edited previously without logging in. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 21:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by there being a lack of response here...? If I've made a mistake, it'd be helpful to know. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 10:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Your best bet is to take this to WP:SPI. Black Kite 10:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak to the sockpuppetry aspect, but I concur with 359's description of Zaxby's editing; consists of (a) welcomes to new users, but without any kind of actual welcoming information. Friendly, I suppose, but not too useful. (b) article space edits are 100% reverts, 1/3 correct, 1/3 borderline but needlessly aggressive, and 1/3 just plain wrong. (c) rather aggressive warnings to the people he's reverted. If he's been given a final warninf before, I think an admin should review and decide if blocking is appropriate, with or without sockpuppetry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Russavia again

I'd appreciate if an admin either close or make a call on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive558#Russavia. the disruptive editing has continued again today. LibStar (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's an archived thread, I would expect that the matter is closed/resolved. Please detail what "disruptive editing" by this user continued again. -- llywrch (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

doesn't it get automatically archived? appears no action was taken by any admin. Russavia (talk · contribs) has been disrupting plenty of Kosovo related articles and tagging them with a POV tag in retaliation for another user questioning South ossetia articles. despite many users trying to ask him to stop, he continues tagging and adding copy and pasted text to article talk pages. this is a breach of WP:POINT. LibStar (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I sugges Libstar that you read WP:TALK and stop removing talk page comments placed by others. In other words, get a grip and stop being a monumental WP:DICK. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and if what is good for the goose (A&SO) then one can only expect in an NPOV environment that it is good for the gander (Kosovo) too. If A&SO articles have to be full of information on how they are not internationally recognised as sovereign states, and how Georgia still considers it part of its territory, then so too will Kosovo articles. Why shouldn't the Australia-Kosovo relations article contain information in it, that Serbia considers the recognition an illegality and also contain further information on the Serbian POV of this; particularly as others are demanding it on A&SO articles.

I highly doubt that a WP:NPOV response will be forthcoming, which is hardly surprising --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

why is it that a number of editors have raised your disruptive editing on your talk page [6] yet you still continue to disrupt. WP:NPOV refers to content in articles not comments in ANIs. does everyone else see the mounting personal attacks of Russavia? LibStar (talk) 08:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else see your mass removal of other peoples' comments from article talk pages as disruptive and a clear violation of WP:TALK? Please stop. Offliner (talk) 08:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed and agree with Offliner.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

you might want to see Russavia's motivations for this. as per my comment in the original ANI: nominations like this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovan–Serbian relations seem to be consistent with WP:POINT. Russavia's motivation seems revenge [7] and disrupting Wikipedia to achieve this is not good. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

English...do you speak it? What part of WP:TALK do you not understand? Oh, and when an editor is removing talk page comments as you have in the way that you have, I have a little bit of a right to be pissed, particularly when you have been told NOT TO REMOVE OTHERS TALK PAGE COMMENTS on no less than 3 occasions, and you have chosen to ignore it. Oh, and the editors were who? You and a Kosovan-nationalist? I'm not surprised that the Kosovan-nationalist would be removing the POV dispute tags from the articles. But removal of talk page comments as you have now done on 3-4 occasions per article is absolutely disruptive, particularly when it is clear that there is a dispute -- does one think that by removing traces of it, the dispute disappears? Not on your f'ing life. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's refrain from profanity/vulgarities in this discussion. Not because I'm offended (I'm not), or that someone might be, but for a very pragmatic reason. Back when I worked in retail, & a customer had a complaint, they effectively lost all persuasiveness the moment the customer started to swear -- & we were allowed to hang up on them. Don't lose a discussion here because you resorted to vulgarity, even if it was lightly veiled. -- llywrch (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Patent nonsense pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Blocked indef ACB by Tiptoety. — neuro^(talk) 21:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Euclidthegreek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is creating pages patently nonsensical. This is after numerous MfDs of his pages. Dr.K. logos 09:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll give him a final warning. John Reaves 09:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

While looking in the contribs, I found this subpage which is named "on wheels". I don't know, anything that says "on wheels" makes me think of Willy on Wheels. Checkuser? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw that too. I doubt there is much good in this account, but we may as well give it a chance. I don't really think a CU necessary, probably just a copycat. John Reaves 09:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie...I will let you all handle it from here. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, Willy emailed one of the main mailing lists a good while back stating that he was 'retiring' (if you like) and regretted his actions, IIRC. Definitely comes off as a copycat, and a poor imitation at best. — neuro^(talk) 10:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Come on, we've already had a thread on him. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:DENY is overused and impedes action the majority of the time, but this isn't the place to discuss that. — neuro^(talk) 11:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

He has been indef'd as a sockmaster. Dr.K. logos 18:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Persistent incivility by User:Small Victory

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

Extended content

You've said some pretty stupid things before, but that has to be the stupidest. Every study that discusses the subclades makes distinctions between them and E3b -- major distinctions in terms of where they originated and how they spread. If that weren't the case, you would have no trouble producing a source that attributed E-V13 and E-M81 to Sub-Saharan African admixture. But of course, you can't. ---- — Small Victory (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC) - Talk:Genetic_history_of_Europe#Information_Suppression diff Stop your lies and distortions. And don't try to turn this around and make it about me. It's obvious that you're quoting selectively to emphasize admixture, and deliberately omitting anything that calls that admixture into question or finds it to be absent. That's the very definition of WP:Information suppression.... — Small Victory (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC) - Talk:Genetic_history_of_Europe#Information_Suppression diff You're the problem, not me. — Small Victory (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)-Talk:Genetic_history_of_Europe#Information_Suppression diff ...... My version of the 'SSA admixture' section is the most neutral. You yourself found virtually nothing wrong with it compared to Muntuwandi's, which you picked apart and argued against vehemently. Now all of a sudden you're taking his side and insisting that the data in my version is not properly sourced, even though I showed you that it is. Have you completely lost your mind? — Small Victory (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC) - WP:Articles_for_deletion/African_admixture_in_Europe diff Are you blind? I showed you the Table where almost all of the mtDNA figures come from. Try looking at it. At the far right you'll see a column called "Sub-Saharan". That's where the figures were obtained. — Small Victory (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC) - WP:Articles_for_deletion/African_admixture_in_Europe diff Either cite something specific in my version that's not properly sourced or keep quiet. I'm getting tired of your false accusations. — Small Victory (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC) - WP:Articles_for_deletion/African_admixture_in_Europe diff SOPHIAN, The Ogre and Victorius III all prefer my version. You did too before you inexplicably switched sides. Causteau has always supported my edits on this subject. Andrew opposes everything I do, but can never point to anything substantive being wrong with it (e.g. the reference to slavery is properly sourced). And Muntuwandi obviously doesn't like my version because it's too neutral. So including me, that's 5 against 3. And really it's 6 against 2 because you're schizophrenic. And until Andrew can produce something concrete it's like 7 against 1, which leaves Muntuwandi all alone with his OR and POV. — Small Victory (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC) - WP:Articles_for_deletion/African_admixture_in_Europe edit summary Removed Pdeitiker's ridiculous, incomplete and improperly sourced table. [Note: the table was actually removed even though it had references Small Victory has converted Absolute sample frequencies to percentages without disclosing the source of the numbers, once this was found out the material was promptly removed - the problem was that he scrambled the references in his citation such that they were difficult to follow] — 13:49, 10 August 2009 Small Victory Page History - Genetic_history_of_Europe] edit summary (Undid revision 306957357 by Jingiby (talk) Do you not understand what a combined sample is?) — 11:36, 9 August 2009 Small Victory - Page History : Genetic_history_of_Europe] edit summary (Sub-Saharan African influences: Pdeitiker, don't revert to Muntuwandi's version after coming out against it on the Talk Page.) — 12:58, 4 August 2009 Small Victory - Page History : Genetic_history_of_Europe diff Well, either you're mistaken about being "a person of reasonable intelligence" or you're just not trying. Because the charts are explained very clearly and even color-coded to make reading them easier. Basically, the colors represent genetic clusters that correspond to ancestry from major geographic regions (e.g. Western Eurasia, Sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia etc.). Populations that have more than one color are mixed, and the amount of the color they have indicates the level of admixture. It's not exactly rocket science. And anyway, difficulty of a subject has nothing to do with WP:OR. I don't know where you got that notion. — Small Victory (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC) - WP:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Analyzing_charts_-_break diff ... You're so transparent. You don't believe your OR allegation for a second. You need Europeans to have black ancestry to help you get over your inferiority complex. The evidence, however, shows that they have almost none. So your only recourse is to have it suppressed. That's why you started this thread, to dupe people who know nothing about population genetics into helping you get your way. If the evidence had shown what you wanted, we wouldn't be here right now. You're so dishonest and agenda-driven, it's disgusting. — Small Victory (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC) - WP:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Analyzing_charts_-_break diff Are you kidding me? It's clear that you still don't understand my analogy, even though I've explained it and corrected your misapprehension several times. What do I have to do, draw you a picture? LEARN HOW TO READ! And then you wonder why I talk down to you. — Small Victory (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC) - User_talk:Small_Victory#Tone_of_discussion [8] I didn't call you a chimp. I asked: "...would I have better luck explaining [the analogy] to a chimp?" The fact that you didn't understand that makes your claim that our "communication problems" might be my fault quite laughable. Again, LEARN HOW TO READ! — Small Victory (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC) - User_talk:Small_Victory#Tone_of_discussion PB666 yap 20:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC) diff You're quite delusional. That article was deleted because it was a WP:CFORK. And your POV-pushing, original research, 3RR violations and sock puppets had more to do with it than anything I ever did. In fact, the article was problem-free until you (and Andrew Lancaster) came along and started tampering with it. Let's remember that you're the one who's been blocked for repeated rule violations. My record is clean. So if anything, the deletion was a referendum on your approach. Take the hint. I can see you have trouble following simple logic. Using your example, if a sub-Saharan with E-M78 had offspring with a European, that offspring could not possibly get E-M78α because the alpha cluster is not present in any sub-Saharan populations. It's only present in Europeans. Therefore, E-M78α is not evidence of sub-Saharan ancestry. It can only be evidence of European ancestry. And the clusters of E-M78 are in fact completely independent lineages. A recent paper by Cruciani found that they each have membership in different unique event polymorphisms. The alpha cluster, which doesn't have an African origin, is monophyletic and corresponds almost perfectly to newly defined haplogroup E-V13 (see Table). Small Victory :This issue was already debated here when another obvious Afrocentrist tried to pull the same garbage that you're pulling now. He lost. Please refer to discussions 6, 7 and 8. ---- Small Victory (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Having been totally exposed and defeated, now he's just reinserting his OR and POV without even giving an explanation or trying to make his case on the Talk Page. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC) The debate about content is over. You've been proven wrong, and consensus has been reached. In fact, it was over three years ago when Yom tried to pull the same thing and was also defeated by consensus. (Notice that your pal Llywrch intervened there, but backed down when I explained everything and he saw that I was right.) The situation we have now is a "crazy Afrocentrist" (by your own admission) trying repeatedly to reinsert OR and POV into the article, and in doing so continually violating the 3RR. This has to stop. ---- Small Victory (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Are you delusional? After we arrive at consensus that you're guilty of OR and POV pushing, and we cease to indulge your nonsense as a result, your twisted Afrocentric mind interprets that as consent for you to reinsert your biased edits? Get real.The only "silence" here is yours, and it's deafening. You need to produce a source that uses E-V13 and E-M81 as evidence of Sub-Saharan African admixture. If you can't do that (and it's obvious by now that you can't), then you need to back off and stop vandalizing this article. ---- Small Victory (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Let's be very clear: Your OR and POV will never be included in this article. Ever. Not as long as we have something to say about it. And if not us, then someone else will come along to stop you. Because you're in the wrong. ---- Small Victory (talk) 08:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC) You've got a lot of nerve accusing others of OR given your track record. It's not a question of what the Auton study says, it's what it shows (or rather, doesn't show). Do you know what an admixture analysis is? Have you heard of the STRUCTURE program? I suggest you familiarize yourself with these things before making outrageous and idiotic accusations. Start with the Pritchard and Rosenberg papers referenced in this article......Small Victory (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC) I am discussing the content, but it's impossible to get anywhere with someone who's so clueless about science, and population genetics in particular, and more interested in advancing an Afrocentric agenda than learning anything. A graph is not "shaky ground". It's a visual representation of data, and you would know how to properly interpret the graphs in Auton if you understood population structure and the study in question. The dark green component is Sub-Saharan African because it makes up 100% of the Yoruba sample. Just like the red component is European and used in the study to detect European admixture in Mexicans. The reason African admixture isn't mentioned with regard to Mexicans (or anyone else) is because they don't have African admixture. And the graphs show that clearly. Get it? ---- Small Victory (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC) {{quotation|The Mexican sample in Auton et al. shows no significant Sub-Saharan African admixture. That doesn't mean that there can't be other samples in other studies that yield different results (do you understand anything about how science works?). In fact, here's a study that found some African admixture in certain other Mexican samples. More importantly though, note that it uses the Yoruba as representative Africans. Just as it uses Zapotecs as representative Amerindians because of their near total membership in the cluster of inferred Amerindian ancestry.Small Victory

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

I just notified User:Small Victory of this thread. Wknight94 ^talk 14:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I fail to understand how this will accomplish anything that the WQA and talkpage warnings to Small Victory wouldn't. He has been warned, and if he does not stop, he will be blocked. Those two should be enough, or else nothing will be. There is no immediate administrative assistance needed. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed ... and the OP was also asked not to use the {{Quotation}} format ... that entry alone on WQA was huge! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was huge, that is because SV has been uncivil on several occasions. Even on WQA SV in a half hearted admission of his incivility, refers to me as a "unrepentant Afrocentrist". This after he was given a warning. He is fully aware, that I resent being referred to by any ...ist. Furthermore, these warnings have been taking place for a while, and SV has ignored them. Andrew Lancaster posted a complaint User_talk:Small_Victory#Tone_of_discussion, over a month ago, starting on the 4th of July, [9], expressing concerns about SV's incivility. This seems to have been ignored, as he has persisted. Many other users have expressed concern as well. SV's incivility is so disruptive, so much that it has made it very difficult to collaborate with anybody. We are not editing on wikipedia, to be persistently insulted, denigrated and humiliated as has been the case. The touchy-feely WQA approach is an option, but Andrew and others have already tried such approach ,as I have mentioned above, and it didn't work. Administrative action should also be another option. SV would immediately understand Wikipedia's core policy of civility. I don't think it is fair, at least 10 of these personal attacks have been directed at me, and I have never said anything mean to him. It is not fair to give him a slap on the wrist and say forget about it, everything will be fine. That would be encouraging this type of behavior. What if all of us were to be uncivil, all order would break down. SV doesn't have exclusive rights to be rude. This is why administrative action would be very effective. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it was huge because you insist on posting using quotation tags, instead of just diffs. Someone cleaned up the mess on WQA, and I note someone has just top'n'tailed it here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree adding some formating does increase Kbs. If there was an easier way to communicate with editors who are unfamiliar with a specific incident, we would use it. Diffs are great, but they have their problems too. They are harder to read and sometimes there is an excess of text, so quotations help to zoom in on what is necessary. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about the formatting of complaints. If an editor does not follow the conventions, the material can be quietly rearranged & it should not be the subject of adverse comment. (In fact the current trend to require formalism in making complaints is disturbing: I consider it intimidating to less experienced users--in fact, the current way some of the admin boards are arranged, I would be hard put to figure it out myself, and I've been an admin 2 years now. This board in particular is in a sense a board for problems that don't fit anywhere else, and I am willing to discuss them however they are presented). We're here to deal with problems. In my opinion the consistent use of ad hominem language amounting to the level of insult by SV is a problem that does require attention. Whether he is right on the genetics is irrelevant here, it is a matter for article talk pages. He has no right whatever to make racist accusations against other editors. But has there been any since the 15th, the date of BWilkins' warning? DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Other than referring to someone as an Afrocentrist and then confirming calling them that, no ... and even that is a little iffy. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

SV seems to think that name calling is acceptable, I resent the caricature of Afrocentrism and SV is aware of that as I have mentioned it to him. His use of the term, indicates a lack of sincerity in his admission of incivility. Disruptive User's who evade detection often avoid gross breaches of civility, but their minor breaches of incivility are frequent enough to be disruptive. As I have mentioned before, the isolated breaches of incivility are normal, and can be brushed aside. It is persistent incivility that can bring collaborative editing to a halt I believe this is the case with SV. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DGG about formatting and procedure. The most important thing is to communicate the problem. We have brought this issue for the attention of the wider community as it appears to be affecting our ability to edit. What we would like to know, is whether the community feels these comments are uncivil, and if they are, whether anything should be done about them. The people at the receiving end of these comments, shouldn't be blamed for complaining about them. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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

WP:SPADE is "advice or opinion", not policy. Every single editor has a POV - especially you. I'm not arguing that anyone is an "afrocentrist" or not. Discounting someone's edits, or bullying them because of a perceived POV is not in line with collegial editing. You have begun to use the calling of "afrocentrism" as a way to attack edits you do not agree with, and the editor who is making them, and you seem to believe it's justified - which it is not. You are welcome to perhaps define an edit as being "afrocentric" but not label editors as "afrocentrists" in order to discourage their edits. In the long run, keep in mind WP:CONSENSUS (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• OK, fine. His edits are Afrocentric then. ---- Small Victory (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have mentioned this previously, but SV is a single purpose account whose primary interest had been in the deleted Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe and since its deletion, now Genetic history of Europe. This is evident in his editing record which shows that in his 3 years on Wikipedia, SV has only edited 24 unique articles. The article Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe was one of those articles that is tucked away in an obscure corner of Wikipedia, and as a result didn't get much scrutiny. Because the article was SV's only interest, SV had very limited exposure to the wider community. As a result, he somehow believed that it is acceptable to be uncivil to other editors on Wikipedia. Since we stumbled upon the article, the topic has now gotten more attention from the community and SV has learned a few things about how Wikipedia works. For example, he has recently learned How not to engage in original research, and hopefully now, he will learn about civility. However, he continues with his confrontational approach, even with newbies to his topics per [10], [11] Wapondaponda (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

CORRECTION: Everyone who participated in that discussion learned that citing a chart which is explained in the study it comes from is in fact not original research. However, your attempt to have such evidence barred is information suppression. When will you learn not to engage in that? ---- Small Victory (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

SV, your constant refrain of "I didn't hear that" is becoming tiresome. You are the only person claiming that your interpretation of the chart isn't OR. Everyone else in the discussion is pointing out that it is OR. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Small Victory distorting this whole question into one of Afrocentrism is unfortunately typical of how he addresses all disagreements or perceived disagreements with others. It reminds me of the case where, when I told him he was out of line to call me a chimp, he wrote in an even more uncivil tone that "I didn't call you a chimp. I asked: "...would I have better luck explaining [the analogy] to a chimp?" The fact that you didn't understand that makes your claim that our "communication problems" might be my fault quite laughable. Again, LEARN HOW TO READ!" (In other words he only compared me to a chimp in terms of being sub-human in terms of comprehension skills. He did not call me a chimp as such, and therefore he is in the right to write abusively and my mis-wording just proves it: "And then you wonder why I talk down to you.") In summary, Small Victory often looses sight completely of what the point is, because he has constantly got this way of looking for an angry way to twist things into a personal attack. It is very distracting from actually editing articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly ethnic-related disputes on Pakistani issues

I've stumbled into what appears to be an ethnic dispute related to members of Pakistan's Marwat clan. User:LineofWisdom has nominated some Marwat-related articles for deletion: please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dil Jan Khan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Majeed Khan Marwat, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarfaraz Khan Marwat. User:Marwat has opposed these deletions, apparently seeing them as an attempt to start an ethnic dispute. Moreover, User:Marwat786 (a new editor; I'll just call him/her 786 from now on) has participated in these discussions; his/her first few edits were to oppose deletion. Marwat (without numbers) has said that LineofWisdom is a sockpuppetteer, and Marwat has called 786 a sock. I'm one of several editors who participated at the AFD for Dil Jan Khan, and (probably like most of the others) I have no idea of these ethnic disputes. Further discussion has taken place at User talk:LineofWisdom (see the header "Your Edits In Article on Marwat"), User talk:Marwatt (headers "Why are you Editing the Administrators set page ?", "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dil Jan Khan", and "Anwar Kamal Marwat"), and my talk page (header "Your Vote on Dil Jan Khan AFD"); I've also commented on 786's talk page. Marwat has asked for administrator intervention, and I really don't think that I'm qualified in this specific situation. Sorry that I can't give more information; I'm just confused by all that's going on, and we really need someone or someones who understand it better than I. Nyttend (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I should also note — unlike Marwat, 786 and LineofWisdom are clearly not native speakers of English, so I'm a little concerned that language issues might complicate things. Nyttend (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Extremely grateful I am extremely grateful to you talk for takin an appropriate action into this serious matter. I, once again as before, present myself accountable for using Sock. If Wikipedia even inquired that any other I.D than my own, User:LineofWisdom, has ever been used, I will honour a lifetime Blacklist against my I.D and even I.P address. Why should I be cursed for User:Marwat786's deed and actions? If User:Marwat786 looks like my other I.D why cannot we doubt that User:Marwatt might have created that I.D just to sabotage the Deletion process and to bring infamy to my name? Whatever the issue is, it is too far from the requirements of Deletion. I, hereby, request and plead to Administrators to conclude the Deletion process as per Wiki's Policy and on the other hand probe into the questions raised by me, User:Marwatt and User:Marwat786. I am sure, justice would be unveiled, as it is there but we cnnot see due to the mess-up my fellows has created to dull it. --LineofWisdom (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you have betterly understood the matter. I would have no objection, if you could decide the matter yourself, rather asking someone else. Your decission, whatever it may be, would be warmly and heartly accepted. --LineofWisdom (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Marwatt has no dispute and have not opposed the deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Majeed Khan Marwat but infact he voted in favour of his deletion and also commented in detail. So the above article be removed from the new category, please. --LineofWisdom (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia admins are not qualified to solve ethnic disputes, and I do not understand what LineofWisdom means to say with the above. What actual admin action is required here?  Sandstein  20:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There have been socking accusations (see LoW's comment above), and it seems to me that Marwatt has accused LoW of nominating some of these articles for deletion to make a point; it seems like one or two or all of them is/are trying to make Wikipedia a battleground, and admins are quite qualified to deal with that. As well, we're getting into some personal attacks (see 786's comment at the end of his/her comment on my talk page), and it's obvious that good faith is not being assumed despite what looks to me to be invalid reasons. In my mind, someone deserves a strict warning (although perhaps not the block or ban suggested by one party here), but I'd like input from others. I'm an admin, but I've been involved here, and I'm not much experienced in dealing with contentious situations. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I am an adequately qualified person and have been educated in English all my life including a PhD from USA. So I don't think that I have an issue whatsoever in understanding the policies of Wikipedia. As it is evident from my user account that I am an old worker of Wikipedia and on the other hand both of the user accounts that I have accused of being socks of each other were very recently drafted for a specific purpose. Since I am myself a member of the Marwat clan and know most of the notable people belonging to this clan, therefore, I don't have any problem with the insertion of the names of prominent people of the soil in the parent article. I would be rather very happy to brush up the quality of English of these insertions and clean up the article itself. However, what bothers me the most is that when users like LineofWisdom and Marwat786 popup all of a sudden and start editing in the parent article (mostly deleting the names of rival clan people) then a person like me who co-created this article on Marwat really feels agitated. So my request would be to investigate the matter in detail and check the record of these two user accounts.-- MARWAT  05:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I am not so much high qualified as User:Marwatt. But does it disqualifies me from editing here, with good faith? I have several times presented myself for lifetime ban, if my sock is proved. I assure you and vow that I am editing with good faith. I am a Punjabi, I admitt, once again, does it disqualifies me to share my knowledge here on Wikipedia at any article other than my ethnicity. User:Marwatt, while stating that I must not edit his tribe's article has infact disclosed his intentions that he wants his authority on his article not on mine. I could never be sure about any proxy wars like my fellow User:Marwatt, but what I doubt is that he might have created many Identitys to sabotage the situation and to make me out. I bestow my full trust, faith and sincerity to you Nyttend and any of your verdict on this issue would be warmly welcome. It seems you are really serious to solve this issue with nuterality and sincere intentions. --LineofWisdom (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Marwatt has also started an Edit War at Article Anwar Kamal Khan and have inserted the citation tags 3-4 times within 24 hours and is keen to reveert its position. The claim for which he is demanding citation has been refered and there is a reference proving whatever has been written there. Despite my continuous pleading to him that he must read the references before adding Citation tag, he is blindly reverting the article on the Disputed status. The article must be protected and he must be banned, as his intentions are proved i.e. to disgrace and manipulate the notables of rival clan. See his track record, he is famous for vandalising. --LineofWisdom (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked USer:Marwatt is blocked for 24 hours on the charge of vandalising and edit war. This proves that there is no ethnical dispute but just one user is reasonf or all mess. --LineofWisdom (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is coming to be a more constant problem with these articles: Source A posts something, Source B gets a thorn in their ass about it and it turns into a massive edit-war with insults and accusations of 'sabotage' and worse. Please take your 'clan wars' somewhere else; this is an encyclopedia, not a battlefield. HalfShadow 19:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

useless stubs created by User:Dr. Blofeld

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

---

Resolved

 – This is not a place to discuss whether stubs created by Dr. Blofeld are useful or not. And we don't block people for creating stubs. AdjustShift (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

wonderful, and good-buy to you all, Huldra (talk)

For the last couple of years, some of us have tried to clean up the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Palestinian_Arab_villages_depopulated_during_the_1948_Palestine_War. Now User:Dr. Blofeld has decied to make our task much harder, by creating tons of useless stubs. I have tries to talk to him, but he just removes my comments on his user.page. Could somebody PLEASE block that guy!! Now!Please! Huldra (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please take this to dispute resolution. This is not the place to discuss disagreements over content (which is what this boils down to). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As a better idea, try talking with the guy first. I noticed that you haven't. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

See [12]. –xeno^talk 18:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As I have said above: he just removed my comments. Huldra (talk)

• Somewhat related: Wikipedia:VPP#Automated creation of stubs, see also the proposal beneath it. –xeno^talk 18:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I have said on his talk-page: *You have just managed to do what no fanatical pro-Israeli editor has managed in 4 years: made me stop contributing to Wp. Congratulation, you #%//(&$%##$%. You must be proud. Huldra (talk)

It makes cleaning up lots and lots more difficult. I am going to ask for Adf for every single one of these stubs. I just cannot believe that anyone can be allowed to make such massive disruption! I feel I run against a tank, or something... jeeez. Huldra (talk)

Would you like a list of those articles that have not been edited by Blofeld? –xeno^talk 18:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A case of WP:OWN. He puts an article on the main page, adds a list of red links revealing a lot of missing content and then he starts crying at ANI, what a baby. All of these starter stubs are referenced with your pea soup colored Palestinian infobox ready for expansion. You have no right to order people what or what they should create. If you didn't want the missing articles started then common sense don't red link them or make them appear in the template. We should have articles on these, a starter stub is a step in the right direction. There is only a set amount of articles, you are overreacting. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. if tanks are so offensive, don't mention them. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all: I am a *she* (read Huldra....) ...and the "articles" you have created are absolutely useless, as anyone can see. If you had done *any* work at all, with anyone of them, it would have been great! I have always *strongly* welcomed other editors to work with the 1948-villages. But you are, it looks to me, on some silly game of creating as many "articles" as possible(?), with no regard as to the *extra* work you create for others. As I have said above: now we cannot see which needs work, and which does not. Huldra (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Here is a list of articles appearing on that template that do not appear in Blofeld's last 1000 edits. This should help you to sort the ones requiring cleanup from the ones requiring expansion: [13]. And here [14] filters out articles not edited by Huldra in last 1000. –xeno^talk 18:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Xeno. I´m not very tecknical; can this help us with "undoing" the articles? Huldra (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That would require AFD. –xeno^talk 18:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see; I should template them with {db-a3}? Huldra (talk)

I think these just barely scrape by the A3 criteria. –xeno^talk 19:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Deal with the new articles and move on. Just because something is not to your own liking you ar eillustrating a very selfish outlook on wikipedia Huldra. You don't WP:OWN these articles or set of articles. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

For the nth time: I almost jumping up and down with joy each time a new (or old!) editor helps us with the -48-villages, so to be accused of "owning" is strange, to say the least. But I would appriciate "help" that is actually "helpful"..that is: which reduce the work-load for the rest of us...And not the opposite.Huldra (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the source he is using. Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Expressing dissatisfaction with your shotgun approach to editing doesn't mean one has ownership issues with articles, why don't we drop the heated rhetoric here. It would also help the situation if you did not treat users who leave messages on your talk page with dismissive contempt all the time, i.e. what a baby and oh do go away , which was a just simple request for you to recosndier some words here. Tarc (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Just an expression of contempt towards the belligerent souls that hang out here and think they are in a position to judge and order other editors what to do on a daily basis. You rock ANI! What an awesome place. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Following your logic above, why didn't you also create articles for the redlinked districts? Nathan ^T 19:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with these stubs? Short, but a good start for expansion. For example it allows IP editors to edit and has the article name, infobox, categories etc. in place. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. It makes absolutely no sense to me as to what the hubbub is all about. These are valid subjects for articles, why someone would leave Wikipedia because they're here just amazes me. If you don't like them, ignore them, there's no way they should be AFD'd, and if they were, you'd need better reasoning than "there are too many of them", or "they're not sourced". AfD is not for cleanup. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Huldra has begun adding specious speedy delete tags on the Palestinian village articles she's upset about. I have removed the tags, as there is no speedy deletion criterion for places. I've also warned her that if she puts PROD tags on them, I'll remove those, too. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:CSD#A3 could apply to a place. Whether it does or not in these instances is up for debate. (Probably not as it has some context) –xeno^talk 20:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It would absolutely not in this instance. There is clearly content and context for the aforementioned places. --Smashville^talk 21:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an absurd report. We don't block people for creating stubs! Huldra should be warned for making this inappropriate report, and wasting the time of admins. AdjustShift (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've posted this comment at Huldra's talk page. AdjustShift (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

P.s. my apologies to the guys above. There "are" decent guys here who don't spend all their time watching the wikidrama unfold on here, I was referring purely to those who seem to relish the drama and then scold editors who are trying to improve the encylopedia and make them feel like a vandal. I've expanded nearly ten of these article already like Arab al-Safa, I have never know anybody to cause so much fuss. This group of articles is manageable. All were started anyway with the appropriate infobox and reference to be expanded. I'm sorry but I'm not sure how I can apologise for doing what I thought was a good thing to help wikipedia. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, please ignore this report. This is an absurd report; no admin is silly enough to block you for creating stubs!!! You've ameliorated WP for a long time, and please keep on ameliorating WP! AdjustShift (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that adding permastubs by bot-like insertions from some external list of things "improves" the encyclopedia, although it does inflate the count of articles created for those who value such statistics. Edison (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld has also developed multiple other "non-stub" articles. According to our blocking policy, Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern. How can blocking someone for creating stubs is going to reduce the likelihood of future problems? Acceptable stubs may not add great value to the encyclopedia, but it is better to have acceptable stubs than nothing. I don't like red links; it is far better to have an acceptable stub than a red link. AdjustShift (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice assumption of good faith, there, Edison. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Resolved

 – blocked 24 hours[15] Ikip (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

... and then unblocked after an apology and commitment to redact the statement, which is now done. –xeno^talk 21:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

was: Cursing

"Never come back you stinking nasty little bitch."

At the bottom by user Dr.Blofeld. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Huldra

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's wholly untowards. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

He appears to be responding to an off-wiki attack (though I haven't looked at it). I agree it's not acceptable -- somebody should maybe go there and tell folks to cool it down. IronDuke 20:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'd block him for the unbelievably over the top personal attack/harangue, but I don't want the drama, honestly. Protonk (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Let's refocus this. It's not the use of naughty words. Its the personal attack that is the problem. Using words like bitch or fuck or shit is no problem. Calling someone a bitch IS a problem, and must not be allowed to persist. --Jayron32 20:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• No, calling someone a bitch isn't necessarily a problem, and I can show you at least one example of an editor who would agree that she's a bitch. The problem is that in a statement like "Never come back you stinking nasty little bitch" the use of the word "bitch is almost incidental, and certainly irrelevant to the issue at hand. Which is the "Never come back you stinking nasty little ..." bit. It really wouldn't matter what word ended that sentence, it would still be unnacceptable. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I was about to say what Jayron said - it's the serious violation of WP:NPA that is the issue. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Blofeld of this discussion and left him the sternest of possible warnings regarding personal attacks. If he continues, he will be blocked. If he lets it drop, I think we can chalk this up to momentary lapse of reason. But the attacks of this nature will not persist. --Jayron32 21:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I pointed out a few other examples of blofeld's incivility in the previous section. This is becoming a rather nasty pattern, and the "I was provoked off-wiki" bit is really no excuse. Tarc (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• The off-wiki site referenced above is here: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=25817 –xeno^talk 21:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There was no personal attack that I see off wiki:

Until yesterday. Blofeld comes along and find he does not like red links, and decides that he will start all the red-linked villages...and turn the whole template into on huuuge green soup. And does just that.[16]

Here is Blofields original response:

I've already notched up well over 500 edits expanding these stubs. Meanwhile you sit around being lazy, weeping in the shadows. Ironically it is me who is now doing all the work, not you. You are very silly people if you think these articles will be left by me. I am working my arse off expanding these, the least you can do is do the decent thing and return and join the party. Take a day or two away if needs be, when you return you'll see you've been wasting your time by leaving. You must enjoy editing these articles, you are losing out if you don't return.[17]

And his later response:

On second thoughts, she can rot in hell. Never come back you stinking nasty little bitch. One thing I hate is people who talk about other people behind their backs because they are too gutless to confront them in person. You go bad mouthing people like me and Slim Virgin and others off behind our backs. Really honorable behaviour. You are a weak person.[18]

Ikip (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"Never come back you stinking nasty little bitch" should result in an immediate two week block without warning. There's no excuse for that behavior, especially if you know better according to the policies. Calling someone such names is a problem. I am proposing a block that is a minimum of two weeks. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

So is this a kangaroo court or a lynch mob? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well...I may have jumped the gun then...I didn't see this thread yet and just blocked him for 24 hours. If anyone feels like extending it...feel free. --Smashville^talk 21:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The 24 hour block is ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If I were an administrator, Dr. Biofeld would be blocked immediately for a very long time. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who sees fault only on one side will hopefully never be an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have also warned Nableezy for his inappropriate response to Blofelds attack. Just because someone personally attacks another user does not give everyone else free liscence to personally attack them in return. This entire pattern of behavior needs to cease. --Jayron32 21:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Attacking back is indeed inexcusable. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• @Ikip, to be fair, she also said Blofeld "has added nothing to the 'public knowledge'" and that he should "clean up his own diarrhoea, eh, poo" [sic]. Though off-wiki, she has linked it from her userpage. (I have no dog in this fight, and find it unfortunate that both contributors who share common ground in that they feel these articles are notable are coming to such violent disagreements) –xeno^talk 21:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would have much preferred Jayron's approach; not everything is solved with a block. I suppose I can resist getting worked up over a 24 hour cooldown block, and hope it actually has its intended effect. A two week block is a silly idea. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've actually unblocked him after the apology on his talkpage, which appears sincere, so that he may refactor or simply delete the comment. Preventative, not punitive. --Smashville^talk 21:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Although after noticing that he had posted the same thing twice and in the first one mentions that he was going to "report", quite honestly, I probably would have left it up if I had seen that first, as that makes it appear he doesn't understand what he did. Well...we'll find out soon. --Smashville^talk 21:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed. I would go so far as to say that unblocking them was rash. But what's done is done. We don't need a third turn of the wheel, as it were. Protonk (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

Dr.Blofled was blocked for incivility and unblocked for the pledge to remove the problematic comment, but then why this personal attacks by nableezy (talk · contribs) are not noted on the same ground?

Is it possible for you not to be a complete asshole? Fuck off if your whole purpose here is to antagonize a user who has done incredible work in this area. You keep spouting this bullshit about "the sum of all human knowledge" but your recent additions have added nothing to that goal while chasing off a user who had been working her ass off trying to create an actual reference on the topic.[19]

In addition, this and that show that he would not refrain from such behaviors.--Caspian blue 21:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just hadn't gotten to that yet. I had blocked Dr. Blofled but then come here to ask about Nableezy when I saw there was already the discussion about him and I got sidetracked. --Smashville^talk 21:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy was already warned by Nishkid. –xeno^talk 21:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Warned several times.--Caspian blue 21:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

At least I can understand why Dr. Blofelds reacted so harshly given the nasty and personal off-wiki attacks and the ANI complaints by her. Not a reason for him to call Huldra whatever, but somewhat understandable, and judging from his talk page he now understands this and apologized. But for Nableezy's attacks I have a hard time seeing the rationale, and there is not even an apology forthcoming, in fact he even confirms his attacks on Dr. Blofeld. Pantherskin (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone has said a few things in anger that upon reflection they will find were better left unsaid. Knowing Nableezy and Huldra well, I'd say that the rationale would be that Nableezy, as someone who has worked with and appreciated Huldra's work, is upset at losing her and doesn't take well to women he respects being called bitches. For Dr. Blofeld, he's upset at not having his efforts appreciated and discussed in less than favourable terms in off-wiki forums. For Huldra, she's upset at having something she was working on reorganized in a way that makes it hard for her to pick where she left out. Anyway, I think its best to just unblock or not block anyone. We need to retain editors, not chase them away. Tiamut^talk 22:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut, this is out of respect?[20]----Caspian blue 22:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Users don't get punished here for off-wiki comments. You know that, so please, enough with your usual rabble rousing. Tarc (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, no thanks for your typical appearance to make such personal attacks. Since the matter is related to off-Wiki, I linked it. Besides, it is happening that some ArbCom case uses off-Wiki evidences to punish users, so you're wrong 'again as always.:-)--Caspian blue 23:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Disrupted AfD for Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen

• I've speedy-closed the above AfD on grounds of canvassing, and invited the nominator to start a fresh nomination in a day or so. I invite comments about whether that was appropriate.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• As the nominator, my preference would be to keep the AfD open and to note the canvassed comments so that the closing admin can discount them. There is really no need to discard the good-faith comments (both delete and keep) made prior to the canvassing.  Sandstein  20:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• AfD's should not be closed early due to canvassing except in incredibly extreme circumstances; and even in those cases, the decision to do so should be left to an administrator. Disruption (excepting a disruptive nomination) is not a valid reason to speedily close a discussion, and therefore is not a valid reason for a non-admin to close the discussion. This should be re-opened, and comments left as a result of canvassing properly tagged. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Yep. Anything else is pretty much an invitation for disruption. Amalthea 21:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Most of the comments on both sides look sensible, and even the socks turned out to be a pair of panty-hose. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I may live to regret this, but I have undone the close, figuring that if it is done quickly now, the drama will be kept to a minimum. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think that was a mistake, Elen. The outcome of this canvassing-tainted discussion is open to reasonable doubt because of procedural irregularities, so I do not now expect any closure to survive DRV.

  Nevertheless, mistake though that was, the least disruptive course now is to run with it and see what happens.  :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If I can say, I think you are making a great deal more fuss about this canvassing than it warrants. This isn't an AfD full of disruptive socks, everyone is making very sound comments on both sides. I've learned stuff about the German ex-nobility, just from the discussion. And, since these are real Wikipedians with independent views (and as several have pointed out, they are entitled to share their view even if they were canvassed), and not a bunch of Sockenpuppen, I think there is a good chance that the outcome of the debate will be accepted by all. Except perhaps yourself, given that you felt compelled to close the AfD rather than report the canvassing here and await a consensus on further action. But then, I don't know what outcome would satisfy you. Incidentally, I note that other than your note, no-one has really said anything much to the canvasser - no threats of blocking etc. Was that something you would be looking for? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, we'll see whether anyone challenges it. (I shall, if the outcome is "delete", since I think it's simple common sense that the outcome should be some variant of "keep"; and I explained my reasoning at the AfD.)

  I agree that I'm taking the canvassing more seriously than most, but then, I do think it matters. AfDs should not be tainted by canvassing lest the conclusion be unsafe.

  I'm quite satisfied that I acted correctly in (a) notifying the nominator and the canvasser, (b) closing the tainted AfD, and then (c) bringing the matter here for discussion. Editors aren't helpless slaves to AN/I; we're told to be bold for a reason. Equally, I think your reversion of my close was in good faith. You made a judgment call in a matter for which there appears to be no policy or guideline, so again WP:BRD applies. So I'll just note that I think the AfD probably should have been left closed and recommend further discussion so we can reach consensus on what to do with canvassing-tainted AfDs at a later date (i.e. when it's about the procedure in general; if we discussed it now, it would be about this AfD).

  I think my note on the canvassing editor's talk page is sufficient and no further sanctions should be imposed in this case. You should assume the canvassing editor was unaware of the policy rather than deliberately being disruptive unless there's evidence to the contrary.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of the canvassers - I do think it was done without intent to disrupt and in ignorance of the rules. Indeed, if they had worded it just a little differently it would have been legitimate. As it is, a few people have expressed an opinion that might not other wise have seen the AfD, both as a result of the canvassing and as a result of this ANI filing. I do not in this case see it as 'tainted', but I understand and accept your broader concern. In terms of closing the AfD, I think it could be argued that it did not fall into the category of discussions suitable for non-admin close, but I recognise your good faith, and there may be grounds to have discussion in another place regarding AfD's where canvassing has taken place, and if specific guidelines need to be written.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

AnonTalk bot attack?

Judging by the number of anonymous editors writing this everywhere:

“ Please type the following into your address bar in order to discuss this (or any other topic) anonymously without registering an account: "www.Anon", follow by "Talk" and end with ".com". Then press Enter. A convenient link unfortunately could not be created because Wikipedia, much like most other politically correct organizations, attempts to censor the best site on the Web in every way possible ”

Shall I presume that we are under a bot attack via proxy servers? — Kralizec! (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Something of that nature, I believe J.delanoy has cleared it all up - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like filter #228 made quite a dent on the attack. — Kralizec! (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw this too on List of Royal Pains episodes. They cover it up by writing "reverted edits" in the summary. One of the bots is 210.211.148.46 Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This came up at the Help Desk. Here are some more diffs. [21] [22] [23] This appears to either be a coordinated attack or a spambot issue. The filter perhaps needs a little tweak. --Jayron32 01:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the time to sift through the recent changes for user talk page edits made by IP's, and found 3 talk page with the spam. I have since removed it. Until It Sleeps ^alternate 01:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I found more AnonTalk spam by searching for "www.Anon" "Talk" in the search bar. Got quite a few hits, most of which had the spam already removed, but I found 3 pages that still had the spam, and removed it. [24] It should be noted that this was quite old, being on the pages since the 1st of August. Until It Sleeps ^alternate 01:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

New strategy by the vandal...they're posting edits getting around the blacklist entirely by rendering the site address with http:// and the rest broken apart, mispelling "Anon" as "Anoe" and telling later in the address to correct it as anon in the address bar. Nate • (chatter) 02:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's funny how they say "Absolutely no fucking spam" on their rules yet they would resort to this crap to promote themselves. Triplestop x3 03:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"It's not wrong if we do it" ;-) SoWhy 13:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've done a run through and blocked blocked some of the proxies the bot was using which should help. --Chris 13:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That is probably a really good idea. They were coming in so fast and furious last night, I did not have time to check and see if the IPs in question were open proxies and block accordingly. — Kralizec! (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Generally, if it's a spambot, it's an open proxy.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I found a couple spambot IP's that were only blocked 48 hours, this one and this one. Momo san ^Gespräch 14:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Got those, thanks, Momus. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

And another; [25]. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a year by J.delanoy. Enigma^msg 20:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Vivek Kundra

Specifically, the line 'In 1997 Kundra was convicted of shoplifting four dress shirts from a JC Penny department store, an incident the White House said was resolved long ago.'

A lot of random IPs appear to have a stick up their ass concerning this, 57.67.16.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) especially. It's turned into one big messy edit war. I'm considering suggesting the page for semi-protection, but can we get an official word on who's right here? I don't care one way or the other, it's just a edit war is an edit war... HalfShadow 02:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I put in a WP:RPP 30 min ago or so because of it, the talk page consensus seems to back inclusion. I mean it's a true, well-sourced statement. Falcon8765 (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I added info about how he pled guilty, was fined $155 and did 80 hours of community service (all of this was also mentioned in the ABC News source). Without that information the reader could speculate that he fought the conviction or served a heavier sentence. -- Atama^chat 16:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the whole section as a violation of WP:UNDUE. Horologium (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

They can't even manage to spell JC Penney properly. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted Horologium's removal of sourced information, especially since it was done during a discussion of the content, which has also been the subject of recent edit-warring. I also trimmed it down, and spelled JC Penney correctly and wikilinked it. It isn't constructive to walk into a content dispute and unilaterally remove information being discussed because you don't like it. -- Atama^chat 19:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. Try to assume just a little bit of good faith. Whether I "like" or "dislike" information is not relevant; what I saw a minor incident which occupied way too much real estate in an article which had been discussed here at AN/I. (Yes, I saw this discussion thread first.) When dealing with bios of living people, we should err on the side of caution, and (in my opinion) something that happened a dozen years ago and resulted in a minor punishment did not merit inclusion; your mileage may vary. Horologium (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. I do see where it could be seen as unimportant. I disagree that it doesn't merit inclusion, if the White House feels a need to comment publicly on the incident then I think it's worthy of inclusion, but we're free to disagree. I actually think that since this is a content dispute, and the only administrator action required has been taken (semi-protection) this discussion doesn't need to take place at the noticeboard and should be at the article talk page. Thanks for treating my somewhat uncivil response to you in a civil manner. -- Atama^chat 20:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Block request for disruptive usernames

Resolved

 – Quit bringing this to ANI. --Smashville^talk 14:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oarias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Oscar Arias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jon Corzine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:OArias and User:Oscar Arias are the same person (socks) and redirect their user pages to each other. Oscar Arias is the President of Costa Rica. Since User:Barack Obama was blocked, these 2 names should be blocked.

User:Jon Corzine should also be blocked because Governor Jon Corzine is the Governor of New Jersey.

I originally brought it up in ANI. The consensus was that those names are old so they are not to be blocked. I was also told to bring to to UAA.

I brought it to UAA and the report was deleted by User:7 who is running for administrator citing that the three names were old. I brought it to UAA again and administrator User:Stephen deleted it saying, again, the names are old.

Since there was 100% consensus (Baseball Bugs, WKnight94, Stephen, 7, etc.) that inappropriate names that are old are not to be blocked, I added that to the WP:U username policy (old stale names are not to be blocked). User:Beeblebrox objected.

I do not want an edit war but nobody is listen, just giving conflicting advice. Either block those names (preferred) or change the policy. If they are blocked, you don't have to say "fk you, you are blocked" but rather you can say "you are blocked because your name is the same as a major politician. If you are the person, you can be unblocked, otherwise, change your name".

Will Wikipedia stop contradicting itself! Acme Plumbing (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

What's your personal interest in those particular items? Why do they trouble you so? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Policy is not a straitjacket. We don't have to reconcile every decisions about usernames w/ the fact that we blocked an account named barack obama. Protonk (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You should really stop bringing this to ANI. You've attempted to do so at least twice already (once while the other one was ongoing), it's becoming disruptive. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 03:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I am bringing this up because this is so confusing. Administrators keep contradicting themselves. First, they so don't block it. OK, I can live with that. Then when I report the consensus to the WP:U page, they disagree. It's as though there is page ownership and different owners are staying what they want for that page.

Why the conflicting information???? I am not trying to change things. I just want an explanation to why administrators' instructions keep changing. The changing part is the disruption, not me.Acme Plumbing (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Once and for all, the policy seems to be that bad usernames that are stale shouldn't be blocked. Isn't that what people are saying??? Acme Plumbing (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Once and for all, what's your personal interest in this? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think Acme Plumbing is a disruptive nickname. He is clearly named after several plumbing businesses. Ooh, irony. HalfShadow 04:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Other stuff exists, man. If you want to work on the policy getting changed to say this, then do so slowly and in proportion to other edits in the encyclopedia. But bringing it up to AN/I repeatedly will end in tears. Protonk (talk) 04:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Acme Plumbing says he is threatened with "blockage". If an Acme plumber can't prevent blockage, it's time to call on Roto Rooter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Now now. Don't get all flushed with victory. HalfShadow 04:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Zing! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Acme in question is Wile E. Coyote's favorite mail-order company. Considering how the products usually work out, I suspect Road Runner is a major stockholder. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that one of the three seemingly-dormant users (I think it was Oarias) edited on the 16th, and for the first time since last year sometime. Even without yesterday's edit, it had edited more recently than the other two. Regardless, it may be that at least the Arias twins need to be watched for any misbehavior. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that there's something to look at, here, Bugs, and I've removed the "resolved" icon Acme inserted. A random sampling of Acme's edits (he started on July 26) appeared to be almost entirely disruptive. - Dank (push to talk) 11:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, per the heading, these usernames are only "disruptive" in that Acme Plumbing keeps disrupting us by bringing them up. Otherwise, they weren't hurting anyone. Even if the Oscar Ariases started editing, it's a common name! Who is to say he is impersonating the politician? Wknight94 ^talk 12:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As a point of general order, and this isn't something we have to add to the Username page since its already at WP:BLOCK; blocks are preventative, not punitive. Usernames which do not appear to be in use don't need to be blocked since, as they aren't in use, they don't need to be stopped from doing anything. I agree that if these names are in active use very recently, then a block may be in order. But in general, we don't block users who have not edited for a long time, under the understanding that we aren't stopping anything by issuing the block. --Jayron32 12:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oarias edited for the first time in 10 months, but the edit involved removal of an obviously vandalistic comment. Presumably Oarias is normally editing as either another user or an IP, but that by itself is not against the rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

From 2002 up to 2006 I had plenty of periods where I wouldn't edit for months, but I always stuck to this account. I expect Oarias is simply doing the same.--Atlan (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

However, there is also no clear evidence that Oarias is trying to directly impersonate a famous person; he may have registered the first name, realized his error, then registered this one. This may be an unrelated person, or other explanations. It is unlikely, given this combination of letters, that anyone would jump to the immediate connection to the head of state. I agree that the full name account may have been a violation, but THAT one is not active, and THIS one is not causing problems, and is not itself a blatant violation of the username policy. This seems like an WP:AGF issue, and I see no reason to block. We don't block people because their username, if read really carefully, could maybe possibly be similar, in a roundabout way, to a famous person. That's far too tenuous to be blockable. BTW, has anyone notified said account of this discussion? They may be interested to know we are talking about them... --Jayron32 12:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I just did. If he doesn't edit for another 10 months, it won't much matter. But I would still like to know why a registered user cares about the removal of another registered user ID. I can't think of any good reason someone would object to the deletion of any given user ID except for "personal" reasons. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that quite awhile ago, the Oarias talk page was redirected to Oscar Arias talk page, by an IP. Obviously there's some connection. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, if you type "User:Barack" in the search line, a bunch of them come up. I wonder if there are other candidates for deletion out there? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

My biggest problem here is that all this has been said before!!! It's been on WP:UAA at least twice, it's been here at least twice (three times now if I read above correctly). Someone needs to say "enough already" please. How much time has been spent on two perfectly compliant usernames (even the full name Oscar Arias - I'm sure there are plenty of people named Oscar Arias in the world), neither of which have bothered anyone or even so much as edited in however many months?! Mark this resolved and let's get on with the actual encyclopedia (yeah, remember that thing?) Wknight94 ^talk 14:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That is clearly enough of this issue. This matter is finished. Any more disruptive asking the other parent on this matter, and there will be actions taken. --Smashville^talk 14:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Szląchski articles from user drafts

• User talk:Dr. Szląchski#Copying material from user drafts
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=100&contribs=user&target=Dr.+Szląchski&namespace=0

There are ~16 articles which Dr. Szląchski has copy-pasted from userspace drafts. I'm not sure if it's best to do a history merge on all of them, or to go through and ask the original authors first, or what. Frankly I'd like for this to be someone else's problem -- volunteers welcome! :-) Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Don't anyone mess about with it for the next 20-30 minutes. I'm gonna try and fix as many as I can find. Protonk (talk) 05:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Ok, so far:
  • Rapistrum, Orlando Aloysius Battista, Tobacco and Slaves: The Development of Southern Cultures in the Chesapeake, 1680–1800, Pocket set theory, Cryptzone AB (publ), Lie group homomorphism, The Western Brothers, Philosophia Botanica have been history merged. The original 'creators' of the draft pages haven't been sent a message yet, but I'll do that shortly. Should they want these back in userspace I'll simply move them back, but I felt these ones were reasonable to have in article space.
    • I sent messages to editors whose drafts got moved out into mainspace. Protonk (talk) 06:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Baltic religion has been redirected to Balts. Not sure where the original draft is from or if there was one.
  • Davis Leslie Hawksworth and Janet E. Marsh are of dubious notability and I don't know where the original drafts were. I may send them to AfD.
    • Davis Leslie Hawksworth was a misspelling. David Leslie Hawksworth is probably notable. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Janet_E._Marsh started. Protonk (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
      • He was importing Taxon Authority listings from Wikispecies; I've explained to him why he shouldn't do that. DS (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Áskell Löve, Enrico Mazzanti, Jean A. C. Chaptal, Consolidated_Electric_Light_Co._v._McKeesport_Light_Co, and SM U-82 are likely notable if the claims on the page are true. I don't know if they were from borrowed drafts or where those drafts are from.
  • Wafer Level Optics should probably be merged into Wafer-level optics (or vice versa, I don't know which is correct), and I don't know if it came from a draft originally.
    • Redirected. The second one should probably be expanded, de-orphaned. Protonk (talk) 06:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • List_of_women_treated_in_George_Ballard_Members_of_British_Ladies should probably be deleted. Not sure yet through what means.
    • Draft author notified. Not sure what to do with the list itself. Protonk (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• That about covers their created articles. Did I miss any? Protonk (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow, nice work! I tracked down a few you weren't sure about: Melchoir (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Consolidated Electric Light Co. v. McKeesport Light Co is from User:Eastlaw/draft
    • Áskell Löve is from species:Áskell Löve
    • Wafer Level Optics was from http://www.photonics.com/Content/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=30459
      • I merged Consolidated Electric Light Co. v. McKeesport Light Co and informed the author. http://www.photonics.com/Content/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=30459 is a dead link for me (w/ no archive), but may be a moot point (I redirected it to an existing article on the same subject). Not sure what to do about Áskell Löve. Protonk (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the trouble and I will not create anymore articles in this fashion. I will now try to make articles the right way. Dr. Szląchski (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

disruptive user

Resolved

 – Editor had been blocked, and unblock request declined (by me). LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Aradic-es stubbornly continues to breach the consensus reached and continues returning unconstitutional names and symbols to infobox although it was agreed to only have them under a section explaining them. Refers to my edits as vandalism for trying to keep the consensus and marks his edits as minor so as not to see them. [26] [27] Adds ridiculous propaganda such as this [28] and this [29] WP:OR WP:RS. Removes information from lead simply because he does not like it. [30] PRODUCER (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Printing out old article

Resolved

 – Well, not really, but it isn't exactly an AN/I topic, either. HalfShadow 18:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If I print out an article from its history, the pink banner which is visible on screen ("This is an old version of the page, as edited by xxx on xxx etc etc") does not print out (I've tried several pages). I'm sure it used to. Is this a deliberate change? If so, why? I found the printed banner just as useful as the one on screen.

Thanks for any info and help 145.64.134.241 (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not an incident requiring administrator attention. Try WP:VPT instead. Algebraist 15:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio uploads concern

Hi all. Today I chanced upon a logo for a university in the Philippines, and noticed it was tagged with a GFDL license. I changed it to fair use and added the requisite rationale. However, I noticed the uploader had also added a number of other images to Wikipedia, all tagged with free licenses. [31] I suspect they are all also copyvios: I only looked at a couple others but they don't have sources and some of them appear to be a bit too good for a 17 year old to create. Someone may want to check out his uploads and resolve the issues. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Many of the images in that gallery are on commons, so you might want to drop a note there too. Deleted one here as a copyvio, tagged the version at commons, and tagged one here as lacking proper permission. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I tagged another logo copyvio over there and left a note on their admin noticeboard to have someone check his other contributions. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Historicist, Israel-Palestinian / BLP vios

historicist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has returned to Rashid Khalidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to edit war a new WP:BLP vio to accuse Khalidi of publishing seven times a "bogus quotation", a claim not in the reliable sources. The history of this editor's efforts on Khalidi's page (and indirectly, Obama) and the Israel-Palestine conflict more generally articles spans quite a few AN/I reports, a couple blocks, and likely some other things of which I'm not aware. In the latest issue he's recreated a deleted article he had earlier created on the subject,[32] edit warred the article name,[33] and edit warred Khalidi's BLP to WP:3RR.[34][35][36] (the first edit re-introduced material recently rejected). He's gotten my warning[37] and chosen to continue edit warring. You'll also note from the diffs that this editor, who has repeatedly accused me of bad faith in the past, is now accusing me of censorship and whitewashing. I won't propose a remedy but we need some help here. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I see the editor has also been adding[38] the "bogus quote" content to other BLPs and adding[39][40][41][42] and edit warring to add[43][44] a WP:COAT-ish list of "see also" links to a number of BLP and other articles, which all have in common that they are incidents of claimed media bias against Israel. And now adding POV tags to the bio articles.[45][46] Some other editors and I have reverted most of these as a content matter, but this does seem to be part of a wide-reaching attempt to promote this issue. Wikidemon (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Adding information on a notable and well-documented falsehood to the page of the scholar who created the falsehood is hardly coatracking. User:Wikidemom has a trackrecord of removing well-sourced information on the grounds that I don't like it and bullying editors who he disagrees with by running to post on this noticeboard. It is not constructive behavior.Historicist (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have blocked Historicist (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for edit-warring; this appears to be a fairly uncomplicated breach of 3RR. This is a repeat offense for this user on Rashid Khalidi, and I will therefore notify this editor of the discretionary sanctions in effect on Israeli-Palestinian articles. I think this user is skirting a serious WP:BLP violation, absent reliable sources charging Khalidi with "creating a falsehood" (as opposed to citing a published quote which later proved to be false). That may be an issue more productively explored at the BLP noticeboard. I have declined the speedy-deletion request at False Moshe Ya'alon quotation, for reasons I've detailed on the associated talk page. MastCell ^Talk 20:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • And indef blocked for socking while blocked. nableezy - 16:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect speedy delete

Resolved

 – Nothing for an admin to do here, see WP:DRV, WP:AFD. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I truly hate to come here, because many users abuse this page to fight the Arab-Israeli wars by other means. However, the attempt by User:Nableezy to speedy delete a well-csourced article on a notable incident False Moshe Ya'alon quotation is against the rules.Historicist (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alleged_Ya'alon_quotation and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4. nableezy - 19:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy declined by MastCell. This is a content dispute, doesn't belong at ANI. –xeno^talk 19:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  Hrm, a shame, as the substance of the current version apears to be little different than the redirected by consensus version. Off to AfD #2, then? Tarc (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  It contains a reliable source specifically about the quotation itself that discusses the effects its (apparent misquoting?) had. –xeno^talk 20:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Honestly, it really is like watching a bunch of three-year olds argue, isn't it? HalfShadow 20:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said, nothing for an admin to do here. Pls gauge consensus at WP:DRV or WP:AFD. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

A reminder that all of these articles are under WP:ARBPIA. In terms of productive editing, all are welcome over at WP:IPCOLL.--Cerejota (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Admin User:RockMFR conflict of interest in block of User:Koalorka

Several days ago, Admin RockMFR (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Koalorka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) on Aug 15th [47] with a claim that Koalorka had vandalized the article Emu War. I reviewed and determined that this appeared to be a content dispute, not vandalism, and that RockMFR had an apparent conflict of interest due to content dispute, which makes the block a violation of blocking policy, in using blocking to win a content dispute.

The content dispute was basically edit warring over inclusion of a reference to the Emus (an animal) having won the war, which appears to be a valid external source if somewhat tongue in cheek (the whole incident is bizarre, to say the least). RockMFR believed it was invalid and that reinserting it was inappropriate; several other editors disagreed.

Sequence of relevant events:

• Aug 10 - RockMFR establishes his preferred version of article (and threatens to block anyone disagreeing) [48]
• Aug 15, 11:31 - User:Lt.Specht reinserts w/source - [49]
• Aug 15, 13:19 - RockMFR removes again [50]
• Aug 15, 14:48 - Koalorka reverts RockMFR with edit summary (Undid revision 308180598 by RockMFR (talk)That's a valid source. Please stop being so prejudiced against the Emus. It's specist.) [51]
• Aug 15, 15:32 - RockMFR reverts Koalorka w/o edit summary [52]
• Aug 15, 15:34 - RockMFR blocks Koalorka [53] and leaves message on his talk page [54]
• Aug 15, 18:45 - Koalorka objects on his talk page [55]
• Aug 15, 18:50 - Koalorka questions RockMFR's qualifications on his talk page [56]
• Aug 17, 20:27 - I noticed and leave message for RockMFR asking him to unblock, as he had conflict of interest in content dispute [57]
• Aug 18, 03:56 - RockMFR refuses, claiming again that it was "pure vandalism" [58]
• Aug 18, 12:26 - I notify RockMFR that I disagree and will be filing ANI [59]

I could just review and unblock myself, however I have both supported and argued against Koalorka in prior ANI incidents where he was abusive and where he was both baited and abusive, so I would rather put this up for further review. I believe I'm reasonably unbiased related to him but I'd rather get others' input than act unilaterally myself.

Koalorka does have an extensive block log for abusing other editors - but this does not appear to have included any abusive behavior, merely content dispute.

I believe that the content in question is questionable - a good faith editor could conclude it was not entirely appropriate, especially in an infobox - but clearly not vandalism. It appears to be the sort of content where an article talk page discussion is normal and necessary rather than an administrator simply wading in and threatening, and then issuing, blocks.

I would like further admin input on 2 specific points:

1. Was the content vandalism, or legitimately a content dispute?
2. Was the block an involved block by a content dispute involved administrator, which should be reversed?

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate now to mock either the article itself for existing, OR the participants for this rediculous edit war, or can we just call the whole thing WP:LAME? Are we really having an edit war over whether or not the Emus defeated the Humans in what was basically a pest control effort with a good PR campaign? I mean, seriously now... --Jayron32 20:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a historical event, with sources... I think i'ts pretty bizarre, but c'est la vie.

The block is the issue at hand, however. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Clearly bad block. Koalorka's on pretty shaky ground with that insertion, I think, but blocking without warning or attempt at discussion is not on. Steve Smith (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a source, and there's an edit summary with reasoning behind it. Right or wrong, it's not vandalism. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• While it's possible to cleverly craft a somewhat lighthearted article about something, for too long people have been turning this into a joke article. The main culprit was the now-removed {{Infobox Military Conflict}} infobox on an article about a wildlife management issue. It attracted clever edits like "Casualties: Dignity" and "Winner: Emus". To call this simply a content dispute, with "sourced" edits, is a pretty superficial way of looking at it. While this is a slightly grey area, on the boundary between vandalism and excessive light-heartedness, I think RockMFR honestly believed it to be vandalism, and that is not an unreasonable opinion. I would not say that his previous removals of joke edits (which appears to be the only edits he's made to the article) mean he has a conflict of interest.

  While a week block seems an overreaction, I note Koalorka has something of a history, which might explain it. Perhaps unblock, noting the greyness of the area, but with a warning not to re-add the infobox back, and a request that RockMFR not use his admin tools on the article anymore, out of a concern over the appearance of involvement? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• • I think Floquenbeam has hit the nail on the head with this issue. The deal is, treating this like a military conflict is the central problem; and if the article were rewritten to remove all appearances of trying to treat it as a real militarty conflict, and instead took the actual proper point of view of treating this as a wildlife managament issue, it would solve all of these problems. The infobox itself is what lends to the rediculousness. At minimum, it has to go. I agree it is likely a bad block, given the blocking admins prior involvement, but a better course of action is to start an RFC where the light-of-day will expose the problems and get them fixed by uninvolved editors. --Jayron32 21:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    • An RFC? maybe I've missed it..but I haven't seen an RFC yet that has actually accomplished anything. They're not binding and often just fade into obscurity.--Crossmr (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all for the input. I'm going to unblock and warn (Koalorka and on the article talk page) not to re-add the infobox, and request that if those advocating the infobox want to dispute that, that the proper mechanism is an article RFC rather than any further edit warring. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Joke edits are vandalism, especially when they are done repeatedly. There is no gray area here. Seriously, these editors (Koalorka and Lt.Specht) and are saying I am anti-emu. They are clearly not trying to make constructive edits or engaging in constructive discussion. Koalorka has a long block history, and has engaged in making these joke edits over a long period of time, hence the week block. If any admin believes that Koalorka's edits are constructive, they are free to unblock him, of course. — RockMFR 22:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I, or my other half, should take a look at this one... Rodhullandemu 23:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've also been involved with this article, and agree that Koalorka and Lt.Specht's edits are little better than vandalism. Koalorka has also harassed me on my talk page over reverting this nonsense, claiming that "You cannot simply threaten to block people because you don't agree with the outcome of this vicious conflict" [60] (I made no such 'threat' - they seem to be refering to RockMFR's warning against this kind of behaviour) and "Why do you continue denying the Emus their history? This is prejudiced revisionism at its worst." [61]. Clearly such posts aren't from an editor interested in developing a good quality article. Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As Admin User:RockMFR did have a conflict of interest he should not have blocked User:Koalorka, this is a clear breach of the correct usage of his admin tools. He should have pointed the problem out to an uninvolved Admin. The block should be reversed and if an =uninvolved Admin feels it is nessecesary to reblock then that is up to them, I would also admonish RockMFR for misuse of the tools. Also one week is excessive. Off2riorob (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Allowable, but not the most brilliant block. Reverting hoax edits does not cause an administrator to be involved in a content dipute. There is no bona fide content dispute. When people are having too much fun with a joke, it is appropriate to tell them to knock it off. The block made matters worse, I think, rather than better. Block should be reserved for more severe wikicrimes. Jehochman ^Talk 01:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with Jehochman.--John (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• WHile I agree with Jehochman; the "tell them to knock if off" method appears to have been tried here, to no avail, as the silliness continued with Koalorka continuing with such silliness as insisting on "Emu rights" and other such rediculousness. It was clear that Koalorka was intending to continue this patent nonsense ad infinitum. If he HAD let it drop, then a block may have not been necessary. --Jayron32 02:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with the "block" in principle, but also agree with the concerns of WP:INVOLVED. RockMFR would have likely been better served by bringing the matter here, rather than block themselves due to COI concerns, but I don't think there's anything actionable at this time. I trust GWH on the unblock, and hope that he will continue to monitor the situation. I'd personally have no objections to a passing editor marking this as resolved. — Ched :  ?  06:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not sure if George has forgotten as Koalorka is as yet still blocked. What is the outcome of this discussion? Off2riorob (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Given that George started this ANI post, isn't a significant 'conflict of interest' for him to declare it closed in his favour only two hours after the report was made and then go on to over-turn this block? Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• In addition to my above comment, I also think that this block is fine. Reverting vandalism isn't a content dispute, so there is no 'conflict of interest'. Koalorka has a history of being blocked and was warned for their behaviour, so everything seems above board to me. The initial summary of the events is also unfair to RockMFR - this vandalism had been going on for weeks and I was also involved in reverting it and semi-protecting the article to prevent IPs attacking it, so this wasn't an isolated incident or RockMFR protecting 'his preferred version of article' as the initial report wrongly states. Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm finding myself agreeing with NickD here; the whole article was a joke and non-notable, and Rock was clearly right to block Koalorka for his repeated edits to the article. I also think that GWH's initial report was misleading, and his unblocking of Koalorka without consensus; but it would seem that little will be done about him as per usual. Skinny87 (talk) 10:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• If I were to try to re-write this article, framing it as a serious wildlife mgmt effort with a goofy PR twist, would anyone have kittens about it? I'm more than willing to do the rewrite with a change in tone, but not if the end result is "BAD Gladys! (slap slap)".GJC 13:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm amazed that this problem hasn't cropped on other articles like War on poverty (losing side: poor people) or War on drugs (winners: Mexican drug cartels). Hopefully, this isn't because Aussies have a better sense of humor than we US folks. -- llywrch (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This block is one of the worst I have seen in my time here, this admin was wrong to do it and it is wrong to continue it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Um... since when is a blog a valid source? 69.105.29.179 (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism on LGBT parenting article

There has been an issue on the LGBT parenting article with User:Destinero adding plagiarized text. The LGBT parenting talk page details the most recent incident (see section called Plagiarism Again) which led to a shutdown of the article and a 2nd warning being issued to Destinero. You can find information concerning the first warning here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive104#User:Destinero_reported_by_User:Tobit2_.28Result:_No_action.29 and both warnings on Destinero's Talk Page under the sections "editing warring on LGBT parenting" and "Please read this discussion and result carefully."

Fast foward to today. Recently, after the last incident calmed down, I attempted to repair the plagiarized text. Nevertheless, today, Destinero added it back, reverting the edit. Here is the diff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_parenting&diff=308757410&oldid=308209508

The plagiarized phrase in question is, "...documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment," giving us 21 words lifted verbatim from a source. Additionally, the article provides four sources for this statement although it has been lifted from one. The last admin to help out was Virtual Steve. Thank you. Tobit2 (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal Request for Assistance

Hello, I am aware that the administrator Alison is no longer active on wikipedia. Could someone possibly give me contact information for her? If that is not okay, I would be happy to provide a message to be passed on to her, but I would prefer if that happened through email rather than a public forum. Thank you for your assistance. --Xj754 (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

On the user page of any Wikipedian who has enabled this option (and Alison is one of them) you can find a link on the left side labelled "E-mail this user". It looks like Alison still has hers up; you can click that link to email her. For privacy reasons, we cannot give out the email addresses of any of our editors. (Your email address will be visible to her when you send the message; you will not see her address unless she chooses to reply.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon and Arbitration

Resolved

 – The committee has stated they would prefer additional community-imposed restrictions not be enacted as this would simply complicate and confuse matters. –xeno^talk 13:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon (talk · contribs) has been asked many times to refrain from making pointless requests and comments on Wikipedia:Arbitration and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration pages and subpages. Despite this, he has filed the 5th request for clarification on the same case, 2 weeks after he made the 4th request for clarification. This is really becoming a tiresome exercise. Understandably, ArbCom are reluctant to themselves restrict Mythdon from continuing this pattern of interactions with ArbCom. Reluctantly, I find that we're in a position where there is no other option than to propose that a community sanction be imposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

I will be notifying the Arbitration Committee. I think that the Arbitration Committee has to make this decision. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I do take note however that Risker and Newyorkbrad are recused. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom notified. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that the very reason this discussion is taking place? –túrian^patois 05:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Also, ArbCom should be notified because it has stated it's lack of being pleased with my requests. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I'd already notified ArbCom of this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

And I've done so on their talk pages. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe the community does have the authority to enact sanctions themselves if there is a strong enough consensus for it, without having to go to ArbCom and making it official. Whether they or the community make the decision, it will make little difference. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the community has no authority to impose this sanction as it is a decision for ArbCom to make. I have this feeling that they will decline to let the community impose it, and have the community leave the discussion to themselves. I wonder what they'll say when they see this. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I made this proposal, only after doing all the research. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

But wouldn't ArbCom have to decide on this? Jimbo Wales founded the committee. Doesn't he retain jurisdiction over it? Would he have to approve of the community making such a decision? Would he take back to ArbCom? Would ArbCom take it back to themselves? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

On the second thought, it does make sense for ArbCom to have the final say in this, given that we're discussion Mythdon's ability to post requests for amendments/clarifications where they are the ultimate authority. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom requests everyone to try steps short of ArbCom intervention; I'm merely complying with that request. If I did not, there would be no difference between me and Mythdon, who would not with that request Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That is actually to try prior steps in dispute resolution before requesting arbitration cases. It's not applicable here. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It was this approach that led to the sanction proposals. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't bar an editor from access to dispute resolution. If the Committee doesn't like what Mythdon is doing on their pages, all they have to do is ignore it. Cla68 (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Then you can put yourself in the above section to state your opposition. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not what's happening here. Merely, Mythdon's access to dispute resolution is being limited until such a time he can use it appropriately. Unless you don't want the Committee to give timely responses, perhaps going back to the old ways of a previous Committee, ignoring it is not an option. It isn't merely the Committee who doesn't like what Mythdon is doing on those pages, as some statements would've indicated already. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• considering supporting this, and agree with the proposal in principle. My concerns are the wording of:

(a) Mythdon [...] is hereby prohibited from editing any Wikipedia:Arbitration and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration pages and subpages, broadly construed. This restriction shall expire after 1 month. (emphasis mine)

• I agree that much of this ongoing disruption should be addressed, but I am hesitant to support due to the phrasing which I bolded above. It would likely be more prudent to confine the restriction to only the existing sanctions as far as "topic". — Ched :  ?  06:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • That's ironically the same concern I initially had. But the rationale behind it is that this effectively gives Mythdon an opportunity to at least listen to what ArbCom was saying in the 5th request for clarification - which means that there should be no need for Mythdon to edit the pages himself. Carcharoth's comments may be helpful in this regard. I was also given the impression that the same problem would just move to any available on-wiki pages not covered by the restriction, if you get what I mean. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Mythdon has posted on all the arb's talk pages about this. I think it good the community discuss this issue. The mere fact that someone filed this shows how problematic his behavior has become. Right now the consensus seems to be that is is not a good idea for the community to ban someone from DR pages; that this should be left to arbcom. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• As I've already stated here, ArbCom reserves the right to apply any necessary sanction/restriction (topic ban/ban) especially that ignoring excessive and unnecessary requests and questions is not appropriate. The Arbitration Enforcement is enough for now. It is up to Mythdon to understand and assess the consequences of his actions. However, any further question about the nature of these consequences would lead to an automatic ArbCom action in order to put an end to this story. It should be noted that Mythdon should be held responsible as he refused mentorship and still doesn't show any improvement in communicating with others. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I admit that I'm not particularly knowledgeable on "ArbCom" matters, so I guess my question would be: To what degree do the arbs consider WP:INVOLVED to be a consideration here? (either collectively or individually). There certainly have been numerous threads at various talk pages, AN, AN/I in regards to Mythdon/Ryloung, Power Rangers, and the ArbCom sanctions, many of which I tend to just "scroll on by", but I can envision that some of the community may be finding it rather tiresome. I certainly don't want to step on the committee's toes if they are fully willing to handle it. (see SoWhy, mazca, Viridae, and AdjustShift comments above). If however the committe is desirous of community action, then I'm not opposed to a bit of "restrictions" being handed out. — Ched :  ?  11:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• I personally believe that WP:INVOLVED is quite explicit. I must just add that the criteria of the involvement of an admin differ from a case to another. I believe that the criteria for a case concerning general behavioral guidelines are less stricter than for a case involving complicated issues (POV pushing, etc...).
• I believe that this case can still be handled by ArbCom not because the community is not able to deal with it but it is rather a matter of continuity and avoidance of the establishment of interrelated and confusing or contradictory restrictions in complex ways which would require consequent unnecessary requests for clarifications.
• The main issue here is not merely a question of excessive requests by Mythdon but his inability to correct the mistakes which led to sanctions and restrictions. For this reason, ArbCom may expect further problematic behavior by Mythdon and it would be better if the community avoids any further complication by imposing new restrictions that aren't really necessary. Mythdon is free to request clarifications but there'd be no guarantee about the consequences of such exaggerated behavior. ArbCom has assumed good faith since the start of the case and it still does but for everything in life there are limits. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm content with what's been said. The arbs have read between the lines of this, and in their responses, have addressed a number of questions/concerns posed on this vexing problem. Pending any last questions/concerns that members of the community may desire responses to from the arbs, we're done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  Likewise. –xeno^talk 14:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Latham & Watkins

The page for Latham & Watkins was on my watch list for some reason, maybe having to do with an edit war from last May that was on this page - a war that appears to be resuming. I don't know who's right, if either one - there seems to be a POV-push-pull going on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

A cursory glance suggests that one editor might be the main problem, pushing a pretty strong POV (compare the current version to a recent one, just a quick read of the lead shows what the problem is). I'll take a look over there, but it might just be a matter of warning one editor away from POV pushing. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It is one editor that is the problem and a glance at his talk page indicates that he's been blocked for this very behavior previously. What we have is an unresponsive SPA dedicated to turning an article into a bashfest. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and accordingly I've indefinitely blocked User:Lathaminfo (see their talk page for my block message). This is clearly a POV-pushing SPA out to defame a particular law firm (and individual people), as evidenced by this edit, among others. A series of edits to Kilpatrick Stockton back in May were just as problematic but basically went unnoticed. [64][65][66][67]

I think an indef was a pretty obvious call here, but other admins are welcome to review and/or consider any unblock request. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Heal the World Foundation (moving discussion from wrong forum)

Moved from WT:OTRS.···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, forgive me if I don't know how to use this forum yet. I received mail about revising the heal the world foundation page from an administrator who is threatening to ban me if I dont stop changing the erroneous reporting on HTWF.

The Jackson estate did not say HTWF has nothing to do with Michael Jackson as reported on this site, but rather that HTWF has nothing to do with the estate currently. This error is causing damage to the charity and I want it removed for good and I don't know how to email him directly. please advise me.

Further, Our charity needs a bit of help from you volunteers as people trying to discredit the charity are going to make changes to the site, to harm them. Please do not let people change the HTWF listing. HTWF will save lives and one media report does not make something fact.

Melissa Johnson and HTWF is connected to Michael Jackson and will prove that in the near future, in the mean time, please help the charity ward off these attacks by people trying to harm them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjkid (talk • contribs) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

response to the above statement

No one is trying to "discredit the charity", as 'Mjkid' alleges above. The edits to the Heal The World Foundation article say that there is no known connection between Michael Jackson and the current Heal The World Foundation.

That is the truth.

Melissa Johnson has been repeatedly asked to provide any evidence or proof of her purported connection to Michael Jackson during his life. Her members have asked her to provide this. CBS News has asked her for proof that she knew Michael Jackson and had his endorsement. She has consistently failed to provide any evidence of this at all.

She cannot get "credibility" for her foundation by deleting facts from Wikipedia.

'Mjkid' is Melissa Johnson's user name on her own Heal The World Foundation website. That is the user name of the editor who made the above post. That is also the user name Melissa Johnson uses on many other sites, including MJJCommunity.com (see link below). 'Mjkid' is the Wikipedia editor who continues to edit and/or delete the fact that there is no known connection between Melissa Johnson's foundation and Michael Jackson personally.

Look at the Heal The World Foundation article history. The misleading information about Heal The World Foundation being connected to Michael Jackson has historically been provided by editor 'Mjkid'--who is Melissa Johnson, the founder and President of the current HTWF foundation. She is not an unbiased or independent source.

CBS News calls her foundation "fake" because no evidence of her connection to Michael Jackson has ever been produced by her, nor could CBS find any proof of a connection through independent investigation: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5234202.shtml

Many former members of her site are now posting all over the net that they have been banned from her site and all of their posts deleted for asking her for proof of legitimate connection to Jackson: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=58378&page=8 (entire thread is interesting) and http://uncivilsociety.org/2009/07/is-michael-jacksons-charity-a.html#comment-292 are two of the most complete sources.

Providing unsourced, misleading, deceitful and possibly false information in a Wikipedia article is not OK. The Heal The World Article now states: "A different organization, with no known relationship to Michael Jackson's foundation, incorporated in the state of California under the same name and applied for new tax exempt status in 2008." This is a fact.

I do not think Melissa Johnson, aka 'Mjkid', can claim a known connection to Michael Jackson, or change the article again, unless she provides independent, verifiable proof of her foundation's connection to Jackson, and correctly cites the source.

I apologize to the forum for taking up space for this topic, in this fashion. 'Mjkid' brought the topic here and, because of intense global interest in Michael Jackson, I addressed it here. I am learning, but am not an experienced editor. Again, apologies.

All41and14all (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The reliable source says they are unconnected so that's what we go with (and what I have edited the article to say). --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"Long term" vandal, short term solution

Today, I saw this edit from 66.84.180.196 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I recalled seeing similar edits in the past, and it turns out that they showed up on a different IP in mid June and before that in October 2008 on 66.84.180.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 66.84.180.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). None of the IPs have ever been blocked. All have been warned, and nothing came about because the user disappeared shortly afterward, only to appear months later on a different IP address.

As far as I can tell (from the gadget that allows one to search IP ranges), nearly every single edit from the range 66.84.180.0/24 has been from this individual. All have added [[Category:[Decade] animated television series]] to articles that are 99% of the time not cartoons. I have not found any IPs outside of the /24 that match the MO. Blocking this range from editing Wikipedia would probably solve any problems that may arise.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I blocked for 31 hours as I noticed the similarity to edits made almost exactly a year previously. I considered that this may be a vacationing vandal, but not so sure - despite a familiar range of articles being targeted - to place a longer block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 66.84.180.192/27 for 3 months. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Levinstein

Levinstein (talk · contribs · count) There are a couple of other admins keeping an eye on this, but I'd like to get more eyes on this (and I don't personally have the time today to do it). User Levinstein keeps creating pages regarding an alleged / convicted pedophile. Originally he did it in mainspace, and when it was deleted for being a wall o' text attack page, he recreated it in his userspace and usertalk. Those were deleted last night as attack pages, and user has reinstated it on his talk page.

He claims that the article is sourced, and from the searches I've done I can only find the first paragraph of one of the cited stories. Otherwise, its almost a cut and paste from a headline clearing house (which says its GFDL, so they aren't copyvio).

He's also jumped IMO immediately to bad faith land, accusing one of the original deleters Closedmouth of trying to cover up the person's crimes.

Thoughts? I'm going to go inform the editor of this discussion now. Syrthiss (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, bollocks to him. He clearly isn't here to write an encyclopedia, just to push this stuff. So I've permablocked him. ➲ REDVERS ^{It sucks to be me} 12:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• One day your meek manners and lack of decisiveness is going to be your undoing... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

My boy, you may take it from me

That of all the afflictions accurs't

With which a man's saddled

And hampered and addled

A diffident nature's the worst. -- Gilbert & Sullivan 14:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit war at Stormfront (website)

Resolved

 – Page protected, parties discussing amicably on talk.  Skomorokh  13:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This article has been rather volatile over the past month, and the participants don't show much indication of abating. Requesting an uninvolved administrator to intercede to discourage further reverting. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  12:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

IP 71.253.243.132 repeatdly posting link to miscellaneous script.

Hope this is the right place. IP 71.253.243.132 has been adding a link (See diff) on the Neopets article to http://www.neopets.com/guilds/preview_guild.phtml adding ?guild_bgcolor=[with code that links to an external script]. It does work so I'm not going to link it here. Make sure you turn off JavaScript before you follow it. Should this user be blocked? Should the address be blocked? RP9 (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User:LibStar

As some of you know, there has been massive disruption caused over the deletion of bilateral relation articles. Discussions have gotten quite heated, with people being sent to ANI over these articles, disscusions of RFCs, and editors being booted.

• 18 April 2009: Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force created
• 30 sections on ANI.[68]
• 6 sections at Articles for deletion main talk page.[69]

A compromise which the majority accepted, but which a handful of editors, including Libstar ademently refused to accept, was merging several of these articles into List of diplomatic missions of Argentina, for example.

Now Libstar, who was the most adement to comprimise is putting the redirects for these articles up for deletion.

I was just alerted to:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 14

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_14#Argentina.E2.80.93Suriname_relations

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_14#Argentina.E2.80.93Hungary_relations

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 19

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_19#Argentina.E2.80.93Nigeria_relations

I am interested if this is the correct forum to talk about Libstar's refusal to comprimise, continued disruption, battle mentality, and refusal to work towards comprimise. Based on a quick glance at Libstar's talk page and talk archive, a RFC maybe in order, but I would like the communities opinion on this, and what is the best way to settle this dispute. Please advise. Ikip (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If this consensus to compromise exists, why not provide a link to it at the redirect discussions? Raising it here would seem to be the 'path of greatest drama'.  pablo_hablo. 14:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Pablomismo, I did above, it was a proposal which I am grateful that, despite our continued differences, even you and I agreed upon."Support with caveat give by Fram below" in case I didn't tell you this before, thank you greatly. Ikip (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I meant provide the link in the redirect discussions themselves for the benefit of other editors.  pablo_hablo. 14:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I just finished that, the 3 redirects are above. Thanks for the suggestion. Ikip (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What admin intervention are you looking for here? If you think there's consensus to keep, then just use that as the basis of your entry in the XfD discussions. Tarc (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Redirect the remaining pages

I suggest we redirect all of the remaining pages:

Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Articles

(which don't have footnotes and are mere stubs) to the List of diplomatic missions of...

Those editors who want to later merge that material can. I will start redirecting these pages, unless anyone objects...Ikip (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Talk:Speed of light

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

What conflict resolution did you use before asking for a topic ban? Ussually that is a last resort as I understand it. Upon a review of the users talk page I don't see any warnings for using the talkpage or any recent warnings period. From my standpoint there doesn't seem to be anything that can be done here yet as not one whit of resolution of this dispute before running here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I notified the person in question they had a thread here as I didn't see he was notified on his talk page.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an ongoing problem with David. There was a WQA report about his behavior and a somewhat related, drawn-out ANI report that included him a little more than a month ago, albeit related to a different set of incidents. However, he seems to have removed from his talk page the notices and the resulting WQA advice given. I would add that David is not only disruptive on the talk pages but also outright uncivil with anyone who disagrees with him (essentially calling them idiots or accusing them of being part of a conspiracy to suppress the truth). --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't comment on speed of light, but the volume of traffic in the related WT:PHYS thread has been making it nigh-unreadable for other purposes for the last couple of days. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

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

David Tombe page banned

• I hereby implement an indefinite length pageban of David Tombe (talk · contribs) from Talk:Speed of light and Speed of light for:
  • Persistent disruption, soapboxing, circular arguing. [70][71][72][73]
  • General incivility and assumptions of bad faith. [74][75]
• I'll also log this sanction at WP:ARBCRANK Jehochman ^Talk 15:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC) and 15:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I imagine that the "crank science or pseudoscience Jehochman has in mind" is the same as the crank science that David has raised repeatedly here where every other editor has either pointed out (often repeatedly) the scientific errors or that it is WP:OR or both.--Michael C. Price ^talk 16:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I support Jehochman's action, but want to note that this has little to do with pseudoscience. It may be "bad science" or "crankery", but those aren't the same thing as pseudoscience. The reasons that Jehochman gave are the correct reasons. Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"I am not an admin"...but Jehochman appears to have acted quite properly, and in a timely fashion to prevent further disruption. My opinion itself is worth little, but I fully support him in this case. Doc Tropics 17:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I support Jehochman's topic ban. I keep seeing the name David Tombe coming up in connection with strange edits of physics articles. I reserve judgment on whether quite enough data has been collected in the present discussion compared to how a proper topic ban is presented. If Tombe has not yet been properly notified of WP:ARBCRANK, I support giving a proper notification, and then reissuing the ban if Tombe does not make any concrete promise of reform in the mean time. If it turns out that any formalities have been overlooked, consider refiling the matter at WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

I got into alot of trouble over that, but I was eventually proved correct. I can't think of any more off hand. But the current issue here seems to be because of the opinions that I have been expressing on the speed of light talk page. It's certainly not about actual edits on the main article. Ultimately, I have been trying to educate these guys about the fact that the famous equation c^2 = 1/(εμ) is purely a consequence of experimental measurement of the right hand side. They have been arguing against this and showing me Maxwell's equations, as if I had never seen them before, and they have all totally overlooked the fact that Maxwell incorporated the above equation into his own equations as a consequence of an experiment in 1856 by Wilhelm Eduard Weber and Rudolf Kohlrausch. I have shown them all the exact paragraph in the relevant paper. See page 49 of the pdf link at [76]. There is no bad science, or pseudoscience, or crank science going on on my part.

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

Although Jehochman's first charge looks proven I am not convinced by the evidence provided that David has indulged in "General incivility and assumptions of bad faith." I would acquit him of that charge.--Michael C. Price ^talk 18:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Removed uncivil shortcut

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

Retaliatory edit warring at Carly Fiorina

(I've brought up the most recent flare up here at wp:an3, but I'm hoping more eyes can prevent situations like this in the future...)

For the last couple of years, I have had the article for Carly Fiorina on my watchlist. I've always found it intriguing how, every few months, someone comes along who thinks the article needs to be much more negative. Sometimes the content is reliably sourced, and if so, it stays. More often than not, it isn't.

Today, though, an even more interesting editor stopped by, with a position I wasn't familiar with: either I concede that his poorly sourced content can stay or he'll remove all other "supportive" content.

The article is a biography of a living person, and obviously has some additional "needs" as such. The subject of the article is in the news today, which I presume is why User:Rvcx stopped by.

In any event, the issue appears too complicated to be properly addressed at wp:an3, and wp:blp/n tends to not have enough eyes on it to handle the traffic it receives (unfortunately).

wp:blp is clear that it is necessary to revert to keep controversial, poorly sourced material clear from the article. However, User:Rvcx has gone through and removed any "supportive" content, and reverted (and is continuing to revert) to keep that content out of the article. This is clearly quite ridiculous, the article has been stable with most of its content for years, and the fact that it reached that point through the consensus of some very vocal editors only makes User:Rvcx's wholesale deletion of the content quite untenable.

I've begged and pleaded for more people to keep the article on their watchlist, but I haven't been very persuasive apparently. Please, please take a look if you have a second! And if you can just add it to your watchlist, I'd really appreciate it! user:J aka justen (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for 3RR. That last edit was just...pointy beyond pointy. --Smashville^talk 16:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nemonoman (talk · contribs)

While looking at Parapsychology, I found some surprising claims, and checked them against the sources, and discovered that the sources directly conflicted with the claims being made. Further research discovered a pattern of abuse of sources, and I nominated the article for FAR:

Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Parapsychology/archive1

As can be seen, I provided detailed analysis of an entire section, line by line, showing that almost every claim was distorted or actively went against the source. For instance, here's the first bit of the analysis.

Claim

Evidence

"The practice of randomization and associated techniques such as "blind" administration of conditions were principally developed in the conduct of early psychical research, and have since become standard practice in scientific experiments."

Claims about blinding actively contradicted by citation; randomisation claims overstated: The Bulletin of the History of Medicine does not say any such thing. Its discussion of blinding begins in the late 18th century, and, several pages of chronologically-organised examples later discusses that the first use of blinding in psychic research began after 1884. It does say "From this point [after Richet befgan using blinding sometime after 1884], blinding quickly became an essential feature of psychical research, as did Richet's random selection methods (au hasard), which he used as an additional precaution to ensure concealment. 71 When university-sanctioned psychical and parapsychology research centers were opened in the early twentieth century, blind assessment and early forms of randomization were also an integral component of their research protocols." - However, it does not credit this work with any innovation in the protocols, randomisation, or any other blinding technique. The Isis source's main statement on the matter is that Richet's randomisation methods were groundbreaking, but also credits various other fields as well, such as the later work of R. A. Fisher, and Pierce's earlier work with using playing cards to randomise a study on the perception of small differences in weights. Hence, "principally developed" is somewhat of an overstatement.

I and others subsequently removed some parts of the article that had such sourcing issues.

This has caused Nemonoman to launch constant, evidence-free attacks against me, complaining at a variety of fora, and acting as if I provided no reasons for my actions. For instance, from the FAR:

“ In the past week, the editors above have edited Parapsychology with a meat cleaver and sledgehammer. The careful wordings and citations, the neutrality and consensus that successfully brought this article to FA has been successfully eliminated. Gone. The article is now canonical: Parapsychology is bullshit and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot or worse.

After a slash and burn of many long months of consensus editing, the fine editors above now note -- very correctly -- that following their POV edits the article is NOW a stinking heap of garbage. And having gotten it to this stinking state, they now want it de-FA'ed.

I am in total agreement with them. This article is no longer FA quality. Not in any way. Thanks guys! --Nemonoman (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

PS. You guys could turn this into a business.

”

and

“ Nor did it contain your many helpful new edits.

As to the info you removed, en masse, with no discussion, god bless you. Apparently you're comfortable that new info, including numerous citations, describing parapsychology in a reasonably positive light may be removed without comment. And that other information describing parapsychology in a skeptical light may be added without comment. Do we detect a pattern?

Some of us editors who regard it as good wiki-business to keep the article neutral were working that new material over. Apparently not fast enough to satisfy you, particularly when you had so much new skeptical material to add.

How much of this FAR is based on the actual quality of the article, and how much is based on a belief that the SUBJECT MATTER does not merit a Featured Article. That's something I'll be thinking about today. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

”

Having found no support there, he jumped to my talk page, heightening his rhetoric:

“ It would have been a nice courtesy to discuss your plans to FAR, and your reasons, on the talk page, just as it would have been a courtesy to discuss your extensive edits of the article.

In the future, before wiping the blood from your hatchet and heading over to FAR the work done by many editors who toiled for quality and consensus, please make some small note on the articles talk page, and your actions may be better received.

I agree that Parapsychology should be de-FA'ed following your edits. It is now full of (your) POV and no longer FA quality.

This is an interesting strategy. I'll have to remember it. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

”

Then, when I deleted his comment (somewhat poorly chosen edit summary for removal: "Removed fairly trollish comment" - silence would have been better on my behalf), decided to attack me on Talk:Parapsychology [77]:

“ I expressed my concern about Shoemakersholiday's major deletions and the FAR of this article on his talk page here. He removed those comments as trolling.

Scarcely.

This is the place to discuss big changes and big actions before engaging. To do so shows respect for other editors. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

”

This is, as you can imagine, getting very old, very fast. I suppose I should link Nemonoman to this after closing this edit window, and will do so, but I would appreciate a little help here soon. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 195 FCs served} 17:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

ETA: the behaviour continues unabated. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 195 FCs served} 17:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This appears to me to be a case of ownership on the part of Nemonoman, who is slinging around accusations of POV because someone is messing with his article, hoping that something will stick. This is backed up by his absence of reply to Shoemaker's Holiday's points, merely claiming that he should have been consulted first. Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

weird stalker

I'm not sure what can be done about this but this guy, an IP with an illustrious trolling career going back to January 2008 (with such informative edits as this and this, suddenly bounced into the discussion on Talk:Nurse Nayirah earlier this month. He has specifically targeted me and while I first was engaging his arguments and even editing the article in response to them, I excused myself from the conversation as he got more and more incoherent and began personally attacking me. In his most recent attack he made reference to events that took place on Wikipedia several years ago, indicating that he has been watching my account for a long time. I normally would not think the earlier vandalism entries were from the same person -- since August 09 he has been editing exclusively on the Nayirah article talk page -- except that a couple of the earlier edits suggest that indeed it is the same person. Since August he has only made two edits outside of the Nayirah talk page -- that was to contact two editors I had disputes with in the very distant past to ask for help on Nurse Nayirah -- including one who has long since been permanently banned for constant violations of Wikipedia policies but who recently returned as a sockpuppet and argued with me on The Spitting Image. It's possible the IP user is TDC, though I doubt it -- the IP address locates to South Africa -- but I find it really strange that he's making reference to disputes that happened years ago in order to personally attack me. Strangely, for all the argument he has produced on the Nurse Nayirah talk page, he hasn't once tried to actually edit the article. csloat (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User:HarryAlffa

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

I want to draw the attention of the community to the behavior of this editor—please, see this RFC. I obviously do not like to be called "dumb", but it is not what concerns me the most. While I am relatively thick-skinned, other editors may be much more sensitive. Such manner of conducting discussions creates toxic atmosphere in the project and may forces editors to leave Wikipedia.

I have to say that that this RFC is not an isolated incident, and HarryAlffa habitually engages in such behavior. Just two months ago he was blocked (and in fact nearly banned) for a week for insulting others editors, however, apparently learned nothing from his block (see discussion, see also this and this). Below are some diffs from the past:

[78] (Nazi comparison),

[79] (others are incompetent),

[80] (comments of others are bogus),

[81] (shutting your face),

[82] (calling others imbeciles)

and the most recent one [83].

This editors seems absolutely incapable of conducting a civil discussion, without assumptions of bad faith, insults and disruption. WP:Banning policy states If a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point .... I want only to say that my patience is exhausted.

So, I propose to ban HarryAlffa from the project. Thanks. Ruslik_Zero 19:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I notified HarryAlffa of this thread. Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

First problem for me - and it's a biggie - all those links except the last were from before his latest block. You want him banned now for prior bad acts he has already "served time" for? Granted some of the rhetoric in those links and discussions are quite uncivil, but most of what I saw was before the last block. Anything else more recent? Wknight94 ^talk 19:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I was about to make the same comment. I'm no fan, being one of the editors Harry has implied are stupid or clueless, but that last diff is the only objectionable one I see in his history since his block. It is his behavior when someone disagrees with him that needs to be examined. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

His behavior have not changed much and it is only a matter of time before past incidents are repeated. Ruslik_Zero 19:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I believes he simply lives in a strange world of his own, making Wikipedia an even more stressful experience for him than it is for most. Recently I have experienced him as surprisingly relaxed. See his behaviour in his thread at WP:VPP#Artificial Intelligence User Accounts. But overall I am getting the impression that while he is clearly here to improve the encyclopedia, that's not the effect he is having. He is often absent over several months, which is probably why he is not banned yet. But I am not sure how proper it is to have this discussion, especially at ANI, rather than, say, AN, without a concrete recent cause. Hans Adler 19:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It is difficult for me to distinguish where he is serious and where he is just joking. Ruslik_Zero 20:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving Salford Docks to Manchester Docks while content exists on destination page.

I'm trying to have the Salford Docks page renamed to Manchester Docks to more accurately reflect the naming used for the area, but as there is content (disambiguation) on the Manchester Docks page, I cannot. Could this be looked into, as I'm not sure of the next move. Roobarb! (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This should be discussed first on the talk page. — neuro^(talk) 20:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)