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

Tendentious discussion at Talk:Speed of light

A bunch of us are (at the least, I am) getting rather annoyed by one editor who makes a series of bizarre claims such as that the speed of light is not defined as 299 792 458 m/s, that the speed of light ceased to be meaningful after the 1983 definition of the BIPM as being exactly 299 792 458 m/s, that the speed of light defined by the BIPM is not the "actual" speed of light but rather some "unrelated" conversion factor between lenghts and time, and so on. For scale, the long talk page you'll see is the result of 9 days of these discussion, which are now simply repetitions of old ones (which are now archived, even if they are 2-3 weeks old at best). This is related, although different, to the recent topic ban of User:David Tombe. Looking for advice (wheter admin action is necessary, I'll leave up to the admins to decide). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes things around here travel at the Speed of Smell. Anyway, WP:Consensus is key - and article content disputes are rarely actionable 'round here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Having encountered him on these pages a few days ago, you certainly have my sympathy. Jehochman told him that he was from that Talk page back on 19 August, so if he continued to edit it after that date he should be sanctioned per WP:ARBPS -- unless a later discussion on that page reversed Jehochman's ruling. (I stopped following the matter a couple of days ago, so I don't know what the situation is with him currently -- beyond the fact he is contributing under borrowed time.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the complaint concerns Brews ohare (talk · contribs), who seems to be continuing User:David_Tombe's fringe arguments and has made close to a 1000 edits on the talk page over the last 45 days. Abecedare (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare Your assessment of the situation is incorrect. I have pushed absolutely no fringe viewpoints unless you consider NIST BIPM and J Wheeler as radical. In serious discussions like this one, it behooves you to get your facts straight. Brews ohare (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Shortly after posting the above, I had a look at the actual discussion, in disbelief that David Thombe would so brazenly ignore that ban -- only to find what Abecedare described: David Thombe had not posted to the thread since Jehochman's page ban, & Headbomb had confused Brews ohare with him. (Or else he knows something about the two that none of the rest of us do; if so, I suggest he share it for the rest of us to evaluate -- or admit his mistake.) On the other hand, these accusations below of a "lynch mob" orchestrated by a Wikipedia cabal reminds me of the first corollary to Extreme Unction's first law. -- llywrch (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

llywrch: Veiled implications that a sloppy editor's confusion between D Tombe and myself indicates some subtle connection does not reflect well upon you. As for assessing whether there is in fact a lynch mob at work, or at least a bunch of editors that refuse to follow the rules of normal WP discourse, these matters are not settled by cute aphorisms or Aesop's fables, but by looking at the facts. I do not believe a lynch mob is normally considered to be a conspiracy (a feeding frenzy is more like it), so Extreme Unction's first law is not pertinent here. Brews ohare (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

So how would you explain his confusion while assuming good faith? If it was a mistake, he should have apologized before now. As for my link above, it was simply a gentle way to let you know that just because a large group of people are opposed to your view, it does not mean there is a lynch mob, either metaphorically or physically. But we are growing weary of your repeated insinuations of its existence. -- llywrch (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is your behavior, not someone else's. And, call it a lynch mob, or a gang, or a gaggle, or a crowd, there are a bunch of hectoring, haranguing editors that are impolite, make denigrating sneers, and who do not try to address the issues at all. Whether they are in cahoots, or feed off of each other's horrible behavior, the result is the same: no attempt to deal with substantive issues, just more harangue. Brews ohare (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A proposed lead to speed of light by User:Abtract found here is technically correct and yet conveys all that other editors wish to say. However, under the leadership of Martin Hogbin no attempt is being made to discuss this proposal, but instead Martin Hogbin is calling for a lynch mob to railroad his own incorrect wording into the article. Numerous explanations and reputable sources challenging Martin's wording have been presented and quoted on Talk:Speed of light, and Martin and his colleagues simply refuse to deal with them. Headbomb should have a better understanding than he indicates following a recent (brief) technical exchange with me at Talk:Speed of light concerning a different subsection.

The point for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is not this argument over content, but that there is no argument over content. I have repeatedly tried to get some consideration for my opinion that the present wording is contrary to published experts, and provided sources, and no discussion of sources takes place. What happens is hectoring and attempt to impose majority rule (majority of editors, that is). My repeated attempts to get consideration of sourced opinion is being steamrollered by a lynch mob that cannot deal with it. What is needed is enforcement of WP protocol to address published sources, and to avoid repeated hectoring as a method to squelch ideas.

Discussion of the lead proposed by User:Abtract found here should be mandated. The excitement of mob rule should be squelched. Brews ohare (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again, here we see a malicious allegation in an attempt to get another player sent off the field. Until a few weeks ago, I didn't even know what Brews was arguing about. So I decided to investigate the matter. The first hint I got that Brews was right and that Martin Hogbin was wrong, came when Brews was eager to explain his position to me, whereas Martin refused to discuss the matter with me. Martin clearly didn't want to reveal his agenda. It took a while for me to work out the subtlety of the argument, but I eventually realized that Brews is absolutely right. The 1983 definition of the metre has had a significant impact on physics, and that needs to be elaborated on in the speed of light article. Brews is not pushing any fringe theories. Rather, those who are trying to prevent Brews from clarifying a very delicate point, are actually engaged in trying to hide the history of the subject. It's time that the editors who bring these malicious allegations to AN/I are themselves subjected to closer scrutiny. David Tombe (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be another attempt to create an imposed consensus by eliminating the dissent. That isnt what a consensus is about. Frankly, I never would have thought to examine the speed of light article except for the fact that the lynch mob seems to think it is in danger of being overthrown. Then after seeing what they are protecting, I understand the need to squelch any dissention. It is a gigantic mess. So, instead of looking for new people to behead, I suggest that you fellows take a close look at yourselves and get busy fixing the article that at present is a morass of confusion.72.64.63.243 (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You guys are such experts, let me ask you this: If I were driving my car at the speed of light, and turned on the headlights, would anything happen? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs: With the lights on, you might see the error of your ways?? Brews ohare (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Aha, so you don't know the answer. I thunk so. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

We can only take action against Brews, if we first have a consensus on the talk page that the discussion on the revant issues are closed and that any further discussions would be reverted on the talk page. If Brews were to start a new discussion that is very similar then we could revert that. If he were to revert that change or keep kicking off new discussions that we would ahve to revert again and again, then we could come here and raise this issue.

But the current situation on the talk page is not like that at all. In fact, other editors are still starting discussions on related issues, see e.g. here Count Iblis (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not an issue about content, but behavior. After being admonished a couple weeks ago by an uninvolved admin for "a blatant violation" of WP:OWN, Brews ohare has increased his level of tendentious editing and incivility, plus created a content fork of the article outside of consensus or prior discussion. As for myself, who has contributed minimally to the article or discussion page, his opinion is that I am disqualified to contribute to the page. My response to this personal attack is here, as I saw no need to add to the toxic environment at the article talk page. Tim Shuba (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Tim Shuba's claims that "Brews ohare has increased his level of tendentious editing and incivility" is unsupported, and his frivolous attitude is well described in his own words, quoted here. Brews ohare (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The only people that come running to AN/I to get their opponents blocked from a debate on the talk pages are those who are not confident about their own arguments. It is gross cowardice to try and win an argument by getting the opponents blocked on the basis of empty allegations such as 'incivilities', 'disruption', and of course the all time favourite 'assumption of bad faith'. This thread is yet another case of it. Unfortunately a precedent has already been set that demonstrates that this shameful tactic can be successful. Tim Shuba has now entered the debate, and he has already demonstrated that he knows very little about the topic in question. His major contribution so far has been to delete a paragraph in the history section which deals which the convergence of the directly measured speed of light with the speed of light as determined indirectly from the measured values of the electric and magnetic constants. This was perhaps the most significant fact in the entire article, because it dealt with how James Clerk-Maxwell concluded that light is an electromagnetic wave. That is easily the most important historical landmark in the history of the speed of light, and it has now been deleted by Tim Shuba who is posturing as a poor innocent victim who has only contributed minimally to the article. David Tombe (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have upgraded David Tombe's page ban to a topic ban covering anything related to the speed of light article.[1] If there is any further gaming of the rules, disruption, or advocacy of theories about the 1983 redefinition of the meter, blocks should follow. Jehochman ^Talk 06:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Despite my lack of sympathy for David Tombe, I'd like to point out that this is misdirected. Except for his posts here & on user talk pages he hasn't been contributing to anything related to the speed of light -- & there only because because he can't defend himself unless he mentions it was for his edits to his topics -- for his last 100 edits. Except for a few edits to luminiferous aether, they've all been to articles on Canadian currency. He has been staying away from the topic. And as for editting user talk pages, unless he's been posting to them after being told not to, I can't see how that's become an issue. -- llywrch (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • Jehochman should be censured for this unwarranted act of a topic ban on D Tombe which has absolutely no justification whatsoever. Brews ohare (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't know if my opinion on this matters. I pointed out here that an editor was violating an ArbCom ruling, & was brushed off with the same reasoning that would allow David Tombe to make these edits on Talk pages. Maybe my ability to reason is defective, maybe I need more sleep, or maybe Wikipedia policy is enforced more rigorously for some than for others. -- llywrch (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Brews ohare

• Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Speed of light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Speed of light (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

There are suggestions above that Brews ohare has engaged in tendentious editing at Talk:Speed of light. Can anybody present a selection of diffs to substantiate that claim? Brews ohare, why is your editing any different from David Tombe's? Why would you expect different treatment if you commence editing in the same style? Jehochman ^Talk 06:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, You clearly haven't investigated this issue at all. David Tombe (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt that Brews ohare is in good faith, that he (like Tombe) believes that what he is saying is correct. However, he keeps repeating the same argument over and over on Talk:Speed of light, and it is getting beyond tiresome to keep dealing with him, although I just made another attempt here. I count 16 talk page edits by Brews on 31 August (UTC) which isn't over yet, 32 on 30 August, and 25 on 29 August. He edited the talk page 578 times in all of August, which puts him in first place by a comfortable margin (Martin Hogbin is in second place with 225).[2] Scanning the Talk page, with all the back and forth, would give you a better idea of the character of his participation than diffs; I added the talk page info as the third item under this section's heading. —Finell (Talk) 18:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I warned Brews ohare about his behaviour here: responses can be seen in this talk page section. Physchim62 (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised you wish to advertise your attachment to me of sentences you have fabricated all by yourself. Very sloppy, at best, actionable at worst. Brews ohare (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

His comment about your username was uncalled for. -- llywrch (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Fabrication of fake evidence is more acceptable. Brews ohare (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why I am singled out as "keeps repeating the same argument over and over", instead of those that respond over and over (in effect, not their exact words) "We don't have to agree with sources Wheeler; Jespersen;Sydenham; we don't have to support OUR views; we are RIGHT."? I have written a carefully sourced presentation of my views in the subsection of speed of light - Speed of light by definition - which has not been accused of being "crackpot science" or "fringe viewpoint" (and various other complimentary terms) even though it proposes exactly the same viewpoint contested. This group of editors out for blood is interested only in getting a particular wording for the lead, come what may, whatever its merits. I have explained sufficiently to them that their proposed lead is poorly conceived, and very readily understood to contradict the subsection Speed of light by definition. These editors don't care about that.

As far as I am concerned, these editors are free to mangle the introduction as they wish. I will not address this subject on my own initiative any longer. If I am asked about it however, I will state why I don't like it. That is not "pollution of the Talk page" (another complimentary term), it is just being polite. Brews ohare (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well Brews' is quite welcome to take a voluntary wikibreak from Speed of light whenever he/she likes.

I hardly need to look through thousands of contributions: after all, Brews has made more than 500 contributions to Talk:Speed of light in the last month [3]. It is sufficiant to look at the arguments that he/she makes at each occasion. The proposed lead is not in contradiction with the section on "Speed of light by definition"; Jesperson is in favour of fixing measurement units to fundamental physical phenomena, just after the passage that Brews decides to quote; "This group of editors out for blood is interested only in getting a particular wording for the lead" is hardly the case, given the length and depth of the discussions.

Brews' editing statistics alone support the case of contentious editing; anyone who wishes to look further (brave as they would be) need only look at the pages to which this editor has attached his/her attention. Physchim62 (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

And thank you so much Physchim62 for your apologies regarding fabrication of evidence. Your theory that statistics can demonstrate contentious editing is pure nonsense, and your reading of Jespersen is illiterate. Brews ohare (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Erm, 583 edits by Brews to Talk:Speed of light during the months of August 2009… 428 edits by Brews to Talk:Speed of light 15–31 July 2009… It's interesting that I have to go back from 15 July to June 10 to find Brews' previous comment (the last of 37 comments he/she made on the page in just over two days). Anyone else wishing to contribute to these pages must read through tens if not hundreds of kilobytes of Brews' comments (often very repetitive, but you can't know until you've read them) before then can hope to add to the discussion. This manner of editing is obviously not constructive, it is simply spamming, the Wikipedia equivalent of a filibuster.

I said that I found the gap before 15 July in Brews' comments quite interesting: what happend on 14 July? This complaint was raised at WP:AN/I, concerning a separate article but similar behaviour (I quote: "The talk page sometimes sees 100 edits in a day, from only three or four users!") and also concerning Brews ohare. The gain for the editors at Talk:Centrifugal force seems to have been the loss for those interested in Talk:Speed of light!

I think it is time to call time on Brews' disruptive editing. If it can't be done here, I shall take the matter to a forum where it can be done, and I shall not be so indulgent as to limit my request to articles related to the speed of light. Physchim62 (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd care to present a little more than the number of edits as evidence of my causing trouble? Please don't invent them. Brews ohare (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The number of edits *are* evidence of causing trouble ... not automatically actionable, but the article talk page is clearly being subjected to unusually high activity from a small set of users. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

So I should not correct grammatical errors, punctuation or add second thoughts to a response because that increases my count? I should limit myself to one edit a day, and respond to all and sundry in a listed sequence within one edit. That would fix things, eh? OK, if that works for you. Brews ohare (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

More comments from Headbomb

Ilywrch: First, I did not confuse Brews Ohare and David Tombe, as you claimed. In fact, I specifically mentioned that this was not the same case, see my words: "This is related, although different, to the recent topic ban of User:David Tombe". Please don't put words in my mouth. If you hadn't, a lot less drama would have ensued. I came here looking for advice, not heads to be chopped.
Brews/David: I am not a "Example text", nor a "Example text" and do mind WP:NPA. I'll leave it at that. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Then mention the person you are complaining about, not who that person behaves like. Your sloppy writing caused any Wikidrama here, & if didn't understand what you wrote you need to accept at least part of the responsibility for that. And I only responded after it appeared that no one else would offer advice -- so kindly turn down the attitude when my only motivation was trying to help. -- llywrch (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mentioned Brews because I wanted a neutral look at what was going on. I take no responsibility for people reading something else than what I actually wrote. There's no need for personnal attacks, so please refrain from making them. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Headbomb - Perhaps you will take responsibility for removal of sourced material composed at some labor by me without any related comment on the Talk page, and only the uncivil one-line edit summary "This does not belong here, or anywhere, for what matters." ?? Is that how things are best done? Brews ohare (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The material is simply there to push your POV that a wavelength-based definition of a meter is superior than the fixed value definition. Stating that this does not belong in the speed of light, or anywhere for what matter, hardly consists of incivility. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Headbomb: I do not have and never have expressed the POV that a wavelength-based definition of a meter is superior to the fixed value definition. Please re-read my remarks. What was said was the the pre-1983 definition was an example of a definition that allowed the measurement of the physical speed of light because the metre was based upon wavelength. The 1983 definition allows more accurate length comparisons, but makes the speed of light an exact conversion factor beyond reach of measurement. Your interpretation of my statements is a non sequitor of the first rank; please learn to distinguish between what is said and what you want to believe. You create the impression of deliberate distortion to enable wild accusations.

That out of the way, I propose that you apologize for removal of sourced material composed at some labor by me without any related comment on the Talk page, and making the uncivil one-line edit summary "This does not belong here, or anywhere, for what matters." ?? Brews ohare (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Headbomb, If you wanted a neutral look to your complaint, then why did you drag my name into it when I haven't edited the speed of light article since 12th August? David Tombe (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

It has degenerated into a full blown edit war over the Speed of light article again. This article and its talk page are an object lesson in how not to Wikipedia. —Finell (Talk) 01:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no edit war: there is a simple hijacking of the page by an unruly mob that does not use the Talk page, removes sourced material without comment, makes nasty pejorative comments to get the temperature up, and insists upon a narrow stance contrary to sources. Very professional, very understandable, if you are a hit man. I hope this example is useful in getting WP to adopt a process with appointed editors that can eject those that behave this way. Brews ohare (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not just referring to you, Brews. The Talk page is very much in use, but not in productive use. The same people who are arguing about everything on the Talk page are reverting each other's article edits and substituting their own singular visions without any semblance of consensus at to many issues. That is what I understand to be an edit war. No one has hijacked the page any more than anyone else; it's a free-for-all. One issue on which there is broad consensus, though, is that your contributions to the article and the Talk page are misinformed and are not supported by the sources that you cite over and over, and that your behavior is tendentious. —Finell (Talk) 04:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Finell, The blame for this mess lies squarely at the feet of administrator Jehochman. Administrator Jehochman likes to voice his opposition to 'gaming the system'. But he has gamed the system himself in this case, by imposing sanctions on only one side in the dispute. That has given encouragement to the other side, and hence we are seeing bold warnings coming from the likes of Physchim62. This biased action from administrator Jehochman, which I understand was carried out arbitrarily against the wikipedia rules, has given the likes of Physchim62 an unwarranted sense of righteousness which makes him assume that everybody is going to believe that his side in the dispute is correct, without any doubt about it whatsoever. An impartial administrator attempting to end this edit war would either have dished out sanctions equally on both sides of the dispute, or else protected the page from editing until things cooled down. David Tombe (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Jclemens on Orly Taitz

Resolved

 – Jclemens and Viriditas are interacting cordially after agreeing to reset the discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Since 28 August, and for the last several days, I have been discussing the good article nomination of Orly Taitz by User:Jclemens on his talk page. I have not edited the article in question, but have concerns about stability, sourcing, and NPOV. Recently, I took my concerns from Jclemens' talk page and raised those same concerns on the article talk page. (See my comments over at Talk:Orly Taitz) In response to a heated discussion, Jclemens has declared that he has "topic banned" me from this article[4] after I have explicitly stated that "I intend to continue to maintain my neutrality by staying on the talk page" and not get involved in editing the article. To recap, Jclemens nominated the article for GAC, I responded on his talk page asking why I shouldn't quick-fail it, and then I placed several criticisms and suggestions for improvement on the discussion page, noting I had no intention of editing. Now, Jclemens declares I am topic banned. Jclemens is currently the top listed, primary contributor to Orly Taitz, with 106 edits.[5] I have been actively discussing his recent GA nomination, and several issues on the talk page. While I'm sure it is tempting to topic ban critics of our work, I don't think his topic ban declaration against me is legitimate. Could an uninvolved administrator look at this? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Yes, the topic ban is inappropriate. For established users like you, it takes community consensus, not one admin, to impose a ban. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I will voluntarily stay away from the page for 24 hours to let things cool down. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's totally inappropriate. While a topic ban isn't a use of the tools exactly, it's pretty close. He's involved in the article (heavily, as you note) and shouldn't be 'banning' people from it, not least of all for suggesting that it be quick failed. Protonk (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Per my message at Viriditi's talkpage and my notice to Jclemens I have unbanned Viriditas from Orly Taitz related pages. As noted in both comments, I express no opinion on the appropriateness of Viriditas' actions but only that Jclemens flawed use of admin authority (as they are involved in both editing the article and interacting with Viriditas' in regards to it). I note V has voluntarily agreed to withdraw from the issue for 24 hours, which will permit Jclemens time to commence a topic ban request should they wish to pursue that course of action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Responses

Well, despite WP:NOTIFY, no one seems to have waited to hear my side of the story before rushing to judgement.

• User:Viriditas has engaged in unprovoked, repeated and disruptive incivility against me and another editor, (diffs: "wikilawyering and obstruction", "Civil POV pushing and Wikilawyering", "wikilawyering and obscructionism", and "cherry picking sources") despite multiple warnings to cease doing so (diffs: [6], [7], and [8]), has asserted that objections to his conduct are simply "an attempt to change the subject" but despite those protestations, his incivility is the sole reason I topic banned him: (diff: [9])
• Having said that, this entire evolution raises several questions:
  • Protonk, your assertion that I topic banned Viriditas for suggesting the article be quick failed may coincide with his version of reality, but certainly was not my motivation, and in fact, I told him to go ahead and fail it if he wanted about 16 hours before his attacks began on the article talk page. I'm no stranger to WP:GAN as a nominator or reviewer, both before and after becoming an administrator, and it seems quite illogical to presume that I'd try to use a topic ban to boost an article's chances of passing. I'd appreciate it if you'd care to qualify your statement in light of my explanation.
  • Per KoH's comment, is it within the purview of an individual administrator to impose a topic ban, or not? Practice seems to have been that admins could do so per their discretion, subject to community or arbcom review, even though no such mention is made at WP:TOPICBAN.
  • I am unclear how my editing of an article restricts me from acting in an administrative capacity to enforce appropriate policies. WP:INVOLVED doesn't say anything about "if you edit an article, you can't take action against someone who is incivil on the article talk page"--rather, it says quite the opposite. I doubt a full reading of the record will find my actions objectively unreasonable: ("When you're ready to discuss problems, rather than editors, simply drop a note on my talk page asserting your desire to so focus in the future. Note specifically that you are not expected to change the content of your objections for this topic ban to be lifted, merely their presentation. Dissent is absolutely welcome, assertions of cherry-picking, wikilawyering, and the like are not"). If such interactions are now considered by the community to be "totally inappropriate", then may I suggest WP:INVOLVED be updated to reflect such?
  • Speaking of community involvement, I provided what I believe to be a perfectly reasonable, policy-based condition (WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL) condition for the removal of the topic ban. Is there a particular reason why this remedy was deemed to be inappropriate, and another admin unilaterally reversed the topic ban without waiting to hear my side of the story? Isn't this discussion substantially moot, in that Viriditas has agreed to essentially the terms of the topic ban anyways? Topic bans, like all tools, are designed to promote collegial editing. If Viriditas is going to return to the talk page and present his arguments in a logical, dispassionate manner and cut out the accusations of bad faith and misconduct, then my entire goal in enacting a temporary topic ban has been achieved. I still view temporary topic bans as a more appropriate and lower-level response than blocks for repeated incivility which doesn't rise to the level of vandalism. Jclemens (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • There's a continuum of problems that we deal with in articles. I consider myself 'involved' in about 3 dozen articles (give or take). If I revert vandalism and block the user on Adam Smith, I am neatly in the right. It is (almost) literally impossible to imagine a reasonable person who could view "Adam Smith eats poop" as anything other than vandalism and see a block for a named account with no contributions save blatant vandalism as anything other than a VOA. It is another matter entirely if I see an editor who is editing tendentiously or disruptively on Adam Smith or being obstinate and disputatious on Talk:Adam Smith and I block/ban them from the article. There are no shortage of different views on what might have been going on there. Perhaps another outside observer would see the situation as a dispute between two editors. Perhaps another observer would see the editor I viewed as disruptive as correct in their interpretation of sources. It is impossible for me to disengage my perspective of the content from my judgment of the conduct. More importantly, it is impossible for me to show to others that I have done so. You are involved in the Orly Taitz article. If you don't see yourself as involved, then others do. As such, you shouldn't be taking any admin actions there which could fall into gray areas. If you don't see your action as being well within the gray area, then accept some feedback: it was. I may be wrong in my quick summation as to the impetus for the topic ban. If I am I'm sorry for jumping to that conclusion. But I don't feel I'm wrong about my interpretation of INVOLVED. Protonk (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Apology accepted, thanks. If I implied that I thought I was not involved, then that was not my intent. I most certainly am involved in the article and any assertion from anyone that I'm not is laughable. Having said that, I believe where our viewpoints diverge is that I haven't interacted with Viriditas in any administrative capacity: there's no history that could be construed as historial bias against the user in question. Thus, if I am uninvolved with the topic banned editor (Viriditas), and the topic ban has nothing to do with the content of an article with which I'm involved, there's no particular reason for me to avoid dealing with a problem. I realise that the last clause is important and disputed, but maintain that both my words and actions demonstrate that the topic ban was related to incivility rather than article content. Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
        • The problem is that your involvement with the article precludes you from being able to judge situations like this with any great deal of nuance. The appropriate response to perceived incivility on the article talk page would be to get some input from another admin. They might disagree with your read and suggest that you too seek some dispute resolution. If you were just two editors involved in a dispute you would have to go through some route like that. But because you are an admin you 'can' (distinct from should) skip that and remove him from the page. IMO INVOLVED was written to proscribe a course of action like that. Protonk (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
          • So there are two assumptions which I challenge: 1) that my involvement "precludes you from being able to judge situations like this with any great deal of nuance". Really, I've been around Wikipedia long enough to know the difference between civil discourse and personal attacks. I dislike unprovoked accusations of any sort, and I don't think you'll find my actions in this case inconsistent with those in any other. I see no logic in the presumption that I am incapable of telling incivil users to take a time out until they can comport themselves civilly. 2) That INVOLVED supports the recusal of admins in all situation in which they're involved. In fact, it says absolutely nothing of the sort--there are no prohibitions in that section, just a recommendation that administrators may want to seek others to perform blocks. The clause that you're probably referring to, "Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist." is up the page a bit, but there's still nothing applicable there: one has to seriously torture the definition of "advantage" or "comflict of interest" to include simply expecting civility in a dispute. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
            • The first one wasn't completely an assumption. In my opinion, you topic banned someone with whom you should have entered dispute resolution. Obviously you and I hold differing opinions about it, but I imagine that your involvement with the article might have led you to undertake an action you otherwise wouldn't have undertaken. That said, it is also possible that you felt WP:TOPICBAN applied neatly and also felt that literal involvement with the article didn't preclude the use of the tools (broadly). I also am going to repeat my charge that this falls well away from obvious problems on the continuum of unpleasant editor actions. The diffs you provide above are either garden variety wikilawyering, warnings from you to him, or responses to warnings. Where is the clear and actionable incivility? Protonk (talk) 06:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
              • Your definition of actionable incivility differs from mine. At any rate, Viriditas and I have come to an understanding about the article and how to amicably promote forward progress, so I'm unsure of the need for future discussion on the topic. Jclemens (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Next steps?

So, two questions remain, and here is as good a place to discuss them as any:

• Is a topic ban a tool administrators are entitled to use?
• Does WP:INVOLVED no longer reflect community consensus? Jclemens (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Those don't seem to be relevant, as these aren't actually in dispute; these, in fact, seem to be framed less as a way of discussing any actual issues as they seem to be a way of steering towards a pre-determined conclusion justifying your actions. --Calton | Talk 03:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, no, actually, it was my intent to see if I was misinterpreting policy or misunderstanding consensus on the topic. The justification of my actions is up-page a bit, after which post only one editor has seen fit to call my actions questionable. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, no, actually, since neither of those "questions" are actually in dispute, the answers are obvious. The purpose, again, appears to be form of rhetorical framing: "Do you agree with X? Do you agree with Y? Yes? Therefore I must be right!"

As for objections, I see at least two clear objections above, and if you'd like, I'll add a third: yes, it's very obviously a misuse of admin authority to declare a topic ban for the purpose of winning a dispute on an article for which you are heavily involved. It's not even borderline here. Are there a minimum number of objections you need before you are able to take this on board?

Also troublesome is your "archiving" of the Talk page discussion without any actual archive I can find, an action which seems indistinguishable from plain blanking or deletion. --Calton | Talk 01:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it unfortunate that you assume bad faith on my part, presuming that the topic ban was a content dispute rather than a civility issue, rather than taking my statements at face value, especially in light of the fact that Viriditas has apologized on my talk page for his phrasing, and I've endorsed his content concerns. Feel free to follow-up with me or him on our respective talk pages, but I'm pretty sure this ANI thread is done. Oh, sorry about forgetting to add the archive box--someone's done that now. Jclemens (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't think there's a problem with a single admin enacting a topic ban without discussion (which means basically "you edit here again, any admin should be blocking you")? A single block of an editor for being disruptive I can understand and support but to go around and say that you alone can declare that editors are not allowed to edit certain topics without discussion with others seems highly aggressive. Add in the fact that you look like you could be involved. I actually don't care if you have a real conflict of interest, it's the perception to a neutral observer that it could be an issue that's concerning. Block individuals if you like for being disruptive but don't act like you have the authority of the community to enact topic bans until you actually have it. Banning policy only considers topic bans and other discretionary sanctions appropriate for areas that the Arbitration Committee has designated and even then admins are still required to report said bans. Is Orly Taitz in some Arbcom-designated area that allows for discretionary sanctions? Then the issue is simply a matter of putting a notice in the proper place. I'll drop this though if you want. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "assuming" bad faith on your part, Jclemens, I'm citing evidence of it: before you misuse that all-purpose shield, remember the full quote is "assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. And now we have four people pointing out your actions are bright-line questionable. If Viriditas's actions were such a Bad Thing, then a non-involved admin or editor -- and make no mistake, you ARE involved -- should have been the one to do something, and I'm pretty sure the unilateral reaching for the admin blunderbuss that is a topic ban would not have been their first action. --Calton | Talk 03:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior of User:HarryAlffa

This user is engaged in a slow edit war on the Trans-Neptunian_object article against consensus reached on the talk page. He is trying to insert a questionable line into the lead of this article (see diffs [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] and the last one [18].) Despite being told multiple times by multiple editors that he is wrong, he obviously decided to push the desired change by edit-warring. I want also to point at the uncivil behavior of HarryAlfa on the talk page, which has made any further discussion with him all but impossible (see [19], [20], [21]). I am asking an (uninvolved) administrator to take necessary measures. Thanks. Ruslik_Zero 18:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

As you may see from the talk page, it is quite clear that Policy dictates the inclusion of the alternative name. Really it shouldn't be this difficult to explain simple reasoning to people, but some people! Yes multiple members of the same group have told me, certainly, but none has offered counter-reasons to my reasoned debate! WP:Concensus, "we work to a system of good reasons", not by counting votes. If anything the other editors should be chastised for their unreasonable behaviour - which is disruptive. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the discussion of your behavior not of content issues. Ruslik_Zero 19:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

tag-team reverted by User:Serendipodous, User:Ruslik0 & User:Ckatz

The sectionTrans-Neptunian_versus_trans-Neptune on the talk page was started by me, 20:36, 5 June 2009. User:Ruslik0 never took part in the discussion. I ended that section on 14 August 2009 by starting an RfC on the subject.

User:Serendipodous, User:Ruslik0 & User:Ckatz tag-team reverted the 'alternative name' from 17 June to, well present.

Reversions with no attempt at communication on the talk page;

• Serendipodous [22]
• Ruslik [23]
• Ckatz [24]
• Ruslik [25]
• Ruslik [26]

Further reversion with no attempt at communication on the RfC;

• Serendipodous [27]
• (With simple nay-saying on talk page RfC) Ckatz [28]

Reasoning wins out over democracy. The inclusion of the alternative achieves concensus. Policy.

I have also been accused of personal attacks. I have attempted to bring reason and intelligence to the fore. Who objects to reason and intelligence? Charles Dickens was accused of libel over Oliver Twist, because some men believed the book was about them - which said more about them than they realised. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

When a single editor gets into an edit war against multiple editors, the single editor always loses. Unless you can persuade them that you're right, you aren't going to get anywhere, and won't accomplish anything except eventually being blocked for disruption. Looie496 (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I, however, think that 1 week is too short, taking into account that two previous blocks failed to prevent further disruption. Ruslik_Zero 09:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes "Plaxico" can get extraordinarily fixated on a single word. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me allude to an edit by the editor: I'm saddened to see Wikipedia editors apparently still unaware that the number of hits reported in Google searches is a quite useless number, despite Google making no secret of the fact that it estimates the number and uses several mechanisms that throw it off. It is a fallacy — one that has been recognized by experts in several fields, including linguistics, for several years — to use that number when deciding anything at all about the usage of a word or phrase. Wiktionary editors, in comparison, have long since switched away from counting Google hits to using linguistic corpora (which are what some of those mystery abbreviations that one might see in the Beer Parlour, Tea Room, or RFD are all about) — and, of course, using concrete quotations, doing actual research rather than counting Google hits. Uncle G (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Google is generally a poor measure of significance. HarryAlffa tried to insert "Trans-Neptune" on the basic of a Google search. After it was explained to him that his search results were wrong he still continued to insist on inclusion of this very rarely used term. Ruslik_Zero 12:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Further action?

I suggest that it may be time to consider a community ban for HarryAlffa. He has a long history of disruptive editing and insulting everyone around him who doesn't agree with his views. His unblock request actually summarizes his behavior quite nicely—in it, he insults everyone who was involved in this row, calling them stupid and claiming they lack the intellect to understand his views. He was doing this on WP:LINKING previously, which caused his previous block. He clearly doesn't like the way WP works in practice, and isn't interested in playing nice with other editors. I'm not sure why we should continue to accommodate such an individual. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I fully support the community ban of HarryAlffa. I want to provide a brief excursus into the recent history. HarryAlffa began his disruption of the Solar System article back in the May (or even in August-September last year). He started FAR, which was soon closed as keep. In the course of it he made a lot of uncivil remarks about mental abilities of other editors. You can see them by reading the page or in the history. I want only to provide one diff. After that FAR the relations between HarryAlffa and other editors were, of course, poisoned, and I generally stop assuming good faith on behave of this editor. AGF is a great policy, but not a suicide pact. However I expected that HarryAlffa would at least back out of that discussion. I was mistaken: he instead started an RFC, where he tried to get what he had not got in FAR. Insults followed as usual, but RFC produced no results. In the June HarryAlffa was blocked for one week, partly because of problems with Solar System article, but mainly because of his behavior here. Since then he lay low for some time, but recently resumed his activities. He edit-warred against consensus on Trans-Neptunian object and again was uncivil on the talk page (and was blocked as a result). He also disruptively edited the Solar System article. So, I think, the case is clear: HarryAlffa is not here to productively collaborate with other editors. He only likes to get what he wants, I when he does not, he insults those who disagree with him. I am afraid, but the ban is only option left, in my opinion. A topic ban will not help—it will only serve to export the problems to another area. Ruslik_Zero 07:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• In his current unblock request he managed to insult everybody, even MediaWiki developers. Ruslik_Zero 08:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• I've declined that request; the core of the issue is that he edited disruptively, and he does nothing to refute or mitigate that. The broader issue, as I note to the editor, is that he shows no intention to edit within policy; he continues to discount the opinions of "stupid editors" and editors of "average intelligence", and sees no issue with that. I'm hesitant to community ban just yet, but I don't see much of an alternative at this time. Every further unblock request digs a deeper hole. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• I hear you, UltraExactZZ. I only consider a community ban as a last resort. As you said, he shows no sign of slowing or stopping. A topic ban will not work because he's been in other areas of WP with this behavior (and been blocked for it). After he was blocked for insulting editors who disagreed with him about self-linking, he left WP:LINK and went into article space with the same behavior. He proposes or does something that he firmly believes there is good reason to do, but then ignores consensus if it is against him. His M.O. is to insinuate that people who don't see his point lack the intelligence to do so. Where does it end? --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there an alternative here to removing everything copied from other articles & replacing it?

Interesting, I was going to post this at AN because I've bothered this board enough and just want advice, not action, but this big red notice came up when I hit save that made it clear AN was the wrong place. So, here goes, sorry guys to bring another issue so soon.

In the new article Timeline of the Bible (which maybe should not exist and certainly has problems) a clearly good faith editor has copied material from other articles without attribution. I've told him on the talk page that it must all be removed and then replaced with the appropriate edit summaries. I can't see any other way to avoid breaking our copyright, can anyone else? Dougweller (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You could use dummy edits to credit them, if you can be sufficiently diligent. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 202 FCs served} 09:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There's also the {{Copied}} template you can use on both the source and target talk pages to point towards the source histories. MLauba (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What worries me about talk page templates is that they can so easily be deleted, and if you don't know they were there you're not likely to find them. Now dummy edits, that's an interesting idea, how would you indicate what you'd copied? Dougweller (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I've done this when I've created an article out of part of another article and forgotten to say where I'd copied the prose from: You hit the edit button and in the edit summary identify the spot in the article that has been copied and say what spot from what article it was copied from. If it isn't clearly describable as a paragraph or section, you could remove the copied text with one edit and immediately restore it with another. Whatever the process, the only important thing is that it's clear. -- Noroton (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You could even do it simpler and still satisfy the attribution requirement: making one or two null edits just indicating the various articles this was copied from and hint at the {{copied}} templates on talk in the edit summaries, that way someone who looks for the attribution will know that the talk page is supposed to have these templates. This has the further advantage that should one of the source articles suddenly be up for deletion, the deleting admin will be alerted to the issue of attribution and take the appropriate measures. MLauba (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Having some familiarity with these attribution issues, I posted suggested edits at Talk:Timeline of the Bible#Copyright problem. For anyone interested, Help talk:Merging#Best practice is a fairly recent discussion, where Moonriddengirl originally wrote {{Copied}}. If there's a better page to discuss intrawiki copying and attribution requirements, I'd appreciate a pointer. Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Brian Quintana

The subject of this aricle is back editing the page after several blocks, using the same editing style as before: unexplained reverts, removing unflattering sources, adding self-promotional text, etc.

currently editing as User:Californiason and 170.170.59.139.

previously blocked accounts:

User:Tonytonyb

User:Daphnaz

User:Michaeledean

70.233.8.130

and a dormant unblocked account at User:Brianq

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tonytonyb/Archive for the sock case page and User talk:Michaeledean for the most recent block. Is there any point in starting another sock case all over again? Hairhorn (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not 100% convinced on the IP address; at the least the IP may be a shared address used by other editors, and only very recently picked up by the Tonytonyb/Michaeledean character. The person that has been operating these sock accounts and disrupting the Brian Quintana article does so almost exclusively, editing only that article and related ones. The IP shows a wide range of interests that would indicate to me that it may be an unrelated person. The Californiason account has not been terribly active, and I would agree that the IP and Californiason are the same person; but I am not 100% convinced of the connection to the Tonytonyb account. Tonytonyb and Californiason could very well be two different people, but who know each other. Without a CU, I don't think the behavioral evidence is yet strong enough to tie it to the Tonytonyb person. I would recommend filing a SPI report and asking for a Checkuser. --Jayron32 17:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Further problems; the WHOIS on the 70.233.8.130, which is most definately TonytonyB/Michaeledean comes up with a Plano, Texas location while the 170.170.59.139 comes up with Ventura, California. Not sure if Checkuser can dig deeper into the IPs used by the now-blocked accounts, but this seems to locate to very different places.--Jayron32 17:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The IP 70.233.8.130 is a Kinko's, it's hardly surprising that there is a wide range of posts. Hairhorn (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

True, but under that logic there is no reason to block it then. Plus, it appears to be a Kinko's in California, while the other cited IP is a AT&T address from Texas. I think if someone from Texas wanted to go to Kinkos to edit Wikipedia, he could find one closer to home... --Jayron32 18:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't specifically ask for a block. The editor in question is the subject of the article being edited (or someone with an extremely close COI); this person lives in or around Los Angeles. The fact that there is one geographically anamolous IP with edits made in July doesn't change the fact that User:Californiason and 170.170.59.139 (an IP from California) are evading blocks, in particular the one most recently put on User:Michaeledean. Hairhorn (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I never noticed this report, I've had a go at cleaning up this article (claims not supported by sources, puff, the usual) and today some other editors have done the same, the problem is that the whole article seems to be managed by sockpuppets and ips to ensure that a certain (pr friendly) version remains. How we deal with that I'm not sure. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It was dealt with previously through bans and page protection. But the protection lapsed and block evasion is easy to do, it could probably be dealt with much faster, the socks are always pretty obvious and could get booted much sooner. Hairhorn (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

LessHeard VanU's mass deletion of stubs

I thought that this deserved to be brought to some attention, as something surely isn't right here. Please note that I am not scolding the editor, nor suggesting he be scolded, but only hoping to bring some light to this situation and other opinions on whether this should be done.

A discussion was brought up at the Village pump proposals: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: Have a bot autodelete any stub article of less than 250bytes if not edited in X months, which had next to no support for both the proposal of having a bot do it, as well as the proposal to delete said articles. Despite numerous arguments against the idea and an overwhelming consensus to leave those articles alone, User:LessHeard vanU has been carrying out the deletion of literally hundreds of pages. Many of these are being overturned, which begs the question as to

A) How legitimate the reason for deletion is

B) Whether admins can just arbitrarily speedy delete pages that don't meet a set criterion that isn't laid out in any policy or guideline.

C) Whether its appropriate to set out an arbitrary requirement for small articles to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia, and potentially delete those that do not.

Thoughts? I let LessHeard VanU know, so you may wish to wait for his take on the situation first. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Spotchecking a half-dozen of his deletions, I can find nothing overtly wrong with them. Admins delete lots of stuff very quickly all the time; I can clear through about 3-4 articles/minute when clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD. True, these articles had not been tagged for speedy deletion, but they certainly could have, and if they HAD been, they would likely have been easily speedied ANYWAYS. No need to go through hoops here, admins are given the deletion tool and trusted to use it, and I don't see that any of these articles would NOT have ended up being deleted had anyone bothered to go through the extra step of tagging them and waiting for someone else to delete them. I sometimes delete an article for A7 or other reasons when I come across them, even if they are not previously tagged. I don't see a real problem here. --Jayron32 18:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The answer to Q. B is "yes". Though (in my mind) it isn't best practice, there is nothing 'wrong' with speedying something which hasn't been tagged, so long as it actually meets a speedy criteria. Protonk (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that many of these pages rather obviously don't meet any speedy criteria. LHVU seems to be under the false impression that places are subject to A7 (quite a number of these deletions), among other things. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ammending my earlier comments, and checking some more of them, there do clearly appear to be some problematic ones which are clearly NOT speedy-eligible. For example, Choc Bay was deleted under the A7 rationale, but being a "geograpic location" is NOT a valid A7 reason, and that reason should only be used to delete a VERY narrow set of articles. I have now also seen several other A7 or A1 deletion reasons where he is clearly stretching the defined criteria for those deletions beyond reasonably. I think that he needs to stop deleting articles under the wrong reasons; many of his articles I do agree do qualify under A7, but far too many do NOT, and this needs to stop. --Jayron32 18:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I already raised this a while ago on LessHeard vanU's talk page - User talk:LessHeard vanU#Disambiguation, while a number of the pages do meet the speedy criteria, others do not such as A44 autoroute, Albright, Alberta, A377 highway, Adams Landing, Alberta - which has already been restored by another admin, Calinaoan, Chembenyouba etc. The village pump discussion pointed to above was clear that being a very short article should not be grounds for speedy deleting the article. The quantity of these deletions also make it impractical to take them all to deletion review, which would be the correct location if it was just one or two deletions. Davewild (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I count 59 deletes out of 324 stubs reviewed to date (are there any undeletes you could note, for my ongoing benefit?); that is around (the first 30-40 stubs are "X in (year)" type lists, which are dependent on other articles, so I ignored them then and for this guesstimate) 20%. If I can finish reviewing the 1500+ stubs listed then I may delete 300+ of them. The remainder I am generally either redirecting to the parent article, which usually has the sources missing in the stub, placing an unreferenced template on the stub, or transwikiing the content (to Wiktionary every time). Of those that I have deleted some have had an unreferenced template since 2007, notwithstanding I am looking for stubs that have only been unedited for a year. Per Wikipedia:REDLINK it is stated that redlinks provide greater stimulus for the creation of content, and I am cutting away those two sentence stubs which are no more than a definition of the term (per WP:NOTDEF) or a unreferenced population guesstimate and elevation. While WP:STUB says that such articles can be the basis for growth into encyclopedic articles, I am working on the basis that anything not edited in a year is pretty much at the bottom of peoples to do list.

Regarding the discussion at the village pump, I now acknowledge I was wrong to suggest autodeletion of such stubs - since a lot of them are good search criteria to be redirected to a more encompassing article, and some still have that untapped potential. Some of them, however, do not even have that potential. If the subject does, then hopefully somebody with a reference book or two will be the proud author of a new WP stub article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue here is the overextension of CSD criteria to justify speedy deletion of lots of articles which just do not qualify for speedy deletion. Autoroutes, villages, bays, and other geographic features do not qualify; if you want, tag them for PROD and let either another admin delete them or give interested editors 5 days to fix them up. Speedy deletion criteria are narrowly defined for a reason, and should not be over extended. I would have no problem with speedily deleting articles without being tagged priorly, if the speedy criteria actually DID apply. The deal is, you are clearly using speedy deletion criteria to delete stuff where the criteria do not apply... --Jayron32 19:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Undeletions so far that I can see are Adams Landing, Alberta, Beigo, Beres (mythology), Columella (botany), Christian Democratic Party of Lebanon, Choc Bay, Ayshcombe Baronets and Ashby Baronets. Davewild (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ayshcombe Baronets, a disambig page to one redlinked member? Christian Democratic Party of Lebanon, a party that only appears in Wikipedia and mirrors in Google - where the named leader has some ghits under Christian Democratic Union - and might be wrong (I gave some detail in the delete summary)? Ho hum... I initially was deleting geographical mini stubs using CSD#A3 (no substantive content), but considered "substantive" to be a judgement call - but I suppose I can use the rationale in a PROD. I am pleased to see that the other undeleted articles have subsequentley grown a reference or two, but would they have done so if I had not deleted them? Since, hopefully, a PROD will create a similar response I will be content to do that (and I will not action them after 5 days, to ensure that there is a third party review). I propose that I only continue with my review after this matter has been resolved and a working practice for me established - whether that discussion continues here or on my talkpage I will leave for others to decide. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This needs to stop. Now. Many of these being deleted are simply not speediable nor should they be. Looking at the cache for example of this one which is a small village that would not be touched at all. There's nothing wrong with such content. Moreover, almost all of the geographic examples deleted apply to areas outside the English speaking world which reinforces systemic bias massively. This isn't acceptable. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Mausoleum of Chopan Ata, from a nineteenth century Russian sketch. (Before restoration).

Mausoleum of Chopan Ata, from a nineteenth century Russian sketch. (After restoration).

This is problematic, especially if the principal focus is to be geography. Many parts of the world are underrepresented so their geography coverage is far from adequate and stubs do not receive frequent attention. The examples here come from a world heritage site in Uzbekistan. Due to competing transliteration systems I was unable to understand the available sources well enough to expand relevant articles and use the image in mainspace (the odds of committing a good faith factual error were just too great). Checked Category:Wikipedians in Uzbekistan, which has only two members, and left an inquiry for the one who was active. Have received no reply since March. Our gaps in coverage are significant: this year it has been possible to write DYKs for the natural lakes which the Suez Canal intersect, the westernmost point on the continent of Africa had no article until I wrote it, and roughly twenty percent of Africa's national parks remain redlinked. Substubs for these topics aren't ideal but they're better than nothing. It's very worrisome to see mass prodding on a formulaic basis. Unless one is exceedingly careful, the large scale result would include reinstatement of considerable systemic bias. Durova³⁰⁶ 22:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Sometimes I wonder why we even have criteria for speedy deletion, since so many admins seem to take it upon themselves to make up their own. -208.97.245.131 (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, Where there's a will, there's a way. The CSD criteria are intentionally strict, but I don't think they are applied in isolation or capriciously; but they still have some flexibility. There is always the remedy of userfication once the deficiencies have been pointed out, and Deletion review otherwise. This is a wiki, where anything may be undone, and everything is open to discussion. If admins are persistently abusing CSD, that's a cause for concern, but I would prefer to see specific examples of this rather than a vague assertion. Rodhullandemu 00:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that it is frequently a bad idea for admins to directly speedy delete things they come across that seem speedy deletable, rather than speedy tagging them. Of course there are exceptions for really obvious speedies, but anything where there is a substantial judgement call whether it really is speediable ought to get two opinions: speedy nominator and speedy-reviewing admin. Additionally, in at least some of these cases PROD would clearly be more appropriate than speedy. Rd232 ^talk 00:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It's plainly destructive to delete articles on notable battles which blatantly doesn't satisfy A3, such as the one on the Battle of Halani, which is very significant in the history of Pakistan. There's more likeliness that information be put in an article when it's a stub, even if a "sub stub", that when it's a redlink and there's a big red warning at the top of the edit window with text like "... deleted ... no indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion". Cenarium (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No comment on the actual merit of the deletions, but I'd just like to point out that deleting lots of stuff outside normal channels then being somewhat recalcitrant about it is the fast track to losing the bit. Protonk (talk) 04:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There is very often something very wrong about deleting things that have not been tagged, and its time we prohibited it, in order to keep admins from making mistakes like this, and acting in defiance of policy. I do not trust any one person, myself included, to be right more than 90% of the time. This is much too great a risk, and the only way of lessening it is to require two people, which gets us down to 1%, which is probably as low an error rate as feasible. There are in fact n umber of admins who do apply CSD capriciously. Some of them are even wikifriends, people I respect otherwise. I don't want to come here and start accusing them. As Arb com as said, no admin is expected to be perfect. To protect us, as well as the contributors , and the content of the encyclopedia, we need reasonable checks. Anyone who objects to having others routinely check their work, by working in a two step process, probably does need their work checked very much indeed. I have a lot of derogatory terms i could use here, but I'll refrain, if only because some of the worst offenders are , as I said friends. I've done it wrong too, from time to time. I say this not because i think I'm better or more accurate than they, but because I know that i probably am not. We cannot act single handed except in very limited cases. I'm not too proud or self-confident to just tag articles like everyone who isn't an admin, and I do not really trust anyone who thinks it's a over-harsh restriction and attack on his authority or knowledge.

I see LHVU has agreed to stop, and use prod, which is exactly right, though I remind people that the period for prod is now 7 days, not 5, just as AfD. for now. It's time to change the rule so that neither he nor anyone is in danger of doing it again. It will avoid such disasters as deleting an article under A3 that reads "'Cavans is a unit of mass in the Philippines used for cereal grains equivalent to 50 kilograms". This may not be a sustainable article, but it is not deletable as no content. Indeed, if one can tell that it might be a directory entry, it intrinsically has some content!. I see in his log many towns deleted under A3, that still remain deleted. I think it appropriate to undelete such articles without formal deletion review, as clear mistakes. But I don't mean to emphasise his deletions in particular.

Each time the rule to eliminate single-handed deletions has been proposed, it has gotten strong support except for the objection of a few admins who want to continue to have the right to delete whatever they like however they like. This doesn't mean they are necessarily doing deletions wrongly, but none of us should be in a position where we could take the chance. None of us are good enough. None of us are sufficiently trusted. Admins who argue this way bring us all into disrepute. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree in principal, but I'm not sure that the error rate goes that low. You assume that errors in tagging and deleting are uncorrelated, both across individuals and serially. This may sound pedantic, but it's important. If errors are serially correlated (that is, seeing someone tag something makes me much more likely to delete it) and correlated across editors (that is, me and LHvU are likely to make the same kind of errors both in tagging and deleting) then the advantage evaporates. Along with that advantage goes one of the stronger arguments for mandating that articles see a tag before they get deleted. Those of us arguing against such a rule aren't just doing it out of selfishness and we don't bring the admin corps into disrepute. Protonk (talk) 05:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Marvel Comics

For those who like to keep an eye on articles for potential vandalism, you might want to add Marvel Comics in light of today's news.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• lol disney. Had my heart in my throat for a sec. Thought Stan Lee had died. Glad to hear that wasn't the case. Protonk (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I think I'd rather have Stan Lee dying than what actually happened :( ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Aye. Last thing we need is cutesy crap in comics nowaday... waitaminit! -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Sigh. That's like the Asteroids movie. what's the possible story line? Blue guy rescues forest animals from fat russian mario. The end. Protonk (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Wasn't that a story idea Jim Shooter came up with? -- llywrch (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Jackie Ohlsen

Resolved

 – autobiography deleted by request of editor who began the article

Could an administrator look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackie Ohlsen-Artist featured in the Borås Tidning, pleae? The article is written by the subject, who is now requesting speedy deletion because she feels the delete tag will make people question her credibility as an artist. Jafeluv (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speedied as G7. Normally I don't like speedying articles while at AfD, but I didn't see the point of causing what appeared to be angst in the subject in order to follow policy. Protonk (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks for the quick response. Jafeluv (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

---

How abut a courtesy blanking of the AfD page? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Why? Protonk (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • a discussion about an article will have a majority of its content that, in the judgment of the community, may potentially cause harm: for example, emotional distress. Didn't she ask to have the article removed because the feels the tag will make people question her credibility? Won't the AfD discussion do the same thing? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Do it if you want. AFDs are noindexed by default, so someone looking her up will have to go to her userpage, then her talk page, then the AfD. Protonk (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

the thing is, a proper discussion might have shown her notable. I'm not sure. The way we deal with the subjects of articles here can be very rough sometimes. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Sarah777

Resolved

 – Chillium has left a comment on Sarah777's talkpage, that's enough. No need to take any action against Sarah777. AdjustShift (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sarah777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I'd like to draw attention to this series of edits. We're used to all kinds of behavior from this editor but I think this goes beyond the pale to WP:Hound. Note the pointy use of edit summaries, [29], [30] on the intervening edits. Toddst1 (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I should just point out that I fixed the formatting error when responding to the question, but in doing so I do not endorse the content (my opinion is that it is somewhat childish, but ignoring it probably serves the project better than taking the bait). Rockpocket 01:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

this seems too trivial to concern us. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes with the recent conflict around this user, what is one more? This is clearly disruptive, clearly a violation of civil, and clearly a continuation of counter-productive behaviour by this user.--Crossmr (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Chillium has left a peaceful POINT warning. I don't know if more is justified - but am not going to take any action on my own beyond a metoo on Chillium's note. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Chillium has left a comment on Sarah777's talkpage, I think that's enough. Sarah should protest peacefully, admins shouldn't take any action against Sarah777. AdjustShift (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ever? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• In looking into this a bit the context seems to be an admin's repeated use of the F-Bomb in a very pointy and confrontational manner. I haven't seen any of the outrage expressed in comments here directed towards the admin. What gives? Is she on the wrong side of the thin blue wall? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  Two wrongs don't make a right, and no one has provided any diffs on the admin.--Crossmr (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Mathsci and User:Slrubenstein

This complaint cover several issues. If this is not the appropriate place to file this complaint, please direct me to the proper venue - thanks. Dinkytown (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Background On August 27 I saw a tag on the European identity and culture section [31] of the Ethnic groups in Europe article stating that it was unsourced and that the date was from July 2008 - well over a year. Upon looking at the history of the section, there had been no work on it since then with the tag still in place. I removed the tagged section in question [32] under WP:RS, WP:OR and other reasons, and described my actions on the talk page[33], believing that it detracted from the article.

On August 28, Slrubenstein reverted my edit [34] claiming that it was not POV and that I (Dinkytown) should do the research on the subject. [35] I did not revert his edit but again explained my reasoning as to why it should be removed. After some discussion, I told them of my concerns that the section was POV, but most importantly this section had no sources and had been tagged as such for over a year. Mathsci stated that "...and people have real life commitments outside this internet site, there is no rush".[36]

I told them that I would give them 48 hours for them to start bringing some sources to the section before I would move it to the talk page, as per WP:HANDLE. [37] I told them throughout the entire discussion that this was not personal and that we all should just be concern with getting sources. I told them that no debate can occur until there were sources to talk about, therefore, we need to have sources for this statements.[38]

They admitted that they did not have the sources. "I do not have them, but I know that these are the majore (sic), verifiable, and significant sources on..." [39] and "I do not have the time to do the research..." [40] A year has past and no one has found the time to do the research.

Instead of working on the section, both Mathsci and Slrubenstein carried out personal attacks on the talk page against myself and anyone else that disagreed with them. "Yalens remark is silly." [41] and "Yalens, you have Wikipedia backwards. What do you think facts are, anyway? Do you think they are the truth?"[42]

I told them that this section should be moved off the article and worked on in the talk page and get the sources which supports the claims here. [43] I was threated that if I did that "...if you did that, you could in principle be blocked for disruption." [44]

After 24 hours, I informed them that I will be moving the section to the talk , under WP:HANDLE to work page because of the abuse that has been going on. [45].

Mathsci reverted the material [46] claiming that “…this editor is being disruptive” and threatened... "...You are likely to be blocked if you continue edit warring and making threats..." [47] and threatened using different words: "This was advice, a mild warning: it was not a threat." [48] and notified Slrubenstein, an administrator to consider this action, to which he agreed and supported the threat. "I agree and share your hope!" [49] He also notified other people of this threat against myself. [50] As of August 31st, he has threatened other people with the same unjustified statement: "I'm afraid you will be blocked if you continue arguing like this..." [51]

This dispute had been tagged with POV and no source tags for over a year and still no sources attached to them. [52] Mathsci and Slrubenstein were also involved in the previous debates that occured over a year ago. [53]

To date I have not done any editing on that page or made any communications to the other parties because of the real potential threat of being blocked due to Slrubenstein's administrator status.

Additional threats

Mathsci has drawn attention to my ethnicity (Sami) as I describe on my homepage, something that had nothing to do with the page or the section in question.

"BTW this was the article at its weirdest [54](citation his) - Dinkytown's userpage reminded me of the ill-fated gallery :)" [55]

When asked what he meant, he up-loaded the attached photo of a Sami woman on the talk page with this statement:

"This was the picture in the gallery BTW - a woman, marital status unknown :)"[56] Photo here

Mathsci described negitively a photo of a Sami woman which had no relavence to the article. I can only assume that this statement was used to describe my ethnicity in a derogatory way, and therefore a personal attack on my ethnic background, which had nothing to do with the article in question.

Mathsci’s also stated that I was "edit warring and making threats...". [57] In the two days of editing the section, I made only two edits, both for two different, good faith and stated reasons. I was not edit “warring” as Mathsci describes. I have never made any threats to anyone on any Wikipage.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Dinkytown (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Humor me; can I have the Cliff's Notes version? Tan | 39 02:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to cut it down now. Dinkytown (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Better? Dinkytown (talk) 03:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

So Mathsci mocked you with the hilarious image on the right? If you want seriousness, please just "link" it, not "show it".--Caspian blue 03:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that Mathsci and Sirubenstein both agree that Dinkytown has a valid concern, but object to setting a rigid 48 hour deadline. I think they would both like to handle this cooperatively but object to being shoved: if you shove people, they automatically shove back, even if you are shoving them in the right direction. It also appears to me that Sirubenstein is trying to put the onus of doing the necessary research on Dinkytown, which is improper -- the onus of sourcing is on people who want to maintain material, not on people who question it -- but I still feel that it would be better to try to handle this less aggressively. Looie496 (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not too concerned with sussing out a personal attack by Mathsci (and maybe I am wrong in this), I am concerned that unsourced information is being shoved back in after a year of being tagged. From my perspective of WP:V, a core policy of our project, this information should indeed be removed until valid reliable sources can be found. Anyone agree? Tan | 39 03:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I told them that as long as there is progress,that fine. But they said the same thing a year ago until people just gave up, and then the disputed section remained with no sources. It then becomes their personal blog. I suggested to move it to the talk page, but they refused. Dinkytown (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that; I suggest the next step be to let these two editors respond on this thread. Slrubenstein states, "What matters is significant views from verifiable sources." How he can argue to replace this material without refs and state that is puzzling. However, like everything, there's two sides - I assume you've invited them to this thread? Tan | 39 03:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did. I could wait. Thanks for your opinions. Dinkytown (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There is in fact no deadline for improving an article, and pushing people to do it by a fixed time is not constructive. We are already too much oriented towards immediate action and immediate replies. Everyone has the responsibility to help find material. There are hundreds of thousands of unsourced or inadequately sourced sections at Wikipedia. We should first deal with the actually questionable material, of which there is plenty. I could easily challenge 100 of them an hour, and it would take about 50 times that work for people to fix them. Using good policies indiscriminately is an effective way to harm the encyclopedia Is there some reason why this particular section is particularly problematic ? After one year without sources to ask for 48 hours?! Pushing this way -- & then coming here when they rightly object -- seems a little POINTy. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Completely disagree, as I tend to do with you, David - no offense intended by that, more of a wry comment. Well, a tiny bit of offense intended because sometimes I think you are the fly in the ointment simply because you like to be the fly in the ointment. I'm probably wrong there. Anyway, what's pointy is pushing to keep this stuff on Wikipedia after a year of being tagged. Policies back up Dinky's edits; they don't back up keeping the material. You say, "after one year without sources to ask for 48 hours?" I say, the 48 hours is lenient - hell, this should have been removed ten months ago. WP:V is a core policy and allowing material to stay on without sources is wrong. Also, what's wrong with Dinky's way of going about this - removing it to the talk page to be discussed, etc until valid sources can be found? This is exactly the sort of thing we should be doing with virtually all challenged unsourced material - especially after a year of opportunity. The fact that there are hundreds of thousands of other articles with this problem - well, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Invalid argument. That you could easily challenge 100 in an hour? Invalid argument. Tan | 39 04:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned below these kinds of pointy interventions are quite common both on Europe and Ethnic groups in Europe. I'm not quite sure that Tan has actually examined the content, which is more or less common to both articles (not thousands of others as he suggests). The article on Europe is more carefully sourced; the rate at which sources are added to EGE is slower and more sporadic, because of the huge number of ethnic groups. It often happens as a result of people making complaints on the talk page. The material was unsourced but neutral and sourceable. Patience is all that is required. WP has no WP:DEADLINE. Mathsci (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Tan, I can confirm DGG's claim: there is a lot of material in Wikipedia which needs to be sourced. I know this because I wrote some of this ...years ago, when we didn't have a sourcing policy, & when I stumble across these articles & am surprised to find them much as I left them -- & still without any sources. (I hope that's because someone knowledgeable has reviewed the content & decided it was accurate.) To try to force this material to be properly sourced (as Dinkytown was doing in this case) now would only end with a lot of otherwise uncontroversial & reliable material being deleted, & Wikipedia becoming less useful for a long while. While there are good grounds for deleting unsourced material which has been flagged & unfixed for so long, perhaps a more prudent step would be to be lenient on any flagged content which sounds plausible, & only act on content which triggers one's innate BS meter. (Even better would be to fix the problem, but I know that only happens rarely.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Dinkytown, if other editors want to try and save a major section of an article from deletion, then giving them more than 48-hours is probably a more productive approach. That said, SLRubestein's and Mathsci's threats of a block are worrying. Dinkytown does have policy on his side. Moving uncited text to the talk page is not a blockable offense. Cla68 (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, Cla68, that my threats of a block are worrying? Whom have I threatened? Where? Do you have any evidence? Slrubenstein | Talk 08:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) To be clear Dbachmann (talk · contribs) intends to rewrite the section in the article, as can be read on the talk page. Cla68 is wrong (not the first time [58]): there have been no treats of a block -just advice and warnings. So far several editors have entered the discussion there - Dbachmann, Slrubenstein, AnwarSadatFan, Varoon Arya and me are for sourcing/rewriting the material. Similar problems have arisen in the lede of Europe, where some of the same sources were mentioned. In that case the persistent complaint was by TheThankful (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), later identified by admins as a sockpuppet of Gregory Clegg. Similarly the definition section was carefully written with sources following persistent attempts by another user to express a point of view about transcontinental country. Dinkytown, without naming sources, just removed the section with these comments. [59]. Instead of collegial discussion, he started a subsection setting a 48 hour deadline for improvement. [60] The material has been there since early 2007 (written by A.J.Chesswas (talk · contribs)) when the article was called European people, before it was renamed European ethnic groups and extensively rewritten by Dbachmann. Similar material appears in Europe, in that case very carefully sourced. The other user who has taken Dinkytown's point of view is Yalens (talk · contribs) who has been unreasonable in discussions when presented with lists of sources. Here is his latest reply to Slrubenstein, who has been extremely patient.

So, wait, its NPOV by definition if it states a source. Ahoy, let's all state the Mein Kampf as Neutral Point of View then! I love the logic here! (and seriously... I really fail to see how... ah, well, this is pointless, nobody is going to read this trash of a page anyways). Any fool can say that whether its published or not doesn't determine its neutrality. I find it funny you go by such illogical criteria. The fact is that this is SUPPOSED to be a factual encyclopedia, not one based on imaginary things by a long list of authors with their own Pan-European-nationalistic-and-heavily-opinionated-point of views that are anything BUT Neutral Point of View. If you're going to say it as "some people say", with references, that's fine, but the whole page proclaims these things as verified, universal truth, which it isn't. And further more, the page is full of things like "the culture of Europe is influenced by Central and Eastern European romanticism"... Central and Eastern Europe ARE Europe, are they not now? And it goes onto things like the Rennaissance, which was a Western European phenomenon, somehow being generalized to a whole continent. Not even your pan-European nationalist authors can verify that, yet its right there anyways! The whole section is a bunch of generalizations and non-Neutral Point of View. I don't care about things like PhDs, plenty of ridiculous fascists had PhDs. What matters it that this is CLEARLY nothing but opinion, no matter who says it.--Yalens (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked Yalens to refactor these comments and hat he risked being taken here if he continued using the talk page as a WP:soapbox. That I presume gave Dinkytown the idea of starting this section. Both he and Yalens have not discussed sources in any shape or form. Interventions like this appear every few months on Ethnic groups in Europe and with slightly lesser frequency on Europe itself, probably because it is on more watchlists. Incidentally Dinkytown mentioned the picture of Sami people in the current article after I mentioned the old picture in the gallery. He wrote:

"You" made a reference to my user page. I never threated anyone. I just stated my intention to what I will do and the reasons why. There actually is a time limit: see here. Everyone will agree that a year is way too long, if he or anyone else has the sources on hand, then 48 hours should be enough. The time should be short as the content is disputed. If more time is needed, then they should state so, otherwise it should be moved off and worked on there. If you are talking about this photo? Yea, I like it too. There is only one question that will never be answered: Does he have two wives? Dinkytown (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Note the last remark. I pointed him to the right image, saying I knew nothing of the marital status of the woman. Dinkytown brought up my response here: as far as I'm aware, his own remark could be offensive to native Lapps reading wikipedia. He clearly was making a joke, but that is far from evident in the statement at the start of his flimsy complaint here. Mathsci (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User: Slrubenstein's response

This situation is being misrepresented, and I am being misrepresented.

• Dink presents this as a simple problem: she removed material that had been tagged a long time ago, and MathSci and I have been after her ever since. It is not that simple. In fact, Dink deleted a great deal of material that had not been tagged; indeed, she removed and entire section of the artile[61]. I restored it because a good deal of the work in the section, while unsourced, does reflect significant, verifiable views. I posted the names of several historians, anthropologists, sociologists, and political scientists who have written on the themes of the section and who can be looked to as verifiable sources. Dink's response was to declare the section "white supremist" propaganda, and asserted that she does not need to do any research to know that the material does not belong in Wikipedia.[62] I provided more citations that could be drawn on to develop the section.[63] I personally do not have the time to write more content for the article, but I know of verifiable sources and am glad to help other editors working on the article. But Yalens response (with no indication that has read any of the sources) is that "these are all POV."[64] In short, what we have here are two POV warriors, Dinkytown and Yalen, both of whom reject our core policy, NPOV, which insists that we include all significant mainstream views fom verifiable sources. But Dink and Yalen reject actual research, and simply reject anything they do not like as "POV." Aryaman has since begun participating, suggesting other sources we can use. That is the example of the Wiki way - a collaborative spirit. Quite far from Dinkytown's delete, deny, and denounce attitude towards improving an article! Slrubenstein | Talk 12:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That is the real character of the conflict. Now, as for how I have been misrepresented:

• I am not a deletionist, when possible. I reverted after dab registered a complaint on the talk page about the deletion. In my revert I said that while I personally agreed that the material tagged for a year could go, I did not consider the material as a whole to be controversial. I provided a list of possible sources, and encouraged both both Dink and dab to consider revising the material to improve it.
• I made no personal attacks against Ylens. I did however ridicule what Ylens said. That is because Yalens was proposing to violate NPOV. He stated what he wanted opinions removed from the article, to be replaced by facts. NPOV is premised on "not truth, but verifiability" and including all significant views from reliable sources. I provided a list of mainstream verifiable sources that expressed these and similar views. But any campaign to remove all views from an article is indeed ridiculous. Yalens is no newbie. s/he has been around long enough to know our NPOV policy. Instead s/he wishes to push her own POV, claiming it is a fact and all others are just opinions. This kind of approach is precisely hwy we have an NPOV policy.
• Immediately after lumping me and Mathsci together, Dink states that he proposed to move the contested material to the talk page and was threatened with a block. By naming names in the preceeding sentence, and not naming names in this sentence, Dink is implying that mathsci nd I threatened a block. This is false. I never threatened a block.
• According to Dink, MathSci threatened a block, and in regard to the threat, I wrote to MathSci that I shared his hope. At this point I feel Dink is abusing AN/I. Dink is hoping you will read his summary but not check the links. if you check the link, you will discover that there is only one statement made by MatchSci to which I expressed sharing his hope. I will quote it in full, here: MathSci wrote, "I think Dinkytown probably has to learn to be more patient, that's all. No need for extra drama on ANI at this point" and I wrote that I agree and share his hope. It is obvious that I share his hope that Dink be more patient. I continue to share this hope. Is this clear to all other administrators? I share MathSci's hope that Dink be more patient. If i am wrong to express this hope, well, sue me.
• Dink blames me for not allowing him to edit the article. This is a damned lie and scurrilous. Dink write, "To date I have not done any editing on that page or made any communications to the other parties because of the real potential threat of being blocked due to Slrubenstein's administrator status." I defy Dink to provide any evidence that i have threatened to block him. So I am an admin. So sue me. Because i m an admin I am no longer allowed to edit articles? That is screwy! You may as well say that because I am an admin there is a very real potential threat that i will delete Dink's user page, that I will delete this page, that I will delete all of Wikipedia. Nyah nyah nyah, I am Snidely Whiplash!!! Really people. An incident is when something happens. Now I think is a good time for me to state again that I continue to share MathSci's hope that Dink be more patient.

Here is what happened: an editor deleted several paragraphs of an article. dab pointed out that there is some real value in these articles. Many of you know that there is little love lost between me and dab, but when someone is right, someone is right. dab was right - there is value in that material. I restored the deleted material and I immediately provided a half-dozen sources or more that address the major points in the section. Now, up to thi point I see no problem. Indeed, in my view, so far this is how Wikipedia is supposed to work - we are collaborative, if at times contentous, process. Someone pointed out problems in a section; someone else pointed out value in a section; a third editor named sources that would be worth consulting. Isn't each person doing their part to help make the encyclopedia better? Well yes, if everyone assumes good faith. I didn't doubt Dink's concerns are sincere, I just think that they do not justify deletion and that the section can be improved. Why can't dink assume good faith on my part, that I actually do know something about ethnic groups in Europe, and European culture, and that the sources I provided are verifiable, reliable, and significant, and meant to help start moving things forward if more editors wish as I would hope to get involved ... with editing the article. Alas, dink seems only to want to increase the drama here. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I wish to reply to other editors' good faith concerns. I did not mean to be ordering Dink to edit the article all by himself. But I will encourage any editor to add rather than delete, and above all, to do research. My providing a list of potential sources was made in good faith. If i had time to read through all of them now and fix up the article I would - believe it or not, I have added my fair share of content to this encyclopedia and I intend to continue to do so. But I have a job and cannot always put a lot of time into this. I am being sincere: I have the sources written down but i do not have the time to do the writing ... I figured that i could help by sharing the sources; i assumed anyone who wants to work on the article might appreciate that. So, I happen to know good sources on the points that concern Dink, so i provided them. I fail to see how there can be anything wrong with this. I encouraged Dink to do some research if he wanted to make a real contribution to the article and this was a good faith gesture, assuming Dink wants to help research and write an encyclopedia. Moreover, I directed the same invitation to dab, who has expressed a desire to research and write the article. And like just about veryone else, he simply asked of Dink, patience. In the following discussion, other editors mentioned verifiable sources supporting the material Dink wanted to delete. The fact is, we have views in this article that are supported by verifiable and significant sources. The proper citations have not yet been put in, but several knowledgable editors - I include myself - consider the views so clearly significant and verifiable that all that really is called for here is patience. But there are two editors who not only seem to lack patience but who seem to which to delete views that well darn it they just don't like. Welllllllll.... we have all seen this before, no? Slrubenstein | Talk 08:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that this disussion concerns the seven editors on the talk page of Ethnic groups in Europe. All aspects of this are being discussed, including content and the active search for sources, which is currently happening. For that reason the title of this thread was changed. I understand that some users are drawn to create drama on wikipedia, but in this case the humdrum gathering of sources for the rejigging is the most profitable direction. Mathsci (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Mathsci's repeated edit warring[65][66] Mathsci, you've warned many times that you're not allowed to alter or remove other people's comments. in general, only third and neutral people can change the thread title, not the subject of the complaint does that. Since the report is about your personal attacks and threats to the reporter not about the article itself (if that case, Content noticeboard separately exists for the purpose), you would much better refrain from engaging in such disruptive edit warring. Your another edit warring and incivility have been the subject of the ongoing ArbCom case even though you technically had nothing to do Cold fusion. So please be constructive. Thanks.--Caspian blue 12:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)--Caspian blue 12:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Caspian. The original title is an accurate description of the complaint.

The whole complaint here is not about any disagreements of sources or content. It’s about threats made by Mathsci and Slrubenstein against myself by, and their conflicts with basic Wiki policies.

There can be no debate on the European identity and culture section, since there were no sources cited to do a counter retort. Of all the thousands of words that were created from that debate of that section – it was all opinion, nothing was cited. Show me any page number, any citation that supports anything on that section. There isn’t any, yet Sir… was asking me to do research on material that I personally disagree with! I could say on the Sky page that “sky is falling”, provide no sources, tell other people to do the research on that statement, and then threaten anyone who tries to remove it as unsourced material. That is exactly what happened with this section. Wiki policy states that: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Can't get more basic than that. It's up to Mathsci and Sir... to get the citations. I offered to move this section to the talk page to discuss it further, as Wiki policy dictates. Yet I was reverted and then accused of edit warring several times, threatened to be blocked, with Sir… backing up that threat.

Mathsci, why did you contact Slrubenstein [67], Dbachmann [68], the talk page,[69] [70] and myself [71] with the word “block”? You could have said “Dinkytown should be more patient…” and end it with that, but instead you chose to use the word “block” – that is a threat, even by Wiki policy.

Sir…. When Mathsci came to you regarding possibly blocking me, you could have said “...hang on, he has quoted basic Wiki policy here”, or “No, blocking would not be approperate now”, or “No, his edits were in good faith. Lets see where this goes…” or anything even more neutral than that as any good administrator could see - but you didn’t. You chose not to counter Mathsci’s blocking threats, and ended your statement (with his ‘patience’ statement included) with “I agree and share your hope!” You even reverted my removal of the section.[72] Willingly or not, you were backing up Mathsci’s threat and using that power to gain advantage in the ‘debate’.

It’s not about my patience towards the section. Other people have debated this same issue over a year ago.[73] I will not - and don’t have to wait, another year to remove either one of yours’ personal blog of this section. Wiki policy backs this up.

Mathsci states above that several people came forward to offer work on citations, great! Then move it over to the talk page as per WP:HANDLE. Keeping it on the main page assumes that its factual – which it’s not.

I gave you 48 hours to provide some citations. That was never fixed in stone, as long as there was some progress towards X, I was willing to cooperate and debate any issue. Instead, Sir… and Mathsci chose to invest the time in personal attacks and defending their POV opinions on the section. This proved to me that you were not serious about sourcing or citations. That’s why I cut the time short and moved it to the talk page – with solid policies behind me. Your reverting my move (in conflict with policy) proves that neither one of you were serious about a discussion. Following that up, I was accused of edit warring, and threatened with blocking.

It's not about content, it's about people actions. Dinkytown (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Last time I checked, there wasn't policy that supports decreeing a 48 hour limit to improve a section. I've also noticed that there is a large bibliography on the article; I assume you checked each of these to determine that the section was unreferenced? Is there a reason that you're not mentioning the entire section about sourcing on the talk page or the attempts to improve the section by other editors? Did those not count for some reason?

But honestly, after reading the talk page, it does seem like sources have very little to do with this issue. If we're going to look at actions here, lets take a look a what really happened at the same time. Far from being concerned over sourcing, you've made more than five different arguments for why the entire section should be removed ranging from original research to POV and everything in between. More than one editor (in fact, three more than you mention here) has tried to answer your concerns and failing that, advise you that this approach was unlikely to achieve deletion of the section in question. In short, this is a dispute over content, not conduct and your claims to the contrary are not backed up by the evidence. Shell ^babelfish 20:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I never said that there was a 48 hour policy. I put that limit there to limit myself in moving the material to avoid a potential edit war and as Tan put it accurately, I was "lenient". I could have removed it immediately, but I told them that “I would be a gentleman” about this and gave them some time. If they needed more, okay... But they chose to spend their efforts on attacks. I then chose to enforce the policy.

Those arguments you cite were brought out early on in the conversation, are still open, and can be addressed at a later time off of ANI. This issue however, is about how unsourced material can remain for over a year and maintained by abusive behavior. Sir… suggested before that I use those and any other sources to cite his statements in the section. I didn’t agree with the statements then and stated those reasons early on. Why should I defend his comments?

Shell, you said that this is about content. You’ve been on the project longer than I have and I don’t have to tell you that sources are everything on this project to avoid WP:OR. “Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked.” What part of this is so confusing?

Read my statement above regarding “the sky is falling.” That is the exact scenario that is happening here. I gave you several solid Wiki policies that support my actions. The burden of proof is on those who want to maintain the section. Maintaining unsourced material by threats is what's the issue. Dinkytown (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting that, as I suggested, Varoon Arya has produced a very nice sourced first draft of the short section under discussion. Material from the book already used for Europe, Lewis & Wigen, will probably also be incorporated. This is the normal way a neutral and anodyne article is fine tuned and sourced. Now that this preliminary version is sourced, a reasonable and constructive discussion can continue. As Shell writes, this complaint was essentially a content dispute with little or no justification except WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Not that uncommon on this particular article unfortunately. Mathsci (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Content issue? Rather than "WP:IDONTLIKEIT," what part of WP:OR, WP:V and WP:CS do you not understand? If your above statement is correct, then we can remove the disputed section off the main page under WP:HANDLE and work on Varoon Arya's section on the talk page, correct? Dinkytown (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I'm retracting the allegation that SLRubenstein threatened DinkyTown with a block [74]. Cla68 (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've read your correspondence with him [75], and although I understand your reasoning, I stand by my complaint. Take care... Dinkytown (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It was certainly unwise of Matsci to edit war to try to remove his name from the complaint, particularly since he is very likely to be admonished by Arb Comm for precisely the same actions to remove himself from an Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley arbitration case. He has not scrupled to name his opponents in this way in his numerous WP:AN/I complaints.

More importantly,I wonder wether he actually read Dinkytown's complaint against him. Instead of dismissing it all as a content dispute, he should have noticed that it includes accusations by Dinkytown against him of personal attacks, threats, and ethnic slurs. Are these accusations perhaps content disputes in Matsci's mind? Perhaps he regards such accusations as beneath his notice? Perhaps he has no answer to them? Intromission (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparent suicide note

Unresolved

A_life_to_remember is about to be speedied but someone ought to look into this and contact the proper authorities. He's also posted it on his user page at Moosie.hm (talk · contribs). <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Contact a Checkuser just to confirm he is where the narrative says he is. If not a suicide note then it is a story, and in either circumstance is inappropriate for WP. Deleting. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 09:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Taking a quick look now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The IP address geolocates to the western end of Montreal island, Canada. Would someone in Canada mind calling local authorities? If you require the IP address, please email me. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Just in case this is true, was it a good idea to delete the article under A3: "Article that has no meaningful, substantive content"? Alan16 (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for just now getting back to this, I posted the report here just before heading off to bed last night. I believe copies of this note may still exist in the editors subpages... I tagged it for speedy but if necessary it could easily be restored and would prolly be better than restoring a mainspace article. He had also copied it into his userpage. I hope it's just someone looking for attention, or a kid blowing off steam, or a prank. :-/ <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Where exactly is the suicide threat in that? I just read it, and it just sounds like a rather sappy love story and he's apologizing for ruining their relationship. AniMate^draw 04:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack on an AFD

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

Resolved

 – Consensus is this wasn't a blatant personal attack, Abductive has been warned for being incivil, and the AFD in question has since been closed. No blocks will be handed out at this time, so there is nothing really left to discuss. Take it to WP:WQA instead. --Jayron32 21:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

After I voted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States House of Representatives Office of Emergency Planning, Preparedness, and Operations, User:Abductive said "User:TomCat4680's notion needs to be completely ignored--not even counted as a vote, since this is not a vote." My vote is just as good as his. This is a blatant personal attack and I want him punished. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack.

We do not "punish" people.

You forgot to mention that you deleted his comment, something which you shouldn't have done.

OK? ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 07:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, Abductive's comment was in relation to TomCat's assertion that all government agencies are inherently notable. Don't know if that would help anyone in swiftly dealing with this issue? ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 07:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That discussion belongs on the aforementioned AFD. This is an ANI about a personal attack. My rights are being denied here and all you care about is the fact I deleted 2 sentences of text that I considered offensive. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It WAS a personal attack. I have the right to vote on any AFD I want. Saying my vote doesn't count is against the rules of AFD's and I had every right to remove it. Stop ignoring the issue. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've told Abductive it wasn't appropriate, and the closing admin will ignore that sort of commentary anyway. Again, everybody, AFD is NOT a vote but a discussion. Would you mind if we move on? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

My opinion matters just as much as everyone else's. We all have equal rights here and just because he disagrees with me it doesn't mean my thoughts should be ignored. I think he deserves more than a slap on the wrist. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to block him for saying something inappropriate like that. I'm sorry but we don't block to punish people and frankly, I'd rather you just drop it and move on. He hasn't commented again and you seem to be creating more drama than necessary about this. Again, the closing admin will ignore his comment. I can promise you that. Otherwise, you can start a WP:DRV whatever the decision and see how it goes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think he should at least comment here first. I think I at least deserve an apology. Also if you're an admin why don't you just close the afd? Its been open for 2 weeks already... TomCat4680 (talk)

The statement is a comment on the reasoning of the vote, not an attack on character, so WP:NPA does not apply, and it is certainly not anything which requires administrator intervention. I think this a good time as any to fight a misconception about AFD which goes that all votes are divided into "valid" and "invalid" categories all depending on whether they fit the criteria at WP:ATA, and that the decision is made by counting up the "valid" votes on each side, while discarding the "invalid" votes. Clearly, if there are no policy-, guideline-, or common sense-based arguments at all on one side of the issue, the debate will be closed accordingly, no administrator will keep a proven copyvio no matter how many people vote to keep it; and no administrator will delete the president of the United States no matter how many people vote to delete it. But if a reasonable case has been made on each side, the raw opinions do make up part of the consensus, and they should not be blithely tossed out either. With that said "all X are inherently notable" arguments are superficial, and tend to fall flat if somebody argues for why the are not. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I have closed the AFD now. The consensus seemed to be with keeping the article due to improvements made, and I can't see a turnaround to a deletion consensus as probable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Admins are not in the business of forcing people to apologize for perceived slights nor are we in the punishing business. Since the AFD in question has since been closed, and there does not appear to be any chance of admin action, I am closing this thread before people say things they will regret. If you wish to discuss the behavior of another editor, WP:WQA is a much more appropriate venue than ANI. Take it up there.

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

User:Xook1kai Choa6aur

Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor who is related to a number of IP addresses listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/24.15.125.234/Archive is disruptively editing several article with the purpose of unduely promoting theories concerning multiregional evolution. The user was previously blocked as User talk:24.15.125.234 and numerous editors have complained about the user at User talk:76.16.176.166 and both accounts were blocked for sockpuppetry. The user has a habit of deleting warnings from his talk page, [76], [77], [78], [79]. It is sometimes difficult to detect that this user is being disruptive because the user uses very technical language, however it is often incoherent. [80]. The user also has a habit of unnecesarily sprinkling fact tags all over articles. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Some may find this discussion on TimVickers' talk page to be relevant, particularly the parts regarding XC's history. – – ClockworkSoul 14:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to note that editors have gone to extraordinary lengths to engage with this individual and have very kindly and patiently urged them to refrain from editing until they have obtained sufficient proficiency in English language skills to make coherent contributions (see here). However, the editor entirely ignored this suggestion as evidenced by recent postings (e.g., here) and edits (e.g., here). The amount of edits this editor produces on entries that require a good deal of technical knowledge make it inordinately difficult to follow up, as in some cases their edits become interleaved with later edits of contributors unaware of of these problematic additions or changes (see here and my attempt at consolidation). Many of their edits are very extensive and show clear evidence of this editor's misconceptions of technical processes and concepts (see here). These are then very difficult to resolve because of their modest language skills. So the resources in terms of time and expertise of other editors required to deal with these issues far outweigh potential benefits that the work of this editor might contribute to these entries. Malljaja (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what Malljaja wrote is exactly what I was trying to say at Tim's talk page ([81]) at the same time. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There are two interlinked problems here. First, are the quality of this editor's contributions and the apparently incomplete grasp they have in some of the subjects they are trying to write about. This is a content issue. Second, is the unwillingness or inability of this editor to discuss their ideas on talkpages. This is a behavioral issue. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been struggling with this editor since the start of June, when they were editing as User:76.16.176.166, User:76.16.183.158 and User:71.201.243.137 and I've tried to work with them. You can see a prime example of how they behave on this talk page. I would have called for a topic ban for human evolution, but seeing how they are replicating the same problem on PCR-related articles I don't think this editor is competent to edit at all. They edit war, they are insufficiently fluent in English, they are uncivil, and they are a POV pusher. It will take time to review their contributions, but there is ample evidence to support a permanent block. Fences&Windows 01:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

They also went on a bizarre spree of edit warring and insults as 24.15.125.234, which geolocates to the same place in Illinois as 76.16.176.166 and 71.201.243.137. Fences&Windows 01:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

p.s. Previous ANI thread for the IP user is here. Fences&Windows 02:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Onikiri

User:Onikiri has been blocked several times a year and a half ago, but immediately resumed the exact same disrupting behavior (edit-warring via several anon IPs, refusal of dialogue) there for several months until the article got protected on May 16, 2008, and is now back to his antics here with 216.184.121.126, 66.249.203.19, 190.57.5.231 and 168.243.218.154 (if the edits themselves don't make it obvious enough the anon IPs are the same editor, WHOIS should put all doubts to rest).

(there might well be more examples of such behavior, those are just the ones I noticed) Erigu (talk) 10:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that Onikiri has been edit-warring to some extent on that article, they aren't the only one. I've fully protected the page for one week to cool off the dispute, and would encourage all editors to discuss their content differences on the article talk page and develop a consensus. Regarding the socking, per WP:DUCK the IP edits are almost certainly Onikiri. This is moot while the article is protected, but if dynamic-IP disruption resumes once the full protection has expired then semiprotection may be worth considering. I haven't handed out any sanctions at this stage to encourage Onikiri to contribute to the talk page if they so desire; however, WP:RFCU is thataway if you want to take things further, and a resumption of edit-warring and/or reverting once protection expires will lead to appropriate action. Hope this helps EyeSerene^talk 11:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

I certainly wouldn't mind discussing the edits on the talk page (I did, in fact, with other editors), and I directed Onikiri there, but he kept going at it anyway... The other edit wars I linked to aren't encouraging in that area either... Erigu (talk) 11:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right, but by reverting Onikiri you were engaging in the same edit-warring behaviour. Reversion of content that's not obviously vandalism will inevitably be picked over, and unless it's WP:BLP enforcement or you can show a current consensus that the material does not belong, it will be frowned upon. As you know, part of the utility of the talk page is in developing such a consensus, but I saw no real evidence that this had been done. You could also have tried to discuss this with them on their user talkpage.

Having said that, on reflection I think that penalising everyone for disruption that's largely coming from a single source is unfair of me, so I've changed the protection level to semi and left Onikiri a strong warning. This will at least eliminate the IP socking, and if you can all decide this issue between yourselves you'll have something to point to in future. Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga may be able to help out, and you can always take a look at WP:DR for some dispute resolution ideas if necessary. Of course, with protection now at semi, any further edit-warring will lead to blocks being handed out. Stick to one revert per WP:BRD, then if attempts at discussion go unanswered, drop a note here (or on my talkpage if you like). EyeSerene^talk 13:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again. Erigu (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Question, is this possibly related to the Brazilian IP editor that has systematically attempted to change the importance ratings of numerous Saint Seiya related articles from low to mid or high along with other non-constructive eidts? You can check on previous discussion about this group of IPs at the anime wikiproject (Legend of Heavenly Sphere Shurato, National flags in character infoboxes, Saint Seiya characters, Saint Seiya, and Brazilian Saint Seiya IP editor strikes again) Because the editor is on a dynamic IP that contently changes, its impossible to contact him/her. --Farix (Talk) 14:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so: Onikiri's IPs all point to El Salvador (or at the very least Central America)... Erigu (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Deathtozombies

Resolved

 – Permablocked

Reverted two edits one at [82] and another at [83] made by this user. However, I believe that there are more edits made by this user that need to be checked. I would check myself but I'm leaving for work right now. Shinerunner (talk) 10:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a single good edit in a year. Bagged, tagged and booted. ➲ REDVERS ^{The internet is for porn} 11:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:dreamshit blocked for username violation - review please

Hi there. I considered taking this to WP:RFCN but two admins (jpgordon (talk · contribs) and billinghurst (talk · contribs)) have already reviewed this block, so this it more of a question of appropriate admin action. As this was reviewed twice already, I cannot ask the blocking admin, Cirt (talk · contribs), to reverse his actions, so I brought it here. I feel that this is a prime example of treating a new editor too brief and not explaining procedures and reasoning. The first review was declined with a simple "declined", no explanation. The second one was declined saying that the name is blatantly inappropriate, although the user explains the choice had nothing to do with the negative connotations. I share the user's sentiments and I do not think this was a case where an immediate block was needed and I do not think it violates our username policy, so I would have unblocked them but given the previous 3 admin decisions, I think further consensus would be needed to do so. So here I am, asking for review. Please note also the user's statements at User talk:dreamshit. Regards SoWhy 11:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• I somewhat agree that the username isn't so bad, but at the same time, this is clearly not some brand new editor. Evidence the modified talk page title (I wouldn't know how to do that and I've been here almost 4 years), the formatted signature, the UAA template usage... No, I would not have blocked (in fact I saw it on UAA and found it borderline enough to pass the buck), but let's not couch this as WP:BITE. Wknight94 ^talk 11:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Nevermind the BITE part (although I think noone should be bitten, no matter if they are experieced or not), I am more interested in determining whether I the block can be lifted. Regards SoWhy 11:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Very clearly not a new user. Maybe you could say it's borderline, but it's on the wrong side of the border. What I see is an experienced editor who may not have been surprised to have his/her new usename blocked. He is trying to claim he is new - " This is your welcome to the encyclopedia" -- SoWhy, do you still believe this to be the case? By the way, where does the article on his talk page come from? I've tried to find it and can't, have I missed something? Dougweller (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
      • You do realize that people who worked years as IPs may create accounts only after becoming experienced, like this user, to publish a new article? The article you are referring to is, as the talk pages says, what he wanted to publish with this username. I do not say they are inexperienced, they clearly are not, but they are a new user nonetheless. And the question is not whether they are new or not but whether the block was appropriate. That no user should be treated like that, no matter how experienced, is a different problem. There is nothing in our policies that says "experienced users may be treated worse [or better for that matter] than new users". Regards SoWhy 11:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Personally, I'm not sure a block was warranted in this case - I wouldn't have performed a block myself, but it's definitely a close one, and I would hesitate before unblocking also. Whilst it's probably not intended as such, usernames containing profanity are offensive to many users, which is what the username policy aims to prevent. I really suggest that the user just changes their username, but an unblock might be possible, I suppose. Ale_Jrb^talk 12:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• (outdent)To me it seems an unnecessarily provocative username, and the argument for its adoption and retention was not convincing, especially not convincing enough to create a precedent or an exception to the policy (which is there and stronger than a guideline). I checked MediaWiki:Titleblacklist here and other wikis, it appears as a keyword, so one should demonstrate the need for its use. I gave base reasons for my action, and it wasn't my place to explain the means of previous admins' actions. billinghurst (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• (ECx")I endorse the block. Any username containing shit is going to be offensive - especially one where that portion is highlighted in the signature. Its clearly and experienced user who should know better. If they already have an account they should use that and if its a former ip editor they are welcome to choose another name immediately. Far too much drama for a clearly unacceptable name. I generally take the view that if it would offend my granny which this would then its not acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartaz (talk • contribs) 2009-09-01 12:14:02 (UTC)
  • The "highlighting" in the signature is an artifact of MediaWiki, which boldfaces internal links that are to the same page. On any other page, the signature would comprise two links, one to the user page and one to the talk page — just like your signature normally does. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, I know the bolding is from the interface but didn't you think it significant that the portion of the name they chose to highlight for their talk page was the "shit" bit? Its clearly a name intended to be read as Dream Shit not Dreamshit and it fails the saintly old granny test by miles. I'm by no means prudish, I swear like a navvy in real life but our username policy is predicated on a wider audience that could find the term shit offensive. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Once again: Xe did not "choose to highlight for xyr talk page" anything, any more than you "choose to highlight" the "Humbug!" part of your signature for your talk page, or User:Rodhullandemu, whose similarly coloured and divided signature is below, "chooses to highlight" the "andemu" for xyr talk page. It's simply what MediaWiki does. Were you or xem to put the signature on your user pages, MediaWiki would highlights the other part.

        Moreover, having the user page link precede the talk page link is hardly unusual, and not an indication of a special and deliberate choice, here. You do exactly that. So do Rodhullandemu, SoWhy, Jpgordon, and Baseball Bugs in this very discussion. Indeed, pay closer attention to the wikitext of xyr signature. It's the "dream" that xe actually "chose to highlight". Uncle G (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• My only question would be is the name really that bad that it deserved automatic blocking without even an attempt at discussing the name. Maybe the name is not acceptable, period, and must be changed, but is blocking the user before they edit, then refusing to discuss or explain the decision appropriate? The Seeker 4 Talk 12:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree with the two administrators that reviewed the unblock requests: admins Jpgordon (talk · contribs) and Billinghurst (talk · contribs), as well as above comments by Wknight94 (talk · contribs), Spartaz (talk · contribs) and Dougweller (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• I would not have blocked immediately, but it seems reasonable. If the user agrees to cooperate, they can request an unblock and change their username. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Julian, blocking the user before they edit, then refusing to discuss or explain the decision is not appropriate. The user seems cooperative. Unblock him and allow him to change his username. Off2riorob (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • All he needs to do is start a new account; he has no contributions. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I didn't know it works like that, so the ip isn't blocked? Off2riorob (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I have left him this [[84]] note, and recommended that as his best solution. On a side issue, he doesn't look like a new user to me either. Off2riorob (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• I'm leaning toward unblock at the moment, personally -- yes, it's offensive, no, I probably wouldn't feel comfortable seeing my daughter interacting with DS on a talkpage, but given that it's straight out of Perdido Street Station (which I now have to go get from the library, thanks so much), I think it's acceptable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment on content. Leaving aside the username issue, and admitting that this is apparently an experienced user, which could mean any number of things, the person in question is obviously quite sharp, and it would be nice if they contributed here. As has only been mentioned in passing, they have worked up a serviceable article on the very important Immanuel Kant essay Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose (my translation titles it "Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Intent," but no matter). I have not studied this essay since my undergraduate years which were about a decade ago, but from what I remember the stuff on the user's talk page is a decent summary of Kant's piece, which is great since we currently do not have an article on it and should. Rather than simply stealing the text off the user's talk page and starting the article ourselves (though we should do that if necessary!), let's figure out how to get them an acceptable account name (either by a username change request or starting over with a completely different accoun, who cares which one?) so they can start contributing. If it turns out this is a formerly banned user or something similar just trying to wind us up I'm sure we'll figure that out in good time, but there aren't many people around here who want to help us improve our coverage of Kant. Sorry for getting off topic here and bringing up an issue related to the encyclopedia. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Yeesh. At first, I thought it was going to be a matter of capitalization (perhaps it was dreams hit and not dream shit), but no. The user's sophistry makes me suspicious of his future at Wikipedia. JuJube (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • And I of his past. Subject matter and language makes me think "User:Peter Damian", but I am open to persuasion. Rodhullandemu 14:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Maybe, but he's not the only person interested in philosophy. I'm not familiar enough with his style to recognize quirks in his writing, but since Damian is a Brit who claims to have received his doctorate in the 1970s, I'd be a bit surprised at him dropping a casual reference to G.G. Allin as he does on his talk page, but maybe he loves crazy-insane American punk rock. Also the Kant essay in question does not seem to fall squarely within Damian's philosophical wheelhouse, for what it's worth. So you could be right, but I'd need to see more evidence before this goes out the window. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
      • WP:DUCK trumps WP:AGF IMO. JuJube (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Do you people know how many "poo" names are blocked in a day? Yes it can be read as "dreams hit" but it can also, and more likely be read as "dream shit". The person can request a name change to put a space in there or just create a new account. The fact that it can be read another way means nothing, imagine the gaming that would occur if we thought that way. Chillum 14:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, my point was more, if he did mean it to be "DreamsHit", he could just change the caps, but he explicitly says in his unblock request that not only is it meant to be "shit", but that "shit" is somehow not a curse word anymore. I'm in despair... intellectual mockery of language has left me in despair! JuJube (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • There's no dispute as to how the editor intended the name to be read. Not only did xe state outright that it was "dream" + "shit", but xe signed xyrself "dreamshit". Notice the linking. Uncle G (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Good block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Certainly, this username isn't so bad, but it's still a over the line of what we consider appropriate, so I think that the indef blocking was called for. I really would have liked to have seen it executed quite a bit more gracefully, however. Honestly, there's simply no reason to be this brusque, and flatly refuse to discuss calls for appeal. – – ClockworkSoul 15:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No need for review: "shit" is "shit". If I had the username "Banffuckley", do you see the City of Banff, and the common last name "Uckley"??? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone agrees the username is inappropriate, even editors way up in Banff (notorious username pranksters that they are!). Personally I'd be willing to unblock if the user said they wanted to change their username and promised that their next edit would be to make a request at WP:RENAME, and I've posted a note about this possibility on their talk page. Of course they could also simply start a new account, but ultimately it makes little difference so either one is fine with me.

But as I said above they have written an article and posted it to their talk page, so unless we find this to be a banned user or a sock account of an existing user (either of which are certainly possible, but there's no real evidence as yet), we should be focused on figuring out how to get this person to get to work editing with a new account name, rather than focusing on the propriety (or lack thereof) of the word shit. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"How many social workers does it take to change a lightbulb? One - but the lightbulb has to want to change". So far, dreamshit is a lightbulb. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Lightbulbs don't write articles about Immanuel Kant essays, and I'm guessing you don't either. I know a lot of people around here don't actually believe in WP:AGF, but I do, and without concrete evidence to the contrary, I'll assume that "dreamshit" is someone who wants to contribute and who simply chose a shitty user name, rather than a lightbulb who needs help from a social worker (or something). Bad username or no, I think anyone who is willing to contribute an article on a difficult subject deserves some measure of thanks, not simply disdainful jokes likening them to inanimate objects. I only stress this point because it seems likely that we are having trouble recruiting new editors to the project, and whether or not "dreamshit" is just here to make good contributions or rather is a returning user who wants to start drama with their user name, I think some of the attitudes expressed in this thread make it all too clear why Wikipedia is not always so inviting to newbies. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

...and therein you missed the point. Dreamshit will only change their username when they decide that they want to change it. Up until now, they're arguing that they should be allowed to keep it. Their writing abilities are not the point of my post, nor were they compared to an inanimate object. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand that the fact that they wrote an article was not the point of your post, and the simple fact that that was the point of your post (combined with some other similar points) was precisely the point of my post. Amid all the hubbub about the username, no one bothered to say to the editor, "that looks like a decent article, thanks for being willing to contribute that," and indeed seemingly failed to notice that they had written an article. Regardless of the particulars of this user and their situation, I think that's indicative of an unfortunate trend on Wikipedia whereby we are not always particularly welcoming (and, yes, I fully understand the user in question does not seem to be "new"). But we're kind of talking past each other here and I've said my piece so I'll let it go at that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The main problem I have this this user is the apparent attempt to claim they are new (have I misread that?). I believe in AGF but also that there are limits to it. Dougweller (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Clear violation. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Seems fine to me. Protonk (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Looks like a good block. WP:NOTCENSORED does not equate to WP:NEEDLESSLYOFFENSIVE. An experienced editor – or reasonable adult – knows this. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Lambiam and Milomedes

In an ironically fitting attempt at wikilawyering, Lambiam has now filed a grievance [85] over Milomedes' block for making legal threats, despite the fact that Milomedes himself has gone away. I wonder what Lambiam's personal interest is in this, and why he thinks it's OK to use legal threats to try to intimidate other users. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it will be accepted; one ANI thread --> ArbCom is not usually kosher. Tan | 39 12:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:86.1.207.130 / User:Albsol88t

Resolved

 – both blocked Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Would an admin kindly take a look at the edits of 86.1.207.130 (talk · contribs) aka Albsol88t (talk · contribs) and figure out how best to handle him. Edit warring, personal attacks, etc. I'd report a 3RR violation from when he created a new account to do another revert, but it's stale at this point; WQA seems pointless as civility is only one of his problems; and I already had a third opinion on the article come in and agree that his edits don't belong, but he clearly doesn't care. Warnings/blocks/friendly explanations or whatever you feel is appropriate would be appreciated. DreamGuy (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Based upon the exact same edit to the same article previously it looks like he previously used I cant think of a name 994 (talk · contribs) as well, which was indef blocked for harassment. DreamGuy (talk) 13:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Both now blocked. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • This is a rather sad example of how we lose content contributors, and content, when people's responses are little more than revert warring. Uncle G (talk)
      • Well, considering the content was was worse than useless and the contributor in question has *never* added anything of value to the encyclopedia, if they refuse to change their behavior then this is someone who should not be posting here in the first place. DreamGuy (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
        • On the contrary, the editor expanded the article with more detail about the alibi and the gas mask, important facets of this case that the article seriously under-represents. If that is "worse than useless", then you have the wrong definition of "useless". Uncle G (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• The profanity isn't acceptable, but I can understand the editor's frustration that has led to the profanity. You're disputing whether this person is a serial killer or a spree killer. The editor has told you, on the article's talk page, that this person is documented as a serial killer in the literature. But instead of going and checking the literature, you're just revert warring instead, and complaining about personal attacks when your revert warring causes frustration.

  So now I am telling you, repeating what the editor says: Stop revert warring and go and check the literature. You can start with Cummins' entry in ISBN 9781572151444, a book that is entitled the Encyclopedia of Serial Killers. And if you don't like that book about serial killers, try ISBN 9780671020743, another encyclopaedia of serial killers.

  You've been told that the content that you dispute is supported by sources. The next step is always the next step for a good encyclopaedist: Go and read the sources that you've been told about!

  Edit warring is not the correct response, nor is a declaration that you have "consensus" on your side, supporting further revert warring by you, when in reality your only support is one other editor, who merely agreed that the edit warring was disruptive, and whose claim that conent was removed is clearly contradicted by the content removal in xyr own reversion. Revert warring, instead of reading the sources that one has been told support the content, is not the response of a good encyclopaedist. Uncle G (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Please do not lecture me on allegedly not having read the sources. If some source calls this person a serial killer, it is simply wrong. If you'd bother to look at the definition of serial killers versus spree killers you would know that. I can cite a zillion reliable sources to back that statement up, from real experts on serial killers and not what somebody may or may not have said about this particular incident on some website or whatnot. It was some other editor who earlier removed the serial killer statement in favor of the spree killer one, which I supported once I realized the timetable of the killigns involved. On top of that, I called in a third opinion, like I am supposed to, and they agreed. So this *was* a clear and obvious consensus of 3 to 1 despite your trying to claim I didn't have any consensus there. Your whole rant above basically threw WP:AGF out the window and instead assumed that an experienced editor with long demonstrated knowledge on these topics didn't know what he was talking about and that some potty mouthed, block-evading vandal who couldn't even string a sentence together with proper capitalization somehow did. Your idea of what makes someone a good encyclopedist clearly needs a major rethink. DreamGuy (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • … not when it is contrasted with "If some source calls this person a serial killer, it is simply wrong.", it doesn't. I remind you of Wikipedia:Verifiability. And the "potty mouthed, block-evading vandal who couldn't even string a sentence together" managed to string several sentences together for the article. You simply removed them, ignored talk page attempts to discuss verifiability by the editor who made the edit (despite your asking for sources), revert warred, painted the person that you edit warred as a "vandal" simply because xe edit warred right back, and have been revert warring ever since. The only reason that you're calling this person a "vandal" is, I suggest, because that is the only way you can justify your 1 2 3 4 5 6 reverts so far. This person is not a vandal. Expanding the article with content such as "The billet passbook, signed by cadets as they entered and left, seemed to back Cummins alibi." is not vandalism. On the contrary, it's adding verifiable content. You're making a very poor show of being "an experienced editor" here. You're revert warring. You're removing verifiable content. You're ignoring the talk page statements that something is verifiable. And you're attempting to get your own way in a content dispute by pointing out where you've driven the editor whose additions you are repeatedly reverting to profanity by your behaviour. Uncle G (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • And concerning your claims above, Cummins, who wrote the Encyclopedia of Serial Killers you refer to above, is not an expert on serial killers. The guy churns out books on whatever topics come his way, mostly on paranormal topics, and they are filled with errors his section on Jack the Ripper is one of the worst such overviews I've ever seen). Unfortunately a lot of the pop lit on serial killers is like that. We use WP:RS standards here, not just what some nobody working at a book mill claimed. DreamGuy (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • You aren't doing so. You aren't even looking at sources. You outright refused to engage the editor on the talk page when xe talked about sources. You are revert warring to remove content, without reasoned discussion or application of content policy, and without addressing the verifiability assertions proffered by the editor who you were warring with, plain and simple. And you're coming here for backup in your revert war, using as a means to gain support for your reversions the fact that you've so frustrated the other editor, by not even doing the research that xe asked you to do and simply revert warring and claiming an entirely mythical "consensus", that xe has resorted to using profanity at you. Uncle G (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Longuniongirl (talk · contribs) is probably (per WP:DUCK) the same editor back under a new name. The account is not even a day old and it has multiple incidents of edit warring under his/her belt, including the exact same edits on Blackout Ripper per above. DreamGuy (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'll just note here that I blocked I cant think of a name 994 (talk · contribs) indefinitely on the basis of this edit alone, as it's about the most unacceptable piece of vandalism I can think of. Hut 8.5 19:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Need a bit of help at Smells Like Teen Spirit article

(Sorry if this is the wrong place for this, but I wasn't sure where else to go)

Hi. Is there a member of this project that can provide a reliable source stating that SLTS was nominated for two Grammy Awards? Myself and a couple other editors can only find sources verifying a nomination for Best Rock Song, and no others, so we edited the article to reflect this.

An editor by the name of WesleyDodds has reverted all of those edits. I think he's probably acting in good faith, but he hasn't provided any sources, hasn't added to the talk page discussion, and doesn't leave an edit summary explaining why he's reverted, so I have no idea what the problem is. None of the other pages relating to Nirvana awards make this claim, and neither do the Grammy articles for that year. The current source only verifies Best Rock Song.

So, what's up with that? 124.179.173.61 124.179.173.61 (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, WesleyDodds is a longtime and frequent contributor to alt music articles, but it appears that you may be right. http://www.rockonthenet.com/archive/1993/grammys.htm only lists Nirvana as a nominee for Best Rock Song, not Best Hard Rock Performance. Not a good thing to edit war, even if you're right (I found this out recently :) ). Tarc (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) WesleyDodds has indeed been revert warring... and unfortunately, you have too. I've left Wesley a reminder that 3RR violations (or continued near misses) will lead to blocks, and you also should take the same on board. Wesley's dismisssive post in the discussion thread and the reversions have also earned him a WP:TROUT, especially as the IP would appear to be correct about the Grammy award (see list of 1993 nominees/winners at [86]). EyeSerene^talk 14:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for that. I appreciate it. Cheers! 124.179.173.61 (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Carlsberg Group, Hunter S. Thompson, Wiki brah

Resolved

Not sure where to go with this (if anywhere). User:Rose Nylundstein made this edit [87] using a reference with no preview available on Google Books. No other references connects Carlsberg Group and Hunter S. Thompson in any real way. User:Rose Nylundstein in "her" total of 7 edits it also tried (2/7) to get a redirect from James Hoffmann to World Barista Championship deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_9]. Two previous nominations to delete the article on James Hoffmann were made by User:Baileyquarter (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Hoffmann (2nd nomination)) and User:Yardleyman (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Hoffmann) both sockpuppets tracing back to User:Wiki brah etc. With the history involved, the lack of quick verifiability of the source and the lack of other sources corroborating the claim make me think this is disrubtive editing adding false information. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Highly  Likely, based on technical data. Blocked. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Request to undo speedydelete of StorefrontBacktalk

Resolved

 – restored to userspace Tim Vickers (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Orangemike speedily deleted StorefrontBacktalk. I was trying to save the article which had contribution from a user who would appear to have COI interests. There was no warning that the article was going to be deleted or the rationale for the speedy deletion so that it could be fixed. The article is linked from two other articles since it interviews people in the information technology field for retailers (rather than just reguritating other sources). It in particular it has done a lot of reporting on the Albert Gonzalez case. Therefore I am asking that it be restored along with its edit history. Thanks Americasroof (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Please either contact Orangemike directly or take this request to deletion review, as this is not the correct forum. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've userfied it to User:Americasroof/StorefrontBacktalk. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Shame on you Tim. You really should know not to copy & paste text from the (deleted) article's history, which breaks proper attribution.  :) I have undeleted the article and properly userified it. (Americasroof didn't create the original article, but instead was in the process of cleaning it up when it was deleted.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I'd put it in user talk as well, rather than userspace - so many ways to screw up, so little time! Tim Vickers (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all concerned for the prompt attention. I appreciate getting the history back as there were some links I wanted to look at. Since I know the article now will receive a lot of scrutiny, I won't put it back unless I think it can withstand the increased scrutiny. Thanks again. Americasroof (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interests Parsecboy

Resolved

 – Should have been someone else to block, but block was ok. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia blocking policy was not complied (misuse of administrative powers Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Conflicts of interest), administrator Parsecboy blocking user with whom he is engaged in a content dispute. --Tomcha (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I note you haven't notified Parsecboy of this thread, although I now have. Meanwhile, some links to relevant articles would assist. Rodhullandemu 18:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes thanks. You can feel here: Talk:Ford Ranger#Ranger - Ford_Thailand and User talk:Tomcha#Misleading edit summaries and AutoAlliance Thailand. Tomcha (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You should also note the four (4) declined unblock requests. A block was warranted. It was just made by the wrong admin (granted, I never noticed that the admin who blocked you was the same you were in the dispute with). A troutslap perhaps, but as we have no powers to actually sanction an admin, I don't see us being able to do anything here, seeing as the block was upheld and expired. --Smashville^talk 18:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin with me in a long dispute's edit it is proven User talk:Parsecboy#re Tomcha. His block was not justified. --Tomcha (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree here that Parsec should not have been the one to block, but I think that one was warranted. WP:SYNTH looks like a good thing to link to right now... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 18:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Who first broke 3RR "Three revert rule"? Me or him? Thanks you. --Tomcha (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that is relevant. Your question has been answered - yes, someone else should have blocked, but no, the block was appropriate. There's nothing further to discuss here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat from a vandal

User:Jinglesporjab took an existing article, changed a couple of the names, and created a nonsense article. When that article got deleted, this was the response. Looks like a legal threat, to me. Note that there is at least one instance of vandalism in the user's edit history, besides the nonsense article. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I would call that pointless noisemaking rather than a serious legal threat, to be honest. ;-) Shimgray | talk | 18:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Not a legal threat, just trolling. Ignore. Giving them attention is what they want. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarify: Ignore, and block if they make one more unproductive edit. I've left a final warning on their talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this and left them a 'request' that they make it clear they intend no legal action. Dougweller (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

They clearly have no notion concerning the Freedom of Information Act, which regulates the records of government agencies in the United States and nothing else. Ignore. Acroterion _(talk) 21:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm suprised we're showing them this much patience; they'd usually be indeff'ed as a vandalism only account by now... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 17#Hispanic Commonweal (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_17&diff=297123546&oldid=297120522):

"First: Wikipedia is not your free web host.

You do have freedom of speech. However, your freedom of speech does not permit you to write on someone else's wall. Wikipedia is, figuratively speaking, someone else's wall (in this case the owner is the Wikimedia Foundation). If you want to write on Wikipedia, you have to follow the owner's rules. The site owner's rules are final."

— x, x, User:S Marshall

I cannot say any better than how we said it. MuZemike 23:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

RepublicanJacobite

Yesterday, I objected to the opening line of the article on The Waste Land, believing the claims it made were unattributed and a little POV ("The Waste Land is a revolutionary, highly influential poem..."). I appreciate RepublicanJacobite (talk · contribs) may disagree. And he is entitled to revert me. However, I do object to having my good faith edit reverted twice without comment and marked as minor. It seems at least half this user's edits involve using the WP:ROLLBACK feature to revert edits that were obviously meant in good faith. Rollback is for reverting vanadalism and nonsense. It is not for removing people's attempts to be helpful without any explanation. As I understand it, this rule is quite strictly enforced. I'm not asking for this user to be blocked or to have this permission revoked but I do think he might benefit from a polite note from a registered user.--81.108.130.124 (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to remove rollback from the account, but the last time I did so (for a different user) my action was unilaterally reversed. So I'll wait for some comment from the editor in question before doing so. Perusing the last 100 contributions for rollback reverts without an edit summary I found >50% of them to be good faith edits reverted as vandalism. This is totally unacceptable. Protonk (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• The use of rollback to twice revert legitimate edits alone, with a single talkpage posting, is problematic. The fact that many of RepublicanJacobite's Rollback reverts are of edits that could be considered good-faith shows clear abuse of the feature. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, I've removed rollback from this account. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Endorse removal of rollback, with the note that if he continues to use the "undo" function availible to all users without explanation, it should be viewed as continued problematic editing. Where a good-faith edit is reverted by ANY method, a reasonable attempt to explain why should be undertaken, regardless of the mouseclicks used to cause the revert to happen. --Jayron32 20:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at his response to Tim Vickers [88] I think he may continue to have problems, as his view appears to be that non/dub-consensus edit = vandalism.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Gmail

Resolved

 – Sky no longer falling. ~ mazca ^talk 21:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Needs some eyes. Gmail is down at the moment. One person already inserted text implying the site is permanent unavailable.

It's fine. I'm in chat and just checked my inbox on reading this, and had new email. ThuranX (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Not down for me either. Not that that has anything to do with the problematic edit. Equazcion (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it's up now. Thanks. -- 128.205.238.130 (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• [89]. Nathan ^T 21:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Constant disruption by user Z.K. HAL at Talk:List of best-selling music artists

We've been experiencing a heavy dispute at Talk:List of best-selling music artists since August 11th 2009 over Michael Jackson's total record sales figures. So far, we haven't been able to come to consensus on the issue. Since August 23rd I've made an attempt twice to come up with an idea so it would possibly suite both sides and end the dispute. I first suggested the first example on August 23rd [90], which was received positively by almost all editors who commented on the model, the user Z.K. HAL began to find pointless excuses; however. Another editor and I tried to explain and clear things up for him which only resulted in poorly constructed arguments stated by Z.K. HAL. I made another attempt on August 30th, wherein I demonstrated another similar model with detailed footnotes and asked the users to post their votes which would possibly lead us to consensus once and for all. The same user, Z.K. HAL, immediately jumped in with his/her disruptive and long arguments here, even though, I have stated at the top of the section to comment very briefly. And today, in another section of the same dispute, he not only disagreed (as usual) with everything that anybody has to suggest, but he also left uncivil remarks addressing to me here.

I can't seem to find a way to lead this dispute to consensus with Z.K. HAL constantly interrupting the flow of all the discussions that are taking place at Talk:List of best-selling music artists.--Harout72 (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources trump almost everything. At WP:GOODCHARTS there is a list of sources which have been found to be acceptable for use here (and some not), and anything else should be debated on its merits. We have to avoid original research and synthesis, but as long as a coherent approach can reach consensus, that should prevail. Meanwhile, precedent requires that the editor proposing the change must support it. I also suggest you notify Z.K. HAL of this discussion and invite him to contribute here. Rodhullandemu 22:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Please not that I am not suggesting to include original research within the table. The table's sources come from IFPI databases, in some cases I have to convert the gold/platinum awards into figures to make them clearer for readers. And in some cases I don't have to convert them because databases themselves indicate figures for record-sales. As for inviting Z.K. HAL here, I'd like to avoid doing that as I have a feeling that he might begin filling this area with very much like what he's done at the talk page of List of best-selling music artists--Harout72 (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but notifying editors of discussion here is regarded as basic courtesy. {{ANI-notice}} should be used for this. We do not run kangaroo courts here; he's entitled to respond. Rodhullandemu 23:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've notified the chap(ess). Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

mass date-changing

User:GravySpasm has a 14-month+ history of making no edits except changing dates to his preferred format, in violation of the MoS. People have gently pointed out on his talk page, dating back to July 2008, that this might not be appropriate editing, but that seems to have been neither acknowledged nor heeded. --Delirium (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• A review of only a handful of edits picked at random shows nothing that enters the territory covered by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking. This account isn't de-wikifying dates, only changing, for example, "April 4, 1792," to "4 April 1792,", preserving wikification in cases where such dates are wikified (example). Note also that no-one has mentioned this issue, or indeed anything at all, to this editor over the past 11 months. I suggest that you drop another talk page note, therefore, and make fresh attempts to communicate with this editor before deciding that xe is uncommunicative. Uncle G (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Tao2911

User Tao2911 has continued to vandalize the Adi Da article. He has received numerous warnings, the history of which can be viewed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tao2911&action=history and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tao2911&oldid=308590937

His most recent warning can be viewed on his talk page here: If you continue to remove well-sourced content from Adi Da, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — goethean ॐ 00:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Goethean wrote a final warning on his page, "If you continue to remove well-sourced content from Adi Da, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — goethean ॐ 00:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)"

Tao2911 has removed well-sourced once more in numerous edits that took place today. I would like to see follow up from wikipedia adminstrators regarding potential blocking of this user. Geronimo20 warned him in August 2009: Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Adi Da, you will be blocked from editing.

And Goethean wrote most recently that if Tao2911 continues to remove well-sourced content from the Adi Da article then he would be blocked. This has happened again and this editor has been doing this on an ongoing basis for too long now. A stop must be put to this kind of behavior.

I wrote in Discussion for all the new edits I made, explaining what I did and why I did it, and that if there was anyone who felt that any of the content was not NPOV, to please bring it up, so that all editors could reach a consensus before editing. Tao2911 has continually ignored these requests, in the past, and now and made numerous edits only to post uncivil comments in Discussion afterwards.

Here is the history of his removal of well-sourced content today: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adi_Da&action=history

Here is a link to the Discussion where my polite posts were made and where his posts were also made: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adi_Da

I would like to see some resolution to this matter, as it's making it impossible to create a neutral article on Adi Da! Thanks.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What Devanagari108 calls "well-sourced content" looks to me like worshipful adoration of the sort that is usually written by a disciple. (I have no involvement with this article, having looked at it for the first time in response to this ANI thread.) Looie496 (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Das Ansehnlisch

I've tried to get User:Das Ansehnlisch to discuss his/her reverts of the redirection of non-notable song articles. The editor has not discussed and continued to revert. I initially didn't revert as I had requested discussion. When the reverting continued with fairly inflexibily worded edit summaries I did revert, as did another editor.

I did finally get a response from him, but the words "screw you"-while not having the (presumed) offensive effect on me-do suggest to me that the editor has little or no intention of disucssing or working together.

Could admins please look into this and advise? I will also notify the admins involved in the editor's previous three blocks. many thanks. --Merbabu (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm - there is something a little strange going on with their user page. It seems to be directed to User:The Chauffer. Anyway, this is Das Ansehnlisch's contributions. regards --Merbabu (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If you read the page, you'll see he locked himself out of the account User:The Chauffer, and started a new account instead of asking for assistance. I've worked with him a little - he has a theory that most songs are notable if only you look hard enough, so his reversion of redirects is based on this. sometimes he's right - we managed to make a nice little contribution for The Chauffeur. He appears to be a contributor to several music wikis, so his view of what's notable is probably a bit skew-whiff for Wikipedia, but I think he generally means well (although I agree 'screw you' wasn't exactly a helpful or civil contribution). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently too complex for AIV

Resolved

 – Blocked one week by Cirt

My report has been hanging at AIV for nearly two hours, so it must be too complicated for AIV patrollers. 189.220.102.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked for constant introduction of bad charts and false positions into song articles. He was blocked two days ago for vandalism that included this edit. A few hours after he was unblocked, he repeated the identical edit. He wasn't satisified with simply repeating his old vandalism: he inserted grossly false figures into the Lindsay Lohan discography, and then committed a series of six edits on an Ashlee Simpson song, falsifying positions and adding bad charts].—Kww(talk) 01:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted several of his edits that appeared to be Vandalism. If h isn't blocked tomarrow morning I'll revert the rest of em (Thank you Huggle!!) --Rockstone (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Please delet

Please delete this edit and edit summary http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arsenic&diff=prev&oldid=311389409 thank you J8079s (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

While that edit is offensive vandalism, it isn't worth using the delete tools over. We generally delete material if it is severely libelous, invasive of privacy or something like that. Juvenile racist vandalism is simply reverted. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

How about the edit summary? It will show in "History". If it's problematic Thanks anyway.J8079s (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck

Talk page has now seen 5 6 editors enquiring on satire/spoof site about Beck raping girl in 1990 that's making it's way around the internet (and believing it to be true).

• http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/9gbdj/did_glen_beck_really_rape_and_murder_a_girl_in/
• http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090901181557AAie9Wz
• http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-323336
• http://foxnewsboycott.com/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-raped-and-murdered-a-girl-in-1990/
• http://digg.com/politics/Glenn_Beck_Raped_And_Murdered_A_Girl_In_1990

Request permission to semi talk page and a little help if the shit hits the fan. Soxwon (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that the article itself is already protected. It was declined at RFPP today. Still, it's probably worth semi-protecting the talk page for 24-72 hours; after that much time, hopefully the talk page chatter will be productive. tedder (talk) 03:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Pages generally aren't protected preemptively. You should take a minute to review the protection policy. As I said at RfPP, if there was continued disruption you should have made another request there. At the time I declined the protection request, there were only 5 disruptive edits. There may have been a few more since. Given that people decided to rush to ANI for no apparent reason (as there's clearly no emergency or reason to protect it unless there was continued disruption, in which case a follow up report to RfPP would be the proper way to go) I'll let another admin take a look. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I brought this from a request for page protection based on a suggestion from someone there. I just wanted a simple 24 block. Soxwon (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you did. I don't know why another admin directed you here. This page is not for page protection requests; if they had input to offer on the matter, they should have left it over at RfPP. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This is aimed at me ("another admin")- my concern wasn't the "pre-emptive" rule, it's the fact that both the article and talk page would be protected at the same time. I'd rather get consensus here at ANI for protecting both for a short amount of time rather than doing it at RFPP. tedder (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this isn't going away any time soon. I support any effort made to avoid Wikipedia being caught up in this issue, both to avoid defaming Beck, and to avoid blackening Wikipedia's name. A bit of semiprotection is the lesser evil by far. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Spammer, or newbie not knowing how to write about a company's turnaround

I am not sure how to treat Mark.franken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He looks either like a spammer looking to spam up Spansion, or a newbie who does not know how to write about a company's turnaround. He replaces the well-sourced article that shows that Spansion has become morally bankrupt with the appalling way it treated its workers while it jacked up executive pay, with a rather spammy and somewhat poorly-sourced article that shows a company with a lot of potential but fails to mention the company's sins that were documented in previous versions of the article. The situation looks like it is turning into an edit war, which is scaring me. I have written a note on his talk page that what he is doing is wrong and could lead to a block, and how to do this correctly. He then reverts my reversions on Spansion, which again destroys the well-sourced information about Spansion's past moral bankruptcy which coincided with its financial bankruptcy. Can an uninvolved administrator help? I feel like that if I continue, I will get involved too deeply in an edit war to stay rational. I am in the middle of moving, so I am currently under a lot of stress and do not think that I can take any further rational direct action on this issue. Jesse Viviano (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Another personal attack on an AFD

I refer to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attack on an AFD and have to advise that there has been another personal attack on an AFD today from User:Abductive. He said the article I had written, List of books by Ian Stevenson, was a "Blatant attempt to expand the Wikipedia footprint of this fringe professor. Abductive (reasoning) 18:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)" This is incorrect and it flies in the face of the assumption of good faith. I responded by explaining that I was a WikiProject: Books member who was trying to improve coverage of books on WP, but this only resulted in more unsavoury comments from him. Johnfos (talk) 05:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like much of a personal attack, honestly.-- Darth Mike ^(talk) 05:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It is an attack on my good standing as an editor who does his best to follow NPOV and avoid POV-pushing. I certainly don't "blatantly" flaunt WP rules. Johnfos (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything there that resembles a personal attack from abductive. I do see some assumptions of bad faith and I've left him a reminder to assume good faith in the future.--Crossmr (talk) 05:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)