Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rgoodermote (talk | contribs) at 23:45, 29 April 2008 (→Incivility of a User: resloved). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Dana Ullman and the Homeopathy probation

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    The discussion is wound out. It is degenerating into argument. I have reconsidered the situation and touched base with a couple of unconnected sysops for a sanity check. User:DanaUllman is under a three month topic ban from homeopathy articles, broadly construed but not prohibiting participation in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy. This has been noted at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. A review of the situation and touching base with uninvolved admins did not dissuade me from upholding the topic ban, on the contrary, it convinced me it may be insufficient. However, an arbitration case is pending on the issue and three months should more than cover the time needed for ArbCom to reach its conclusions. Just to note, I have informed Dana of my decision not to overturn my action, beseeching him to reconsider his approach. Vassyana (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ullman has gone beyond simple tendentious editing into full trolling at Talk:Potassium dichromate. I'll deal with the most obvious stuff first: He's trying to insist that Scientizzle supports him, over Scientizzle's objections.

    We now get to the really bizarre behaviour on Dana's part. He says there was consensus for its inclusion, and that Scientizzle supports him.


    Scientizzle responds:


    Ullman continues to say that Scientizzle supports him, despite his objections.



    Scientizzle sees this, and asks:


    Ullman responds... by arguing with Scientizzle that he, in fact, supports him.


    Note: Ullman's link to Scientizzle's comment is wrong, it should be [10]

    We've gone beyond parody into full scale trolling here. Ullman:

    • Argues with Scientizzle that Scientizzle actually supports him.
    • Claims that Scientizzle did not provide a complete quote, while he... uses elipsis to change the meaning of Scientizzle's quote:

    Ullman says Scientizzle says:


    However, What Scientizzle actually says, in full, is:


    The words Ullman deleted, while criticising Scientizzle for not quoting his full statement, COMPLETELY CHANGE the meaning of Scientizzle's remark away from being about inclusion of this study at Potassium dichromate.

    Background

    We start at 15 January of this year,[11] in which Ullman is complaining that he was reverted. He claims the resons are unknown, but his edit [12] not only adds the study, but changes wording to add a strong homeopathic bias to the descriptions more favourable to homeopathy, and removes all critical content, claiming it is not specific enough to the particular homeopathic remedy.(See edit summary here).

    He edit wars over its inclusion for a while: [13] [14] [15] [16] Arion 3x3 joins in the edit-warring fun: [17] Then the page is protected: [18]

    Between the 15th and 26th or so of January, large sections of the talk page are spent discussing this. On 30 January, Ullman repeats his points, and insists it be included. [19] and is again shot down.

    No further discussion on the talk page occurs between February 3 and 19 April. At which point... Ullman brings up the study YET AGAIN, claiming that a few socks that were active at the time meant all previous discussion should be ignored. [20]

    He is short down again, by several people.e.g

    21st April, he makes the same points again: [21]

    He claims previous discussion is "inadequate" and that:


    Consensus again goes against him, so he claims that the five or six other editors are "stonewalling"

    Baegis eventually archives the discussion, using Template:hat to avoid further disruption.

    Ullman objects to this, and tries to pull other editors in to continue to beat the dead horse.[22]

    In short, Ullman has gone beyond tendentious editing into full-scale trolling. Homeopathy is under an article probation (Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation). Ullman should be promptly banned from all homeopathy-related pages.

    There is, of course, a current Arbcom case, but Ullman is doing this trolling in the middle of it. Arbcom is not a protection from sanctions, particularly from ones like a topic ban that do not prevent the editor from editing the case pages. In short, if this article probation is to be meaningful, Ullman should be topic banned, and probably should have been some time previously.

    This evidence has also been submitted to the Arbcom, of course, but it's probably going to be at least a month before they make any ruling, and the disruption is ongoing right now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Responses

    Ho, hum. That definitely seems like the kind of problematic behavior (civil pov-pushing) that we are so bad at dealing with. Altering the wording of a quote in order to change the meaning is quite deceptive. This sort of behavior should not be tolerated on an area already under probation. Notwithstanding the current ArbCom case, an injunction that would prevent User:DanaUllman to continue this sort of behavior until the arbitration case is concluded would have my support. henrik•talk 10:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) DanaUllman (talk · contribs) has been placed under a three month ban from all homeopathy-related topics (broadly construed).[23] Baegis (talk · contribs) has been warned for incivility.[24] This has been noted at the current ArbCom case.[25] Vassyana (talk) 10:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well done. ArbCom can always chose to modify it, if they see fit. henrik•talk 11:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Baegis should have been warned, though - after five pages of Dana being disruptive, it's a bit much to give a warning because an editor got mildly upset at the person causing major disruption. It's things like that thatt allow WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF to be used as a weapon against core policies, particularly against WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPOV. (Vassyana is, of course, right that it wasn't very civil, and it was only a warning, so, you know, I don't want this to be seen as an attack on Vassyana's judgement, but I do think we could all use a big chat about Civility, if only because we're basing blocks on a policy that considers racist attacks less of a problem than using "vandalism" to describe a really awful good faith edit. Yes, really. WP:CIVIL#Engaging_in_incivility. [Ed: Thank god someone removed that stupid "More serious examples" bit]) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought the warning was appropriate. I don't think that a block or topic ban would be appropriate, in part because the frustration is understandable. However, lashing out with insults is not a solution, and will only worsen already bad situations. For some edit warriors, no comment on this particular case, a hostile response is the worst response. Very often, for those making cries of oppression/censorship/discrimination/etc, being attacked both validates their viewpoint and gives them ammunition. CIVIL is not the problem. On the contrary, it's essential to a cooperative working environment. There are a lot of solutions for the problem, but flinging insults (regardless of the reason) is not the answer. On the contrary, it's utterly counterproductive. Vassyana (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are, of course, right in every point, but expecting humans to always behave sensibly is a lot to ask =) It's probably not important in this case, but it is worth discussing where the line falls. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're quite right, we're all human and thus suffer from that pernicious human fallibility. :) That is part of the reason I didn't use a "standard" warning (template or not). I encouraged him to walk away from such situations and not to let his frustration get the better of him. There's a huge distinction between relatively isolated incidents (the rude comment by Baegis) and a continuing, tendentious pattern of behavior (the stumping by DanaUllman). I probably would not have even bothered with a warning if he was not previously informed of the article probation and previously blocked for incivility. In this instance, the warning served as a heads up and good faith exhortation to walk away from such frustration. Vassyana (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for taking action, Vassyana. This line of argumentation was well past surreal, a textbook example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and I'm glad we can move on. — Scientizzle 18:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it is well-past time for the community to address these types of issues. Disruption is disruption. With new editors, we should accord them good faith and earnestly attempt to assist them in comprehending and acclimating to the principles and accompanying rules of Wikipedia. However, when someone has had such things explained to them multiple times and the person should clearly be aware of what is (and is not) acceptable, it's time to start banning them from topics where they cannot work productively and blocking them if the disruption moves beyond one or two topic areas. There is problematic behavior on "both sides" of many disputes and we need to say "enough of this nonsense" to all disruptive parties who know better by now. Vassyana (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wanted to additionally comment that many times it is said that some people are acting in good faith, in their defense. I want to state, unequivocally, that good faith and intent is not an excuse for disruption. For example, someone may in all good faith be advocating for a particular POV, in the beliefs that it is best for Wikipedia, but that is still completely unacceptable. Vassyana (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First, hello, Vassyana. I assume good faith, and I have a heightened respect for editors who voice critique of my work IF and when they don't have a content dispute with me. Needless to say, it is more difficult to hear critiques from editors with whom there are content dispute because it is more challenging to separate out the critique of my "style" than critique of my "content." That said, I wish that you would have at least heard from me before issuing your topic block of me. I would first like to ask you to reconsider your decision to topic block me for 3 months. Part of the problem here is the misinformation that you have been given. For instance, Shoemaker's Dream asserts, “Ullman has gone beyond simple tendentious editing into full trolling at Talk:Potassium dichromate. I'll deal with the most obvious stuff first: He's trying to insist that Scientizzle supports him, over Scientizzle's objections.”
    [26] First, I never said that Scientizzle "supports" me. I only wrote that Scientizzle supports the inclusion of the reference to this study (and his quote confirms this).[27] Although Scientizzle only wants a "minimalistic" reference to it, he said that he wanted at least some reference to it. As such, archiving this discussion while it was still active seemed wrong to me. Further, Shoemaker's Dream makes a more outlandish statement. He said that I wrote that there was "consensus" for including reference to this study, and yet, despite giving many diffs, he doesn't provide any diffs for this wrong assertion: "We now get to the really bizarre behaviour on Dana's part. He says there was consensus for its inclusion, and that Scientizzle supports him." I NEVER said or suggested that there was "consensus" for this study. I was simply against archiving dialogue that was still active. In fact, just hours previous to Baegis archiving this dialogue, Shoemaker's Dream asked me a question [28] to which I responded. I actually thanked Shoemaker for asking this question, and I gave him a substantative response, quoting an editorial in the Lancet (!) in reference a 3-study meta-analysis on the homeopathic treatment of allergies. Although this subject was not on the direct topic of Potassium dichromate, several of the editors with whom I was in dialogue on this page had asserted that there was no notable research with a result that showed that homeopathic medicines worked beyond that of a placebo effect.[29] And yet, "coincidentally," my reference to the Lancet editorial AND the meta-analysis was "archived" within hours. I was objecting to the archiving this active dialogue, especially in the light of the fact that there was much earlier conversations (and non-active ones) that seemed more appropriate for archiving. Vassyana, rightly or wrongly, you have chosen to block me in the middle of the Arb Committee hearing, and although you have not blocked my participation in the hearing, you may not be familiar with the gaming of the system that some editors are using to block and mute me. It seems obvious that Baegis' decision to archive this ACTIVE dialogue and to do so initially without consensus seemed wrong. I urge you to re-evaluate your decision. DanaUllmanTalk 03:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dana is now misrepresenting Scientizzle, Shoemaker, "other editors" on Potassium dichromate's talk page and himself, all on the same post. That's a remarkable feat. I think that it should be rewarded with a 1 month extension to his ban for trolling ANI, for still refusing to acknowledge any wrongdoing from his part, and for still insisting on the damned Lancet editorial thing that has been explained to him several times by several editors.
    It has gotten to the point where I am so used to his assumptions of bad faith that I almost failed to notice "the gaming of the system that some editors are using to block and mute me". I warned Dana for bad faith assumptions[30] --Enric Naval (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I wasn't clear that I had meant he said there was consensus in the past:
    However, that there was "consensus" for its inclusion at any time (the only time I am aware it was in the article at all was during Dana's edit warring for its conclusion, 15-19 January), let alone the "several weeks" Dana claims is something I'd need to see proof of before I believed it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My reasons for archiving that particular thread were that the topic was in no way helping the article because consensus had been established, so much so, in fact, further discussion for inclusion woud be disruptive and it was starting to veer off-topic. No one else voiced disapproval of my actions. That's all I have to say about that. Baegis (talk) 09:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that I'll need to clarify my aforementioned statement, if only Dana's sake. The comment Dana refers to (with no ellipses to obfuscate any intended meaning, but only the third paragraph presented as the other statements have nothing to do with this dispute):

    I am not as against the inclusion of homeopathy information as others here...Assuming the case for this being a remedy of note is solid, I support a simple inclusion that directs the reader to List of homeopathic preparations, which is an appropriate place to deal with the topic. (Even at List of homeopathic preparations, I can't see the published state of the research--i.e., Frass et al, & nothing else--meriting more than a minimalist "it's use has been investigated to treat COPD symptoms.[ref]" statement)

    For the sake of argument, if one had only seen this quote by me, one might reasonably think that I support inclusion of this damned Frass et al. paper, in some form or another, in some location. However, I repeatedly made multi-faceted arguments against inclusion; in the context of these statements, that Dana assuredly read, there is no reasonable cause to state that I want "at least some reference to it" (as Dana states above). Consensus was decidedly against inclusion; I am decidedly against conclusion.

    Even though I think it horribly tendentious to argue with me about the meanings of my words, for the sake of unambiguous pellucidity, and for some semblance of finality, allow me to retract the above quote and replace it with this:

    I am not as against the inclusion of homeopathy information as others here (who eliminated all reference to its use in homeopathy), as shown by my simple inclusion of general homeopathic information with no reference to Frass et al. The provided link directs the reader to List of homeopathic preparations, which is an appropriate place to deal with the topic of how & why homeopaths use Potassium dichromate. (However, I do not support the inclusion of Frass et al. in any other article, as most of my objections against inclusion are independent of the article in which the reference might appear.)

    Is that clearer? Can this die now? — Scientizzle 15:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    un-banning Dana

    For admins tempted to un-ban Dana, please notice that Dana has:

    • given no signal of understanding or acknowledging why he was topic banned
    • not given any signal of regretal for his actions
    • actually repeated on his post the same behaviour that got him topic banned on the first place
    • cherry-picked Scientizzle's comments, look at Scientizzle's complaint that he never agreed with Dana and his implicit agreement with topic ban and archiving of discussion in current form
    • never mentioned the real reason of why he was banned, which was misquoting Scientizzle in a way that has a zero percentage of being cause by chance, in order to support a particulary outrageous point to support a position that he has been disruptively arguing for months.
    • subtly misrepresented other editors' position and his own position, (on ways too long to discuss here, continuing a pattern of behaviour that has been analyzed to death on the arbitration case)
    • claims that Vassyana has been given misinformation and implies that Vassyana would have had at least to hear from him before topic banning, and would like Vassyana to reconsider his decision. However, Dana was banned for spreading misinformation on the first place, and, you see, not that I want to assume bad faith or something, but maybe Dana intended to give misinformation to Vassyana to avoid the ban just like he is now doing on his post here. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please keep Dana Ullman banned. Their personal beliefs about the topic are so strong that no amount of mentoring seems to be sufficient to bring their editing into compliance with minimum requirements. At the same time, Dana should be treated with kindness and respect by all. Jehochman Talk 13:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. I would appreciate hearing the opinions of other sysops on this issue. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jehochman - Just to be clear, are you saying the pro-homeopathy editors have annoyed the anti-homeopathy editors so much that they have made the article excessively anti-homeopathy? Wanderer57 (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No chance of that while tempers are running high. Any re-editing of that by the uninvolved would lead to imprecations being hurled down on the head of the unfortunate editor. Which is why civility is important, as well. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Vassyana, thanx for recognizing that this drama is more complex than you may have originally assumed and thanx for asking for help from other uninvolved sysops. I myself appreciate feedback from uninvolved editors. I want to apologize if one of my previously cited quotes did not provide the entire quotation. I primarily inserted the part that was left out. I was not trying to "deceive" anybody (heck, I even provided the specific diff for it...I had/have nothing to hide!). To Shoemaker's credit, he quoted me correctly saying, “As for "pushing" this study, consensus was reached to include it in the past, and it was a part of this article for several weeks. Just in the past week or so, Scientizzle recommended that we reference it.” My point here was not to say that we had consensus recently, but some consensus was reached previously. And even though Shoemaker is very good at providing diffs, he chose to not reference Scientizzle's remark back in January 15th, “Glad we could come to a reasonable compromise on the text.” And later, “What this study does certainly provide is a foundation on which to test future hypotheses about potassium dichromate as a homeopathic remedy: it doesn't close the book, it simply ends the first chapter.” [31] This statement is important because I take some pride in working to achieve compromise and to work with other editors, especially in an environment that has been extremely hostile. In fact, this environment is so hostile that some editors are doing what they can to silence/mute me. Enric Naval has asserted that I "cherry-picked Scientizzle's comments" and that Scientizzle has "never agreed with Dana." However, this diff prove Enric wrong! [32]Jehochman was kind enough to encourage that I be treated with kindness and respect, probably because I try to treat others that way.[33] However, Jehochman also recommends that I be banned for being too pro-homeopathy. I'm wondering, therefore, if other editors here should be banned for being too anti-homeopathy. Please note that there has been a tendency for some editors to try to throw as much mud at me in the hopes that some of it sticks. Shoemaker's Holiday wrote a 7,000+ word attack on me at the Arb Committee even though he has been informed that only 1,000 words is requested. Finally, because I am so darn civil (even in this hostile environment), some editors try to assert that I am POV-pushing, while tending to ignore their own POV-pushing and their stonewalling. I sincerely hope that block against me is lifted. DanaUllmanTalk 16:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr. Ullman, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    !Agree --Enric Naval (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Dana often is his own worst enemy. He has just made an effective argument in favor of his topic ban, including enough red herrings to stock a seafood market. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took a look at the Potassium Dichromate article to see what the fuss was about and was amused to find that it relates to the product HeadOn - a suitable metaphor for the repeated headache that this topic causes. :) I failed to see why Dana should be banned for his work there but noticed a tendentious and unsourced statement in the article by Mccready which I removed. My impression is that many/most editors working upon this topic seem quite fanatical and so we just have a lots of pots calling the kettle black. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, no... It relates to a study that Ullman wanted included. Did you look at the talk page at all? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did. Adding a source seems like a reasonable idea since the article is generally lacking sources and the homeopathy bit has none at all. I added a source about dermatitis just to show how it's done. You guys seem to prefer arguing to adding sources. Tsk. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    [EC]The "consensus" in mid-January to which Dana refers was rapidly overturned. On the 15th, Dana added the study. I and David D. (talk · contribs) were not convinced of its appropriateness and worked to at least decrease the blatant peacockery--discussion here. Simultaneously, discussion at Talk:Homeopathy (found here) received wider input and came down more convincingly against inclusion. Talk:Potassium dichromate#Notability of COPD shows this, too, as the study had been removed, then re-added, and further arguments came down more clearly against inclusion. Discussion here, here, here, and here (and a tangential discussion regarding the phenomenon of non-homeopathy articles having substantial pro-homeopathy information added to them began) served to solidify the consensus that inclusion was not appropriate. At the end of January, after all this, the article looked like this, with no reference to any homeopathy (and remained so until I added some back just a couple days ago). — Scientizzle 17:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It is a tad ironic that Scientizzle inserted information into this article on a homeopathic medicine called "HeadOn" but did so without ANY recent discussion.[34] Even the follow-up discussion had one editor for inclusion and one editor against it. He obviously feels OK about adding information to this article that may make fun of homeopathy, but he and other editors work to keep out any serious scientific research on the subject. Please know that there are a gang of editors who have extremely antagonism to homeopathy and who work diligently to keep potentially positive research about it out of articles. Enric Naval then got belligerent saying that Dana is "still insisting on the damned Lancet editorial thing that has been explained to him several times by several editors."[35] Enric is confused here. This is the FIRST time that I had made reference to the Lancet's editorial that had accompanied the Reilly study on asthma in 1994. If I'm wrong here, I ask that Enric provide the diffs (because he is insisting that many editors have responded. If I'm right, I hope that Enric will apologize. It should be noted that Baegis archived the discussion within hours of me quoting the Lancet's editorial, which, for the record, was a very strong statement for homeopathy: The editorial asserts, "They (Reilly, et al) invite us to choose between two interpretations of this activity: either there is something amiss with the clinical trial as conventionally conducted (theirs was done with exceptional rigour); or the effects of the homoeopathic immunotherapy differ from those of placebo." The editorial further says, "carefully done work of this sort should not be denied the attention of Lancet readers." In the article by Reilly, he says, "Either anser suggested by the evidence to date--homoeopathy works, or the clinical trial does not--is equally challenging to current medicine science." Later on, he concludes, "Our results lead us to conclude that homoeopathy differs from placebo in an inexplicable but reproducible way." (p. 1606) It is no wonder that Baegis and other anti-homeopathy editors wanted to archive this information as soon as possible, and further, it is no wonder that they are trying so hard to silence an editor that has civilly sought to provide RS, notable information to wikipedia. I ask again to be unblocked from the topic of homeopathy. DanaUllmanTalk 22:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dana, I don't care about HeadOn. You never raised any reason not to include it when I made my good-faith attempt to acheive a middle ground, and nobody has objected to it after I did add it. I basically restored the article to (an improved version of) what existed before you tried to ram the Frass et al study through. As for the claim that I "obviously" feel "OK about adding information to this article that may make fun of homeopathy", I guess I probably needn't respond... — Scientizzle 23:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can an admin please archive this page? This thread is quickly turning into the Potassium dichromate talk page, part 2. Dana is only repeating the exact same tired accusations that landed him the 3 month ban in the first place. For the good of the ANI board, lets just move on. Baegis (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Mccready - endless, disruptive, repetitive edit warring

    Resolved
     – user blocked for one week for recurring disruption. The 1RR probation suggested would not help as per evidence presented in this discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    DEFINITELY NOT RESOLVED! -- Fyslee / talk 02:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That would be funny if it wasn't for your silly wikistalking revert I pointed out on your talkpage and to which you have no response. Why don't you do something useful instead of sniping meaninglessly, wikistalking and making patently silly reverts? Even Butler reverted you on the date issue. And now you are going to the extent of removing "semi-retrired" signs from other people's pages??? [36] Time for a wikibreak Mr Fyslee, or perhaps some acupuncture might solve the problem?Mccready (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
     – 1RR parole imposed on editor for a period of 6 months. henrik•talk 19:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mccready (talk · contribs) is exhibiting (he's done this before in other cases) very disruptive behavior that is a violation of the principle involved in 3rr violations, among other things. He keeps reinserting a large edit in the lead that has been reverted by several other editors, yet he insists on repeating the same behavior. It's definitely uncollaborative editing. The problem with the edit itself is that it is not in a format suitable for the lead, not that it's untrue. Many editors have explained this to him, yet he persists. Is there a penalty for stubborn hardheadedness? Here are the diffs (so far). Other editors' reactions can be found in the edit history of that article and the talk page:

    Right above he is abusing this board to complain about his inability to succeed in an identical edit war on another article! Someone please stop this nonsense. A topic ban and 3rr block would be appropriate. -- Fyslee / talk 06:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What would be appropriate is that you reformat the information if you don't like it the way it is. Not waste everyone's time defending the deletion of good sources. Mccready (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are the one seeking inclusion, therefore it's your job to format it properly and seek inclusion in the body of the article. Then we can include mention of those otherwise good sources in the lead. That's the way we do it here. You have been told this numerous times, yet you insist on including that poorly formatted whole long list of sources in the lead, which is quite improper. Yes, I agree that acupuncture's effectiveness has been debunked numerous times and that needs to be mentioned in the lead, but only after it's documented in the body of the article. This is mostly a formatting issue, not a POV issue. That's why many editors who otherwise agree with your POV are opposing this edit warring of yours. -- Fyslee / talk 14:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I also do not appreciate that Mccready uncivilly calls me a POV warrior. . . He accuses me of edit warring. . . yet they are his poor edits. . . with no consensus. . . he keeps forcing on us which I have reverted. If it were up to me. . . he should be topic banned at least. . . blocked temporarily at most.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 07:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a lot that I could say about Mccready's pattern of disruptive editing. Probably the main point is that the pattern is long-standing. See the one-month community ban proposed by FloNight in September 2006, here and here. Note in particular the number of pro-science, skeptical editors in that thread who say that he's exhausted the community's patience. After that ban, he disappeared for about a year, but when he returned, he quickly settled into the same disruptive pattern. That resulted in my asking an admin (User:Mastcell) to intervene. Mastcell replied:
    "There is clearly a problem here. I'm thinking about the best way to address it. My instinct would be to place Mccready on 1RR on these articles to address the constant edit-warring. I've left a note for User:Davidruben to get his thoughts. I agree with you that ArbCom would probably deal with him pretty harshly given the history, and it may come to that since he appears to reject any outside attempts to address his behavior by impugning the integrity, experience, etc of the admin in question."[37]
    The upshot of that intervention is that Mccready, in order to avoid a sanction, agreed to limit himself to 1RR. Since then, he's edit warred and gone beyond 1RR several times (I Ching:[38][39]; I Ching; and see last 8 diffs from Fyslee at start of thread). He also chronically ignores WP:LEAD, adding contentious, poorly-formatted and poorly-weighted material to lead sections even if the material he adds isn't covered in the article at all.
    A a minimum, a re-do of the topic ban done by FloNight, for all alternative medicine and construably "pseudoscience" articles, seems in order. And I think the ban should be indefinite, since he been at this for years, seems immune to constructive criticism, and voluntary self-restraint doesn't work. Sure, Mccready has made some good edits along the way, but lots of editors are able to do that without chronic, tendentious disruption. He's dragging the project down, and the good stuff he adds doesn't warrant keeping him around, IMO. thanks, Jim Butler (t) 09:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (undent) This is a very very simple dispute engineered by the usual POV warriors who want to defend acupuncture at all costs. The dispute is the weight given to various scientific sources. Butler et al want to highlight a tiny minority of studies saying acupuncture MIGHT be effective. They insist on placing this information first in acupuncture articles and edit war in concert to achieve their aims. I want to highlight the huge number of studies showing acupuncture is NOT effective. Simple and sweet. The true believers acknowledge my position but try to wiggle out by claiming my edits are not formatted properly or do not belong in the LEAD. If they spent as much time on addressing this perceived flaw as they do attacking me we might all be able to be proud of a better encyclopedia. Mccready (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    All of that stuff shouldn't be in the lead. Would you stop if the lead was pruned to just the first para:

      • Acupuncture [...] practiced and taught throughout the world.

    and the effectiveness stuff went into the article? Dan Beale-Cocks 09:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mccready: :"Usual POV warriors"? Not at all; Mccready's edits have been criticized by editors across the board. The following editors are all scientific, skeptical editors, just like Mccready says he is, and they have all been highly critical of his tendentious editing: FloNight, Fyslee, and MastCell (evidence above), as well as Davidruben [40], Eldereft [41], Jim62sch and FeloniousMonk (archived talk), Orangemarlin [42][43], Friday [44], Jefffire [45], and Arthur Rubin [46]. And I'd count myself, since I was a chemist (M.A. Harvard '89) before training as an acupuncturist, and I understand the scientific method pretty well too. I think this evidence demolishes the "Mccready the scientist vs the POV warriors" straw man. What it does show is broad community support for a sanction that is long overdue.
    Did I mention the flagrant WP:NPA violations?[47] This guy is damaging the project and needs to be reined in. --Jim Butler (t) 10:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OOooohhh dear, poor little Jim. now it's digging up all the dirt he can, not all from "scientific" editors either. Ad hominem attacks do nothing to address the simple fact that poor little jim hates to address. He knows acupuncture has not been proven effective for anything. He knows he edits to remove this fact whenever possible. He knows the straw man attempt won't wash. Get real. And since when did a hard hitting expression of disgust at POV count as NPA. And by the way it's silly to argue we should believe you since you studied a bit of chem. Linus Pauling did too but no one of substance takes his vitamin c claims seriously. Jim, your position is flawed at every level. Why don't you simply address the issue, not the man? Mccready (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong on substance, since there are hundreds of studies and several systematic reviews on acu's efficacy, as well as V RS's caveating study design, and these are cited in the article. And utterly, flagrantly wrong on Wikiquette. I link to criticisms of Mccready's edits by other editors -- all, every single one of them, known as scientifically-minded -- and he replies with personal attacks, and then adds the WP:KETTLE-ish suggestion that someone had ad-hominem-attacked him. To editors familiar with his history, this is typical stuff. --Jim Butler (t) 23:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with MastCell, place Mccready on 1RR. PhilKnight (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) Let's try to keep focus here. The dispute is the weight given to various scientific sources. Butler et al want to highlight a tiny minority of studies saying acupuncture MIGHT be effective. They insist on placing this information first in acupuncture articles and edit war in concert to achieve their aims. I want to highlight the huge number of studies showing acupuncture is NOT effective. Can we please address the issue? Mccready (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The issue being discussed here is actually your behavior, and more specifically whether it is productive for the encyclopedia or not. The content dispute is discussed elsewhere. henrik•talk 15:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I see it, Mccready has done half the work necessary for building a quality encyclopedia - finding and describing sources. Their attitude seems to be that this shifts the burden to "the community" to include this information in an encyclopedic fashion. It is very frustrating to feel compelled to revert the otherwise good edits of an editor who refuses to take the time to present in an encyclopedic fashion this accurate and well-sourced information.
    This user is not immune to reason, and has recently shown a willingness to keep good edits unrelated to this list instead of blindly reverting to a previous version. I would argue that a full pseudoscience (broadly construed) topic ban is unwarranted, but a 1RR or temporary article ban (would a month or three allow this article to move forward?) would be nice. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 18:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that a 1RR restriction might be a good thing to try. henrik•talk 18:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There is still this issue of incivility. . . even in this posts he calls us "POV warriors". . . This behavior has to improve.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is the quick solution to this situation. Just merge the material and add it to the appropriate section. It would be helpful if editors tried to improve on the edit instead of reverting. Please address the content dispute instead of ignoring it. Makes sense? QuackGuru 18:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now done Mccready's job for him by putting the material, properly formatted, in the proper section. --Jim Butler (t) 00:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Civility could be improved across the board, including from yourself ([48], [49]). henrik•talk 18:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In my time at Wikipedia I have encountered numerous problems with Mccready's editing style and general inability to collaborate effectively, in particular at chiropractic-related and acupuncture-related articles. He has already received numerous blocks and bans regarding chiropractic specifically and has engaged in another edit war at veterinary chiropractic leaving rather rude summaries. To wit:
    So, let's cut to the chase. Over a period of 2 years, Mccready has been officially beenblocked 4 times at chiropractic and already twice this year. This does not even take into account the canvassing[51] to get sports chiropractic article deleted (after 3 days of existence, no less) and then calling those involved wankers.
    Proposal
    Given Mccreadys clear attempts to disrupt wikipedia repeatedly and violating amongst other things WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and engaging in repetitive tendentious editing practices at both chiropractic and acupuncture I propose, at a minimum a topic ban at those 2 subjects. Admin MastCell's recommendations in this for a 1RR is, in my view, a band-aid solution to a chronic problem with Mccready. If he is a net contributor, then impose a topic ban and let him edit productively elsewhere, if it is deemed he is a net-liability, (which I perceive him to be) then a indef block or extended ban is warranted. I have merely presented but a fraction of the evidence that I have accumulated, if more diffs are wanted to show a lengthy history of disruption at chiropractic (and related articles) I can provide them. I think the regular editors at Acupuncture could very well do the same if inclined. Cheers. CorticoSpinal (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I too think a 1RR is too easy, since that is basically what he's doing most of the time anyway. He's carefully flying under the 3RR radar by not making too many reverts each day, but he still returns to the same door that has been closed by many and tries to open it again. That's just stupid (truly uncivil and more accurate terms could be chosen, but I'll refrain..;-) He should be taking the advice he's been given, reformatting his good references, and then trying to get them included in the body of the article in an appropriate section. Then, instead of getting reverted and ending up here, he'd be getting support from numerous editors, myself included. He's simply uncollaborative and acting like a jerk. A topic ban would be more effective, since other measures, including bans and blocks, have been tried without success. He seems incapable of learning, but I'll leave the DSM-IV diagnosis to the MDs. While Einstein wasn't an MD, he did say that "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Nuff said. -- Fyslee / talk 21:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Henrik's gentle nudge is substantially identical to many others that admins have left on Mccready's talk page; he never changes. And contrary to Henrik's comments, I don't see any consensus at all that 1RR is better than a topic ban. I think it's significant that the editors urging leniency are those with the least experience with Mccready. The fact is that he's been a disruptive editor since 2006, has been repeatedly sanctioned, and doesn't change.
    I doubt 1RR will work very well, since he's been under voluntary 1RR since 11 February, and has violated both the letter and spirit of it many times. Just look at the list Fyslee compiled above. Revert, revert, revert, revert. Sometimes within the letter of 1RR, but never the spirit, which is to seek consensus on talk pages. 1RR won't do anything to address the longstanding, intractable problems with WP:LEAD and WP:CONSENSUS (I'm not even going to mention WP:CIVIL, because that's coming to be seen as a sign of weakness when arguing about science, although it's certainly key.)
    I simply don't understand the reluctance to topic-ban this editor. Read his talk page and its archives. Look at his block log. He's been sporadically disrupting the project since 2006, and has done more harm than good to the goal of producing a better encyclopedia. I've seen editors get community banned at AN/I for less. What on earth is wrong with a topic ban? --Jim Butler (t) 23:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No consensus for 1RR

    Henrik left this comment on Mccready's talk page:

    He replied:

    • "I don't agree that such a consensus emerged...."

    I agree with Mccready. There was no such consensus, on the contrary! A 1RR changes nothing at all and will not change his behavior. He can keep doing exactly what he's been doing and abide by a 1RR parole. -- Fyslee / talk 02:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That would be funny if it wasn't for your silly wikistalking revert I pointed out on your talkpage and to which you have no response. Why don't you do something useful instead of sniping meaninglessly, wikistalking and making patently silly reverts? Even Butler reverted you on the date issue. And now you are going to the extent of removing "semi-retrired" signs from other people's pages??? [52]. Then you call me crazy? You who claim to agree with my edits yet revert them. Something crazy there? Time for a wikibreak Mr Fyslee, or perhaps some acupuncture might solve the problem?Mccready (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fyslee wrote: "He can keep doing exactly what he's been doing and abide by a 1RR parole." -- Or not:
    So, Mccready says, and then demonstrates, that he'll abide by 1RR except when he won't. Great, so we have a good idea how well that's going to work.
    I have only one question: Should we waste the ArbCom's time by bringing a case whose outcome we can all predict, just because a couple admins are too timid (a/o simply unfamiliar with the history) to topic-ban this editor? --Jim Butler (t) 02:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: 02:59, 28 April 2008: WHEE! 3RR! --Jim Butler (t) 03:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Repairing your sloppy work hardly counts to 3RR[53]. You said you had fixed this but (conveniently?) did not. This case is a simple matter of an acupuncturist doing everything he can to put a positive slant on the acupuncture article despite overwhelming evidence. Even his use of his favourite source, Ernst is biased. He will use every trick in the wikipedia arsenal to get his way. Including claiming the talk page agrees with him when it does not. The complaint is that I have not had time until the last few days to FORMAT data in the approved style. Hardly a hanging offence but one I will try to improve on. No one has said the data is wrong. Indeed I have been congratulated for my efforts in gathering it, yet Butler the POV acupuncturist likes to attack a good editor who he disagrees with. His childish WHEE above and his childish placement of a trout on my talkpage show the mentality of the man.Mccready (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say that this edit counted toward 3RR, because it didn't. I said that these three did, because they did: 00:22, 28 April 2008, 01:49, 28 April 2008, 02:59, 28 April 2008.
    And yes, you're to be congratulated for finding those Cochrane reviews for acupuncture. Cutting and pasting is challenging work; it can take hours.
    I am not the problem here, Mccready -- you are. I'm not perfect, but I know my subject areas, work well with other editors, annoy very few people, and don't get blocked. --Jim Butler (t) 03:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (undent)Now we have the Butler defn of 3RR? I don't think so. The community can judge who is making the maximum effort to slant the article in a POVish fashion. Like everyone has said, my research is good. You try to remove all reference to it in the LEAD and then you claim consensus? Give me a break. Mccready (talk) 03:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    From WP:3RR: "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." The three edits I cited qualify [54], [55], [56]. Your mainspace edits and your talk page comment make your contempt for the 1RR probation clear enough. --Jim Butler (t) 03:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There is enough evidence here for a week-long block for disruptive editing. User blocked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Considering the users response here, I have no objections. I attempted to give him one last chance, but he did not respond in a way that made me believe he intended to reform. henrik•talk 14:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban

    Mccready (talk · contribs) should be given a topic ban on all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed, for no less than six months. This is a massive ongoing issue. His block log and recent actions make it clear that he simply needs to avoid those topics. Despite multiple blocks, several people trying to explain the principles of the place, and many attempts to invite him to conversation, he is still acting in a completely unacceptable fashion. I would also suggest that he be placed under probation on all pseudoscience and alternative medicine topics, broadly construed, for the same duration. The probation should require him to explain reverts on the article talk page and warn him against further disruption such as ignoring consensus and edit warring. Enforce the probation with blocks or an expanded topic ban to include the broader category of the probation (compared to the initial ban). Thoughts? Comments? Vassyana (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC) See here for thoughts generated by recent and previous cases.[reply]

    • The arguments themselves, even if just from admins, is fairly sound, so consider my position a weak oppose. I know these discussions have become somewhat common on ANI, but it would still be a better idea to take the user-RfC step, and place the discussion in an area where all users would feel comfortable in commenting on. -- Ned Scott 06:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering that this user has been blocked several times and been the subject of several noticeboard discussions, I believe that we are far beyond the point of a user RfC. (This goes back over two years. See here and here for examples. There was an RfC around that time as well, with well-respected editors endorsing the view that he was disruptive.) The purpose of such RfCs is to make clear to the editor the desires of the community. Mccready is already well-aware of the community's wishes in regards to his behavior and editing patterns. Vassyana (talk) 06:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This topic ban is a step towards resolving the drama over this article. MBisanz talk 06:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I just encountered him for the first time at Sciatica where he edited in an unnecessarily combative way, removing references to acupuncture and chiropractic which were trivial to cite to serious journals. Since he must know a lot about this subject by now, his edit seems disruptive. His general behaviour seems so blatantly bad that I half-suspect that this is a black-op by the other side. Either way, he should be restrained. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the other hand, I have looked at his edits to Bicycle and, while they show some stubbornness, they seem more reasonable. An editor with strong views should be encouraged to spread himself rather than getting hung up over particular issues. That way, we get the benefit of his boldness without the aggravation of the warring. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's hard to argue with Vassyana's rationale; I think this editor has had more chances than we give many others, and is still exhibiting the same counterproductive and uncollaborative behavior. I think a 6-month topic ban is reasonable, with the understanding that it's a last step before an indefinite block if the same old behaviors recur at the ban's expiration. MastCell Talk 17:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)c[reply]
    • Support - I literally had to stop watching the Acupuncture article for about a month because his edits were so disruptive. It is clear he only wants to trumpet the references that point to no proof of efficacy and ignore the references that do show efficacy. So I am suggesting each side be given weight, in the appropriate sections. MeekMark (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - His behaviour is terrible and I'm only supporting a topic ban if there is some chance he would be an asset to the community if he edits elsewhere, otherwise I would support a formal ban. Nick (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    This is distracting from the conversation above, and degenerating into sniping, general accusations, soapboxing and other nonsense. If you need community feedback about a particular user's issues, RfC is that way. If you need administrator assistance for a specific incident or to deal with a long-term pattern of behavior, please start a new section. (In either place, show clear evidence of your claims, and do not use broad accusations, inflammatory language or name-calling.) I would strongly encourage editors to steadfastly avoid the above-mentioned "nonsense" in either venue, and would encourage my fellow administrators to nip any such disruption in the bud if it reoccurs. Vassyana (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    QuackGuru

    QuackGuru (talk · contribs)

    • Comment To be fair to Mccready, he's just hot-blooded and wears his emotions on his sleeve (I know where he comes from). But, I would be remiss if I did not address a similar disruptive pattern amongst Chiropractic that dates back to Mccready as well. User:QuackGuru deserves a similar investigastion. Looking at his block log, you'll see similar stuff to Mccready. I count 8 in less than a year, most with Chiropractic. He's engaged in long-standing disruptive practices now, but under a civil POV push. I believe that QuackGuru also merits such a topic ban and think we should open the floor for such discussion. CorticoSpinal (talk) 06:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support an investigation into QG. QuackGuru demonstrates neither the expertise, nor the sensitivity needed to obtain NPOV in Chiropractic and related articles. He is been tendentiously pushing an agenda that includes disruption, stonewalling, wikilawyering, edit warring, failing to meet inclusion standards as per WP:MEDRS (or the CAM equivalent). I could also throw in tons of baiting as seen here. Diffs into any formal investigation will be provided. Cheers. CorticoSpinal (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    You don't have to vote on it, you can just keep talking... -- Ned Scott 06:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ned's exactly right. There's no need to !vote on an investigation. Provide some evidence and pointers. I'm sure the sysops and community will review and discuss the situation. Vassyana (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment* QG seems to have considerably fewer problems than McCready. I think it would be unwise to conflate the two cases. I think Cortico shouldn't throw rocks from his glasshouse, considering his blocklog and previous history. An editor should be judged by their current actions. Jefffire (talk) 09:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your concern, Jefffire, however, my argument in fact that QG has been even more disruptive than Mccready, albeit in a civil fashion. He has also repeatedly violated the terms of of Feb 08 block which imposed a strict 1RR. His edit warring at Chiropractic, Sports Chiropractic and particularly at Veterinary chiropractic suggests that he does not regard the terms of his probation. Given he has 8 blocks on chiropractic-topics in the last year, this warrants further attention. As I am at work I cannot provide the diffs just yet, but when I have the time, later on this evening, I am confident that I will present a case that will justify a full topic ban. QG has crossed the line from rational skeptic into some kind of unhealthy fixation with chiropractic which has made editing there a private hell for me, for the last 3 months, but do many others over the past year. So, to summarize, indeed editors should be judged by their current actions and I will provide current diffs on QG tendiously editing, disrupting chiropractic-related articles, violating WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, using WP:COATRACK strategies, ignoring completely WP:MEDRS, dodging concerns via WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, using WP:BAIT tactics all while edit warring under probation. It's an open and shut case and QG shouldn't have persisted with the same behaviours and editing tactics which got him in trouble in the first place. More tonight. Cheers. CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Agree with Jefffire that QuackGuru is not in the same league as Mccready. I've observed disruption and edit-warring from QG in the past (i.e., a few months ago), but not lately; however, that may be a simple artifact of my editing less. An RfC may be indicated depending on his more recent conduct. --Jim Butler (t) 21:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It seems to me that QG exhibits two or three uncivil behavioral traits which either need improvement or other remedies need to be instituted. Again, these are just my opinions so if someone disagrees, please feel free to discuss. 1) Similar to McCready, QuackGuru keeps inserting controversial edits into article-space despite ongoing discussions and a clear lack of consensus. I understand his frustration at times, but he seems to quick to make these kinds of edits. He will keep doing it, trying to see if they will stick. 9 times out of 10 they don't. Still he will be back the next day and try again. 2) He can be extremely snotty. This is tough because it is incivility in disguise. A lot of times, he hides these snippy remarks in sarcasm or in edit summaries. I guarantee you that anyone who has every been on his bad side can attest to this. 3) He doesn't take criticism well. Just look at his user talk page history. He is quick to delete any criticisms (usually followed by a snotty remark or accusation). I even "fear" what retribution he will have on me for posting this (part of me is quite sure that this be turned into an attack on me). It is this inability to take criticism constructively which makes me wonder if options such as an RFC/U would be beneficial at all. 4) He can be quite often completely unreasonable. It is irrational behavior like this which even makes users on his side of the argument - such as Fyslee - wish he would just go away. (Why? Because he weakens their position and disrupts any consensual headway the article is making.) All in all, I don't think a recidivist such as QuackGuru can improve. However, I don't see the harm in at least experimenting by giving him a temporary topic ban and seeing how this affects his behavior. Otherwise, I think QuackGuru is speeding headlong toward an indef block. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment absurd witchhunts being perpetrated by Chiropractic true-believers and their erstwhile political allies. QuackGuru should be commended for fighting against the unwarranted promotion of chiropractic. I would like to see an investigation into the activities of User:CorticoSpinal and User:Levine2112 who both, in my estimation, deserve to be kicked off Wikipedia immediately for using it as soapbox to promote their weird beliefs that manipulating spines is somehow the cure to all manner of maladies and that "BIG MEDICINE" is ruining the world. We don't need people who wear these preposterous ideas on their sleeves making a headache for the sane non-"true believers" here on Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This statement typifies the ignorance of and the types of straw man arguments used to discredit complementary providers. First, chiropractic medicine, in case you haven't noticed, is primarily used to treat neuromusculoskeletal disorders (90%). That is conditions involving the muscles, nerves and joints. You, and other skeptics, and hung up on whether or not manipulation is effective in certain visceral conditions (the jury is still out, Hawk et al. are doing the best research in this area presently). Anyways, you're insinuations are completely unfounded and I reject them completely. You put words in my mouth ("using it as soapbox to promote their weird beliefs that manipulating spines is somehow the cure to all manner of maladies and that "BIG MEDICINE" is ruining the world") which is a personal attack and I hope you retract it. It's not a question of believing; it's a question of understanding the science behind manual therapy, which many in orthodox medicine do not. I recommend you look at this text and brush up on the last 25 years or so of research. Otherwise, you are using dated, invalid and misleading comments that can easily be debunked. Cheers. CorticoSpinal 21:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support as per Science Apologist. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I have edited a few articles that QuackGuru edits, and have found him overall to be violating WP:MEDRS, ignoring WP:CON and WP:NPOV. It is these sort of tactics that drive editors away from the project. DigitalC (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is a recent diff showing QuackGuru ignoring RS, MEDRS, and CON. [65]. The consensus on the article talk page was that this source was not reliable. DigitalC (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's get back on track here. Is QG disruptive on chiropractic-related pages and did he explicitly and REPEATEDLY break the terms of his probations of 1RR? Definitely. It's happened several times as well:

    Here is an example of a civil POV push with QGs "scientific investigation" of chiropractic which he pushed despite the majority of editors at Chiropractic feeling it was substandard and needed to be reworked for inclusion. He ignored consensus and attempted to insert it repeatedly, in a disruptive move:

    1. 17:44, March 18/08

    19:37, March 31/08 22:03, March 31/08

    Ignoring the ongoing talk which several editors raised POV tone and validity concerns, QG goes ahead:

    1. April 6/08
    2. April 7/08
    3. April 8/08 Notice how there were 3 separate editors who reminded QG that this was discussion was ongoing and to please wait until the discussion was finished prior to inserting it. He ignored them 3 times, one day after the next. It's this type of tendentious and disruptive editing which has resulted in many edit wars at Chiropractic. QG is a catalyst in most.

    It has moved to the Veterinary chiropractic article as of late. A majority of editors there felt that QG up to his old tricks with more disruption beginning with adding and renaming a section of the article that had consensus from a majority of editors. The intent, as always is clear: to maximize controversy and drum up the emotions hoping someone (like me in the past) loses their cool. WP:BAIT for sure. Here's recent examples:

    1. Effectiveness
    2. Effectiveness again 02:38, April 19/08
    3. 06:13, April 19/08. This is despite ignoring the ongoing conversation at Talk which was asking QG to please not edit war over the section title which he is also POV pushing at chiropractic. Did this changes thingss?
    4. 08:50, April 19/08
    5. 22:15, April 21/08. Note more wikilawyering and ignoring the ongoing discussion and majority consensus on the talk page.
    6. 19:26 April 26/08. Again ignoring the will of the majority of the editors, QG continues a civil POV push that is clearly disruptive by now. Still not done, apparently. It continues again, despite DigitalC requesting a temporary stoppage so he can pursue a RfC.

    Back to chiropractic, on April 18/08: Removing my comments from Talk pages and threatening me with WP:HARASS and WPL:BLOCK. He reverted my comments 3x in a matter of minutes which prevented me from continuing an important conversation

    17:52 April 18/08 17:55 April 18/08 He was warned not to do so by Admin Swatjester here and, as per typical QG fashion, he erases his discussion page to remove any evidence of wrong doing. Here is is trying to play admin Vassyana against admin Swatjester. These tactics have regularly been used against myself and other editors at chiropractic related pages.

    He also regularly nominates chiropractic-related articles for deletion in more attempts to disrupt, subvert and obstruct productive editing and contributions. Since Feb 08, he has nominated the following articles for deletion

    1. [66] This is 2 days after he proposed to keep the article and include in the main chiropractic article. Although it is circumstancial evidence, it is plausible that it was from a WP:CANVASSING attempt from Mccready, diffs which can be found on the AfD sports chiropractic page. Note he suddenly wants to delete the vet chiro article which he has been "contributing" to since day 1. Odd.[67]

    So, that was a quick one off, I can dig much deeper and get other users, admins diffs who have also questioned the tactics of QG and his disruptive practices at chiropractic. To be clear, I am not against rational chiropractic skeptics. I can deal with scientific skepticism, but this goes beyond. It make editing here completely difficult and needlessly aggravates the situation with edits wars, civil POV pushes, canvassing and general disruption. His contributions to chiropractic has been nominal at best and his continued presence has driven away editors, and he has personally been on my case in some form, since day 1. This isn't a case of sour grapes, its a case a chronic recividism with editing practices which harms the integrity of the project. I have more if needed, but I await commentary first. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A vendetta against QuackGuru. Not very nice, considering you are formerly blocked editor for edit warring. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Orangemarlin

    Orangemarlin (talk · contribs)

    Do you have evidence of this 'vendetta'? I'm not sure if it is relevant here, but here are 4 diffs showing Orangemarlin helping QuackGuru to insert edits into Chiropractic articles that did not have consensus on the relevant talk pages - QuackGuru was on 1rr at this point in time. [68], [69], [70], [71] DigitalC (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Orangemarlin is directly complicit in this investigation as well. I have been the target of unrelenting personal attacks simply because I am a chiropractor. Orangemarlin hates racists, yet he is one in the scientific realm. I have been called an "unscientic, "anti-science" "POV warrior" "edit warrior" and other demeaning, condescending and frankly baiting words. Look at all the times he has far crossed WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:NPOV and WP:VANDALISM. That's right, Admin Swatjester (bring him here) cited Orangemarlin's reversions at Chiropractic vandalism.
    As for OrangeMarlin calling me anti-scientific? I consider this a personal attack have told him so since March 20/08 [72] I have asked Orangemarlin to please stop attacking me. Yet this has not stopped since then despite my numerous requests (diffs available upon request). I have even asked him to tone down the anti-science POV towards Chiropractic on March 20/08 as well. He has since blatantly disregarded this sensible request. I even filed a ANI here on April 18/08 which went belly up (friendly admins should recuse themselves). Yet, it still persists.
    The thing that bothers me the most has been the persistent, antagonistic attacks and baiting seemingly trying to "goad" me into getting blocked again (which occurred because of previously poor reaction to a long standing civil POV push and disruption at Chiropractic which has snarred so far, Mccready, Quack Guru and Orangemarlin. Orangemarlin has crossed the line here. I've been nothing but corteous, trying to ignore his clearly marginalizing statements used to discredit me and my contributions here. Look at this mess!here and here and here and here a demeaning edit summary here claiming I use treatment methods that are anti-scientific AGAIN and a disparaging remark regarding snowmobiles and sled dogs here more anti-scientic suggestions here.
    Again, as of April 19, he resumes the attacks, with admins ALL AROUND who turn a blind eye to the obvious violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA to name just a few. This can be seen here and [73] (notice the constant attempts to undermine my character and good faith contributions) and again here "pretending to be civil" [74] and again attacking here [75] [76] Edit warring without discussion [77] (misleading content and edit summary noted) [78]
    I even asked admin MastCell here to please talk to him but has not responded as of yet. Let it be known that Orangemarlin has friends in high places, and he has seemingly gotten away with a lot of incivility, especially of late. Something must be done at this point. He is attacking me relentlessly, portraying me as an anti-scientific, fringe POV pushing editor who needs to be blocked. This is absolutely absurd and I would like to be treated with respect and would appreciate if neutral, uninvolved admins who do not have a conflict of interest please look into this. CorticoSpinal (talk) 06:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I find that requests to defuse interpersonal conflicts are sometimes best handled off-wiki, where people are less concerned about how their words will play to the crowd. Hence the lack of on-wiki response, though I probably should have notified you that I would work on it. Seems moot at this point, anyhow. Sigh. MastCell Talk 06:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Friends in high places? Sounds like a song. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Case and point. Is there some kind of WP:ABOVETHELAW? Unbelievable! CorticoSpinal 23:20, April 28, 2008 (UTC)
    This is beginning to look like a systematic effort to remove anyone who has ever challenged your material. Am I to be added next? Jefffire (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please

    This is seriously getting out of hand. If you have specific evidence of a problem, please provide it along with a neutral summary of the issue. Please stay polite and avoid unsubstantiated accusations and broad allegations. This is quickly turning into a battleground, filled with bickering and insults, and growing short on substantive discussion. This is not a lynch mob, nor your personal stump. If you're using this section for any such purpose, or just making unproductive comments, be aware it is obvious. It is also most certainly disruptive and just plain f****** rude. It may be wise for some people to consider striking their comments. This is obviously not for everyone who posted in the above section and subsections. To those it applies to, I sincerely beg you to reconsider your actions, consider striking or redacting your comments, and seriously consider just walking away if the conversation is too hackle-raising to be dealt with appropriately by you. Vassyana (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This thread began with worries about User:Mccready (who has now been blocked for a week). User:QuackGuru's behaviour but is not like User:Mccready's, nor is User:Orangemarlin's like either of their's and I'm very wary of seeing these two users conflated into this thread. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Closing this thread, please

    A common factor is that these editors openly scoff at the principles of assuming good faith and civility. OrangeMarlin, for example, has a paean on his page which says essentially that other editors should be told to "fuck off". Victimising Dana, who is scrupulously civil, while winking at these blatant bad boys is sending quite the wrong message. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Then I would suggest filing a separate RfC on each editor or, if either editor has done something which clearly calls for admin action now, please note it as a new thread here on ANI, with simple diffs (and not a narrative which accidently looks like a shopping list). Gwen Gale (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Review indef block of User:כתר

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

    My apologies for bringing up a rather stale issue, but it's been nagging away at me. This user was blocked indefinitely on 2008-04-20 by Moreschi (talk · contribs) for reason "Adieu". The only warning given was for 3RR. This user has requested unblocking. In the ensuing discussion, the block was explained as because "He's quite obviously a sockpuppet (of whom I don't know)". Is it now our practice to block users indefinitely for sockpuppetry with evidence of this type? Isn't that what WP:SSP and WP:RFCU are for?

    I asked the blocking admin to escalate this issue, but the conversation petered out, which is why I'm bringing it here. I'm not very experienced at tracking down sockpuppets, but it seems to me that we'll be biting newcomers left, right and centre if we continue on this path. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying that this user's contributions (mostly asking why he's being accused of being a sockpuppet) are high quality, nor that Moreschi is acting in bad faith.

    On another note, I see that this user also requested unblock on the unblock-en-l list (password protected), but received no reply, which is unusual.

    So, am I worrying about nothing? Bovlb (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It does look strange. See here. I don't think Future Perfect, Moreschi or Max Sem (see here) have explained themselves well or provided sufficient evidence. If people are pushing inappropriate content, but you can't pin down who it is, then concentrate on improving the content rather than lashing out at shadows. Future Perfect also seems to have lost his cool in response to another editor in a similar matter. See here ("are you still here? Go rant somewhere else") and here ("This is my user talk page, please. When people tell you to keep off their talkpages, you better keep off.") in response to another editor that Moreschi blocked for 100 hours for "disruptive editing". I'm also unclear here as to why Moreschi blocked for 100 hours in one case, and indefinite in the other case. I think the reason is sockpuppetry, but that seems unproven here. I suggest Moreschi and others proceced with caution. If their actions are causing collateral damage, that won't be good for the future viability of the Macedonian discretionary sanctions. Especially, blocking indefinitely users who have not edited any articles but instead have only been contributing on talk pages, is not a good road to go down. The block log reason of "Adieu" is grossly inappropriate, as is "He's quite obviously a sockpuppet (of whom I don't know)". Did Moreschi and others learn nothing from the MatthewHoffman arbitration case? Moreschi in that case said: "To be honest, I think an indef would be preferable here. This is quite obviously a sockpuppet.." [79]. I said in my statement in that case: "some people lurk before getting involved, and some people take to Wikipedia like a duck to water. Accusing such people of being sockpuppets without evidence of who they are a sockpuppet of, and/or with checkuser requests, is severe biting of a possibly new editor." The conclusion of the arbitrators can be seen here. Note also that a previous indef by Moreschi was later overturned for mentoring. See here. It may turn out that DanaUllman doesn't have a future here (see the ongoing arbitration case), but can Moreschi honestly say that his actions in extending the 24 block to indefinite really helped? Moreschi has a history of blocking on the basis of what he thinks is "obvious" and of extending blocks placed by others. Neither of these actions are helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking not as an admin here but as the editor affected in this case, you guys can do what you like, unblock that account if you want to take the responsibility for watching him afterwards. But I remain convinced this account was just one in a series of throwaway sockpuppets that have been showing up on a regular basis lately, with no other purpose than to harass me, usually trying to prompt some other Greek users to start edit-warring against some edits of mine. It's always the same pattern, always evidently the same person or a small coordinated group. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how it works. The admin who did the blocking is responsible for any damage the blocking causes. When someone unblocks, the editor is usually warned about their future conduct (or they are given an apology for the block), and what then happens is that we have a collective responsibility to review any future problematic acts by that editor. There is no reason at all for an admin to "watch" those he unblocks (that is called "probation", and should not be handed out unilaterally by admins). I trust my fellow editors and admins to take appropriate action in the future, and I don't think immediate blocking and indefinite blocking is helpful in cases like this, especially not with spurious claims of sockpuppetry floating around. In other words, an unblock and apology, followed later by a block if there are later problems, doesn't mean anyone was "right" or "wrong" in the first case. You can't retrospectively justify actions like that. Carcharoth (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as you cannot speedy delete for something being a copyvio , unless you know of what it is a copy, you cannot block for being a puppet unless you know of who. Without even saying who it's suspected of being, this makes no sense at all. If there';s no explanation, I am willing to unblock. DGG (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Had my block of DanaUllman stood, the encyclopaedia would have been saved months of tendentious time-wasting. Fact.

    Secondly, this chap gave Fut. Perf {{uw-delete}} on something like his 5th edit in a clear attempt to harass and provoke. That is not the behaviour of a newbie or even a lurker. WP:BITE does not apply. Harassment-only SPAs get blocked, particularly if they self-evidently have prior experience (which means they should know better). No debate to be had here, unless there's collective sanity-abandonment in progress. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Spurious accusations of sockpuppetry? Fourth fucking edit! He clearly has prior history - even if that is good history, bad-hand disruptive socks get blocked as well. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "even if that is good history" - you don't sound quite sure any more. If you had a checkuser case for sockpuppetry, I would support an indefinite block. In this case, why not reduce the block to time served for "disruption", withdraw the sockpuppet allegations, assume good faith that this is the user's first account following anonymous editing, and give the user a chance to edit constructively and prove you wrong? Carcharoth (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. This is abusive sockpuppetry: he created an account purely to troll and harass an excellent administrator against whom he had a grudge: so much is self-evident. AGF is not a suicide pact: he has demonstrated clear bad faith by his harassment. Hell, has he even apologised? Where's the case for clemency? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, it is a fine line to draw sometimes, but the presumption here is clearly on you to make a case for sockpuppetry. You will surely admit that you are not always right, and you can see others besides me disagree with you, so why not swallow your pride and allow an unblock and see how this goes. Future Perfect has said he will not stand in the way of an unblock. We might all learn something here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cacharoth, I've re-examined [80] and I am not longer willing to unblock. --this is taunting the admin involved, and as I read it, admitting he is a sock. I would have given a clearer block summary though, such as "disruption-only editor" which I think meets the situation. DGG (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree on both counts - this is clearly an abusive sock but it would be helpful for the rest of us if the block summary in such cases could make this clear. Incidentally, what are the characters in the user name? I don't recognise the script. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hebrew, I think. Seems to be the Hebrew word for "crown" or somesuch. X Marx The Spot (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. It's the Hebrew word for crown. Enigma message 00:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, "I hope you found out whose sockpuppet I am.", is ambigious. It could be interpreted as an admission of sockpuppetry, but it could also be sarcastic. For example, if I (Carcharoth) said "I hope you found out whose sockpuppet I am.", I would hope that Moreschi would recognise I was being sarcastic, and would not block me and then justify the block with some "obvious" comment. It is purely the newness of the account here, and the transition from IP to account makes the account look more experienced than it is, that sets off red flags in some people. I think ktr was being sarcastic, which wasn't the best idea, but still not enough to justify an indefinite block. Remember, only 26 edits, of which 15 were after the unblock, and none to article space. Look at the 11 edits before the block - only 8 of these are substantive edits. ktr also recognises that Special:Contributions/85.75.93.132 are his edits (at least for this time period), so combining the two we get 18 substantive edits in the following sequence:

    What, among that lot, justifies an indefinite block for ktr, when compared to the 100-hour block for User:Elampon? I stand by my assertion that Future Perfect and Moreschi have over-reacted here. This looks to me like a standard case of a new account being created after a short period of IP editing, and the new account jumping into a disputed area - not the best idea, but unsurprisingly this is something done by both trolls and genuine new editors - there is no way to reliably distinguish the two, and those most involved will lose perspective and be unable to tell the two apart. Future Perfect seems to have lost it at the point here, where he said "In fact, sock, now that I re-read the two sources [...] But, sock, what happened [...] And, for any reader of average intelligence, sock, that of course [...] Other than that, the sources are sound, sock." It is unhelpful in the extreme to mix up genuine explanations with perjorative sock accusations. It also seems that Future Perfect said something in Greek here - at the very least, Future Perfect should be asked not to use Greek edit summaries, regardless of what he actually said, and certainly not if what he said was offensive. A block of some sorted was probably justified for ktr. The accusation of sockpuppetry and the indefinite length of the block was not. Moreschi, I ask you again, will you shorten the block and retract your accusation of sockpuppetry? Carcharoth (talk) 04:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: [81]: This guy has got everything he wanted, he got the attention he wanted, he got me annoyed, he got me in a bit of trouble, now he's happily off, pondering "future similar incidents (which [he is] sure will happen)". Great. If anybody still thinks this was a legitimate user, I can't help you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a note asking ktr to stop commenting in that way on the ANI thread from his talk page - it is only aggravating things. OK, now I've done that, I'll go back to Future Perfect. Future Perfect, please don't use the response by a currently blocked user (they are sometimes unhappy about being blocked, funny that) as an excuse to avoid the questions I'm asking you. I think the questions are reasonable, and I would appreciate a straight answer on whether you think taunting editors you think are socks, and switching to accusations of sockpuppetry in Greek language edit summaries, is acceptable? Carcharoth (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have nothing more to say about this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It is interesting to note that this user shares the same IP range with sockpuppets Spiros 13 (talk · contribs), Bolti7 (talk · contribs), and Ntou7 (talk · contribs). Dmcdevit·t 08:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    See my question below. Is this based on you running a checkuser? Carcharoth (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Worth noting that in some cases checkusers will decline to even look if WP:DUCK applies. I support the block by Fut Perf as explained by Moreschi, it does indeed seem reasonable. I think WP:BURO applies here. Orderinchaos 10:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know I said I'd drop this, but just noticed this error of fact here. It was a block by Moreschi, not Future Perfect. I'm dropping this now, and asking someone else to review. Carcharoth (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Future Perfect and Greek edit summaries

    Making sure this doesn't get lost above. I haven't looked further than the following two edits by Future Perfect, and one previous one nearby on a talk page, but could others review the edits please?

    Looking back further, it seems this is not the only time that Future Perfect's use of Greek has caused problems. See here: "That's always the danger when you try to say something funny in a foreign language; you can never know if it really means what you think it means. I'm glad to hear I wasn't that far off. Seems those Kypatzides taught me correctly after all... ;-)" - seriously, when editing in this area, using Greek when you are not a native speaker, is not going to help if it causes misunderstandings. Did the arbitration case say anything about this? Carcharoth (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Read the content carefully. The instance that you said "caused problems" was a harmless slang expression meaning "damnit" (in its wide-spread present day colloquial usage) and nothing else. Another Greek user had just confirmed that it meant exactly what I intended. (And that user, Xenovatis, has no reasons to defend me out of friendship or anything.) The fact that the two anons/socks were trying to give that a spin as if I had seriously insulted them is in itself proof of bad faith on their part.
    Yes, the other one means "get out, sock". I have little to add to that, it gets the message across.
    I will speak with Greek users in Greek in whatever way I see fit. Don't bother trying to give me advice about that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did read the context. I still wanted clarification. I do object to people talking to each other in a language I can't understand, when one of them could provide a translation in English at the same time. What is the general policy/guideline for this sort of thing? I would also appreciate input from other people as well. Do you (Future Perfect) object to that? And do you think it is helpful to taunt people you think are socks? Carcharoth (talk) 05:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think most of us have better things to do than trumping up controversy over such a self-evidently trivial issue. Dmcdevit·t 08:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly is the trivial issue? I see that the issue of suspected sockpuppetry is non-trivial enough for you to investigate (above), so you can't mean that. Or do you mean the Greek in the edit summaries? Or the taunting of someone Future Perfect thought was a sock puppet, which only served to inflame things? Two simple questions: would you act this way (repeating calling someone a sock), and do you mind if other people act this way (inflaming disputes rather than calming them down)? Carcharoth (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In a quite similar case, I remember I had to justify an indefinite block I made earlier this year where all reviewing admins and participants agreed with but I don't remember leaving a Japanese edit summary. Apart from 'Arigato gozaimashita' and names of places, people, etc., i'd not use Japanese for anything in the project. Probably I could have helped fix the Nihongo script on the Wikipedia logo instead of prompting unnecessary Q & A's. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 09:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you have made your point that you consider Future Perfect's reaction poor. You are free to do so. However, at some point (which seems already passed), your dogged pursuit of the matter—going so far as to make an issue out of the use of Greek in an edit summary as if that is some monstrous deed—has become disproportionate to the actual crimes presented. We don't need self-important commentators inserting themselves and insensitively causing more distress to someone who is already feeling harassed, when it looks like you are trying to make a controversy where there is really very little substance. Dmcdevit·t 09:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. But people clamming up and walking away is not exactly ideal either. I will note that in cases where people acknowledge what I say, or engage with what I am saying (instead of being defensive, or skirting the issue, or diverting attention elsewhere) I am very quick to drop things and move on. But equally, it shouldn't be the case that a defensive reaction causes people to walk away and not bother looking into things. Indefinite blocks are serious stuff. If I walk away now, where does that leave ktr? I asked ktr to quieten down, and I am waiting for Moreschi to respond here. Several people raised concerns that this might not be sockpuppetry - if it turns out it is sockpuppetry, that still doesn't justify blocking on suspicions alone. And can I be clear here, have you gone on a fishing expedition with checkuser? Carcharoth (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I haven't gone on a fishing expedition. I checked a user for whom there was a reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry, and was blocked for it, since there was disagreement. To be honest, as an outside reader just coming to this discussion, I don't think you are understanding me. Your comments here are bordering on uncivil. It's not just your pursuit of the matter, but the manner in which you are doing it. Some editors are just the nicest uncivil people you've ever met; they can make accusations and assumptions of bad faith, but couch them in questions and righteous quests for Justice, and rarely get called out, all while dampening the community spirit. You are being one of those people right now.

    You could have asked me if I had used CheckUser, but instead you decided to use a loaded question like "have you gone on a fishing expedition with checkuser?" You also asked earlier "do you mind if other people act this way (inflaming disputes rather than calming them down)?" "And do you think it is helpful to taunt people you think are socks?" "I would appreciate a straight answer on whether you think taunting editors you think are socks is acceptable?". Do you think making accusations in the form of loaded questions—such that, since you have already assumed the wrongdoing in the question, the only answers are "yes, I was taunting" or "no, taunting is acceptable;" "yes, I was fishing" or "no, I didn;t run a checkuser"—is acceptable behavior. (Yes, that was irony). I don't. Dmcdevit·t 10:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe there is nothing left to see here. Can we move on guys? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was writing the bit below. Is there a suitable place to discuss the wider issues of getting the balance right between supporting each other as admins and also calling each other out when things go wrong? This is a serious issue, and one that needs to be fully discussed at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries Carcharoth. I believe in your effort in discussing legitimate concerns. Of course there are plenty of suitable places to discuss this in a collegial and friendly atmosphere. We can go to the AN instead or else my user talk page is open for such discussions, wikipedia or arbcom mailing list, wikback.com, maybe the new forum created to discuss ways on how to deal with cultural and ethnic edit wars on Wikipedia, personal e-mails to people who may help, etc... The thing is that you are half-right -same as Future Perfect but arguing and repeating oneself in lenghty discussions makes one more wrong than the other. We seek two rights and we won't be interested in two half-rights/wrongs. Please feel free to discuss your concerns with me on my talk. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, missed this. Was finishing off an article. Thanks for the suggestions for places to discuss this. If Dmcdevit doesn't see my response below before it is archived, I'll take my concerns to his talk page. One thing I should do, sometimes, is use user talk pages more often (I do nearly always, I hope, do this before initiating any thread here, but I mean here in terms of following up loose ends). It is surprising how often people respond differently on their talk pages compared to a venue like this. One final thing, this shouldn't be about me or Future Perfect, and I apologise if I dragged this off-topic, but about ktr and Moreschi. My view of sockpuppet blocking is that it is better to err on the side of caution. Better to let a few through and block them later, rather than block too many and cause collateral damage when getting it wrong. Carcharoth (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologise for the checkuser fishing comment. I would appreciate a fuller checkuser analysis, as your current analysis doesn't seem to say very much at the moment. I also apologise for being somehat aggressive here, but as I said above, if people engage and talk to me, like you are doing, then things generally turn out fine. It is when people get upset and walk away, or take things personally, or come out with posts like this, that things fall apart. Should I have to feel that I can't raise points or ask difficult questions (difficult for the person answering them, that is)? It sometimes feels like that when people get defensive around me. I might ask hard and critical questions, but I think that is sometimes needed around here. Anyway, if you want an example of me calming an incident, have a look at this. Looking further back, I once severely criticised Guy over his blocking of a group of academics over the Oxford Round Table conference article. Guy was good enough to recognise straightaway that he was wrong, and he apologised. When I'm shown to be wrong, I apologise. Chilling effects work both ways, and a balance needs to be struck between supporting each other as admins, and calling each other out when things go wrong. Read through the entire screen here, and then tell me whether you still think that I should pull back and change the way I do things. Carcharoth (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Dmcdevit. Nice to have it confirmed I'm not completely clueless and can still spot the reincarnations of malevolent trolls, even in my senility. Adieu. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, to be fair, I'm not too sure - those particular Macedonia revert-warriors weren't even the primary candidates I was thinking of, sock-wise. They seemed less sophisticated than this one. It's a large DSL provider as far as I know, possibly the largest in the country, and I'd expect any number of our regular Greek contributors on the same ranges. But I haven't asked Dmcdevit for any details about what he saw in that checkuser. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock blocking

    I think we are dealing with a problem of semantics. If an account is blocked for sock puppetry, there really should be a WP:SSP or WP:RFCU report. There have been cases where lack of such a report has been a real hinderance to me when I've been tracking down a problem user who has returned with new socks, but can't find any evidence about those that have been blocked before. Only if socks are exceedingly obvious and the puppetmaster is known, can the reports be skipped, in my humble opinion.

    In this case, a "new" user appears and starts disrupting like an experienced troll. Moreschi, next time the block reason could be "disruption-only account" and you could leave a few diffs on their talk page after the block notice. There's no need to identify the puppetmaster if an account acts like a giant dick. They can be blocked for their own behavior. Jehochman Talk 13:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

    Seems that we are back to getting legal threats on this one: [82] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a previous thread on this from August 2007 called "Anonymous legal threats create an impasse". (i'm at work so i don't have time to look it up). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not blocking him for the moment per WP:DOLT. Recommend extreme care. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Have left a strongly-worded WP:NLT warning. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reviewing this further it appears that most of User:Mofb's edits were acceptable or justifiable, whether rewording sentences or removing unsourced sentences and commentary. I've done a quick cleanup, made it a little more NPOV and added back links that should not have been taken out. I think we can put this to bed. Stifle (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well i personally think that we are now with a POV version - for instance the insertion of this (rather speculative) item:
    [count rule]...as dismissed by the court, which, however, expressed considerable sympathy for the petitioner's position and would have found in his favour if the Government had not discovered, at the last moment, a line item in the EU Budget authorizing expenditure on the Social Chapter under the Maastricht Treaty that the UK Parliament had previously expressly declined to authorize. The Government took Monckton's challenge so seriously that it put up the Lord Advocate personally against him. The outcome was such that the Government was unable to recover its costs in the cause.
    Thats a bit over the top isn't it? That combined with a large deletion of criticism, and whitewashing of sentences (such as a change that he is only sceptical of "catastrophic" global warming - which doesn't jive with either his writings, nor articles about it. And the complete deletion of criticism of his scientific views (not personal ones) from climate scientists as well as Monbiot.
    Is that justifiable?
    Can i again ask why the COI version was edited towards NPOV instead of the original version? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)And whitewashing continues [83]. Is the Scotsman article correct - or do we take the word of the person? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Received a further legal threat on this [84] - leaving to other admins to see how best to deal with this. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also protected Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley due to the combined issue of edit warring and this BLP problem. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I have frequently expressed dismay over the trend to give subjects an effectual veto over articles, I need to say that some (but by no means all) of the corrections made by the subject appear reasonable, and that the tone of the article prior to his edits might need some adjustment. The protected version at present is, incidentally, the version the subject edited, with some appropriate corrections by Stifle prior to the latest threat. I hope he will decide to remove the protection and continue editing, because he seems an appropriate neutral editor, and I think may be accepted as such even by the subject--the threat was not directed at him. The subject, of course, would have done much better to continue working with us, rather than against us. DGG (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Intend to do so after an appropriate cooldown. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    From Monckton of Brenchley: I have specified what is factually incorrect on my page by editing it to remove the inaccuracies. I have also now instructed my lawyers to send to Wikipedia a list of 16 inaccuracies, with reasons, and with proposals for their correction - proposals which are fully reflected in the edits which I have made. Please inform me of how to complain formally about Mr. Dabelstein-Petersen's long history of distorting my biographical entry. His latest tactic, after being thwarted by your restoration of my edits (for which I am most grateful) has been to approach other members of the "global-warming" alarmist community to invite them to restore his errors piecemeal. So I must also say how grateful I am that you have frozen the page altogether for the time being.

    Provided that the page remains substantially as it now is after your kind restoration of my edits, there will be no need for me to proceed to the courts: though, for my own protection against further attempts at libel, I have instructed my lawyers to send to Wikipedia the list of corrections to the biographical entry as it stood before I corrected it.

    I am afraid that neither Wikipedia nor Wikimedia will be able to escape their obligations not to perpetrate or perpetuate libels if I am eventually compelled to lodge a petition at the Sheriff Court for an interdict, followed by a petition at the Court of Session for libel. My solicitors will if necessary join as parties the (relatively small) number of internet trunk carriers in the UK, whom the Court may - if it chooses - order to block any Wikipedia content that mentions me by name, as a way to prevent further circulation of the libels. Since Scots law is constructed purposively, there would be little that the carriers could do except to comply, particularly in the face of evidence that Wikipedia had sought to shelter behind a not-for-profit shell corporation outwith the jurisdiction. Those providers, many of whom operate not only in the United Kingdom but also in the jurisdiction that shelters Wikimedia, might well then take action themselves against Wikimedia within its jurisdiction of convenience to prevent it from permitting or facilitating the circulation of further libels on the networks managed or controlled by them. If I were to succeed, thousands of other disgruntled victims of Wikipedia libels would follow the route which our standing Counsel in Edinburgh will devise.

    On balance, therefore, Wikipedia may prefer simply to see the back of me, by removing my biographical entry altogether and preventing anyone from creating one in future. That is my preferred solution. However, as I have said, for as long as the page continues to be protected to prevent malicious and deliberately inaccurate alterations to the unreasonable and unfair detriment of my reputation, I shall of course stay my hand. Thank you for your kind and helpful attention to my difficulties. - Monckton of Brenchley. Mofb (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think that we will be removing the page, although that might be an option. On the other hand our forbearance on the Wikipedia:No legal threats policy is wearing thin. I would like other administrators to consider this case as a matter of some urgency bearing in mind the page complained of has been under WP:OFFICE previously. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a bad idea. This is the 3rd or 4th time that we've had this legal threat from a person/persons saying that they are Monckton. Including some that ended up in the media Did Lord Monckton fabricate a claim on his Wikipedia page? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Monbiot.com is probably not a reliable source. Left a message on WP:BLPN. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Given all the problems that we have had with this article and subject, I believe it needs to go to arbitration. I will be posting an arbitration request shortly and will post the link to it below when it's ready. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be simplest to block the conflicted editor for legal threats and COI attempts to spin his own article. I'm not terribly sympathetic to any of this. We are protected under U.S. law, and if he wants to try embarrasing Scotland by trying to ban the Internet there he is welcome. He is of course welcome to submit complaints, suggestsions, etc., either through the discussion pages (assuming he is not blocked at the time) or via the OTRS system. Wikipedia has policies in place to develop truthful, unbiased articles, and we are as a whole more neutral and truthful than many other sources and news outlets. However, if the person in question is a global warming denier and upset over being portrayed as such, I'm not sure he and an unbiased reporting of the truth have a whole lot to say to each other. We should use our regular procedures on this one, which work pretty well. Wikidemo (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Arbitration is definitely unuseful here. Stifle (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I agree with you, Wikidemo. I propose unprotecting the article on Monday (once everything has had a chance to cool down) and dealing with the article under standard procedures, and explaining very cleary to User:Mofb that he will be blocked on ANY further mention of legal action. Stifle (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's definitely necessary. I don't know how familiar you are with the article or with this contributor, but I've been watching both for a long time. There are major conduct issues here that need to be resolved irrespective of the legal side of things. Please reserve your judgment until you've read the arbitration request. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I will. I will shortly be going away and will be back on Sunday evening. I plan on leaving the article protected for the time being. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Monckton has, as far as I recall, a long-standing dispute with George Monbiot. I'd not use the latter as a source in respect of the former. On the other hand, where climate change is concerned, Monckton is, I think, in a tiny minority, and given the dearth of qualified experts who back his position, he is widely cited as a supposed authority, which he is not. This has been a problem before. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right then. What I propose to do is:
      • Unprotect the offending page
      • Give User:Mofb a final warning that any further legal threats will result in an indefinite block (with no more second chances)
      • Remind User:KimDabelsteinPetersen (and everyone else for that matter) about WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:SYN — anything going into this article must be strongly sourced and we cannot add our own opinion of what the source said
      • Watch the page so that I can deal with anyone else.
    • If ChrisO wants to file an RFAr, he's welcome to, but I still don't see it as helpful or necessary. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah. ChrisO has already indefinitely blocked Mofb for legal threats. That probably simplifies things. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for community review

    I feel this issue needs a wider review by the community. There has been a long-running history of problematic edits to this and other articles by User:Mofb and anonymous IPs, some of whom have identified themselves as the subject of the article, from December 2006 to the present day. Key edits are as follows:

    Edits by 62.136.27.125 (talk · contribs):

    • 20:51, 6 December 2006 - article blanked and replaced with message "This article has been removed pending resolution of libel proceedings against Wikipedia. Do not alter this page."
    • 20:39, 6 December 2006 - article (concerning critic of Monckton) blanked and replaced with message "Article removed pending resolution of libel proceedings"
    • 20:43, 6 December 2006 - article (concerning product by Monckton) blanked and replaced with message "Article removed pending resolution of libel proceedings"

    IP address blocked for vandalism.

    Edits by 81.77.248.148 (talk · contribs):

    • 20:43, 6 June 2007 - IP editor identifies himself as Monckton and issues legal threats against Wikipedia.

    Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley semi-protected.

    Edits by 81.77.230.46 (talk · contribs):

    • 07:42, 7 August 2007 - adds inaccurate claim to have won £50,000 libel settlement from The Guardian

    Edits by Mofb (talk · contribs)

    • 12:46, 25 April 2008 - major changes to article; some justified, other not (deletion of critical views, alteration of quoted sources, self-promotion)

    User blocked per Wikipedia:No legal threats.

    As far as I can tell, this user has never actually discussed with other editors any of the issues he perceives with the article. Virtually all interactions with Wikipedia and other editors have consisted of (a) deleting content he doesn't like and (b) issuing legal threats. To the best of my knowledge, this is the third occasion since December 2006 that he has threatened legal action.

    As Stifle mentions above, I have blocked this user temporarily per WP:NLT while the latest legal threats are dealt with. Does any further action need to be taken? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked at the article. Viscount Monckton qualifies as notable (IMHO) but there is a lot more verbiage included in the article than I think is warranted.
    How about deleting everything after the biography section. Then review point by point and put back only the information that is a) very well sourced and b) clearly important. I think we would end up with a better article, about 1/2 the length of the present one. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This ringing statement of opposition to censorship written by Moncton of Brenchley is worth reading in the context of the complaints here. --John Nagle (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it's worth pointing out that a lot of the unsourced verbiage was added by Monckton in his most recent edit. [85] -- ChrisO (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    we've indef blocked him & a trusted editor is watching over the article. I dont know what more the community might need to do--or can do, for that matter. DGG (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Stalins enema

    This user is really getting annoying, and nobody seems to be home at AIV. Can someone help? Loren.wilton (talk) 11:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearly a vandalism-only account. Blocked as such. SQLQuery me! 11:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Another Runtshit sockpuppet - thanks for blocking him NSH001 (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw Stalin's Enema play the CBGB, back when it was still in the Bowery. They were badass. Or maybe it was the Dead Kennedys, but Stalin's Enema is still a great name for a mediocre punk band. MastCell Talk 05:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Edward Nilges user Spinoza1111

    Blocked user spinoza1111 is currently filling up the Ayn Rand talk page with insults and POV comments. He is posting from three IP addresses, though mostly his home one. He is not hiding his identity and traceroute confirm the IPs are in Hong Kong as is his primary account. Not sure what you can do about it as it's an IP address, but he's continuing to be very insulting as we was in the past, which got him blocked. Currentlky he's posting wild threats about exposing fraud on wikipedia and personally naming me in his insults. It's tiresome. I created a sockpuppet page with his three IP accounts on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Spinoza1111 Ethan a dawe (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    One of those IP's is definitely not him and you missed his home IP, which is 202.82.33.202. That is the only non-public, static IP address he edits from.--Atlan (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the last one is not him, but I don't think I added him to the list. I'll remove it and add the other one. !!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan a dawe (talk • contribs) 15:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added his home account. Thanks! Ethan a dawe (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In the last ANI discussion opened on 21 April, there was a suggestion we wait and see if the editor would stop. Since he has resumed, it is now reasonable to issue a long-term block to Nilges' static home IP. His use of that IP constitutes evasion of the indef block on User:Spinoza1111. Shell Kinney said when blocking the named acccount in October 2006, User claims to have left Wikipedia but continues to harass and attack other users via talk pages, a diagnosis which still seems correct. I have blocked 202.82.33.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for six months. Others are welcome to review or modify this block. EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this block, although this might lead him to edit through public IP's more. I was always in favor of not blocking him just to be able to easily keep track of him, but it's gotten out of hand now.--Atlan (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by User:David Tombe

    User:David Tombe has been trying to insert a specific viewpoint in centrifugal force (fictitious) and related articles (Coriolis effect, reactive centrifugal force). Several users, including myself, have reverted him since his edits do not agree with modern physics textbooks. This has led to a continuous stream of reverts and counter reverts, bordering on, in my opinion, tendentious editing on David's part. However David has recently gone beyond this, and is now wikistalking those editors who disagree with him, reverting minor, non-controversial edits:

    --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: David Tombe was warned that this behavior is considered vandalism [86]. He responded to the warning on an article talk page [87], and then went on to state that he will continue, unless we "stop deleting his edits", and that he'd like to see an administrator brought in. [88]. (I agree with him on that last point.) The last three of the above edits are from a after he received the warning. --PeR (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The facts are that PeR and FyzixFighter are the wikistalkers. If you check the facts , you will see that they are engaged in a systematic team effort to delete every single edit of mine.

    FyzixFighter has misrepresented the situtaion above. The issue in question at the moment is that the description of centrifugal force as it currently appears in the article is limited to circular motion involving centripetal forces that arise from pressure from a contact object.

    I have been trying to generalize the description to "When an object moves in a curved path, it experiences a centrifugal force directed outwards from the radius of curvature".

    FyzixFighter and PeR systematically replace this every time which a much less accurate clause which talks about centrifugal force as being a reaction to centripetal force.

    FyzixFighter's claim that he is advocating a textbook based position is false.

    The true reason for the edit war is because there is a team which includes these two and extends to Henning Makholm, RRacecarr and Wolfkeeper. This team have actively decided to ensure that they are the only ones to be allowed to edit the centrifugal force page. And clearly their knowledge of the subject is very limited. David Tombe (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to add that it is very rich irony that PeR in particular should decide to report me for wikistalking. If you check on PeR's recent contributions to wikipedia you will notice that a large percentage of them have been reversions of my edits and the rest have been to argue with me on the talk pages, usually totally illogically. Often the arguments and the reversions are not even directly connected. He is systematically deleting everything that I put in and now he has accused me of wikistalking him. There was another case again today. It's very hard for me to wikistalk PeR considering that most of his contributions are aimed negatively at mine. David Tombe (talk) 12:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The nature of the content dispute is irrelevant, and will be resolved through the proper dispute resolution process. That's not why I made this report. David Tombe's edits that I listed above appear to be simply an attempt to get back at those editors that revert his edits. David's own comments on the talk page mentioned above by PeR seem to corroborate this. If that was not the intent, then I invite David to share his reasoning for those edits here. I would also request an administrator quickly look into this, and even PeR's and my edit histories too, to determine if there is any wikistalking/vandalism going on and take the appropriate actions. --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And now we have some personal attacks: [89]. Would an administrator please step in and take the appropriate actions. --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hardly a personal attack. Please stop whining and do something constructive. John Reaves 21:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cross accusations of disruptive editing

    While checking out who exactly is wikistalking who and who started it, could you please have a look at user:Rracecarr. It would be interesting to see how many of his recent edits have been reversions of my edits. I would guess quite a high percentage.David Tombe (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "You started, no you started it!" Shutup already... John Reaves 21:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fake radio/television stations?

    Cans someone that knows how, check Special:Contributions/Word67 and see if the stations he is creating articles about actually exist? John Reaves 17:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    K15AE is fake only the Wikipedia article appears and a ton of Japanese or Chinese websites (some one could do a better job I did google). KJTV-CA appears to be channel 32 [90] out side source. I will check the others shortly. Rgoodermote  17:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    List of reals and possible fakes
    • K15AE-appears to be fake.
    • KJTV-CA backed up by outside source [91]
    • K68AR-appears to be real but not in Texas [92]
    • K41CZ-appears to be fake
    • W49CB-appears to be real, backed by outside source [93]
    • W44BF-appears to be real, backed by outside source [94]
    • K32GF-appears to be real, backed by outside source [95]
    • W66DC-appears to be real, backed by outside source [96]

    There are a lot more but this should be enough till I get done with the rest. Rgoodermote  17:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued List of reals and possible fakes (should say possible real)
    • KDAX-LP-appears to be real, backed by outside source [97]
    • K16ER-appears to be real, backed by outside source [98]
    • K34FH-appears to be real, backed by outside source [99]
    • K26DL-appears to be real, backed by outside source [100]
    • KAMT-LP-appears to be real, backed by outside source [101]

    It took me a while but I think I got them all. Rgoodermote  17:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for looking those up. Apparently ([User_talk:Word67]]) he is a sock of banne duser Dingbat2007. Is anyone familair with his MO? Does he create real article so he can slip in fake ones? John Reaves 17:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I took a look at his contributions and I see that the user does indeed have several real radio stations. So I believe like you said his MO is to make real Radio/TV article and then he slips them in. Probably in an attempt to prove some kind of point. Take a look at his contributions [102] and you are welcome. Rgoodermote  18:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked the admin who blocked him about his MO. Rgoodermote  18:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dingbat2007 had no deleted contributions - i.e., I don't see where he created any bogus articles. All the edits I saw scanning just now were insertion of bogus information into articles: false cities and networks. Not to say that his tactics couldn't have changed over time; that block was issued 9 months ago. —C.Fred (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For US broadcast station checking purposes, the FCC Broadcast Station Database is the definitive source. --John Nagle (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Fake" entries may be errors or premature. K41CZ says "K41CZ is a low-power television station in Lubbock, Texas affiliated with FSN, the station is owned by Una Vez Mas Holdings, LLC". In fact, from the FCC database, Una Vez Mas has two low-power licenses in Lubbock, TX, "KDFL-LP", and a pending license application with no call sign assigned yet. [103]. The facility number doesn't match, though. (More to the point, are UHF broadcast repeater and translator stations even notable? They're just relay stations. It's like listing power substations or cell sites.) --John Nagle (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that broadcaast repeaters/translators/STL links and the like are not only non-notable, they are something that probably should not be made available to people that wouldn't normally know about them. Along the lines of WP:BEANS. Loren.wilton (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    K41CZ is definitely fake; I have gone ahead and speedied it. There is no way FSN airs on broadcast television, period. Nate • (chatter) 23:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks I will bookmark that site. I was just doing a simple lookup for the call numbers. I was unsure of the information in the articles myself just didn't know where to look. Rgoodermote  00:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I can comment on Dingbat (sorry about taking so long; if it deals with TV stations you can usually leave a message on WP:TVS and we can get back to you quicker than we can here).

    Dingbat/Word's usual MO is to create fake TV station articles where the station is inexplicably affiliated with a cable network, or modifies an existing station to be so (for a good example, see WSB-TV, which he converted to Nick Jr. 2 Action News several times). Usually if it has FSN, The Disney Channel, a redlinked non-existent channel or any cable network that would never air over a broadcast station as an affiliation, better safe than sorry to revert him and report to AIV. Nate • (chatter) 22:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Use of Wikipedia for class project

    New user Globalecon (talk · contribs) posted an article "Global Economics", since userfied to User:Globalecon/Global Economics, from which it appears that he is a professor planning to use Wikipedia as a web-space provider for his students' project papers. He advises them to put {{underconstruction}} at the top to avoid editing by others. Four student project articles have already appeared. How tolerant are we of this sort of thing? JohnCD (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Depends on the article produced. Of those four student essays, I think the last two of those, once wikified, could be perfectly adequate articles (I haven't checked to see if they duplicate existing content, though). The first two probably couldn't - and the first is at AfD already. Black Kite 21:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've heard of teachers having their students write or significantly improve Wikipedia articles as part of a class. So long as everything is properly researched and written, I don't see much of a problem. --clpo13(talk) 21:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We've had featured articles come out of school projects, see WP:SUP and the recent Signpost article on the 2000th FA. Simply using Wikipedia for a school project isn't an issue at all (and should be encouraged, in my opinion). If the articles produced don't meet our standards, we just deal with them in the usual manner, perhaps giving a little bit of leeway to allow them a chance to improve the article. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Brock University, apparently. I take issue with his attempt to WP:OWN the articles. Wikipedia is not a personal playground to store your stuff. Not the mainspace, at least. Otherwise, there's obviously nothing wrong with people creating legitimate articles, whether it's for a college experiment or something else. Enigma message 21:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Two of the four articles are now at AfD, and the other two have been tagged (one by me) with proposals to merge into existing articles. Deor (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it a problem that User:Globalecon/Global Economics mentions the real names of the students working on these pages? Although they're adults, the folks involved in this project seem to be new to Wikipedia and may not be fully apprised of the risks. Additionally, the names seem to have been posted by the professor running the project, not the students themselves. A full name plus the fact that they attend Brock University might be more information than is wise to disclose. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, and not only the university, but a specific class there. Maybe the names should be changed to initials, or first names and last initials? And the more specific info oversighted? Aleta Sing 00:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Further update: there are now eight articles listed on that page. One does not exist (and has never existed), 3 are on AfD, 1 has been prodded, and two have been proposed for merging (only 1 is actually going to survive on its own). And all of them have been tagged for cleanup. Hut 8.5 06:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet another update: There are now nine articles listed and I suspect there are more to come. I hope this isn't one of those big lecture classes with 50 or 60 students. As it is, it's starting to put quite a strain on the time of admins and others monitoring this project, e.g. tagging, warning, participation in AfDs and merge discussions etc. It's a pity the professor who organized the project didn't read Wikipedia:School and university projects first. Many of the current pitfalls (and subsequent clean-ups), could have been avoided. Sigh! Voceditenore (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Although I see nothing wrong with a professor assigning students the task of contributing to Wikipedia, I can't see how they can claim any right not to have their articles edited by others. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's ok so long as they don't violate any of Wikipedia's policies. If they are POV pushing, claiming ownership of articles or anything else I think they should be warned. Wikipedia is not a free web host. James086Talk | Email 00:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone could just fire an email off to the guy. I'm sure the Prof's page at the university has his email. Just a quick email explaining that it is cool to assign students to work on wikipedia but the manner in which students are being assigned violates the principles on which WP is based. Shouldn't be hard. Protonk (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Sent off a polite email (to his univ account) thanking him for encouraging contributions, but letting him know that he might want to read the discussion here and on his talk page. --Bfigura (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Question Are you sure the professor is from Brock University? The Paul Hamilton there is in the Politcal Science Dept. On the other hand, Paul V. Hamilton is a professor in the economics department (specialising in global economics) at Marshall University. Observe this comment in AfD discussion: Global censorship of Youth's books:
    Not only are the initals at the end of the comment congruent with "Paul V. Hamilton", the IP traces back to Marshall University. His email address can be found here. I notice that User talk:Globalecon also has "email this user" enabled. Voceditenore (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Sent an email as suggested by Protonk and Bfigura via "email this user". JohnCD (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Here are a few thoughts/clarifications: (1) Yes, I am a professor at Marshall (not Brock), (2) This is part of a class assignment (it's not an online class as one person suggested), (3) The students have been made aware of WP article criteria; if they don't live up to that criteria then their article can rightly be edited or deleted, (4) The "under-construction" / "please do not edit" was an attempt to give the student a few days to shape up the article. This idea was suggested on the main Wikipedia tutorial page. It was not meant to be interpreted as an exception to WP edit policy, (5) I will abbreviate the student names to preserve confidentiality, (6) Yes, ultimately there will be a wide range in the quality and suitability of articles. I've asked students to take their best shot; there are about 100 students in my two sections so unless you want to quit your day job I'd suggest that you give us a few days (May 10) to sort things out. I will personally delete any articles that don't meet the WP criteria after grading them in about a week. Globalecon (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is, you can't personally delete articles, even your own. Only an administrator can do that. The individual authors can request deletion themselves by blanking the article and replacing it with {{db-author}}. But an administrator still has to do the deletion, and it becomes even more complicated if others outside your project add sunstantially to the articles, despite your requests. Thus, Wikipedia administrators will potentially end up having to manually delete or merge 100 articles, even if they wait until after May 10th. Mightn't it be better for the students to write their articles on their user pages or their user subpages and only contemplate publishing them in the mainspace once you and they have a greater understanding of what kind of articles are likely to survive and why? Just a thought. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Are there any links to good / featured articles created as part of school projects? That way it'd be easy to say "this is how it's done right", and WP gets to keep newbie editors who aren't disillusioned about having to complete schoolwork which then gets deleted because they've been told to do it wrong. Dan Beale-Cocks 13:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As Hersfold said above, El Señor Presidente came out of a school project, and was our 2,000th FA. Veinor (talk to me) 15:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A suggestion: Why not create the articles in Globalecon’s userspace, i.e. User:Globalecon/Article title here, User:Globalecon/Another article, etc.? Globalecon could then simply add {{db-userreq}} to the ones he wants deleted and the articles worth keeping could then be moved out to mainspace. —Travistalk 14:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, of course, I’ve just seen the very handy link to Wikipedia:School and university projects on Globalecon’s talk page. —Travistalk 15:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree that articles could be worked on in userspace but, people on both ends need to be aware of the NOT webhost thing. I'd suggest to the students and anyone else to write the text of the article in Word/or other word-like form and use the help pages alot in order to "wikify" it. They can then present the professor with text only (the way the article would look) and the "wiki" bit with code inserted. Finished articles could then be uploaded (if appropriate) and judged by the community on their own merits separate from any issues with the class. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nick Cave and NPR

    Teri Gross interviewed cave on Fresh Air today, and quoted fro mteh article. the offending passage (which was PEACOCK or OR, depending on your view of Cave), has been removed, and NPR listeneers are highly unlikely to randomly vandalize, but it might be worth a few extra eyes today. ThuranX (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Huh, I didn't know he was still alive. I'll add him to my watch list. John Reaves 21:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with JR above. He's still alive? Also watchlisted, partly because I enjoy his music, partly because of this post.......Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, 50's not so old lol and I think he toned down his lifestyle a bit, so he has a while before people would ask 'is he dead yet?' :) Merkin's mum 23:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    new album Just hit stores, and I like it. Other than Teri's ripping on the crappy writeup we gave him, it's an amazing interview, and should be up on the website for Fresh Air. Well worth the listen, and hell yeah he's alive and kickin'. Red Right Hand FTW. ThuranX (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tachyonbursts

    Further information: Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacks § VegitaU_is_inserting_POV_and_he.27s_acting_against_consensus

    Originally on WP:AIV. Editors on September 11, 2001 attacks are having problems with this user. The latest is: (diff); vandalism after final warning, vandalism directly after release of block. This is a complicated issue. This user has constantly edited in the face of the Sept 11 arbcom decision giving editors the right to impose sanctions on those who engage in virulent edit warring. Examples: [104] [105] This editor has already been given a stern warning and block for his edits. Please redirect this to wherever it needs to go (if not the ARV), but this issue needs immediate resolution. -- VegitaU (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur with the gist of this argument, but this user's latest actions do not fall in this category, IMHO. I believe VegitaU's motives are pure, but we both simply disagree on this particular post. Given this particular user's penchant for disruptive edits, this latest edit appears to be the prelude to another onslaught. I ask that the discussion be monitored, but no action be taken at this time. "But that's just my opinion...I could be wrong..." — BQZip01 — talk 23:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The real problem is the fact he's done it before. And not in a test edit kind of way, but an embittered, smear crusade accusing anyone who disputes that 9/11 was an inside job of being a vandal. While I may be all for the official story, I'll accept discrepancies under the same standards as I would accept any other arguments: "show me the facts." Instead, this user does the opposite, deleting cited references (latest diff). There's a reason people are marked with a block. It's important to know their prior history regardless of "having served their time". All the arguments and counter-arguments we've given him obviously haven't served any use and have wasted time and detracted from the article. I was going to nominate it soon for GA, but I guess I can't now since it doesn't seem to be stable anymore. That's all I'm saying. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortionatly, I have to agree with what VegitaU has said. Tachyonbursts appears to be a powder keg ready to blow at any time. We've already seen one minor explosion in the form of a legal threat. Dispite my and other's best efforts to calm him down, he appears to simply say whatever comes to his mind. Sadly, it is mostly negative and attacking. If not a block, I agree with — BQZip01 —, that this needs to be monitored before he does serious dammage. --Tarage (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave it my best shot to try to soothe the savage beast, but he refuses to do anything buy use sarcasm and persional attacks on editors with good standing. He seems to have some sort of grudge against athority. I've given up trying to reason with him. --Tarage (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack on myself: ([106]) -- VegitaU (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I also think it's pretty clear that Tachyonbursts is the returning NuclearUmpf and before that Zer0faults...editing style (especially edit summaries) and similarly themed usernames, as well as topics and POV. RxS (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    RxS, I'm not sure what are you talking about, but I'm sure that I've seen (the pattern behind the) rise and fall of the user you've mentioned above. Do say; are these sorts of unfounded allegations acceptable? What sort of conduct you're expecting in return. Honestly. Tachyonbursts (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
     – pages protected

    One or more users from this IP range have been making various nonconstructive edits to several articles, most notably North Georgia College & State University, Ted Haggard‎, and GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb‎. I'm not sure what the appropriate course of action is, but this person is being a rather persistent pest.--Father Goose (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    All protected for a short time for edit-warring, WP:BLP violations and unconstructive editing. here is a better place to report this type of nonsense. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Deletionpedia point?

    Resolved
     – Page deleted as a G5.

    Wikipedia:Deletionpedia Patrol seems to me to be a WP:POINT violation. It basically advocates trawling through the list of deleted articles and recreating them. While I'm sure the intentions are good, the concept of recreating prods soon after they're deleted, just to do so seems quite a bit disruptive to me, especially since it basically duplicates WP:DRV. Any thoughts? ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC) (forgot to sign)[reply]

    I agree with you, SJ. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've speedied it as a G5. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the main problems is that while Deletionpedia probably does contain a few articles that could be resurrected with a bit of work and research, it also contains articles that shouldn't be restored under any circumstances - BLP deletions and pedophilia-related articles spring to mind straight away. There's nothing to stop people trawling it themselves, but I don't think we need it advertised on Wikipedia itself. After all, as Swatjester says, that's what DRV is for anyway. Black Kite 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest while I see the political issues this project raises, I don't think this page duplicates DRV, because DRV is primarily for authors of a page and/or administrators to request re-creation of a deleted page, whereas this is a project organized for locating pages that should be submitted to DRV; for example, a page abandoned by its original author that got illegimately PRODed or CSDed. There's no clear POINT violation, since the project seems targeted at addressing a legitimate problem, rather than as an attack on current deletion practices. Ideally users would be able to do this type of deleted article review on Wikipedia itself, at least for articles that don't pose legal issues, but this isn't currently possible. Dcoetzee 00:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is no more a policy violation than a list of pages deleted at afd would be, and there are various such lists around, including people keeping lists of the pages they are proud for having gotten deleted.. People restoring pages do so at their own risk. DGG (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Including this page. If people want to restore it they should go to DRV. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just process wonkery really, though, because the page was deleted as G5 (created by a banned user) so re-creation by anyone else avoids the deletion reason. Black Kite 00:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the Deletionpedia page does what DRV doesn't do, i.e. it allows non-admins to see the deleted page under discussion and if anything will be a tremendous asset for DRV discussions. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there's any doubt that it's useful for DRV discussions, the question is whether a project that advocates trawling DP for articles to resurrect is necessary a good use of projectspace. Black Kite 00:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that making bunches of articles go through DRV for insufficient reasons or making them go through AfD twice is an extraordinarily poor excuse for a "project." Deor (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec, unindent) I see utterly no harm in this project. It merely points out that there is a stash of deleted articles that routinely archives them, so that one can see deleted articles. Articles are deleted for many reasons; often they are legitimately deleted, but sometimes not, and pointing to Deletionpedia as this project did, and possibly coordinating editor efforts so that work is not duplicated, could very much help this project by identifying improperly deleted articles, as well as by providing what can be sometimes useful: deleted content, which may be of use for merge, etc. Deletionpedia merely provides to any user what is already available to any administrator. The project page was very careful about not encouraging rash restoration of articles that have been deleted. So I'll be proceeding to Deletion Review, I think.

    The suggestion that this project duplicates Wikipedia:Deletion review is preposterous. It is a project to examine deleted articles, using a readily accessible cache of them, to determine if there is usable content. Deletion review is a process to discuss and find consensus on restoration of deletions, it does nothing to identify such content for discussion. The deleted project page would feed Deletion Review. (In some cases, with some speedy deletions, it could bypass deletion review, as, for example, it has been suggested here that any user could restore this project page since the deletion reason was creation by a sock puppet -- something which I haven't verified yet.)--Abd (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh please - this is just taking the piss something which I haven't verified yet. - Abd and Sarprillia are in constant contact, the standard tactic is that one proposes something and the other supports it, it's a clear pattern, such as here. It insults everyone's intelligence to pretend that's not the game here. Yes, I know I'm blocked but look into the edit pattern of Abd and his meatpuppet it speaks for itself. --87.112.64.32 (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to answer this one. I'm in regular contact with the Sarsaparilla, yes, but he does not tell me everything he is doing, I often learn about stuff quite a while later, and, in any case, I had not looked at the deletion reason when I wrote the above. Sarsaparilla is interested in Wikipedia governance, and so am I. Yes, he mentioned the governance discussion to me, in email, but we did not coordinate in any way and, in fact, we disagree about quite a bit. I looked at it and made my own comments. He may have done the same, from what Fredrick day charges. It was a huge discussion, and I have not read all of it.
    As to the topic here, Wikipedia:Deletionpedia patrol, please see [107]. The creator of that project suggested I join it. So I did. I think it's a good idea, whether the creator was Sarsaparilla or not. I had not researched the fact. I see that in edit warring with Fredrick day on my Talk page, what is apparently Sarsaparilla, editing IP, suggests to me that I recreate the article instead of going to Deletion Review. As often happens, I disagree with Sarsaparilla. It was well-written, so why should I take the time to rewrite it?
    Fredrick day knows that people read the diffs, and he knows that some of his wild charges will stick in people's minds, because he knows how to feed people's mistrust of each other. That he was so effective at doing this is one reason why I put so much attention into dealing with him as a blocked editor and vandal. He essentially bragged that he could do what he does even if blocked. --Abd (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    So, I see no reason not to provide User:Basketball110 with a copy, but I'm a little unsure of myself with regard to the undeletion policy and the GFDL with regard to a banned user's posts. Is there any reason I can't restore and move it to Basketball110's user space, and delete the redirect? That seems better, GFDL-wise, than just provide him/her with the text. But then technically I'd be recreating banned user's edits, without taking "responsibility" for it myself. Seems completely harmless to me, but I'm about to leave for the night and don't want to come back in the morning labeled a meatpuppet of a banned user or something. --barneca (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There's always email. Muskratatouille (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above user is the blocked user Sarprilla, starting to make sense what I sat about abd's meatpuppet showing up to support him, no? --87.113.76.198 (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that was my first thought, but they don't have email. --barneca (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the user was saying that copies of deleted articles can be provided by email (as opposed to getting entangled with all these GFDL and G5 concerns). 129.174.90.124 (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above user is the blocked user Sarprilla, starting to make sense what I sat about abd's meatpuppet showing up to support him, no? --87.113.76.198 (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Hmm, Muskratatouille, a tasty Muskrat soup created a few hours ago. No relation to "Eat Mor Rodents," I hope?-PetraSchelm (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked Sarsaparilla to stop it, even though I see that almost everything he does is aimed at project improvement. He's blocked, in my opinion unjustly, but he doesn't make things better by editing here. He disagrees, apparently. He's not my meat puppet. Fredrick day used to claim he was simply my sock or I his. Too bad about checkuser, eh?
    As to the issue, I had signed onto that page, having been asked to join by the creator and agreeing with the page content. It really should be restored, simply, because it was, in that sense, not only Sarsaparilla's contribution. The license issue is cleaner if it's simply restored. But in an edit to my user page -- which at that point was unprotected, hopefully it's been protected, what must have been Sarsaparilla suggested that I simply recreate the content. But I don't have a copy.... Because I'd signed it, it should not have been speedied, so proper form would be to restore it. I'll ask for that, and then if someone still thinks it should be deleted, it would go to MfD properly. Speedies, if not for legal reasons, I understand, should routinely be restored on request. This one is obviously controversial and thus not a speedy candidate. (This is not claiming that the deletion was improper, per se, though I'd have thought that the fact I'd edited it should have been enough to prevent speedy. It's also possible that edits crossed, it was only a little while ago that I signed it. I wasn't aware of this discussion at that time, I was merely responding to the suggestion on my Talk page. Which was later removed by Sarcasticidealist. This is getting ridiculous.) --Abd (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The page has been restored at User:Basketball110/Deletion Patrol, per Basketball110's reasonable request. The speedy per WP:CSD#G5 was completely valid (all other edits didn't significantly alter Sarsparilla's original text), but I see no reason Basketball110 can't take responsibility for the page and repost it if that's what he wants. Of course, seeing the conversation on this thread, I see an MfD in the page's future, but if Basketball110 wants to repost it, I don't think it's speedy material anymore. --barneca (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Why was User:Sarsparilla's User page redirected to Abd's User page, if they are not the same person? Corvus cornixtalk 20:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Christian Charron Attack Article?

    I've tagged this [108] for speedy deletion under criterion G10, but from reading the article it appears that this not the first time it's been created. Article author is User:Anoife. Might need to be salted. X Marx The Spot (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that we can wait a little before salting the article...it's only the second time it has been created. — Wenli (reply here) 02:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Very good. The author claimed it was the third time. Be well, X Marx The Spot (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fredrick day back for more mischief

    Special:Contributions/87.112.64.32. Perhaps it's time my user page is semi-protected, like my Talk page had to be due to this vandal/troll/generally nasty blocked user, socks of whom I have exposed. It's tragic, actually, that Sarsaparilla is considered community-banned (is he?), for, on the one hand, doing everything he can to improve the project, but making a handful of jokes, but two admins resisted allowing Fredrick day to be banned, when he is really about as nasty as can be, tossing any lie that he thinks is sufficiently plausible in appearance that someone might believe it, causing in one day, on many days, more disruption than Sarsaparilla ever approached. Sarsaparilla was last blocked for creating Easter Bunny Hotline, which was real and sourced, merely not notable by itself. (The owner of the Hotline is arguably notable, and an article now exists, I think. Last I looked. These things can disappear in a flash.) --Abd (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just go to WP:RPP they will automatically protect your user page (not talk) for whatever you ask. I would just do semi-protect. Rgoodermote  01:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The owner of the Hotline is arguably notable, and an article now exists, I think. Last I looked. - created tonight by Sarsaparilla! - isn't every edit by those two confirming the meatpuppeting? they are just taking the piss at this stage. --87.113.6.81 (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, that's not the article I was referring to. Looks like that article may have been deleted. Do I recall correctly that I created it? I had researched the Hotline originally when Larry E. Jordan, the legitimate continuation account of Sarsaparilla at that time, and when I found a reference for it I created the article, I think. Or did I simply read it from someone else having read it? Since it may have been deleted, I can't tell, I can't see my own deleted contributions, a serious defect in the system, in my view. --Abd (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    yes watch my edits - watch them and wonder why I keep bring abd to the attention of the community - he and his meat puppet are working for commercial interests (proxy voting is basically a sockpuppet's charter to allow commercial articles to remain on wikipedia, you'll notice he makes constant appeals for people to contact him off wiki - this is so people can be worked on and they can identify those who could be easy to turn - similar to the recent CAMERA stuff) - I tossed my account because it served no purpose in exposing people like this. yes block me, but watchlist abd and watch out for when new editors show up to support his "ideas". --87.113.0.203 (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you need to add a little more tinfoil to your hat. 129.174.90.124 (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a place to bring your disputes. Rgoodermote  02:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Robinepowell

    Resolved
     – User blocked for 2 weeks by Pigman.

    User:Robinepowell is continuing to engage in disruptive behavior, refusing to yield to consensus, and ignoring all warnings and attempts at dispute resolution. She continues to change the DVD release dates and make other false modifications to the featured list List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes, and its various season lists, claiming that because she lives in Canada she knows better than the reliable sources being used. She has been blocked six time, for this year alone for 3RR and her continual removal of references from featured articles and disruptiveness. Her last block was on the 22nd for 48 hours. She's already back to edit warring over the season pages, yet again, and redoing all of her inaccurate changes ignoring all requests she DISCUSS and refusing to acknowledge any evidence she is wrong, only claiming that she's right and that's that. She's already passed 3RR on Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 4) (as technically have I in undoing her false changes). The numerous attempts to talk to her, and the multitude of warnings left to her can be see on her talk page, and at Talk:List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes#Degrassi DVDs.

    AIV considers it a content dispute, but at this point the editors of those lists see her more as a vandal and disruptive editor (and her edits are mostly being reverted as vandalism for deliberately introducing incorrect information). It seems clear that she has absolutely no intention of ever editing in a cooperative fashion, of acknowledging that we go by reliable sources not her personal knowledge, and that she can not just keep doing the cycle of edit warring, page protection & block, wait till both are lift, then back at it. I feel she has been given more than enough chances at this point and am hoping stronger measures will now be taken. Collectonian (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    With regards to the DVDs, Robin claims that because the creator of TVShowsOnDVD.com is Canadian, that website is geared around Canadian release dates. It is not. It is a US website, owned by TV Guide, that happens to have been created by a Canadian. She figures that because he is Canadian, he would put the Canadian dates up there if they were different. The site does have a different date for season 1's DVDs, but not for subsequent seasons. Both List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes and Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 4) have sources showing different release dates, but she simply removes all content because it is "incorrect".
    At Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 7), she repeatedly changes the title of the episode "Jessie's Girl" to "Jesse's Girl", to reflect the name of the character, and CTV's website. However, the title is with an i, and this can be verified by watching the episode at www.the-n.com/theclick (if you are in the United States). This has been discussed on the talk page (by a different Matthew that is not me).
    At Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 2), Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 3), and Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 4), She also changes episode numbers and states that they are two half hour episodes, when in fact they are special one hour episodes. This is false, and she has been directed to the references in the article which verify this. Also, if you live in the United States and have iTunes installed, this link has the episodes as broadcast. She claims that they are half hour shows because that is what is on her TV, but these are syndicated repeats which have been edited to half an hour timeslots.
    Because the main episode list is transcluding the information from each season article, every time she messes up one, she messes up another. This is not good. Also, each of those articles is Featured. Everything on there has been verified by other Wikipedians, the format has been agreed upon by consensus at WP:FL, and not only that, but the Degrassi episode and season articles are part of a WP:Featured Topic.
    Initially I thought she simply didn't understand, but people are dealing with her all the time, putting themselves in jeopardy of being blocked for 3RR by constantly reverting what I now believe to be purposeful vandalism. Not only is she a pest on the Degrassi pages, but reading her talk page will show that she also causes repeated problems for the regular and dedicated Wikipedians who take care of Smallville and Las Vegas tv show pages. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 02:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've blocked User:Robinepowell for 1 week for the moment. Considering the amount of disruption and her apparent determination to disregard warnings and appeals to participate in discussion, this may be lenient but I'm loathe to extend it too far immediately. I strongly suspect she will begin again at the expiry of the block since previous blocks don't seem to have dulled her zeal. If it continues after the expiration, bring it back here. Cheers, Pigman☿ 03:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was too lenient. I really should have skimmed her talk page a little better and looked at her block log. I'm adjusting the block to 2 weeks. Cheers, Pigman☿ 03:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Attack page to speedy and oversight?

    Resolved
     – Page deleted by East718.

    User:Turtletothecore vandalized the drugs and prostitution article, then put the same content on his userpage. Google reveals that the name of the person described on Turtle's userpage is probably a fellow high school student with a social networking account.-PetraSchelm (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Turtletothecore[reply]

    Request sent to WP:RFO. -- Avi (talk) 05:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anon IP libeling editors who delete unsourced libels in BLP

    Resolved
     – Summaries deleted, offending anon blocked, page semi-protected by FCYTravis.

    See this entry and the recnet history of James Petras. Anon IP 98.14.99.191 Feel free to delete the slanderous edit summary also. Carol Moore 02:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

    I've deleted most of the edit summaries that I could find, blocked the IP for a month and semi-protected the article indefinitely. Unacceptable behavior. FCYTravis (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fringe pusher block evasion

    Resolved
     – YURI2000 indefinitely blocked, AfD closed as WP:SNOW delete. Sandstein (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    YURI2000 (talk · contribs) is an obvious sockpuppet of blocked user YURI2008 (talk · contribs), both highly probably sockpuppets of banned user W.GUGLINSKI (talk · contribs). Specifically now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heisenberg's paradoxical criterion along with assorted IP socks on that page, this user is essentially copying Guglinski's MO. And that would be to create articles (and add to existing articles) about Guglinski and friends' utterly non-notable fringe theories, which all rest on the basic premise that quantum mechanics is somehow completely wrong. Beyond simply the MO, YURI is copying Guglinski's unusually bizarre formatting (compare to this AFD). I think it's safe for an admin to go duck hunting here. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Admins should follow the rules.

    I would respectfully ask that more senior admins take new admin user:Sarcasticidealist under a gentle but firm wing and remind him that admins are supposed to set the example of good behavior. Anytime a single admin fails to follow the rules it jepordizes the community's ability to have confidence in all admins' professionalism. Based on this diff[109] it is evident that this admin violated WP:TALK in both spirit and letter, and based on his contribs list[110] he did the same to many other users' talk pages plus deleted at least one whole article. This behaviour is especially disturbing considering his answer to Q#3 at his RFA, to wit...

    3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

    A: Easily my most stressful conflict was prompted by a Wikiquette complaint about an administrator deleting text from a talk page ...

    I went looking for a reason why this edit to my talk page might have been done and I am now fully aware of the current puppet issues related to user:Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents but there is no policy/guideline I know of that supports his comments being deleted from another user's talk page. Removing comments addressed to me represents a parochial attitude that insults my intelligence and independence as a Wikipedia editor. The decision to ignore him or to be sucked-in by support him was my decision to make. An admin electing to make that decision for me was offensive.

    There are two more related issues of rules being (not?) followed that need to be raised at this point.

    (1) I see this user described as "banned" but so far I have found no WP:ArbReq to support that. How was this decision made - it would be nice to know that the rules were not broken by an admin on something as serious as banning.

    (2) The whole articles deleted by the admin, was there any other edits added by anyone other than the "banned" user? If so the deletion would be inappropriate per several WP rules.

    Thank you for your time. -- Low Sea (talk) 05:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Users can also be be banned by community consensus. And banned users cannot edit, and if they do, their edits may be reverted by anyone. I don't think anything wrong was done here. --Bfigura (talk) 05:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarcasticidealist is cleaning up after a longtime troll and sockpuppeteer. It has been some time since I was involved in the Sarsparilla case, but if this is Sarsparilla, then Sarcasticidealistr is only cleaning up the latest mess he has created. Quite within the normal purview of admins, and not abusive at all. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Sarcasticidealist was only cleaning up crap from Chin, such as this spam. Well within his bounds. seicer | talk | contribs 05:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My thoughts too. I've also informed Sarcasticidealist of this thread, per common courtesy. --Bfigura (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's advisable to discuss an issue with an admin with that admin before starting a post on ANI. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally support Sarcasticidealist's actions. It was essentially spam. 05:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    Aside from the misfortune of being from Edmonton, SarcasticIdealist is a good administrator. I recommend you take another look at what happened. Thank you. Wanderer57 (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, Chinchilla is not banned. He's blocked with an expiry time of indefinite, which any admin can do under the appropriate circumstances, and requires no arbitration or community consensus. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If there has been no ban imposed, then the block can also be lifted at any time by any admin. In the words of Dr. Strangelove, "It requires only the will to do so." 129.174.91.115 (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The underlying user, known as Sarsaparilla, is considered banned only because no admin has been willing to unblock. —This is part of a comment by Abd (of 16:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]
    FYI: According to this edit[111], the user Sarsaparilla was tagged as officially Banned at 09:51, March 25, 2008 by user Equazcion. -- Low Sea (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I'll fix that. He was tagged banned, yes. By Equazcion, an opponent of Sarsaparilla, who is not an administrator. No ban discussion has taken place, to my knowledge. He is considered banned for the reason I stated, by default. But when the same was said about Fredrick day, some administrators objected, though they weren't willing to unblock. (It was SWATjester, actually, who closed the discussion, if I'm correct, citing three admins not willing to accept a banned description, but, in fact, there were only two or maybe only one; one had expressed conflicting opinions. By the way, it's considered a bit rude to intersperse in Talk like this. Small thing, though.
    He wasn't blocked for any offense that would normally result in an indef block, however. A lot is routinely said about this case that is pure crap. The recent contributions deleted by Sarcasticidealist were all clearly intended to benefit the project; SI is within his rights, in my view, to remove contributions; however, in the other direction, when I've done the same with the contributions of Fredrick day -- which often interlace with those of Sarsaparilla, and which are typically vandalism, personal attack, and general attempts to stir people up, the very definition of trolling, I've been warned and told that Fredrick day isn't banned, merely blocked, and that his "useful" contributions should not be reverted. And removing stuff that, all by itself, could get him blocked was considered, apparently, removal of "useful" edits.

    Fredrick day was blocked for vandalism, plus the vandalism was consistently personal attack (against Sarsaparilla, myself, and another user). Sarsaparilla was blocked for .... what? "Trolling?" All indef blocks, a short block has never been used with this user, and warnings have been, apparently, considered unnecessary. The user has never repeated behavior that he was warned about, except for the very vague, "Don't express ideas like that around here, it's disruptive."

    When he was indef blocked for creating a hoax article, he was actually offered the opportunity to return, provided that he refrain from editing WP space, i.e., from making proposals or working on policy. I.e., solution to article space hoax: please, user, only edit article space. It couldn't be more obvious. This user is blocked for making unpopular proposals, dangerous ideas.

    I have no serious complaint about Sarcasticidealist, he is doing, generally, what is within his rights; though, I will repeat, when I did quite the same with Fredrick day contributions, I was severely warned. I was told that I should not remove Talk page edits unless the user was banned, that being merely blocked wasn't enough. There is a double standard, rather clearly. I think SI is at least technically correct to remove the contributions; but any other editor should be able to bring them back if they choose (and are willing to take responsibility for them). That's what I've done in the past with some of Sarsaparilla's contributions, and there have been no warnings or other sanctions as a result.

    And I suggested the same with Fredrick day contributions, that if anyone is willing to take responsibility for them, bringing them back after I reverted them out wasn't edit warring, I'd treat those as original edits (and, indeed, when that happened, I left them alone). But that wasn't enough for Fredrick day, and there is some fear around here that bringing back Sarsaparilla content (which is almost always positive, helpful, and his problematic contributions would be less than 0.1 percent of his edits) is going to bring charges of "meat puppetry." It is, indeed, but mostly from Fredrick day, who repeats "meat puppet" over and over, knowing that it does affect how some people think. --Abd (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry for the late response - I've been moving the last few days (still in Edmonton though, Wanderer) so my time online has been sporadic. I think my actions have been pretty clearly explained above (thanks all), but if there are any lingering questions or concerns I'd be happy to address them. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikistalking?

    Two anon IPs (perhaps used by the same user) have recently been engaing in edits which are entirely reversions of my edits (see Special:Contributions/58.8.10.227 and Special:Contributions/58.8.18.130). Is it possible this constitues Wikistalking? Normally I would lean toward WP:AGF and raising this issue on the user's talk page, but given the anon nature of the edits and the multiple IPs involved, I don't think this will work. Advice please? UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am conflicted on this. Most of their edits seem like good edits (such as restoring links to articles that exist, which you had removed) yet, one cannot deny that they are only undoing your edits and little else. I don't see anything so disruptive as to merit a rangeblock yet (given the drifting nature of the IP it would be all that would be effective). Other than specifically reverting only PRODs and deletions you have done (which in itself is somewhat onerous and creepy), have you seen any other reverts done by someone in this range which is unambiguously bad? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the revert done by Special:Contributions/58.8.10.227 of my good faith addition to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, without talk page discussion, qualifies as unambiguously bad - I did this in an attempt to clarify the PROD situation. In my defence, at the time I removed the links, the article was deleted; it was recreated after I removed them (and the anon's edit summaries, saying "article not deleted as claimed," smacks of a big lack of WP:AGF). If I am going to be Wikistalked, I am outta here. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't get all panicy now. There's no need to assume that I am dismissing the problem. However, rangeblocks aren't to be taken lightly. Looking at the two addresses you provided, it looks like we can catch them both with 58.8.10.0/20 rangeblocks, which is a fairly small range (4096 addresses), but I am not that experienced with such blocks. Perhaps another admin with more experience with rangeblocks could weigh in here as to if this is either necessary or feasible to do? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey now. Some of your edits followed a pattern fit for "correction", as the IP(s) saw it. There's nothing really wrong with that, is there? wp:brd isn't unambiguously bad. Certainly "as claimed" should not have been used. 86.44.17.45 (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the partial support. I am a big fan of WP:BRD, but the "d" stands for discuss, and the anon IP makes this impossible (and has not initiated any discussions - edit summaries don't qualify). UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User adding thousands of many improper possibly incorrect year of birth cats

    I take exception to this title. I highly doubt I have added thousands of year of birth categories period. Most of these have been added based on information that previously was in the article. Another large chunk are based on information from project vote smart. Others come from Who's Who in America.Johnpacklambert (talk) 06:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did an analysis of my last 2000 edits. This takes us back to March 28th. Several of these are repetitions of editing the same article. Many involve issues such as placing people in religion categories, placing people in from Sterling Heights or other location categories or placing people in a category based on what university they are an alumni from.Johnpacklambert (talk) 06:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    We've got a problem with User:Johnpacklambert, who has been, for at least 2-3 weeks, at an edit count of up to 100 or more per day, adding birth year cats to biographical articles formerly in the category "Year of birth unknown." While this ordinarly would be the type of thankless, tedious work we're always glad to have editors do, in this case what flagged my attention a week or so ago was that this editor is, about 25-30 percent of the time, adding dates of birth that are unknown; he is apparently guessing by their date of graduation, or the age they were in a given year (without taking into account that most people are not the same age for all 365 days of a given year. About a week ago, I reverted 80+ articles yet the editor continued to do the same thing. Today I noticed that he was still going strong so I made several comments to his talk page, letting him know that adding cats for estimated birth years is highly improper and unencyclopedic--one of the things that undermines Wikipedia's credibility. After three notes, he refuses to stop, saying that putting in a discrete birth year cat based on an estimated birth year is better than "cluttering" the "Year of birth unknown" category. Perhaps an admin could ask him not to continue to add unsourced birth year cats, or at least to use cats such as "1950s births" where the decade of birth is known (though this proves difficult if someone may have been born late in one decade or early in the next). Thank you for your time. Badagnani (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've notified him of this discussion. I'll keep watch. This is concerning as there are serious WP:BLP considerations with putting private information about people, especially based on guesses. If there are no sources as to the birth years, I would suggest reverting per WP:V. -- 05:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    If someone was a given age in a given year, than they are 50% going to be born in any year. If the information can be specified to a given month, the percentage can be proven to be higher than 50%. If the age is based on the year of high school graduation, this is even a more likely thing. I think you people do not properly appreciate people's editing at all. These are based on well reasoned estimates. You have also severally under estimated how much of a behomoth the year of birth missing category is. you also continue to ignore the fact that it is perfectly acceptable to base year of death on estimates, and have provided no convincing argument against doing the same for year of birth.Johnpacklambert (talk) 06:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an encyclopedia here. We deal in verifiable facts, not educated guesses. --Carnildo (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You did not address the question. If your statement was true, than deaths would have to be absolte years, however death years allow estimates, which contradicts your statement. The question is why is the standard for deaths and births different, not why either standard exists.Johnpacklambert (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnpacklambert: please put your points at the bottom of the section. This usually results in a discussion that is in a more logical order, and makes more sense. Thank you. Wanderer57 (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone was a given age in a given year, than they are 50% going to be born in any year - So you're saying that there's a 50% chance of your information being WRONG? That's not even CLOSE to acceptable. --Calton | Talk 06:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And either way, it is still WP:OR, violating the core principle of WP:V. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever the policy as it stands, I don't agree with adding death year categories for discrete death years if they are unknown, whatever the categories say (I checked, and they do each say "for people born in approximately X year). I recommend removing that qualification in each death year cat. The top-level death year cat page and its discussion page don't have any information about the policy regarding this, but I think it's clear we shouldn't be adding cats for discrete death or birth years unless those are sourced. That's what cats such as "1850s births" or "19th century births" are for. Badagnani (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I still hold that this section is listed under a false title.Johnpacklambert (talk) 06:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you rather it just be called User:Johnpacklambert editing? Might as well be NPOV in titles as well. =) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There, I've changed the title to make it NPOV. Or something like that. Perhaps more accurate.
    On the charge of OR, a lot of this may not be. If a source said someone was born at 12 minutes after noon, would it be OR to say that they were born during the daytime? I think not. It is a well-known fact that "noon" and times near it occur during the daytime, it should require no OR to derive that. Likewise if it says that someone was 18 in 1988, it should not be OR to be able to do first year college math and subtract 18 from 1988 and get a specific year.
    Now, as noted, the specific year may be wrong by +-1 year or so. Encyclopedias (at least the EB, to my knowledge) have a way of handling unknown but estimated dates. They put a little "c" in front of the estimated year. I suspect, but of course cannot prove, that a lot of "c1281" birthdates in the EB were computed by EB staffers when they were unable to find a reliable source stating year of birth, and only had age at a particular date.
    Sticking in dates is a thankless task, as someone mentioned. It would be ill-advised to supply estimated death years for living people. But if the person has reliable sources asserting they are (or were once) living, then it should require no OR to conclude that they were born, and only simple math to determine a close year if other reliable dates are available. If the final date is shown as "estimated", and can be trivially shown to be no worse that +-1 year, then the estimated date is probably far better than a completely worthless but completely accurate "unknown". After all, one could simply replace the entire article wiht a name and "Facts not reliably known." for the entire article body.
    Just my opinion. I think his work is good, as long as verifiable corrleations of years and age can be found, and if the birth dates are shown as estimates. Loren.wilton (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the work is probably in good faith even if slightly misdirected. If the user has reliable 3rd party sources for the dates (Who's Who I think would probably count) than let him add them (as it is sourced information that can be verified). If however he is guessing (even an educated guess) than a broader guess is better so sourcing to decade is reasonable (especially for mid-decade births). The problem with the high school or other graduation thing though is not everyone graduates at 17,18,19. Some people graduate earlier and some later for a variety of reasons. I think OR in cases like this is probably okay as long as it can be sourced. As long as the user doesn't state his "estimate"/best guess as fact than a born approx with an inclusion in the decade category should be fine. And yes whatever the decision of consensus is it should work both ways for births and deaths.Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Two things. My point was that claiming there were thousands of edits involving year of birth issues was misleading and inaccurate.Johnpacklambert (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Point two, if someone is in the category 1950s births, should this exclude them from the category year of birth missing. I have found people who are in both so I am wondering.Johnpacklambert (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a year of birth unknown (as opposed to missing) category? If so it would be reasonable (IMO) to have people with estimated birth years in that category as well as the decade category. Just my opinion here, I suppose others may differ. If we have an estimated (from fairly reliable numbers) birth year I don't think it can be stated as 'missing' anymore. Loren.wilton (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c)I'm assuming that "year of birth missing" means that there isn't a year of birth listed in the article. I'd say that putting in the decade would remove the "year of birth missing" cat but, a "year of birth unknown" cat if it doesn't exist should probably be created and the subject listed both in the decade and in "year of birth unknown" cat. Saying that discussions of what categories exist and/or should exist probably belongs somewhere else. Perhaps User:Johnpacklambert would be willing to put this particular type of editing on hold for now and we can work on reaching consensus at the new discussion. And perhaps User:Badagnani and he could shake hands and apologise to each other for any misunderstanding as I'm sure they both have very good intentions and no ill will was intended from either side (I hope)Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Birth dates estimated by an editor are WP:OR and not in any way acceptable. Birth dates estimated in and cited to a reliable source are ok if characterized as such. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Year of birth unknow exists but it is supposed to be used for those born in the distant past whose year of birth is unknown. Year of birth missing and year of birth missing (living people) are supposed to be used for those in the recent past or present whose year of birth could be determined with more searching of information. The line between year of birth missing and year of birth unknown has not been followed well, and living people are in all three categories. There were also until recently, and probably are still, people in the year of birth missing (living people) for whom a death date is given and others who were head coaches of football teams in the 1920s for whom no information is given since who probably should be moved to possibly living in not year of death missing categories. We could make a category "exact year of birth missing", which might be a good thing, however I will let someone else do that.Johnpacklambert (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive edits by user Bermudatriangle

    On the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana%2C_Princess_of_Wales article, there was a minor dispute regarding the inclusion of a section refering to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%28Sri_Lanka%29_Princess_Diana_Institute_of_Peace princess diana institute of peace.

    I and other editors were of the opinion that it was not notable. It was removed/reverted a few times.

    In an attempt to stop an edit war, I created a dedicated article devoted to the princess diana institute of peace. This was actually suggested in the talk page, by one of the editors who opposed its removal



    I think we should create an article for it, and see if it stands on its own merits, although I believe that the current campaign to delete it is politically motivated. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

    That doesn't address the question of what it is that makes this institute notable for inclusion in this biography...besides their simply having attached her name to it? --Onorem♠Dil 18:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

    Ja, I concur. Cut and paste it into a new article. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

    So consensus seemed to be obvious, create the new article, cut/paste from the old section, remove the old section.

    I did the above, I explained the removal in my edit summary, I also explained and linked to the new article in the original article's talk page. I requested that someone go to the new article, add some citations and try to improve it.

    Problem solved? well that would be nice, but I wouldnt be here if the problem was solved.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bermudatriangle has constantly reverted on the princess diana article, in the past they reverted me with the summary "‎ (→Marriage: Normally women are virgins since their birth until they consumate. So provide she consumated with someone before her marriage, if you want to challenge with her virginity.)" which I found laughable.

    It seems to be a single purpose account, and despite only having made 12 edits since registering, they are very familiar with wikipedia terms and protocol. draw your own conclusions.


    In short I followed consensus, I made a dedicated article, and removed the original statement, fully complying with consensus and common sense. This editor is not respecting consensus, has a dubious single purpose account and their edits are disruptive. I dont think protection of the article is required, however someone informing this user that their actions are not acceptable, might be a good idea. Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Your intention to create a new article for the Institute is only politically motivated on your part. Neither you are interested on Diana or the Institute or even the wikipedia.Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Oh well, what can I say, do I need to say anything or does the above comment say it all? I have been editing wikipedia for 8 months, I have over 1000 edits, and I have no political interests relating to the Princess Diana Insitute of Peace, neither do I have any interests in Sri Lanka. I find the above comment to be not only absurd, but also to display a blatant lack of good faith.

    I think I should also post the last statement by the above editor, that was place on the talk page of the Princess Diana article.

    You should have left someone else to create the article. If you are really interested on Diana, Princess of Wales, your contribution on her page might have shown that. But you have edited only petty things on her page and want to remove the sub section. I too believe with Gareth E Kegg that the current campaign to delete it is politically motivated."Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

    I want nothing more than the disruption on that article to cease, I have already left a message on the above editors talk page, stating that if they revert the edit, then I will consider this finished, I am not looking for blocks or protection, just a little good faith and common sense. Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    We don't need beautiful words to attract others, but the sequences to make others belive wether we are right or not. Not you 1000 edits that matters, then anyone with editcount can be here as administrators.Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The fact that I have made over 1000 edits, was mentioned in order to respond to your claim that I was not interested in wikipedia. Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then do you think those who are with more than 1000 edits and indefinitely blocked are not interested on wikipedia?Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hardly relevant, but I will entertain your question. I think some users with more than 1000 edits are still highly interested in wikipedia, because they ask to be unblocked and come back with new accounts. But as I said, that is not relevant, please deal with the current situation. Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    OK, add to the above, blatant disregard for 3RR. I made an edit on the princess diana artlce, that did not remove anything, infact I added a link to the article that I created, the above user not only reverted my edit, but made his 4th revert within 24 hours. Sennen goroshi (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My last revert is nothing to do with my previous edits. "See also" link to where? To your uncited article? Bermudatriangle (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    I made you fully aware that different reverts are just as unacceptable as identical reverts, there is a 3RR report against you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Bermudatriangle_reported_by_User:Sennen_goroshi_.28Result:_.29

    Sennen goroshi (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You should have discussed on the talk page of Diana, Princess of Wales before you bring here the whole issue. Now you are adding citations to your newly created Institute. I think your too keen interest to remove the Institute sub section from the article Diana that quickly is clearly very "political". Can you elaborate your other edits on Diana's page other than your tad virginity issue.Bermudatriangle (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Excuse me? I did put this on the Diana talk page, before bringing it here. This report was made 6:17 You reverted me at 6:01 (and again at 7:16 after I made this report) I stated on the talk page that I had made a new article at 5:51, you replied to me on the talk page at 5:59. The talk page was first, your reverts were second, my ANI report was third.

    My edits are not political, as far as I am aware the only political interest would be to someone from Sri Lanka or of Sri Lankan origin, I am a white Englishman, who lives in Japan and has no knowledge of Sri Lanka, neither do I have an edit history relating to Sri Lanka, so please take your bad faith accusations elsewhere. Sennen goroshi (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've got no idea what is going on here. I resent having my name bandied about by either side, and still have queries over the article's notability. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your reverts have started after User:Lahiru k reverts here. User:Lahiru k contributions and the article 2006 Trincomalee massacre of NGO workers indicate WP:COI and WP:POV. So how we believe you are a white Englishman. Your initial edit on Diana's page about her virginity doesn't substantiate your claim that you are white Englishman as well. You should remember Diana is third popular among British people and the interest of the "White English" will very much differ on their first edit on her page. Bermudatriangle (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even the article (Sri Lanka) Princess Diana Institute of Peace is very much differ from the name Princess Diana Institute of Peace and raise serious doubt over the name alteration.Bermudatriangle (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to rename the article. Why would my edits about Diana's virginity say anything about if I was or was not English? I don't display bias in my edits, I edit with a NPOV, if you don't think I am English then you are displaying bad faith, and without being too rude, that is your problem not mine.

    Gareth, I apologise for you being brought into this mess, I tried to solve a minor problem, in a manner that would reflect the interests of all parties, I thought it would not be a problem, until one editor starts making disruptive edits, this was a simple problem, with a simple solution. One editor has stood in the way of the simple solution, with his bad faith claims and absurd assumptions regarding what edits an Englishman should and should not make. Sennen goroshi (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    People use often bad faith for their escape on others. Here you are the one misleading others. You displayed you live in Japan and you hav't edited on issues related to Japan(and was critisised by another editor) and claiming yourself now you are a "White Englishman" live in Japan. I think you have created this account to mislead others.Bermudatriangle (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As this issue turns into a new direction, I have refered at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation for their comments.Bermudatriangle (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So now you are canvassing ? how many wikipedia guidelines are you going to ignore? And if you don't think I am actually living in Japan, born in England or whatever, that is your problem not mine. And once more, assume good faith. Sennen goroshi (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please to both User:Sennen goroshi and User:Bermudatriangle. I ask that you both take some time away from making further comment on this page. Give the rest of us a chance to read the articles and the associated talk pages on their own merits. If the article shouldn't have been created than taking it to AfD is the proper place for that. AN/I is not the place for some of the comments above and I ask both of you again to please step away for a little bit. Cool off. Then come back and discuss things in a civil manner in the appropriate places. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment now that I've read everything. I'm of the opinion that the information doesn't belong in the Princess Diana article and that the creation of a separate article was reasonable. If User:Bermudatriangle wishes to contribute constructively to wikipedia on this issue I'd suggest helping to expand the article on the Institute instead of going against the consensus that seems to exist about the information not belonging in the main article. I'd also suggest that renaming the separate article to Princess Diana Institute of Peace (Sri Lanka) may be appropriate (in case future Princess Diana Institutes of Peace are created). Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Sennen goroshi is very possible User:Iwazaki, See this Edit Summary[112] and this diff[113], in both places "...care to explain" and "...care to answer" is there. After a few (...) care to phrase is there in both cases. They both claim they live in Japan. User:Iwazaki is vanished after rejection from Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation.
    I think Rajkumar Kanagasingam whose bio was deleted a year ago [114][115] is a Tamil and User:Iwazaki is a Buddist Sinhalese. What is taking place is Sri Lanka Conflict on Diana's page.
    I think the motive to separate the institute's details from the Diana's page is at one point to delete it from wikipedia.
    When lookig at 2007 murder of Red Cross workers in Sri Lanka, 2006 Trincomalee massacre of NGO workers and 2006 Murder of TRO workers in Sri Lanka, I think it is better Princess Diana Institute of Peace is deleted from wikipedia at its earliest possible.Dhirrosses (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it possible to topic-ban an IP?

    You will recall the interesting editing of 24.82.152.201 on the Stanley Theatre (Vancouver) article some days ago that got the article semi-protected. The protection has worn off, and the IP (yes, the same one) is back in business deleting content.

    Perhasp flat-out blocking this IP for a month would be useful, but a topic ban would really be the thing, if possible. Loren.wilton (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You mean Stanley Theatre (Vancouver), right? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, thanks. Corrected my original link above. Loren.wilton (talk) 08:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I also notice that the IP address is coming from Winnipeg, quite a ways from Vancouver. Curiouser and curiouser. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I had noticed it was Shaw Cable, which is a Vancouver ISP, and I thought it was a peripatetic address. I may not have looked closely enough. Importantly though it is still the same IP address as from last week. Loren.wilton (talk) 08:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's see if it keeps up? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unnecessary additions and zero communication

    i would like to get help because user 220.238.94.203 has repetitively made edits to Westfield Doncaster that are untrue, unreferenced and unneeded. i have tried to communicate with them, but they continually made unneccessary edits and refuse to talk to me. please help so this issue can be resolved because it is not needed. --Thfrang 08:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

    This is an edit conflict and as such demands decent communication between the parties. Your comments Thfrang on the ip's talk page were not helpful and actually resulted in the page being deleted. If you will attempt to communicate in a more mature fashion you might get somewhere. If the problem persists after reasonable attempts at communication then take this to one of the dispute resolution venues. -JodyB talk 11:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Colin4C

    Colin dedicates all his time on the anti-Americanism article to obstructing editors who disagree with him. He’s demonstrating ownership issues, as well as obstruction of any attempt to reach consensus.

    This user was previously warned for personal attacks regarding me and this article by User:VirtualSteve. [116] .

    After the warning, he mostly just changed tactics, from attacks to word games. This is a typical example of an exchange between us on the Talk page, which I think shows more interest in word games than consensus:

    Here's more specific policy that addresses my concern. I would only add that 1) if it is likely many people dispute that the Beatles are the greatest band, the opposite view needs to be present, and 2) anti-Americanism, as a potential pejorative about living people, requires a very high standard of neutrality.
    "When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For example, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say: "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which can be supported by references to a particular survey; or "The Beatles had many songs that made the UK Singles Chart," which is also verifiable as fact. In the first instance we assert a personal opinion; in the second and third instances we assert the fact that an opinion exists, by attributing it to reliable sources." Life.temp (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    Just to say that what is classed as a 'fact' is only through someone's opinion. 'Facts' do not impinge on our consciousness with the blinding force of revelation and even if they did we would have to convince someone else that what was revealed to us is the TRUTH. Nobody knows what the true facts are about reality. Descartes, Kant and Hegel couldn't find out and even Einstein didn't know. All we can do is say e.g. "According to Einstein E = mc squared" or "According to George Bush the weapons of mass destruction are in Saddam's garden shed" and leave it to others to figure out what credit they are prepared to give to Mr Einstein or Mr Bush or whoever. Colin4C (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    The policy of Wikipedia is that some things are classed as fact and some are not, and the policy is given in the link I provided above. If you want to start a nihilistic encyclopedia which recognizes nothing as fact, I will be very interested to see how it works out. Wikipedia is not such a project. Life.temp (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    This is not nihilism. Science progresses. Newton's theory of physics was replaced by Einstein's which was replaced by quantum theory which itself is not the definitive answer. There are new discoveries being made every day in science and new philosophical theories and new definitions and new ways of analysis and new historical discoveries. If you want to start a medieval encyclopedia based on the immutable thoughts of Aristotle I would be interested to see how it turns out. Wikipedia is not such a project. Colin4C (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    Colin, make an effort. Wikipedia's policy is given in the link I provided. This is the fourth time in 2 days I've referred you to an actual page that explains the policy on classifying fact/opinion and how to write about them. Life.temp (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    Is that a fact or an opinion? Colin4C (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

    Lately, he’s resumed more dismissive, attacking comments. Here he sums up my ideas as “playing politically correct word games. This is an encyclopedia not a spin doctor's operating room.” [117]

    Here he dismisses my comments as “bar-room pronuncimentios” [118]

    Here he characterizes my concerns & edits as “butcherings…personal POV original research agenda…off the cuff lubrications.” This comment of his also goes on at great length about his important credentials, and demonstrates an attitude of ownership. [119]

    Here he calls me a “person who breaks all the windows and then tosses a hand-grenade inside” for the way I want to shorten the article. [120]

    Here he says the article is "being butchered by one highly persistent individual" (that would be me). [121] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Life.temp (talk • contribs) 09:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I could go on. The main other aspect of this is his sarcastic caricatures of everything I say. Every rebuttal is a strawman argument. I won't document that here, but anyone perusing the Talk page will, I believe, see it.

    This attitude has been going on for weeks. Even before he was warned, he made edits like “Restored the good version of this article - from before the uninformed axe-grinders and vandals ruined it” [122]

    I don't really want to use this board as a dumping ground for every problem, but I don't know what else to do. I've made every effort to use the tools of dispute resolution. I proposed a policy for cases like this at the Village Pump [123]. I requested an opinion at the NPOV Noticeboard [124]. I requested informal mediation (completely disrupted by Colin) [125]. I requested Editor Assistance [126]. I requested a Third Opinion [127] (in my opinion, that editor is now being sucked into Colin's whirlwind of aggression). Nothing is going to work as long as Colin doesn't care about dispute resolution. Life.temp (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe you should both spend some time away from Anti-Americanism. That's what I did (I was involved in this article for a time). Everyone who spends an extended period of time there seems to have a slanted agenda over which they get exceedingly emotional. I don't see any actual civility violations (at least not by these particular two users) -- just people getting huffy over a difference of opinion. Give it up and go edit one of the other 2-point-something-million articles on Wikipedia where you won't run into your arch-nemesis. Let others worry about this particular article for a while. Chances are the article will benefit from that. No offense. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:52, 29 Apr 2008 (UTC)
    You may be right, but I don't actually see myself as contributing to a problem here. I've been very conscientious in following the steps of dispute resolution, and only been cross a few times. Colin isn't going to do this to just me; he is going to do it to everyone he disgarees with. This was his attitude when you were editing; it is the attitude he's starting to bring to User:HelloAnnyong (the Third Opinion editor). He needs some (sharp) feedback about his behavior. Life.temp (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a look at this when Colin4c was being given some good advice, by another admin, to cool it in the mediation process. Equazcion also gives good advice to the two of you to avoid each other and let it lie. A brief look at your edit history shows a great preoccupation both with this one subject and the disputes that have circled round it. You'd both benefit from a holiday from each other. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ed Fitzgerald

    Hi, this is sort of a strange request, but I'm requesting an intervention with Ed Fitzgerald. I feel that he is trying to get himself deliberately blocked by continuing to engage in disruptive editing behavior during his RFC. Would an admin who is friends with him have a talk with him? The last thing I want to see is Ed blocked. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Merry1987 and User:Cheney008

    These two users have just been creating great stacks of copyvio/spam articles for various software utilities. I'm speedying them as fast as they can create them, but they appear unfazed by the messages rapidly piling up on their talk pages. I fear that unless they slow down, admin intervention might be required. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    Both appear to have stopped (for the moment) after your last warning. Kbthompson (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Attempted outing of editor's identity?

    Can someone please take a look at this and take action? Thanks. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 11:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you further explain the problem? That's just a username.Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur. That is not outing, as opposed to the myriad sockpuppets who are using more than just the username with an interspersed space. -- Avi (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the Nwwaew might have meant a different diff that was a few diffs back from that one, maybe this one. I searched the user's userpage (Roland's) and can't find anywhere where he has given a surname. Seraphim♥ Whipp 13:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Set of diffs deleted; user warned. Seraphim♥ Whipp 14:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:72.10.117.195 - consistently vandaliziing Gargoyles (TV series)

    IP 72.10.117.195 has insistently inserted unsourced original research [128][129] on Gargoyles (TV series) - claiming they are a Disney Executive with inside information. I have attempted to communicate with them on their talk page, and they are currently at level 4 warning, and after today's re-insertion I'm taking it to ANI. IP is from University of Connecticut and I've tagged that on the talk page. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you post a notice at WP:AIV? Looks like simple vandalism to me. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hrm. Did I mix this up again? This is systematic long term editing over a month, and the editor is not active currently, as of this morning. Should it be there instead? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If they aren't active then no it shouldn't go there obviously. I'd keep an eye out to see if they keep making the same edit. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note, I posted level 4 warning last week - they've made the edits again since then, which is why I'm posting here. I'm sure they'll be back again though. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Charles Darwin Article

    Resolved.

    I'm sure its not the first, as there is a semi lock on the page I only read a little but came across a "no" in front of evidence in the first sentence. Second I saw "father of modern homosexualness" a few sentences later (father of evolutionary biology?"

    anyway there might be some more —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.240.173 (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That was just random vandalism (it's been removed).For future reference, the right place to put this is Talk:Charles Darwin.-Wafulz (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban requested

    Resolved
     – User blocked for 72 hours. seicer | talk | contribs 15:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Floyd Davidson (talk · contribs) has continually edit-warred on the Barrow, Alaska article. His issues are related to adding "Sports" and "Popular culture" sections, as well as re-adding external links including a hotel website and his personal website. Last night I removed the trivia tag he had placed on the popular culture section. A look at the edit history and Talk:Barrow, Alaska#Sports shows he has ignored consensus on the talk page and reverted several editors in regards to this tag. I also removed several external links that were not directly related to improving the article. On the talk page, I pointed to WP policy and guidelines and mentioned why each link was unnecessary. He chooses to ignore this and reverts my edit twice. It's just a continuation of his feeling of ownership. He has been blocked in the past for edit warring and is very close to violating 3RR again. (2RR may be appropriate in this latest case because it's a trend) A checkuser was performed that showed one of the suspected editors was not him. The other two (Okpik2008 (talk · contribs) & Tundra4 (talk · contribs)) were stale. I don't know what that means in regard to CU, but their edit history shows the only edits they've made is to simply agree with Floyd on the talk page. He has been warned several times about OWN & 3RR, but chooses to edit war and add information that is agains consensus. I'm asking that he be banned from editing the Barrow article. Thanks. APK yada yada 14:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support article ban - I regrettably concur wholeheartedly with APK. If you look on my Talk page, User:Reezy, who also tusseled with Floyd, made a remark about him and I said that Floyd is valued, but that he has major ownership issues. The fact is, Floyd has turned the Barrow article into his own private vision of his hometown. Unfortunately his COI and OWNership issues make him an edit warrior who has been blocked for inappropriately deleting content and fighting with anyone who doesn't do what he wants. He Puts his own links to his private sites up on the article, and then edit wars to keep them in, against WP:EL. --David Shankbone 14:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have given him another warning. If he continues to edit tenditiously on this article, he will be blocked again. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved
     – Legal threats are legal threats. Indef. blocked per this edit summary. seicer | talk | contribs 16:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Must say at the outset I haven't seen this movie and it's not really my cup of tea, however somehow it wound up on my watchlist. User:Goalproducer as his name suggests, claims to be the producer of this movie and is using it's wikipedia page to drum up commercial support for the film- in particular, he continuously reverts what I presume to be an accurate plot summary because whilst the film has been realeased in Europe, it has not yet been in the United States (see e.g. [130]).

    More importantly, this situation has now escalated to the point where fairly blatant legal threats have been issued [131] and User:Goalproducer's behaviour has generally taken a slightly incivil turn (e.g. [132], this edit in response to this one from me).

    Would be good to get some admin input I think, I have only recently come in to this but it seems to have been going on for some time. Badgerpatrol (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-Admin Opinion: Sounds like a pretty clear violation of WP:LEGAL, as well as a WP:COI. Block indefintely, until he retracts the legal threat. Edit: I see he's now been blocked indef. D.M.N. (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war NOW

    Could someone please deal with this request urgently; Matthew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has decided that if his change is not accepted, rather than following the procedure in the flow-chart here, he will continue reverting and claim that the other side is in the wrong. It makes me fu**ing mad, to be honest; the fact of the debate is immaterial, his attitude needs some serious dealing with. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    From what I can see you're both on the edge of 3rr in a content dispute. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it's worth Fully-Protecting the article, and in the process take the discussion to the talkpage to seek a resolution? D.M.N. (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggested that four times and Matt reverted each time. He was then blocked and immediately unblocked. He went over 3RR, I didn't. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sceptre (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's as may be, which is unhelpful, but the fact is Moreschei has no business unblocking someone seconds after they were blocked on the grounds that a contested issue was "clear", actually. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Aah, Moreschei has now formally decided that I get no say in NFCC issues. That is a disgusting abuse of adminship. Who the HELL does he think he is? —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Simple as this. TreasuryTag has very poor judgment as to what constitutes an NFCC violation, as has been proven long before. Therefore, if he contests removal of an image this does not mean the image does not fail NFCC. On this occasion it most emphatically did fail NFCC. Matthew should not have been blocked. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Would it not have simply been courteous of him to wait for a further opinion before warring? And who gave you the authority to rule without discussion that I can no longer voice my opinions on the topic? —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Whether right or wrong, we can at least agree both were edit warring, I think. Wizardman 16:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec)Indeed. And one made 4 edit-war reverts in 24h; one didn't. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably. In which case I think a brief protection might have been better than one-sided blocking (with all respect), particularly since the blocked one was most likely right. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably. Since Matthew did 4 rv's and treasury three, the one block probably ended up being too process-wonky and holding to 3rr too literally. Wizardman 16:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a huge deal either way. Storm in a teacup, if TreasuryTag stops throwing personal attacks in my direction and calms down. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "if TreasuryTag stops throwing personal attacks in my direction and calms down" - if you continue in that vain I'll get started. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Threats are probably unhelpful here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The larger problem here is that both Matthew and TreasuryTag are well-intentioned users who make good clean-up edits to Doctor Who articles, but who are prone to becoming overly... programmatic in their views of policy interpretation, and are prone to dogmatically enforcing their policies. Both are also prone to... not displaying good judgment on whether or not something is worth pursuing.
    In this case, I think that the numeric revert counting is unhelpful in evaluating who is in the wrong. This was an edit war between two equally culpable editors, and while one hit four reverts and the other didn't, I think that parity between the sanctions is important. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, I think its your attitude that appear to be the problem, not Matthew. Just because you don't get your own way doesn't mean to say you should come running. Matthew is upholding the non-free content criteria, and I full support him. I myself have had my rollback removed (now reinstated) for upholding the criteria. I think, as Moreschi said, you need to calm down. Qst (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, from my vantage point you are being rather incivil, Treasury. Defuse and calm down. Wizardman 16:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I consider it incivil to revert-war rather than politely discuss, whether or not friendly admins accept the warring. It's just basic courtesy, which if other users won't show me, I won't show other users. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Two wrongs don't make a right, you know. Qst (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good.
    So what? Rather than casting dark aspersions over my behaviour, take it up with my ex-mentor or just block me; what's the point of just "muttering" if such a thing can be done online? —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would hope that concerns about your editing could be taken up with you directly instead of your mentor. Do you understand why people find your conduct here frustrating? Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, lets all take a step back to calm down here. TreasuryTag, I couldn't block you because (1) I'm not an admin and (2) You haven't violated the blocking policy, but nonetheless, your attitude throughout has not been exemplary. Qst (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, particularly now you're haranguing Qst on his talk page for no good reason. Deep breath, please. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism/sockpuppetry at board game articles

    There seem to be a number of similarly named vandals making nonsense edits (links to ordinary English words like "is") to board game articles (Backgammon, Jacquet (game), Uno (game), Draughts, Go (board game)) and vandalizing user pages. The trouble seems to have started when the puppet master was reverted on some categories s/he added.

    Nastasija Marachkovskaja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (suspected puppet master)

    Billy Costa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (already blocked)

    Roger Parslow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (already blocked)

    --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have encountered the same problem on many band articles. Mr. Greenchat 17:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, I didn't realize those last two users were already blocked when I posted this. I informed them of this thread anyway. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How about we confron the puppet master and have him/her prove to us that he is not a puppet master.If he is, we block him. Mr. Greenchat 17:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No need for confrontation, per the WP:DUCK test it is really obvious sockpuppetry. The two socks listed (plus at least one IP not listed) have been indef blocked. I'll go block the sockmaster; duration to depend on previous contributions. --barneca (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good Mr. Greenchat 17:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I think that User:Nastasija Marachkovskaja was created after User: Dakota Blue Richards was blocked for violating WP:USERNAME (as that is the name of an actress being used as an account username). As you can see, the contributions are essentially the same from these two accounts. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. I was one of the editors who reverted on the category additions and other things. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nastasija account has been blocked for 3 days, since edit history prior to this doesn't seem to show bad faith (whether the edits were useful or not is another matter). However, if sockpuppetry continues, it should be noted here, and the block length can be increased. --barneca (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anon at Savant syndrome

    I've never done this before, so I may not be in the right place. We have an anon that wants Savant syndrome to reflect his/her particular bias. This is nothing unusual, and was addressed by semi-protecting the article for two weeks (until 06-May-2008). The anon refuses to engage in discussions, despite repeated requests on the anon's talk page. Again, this is nothing unusual, especially for an article in this subject area. However, I'm really unhappy about yesterday's talk page vandalism, which involves changing other editors' remarks and questions on the articles talk pages into glowing praise of the anon. This is clearly unacceptable. What is a reasonable response? Should we semiprotect the talk page? Should we block the IP address (likely a computer at school)? Is there another solution? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked the newest IP address, and will monitor the page for any future disruptions. Doesn't require semi-protecting right now... seicer | talk | contribs 19:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible need for oversight to delete an edit from the history

    Um, I dunno if this is a hoax or not, but apparently purports to give a valid debit card number an expiration date. If accurate, this should be oversighted right out of the edit history, right? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably better safe than sorry. I suggest just emailing <oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org> rather than making the problematic edit more public. I have emailed them about this instance. WjBscribe 19:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I didn't really know where to go, and I wanted to get it oversighted ASAP. I guess I should have just checked WP:OVERSIGHT for instructions, eh? Ah well, I'll think of that next time. Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've deleted the edit, but it should still be oversighted. --Random832 (contribs) 19:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My friend is back

    The saga continues. The talk page protection just ended today and the person is back to vandalizing my page 5 times already.(1, 2) If the offer still stands, can someone do a short range block and semi-protect my page again? Here is a list of the IPs used. I think that's most of them. He's now up to 42 vandalizations of my user and talk pages. Thanks. APK yada yada 19:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I took care of the semi protect of your talk page. --Kbdank71 19:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. APK yada yada 19:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He's back with another IP. He is vandalizing a user that undid his vandalism to my talk page. He also left Durova this message. APK yada yada 20:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ::::Er, maybe it's not the same person. The IPs are similar but the recent IP location is Ottawa. APK yada yada 21:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, it's the same person. Can someone range block? APK yada yada 21:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ouch, that ip adress has one hell of a tongue on him, nasty! Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 21:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    IP impersonates me

    Someone impersonated me at Talk:Randall Munroe to apparently damage the reputation of the subject of the article under the smokescreen of a credible inquirer. --Jedravent (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That was the only edit by that ip. Unless it happens again I suggest that you WP:IGNORE the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has created a number of new articles and edited others, and in almost every case is copying text from other websites into these articles. I've found copyvio in Chan Chak K'ak'nal Ajaw, Battle of Carchemish, Epulon, Battle of Grobnik field, Battle of Tikal and Battle of Kadesh and there are a number I haven't even looked at. Is there anything that can be done? Thanks.

    Fury of Five Disruption

    Not sure where else to bring this, but I've worked through dispute resolutions steps and this is getting serious quickly. Fury of Five is apparently a defunct hardcore band; I noticed this article as a NewPage. It appears to meet standards for notability, but I was concerned about a subsection describing the lead singer's academic credentials. The most outrageous is that he co-authored a book on "Phaethon" with James Diggle (author of Odysseus Unbound. I tagged the article as a hoax and started a discussion thread seeking sources. In the 12 hours, five IPs and one named user (James Diggle (talk · contribs)) commented indicating that they had personal contact with the singer and that the assertions were correct. None of these editors have edits to other articles. I filed an SSP case here (which has not yet been responded to. I also filed an RFC to seek further comment.

    Now the article's creator, FOVD (talk · contribs) (note similarity to the band name) says that the lead singer is actually Dr. John Underhill of the University of Edinburgh. While that appears to be patently ridiculous, I'm afraid it might raise BLP concerns. In addition, 79.70.35.199 (talk · contribs) in the past few minutes has been adding these edits. Help please. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 19:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I made a request that the page be protected at WP:RFPP and it looks like the editors making the nonsense/vandals edits have been blocked. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of the comments on the article's Talk page should be removed as BLP violations. Corvus cornixtalk 23:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalism continues. Corvus cornixtalk 23:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, how do I deal with this?

    On my talk page, I've just accused (with the template) of being a sockpuppet of indefinitely banned Pwok. The template was added by User:Rushdittobot, who I think is a sockpuppet of Brianlandeche, who was indefinitely banned for proxy editing for banned user Bluemarine. Aleta Sing 21:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You find an admin to block and revert ;). John Reaves 21:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RBI ? Pedro :  Chat  21:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, John, I guess I could have done that myself, but since I'm in the middle of it, I thought I should get someone else involved! Aleta Sing 21:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He's also running amok on Matt Sanchez and Talk:Matt Sanchez. I've reverted him on the article page and added to his case at WP:AE#Bluemarine. Horologium (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't there a username issue with having 'bot' in the name on an account that does not and is not intended to operate a bot? Avruch T 21:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    He's been blocked anyway, but yeah. Horologium (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Digital Audio Broadcasting

    The Digital Audio Broadcasting article has been in a terrible state for a long time. Multiple users are doing extreme POV pushing, both on that article, and anywhere else DAB is mentioned (such as HD Radio). You can see the DAB talk page for a good long history of the POV pushing, ownership issues, edit wars, etc. For reference, my changes, which corrected innumerable factual errors, and included several citations, have been repeatedly reverted. [133] It is without question the most horrendously biased article I've seen on WP. User:Digitalradiotech even goes so far as to support his anti-DAB statements by citing articles that he has written, published on his own website. The furiousness of the ownership, edit warring, POV-pushing, etc., seems to have scared off most editors, and left the article to stagnate. I don't believe it can be improved into a useful state without long-term work by an involved, impartial Admin laying down the law, such as it is. I'm certainly not going to keep spitting into the wind, having my cited changes reverted, and risk getting blocked for 3RR myself, trying to hold off a gang of rabid POV-pushers (at least I assume it's a gang, and not just sock puppeting, even though the timing is suspicious). Rcooley (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Precisely what are you asking administrators to do?
    A few minutes of poking around seems to indicate that (a) you have only edited the article and its Talk page a handful of times and (b) this appears to be a content dispute. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to try dispute resolution. Admins don't have any ability to decide who is "right" in a content dispute, so even if an admin did get involved, they would have no more say over it than any other editor. If there are behavioral problems, we can intervene there, but it does take two sides to make an edit war. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Incivility of a User

    Resolved

    Simple Dispute, Users are hopefully go to WP:Mediation. Rgoodermote  23:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]


    The user Charmed36 has made a history of making incivil comments, both on talk pages and in edit summaries, not only toward me - which is what brings me here today - but to other editors, particularly newbie and IP users. I have brought up WP:CIVIL numerous times, but the user apparently believes that it does not apply to him. I am unsure how to proceed at this point and would like to see this practice resolved. The edit in question that brings me here today is here. I have been called many things, both on WP and in RL, but a "liar" is not one that I will willingly tolerate. Respectfully submitted for comment, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well I am going to directly warn the user. Personal warning. Rgoodermote  22:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice that InDeBiz1 (would that be the music biz?) is in the habit of edit warring to include unourced material in the biography of a living person. They are also getting a warning. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah charmed mentioned that. If you have not issued biz a warning I will get to that. Rgoodermote  22:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no reason for a warning for edit warring. I practice common sense when editing, particularly when it comes to artists that have established nicknames among their fans, such as is the case in the article that has prompted this discussion. I am not going to allow a user who apparently believes that a certain nickname is "tacky" (see the edit history that prompted this discussion) to remove commonly-known information. I would also warn that a dangerous precedent is in the works here, if it becomes a requirement to cite each and every nickname for musical artists. Do we realize how many articles in the encyclopedia could immediately be challenged, in regard to that information? Best regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not matter edit warring is edit warring. Right now I am seeing that both of you are at fault and you both need to log off and get some Tea and Biscuits then come back later and when you do stay away from the articles you regularly edit and each other. Rgoodermote  22:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, while not an "attack" on anyone, edits like this are pretty indicative of Charmed36's attitude around WP. For the record, I'm not asking for a blocking... yet. I would just like to see this particular user held to the same standard that I and many thousands of others follow everyday. Best regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    InDeBiz1 said he would not comment on my discussion talk page anymore and he did. I was through with the issue, but he reverts me all the time even on the articles I worked hard on creating. If we share similar taste in music then we do, but don't revert me on the articles I manage. Charmed36 (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I want both of you to get some tea right now. Also per WP:Userpage I have to let the user remove comments. But I do consider both of you being uncivil in your removing of my warnings. So this goes with my both of your at fault theory. Log Off, Get some tea and biscuits and then stay away from articles that could make you two conflict. Rgoodermote  22:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have contributed in creating all Ciara's articles. Charmed36 (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    So? What's your point? Are you now trying to say that I am not allowed to edit those articles? Yeah, okay... Best regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No I am saying you both stop for a while and get some Tea and Biscuits. That is the only way you two are going to still be able to edit on Wiki. I highly recommend mediation WP:Mediation. As this is a dispute not some thing and admin needs to deal with. Rgoodermote  22:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't referring to your comment, actually. But your intentions are noted and agreed with. HOWEVER, I find it extremely disappointing that the issue at hand of this thread has been totally ignored thus far, that being Charmed36's incvility in his edit summaries, not just toward myself but countless other editors, as well. (By the way, I don't drink tea, nor eat biscuits. I'm an ice water and celery person, myself.) Best regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Right now it is a dispute between you two. If you have proof of the others then provide diffs. Until then it remains that both of you are being very uncivil towards each other and other users. This being so you are both at fault. Until you provide diffs this is over and you both need to go to WP:Mediation. Rgoodermote  23:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here we go... Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4, Example 5, Example 6, Example 7, Example 8, Example 9, Example 10, Example 11, and Example 12. Those are just in the past month. Now, compare my edits over the same time period and you tell me who apparently has a problem adhering to WP:CIVIL... Best regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Give me a moment to find some one who can do a little bit more than me. But I read the summaries on each of those and I do see a lot of incivility. Number 11 though seems semi-fine as he was being legit in removing what is just purely dumb vandalism. But pointing it out was a little harsh. Rgoodermote  23:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Left some one a note. They should be here eventually. I am going step out of this entire thing as I am near the breaking point. Need to go find my Earl Gray and Biscuit mix. Rgoodermote  23:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm starting to let this issue go because we probably will never get along. Charmed36 (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC) WP:Mediation and I am marking this resolved. As Dispute and users are going to Mediation.Rgoodermote  23:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Son of Daniel Case

    Resolved

    Blocked by FisherQueen (talk · contribs). Tony Fox (arf!) 22:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

    Can someone please block this vandal indefinitely for WP:User name violation (User:Daniel Case). --David Shankbone 22:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The ironic thing is, I am a homosexual. But if I wanted that to be the only information on my user page, repeated over and over again, I'd have formatted it that way myself. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also blocked User:Daniel Case 2 Nakon 22:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He used a bunch of IPs earlier today (and for the record, I'm straight, but he's attacking Wikipedia editors of all sexual orientations apparently). Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=209117097"