Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ched (talk | contribs) at 22:35, 21 August 2009 (→‎Extend to indef: re). 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I turned in the first two IP's since they went back to bad behavior once their previous blocks expired. I think the two registered editors have been at each other for awhile. It was peaceful for a couple of months, but maybe that's because Caden was offline. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh man, let me just first say that I was not notified of this report. Not cool. I really believe this is a case of the kettle calling the pot black. Alright peeps, here's how it goes: Keltie is not telling the truth. Yesterday he left personal attacks in his edit summaries towards IP 68.50.128.120 calling this editor "obnoxious". I left Keltie a friendly warning to cease the personal attacks towards the IP. The dude then responded by deleting my warning and proceeded to call me "obnoxious" in his following edit summary. I then placed a template on my talk page asking for admin help. Admin User:Chzz looked into it (see my talk page) and gave Keltie a warning to stop attacking the IP. The dude then removed that warning from his page and later went onto the page of another admin (User:AniMate) asking that I be punished. I have nothing against Keltie so I can't understand why he's here once again on ANI attacking me, twisting the truth and demanding action taken against me. All this report shows is that he's out to have me blocked like the last time. He's hated me for a long time I think but I don't give a rat's ass. The guy has a long history of attacking newbies, established users and IP's. Look at his talk page, look at his history and his edits. You'll see he's disruptive and fires off personal attacks like it's no big deal to him. The dude's been warned by several admins and several users for his disruptive behavior. He's no choirboy (he's been blocked before) but then again neither am I. I do not know what his rant over my signature is about. How the hell is my birthname a controversial reference to the KKK? Keltie should be blocked for that alone. It's offensive, untrue, immature but typical of him. It's yet another personal attack from good ol' Keltie. Furthermore, it's Keltie who has "gone to the noticeboard crying foul against me over his immature ways here on Wikipedia" many times before and not me. Regardless man, I've done nothing wrong here. Judge for yourselves. Caden cool 04:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Left a note for Caden reminding him that as per WP:USER, editors are permitted to remove messages and warnings at will from their own talk pages. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The three IPs listed at the top all geolocate to the same greater metro area. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I should point out that while I posted the second IP, it was not blocked, because it has not edited in several weeks. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots
    Attacking another editor is an attack. It doesn't matter if you do it on their Talk page, your Talk page, an edit summary, or some other place. Don't attack others, period. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    So, just why did you see fit to add "KKK" to your signature at one point? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ...maybe he was just agreeing with someone three times? Yes? HalfShadow 22:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Or maybe a really successful inning? Protonk (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I knew you when you were just an amateur tonk. Good think you didn't decide to go with that name, huh? HalfShadow 23:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's German; it means "The Bart, the." Exploding Boy (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could people please re-read what I said or could you please read the link to this blown out of proportion lie? Listen, if you can't be neutral or fair then please don't bother causing me further harm here. Caden cool 23:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone labels you racist, adding "KKK" to your ID doesn't do much to dispel that notion, no matter how good an idea it may have seemed at the time. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bootlegtonk, perhaps? Also, explodingboy wins. Protonk (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bugs you of all people know what happened on that old ANI that was filed against ParaGreen. Don't act dumb here please. It's insulting since you were the one who fueled the fire. And HalfShadow, I was protecting the use of freedom of speech on that ANI since I don't support censorship of any kind but in my attempt to do the right thing, it was twisted by Bugs and 2 others and changed into this whole KKK hate garbage and I was victimised from there. Caden cool

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

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

    HalfShadow baiting Caden

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

    If Baseball Bugs, HalfShadow, and Protonk can't remain mature or neutral then can you please stop posting. This isn't a game. None of you are helping. Baiting me is not acceptable behavior on ANI. EB you're an admin who's been in conflict with me not only in the past but just recently. I really don't feel you should be commenting. I apologize if I'm wrong but I don't see how you can help. All I ask is that editors and admins review this report in a neutral/fair manner. I will accept any decision or not. I just want this report to be about fairness and it should focus on the evidence only and not be distracted by some who think this is all a big joke. It's not. Thanks. Caden cool 00:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Permission granted to dock my pay for skylarking on the job. I wasn't commenting on the substance of the complaint, just a diversion near the end. Doing so is not serious business. Protonk (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Same here, and in fact I was invited to comment on your behaviour but declined, so I think you should be counting your blessings. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Halfshadow is continuing his baiting and insults. → ROUX ₪ 02:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I admit that I sometimes enjoy Halfshadow's wry sense of humor, but I do agree that the "Stimpy" remark was OTT. — Ched :  ?  11:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    KeltieMartinFan history of edit warring at Rebecca Quick

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

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

    • IP is registered to NBC Universal.[3]
    • Mquayle registered 17:26, 6 May 2009. The current husband of Rebecca Quick is Matthew Quayle, the producer of Quick's program. This removal of reference to the identities of spouses stood until 7 July 2009.
    • 21:49, 7 July 2009 162.6.97.3 restored a mention re the present marriage: "It is her second marriage."
    • 12:57, 8 July 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 300875201 by 162.6.97.3 (talk) Not really appropriate to mention.) This began edit warring.
    • 11:44, 17 July 2009 76.114.133.44 etc.
    • 12:20, 17 July 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 302583314 by 76.114.133.44 (talk) Not appropriate to mention.)
    • 12:25, 17 July 2009 KeltieMartinFan (talk | contribs) (3,945 bytes) (Undid revision 302587651 by 76.114.133.44 (talk) Again, inappropriate. Do not change it.)
    • 12:41, 17 July 2009 KeltieMartinFan (talk | contribs) (3,945 bytes) (Undid revision 302588154 by 76.114.133.44 (talk) Unsource, rude, and inappropriate to mention of a living person.)
    • Then Onorem intervened and revert warred against the IP, giving "unsourced" as the reason. However, there was mention of the former marriage already in source for the previous sentence, which stated: "She now lives in Haworth, New Jersey"[4]. The 2006 source is the New York times, and it mentions her husband, "she now lives (in Haworth) with her husband, who is a computer programmer." That would have been Peter Shay, we have the name from other sources. So there was no reference on the text itself, hence I understand Onorem's action. But there was adjacent reference adequate to establish a former marriage. The IP was blocked for edit warring.
    • 162.6.97.3 was blocked] for "block evasion." (which is unclear, I found it likely that the two IPs are different users. I have a suspicion that one is the former husband, and the other may be a friend, but no proof of either.)
    • 16:41, 5 August 2009 162.6.97.3 (See talk page for discussion) etc.
    • 17:33, 5 August 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 306233866 by 162.6.97.3 (talk) Despite everything, this edit STILL does not have a source listed.)
    • 18:51, 5 August 2009 162.6.97.3 (Please see talk page for discussion)
    • 19:48, 5 August 2009 William M. Connolley (Protected Rebecca Quick: here we are again ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 19:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 19:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC))))[reply]
    • 19:48, 5 August 2009 William M. Connolley (rv: as before)
    • 22:53, 6 August 2009 Abd (actually, the source was already there. Add additional source.)
    • The additional source is a newsletter of a local organization that had a photo of Rebecca Quick with her then-husband, Peter Shay. I put it in to balance other information in the article, from not-so-reliable source, mentioning Matthew Quayle by name, the current husband, also to establish more clearly that the "computer programmer" is a different husband than the "producer."
    • 15:01, 7 August 2009 Bilby (removed unreliable (and unneeded) source)
    • 20:01, 7 August 2009 Elen of the Roads (Reverted 1 edit by Bilby; No reason to assume 3rd sector source is unreliable unless you have evidence it has been hacked.. (TW)
    • 20:28, 7 August 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 306659446 by Elen of the Roads (talk) Not an adaquate source. Like putting water in a gas tank.)
    • 16:47, 9 August 2009 Elen of the Roads (Readded Cedar Run source. Talkpage consensus seems to be for it. Please discuss before removing again.)
    • 18:26, 9 August 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 306997914 by Elen of the Roads (talk) I'm sorry. But two people (Elen and Abd) is not consensus.)
    • 20:32, 9 August 2009 Coppertwig (Undid revision 307013795 by KeltieMartinFan (talk) Revert. Sorry, but one person (KeltieMartinFan) is not consensus.)
    • 21:21, 9 August 2009 KeltieMartinFan (Undid revision 307034753 by Coppertwig (talk) It's not only me, but I'm not about to list the names either. Way too many.)

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

    I, too, noticed days ago that Keltie edits nearly any article to do with NBC (programs,hosts etc) which left me feeling there could be a COI here. I just finished reading the drama caused by Keltie on the issue over Rebecca Quick having been married once before previously (she's now on her second marriage), despite the reliable sources that supports that former marriage, Keltie fought endlessly to have it removed from the article (that's fishy). I had had a feeling days ago that there was a possiblity he may be employed by NBC or at the very least is associated in some way. So due to the possiblity of a COI, I mentioned my concerns to an admin called Chzz. The discussion of that is on my own talk page under the section"Question". It sure is a relief that at least another editor noticed the bizarre editing on every NBC related article . Caden cool 04:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see much reason for assuming a COI. Not that there isn't necessarily one, but the early reverts were of unsourced personal information in a BLP, and you don't need a COI to want to remove material under those conditions. While it isn't exactly a big deal to have been divorced, a previous marriage was being mentioned without a source, and it is the responsibility of the editor re-adding the material to provide one. The later reverts (which I started) were to remove a self-published source (a newsletter) from the article, which is again in keeping with policy, and made sense given that Abd had provided a better source (New York Times) as well as the newsletter. - Bilby (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bilby, the New York Times source was there all along, all I did was make it a bit more obvious, by referring to the "computer programmer." It was the standing reference for the text that Quick "now lives in Haworth, New Jersey," the only thing that I did that was new was to read it -- besides researching the background of this, which includes coverage of the May edits to our article article, by a "gossip column." (That's cited in the Talk discussion.) The Times said that she was married to a computer programmer. The newsletter was not a "self published source," it is independent confirmation, and might be, in fact, the source for the New York Times comment. It was the newsletter of a local conservancy or the like. It has a photo of Rebecca Quick, as well as her parents and husband. Is it impossible that there was an error in this newsletter? Sure, anything is possible. Frankly, an error of that magnitude, that the organization had missed the name of their celebrity guest's husband, seems less likely to me than what I see in reliable sources quite frequently, wherever I know the subject of the article. And like a major error in a major source, it would have been corrected. I added the newsletter to cover the possibility that the NBC producer had been a computer programmer in 2006. The newsletter is a supporting source that provides information necessary to kill that: the name of the former husband. Since the article doesn't name the present husband, balance would suggest that the former husband not be named either, but the additional source was evidence that there wasn't a coincidence. There is also the gossip column, but it apparently depends on the newsletter as a source. A serious journalist would have checked with legal records, were there any doubt. I don't think there is any doubt.
    KMF is a disruptive editor, uncivil and willing to edit war over trivia, and bears watching. --Abd (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    extended comment by Abd
    I'd say that the only reason that the newsletter reference isn't still there is that I don't edit war, and since nobody was claiming that the present husband is a computer programmer, Bilby's claim, that the extra source wasn't necessary, was sufficiently close to true to not be worth the disruption of contending about it. Coppertwig had accepted that argument, but I'm not sure that Coppertwig had considered the issue of confirmation of separate identity.
    As to conflict of interest on KMF's, I don't see how, from a review of the evidence above, Bilby can say "I can't see much reason for assuming" it. Not proof, as I noted. But the level of coincidence is high; were it important, more research could be done on the nature of KMF's edits; this particular sequence shows active edit warring to remove a piece of non-defamatory information originally removed, we may assume, by Quick's present husband (a clear COI involved in the real beginning of this) (or someone pretending to be the present husband, which, if it were a pretense, would simply increase the mystery). KMF edit warred in pursuit of the removal of this almost trivial information, and was grossly, gratuitously, and provocatively uncivil. Caden is naive and erred in restoring KMF Talk material that had been removed by KMF, but he was correct about the incivility. KMF also removed the edit warring warning I dropped on KMF Talk (KMF had hit 3RR in the second edit war) and then put it on my own Talk page, making it look like I'd been warned for edit warring until I framed it. Note that all of KMF's edits of consequence to the article were bald reverts, showing no attempt to find a compromise. KMF is a disruptive editor and, at least, bears watching.
    On the original arguments presented by KMF, if the first marriage was notable enough to mention in the New York Times, it is notable enough for the project in an article on the subject of the NY Times article. Notability does not expire. It doesn't belong in the article, but the photo in the newsletter conveys volumes about the history of this subject. If that man is an NBC producer, I'm the Queen of Sheba. Computer programmer? Sure. Makes total sense. All computer programmers are now allowed to complain, but I'm simply pointing out that some people are good at somethings, others at others, and the skills involving in being a producer include self-presentation, computer programmers generally don't care about that. --Abd (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The source originally removed by the IP that was certainly MQuayle was [5], which was eventually restored to the article (by Bilby?). This is a source for the new marriage, reported in January 2009. So this is, indeed, adequate to show that the reported computer programmer husband, as of 2006, was not Matthew Quayle, the additional source would then merely be for interest. I know I was interested to see that, and no original research is required.... --Abd (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is far from a core issue here, so I'll be very quick. The WP:BLP policy is pleasantly clear: "Remove any unsourced material to which a good faith editor objects;" and "... or that relies upon self-published sources". There was no source being provided for the claim that the subject had divorced in the article, thus it was reasonable for it to be removed. Personally, I would have tried to find a source and add it, but while that might be expected, it isn't required. Second, Wikipedia defines self published sources as including newsletters. Thus removing that as a source, when a better one was already being used, was perfectly reasonable. There is nothing in the newsletter valuable enough to warrant using a non-RS in a BLP. So while I can't comment on whether or not KeltieMartinFan has a COI, nothing in the editor's behaviour was unusual or speaks to that claim, as the reverts were firmly within BLP policy. If there is a concern, perhaps it is worth raising at WP:COI/N, although I doubt there will be much milage. - Bilby (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to know why there is such an obsession, by all concerned, over whether this woman was previously married. Why does it matter? And when did wikipedia become the Midnight Star? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a curious mystery. :) Although, it should be said, editors have been known to argue over some odd concerns. - Bilby (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's looking more and more like this one needs to be added to that list. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict with below). Actually, it's not odd at all, it only seems that way if possible COI isn't considered. In my various discussions of this, I repeatedly pointed out that admin and other response to this was reasonable, but reflected a lack of depth, which is normal. Most editors can't or won't put in the kind of time necessary to really understand what is going on. The information about a former marriage was sourced, but the reference was on the previous sentence, not the one re-inserted by the IP. Easy to overlook. I actually did at least two hours of research on this before seeing it. However,almost certainly KMF was aware. My hypothesis: one of the IP editors is the former husband, or possibly a friend of same. The former husband doesn't like being written out of history. And I can understand this, and if he was notable before, he still is. The IP editor who removed the reference to the article about the marriage, and the infobox reference to the marriages, was, almost certainly, the present husband, who understandably wants to preserve his wife's privacy, and who then registered and removed the infobox reference to the two marriages. KMF seems suspiciously aligned with the latter agenda, given the overall editing pattern. It is not a lame concern for those involved. However, if Quick wants reference to the marriage removed, the path would be through OTRS, not by edit warring to keep it out. My judgment, though, is that it belongs, it is adequately sourced; the wife is notable, a public figure, I don't think that can be undone. She was married before, so have been a lot of people, including me. It's no shame, and we know nothing about why that marriage ended, and, unless it appears in reliable source, I'm not going to even speculate. What was my concern here? It was about edit warring and a ready assumption that the problem was the IP editors, even to the point that it was assumed they were socks. That wasn't an unreasonable guess, but it may have been wrong. There was a problem with the IPs, for sure, but it wasn't what necessarily appeared, and there was more of a problem with KMF, who may remain active on other NBC-related articles. I'm not terribly concerned about the short IP blocks, they do little damage, and the IPs understand the problem and if they want to register an account, they can.
    So, if there are no more problems, great, we are done here. I only brought up all this about KMF because of the aggressive filing of this report. --Abd (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're making a lot of claims with no supporting evidence. What I'd really like to hear from you is a reason why her supposed previous marriage actually matters. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User:KeltieMartinFan has taken no further action to alter or change the Quick article. Thus KMF's word should be accepted that the matter is finished.
    A Quick edit-war did occur, with incivility by the major parties involved. That appears to be done as well.
    Whatever exists between User:Caden and User:KeltieMartinFan is a pre-existing condition Completely Unrelated to the Quick matter. Whatever brings any other kibitzers here other than User:Bilby and User:Abd is unclear as well.
    That said, while User:Abd has been helpful in much of the Quick debate, Abd is repeatedly over-amped about potential conflicts-of-interest in the matter. It also serves little purpose at this time to recount exhaustively all of the Quick edit-war particulars.
    Finally, and amusingly, only User:KeltieMartinFan would vouch for Carrie Prejean's dignity!  :)
    162.6.97.3 (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the fixed IP most strongly suspected, by me, of being the former husband. It hasn't actually been denied, but, as long as the IP doesn't edit war or offend in other ways, it's moot, it merely is one of a number of alternate hypotheses that do, in fact, show why this was of such earth-shaking importance to several editors. This particular incident is finished, but I put the evidence here for future reference, if it is needed. If KMF is sincere, indeed, it's over. --Abd (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Abd Please, please stop with the suspicions! :)
    It may be hard to grasp, but edit-wars can occur without NBC employees or ex-husbands involved. And that is very much the case with the Quick matter!
    162.6.97.3 (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it odd that Keltie remains so interested on practically every single NBC related type of article. Having looked through his history shows that he edits nearly every single morning program imaginable on NBC as well as other NBC programs, NBC personalities, you name it it's all NBC related. A few months ago Keltie was involved in an edit war over Katie Couric. No surprise there which leads me to believe more and more that if Keltie isn't employed by NBC, then he must be associated in one way or another. Either way it's a COI and seems to make a lot of sense based on all the NBC type of articles he edits. Unless of course he's just an obsessed fan of NBC. Caden cool 15:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And what's your personal interest in this woman's marital history? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh Bugs, Caden wasn't writing about Quick's marital history, he was addressing KeltieMartinFan's editting behavior. Two different, & independent, topics. -- llywrch (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I say again - the two should stay away from each other. Period. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Everyone involved just needs to take a breather. Tempers are flaring and it's not doing anyone a bit of good. That said, I'm not inclined to believe Keltie has a COI simply because of his editing patterns. More proof is needed to show that a COI exists. I'm sure you could go through anyone's edit history with a fine tooth comb and find a pattern that appears damning. (I'm sure this was helpful in some minuscule way.) --clpo13(talk) 09:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Zaxby again, now possible sockpuppetry

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

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

    I'd also like to add, as a reason for bringing this here once again, that CheckUser might be a bit useless in this matter because, if Zaxby's edits about O'Hara are to be believed, he's moved since his last sockpuppet account and therefore would likely have a different IP, evidenced by the completely different range when he edited previously without logging in. IIIVIX (Talk) 21:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a little confused by there being a lack of response here...? If I've made a mistake, it'd be helpful to know. IIIVIX (Talk) 10:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your best bet is to take this to WP:SPI. Black Kite 10:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I concur. Since attention was originally drawn to his account here and here, Zaxby has gone on a tear of leaving odd welcome messages, reverting users' edits, and being very bitey (often citing nonexistent WP policies), apparently trying to appear as a constructive editor. He's not succeeding. Deor (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your opinion, but I'm doing a good job keeping vandalism at a premium low and let's keep it that way shall we fellows?(Zaxby (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    You yourself have vandalised articles in the past few months, lied to other users in an attempt to get your edits to stick, and created hoaxes on articles. Plus, if you are a sockpuppet, you're evading multiple blocks against you. These are not opinions, these are facts. You are the last person who should be reprimanding others for vandalism or reverting minor edits for lack of sources. You are not even remotely doing a good job, and you should not be allowed to continue in my opinion. You have numerous accusations against you that you have blatantly ignored and failed to address. Why you are still able to edit at this point is beyond me. IIIVIX (Talk) 03:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent incivility by User:Small Victory

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

    Extended content

    There is a developing situation with an editor. He has increasingly insulting people both on the page history summaries, talk pages and other wikipedia pages.

    Examples (bolded by PB666):

    • diff You've said some pretty stupid things before, but that has to be the stupidest'
    • diff Stop your lies and distortions
    • diff You're the problem, not me.
    • diff Have you completely lost your mind?
    • diff Are you blind? I showed you the Table where almost all of the mtDNA figures come from. Try looking at it.
    • diff Either cite something specific in my version that's not properly sourced or keep quiet. I'm getting tired of your false accusations.
    • diff And Muntuwandi obviously doesn't like my version because it's too neutral. So including me, that's 5 against 3. And really it's 6 against 2 because you're schizophrenic.
    • edit summary Removed Pdeitiker's ridiculous, incomplete and improperly sourced table. [Note: the table was actually removed even though it had references Small Victory has converted Absolute sample frequencies to percentages without disclosing the source of the numbers, once this was found out the material was promptly removed - the problem was that he scrambled the references in his citation such that they were difficult to follow]
    • edit summary Do you not understand what a combined sample is?
    • edit summary Pdeitiker, don't revert to Muntuwandi's version after coming out against it on the Talk Page
    • diff You need Europeans to have black ancestry to help you get over your inferiority complex.
    • diff Are you kidding me? It's clear that you still don't understand my analogy, even though I've explained it and corrected your misapprehension several times. What do I have to do, draw you a picture? LEARN HOW TO READ!

    And then you wonder why I talk down to you.

    • [6] I didn't call you a chimp. I asked: "...would I have better luck explaining [the analogy] to a chimp?" The fact that you didn't understand that makes your claim that our "communication problems" might be my fault quite laughable.
    • diff You're quite delusional. That article was deleted because it was a WP:CFORK. And your POV-pushing, original research, 3RR violations and sock puppets had more to do with it than anything I ever did. In fact, the article was problem-free until you (and Andrew Lancaster) came along and started tampering with it. Let's remember that you're the one who's been blocked for repeated rule violations. My record is clean. So if anything, the deletion was a referendum on your approach. Take the hint.

    PB666 yap 20:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I can see you have trouble following simple logic. ... Small Victory
    • This issue was already debated here when another obvious Afrocentrist tried to pull the same garbage that you're pulling now. He lost. Please refer to discussions 6, 7 and 8. ---- Small Victory (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having been totally exposed and defeated, now he's just reinserting his OR and POV without even giving an explanation or trying to make his case on the Talk Page. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The debate about content is over. You've been proven wrong, and consensus has been reached. In fact, it was over three years ago when Yom tried to pull the same thing and was also defeated by consensus. (Notice that your pal Llywrch intervened there, but backed down when I explained everything and he saw that I was right.) The situation we have now is a "crazy Afrocentrist" (by your own admission) trying repeatedly to reinsert OR and POV into the article, and in doing so continually violating the 3RR. This has to stop. ---- Small Victory (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you delusional? After we arrive at consensus that you're guilty of OR and POV pushing, and we cease to indulge your nonsense as a result, your twisted Afrocentric mind interprets that as consent for you to reinsert your biased edits? Get real.The only "silence" here is yours, and it's deafening. You need to produce a source that uses E-V13 and E-M81 as evidence of Sub-Saharan African admixture. If you can't do that (and it's obvious by now that you can't), then you need to back off and stop vandalizing this article. ---- Small Victory (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's be very clear: Your OR and POV will never be included in this article. Ever. Not as long as we have something to say about it. And if not us, then someone else will come along to stop you. Because you're in the wrong. ---- Small Victory (talk) 08:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've got a lot of nerve accusing others of OR given your track record. It's not a question of what the Auton study says, it's what it shows (or rather, doesn't show). Do you know what an admixture analysis is? Have you heard of the STRUCTURE program? I suggest you familiarize yourself with these things before making outrageous and idiotic accusations. Start with the Pritchard and Rosenberg papers referenced in this article......Small Victory (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am discussing the content, but it's impossible to get anywhere with someone who's so clueless about science, and population genetics in particular, and more interested in advancing an Afrocentric agenda than learning anything. A graph is not "shaky ground". . . . . . And the graphs show that clearly. Get it? ---- Small Victory (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • .... that yield different results (do you understand anything about how science works?). In fact, here's a study .....Small Victory (talk)

    08:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Wapondaponda (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[section refactored by PB666][reply]

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

    I just notified User:Small Victory of this thread. Wknight94 talk 14:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to understand how this will accomplish anything that the WQA and talkpage warnings to Small Victory wouldn't. He has been warned, and if he does not stop, he will be blocked. Those two should be enough, or else nothing will be. There is no immediate administrative assistance needed. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed ... and the OP was also asked not to use the {{Quotation}} format ... that entry alone on WQA was huge! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it was huge, that is because SV has been uncivil on several occasions. Even on WQA SV in a half hearted admission of his incivility, refers to me as a "unrepentant Afrocentrist". This after he was given a warning. He is fully aware, that I resent being referred to by any ...ist. Furthermore, these warnings have been taking place for a while, and SV has ignored them. Andrew Lancaster posted a complaint User_talk:Small_Victory#Tone_of_discussion, over a month ago, starting on the 4th of July, [7], expressing concerns about SV's incivility. This seems to have been ignored, as he has persisted. Many other users have expressed concern as well. SV's incivility is so disruptive, so much that it has made it very difficult to collaborate with anybody. We are not editing on wikipedia, to be persistently insulted, denigrated and humiliated as has been the case. The touchy-feely WQA approach is an option, but Andrew and others have already tried such approach ,as I have mentioned above, and it didn't work. Administrative action should also be another option. SV would immediately understand Wikipedia's core policy of civility. I don't think it is fair, at least 10 of these personal attacks have been directed at me, and I have never said anything mean to him. It is not fair to give him a slap on the wrist and say forget about it, everything will be fine. That would be encouraging this type of behavior. What if all of us were to be uncivil, all order would break down. SV doesn't have exclusive rights to be rude. This is why administrative action would be very effective. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it was huge because you insist on posting using quotation tags, instead of just diffs. Someone cleaned up the mess on WQA, and I note someone has just top'n'tailed it here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree adding some formating does increase Kbs. If there was an easier way to communicate with editors who are unfamiliar with a specific incident, we would use it. Diffs are great, but they have their problems too. They are harder to read and sometimes there is an excess of text, so quotations help to zoom in on what is necessary. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The section above was refactored using mostly Wilkins version.PB666 yap 16:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't care less about the formatting of complaints. If an editor does not follow the conventions, the material can be quietly rearranged & it should not be the subject of adverse comment. (In fact the current trend to require formalism in making complaints is disturbing: I consider it intimidating to less experienced users--in fact, the current way some of the admin boards are arranged, I would be hard put to figure it out myself, and I've been an admin 2 years now. This board in particular is in a sense a board for problems that don't fit anywhere else, and I am willing to discuss them however they are presented). We're here to deal with problems. In my opinion the consistent use of ad hominem language amounting to the level of insult by SV is a problem that does require attention. Whether he is right on the genetics is irrelevant here, it is a matter for article talk pages. He has no right whatever to make racist accusations against other editors. But has there been any since the 15th, the date of BWilkins' warning? DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Other than referring to someone as an Afrocentrist and then confirming calling them that, no ... and even that is a little iffy. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    SV seems to think that name calling is acceptable, I resent the caricature of Afrocentrism and SV is aware of that as I have mentioned it to him. His use of the term, indicates a lack of sincerity in his admission of incivility. Disruptive User's who evade detection often avoid gross breaches of civility, but their minor breaches of incivility are frequent enough to be disruptive. As I have mentioned before, the isolated breaches of incivility are normal, and can be brushed aside. It is persistent incivility that can bring collaborative editing to a halt I believe this is the case with SV. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with DGG about formatting and procedure. The most important thing is to communicate the problem. We have brought this issue for the attention of the wider community as it appears to be affecting our ability to edit. What we would like to know, is whether the community feels these comments are uncivil, and if they are, whether anything should be done about them. The people at the receiving end of these comments, shouldn't be blamed for complaining about them. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    WP:SPADE is "advice or opinion", not policy. Every single editor has a POV - especially you. I'm not arguing that anyone is an "afrocentrist" or not. Discounting someone's edits, or bullying them because of a perceived POV is not in line with collegial editing. You have begun to use the calling of "afrocentrism" as a way to attack edits you do not agree with, and the editor who is making them, and you seem to believe it's justified - which it is not. You are welcome to perhaps define an edit as being "afrocentric" but not label editors as "afrocentrists" in order to discourage their edits. In the long run, keep in mind WP:CONSENSUS (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have mentioned this previously, but SV is a single purpose account whose primary interest had been in the deleted Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe and since its deletion, now Genetic history of Europe. This is evident in his editing record which shows that in his 3 years on Wikipedia, SV has only edited 24 unique articles. The article Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe was one of those articles that is tucked away in an obscure corner of Wikipedia, and as a result didn't get much scrutiny. Because the article was SV's only interest, SV had very limited exposure to the wider community. As a result, he somehow believed that it is acceptable to be uncivil to other editors on Wikipedia. Since we stumbled upon the article, the topic has now gotten more attention from the community and SV has learned a few things about how Wikipedia works. For example, he has recently learned How not to engage in original research, and hopefully now, he will learn about civility. However, he continues with his confrontational approach, even with newbies to his topics per [8], [9] Wapondaponda (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    CORRECTION: Everyone who participated in that discussion learned that citing a chart which is explained in the study it comes from is in fact not original research. However, your attempt to have such evidence barred is information suppression. When will you learn not to engage in that? ---- Small Victory (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    SV, your constant refrain of "I didn't hear that" is becoming tiresome. You are the only person claiming that your interpretation of the chart isn't OR. Everyone else in the discussion is pointing out that it is OR. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally false. You're the one who's not listening. First of all, I proved with direct quotes that it's not "my" interpretation but that of the studies' authors. Secondly, TheFeds never believed it was OR. Neither did Shreevatsa. And Irbisgreif and PB666 didn't really take sides. The rest (you, Blueboar and Elen of the Roads) made very weak arguments, often based on poor understanding of the subject or misreading of policy, which I easily refuted. ---- Small Victory (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Original Research issue - I really think people have gone overboard with this, although I have erased edits because of the guidelines as a scientist I am kind of bewildered by the stance. For example, a scientist can take 1 observation of something in a sample size of forty and publish that as a 2.5% frequency in a population without given the variance. We know that the 95% CI on that is 0.125% to 12.5% for that measurement (IOW an occurrence of 1 in a much larger sample according to the binomial probability distribution can vary at 95% confidence over a 200 fold range, an occurrence of 0 has infinite fold range, or to make in laymans terms absences of evidence is not evidence of absence, in fact the binomial probability distribution basically proves this). In fact it would be easy enough for a wikipedian to have a template table for presentation of frequencies so that all one needed to do was enter "|observed1 = 1 |SampleSize1 = 40" and to have a line on the table produce "2.5 +/- 1.2% (or whatever)" so that the presentation is objective. But, I cannot, by the OR standards, do the appropriate statistics to make it a given percentage with a error range or (better as a 96% CI range for low occurences). However, I can present an inappropriate percentage if the literature cites it as such. IOW, for wiki certain versions of data are more or less a black hole. I agree that SV should not argue once it is determined something is Original Research here, but it is confounding at times how that decision is made. To the specific issue at hand - The data SV added were absolute frequencies converted to percentages [Formula: 100 * fabs/N ] (WP - no original statistics). However, if Wiki had a specific guideline for dealing with absolute frequencies (for example state the 1SD confidence range or 95% CI) then I think it would be perfectly legitimate to present those frequencies, but with an error range. PB666 yap 16:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tried to be fair-handed in this discussion, I do realize that POV does blind editors to others points of veiw as we tend to agree and present POVs of authors we agree with; however Muntawandi, albiet with difficulty appears to want to work with others, whereas SV does not. I asked SV to improve his referencing so that material is not obscured in a 'Snakes nest' of references and he chose not to. In addition throwing a long list of percentages into the text is not really encyclopedic in its style particularly if data from several papers was given as a single reference. It was only in trying to sort out which data belonged to which reference that I found that a statistical conversion (original research) had been made on his part. The data given by SV and the other editor may both be correct (see above, its the way statistics works sometimes). If the guideline had allowed me to add a confidence range to his percentages or combine 2 different samples as one for a typed population, then I would have not deleted his data. PB666 yap 16:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Small Victory distorting this whole question into one of Afrocentrism is unfortunately typical of how he addresses all disagreements or perceived disagreements with others. It reminds me of the case where, when I told him he was out of line to call me a chimp, he wrote in an even more uncivil tone that "I didn't call you a chimp. I asked: "...would I have better luck explaining [the analogy] to a chimp?" The fact that you didn't understand that makes your claim that our "communication problems" might be my fault quite laughable. Again, LEARN HOW TO READ!" (In other words he only compared me to a chimp in terms of being sub-human in terms of comprehension skills. He did not call me a chimp as such, and therefore he is in the right to write abusively and my mis-wording just proves it: "And then you wonder why I talk down to you.") In summary, Small Victory often looses sight completely of what the point is, because he has constantly got this way of looking for an angry way to twist things into a personal attack. It is very distracting from actually editing articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wish to make some corrections here. Elen of the Roads, Muntawandi did not post using the quotations template, I did. I did not know there was an established method, and I think the repeated picking on this issue biting the newcomer (although not to wiki, this is the first time I have posted a complaint) after all it brought to attention an issue that needed attention. Nor was the thread designed to beat up on Small Victory, after repeated attempts to try to get admins involved in the constant edit warring and derogatory comments I decided it was time to take things a step further, it seems that the step was justified at this point based on the overall response. Muntawandi, there is a process here and you shouldn't use your POV as a reasoning for trying to get Small Victory blocked, he has been warned, and that would equate to information suppression. However, I do believe that there should be an admin whose better willing to survey what is going on pages to which SV and SOPHIAN posts to for a while, so that his behavior is followed up on. If (I) we had managed to attract better surveillance to begin with we would not be at this point, IMHO.PB666 yap 16:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Historicist, Israel-Palestinian / BLP vios

    historicist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has returned to Rashid Khalidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to edit war a new WP:BLP vio to accuse Khalidi of publishing seven times a "bogus quotation", a claim not in the reliable sources. The history of this editor's efforts on Khalidi's page (and indirectly, Obama) and the Israel-Palestine conflict more generally articles spans quite a few AN/I reports, a couple blocks, and likely some other things of which I'm not aware. In the latest issue he's recreated a deleted article he had earlier created on the subject,[10] edit warred the article name,[11] and edit warred Khalidi's BLP to WP:3RR.[12][13][14] (the first edit re-introduced material recently rejected). He's gotten my warning[15] and chosen to continue edit warring. You'll also note from the diffs that this editor, who has repeatedly accused me of bad faith in the past, is now accusing me of censorship and whitewashing. I won't propose a remedy but we need some help here. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I see the editor has also been adding[16] the "bogus quote" content to other BLPs and adding[17][18][19][20] and edit warring to add[21][22] a WP:COAT-ish list of "see also" links to a number of BLP and other articles, which all have in common that they are incidents of claimed media bias against Israel. And now adding POV tags to the bio articles.[23][24] Some other editors and I have reverted most of these as a content matter, but this does seem to be part of a wide-reaching attempt to promote this issue. Wikidemon (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding information on a notable and well-documented falsehood to the page of the scholar who created the falsehood is hardly coatracking. User:Wikidemom has a trackrecord of removing well-sourced information on the grounds that I don't like it and bullying editors who he disagrees with by running to post on this noticeboard. It is not constructive behavior.Historicist (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have blocked Historicist (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for edit-warring; this appears to be a fairly uncomplicated breach of 3RR. This is a repeat offense for this user on Rashid Khalidi, and I will therefore notify this editor of the discretionary sanctions in effect on Israeli-Palestinian articles. I think this user is skirting a serious WP:BLP violation, absent reliable sources charging Khalidi with "creating a falsehood" (as opposed to citing a published quote which later proved to be false). That may be an issue more productively explored at the BLP noticeboard. I have declined the speedy-deletion request at False Moshe Ya'alon quotation, for reasons I've detailed on the associated talk page. MastCell Talk 20:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Incorrect speedy delete

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

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

    see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alleged_Ya'alon_quotation and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4. nableezy - 19:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy declined by MastCell. This is a content dispute, doesn't belong at ANI. –xenotalk 19:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Hrm, a shame, as the substance of the current version apears to be little different than the redirected by consensus version. Off to AfD #2, then? Tarc (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      It contains a reliable source specifically about the quotation itself that discusses the effects its (apparent misquoting?) had. –xenotalk 20:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly, it really is like watching a bunch of three-year olds argue, isn't it? HalfShadow 20:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, nothing for an admin to do here. Pls gauge consensus at WP:DRV or WP:AFD. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

    Strange new account

    Holmesj90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - has made only one edit, some antisemitic complaint on Historicist's talk page. Probably a throwaway account but still, not here to edit the encyclopedia. Wikidemon (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. MastCell Talk 19:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing at Talk:Speed of light

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

    What conflict resolution did you use before asking for a topic ban? Ussually that is a last resort as I understand it. Upon a review of the users talk page I don't see any warnings for using the talkpage or any recent warnings period. From my standpoint there doesn't seem to be anything that can be done here yet as not one whit of resolution of this dispute before running here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I notified the person in question they had a thread here as I didn't see he was notified on his talk page.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an ongoing problem with David. There was a WQA report about his behavior and a somewhat related, drawn-out ANI report that included him a little more than a month ago, albeit related to a different set of incidents. However, he seems to have removed from his talk page the notices and the resulting WQA advice given. I would add that David is not only disruptive on the talk pages but also outright uncivil with anyone who disagrees with him (essentially calling them idiots or accusing them of being part of a conspiracy to suppress the truth). --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't comment on speed of light, but the volume of traffic in the related WT:PHYS thread has been making it nigh-unreadable for other purposes for the last couple of days. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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


    David Tombe page banned

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

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

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

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

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

    I imagine that the "crank science or pseudoscience Jehochman has in mind" is the same as the crank science that David has raised repeatedly here where every other editor has either pointed out (often repeatedly) the scientific errors or that it is WP:OR or both.--Michael C. Price talk 16:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I support Jehochman's action, but want to note that this has little to do with pseudoscience. It may be "bad science" or "crankery", but those aren't the same thing as pseudoscience. The reasons that Jehochman gave are the correct reasons. Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "I am not an admin"...but Jehochman appears to have acted quite properly, and in a timely fashion to prevent further disruption. My opinion itself is worth little, but I fully support him in this case. Doc Tropics 17:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I support Jehochman's topic ban. I keep seeing the name David Tombe coming up in connection with strange edits of physics articles. I reserve judgment on whether quite enough data has been collected in the present discussion compared to how a proper topic ban is presented. If Tombe has not yet been properly notified of WP:ARBCRANK WP:ARBPS, I support giving a proper notification, and then reissuing the ban if Tombe does not make any concrete promise of reform in the mean time. If it turns out that any formalities have been overlooked, consider refiling the matter at WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    I got into alot of trouble over that, but I was eventually proved correct. I can't think of any more off hand. But the current issue here seems to be because of the opinions that I have been expressing on the speed of light talk page. It's certainly not about actual edits on the main article. Ultimately, I have been trying to educate these guys about the fact that the famous equation c^2 = 1/(εμ) is purely a consequence of experimental measurement of the right hand side. They have been arguing against this and showing me Maxwell's equations, as if I had never seen them before, and they have all totally overlooked the fact that Maxwell incorporated the above equation into his own equations as a consequence of an experiment in 1856 by Wilhelm Eduard Weber and Rudolf Kohlrausch. I have shown them all the exact paragraph in the relevant paper. See page 49 of the pdf link at [31]. There is no bad science, or pseudoscience, or crank science going on on my part.

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

    Although Jehochman's first charge looks proven I am not convinced by the evidence provided that David has indulged in "General incivility and assumptions of bad faith." I would acquit him of that charge.--Michael C. Price talk 18:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I remarked before, David has a history of incivility and assumptions of bad faith. See the WP:WQA report placed last month, the warning/advice resulting from the report, and other previous examples: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. Some recent examples appear to indicate that he has yet to understand that such behavior is wrong: [37], [38], [39]. I realize these aren't from the Speed of light dispute, but they do show a pattern of behavior that is disruptive. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I'm thicker skinned than some, but looking at the recent links I still see no violation of AGF. I do see someone who rates quite highly on the crackpot index and will never change. That should be the basis of the ban, IMO. --Michael C. Price talk 08:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I can admit that, after dealing with the editor's not so recent behavior for awhile, my tolerance for being told I delete stuff because I'm afraid of the truth and for being compared to the thought police has become greatly diminished. I'll work on having thicker skin. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • I logged this action in case it falls under WP:ARBPS. If not, the sanction is still appropriate in my responsibility as an administrator to protect the project from disruption.I could block the editor indefinitely. Instead, I chose to ban them from 2 of our 3,000,000 pages, a much lighter sanction. Jehochman Talk 22:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Severity is not the issue. If you're not following the terms of discretionary sanctions from that case, then it's an ordinary admin action and I don't see how it can be logged there. Those terms were specifically designed to avoid any action, without a warning. As the imposing admin, can you (or someone else) please provide a diff to where David Tombe was given a warning with a link to that case? Btw, was he counselled on taking steps to improve? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure if it's what you're looking for, but the thread at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Experimental_determination_of_the_electric_permittivity contains, among other things, several instances of editors trying to explain to him what sort of references and citations he'll need in order to make a case for the changes he wants to make to speed of light. Lots of examples of him using circular reasoning and either not understanding or not acknowledging the points raised by other participants in the thread. If the WP:PHYS thread is still continuing in the same vein by the time the weekend rolls around, I'll put together a proper diff list for you and ask for further sanctions, but right now I'm going to hope that discussion will yield a solution. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No Christopher, This is just an opportunist swipe from you because I showed you to be wrong when you claimed that the equation c^2 = 1/(με) can be derived theoretically. I made my final statement on the matter at the wiki-physics project page. You yourself know the truth fine well, but you're never likely to admit it. You know that c^2 = 1/(με) is a numerical relationship which follows purely as a consequence of the experimental determination of the right hand side. David Tombe (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I rest my case. This is also probably a good example of civility and AGF concerns. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Christopher, You are rather presumptuous in claiming on your edit title that I received quite a bit of a coaching at the wiki-physics page, when in fact it was you that received the coaching. You previously had no idea how the numerical relationship c^2 = 1/(με) came to be in Maxwell's equations. And it seems that none of the rest of you did either. This is one big witch hunt because you were all shown to be wrong. And for you, this opportunistic swipe is just one big face saver. David Tombe (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually David, you have significantly shifted your position as a result of the coaching on the wiki-physics page (which is good) although you deny this (which is bad). BTW, although I earlier acquited you of violation of AGF you should be aware the recent statement (above) You yourself know the truth fine well, but you're never likely to admit it. violates AGF. I think you know what the consequences of this are likely to be. --Michael C. Price talk 09:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael, In what respect did I shift my position? Can you please clarify this statement. David Tombe (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Endorse per EdJohnston. There are many troubling examples that demonstrate problematic conduct, and attempts made by involved editors to reason with him, including both here and here. Btw, thank you Christopher Thomas for highlighting these examples. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ncmvocalist, What about my attempts to reason with Christopher Thomas? What makes you so sure that Christopher Thomas was the one that was correct in the dispute? David Tombe (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    David Tombe, I was purely referring to the conduct issues and approach, rather than who was correct in the content issues. Jehochman has been extremely generous by imposing a restriction that still leaves you with the ability to responsibly edit any other pages on Wikipedia - there's a lot to choose from. I suggest that rather than let this privillege go to waste, you should reflect on your approach in the various examples users refer to, and find ways to improve it if you encounter similar situations. This may involve reviewing fundamental Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does it matter that an uninvolved Admin supports the page ban as appropriate? Or am I beating a dead horse by offering my opinion? I've read this thread & the related one at WT:PHYS, which show at the least David Tombe is violating no original research; at the most, he is being disruptive over insisting on the inclusion of his own idiosyncratic understanding of physics. Maybe he should have a look at working on some of the 3 million other articles on Wikipedia: for example, I can't imagine working on the biographical stubs of physicists would lead to the same issues that these two articles did. -- llywrch (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure about that. There seems to be another long thread at Talk:History_of_centrifugal_and_centripetal_forces#Johann Bernoulli II where he's claiming one interpretation of an issue and several other editors are disagreeing and trying to explain to him the basis of their disagreement. If I understand correctly, a page name change is also muddying the waters for that discussion. However, I've only taken a superficial look at the thread's contents. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    No Llywrch, You have got it so badly wrong. Let's finally hear what the truth is. The WT:PHYS thread contains a query regarding changes that have taken place in the textbooks since 1983 in relation to the re-definition of the metre. This change seems to have had the effect of reversing the direction of a well known equation in physics. That equation is c^2 = 1/εμ. This equation is an empirical equation which reads from right to left. It's origins lie in an experiment that was performed in 1856 by Wilhelm Eduard Weber and Rudolf Kohlrausch. The equation links experimentally determined values in electromagnetism to the speed of light. Since 1983 however, this equation has been reversed and now reads from left to right. We now use a defined speed of light to define the quantity ε on the right hand side. The argument at WT:PHYS involved the attempts of about four editors to persuade me that the equation c^2 = 1/εμ follows from Maxwell's equations. All of them, with the exception of Christopher Thomas failed to comprehend the fact that Maxwell himself incorporated the numerical relationship from the 1856 experiment by Weber and Kohlrausch. Christopher Thomas at first tried to say the same thing as the other three. But when I pointed this fact out again, he backtracked and said that the experimental bit is only needed for the numerical relationship. I told him that that is exactly what I had been saying. Christopher Thomas then came to ANI and claimed that many people had been trying to reason with me but that I didn't acknowledge or didn't want to acknowledge what they had been saying. He then started to discuss gathering evidence with a view to what sanctions would be appropriate for me. The actual thread at WT:PHYS was then actually presented as an exhibit of evidence to prove that I was being disruptive. Christopher Thomas was obviously totally confident that the non-physics readership here would believe everything that he said. I then defended myself against this malicious allegation and gross assumption of bad faith, as a result of which I was then accused of assuming bad faith for likewise doubting that he didn't want to acknowledge the true facts. It seems that accusations and allegations are fine when they come from some editors, but that from other editors, even a defence can be taken to be an assumption of bad faith. So my question to you, Llwrych is 'Just what makes you so sure that Christopher Thomas is right?' All these allegations about crankery and pseudoscience are an attempt to hide the truth of what was discussed at WT:PHYS. And all these allegations of incivility are just rubbish. David Tombe (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I made no such backtrack. The relevant posts are here and here, and say the same thing in slightly different ways. This is an excellent example of you misunderstanding what editors are trying to say to you. After the second try, it became clear that useful communication was unlikely to be possible, so I stopped participating in the thread. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry Christopher, but that just doesn't wash. If it was merely a case of you failing to persuade me of something in physics, then why come to ANI to make a serious allegation and to talk about sanctions, and with such a confidence as if it was already decided beyond any doubt that you were right, and as if it was a matter of certainty that everybody here was going to believe you. Your allegation against me is one big sick joke. David Tombe (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Removed uncivil shortcut

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

    • Had that been tagged for speedy deletion, I would have declined it. I would prefer you undelete it and send it to RfD, please. I don't think your interpretation of the shortcut is the only or primary interpretation. Protonk (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I support Risker's speedy delete. It's a form of soapboxing, and totally inappropriate. It's speedyable under G10. Horologium (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an exceptionally broad reading of G10. Protonk (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not argue about non-essential details like a shortcut! Jehochman Talk 23:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All hail political correctness. --Michael C. Price talk 08:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    IP sock evading page ban?

    Since David Tombe was page banned, 72.84.67.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) suddenly surfaced. This IP has a total of 4 contribs, all today. The first is a diatribe here against the admin who page banned Tombe[40] (since deleted). The other 3 are edits (since reverted) to Speed of light, from which Tombe is page banned. Coincidence? —Finell (Talk) 20:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Finell, I want to be quite clear about this and I'm getting sick of all these malicious allegations. That IP server is not mine and I did not make those edits. I don't get involved in matters to do with the speed of light in inertial frames of reference. And I have seen many edits in the past from a variation of that number. I haven't checked it, but I'll bet that it comes from Virginia. Please don't make accusations until you have got your facts straight. David Tombe (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's trivial to check this either way via CheckUser, and a serious enough issue (potential ban evasion) for checkuser to be worthwhile. Anyone care to do so? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Finell, I've just noticed that you have written about this on the speed of light talk page. Since, I am not allowed to defend myself on that page, I'd be obliged if you could return there and explain the situation fully. David Tombe (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it's a Verizon IP address that resolves to a company based in Virginia. David, whether or not it was you, you must admit it reeks of duckism, so don't jump all over people. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    BWilkins, All I'm seeing here are words like 'disruptive editing', 'crankery', 'assumption of bad faith', 'incivility', and now 'ban evasion'. There was no disruptive editing because I wasn't even in the front page history log of the article in question. There has been no crankery because all I have been saying is that c^2 = 1/(εμ) reads from right to left, and not from left to right. The allegations of 'assumption of bad faith' have all been based on defensive comments that I have made against another person's assumption of bad faith on this very thread. I have been accused of not seeing sense when coached by many. The truth was that the many in question came to me one by one claiming that Maxwell's equations proved c^2 = 1/(εμ). I told each one in turn that Maxwell himself got that result from an 1856 experiment of Weber and Kohlrausch. One of those many was Christopher Thomas who then came to this thread to discuss sanctions as a consequence of that interchange. The incivility has already been firmly dismissed by one of my opponents who has been referring to me as a crank. Nobody bats an eyelid at the insults and assumptions of bad faith that come at me from others. And now we are hearing cries of ban evasion because some anon edits the article and speaks up in my defence. And now you are telling me not to jump all over people! I've worked very hard to get some physics articles written more accurately for the benefit of the readership. There is no need for this kind of carry on. David Tombe (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If there is evidence of ban evasion, checkuser should be requested. There's not much point in alleging something unless efforts are made to resolve the accusation. Jehochman Talk 13:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The evidence that David Tombe was responsible for the edits by the IP 72.84.67.16 seems to me to be extremely weak. I expect that a request for checkuser would be refused. The editor behind the IP seems likely to me to be the same one responsible for piping up in support of David Tombe in the previous AN/I thread where his activities were discussed. The IPs concerned on that occasion were 71.251.185.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 72.84.65.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 72.84.66.220 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 71.251.188.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), all of which are Verizon's. Several other editors pointed out then that it was unlikely to be Tombe ([41], [42], [43], [44]).
    —David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    David W., Thanks for pointing that out. And come to think of it, why were the anonymous's edits here at ANI deleted anyway? Is it only the edits of critics that are allowed at ANI? David Tombe (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    The edits of this user and the IPs certainly do dovetail quite nicely though when viewed in totality. This certainly is WP:DUCK territory. Tarc (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tarc, Go and check when I last edited the speed of light article and ask yourself 'is there any connection between the contents?' David Tombe (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: David Tombe evidently had some issues logging in, and edited this page logged out a couple of times a short while ago. His IP is therefore on public record, and resolves to BTNET in the UK. The Verizon IPs are unlikely to be him - although who they are beats the hell out of me. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    2 Bad blocks

    Resolved
     – Calling this one resolved now. See Moving Forward if further action is required. Rd232 talk 17:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    Right deep breath basically it all kicked off on O Fenian's talk page. Nja247 kept posting warnings, O Fenian kept removing which he is entitled to do, Toddst1 gives O Fenian a final warning for removing comments with a summary of "Revert. Harassment" and claims that O Fenian is making false accusations of harassment. Maybe O Fenian does feel harassed, O Fenian then calls Nja247 a power abuser, and Toddst1 blocks him for two weeks. He then adds back his warning that had been removed which he's not supposed to do and removes O Fenians comments, they are then added back by O Fenain and he removes the warning, Toddst1 disables O Fenian talk page editing. Domer48 then interjects and says that the block of O Fenian was bad, Toddst1 threatens Domer, Domer48 moves the conversation to O Fenian talk page to try and keep it in one place, Toddst1 blocks him for a month without warning. Nja247 then muddys the water on Domer's talk page with his past history which has no real relevance on whether a one month block is correct for what has happened which is, Domer questioning the actions of an admin, who responds by blocking Domer, Toddst1 reblocks Domer with talk page editing disabled. These two blocks are wrong. BigDunc 21:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest that any interested admin check the actions in detail instead of relying on BigDunc's summary. It's mostly accurate, but there are nuances it misses. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nuances? So lets get it straight this is what it boils down too
    • The initial two week block on O Fenian is way too excessive.
    • The block on Domer 48 for questioning an admin's actions by the admin he was questioning was bang out of order, when he was trying to keep discussion in one place.
    • The one month block on Domer is way too excessive.
    • The re-blocking without talk page editing was done way too quickly. BigDunc 21:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to pretend to know the full story here, but I do not like people re-posting warnings on people's pages. It's kind of - well - harassing. You want someone to read a message - if they remove it - esp. in anger - it means they read it. Case closed. If this really went down the way it sounds - someone re-adding a warning over and over and over, then an admin blocking the recipient for removing it over and over and over because they call it - well - harassment - then the blocked guy's friend saying, "hey, what the hell did you block him for?!!", then the same admin blocking him as well ---- then I don't like it. Sounds like a bad cop drama. Admins are supposed to put fires out, not spray them with gasoline. Wknight94 talk 21:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry, that's not what happened. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Let me clarify a couple of things here:
    • You should have brought it here, blocking Domer only confirms to him that you are acting abusively. He claims you're abusive, and 20 minutes later you block him. An uninvolved party should have been asked to deal with this. Nev1 (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no abuse or bad cop drama here folks. Actually take time to read what happened and the extensive block logs please. There was no involvement in the typical sense of the word by Todd, and policy was being violated by those who are well aware of policy as they've been blocked for it multiple times. Good blocks and the actions are supported, and if they wish to appeal they can do so via email to ArbCom per policy guidelines. Nja247 21:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow! The same justification as the recently retired DrKieran gave for blocking me! The "block record". Which is itself made up of a whole series of bad blocks! Now we have two Admins citing "block record" as reason for dishing out draconian blocks. Something needs to be done about this. I still have the last block on my "record" even though the Admin resigned because of it. Harrassing someone on their talkpage and then blocking them for removing the harrassment is just completely outrageous (whether by one Admin or two tag-team Admons) and frankly I don't think either Admin here have given any good reason why they should not have their powers removed. Sarah777 (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read through Domer's posts (not Fenian's yet) and I disagree. The only objection Todd has raised is posting his message on O Fenian's page. It was an over-reaction to block for that. It wasn't unattributed, Domer wasn't posing as Todd and I think a block (especially such a ludicrously long one) was unjustified. Then you go and decide to poke Domer on his talk page while blocked. Nev1 (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Poke, you mean leave completely relevant comments for reviewing admins? Nja247 21:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, Todd, are you saying that quoting another user is now blockable? I wholeheartedly agree with O Fenian's block...but blocking someone for quoting you? Come on man...that's beyond lame. --Smashvilletalk 21:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It was not indicated that I was being quoted. It was repurposing of my words out of context. Toddst1 (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's clearly a quote: "This is harassment now on my talk page..." and it's right smack in the middle of a comment of his...plus, how is it out of context when it was a standalone comment by you? Then...once he's blocked, a message is posted to his page which he removes (and he is well within his rights to remove)...and he had his talkpage access removed? Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive...what action exactly was this preventing? --Smashvilletalk 21:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) (many times) I'm not as worried about the block for "stick your warning" as I am by the history prior to "stick your warning". Why did he get a warning in the first place? Why did he get a half-dozen warnings?! The warnings were for removing warnings it seems. And for calling the mass-warnings harassment, which is exactly what they become when reinstated a half dozen times. Hence my last sentence about putting out fires instead of spraying gasoline. And the long block log for O Fenian seems to be three short blocks for edit warring, not harassment and such. I don't like it. Wknight94 talk 21:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Well unsure of what warnings you're talking about (and which user), but I never re-added anything to the user's talk page just for the sake of doing so -- all three notices were unique and polite and addressed different issues raised by the editor himself on the article's talk page. That's not harassment. I urge you to check each of the three removed edits and you will see each was completely unique and not re-added out of spite, etc. I don't work that way, I wanted to accommodate the user and sort it. Nja247 22:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) You filed a sock report on Domer not long before this all kicked off of course he will feel harrased, Domer has had 3 or 4 sock reports against him all proved his innocence and I would wager money that this one will too. BigDunc 22:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Excellent unblock of O Fenian are there ant admins looking at IMO the worse block of Domer? BigDunc 21:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nja247 continues to poke Domer here BigDunc 22:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting relevant issues for reviewing admins is not poking. The user has a history of making ridiculous claims of admin abuse and it's something that needs reviewed. I suppose whilst it's already here it should be looked at. Nja247 22:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the issue was posting Todd's comment rather than accusing him of abuse, it's not relevant and continuing to post is unambiguous trolling. Nev1 (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    On the available evidence neither block was warranted. (That may be a fault with the evidence, not the blocks.) For example Nja's justification of Domer's block refers to a single comment by Domer [45] citing a remark by an editor made elsewhere, relevant to that discussion. Other diffs cited by Nja are to his/her own comments, not to Domer's. At present the "gasoline" remark above seems apposite. Rd232 talk 22:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    O Fenian unblocked without complete consensus

    [46] - comments? Nja247 21:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    His comments on the blocking admin's page say he's coming here next, so let's wait. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for unblocking me. This dispute stems from the Provisional Irish Republican Army article, which Nja247 initially protected for two weeks. However since protecting it this editor has involved themselves in the underlying dispute, then indefinitely protected the page subsequent to this. I made a protected edit request, which Nja247 personally disputed, despite my request being based on the fact that the book cited does not source the sentence that is in the article. No other editor was disputing whether the edit should be made or not at the time I made my request, or prior to Nja247 disputing whether the edit should be made, so he was involving himself in the dispute then subsequently indefinitely protected the page. There are also other comments made in support or objecting to a particular version, which can be seen on the talk page. This editor has very much involved themself in the dispute, yet still protected the page. They were aware they were involved in the dispute, as when a related page needed protecting a request was made here rather than protecting it themself, yet the indefinite protection occurred after this!

    While some no doubt will view this next comment as a personal attack and probably reblock me I consider this relevant to the current chain of events. I find Nja247 smug, condescending and patronising. Due to this and his abusive actions as an administrator I wish to have nothing to do with him, and I am sick and tired of him posting on my talk page and I now consider it harassment, so if anyone can tell him to just leave me alone, and ideally leave the dispute over the article to someone else? To try and drum into him how I viewed his non-stop posting on my talk page I reverted it with a summary of "Revert. Harassment" in the hope he would then leave me alone. And that edit summary is worthy of a final warning is it? I do not think so, and neither do other people. So I removed it, admittedly with some colourful language, but nothing that in my opinion merited a two week block. O Fenian (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You use colourful language alot. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately it's bed time for me, however regarding the harassment by me today, see my comment here. As for the article dispute, just look over at the article's talk page and this users' consistent disregard for policy and aversion to any form of dispute resolution will become clear. Two other admins (Thatcher and TheDJ) and an experienced editor (Durova) have told him how to go about it (ie get consensus and seek mediation), but he doesn't listen. I've never edited the article, have remained completely neutral, and have only tried to encourage resolution per policy, and only become 'involved' due to a WP:AN3 report. Nja247 22:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nja247 by arguing against an edit by someone involved in a dispute (except for policy based reason, such as OR, unsourced etc) you are involving yourself in the dispute, regardless of whether you have edited the article or not. BigDunc 22:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is policy based, protection policy based. We do not edit the article to allow the party in dispute to put the article in their preferred state. They've been told this by me, two others admins and an experienced editor. Nja247 06:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Protection policy specifically allows for reversion to a stable version if a contentious version has been protected, and as the addition is misleading and more importantly wrong and unsourced then it certainly is contentious. It's your, I'm not changing it attitude that has prolonged and inflamed the current dispute. BigDunc 12:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists. A quick look would have addressed that because we would have noticed that this issue involved this sentence here. Which was added by this POV edit warring IP, now know to be Cromwellian Conquest per this sock report a title supported in my opinion by both their edit warring [47] [48] [49] [50] edit summaries, talk page commentspersonal attacks and their sectarian rants in addition to their previous edit warring all being the same edit, [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]. The problems had been pointed out [62] and discussion welcomed, with more detailed rationales also put forward [63] [64]. It was proposed and supported that the incorrect and misleading text be removed pending discussion [65] having outlined the problems above but this was repeatedly rejected by you. --Domer48'fenian' 12:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have unblocked O Fenian

    I regret to say that I considered the block to be profoundly unsound, so much so that I actioned an unblock before commenting either at the blocking admin's page or here. I am happy to place my reasons here, for review and revision (although, per WP:WHEEL, I would insist that there is consensus to either reblock for the violations or to reverse my actions as inappropriate - or both). My reasoning is;

    • O Fenian is permitted to remove other peoples comments from his talkpage. Removing comments is an indication that they have been read.
    • Persistently posting upon the same subject, and specifically the same aspect of the same subject, in short order - and when previous posts have been removed - is extremely poor practice, which may provoke an unfortunate response from the reader even where this is not the intention.
    • The final warning issued by Toddst1 was therefore inappropriate - it is not the remit of an admin to determine any editors state of mind, and expecially to that contrary to to that expressed by the editor. If O Fenian was feeling harassed, or said he was, then per WP:AGF it should be assumed he was. In that O Fenian was providing a rationale which indicated his personal feelings for permissible removal of talkpage comments I cannot see how that it should be regarded as a personal attack. At most a level3 warning for incivility would suffice, but I would have regarded a personally worded level2 type to have been preferable.
    • The block was inappropriately actioned, since the only edit by O Fenian subsequent to the warning

    was to remove it, with colourful language directed at Toddst1. No further edits of those noted in the warning happened, except the above. However, Toddst1 blocked either on the basis of the one edit summary as noted in the warning or upon the reaction by O Fenian to the warning. Both rationales are wrong, since either there is no further transgression or it was directed at the admin who then blocked - and there is an acknowledged allowance to "letting of steam" immediately after a warning, etc., and an understanding that admins do not react to comments made by themselves. I have been looking at the PIRA/RFC edits by all concerned, and do not see anything that required more than a "pull it back a few notches" comments either there or on editor talkpages. I simply do not see that O Fenian did more than react less than perfectly at some ill considered postings on his talkpage, that the warning received was therefore excessive and the subsequent sanction was improper both in rationale and the person performing it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Could you now look at the block of Domer which came about when he questioned the bad block of O Fenian. BigDunc 22:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding bullet two, you obviously jumped the drama gun and didn't read my comments. I won't repeat myself, so read this. As for discuss things with you first to avoid wheel warring, isn't that exactly what you did? Anyhow goodnight and get the facts straight mate first please in the future. Nja247 22:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • isn't that exactly what you did? — Actually, no, it isn't. It's a disputed policy in practice, and people often make the argument that administrators should not unilaterally undo another administrator's actions that are the subject of on-going discussion without participating in that discussion beforehand, but the current formulation of the wheel warring policy is along the lines of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You block; another administrator undoes the block to restore the status quo ante; then you both discuss. It is exactly that that has occurred here in this case. Uncle G (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) @LHvU: Agreed. Pretty much 100%. I will acknowledge Nja's comment above that the same warning was not re-posted over and over, but as LHvU points out, there should be a common-sense limit to how many times one is contacted and/or chastised in a short time on their talk page by the same person for the same subject. Regardless, the block of O Fenian was not good and the unblock is good. I haven't even gotten to the other block yet... Wknight94 talk 22:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suggest that you read the edits concerned carefully. What you will find is that far from this being Nja247 "chastising" O Fenian "for the same subject" the two editors were having a conversation, with one side of the conversation being Nja247 writing on User talk:O Fenian and the other side being O Fenian writing on Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army. This is a classic example of the disjointed conversations that happen on wikis. For your edification, here is the conversation made less disjoint:
        • 2009-08-19T16:54:03 O Fenian: "I find the summary above to be incorrect, and request that it be amended before anyone replies to this. […]"
        • 2009-08-19T17:05:46 Nja247: "I've put the user's comments in its own subsection, thus it's seen as their opinion. You should revise your comments to demonstrate your views on the situation, etc. See WP:RFC if needed. Cheers"
        • 2009-08-19T18:08:18 O Fenian:"This addition is just as misleading as the summary I have just complained about. […]"
        • 2009-08-19T18:13:39 Nja247:"The opinion given by Lot49a is just that. It's not a 'summary' as you put it. It's their opinion and if it's misleading that's really too bad. You're able to give your opinion of the situation as well. […]"
        • 2009-08-19T18:21:44 O Fenian:"If the "administrator" who abusively indefinitely protects this page is going to be allowed to present an inaccurate summary then blame it on someone else this is a waste of time."
        • 2009-08-19T18:25:14 Nja247:"If you wish to file a complaint against me then please see WP:ADMINABUSE. I've reworded everything as neutrally as possible and broke the sections up to accommodate your whinging. […]"
      • As you can see, this is not a repeated series of warnings. This is a conversation, with one participant addressing xyr interlocutor in the third person and on a different talk page. Nja247's contribution to that conversation started to go downhill at 2009-08-19T18:25:14, but that doesn't make it any less of a conversation. Uncle G (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec)@Nja An editor is feeling harrassed by you (rightly or wrongly) yet you continue to add comments on to their page not very wise is it? BigDunc 22:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • O Fenian's "harrassment" edit post-dates the conversation that Nja247 and O Fenian had. There was no indication during that conversation, by O Fenian, that xe considered having it to be harrassment. Uncle G (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Firstly, I would comment that I had not realised it was a discussion - I did not pick up the thread although I had read all the comments. However, Wknight94 did not say "warnings" but rather the term "contacted and/or chastised" and referenced it being made in a short period. Notwithstanding that it was interaction, part of that interaction was O Fenian removing the content from the his talkpage. I am at a loss why firstly Nja247 was responding to article talkpage comments at the other editors talkpage, and secondly why they persisted in doing so upon earlier posts being removed. Had Nja247 reposted the comments at the article talkpage then there would have both been visible continuity, plus O Fenian would not have been able to remove the content. I have seen much that has puzzled me today, and I would be grateful if the parties could make things clearer to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the Pottery Barn rule applies here. It was pretty clearly a conversation when I read it. Toddst1 (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted on their talk page for the simple fact that's where it belonged. The disruption and sidetracking on dispute resolution did not belong on the article's talk page. Me telling them how to complain about me was more appropriate on their talk page. Nja247 07:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    On their talk page over and over and over... He clearly didn't want you there as his reverts indicated. In case it wasn't clear enough, he cleared it up with this edit summary. The response was Toddst1 Twinkle-warning him for a personal attack - which seems odd to me. O Fenian lashed out at the ridiculous warning and then he was immediately blocked - for harassment?! And for two weeks no less! With the explanations above, I'm willing to put aside the issue of the repeated comments by Nja247 despite the repeated removals, and just focus on the last few actions. Since when is using the word "harassment" in a two word edit summary a "personal attack"? The "personal attack" warning seems ridiculous to me and the block was far too quick and too long. Then the talk page removal was too quick too. And then blocking Domer for similar outrage at the situation? For a month?! Ugh, the whole thing stinks. Wknight94 talk 11:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Domer48 also unblocked

    Upon the basis that an involved admin actioned the sanction, Toddst1 was being questioned over their block of O Fenian I have also reverted the above block. Since I have already concluded that the initial block was improper I realise that my actions are not as neutral as I might wish them to be, but I am unable to reasonably undo one without being constrained to undo the other. I would, however, not consider it a violation of WP:WHEEL if another admin unilaterally reversed my unblock - although I would request that they place their rationale here for consideration and confirmation as I have. I will expand on what I see as a poor rationale for the block (and surprising poor one for the unblock decline, too) if asked, but would prefer other people to review the situation and come to their own conclusions and consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Concur with unblock. Would suggest to Domer48, however, that with a block record that long, stepping away from the keyboard might be a good alternative to lashing out at people, whatever the provocation might be. Black Kite 22:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All I can say at the minute is thank you for that, if I say any more it will be too much. I’ll cool off first. I think this was bang out of order, but hey compared to this? Black Kite if I just just point out that this block is on my record now. The last one was for asking a question etc etc. But thanks for the advice. --Domer48'fenian' 22:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Point of order: the last one was not for "asking a question". Move to strike. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    <redacted - I misunderstood> LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    For asking a question, that's your Diff on the block. No more posts for the night, cooling off period. --Domer48'fenian' 23:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "The Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles." As I've said from day 1, that was the rationale for the block. Just because you said other things in that diff doesn't mean I used them to make my decision.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For anyone not familiar with the history here, see GWH's detailed review of everyone's actions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And for a detailed responce! Notice also the next sentence, which was left out above "Please provide a link?" You never did and never have. What was said about your actions in that?

    "The block by SarekOfVulcan was problematic in duration, lack of warning, and conflict of interest, but not fundamentally flawed." "SarekOfVulcan bent admin policy here" "Archiving the talk page discussion was not a policy violation but was probably a mistake." "The second block on Domer48 bent Wikipedia:BLOCK#Conflicts_of_interest and Wikipedia:BLOCK#Duration_of_blocks." "The third block, restricting talk page editing, established that SarekOfVulcan is by now sufficiently involved and using questionable judgement that the voluntary admin powers restriction agreement Sarek announced above (not to use them against Domer48 again) is strongly recommended going forwards..."

    Who was the first here to respond to this report? Who was canvassed by the Admin at the root of the problem? Who just happened to showed up on an article they never edited before after I had walked away from a dispute? On my detailed responce above, who was the first in to comment on it? The third Admin to be canvassed by the Admin at the root of this. It appears that certain Admin's seem to show up a lot around me, and have to mention them again in my responce. The block was over turned, and the report was rejected, but I really must be a bad fellow! --Domer48'fenian' 09:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    One takeaway

    Please, please, please if we can learn one thing from this: Admins should read and understand WP:UP#CMT. It's a bit of policy that is sound and well intentioned, but we still have too many people operating without understanding it. If someone removes a warning on their page, DONT replace it. No comment yet on the rest of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Protonk (talk • contribs) 23:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have read this discussion with growing disbelief. I believe there is clear evidence of abuse by both Admins involved. How much more of this must certain editors have to take? We need to clean out the stables here; I suggest both Nja247 and Toddst1 resign as Admins, or we should institute proceedings into their actions. Sarah777 (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    as for dealing with the admins involved, resigning is way too drastic. Every active admin makes mistakes. All that can be expected is to acknowledge them, and try to avoid them in the future. That's what we should want to see. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per DGG. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite. There's no need at all to raise the temperature by suggesting the admins did anything but act in good faith based on the situation as they saw it. Rd232 talk 08:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant a little more than that. I would expect some sort of acknowledgment from the administrator that that they were doing was not correct, and that they intend to watch themselves more carefully. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC) .[reply]
    Nope. I still see it differently as do the admins who actually fully researched this convoluted situation. I think some of the drive-by reviews and commentary of this situation are pathetic. Toddst1 (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Were are the comments of the "admins who actually fully researched this convoluted situation"? All off wiki were they? Like you here with your private response, or your mate here with more of wiki back biting and bitching? Your comments like your Block are whats pathetic!--Domer48'fenian' 13:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Checkuser

    Note that the latest vexatious report for a checkuser on Domer has been closed. How many times is that? Could we now block him because of his checkuser record as well as his block record? Sarah777 (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    @ Protonk: Again Protonk, it's been well established and accepted above that there was a conversation taking place, and I had not reposted any warnings. Each comment was unique and addressed a different concern raised by the editor. At no time had they said it was harassing until the final one when they did say that and I ceased. Nja247 07:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    @ Sarah: Well if you've read the report and the clerk endorsement of that report you would have noted it was based on evidence that was available and was a possibility. I don't file frivolous SPI reports. Nja247 07:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You described him as "the likely sockmaster" on another Admins page! Despite five earlier clearances by checkuser. And I sense no hint of reflection on the even-handedness of your actions. Though in the calmer light of the morning calling for you to resign was probably a bit severe - an apology (to the victims) might suffice; though I can't speak for them. Sarah777 (talk) 08:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sarah, there was no evidence available, and therefore there was no possibility of the report being based on evidence. As you rightly point out, the accusation was made prior to the report and I rightly considered it harassment. What was the evidence? If this is not provided, it was just a fishing trip. Your post also highlights the fact that there was private corrispondence about me, which is also uncalled for. The only reason I can suggest is that having canvassed other Admin's [66] [67] offering accusations, and only being partially successful, they adopted a different approch. Having made these accusations about me, I note they did not get the same warning I got, even when I mentioned it. All I got was this another accusation, which I removed, for which I was blocked.--Domer48'fenian' 08:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sarah, the clerk made an honest mistake which I accept, therefore there is no clerk endorsement of that report. --Domer48'fenian' 16:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Moving forward

    OK, so we seem to be reaching some consensus (possibly)

    If there are other issues or longer-term issues with the (un)blocked users, they should be addressed separately or elsewhere. If there is any serious suggestion (preferably by uninvolved editors!) that these incidents may have involved abuses by admins rather than mistakes (or perhaps mistakes so bad they require further examination, as opposed to run-of-the-mill "people make mistakes" mistakes), that should be addressed separately or elsewhere. So perhaps we can draw this incident to a close? Rd232 talk 14:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks to all concerned, it’s appreciated. One question though, is it possible to have the block removed from my log. Some have used it as an issue? I did ask the Blocking Admin, they declined with bad grace. Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 15:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The answer I usually hear to that question is a simple "no". I think it would take involvement by developers and I don't know of any case where it ever actually happened. All the more reason admins need to be careful with their blocks. Wknight94 talk 15:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's important though, it's happened often enough? --Domer48'fenian' 16:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd urge some truly uninvolved admins to take a look at the toxic discussion on Talk:Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army which led to this incident. There is incivility and a lack of AGF from all sides. Given that The Troubles is under general sanction, I feel like some attention should be given to calming the situation down. Lot 49atalk 16:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This was a subject pacific case, bad blocks. The blocks were lifted! Were moving forward, and I’ve yet another bad block on my log. So how do I get it off? --Domer48'fenian' 16:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You note the unblocks in the block log when necessary... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The blocking admin only noted 10 blocks in their block summary. One Admin R.Friend blocked me and because of a number of bad blocks mine included lost their tools. Unlike you, I don't see the other admin's look at the merits of each case. You lucky enough do. Is it a tech issue not being able to remove them? --Domer48'fenian' 23:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Per Rd232 above, I'm willing to move on and thank once again the Admin's and Editors here.--Domer48'fenian' 07:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently, the original admin followed the WikiClique tradition: If somebody is part of the ruling clique of Wikipedia, or on good terms with them, then they are free to remove any comments and warnings they dislike from their talk page, and it's harassment against them if somebody keeps re-posting them; however, if somebody is "on the outs" with the ruling clique, then the reverse is true: if they remove a ruling clique member's comments/warnings, they are the one harassing the cliqueista. WP:SAUCE. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That isn't helpful. You make baseless allegations that can only have been calculated to increase division. --TS 12:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for intruding on your turf; I should have realized that making baseless allegations to increase division is your job. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army

    The situation really could benefit from more eyes. A recent mediation request didn't open so they're running a content RfC. The content issue is probably resolvable; it needs assistance. Durova306 15:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:LibStar

    Moved to Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#User:LibStar Ikip (talk)


    BLP, User:Intelligentsium

    Resolved
     – We've only got limited patience. Blocked. Socks cropping up now. Now maybe it's resolved...

    User:Intelligentsium This user frequently nominates articles for speedy deletion without any sort of consensus and does not assume good faith while working with other editors. I propose this user be blocked of their unwanted attitude. This user has also vandalized userpages. They violate WP:BLP all the time. --Mjp2515 (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Consensus is not generally needed for CSD nominations. It would be wise to read up on the speedy deletion policy, if you haven't already. And, it would be helpful if you provided diffs of the edits in question. Until It Sleeps alternate 01:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) All I see are articles that you continue to recreate, at least one of which Intelligentsium nominated for WP:CSD#A7 and was then correctly deleted. Where am I going wrong, here? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 01:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I object to this unfounded accusation. The phrase "This user frequently nominates articles for speedy deletion without any sort of consensus..." indicates Mjp2515 does not understand Wikipedia policy - speedy deletion is there to bypass consensus. The statement "...does not assume good faith while working with other editors." is also untrue. My contributions speak for themselves in this respect. And when have I ever vandalized a userpage (Excluding my own)? Intelligentsium 01:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, you created an article (twice), the total content of which was "Jai (Born August 4, 1993) who performs under the stage name"MR. MJP" commonly refered to as "MJP," is an Australian rapper from Wollongong, New South Wales". You "sourced" it with a ref that claimed to be from the Illiwara Mercury, but was actually that person's MySpace page. Unsurprisingly, it got deleted via WP:CSD#A7. And I've just deleted it again. If you're going to create an article about this person and it not be speedy deleted, it needs to establish the significance or importance of the person, preferably with reliable sources (i.e. not their own MySpace). Black Kite 01:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite. He's tried creating it seven times. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 01:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification: By "This user has also vandalized userpages.", Mjp2515 may refer to my posting of an autobiography warning on his user talk page. It was an honest mistake, and when he clarified on my talk page, I obliged him in removing the warning. Intelligentsium 01:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mjp2515, please stop recreating that article, whether under the same name, or a different one. I have tagged it for CSD A7, and if you recreate it again, I will warn you only once. Until It Sleeps alternate 01:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have userfied it for him and left him a note. If it appears again though... Black Kite 02:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the users recent contributions. You will see what they have done. The behavior is filthy and mud-blood. The wizarding community does not accept reliability of your ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjp2515 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    --Mjp2515 (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, thanks for that, now read the note I left on your talkpage, please, and decide if you're going to stick to the rules or not. Black Kite 02:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    BK, you're too nice. The only reason I haven't blocked him already is because of your first note on his talk page. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 02:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He has again created the article... Until It Sleeps alternate 02:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And Jauerback's blocked him indef. Definitely resolved now! Black Kite 02:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He is now block-evading. User_talk:Mjp.09 has recreated Mjp. Until It Sleeps Wake me 12:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Just FYI, I've filed an SPI report here. Until It Sleeps Wake me 12:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)Maybe not.......Mjp2515 created Mjp and it was speedied a few weeks ago, but User:Mjp.09 appeared and recreated it about three hours ago. Do I detect a sockenpuppe.....?Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mjp.09 indef blocked by Luk. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Serpentdove

    Resolved
     – user indef blocked. watch out for possible socks. Rd232 talk 20:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Serpentdove (talk · contribs)

    I am posting here to ask for an admin to review the edits of this user. They frequently engage in personal attacks and direct vitriol against other editors, despite being spoken to politely and civilly. They have also made frequent comments about libel and other editors being "libelers", and accuse them of harrasment. I've asked them to calm down and respect our policy, but my edits were simply removed. See this thread and the those below for some evidence of problematic behaviour: User_talk:Serpentdove#Proposed Deletion of Meco's Narcissism. Further diffs can be presented if required, but this seems enough for some educational action to be taken. Verbal chat 08:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I can unequivocally second Verbal's statements. This user has been met with polite and helpful comments from experienced editors but is somehow of the mindset that any comment is an evil attack on freedom and truth and responds with ranting and vitriol. I was myself apprehensive about filing for a review of their behaviour since it is so obviously disturbed and over-the-top, but now that Verbal has decided to do so I present my perspectives to assist in the evaluation of this. __meco (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I even initially questioned a speedy-tag by meco, replacing it by POV-check+wikify-tags. there was every attempt on my side to assume good faith and trying to give the author of mentioned article a chance to tweak it and remove the POV-tone. these actions were met with the same hostility. After a while, I gave up and re-instated meco's judgement (>"speedy").
    I gave the author 2x uw-attack which s/he subsequently removed from his/her talkpage. rationale for uw-attack warnings based on these remarks:
    Edit comment: "removed stupid claims, how can it be not neutral if I've fought to show he's "noteworthy"? dumb"'
    On my talkpage: "libeler" [68]
    On article's talkpage: "Noteworthiness is not by consensus you wannabe geniuses and word-misdefiners (...) you're whining your unnoteworthy jealous opinions" Seb az86556 (talk) 09:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (Actually, I had originally PROD'ed the article, but as the situation now stands I don't care whether the PROD is reinstated or the speedy tag remains. __meco (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    (Just saw that. Yes, my bad, wasn't sure which one it was Seb az86556 (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    I am posting here to respond to Verbal's subversive hypocrisy and taking me out of context in order to make me look like an unfriendly hypocritical fundamentalist Christian. He posts welcome notices when he disagreed with my edits AFTER I stated I was a Christian and long after my numerous edits which weren't noticeably related to religious matters till AFTER I started editing the Christianity page I find his magically religious-edit timed "welcomes" to be a form of harassment and which annoys me, and which is in violation of Federal Internal Laws concerning Internet harassment. I am also bringing to notice user meco's edit warring via user Seb az86556 and possibly user RadioFan. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring

    Users meco and Seb az86556 are engaged in an apparent subversive edit war against me because I am a Christian and Verbal is aiding them with this complaint. Notice:

    • 08:41, 20 August 2009 Seb az86556 (talk | contribs) (5,238 bytes) (author not allowed to remove tag per policy) (undo)
    • 08:17, 20 August 2009 Seb az86556 (talk | contribs) (4,894 bytes) (fine, have it your way) (undo)
    • 08:15, 20 August 2009 Serpentdove (talk | contribs) m (4,879 bytes) (you're being a pest) (undo)
    • 08:14, 20 August 2009 Seb az86556 (talk | contribs) (4,897 bytes) (Undid revision 309029142 by Serpentdove (talk)no, do not mss w/ me, this is a goodfaith attempt)
    • 08:12, 20 August 2009 Serpentdove (talk | contribs) (4,867 bytes) (removed stupid claims, how can it be not neutral if I've fought to show he's "noteworthy"? dumb)
    • 08:05, 20 August 2009 Serpentdove (talk | contribs) (4,719 bytes) (→The Public's Acceptance of LaViolette's Theories: made explanation more understandable)
    • 08:02, 20 August 2009 Serpentdove (talk | contribs) (4,697 bytes) (removed the absurd false contesting that Paul is not noteworthy)
    • 07:58, 20 August 2009 Serpentdove (talk | contribs) (4,998 bytes) (added clear evidence that Paul LaViolette is more than noteworthy)
    • 14:32, 19 August 2009 Meco (talk | contribs) (4,172 bytes) (Proposed deletion. We require some better publicity (i.e. in reliable sources than what this article is now supported with.)

    Notice "meco" says "We"? Sock puppetry anyone? I showed noteworthiness of Paul and was allowed to remove the non-noteworthy template and no one contested my arguments on his talk page, yet then seb pops up to re-add another speedy deletion template and refuses to make any explanations as to why.

    Notice my profile states that I am a Christian? I have been to the page of a repeat page vandal whom meco and others ignore and merely repeatedly warn. Yet when I, a Christian make comments no worse than one's like Sebs' "don't mss with me" and "fine, have it your way" I'm reported? They users are clearly biased and engaged in committing a hate crime against me using subversive means. As you know, bullying can be subtle, as can harassment. That I "punch" back when bullied should not be the issue, but the subversive harassment. These people are feigning deep offense to make their case and to misdirect you from the issue of their edit warring and not bothering to discuss what they are so concerned about. One must wonder why it was only AFTER I stated that I was a Christian that I was given Verbal's LATE welcomes and TWICE. Verbal's evidence is weak and petty and his lack of showing anything but a pathetic reference shows his lack of genuine concern for the truth and genuine morality. I hope you can see through the pretense of hypocrisy of this bully "We" gang.Serpentdove (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just joined the two threads together. The above is typical of this users interactions. Note to Serpent Dove, I'm not a US citizen. Also, I'm glad meco and I agree on something :) Verbal chat 09:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait. You're going on about sockpuppetry and conspiracy simply because of the use of the editorial we? It seems to me that meco was simply referring to the policies of Wikipedia that require establishment of notability using reliable sources ("we" meaning Wikipedians in general). I don't know (and I don't care) what other conflicts you have with meco (or anyone else, for that matter), but you're making a mountain out of a molehill by taking offense at a harmless pronoun. --clpo13(talk) 10:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I used the "we" meaning the Wikipedia community. I could have clarified this to Serpentdove at some point since this has become a recurring complaint, however, the sheer uncivility of the user's posts has made me decide simply to let the user crash and burn at their own behest. __meco (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Verbals confused state of mind

    In what place did I say a single thing about you not being a US citizen? Clearly your logic is in question with random statements like that that have nothing to do with my oh so horrible mind-destroying politeness Mr. Concerned Verbal. If you are seriously this mentally weak, get out of Wikipedia and go back to your crib. And wow, you're happy that you agree with meco about something? Verbal, you're deliberately being annoying, that is harassment let alone Internet harassment. Grow up and get the chip off your shoulder. Stop trying to force everyone to love and appreciate whatever it is you do. Read Wikipedia's rules again and stop arbitrarily applying them whenever it suits your feelings. And STOP TAKING ME OUT OF CONTEXT. Don't libel me again.Serpentdove (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You might want to strike the personal attacks. You might want to strike the potential legal threat about "libel" above ... seriously. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    SD now appears to be disrupting the Edit warring noticeboard, and further evidence of problems diff (secure). Note that meco and I have nearly always disagreed in the past, that my religious POV is unlikely to be a factor here, and that I immediately apologised for reposting the welcome material, but did point out several useful links to policies. And it's Dr Concerned Verbal :). The US remark was about SDs reference to US laws. I initially thought this user was just going about things the wrong way and needed some pointers, but that hasn't helped I'm afraid. Verbal chat 09:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Would removing everything from Paul LaViolette article that doesn't comply with WP:V (which is just about everything as far as I can tell) help reduce the drama in the meantime pending it's almost inevitable deletion ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Editorial comment, etc.

    For a guy who claims to be Christian, this Serpentdove doesn't act much like one. I have to assume the "I heart God" kinds of editorial comments on his user page are intended only to generate controversy and disruption. Looks like it's working, so far. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and in case it matters, he apparently evaded his block by using an IP address 75.172.195.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to make a minor correction.[69] Go figure. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Matthew 5:5. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently when God was handing out "meek", this snakebird was out to lunch. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And did you notice his comment "God you guys are stupid and arbitrary. God you are humorless." Christians don't talk like that. That's a violation of the Ten Commandments. Onward Christian Troll-diers! Trolly, Trolly, Trolly, Lord God Almighty! Trolly Rollers! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, "Christian" can be an expression of intent (wanting to be like Jesus), and many demonstrate inconsistent and imperfect execution of that intent. Jclemens (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The boy gets a cigar, for the understatement of the week. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Extend the block

    Take a look at his latest edit [70]. Again accuses Verbal of libel, of having a criminal mind, excusing rape, etc. Pretty vicious. Dougweller (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Socking and continuing to abuse other editors. I seldom agree with Baseball Bugs, but this guy looks like the leading light of Trolls for Jesus. Second the call for a longer block. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then. :)
    "Trolls for Jesus". Perfect. I think it's clear he's not here to help build an encyclopedia and he should be chilled permanently. P.S. I removed my challenging comments from his talk page, since he was ignoring them anyway. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in agreement here. Having been following this since the initial edits, and in light of the user page and talk comments, I'm inclined to think that this is nothing more than a trolling account. Every action seems to be performed in order to incite further argument. --Cpl Syx (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably a good idea to take away his right to edit his talk page. Oh, and don't forget to (short-term) block the IP address. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe there is any good in extending the block for a definite duration. The talk page definitely needs to be locked down for a few hours. If there continue to be problems, simply block indefinitely. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) I'd already blocked him indef. I think a quick read of the talkpage will convince anyone that the editor is not here for any useful purpose. No objection to anyone reversing the block length if they really think there's any point, though. Black Kite 13:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note to tell that 75.172.195.7 is not serpent dove (I checked due to the concerns of socking). -- Luk talk 13:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how you could confirm that, but I blocked it short-term anyway. Since that was its only edit, it's hardly likely to cause any collateral damage. Black Kite 13:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hard to figure why that IP would come out of nowhere and make a cosmetic correction to an obscure item in an administrative page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say I found the diff from Doug to be very funny, although I find it embarrassing when other (ahem) 'Christians' behave in this manner. He certainly blasphemes a lot (I'll avoid a slur against some denominations here)! I support the longer block, aware of the possibility of socking - though it should be easy to spot unless he behaves, but then there's no problem. I don't know why I got him so worked up, as I was uninvolved apart from filing this report. I agree that this was probably never a genuine account, and was probably here intending to make trouble like his. Shame, although amusing. Verbal chat 13:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still cracking up over "Trolls for Jesus". Quite possibly the best thing I've read on WP this year. --Smashvilletalk 14:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A gem indeed from the user Elen of the Roads. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, thank you, thank you! Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A B C D E F G H I got a problem in Kalamazoo

    Just as in this earlier ANI report, we've got an IP editor (69.209.113.108 (talk · contribs)) removing mentions of awards from the lede of articles without ensuring that the awards are mentioned in the body of the article. As in the first case, editors have attempted to discuss the situation with the IP on their talk page, to no apparent response. Both IPs are from the same ISP and location. Can someone get their attention? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Its not a clear cut case, unfortunately. I checked a few of their most recent edits (they stopped around 02:00, so nothing pressing ATM) and 3/4 had the information on the award included elsewhere. I fixed the one case where it wasn't...but someone has to go into probably each case and check for the award. That, or mass revert and make sure the IP understands what is needed if they reinstate. Syrthiss (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur that this user is problematic. User is taking WP:PEA as gospel, and removing words without any attempt to rephrase or to make sure the sense of the article is kept. Not sure that it rises to the level of blockability, but this user accused me of WP:OWN just because I disagreed and reverted. Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've raised it to that level, warning the user that because it is damaging to the articles to remove that information and not place it elsewhere and because they aren't even attempting to communicate, further activity will lead to a block until they can address the issue. I'm fine with the info not being in the article intros, but it really needs to be elsewhere in the article. One's edits really shouldn't cause extra work for other editors. Syrthiss (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have wanted to assume good faith, but the user's editing history is looking remarkably like a crusade, and the user seems to be thumbing his/her nose at feedback. Edits like this one (which is one of several that repeated edits made earlier by that other anon IP) not only removed information about awards from the lead sentence and lead section, but from the entire article. I was not aware of the problem with the earlier IP user; this is clearly the same person, which makes it seem more likely that this is intentionally disruptive behavior. Syrthiss' warning was appropriate. --Orlady (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC) This revert (of my edit that restored the information that the IP had removed earlier, but with wording changes to address the concern the IP had stated) is one that gives me the impression of a crusade. --Orlady (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't think their intent is disruption. I think their intent is to improve the articles, but their implementation is spotty. Its not even really their fault, since I would think that the articles that mention awards in the intro sentence *should* have the award info further down. Nonetheless, without addressing that it is a problem and continuing the behavior once we've let them know there is a concern is not helpful. Syrthiss (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed this editor's changes early on and dropped a note at WikiProject: Actors and Filmmakers [71]. I see other also have posted concerns. This editor should be blocked and most of the edits reverted. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed this activity and left a note about this on August 14. The WP:ACTOR to-do list is specific in what it wants: "Remove lead sentence mention of "______ Award-winning" and/or "______ Award-nominated". This can and should be included in lead sections, but not in lead sentences. Please change leads to include mention of major awards, but do so in context. There is far too much work involved in having to backtrack over this user's edits to undo damage when all mention of awards may be deleted from articles, which has happened on at least a couple articles at which I looked. The editor is clearly aware of the issue, since he/she has stopped referring to the to-do list in edit summaries. Regardless, in at least 3 cases I saw, any mention of awards in the lead have been removed and that is unacceptable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism?

    Why would discussing NPOV on a discussion page[72] be ever considered Vandalism? Although I'm directly responding to a discussion in which the Editor argues AGAINST the inclusion of a link to the ENTIRE report at the center of the persons notability - there exists a group of three editors who work together and focus their efforts on these types of articles that seem to exist as political pawns. One author has enshrined a portrait of Obama center mass on his talk page and proudly boasts of his dedication to the Democratic Party[73], another carries a number of bumper stickers on his home page[74]:

    This user knows that FOX News is not Fair or Balanced. This user watches MSNBC. This user is a liberal and doesn't understand why Americans have demonised the word. This user wants to TAX THE RICH to provide health care, education and welfare for everyone. This user supports immigration and the right to travel freely upon the planet we share. This user supports the legalization of all drugs for adults. This user's safety and liberty are threatened by all firearms. This user is sick and tired of Religion trying to hijack the government and wants stronger separation of church and state. This user voted for hope and change, not country first.

    All edit primarily in articles like Acorn[75], et al, and are present on most of the political battlegrounds fighting for the left.

    Any discussion or edit in the Susan Roesgen article at all seems to be responded to like Al Gore before the Supreme Court with everyone wearing an Elect Bush button on their robe - in reverse.99.144.250.128 (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion page comment you made seems almost like a personal attack to me. They are not allowed, but civil discussion is. Try to be kind to people, even if they seem like idiots. Also, we can't judge people here by their political views, but neither should people let them affect their judgment when editing. Kotiwalo (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    IP99, that was some good general advice from Kotiwalo; the tone of your comments could probably have been less confrontational. However, reviewing admins should note that IP99 does seem to have a legitimate point: this deletion of talkpage discussion by User:Gamaliel, and the accompanying Edit Summary are mistaken, misleading, and somewhat offensive (to the other participants). With no comment on the deeper issue, it seems appropriate to give both editors a brief chat and links to appropriate policy on behaviour. Doc Tropics 16:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is your comment on the deeper issue, Doc Tropics. Gamaliel's action was not as rash as it would first seem, as there is a history of disruptive editing and trolling involved by the IP editor. Please see the edit histories and talk pages of this same IP editor under User:99.135.169.168, User:99.141.246.39 and perhaps other non-static IPs. The IP editor has been warned on numerous occasions for incivility, disruptive editing and personal attacks, and has been blocked multiple times for same. Comments such as these have escalated the level of response required with this IP editor. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My first edit was attacked [76]. I was then attacked as a "TeaBagger" without reference.[77]. That attitude continued:
    99.141.246.39 I want you to cry me a river, build a bridge and get the fuck over it. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 22:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
    Revert, Belittle And Ignore are the Wiki cycles practiced by the three entrenched editors. Even as I requested a modicum of decorum and civility.[78] There is an enormous frustration to be found in getting Tag-Teamed[79] by what resembles nothing so much as blatant bias.99.144.250.128 (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That comment was made by an anonymous IP user, and is not civil. About the reverts - I find it very unlikely that a group of people would conspire here to carry on POV-edits, because that would require a common plan, and a common plan would require communication, and in Wikipedia it's hard to communicate secretly. It is very likely that they are working individually and according to the policies and guidelines. If there is controversy about which should be added to the article, instead of edit warring by adding the content only to have it reverted several times, leave a message to the article's talk page where the other editors will have to explain the reasons for the edits. Kotiwalo (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand why it was inappropriate for me to remove a personal attack on another editor. I also issued talk page warnings to the IP editor and the other editors when appropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jay Jennings

    Resolved
     – No immediate administrator intervention needed; matter now at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Jay_Jennings.  Skomorokh  23:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Although I did not create the article, I was a part of the AFD discussion. There were four keeps and one delete which were discussed on the AFD page. The closing admin did took no regard whatsoever to what myself and others had discussed on the page, rather they just deleted the page for what would seem a policy problem. I looked further into policies and as I first thought, the AFD process is supposed be taken from the consensus of a discussion; in which case this admin did not.keystoneridin! (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The proper venue for this question would be WP:Deletion review. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    or my talk page since this editor hasn't discussed this with me and I am already awaiting further details of sources to consider voiding the close. Spartaz Humbug! 17:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should never have closed the article in the first place. There were four keeps to one delete. What have I done for you to consider me a bad faith editor?keystoneridin! (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whatever the merits of this article (I haven't looked at it), there is absolutely no problem closing an AfD with more Keeps than Deletes as "Delete" (and indeed vice-versa), if the Delete votes provide a stronger argument for their point of view. Indeed, an admin that merely closed every AfD based on headcount would probably end up at DRV on a regular basis. Black Kite 17:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not quite agree on that. I would say you should close with the minority if the majority opinions are not based on policy at all, or omit discussing a key superseding issue such as copyvio. There will sometimes be two plausible arguments from different interpretations of policy, and I do not think the admin has the right to judge in that case which is the better of the 2. If he really does think one the better, he should join the discussion and say so, and let someone else close. Our RfA questionings are sufficient to show whether we understand the basics, but not the nuances. Certainly not the disputed nuances. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, agreed, I was really trying to sum it up briefly for an editor who appeared to believe that AfD was merely a vote. Black Kite 19:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a particularly old editor, but I've read old deletion discussions and around the time that "Votes for Deletion" became "Articles for Deletion", the standard seemed to be to count "votes" and if the result was close you would decide based on the value of arguments. It seems like the opposite is true these days, in that you first determine if those arguing for keep and arguing for delete both have policy-based, applicable arguments, and if so you might decide on strength of numbers. Of course if both sides have a decent argument and there's no overwhelming majority either way the AfD is either relisted if there doesn't seem to be enough participation, or closed as "no consensus" which defaults to keeping the article. That's how I've always seen the AfD process, I could be mistaken. -- Atama頭 20:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As an administrator who identifies strongly as eventualist, I see nothing wrong with the closure here; Wikipedia is not a democracy, and the arguments made in favour of the retention of the article were poor to say the least.  Skomorokh  23:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Kurfürst

    Yesterday i reverted a big rewritting of the Messerschmitt Bf 109 article by user User:Kurfürst because in my opinion the edits worsened the article and i explained that on the talk page. As a reaction user Kurfürst accused me of bad faith and went to insult me in worst possible fashion on some talk page. [80]. Since Kurfust has a long history of incivil behavior I think a block would be in order. Loosmark (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have informed Kurfürst of this discussion. Syrthiss (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor was behaving disruptively in the article, reverting every addition I made during the day, arguing that it was 'POV pushing'. He has several similiar issues in other articles with other editors, and had several content disputes with myself in other articles. [I suggest you take a look at these revert of his in another article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bombing_of_Wieluń&diff=308685026&oldid=308684798]. Generally it involved him reverting every change I have made without any proper explanation made.
    No editor supported his revert, and an admin eventually reverted him, and supported my edits. Please also [take a look at the article's talk page]. He was asked on the talk page to provide his specific concerns with the edits by admin Trevor MacInnis and myself on the talk page; instead, when finding no support, he came here filing a 'report'. This should give a fairly good idea on the good faith or bad faith involved in this matter.
    It seemed to me from the start to be bad-faith disruptive editing with the only intent to stirr up trouble. Loosmark had never edited or showed any interest in the Messerschmitt Bf 109 article before, and it would appear he was following my contributions and trying to provocate me
    We are currently in the process of trying to bring the article to a Featured article; for this reason, instead of engaging a revert war with him, I choosed to bring it to the attention of other editors working on this article to decide wheter they find my contributions supportable, or came to the same conclusion as I did, that it was simple trolling. Given the confrontative history of this editor, and the current circumstances, it while perhaps not appropriate to describe his actions as trolling, I would say it was still accurate. This editor was simply looking for a fight, to bait me into an edit war so he could file an ANI report then, and to solve his content disputes in this way in other articles. Kurfürst (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I wasn't acting as an administrator with my edits above, just and editor interested in the article, and any comments I made should not be construed as a warning or administrative decision. As such I'll try to remain out of this. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 19:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    reply to Kurfust: I don't know why Kurfürst decided to write the long rant above. The Bombing of Wieluń article has nothing to do with my complain (even if also on that talk page he acted like a jerk telling blatant lies like that me or/and Jacurek are banned from AE topics(???), or giving the impression that editor Hohum in general "opposed my edits" something that got promptly refuted twice [81], [82]). Anyway returning to the topic of the complain I planned to explain my concerns on Messerschmitt Bf 109 in more detail but i have a life outside wiki and still didn't have the time to do so. The only reason i wrote this complain is because i noticed his insult and i think it is totally totally unacceptable for sb to write stuff like "the troll raised his ugly head" for another editor. Loosmark (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    'even if also on that talk page he acted like a jerk telling blatant lies'. Its good to know you have such concerns for matters of civility, and that while you don't have time to discuss your mass reverting of others building an article, you still find time to file ANI reports on them..
    Also your contributions list Special:Contributions/Loosmark show you spent your whole day reporting me and reverting some other, most of your previous day reverting me and filing an ANI report on yet another editor, and the day before that you were reverting some other editor at 2:24 AM etc... no wonder you find little time while being so busy reverting and reporting others, to actually discuss and contribute to articles...! Kurfürst (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about again? This is the only report i made in more than a month. You should really stop making up stuff... Loosmark (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    On the one hand, both of you avoided edit-warring by sticking with one revert and taking things to talk pages, which is great. On the other hand, you've both been very uncivil once things were taken to talk pages. Kurfürst, calling Loosmark a "troll" and saying that they are "initiating an edit war" and questioning their motives aren't productive ways to respond. If you disagree with the changes made, then discuss your difference of opinion and make your case as to why your edits were necessary; don't attack the editor. Loosmark, calling Kurfürst a jerk and a liar puts you just as much in the wrong. I suggest that both of you either focus on a compromise regarding a different opinion on the content, or just simply avoid each other if possible. I don't think there's anything requiring administrator action. -- Atama頭 21:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry Atama but what you say is completely ludicrous. I have not even mentioned the Bombing of Wieluń article he brought that topic up and yes he lied there that Jacurek is banned from editing articles about Eastern Europe, he falsely tried to give the impression that the editor Hohum is against my edits where in fact he was more against his edits and he also lied here above where he said i started several complains against editors in the past days which is nothing but a blatant lie. All those are facts and he does even try to dispute them. He on the other hand went to write in a talk page that "i'm a troll and that i raised my ugly head". But now according to you I am "as much in the wrong" as him. Really, i'm out of words. Loosmark (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Atama, great suggestions but it is very hard to compromise with user Kurfürst. This is at least my experience while working with him on some articles in the past. I will not go into details here unless he attacks me (I totally expect that knowing him) but I just wanted to let you know that he is more problematic that you think. To his credit I would like to say that he indeed is getting better in terms of not reverting endlessly as he did before but that could be because he was blocked for doing that recently. However introduction of controversial material by him, with weak or dubious sources and verbal manipulation or plain lies (as Loosmark pointed out) remain so far unchanged.--Jacurek (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Loosmark, if you can't accept that it's inappropriate to call someone a jerk then I don't know what else to say. And it is rather extreme to call someone a liar, even when they write something you think or even know is incorrect. There can be any number of reasons for someone to write something that is incorrect; a misunderstanding, a different point of view, etc. To call someone a liar is to declare unambiguously that they had malicious intent in their actions, and it is very uncivil to do so. I stand by what I said 100%, that your words on this noticeboard are equally as uncivil as those of Kurfürst in the original diff you provided. I don't think the best way to ask for action to be taken against someone's incivility is to act the same way. -- Atama頭 22:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Atama, you are absolutely right. I think that Loosmark is just loosing it while dealing with Kurfürst because I never so him using such a language before, but again, you are right, it was highly inappropriate calling him a liar even if one is sure that his verbal manipulation was not accidental.--Jacurek (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok Atama, now you only need to explain how do you think that the lies he told are "misunderstandings", "different point of view" etc etc etc. different point of view what? that I've complained against other editors, that Jacurek is banned from editing Easter European articles? how can there be different point of view on that? it's either true or it is not. And besides if he would have really made those errors in good faith due to some mysterious "misunderstanding" he would have apologied afterwards which of course he didn't even dream of. Loosmark (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I stated before, saying something that's untrue isn't automatically a lie. If Kurfürst was proven wrong and didn't apologize afterward that could either be because they were embarrassed to admit that they were wrong, or disagreed but decided to no longer pursue it, or any other number of reasons. All I'm saying, for your own benefit, if you want to pursue accusations of incivility you should try to be as civil as possible in the process, just some advice. I do see that you've redacted some earlier language, which is a good thing. And it certainly seems true to me that Kurfürst has been uncivil. -- Atama頭 23:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Amen to that..agree, uncivil editors always "loose" at the end.--Jacurek (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent)"Also your contributions list Special:Contributions/Loosmark show you spent your whole day reporting me and reverting some other, most of your previous day reverting me and filing an ANI report on yet another editor, and the day before that you were reverting some other editor at 2:24 AM etc... no wonder you find little time while being so busy reverting and reporting others, to actually discuss and contribute to articles...!"

    I think the "ANI report" Kurfürst is referring to here is the 3RR post made. It's the administrators' noticeboard, but not the incidents section. Again, I think some of these false statements are just a misunderstanding. Others might be deliberate falsehoods, but without evidence of ill-intent it's just mudslinging. Mud is being slung from both sides in fact. -- Atama頭 23:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User_talk:Loosmark#Notification and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#List_of_editors_placed_on_notice: Placed on notice Skäpperöd, Loosmark, Elysander, and Jacurek.
    Even without checking the long 'edit' history of Loosmark and Jacurek editors (they generally act and aid each other, reverting edits with a stereotypically repeated reasoning of 'no consensus', 'controversial', 'pov pushing' in each case, but never going into any specifics on the talk pages, and had dozens of similiar cases already) it should be clear by now that their editing behaviour in this case has very little to do with the content in the Messerschmitt 109 article
    I am afraid that assuming good faith about it would be borderlining extreme naiivity at this point. Its a simple case of stalking, attempting to start an edit war, and when this doesn't work out, shopping the ANI as a last resort. Its not so rare around here. Anyway, it has been a major waste of time just to respond to it - it doesn't even worth it. Kurfürst (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Kurfürst, I can now see why you had stated that the editors shouldn't be editing Eastern Europe articles. The way I read that sanction is that the editors who have been given notice can then be blocked or banned if they misbehave on such pages. Loosmark, I can't imagine that you were unaware that you were mentioned in an Arbcom sanction, and while I don't know if you've violated the sanction, that definitely shows that Kurfürst's statement wasn't a lie. In any case, I feel like this is peeling apart like an onion whose layers get worse and worse the deeper they go. My only intention was to warn about incivility but this is getting into really murky waters now and I think I'll bow out and let an actual administrator step in, if any is willing. I retract what I said before about none of this requiring administror action. With possible Arbcom enforcement needed on one side, and an editor with a repeated block history on the other, I'm going to let more capable hands take over. Good luck to all involved, and if at all possible please keep cool from now on. -- Atama頭 00:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Atama, i thought that you are an admin... To answer briefly yes I made a comment on some 3RR report that doesn't mean that "i filled an ANI report on yet another editor" as Kurfust falsely claimed. Also your conclusion that "that definitely shows that Kurfürst's statement wasn't a lie" is absurd, no Arbcom sanction banned me or Jacurek from editing Eastern European topics. If somebody is spreading such completely untrue rumors around he's simply defaming me. But anyway i didn't even complain about those falsities the topic of this complain is Kurfust writting about me that i'm a "troll who raised his ugly head". Loosmark (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Gingerly stepping back in... No, I'm not an administrator. Just a regular editor who gave an opinion, and who thought he saw a simple dispute. As I said, you're slinging mud without reason. Kurfürst confused 3RR with AN/I, that's not the same as a lie. Kurfürst also interpreted your warning about Arbcom as a topic ban, which isn't true but in fact you're a step away, so that was a misinterpretation, not a lie. Your insistence that these are lies when you have evidence suggesting that they have some basis (if misread) are a continued incivility. My last piece of advice to you, just as an editor, is to stay away from those articles. If you get in trouble there you can be blocked for up to a year in length. If you stay away from those articles you avoid both the danger of such a sanction, and at the same time you can avoid Kurfürst who is clearly pushing your buttons to get you in trouble. Just walk away from there, I see that you've done some fine work, keep that up and stay away from those articles and that editor. It's not worth it. Thank you. -- Atama頭 05:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly if you are not administrator you should not comment on this one. Your defense of Kurfust is starting to be bizarre. Kurfust confused 3RR with AN/I? Erm how do you know? And that's completely not the point, I've not filled any report. Claiming that he honestly thought i filled a report because i made a short comment in a thread is a bit beyond believable. And how do you know that "Kurfürst also interpreted your warning about Arbcom as a topic ban"? That's seems to be an Alice in wonderland theory, had he really believed that we are editing a page from which we are banned he'd would have gone to report us long ago. Not to mention he's continuously making these "misinterpretations" just look this thread alone, he claimed that i filled this report "to solve my content dispute when i found no support for my edits", that I've "spent my whole day reporting him", that this is "a simple case of stalking" etc. Then you say that I'm slinging mud without reason. I simply don't believe he's continuously making these misinterpretations in good faith. But anyway just to make it clear once again 1) I've not reported Kurfust for any of his "misinterpretations", i only commented on that when he brought the topic here by claiming i misbehaved on another page when in fact it was him that did so 2) if anybody thinks that I've misbehaved in any way anywhere they are of course free to fill a report against me. Loosmark (talk) 08:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me answer #2: yes, you misbehaved - you actually told an editor where and when he can't edit. ANI attempts to be the voice of the community, and that involves non-admins. Stating that "if you are an administrator you should not comment" is contrary to the community effort that is Wikipedia. Now, strike one ... should I start going through everything else now, because where there's smoke, there's often fire. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've not told an editor "where and when he can't edit", what i meant is he should not comment on the Arbcom's decision especially since he doesn't seem to understand it. His comment that Kurfust interpreted the Arbcom decision (which was basically a stricter code of conduct on Eastern European articles for everybody editing those articles) as a topic ban doesn't make any sense, going by that logic Kurfust should also have interpreted himself as being topic-banned. Loosmark (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If one is going to give Kurfurst the benefit of the doubt - namely, that he was merely "misunderstanding" rather then intentionally lying and making stuff up, then the same courtesy should be extended to Loosmark's comment that someone shouldn't have commented - i.e. one should familiarize themselves with the situation before offering an opinion. But more generally, while we should assume good faith in others, the relevant policy on AGF actually states This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. - given the nature of previous interactions between Kurfurst and Loosmark, which can be easily understood by looking at each editor's block log in turn, I think a certain amount of frutstration on Loosmark's part is also understandable (though yes, he could've kept a cooler head before responding to Kurstfurst incivil provocations).radek (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Loosmark we still have not seen any of your specific concerns that 'forced you' to mas revert all of my contribution, or 'POV pushing' as you call it to the Messerschmitt 109 article. Ever since you owe us a detailed, specific explanation.
    You have very long history of reverting other editors without giving aduquate reasoning for it, and refusing to discuss your reverts on the talk page. Your latest reverts follow the same pattern. You only made it worse by coming here and tried ANI shopping, and then engaged in gross uncivility even here, as you did before, in many cases. The evidence that your whole behavior was bad faith is numerous and convincing. Your reverts and your use of the ANI were in bad faith, so do not play the offended when someone calls it what it is.
    Note to admins unaware of the connection between the three editors commenting here: it is to be considered that Radek, Jacurek and Loosmark regularly cooperate in reverting other editors in articles, and/or during their misuse of the ANI board. See their previous edit history on the Admin board, and this newly created mediation[83]. Where one of them is involved, all the others appear suddenly, to support each other. Indeed this sort of disruptive behaviour is going on for quite a long time, and IMHO would warrent an through Arbcom inspection of the matter. Kurfürst (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Jesus, this is becoming completely ridiculous, i'm not a part in the Paneriai mediation process, i've never discussed the topic of that mediation with either of them. The claim that i was engaged in "gross incivility in many cases" is of course blatantly false, Jacurek Radek and me have not misused the ANI board (surely some Admin would have noticed that had that been true and there would be evidence to support such an accusation) etc etc etc. Now i guess i've to asume that Kurfürst's latests claims are yet again "missunderstings". Loosmark (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-term vandal - User:Steviemcmanaman

    Not blatant enough for WP:AIV, and probably not immediate enough, so I'm bringing it here. As his talk page indicates, this editor has a long history of added unsourced claims and rumors about "romantic relationships" (and occasionally other things) to articles on celebrities, mostly low-grade celebs. So far as I can tell, after reviewing his edit history for the current year, none of his edits have been legitimate -- some proven false, some deleted as unsourced, an unhealthy number just hanging around, but not one has ever proved verifiable. Occasionally the vandalism is clear [84] (event that didn't happened inserted to make it appear that a source existed), but it's usually subtle enough to elude identification as vandalism, just coming across as bad editing. Nobody's editing can be 100% bad (or maybe 99%, because he occasionally deletes other rumors to make his own fit better) unless they're really trying hard. A block as a vandalism-only account appears to be in order. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Intentionally inserting unsourced information in BLPs can be considered vandalism. If no admin reviewing this decides to block him, you can leave a final warning after his next edit and then report to AIV if he continues. He has certainly received enough prior warnings to justify a final warning, I suggest this template as an appropriate one (adding unreferenced defamatory info to a biography of a living person). Note that this editor hasn't had an edit for almost 2 weeks, and no edits since the last warning. -- Atama頭 21:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone please help me here?

    Collapsing: original editor summarized below

    Hello.
    (btw, advance warning: I'm bad at being brief. If you just want to know what I want, skip to the end. Long story short, I simply want to be able to delete messages that are intended for me)

    I tried very hard to avoid having to do this (largely because I realize that admins aren't any more fond of dealing with petty bickering and nonsense than anyone else is).
    However, I feel as though I'm being subjected to harrassment.
    This all began with the Lindsay Lohan article. As everyone who watches too many media-related shows and 'soft news' knows, she has, for the lack of a better word, a girlfriend.
    There was some discussion on whether or not that meant she should be classified as a "LGBT Actor". As it turns out, the BLP policy page for categories indicates that, unless she publicly self-identifies as such, she should not.
    So, the topic's come up now and then. Even though most people are familiar with the basic concepts of BLP, I don't think most people actually go to the extra effort of reading it, so they end up making entirely understandable mistakes.
    After a notice on the BLP noticeboard, it was, naturally, removed. Additionally, a notice was embedded in the change, so that future editors would know not to re-add it. This included a direct reference to a quote that sometimes makes editors think the category is valid.
    This should have been the end of it. However, inexplicably, within hours, it was re-added, without addressing consensus or BLP on the talk page, and apparently ignoring the message that instructed not to re-add it.
    Thankfully, this was reverted even faster than it was re-added. The system works again.

    That should have been the end of it, because the BLP policy page is incredibly specific on the issue.
    It wasn't until after that revert that the person who tried to re-add it against BLP and consensus decided to actually discuss it on the article's talk page.
    However, his own arguments seemed to defeat his position. The BLP page (which was already referenced) is very clear about stating that you can't add it unless they publicly self-identify. The only thing Ms. Lohan has definitively stated on the subject of her possible bisexuality was that she doesn't want to "classify" herself. In spite of that, the editor in question said that it should be added anyways because "Plenty of queer eople eschew labels for personal and/or political reasons." (In case I'm putting this in the wrong context or something, feel free to refer to the diff I provided).
    Though I can sympathize with that position, it still entirely ignores the BLP policy, which had already been very clearly addressed. As such, I very promptly corrected him (or her. I don't actually know).

    Go ahead and read that last diff. Do you spot my crime? I didn't.
    And so, when I was issued with a warning. A warning? For what? Apparently, I'd made personal attacks. However, I looked back at the last thing I'd said, and there were no attacks there. (maaaybe a very minor 'good faith' issue, but certainly not an attack)
    Frankly, when someone warns me about personal attacks, and doesn't even bother to include a diff, or an explanation, I find it hard to take that very seriously. I mean, I knew I hadn't done anything wrong anyways, but when they don't even bother trying to prove it? That's just silly. :)
    My response may not have been all sunshine and farts, but I feel it was reasonable considering the situation (remember the timeline here: Category removed because it violated policy. This editor puts it back in against both policy and consensus. It gets re-removed. His arguments then entirely ignore the policy. I correct him. He then vaguely accuses me of a personal attack, without explanation).
    Since I have a dynamic IP address (both because of the ISP, and because I edit from different locations), I then removed the notice. After all, I read it. So I'm allowed to remove it.
    He then restored the warning, and upped the ante.
    You see, by not assuming that I had, in fact, launched a vicious personal attack, I was committing another personal attack. Really? REALLY? oi.
    To me, this was absurd. He did, however, finally tell me what I'd done wrong. I'd made the mistake of suggesting that he was ignoring BLP when it wasn't convenient. I'm not sure which part irked him. He was ignoring BLP. And I can't imagine a more positive reason to do so, so that aspect is hardly an attack, either. (again, check the diffs for more details. I'm verbose enough as it is)

    He did, incidentally, still reply to my comment in the article talk page. His argument might even be moving, if it weren't for the fact that, in it, he admitted that she hasn't explicitly labelled herself as bisexual (not surprising, she, again, she directly stated that she does not want to "classify" herself). So, again, the argument ignores the BLP policy.
    Is the policy perfect? Probably not. It certainly seems odd at first to suggest that a woman with a girlfriend can't be categorized as a lesbian or bisexual. But the proper way to go about changing things is to address the policy, not ignore it.

    Like I said, I have dynamic IPs. It isn't a result of TOR, or some anonymizer, or any attempts to pretend to be anyone else. As such, by the time I get messages left for me, I may be on another IP. Similarly, someone else may get those messages left for me.
    You can follow the contributions of Whatever404, 209.90.134.60, 139.57.101.134, and 209.90.135.121 to follow the sloppy mess that followed, as well as the talk pages of such.

    It is not my intention to portray myself in an unfairly positive light, but since I already tend to say too much, I'll summarize the gist of what followed:
    Whatever404 started putting warnings on any IP addresses I used to reply (other than the last), including upping the warning level again.
    He's also taken to including links between them so that it'll be more clear that we're all the same person. (which is peculiar. I've made no attempts to hide myself)
    Since all of these messages are addressed to the same person (ie. me), I've removed them after reading them. Obviously, there's no reason to leave those messages for other people who get the IP addresses next.
    Even though the messages were intended for me, and he knows that those IP addresses are no longer me, he still insisted on repeatedly restoring them for the next person.
    To me, this is inexcusable. It's harrassment.
    If I still had those addresses, I'd be entitled to remove them. Since he's included links joining them together (that is, links in one referring to the other), he knows that they're me.
    I can think of no valid reason in leaving questionable warnings for other people.
    (Again, don't forget that the original reasoning for the "warnings" in the first place was my suggesting that he was ignoring BLP policy, which he all but admitted in his next comment in the article talk page anyways)

    I tried to let it go. When he removed my messages on his talk page without addressing my points, I decided to let him get the last word, in spite of his unfortunate edit summary. I'm fine with letting someone get the last word if it lets me get back to more important things.
    However, a full 45 minutes after removing my message, he decided to resume adding warnings too any and all IPs (even though he continued to assert that I couldn't treat those messages as being to me).
    I eventually outright told him that he needs to stop this. (by now, one could argue that I was stretching civility pretty far, but I'd had it by then!)
    He then started removing my messages to him on-sight, with no acknowledgement, and instead opted for arguing in edit summaries. That can't possibly resolve anything.

    Just take a look at his contributions (if you didn't above). How many edits have been devoted solely to "warnings" and restoring messages to me, with the rationale that I'm not allowed control over messages addressed to me?
    All I want is those talk pages blanked so the next people don't get exposed to this absurd nonsense. And, ideally, fully-protected so that he can't (again) leave me messages on numerous pages.
    I'm not asking for him to be warned about the BLP violation. I'm not asking him to be blocked for edit-warring. I just want these pages to be blank for the next person.

    (Incidentally, I really am sorry for how long this is. I realize I need to be more concise. I'm working on it, even if you can't tell)
    (Additional to the incidentally, if I've put this in the wrong place, please tell me so I can take it where it belongs. My request involves a page protection, a request for edits, and I suppose etiquette, so I didn't really know where to put it) 209.90.134.60 (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    tl;dr. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a freakin' essay! A megillah! Can you state, in 25 words or less, what the issue is? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would even give him the ol' 140 characters, Twitter way to discribe what the issue is. Quick, simple, to the point. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize this does not address all the issues you mention, but have you considered creating an account? It would at least solve those dynamic-IP related issues. 2help (message me) 04:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, sorry about that. I really do need to learn to write things shorter.
    K... bulletpoints?
    • Got into a content dispute with someone. I thought it was important to violate BLP; they thought common sense was more important.
    • I suggested they were ignoring BLP (which I don't think can be disputed after the reply to that).
    • He "warned" me for "personal attacks", without explaining.
    • I treated the "warning" like nonsense, since I hadn't done anything wrong, and he didn't even explain.
    • He raised the warning level for not first assuming he was right before he even explained.
    • Because of my ISP and changing locations, I've had a few IP addresses.
    • He added warnings to at least two of them, and linked from one to the other (acknowledging that we're all the same person), but then insisted that I can't treat them as messages to me.
    • He's repeatedly insisted that, even though he can warn all addresses like they're the same person, I can't treat the messages as being to me.
    • (ignoring that the "warnings" are absurd) If they're not all the same person, then he can't treat them collectively. If they are, then I should be able to remove them. Either way, there's no justification for keeping them.
    • All I want to do is have those talk pages blanked so "the next person" to get one of those addresses isn't pestered by nonsense.
    I hope that's better. Sorry for the essay. 209.90.134.60 (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am the editor about whom the IP(s) is concerned, and the IP, currently, is at 209.90.134.60 (this is the IP formerly known as 139.57.101.134, née 209.90.135.121). The initial, arguably molehillesque issue upon which this editor seems focused is Lindsay Lohan's sexual orientation and related wiki categorization. Another editor called the topic "not really encyclopedic"; I feel the same. Please note that I was not the person who first added the cat', this time around; that was User:ExpressingYourself, using HotCat. When I saw it had been removed, I did reflexively revert to re-add it, once, without realizing it was a contentious issue: I recognize now that I should have bothered to read before reverting. When someone else reverted me, I recognized the cat's presence was disputed, and did not make a second edit; I commented, twice, at Talk.
    Meanwhile, this IP's tone has grown increasingly inflammatory, with little input from others. Their initial response at Talk was hostile, and they responded to my concern about NPA by calling it "utter nonsense". After another NPA reminder about refraining from those types of comments, they immediately used the term "nonsense", and "silliness". They have also made edits with no content, for the sole purpose of chiding me with the edit summaries. Perhaps their most troublesome behavior is that they have gone on multiple argumentative tirades, rife with attacks and incivility, which they did, ironically enough, in response to those simple NPA warnings.
    Most recently, this editor is on a campaign to expunge other IP's Talk pages of warnings left for those IPs, despite the fact that (my understanding is that) IPs are only permitted to remove warnings from their own Talk pages, not the Talk pages of other IPs. When I restored the inappropriately-removed warnings, the IP editor accused me of vandalism, then apparently penned the above AN/I essay. When another editor stepped in to revert the blanking, the IP re-reverted, "just once", in two different places, then blanked that user's warning at their current IP. The user's stated goal seems to be to establish a recognized identity without registering an account, in order to obtain permission to blank other IP talk pages of warnings. This editor's behavior strikes me as inappropriate for the circumstances.
    Yet this same editor is perfectly calm and civil when dealing with people in positions of power (administrators). The obvious conclusions aside, it would be nice if a few others would keep an eye on this person's behavior. Likewise, if I've made any mistakes here, please let me know, though I think you'll be hard-pressed to find evidence of instigation on my part: I've tried to observe the local customs to the best of my ability. Thanks for reading this. Whatever404 (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You undid my edit without realising the issue was contentious? As the saying goes, I'll believe ya, thousands wouldn't... Rd232 talk 11:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. I feel compelled to point out three things:
    1. You both acknowledge that all three IPs are, indeed, me and then choose to behave as though they're separate people. (First, they're the same person, but then, when it comes to removing messages addressed to that single person, you repeatedly refer to my actions as editing the talk pages of "other IPs".) Again, which is it?
    2. Do you not see the humour in criticizing me for being polite with others? Has it not occurred to you that, if I'm calm and polite with everyone but you, maybe there is a reason for this?
    3. Pretending for a moment that there has been something wrong with my conduct since your false warnings, that wouldn't be ironic at all. You're basically saying, "Wow! I make false accusations about someone's attitude, and then they cop an attitude! Ironic!" That's no more "ironic" than rain on one's wedding day.
    Incidentally, it really isn't your place to condemn my interactions with 2help. If he thinks I acted inappropriately, he can say so. If he has a problem with how I handled his edits, he can say so. Additionally, you should try to assume good faith. I don't know if he's an admin or not. I didn't bother checking his userpage. My first interaction with him was before I even saw that he'd commented in here. So there's no need to imply anything here. 209.90.134.60 (talk) 06:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me. I misspoke. I failed to follow that link. Apparently, it linked to a different example of me being calm and polite fromo what I'd expected. Of course, everything else I said still applies. That page isn't even specifically for administrators. It's simply for people concerned with BLP. (But, like I said, the rest applies. Silly to criticize me for being polite. And inappropriate to imply that I'm sucking up or something) 209.90.134.60 (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: of the various links above, I'll highlight this one which whatever404 provided, with his interpretation: "The user's stated goal seems to be to establish a recognized identity without registering an account, in order to obtain permission to blank other IP talk pages of warnings." Hm - that's not what I read there (it says the IP used to have an account but decided to leave and only contribute occasionally, anonymously). Basically, users have the right to contribute anonymously, and this contributor does so at different locations which involves multiple IPs. WP:UP#CMT still applies, and it says "Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages." Messages are addressed to people, not IPs - IPs are just handles to get at the people. If the message has been read by the person it's addressed to, it can be removed. Rd232 talk 11:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestions: complainer #1 registers a WP account and uses it, complainer #2 gets over it, and everybody gets a life. Let's forget that this happened and start working on a cure for cancer or something. Nobody here has a serious gripe. Brain Rodeo (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nicely put, Wiki is a big site and you are able to remove any messages on your talk page when you like.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed; this is stupid. Whatever404 (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    At the very beginning of the "essay", the anon states their intention to remove messages left at other IP talk pages. People are certainly entitled to edit anonymously, but they're not entitled to demand that we take their word for it that they are who they say they are, or that any given edit was intended for them. The mechanism for establishing identity is to register an account. I think that it is unreasonable for an editor to use multiple IPs as a way to avoid accountability for their attacks; if this editor has been using an account, the record would more readily demonstrate that they've been engaged in inappropriate behavior. Whatever404 (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignoring the fact that there were no 'attacks' in the first place, you don't have the option of suggesting that you shouldn't take my word that I'm the same person. You identify me as being the same person. Are you saying that people can't take your word for it?
    Additionally, your accusation that I'm using multiple IPs "to avoid accountability" is false, and you know it. I've always asserted that I'm the same person. That is an outright false accusation, and one that you know to be false. Frankly, you should be chastised for making such a baseless and patently false allegation (though I still just want this stupid affair over).
    I think Rd232 summed it up best: The messages are left for me. You acknowledge that it's me. So I removed messages for me. In any event, I'm on this IP again, so there is no longer any possible doubt that I'm still me.
    So, my advice is to drop it (though I'd still like page protection if the false warnings are re-added). 139.57.101.134 (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on, kids, everybody take a chill pill and drop the whole stupid argument. I mean it, it's a pointless argument over nothing. Move on. Even my five year old has more perspective than you! Brain Rodeo (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Serpentdove slithers back

    Resolved
     – User in question has been indef blocked. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Striking, new sock.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    MoralScientist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Is an obvious sock of the indef'd User:Serpentdove. I turned it in to WP:AIV. Someone might want to do a hard block or whatever it takes to keep him from creating more user ID's. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    To be fair that user page is a classic, I heart it. It seems a shame to blank it. Nice catch though. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    A new sock showed up, check out Linkcheck (talk · contribs).— Dædαlus Contribs 09:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Also indef-blocked. Rd232 talk 11:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Death threat by User:C-157 Challenger

    Resolved
     – Indefblocked. Master&Expert (Talk) 07:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandal only account, now stepping up to threatening to kill those who warned and reported him. Bringing here just to quicken the obvious block. IIIVIX (Talk) 05:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked by Mentifisto. Frmatt (talk) 06:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Now the user can't send emails to other users, and can't edit his talkpage. AdjustShift (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This might get ugly @ WQA

    This has bad written all over it. Some additional eyes with tools might be wise. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmmm ... interesting. Looks like it might not be something to bring the "young-uns" to. I'm wondering if both parties should be notified of this ANI thread as well. I haven't looked at the content dispute end of it, but I'll agree that the links indicate that the dialog certainly needs to be toned down. — Ched :  ?  17:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Continuous rude and uncivil behaviour from User:Vintagekits and User:Dahamsta

    Hi there. Vintagekits (talk · contribs) seems to have a problem with myself and other members of WP:FOOTY, who he has accused of being anti-Irish, pro-British, and in a Cabal (what he has termed "the British bias of the FOOTY Cabal members", purely because he disagrees with some of our opinions on various AfD's. Examples of his recent behaviour includes:

    When I asked him to adhere to WP:CIVIL, the reply I got was:
    When I asked why he couldn't speak in a respectful manner, his reply was:

    I would also like to bring Dahamsta (talk · contribs) to your attention, who seems to have a problem with "the nasty little spackers running this attack on Irish football."

    Other uncivil and aggressive comments by both Vintagekits and Dahamsta can be found at a number of AfDs, such as Niall Walsh, where were are told to "FUCK WP:ATHLETE" and were called "idiots" and "muppets", or at Jason Molloy, where Dahamsta suggested we should "Give Jimbo the boot instead" (referring to the nominator, Jimbo online (talk · contribs)). At a deletion review for an AfD that went against him, Vintagekits called Number 57 (talk · contribs) an "absolute disgrace." At the Scott Doe deletion review, he accused active members of WP:FOOTY - "Bettia, GiantSnowman, Jimbo online, Angelo.romano, Dweller, ClubOranje and Number 57 - to a much lesser extent ChrisTheDude, Dweller, Jmorrison230582" - of being members of a Cabal and engaging in meatpuppetry, and he later ranted on the closing admin's talkpage.

    These are just some of many examples. I am running out of patience with Vintagekits, and hope this can be resolved quickly and amicably. Many thanks, GiantSnowman 15:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe its due to frustration because a number of biased editors are !voting in block in order to enforce an Anglocentric POV. It's been proven time and time again. You are meat puppets.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As for "ranting on the closing admins talkpage" - wasnt the AfD that I was "ranting" about overturned because the closing admin was biased! Also please note that ONLY people that !voted to endorse the AfD were those that are part of the biased British FOOTY cabal - strange that aint it!--Vintagekits (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Vintagekits has been blocked countless times for disruption, incivility, etc, etc, and if I remember correctly is currently under editing restrictions. It is starting to look very much like a total ban from Wikipedia is the only way to solve the problem. Looie496 (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I've noticed a few threads on him/her. Vintagekits ... you definitely need to tone it down a notch. — Ched :  ?  18:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah Looie the way to deal with an editor that has written a recent Featured Article but says the odds "fuck" is to permaban them! good one. I wont be posting here again you are deluded!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2009 (UT

    The above editor has been repeatedly uncivil towards myself and others. Please read Talk:James O'Shea, for example. He refuses to assume good faith and is uncivil at practically every turn. If it was an isolated incident I would post on the user's talk page, but in this user's case it would be a waste of time. In fact this probably is as well. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that VK is unable to respond even here without insults, I suggest this get moved to AN/I for the community ban discussion that has been inevitable for quite some time now. → ROUX ₪ 20:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Vintagekits. Moving this to AN/I for more eyeballs. Nathan T 20:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In the interests of fairness, I feel I ought to point out that Vintagekits is not just a raving nutter. Although the idea of a cabal of football mad meat puppets is probably beyond the pale, his argument that the closing editor in the Scott Doe deletion review cited above acted...shall we say not wisely...was upheld by everyone including the closing editor. Which is not to excuse the keyboard Tourette's, but to show that there is some cause or prompting behind it, rather than simply randomness.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)(who is an Englander, but would prefer not to discuss her lack of littleness)[reply]

    • @Vintagekits, deluded eh? Pretty nice. I never said you should be banned. I tried to offer some constructive advice: Dial down the rhetoric, and you respond with that. It's not the occasional "damn", "hell", "shit" or "fuck" that I care about here. In fact, I'd don't recall ever even supporting any motion to block or ban you. What I will say is that "any editor who wants to edit here, should treat their fellow editors with respect." You wrote a FA huh? That's good - but it's NOT a "get out of jail free" card - or at least it shouldn't be. Now upon my interactions with you here, and looking at your block log, I can see why there have been so many AN threads with your name attached to them. To put it bluntly: If you can't play nice with all the other kids on the playground, then you won't be welcome on the playground. Get it in gear. I get the fact that you care about content, that's great - but don't post when you've lost your composure. Wait until you can respond with a calm intelligent post that won't continually stir the pot. — Ched :  ?  21:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Calling other editors deluded Is very simply a personal attack. No WP:CIV rubbish - it's a straght forward attack on another editor. I have asked Vintagekits to remove it. Pedro :  Chat  21:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Now Blocked - 12 Hours

    Per this I have blocked for 12 hours. Personal attacks are not tolerated. Ignoring requests to remoive them are met with a block of the account to prevent repetition. Comments welcome. Pedro :  Chat  21:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Can't say "I didn't see it coming". Good block. Given the responses he's left to the block, I wouldn't be surprised if we end up having to do it again down the road. I don't know what it's going to take to get him to adjust to acceptable behavior, but I hope he gets on board pretty soon, before the train leaves the station. — Ched :  ?  22:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict):Just to point out that technically he didn't ignore it. He removed your message from his talkpage, which he is allowed to do (see enormous thread above re block for removing warnings from talkpage, which was later overturned as in error). I think ignoring your request might have required....at least 10 more minutes, to show that he really was ignoring you. Just saying.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)The personal attacks don't stop. He is now calling Pedro incompetent, not to mention the rest of the incivil message. This user isn't showing they care about their current block.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    @EotR - I would assume with an edit summary of "meh!" would indicate he won't change his ways.  GARDEN  22:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Garden - indeed the discussion above does not really apply here - it was not a "warning" - it was a request. The edit summary said it all. As a further note does another admin care to review the comments on his talk at the moment - the editor appears less than happy with Wikipedia.... Pedro :  Chat  22:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a heads up to other admins. Though I endorse pedro's block, please be very careful about extending it due to post block venting. that does little good. Protonk (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Understood, to be honest - that thought did briefly cross my mind, but quickly remembered the "post block venting" things. Given his statement about "retiring", perhaps it would even be redundant. Guess we'll see where this is tomorrow morning (for me). — Ched :  ?  22:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ugh. Looks like the advice went unheeded. Protonk (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Struck after seeing timestamp below. Daedelus probably blocked VK while I was writing this. Protonk (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not an admin.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Extend to indef

    Given the continued incivlity, I don't see this user changing after the block expires.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    True, it is very likely that the editor will - once the block expires - continue to write great articles and get angry and swear a lot and upset people. For the former reason I oppose an indef block and for the latter I agree with the current sanction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please reverse that. Indeffing someone for post block venting is a great way to lose a contributor without real cause. Protonk (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, forgive me. I read "extend" as "extended" Sorry. Protonk (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally don't feel an indef is a good idea at this time. Pedro :  Chat  22:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Pedro, LHvU, and Protonk. Let's not try to rush things through too fast. Everyone deserves some leeway at times. — Ched :  ?  22:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fabartus

    Up to their old tricks again [85][86]. DrKiernan (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I left a note. If he keeps it up, report back. John Reaves 16:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't work [87]. DrKiernan (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't even find an incident that would have set this user off. It appears that after being offwiki for a month, Fabartus just showed up at your talk page. Is this a correct view of the situation, or am I missing things? Syrthiss (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think he was editing anonymously at George I of Great Britain. DrKiernan (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I concur. Syrthiss (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked for incivility per his last edit summary. John Reaves 17:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There's no reason why my name should be associated with plagiarism

    As was done in Talk:Minimed Paradigm. Have asked user:Sme3 to remove implication of plagiarism. Have asked that the comment of plagiarism be removed but denied by User talk:Jac16888. There is no reason whatsoever why my name and "plagiarism" should be associated in this talk page. It gives readers the wrong impression. I consider it a personal attack. My reputation is now and in the future associated with plagiarism when there is no truth in the implication. It is a personal attack. It is smearing my reputation. Stop this type of smear tactic. I worked hard on that article, and the thanks i get from Wikipedia is to allow my name to be associated with plagiarism. There is no reason, it serves no purpose, to assiciate my name with plagiarism. Despite the explanation and admission of failure from both these users, plagiarism remains in the up-front history of the article. Why? It is incorrect. It's my reputation. There's no reason for it. Just because one user says he made a mistake doesn't clear up the continued fact of implication. It's like going on media saying that person A is a thief, be out there for weeks, then the statement is retracted. Well too late, person A reputation has already been questioned. Except that here in Wikipedia you have the opportunity to delete the original statement that person A is a thief. Please delete association of my name with plagiarism in Talk:Minimed Paradigm. Henry Delforn (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've replaced the contents of the page with a WikiProject template. Fair enough? –xenotalk 19:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    is there a need to grant ovesight in this (oversight?) situation? plagiarism is a little bit insulting, and it's possible for this to be taken out of context elsewhere and have both an in-wiki and a real world implications that could hurt the user in question. User:Smith Jones 19:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is better, thank you. I was going to add here (prior to your action) that the original statement in question is a clear and admitted violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith and, hence, reason for removal. Removal, although the history still contains the violation and plagiarism implication. Henry Delforn (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're really concerned about the history, I could selectively delete it barring objections from Sme3, but I don't think it is a big issue. –xenotalk 20:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is absolutely no need to oversight this. If we set a precedent that any insult, perceived or real, can be oversighted... bad news. Tan | 39 20:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that's true in cases of accusations of plagiarism, Tanthalas. It rather places one foot in NLT territory, and for people in some professions it can have very negative real-world consequences (as Smith Jones has noted). I don't know the merits of this particular case, but I recommend that consideration of oversighting in this sort of case not be dismissed out of hand, but examined on its own merits instead. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Did you research the situation? There was never any mention of legal action, and it was simply a matter of Mr. Delforn feeling slighted. If other editor's comments could have "real world" implications, then I would recommend a) not using your real name in your username, and b) not editing on Wikipedia. Are we going to oversight all instances of copyright violations? No. Silly to even bring this up, I think. Tan | 39 21:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:74.77.87.69

    User:74.77.87.69 has been in continual violation of WP:TPNO, using a talk page as a forum. Specifically, on Talk:Discography of Now That's What I Call Music!, the user has continually posted speculative and unsubstantiated track listings for the next album in the U.S. series since early this year (starting in February 2009). These postings are the only entries this user has ever done (see Special:Contributions/74.77.87.69. I have reverted the additions and placed warnings on the user's talk page (see User talk:74.77.87.69), finally getting to the point of escalation where notification is necessary, as the warnings have gone unheeded. Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked for a month, as the IP is obviously static. Maybe we'll generate some discussion on their talk page. Tan | 39 20:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=309329660"