Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive611

This could be confusing ...

I had another user pointed out to me today that could cause confusion with my username. But, they've had their account since 2001, and mine was created in 2006, so that must make me the "imposter" ...

I wanted to ask about this, to see if others believed the risk of confusion was great enough to require one of us to need a new username (probably me, as the other account is older). The two accounts are:

• Barek (talk · contribs)
• Berek (talk · contribs)

The other user has been around longer - but has far fewer edits, and we're not active in the same areas on Wikipedia - which is probably why we hadn't come across each other until now.

Is general opinion that the risk of confusion high enough to require using WP:UNC, or can we leave the usernames for now? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

At the quickest glance, yeah, it could be confusing. But it people take the time to look at the names carefully, I see no problem. I actually seen the same name at first glance, but then again, I am Lysdexic. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Also a quick click to each userpage would hopefully show which user you had gone to if you had cause to speak to either one. SGGH ^ping! 02:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Why not just use a {{distinguish}} template, the way users Mastcell and MastCell have done? --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. For now, I've added {{distinguish}} to my userpage. I left a note on Berek's talk page informing him about this discussion as well, so hopefully he'll also consider doing the same. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You could add something in your signature to further identify you. Woogee (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added a distinguish tag to my user page - hope this helps! :) Berek (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Berek looks to be a very low-volume editor (their talk page, never archived, has only 25 threads, and goes back to 2003!) that rarely involves themselves in talk pages or the "meta" spaces of Wikipedia. Doubt it will be an issue; {{distinguish}} would be best on both pages- just in case. –xeno^talk 20:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sharia article undergoing drastic restructuring, we need a time out to more fully discuss

Re: user Jayzames and sharia article

Hi, please protect the Sharia page (or help somehow) until I can figure out what the intentions are of a progressively persistent, rude, biased editor. I'm a newbie and I've been to the arbcom (declined, but one member expressed concern) and the editors advice (no response) and this problem is getting worse by the minute over here.

I am trying to work through my concerns with Jayzames and we are dialoguing but he is making progressively more drastic changes in the article and this evening sections are moving, new ones are appearing, and I can't see whether material may be missing.

I am not trying to stop Jayzames, I am trying to clear up some problems while there is still time. If he is sincere, he can take some time to work through these issues. I doubt his sincerity.

We need to take a deep breath here, but my concern is the article may get to a point where it will be difficult to recover, and not all his actions appear to be in good faith.

This article is of course a sensitive one and I see bias in the changes, POV centric changes, promotion of deleterious material to the lead of the article. Prior attempts at discussion have met with limited success, but he generally will not correct or change due to my objections beyond the typographical level.

We are talking maybe close to 100 changes to the article in the last couple of weeks, running about 10 a day now. No consensus on these changes. We are talking, but he's not stopping or correcting anything but typos.

Diff for last 5 days

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharia&action=historysubmit&diff=358800967&oldid=357771399

More important recent talk topics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sharia#Neutrality_in_doubt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sharia#Removing_POV_from_head_of_article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sharia#How_can_testimony_from_women_carry_half_weight_if_only_men_can_testify.3F http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sharia#Misleading_assertion_regarding_codification_of_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sharia#General_questions_on_Legal_and_court_proceedings_section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sharia#Why_is_Criticism_of_revisionist_historiography_of_Islamic_law_placed_under_the_Definitions.3F

Thanks Aquib (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Jayzames notified here Aquib (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what an Admin can do here that can't be handled by a non-Admin. All an Admin could do is to block one or both of you, or prevent the page from being editted; & since you state the two of you are talking, any of those options would be inappropriate. On the other hand, any material Jayzames removes will still be in the article history & can be restored at any time. (If that isn't good enough, make a copy of the earlier version & save it in your own userspace, say at User:Aquib american muslim/scratch.) Second, seek one of the conflict resolution steps listed at the top of the page, like mediation or opening an RfC over certain points in the article. If none of those steps work to your satisfaction, yes, you can return here & open a thread, but the result may be one you are not at all happy with. -- llywrch (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

OK Thank you Aquib (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Strange/vandalous editing of User:Finger woman

Resolved

 – Finger woman given finger.

I first began noticing Finger woman (talk · contribs) while doing new pages patrol. After encountering her handiwork I took a look at her contrib history, which mostly seems to be childish and/or sneaky vandalism and inserting inappropriate tags. He or she doesn't seem to respond to talk page warnings, but continues to muck about here, so I wanted to bring it to admins' attention. Some examples: adds a "no content" speedy to an article about a TV show, messes with pages in someone's user space, uploads a file tagged as vandalism, creates a hoax article (later speedied). There are other examples This person seems particularly fond of adding speedy tags to legitimate articles. — e. ripley\^talk 17:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a simple case of vandalism. She's up to a level 3 from myself. Keeps it up it'll be an indef block soon enough. Canterbury Tail talk 17:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

All right. Glad someone's watching who's in a position to do something about it. Thanks. — e. ripley\^talk 17:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw this last night. Seems to have started right back up with the same thing today. Counting the numerous deleted contributions, I've had enough. blocking indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Mwhs ban request

Resolved

 – Account indef blocked by User:Tnxman307

I've been dealing with a rather disruptive account.

1. The account exists to promote its own organization Mami Wata Healers Society of North America Inc. as an WP:SPA with a WP:COI
2. The account acknowledged in an AfD discussion that it won't add links to its organization, yet it repeatedly has [1] in a variety of articles [2](and more)
3. The account name violates our user name policy in that it promotes its own group (MWHS = "Mami Wata Healers Society")[3]
4. The account is operated as a group account[4] and edits as "we"[5] in violation of our sharing accounts policy.
5. In retaliation for removing this organization's links, this account has been attempting to delete its previous edits to one of its articles [6].
6. The account has accused Wikipedia of consisting of "racists" and "pedophilias" [sic] [7]
7. The account is also likely editing under User:74.229.102.208 See edits [8] and [9]

I propose banning this account. Since I've been the only one (lately) to interact with this account, I thought it appropriate to seek additional opinions. Rklawton (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That account can be blocked as a role account and as a promotional username. See WP:UAA and WP:U. Brad 19:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Edwin Black

I have a real problem with this edit, in which an SPA inserts into mainspace an opinion piece from Mr. Black that is (1) factually inaccurate; (2) non-notable; (3) an attack on Wikipedia; (4) along with a follow-up article, is dedicated to the "ongoing investigation" and attempted stalking/outing of me. While someone has questioned the addition in talk already, I think the situation deserves some administrative attention. Thanks in advance. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Read the first point made at WP:SPA#Handling and advice. How precisely does the edit of the second diff constitute an attempt at outing? This accounts edits are not block-worthy. An attempt at outing, on the other hand, would be. AGK 00:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The SPA isn't the point, and I guess you need to know the entire history of Mr. Black's recent adventure with Wikipedia. The two articles Mr. Black has now published clearly attempt to track me down, and I don't think they're of significant encyclopedic value to include in his Biography. I'm not asking for a block, I'm asking for an administrator (preferably one familiar with the recent events) to evaluate my position and remove the material (if warranted). I am obviously not able to do so myself, as I'm the subject of both articles. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Also the question of whether Saxstudio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is somehow proxying for Black or a sockpuppet thereof, who is currently blocked for legal threats and block evasion using IPs.

I am concerned enough to be reviewing, but it wasn't clearly evident what the right answer is to all this. You're not wrong to be concerned, Blaxthos, but I don't want to just do what you asked without thinking about it. Someone else might have a more concrete first impression, I will keep thinking about it if not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks George -- I wouldn't expect anyone to take my advice without contemplation and consensus. ;-) I generally bring matters here when I don't know what the proper answer is... My main concern is simply having that sort of content removed from Wikipedia. If the community feels that there may be more of the same from this user, then I leave it up to you guys to decide that and take whatever action is appropriate (and I think there's a good case to be made for both serving as a proxy/meat/sock of a banned editor, and for the likelihood of continued questionable activity). Thanks for reviewing, all! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems I've been pulled into the Black's articles as well for deleting some of the article links Saxstudio has posted to Wikipedia, plus the spammy posts (of the SAME article!) on several pages. My impression is mostly positive - he's obviously intelligent, but seems to make odd mistakes and refuses to follow the policies of Wikipedia. His posts last week from his (now blocked) IP address have been helpful, and I think he'd be able to offer a fair amount to the articles in question. He is actively trying to ferret information about some users. *shrug* It's an interesting situation. Ravensfire (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Why is Saxstudio not blocked? This is a blatant sock / meatpuppet. Guy (Help!) 07:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Meatpuppet, I think. Looking at their contrib history, they seem to have an independent existence before becoming Black's acolyte. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Should you have a question of me, you may ask me directly at [email protected] or you may phone me with your number not displaying. That said, I think is matter is resolved. If I was not allowed to comment here, I can withdraw the remark. Edwin Black Edwin Black Washington DC (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought Black was blocked? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you have a question I can answer for you. I can be reached on email at the address above. Or you can phone me.Edwin Black Washington DC (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Black was unblocked earlier today by User:Shell Kinney. Stifle (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned over the talk page message posted at User talk:Edwin Black Washington DC. Especially the two sentences, "If you have a comment, don’t leave it here. I will erase it, until I can create a manageable and useful space. Instead email me at [email protected] with your real name and your approximate location—country or state—and I will try to reply swiftly." Some editors may not wish, and do not have to, provide their real names or even their "...approximate location—country or state...". I'd also like to get some clarification from the "...senior Admin..." as to what their discussion was about and if there was any impact on Wikipedia. The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 21:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No one needs to ask me a question. But if you would like to, I am happy to answer offline and private. You may say Ireland, or Ohio, or LA, or Tel Aviv. I have received many notes and exchanges from Wikipedians in this fashion and they have been quite gracious. And if you CBW would like to ask me a question, or receive a book, you may send me an email as indicated, or phone me with your number blocked, you are welcome to do so. I am happy to help all. Edwin Black Washington DC (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not that I wanted to ask questions, as I think our areas of interest are a bit different. I'm just concerned that some editors may wish to ask but would be intimidated by the need to release their real names. The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 23:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

CBW, from what I can see, I suspect you are interested in music. As am I--very much. We might have more in common than you think. I won't be checking the WP page for messages. My recent attentiveness is now over. Indeed, until recently, I did not check on Wikipedia much. I do not lodge on the net. I am hundreds of messages behind from readers asking questions on all manner of topics. I try to do a few reader emails each day--but I am months behind. I prefer to answer questions at a lot slower pace but I will try to prioritize emails from Wikipedians. Often I am in archives or events or lodged in my work--right now this minute turn of the century, 1902-1914 UK and Europe. Wikipedia has some good entries. Later I will be posting a notice for any who wish to be referred to my researchers page. However, that will be a bit down the way. I hope this helps. Edwin Black Washington DC (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

threat of violence?

I came across (and reverted) this edit. "Death to..." a named person. Anybody want to try reporting that to law enforcement authorities? -- Why Not A Duck 17:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like typical juvenile nonsense. –xeno^talk 17:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Xeno...see Zac Brown Band. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably the best thing to keep in mind when considering whether to contact authorities is that the police generally won't do anything if they can't identify the target of the threat; I occasionally report such situations myself, and learned from the police that without a clear target, it may not even be a crime. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Systematic destruction of the Sharia article

Hi,

Help please I'm a newbie.

I reported this incident yesterday outlining my concerns about the edits going on. Decided to try one more time to try to work through this with jayzames. I've also been to arbcom (declined with some level of concern expressed) and editor's advice (no response).

This evening, I noticed that almost the entire contents of "Classic Islamic law" section had been moved. Or deleted, I have no idea. The article has been so shuffled it is hard to say what's in there and what isn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharia&diff=next&oldid=358785968

This move was accomplished by user:j8079s while user:jayzames was in the process of making a ton of moves.

So a rude jayzames is pouring bias into this religious article, talking, but not compromising on any of his objectionable changes. Promising more changes. And suddenly j8079s pops in and makes a couple of moves interspersed with jayzames (titled move some stuff), lifting almost the entire contents of "Classic Islamic law" super-section out and dispersing it or doing who knows what to it.

This article is under systematic attack. It's going to take a lot of work to clean up this mess.

Can you stop this attack on the Sharia and restore the page? There is a lot of carelesness and systematic bias and this just looks like systematic vandalism to me.

I do not have the ability to stop this attack, I need help.

Thanks Aquib (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, nothing is lost, and I think you're overreacting. If when the dust has settled on this bout of editing people agree that the previous version was better, it can be reverted. I don't think coming to AN/I is the best approach - ask at relevant WikiProject and open a request for comment to get outside opinions. This is a content dispute, not vandalism, so please don't bandy that word around. Fences&Windows 01:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

OK Thanks Aquib (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Narayana Engineering College

This article has a problem with an editor continuing a slow edit war and refusing to engage in discussion, ever. I was originally drawn to the article with a conflict of interest noticeboard report made by Johnuniq. He suggested that there may be a conflict of interest, that the article's author, Gangleader1989, might be trying to promote the school.

You'll see the initial state of the article here, which was tagged as a copyvio. The copyright notice was removed by the author, and while some of the paraphrasing was cleaned up somewhat it wasn't completely fixed. Johnuniq then improved the article immensely, removing the last copyright violations, some excessive detail, inappropriate whitespace, redundant external links, peacock terms, and did some copyediting. A bot flagged the article as an orphan.

Since then, the author has repeatedly reverted the changes made by Johnuniq and the orphan tag from the bot: [10][11][12][13][14][15]

(Note that the author sometimes edits under their account, and sometimes as a dynamic IP.)

My original intent was to try to draw the editor into a discussion, but they won't communicate. You can see on their talk page that there are numerous warnings and two different requests to discuss the article but they have been ignored. I'd have brought this to the edit war noticeboard but I know from experience that unless the three revert rule has been broken that appeals there are generally ignored, and as far as I can tell this editor has never reverted more than once a day. But clearly, the attempt to own this article and the refusal to communicate is a problem.

I don't know if I would be considered "involved" now at the article, as my only edits to that page are to undo the continuous reverting back to the author's preferred version, but to be safe I'd rather open this up to other administrators. I'm not sure how to reach this person, and I'm afraid a block might be necessary.

I have notified both Johnuniq and Gangleader1989 about this discussion. -- Atama頭 16:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You can block an editor for edit warring if there is a consistent low-grade edit war - and this does qualify as one. That said, I think the editor is acting in good faith (though misguided) so I'd suggest a specific warning ('such and such edit is not appropriate and you will be blocked if you do x again' sort of thing) first. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Technically, I'm engaged in the same edit war now, as I've reverted 3 times too (over the course of a week). I'll leave a warning about not engaging in an edit war though it seems a bit hypocritical. With the copyright concerns, though, I can't see how I could not revert. As you said, these look like good faith edits so I can't call it vandalism. I'll definitely leave a warning, and see if anyone else on this noticeboard suggests that I'm being too heavyhanded, then I'll rethink my approach with this editor. Thanks! -- Atama頭 18:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not their only problem, User talk:Gangleader1989#Image problems. The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 20:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Getting off-topic, but their edits appear to be introducing text copyvio in other articles too. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I wouldn't consider that off-topic, I should probably have titled the topic "Gangleader1989" since my concerns are only with that editor, but I thought this topic header was more polite. :) I wasn't aware that the copyright violations extended beyond the one page, since the editor is not only adding information in violation of copyright, but reinserting it after warnings and refusing to communicate, I may take a wait-and-see approach and if they do so again it might be best to indefinitely block them until they show that they understand what is wrong with what they're doing. Unfortunately this editor does use dynamic IPs, so blocking the original account may not actually stop the disruption, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. -- Atama頭 21:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention they had uploaded some more images but I couldn't seem to find them anywhere but here. The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 22:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Another article with the same problem is Padmasri Dr. B.V Raju Institute of Technology. At one time, that article and the Narayana Engineering College article were extremely similar, with similar promotional content and inappropriate external links. I stumbled across the Padmasri article while investigating the Narayana article, and I suspect the two organizations are related (or competitors?). It is likely that Gangleader1989 does not understand how Wikipedia works and imagines that endurance will triumph. I would not think any action is warranted yet (apart from the numerous warnings now added to their talk page). For the record: I removed another copyvio at Magadheera (added by this user). Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:Canvassing

User:WhisperToMe Although this user is a hard working and tireless user who has done an abundance of good on wikipedia, it is my understanding from reading the policy on canvassing, that This post violates the votestaking portion of the policy. This is the second time that WhisperToMe has violated this policy. It seems that it is done to sway consensus, and therefore is disruptive.

I saw no other place but here to post this complaint. If there is a better page, please direct it there please.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• That doesn't look like a violation of WP:CANVASS to me. He sent a fairly neutral message to a single editor that has an interest in the topic. The other one was an open message (to no particular editor) to members of a project.Niteshift36 (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Remember that nuetrality is only one part of canvassing. There are other ways to violate canvassing.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm aware of that.....and I don't see where this violates it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Would it help to know that these were not just random postings, but were selected by WhisperToMe, because he knew that these other users already agree with him on this topic?--Jojhutton (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• You provided 2 diffs. I looked at them and I don't see it. Posting to the projects talk page is hardly canvassing. And asking a single editor for assistance in explaining something doesn't seem very sinister. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

How is he 'votestacking'? Such content decisions are not votes. Talking to two other editors in the space of a month hardly constitutes a grand violation of WP:CANVASS that might require some admin intervention. What is this dispute even about, where is it being played out? If you expect others to take action against WhisperToMe you need to explain the situation much better. Fences&Windows 01:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this right, just so I can add it to my brain housing group. Its Okay to post on another users talk page, whom you already know agrees with your POV, making them aware of a discussion, in order to sway consensus on that discussion? Is that correct--Jojhutton (talk) 01:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_California#Portals_of_Los_Angeles_and_San_Diego. Although there seems to be 3 in favor of adding the portal and 3 against, the pro side seems to have claimed victory and moved on.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This looks more like asking for a WP:THIRD opinion in a dispute between editors. There is nothing that violates WP:CANVASS here as the messages are limited in scope, fairly neutral in tone (though the April 28 comment could have been better), and open. Vote stacking does not apply as there is no !vote. —Farix (t | c) 02:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The term "Votestacking" is confusing, since there doesn't really need to be a vote. (Although a vote is taking place). According to the policy, votestacking is:

Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion.

Since WTM had a clear idea, that those other editors would side with him in this debate, leaving them messages, in order to sway favor, is disruptive. Remember, that canvassing is disruptive when they are done as:

Mass posting OR Biased OR Partisan OR Secret

Notice the "OR"s. That means that only one of these, violates the policy.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• we see all the "or"'s.......we also understand that just a single one of them doesn't make is canvassing. It is a graduating scale. Would it be too obvious to mention that it's also a guideline (not a policy) that says common sense should apply. I think that's what everyone else here is trying to say. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

207.31.56.102 vandalizing my WP user page, and the address hasn't been warned

Resolved

 – vandlism took place in January Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

this IP user added "Please edit my user page it sucks" to my page when I specifically told not to edit my user page. Block this user from editing. This address was traced to Graham Middle School in Mountain View, CA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasper Deng (talk • contribs) 05:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

uw-vandalism1 now given. Will observe. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

moved from AN.

Speedy deletion Uighur house redux

On April 24th a thread was initiated here by a contributor who had tagged the redirect Uighur house with a {{db-g3}} -- the tag for pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes. An administrator chose not to fulfill that speedy request, and the nominator raised that here for further discussion.

There is actually a deeper story than the nominator chose to reveal -- one that, IMO, concerns a deeper problem. I am bringing this up now, rather than on the 24th, as the nominator did not fulfill their obligation of giving all involved parties a heads-up of the WPANI discussion, and I didn't become aware of the discussion until after the thread had been archived.

I am sure many people who read the thread clicked on the what links here button for "Uighur house". I am sure they wondered why the redirect didn't have any incoming links from article space.

What they didn't know was that the nominator had previously removed the wikilinks to that redirect: [16], [17].

Late last fall the nominator removed these valid and useful wikilinks, and several thousand other valid and useful wikilinks, in a series of 250 edits, listed here. The only explanation offered for these excisions, at the time, was that offered in the edit summaries -- "clarify and unlink an interpretation of a questionable source".

I've explained, in more detail, my concerns over the excision of thesse several thousand valid and useful wikilinks, on Talk:Uighur house. I've explained, in more detail, on Talk:Uighur house, my frustration with trying to find a policy-based explanation in the nominator's replies to my requests for their use of the term "questionable source".

Recently I have told the nominator, several times, that I take at face value that they honestly believe they have offered a valid, policy-based explanation for this massive series of wikilink excisions. In return I have asked them to take at face value my assertion that I have done my best, and I can't find a policy based explanation for this series of excisions in any of their replies. I asked them to either paraphrase the key part of their argument, from memory, to cut and past the key part(s), or to provide diffs to the key part(s). I am sorry to report they declined to paraphrase, cut and paste, or provide diffs.

In my opinion the redirect should be restored to the status quo ante, and all of those excisions of valid and useful wikilinks should be restored.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Uighur house isn't mentioned on the Al-Qaeda safe house article.--Scott Mac 14:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I googled "Uighur House" (with quotes) and there were no Al-Qaeda references (except for those on Wikipedia) until the second page. While this doesn't necessarily mean anything, it does point towards the phrase being used more as meaning 'a house that Uighurs live in', and not anything terrorist related. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

None of the passages Geo Swan pointed out in the other articles needs a link through that redirect. If you really have a passage where you need to link the text string "Uighur house" to that Al-Qaeda safehouse article, you can easily do it through a pipe, there's no need for a redirect. But the passages you cited ([18], [19]) hardly qualify for even that: in the first, there actually was no such string to begin with, and in the second, it was inside a quote, and according to our style guidelines, we don't do links from inside quotes anyway. Apart from that, as a search term for a manual search the phrase is utterly implausible. I really can't see a need for this redirect. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

And wouldn't the proper target for this redirect actually be yurt? That's the first thing which occurred to me, not that it was an al-Qaida safehouse or sanctuary. (In which case, we'd need to link it to Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, & all of the other places where al-Qaida historically have found sanctuary.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not seeing any connection of Uigher (guest) house to mean an Al-Qaida safehouse, but rather an instance of a guest house with Uigher connections being used as a one. That would be like terming US Italian cuisine restaurants as "Mafia killing eatery" because of the number of mob assassinations carried out or planned in such places; what activities might be undertaken in a place, or for whatever purposes it may also serve, should not become a denominator for the term unless there is a reliable third party source that deprecates the original meaning; just because one source might use the term does not mean it is the usually understood one. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Further, I do agree with Geo Swan that the particular speedy template was most certainly inappropriate, and likely violated WP:AGF in respect of a well regarded contributor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I noticed that in the two diffs where Iqinn allegedly delinked the Uighur house redirect, the delinked link in the first diff was actually to [[suspect guest house, Jalalabad|Uighur house]], so the actual link was to Suspect guest house, Jalalabad, which is a still-active redirect, that Geo Swan created, to Al-Qaeda safe house. I have since noticed that on 7 September 2009 (and maybe on other dates, too), Geo Swan apparently created a lot of weird redirects to articles about Al-Qaeda safe houses; these redirects include Arab guest house, Kabul; Algerian house, Jalalabad; Riad safe house, Karachi; Zacharia guest house, Jalalabad; Tunisian guesthouse, Jalalabad; and many others. (Maybe it has something to do with this.) Propaniac (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• No i did not act in bad faith. There is no basis to redirect Uighur house to Al-Qaeda safe house. Exceptional claims need exceptional sources but there are no sources at all that draw this connection.

• As well there are no sources that connect the Uighur guest house, Pakistan to Al-Qaeda nor are there sources for the redirect Uyghur guest house, Jalalabad to Al-Qaeda. To link all these Uyghur related terms to Al-Qaeda safe house without sufficient WP:RS is by best not a good idea.

• User Geo Swan has written more than one thousand Guantanamo related articles and created about ten thousand Guantanamo related redirects. Good job! This is not a personal attack against him. I just do not think these three redirects are a good idea.

• I as other editors have searched for these sources but can not find them. I have specially ask User Geo Swan for these sources Talk:Uighur_guest_house,_Pakistan, Talk:Uyghur guest house, Jalalabad. Personal research and believe is not enough. He could not provide me with WP:RS sources that draw this connection and would justify these redirects.

• Wikipedia has a good reputation and i want that is stays like that. To link somebody or something to Al-Qaeda is a serious issue and we should take this serious.

• Exceptional claims need exceptional sources and we do not have these sources. Uighur house has been redirected to Uyghur people and i suggest it stays like this.

• For Uyghur guest house, Jalalabad and Uighur_guest_house,_Pakistan there are no sufficient sources either that would justify to link them to Al-Qaeda safe house. I suggest deletion for this two redirects unless we can find these sources or another article that would make sense to link to. IQinn (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

As I stated before, this redirect is an absolute no-go. Just as there is BLP, there is an (at least ethically) implied BEE ("...living ethnicities"). Should the redirect be restored, I will promptly take it to RfD. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Iqinn, no one has accused you of bad faith, here, or on Talk:Uighur house. Over on Talk:Uighur house I explicitly said I was not asserting bad faith on your part.
• WRT WP:RS I think if you check again you will find I have directed you to this and other academic papers, either on various talk pages, of by citing those papers in these articles. Geo Swan (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• WRT WP:RS No you have not provided me with any source that verify and justify the redirection of Uyghur guest house, Jalalabad, Uighur_guest_house,_Pakistan or Uighur house to Al-Qaeda. Exceptional claims need exceptional sources. I have specifically ask you for these sources Talk:Uyghur guest house, Jalalabad, Talk:Uighur_guest_house,_Pakistan or Talk:Uighur house. No joy.

• No, no single source in the new article in your user space would justify to redirect Uyghur guest house, Jalalabad, Uighur_guest_house,_Pakistan or Uighur house to Al-Qaeda safe house either. I and other editors could not find these sources and you fail to provide us with sources that would back up your claim. I strongly suggest none of these three terms should be redirected to Al-Qaeda safe house.

• Several respondents here have written that they can't find WP:RS that connect the term "Uighur house" with al Qaeda. Actually several teams of academics, including a team at the US Military Academy at West Point, have analyzed the Guantanamo documents the DoD was forced to make public. What these academic studies have noted is:
  • that the Guantanamo documents don't clearly define a distinction between the suspect houses they call "guest houses" and those they call "safe houses".
  • that the DoD documents treat an alleged stay in a house they explicitly identified with the Taliban, or one they explicitly identified with al Qaeda as seriously as an alleged stay in those houses they were suspicious of that they didn't explicitly list as being al Qaeda or Taliban houses.
• After noting this, these academic studies then state that, in their analyses, they followed the DoD lead, and treated all houses, analysts identified as suspicious houses as seriously as those explicitly named al Qaeda or Taliban houses. I'll offer an example below. Benjamin Wittes and his colleagues at the Brookings Institute published several papers analyzing the Guantanamo documents. In the document I cite below they list 130 captives whose detention was justified, in part, because they stayed in a house intelligence analysts found suspicious. They wrote that, according to the DoD documents: "130 stayed in Al Qaeda, Taliban, or other guest- or safehouses." That list of 130 captives they list whose detention was justified because they stayed in suspicious guesthouses includes six Uyghurs: Arkin Mahmud, Ahmad Tourson, Bahtiyar Mahnut, Abdul Ghappar Abdul Rahman, Emam Abdulahat, Ahmad Muhamman Yaqub.
  • Benjamin Wittes, Zaahira Wyne (2008-12-16). "The Current Detainee Population of Guantánamo: An Empirical Study" (PDF). The Brookings Institute. If the government's allegations against detainees are uniformly credited, the following picture of the current population emerges ... 130 stayed in Al Qaeda, Taliban, or other guest- or safehouses.
• In my user space I drafted an article I have tentatively titled: Uyghur guest houses suspected of ties to islamist militancy. Although it is not quite finished I think it shows that there are plenty of reference that show that intelligence officials in several countries suspect that Uyghur guesthouses that house Uyghur expatriates are being used by radicals for finding new potential recruits, or for training those same new recruits. If there is agreement here that my draft is a reasonable one I suggest "Uighur house" redirect to the new article. Geo Swan (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• On the first sight i think there are some flaws in terms of WP:OR in the article in your user space. Sure all WP:RS but on the first sight there are instances where you combine material from two or more sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

• I oppose to redirect Uighur house to this article. It should either redirect to Uighur people as it has done or yurt. IQinn (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

POV-pushing, against-consensus edits, edit warring, and failure to engage in discussion by Realwords101

User:Realwords101 has persisted in making edits to Dancehall that contradict sources used in the article, often with the addition of completely bogus citations of sources that in no way back up the changes being made. Of particular concern are this editors contributions to Dancehall, an article about the subgenre of reggae that emerged in the late 1970s, with several changes of the origin of the genre to be the 1950s ([20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]). I and two other editors (User:Spylab and User:Sabrebd) have reverted these changes, and at least 2 of us have asked Realwords101 to discuss this on the talk page. I have also pointed out the need for references to actually back up any changes being made, and that edit-warring is likely to get him blocked. Other edits by Realwords101 include this edit to Deejaying which is just nonsense, and these which claim one of the most notoriously homophobic songs is in fact a protest against child rape, again with a bogus citation that says nothing of the sort.

I am very much of the opinion that Realwords101 started out aiming (with some of his edits at least) to be constructive, but as all attempts over a 4-day period to get him to engage in discussion and follow consensus have failed, I am reluctantly bringing this here to find a solution. I am sure that any attempts to revert his edits on this article will be met with further reversion to his preferred version. I also strongly suspect that User:Rbeharrie is the same person from the pattern of edits. --Michig (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There's been a peculiar request at WP:RPP by user:Wordsforyou requesting 'full control' of the article. The request was their first edit. I'll have a look around, but I think I hear ducks. GedUK  09:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the nonsense continues ([31]). Could somebody perhaps take some action?--Michig (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Wordsforyou indef blocked, Realwords101 blocked for a week for sockpuppetry and disruptive editing. Fences&Windows 18:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--Michig (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic incivility at Chopin talk page

Could an admin have a look at the thread here (this diff is my second attempt to delete the thread as off-topic and generally unpleasant; I don't know if it will stand). Did I do right? Is there anything we can do about these people? (I presume many admins will be familiar with them and their unending personal attacks and counterattacks.) Can they be prevented from interacting somehow?--Kotniski (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that you very much did indeed do the right thing. I'd also like to say that I regret my part in the affair and that I allowed myself to be wound up enough to react, I should not have done so. The idea of Loosmark being prevented from interacting with me is a hugely attractive one but not one I fear which is actually workable, unfortunately. Varsovian (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The topic of discussion was Chopin nationality and as everybody can see my posts were actually about that. On the other hand none of Varsovian's posts were about Chopin, in fact his first comment [32] clearly tries to re-fuel previous arguments from the London Parade article and transfer them to the Chopin article. Not happy with that he started to repeat that I accuse people of racism, something I have not done. I've asked in the past if he has any problems with anything I have done to either fill a report on me or stop defaming but to no avail.  Dr. Loosmark  18:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

"[your suggestion] can be vied as a bit racist." [33], "[your suggestion] can be viewed as a bit racist" [34], "I will repeat it for the third time: that comment can be viewed as a bit racist. So what are going to do now?"[35] "Dan please, it's well know that you like to provoke Polish editors" [36]. I point these out purely to prevent anybody from thinking that I am actually defaming Loosmark. Varsovian (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice manipulation but the diffs Varsovian provides above are not from the Chopin page, they are from a nearly 2 months old (!) discussion about renaming the Kazimierz Pułaski page into Casimir Pulaski where an editor suggested that everybody whois mother language is not English should not vote. I said that can be viewed as a bit racist. That's all that it was to it. As for Dan, he made a weird comparison of Chopin seeing himself as Pole to a person seeing himself as dog. In my opinion that was really bad taste but maybe I have misunderstood him as he later explained it was an analogy from a movie. I don't think at all Dan is racist, he is a nice guy, knowledgeable and in general a good wikipedia editor. Yes, sometimes me and Dan disagree and have discussions but usually wikipedia articles improve as a result so the idea that I think Dan is racist is beyond ridiculous. But I guess nowadays anything goes on wikipedia.  Dr. Loosmark  18:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski, it is not for you to be the judge and jury of what is appropriate on these talk pages. Please immediately replace all of the information you removed and this attempt of yours to censor other people's opinions and statements. You are certainly within your rights to report anything you like and get an evaluation. This removed thread, and I'll agree with you that there is plenty of useless "fluff" interspersed within it, has a lot of good arguments concerning Chopin's heritage. If there is incivility or violations of Wikipedia policy taking place at the thread, the appropriate solution is not airbrushing them away. They are best evaluated where they were written and in their proper context. Again, you should not to take this matter into your own hands and pick and choose what stays on a talk page. You ask, "Did I do right"? No, what you did was not right. Next time ask that question before you unilaterally decide what goes and stays at a talk page. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

(od) I would like to point out that this latest round of bickering was fomented with Kotniski's removal of referenced information presented here [37] by User:THD3. This presumably was not done solely because of his dislike of the information, but because ostensibly a consensus had not been achieved concerning the matter. Sometimes consensus is reached easily and courteously, sometimes by what seems like pulling out teeth, or a least the similarity of having a root canal done. My main concern is Kotniski's assumption of some kind of authority giving him the unilateral carte blanche to remove my and other editors thoughts on any given subject. If you have a particular problem with something specifically said. Good, take it to the proper place to be evaluated. This project not dictated by some kind of totalitarian mentality where you can decide how a discussion needs to be conducted. And Kotniski let me remind you the article page and the talk page are two distinct entities with different requirements. If I remember correctly opinions are permitted on the talk pages. If they lead to an improvement of an article that is very good, but if they don't, then they don't. That's the way it goes. Same for the way those opinions are presented. If and when they cross the line, and that behavior his found to be actionable, it should be dealt with. Not with you arbitrarily deleting what you find either objectionable or inappropriate. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

We have policies against incivility and personal attacks. We have guidelines that say what belongs on talk pages. Removal of inappropriate content from talk pages is something that happens quite often, and rightly so (whether it was rightly so on this occasion I leave to the judgement of others). More importantly, what do you suggest can be done to stop the continual personalized squabbling?--Kotniski (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If you see any posts by me which you consider to be inappropriate or in breach of any WP policy, please notify me of them by leaving a message on my talkpage. A outside opinion is almost always welcome. Varsovian (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski, you might want to read WP:TPO. You shouldn't touch other editors' comments except in very specific circumstances. Specifically mentioned in the guideline is that you don't remove "messages that are merely incivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial." In the future, don't delete messages that you don't like, or you may end up with sanctions against you. The kind of material you can remove are libel, personal details about an editor, copyright violations, personal attacks (which doesn't include any and all incivility), obvious trolling, and vandalism. Sometimes people remove completely off-topic discussions as well, or discussions not related to improving the article (such as asking someone's opinion about the article subject) but use discretion when doing so, it's usually best just to remind the person to not go off-topic. -- Atama頭 21:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I did that - but my pleas to get back on-topic were ignored. --Kotniski (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski, I respectfully suggest that you replace the thread that that you unilaterally took it upon yourself to delete. May I also suggest that if anyone participating at that thread is dissatisfied with their contributions there to draw a line through their remarks. Kotniski, that's not how Wikipedia works. Nor do you have any authority to delete other people's opinions. Again, if you think any of the comments made are actionable, feel free to bring those specific remarks to the proper channels. Dr. Dan (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski, Dr. Dan is absolutely right. Please do what he has courteously requested of you, if you have not already. Editors in this discussion should be aware of a prior ANI filing here [38] which resulted in a DIGWUREN arbitration enforcement warning here [39]. That ANI is now closed. As can be seen, the evaluating administrator advised that continued misconduct (namely, failure to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial processes there or in the wider Eastern Europe topic area) should be reported at the WP:AE noticeboard in accordance with the procedures documented there. Thanks, -Chumchum7

Move reversal request for Solution stack / Software stack

A recent page move from Solution stack to Software stack warrants reversal. This was a GF move by InternetMeme (talk · contribs), but it has a few problems:

• It wasn't a move, it appears to have been done by cut & paste. This has trashed the edit history.
• It wasn't discussed beforehand. Actually I'd raised it myself a year or so back, but there was no consensus (well, no reply at all).
• It's a bad change. "Solution stack" is an article on web stacks (e.g. LAMP) that's a good topic, but not the clearest of names. It really wants a name that is more specific (web solution stack, or a better idea). This change has made it less specific instead. The article is now linked quite inappropriately as software stack from articles such as Android (operating system), which are quite different things altogether. It would be a bad change to re-write the article from its current useful scope to the broad scope - they're two different articles.

Owing to the edit history issue, I think this needs mopwork to fix it.

This article should instead have been:

• Moved to web solution stack or some other, web-specific name (or else not moved).
• The previous redir at software stack expanded to a generic article or disambig.

Andy Dingley (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I've undid the redirects as they don't involve the history being kept. I don't care about the title, so anyone can inform me if they want the article moved over the redirected history. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Harriet Harperson

Harriet Harperson (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

A user account only used for advocating a POV, advancing Labour Party propaganda, POV and derogating their Conservative opponents and users who happen to disagree with her. In addition, offensive comments far over the line. The attack page Nasty Party should have been enough to send her to eternal wikivacation. After so many warnings warrants an enforced wikibreak till the election is over. In short, please spare the wiki community of that troll. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog | woof! 19:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved from AN.

• Dunno about being a troll but the username is clearly a violation of our user policy cos its a parody of Harriet Harman's name. They can find something else to edit under. I have softblocked the user. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, someone being a troll is a bit subjective , I agree. WP:NPA, WP:NOT aren't. Disseminating political propaganda and slander on the even of the election should be taken seriously. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog | woof! 21:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Ericdohr

User Talk:Ericdohr was made two attempts to create an attack page on someone named Greg King (Milwaukee). The first was speedly deleted yesterday (April 27th) and the second was submitted today through Articles for creation. This user has not edited any other articles. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

These pages aren't really attack pages, but are just jokes in the Chuck Norris/Bill Brasky vein. TNXMan 20:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Drork

This user was indefinitely topic-banned from all articles in the Israel/Palestine conflict area [40]. He was subsequently banned for 24 hours[41], 48 hours[42], six months[43] and eventually indefinitely[44], for using sockpuppets to circumvent this ban. Despite this, he continues to create socks, and to edit from IPs. I reported onre of these at SPI yesterday[45], but the user is still using this IP, and continues to edit-war from it: [46], [47]. Can steps be taken to deal with this glaring abuse, and to prevent Drork from continuing to hold up two fingers to Wikipedia? RolandR (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

RolandR tries to silence people who don't share his views. I'm sure other people on Wikipedia knows better. Am I wrong? 79.180.25.39 (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

PS - The complaining user uses his userpage for political propaganda. He writes he's anti-Zionist, supports the Palestinian "Right-of-Return" and plenty of other political, sometimes offensive slogans. His job here is to silence people who don't share his views. He edits articles which he obviously cannot be objective about. This is a North Korea-approach, that should be condemned. 79.180.25.39 (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I should have thought that the responses above were enough to gain a block, and it seems that Tim Song agrees with me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

What we need is a range block on this clown's ISP, [48]. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

But Bezeq is Israel's main telecoms provider, and blocking it would block very many Israeli editors. Since, despite the comment above, I do not actually want to silence people who do not share my views, I do not think that we can go along with Tarc's proposal.RolandR (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

He's on too many different ranges, so there's too much collateral damage. Tim Song (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

How about blocking a few of the ranges anon-only. Yes, he can still create socks, but at least we can indef each one as it pops up... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see here a group of Wikipedians. I see here people with a serious ego problem, and too much politics on their minds. Roland, it is nice of you to allow Israelis to edit. You will be monitoring their edits and revert them every time they say something in favor of Zionism (knock wood) or Israel. BTW, I'll be more fair and honest than you are willing to be. My name is Dror Kamir and I'm from Holon, Israel. Enjoy your anonymity and sense of power. 79.177.8.3 (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Now the folks at [email protected] will have something to work with. Tarc (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

In a subsequent SPI investigation, the Drork sock above posted information (now removed) regarding my identity [49]. This too should lead to an effective block. RolandR (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this the guy who delivered a talk about "Cross-Cultural Dialog through Wikipedia", on Wikimania 2008? If so: Deep, deep sigh. Huldra (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not what AN/I is for. Go rant somewhere else. Breein1007 (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "rant" is a proper descriptive for Huldra's comment, though it certainly could be applied to some of DrorK's comments above. Care to rephrase? Tiamut^talk 09:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to mention how impressed I am with the degree of concern you're showing over a banned editor totally flouting his ban, though I have to agree, if you're going to tell somebody else to rant somewhere else, it would be better if she was actually ranting.     ←   ZScarpia   11:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Dror Kamir: "I was afraid they would not listen to me." (translation) - Very sad (and a pity that writing an encyclopaedia isn't listed as a motivation).     ←   ZScarpia   01:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Riderless horse

Can I get some help with this article please? Some IP (who also seems to be User:Cillyness) keeps inserting false information. The information they are inserting goes against well documented information from JFK's funeral. I have left them messages but they don't respond. - Josette (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The part about Sardar appears to be true, if the History Channel site is correct; however, the editor copied-and-pasted from that article, which is not allowed, so I removed the paragraph. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sardar was a horse given to Jackie but he was not used in the funeral of JFK. That was a different horse named Black Jack [50]. It is all pretty clear if anyone wants to spend the time researching this. Thanks. - Josette (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

So the HIstory Channel got it wrong? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep. - Josette (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sigh..., User:Cillyness is back again with the same copyright vios and false information. - Josette (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 12 hours and warned not to insert copyvio. ObDisclose: Josette informed me of this matter offWiki. Since no other admin (Thanks, Bugs, for your help) seems to have taken an interest, I figured I better in the interest of domestic tranquility, but it seemed pretty open and shut to me. I take no position on the content dispute except to note that I apparently paid for a LD call to the JFK library to validate that the History Channel indeed has it all wrong... the US Army site tells a different story. But that's not my concern. :) Lar: t/c 11:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The History Channel perpetuating wrong information? Horrors!!! </sarcasm> -- llywrch (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As a note, this block has been extended by another admin. Lar: t/c 02:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Angelamuziotti and AfD tampering

Resolved

 – Puppeteer, puppet, and source IP blocked—Kww(talk) 00:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Angelamuziotti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account who has been participating in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zamora (musician). Unfortunately, this user's conduct is out of line. They've been warned and persist in the following behaviours (links are diffs):

• Deleting other users' comments: [51] [52]
• Striking other users' !votes, when it was the only such !vote made by the user on the page: [53] [54]
• Moving other users' comments to other locations in the discussion and distorting the threading: [55] [56] [57]

The user was warned, specifically about the striking of remarks [58], but has persisted in the other behaviours, in spite of the edit summaries when the edits were reverted.

An account by the same name is also involved in a sockpuppet investigation at the Spanish Wikipedia [59]. There was also a sockpuppet investigation on en.wikipedia [60] the last time this article went through AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alejandro Zamora), where the conclusion was that sockpuppetry had taken place but had not influenced the AfD.

So, my primary concern is the behaviour of User:Angelamuziotti. Secondarily and related is whether Katydelmar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), another single-purpose account, is a sockpuppet—although I was waiting on the sockpuppet/checkuser request there to see if the outcome of the AfD was affected. —C.Fred (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the only contributions by user Angelamuziotti on Spanish Wikipedia are related to Zamora, including creating an article on him and defending it at an articles for deletion discussion, using the same arguments used in the AfD in English Wikipedia, so there is no doubt that this is the same person. And yes, as C.Fred has indicated, the user has been accused there too of sockpuppetry. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I will follow the rules- I hope the same thing from the other side.

Angelamuziotti (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If she weighs the same as a duck, she must be made of wood. And therefore... caknuck _° needs to be running more often 02:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just left them a vandal-2 comment for this continued messing around--after they promised here not to do that anymore (if that's what they were saying above). Drmies (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse: is there a CU request? I have no doubt that these two quacking things have identical DNA. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is listed as open at WP:SPI. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 03:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to hide:

My co-workers have tried to create the article in past ocassions in both es.wiki and en.wiki. Katydelmar works in my office and we share the same Internet connection. Angelamuziotti (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That is called meatpuppetry and is treated exactly the same way as sockpuppetry. Updated Wikistalk report Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care. You can treat us as one entity according to WP:MEAT.Angelamuziotti (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes one entity, allowed one !vote at AfDs, which cannot therefore speak as if with separate voices to create an illusion of consensus. Plus, those who have a conflict of interest in regard to subjects, such as articles about themselves or close associates, need to refer to WP:COI to understand how their editing needs to be limited in regard to those subjects. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No WP:COI. We don't have any relationship with the subject of the article. However, who assures us that other people who voted "delete" in this AfD (mostly admins) are not the same people, or there is a close relationship (between themselves, or the Wikipedia CEO, or the Arbitration Commitee per WP:ADM), if they all have admin privileges, and admins can change logs and everything as they want?

To summarize: It does not have sense to ask for the result of a poll, to the manufacturer of the voting machine.

Angelamuziotti (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

An administrator can't do any of those things. Also, the assumption that evil admins are tampering with the AFD to try to get your article deleted is quite ridiculous.

To summarize: You're wrong and you haven't addressed any of the concerns raised in this thread.--Atlan (talk) 08:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Also AfD's are not, or at least should not be, a poll. Taemyr (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it sounds like a joke for you, but I am starting to think that. and more to the point if the article gets deleted- I will take it to another level, because I proved that my article fulfilled WP:MUSIC Angelamuziotti (talk)

He's been warned, if he moves or refactors or strikes another editors remarks at that AFD he should be blocked immediately to prevent further disruption. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

At who are you referring? Angelamuziotti (talk) 09:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll go out on a limb and say Angela is probably a she.--Atlan (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry. I am not going to touch any comment from other people. You have my word. Angelamuziotti (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet that's exactly what you did right after that comment, [61]. It was probably an edit conflict, so pay more attention to those as well.--Atlan (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. That's right (edit conflict) I will be careful to avoid this in the future. Angelamuziotti (talk) 10:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Angelamuziotti and Katydelmar are the same person. It's a complete WP:DUCK. They have edited only in the same places, their edits are not just rather similar, but extremely similar, and even their use of English is similar. "Katydelmar works in my office and we share the same Internet connection" is totally implausible. Two independent editors who "don't have any relationship with the subject of the article" and are editing independently in the same office just happen by chance to choose only the same limited areas of Wikipedia to edit, and are so similar in outlook that their edits are astonishingly similar??? A remarkable pair of colleagues. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

And don't forget the other four accounts listed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Alejandrozamora who disrupted the first AfD back in January 2007. And the fact that the IP used by Katydelmar resolves to Caracas, Venezuela, the home town of Zamora (musician). If I wasn't already involved, I'd block both accounts until the AfD is over (at least). — Satori Son 15:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering the plethora of comments like these, I'm surprised that Angela hasn't simply performed a non-administrative closure as keep on the AfD. I love how people create a problem and then claim it's solved after no one agrees with them. Drmies (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I've got no idea why this was dragged out so long. I've declared it duck season, blocked Katydelmar indefinitely, and blocked Angelamuziotti for two weeks.—Kww(talk) 15:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

190.36.246.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked for a week as well.—Kww(talk) 15:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoa Kww, I turn my back for a week and you're an admin, blocking left and right! Thanks, and congratulations! Drmies (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Support all three blocks. (Full disclosure: My comments in the AfD were inappropriately stricken by both named accounts.) — Satori Son 18:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

On category titles, BLPs, and Andrew Brons

User:Sumbuddi is knowingly breaking the rules against edit-warring. He's doing this because he is confident that, under WP:BLP, he is right to continue removing the category "British Neo-Nazis" from Andrew Brons. The category's main page says that it is a list of people who are, or have been, British neo-nazis. Brons has been a neo-Nazi. The content of the article makes it clear that he is not a neo-Nazi now. Sumbuddi feels that the category tag indicates that he is, currently, a neo-nazi, and so he can continue reverting the tag indefinitely because it is a violation of the BLP policy. You might notice edit summaries like this, which was what caught my attention, expressing his confidence that he is right and his low regard for other opinions. Other users feel that the category correctly includes people who used to be neo-nazis, and so Sumbuddi is subject to ordinary edit-warring rules. My question is... should Sumbuddi be blocked for edit-warring in this situation? Your ideas are welcome, because my hand hovered uncertainly over the block button, then off it, then on again, and so I came here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I broke no rules, so it's unnecessary to impute any justifications for doing so.

Secondly, I have a note at the top of my talk page that do not want to receive template messages. There's a good reason for that, and it's because they are used by editors like the one you link to above as a weapon in enforcing their POV: I removed the label 'neo-Nazi' from the page on 24th April, it was added back on 29th April, which I then reverted. In response to that ONE revert in FIVE days, McGeddon, rather than attempting to engage in discussion, decides that he will slap a 3RR warning on me and revert the page.

At that point he'd made the exact same number of reverts as me to that page; unlike me he took no steps to engage in debate, simply reverting the page (and he reverted again shortly after).

I have responded to all offered opinions, I don't however see that I should tolerate 3RR warnings on my own talk page for ONE revert when that person was simultaneously edit-warring and ignoring Talk. Sumbuddi (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I should probably also point out the discussion at WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Andrew_Brons: 'Putting him into a "neo Nazi" category requires as much secondary RS support as saying "Mr. X is currently a member of the neo Nazi movement".', and I would suggest that the relevant action here is to ensure that the category is moved from Andrew Brons, as against further discussion of removed warning templates on my talk page.Sumbuddi (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The category has been removed and the page protected now, which I am happy with, though I would like to point out that not only did I not break 3RR, the 3 reverts I did perform were only after taking all appropriate steps to try and resolve the dispute (responding to all Talk comments, flagging at WP:BLP/N, etc.) Sumbuddi (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are your edits: original edit, first revert, second revert, third revert, fourth revert, fifth revert, sixth revert. While you stopped at three reverts in a 24-hour period, and thus did not technically violate 3RR, it would have been reasonable to block you for blatant edit warring (since five other editors obviously disagreed with you on the BLP violation). But since this is a sensitive and controversial issue, I'm not sure a block is warranted or helpful at this time. In the future, however, instead of edit warring, please let other editors help determine if you are correct. Your request at WP:BLP/N#Andrew Brons was the right way to go; you should have let it take its course. — Satori Son 21:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As the admin who protected the article, I support Sumbuddi's interpretation, and the correctness of him ignoring 3RR. He should have made his reverts clearer that they were, in fact, made under the auspices of the BLP 3RR exemption. In such a case, where local consensus differed from BLP, I would only support a block of an editor who invoked BLP in an objectively unreasonable manner. I've been putting some thoughts on the topic together at WP:CRYBLP. Really, people, if we're going to include former Neo-Nazis who are no longer so associated, the better solution is to include e.g., a "Former Neo-Nazis" category, to distinguish what's sourced as past association in the article from current reality. Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Jonas Poole

An editor I have worked with before (not always in agreement) mentioned a dispute to me the other day regarding pilot whales in the Whaling in Iceland article. There is a couple day edit war. I chimed in at User:Cetamata's page and User:Jonas Poole made a personal attack ("God, you people are fucking idiots.") that I find unacceptable. I have recommended to Cetamata that he use the talk page even more on this one and maybe open an RfC but Poole has totally crossed the line. It appears that he understands the civility guidelines from looking at his talk page so I did not bring this to the etiquette board.Cptnono (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The first step is to discuss it with the user, which you have failed to do. The second one is to bring it up at WQA, which you have not done; I appreciate he may understand the civility guidelines, but you've yet to show any kind of pattern that would really justify bringing it here. Ironholds (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Complex spamming issue

Resolved

 – Taking this to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Mangoe (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I would have taken this to WP:AIV but it's a little too messy to deal with there. Basically what's happening is a pattern of long term spamming over a couple of articles, particularly in scone (bread) but also now slopping over into orange flower water and bitter orange. Originally edits were being made by Chrissytomson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), where I laid a warning. Now we have a new user Chrissylarson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) making the same edits (example), along with an IP editor 98.223.220.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) adding links to the same website (example). I think it's a reasonably safe bet these are all the same person, who was notified on their original talk page by me after a string of these edits. I've also dropped a "cease and desist" on the new user talk page, but given their response to the first warning I don't think this is going to help. Anyway, I'm getting tired of this and would like this person blocked in as many places as necessary. Mangoe (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest requesting blacklisting of the link at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 21:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that would appear to be the right solution. Thank you. Mangoe (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Be sure to warn the user with each revert (using {{uw-spam1}}, {{uw-spam2}}, {{uw-spam3}}, {{uw-spam4}}). After the fourth warning, if it continues, AIV will generally take action if the spamming continues. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime the accounts could be blocked as spam only accounts. There is usually no need to run through several levels of warnings with obvious accounts.--Crossmr (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Format modifying vandal is back

Please see User_talk:216.25.247.244#October_2009_4. The six months blocks on the various IP addresses listed there has expired and they're back to messing up formatting again. Woogee (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Admin Materialscientist beat me to the block button by about a minute; they're now blocked for the next year. That should resolve this, I hope. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

AE request

Resolved

Could some uninvolved admin look at Wikipedia:AE#Incompleteness_theorems? Thanks, — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Abecedare (talk) 03:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Race and Intelligence article

This appears to be beyond the abilities of AN/I. A user conduct Request for comment has been suggested as a more appropriate venue. I commented below, but with a different opinion. Anyone should feel free to reopen this if they think there are still matters that can be resolved here. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)}}

Disruptive behavior from user:Slrubenstein

User:Slrubenstein has been involved in the race and intelligence article for quite a while, and was pretty civil in his behavior there before the past week, but has rather suddenly began making personal attacks against other users. I attempted to warn him about this behavior here; however he’s ignored my warning and continued to engage in the same behavior. The majority of his personal attacks have been directed at user:Mikemikev, but he’s made several against me also.

[62] (Directed at Mikemikev) “Scientists disagree all the time - it is the whole point of science. But they can do so while respecting one another's contributions to science. That you are not capable of this just shows your ignorance of science (or that you are a crappy scientist). […] Apparently you do not understand even this simple sentence.”

[63] (Directed at Mikemikev) “This is utter and total @#!*% that simply demonstrates Mikemikev's attempt - conscious or reckless - to destroy this article […] All mikemikev is doing is pushing his own POV even if it makes us the laughing stock of the literate world.”

[64] (Directed at Mikemikev) “The version that I left, after deleting Mike's vandalism, was not "my" version. It was the version we arrived at through mediation, and which David Kane wrote, before mediation ended and Mike came here to sneak back in his ignorant POV.”

[65] (Directed at both me and Mikemikev) “Now, I DO understand regression to the mean, and I DO understand basic population genetics, and I know that what Mikemikev and Captain Occam have written is SO wrong, that they simply do not know what they are talking about. Do you see the problem? When I do not understand something, I do not edit on it. Yet here are two editors who clearly do not understand something, yet they think that they can explain it to others via our encyclopedia. I think that is dishonest, disingenuous, @#!*% that in a small way makes our encyclopedia an embarassment, the kind of website college professors tell their students not to visit. Do you see my problem now? Because I know these guys are writing encyclopedia content on things they do not understand, I cannot assume good faith on their behalf. I just cannot. They are charlatans. And if this is how I feel about them, I cannot interact with them or work with them on the same article, you know how important AGF is.”

[66] (Directed at Mikemikev) “Your trolling, you are just trying to get me to waste my time by repeating what I wrote yesterday, and what was written during mediation, in the hiopes that I will get tired of your trolling and go away.”

[67] (Directed at me) “You know little about science, yet come to this article just to push your racist point of view. Fortunately, there are many other editors who will put science above your racist ideology.”

[68] (Directed at me) “Captain Occam's standard seems to be: any view that does not agree with mine is bad. Well, so what else is new?”

I’m reluctant to recommend a block for Slrubenstein, because he has contributed to this article in a positive way over the past several months, but recently there has been a major change in his behavior. As I’ve reported here, his main activity there lately has been edit warring (also after being warned about this); it ultimately resulted in page protection rather than a block because a few other users were edit warring there also.

As far as how this should be dealt with is concerned, I think Slrubenstein’s most important comment is the fourth one that I quoted (with regard to me and Mikemikev): “I cannot interact with them or work with them on the same article”. I’m not making personal attacks against anyone there, and I’ve only reverted the article once during the past two days, so in this case I don’t think Slrubenstein’s inability to interact with me and Mikemikev in a constructive way is my own fault. If by his own admission he is unable to do this, and he is the one who’s edit warring and making personal attacks as a result, I think something needs to be done about this. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that temperatures have tended to run high in this article. Some of this is diffused in the very long talk page, which has saved the article from many reverts. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree about temperatures running high, but I think most of us who are debating about this article have managed to avoid making personal attacks against other users involved in it. I also don’t think there’s any evidence of Slrubenstein’s behavior having calmed down; his most recent personal attack that I quoted is his most recent contribution. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein is an admin and has been a user in good standing since 2001, there are very few active users on Wikipedia who have a longer or more respected history. You've been here for under two years, much of it intermittent, and the race and intelligence article has been a focus of yours almost from the outset. I'm sorry but in any conflict between the two of you that requires weighing the relative commitment to the goals of the project or judgement of the project's mores, I'll be backing Slrubenstein. I suggest you find a way of working productively with him before you get blocked yet again for edit warring on Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy (Help!) 22:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn’t a discussion about general level of contributions to Wikipedia or my own past conflicts with users unrelated to this report, it’s a discussion about the specific user conduct within the past week that I’ve brought up here. A user’s history of contributions does not excuse them from having to follow rules such as WP:NPA. In accordance with the rules of this noticeboard, can this discussion please remain focused on its actual topic, instead of straying to unrelated accusations and side-discussions within the discussion? Thanks.

Incidentally, if there is somewhere other than AN/I where I should be posting in order to report disruptive behavior from an administrator, I would appreciate knowing what it is. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It would be better to base your position on an examination of the circumstances of the event, Guy, rather than on the reputations of the users involved. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:24, 15 Apr 2010 (UTC)

One of these two has a history of crying foul over the article which has been an obsessive focus of his for some time, the other does not. See how that informs my judgement of the merits of each successive complaint? Guy (Help!) 09:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

*Wow. I have respect for Slrubenstein. But Guy/JzG, I think your comment is way off-base, though you may well have given voice to a misapprehension that plagues other sysops as well. The mop does not by any means entitle Slrubenstein to better treatment than Occam is entitled to. Frankly -- it is precisely the opposite. The admin rules, and the bases upon which actions can be taken against admins, makes it quite clear that sysops have greater, not lesser, obligations than do non-sysop editors. Furthermore, as the oft-quoted "don't bite the newbies" guideline suggests, it is the newer editors -- not the more experienced ones -- whom we should take extra care with. Your "Slrubenstein is an admin ... I'm sorry but in any conflict between the two of you that requires weighing the relative commitment to the goals of the project or judgement [sic] of the project's mores, I'll be backing Slrubenstein" sends a terrible message. I'm hoping that was accidental, and will be redacted. It's IMHO contrary to some very important wiki guidelines, and is precisely what non-sysops say on a regular basis when they see sysops covering each others' backs in questionable circumstances.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Guy's rationale is not productive or appropriate. Maurreen (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed more sysops, than editors, being unafraid that their misbehavior may result in sanction, or even just censure.

Are Wikipedians divided up in a two-tier social hierarchy, in which the admins are the elites that can flout policies and guidelines with impunity? -- Rico 04:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) While I can see tempers becoming elevated, I don't see anything which would qualify as a personal attack. I think some of the comments are coming close to being incivil, however. Perhaps everyone involved needs to take a day off and cool down before coming back to the article. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

In context, the very minimal testiness is actually a sign of great restraint on the part of Slrubenstein whose judgement I trust quite substantially. The article topic is of immense interest, which means it is of immense possibility for head-butting. Nothing to act upon, to be sure. Collect (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If the consensus here is that these quotes from Slrubenstein aren't incivil enough to warrant action, I'll accept that. However, I would still like it if someone could do something about Mathsci's attempt below to hijack this thread into a complaint about me, and in the process evade the requirement of notifying me on my userpage the way he would have to do if he were posting a thread about this issue normally. As I pointed out in my comment there, this is the third time he's done this in an AN/I thread in the past month. If you look at the two prior threads where this happened, you'll see that his conduct in both of them was fairly disruptive, particularly in terms of his series of personal attacks against Ludwigs2. But nothing's ever been done to prevent him from continuing to repeat this same behavior in multiple AN/I threads. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein's wikiquette in that usertalk could use improvement, but an ANI thread with allusions to a block proposal is a bit much. Captain Occam seems a little too eager to provoke drama by bringing it here. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I was actually hoping for something more along the lines of a warning from another admin that if he feels he’s unable to work collaboratively with other users on this article, it would be better for him to leave the article alone for a little while until he feels differently about this. I’m well aware that over the past several months, Slrubenstein’s contributions to this article have been more positive than negative, so I think I agree that a block would be excessive. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal of "a warning from another admin" implicitly implies you want a threat of sanctions. If you just want someone to suggest Slrubenstein try to dial it back and/or take a break, anyone can do that, not just admins. I thought of leaving Slrubenstein a note but decided that it's enough if he looks over this thread and takes in the issue. The suggestion that Slrubenstein is having trouble working collaboratively seems to carry a presumption that the edits he's objecting to constitute meaningful collaboration themselves. Given Mathsci's report, without knowing more, I'd say that presumption is not necessarily a done deal. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

“The suggestion that Slrubenstein is having trouble working collaboratively seems to carry a presumption that the edits he's objecting to constitute meaningful collaboration themselves.”

My saying that was intended only as a paraphrase of Slrubenstein’s own comment about me and Mikemikev: “I cannot interact with them or work with them on the same article.” To me, his saying that sounds like an expression of unwillingness to work collaboratively, but perhaps I should have been clearer what I was referring to. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• A quick note on the actual issue. Of the above diffs, much of the language was not IMHO inappropriately uncivil. The only language that gave me pause was: a) "or that you are a crappy scientist). […] Apparently you do not understand even this simple sentence.”; and b) "They are charlatans". And even those two, in the broad scheme of things, and under the circumstances, might not trouble me. Without delving deeply, I'm unsure. At the same time, sysops especially are supposed to model good behavior for everyone else. If Slrubenstein were to make an appearance here, and say he apologizes if his colleague was offended, and didn't intend to offend him, I would be happy to consider this case closed -- and I hope that Captain would agree.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd say calling someone's actions "trolling", unless it is demonstrable, a personal attack. Doing so out of disagreements with another's viewpoint would certainly cross the line of exemplary behaviour expected of an Admin. I'm sorry, but I agree that JzG's back-scratching is pretty lamentable too. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I'd say that Slrubenstein was getting pretty frustrated with some perceived non-consensus edits and the flow of some of the talk page discussion, but don't agree with him that this causes permanent damage to the encyclopaedia or that there is some sort of crisis brewing which requires such strong and emotive personalised language. Wikipedia editors are often not experts on all (or even any) areas of the subjects they are editing, and this is particularly true when subtleties of statistics and nebulous concepts like race and intelligence are involved. With time and patience, all these issues can be explained and ironed out in the article. He's fully aware of his own frustration, but I don't believe he has misused his admin authority here. If Slrubenstein could lower his expectation of the knowledge of his protagonists, but increase his willingness to communicate his knowledge uncritically, we could take a slower but surer path to resolution. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Captain Occam, I don't know the background to this and it's a lot to read, but in general if Slrubenstein is getting frustrated in this way there's a reason for it, because he's a good editor. That's not to give him a free pass, so please don't anyone else misunderstand that. It's simply that he does tend to know what he's talking about. Captain, I don't know whether you yourself have an academic background in this area, but it's the kind of subject that's difficult to write about without knowledge of the scholarly sources. That could be the source of Slrubenstein's frustration. Sticking closely to the very best sources is often enough to resolve these things. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 14:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I have refrained from commenting up to now because I am concerned about turning this page into an extension of a conflict on another page. This is my perception of events: I have long believed that racist editors (often SPAs or "very few purpose" accounts) have sought to hijack certain WP articles in order to push their views, often under the cover of fringe science. Race and Intelligence is one such article. Now, we had a lengthy (four months?) mediation in which I thought I was consistently civil, and under the mediator's guidance sought compromise with all participants of the mediation regardless of my prior experiences with them. The mdiation ended with David Kane revising the R&I article based on points of consensus. Within a day, Mikemikev2 and Occams Razor started changing it.

The specific issue had to do with regression towards the mean. This is a statistical phenomena one inds any time there is a bivariate distribution (i.e. most scores are close the thg average, but some are above it and some are below it). Mike and Captain kept adding material stating that this is caused by genetics, so when it occurs with IQ scores it is proof that the reason blacks have lower average IQ than whites is, they are, as a group, naturally less intelligent than whites. Racism aside, this misrepresents the science, and the way they wrote it violated NPOV and NOR.

The mediation is over. I participated in the mediation in good faith, and thought we had achieved a workable consensus accommodating multiple perspectives. But as soon as the mediation ended, Mikemikev and Captain Occam referted to their SPA POV-pushing. I reverted to David Kane's original mediation consensus version.

Over time other editors have noted flaws in the aticle and I have made changes to the passage reflecting other people's comments - I just want to keep SYNTH and POV violations out.

I actually am aware of my own anger about edits that violate a mediation consensus, and are made in a way that show an utter disregared for collaborative editing - Mikemikev and Captain Occam have never modified their edits to respond to concerns I have voiced on the talk page. I actually went to the mediator to express my concerns, not only over their edits but over my behavior.[69] Please note that Captain Occam provides this edit-dif above, but misrepresents it. He states, aboe that this comment was "Directed at both me and Mikemikev." Not true, it was directed at Ludwigs2 the mediator, an in the comment I explicitly said that I was considering dialing back my involvement in the Race and Intelligence article because of how angry I was, watching Captain Occam and Mikemikev push back into the article things that we agred to take out in mediation.

Many of you might think that, if there is solid science saying Blacks are intellectually inferior to Whites, well, we need to say that in articles. Let me remind you of NPOV: we have to present this as a view, not as the "truth." Moreover, there are many scientists who tak issue with this claim, this is by no means a consensus among scientists. Yesterday, I began to involve myself in a new argument on the talk page, about whether or not to include the views of Stephen Jay Gould. Gould was a Harvard biologist and one of the leading experts on evolutionary theory, and published a book examining claims that certain races are intellectually inferior to others has a biological basis. Mikemikev, Captain occam, and Distributive Justice have been fighting to keep this source out of the article. It looks like any view that questions their view will be excluded. This to me is edit-warring. And yes, when we are talking about whether blacks are inherently inferior to whites, I think the stakes are high and we better get the science right and be fanatic about complying with NPOV. When a group of editors disregard these concerns, it does make me angry, and I am glad I went to Ludwigs2 to have an honest discussion with him about it, and I am trying to restrain myself. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi SL. It is, of course, where one or more editors view the stakes as being high that emotions tend to run the highest, and civility finds itself most at risk. I don't think the issue on this page is "who is right". But rather, whether the involved editors can comport themselves in a civil fashion, within the wiki civility requirements. Some of the editors on this page feel that some of your language (though not all of that cited) may have approached or passed the border of acceptable communication, and been somewhat short of what is expected of an admin. Would it be possible for you to apologize if your colleagues were offended? If that were the case, I for one would be happy to consider this case closed.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, two points:

1: Let’s keep the discussion here to user conduct, rather than rehashing content disputes here. There’s already a lengthy debate on the article talk page about Galton’s Law of Ancestral Heredity (which is what this issue is about), and whether what Arthur Jensen and Richard Nisbett have written about it as it pertains to IQ scores should go in the article. Since the discussion of Galton’s Law as it pertains to IQ is in the source material from both sides of the debate about this topic, it’s questionable whether we should be second-guessing the validity of the source material like this, but either way that’s not what we should be discussing here.

2: If you look at the discussion during which we were first coming up with the article outline, you’ll see that consensus actually supported the inclusion of this line of data, although we didn’t add it to the outline itself because we weren’t sure which section of the article it belonged in. When Muntuwandi proposed his own version of the outline, not everyone agreed that this point should go in his own version of it, since his outline wasn’t data-centric. But for the outline that we ended up using, the data-centric one proposed by Varoon Arya, multiple users agreed that it should cover Galton’s Law of Ancestral Heredity and how this applies to IQ scores, and nobody raised a problem with this until we tried to actually add it to the article.

However, even if you were right both that Galton’s Law of Ancestral Heredity had nothing to do with genetics and that there was never a consensus to cover this topic in the article, that still wouldn’t justify your personal attacks against me and Mikemikev. It’s easy to point out that you disagree with a piece of content without attacking the user who added it.

“Mikemikev, Captain occam, and Distributive Justice have been fighting to keep this source out of the article. It looks like any view that questions their view will be excluded. This to me is edit-warring.”

I should point out that before the article was protected I had reverted it only once during the previous two days, while you had reverted it four times within the past 24 hours. For me to be disputing on the talk page whether Gould’s views on IQ are notable enough to belong in the article, without editing the article itself, does not fit Wikipedia’s definition of edit warring. That’s just a normal content dispute, and the only problematic thing about the way I was expressing my viewpoint about this topic was the fact that I disagreed with you.

I think you need to recognize the fact that there’s a legitimate scientific debate as to what’s causing the difference in average IQ scores between races. Not everyone who thinks that genetics are contributing to it is necessarily a racist; they may just interpret the data differently from you. One of the things we reached consensus on in the mediation also is that this viewpoint does not meet Wikipedia’s definition of a “fringe theory”, so I don’t think you should be implying that it does.

Epeefleche: If Slrubenstein apologizes to me and mikemikev for being uncivil towards us, and agrees to make an effort to avoid this problem in the future, I would be happy for this thread to be closed. In fact, because of Mathsci’s effort to convert this thread into a complaint about my conduct in a separate article, I would prefer that this thread be closed before it drifts any further off-topic. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that would go a long way to resolving this issue, perhaps long enough for the content disputes to be resolved amicably. I would also suggest that, as a further gesture of goodwill, you commit to take more account of comments from Slrubenstein. You have seen here he is generally respected as an editor. I have noticed that on technical issues, his understanding is often similar to mine, and these have included some matters of mathematical fact rather than opinion. And the list of participants Slrubenstien mentioned above includes someone who seemed to reject my reasoned argument with little attempt to understand it, and when Slrubenstein supported me, you opposed him seemingly on an unrelated point to my original point. Focussing on points of agreement first is often a good way forward - the differences may become less relevant later on, saving much energy which would otherwise wasted on irrelevant battles. My general preference is not to ban anyone, but for everyone just to step up their level of awareness by a level or two. Ironically, there is an editor who seems much more disruptive working on the article at the moment who hasn't been mentioned once, and other editors working quietly away without incident, which suggests there is a lack of trust and respect between the participants is the root of this issue. I would like the participants to resolve this underlying issue, because having editors coming from different sides is important, particularly for articles like this. I might also point out that several people feel that they are the aggrieved party here. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's worth anything, I would like to express some opinions. I am currently involved with him at Talk:Ashkenazi intelligence, where we are discussing the validity of the article. In the past I would check up on articles like race and intelligence and such, and he is of course a regular contributor to those kinds of articles, so he has a level of expertise on the subject. I respect his opinions and viewpoints on various subjects relating to this, although I don't know what his biases are, and as everyone is human, humans have biases. From what I've seen of his interactions with various users over the long course of me checking those articles, he is sometimes combative with some users, and "bites the newbies" which is unfortunate. Personally I don't agree with Guy's opinion that SLrubenstein needs to be "backed" simply because he has been here longer, and then throwing a warning at Occam. That seems more like favoritism than anything else. ScienceApe (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Request of community topic ban for Captain Occam

• Captain Occam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• History of the race and intelligence controversy

My editing history is in mainstream articles in the arts and science. In order to restore some order to Race and intelligence, I wrote History of the race and intelligence controversy based on impeccable secondary sources in the history of psychology. I used all mainstream historical accounts available and looked carefully for these. The article is neutral and accurately represents the sources, academic experts on the history of psychology.

There are a number of POV-pushers active on Race and intelligence. The most extreme of these is Captain Occam, a WP:SPA who seems determined that wikipedia should unduly represent a minoritarian point of view. I don't have any particular point of view myself and tried to write the history from history books that gave lengthy historical accounts of research into race and intelligence. There are a fair number of other supporters of the minoritatian point of view active on the R&I page. When I wrote my neutral history, as best I could, simply summarising and shortening the sources, I was not selective - no cherry-picking, etc. Just what the sources said, no extra commentary by me.

However now Captain Occam has decided that he doesn't like the article and has posted messages on the user talk pages of some of these other editors as well as Ludwigs2. These editors have appeared at the talk page of the article and some at the entry I wrote on the NPOV noticeboard. They have not said anything cogent so far. They want to rewrite the history using primary sources and have even suggested bizarre conspiracy theories concerning Marxist historians, environmental historians, but all just their own peculiar point of view. They seem to be suggesting that a large number historians of psychology, in particular all those that have written on the topic, are biased and misrepresenting events. They write this as a simple matter of fact without the slightest attempt to justify themselves. No book reviews confirm this eccentric point of view, so this kind of argument seems just to have made in order to be disruptive and waste time.

Captain Occam has orchestrated an onslaught onto a neutral and well-written article. He has been WP:TAG TEAMing, leaving messages for multiple like-minded editors to message-bomb the talk page. They have not produced any cogent arguments, just vague trolling comments, quite unlike any criticism I have seen of any other article I've written - and I have written a wide range of mainstream articles. Varoon Arya and Captain Occam have even discussed tiring me out. That is of course one of the main objectives of civil POV-pushing.

The disruption is apparent on Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy where I've supplied diffs of Occam's messages to other users requsting support on the article talk page. This seems to be a deliberate attempt to bully/tire out/confuse a normal experienced editor. Captain Occam seems to be doing something similar above to another user. I therefore suggest that Captain Occam be given an indefinite community ban on all wikipedia articles and their talk pages related to race. Mathsci (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose "Seems to be", as expressed twice in the last paragraph, is not good enough. Suggest a RFC/U, if you feel it appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Here are some of the diffs. [70],[71], [72], [73], [74] As I say, I have a lot of experience editing and creating articles on wikipedia and the laws of probability do not suggest that I would at any stage create a non-neutral, improperly sourced article in the light of all my other contributions. Most of the history section of Europe for example was comprehensively rejigged by User:Hemlock Martinis and me a while back using multiple sources. Captain Occam - as Guy says above - is a dedicated POV-pusher and single purpose account who seems intent on spreading disruption. These diffs seem like an attempt to sabotage a quite normal article; I'm not quite sure what his precise objection is except WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a general WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset in his edits. Mathsci (talk) 02:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Just for context, my impression is that there is a group of editors on WP determined to give undue weight to research conducted by a small number of hereditarian researchers. As explained by academics from UCLA and Yale University in this source, there are only a few researchers in this particular area, which would neutrally be called "group differences in intelligence". What is clear from the history - at least all the sources I've seen - is that the hereditarian side periodically proposes a new version of their theory which is then commented upon, often in popular science books and academic book reviews, by eminent academics in related fields. Historians of psychology have chronicled how in the late sixties and early seventies political unrest amongst students spilled over into some rather ugly events involving physical violence or threats against academics. In the history article I don't give a point of view but just summarise what historians have written about contemporary reaction. I was slightly surprised that I could find good sources covering the whole period. My neutrality extended to omitting any specific mention of the well documented racist aspects of the Pioneer Fund, which supports much of the heriditarian research. Mathsci (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion. Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page."

Mathsci, this is the third time in the past month that you've evaded the second requirement for posting here by ignoring the first requirement, and piggybacking one of your complaints about a user on top of an unrelated thread here. The previous two times are here and here. Could an admin please do something to keep this thread on-topic? --Captain Occam (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam, it is fundamental to Wikipedia dispute resolution that people who initiate DR actions (like you did here at ANI) automatically make their own conduct part of the subject, which means they can end up on the receiving end of sanctions. And yes, the header you quote advises people to work grievances out in userspace before bringing them to ANI. However, since you've already brought the matter here, centralization to this thread is appropriate per WP:DRAMA#Responding to drama, so Mathsci's weighing in on it here is fine.

Wehwalt: Mathsci does present some diffs (that at least establish canvassing) at the talkpage he cited, but if he is serious about a ban discussion, it would help if he incorporated the diffs directly into his report. I can't bring myself to pay attention to the R&I battle even though some very good editors are involved, so I don't have any particular views about past editor conduct in it. In general, though, it's better to dispose of clear-cut problems at ANI, and reserve more tedious processes like RFCU for cases complex enough to need it. So if Mathsci is claiming this case is clear-cut, it could help if he presents some more documentation here in the hope of getting the problem resolved more efficiently. (Captain Occam is of course entitled to do the same, although it looks to me like he's already given his best shot). Given how long the conflict has been active, though, it's probably headed towards RFCU and/or arbitration. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem I have with what Mathsci is doing here is that my report had nothing to do with him, or with the article in which he’s complaining about my conduct. (He’s complaining about my conduct in history of the race and intelligence controversy, while my report was about Slrubenstein’s conduct in race and intelligence.) If you look at either of the two linked AN/I threads that Mathsci turned into complaints about Ludwigs2, in those cases Mathsci’s complaints had even less relevance to the original topics of the thread. In one of these two cases, the user Hans Alder closed the thread with a comment explaining the problem with what Mathsci was doing: “This page has a notice above that says: "Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion. Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." The present thread has been hijacked by a user who is ignoring the first sentence, and by piggybacking on an almost completely unrelated thread is also circumventing the second sentence.” As can be seen in this edit, Mathsci responded by reverting Hans Alder’s closure of the thread.

As far as WP:CANVASS is concerned, I left comments on the userpages of three users, which I think falls within the limits of what’s considered a “friendly notice”. My comment for Varoon Arya did not mention either Mathsci or the history of the race and intelligence controversy article, but was only to let him know that mediation for Race and intelligence was now over and that he might want to pay attention to how things have changed in that article. My comment for DJ referred specifically to the history article, but was neutrally worded. In both his case and VA’s, my criterion for contacting them was that they hadn’t been very active lately, and I wanted to make sure they were aware of the recent developments that had occurred with these articles. The only one of my comments that I could see Mathsci reasonably taking issue with is my one directed at Ludwigs2, but I think it’s important to bear in mind that Ludwig was our mediator for the race and intelligence article for several months, so all of us often come to him for advice about user conduct. Several other users have come to him with other complaints similar to this, Slrubenstein included.

There’s a lot more I could be bringing up about Mathsci’s conduct that I consider problematic, particularly involving his behavior towards Ludwig in the two linked threads, but I’m not sure if this is the appropriate place for it. Is that something we should be discussing here? --Captain Occam (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If we're having a centralized discussion of this bunch of related issues, then yes, put everything here for now. (That is consistent with what Mathsci did). If it gets too messy, it may have to move to an RFC per Wehwalt's suggestion. I also understand that Medcom can refer failed mediations directly to arbitration, though I have no idea whether that's appropriate here. Whatever venue is used, the idea is to keep all the drama in one place at any given time. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

All right. I suspect that Ludwig will have more to add about this, but for now I’ll start with an explanation of the history of this issue.

When the race and intelligence article entered mediation last November, Mathsci was one of the users involved in the mediation case, but he dropped out of the mediation case early on. (This was before Ludwigs2 took on the role of mediator.) And so the mediation case proceeded without him, although there were still several other users involved in the mediation case who shared Mathsci’s opinion about this topic, such as Aprock, Muntuwandi, and Slrubenstein. Around four months into the mediation, in an unrelated thread at AN/I (from Muntuwandi complaining about incivility from TechnoFaye), Mathsci showed up and began a sub-discussion claiming that Ludwig wasn’t handling the mediation case properly. That in itself wouldn’t have been a problem, except that every time Ludwig invited Mathsci to participate in the mediation and offer his suggestions about how it could be improved, Mathsci repeatedly refused and just kept trying to shut down the mediation case via AN/I, or get Ludwig blocked for mishandling it. The discussion about this can be seen in the linked thread.

From there, Mathsci’s complaints devolved into a series of personal attacks against Ludwig, most of which involved bringing up of irrelevant past conflicts and which continued into the second AN/I thread. Here are some of Mathsci’s comments from the first thread that have been directed at Ludwig: [75] [76] [77] Remember, these comments were in a thread about incivility from TechnoFaye; what Mathsci was bringing up was completely off-topic there. Later on in the same thread, when a new editor (Cryptofish) showed up to express their opinion, Mathsci started a new discussion in the same thread about his suspicion that this user was a sockpuppet. And as I mentioned before, when Hans Alder closed this thread based on the off-topic nature of Mathsci’s complaints, Mathsi reverted the closure.

Mathsci’s hostility to Ludwig has been near-constant since this point, although I’d prefer to wait for him to explain this himself, since I’m sure he’s been paying closer to attention to it than I have. The most recent problems I’ve had with Mathsci are on this article and its talk page, where he’s engaging in WP:OWNership. Several users (me, Mikemikev, David.Kane, Varoon Arya and DJ) have raised NPOV concerns about this article, but Mathsci has reverted most of our efforts to improve this article without any effort to justify it on the discussion page. After the NPOV complaints about it on the talk page were already well-established, Mathsi removed NPOV the tag without providing any justification of doing so on the article talk page. When I added it back, he then removed it a second time, again without any discussion, this time with an edit summary that threatened all of the users who were raising these NPOV complaints with being blocked. After he reverted my adding of the tag a third time, while also reverting an edit from David.Kane, he self-reverted when I warned him on his userpage that he was edit warring.

Along with WP:OWNership, the primary problem with Mathsci in this article is that even though there are five users who disagree with him about it, he does not feel that he needs to justify his edits to any of us. He’s said this himself, when I complained to him about his unwillingness to discuss our NPOV concerns with any of us: “I am completely unwilling to waste my time on any discussions beyond the material on specific pages in the sources I have used or other secondary sources for the history which satisfy WP:RS.” As a result, when other users have brought up their justifications for wanting to edit the article or at least add back the NPOV tag, Mathsci has either ignored us or brushed us off, as in this comment to Varoon Arya: “Sorry, what you write is nonsense. Please stop wasting my time.”

Obviously there’s nothing wrong with Mathsi feeling this way about another user’s comment, or even (possibly) with mentioning it. But if this sort of comment from him is the only type of response he’s willing to give to editors’ raising NPOV concerns about the article, then he shouldn’t be reverting other users’ edits when they try to improve the article, or keep removing the NPOV tag when other users add it. Part of WP:BRD is that when a user is reverting an article, they’ll be willing to discuss it with the users making the edit and work towards a compromise; if Mathsi isn’t willing to do this then he shouldn’t be reverting.

While I was not intending to suggest in my initial post here that I supported a block for Slrubenstein (I think a warning about civility would be enough), I would support a topical ban for Mathsci on race-related articles. His personal attacks against other users, bringing up of off-topic accusations in AN/I threads, and WP:OWNership of the R & I history article have all been disruptive. During the time since he became re-involved in these articles around a month ago, I have seen very few constructive edits on them from him. Searching through the archives of this noticeboard, I can also see that the past month isn't the first time Mathsci has engaged in this sort of behavior on these articles.

Ludwig, I would appreciate you filling in some more of the details about how Mathsci has behaved towards you; I’m leaving out a lot of that because I know you can describe it better than I could. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it looks like Ludwig isn’t interested in providing more examples of the behavior I’m describing from Mathsci, so I’ll find the rest of them as best I can on my own. Here’s one, in which Mathsci was refusing to accept Ludwigs2’s right to refactor his comments on the mediation talk page for race and intelligence, although Ludwig’s right to do this was something we all agreed to as part of the mediation. Even though Mathsci had agreed to this also when he signed into mediaiton, he threatened Ludwig with being blocked if Ludwig did this in his own case, and then brought it up at AN/I. (By hijacking an unrelated thread; this was the second AN/I thread that I linked to.)

There’s also this personal attack against David.Kane. “David Kane's editing is a disappointment. He seem to be POV-pushing and does not appear to be respecting any editing WP editing rules. […] He seems to be wasting everbody's time by suppressing and inventing facts to suit his purposes/ I have never seen worse editing in my experience on wikipedia.” After this comment from him, I warned him on his userpage about not making personal attacks like this, although it obviously didn’t have much of an effect.

I probably haven’t been paying as close attention to this as Ludwig has, so I may mention additional instances of this sort of behavior as I find them. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban I was going to propose this myself when I first saw this thread a few hours ago, but wanted time to catch up on a debate I have been less than half following. Edit warring, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, POV-pushing, disruptive single purpose account &c. - I would not have chosen tag teaming as the main issue this editor has with Wikipedia norms, but I concur that it is about time we tried something new. I would like to try a ban just from Race and intelligence and History of the race and intelligence controversy but not their talkpages or the mediation, but I could be convinced of the necessity of a broader action. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• Needs more evidence and discussion - I am highly concerned about the article right now, from having taken a quick look, but we need more uninvolved admins / editors to review and analyze in more depth. I believe that going for a topic ban at this point, without sufficient evidence presented, is premature. I am afraid that the comments by Mathsci may be correct, but it's a complicated situation, and we should not prematurely intervene. I agree with others above that Slrubenstein may not have been entirely polite at all points; it doesn't seem actionable, beyond at most a reminder. In light of the possible issues with the article it deserves handling with care. I don't think Guy's comment helped; AGF and Defend Each Other are important, but all experienced admins eventually do something wrong, and we don't get passes on it when we do. We don't hit each other with mallets, either, but we have to be willing to entertain the possibility that we or our compatriots have erred. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I don't know what to say about this silliness, except that I'm a bit disgusted by the fact that Mathsci believes he can solve all of his content disputes by running to ANI and screaming at the top of his lungs to have his opponent banned. How many ban requests has he made in the last year? anyone know? at least three or four from my own observation...

Just a couple of days ago, an admin (in a different context) mentioned that administrators weren't babysitters. I'd like to think that's true, but if you keep coddling Mathsci's tantrums like this, you might as well hit up the foundation for $5 an hour and fridge rights, because this is a long, looong, loooooooong way from adult behavior. --Ludwigs2 04:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Ludwigs2 came here as a result of this exchange with Captain Occam[78]. He is sympathetic to Occam's POV-pushing and seems to be spending time enabling it. His comments above are inflammatory - "opponent", "screaming at the top of his lungs", tantrums" - I suggest that he redacts those words, as they read to me like personal attacks. I should also point out that, despite his eagerness to comment on how articles should be edited and giving the appearance of some expertise[79] when requested, this unsourced stub is the only article he has created so far on wikipedia. In those circumstances, I've no idea why he thinks his opinions are of any value. The two of them are still planning my downfall. [80] Mathsci (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • No, Mathsci, I am not sympathetic to Occam's position. I simply find your behavior reprehensibly childish, and since your behavior is a matter of observable evidence, I see no need to retract it. but keep talking, it only proves my point. --Ludwigs2 05:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• Topic ban premature but warrants more admin eyes, per Georgewilliamherbert above. --John (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Folks, look at Captain Occam's edit history. His mainspace edits are to Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Heritability of IQ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Race and genetics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Snyderman and Rothman (study) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Between-group differences in IQ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)... virtually every edit he has made to main space has been in this one narrow subject area, all advancing the same POV. He's been blocked three times for edit warring on race and intelligence, and [81] shows numerous incidents of crying foul when people push back against his POV. We have here a single purpose advocacy account on a contentious topic and I am pretty confident that this one editor is a major part of the stalemate in respect of the race and intelligence article. A topic ban is more than warranted. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Have I been violating any rules or policies here during the time since I was suspended for edit warring in January? I’m quite confident that I haven’t. Guy, your comment makes it sound as though editing an narrow range of articles and having an opinion about how NPOV applies to them are in of themselves reasons for a block, but neither of these things violate either the letter or the spirit of Wikipedia policy. In fact, the WP:SPA article makes it clear that being an SPA is not a policy violation.

I’ve attempted to justify all of my changes to articles via policy, and edited collaboratively with other users to the extent that it’s been possible. In this respect, my behavior over the past two months has not been any different from that of anyone else who has an opinion about how NPOV should be applied to controversial articles; and my conduct may actually be above average for users involved in this article because I haven’t been making personal attacks. If you need someone else to verify this who’s been involved in the same articles that I have, I’m confident that any of the following five users would agree with what I’ve said here: Varoon Arya, DistributiveJustice, Mikemikev, David.Kane, or Bpesta22. (Unless none of their opinions are worth anything, because they’re all SPAs that deserve to be banned also?)

Your comment seems to be more an attack on my motives for editing here than anything related to my conduct. I can get into my motives for editing here if that’s really necessary, but aren’t discussions on this noticeboard supposed to be about user conduct rather than motives? --Captain Occam (talk) 10:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I find Slrubenstein's contributions useful, as he is clearly knowledgeable, and his arguments recently seem to revolve around accurate inclusion of mathematical facts. His explanations to Captain Occam have informed other editors too. But Captain Occam is not unreasonable to object to his treatment, which was not ideal, and getting second opinions on talk pages is better than coming here first. MathSci has shown little interest in engaging with me on the talk pages, and all I have noticed so far is his general dissatisfaction with the process set up by Ludwig2 - to the exclusion of any actual article points. I have only been looking into a handful of article details, and it hasn'tbeen apparent from the periphery whether there are two opposing camps or a more anarchic set of disparate views which trigger local disagreement. The controversial areas don't seem to be that related. I prefer the way User:Maunus is conducting himself (for example: [82]), and the work User:David.Kane is putting in. The editors in dispute might enjoy WIkipedia more if they could adopt some more of these cooperative techniques. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! This is a hard article to work on but I have done my best. My feelings on the current dispute is that all three of MathSci, Occam and Slrubenstein have done good work on this article and have useful points to make. I wish that they would all play more nicely, both with each other and with other editors. Is there some magic button I could press to cause that? Alas, no. In any event, I think that having more admin eyes on this article serves a useful purpose. I don't think anyone should be banned. David.Kane (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from article space of Race and intelligence and related articles. I note 3 blocks in the past for edit warring and one 0RR restriction, with 4 separate Administrators involved. Dougweller (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: A few of the people involved in this discussion have suggested that this thread should be about Mathsci’s conduct in addition to mine. Thus far, several users have commented on my own conduct, but none except Ludwigs2 and Stephen B Streater have commented on Mathsci’s conduct or the explanation I posted above of what I find problematic about it. Since the intention was for this discussion to be about both his conduct and mine, isn’t anyone here going to comment on Mathsci’s conduct also? If our past histories of conduct matter here (which they apparently do, since a few users have brought up that I was edit warring on the race and intelligence article several months ago), I think this is pertinent also. Mathsci was not blocked for this even though it involved WP:OUTING, and the reason for that is mainly because he essentially chased the user whom he was harassing (user:A.K.Nole) off of Wikipedia with this behavior, so A.K.Nole could not stick around for long enough to continue pursuing his complaint against Mathsci about this. Another discussion about Mathsci’s behavior towards this user can be found here. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Captain Occam is factually wrong here. In fact two users have been wikihounding me, One, Rhomb (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked with several sockpuppets. Another, a now disclosed alternative account of A.K.Nole, has agreed to stop following my edts. This agreement was arranged off-wiki by Shell Kinney, who confirmed that wikihounding had taken place. In these circumstances it's a non-starter for Captain Occam to attempt to misrepresent events so grossly. Mathsci (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment As far as I could figure at the time, A. K. Nole was a troll and probably a sockpuppet, with some kind of axe to grind against Mathsci. A bunch of related socks were blocked during the Abd-WMC arbitration if I remember correctly. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• WP:NOTTHEM and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT appear to be the two most relevant issues here, and both refer to you. I have just read back over the various noticeboard reports on Race and intelligence since November 2009 and one username keeps coming up as being involved in WP:OWN, edit warring, POV-pushing, stonewalling, gaming the system, forum shopping and so on. That name is yours. At one point you were being reverted by ten other users! You've been blocked and sanctioned several times and yet, according to you, the problem is always all those other people. This is one of the most clear-cut examples of m:MPOV in my recent experience. I repeat my previous support for a topic ban, but let's be completely fair and extend it to include all single-purpose accounts on this topic. A complete list of such accounts appears at the moment to be you and nobody else, but I will be happy to have any others identified here (though not by you, I've had enough of your finger-pointing). Guy (Help!) 13:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • (e/c) Guy - I know you're a buddy of Mathsci's (which isn't a bad thing; it's good to have friends), and I am more than happy to admit that Mathsci is a good editor when actually gets around to editing, but even you can't perpetually overlook Mathsci's over-bearing behavior. He lies, he insults people, he's arrogant and supercilious, he reverts edits out of sheer petulance when he doesn't get his way, he runs to mommy/ANI to scream about all the bad boys who torment him. He's a bright guy with (on wikipedia, at least) the emotional continence of an irritable 11 year old. Now I kind of get that idea that - back in the bad old days of the Pseudoscience Wars - this kind of behavior was deemed acceptable in order to chase off Evil Editors from the Fringe Realm, so maybe it's just old wartime habits that he's having a hard time shaking off. But he needs to shake them off - it's an uncivil nuisance. Whatever Occam has done, here, Mathsci has done twice over; Mathsci may merit a degree of slack due to long service, but even so let's keep things in perspective. --Ludwigs2 14:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• I am not a buddy of Mathsci's as far as I am aware, I do not know his real world identity so can't say for sure. I am, however, very firmly not a buddy of the agenda account Captain Occam, having read through some of the past and present complaints by and against him. As I say, his reaction to criticism seems to be "look what billy did". Guy (Help!) 16:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Groan Captain Occam is the only editor to have had their content edits reverted by me on History of the race and intelligence controversy. Nice try, Ludwigs2. Mathsci (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• @ Guy: sorry, I just assumed from the way you stick up for Mathsci's irrationalities that you to had a relationship of some sort. I apologize if that's an incorrect assessment.
• @ Mathsci: Groan all you like - I can dig up dozens of incidents where you did the same thing on other pages, and worse, so let's not engage in selection bias. I've got nothing against you, Mathsci, except for your problematic pattern of behavior. If you'd play nice, I'd consider you one of the better editors on wikipedia, but your own actions subvert your effectiveness. --Ludwigs2 18:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Dozens of incidents? Diffs? The tone of these remarks constrasts with your cosy relationship with a POV-pushing WP:SPA. Your unorthodox/experimental approach probably explains why (a) editing on Race and intelligence has become so unstable (the article is at present locked), being primarlily based now on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, a gift-horse for POV-pushers and (b) why the article has become so unreadable, at least for me. Mathsci (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you really want me to dig up diffs? I don't particularly want to hijack this thread into full-out critique of your behavior; I really just want you to recognize your own weaknesses and reign yourself in. But if you think that would be helpful, I will. just say the word.

That being said, I'll point out that - again - you've based the entire argument in your last post (above) on childish name-calling. These so-called (by you) "POV-pushing SPAs" are in fact other editors who have a right to edit the article, so long as they abide by wikipedia policy. Your constant, tireless efforts to win your arguments through vilification is about as un-wikipedian as it gets, and is one of the major factors that has inflamed tempers in the article. You don't get to decide who is good editor and who isn't, and your insistence that only you can be correct is a major obstacle to effective editing. Since you have become active on the page, the vast majority of your time and effort has been spent trying to get people banned, accusing them of being a broad assortment of unpleasant things, complaining because they aren't deferring to you as an experienced editor, and otherwise moaning and groaning that you don't get your way in every little thing you want. Frankly, you lost the right to complain about the state of the page with your first move, when you decided that it would be better to run to ANI and demand to have me banned than to settle down and work cooperatively with other editors. It took all of my skills as a mediator just to get you off of ANI and into productive discussion on the mediation page, and even that was only partly successful, since less than a week after mediation is over you're back here at ANI with the same old intransigent, supercilious muckraking.

Damn it, you're making me use big words.

Let's put it this way; I would dearly love to see you have conversations where you:

1. don't call other editors names, or try to label them POV-pushers, SPAs or whatever other 'villain-of-the-moment' you might dredge up.
2. don't threaten anyone with being blocked, banned or otherwise sanctioned.
3. don't insist that other editors need to listen to you because you're a better editor.
4. don't react with hostility and contempt when someone suggests your preferred version might not be perfect.
5. and finally, do actually listen to and work with people, even if you don't like or respect them or what they are trying to do. Almost everyone can be worked with, if you apply yourself to the task.

I know you can do it, because I've seen you do it on rare occasions. I would just prefer that to be the norm for you, rather than the exception. Do you think you can do that? --Ludwigs2 00:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, thanks for all this feedback, duly noted. Please could you now comment on the presence of POV-pushing SPAs currently editing Race and intelligence using WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? Mathsci (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci, would you please stop engaging in childish name-calling. As far as I'm concerned there are no POV-pushing SPAs - there's only a number of aggressively tendentious editors, and on a scale of 1 (reasonable) to 10 (tendentious) you and Occam both come in at about a 6. That isn't the worst on the article, mind you, but still... I think your black-and-white, us-and-them worldview is offensive and inappropriate to the project, and I reject it utterly. so drop it. --Ludwigs2 15:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If that has been your point of view so far, then I think you probably are in line for an indefinite ban or block. Incidentally I have hardly edited the article and my few edits there have had consensus, so I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't think any administrator or member of ArbCom would accept your claims that my editing is in any way similar to that of single purpose accounts like Captain Occam. Mathsci (talkof ) 22:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

So, now you've progressed - no longer satisfied with mere childish name-calling, you've added threats of dire punishment and supercilious commentary on how sure you are admins and Arbcom would agree with you. that covers points 1, 2 and 3 I mentioned above, I think. When I fail to respond to this in the way you expect, are you going to erupt (once more) with hostility and resentment? maybe start a new thread about banning me? You are incredibly predictable, Mathsci: That would be normally be OK, except I think you've swallowed your own line of self-serving patter whole hog. Your earnestness spoils what might otherwise be tolerable.

Understand why I am calling you out on all this. It would be nice if you saw the problem in your own behavior and took steps to amend it, but all things considered I think that is unlikely. With that in mind, I want to make it very clear to everyone reading this thread the narrow-minded, grossly political nature of your perennial strategy. You try to settle content disputes by stereotyping and marginalizing your opponents, and then by abusing and trying to corrupting policy and administrative practices to get your opponents in trouble (or at least frighten them into submission). As you yourself admit, you have hardly touched the article at all, yet you are still here on ANI trying to slander your way to a content victory. In truth, I'm no longer sure if you have any other tools in your editing toolshed, aside from slander, insults, and strident pleas to admins that they strike down your foes (yeah, I recognize the implicit, almost religious appeal to authority that runs through all your arguments, even if you don't - I have no doubt you'd sacrifice a ram to Jimbo Wales if you thought it would get Occam blocked). It's unconscionable, and I want everyone to see it for what it is. Are we on the same page now? --Ludwigs2 00:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not try to improve this [83] instead of writing rants? Mathsci (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Back to personal comments (point 1) - well, at least you're mixing up the order. Thanks, but my user contributions are just fine; this isn't a competition. And frankly, I'd get a lot more productive work done if I didn't have to deal with editors (such as yourself) who throw hysterical tantrums whenever I make an edit to a controversial article. That's happened to me at least four times in the last few months, though you've only figured prominently in the R&I thing.

I like editing off-beat articles, Mathsci. I understand the scientific perspective - there are few people on wikipedia who understand science in general better than I do, and you are not one of them - and I have a good grasp of the fringe side as well. That puts me in a position where I can flesh out nice, neutral articles on crazy ideas. or at least I could, except for people like you who raise holy terror whenever I try. Why should I have to fight off endless personal attacks, mindless reverts, and vacuous ANI proceedings just to make a couple of edits to a fringe page? and yet, that is consistently what happens. I swear, if I could get a short list of people (including yourself) topic-banned from fringe articles for 6 months, I could vastly improve a whole ream of articles quickly and efficiently, without any of this stupid drama. Since that's unlikely to happen, I'll take the other route: I am simply going to continue shoving your nose in your own bad behavior until you can't stand the stench of it anymore. The only question in my mind is how long it will be before you learn. --Ludwigs2 14:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Don’t put words in my mouth. I’ve admitted before that I used to have a problem with edit warring, not just for race and intelligence but at Wikipedia in general, because I was relatively new to it and didn’t yet have a good understanding of what sort of behavior was acceptable under what circumstances. If the example during which I was reverted by ten other users is the same one I’m thinking of, it was around a year ago when I’d only been consistently active here for a few months. During the time since I’ve begun participating actively, I think this problem of mine has incrementally improved, so that the more recent examples such as the one in January haven’t been as clear-cut as this. And I think that even since January I’ve gotten better at knowing how to avoid this problem. It’s now been around three months since I’ve violated any rules here, either against edit warring or anything else.

“I have just read back over the various noticeboard reports on Race and intelligence since November 2009 and one username keeps coming up as being involved in WP:OWN, edit warring, POV-pushing, stonewalling, gaming the system, forum shopping and so on. That name is yours.”

What are you talking about? You’re just making this up. Before the current thread, there have been five recent threads at AN/I about this article, and the only one that focused on me was the one in January about me edit warring. The other four— this, this, this and this—either started out as conflicts between you, Ludwig and Mathsci or were hijacked by Mathsci in order to turn into that. I got involved in some of them, either by commenting or because other users brought up the fact that I’d edit warred on this article in the past, but there’s no standard by which I’ve been the subject of more recent conflict over this article here than Ludwig and Mathsci have.

This isn’t reasonable. You’ve said in your first comment here that you’re a priori decided against me in this thread, based not on anything to do with the conduct in question but just based on my reputation. And now, you’re pushing for me to be blocked based on this attitude, and misstating the recent history of this article here in support of that. Could this issue please have the attention of someone who will judge it based on the particulars of the conduct in question, and the evidence that’s being linked to, rather than the reputations of the users involved? --Captain Occam (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see grounds for an AN/I complaint with those diffs, I dislike diffs personally as they tend to obscure what has gone one before. Looking at the preceeding edits I very much get the impression that they're intemperate comments forthcoming after a lot of provocation. Certainly not grounds for action against that user. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 14:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd like to offer my support of Occam. In my opinion he's a neutral and talented editor. I'm amazed that this witchhunt is going on for no apparent policy breach on his part. The thread was originally about the incivility of Slrubenstein, which I can confirm. Mathsci appears to derail these valid ANI threads with impunity. I am disturbed and curious. mikemikev (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Support proposal that further investigation and possible topic bans are required. From my reading of that talk page there does appear to be a tendency to bully/tire out editors leading to intemperate comments that are then used to call for sanctions against them. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 14:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I oppose witch hunts on Wikipedia, but I think all those criticised should take advantage of this opportunity to ponder the criticism given to them. It is not given out of spite, and as people can't see their own faults, this is a rare chance to see themselves as others see them, caricatured by the filter of their Wikipedia edits. Take active steps to change your behaviour even more than you already have. I'd like to see all the criticised people make one commitment to move forward to make things work better in future. And those who feel the temptation to WP:OWN this article should consider even more keenly the idea of enjoying new pastures for a couple of weeks. You may lose the battle, but you'll win the war - hopefully, being older and wiser, all on the same side by then. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Stephen - you forgot the link to the dramatic, uplifting music... --Ludwigs2 21:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
    • LOL - luckily I don't need links to hear music :-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I approve of this suggestion. Given the comments here thus far, I doubt there will be a consensus for any action to be taken against me, Slrubenstein or Mathsci. I still hope that some good will come of this thread, though, in that having the problems with our behavior pointed out by users who are uninvolved in the debates over these articles might make us more aware of what we should change about it.

In my own case, the two main criticisms that were raised are my past history of edit warring and the fact that I participate in such a narrow range of articles. In the first case, I’m well aware that I used to have this problem, and I’ve already been making an effort to remedy it. As for being an SPA, I never intended for race-related articles to be the only ones that I edit, but the debates over these articles have been so involved and time-consuming that they’ve tended to suck up just about 100% of the time and energy that I’m willing to devote to Wikipedia. I’m not sure what can be done to remedy this part of the problem, but once the race and intelligence article has been stabilized I definitely intend to make an effort to edit articles about a wider range of topics.

I think it would be beneficial if the other users being criticized here could also mention whether they’ve learned anything from this thread about their own behavior, and what they think it might be appropriate to change about it. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I joined this article relatively recently, but I wouldn't say that you in any way stood out as a particular problem editor, so your improvements must be working! Another advantage of editing additional non-contentious articles is it give you an opportunity to unwind, make new friends and learn interesting things about stuff you never knew you were interested in. (Of course, this applies to all editors.) Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I mostly sympathize with the ban supporters at this point. It's clear looking at Captain Occam's user page and his off-wiki site that it links to, and his participation on-wiki (such as here), that he has far too much appetite for advocacy and debate than is really desirable for our style of neutral editing, and that he engages in a lot of gaming and wikilawyering. The goal here is to write exposition, not to debate (see also: Writing for the opponent). Intervention (such as topic bans) in situations like this is often necessary, to prevent the debaters from burning out the expositors. The essay Civil POV pushing also describes the problem. I'm not exactly buddies with Mathsci but I'm an admirer of his mathematical writing and I consider him to be one of the better expositors on Wikipedia, so I don't want him to burn out. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A very nice, helpful Editor left me a comment, not too long ago. It seems fitting here:

Tea is good. Mlpearc MESSAGE 00:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Captain Occam is over-invested in issues of race, intelligence and crime with one particular point of view. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Some time away from his preferred stomping grounds would be a good indication of why this editor is here, and might also be helpful in providing some experience in editing in a non-contentious situation. Is he here to help build an encyclopedia or is he here to push a point of view? It rather looks like the latter, but a topic ban would provide more evidence one way or the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I’m not sure if this is relevant, but a topic ban under these circumstances would probably make me frustrated enough with Wikipedia in general that I doubt I’d want to keep participating here. This has nothing to do with what articles I do and don’t care about; all it has to do with is the fact that I’m not violating any policies here, and haven’t for the past three months. The argument for what’s problematic about my participation here seems entirely based on the fact that I edit a narrow range of articles, and have an unpopular opinion.

Of course I have an opinion—so does everybody. But what should matter in cases like this is that my actual goal here is to improve articles here in a neutral fashion, rather than to just introduce my bias into them, and I think my participation has been consistent with that goal. RegentsPark mentioned race and crime in the United States as one article here I’ve been involved in, and it’s a good example of what I’m talking about. Before I became involved in this article, it didn’t exist at all, but instead redirected to anthropological criminology. But as a result of my and Varoon Arya’s involvement in it, it’s now a stable, well-sourced, and (as far as we can tell) neutral explanation of this topic that’s covered by courses taught in several universities.

If this sort of participation is not only considered POV-pushing, but is actually considered sufficient to warrant a topical ban, all I can say is that this site has problems that run far deeper than poor writing in any particular article or articles. I have serious doubts about whether I’d be able to remain motivated to continue contributing to an encyclopedia where these sorts of good-faith efforts to improve a narrow range of articles are considered worthy of a ban. If the rest of you end up interpreting my giving for up this reason as meaning the only thing I ever cared about is introducing my bias into these articles, I guess there’s nothing I can do about that—you’d be wrong, but it would only be another example of my reason for feeling like the situation is hopeless. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

SO what you're saying is that either you're allowed to keep pressing for your POV in the single subject area that has been pretty much your sole focus since arrival, or you leave? Do you see how that looks? Guy (Help!) 11:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this is long. I'm an outsider with no interest in joining the wiki community (though so far I am impressed by all the time you guys put into it, and the good work that results). I was asked to give perspective to this topic as I have a few publications on IQ and one specifically on race and IQ.

You'd be hard pressed to find a more sensitive topic than this. Just mentioning the issue usually creates considerable tension. Trying to team-write an article on this, I figured, would be impossible.

I have though been quite impressed with the progress this article has made since I started (I guess late Feb?). I have not seen any site anywhere (in about 20 years of internet debate-- off and on-- on this topic) where a more balanced presentation of the issues are offered. That's a nice compliment.

I would like to express my support for Captain Occam. He's obviously interested in the topic, but I haven't seen anything-- even the above comments-- that suggest he should be banned from contributing here. As just one example, I thought the early history section was much much more neutral than the one mathsci produced. That's just my opinion.

I don't know how you police yourself, but banning any regular contributor to this topic -- now -- seems very extreme. May I propose that the rules of civility be underscored here and there again, and that further breaches would be punished. That levels the playing field for all, and lets all sides no that any further bickering will be punished. That might also save you from a long he-said/she-said thread of allegations from both sides.

So, my suggestion is to underscore the rules and then enforce them for all contributors there from here on.

Thoughts? -Bpesta22 (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

So, this is one SPA supporting another SPA? Bpesta22's edits are all connected to "Race and intelligence". Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

To be fair to the SPA, new users often start editing on Wikipedia in a topic they are familiar with. It's not until they reach a forum such as this that wider editing norms are pointed out, and a month is not an unreasonable time to come across something like this given that they are a SPA and so, by definition, will have limited experience of the wiki as a whole. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed your comments on the talk page show expert knowledge. It would be nice if you could hang around there a bit longer. You could also check WP:COI if you haven't already. Stephen B Streater (talk) 05:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

How hard is it to change oneself? Pretty hard, in fact. But now consider how hard is it to change someone else, particularly when you have only wiki text to communicate. Much harder! So I suggest that to improve interaction here, editors should be looking for changes in the way they themselves work here. If people can't change themselves out of a conflict situation, some sort of arbitrary ban is inevitable, if only to fix the time-wasting symptoms of the conflict. So as we all agree with User:Beyond My Ken that the objective here is to make an encyclopaedia (actually the best one ever), and to build it eventually - everyone might like to consider any action they can take to ensure the quality and longevity of the edits to the articles. I also think editors and administrators have a responsibility to work for the enjoyment of other volunteers. They may be imperfect, but they're all we've got! Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban This is absurd. No diffs have been presented. You can't be banned for editing a small range of articles. End of story. Bring the evidence before the discussion starts. I will note that I looked through diffs presented by Mathsci, and they all look like this - Occam asking Ludwigs for help. That's it. Otherwise it's all rhetoric, which is really hot air. I will note that I am slightly involved in race and intelligence, but I've only added a ref to a study which found black IQs higher than whites [84]. II | (t - c) 07:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment These were requests by Captain Occam suggesting that link-minded editors become active a new article I had created: that's why there were included. Although several uninvolved administrators have already commented, it could be that it's worth examining his editing of race related articles in greater detail. Mathsci (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I was under the impression that witch hunting season was over with. Guess not. This thread is nothing more than a complete waste of space. Caden ^cool 22:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support for period of one year; lets see if he can find articles in which he is less emotionally invested, less inclined to treat as battlefields. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Section break

• Just trying to clarify people's positions here based on their comments, seeing it's been over 24 hours since the discussion began.
  • Wehwalt, GWH, John, StephenSB, Justin, mikemikev, ImperfectlyInformed appear to think a topic ban is a premature response and have given other feedback.
  • 2/0, Dougweller, JzG, RegentsPark, Beyond My Ken appear to think a topic ban is warranted/needed.
• I'm not convinced that there is anything remotely resembling a consensus to restrict due to an insufficient amount of evidence for the various claims that have been tossed around, be it regarding the subject, Mathsci, Ludwig2, or anyone else. This is what usually happens when you make proposals without It's also hard to supply the necessary evidence if you're both a party to an article (i.e. directly involved in the content conflict) while trying to establish order as a third party at the same time.
• Personally, I'd be all up for imposing measures on tendentious editing, but I cannot ignore the fact that it is not clear whether the problems being alleged are actually occurring. I too would suggest that the parties use RfC - an article RfC might be all that's needed to get some fresh perspective from users who aren't in any way involved with the topic or users involved. If all else fails, I'd suggest RfC/U, though I don't think it'd be necessary to go to that point in order to clearly establish the source of the problems for the benefit of the community. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, your summary is helpful. I notice that some of those who haven't called for a topic ban have still indicated that there are enough apparent conduct issues to warrant further investigation. Also, I think Guy's proposal was to ban all SPA's from the topic along the lines of the SPA remedy from the Scientology arbitration.[85][86]. That remedy calls for a lower standard of evidence (judgement of an uninvolved admin that the SPA was promoting an agenda) than would be needed against a non-SPA editor in good standing, so additional diffs wouldn't be needed under that approach. I don't think an article RFC is likely to help at this point, given the article's voluminous talk archive, the many previous mediations and ANI threads, etc. If this thread doesn't reach some kind of consensus and the parties want to proceed to a more formal stage, RFCU is probably the next stop, where evidence would be presented more carefully, and this thread would serve as a prior attempt at DR before proceeding to it. Those processes are a huge hassle so it's preferable to reach a conclusion earlier when possible.

Issues related to Captain Occam (per several uninvolved editors) and those related to Mathsci (mostly per Ludwig) are basically separate, and one possible conclusion might be that both should edit other subjects for a while. I do find Mathsci's approach to DR to be weird sometimes, and I could never understand why he'd get involved in a rathole like R&I. On the other hand, Captain Occam indicated a desire to switch to other topics and stop being an SPA sometime in the future. The obvious question is, why wait? The best approach to wiki conflict is often to walk away. One plea to Captain Occam: if you do this, it's best to choose a new subject that's not a perennial battleground. Anything having to do with religion or human evolution (subjects mentioned on your user page) probably would be poor choices. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahem, I have almost 7,500 content edits on wikipedia - 71 are to Race and intelligence. But, yes I actually agree with you (whoever you are), I have consciously stayed away from fringe articles except for commenting on sources. After this experiment - drafting a neutral lede and a new history section from scratch using mainstream sources - I have no intention of editing the main article again. From my background as an academic, I find it very hard to make any sense of either the current article as an encyclopedia article or of the bizarre way it's being edited. History of the race and intelligence controversy was a spin-off article based on material prepared on the mediation pages and created on the suggestion of another academic editor Slrubenstein, It was written in the standard way I write wikipedia articles (find good sources, write summary). As far as I'm aware, I am not a single purpose account nor have I attempted to push any point of view. Any initiative concerning me should come from uninvolved editors and administrators, not users like Ludwigs2 and Captain Occam with vested interests. Mathsci (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarification--I did not remotely mean to imply that Mathsci is an SPA. Mathsci is a very good contributor to multiple subjects that are generally much more reputable than the one currently under dispute. I merely expressed puzzlement at why a good editor like Mathsci chose to get involved in a crappy subject like R&I. But that's his prerogative.

I'm not in a position to assess the conflict between Mathsci and Ludwig, or whether Ludwig has a vested interest. I don't think it's very relevant to this ANI anyway. It may have to be examined in more advanced DR if that occurs. I do think Ludwig's complaints have a shade of legitimacy even if they're basically overblown, so Mathsci should take them under advisement. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

If it matters, David.Kane, Ludwigs2 and Bpesta22 have all expressed opposition to a topic ban also. (For me at least, although it’s possible that Ludwigs2 supports one for Mathsci.)

With your regard to your question about why I’m currently just focusing on race and intelligence, I think I answered that earlier. Even though I’d like to be editing a wider range of articles, I also still care about race and intelligence and similar articles being improved, and the way it’s been for most of the past year is that keeping pace with the various disputes over these articles has required pretty much the maximum of what I’m capable of. I have a lot of respect for editors such as Varoon Arya (whom I wish would comment in this thread) who are able to keep up with these disputes while simultaneously making useful contributions to unrelated articles, but I just don’t think I have that kind of energy. Everyone has different limitations. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Without wishing to point fingers at any particular user, it seems to me as an outside observer that the articles are being held hostage by a group of editors with a particular POV in common. They are either consciously or subconsciously rejecting alternative POV they disagree with and that is disruptive and contrary to our policies. This is an example of a form of disruptive editing that wikipedia finds hard to deal with and also respected wikipedians who find the experienve tremendously frustrating in trying to keep our policies of WP:NPOV to the fore front. I believe that was the cause of the intemperate remarks alluded to above; although borderline most don't violate WP:CIVIL. If I may suggest that the editors involved cannot resolve their differences, then they should voluntarily recuse themselves for a period, disengage and allow fresh editors to work on the articles unencumbered by the baggage that surrounds it. All appear to have wider interests and focusing energies elsewhere could well be more productive use of their time. If they can't agree to do that, then perhaps the community should be considering an imposed topic ban. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 09:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Justin's analogy of the article being held hostage. I will make no comments on the proposed topic ban, but I have raised concerns about the article on the mediation page here [87]. In summary, the interest or even obsession that some editors have with this subject has become unproductive. After 6 months of mediation, countless talk page threads, over 74 archives, edit warring is still ongoing. Little is being gained and time and effort is being wasted. I would definitely recommend some action that will force editors to take a break from editing the article. Unless a paradigm shifting scientific breakthrough occurs, there is nothing that urgently needs to be edited into the article. Maybe a longer term protection or article probation would help stabilize the article. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s possible for someone who isn’t closely familiar with this article or its subject matter to accurately judge whether the majority of the users involved in it are “holding it hostage”, or whether most of us are complying with NPOV policy and it’s users such as Mathsci and Wapondaponda who are pushing their POV there. The reason I say this is because race and intelligence is a topic that is portrayed very differently among academics in peer-reviewed journals from how it is in the popular press. (And there have been studies that specifically documented this fact, such as the Snyderman and Rothman Study.) The only other topic I can think of where this is true to a similar degree is Intelligent Design, which has a lot of popular support but is rejected by at least 95% of scientists who publish their research in peer-reviewed journals. In the case of the relationship between race and intelligence, it’s the opposite of this: the popular press almost universally rejects such a connection, but anyone who reads peer-reviewed psychology journals such as Intelligence or Personality and Individual Differences will see not only that the existence of a difference in average IQ between races accepted by the majority of experts in this field, but also that there’s also an active debate about what’s causing it.

For this reason, anyone who reads only the popular literature about this topic and none of the academic literature is unlikely to have an accurate idea of what is and isn’t NPOV for this article. One thing that I consider a good indicator of it, though, is the fact that a few of the users that Mathsci has been accusing of POV-pushing (such as Ludwigs2) have made it clear that they actually hold the same opinions about this topic that Mathsci does, and oppose his edits only out of concern for NPOV policy. If it’s the majority of editors involved in this article who are the POV-pushers, rather than the minority of editors such as Mathsci and Wapondaponda, some of us would have to be pushing a POV that’s the opposite of what we actually believe. That doesn’t happen very often, does it? --Captain Occam (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that you're an expert and everybody else should therefore defer to you. You are this: wrong. Wikipedia does not work that way. The best way to deal with endless disputes is, historically, to topic ban those who are unable to accept anybody else's POV; such people quite often do consider themselves to be experts and sometimes they even are, but that does not mean they necessarily have a neutral view of the topic. The involvement of obsessive single purpose accounts almost always means either constant problems or (if they succeed in their usual aim of driving off everyone who disagrees) a gross failure of policy. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't what he was saying at all. Are you an admin? mikemikev (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Usually ANI is not the place to discuss content disputes, so I won't argue about which side is right or wrong. My specific concern is that current obsessive interest in the article is now unproductive. A lot of effort is going in, including 6 months of mediation (even during part of the festive season) , but we are not getting the equivalent in output. Currently the article is protected due to edit warring. Wouldn't our efforts be better placed contributing to other subjects or articles.

I do feel that the article is being held hostage. Captain Occam frequently makes controversial edits while claiming that there is a consensus for these edits, but he never consults editors who he knows fully well will disagree with his edits. In short, Captain Occam appears to sometimes feign consensus or exaggerates that amount of support for his proposals. I have specifically informed Captain Occam that such tactics are problematic, see this thread for one such discussion. Captain Occam has a very aggressive editing style and will exploit any technicality or opportunity to include his preferred material. Take a break from Wikipedia for a day or two, and you'll find that there was a "consensus" in your absence. Overall, I would say Captain Occam has contributed to an atmosphere of distrust and anxiety over the controversy and the whole experience has been quite stressful. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, tough one. Anyone round here know if I'm an admin? Guy (Help!) 21:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you? mikemikev (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he is. –Turian (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

One technique I find useful if things risk getting heated is to restrict my edits to the talk page. People would usually rather explain themselves rather than risk a revert war if they have a valid reason, particularly if you haven't annoyed them first by reverting their edit. And if you are right, people will back you. Here's an example:[88]. So if Captain Occam is editing with consensus on the Talk pages, then leaving other editors to actually make the edits will give equivalent results. If Captain Occam really believes this, he can make everyone happy by a voluntary cessation or slow down in article edits, and we can all go home. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Stephen, I do what you’re suggesting quite often. If you look at the revision history for the race and intelligence article, you’ll see that very few of the recent edits there are from me, and most of them that are from me are fairly minor. Leaving it up to other editors to make significant changes apparently isn’t enough to stop certain people from accusing me of POV-pushing, though. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have clearly moved a long way. But that doesn't mean there isn't further to go. Unfortunately you now appear to be in a catastrophe theory situation: some people have flipped out of WP:AGF with you, and you have to go much further to change your reputation with them than if you had never gained it. It's not fair, it's human nature. And as you know, it's easier to change yourself than the others here, so it's down to you! (That applies to everyone, but as no one else is going to change enough, it's still down to you!) Stephen B Streater (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s likely that I’d be able to do anything to get Mathsci to assume good faith about me. The reason I say that is because I’ve seen how he interacts with other users who disagree with him, and all it really takes to get him to start threatening anyone with bans / blocks—or get him to make complaints about the person here at AN/I—is for them to interfere with him getting his way about one of these articles. It doesn’t have to involve actually editing the articles; it didn’t in Ludwigs2’s case. I think Ludwig can confirm that what I’m saying is right, if you need someone else to verify it, since he’s had to deal with a lot more of this than I have. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration

Mediation has gone past the self-imposed deadline imposed by the mediator, and long past the point at which several present and former participants wrote it off. The dispute shows no signs of dying down, the next step should probably be arbitration. I don't think we can fix this any other way (unless we start banning people, which does not appear to have consensus). Guy (Help!) 18:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation for this article closed around a week ago because we’d resolved everything that we needed to resolve in it. At least 80% of the twelve users who’ve lately been involved in the article now agree that the direction it’s taking is consistent with NPOV policy. (I can list who they are, if that matters; not all of them have been posting in this thread.) A few of them initially weren’t able to agree with the rest of us about this, but as a result of the mediation we’ve been able to reach a compromise.

I completely oppose arbitration for this article. We’ve successfully used another dispute resolution process—mediation—to resolve the disagreements between everyone involved in this article except for a couple of users who are making a lot of noise. (Mainly Mathsci, although Wapondaponda is guilty of this a little also.) Arbitration would only be a waste of even more time than has already been wasted by these users’ forum shopping in an effort to change what consensus has already decided. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment To be blunt, I don't see either Mathsci or Wapondaponda as the issue here, the issue is one of WP:CPUSH, where certain editors are pushing a POV but their conduct whilst disruptive isn't violating policies such as WP:CIVIL. It is also giving undue prominence to fringe or peripheral issues. If users aren't prepared to recuse themselves voluntarily then arbitration or an imposed topic ban is indeed the next stage. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 20:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Justin, are you going to address what I said above? I don’t think users such as you and Guy, who aren’t familiar with the academic literature about this topic, are in a position to judge whether or not this issue is WP:FRINGE. (The consensus we reached in mediation, among people who follow this topic regardless of their position about it, is that it isn’t.)

What you’re raising here are primarily content concerns about the article, since they obviously wouldn’t be an issue if the consensus among users involved in the article were correct. But rather than raising these concerns on the article talk page, where we could discuss whether or not your interpretation of NPOV policy for this article is right and the consensus is wrong, you’re framing your problem as a user conduct complaint and complaining about it at AN/I. And your user conduct complaint is based on the a priori assumption that the consensus is wrong, even though you aren’t willing to discuss on the article talk page whether it is or not, and as a result probably don’t have enough familiarity with the debate over this topic to be able to accurately judge this. Do you see the problem here?

And if you don’t, does anyone else? --Captain Occam (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Raises hand. Yes, and it would be a very good idea for Captain Occam to (a) branch out to editing a wider range of topics, plus (b) try thethree week rule. This type of stalemate has occurred many times at Wikipedia over the years (different topics, different editors, same dynamic). Successful dispute resolution and successful editor development have a lot to do with stepping back, changing gears, and accepting feedback. Durova⁴¹² 03:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Again with the "if you were an expert like me you'd see I'm not the problem". This is Wikipedia, people don't have to be experts, you are the problem. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I think RFCU would allow for more formal evidence presentation than has occurred in this ANI. That might be enough to reach more decisive conclusions than the ANI has been able to. A number of the ANI participants have correctly observed that substantial factual issues are still in doubt. That can only be resolved by a lot of tedious diff-gathering that ANI isn't such a good venue for. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A look at the warring in the various R&I articles leads to despair: from phrenology in the past to attempts in recent decades to use IQ tests to show "facts" they cannot, there have always been plenty of people wanting to conclude that blacks are dumber than whites (I believe that is the core of the current dispute). I doubt very much if arbcom will get involved because this is a content dispute concerning alleged POV and my sources trump your sources issues. I have no idea how Wikipedia can handle this, but due to its enormous volume, it is not feasible for an outsider to look at the edit histories and discussions and get any real idea of what is going on because each side makes some good edits (and plenty of edits that an outsider would find very hard to judge), and both sides are experienced and know not to breach WP:CIVIL. Would experienced Wikipedians please suggest some way to proceed (each side make an evidence subpage showing why their POV should prevail? each side make a draft of each article as they would like to see it, with an explanation from the other side why it not suitable? then an RFC?). Johnuniq (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam's exaggeration of consensus continues. If there is a consensus as Occam suggests why has edit warring persisted after the mediation. The article was protected until yesterday (17th June 2010). But within less than 24 hours, edit warring has continued, and Captain Occam is involved. Considering what has been discussed in this thread, it seems that Captain Occam has not taken the comments from these threads seriously. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

“If there is a consensus as Occam suggests why has edit warring persisted after the mediation. The article was protected until yesterday (17th June 2010). But within less than 24 hours, edit warring has continued, and Captain Occam is involved.”

If you’ve been reading the talk page for the article, especially this section of it, it shouldn’t be so difficult for you to figure out what’s going on here. Mustihussain added some detailed criticisms of Richard Lynn to the “test scores” section, which until now that had been just discussing the general IQ test score results, without getting into details about specific researchers. (That part comes much later in the article.) Since I disagreed with these edits, I explained in the linked section of the talk page why I thought they were a bad idea, and nobody tried to argue with me about this. Two other users have also agreed there that these edits don’t belong in the article, and nobody has attempted to argue with any of us about it. Since nobody is attempting to justify these edits, even when we’re explaining on the talk page why we disapprove of them and are making a specific effort to discuss them, it shouldn’t be a problem for us to revert them, right? You’d think so, except that the users who approve of these edits (Mustihussain and Mathsci) are continuing to just reinstate the edits whenever they’re reverted, while refusing to cooperate with our efforts to discuss them.

At least 75% of the edit warring that happens to this article is in situations that are virtually identical to this. One group of people is carefully explaining why they disagree with an edit or edits, and another one or two users is refusing to participate in the discussion about their edits, and is just continuing to reinstate them regardless of what anyone has to say about them. If you look at the revision history of either race and intelligence or history of the race and intelligence controversy, you’ll notice that I’ve always been in the former group (as I am in this case), and Mathsci has nearly always been one of the users who’s continuing to revert the article while refusing to cooperate with other users’ efforts to discuss his edits with him. This is one of Mathsci’s signature patterns of behavior for both articles; I can provide diffs of earlier examples of this if anyone needs them.

It’s a maddeningly effective tactic, which must be why Mathsci uses it so consistently. Since it completely contravenes the idea of seeking consensus or compromise, it means that neither Wikipedia policy nor community consensus can make any difference in whether he gets his way with an article. For people in my situation, who are trying to discuss his edits with him and getting ignored, there are only two options: we can either let him make whatever edits he wants without ever discussing them, or we can revert his edits once we’ve made an effort to discuss them and he’s made it’s clear that he has no interest in participating in such a discussion, which results in us being accused of edit warring like you’re doing in this case.

Really, if you have any suggestion about how to better handle this situation, I would appreciate it. This applies both to you, Muntuwandi, and to everyone else who’s reading this thread. Allowing him to always make whatever edits he wants without any discussion, regardless of consensus or Wikipedia policy, obviously shouldn’t be an option here. Reverting his edits and risking an edit war is only marginally better, but are there any other options? This is the administrators’ noticeboard, so it’s probably as good a place to ask about this as any. I discussed this aspect of Mathsci’s behavior with Ludwig a few weeks ago, and he suggested that I should bring it up here if it continues, so here we are: and advice or help would be appreciated. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's just Mathsci you're having trouble with, how would you feel about both of you taking a voluntary break from the topic? 66.127.54.238 (talk) (new address, was 66.127.52.47) 08:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci has been causing more of the problem I described than all other users combined, but it’s probably inaccurate to say that he’s the only user I’m having this problem with. As I mentioned in my last post, Mustihussain is currently doing it a little also, and there are also other users who have done it in the past but aren’t currently involved in the article.

Even if Mathsci really were the only one, though, there’s another reason I’m reluctant to take a break from this topic right now. During the mediation case, we reached consensus about a certain number of changes that were going to be made to the article, and at this point only around three-quarters of them have been implemented. David.Kane is currently working on implementing another of them, and in doing so is relying a lot on input from other users, myself included. When he’s finished with this, I imagine that we’ll be doing likewise for the rest of the changes that we decided on during mediation. There aren’t all that many people currently involved in the article who were also there during the entire mediation case, so I think it’s important for those of us that were to stick around and help keep the article on track during this process. Once this is finished, and all we’re dealing with are these sorts of haphazard additions like what Mathsci and Mustihussain are trying to put into the article, I probably wouldn’t have a problem with taking a break from it if Mathsci agrees to also. But we’re not at that point quite yet. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam, you seem to always believe that there is a consensus when you and a few editors in your "camp" come to an agreement. In such a dispute, a consensus will exists when editors who have previously disagreed have reached a compromise. So do not exclude editors who disagree with you from your consensus. You seem to think that Mathsci or Mustihussain should be brushed aside. This is precisely why Justin argued that a few editors are holding the article hostage.

I have a suggestion, which I have mentioned before. Identify a stable pre-mediation version, protect it for six months and we can all have a much needed break. Wapondaponda (talk) 09:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. This has nothing to do with what the consensus is, and nobody’s being “brushed aside”. (Except possibly the people who want to discuss revisions being made to the article.) All this has to do with is following WP:BRD, which states that one person reverts another’s edit, both parties should discuss it and seek an agreement. What we have here is one user (Mathsci) who is reverting, but refusing to participate in the “discuss” portion of bold-revert-discuss, no matter how much other users try to get him to do so. Is that problem difficult to understand?

Reverting to the pre-mediation version is not going to solve this, and when you’ve suggested this on the talk page before now, almost everyone disagreed with you about it. Despite the disputes that are going on over minor aspects of the article, at this point around 90% of it is not under dispute, except possibly by you and Mathsci. In order to find a version of the article from before mediation that’s more stable than this, we’d have to look back at least three years. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. If the only stuff under dispute right now is "minor aspects" as you say, that sounds like it's time to call it an article. Proposal: Protect article for 6 months on the version current as of this timestamp: 10:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC) (roll back any subsequent edits). I haven't looked at the article in months so I have no idea whose disputed edits are in the current version, so that's as random a place as any to freeze it. All disputing parties should switch to unrelated topics, not other articles in the same topic. Captain Occam cautioned against tendentious and battleground editing, Mathsci possibly the same. 66.127.54.238 (talk) 10:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is a chronic problem. Because the subject is highly controversial, there is no permanent solution. Chronic problems cannot be "cured" but they can be managed. Many of the editors who have been sucked into this dispute are not WP:SPAs, but they are now devoting a significant amount of time and effort to this controversy. Protecting the article for a period of time will simply give editors the time to refocus their energies elsewhere and actually participate in improving the overall quality of this encyclopedia, rather than focusing on just one article. My preference would be a stable pre-mediation version because this was before the current flare-up. But I would leave that up to uninvolved administrators. At this point the most important thing is that many editors need to take break. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Wapondaponda, Captain Occam has said this current version (let's say that means the one current as of my timestamp above, more precisely 2010-04-18T10:05:03Z) is the most stable. Does that work for you? It sounds like you're ok with it too. Mathsci has said "I have no intention of editing the main article again."[89]. Unless someone else says there are major problems, let's freeze it. I haven't heard anyone saying earlier in the thread that the article is getting worse, so using the current version sounds plausible to me. 66.127.54.238 (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I would have a preference against it being locked. Even though I do think the current version of the article is more stable than any version that’s existed since 2007, we’re also still in the process of implementing some of the changes to it that we agreed on during mediation. In other words, it’s in the process of becoming even more stable than it is currently, although rather slowly.

I think it would be unfortunate if we were unable to complete this process for another several months. By that point, most of the users who were involved in the mediation may have abandoned the article, in which case implementing the rest of these improvements might not be possible at all. However, if there’s a strong consensus for locking the article, I guess I’ll accept the majority decision about this.

Isn’t there any better way than this to solve the problem of a couple of users who keep reverting the article while refusing to discuss their edits? Locking the entire article for several months because of something like this really seems like overkill. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

As four uninvolved administrators have already mentioned, topic banning editors who have been blocked several times for edit warring on the article might help. [90] Editors who continue to invite like-minded editors to assist them in POV-pushing [91][92] should probably also have their editing privileges restricted for continued disruption. Mathsci (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

What POV is everyone except you pushing Mathsci? It's a pretty extra-ordinary claim. Isn't it more likely that you are pushing a Marxist POV, and everyone else is neutral? mikemikev (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? Where does "marxism" enter into any of this? I hope Admin's will take note of this, because it is indicative of why MathSci has expressed NPOV concerns on the talk page about Mikemikev as well as Captain Occam. How can you improve an article on race and intelligence if, whenever you insist that a reliable secondary source be used, you are accused of being a marxist? This is clear evidence of disruptive editing. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even know there was a Marxist position on the issue of race and intelligence - if there is it should certainly be mentioned described in the article. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Maunus' unhelpful wisecracks apart, Mikmikev's charges of a Marxist POV of view are just a ruse for disruption. Mathsci (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's a call to have you investigated and sanctioned. mikemikev (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you're a single purpose account with 249 edits in total, 49 in article space, mostly related to Race and intelligence. You have suggested that because I used a history book published by Cambridge University Press and written by Adrian Wooldridge, Management Editor and columnist of the Economist and former fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, that I have a Marxist point of view. Wooldridge is not a Marxist historian by any stretch of the imagination. You are being deliberately disruptive. I assume if you continue making these far-fetched allegations and personal attacks you will be blocked. Mathsci (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The article History of the race and intelligence controversy, written by you, is skewed badly in favour of a Marxist/Environmentalist POV. It doesn't matter which book you cherry picked from. Describing anybody who disagrees with you as a 'POV pushing SPA' is totally out of line. There are about 4 other editors who have raised the same concern on the talk page, and you're just arrogantly refusing to listen. I don't know why I'm even wasting my time talking to you, I'm just gonna get some sources and rewrite it myself. mikemikev (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. I have summarised secondary sources in reputed publications by established academics without any removal of material - there has been no cherry picking as you call it. And again, writers like Ludy Benjamin or Adrian Wooldridge are neither environmentalists nor Marxists. Varoon Arya wanted the article do discuss the Marxist inclinations of Richard Lewontin, Leon Kamin and Stephen J. Gould. A secondary source was found related to sociobiology and added to the references by me. The source concluded that Marxism played no role in the various scientific and public debates. It was discussed on the talk page and editors can continue to look through it for relevant material.

The main reason that you are being disruptive is (a) you never discuss or produce secondary sources (b) you are at present a single purpose account aggressively pushing a minoritarian viewpoint (c) you have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and (d) you have blatantly lied in an inflammatory way about the neutral nature of my edits. In that way, you are quite similar to Captain Occam. Other editors on race and intelligence and the history article have welcomed my help in locating good secondary sources and sometimes making those available to other users on the website associated with my wikipedia email. Some of these have commented here. You would probably be indefinitely blocked if you follow the path you outlined in your last sentence. Mathsci (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: Multi-day section-editing only

I am too involved with this debate to be objective and too inexperienced an editor to be knowledgeable, but MathSci, Occam and Slrubenstein have all, once or twice, said something nice about me, so maybe this gives me credibility. ;-) I hate to see anyone banned and, although this article is a war-zone, it has been a productive war zone over the last 6 months. I think most everyone agrees that the article we have now is better than the one that we had in November. (Whether the amount of time/energy invested is worth that progress is debatable.)

Anyway, it seems clear that the worst editing/edit-warring occurs when editors just add a sentence or two (however well-sourced and WP:NPOV) and then other editors delete that sentence with not unreasonable complaints about WP:UNDUE or other issues. Then the fight begins. The best editing occurs when someone takes an entire section, redrafts it from start to finish, solicits comments from all concerned, incorporates those comments and then iterates. MathSci did a wonderful job of this in fixing (dramatically) the History section and I am doing the same in redoing the Assumptions section. So, dramatic progress on the article is possible. Suggestion: Instead of protecting the entire page (which prevents improvement) why not enforce this procedure on the entire article? We may not edit the article directly. We must take an entire section, redo it (including seeking new/better sources), solicit comments on the talk page, incorporate those comments, and, only then, place the new section in the article. Highlights:

• This allows good progress to be made, as MathSci did with history, while preventing the vast majority of pointless edit warring.
• This would be easy to enforce. Just place the policy at the top of the talk page. If anyone edited the article without going through this process, one of the editors involved would simply revert it. (And, believe me, there are a lot of editors on this article who are good a reverting!)
• This would discourage drive-by editors who just want to add their two cents without taking the time and effort to seek consensus.
• This would encourage good editors, like MathSci, who honestly want to see the article get better and who are willingly to put in a lot of time and energy to do so.

Again, I am involved in this dispute and inexperienced (a dangerous combination!), so feel free to ignore. But, at the same time, I have dived into the topic and recently purchased several books precisely so I could provide better sourcing. Give the committed editors --- meaning those willing to fix entire sections and seriously incorporate comments --- a chance and let us show you what we can do. David.Kane (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

These seem like very good ideas from David.Kane. Mathsci (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It would seem one could combine this idea with the notion of protection. Lock the article, agree the entire content of a section on the talkpage, then one of the admins (doesn't have to be uninvolved, provided there's good faith on all sides) can unblock to load up the new text.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I like this idea. I guess a list of typos will also be necessary. mikemikev (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

David's suggestion has to do with content issues, and ANI is not the place for handling content disputes. While I commend David for his optimism and idealism, I think we need to be more realistic. At the heart of this dispute is highly controversial, emotionally charged and contentious claim, that one race is inherently more intelligent than another. There are those who strongly believe this claim and those who strongly reject it. It is not possible to sugarcoat this controversy. Whether we use the talk page, mediation or any other editing system, it still comes down to this one controversial claim, and both sides of the dispute are not willing to give up an inch. If say it was possible to have an article that was in the middle of these two extreme positions, it would still leave both sides very disappointed and still willing to edit war to shift the article back to their preferred POV.

As I have previously mentioned, there is no long term or permanent solution to this problem. The article has been controversial for several years and will continue to be for years to come. All that can be done is to manage the controversy. The number of edit wars can be reduced by protecting the article and by giving editing restrictions to problematic editors.

I have to disagree with David's claim that the war zone has been productive. Since David wrote much of the current article, I don't believe he is the ideal person to state that it is better than previous versions. I have stated on numerous times that I would prefer if the article was reverted to the pre-mediation version. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No. My proposal has nothing to do with content. It is simply a suggestion for new ground rules which would encourage productive editing. "As I have previously mentioned, there is no long term or permanent solution to this problem." How do you know that? You can see the future? You already know every idea that MathSci or Mikemev or I might possibly come up with? You know exactly what would happen in all possible scenarios? Surely you would agree that any idea that both MathSci and Mikemikev see as useful has a chance for success. Why not try it? What is there to lose? David.Kane (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been watching this article for a couple of years, what is going on now isn't very different from what has happened before. The same dispute, but a few new faces. Wikipedia does not solve problems that exist in the world. As long as the controversy exists in the real world, it will also exist in Wikipedia. MathSci, Mikemikev, you and I are just some of many editors who are interested in the article. Satisfying any one of us does not mean that the whole community of editors will be satisfied. You seem to believe that there is a nice way to deal with an unpleasant subject. Though you have specifically stated that you are agnostic, I still do not consider you as a neutral party in this debate. Captain Occam specifically wanted you VA, or DJ to write the article and nobody else. Captain Occam wouldn't recommend anyone who didn't in some way share his views. Your lack of neutrality is evident in your writing which is why I dispute the current article. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Recommend user conduct RfC

Threaded noticeboard format is not effective right now. Either this is a user conduct problem or it is a content dispute. If it is a content dispute it does not belong at this board. If it is a conduct issue then specific issues need to be clarified and substantiated with evidence in the structured setting of conduct RfC.

Please focus upon evidence of behaviors such as:

• WP:SYNTH violations (if any)
• WP:RS violations (using unreliable sources, and/or excluding reliable sources for frivolous reasons)
• Personal attacks and/or incivility
• Edit warring
• WP:SPA (not actionable in itself, but often weighs in community decisions when other problems exist)

Procedurally, I offer to certify user conduct RfC on any of the editors who have been active in the dispute. Now let's mark this thread directed to another venue. Durova⁴¹² 16:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Durova, some wise person once observed that all Wikipedia disputes are content disputes at the bottom. Staying in any dispute for too long, with too much intensity, is inadvisable conduct, and persistent enough inadvisable or unhelpful conduct eventually becomes a valid target of restriction even if it's not misconduct in its own right. As others have noted, the main conduct issues with this dispute seem to be WP:CPUSH and obsessive editing, and action may have to be based on that. The participants are pretty skillful by now at sticking to the letter of the more central editing policies. Moving to RFC seems ok. If Guy has a reason for preferring arbitration to RFC, he should explain it, since he may be onto things that the rest of us are missing. 66.127.54.238 (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

If sources have been misused or if other solid conduct policies are actually being violated, then it would be counterproductive to continue negotiation. Durova⁴¹² 20:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think individual RfCU's would be particularly helpful here: however, I do think that an RfC on the editing around all articles related to race and intelligence might be helpful (there are quite a few). That could include user conduct where relevant.

I should point out that Durova has privately been emailing me - I'm not quite sure why. In my first reply she was specifically told about why History of the race and intelligence controversy was created and how it was sourced. I'm not suggesting that she's being a busy-body, but she has chosen not to mention this unsolicited off-wiki exchange. As a trained historian (a fact I mentioned in the exchange), she could easily have checked WP:RS and WP:V at a glance on that article. But instead, in volunteering herself as certifier, she seems now to be wilfully confusing established editors of long standing with single purpose accounts. That doesn't seem very helpful and might indeed lead to editors like me leaving wikipedia. I hope that was not her intention, but perhaps she could clarify herself. Mathsci (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It's good to have been able to interact with you constructively on this article recently. I think the Wikipedia editing process does involve some element of the convoy system, and it is best to slow down the controversial editing and share the educational workload through the talk pages to use our time most efficiently overall. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Certainly any time people make constructive suggestions on content, as you did just recently about a book review by Nicholas Mackintosh, that is helpful and useful. Mathsci (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the fundamental cause of the problem here is that Wikipedia has still not recognized the need to have a SPOV policy for articles on scientific topics which would mean that they will have their own versions of the core policies like RS etc. In most science articles we don't see problems as the editors can agree with each other. But in case of politically charged subjects you get SPAs who will do their best to get their views edited in the article. When that happens, the existing policies are not good enough.

You can then then blame those specific problem editors here, just like User GoRight was blamed for creating trouble on the climate change articles. However, this problem will go on, as other users will pop up taking their place after their predecessors are (topic) banned. So, we need a more structural solution. We should draft and adopt a SPOV policy. Editors on any article can decide by consensus that they want to let the SPOV policy apply to their article and that will then go a long way to pre-empt conflicts. Count Iblis (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

A specific SPOV policy would also help to solve the WP:RANDY problem. (Taivo (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC))

Again, there goes Mathsci and his classic "argument by vilification" - yeesh...

As one of the more neutral people associated with this article (despite claims to the contrary, I have almost no preconceptions about what the page should look like or say), let me tell you that this page doesn't need RfC's, it doesn't need arbitration, and it doesn't need user conduct discussions - none of those will have more than a token effect on the problem, regardless of the outcome. What this page needs is an admin who is willing to step into the discussion and enforce civility and forward momentum, and do so with a heavy hand. The problems on this page are almost entirely ego-based. There are four or five major players who are tendentiously clinging to particular perspectives (Mathsci and Occam are only two of them). Each seems largely incapable of distinguishing between content disputes and personal disputes, and as a result every discussion ultimately boils down to a fruitless exercise in invective. Even though I lack admin status, I managed to get the page moving along at a good clip simply by ruthlessly squelching everything that looked mildly uncivil, and forcing people to discuss content if they wanted to participate. What little imaginary authority I had evaporated with the end of the mediation, of course, which is why the page is back here at ANI; If someone who had actual authority were to continue with what I was doing during the mediation, this whole problem would be over in fairly short order.

Much as I hate to say it, no one is born with a sense for democratic discussion. People are naturally (if innocently) tyrannical from their second year of life, and they need to learn to constrain themselves to the limits of what democratic discussion can handle, otherwise they will bork every discussion they enter into. There are several people on this page who have not learned to constrain themselves: ultimately the choice we have is to (a) give up on decent democratic discussion entirely and consign the page to eternal bickering, or (b) forcefully constrain them to the limits to which they ought to be constraining themselves. The second one sounds harsh, but it is the only viable long-term solution and the only solution that gives the participants the opportunity to learn what restraint means, and to see why it's a better approach.

I can already hear the objections that will be raised to this - perfectly reasonable objections (at least the ones I can think of off hand), but if the goal we want is a solid consensus process, then none of those objections are going to hold water. And yeah, I know know one's going to want to do it - it takes a special kind of insanity to put yourself in that position willingly. I'm just telling you what needs to be done if you want the results we seem to want. --Ludwigs2 23:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

P.s. have to disagree with the SPOV idea - at best it would be instruction creep at worst is would conflict with NPOV. That's doubly true on Social Scientific articles (such as this one) where public opinion becomes a significant concern to the topic. Joe the Plumber doesn't care whether the Higgs boson exists, but Joe the Plumber does care when some scientists starts suggesting he's smarter or dumber than his neighbors.--Ludwigs2 23:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment During mediation there was a freeze on editing, except in the last two weeks when David.Kane redrafted the article directly in mainspace. I stepped in to help with rejigging the lede and the history section just before mediation ended about two weeks ago and stopped about a week afterwards. I'm flattered that that makes me a "major player". As editors like David.Kane have acknowledged, I have tried to help constructively by providing possible content and suggesting sources. During mediation, there was hardly any discussion of specific sources or of most of the new content. There was a decision that the article should be "data driven", whatever that means. Anyway it's not binding. Wikipedia articles are not edited by Ludwigs2's rose-tinted democratic methods, but by fixed policies, such as WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Consensus is not decided by numbers but by discussions on the strength and quality of the content in WP:RS. At the moment discussions on the talk page of Race and intelligence are just a continuation of the jumbled open-ended debate that occurred on the mediation talk page before mediation stopped, so Ludwigs2's proposed model has never in fact been tried out on this article. Some altmed articles in which Ludwigs2 participated had such admin policing - homeopathy and possibly chiropractic - but that didn't seem to work very well. Cold fusion is the closest article to this one, since it centres on disputed scientific claims by a few researchers on the fringes of science. This article has much fewer editors, probably because it's a taboo subject and touches on issues of scientific racism. A "rathole" as 66.127.54.238 has said. Mathsci (talk) 10:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

“What this page needs is an admin who is willing to step into the discussion and enforce civility and forward momentum, and do so with a heavy hand.”

I think this is a good idea. I approve of the way you handled the mediation case, and the amount of progress we made with the article during mediation as a result. Getting an administrator to fill the same role that you filled as the mediator seems like it could be very useful.

If we end up following this suggestion, the one thing we would need to be careful about is to find an administrator who’s truly neutral with regard to this dispute, since one that isn’t could easily cause more harm than good. I’m not familiar with many of the administrators here, but if I had to make a specific suggestion I’d suggest user:Dbachmann for this role. I’ve seen him step in a few times during disputes about similar articles, and I’ve been generally impressed with his fairness about them. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The reactions to this suggestion may be an indication that a new essay about dispute resolution is needed, because a straightforward suggestion is garnering odd responses. This dispute's mediation lasted four months and most of the participants dropped out along the way. At the end of mediation the article appears no more stable than before mediation began. That stalemate is probably the result of one or more parties behaving tendentiously.

It can be exercise of good faith to enter mediation with someone who might be tendentious, but after mediation has failed if one really is convinced that an editor is tendentious and ought to be topic banned then the thing to do is document the behavior. Disruptive tendentious editors nearly always violate actionable policies such as misuse of sources, but they also blow so much smoke that it is difficult for observers to take definitive action--especially when other editors within the dispute become too frustrated to document the problem.

Various accusations have been made at this discussion that would be actionable if substantiated. The main thing that was documented well was edit warring, which has been addressed with page protection. So this might be headed into the worst case scenario: another failed effort at negotiation that frustrates the conflict's best participants into either quitting or producing sanctionable sound bites and ends with arbitration.

The best way out of that trap is conduct RfC. Editors who are actually tendentious are unlikely to file that because it is easier to muddy the waters at fluid settings such as article talk pages and ANI; one seldom sees tendentious editors starting RfC unless they have enough allies to dominate the discussion. A malformed RfC usually backfires on the filer and many impartial eyes are watching this dispute, so an across the board offer is likely to produce an appropriate result. Several uninvolved people have recommended RfC; ANI has its limits. If this offer truly is unwelcome, though, it can be withdrawn. My aim is to improve a bad situation rather than worsen it. Durova⁴¹² 00:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Durova, thank you for clarifying things. Your analysis is spot on, athough I'm not sure about the solution. The situation is difficult. In the past, instability of the article has usually just been due to one or two editors, who were POV-pushing SPAs. These were all banned, the first by Jimbo, and then the article stabilized. These editors were

• Fourdee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MoritzB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jagz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It is impossible to protect the article against editors like that. Perhaps an RfC can better pinpoint problematic editors like this. Probably Captain Occam and Mikemikev fall into this category. Mathsci (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC) I realize that Ludwigs2 will probably leap up to defend these editors and scream abuse at me, but I think I'm used to that by now. Why deny him his little pleasures?

ah, Mathsci, you almost had it there, but you had to jump into another personal attack. pray tell, when have you ever seen me defend any editor? The fact that I'm not on your side doesn't mean I'm on someone else's. Persoanaly, I think you are just as disruptive as Occam (if not more so), I think you're both salvageable, and I've put effort into trying to straighten both of you out. Hasn't done much good, but hope springs eternal.

You're going to have to get out of that "if you're not with me you're against me" mindset of yours some day... --Ludwigs2 03:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Goodness, you never stop trying, do you? This time you've had to put words into my mouth. Please don't. Mathsci (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I never do stop trying. Do you understand what I'm trying to do, though? that's the real question... That being said, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I was just extrapolating from the several times where you've made claims that I was somehow 'on Occam's side'. Since I'm not, and have never given any evidence of being so, why would you make such a claim except out of some 'us or them' mentality? That's a serious question, mind you, because aside from that I draw a blank. if there's another explanation for it I'd be interested to hear it. --Ludwigs2 14:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, this was written simultaneously with Durova's and Mathsci's posts) Mathsci, just how strongly do you desire to stay involved in these articles? You're a high-value Wikipedia editor but this topic area is basically a rathole, and we need you much more in other places. Captain Occam has indicated willingness to quit editing in this area if you're willing to do the same, provided what he calls some minor issues are worked out. My view is that there will always be unworked-out issues, so it's ok if minor ones stay unresolved, and letting go of them is essential to ever achieving peace. That means if you're willing to voluntarily quit the topic and move on to other ones, maybe we can decide it's also time for Captain Occam to do the same, impose a restriction, and call it a day. (That doesn't mean you've done anything wrong—I'm just asking "aren't you tired of this yet?"). There isn't consensus for unilaterally restricting Captain Occam, but maybe it's more palatable if you're also willing to move on from the subject.

If it helps, I'll voice preference for Guy's approach to DR over Durova's. Durova's approach (I think) involves tying every remedy to concrete policy violations, while Guy is more willing to base remedies on abstracting over a user's wider approach to a conflict and to editing in general. Guy's approach is consistent with recent arbitrations and arbitrator views that have held agenda-driven SPA editing in disputed areas to indeed be actionable[93], treated topic restrictions as relatively unimposing remedies since there are still millions of articles that the restricted person can edit,[94] and recognized a need for novel approaches to DR when traditional ones haven't been effective.[95] I still believe an RFCU can present evidence for an abstract assessment of a user's editing, so Durova's RFCU suggestion is reasonable if participants want to continue with DR. It's just a lot of work. 66.127.54.238 (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Solutions are easier to achieve (and more durable once they're achieved) when firmly grounded in policies that the community agrees upon. Durova⁴¹² 02:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Durova: Policy is not a substitute for clear-headedness. The problem we have on pages like this is that some editors refuse to operate with good faith and common sense. The policies we have are fine, but no one seems to bother enforcing the behavioral policies, so editors who have a mind to run amok, and pages go to crap because of it. There isn't a problem article on wikipedia I couldn't fix given broad latitude to enforce policy, but the people who have that latitude don't do it. why is that? --Ludwigs2 03:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

We agree that policy is not a substitute for clearheadedness: good policy is an exercise in clearheadedness. If editors have indeed run amok then conduct RfC will demonstrate it. ANI has its limitations; when a thread covers half the page its useful lifespan has ended. Let's archive this discussion. Durova⁴¹² 04:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 66.127.54.238, when he states that an RFCU is a lot of work. Certain things are pretty clear right now and RFCU isn't necessary to discover them. Captain Occam's editing fits the profile of a single purpose account. His interest in the subject can be considered as obsessive. He edits around the clock, almost 24 hours a day with very few breaks in between and this appears to have been going on for months. Other editors who are not SPAs have interests in other articles and also real life to deal with, so it is quite difficult to keep up with Occam's level of dedication. There is no policy against being an SPA, so this in itself is not actionable. However some of the effects of SPA editing are problematic. Captain Occam is an aggressive editor with a strong tendency to edit war and is now misusing the essay Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle as a means to justify edit warring. Apart from edit warring, Occam does not commit many blatant policy violations. Captain Occam may be involved in WP:ADVOCACY, or more specifically WP:Civil POV pushing, but this is not blatantly obvious. Overall, we have a problem that doesn't fit nicely into any category. The symptoms of the problem are that we have had a dispute that has dragged on for more than 6 months, and even after a long mediation edit warring is underway. With the exception of edit warring there is nothing blatantly wrong, on the other hand this dispute has put a strain on everyone involved and has now become unproductive, should administrators intervene? Wapondaponda (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

In reply to 66.127.54.238, as I explain below, as before mediation, the article is one that I don't feel comfortable editing. My mainstream content editing elsewhere has not been affected, except briefly a week ago. There is no indication so far that Captain Occam is moving onto new pastures or has changed his attitude. Yesterday he left a note on Mikemikev's talk page, the fourth or fifth of its kind, inviting him to edit History of the race and intelligence controversy, hardly a promising sign.

I agree that the editing conventions on the article and its talk page, make Race and intelligence one of the biggest messes I've ever seen on WP. Just let me give an example of the open-ended debate on the talk page going on at the moment, pure WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Richard Lynn is one of the main researchers in the hereditarian camp, an author of many books. Various academics have criticized his scientific methodology and selective use of data sets, including Nicholas Mackintosh. The key work of Rushton and Jensen (2005) relies on Lynn's work. In view of the negative comments by critics, one editor, an active researcher into this very area, is now suggesting that Lynn be removed from the article as a "straw man". That is an abuse of the talk page. It is being used as a WP:FORUM. Wikipedians cannot simply get together and alter the rules for editing as a private little club. That's another reason why I couldn't possibly be involved in the article - the editing conditions are worse now than they have ever been before - the talk page has become a high school debating society on fringe science. The idea of using secondary sources has been abandoned.

However, for the moment, I intend to continue watching the history article. That is not a case of WP:OWN, just a way of guaranteeing that editors use sources properly and adhere to other wikipedia editing policies, so that the article does not also become what you call a "rathole". Mathsci (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Protect article for 6 months ?

I still suggest protecting this page for a period to force a cooling off period. The potential for edit warring and an extended dispute still exists. Protecting the article will take the pressure off editors and allow them to freely edit other articles. Editors could still work on content proposals, but without the pressure of having to implement them immediately. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Note there are several articles in this topic. Are you proposing protecting all of them? 66.127.54.238 (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

A ban on POV forking can also be enforced. If an editor tries to create a new article with the same subject matter, or move the same subject matter to a different article, then they can be hit with a block or other editing restrictions. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Wapondaponda, there are several articles already existing. Which ones (if any) are you saying should be left unprotected? And what do you think will happen to them if they are unprotected? 66.127.54.238 (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think POV forking can be handled on a case by case basis. Some of the related articles tend to be less contentious. Provided editors are warned against POV forking, I wouldn't see at as a major problem. The articles listed above, heritablity of IQ, Between group differences etc are all likely candidates for disruptive editing. Wapondaponda (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I would hope that, before anything so drastic as a 6 month protection, we would seek the opinions of editor who are involved in the article(s) but are not following this thread. David.Kane (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The nature of single purpose accounts and topic bans

In my opinion, topic bans on single purpose accounts are necessary for the good of the project. While I agree that we should not immediately assume that just because an account has a single interest it necessarily follows that the account has a well-defined POV agenda, the reality is that controversial long-term accounts of this sort usually have this agenda and become particularly adept at sticking to the letter of this policy (usually W:RS) while not adhering to the spirit of the encyclopedic mission. Over time, this whittles away at the ability of even the most persistent generalist editor to move affected articles in a neutral direction. In such cases, we should be willing to topic ban these specialist editors for a period of time and allow them to demonstrate their commitment to the wikipedia project by working in areas unrelated to their primary interest, without casting aspersions on their neutrality. This topic ban will have three effects, two positive effects and one possibly negative effect. The possibly negative effect is that the specialist editor will stop editing because they are not really interested in any other topics and I'm not convinced that this is bad thing. The positive effects are that the specialist editor will gain a better understanding of the meaning of neutrality by seeing what goes on in areas where they don't have a strong point of view, and they will also get the opportunity to demonstrate that not only do they care about their area of interest but that they also care about the project as a whole. If we fail to topic ban these editors, we will, over time, lose the very editors we should be trying to keep, the generalists. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, not topic banning long term SPAs, at least for a while, is very bad for the project. Regular editors who, by their generalist nature, are more interested in building the encyclopedia as a whole, get frustrated and leave the project. My suggestion is straightforward - topic ban long term SPAs without prejudice. While this idea may not have much traction now, we will likely see SPAs taking over more and more contentious areas, especially the ones that don't have the high profile of climate change or evolution. Just a thought. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that some editors seem to be interested in "the project" and "building an encyclopedia". Others seem to just be interested in contributing to certain articles and I doubt they give much thought to "the project". Different goals for different people. --120 Volt monkey (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Different goals for different people is correct. However, the goal of this project is to build an encyclopedia and not necessarily to cater to the goals of its individual participants (though it is always better if the goals are in consonance). As anyone in academia knows, no 'expert' in a field is neutral and excessive reliance on a small set of 'experts' is not a good way to present the accepted wisdom in any subject matter and this becomes particularly problematic in controversial areas. Single purpose accounts are particularly problematic because their goal is usually to make sure that their world view is well represented and, often, that it is the dominant view on the subject. That is why it is better, keeping in mind the goals of this project, to topic ban these long term SPAs from their areas of interest.--RegentsPark (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Then encyclopedia seems to have been built already for the most part. What's left is mainly detail work and infighting over what exists. --120 Volt monkey (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the state of the encyclopedia, the point is that we don't need to cater to the goals of the people who come here as editors. If there exists a class of editors whose activities are generally not consistent with the goal of ensuring that this compendium of knowledge is well balanced, we should act appropriately. Single purpose accounts are generally not consistent with neutrality and with ensuring that the various points of view are represented in proportion to what is generally accepted. We should, for the good of the encyclopedia, topic ban them. If that sends them away, so be it. If they decide to work awhile in other areas, so much the better. But, not acting quickly with these editors is going to drive away other editors in frustration. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Really, RegentsPark, some (most? all?) of Wikipedia's best editors in its best subjects (e.g. mathematics) are specialists. They contribute a ton of stuff, rarely get in disputes, and everybody respects them. There's only an SPA problem in these politically charged areas where billions of internet nitwits want to bring their opinion in. Even in controversial areas (e.g. global warming), the troublesome SPA's are the non-experts. The only areas where there's problems from real expert specialists is where the experts have seriously conflicting interests or are attempting self-promotion. Carl Hewitt is one of the more persistent examples of this. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer review by academics?

RegentsPark's solution above does not go far enough. Topic bans can be effective at treating the symptom, but to treat the underlying disease permanently, more is needed. The problematic specialist editors are those editors who have a fringe opinion on the subject, where fringe is measured relative to the academic standards in the relevant field. So, all that's needed is to modify the RS policy so that it becomes compatible to the way scientific papers are written.

If a source is not reliable for a scientific review paper on the subject, it shouldn't be ok. to use it in a Wikipedia article on the same subject. If RS were to state this in so many words, then the tendentious editors will be directly violating the RS policy to get their way, instead of vaguely violating some vague notions of good conduct that are hard to objectively quantify in specific intances (while over time the entire record of edits will clearly point to a problem, you cannot necessarily point to any individual edit which violates a rule).

Short of modifying the RS policy, one can also think of an ad hoc intervention in this case where you restrict the allowed sources to some list of approved sources.

But to decide what are good sources and what are not cannot be done by the involved editors alone, as there already is a conflict. So, you need to invite expert academics to review the article and make recommendations. Those recommendations can then be imposed (e.g. by ArbCom) as binding rules for the article. Count Iblis (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree. But, what I'm suggesting is fairly simple and does not require an examination of the editor in question. If an account has been active for a while, and has only a narrow area of interest, we should topic ban the account without prejudice. Simple, and hopefully effective. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have such a blanket rule, how would that have worked in the climate change area? You would have topic banned all the experts like William Connolley, Short Harvester Brigade, Stephan Shultz etc. etc. while many of the climate sceptical editors are less of a SPA (many of them are active on politics topics). If anything, we need to get more real experts involved. It then has to be recognized that most experts academics will have very limited available and can thus only afford to edit one or two articles here. Count Iblis (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No rule comes without exceptions. I think it is generally unhealthy for us to cater to editors who have a limited agenda on the project. I also believe it hard to find genuine academic experts in areas that are inherently subjective who can approach articles with sufficient neutrality. In my own area of expertise, a reasonably quantitative area, you'll get differing opinions on the importance of this topic or that and, short of convening a panel of the top people in the field, I don't see how a neutral set of articles can be produced. (I'm also suspicious of self-proclaimed experts, yes it's ironic, but that's another matter!)--RegentsPark (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposals like Count Iblis's have been around for a long time on Wikipedia without getting much traction so far. I have some sympathy for the concept but it is way, way, way outside the scope of the current dispute resolution process. There are also forks like Citizendium that use alternative editing policies to Wikipedia in the hopes of fixing the same issues, but they haven't gotten much traction either. Anyway, try Village Pump rather than ANI. 66.127.54.238 (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If you topic ban me I will wash my hands of wikipedia. I created the dry distillation article in 2004, it still stands as I wrote it. I make corrections from time to time, usually I don't bother to login. I got caught up in R&I after seeing it POV forked in December, it's now a decent article (my part was not instrumental). Maybe if I had logged in and helped write the Teletubbies article you would not be having this discussion (prompted, might I add, by Mathsci). Might I also add that one of the 'SPAs' (BPesta) is a professor of psychology published in 'Intelligence' for R&I research. mikemikev (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Taboo subject

The human gene pool varies from place to place. Even in the same area, there can be different gene pools due to group segregation. Therefore, there are differences between groups of people. Even if the gene pool was the same everywhere, there would still be differences between groups due to environmental differences (certain alleles would become more predominant/frequent in certain environments).

It is somewhat taboo to suggest that when the average IQ score of the individuals in one gene pool is different than the average IQ score of the individuals in another gene pool, that the reason could have a significant genetic cause. It is, however, accepted that the differing IQ scores of individuals within the same gene pool can have a significant genetic cause.

Despite the taboo nature, a rejection of genetics as a possible significant cause of the difference between group average IQ scores could be seen as unscientific in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Sufficient evidence contrary to this possibility has not thus far been presented by scientists. It is the presentation of this possibility that is causing most of the angst amongst the editors of the Race and Intelligence article because of its taboo nature. On Wikipedia, those wanting to dismiss this possibility or to reduce its coverage are generally seen as the good guys wearing white hats, while those wanting the possibility to be discussed in the article are seen as the bad guys wearing black hats. --120 Volt monkey (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Generally, wikipedia's role is not to break taboos or to draw its own conclusions about this subject matter or that. If the existence of racial differences in intelligence have academic credence, then that's what we will report. If that existence does not, whether for reasons that are legitimate or not, we won't. That's not the problem. The problem is that it is easy to find reliable sources for almost any viewpoint and it is easy for editors with an agenda to give more than the 'due' space to these fringe viewpoints. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the recent mediation concluded that this was not fringe but was instead minority. --120 Volt monkey (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That conclusion was imposed by the mediator, and has not been accepted by everyone. The topic is still eligible for a fringe label, and this was also agreed upon in the mediation. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This article hits the nail on the head regarding many of the key points: [96]. --120 Volt monkey (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to talk about gene pools, then provide the views of population geneticists who study them. And I know of know study by a population geneticist that links consisten IQ scores to genes. One reason is that diferent populations share different environments, so how can you tell if the cause of he diference is genetic or environmental (of course, according to Darwinian theory, the important differences are usually environmental.

But that is not what this is about. 120 Volt monkey is a SPA who was not part of the mediation, is not seeking to collaborate on the talk page, and seems only to wish to push her POV on Wikipedia. I do not see how this is relevant to AN/I, unless AN/I cares about SPA's geting involved in contentious conflicts. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

So you see me as wearing a black hat? --120 Volt monkey (talk) 02:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The color of your hat is of no interest here. Since you have been active only one week and have edited only in areas relating to R&I it is very reasonable to alert others that you are an SPA. It would be fair for you to reply that this is only your first week and you intend to branch out in into other areas, if that is your intention. Of course you don't have to edit in other areas, if R&I is your only interest. Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

120 Volt monkey is discussing content issues, and has no specific policy issue. I don't see how 120 Volt monkey's comments have any relevance for ANI. Maybe he/she should read WP:NOTFORUM. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I looked for WP:HAT but could not find anything. --120 Volt monkey (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Bot tag hacking?

Please see this diff, where a sockpuppet uses a bot tag. I hope there is a way to prevent this.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Where are you seeing a bot tag in that diff? I can't see it. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a bot flag alright - you have to have it watchlisted with all recent changes shown. (screenshot) I seem to remember something like this from a couple of years ago, but I haven't the foggiest idea what the cause or resolution was. Maybe you should check WP:bugzilla or ask at WP:VP/T. —DoRD (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with the tag? The edit included the string "!!!!!!!!!" which triggered the repeating characters filter. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 05:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read the entire thread. I'm referring to the bot tag, also known as the b that appears on recent changes, or one's watchlist when a bot makes the edit. It is the same as the N for new pages, or the m for a minor edit, but only bots get the b, which can only be provided by admins. View the screenshot. This sockpuppet obviously found a way to hack the tag on, where it wasn't supposed to be.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Per BEANS perhaps it's best not to be too explicit, but I believe there is a simple addition to a URL to make an edit while marking it as if done by a bot. I have seen a suggestion to use this trick when reverting a vandal with an offensive name (that suggestion was on another Mediawiki wiki). Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I have misremembered this. What I had heard is documented as step 3 at m:Vandalbot#Sysop response. Johnuniq (talk) 08:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't work. Tried it on my userpage, no b on watchlist. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Worked for me, actually. It probably shouldn't, though. Jafeluv (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Admins can do this by design ("markbotedits"), normal users shouldn't be able to. –xeno^talk 16:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. No idea how the sock did it. Jafeluv (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any bot flag. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Try watchlisting the page and looking at your watchlist. Jafeluv (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That is pretty odd. I'd ask at #wikimedia-tech. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 10:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Traimb and issues raised at Template talk:Welfare state sidebar

This User Account User:Traimb was created yesterday. The user appears however to be an experienced user using a new account to shelter his or her other identity or identities.

Although at first glance this template look quite innocent, it soon became apparent to me that the editor could be initiating something more sinister. There are several legitimate ways of linking articles that are already established (wikilinks, See Also list, Categories), all of which are visible to the editing community.

So why the template? Had it been discussed with the editing comunity? It had not! This one seems to have been used to effect undue prominence to doubtful connections via the use of a template. Changes to templates are not visible to the majority of editors unless they also watch the template.

I got involved when the user put the sidebar in the article Universal health care thus prominently linking this concept to socialism via the template contents. This seemed to me to be the user engaging in politics. As far as I am aware most universal health care systems are in capitalist economies and there are some socialist countries such as China that do not have universal health care. The linkage via a template was, I believe, the purpose behind the creation of the template.

Templates have many good purposes, but linking articles to related articles is not one of them. I am aware that they are currently used in this way in some articles but even this is causing me to wonder whether the implications of this have really been thought through. I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy on this. I have had a quick look for one but cannot find any.

But the immediate issue is this one editor and this template. I have tried raising the issue at some of the articles where the template was placed and have deleted the template from other articles where it was placed that seem to me to be inappropriate. I may have over reacted in doing this, but the POV implications seemed to me to be of greater concern.

The editor has not discussed the creation of this template with any other editors of articles associated with the Welfare State as would be a normal course of events for a sidebar. I have tried raising the issues I have with the user directly at both his/her talk page and the template talk page. The only response I have had is that more changes are to be expected "this is just the start" (an ominous use of words) and he or she has completly failed to address the issues I have raised and has not discussed this template with any other editors.

Am I just being paranoid or is there a legitimate concern here?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauskalainen (talk • contribs) 09:37, 29 April 2010

Hi all, here's the sidebar for everyone to see (if this other individual stops blanking it! :) ).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Welfare_state_sidebar&oldid=358914337

Welfare related topics are now a fairly large area, and having a template to link some of them seems quite logical. This is the initial creation of the welfare state/welfare topics sidebar, so of course it can be perfected and improved by others, made bigger, smaller, whatever. Thank you. Traimb (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

See also my recent post at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Use of templates to introduce inappropriate associations. This gives more information and raises the particular concern about the use and misuse of presentational links in Wikipedia. I am inclined to leave this issue for discussion here because clearly you are an experienced editor but you have chosen to hide behind a new identity. Why? You have also created a template of the kind typically used collaboratively as part of a development project. But you have consulted no one about this. Why not? And you have used this template to artificially link articles through the medium of the template that are not related. This is inappropriate. I know that your template looks innocent enough on the outside but you do not appear to have edited any of the articles nor consulted editors there. Which leads me to believe that there are other motives at work here. In addition to health care you also include articles on transfer payments and public education which are not really welfare state issues and have biased links to terms like "Nanny State" which are not encyclopedic as regards categorizing content. If you are really determined only to create a quick referencing page for the use of finding related articles, why did you not work with others to create a portal page like portal: socialism with an appropriate portal link? Changes made on the portal page will not transpose into the article page without other editors being aware of it as can happen with templates. The issue is not so much the way it looks now (though there are issues but you have ignored them) as to how it might look later. --Hauskalainen (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hauskalainen. If you didn't like socialism being in there, why didn't you just take that out? It's no big deal. Look, I'll even do it for you, even though it robs socialism of due credit for building welfare institutions. And though publicly funded health care is perhaps the largest aspect of welfare based policies where I'm from (Australia) and other nations in the OECD, I'll take that out too. PS, I have used public education (all my schooling), have been to public health care, and have received government payments (transfer payments - for unemployment & during study) at times during my life. I am most certainly not against welfare. Traimb (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the pointless subsection you keep readding here. And unless I'm missing an inside joke between you and User:Hauskalainen, you should strongly consider refactoring this (see here). jæs (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

For real, why is this discussion happening here rather than at WP:TFD? This is not the appropriate venue to discuss the matter of this template. TFD is that venue. Please discuss content issues like this elsewhere. --Jayron32 17:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As Jayron32 says this is not the place for this discussion. Fences&Windows 18:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

@Jaron32 - actually I have raised it at the talk page for WP:TFD because I believe it raises a much wider issue than just the specific problem with this template. I raised the matter here initially because I did not discover WP:TFD until later and besides, there was the issue of sockpuppetry.. as has been said below (not by me) and above (by me).. there are multiple issues here. There is a user hiding his previous editing history, there is the POV, and there is the issue of what seems to be an inappropriate use of a sidebar. The issue I have raised at the talk page for WP:TFD is concerned with the issue of changes to the template creating non existing links betweeen two articles thru the medium of a template when no link exists or is at least tendentious and which can happen without editors tracking changes thru watchlists from even being aware that this has happened. Although on the surface this might seem like an innocent set of edits by this editor, deeper down there are some serious issues. --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Reopened

Oh man, besides the template, Category:Welfare state also looks tendentious. We're dealing with a political soapboxer, probably the return of an old one. Fences and Windows marked this incident resolved as "This isn't the place to discuss a template, and creating a template is not grounds to block a user or suspect a new user of being a sockpuppet.". I've reopened, as Traimb is obviously not a new user. A new user's first edits are not adding of dozens of high-speed categorizations and xrefs to obscure articles using an auto-assist tool. I don't recognize the particular pattern but the sock suspicion is well-justified. Can anyone look a little more closely? At minimum some monitoring sounds like a good idea. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I think this does need to be taken seriously. I have again removed some of the more tendentious links on the template and changed the color and removed a rather grim image that it contained. I have suggested to the editor that if he or she is serious about collecting a page of uselful links he or she should create a portal - the side bar is quite a garish means of linking articles and as I have pointed out can allow inappropriate links to appear on all kinds of pages. If the editor really does want to be useful to the community he or she will discuss matters with other editors. So far there is little sign of this happening. If I am right and the editor is really engaging in politicking via wikipedia he or she (or a friendly co-editor) will probably come along and change it again. Let's see.--Hauskalainen (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Peach

A silly edit war appears to be starting up again on the article Andrew Peach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over whether or not he's an occasional or regular newsreader on BBC Radio 2. Several attempts were made to talk to those concerned in the past, and even some mediation given, but without success and some blocks were eventually given out. Things went quiet for a while but seem to be starting up again. TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Slapped a 3 day semi protect while a RfC/3rd opinion/other dispute resolution method is attempted. Notice left at 3 x IPs talk. SGGH ^ping! 11:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Have requested another 3O and opened a discussion on the talk page so (hopefully this time) those involved will be able to come to some kind of agreement. TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Bigoted woman incident

If we really need the dubious piece of fluff masquerading as an article at Bigoted woman incident, can someone at the very least fix Gillian Duffy so it's no longer a BLP violation disguised as a redirect? – iridescent 15:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheese and rice, I deleted Duffy this morning...the article, not the person. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Classic WP:NOTNEWS; this will be forgotten in day or two and would be better on Wikinews. Rodhullandemu 16:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the redirect per WP:BLP. If it is recreated, perhaps it should be salted, at least till after the election. JohnCD (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me of the time George H.W. Bush, not aware that a reporter had a parabolic microphone trained on him, referred to his nieces and nephews, who were part hispanic, as "the little brown ones over there". I can't find any mention of it on WP, but I recall it caused a bit of a stir at the time. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigoted woman incident early. WP:ONEEVENT/WP:NOTNEWS early consensus obvious WP:BLP concerns (with the title alone) = precautionary delete. — Scientizzle 17:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There was a suggestion of a transwiki to Wikinews. I would be willing to undelete/userify should that be pursued... — Scientizzle 17:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggested that, if you'd be willing to transwiki it or restore it to my userspace for 5 minutes, I'll work on it over there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Be right on it...I also note that most of the (now-deleted) content can be found at United Kingdom general election, 2010#Rochdale gaffe. — Scientizzle 17:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If the deleted content was copied there, it must be attributed, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material. Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

On consideration of the BLP aspect, I have salted Gillian Duffy for two weeks, which takes us safely past the election. JohnCD (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:Wikinews, transwiki to Wikinews is not possible for licensing reasons. JohnCD (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we figured that out. Wikipedia:Wikinews has the info. Content has been re-deleted. — Scientizzle 18:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This is massive news. It shouldn't have been deleted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.111.239 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my AfD close and content deletion. You are welcome to try Wikipedia:Deletion review. — Scientizzle 18:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Can't be bothered. I'll just bask in smug enjoyment when it's recreated in a few days time as unquestionably of importance, and some of the leftie trolls here (not including you in that, just some on the AFD) continue to squirm :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.111.239 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Kittybrewster, who nominated that article for deletion, is the brother of Michael Howard's Shadow Secretary of State for Trade; I very much doubt he's a "leftie" anything. – iridescent 18:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I never said he was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.111.239 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

We are not a news site. The event has been documented appropriately in United Kingdom general election, 2010. Now please stop trying to attack people with bizarre accusations of "lefties". Aiken ♫ 18:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been very careful not to attack anyone. The evidence is there for anyone who is interested. 86.176.111.239 (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason it doesn't merit an article here is because we're an encyclopaedia. We're not a crystal ball, so we can't judge now whether this will have a lasting effect and we're not a news service, however, Wikinews is, and they's welcome this kind of thing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand that. My reasoning was that it would be better to keep the article for a couple of days, allow editors to work on it, and on Saturday it should be clear whether it is a flash in the pan or the day Gordon Brown finally completed his life work - The History of The Labour Party. Of course there is a duty of care to the poor lady involved, and I think keeping her name out of it until the situation became clear would be perfectly sensible. 86.176.111.239 (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• To those of us in the UK it is amusingly ironic that the one occasion in recent times when a politician has been both honest and right, he has come under fire from the very press that constantly castigates MPs for being a bunch of lying weasels. Check #bigotgate on twitter :-) (and #spookyposse for that matter). Guy (Help!) 20:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I logged into WP about 5 mins ago, and had a look to see if there was an article about Gillian Duffy. Coiuldn't see one, but I found the section on United Kingdom general election, 2010. I saw that there had been a couple of speedy deletions, so I created a redirect, and then went to go to the two admins who deleted them... and saw that there was already this rather long argument going on here! So this is just to let you know that I recreated the page to redirect to the Notable Incidents section, as I agree that she is only notable for just one event, and I don't believe that the redirection is a violation of BLP as the phrasing for the redirect is neutral. Having said all that, should the decision be made to delete the redirect, then so be it. However, the event has gained a large amount of press interest, so I think a redirect to a balanced article section on the incident is better than an entire article about her. Stephen! ^Coming... 13:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Stephen courteously told me that he had overridden my protection and re-created this redirect, and said that he would not consider it wheel-warring if I deleted it again. I would like to do that, but invite more views here. My reasoning is: an unfortunate remark picked up by a microphone caused, in the febrile pre-election atmosphere, an essentially transient spat which will be forgotten in a week. Under the WP:BLP we have a duty of care to the people we write about; this redirect is not as bad as one to "Bigoted woman incident", but it still permanently links the unfortunate Mrs Duffy, who has declined to talk to the press and clearly does not want publicity, with an incident in which she was described as bigoted. JohnCD (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Please delete it. I would prefer not to see a redirect of this poor woman's name to anything on the Wikipedia. All this is doing is carrying on the tainted link of her name to the "bigot" term, regardless of where it is pointing to. The harm from this far outweighs any user navigation/browsing concerns. Tarc (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete it and salt it again for BLP concerns and total lack of notability- this whole thiing will be forgotten about in a week or a month at most. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed, delete/salt (maybe with a more obvious log summary) per BLP1E. –xeno^talk 14:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Re-deleted and salted. JohnCD (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review

Just a note to anyone interested: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigoted woman incident is being discussed at Deletion Review. — Scientizzle 14:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Another redirect created

Would anyone like to take a stab at speedy deleting Bigotgate again, perhaps as a G10? I tagged R3 it yesterday for the exact same rationale that it was deleted for the day before, but Mailer Diablo declined it, and has apparently not been back on since to respond as to why. Tarc (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If this is what the media is generally calling it, the redirect is probably appropriate. It's not a direct attack like "Bigoted woman incident" - which I agree is inappropriate as it begs the question as to whether the woman is, in fact, a bigot. "Bigotgate" seems to be the term being used [97]; it's also the term being searched for by our readers [98]. No matter how many redirects we delete, this genie won't be stuffed back in the bottle. –xeno^talk 13:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is rather sad that we are perpetuating a link between an accusation of bigotry and an old pensioner who by all accounts wants absolutely nothing to do with the spotlight of this mini-uproar-of-the-hour. Having the redirect certainly isn't quite as bad as the blatant "bigoted woman case" article, but we're hair-splitting degrees of badness here, then. Tarc (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it as a G10 and salted it. I'd rather err on the side of BLP protections and have to ask people's forgiveness than cause real damage. Syrthiss (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I expect we'll see a DRV on this as well. –xeno^talk 13:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

We can roll them all into one. It will be like a party. Syrthiss (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

We can party like its 1984. MickMacNee (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a job for Captain Hyberbole! Syrthiss (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Gillian Duffy is of course the obvious search term, and unless you are the thought police, turning it blue to point to the place where her name is being covered in context on Wikipedia, reflecting the already extant and increasing global coverage of a notable election incident, does of course not constitute defamatation or damage in any way, certainly not in the short term, if at all. But that's bizarrely been erased from existence at the very time it is being looked for. We haven't quite reached the level of BLP hysteria yet where she has been unpersoned completely from the pedia, 'just in case', but I find it quite hilarious that the wrong Gillian Duffy is the second search result in Wikipedia for "Gillian Duffy". Wikipedia, getting 'do no harm' wrong BLP since ought 8. MickMacNee (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• And for the win, the wrong Gillian Duffy is mentioned in a UK election article. How much of a delicious irony and potential for damaging mistakes is that? Champagne all round. MickMacNee (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Now at DRV, please discuss there: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 30#Bigotgate –xeno^talk 15:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Cluebat requested at Talk:Jimmy Wales

Resolved

 – Our very own scandal, eh? No specific administrative action is currently being requested, so the best place for further discussion is thattaway. jæs (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

A temporary outbreak of insanity [or surrealism] has gripped the diligent encyclopedians at Talk:Jimmy_Wales#Inconsistent_DOB, who revel in the article making directly opposing claims in successive sections about the benevolent dictator's date of birth.

Request a sane administrator who finds the direct contradiction of statements in the article on the founder of the project, which tens of thousands of readers have seen, slightly problematic.

Alternatively, if paraconsistent logic is the order of the day, kindly add to the Earth article after the statement "The shape of the Earth is very close to that of an oblate spheroid, a sphere flattened along the axis from pole to pole such that there is a bulge around the equator.", that "The Earth is flat".

Pip-pip, 86.45.174.207 (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that Jimbo was born outside of time, and just got his dates wrong trying to conceal that. It is to his benefit if we keep everyone confused. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

We have them surrounded in their tanks! 86.45.174.207 (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well it's quite obvious to me what caused the problem, so I have blocked Jimbo until such time as he provides a notarised (or a notarized) birth certificate to every person that has viewed the article. The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 06:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

And please make sure that the verification is more than just a Certification of Live Birth. Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah so seriously, the page still contains two directly contradicting statements, guaranteeing that at least one of them is untrue. "Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales (pronounced /ˈdoʊnəl weɪlz/; born August 8, 1966) is an American Internet entrepreneur and a co-founder and promoter of Wikipedia."; "Wales was born in Huntsville, Alabama in the United States on August 7, 1966." Please just change one of them to match the other [and the infobox too] for my sanity. 86.45.174.207 (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no adminstrator action called for here. Go to Jimbo's talk page, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps like Nikola Tesla he was born "precisely at midnight" so that two observers' watches were a fraction of a tick apart and they had conflicting reports. Or there might be relativistic effects at work, if one observer was in a moving frame of reference. Edison (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Or, this might be Jimmy's first attempt to reach out globally: August 8 applies to people in one part of the world, while August 7 applies to others. Or, perhaps Jimmy is telling us to not sweat about trivia. Johnuniq (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I've sometimes thought that wikipedia is actually a gigantic social experiment being conducted by Wales, and the birthdate thing could be an element of that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Unresolved issue

Just as I suspected, this unresolved issue has inspired Koavf to continue with his disruptive edits on the article which he both prodded for deletion and brought to Afd. The Afd resulted in Keep. But that doesn't seem to impress Koavf, as he is now again continuing to change the type of album from "studio" to "demo". He does not provide any proof and no sources to back up the change. For the second time I am now asking administrators on this board to please take time to thoroughly look into this issue. This is not a content dispute. This is an issue where an editor ignores the facts and ignores community consensus, by continually trying to push forth his own personal opinion about the 2007 album release 'The Roxx Regime Demos'. Koavf's continual editing of the type of album from "studio" to "demo" after the Afd resulted in Keep, is disruptive, and it appears as if he wants to engage me in an edit war. I have brought this issue up on RfC. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus to specifically use "studio" anywhere. In the Afd or the article talk page. Wouldn't the talk page have been a better place to bring this first? I don't think you can claim the last report as unresolved either, the afd has finished, as it seems to be it was decided not to be an admin issue, same for this in my eyes. Rehevkor ✉ 12:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, how is this NOT a content issue, to be resolved by discussion on the article talk page. That the article was kept has no bearing on the content of the article. Without deciding whether the album is a studio album or a demo, the issue of deciding that is a content issue, and should be handled by normal dispute resolution methods, starting with a civil discussion at the article talk page, and progressing through options like WP:RFC and WP:3O and WP:CNB and about half a dozen other venues. Admins don't need to do anything until an edit war breaks out. If it does, please report it to WP:ANEW. --Jayron32 19:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Redux Amsaim made an equally spurious and malformed report on this exact same issue a few days ago. As with this report, this is not an AN/I case and it should be summarily ignored. I--and several admins--told him that he ignored the clear instructions on this page (e.g. posting to my talk beforehand), the dispute resolution process, etc. and he refuses to respect those guidelines and policies. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Addendum He also reported it to AN/V and was told there that this was an inappropriate issue and did not require admin intervention. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a WP:AGF issue here. Rehevkor ✉ 20:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have blocked Koavf for 48 hours, per a request to review the matter on my talkpage. I consider that Koavf is suggesting various methods of dispute resolution as a means to continue to edit, which I consider disruptive in itself, against what appears to be consensus. This account has previously had issues with edit warring, and while it has been a long while since they were last sanctioned I do not wish to see old habits resumed and so enacted the block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I must be missing something here, edit war, yes. But disruptive? There was never a solid consensus from what I can see, and a few feathers seem to have been ruffled by the Afd it all seemed to be good faith met with bad faith accusations. And was it Koavf who suggested to multiple dispute resolutions? Amsaim seemed to be acting on his own in bad faith, without even bringing the issue to the talk page. Regardless of past history, this is an extremely minor issue that Amsaim has blown out of all proportion and Koavf is blocked? As I say, I must be missing something here because this seems like an extremely bad block. Rehevkor ✉ 23:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There has also been an unresolved unblock request on his talk page for several hours now. Rehevkor ✉ 18:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

User:70.127.202.77

I hate to open with an accusation of bad faith, but I've come to believe that User:70.127.202.77 is singularly determined to promote his theory that the video game Resident Evil Gaiden is not canon. His first edits [99] (that I was aware of at the time) were under the name User:NewsBot01 and focused on the phrase "the events told were not explained or mentioned in later titles of the series," eventually removing the "Citation needed" tag and listing two links as citations that don't actually support that statement, with the second being just a listing of the game's miscellaneous info.

I tried to discuss the situation with him on the talk [100] page and filed a request for comment at User:Prime_Blue's suggestion, but after a few days had passed User:70.127.202.77 became more aggressive and deleted [101] a line and its accompanying source saying when the game takes place (originally added back in January [102]) with the inexplicable comment that there's no source as far as he knows. At this point, I submitted a report [103] to the edit warring noticeboard, but the ruling was there was no violation because the edits were spread over several days. The only reason for him not needing to edit more often is because it's not a very highly trafficed page, though, and since then things have degenerated into me reverting the article to a neutral version and User:70.127.202.77 reverting it to his version. We both passed the 3RR yesterday... on my side, I felt his deleting of authentic sources and inserting fraudulent ones qualified as obvious vandalism, but you're certainly free to block me as well if you feel it's appropriate.

At about the same time as User:70.127.202.77 began modifying the Gaiden article here under the name User:NewsBot01, he was also doing so under the same name over on the Resident Evil Wiki [104], leading the admins there to revert the page to an older version and protect it. This is outside Wikipedia's purview, of course, but I bring it up because User:70.127.202.77 mentioned there that he also uses the name MarkAldred, and sure enough, there's a User:MarkAldred45 who previously tried editing the Gaiden article before being blocked [105] for harassment, disruption, sock puppetry, and the same kind [106] of edit warring where he becomes fixated on "winning" by endlessly reverting.

I wasn't sure if I should have posted another report on the edit warring noticeboard instead of here, but I saw that this is where one of his past incidents [107] was dealt with. Splatterhouse5 (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Protected the article for three days to avoid edit warring. I may have protected "the wrong version" but once I take a look to see if there is consensus I will make sure the protected version reflects such consensus. If there is no consensus yet then I invite the RfC to continue until there is, by which time protection will probably have expired. SGGH ^ping! 10:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have already filed a RfC, which is good. That should settle (hopefully) the content dispute. I haven't done anything about WP:SPA issues mentioned above, though. SGGH ^ping! 10:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You're ridiculous. You know that? The pages in Wikipedia and Resident Evil wiki were fine until you started reverting Prime Blue's edits. [108]Quit acting like you're the good guy. Prime Blue was the one who added the line "though the events told were not explained or mentioned in later titles of the series. You however added the line "and multiple Capcom publications refer to it's events. That's false. Wesker's Report only says that Leon joined an underground Anti-Umbrella organization. There were several of them. Resident Evil Wiki had to lock the page to stop your ridiculous edits. [109] By the way, News Bot said that there is no source for the year that Gaiden takes place. That's why I removed the reference. He knows more about Resident Evil than me and especially you. --70.127.202.77 (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Where (point to a diff) does it say that the IP is MarkAldred? –MuZemike 13:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

So you want to block me for speaking the truth. Fine, go ahead and do that. --70.127.202.77 (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't tend to block people for ANI-showmanship. SGGH ^ping! 17:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

user:Ackees

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ackees has been making ad hominem attacks on the talkpage of Congo Free State, as well as my talkpage. This user's edits are biased, and instead of rewriting the material free of bias, chooses to make personal attacks. I called in 3O to see if I was wrong, the 3O admin agrees the edits are biased and don't belong. I have had enough. I have not attacked this user, and I don't need to be attacked. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Notified user, and someone might want to talk to him about this on a editor-to-editor level first if he will consent to discuss it...the rather caustic tone in this and this suggests that he may just need to realize that this isn't the place for biting sarcasm. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile the user is still making personal attacks on my talkpage. Enough. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Drivel. I made a reasonable edit, and they've been repeatedly deleted by a biased editor trying to push his POV. As for attacks, utter nonsense. An editor put a big and quite 'hard' notice on my talk page in a futile attempt to cover for edit-warring tactics. I have merely responded in a calm and friendly way. signed by me Ackees (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do you say that their edits are POV and that yours aren't? Look, there are other avenues than the caustic comments to deal with perceived POV. Try Dispute Resolution. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 18:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's raining puppets at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society

Can an admin please keep an eye on this. They're arriving fast and furious. Definitely meat, but I suspect several may be of the socky variety. Voceditenore (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hallelujah? Given the disruptive nature of the college kids who are flooding this discussion, is there any reason that I shouldn't semiprotect the discussion, move the sockpuppets to the talk page, and put up a notice suggesting that new users with relevant information should put it on the discussion's talk page? Move the kids to the backyard, so the grownups can talk, so to speak? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm tempted to block Cmagha (talk · contribs) based on this edit. Why is he referring to himself in the third person...unless he forgets which account he is logged into? --Smashville^talk 16:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did what I suggested, anyway, and if anyone thinks that the conversation is better with the students' participation, feel free to undo it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I am very much not a student, and posted a question on the page which has disappeared. If the students created the article for an end-of-semester project, then they should have the opportunity to add a {{EducationalAssignment}} template.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that too. It probably got lost in the shuffle when FisherQueen was moving comments to the talk page. Perhaps repost it there, so they can answer, or contact the article's creator (Cmagha) and ask him/her. Voceditenore (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Block Evading IP Vandal

Over the pass few days, I've been dealing with an unregistered user at 72.37.171.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who's been vandalizing random articles all month and reverting most attempts to undo his vandalism. This particular IP pretty much ceased after a 4im warning; However, edits removing this IP's previous vandalism continue to be reverted by an user who has been taking advantage of his dynamic IP address to avoid blocks. His behavior and editting patterns make it clear its the same user.

IP addresses used so far:

• 166.137.10.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.216.162.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (warned)
• 166.216.162.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (blocked)
• 166.216.162.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (warned)

Everytime the user receives a level 4 warning or gets blocked, he just comes back with a new IP to continue his disruption. Thus, I feel that blocking each individual IP at a time would do nothing. Although it could be worth a shot to semi-protect Ron Perlman, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, and A-10 Cuba!; I don't believe semi-protecting these target articles will deter this user from going after other articles. While I've encountered lots of vandals who do this(they're really a dime a dozen), I'm starting to grow tired of reverting this particular's chronic and persistent disruption and wanted to put this out there for others users or admins who'll want to keep an eye out for this user.--GD 6041 (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Softblocked 166.216.162.0/24 for 48 hours. Let me know if he comes back.—Kww(talk) 14:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to emphasize something here - if they're evading warnings by shifting IPs, then we can by policy treat all related IP ranges as "the same user" for the warnings and blocking if abuse continues. You in no way need to warn each new IP 4 times before you take action or ask us here to; once the set's reached 4 come here with the range description and problem behavior.

Semiprotection helps avoid rangeblocks, but sometimes rangeblocks are necessary, and this is a classic example of why. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

South Slavic languages

Resolved

 – blocked 12 hours by SGGH. --Jayron32 20:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

An IP is engaged in an edit war. Deleted info 5 reverts when restored. — kwami (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I just 3RR warned them after seeing the RC note. Protection isn't warranted when its one IP in a content dispute, simply a block for 3RR if necessary. SGGH ^ping! 20:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

3RR/edit war 12 hour block. SGGH ^ping! 20:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

In the future, consider reporting problems like this to WP:ANEW, which is better organized to deal with edit warring problems specifically. --Jayron32 20:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Noted. — kwami (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Just to note that I have semi-protected this article for a week due to a return of a similar IP editor. The article is tagged for expert attention, and I am not qualified to evaluate those edits beyond their lack of sourcing and general similarity to those of the blocked editor. Rodhullandemu 23:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

user:Draganparis intentional and habitual misconduct

Draganparis (talk · contribs)

For weeks now, user Draganparis makes constant accusations and slanders certain users he deems as his archenemies in Wikipedia. In the course of a few months he was banned once for disruptive editing and once for sockpuppetry and has 3 confirmed socks. Two of them were discovered after my complaint and were confirmed here [110]. Since then, he has been roaming Macedonia related pages intentionally and blatantly slandering my name and this of other editors. He also initiated a sockpuppetry case against user Athenian, accusing me and two other editors of being his puppets, which produced unconfirmed results only. It proved that 3 of us operate from northern Greece, but that was all [111]. Since then, user Draganparis is constantly making improper and slandering comments in a personal battle against me and other users making customized "technical notes", posting them around and threatening people (even admins!!!!) not to remove them!!!

Evidence:
[112],
[113]
[114],
[115]
Here he is warning another user to not remove his "technical note"...[116]
Here he is warning an admin to not remove his "technical note"...[117]
Here I warn him to stop propagating slanders... [118]
He of course goes on... [119]
..and on.. [120]
..and on.. [121]

...

Anybody who will look into this matter will easily see that throughout this time, I tried to refrain from discussion with user Draganparis and most if not all of his comments were made in irrelevant instances and with me (and the other users he mentions) absent from the discussion. This clearly shows his intention to slander. It will be very interesting for any admin to occupy himself with this case to look into the edits of all concerned editors, mine, Draganparis' as well as any other's Draganparis constantly abuses. Since day 1, he has not made A SINGLE constructive edit in any article. He is a man of single purpose and is only active in discussions to disrupt and propagate his personal beliefs. I could go on and on about how he has behaved to other editors and admins, but in this complaint, I only refer to his conduct towards me in the last weeks.

Please, look into this matter and rule out something... GK (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a heap of irritating disruption in that long message of his, and I agree it does not belong on a talk page. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has removed it three times now - and since April 9 it has not come back. It's a bit late to leave him warnings about that unless he does it again. I have notified the editor for you. --SGGH ^ping! 14:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, my informing the community that we "might" have kind of collaborative editing is not accusatory. I think it is now well known, and if there is no collaboration, there is certainly a need to reduce edits of bare support of the opinions of the other editors from the "group" and STOP permanently insulting the opposing editors. Producing evidence (this is a history page!) is needed instead. I would appreciate if the Administrator would inform the mentioned "group" about the rules of decency on Wikipedia.Draganparis (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So, here you have it... He "informs" the community that some users "might" have some kind of collaborative editing... And then he again talks about the mentioned "group" which "might" exist and "might" collaborate and "might" be socks as he propagates... I think that user Draganparis' words here clearly show the extent of his misconduct... He propagates his suspicions, no matter where or why and blatantly attacks me and other users. He does not seem to understand that accusing somebody once, during a heated discussion, of something that according to his opinion "might" be true is not the same thing as continuously and methodically propagate such accusations. GK (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's look at what Draganparis considers a "discovery":

ATTENTION: The user GK1973 changed his name to GK. (May be to hide his being GK1973 and a "member" of the group that I call "Greek neighbors".)Draganparis (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone please link "conspiracy theorist" and "there is no cabal" stuff...

Seriously though, it's not only that he accused some editors of being socks, he got his investigation which didn't prove his accusation, but then he goes on to keep insisting that the investigation was wrong and he is still right and he no less than SPAMS the same thing over and over and OVER again. This is not proper behaviour and I wonder why admins have not blocked him again. It's not like he was a perfect example so far, he's been blocked for trolling and sock-puppeting already! And he disputes those investigations too and claims we blocked him and not uninvolved admins. He slanders YOU too! Instead of focusing on borderline cases of unproven incivility (my pet peeve), how about you do something about a clear cut case such as this? Simanos (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• It is rather surprising that this is still going for months. Inaction can cause trivialities to grow into real problems. Then again, admin involvement is a thankless task, when there is a real or perceived ethnic dispute (here it is only perceived as such by one user).

• For instance, I have no dispute with Draganparis, and not the slightest knowledge of his edits concerning Cyril and Methodius (I had only filed his first confirmed SPI case in January [122] ; then, nothing more, zero interaction, despite being called a nazi on that case page [123] etc). His latest posts only came to my attention now, because I was inactive since March, being busy IRL, and therefore not willing to address any kind of provocations, or sloppy actions (see below). Nevertheless, it is disappointing that I come to discover my username continuously and repeatedly included, with no justification whatsoever, in a series of "warnings" or "notices" posted all over the place (from what I gather, in irrelevant pages) about belonging to some conspiracy or group or whatever entity of users (no matter who those users are). In fact, such posts in article talk pages, and unconcerned third user pages, would be disruptive, under any circumstances, even if they had been proved to be true. Even more so, when there is no basis for them, as is the case here.

• Moreover, let me add, that the SPI case mentioned [124] (against Athenean, myself et al.) was opened and closed in a much too hasty, even sloppy way. And to make it clearer: 1. there was no behavioral evidence justifying a checkuser privacy intrusion; 2. the conclusion as presented is unhelpful (and probably the investigation was too shallow; for example, I had been travelling a lot those days/weeks that there could be no coincidence of my location with any other users, except maybe at one given time... not to mention that I started my itinerary in the opposite part of the world). In this situation, I can guess the best intentions of those that acted, after hearing "scary" words like Macedonia, but the point of an SPI is not to get rid of it quickly, but rather to resolve it in a way that helps move on with encyclopedic work. Anyway, I hope concerned users don't take offence on this comment of mine; I refrained from commenting on this till now, but I see it as one of the sources of the current problem, and a clarification or intervention might be needed to finally move on... Antipastor (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but a checkuser's role in an SPI investigation is to evaluate the technical evidence (note, I was the checkuser in question). The technical evidence supported no conclusions. Mackensen (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct. So, according to you, is user Draganparis parade through Wikipedia spamming warnings regarding these IPs justified? GK (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, further revealing discussion on this issue has been conducted in DP's personal discussion page here [125].

I am prepared to let go, as long as user Draganparis publicly admits to his misconduct and clearly, without any excuses and peculiar wording swears he will not do it again. As for the rest of the users who have been victims of DP's misconduct, I leave it to them to decide how to act. GK (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This is overflowing everywhere, including on user talk pages (and my talk page unfortunately). Nothing productive is happening either there, here, or on the user talks. Can we propose archiving them all and imposing some sort of talk-page interaction ban? SGGH ^ping! 14:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That is just silly, I'm sorry to say. The problem is not Dragan's talk page (which is an attack page and should be deleted), but that he spills his sladners in every article talk page he visits. Over and over and over again. And you are right that nothing productive comes of it. Because you and other admins do not get involved in this clear case of personal attack violation by DP. Why is that? Simanos (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you please read our last edits on my talk page and Cyril and Methodius page, and see my permanent and recent efforts to calm the spirits – and insatiable desire to have me out of the discussion of exactly 4-6 very well defined users, with very well defined concept. Without examining these edits you can not, I am afraid, have realistic impression. Look at that vocabulary please, even here. In addition, the users Simanos and GK (GK1973) are insulting me not in any oblique way but concretely using straight forward insulting words (layer, paranoid, etc. even on YOUR talk page!?). How about warning them to avoid hard words at least?Draganparis (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Your efforts to calm the spirits are always accompanied by your inflamatory baseless accusations and slander. Even in this message here you again mention (read: spam) the same nonsense about 4-6 "very well defined users" and you other conspiracy theory cabal stuff. Our desire is not to have you out of the discussion. Our desire is to have you stop slandering people and spamming and trolling. Every time you do not get your way you start complaining again about the world being out to get you. Or at least the secret evil cabal of Greeks. We are not insulting you by showing evidence that you are a sock-puppeter (confirmed twice), troll (blocked once for disruptive editing), or by complaining about your obvious slander attemp (and spam) that you haven't been banned for yet. Nor when we point out the conspiracy theory nature of your complains and spam. We're merely calling a spade a spade. Or would you prefer it if we shut up? You've tried to do that to others with threatening messages, even to admins! Need I remind you what you posted on Future Perfect's talk page? Simanos (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Message to admins: Can you please pay some attention to this issue of constant slander? It's not related to Macedonia or other controversial articles you may not want to get involved in. It's a simple clear cut case. Don't settle into inaction please because you fear you will get bogged down into a frustrating situation. Simanos (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I must thank to the volunteer administrators who are spending their time to solve the situation for which I certainly have important responsibility. However, the presumed “culprits” know my identity and I have been openly defamed. This gives a new, serious dimension to the problem, I am afraid. The protection of anonymity has been removed and we have now the case of direct responsibility reaching beyond Wikipedia frame of a priory assumed anonymity protective belt. If a serious and consequent effort would be made to prevent open insults of a kind that I have been exposed, and if Wikipedia would operate by the standards that are valid for a civilized community, I will greatly appreciate. Difference must be made between on one hand sarcasm, conditional accusation, metaphoric expressions and allusions, which could be permitted, and on the other hand use of straight insulting and indecent words, which must be forbiden and use sanctioned. I will now withdraw from the discussion and observe the developments for couple of months, thereby permitting that Wikipedia introduces appropriate retributive measures, finds the means to assure civilized communication, and that the aggressive spirits lose their impetus. Thank you very much for making efforts to solve this unpleasant situation. To help calm the situation and from formal reason I would now appreciate if Wikipedia and administrators would communicate with me only over my e-mail. Thank you very much indeed.Draganparis (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

As Simanos also said, this is NOT some Macedonia-related issue. This is an issue of open and admitted slander. DP has shown that he chose to spam slanders regarding my person and a number of other accounts. I have offered a very logical way out (a plain and without innuendos, puns, irony, sarcasm, humor etc apology here)and apparently he has dismissed it. All this situation has absolutely no ethnical or racial aspects, it is direct misconduct. So, please, take a look at the evidence and administer this complaint. Either I am wrong and parading self made warnings about users who "might be collaboratng and who might be socks of each other" all around Wikipedia is a good intended practise we all should use, since the use of "may" is not definite and thus such a sentence cannot be used as an accusation or I am right and user DP should face the consequences administered (warnings, bans, a at on the back, whatever...) GK (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I also support that the administrators block me for some time. A WP:ANI procedure has been initiated to examine whether I should be punished for „disruptive editing, trolling and insulting” some editors like GK (GK1973), Simanos and Anothroskon (this is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Under: user:Draganparis intentional and habitual misconduct; see also my talk page). It was caused by the difference in opinion about the interpretation of history in principle, editing method and validation of evidence (sources), all centered around various Ancient Macedonia pages which were, in my opinion, systematically changed to give an integral part of continuous “Greek” history by either removing the word “Macedonia” or other historically used words, and by introducing, in my opinion inappropriately, the word “Greek”.

In response to the above accusations, I removed from my talk page a report of the administrator investigation about sockpuppeting of the mentioned editors, (the verdict was in fact that the sockpuppeting could not be explicitly demonstrated (this is at: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Athenean/Archive …).

The central point has been my insistence on proper HISTORY writing, and not a specific point. The example of my neutral efforts to establish proper history writing was my opposing the replacement of the terms like “Macedonia” (ancient), Slav, Byzantine, or other corresponding terms, by the term “Greek” on the ancient history pages. More precisely, as disturbing was found to be my insistence on the use of historical method; and then disturbing was taken to be my protesting against the open and concrete insults by the mentioned editors (in spite of my NOT BEING ANONYMOUS, consequences of which may have legal aspects). These protests were interpreted as insults against them (mentioned editors). I maintained that my “insults” consisted exclusively not in the use of the explicit insulting words, but, if at all, of use of obliquely insulting “style”: may be some form of “disruptive editing”, insistence on some from them subjectively taken as “irrelevant details”. For example my qualification of their sources as invalid - the use of propaganda pages as sources, etc. was not accepted and was characterized as disruptive.

Indeed, I expressed a conviction that “difference must be made between on one hand sarcasm, conditional accusation, metaphoric expressions and allusions, which could be permitted, and on the other hand the use of straight insulting and indecent words, which must be forbidden and eventual use should be sanctioned". Nevertheless, I decided, for the sake of termination of the “editors war” on these pages and constructive editing, not to further object on the pages of Wikipedia (but elsewhere I will) for their calling me “layer”, “paranoid”, various mockery and other insults.

I will temporarily restrain from disputes about history and will not oppose their replacement of the terms like “Macedonia” (ancient), Slav, Byzantine, or other corresponding terms, by the term “Greek” on the ancient history pages. I hope that this will help promote yet the Objective history pages on Wikipedia. Therefore I support the intention to block me for some time. This will further prove my point. Draganparis (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you for once stop talking about why you think the world is on you and answer for what you did? I offered you an easy way out if you just apologized here and showed any sign that you understood why what you did was wrong. Instead, you keep acting as some kind of protector of historical truth, some kind of martyr who is being persecuted for his ideas and effort to bring order into chaos... Don't you understand that these manifests do not make anyone more sympathetic but that they are direct proof of how you constantly avoid the real problems and try to divert attention? As for your "NOT BEING ANONYMOUS", first, it was your own personal choice and secondly, no one here takes even that for granted. We haven't checked you out, we don't care if you are Mr. Pavlov, Mr. Dragan, Mr. McDonald or anything else. You may as easily have presented a false identity and even then we would have no problem. As for your insults, I again state that this is not why I initiated this ANI case. This case (again, as I initiated it) has to do with your methodically propagating slander regarding my person and other users in a number of Wikipedia pages. As for your excuses... I write :

:::And the paranoia continues... So [126] here is not slander? ATTENTION: The user GK1973 changed his name to GK. (May be to hide his being GK1973 and a "member" of the group that I call "Greek neighbors".)Draganparis (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC) or do you think that using the word "maybe" as in "maybe he is a convicted rapist hiding from justice" makes it a well justified, unbiased and friendly remark? I chose to write off the number from my nick for my own reasons and you know that it still is visible in the history of any article I edited since. I did not form new accounts nor would it be your job to even criticize that. In a single line you accuse me of being a member of some cabala, of wanting to hide from someone (why would I, anybody would wonder...) etc. And this "ATTENTION"!!?? What is this? Some kind of notification to editors to protect themselves? I can bring forward countless instances of personal attacks, blunt name-calling and insults towards me and other users but this is not what I am accusing you of here. The accusation is slander and, as it seems, you happily admit to it. And of course, there is much more proof of your misconduct presented in the ANI page. GK (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

and you reply [127] :

Your free associations are NOT what I said. I mean what I say. When I say “might” means “may be and may be not”. When I say my be, means “there is possibility that”. Where is slander there? Why should I mean by this that “maybe he is a convicted rapist hiding from justice”???? I do not say that you are “a member of some cabala”. I say you might be exchanging ideas with some your neighbors, or already have the same ideas and then support each other without knowing each other. This is also kind of unfair collaborative editing.

and the rest is taunts for me to reveal my identity, complaints about how people use bibliography and other irrelevant staff... As for this endless whining about being fed up with unorganized Wikipedia and how you will restrain from disputes or editing or anything... this also is tiresome after some time [128], [129], [130]. GK (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

To SGGH : Could you please decide whether you think that DP's propagation of what I call "slander" and he "a warning to the community" is acceptable policy in Wikipedia? You seem to be well intended, trying to heal the situation by making us stop interacting with each other, but this is not possible as long as we are even partly operating in the same articles. We need you and any other involved admins to adjudicate the dispute. As you have seen, I have already offered an easy way out, provided DP understood that what he did was wrong and he denied it. This, for me, either means that DP does not understand nor accepts that he did wrong or that he does understand it but he needs someone to remind him that Wikipedia is not a jungle. On the other hand, you might propose that I am wrong and his warnings are fully legitimate (as you seemed to imply in his talkpage). I am ready to accept such a decision too. So, again, please.., state your opinion as an admin regarding this case. GK (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well it has escalated onto every talk page, both user and article, and that is quite enough. It doesn't appear to be stopping no matter what the original content dispute was. Each party seems to be as guilty as the other at the moment. Stopping all interaction seems to me to be a step towards deducing the disruption to the project created by this whole thing, it may involve content sanctions and requests for comment in the future. SGGH ping! 10:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(to leave the next section for the admins)

When you say it has escalated to every talk page, what do you mean? What has escalated? This was the root of the issue, that user DP methodically spammed accusations of canvassing and sockpupppetry in many pages. You say "it doesn't seem to be stopping no matter what the original dispute was". First, it cannot stop until the admins give a ruling, although things are calmer now than a week ago. Secondly, there was no relevant "original dispute". The case is about DP's methodical propagation of slander and nothing more unless you want to bring forward more "charges". Do you mean that my complaint is invalid and that what DP has done does not breach Wikipedia rules? How can all seem as guilty at the moment? For weeks, no one interacted with DP and we just tried to be patient with his actions, warning him that we will file complaints. He did not stop. Now, he has stopped, but denies to accept that what he did was wrong, which was my only demand. Do you think that it was unreasonable? It starts to look so, since you are reluctant to directly judge the said action. I know that you had some fallout with Simanos, but it was me that filed the complaint and you did not have any problem with me. You are talking about content sanctions. What do they have to do with anything? This is not about any disruption in any article (DP has been banned for disruption too in the past), actually DP has stopped creating serious disruptive problems since that ban. As I see it, DP has understood that his "warning the community" was disguised slander. He even removed some of those accusations from his personal page, which makes it clear that my complaint was not in vain. What is missing now is a simple statement of the admins on whether actions like that are justified or not and some kind of sanction, whether it be a ban or just admonishment. I think that you are exaggerating with how this case has "disrupted the project". Even the comments made here are nothing in comparison with what is going on in the rest of the cases here. So, please, give a ruling regarding the specific case and then, should you want to make another case regarding any other issues you would like to bring forward. GK (talk) 11:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

How can you say each party seems to be as guilty as the other? Dragan is the only one who keeps on posting lies and slander in every post of his about the investigation that did not prove we were sock puppets or whatever. He is the one that has been blocked for disruptive behaviour and sock-puppetry before you know. Enjoy his latest threats in your talk page about legal action, after having been warned not to make threats like that, to admins no less: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SGGH&action=historysubmit&diff=359245462&oldid=358840889 Simanos (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

More threats about "taking legal action and causing a scandal concerning Wikipedia..." in another admin's talk page... [131] GK (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Implementing possible solution

Unfortunately this thread hasn't received too much attention from other admins, though I know the user(s) above have in the past. Would another admin weigh in here on the proposal of some sort of talk page/interaction ban between the three, or some other less heavy-handed solution? The growing disruption on article and user talks between the three groups is beginning to tread on WP:BATTLE. SGGH ^ping! 23:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I support an interaction ban, at the very least DP is not allowed to make these sockpuppet accusations any further. Canvassing in multiple locations by leaving "notices" and then warning people who remove them, that is completely unacceptable. I'd say that one more such accusation, or attempt to reapply such "notices" or warning people against removing them, would be grounds for a block (not sure how long a duration is appropriate). -- Atama頭 18:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

(I moved the edits made by the involved parties above) Question to the admins: What is an interaction ban and how would that solve the problem or administer justice? Remember that all parties involved may operate at the same articles and that the problem did not involve edits in user pages only. GK (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well it has escalated onto every talk page, both user and article, and that is quite enough. It doesn't appear to be stopping no matter what the original content dispute was. Each party seems to be as guilty as the other at the moment. Stopping all interaction seems to me to be a step towards deducing the disruption to the project created by this whole thing, it may involve content sanctions and requests for comment in the future. SGGH ^ping! 10:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, a constructive SOLUTION

This dispute takes quite ominous form and I think that the administrators should not hasten to make a decision. There are couple of important points to consider.

1. Illusion of the closed world of Wikipeadia makes editors to behave in quite particular way. Sometimes to go over the limits imposed by the real, external world (insult each other too strongly). And 2. The solution may be a more strict application of the internal rules and establishment of strict anonymity of all editors. Here is why.

The illusion that the internal rules are general life rules applicable to the entire world is an exaggeration but very active editors tend to use vocabulary of the external world when being in Wikipedia. For example they will say that sockpuppetry is a crime, what may be an internal “crime”, but in the real world this is a part of normal behaviour, often highly praised behaviour. It is similar with other internal rules. Their meaning is the internal meaning which does not have much to do with the real external world.

The other important aspect is anonymity The intensity of editing and the freedom of confronting concurrent opinions, as I suspect, is very much increased thanks to the anonymity. People are just unrestrained to propose more solutions if they do not care to expose their incoherency as persons, or to risk to make mistakes publically, or to show their ignorance.

Anonymity also protects to certain extent against accusations for behaviour which is not in accordance with the customs of the outside world. The disputes that take place on Wikipedia are often very cruel and sometimes, if the protection of the anonymity would not be there, some discussions would not be held at all, or we would have frequent appeals to tribunals for defamation. If everybody would be acting publically, the intensity of editing, the confrontation of the opinion and the production would be limited. Indeed, may be that the quality of the edits would be better, but the productivity would be, I may only guess, much, much lower.

Now the actual situation of a confrontation of me, as not anonymous, and the other two editors, who retained their anonymity, has created very asymmetrical situation. I am completely protected from strong attacks and defamation, but they, since anonymous, are not,. The fact that it is known who I am, every defamation may be seen as damaging to me and may qualify for juridical procedure in the “outside world” and almost automatic condamination of the other party. As I mentioned, the recent legislations and the US jurisprudence show that this might be very fast procedure. This kind of asymmetry is not beneficial for Wikipedia. Certainly intense defamatory discussions are also damaging but these could be better managed (what was not the case this time). Therefore my conclusion is that anonymity must be a condition for an editor on Wikipedia, under the condition that the administrators apply the rules of Wikipedia particularly these related to incivility much more strictly then they have been doing..

My conclusion concerning this particular case is that the great responsibility for the dead run must be taken by the administrators who permitted that defamation goes on for too long time (until this very moment) with almost no warning, or with occasional ineffective warning (to Simanos). Certainly the important responsibility is on the party which insulted (GK1973 and Simanos). Certainly, I should not have been permitted to disclose my personality since this immediately created inequality in protection against defamation. I could defame, but the anonymous opponents could not, or if they did, they had to count with application of the laws “external” to Wikipedia.

My bottom line is in fact that the administrators must apply rules more strictly and that the ALL editors must remain anonymous on Wikipedia.

My suggestion for the solution of this particular conflict would therefore be to certainly punish the party which insulted me. The punishment should be some reasonably long block. However, I should be asked, as soon as possible, to open a new anonymous account and thereby become equal to other editors in respect to responsibilities and vulnerability to the insults and defamation. The administrators must be asked to apply the rules more strictly, and in the future the non-anonymity should be forbidden on Wikipedia.Draganparis (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that after that manifest it should be obvious to all that DP has no respect whatsoever to any rule of Wikipedia. This endless rant, hollow threats, total disrespect to any rule pertaining the community he himself chose to enter, his unwillingness to engage in any coherent discussion, his blunt dismissal of the rules he does not like are what we had to deal with for months, what got him banned twice already, what we still have to deal with. He now has proven that he does not have the willingness to accept the rules and stop his crusade to change "the system"... His conspiracy theories fill our discussion pages, his threats are now open and directed against us, administrators and Wikipedia itself... Even when "seeking" help from the admins, he does it in a most inappropriate way... There is a reason why I have not been warned by admins, even though my interaction with DP was in pages which are constantly monitored. DP thinks that this reason is that we all cooperate to silence him, I say ask the admins. Ask them why they constantly warn DP, why his comments are being reverted, why they banned him. Just look how a case of an editor posting "warnings" against other editors ends in (laughable) open threats of legal action against everybody. How he thinks that sockpuppetry "is a part of normal behaviour, often highly praised"!!! He writes "I am completely protected from strong attacks and defamation, but they, since anonymous, are not" What does that mean? Either bad English or that some law protects him while no law protects us!!! That he may say what he wants, because we have not revealed our identities, while we cannot because he says he has...!!! "The fact that it is known who I am, every defamation may be seen as damaging to me and may qualify for juridical procedure in the “outside world” and almost automatic condamination of the other party" So, he does directly threaten us!!!??? He has to know that this alone is reason enough for a ban, let alone when this happens here, in front of everybody, in front of judging admins who have also received similar threats... And then he asks the admins to ask him to set up a new account????? Why hasn't he done that already, since he thinks of his anonymity so highly? I can produce pages of such texts, where DP "politely" accuses, threatens, insults, defames, lies or jumps to conclusions... I called my interaction with him " a surrealistic paranoia" and now I think that many will understand why. Should any admin wish to investigate further, as to how and when I insulted him and why, I will be more than happy to produce all the texts he bombarded me with, even when I asked him not to. To my mind, this is a clear case of heavy disruption, as most of us have encountered more than once. And all this, from a user who has no real contributions to any Wikipedia articles other than disrupting the work of other editors and engaging in discussions he makes efforts to heat. Just look up his history. Of course, it goes without saying that now the charges have been upgraded from disruption to legal threats. I guess that now it is time for what admin Atama proposed when he wrote (just lines above DP's comment, clerly showing DP's total absence of respect) that is completely unacceptable. I'd say that one more such accusation, or attempt to reapply such "notices" or warning people against removing them, would be grounds for a block (not sure how long a duration is appropriate) Is such a threat enough? GK (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Note I canvassed WP:AN here to get more admin consensus on the proposal. SGGH ^ping! 07:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose mutual interaction ban as proposed above. While some aspects of GK's reaction may not be optimal (e.g. the extremely long postings just above!), I see the disruption in this affair being ultimately caused by one side alone, that of Draganparis. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the question of the administrator was to propose possible solutions. Please excuse me for intervening again. This is again misunderstanding and I wonder why this happens all the time. Permanent judgment of a “Greek speaker” about the issue of the “English language” in this dispute is typical for the lack of arguments. The core of the dispute is DEFAMATION against me. This has not been stated by GK, but is the essential cause of problem. My text is sufficiently clear, there are no treats to anybody, I never “threatened” any administrators, I only asked some questions. My proposal above is a proposal of how to protect Wikipedia from the cases like my case and from people like me (editor whose identity is known) and from the people like my opponents (anonymous editors who distribute insult and defamation). Again I think that the administrators failed to inform the involved editors that my identity has been verified and by not informing them about this they exposed them to further - hypothetical of course - legal treats. The editor who is anonymous can not complain of libel simply because his identity is not know and can not be damaged, while known editor could (GK did not understand this point). My present interventions are obvious sign of good fate and certainly not implying that I will make a legal case against Wikipedia!!!? However, defamation on Internet has become a serious problem and Internet sites must be protected from both: spread of defamation and the treats from the involvement of the legal system. There is quite good page on Wikipedia too, but I offer just couple in addition:

http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/it&law/c10_main.htm

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss13/docherty.shtml

http://www.megalaw.com/top/defamation.php

http://www.abbottlaw.com/defamation.html

And a recent scandal case with Google:

http://www.reputationdefenderblog.com/2009/08/19/model-wins-defamation-suit-google-forced-to-reveal-anonymous-blogger/

Again, I propose to think about, for example, whether instructing me to go back to anonymity as soon as this dispute will be over would be reasonable; and on the other hand to instruct the administrators to increase vigilance about defamation on Wikipedia; and certainly to apply some retributive measures against editors that inflicted defamation on me would be needed. I will of course accept the apologies from Simanos (who I find to be sympathetic to certain extent, we had nice discussion on logic and I found him to be quite smart guy) and GK 1973 (whose patriotic tendencies I certainly understand). I hope that they will accept my apologies again. I certainly apologized to both of them many times. It is absurd indeed that each my friendly word, use of conditional, carefully stated objection or an apologetic statement is understood as “new insult and distraction”. This is why I really do not know how GK imagines that an apology or civilized good will intentions could be stated. If he would understand this intervention again as vicious and destructive, I think that we would really need an expert advice to resolve the conflict.Draganparis (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Jim Hurysz

Can someone please take a look at what has been going on with this article? This unsourced BLP has been lying around for a long time, and I decided to PROD it a week ago. That seems to have triggered off some bizarre editing and content removal by an IP claiming to be Jim Hurysz, and now a threat on the article's talk page from an IP who implicitly claims to be associated with the article's subject. It seems to be a threat against the numerous editors who have restored content to the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Article is semiprotected and AfD of non-notable subject is in progress. He is a fringe politician who ran for congress and got 3% of the vote.[132] 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A query affecting a shared IPA address

• In User talk:68.81.95.145 I found a speedy-delete request at 02:44, 1 May 2010 by User:David Beals "{{Delete|I got the new airport, so if this ip edit again, it will be different person.}}". What is the situation here? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing he's talking about a Apple AirPort Express/AirPort Extreme, meaning the IP wouldn't change (the Airport would change his local IP, not his ISP IP), as well as the fact it's a reusable IP. Anyway the policy on user talk pages states that "User talk pages and user talk archives created by page move are generally not deleted; they are usually needed for reference by other users.", meaning it generally wouldn't be deleted. Seeing it's someone who appears to been used abusively, I'd just leave it. Also, I've notified the user (please refer to note on edit page saying you are required to notify any user under discussion) -- sk8er5000 ^yeah? 07:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Beals is admitting he has sockpuppeted from the IP, which I called some time ago. Şłџğģő 08:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Cult Task-force and User:B9 hummingbird hovering Breaking Basic Academic and Wiki Rules

The user edits mainly Tibetan Buddhist pages. He claims to have gone beyond the need for teachers in TB tradition. Something even elderly Tibetan great lamas who have been brought up in over half a century of full-time monastic education and practice would never dream of saying. This basically amounts in the tradition to declaring oneself a saint which is in fact never done. The user of course does not even understand Tibetan, colloquial or classic, never mind his understanding of the subject which would be equivalent to a young teenager in a monastery. The actual problem with regards to Wikipedia is that he creates wild specuation in the name of inclusivity! When editors ask him for academic refernces or any inter-textual citations, he dismisses such basic standards which any academic or Wiki admin would require. Secondly he removes the edits the protesting editors have done and engages in editing wars. Thirdly he claims he has certain rights on article pages he has started. Fourthly he justifies his unfounded innovative speculations without citation or reference, which he does not deny, by saying he is a tantric! When told all of of TB followers opposing him are also tantrics, he merely states that unlike the rest and even elderly Tibetan high lamas who still have regular teachers and tuition, such as the 75 year old Dalai Lama, he has gone beyond such needs!

We now have hundreds of thousands non Tibetans following TB worldwide. Only less than ten westerners have set themselves up as teacherless and lineageless novelties. Interestingly unlike the hundreds of valid western teachers and lamas within lineages as well as hundreds of academic Tibetologists, these few self appointed saints do not even speak or read any Tibetan dialect are still beginners interms of education even after decades! A few of these have setup organizations, cults, in the USA and Europe and some have presence on Wiki via members. But they are few in number and almost everyone of the hundreds of thousands of followers in Asia, Europe and Americas follows one of the lineages of the five Tibtan schools. Even if there is occasional disagreements amongst them they all acknowledge each other. So basically the picture is very satisfactory.

The actual problem with B9 hummingbird hovering is that he gets into editing wars, claims ownership of articles, dismisses others' valid academic requirements for references and citations and justifies his self acknowledged wild speculations in the name of inclusivity and as a superior rare tantric who has gone beyond the others who are asking for references which has also been the norm in Tibetan shedras and monasteries for over a thosand years when the rest of the world hardly insisted on it. So we need an unbiased admin judgment in the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zhitro). Also as he is extremely active in Wikipedia, Wikiversity and Wikisource we need to make a record of his behavior early on. So that he does not enforce his mere speculations with no background whatsoever inside articles. If the decision goes in his favor, it means his section entitled "Cross-cultural correlates and possible antecedents" which he also admits has assertions that have no refernce or background except his personal special tantric feelings, can be repeated across atciles within Wiki by anyone?

Finally apart from this lone editor, I think Wiki needs a special small admin section which co-operates with various cult watch-dog bodies, who deal with their victims daily, in order to combat their misuse of Wiki. The reason is that cults basically milk their victims financially and in terms of resources and logistics whch we simply can not match. And also are time-rich via members and can make their members have organized co-ordinated behind the scenes presence as you well know. Unlike big corporations, they do not fear such adverse pulicity by being uncovered since they indulge in worse actions and are used to much worse reputation than being accused of abusing Wiki.

The question of a special section on cult presence on Wiki really needs to be addressed as it already is too late. I'd suggest to recruit several new admins and relieve some more experienced admins of their usual duties to have time to setup such a special unit and task-force or at least a think-tank to start drawing up contingency plans and guidelines and strategies. I think this will be unavoidable and the sooner it is started the easier things will be as many lessons need to be learned early on which will take time. Thank you for you attention. Occasionaled (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

(1) Per the header for this page, new reports go on the bottom. I would have just moved it but after the 2nd or third edit conflict I gave up. If you erase this and paste it in again at the bottom successfully at some point feel free to recreate it without my comment here. (2) Per the header for this page, you are required to inform the editor that you are complaining about. Looking at your contributions, I don't see that you have. If it wasn't for (1) I would do (2) for you, but at this point I leave it up to you whether you really want to recreate this following the proper instructions. Syrthiss (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that the thread is at the bottom of the page, I've notified User:B9 hummingbird hovering. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:49, 27 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Hooray for persistence! Syrthiss (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• B9 hummingbird is a long-term problem editor. I had a conflict with him some time ago regarding his addition of original research and absurdly flowery language to articles, which seems to have continued right up to today. I think a WP:RFC/U is probably long overdue. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This reflects my experience with B9 as well.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Mine as well. Mitsube (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I remonstrated with this user regarding the titling of articles with additional Wylie transliteration. This user responded in a very strange way, and it took several other users to convince him/her that we should even be heard. Abductive (reasoning) 04:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

As to the original complaint above, I can't really see that we need a 'Cult taskforce' -- as to B9, the two problems (penchant for OR and purple-bordering-on-ultraviolet prose) could probably have at one time been handled with mentoring; the (in my opinion) more pernicious problem is B9's inability-cum-refusal to work in a collegial, collaborative manner [If you dare to disagree or edit one of 's/his' articles, you'll hear about it, believe me] and tendency to own articles (example: Talk:Seventeen_tantras). Also worrying is s/hir readiness to simply revert any edit without discussion if s/he finds it disagreeable. Compounding the problem is the fact that the subject area (Tibetan Buddhism) that s/he edits in is pretty rarefied and obscure so not many people are in a real position to challenge hir edits, even if they had the stomach to do so and gird their loins for the rain of flowers that would almost certainly follow. 65.46.253.42 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Syrthiss, it is my first time on this board and someone had kindly reposted it at the Bottom. As for informing B9 hummingbird hovering. I only registered as an editor less than a week ago as a result of reading his bullying tone to others who had asked for citations, which I stated in the article talk page. I also immediately informed him on his talk page of my comments in the article talk page. I did not even edit the article to remove his fantasy projections and self confessed baseless conjectures. After a few days of receiving his now apparently obvious usual treatment I removed his wild sentences. At every stage I posted my reasons and replies to him in the article page and on his talk page which has been ongoing for the last several days with regular input from him. Before I posted here he had removed all our discussions on his talk page. So there was no point and I was sure he was reading the article talk daily as he was writing there daily. Furthermore I had informed him previously that I would state a complaint in the admin board. All this is obvious from the article talk page which I linked above. Also as to why there are not many Tibetan experts here, which I am not one of, is due to the fact they are usually educated to let things be and unfold by themselves unless matters are getting really serious and harming people. That is why many merely read and smile. I'll copy and paste this section in my talk page so that future users have a reference buried somewhere regarding B9 hummingbird hovering if they come into contact with his odd behavior. Now onto the serious matter.

CULTS: There are cults and highly dubious organizations discretely present on Wiki that have members assigned individually or as organized groups with their own private forums to coordinate regarding their presence, editing wars and regular input on Wiki. This is a serious problem that will get worse and will not go away by merely being ignored. People like me can see their work but we simply do not have the time or the ability to take them on. Some experienced admins should discretely organize a private forum and form a cult think-tank. They can do some basic research and then contact cult watch-dog bodies, not necessarily as Wiki admins initially. Then they can draw up a white-paper with their recommendations and strategies and working solutions for organizing a special unit. This initial stage can be done discretely before being made public. I suggest that two types of experts be included on this initial think-tank. Firstly a few who have legal backgrounds or are preferably legal professionals. Secondly people with a background in helping abused victims as they need specialist care and attention and are prone to known psychological problems and can recognize the hallmarks of the cults' presence on Wiki. Thirdly there is a lot of professional help and expertise out there with regards to cults both in the active support groups and also academia who would only be too glad to help in any way they can.

I hope some see the inevitability of this undertaking and that the sooner it is started the better it will be for Wikipedia. Thanks for reading. Occasionaled (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. In my experience Anti-Cult groups are as detrimental to wikipedia as cultmembers in injecting POV and bias into articles about New Religious Movements. Most articles about New Religious Movements are fairly balanced and I don't know of any that are biased in favour of the movement. If anything the right solution is not not to insert more Anti-Cult (socalled Cult-watching groups) POV, but to enforce neutrality by using and applying sources by relevant scholars in the field of sociology of religion. ·Maunus·ƛ· 07:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mannus. Your message is addressing three parts. Firstly I have been reading the organized efforts of three western groups claiming to be new lineages in Tibetan Buddhism, self contradictory by definition, some of which have been on cult watch-dog bodies' lists and databases. I'm not naming them as there is no point in starting a long discussion here. I was informed last year by a former member of one of them who has setup a half-way house website on his site how they coordinate their efforts daily on Wikipedia in a private forum. It is going on and in great detail as many editors will know. This is just a few in the rather small area of TB not to mention other really large areas. We can only guesstimate what the overall extent is. They systematically patrol Wiki articles and remove links to websites by former members and edit out content they are ordered to. Also they inject their own propaganda patiently over time by wearing down individuals with their organized resources. Many can testify to such organized behavior.

Secondly it is not just about new religions or new beliefs as you state. It can involve groups who are pushing certain services and products in organizations which are pseudo families. Cult study is an academic area and is not related to content as such or a genre of beliefs. Rather it is a mode of organizational behavior which cuts off individuals from family and society by well known tactics and cocoons them inside the organization. There are many experts who teach and research the area in universities and also help groups. We can not dismiss this well established academic area f research by a few sentences of generalizations. Thirdly I did not advocate what the final cult task-force should do or even the initial think-tank should recommend in terms of guidelines. What you opposed were your own ideas.

I merely suggested what I thought would be helpful and is long overdue. The cult related problems will get worse if they continue to be ignored. In the meantime habitual tendencies in cults to covertly manipulate Wiki in an organized manner will only grow and it will be more difficult later if things continue as they are. This whole area needs to be researched by a select group of Wiki admins in private initially. Thank you. Occasionaled (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Occasionaled. The probvlem of POV pushing is not limited to "cult"s and there are well established procedures for dealing with it. I intentionally do not use the word "cult" because it is nothing but a pejorative description of New Religious Movements which shows that the person using the term is sympathetic to the Anti Cult movement and antipathetic to the groups themselves. There is no academic field of "Cult studies" as you sugggest - that academic field is Sociology of Religion and specifically the field of NRM studies. What you call "cult studies" is in fact the Anti Cult movement which is an interest organisation lobbying against certain religous or ideological groupings that they identify as "cults" usually supported by ex-members and family members of group members. What I am saying is that wikipedia should neither adopt a viewpoint in favour of any religious or ideological groups, but also not the viewpoint against them. Both vuiews should be presented fairly by using objective sources written by academic researchers of the groups - not by either "watch-dogs" or "members". Yopu should of course do what you can to keep NRM related pages objective and neutral - possibly supplying the anti-cult viewpoint when it is missing. I consider myself an admin working towards the same goal having worked towards improving and neutralizing pages about controversial groups such as Jehovah's Witnessdes, Falun Gong, Mormons and several others. This can all be handled within the normal editing guidelines of wikipedia (all though it is often difficult as is editing in any controversial topic) and does not need a particular taskforce or policy changes.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mannus. Thanks for your post. As I said I did not advocate what should be done by anyone or group here with regards to disciplinary action or modifying Wiki content. So much of your points is not what I advocated as you claim. You also dismiss any need for looking into this area. Secondly you limit cults to NRMs and ignore my point on this point in my previous post. Thirdly you also limit the opposition to the Anti-Cult movement when in fact it goes well beyond that. This caricaturization is often used by cults and has been exposed for decades now. Opposition to cults goes beyond activists and includes medical experts as well as researchers and legislatures and journalists and intellectuals and more. Fourthly you dismiss any Cult related research is taking place in academia and limit it to a few sociological studies. In fact they are researched in Psychology departments widely. You can read some papers here: http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_topic_collections/tpcol_research.asp. Fifthly you do not answer points on widespread coordinated cult manipulation of Wiki which I am sure many would testify to. I encourage those readers who have encountered this large growing problem to be informed of this discussion here. Just because you do not want to see it does not mean it is not there. The pattern that emerges from the above points is that you tend to simplify situations and issues into binary camps and then reduce them as much as possible further. This Manichean method is an old style early structuralist approach which has very limited use and blinkers one's worldview.

You also do not address points regarding the time-rich, resource and member rich and covert organized way these groups act here and how against these Goliaths an individual has no chance given enough time. They also justify any breaking of the rules. By ignoring these points and saying everything is as good as it gets and regulation abiding lone users are just fine you are showing a complete lack of empathy in not just action but by lack of understanding. Not all cults have organized covert presence here but some do and you are saying it is not happening and even if it is everything is fine. The groups should be identified and registered somewhere on Wiki and continually monitored until they stop. This is very basic logic. Opposing researching the issue by a think-tank by some admins and not doing anything yet by any task-force or other later body, is a very strange position that defies basic common sense in any organization under systematic attack by various groups. I would suggest some sort of quantifying how widespread these organized covert activities are is a necessary step. These organized activities, against the rules, also create extra work for admins and dealing with symptoms and illegal activities by individuals under order in the long run. As opposed to identifying the issues and patterns in a research group, as well as identifying the organizations targeting Wiki is ultimately much more effective and less exhaustive. The lessons learned will be very useful in other areas too as it will become obvious. This process will be undertaken eventually and the sooner the better for all admins and Wiki. Thank you. Occasionaled (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I also like to clarify as I stated before that unlike commercial organizations (and most political regimes/groups) cults do not care if they are branded as manipulating Wiki by breaking it's rules. They simply do not care as they face much worse adverse publicity anyway. The other benefits of looking into the issue I referred to in my last paragraph above that would become obvious later, was meant implicitly to apply to other organized efforts against Wiki.

It is crucial to cults to maintain a false perfect image of themselves and a black and white worldview in the mind of their followers. I just had a practical idea with regards to Wiki which I like to share and Mannus and other dear users are free to attack and dissect as it might not be a good idea in the final analysis. OK here it is:

Problem: Systematic Removal of external links specially those exposing misdeeds by various groups and persons. By reading various talk pages and histories I can see how various groups in general and some cults in particular remove links exposing their activities and if confronted they merely wait for some months and delete it time and again.

Solution: Protected External Links. These 'protected semi-permanent links' can be on top of the list of external links identifiable in kind by a mini icon next to them. The procedures for nominating, electing/placement and possible later removal of such protected links can be decided in any way that is optimum to Wikipedia.

This method will be extremely helpful to trapped cult victims. I think forming the research think-tank on organized attacks by cults, possibly other groups, is unavoidable. I really do not have any more to say on the subjects I raised on this page . Thank you and goodbye to all. Occasionaled (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of wikipedia is not to provide easy access for "cult victims" to websites "exposing misdeeds" about the organizations they are members of (or to whitewash any controversial organizations). The purpose of wikipedia is to provide neutral and objective information about organizations which does not pass judgement on or provide soapboxes to any particular viewpoint - but describes all notable views about a topic. I agree that there should be a stricter policy for the inclusion of external links in controversial articles - but I think the policy should be to link neither to positive or negatively biased sites unless they are of exceptional notability. Rather external links should be to objective reliable sources of neutral information. I personally routinely remove substandard external links from many articles including articles about controversial organizations - and I remove both positively and negatively biased links if they do not meet the standards of our policies about external links.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mannus. Again you are misrepresenting my points and/by reducing the issues to basic oppositional binaries and very simple dialectics. However modern science has moved towards complexity, non-linearity and emergence. Also, I find various points in your response contradictory. However I agree as you sum up: "I agree that there should be a stricter policy for the inclusion of external links in controversial articles". Well said. Occasionaled (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not representing your opinion - I am representing my opinion. And my name is Maunus.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Maunus. I apologize about getting your name wrong. I never said you represented my ideas but misrepresented them as you can see in my first sentence above. I wonder how you can not see such basic things. You also like to reduce issues to basic sides, preferably good and evil, and have no qualms about pronouncing judgments and prejudgments such as the purpose of Wiki is this and not that by again misrepresenting the debate. But you do not stop there, you even go onto filter the two black and white sides of the debate by boiling them down further to suit yourself. For example if you said WWII was 'Italian Fascists fighting Russian Communists' it wouldn't be wrong but it is obviously misleading. It has been interesting. I wish you, B9Hummingbirdhovering and everyone all the best. I also apologize to user 65.46.253.42 who is quite right and everyone else as I should have split this section into two subjects originally. Occasionaled (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

My point is that I can not misrepresent your opinion when I am not even attempting to represent it. My comments reflect my own opinion. I wonder how you can not understand such basic comments. You however is misrepreseting my opinions and even claiming to know what I like and how I think. I am not booiling it down to two sides but to three - for, against and neutral. My statements about what the purposes of wikipedia is and isn't is not my judgment, but the statements of the basic policies that wikipedia work by and you would do well to read them and understand them before trying to establish taskforces to combat viewpoints that you dislike.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Maunus. I beg to differ. You claim to be neutral but you started to oppose the ideas I put forward. You also are quick in prejudging. My position was not to turn Wiki into a haven for cult victims as you misrepresented, you defend making it a haven for cults. My point was as stated that Wiki is systematically being attacked and abused. At first you said it is not happening and then that even so all is fine. I also pointed out many aspects and errors in your comments and arguments. Wiki's mission statement can not be reduced to the few choice words you decided upon either. I also explained a possible group to carry out any recommendations would be appropriate only after an initial research group. You misrepresent that too despite my pointing outs.

You oppose any research group into organized covert attacks and/or manipulation against Wiki. This is very strange and illogical. You merely repeat that I want a group to do certain things, false as I proved, and you do not answer what is wrong about the preliminary research think-tank idea. I now think you might have motives you do not want to share with the rest of us by diverting attention away from any research into systematic covert manipulation. Carried out by various groups, not just cults, where research into the problem will have benefits in other areas too. I did not say what I recommend either.

You are saying that Wiki as an evolving organism should allow various groups to continue to covertly attack and manipulate it against it's rules and that secondly everything is just fine and thirdly any research think-tank, not action orientated task-force yet, should be stopped at all costs. These positions are extremely strange. You are basically saying Wiki should not have any immunity mechanism whatsoever nor should be allowed to take any actions. But you go further and state Wiki should not even think about defending itself by researching the area. You divert the issue of research and think-tank by misrepresenting it as the later stage of task-force which might not be recommended by the research group anyway. I wonder why so many shifts from no threat to no need for action to diverting the idea of researching the threat. None of it adds up. I can only conclude you have other interests and/or ideas too.

As ever, best wishes. Occasionaled (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to make my self clearer then. Look, my problem with your suggestions is that in several aspects the problems are already handled by several existing processes or the venue of solution you propose is not in line with the fundamental principles, policies and philosophies of wikipedia. Below I will outline how some of your proposals seem to collide with policy:

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. This means that everyone is allowed to edit regardless of which groups they belong to - Nazis, Cultmembers, Lobbyists. The requirement is that they edit in line with our policies of neutrality and verifiability. We have many editors who are in favour of controversial viewpoints but who manages to edit within the guidelines - and when they do that they improve wikipedia by adding coverance about minority viewpoints. However, when editors with minority viewpoints do not manage to edit within policy we already have many venues for adressing those problems: depending on the nature of the problems they could be resolved through a dispute resolution process or simple processes of keeping single editors in line with policiy by threatening with and using blocks or bans. This is the reason that I don't believe POV pushing from cultmembers represents a problem bigger than or different from normal POV-pushing by any other kind of interest organization. Wikipedia is geared to handle that.
• Now, it may be that the area of NRM's and other controversial organizations is so small that few editors edit there and that certain viewpoints are overrepresented. This is again the case in several other subareas of wikipedia, but it is of coure a problem. The solution is of course that the editors who are aware of the problem group together and direct their attention to those pages and use the normal editing procedures to establish neutrality in those areas where there isn't any. This is all within standard wikipedia practice. It is easier to catch POV-pushers and work against them when more editors have pages watchlisted and a more likely to notice harmful changes to those pages. One way to achieve a higher level of awareness about certain pages would be to make a wikiproject dedicated to a certain topic. There is already a wikipeoject about New Religious Movements - editors interested in monitoring pages about NRM's or implementing a watching strategy of NRM related pages could join that project and work through there.
• The reason I am saying that I don't think it is correct that wikipedia as a community should take any specific action towads cult related POV pushing is then that 1. we cannot single out any particular group whose edits we work against. As long as editors work within our policies everyone's edits are welcome. 2. We already have welfunctioning and well established process for monitoring and countering POV pushing by ideologically based groups. This being said you are of course more than welcome to bringin up specific problems with editors or with articles on ANI or on any of the wikiproject pages dedicated to resolving that kind of problem. And you are completely within you right to convene a think tank with editors of your own choosing to work on any issue or problem that you perceive to be pertinent. Having just laid out my reasons why I don't think it is the wikipedia community that should do this but rather any group of interested editors, I would like to express my interest in joining such a group. I work with articles on NRM's in Mexico and elsewhere and I have noticed POV pushing both by apologists and detractors of these groups and I would be interested in collaborating on maintaining neutrality in these areas. Dixi.·Maunus·ƛ· 05:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Maunus. Your post is much clearer in style and I welcome that. On the content of your paragraphs:

• You basically say everything is fine as it is. I explained before I don't think so.

• I explained communal cocooning in cults is not limited to NRM's nor is their opposition limited to activists as it has been proven for a while. Secondly my main point is not merely about POV pushers. It is about organized covert manipulation of Wiki content. Two different topics which should not be misrepresented or limited to each other.

• 1. I did not propose any such actions on POV pushing. My main proposal is to initially set up a group to research the issues of organized covert manipulation which is different in nature and methodology to what you claim I am saying. I am not saying what should or should not be done specifically or even laying out the ontology of any later possible processes. 2. Everything is not just fine as you say again. Secondly my point is not about specific articles or editors as you misrepresent again. On your last points in that paragraph I'm glad you finally say that such a research think-tank is a good idea. It was I myself who originally proposed a select group of experienced admins, preferably but not limited to those with legal academic psychological and support background, to form such a research group. I also disagree when you say "wikipedia community" should be excluded. Furthermore I think Wiki management should be involved with the ongoing secret research of this group. On the final statements: what I proposed was different. It is not about merely POV pushing by various NRM individuals, but organized covert ongoing campaigns against Wiki content. The aim could be two fold. Initially researching how covert organized campaigns are mounted. Secondly on drawing up proposals on how to deal with them. These will be merely proposals as any think-tank can only make recommendations and by definition does not have any executive or even legislative powers. So I am talking about a whole different set of processes.

The subject can be cults in general which is a large problem but the results and the lessons learned will be immensely beneficial and possibly can be applied later to the larger area of covert organized manipulation by non-cults which is a much larger problem. Even if this research is not preferably initiated by Wiki community, it inevitably will be carried out by some academics in which case it won't be limited to cults as a sample case. Thank you. Occasionaled (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Two distinct issues

I think there are two issues being discussed here that are being conflated and therefore neither is being presented very clearly; the primary complaint was about the behavior of a particular user User:B9_hummingbird_hovering and a number of other editors have voiced similar difficulties; can we (someone) move forward with whatever the appropriate remedy is there (someone mentioned a User Request for Comment). The second, much broader issue about addressing cults at Wikipeida seems harder to tackle and I'm not sure how -- but regardless can that please be decoupled from what seems to be a more pressing (and longer-term) difficulty with this particular user? 65.46.253.42 (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

True. I think a RFCU is in order about B9Hummingbirdhovering.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Then we need to start with the process as outlined Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance which indicates the starting point is two editors must try to resolve the conflict with B9 on that user's talk page. 65.46.253.42 (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

flowery obscuration, love it. I answer I love language and have an exceptional lexicon and use language pointedly and with etymological intent. being linked with cults, wonderful and baseless. and my dear wikipedian-collegiates wonder why I rarely enter into conversation with such bland stupidity, all of them, those MOANING, have justly had their egos branded by the Hummingbird, this is true. as for not having a Teacher, that is not the intention of what I wrote and taken out of context. I have had innumerable teachers and still do, i have a root Guru in body, but that said my principal guru resides in my heartmind in secret aspect and I no longer need a teacher in the way that it was being presented to me is mandatory. It amazes me that a fervent, unaware, scaremongering bigot has the floor in an Administrator thread, frightening really that these people are my peers, well nonduality is peerless and I have no fear. there is no evidence that the said Hummingbird is a member of any cult. all of the ever-so-important ISSUES presented have already been resolved and i honoured the undertakings given. now the case for "Dharmic Traditions" is becoming clearer day by day. I am intrigued as to what the mentoring points are going to be. that said it was cavalier for me to revert Shitro but I did so as an Inclusionist. the three editors complaining have added no content to the article and no citations, in fact I am the only editor to add citations to the article and I created the article in question. the content should appropriately be branded POV and citations required and left at that. now to demonstrate my value to our project would one of you peers like to mention my number of edits as well as the number of distinct pages I have edited and note and estimate the number of citations I include and have included to Our encyclopedia. in respect of that these ever-so-important ISSUES on a very limited number of incidents comparatively are minor. there has been no check and balance in the presentation by my 'peers' and that is disreputable

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Dude, pass the bong already. Calling your fellow editors "scaremongering bigots" is bad karma. Skinwalker (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

if it is remembered the initial issue, what I wrote and what has happened as a result and the nature of the complaint, my assertion is founded, to assert that Xitro is not related to the class of spiritual activities related to progenitors/ancestors is false. btw Skinwalker thank u so much for illustrating bland stupidity so admirably and do u know which indigenous culture "skinwalker" comes from? B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"check and balance", unpacking that for the uninitiated: impartial, independent investigation of my historical contributions from two Administrators (who edit and add cited content to Wikipedia unlike Mitsube) with whom I have NOT had an editing history, heard of conflict of interest? rather than just reacting to impassioned, partial editors writing with agenda with whom I have had a protracted editing history B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think making colorfully worded Personal Attacks in the ANI thread dedicated to your behaviour is unlikely to make others see the beauty, truth and reason immanent in your viewpoints.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Now all can see clearly the heart of this problem. These are rather obscure topics to most of us, and B9's writing only makes it more difficult to comprehend. This is what I tried to tell him eighteen months ago to no avail. Wikipedia is supposed to be written for a general audience with no prior knowledge of the subject, and anyone reading B9's musings in various articles is only going to get confused instead of educated. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Nor were you the first to encounter, and comment on this phenomenon. 65.46.253.42 (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• (undent) Actually the discussion I linked is from several months before that, but the overall point that this is a long term issue and has been discussed several times is valid. B9 refuses to admit there is any problem with what he writes and the way he writes it, ignoring or ridiculing anyone who dares to suggest otherwise. A perfect example from his talk page last month, a user asked him to review a policy regarding page names and his reply "I just gave the policy a deep graze and I have contravened nothing in fact I intuited it." [133] Is it just me or is that just gibberish? I have tried to parse the sentence out and it doesn't seem to be saying anything logical. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not just you. In addition to B9's unique prose and attitude, he seems to be fond of citing articles that he himself wrote at wikisource. Here he cites this wikisource page, which he wrote. It seems to be his translation of a Tibetan tantra. This article has similarly circular citations, as does this one. IMO this violates WP:NOR. I strongly recommend a user RFC. Perhaps Wikiproject Buddhism has someone who speaks Tibetan and can sort out the sourcing problem. Skinwalker (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Moving on with this discussion, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/B9 hummingbird hovering is now live and awaiting certification. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ani medjool

There is no conceivable good faith way that an editor who ever wrote this clearly[134] or demonstated template proficiency (subst, paramters) [135], could now be writing as terribly as [136] and using templates as poorly as [137]. I'm not involved in IP issues at all. I don't even know which side this editor is. I do, however, know that either they have transfered their account, which is an indefable problem, or they are trolling, which is an indeffable problem. In either case, they are unwelcome on that account. Why are we putting up with this just because every editor who has noted it is tainted? Look - I'm not tainted, I'm not winning some content dispute with this - just take action. Hipocrite (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't feel any urgency at the moment, but the case is compelling.--Tznkai (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at the language a bit. His very first few contribs were relatively good English, then it deteriorated quickly but continuously – not a sudden switch as if the account had been taken over by a different person, rather like a single person making a decision to pretend to be a weak English speaker. However, some early edits show there is quite an expert mastery both of English idiom and of Wikipedia lingo (e.g. [138]: "the source says what it says", "no ifs and buts", "trying to censor the article"; [139] "reliable sources from world-wide mainstream media") – but all of that sugared over with deliberately distorted grammar. This has all the looks of a sockpuppet attempting to cover their tracks. Given that they also appear to be a constant source of tendentious editing, I'd favour an indef block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As an FYI: I blocked Ani medjool for outrageous personal attacks earlier today. He wrote that he couldn't respond to this complaint, so I offered to copy-and-paste any replies he posted on his Talk page. Instead, Ani medjool chose to retire. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

He has retired before. Habitual incivility and battling, potential trolling, the comments that led to his block, and referring to the removal of Malik Shabaz's block notice with "delete lies by [Israeli] lobby puppet"[140] means that an extended or even indefinite block should be imposed so that he does not again come out of retirement to disrupt the project.Cptnono (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It was amusing being called a puppet of the Israel lobby. I just wanted to explain why Ani medjool wasn't responding to this complaint. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As I've said a number of times before, I believe this is a strawpuppet account and I'm surprised they haven't been indeffed already. Strongly support such an action. The disruption is continuous and highly offensive and there are no good content contributions to point to at all. Tiamut^talk 20:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Ani medjool is no stranger to ANI. Methinks it's time he was indefinitely retired from editing. Mjroots (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone ahead and reset the block to indef. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Good, I was going to do the same after reading this. I've seen him being disruptive before, and clearly isn't going to reform. Fences&Windows 15:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I am being stalked and simultaneously ignored. This paradox is so appalling, but it is crushing me.

Resolved

 – IP blocked with talk page revoked after this unblock request [141]. –MuZemike 21:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hohenloh (talk · contribs)

A glimpse into the problem

I am being treated appallingly by this person, not only have they stalked me (Such as when they reverted some perfectly legitimate edits for no reason whatsoever, such as here, here, here, and here) but the said person has also refused to engage with me like an adult, has bitched about me behind my back, accused me of being incivil (Which I find hilarious since the said person has treated me as little better than you would a rabid dog) and furthermore, has went out of his way to make my experience on this website a living nightmare.

I hope you can help, as as you can see, I am running out of patience with the conduct of this user and don't know why he is treating me in such a foul way. 86.40.210.11 (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind my saying so, this will hardly help... You might wish to refactor your comment, since that appears to violate WP:NPA. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The dynamic IP might 'refactor' these personal attacks while at it.[142][143][144][145].[146] RashersTierney (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why, he treats me in a terrible way, why should I have to be so passively aggressive with him, in the manner in which you seem to advocate. I find that kind of misconduct to be galling in the extreme. 86.40.210.11 (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Salvio giuliano, your comment as highlighted above is very poor form. Also, the comment you left at Talk:The Nation (Irish newspaper) was very unhelpful, and although I would not have deleted it, I really don't know what you expected to achieve by making it. The first two edits you give as examples seem to be fairly reverted - the first being a removal of sourced info with no edit summary, and the second being an unsourced and potentially contentious change of nationality. Hohenloh should probably be conversing with you rather than ignoring you, but I don't really see an issue with his edits. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. This appears to be a content dispute. Hohenloh ought not to have ignored you, but I do not think that warrants either this thread or your reaction. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me re-state - I find your NPA policy to be an utter joke, it fosters a culture of passive aggression, allows policy wonks to manipulate the rules of human courtesy, and defies all common sense. It is a religious mantra devoid of reason, and I REFUSE to abide by it. I don't understand why 90% of wikipedians engage in pedantic policy debates, when they ignore the substantive issues behind article creation and maintenance. Denis Diderot must be rolling in his grave! 86.40.210.11 (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If you refuse to abide by our policies I fear there'll be very little we can do... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I think it's accurate to say that if you refuse to abide by it, your Wikipedia career will be short. Wikipedia is what it is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

86.40.210.11 (talk · contribs): I suggest using article talk pages to discuss controversial article changes versus your current approach of attacking experienced editors. The latter will only result in your being blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh this is just great. The conspiracy unravels before my eyes. How conceited. I challenge an 'experienced' editor on his general courtesy, you scream about the rules - rules that he is clearly flaunting by the way - and then make me into the bad guy. I never expected to be treated in such a way, I've a PHD in modern Irish history you know, I actually know what I'm talking about and some of the obstruction 've met by online bullies is not unalike the schoolyard tactics employed by real life bullies. I deserve and demand a fair hearing, all of you are ganging up on me, please leave. 86.40.210.11 (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want the deference due to your degree, you'll want to go somewhere else.--Tznkai (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't expect deference, but that is the gulf in class between me and some users here. They interfere on issues they don't understand, then have the cheek to revert me. ME! I'd drink most of them under the table with my knowledge of 19th century Irish history. 86.40.210.11 (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Reliable, verifiable, third party knowledge? Or your own unverified research and stuff you learnt at school? Have a guess which is admissible on Wikipedia, and avoid binge drinking. SGGH ^ping! 20:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Were are you getting this mumbo jumbo? Everything I've changed, I've changed for the better. I merely reflect generations of historical scholarship, something your policy cannot defeat by absurd pedantrys. Try harder, your spirited defence of this creature of the system might impress you ravenous buddies, who hide behind their 'dear policy', but who refuse to logically and reasonably discuss this issue with the merit and intelligence and compassion it deserves. You have all treated me intolerably here, and ganged up on me for some kind of deviant reasons, I know not why. 86.40.210.11 (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well if you don't take the time to understand why the policy exists then Wikipedia is not for you. It is not built on what we say we know, but what we can verify and cite. If you can't reconcile with that, then perhaps you might want to publish your own knowledge in another medium, whereby it would become verifiable and Wikipedia might use it (so long as other third party peers conclude that it is a good source). Ranting about it on the ANI board isn't going to be very productive. SGGH ^ping! 20:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to stay, here are some policies you will want to read up on.:

• WP:OR
• WP:CITE
• WP:RS
• WP:NOT.

If not, well there you go. If you want to publish your own knowledge, I'm afraid that isn't what Wikipedia is really about. I suggest you write a book. SGGH ^ping! 20:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Where are you getting the idea that 'I want to publish my own knowledge'? I'm merely correcting some very grievously incorrect statements on this website. They are common knowledge, and exist in practically every narrative history of the period. I have edited nothing controversial, and if you took the time to listen to me, instead of judging me, you'd see that Hohlenhoh has very deliberately been stalking me, overturning perfectly fair edits for his own personal amusement. There is a clear and consistent case for harrasment to be made here.

As for your policies - I despise your policies. They were invented by internet lawyers so they could squash intellectualism and dissent and replace it with hideous pedantries and legal subtleties, which only allows extremists and bigots to stretch the regulations in order to dominate articles and insert their own minority viewpoints. My God, the contempt I hold for this website at this very moment is overwhelming. 86.40.210.11 (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. --Smashville^talk 20:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours.--Tznkai (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is so contemptuous, you presumably won't be rushing back after your block. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

After seeing this, am I the only one having the feeling that our collective leg is being pulled? Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and all in time for May Day. In other news, our esteemed binge-drinking Ph.D is operating across 86.40.192.0/19, but collateral damage is a bit high to rangeblock even anon-only. –MuZemike 21:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"I'll write a novel about you that will shame you all..." It sounds like he's already got a good start, from the flowery prose he uses here and elsewhere. I'm thinking a catchy title could be The Pickwiki Papers. Or if that's not catchy enough, how about My Wiki, Wiki Ways or Tropic of Wikicorn. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Wiki-Tavi? Conan the Wikipedian? Edit War and Peace? --Jayron32 23:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Abusive Admin. The 3RR Musketeers. "Citation Needful Things"--Smashville^talk 00:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A Tale of Two Cites? WinBeth? The Red Socks? The Sockpuppet Master? ANI-stasia..? - BilCat (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

access to delete logs

Is it possible for non-admins to request access to Special:DeletedContributions? It would be nice to have access to this information while patrolling new pages especially when researching a username before reporting a user for username violations or vandalism. It would also be nice to see the deletion log for an article to see if it has been the subject of an AFD previously as few articles include this information on their talk pages.--RadioFan (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This belongs at WP:VPR not here, but for the record its not going to happen, the foundation's legal counsel has vetoed it--Jac16888^Talk 12:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

See [147]--Jac16888^Talk 12:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thats unfortunate, it would be useful information new page patrollers that could be used to make better decision but I get the lawyers getting involved with this as well.--RadioFan (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you go to the page where you would expect the article to be, you should see the deletion log. For example, click Siberian language. You should see the logs of the eight times that the article has been deleted. Of course that's not the same as seeing the deleted revisions themselves, but you can get useful information just from the logs, such as whether it was deleted through AfD or CSD or something else. Also I hope you're not discouraged from ever running RfA in the future just because you have one failed run. Sometimes our best administrators start out that way. —Soap— 13:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder of that. It's a bit cumbersome to get to but it does provide the information that is needed to make better decisions. If it's been AFD'd before, the AFD mentions some of the same problems that thecurrent article has, a G4 is likely in order and it doesn't sound like admins have any better information available to them (such as the text of the original article) than you average editor. Also, thanks for the kind words. I learned a lot from that RfA process but more troubling was what I wasn't able to learn. A number administrators simply refused to respond to any questions beyond "if you dont understand now you'll never understand", but there are good admins and bad ones just like anything else. All that aside, I wouldn't turn down a nomination in the future but and am enjoying contributing by identifying the kruft for you folks to weed out. --RadioFan (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin votestacking and stealth canvassing

Resolved

 – it's nice when things work out like this --Jayron32 18:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The Christ myth theory has proven to be a very contentious article with many editors being dinged for edit warring and other policy violation. I recently tried to bring the matter before the ArbCom but it was declined as a content dispute. In the midst of that request, though, I asked if it would be appropriate to request additional "eyes on the page" at the Jesus Work Group, a Wikiproject associated with the article. An editor on the "other side" of the dispute, SlimVirgin, requested that I not do this [148] as she felt it would be a form of inappropriate canvassing. I obliged her. But I've recently learned that she herself has not abided by this request.

SlimVirgin initiated a RfC pertaining to the lead of the Christ myth theory article about whether to include a certain quotation [149]. She indicated that she had cross posted the request at both the Wikiprojects History and Religion. But that wasn't the whole truth. She declined to mention that she had also posted the request at Wikiproject Atheism [150]. What makes this so striking is that, at the time she posted her request, the article wasn't even a part of Wikiproject atheism. And while the article was a part of Wikiproject Christianity, she didn't bother to file the request there as well. Well, apparently realizing the difficultly, SlimVirgin quickly added the Wikiproject Atheism tag to the article after the fact [151], but even then she didn't bother to mention on the article's own talk page that she had appealed to that project.

Given that SlimVirgin posted her RfC to Wikiproject Atheism but not Wikiproject Christianity, this seems like a pretty clear-cut case of attempted vote stacking. And given that she never informed the article's editors that she had posted the RfC on that project, it further seems like a subtle case of stealth canvasssing. I've informed SlimVirgin of this incident report [152]. Eugene (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I posted this RfC on April 18 about the lead of Christ myth theory (the theory that Jesus may not have existed as an historical figure) in a number of places in an effort to attract fresh eyes: Village pump, Wikiproject Religion, Wikiproject Atheism, and Wikiproject Philosophy. That covered the bases: the pump for everyone, then the three wikiprojects for people interested in religion, people interested in opposing religion, and people interested in the philosophy of religion, because the RfC was about whether to add a philosopher of religion to the lead as a source.

It might be worth adding that I posted a request to Eugene five hours ago as part of dispute resolution to tone down his aggressive reactions to other editors. This report appears to be his (entirely non-aggressive) response. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. I was going to submit the AN/I request ever since NMJauthor informed me about the votestacking last evening. But when that came through I was already on my way out the door so I didn't get a chance to respond until this morning. I'm entirely willing to adopt a "less aggressive approach", but we need to all play by the same rules. You seem to disagree about that last point. Eugene (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, your explanation about each of the projects History, Philosophy, Religion and Atheism seems fine, and I can see your logic, but I can also see how avoiding the Christianity WikiProject in this case might cause some friction. If an article falls under a WikiProject of a particular religion, perhaps it would be easy to avoid this sort of situation (in the future) by placing a notice at that WikiProject's noticeboard also? In this case, I don't think there would be a problem in resolving the concern if a notice is placed at the Christianity WikiProject. I think that makes sense, but you might disagree, and of course, if I'm missing something, please let me know! Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Hanlon's razor can reliably be invoked here. Rather than assume that SlimVirgin is deliberately avoiding notifying the Christianity WikiProject so they can manipulate the discussion to their favor, we should instead assume that it was a mere oversight; they did notify what could reasonably be regarded as relevent WikiProjects, likely to include people with a wide range of viewpoints. There is no reason for admin involvement here anymore, since anyone can STILL notify the Christianity WikiProject with the same notice used at the other locations, and correct the oversight. Otherwise, there is nothing else to do here. --Jayron32 18:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this also; I seem to have neglected to address Eugene in my comment. Seems that this is resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, on the basis of the discussion here I've added the RfC notice in question to the article's remaining Wikiprojects. Thanks. Eugene (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Cult Task-force and User:B9 hummingbird hovering Breaking Basic Academic and Wiki Rules

The user edits mainly Tibetan Buddhist pages. He claims to have gone beyond the need for teachers in TB tradition. Something even elderly Tibetan great lamas who have been brought up in over half a century of full-time monastic education and practice would never dream of saying. This basically amounts in the tradition to declaring oneself a saint which is in fact never done. The user of course does not even understand Tibetan, colloquial or classic, never mind his understanding of the subject which would be equivalent to a young teenager in a monastery. The actual problem with regards to Wikipedia is that he creates wild specuation in the name of inclusivity! When editors ask him for academic refernces or any inter-textual citations, he dismisses such basic standards which any academic or Wiki admin would require. Secondly he removes the edits the protesting editors have done and engages in editing wars. Thirdly he claims he has certain rights on article pages he has started. Fourthly he justifies his unfounded innovative speculations without citation or reference, which he does not deny, by saying he is a tantric! When told all of of TB followers opposing him are also tantrics, he merely states that unlike the rest and even elderly Tibetan high lamas who still have regular teachers and tuition, such as the 75 year old Dalai Lama, he has gone beyond such needs!

We now have hundreds of thousands non Tibetans following TB worldwide. Only less than ten westerners have set themselves up as teacherless and lineageless novelties. Interestingly unlike the hundreds of valid western teachers and lamas within lineages as well as hundreds of academic Tibetologists, these few self appointed saints do not even speak or read any Tibetan dialect are still beginners interms of education even after decades! A few of these have setup organizations, cults, in the USA and Europe and some have presence on Wiki via members. But they are few in number and almost everyone of the hundreds of thousands of followers in Asia, Europe and Americas follows one of the lineages of the five Tibtan schools. Even if there is occasional disagreements amongst them they all acknowledge each other. So basically the picture is very satisfactory.

The actual problem with B9 hummingbird hovering is that he gets into editing wars, claims ownership of articles, dismisses others' valid academic requirements for references and citations and justifies his self acknowledged wild speculations in the name of inclusivity and as a superior rare tantric who has gone beyond the others who are asking for references which has also been the norm in Tibetan shedras and monasteries for over a thosand years when the rest of the world hardly insisted on it. So we need an unbiased admin judgment in the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zhitro). Also as he is extremely active in Wikipedia, Wikiversity and Wikisource we need to make a record of his behavior early on. So that he does not enforce his mere speculations with no background whatsoever inside articles. If the decision goes in his favor, it means his section entitled "Cross-cultural correlates and possible antecedents" which he also admits has assertions that have no refernce or background except his personal special tantric feelings, can be repeated across atciles within Wiki by anyone?

Finally apart from this lone editor, I think Wiki needs a special small admin section which co-operates with various cult watch-dog bodies, who deal with their victims daily, in order to combat their misuse of Wiki. The reason is that cults basically milk their victims financially and in terms of resources and logistics whch we simply can not match. And also are time-rich via members and can make their members have organized co-ordinated behind the scenes presence as you well know. Unlike big corporations, they do not fear such adverse pulicity by being uncovered since they indulge in worse actions and are used to much worse reputation than being accused of abusing Wiki.

The question of a special section on cult presence on Wiki really needs to be addressed as it already is too late. I'd suggest to recruit several new admins and relieve some more experienced admins of their usual duties to have time to setup such a special unit and task-force or at least a think-tank to start drawing up contingency plans and guidelines and strategies. I think this will be unavoidable and the sooner it is started the easier things will be as many lessons need to be learned early on which will take time. Thank you for you attention. Occasionaled (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

(1) Per the header for this page, new reports go on the bottom. I would have just moved it but after the 2nd or third edit conflict I gave up. If you erase this and paste it in again at the bottom successfully at some point feel free to recreate it without my comment here. (2) Per the header for this page, you are required to inform the editor that you are complaining about. Looking at your contributions, I don't see that you have. If it wasn't for (1) I would do (2) for you, but at this point I leave it up to you whether you really want to recreate this following the proper instructions. Syrthiss (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that the thread is at the bottom of the page, I've notified User:B9 hummingbird hovering. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:49, 27 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Hooray for persistence! Syrthiss (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• B9 hummingbird is a long-term problem editor. I had a conflict with him some time ago regarding his addition of original research and absurdly flowery language to articles, which seems to have continued right up to today. I think a WP:RFC/U is probably long overdue. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This reflects my experience with B9 as well.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Mine as well. Mitsube (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I remonstrated with this user regarding the titling of articles with additional Wylie transliteration. This user responded in a very strange way, and it took several other users to convince him/her that we should even be heard. Abductive (reasoning) 04:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

As to the original complaint above, I can't really see that we need a 'Cult taskforce' -- as to B9, the two problems (penchant for OR and purple-bordering-on-ultraviolet prose) could probably have at one time been handled with mentoring; the (in my opinion) more pernicious problem is B9's inability-cum-refusal to work in a collegial, collaborative manner [If you dare to disagree or edit one of 's/his' articles, you'll hear about it, believe me] and tendency to own articles (example: Talk:Seventeen_tantras). Also worrying is s/hir readiness to simply revert any edit without discussion if s/he finds it disagreeable. Compounding the problem is the fact that the subject area (Tibetan Buddhism) that s/he edits in is pretty rarefied and obscure so not many people are in a real position to challenge hir edits, even if they had the stomach to do so and gird their loins for the rain of flowers that would almost certainly follow. 65.46.253.42 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Syrthiss, it is my first time on this board and someone had kindly reposted it at the Bottom. As for informing B9 hummingbird hovering. I only registered as an editor less than a week ago as a result of reading his bullying tone to others who had asked for citations, which I stated in the article talk page. I also immediately informed him on his talk page of my comments in the article talk page. I did not even edit the article to remove his fantasy projections and self confessed baseless conjectures. After a few days of receiving his now apparently obvious usual treatment I removed his wild sentences. At every stage I posted my reasons and replies to him in the article page and on his talk page which has been ongoing for the last several days with regular input from him. Before I posted here he had removed all our discussions on his talk page. So there was no point and I was sure he was reading the article talk daily as he was writing there daily. Furthermore I had informed him previously that I would state a complaint in the admin board. All this is obvious from the article talk page which I linked above. Also as to why there are not many Tibetan experts here, which I am not one of, is due to the fact they are usually educated to let things be and unfold by themselves unless matters are getting really serious and harming people. That is why many merely read and smile. I'll copy and paste this section in my talk page so that future users have a reference buried somewhere regarding B9 hummingbird hovering if they come into contact with his odd behavior. Now onto the serious matter.

CULTS: There are cults and highly dubious organizations discretely present on Wiki that have members assigned individually or as organized groups with their own private forums to coordinate regarding their presence, editing wars and regular input on Wiki. This is a serious problem that will get worse and will not go away by merely being ignored. People like me can see their work but we simply do not have the time or the ability to take them on. Some experienced admins should discretely organize a private forum and form a cult think-tank. They can do some basic research and then contact cult watch-dog bodies, not necessarily as Wiki admins initially. Then they can draw up a white-paper with their recommendations and strategies and working solutions for organizing a special unit. This initial stage can be done discretely before being made public. I suggest that two types of experts be included on this initial think-tank. Firstly a few who have legal backgrounds or are preferably legal professionals. Secondly people with a background in helping abused victims as they need specialist care and attention and are prone to known psychological problems and can recognize the hallmarks of the cults' presence on Wiki. Thirdly there is a lot of professional help and expertise out there with regards to cults both in the active support groups and also academia who would only be too glad to help in any way they can.

I hope some see the inevitability of this undertaking and that the sooner it is started the better it will be for Wikipedia. Thanks for reading. Occasionaled (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. In my experience Anti-Cult groups are as detrimental to wikipedia as cultmembers in injecting POV and bias into articles about New Religious Movements. Most articles about New Religious Movements are fairly balanced and I don't know of any that are biased in favour of the movement. If anything the right solution is not not to insert more Anti-Cult (socalled Cult-watching groups) POV, but to enforce neutrality by using and applying sources by relevant scholars in the field of sociology of religion. ·Maunus·ƛ· 07:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mannus. Your message is addressing three parts. Firstly I have been reading the organized efforts of three western groups claiming to be new lineages in Tibetan Buddhism, self contradictory by definition, some of which have been on cult watch-dog bodies' lists and databases. I'm not naming them as there is no point in starting a long discussion here. I was informed last year by a former member of one of them who has setup a half-way house website on his site how they coordinate their efforts daily on Wikipedia in a private forum. It is going on and in great detail as many editors will know. This is just a few in the rather small area of TB not to mention other really large areas. We can only guesstimate what the overall extent is. They systematically patrol Wiki articles and remove links to websites by former members and edit out content they are ordered to. Also they inject their own propaganda patiently over time by wearing down individuals with their organized resources. Many can testify to such organized behavior.

Secondly it is not just about new religions or new beliefs as you state. It can involve groups who are pushing certain services and products in organizations which are pseudo families. Cult study is an academic area and is not related to content as such or a genre of beliefs. Rather it is a mode of organizational behavior which cuts off individuals from family and society by well known tactics and cocoons them inside the organization. There are many experts who teach and research the area in universities and also help groups. We can not dismiss this well established academic area f research by a few sentences of generalizations. Thirdly I did not advocate what the final cult task-force should do or even the initial think-tank should recommend in terms of guidelines. What you opposed were your own ideas.

I merely suggested what I thought would be helpful and is long overdue. The cult related problems will get worse if they continue to be ignored. In the meantime habitual tendencies in cults to covertly manipulate Wiki in an organized manner will only grow and it will be more difficult later if things continue as they are. This whole area needs to be researched by a select group of Wiki admins in private initially. Thank you. Occasionaled (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Occasionaled. The probvlem of POV pushing is not limited to "cult"s and there are well established procedures for dealing with it. I intentionally do not use the word "cult" because it is nothing but a pejorative description of New Religious Movements which shows that the person using the term is sympathetic to the Anti Cult movement and antipathetic to the groups themselves. There is no academic field of "Cult studies" as you sugggest - that academic field is Sociology of Religion and specifically the field of NRM studies. What you call "cult studies" is in fact the Anti Cult movement which is an interest organisation lobbying against certain religous or ideological groupings that they identify as "cults" usually supported by ex-members and family members of group members. What I am saying is that wikipedia should neither adopt a viewpoint in favour of any religious or ideological groups, but also not the viewpoint against them. Both vuiews should be presented fairly by using objective sources written by academic researchers of the groups - not by either "watch-dogs" or "members". Yopu should of course do what you can to keep NRM related pages objective and neutral - possibly supplying the anti-cult viewpoint when it is missing. I consider myself an admin working towards the same goal having worked towards improving and neutralizing pages about controversial groups such as Jehovah's Witnessdes, Falun Gong, Mormons and several others. This can all be handled within the normal editing guidelines of wikipedia (all though it is often difficult as is editing in any controversial topic) and does not need a particular taskforce or policy changes.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mannus. Thanks for your post. As I said I did not advocate what should be done by anyone or group here with regards to disciplinary action or modifying Wiki content. So much of your points is not what I advocated as you claim. You also dismiss any need for looking into this area. Secondly you limit cults to NRMs and ignore my point on this point in my previous post. Thirdly you also limit the opposition to the Anti-Cult movement when in fact it goes well beyond that. This caricaturization is often used by cults and has been exposed for decades now. Opposition to cults goes beyond activists and includes medical experts as well as researchers and legislatures and journalists and intellectuals and more. Fourthly you dismiss any Cult related research is taking place in academia and limit it to a few sociological studies. In fact they are researched in Psychology departments widely. You can read some papers here: http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_topic_collections/tpcol_research.asp. Fifthly you do not answer points on widespread coordinated cult manipulation of Wiki which I am sure many would testify to. I encourage those readers who have encountered this large growing problem to be informed of this discussion here. Just because you do not want to see it does not mean it is not there. The pattern that emerges from the above points is that you tend to simplify situations and issues into binary camps and then reduce them as much as possible further. This Manichean method is an old style early structuralist approach which has very limited use and blinkers one's worldview.

You also do not address points regarding the time-rich, resource and member rich and covert organized way these groups act here and how against these Goliaths an individual has no chance given enough time. They also justify any breaking of the rules. By ignoring these points and saying everything is as good as it gets and regulation abiding lone users are just fine you are showing a complete lack of empathy in not just action but by lack of understanding. Not all cults have organized covert presence here but some do and you are saying it is not happening and even if it is everything is fine. The groups should be identified and registered somewhere on Wiki and continually monitored until they stop. This is very basic logic. Opposing researching the issue by a think-tank by some admins and not doing anything yet by any task-force or other later body, is a very strange position that defies basic common sense in any organization under systematic attack by various groups. I would suggest some sort of quantifying how widespread these organized covert activities are is a necessary step. These organized activities, against the rules, also create extra work for admins and dealing with symptoms and illegal activities by individuals under order in the long run. As opposed to identifying the issues and patterns in a research group, as well as identifying the organizations targeting Wiki is ultimately much more effective and less exhaustive. The lessons learned will be very useful in other areas too as it will become obvious. This process will be undertaken eventually and the sooner the better for all admins and Wiki. Thank you. Occasionaled (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I also like to clarify as I stated before that unlike commercial organizations (and most political regimes/groups) cults do not care if they are branded as manipulating Wiki by breaking it's rules. They simply do not care as they face much worse adverse publicity anyway. The other benefits of looking into the issue I referred to in my last paragraph above that would become obvious later, was meant implicitly to apply to other organized efforts against Wiki.

It is crucial to cults to maintain a false perfect image of themselves and a black and white worldview in the mind of their followers. I just had a practical idea with regards to Wiki which I like to share and Mannus and other dear users are free to attack and dissect as it might not be a good idea in the final analysis. OK here it is:

Problem: Systematic Removal of external links specially those exposing misdeeds by various groups and persons. By reading various talk pages and histories I can see how various groups in general and some cults in particular remove links exposing their activities and if confronted they merely wait for some months and delete it time and again.

Solution: Protected External Links. These 'protected semi-permanent links' can be on top of the list of external links identifiable in kind by a mini icon next to them. The procedures for nominating, electing/placement and possible later removal of such protected links can be decided in any way that is optimum to Wikipedia.

This method will be extremely helpful to trapped cult victims. I think forming the research think-tank on organized attacks by cults, possibly other groups, is unavoidable. I really do not have any more to say on the subjects I raised on this page . Thank you and goodbye to all. Occasionaled (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of wikipedia is not to provide easy access for "cult victims" to websites "exposing misdeeds" about the organizations they are members of (or to whitewash any controversial organizations). The purpose of wikipedia is to provide neutral and objective information about organizations which does not pass judgement on or provide soapboxes to any particular viewpoint - but describes all notable views about a topic. I agree that there should be a stricter policy for the inclusion of external links in controversial articles - but I think the policy should be to link neither to positive or negatively biased sites unless they are of exceptional notability. Rather external links should be to objective reliable sources of neutral information. I personally routinely remove substandard external links from many articles including articles about controversial organizations - and I remove both positively and negatively biased links if they do not meet the standards of our policies about external links.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mannus. Again you are misrepresenting my points and/by reducing the issues to basic oppositional binaries and very simple dialectics. However modern science has moved towards complexity, non-linearity and emergence. Also, I find various points in your response contradictory. However I agree as you sum up: "I agree that there should be a stricter policy for the inclusion of external links in controversial articles". Well said. Occasionaled (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not representing your opinion - I am representing my opinion. And my name is Maunus.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Maunus. I apologize about getting your name wrong. I never said you represented my ideas but misrepresented them as you can see in my first sentence above. I wonder how you can not see such basic things. You also like to reduce issues to basic sides, preferably good and evil, and have no qualms about pronouncing judgments and prejudgments such as the purpose of Wiki is this and not that by again misrepresenting the debate. But you do not stop there, you even go onto filter the two black and white sides of the debate by boiling them down further to suit yourself. For example if you said WWII was 'Italian Fascists fighting Russian Communists' it wouldn't be wrong but it is obviously misleading. It has been interesting. I wish you, B9Hummingbirdhovering and everyone all the best. I also apologize to user 65.46.253.42 who is quite right and everyone else as I should have split this section into two subjects originally. Occasionaled (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

My point is that I can not misrepresent your opinion when I am not even attempting to represent it. My comments reflect my own opinion. I wonder how you can not understand such basic comments. You however is misrepreseting my opinions and even claiming to know what I like and how I think. I am not booiling it down to two sides but to three - for, against and neutral. My statements about what the purposes of wikipedia is and isn't is not my judgment, but the statements of the basic policies that wikipedia work by and you would do well to read them and understand them before trying to establish taskforces to combat viewpoints that you dislike.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Maunus. I beg to differ. You claim to be neutral but you started to oppose the ideas I put forward. You also are quick in prejudging. My position was not to turn Wiki into a haven for cult victims as you misrepresented, you defend making it a haven for cults. My point was as stated that Wiki is systematically being attacked and abused. At first you said it is not happening and then that even so all is fine. I also pointed out many aspects and errors in your comments and arguments. Wiki's mission statement can not be reduced to the few choice words you decided upon either. I also explained a possible group to carry out any recommendations would be appropriate only after an initial research group. You misrepresent that too despite my pointing outs.

You oppose any research group into organized covert attacks and/or manipulation against Wiki. This is very strange and illogical. You merely repeat that I want a group to do certain things, false as I proved, and you do not answer what is wrong about the preliminary research think-tank idea. I now think you might have motives you do not want to share with the rest of us by diverting attention away from any research into systematic covert manipulation. Carried out by various groups, not just cults, where research into the problem will have benefits in other areas too. I did not say what I recommend either.

You are saying that Wiki as an evolving organism should allow various groups to continue to covertly attack and manipulate it against it's rules and that secondly everything is just fine and thirdly any research think-tank, not action orientated task-force yet, should be stopped at all costs. These positions are extremely strange. You are basically saying Wiki should not have any immunity mechanism whatsoever nor should be allowed to take any actions. But you go further and state Wiki should not even think about defending itself by researching the area. You divert the issue of research and think-tank by misrepresenting it as the later stage of task-force which might not be recommended by the research group anyway. I wonder why so many shifts from no threat to no need for action to diverting the idea of researching the threat. None of it adds up. I can only conclude you have other interests and/or ideas too.

As ever, best wishes. Occasionaled (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to make my self clearer then. Look, my problem with your suggestions is that in several aspects the problems are already handled by several existing processes or the venue of solution you propose is not in line with the fundamental principles, policies and philosophies of wikipedia. Below I will outline how some of your proposals seem to collide with policy:

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. This means that everyone is allowed to edit regardless of which groups they belong to - Nazis, Cultmembers, Lobbyists. The requirement is that they edit in line with our policies of neutrality and verifiability. We have many editors who are in favour of controversial viewpoints but who manages to edit within the guidelines - and when they do that they improve wikipedia by adding coverance about minority viewpoints. However, when editors with minority viewpoints do not manage to edit within policy we already have many venues for adressing those problems: depending on the nature of the problems they could be resolved through a dispute resolution process or simple processes of keeping single editors in line with policiy by threatening with and using blocks or bans. This is the reason that I don't believe POV pushing from cultmembers represents a problem bigger than or different from normal POV-pushing by any other kind of interest organization. Wikipedia is geared to handle that.
• Now, it may be that the area of NRM's and other controversial organizations is so small that few editors edit there and that certain viewpoints are overrepresented. This is again the case in several other subareas of wikipedia, but it is of coure a problem. The solution is of course that the editors who are aware of the problem group together and direct their attention to those pages and use the normal editing procedures to establish neutrality in those areas where there isn't any. This is all within standard wikipedia practice. It is easier to catch POV-pushers and work against them when more editors have pages watchlisted and a more likely to notice harmful changes to those pages. One way to achieve a higher level of awareness about certain pages would be to make a wikiproject dedicated to a certain topic. There is already a wikipeoject about New Religious Movements - editors interested in monitoring pages about NRM's or implementing a watching strategy of NRM related pages could join that project and work through there.
• The reason I am saying that I don't think it is correct that wikipedia as a community should take any specific action towads cult related POV pushing is then that 1. we cannot single out any particular group whose edits we work against. As long as editors work within our policies everyone's edits are welcome. 2. We already have welfunctioning and well established process for monitoring and countering POV pushing by ideologically based groups. This being said you are of course more than welcome to bringin up specific problems with editors or with articles on ANI or on any of the wikiproject pages dedicated to resolving that kind of problem. And you are completely within you right to convene a think tank with editors of your own choosing to work on any issue or problem that you perceive to be pertinent. Having just laid out my reasons why I don't think it is the wikipedia community that should do this but rather any group of interested editors, I would like to express my interest in joining such a group. I work with articles on NRM's in Mexico and elsewhere and I have noticed POV pushing both by apologists and detractors of these groups and I would be interested in collaborating on maintaining neutrality in these areas. Dixi.·Maunus·ƛ· 05:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Maunus. Your post is much clearer in style and I welcome that. On the content of your paragraphs:

• You basically say everything is fine as it is. I explained before I don't think so.

• I explained communal cocooning in cults is not limited to NRM's nor is their opposition limited to activists as it has been proven for a while. Secondly my main point is not merely about POV pushers. It is about organized covert manipulation of Wiki content. Two different topics which should not be misrepresented or limited to each other.

• 1. I did not propose any such actions on POV pushing. My main proposal is to initially set up a group to research the issues of organized covert manipulation which is different in nature and methodology to what you claim I am saying. I am not saying what should or should not be done specifically or even laying out the ontology of any later possible processes. 2. Everything is not just fine as you say again. Secondly my point is not about specific articles or editors as you misrepresent again. On your last points in that paragraph I'm glad you finally say that such a research think-tank is a good idea. It was I myself who originally proposed a select group of experienced admins, preferably but not limited to those with legal academic psychological and support background, to form such a research group. I also disagree when you say "wikipedia community" should be excluded. Furthermore I think Wiki management should be involved with the ongoing secret research of this group. On the final statements: what I proposed was different. It is not about merely POV pushing by various NRM individuals, but organized covert ongoing campaigns against Wiki content. The aim could be two fold. Initially researching how covert organized campaigns are mounted. Secondly on drawing up proposals on how to deal with them. These will be merely proposals as any think-tank can only make recommendations and by definition does not have any executive or even legislative powers. So I am talking about a whole different set of processes.

The subject can be cults in general which is a large problem but the results and the lessons learned will be immensely beneficial and possibly can be applied later to the larger area of covert organized manipulation by non-cults which is a much larger problem. Even if this research is not preferably initiated by Wiki community, it inevitably will be carried out by some academics in which case it won't be limited to cults as a sample case. Thank you. Occasionaled (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Two distinct issues

I think there are two issues being discussed here that are being conflated and therefore neither is being presented very clearly; the primary complaint was about the behavior of a particular user User:B9_hummingbird_hovering and a number of other editors have voiced similar difficulties; can we (someone) move forward with whatever the appropriate remedy is there (someone mentioned a User Request for Comment). The second, much broader issue about addressing cults at Wikipeida seems harder to tackle and I'm not sure how -- but regardless can that please be decoupled from what seems to be a more pressing (and longer-term) difficulty with this particular user? 65.46.253.42 (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

True. I think a RFCU is in order about B9Hummingbirdhovering.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Then we need to start with the process as outlined Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance which indicates the starting point is two editors must try to resolve the conflict with B9 on that user's talk page. 65.46.253.42 (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

flowery obscuration, love it. I answer I love language and have an exceptional lexicon and use language pointedly and with etymological intent. being linked with cults, wonderful and baseless. and my dear wikipedian-collegiates wonder why I rarely enter into conversation with such bland stupidity, all of them, those MOANING, have justly had their egos branded by the Hummingbird, this is true. as for not having a Teacher, that is not the intention of what I wrote and taken out of context. I have had innumerable teachers and still do, i have a root Guru in body, but that said my principal guru resides in my heartmind in secret aspect and I no longer need a teacher in the way that it was being presented to me is mandatory. It amazes me that a fervent, unaware, scaremongering bigot has the floor in an Administrator thread, frightening really that these people are my peers, well nonduality is peerless and I have no fear. there is no evidence that the said Hummingbird is a member of any cult. all of the ever-so-important ISSUES presented have already been resolved and i honoured the undertakings given. now the case for "Dharmic Traditions" is becoming clearer day by day. I am intrigued as to what the mentoring points are going to be. that said it was cavalier for me to revert Shitro but I did so as an Inclusionist. the three editors complaining have added no content to the article and no citations, in fact I am the only editor to add citations to the article and I created the article in question. the content should appropriately be branded POV and citations required and left at that. now to demonstrate my value to our project would one of you peers like to mention my number of edits as well as the number of distinct pages I have edited and note and estimate the number of citations I include and have included to Our encyclopedia. in respect of that these ever-so-important ISSUES on a very limited number of incidents comparatively are minor. there has been no check and balance in the presentation by my 'peers' and that is disreputable

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Dude, pass the bong already. Calling your fellow editors "scaremongering bigots" is bad karma. Skinwalker (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

if it is remembered the initial issue, what I wrote and what has happened as a result and the nature of the complaint, my assertion is founded, to assert that Xitro is not related to the class of spiritual activities related to progenitors/ancestors is false. btw Skinwalker thank u so much for illustrating bland stupidity so admirably and do u know which indigenous culture "skinwalker" comes from? B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"check and balance", unpacking that for the uninitiated: impartial, independent investigation of my historical contributions from two Administrators (who edit and add cited content to Wikipedia unlike Mitsube) with whom I have NOT had an editing history, heard of conflict of interest? rather than just reacting to impassioned, partial editors writing with agenda with whom I have had a protracted editing history B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think making colorfully worded Personal Attacks in the ANI thread dedicated to your behaviour is unlikely to make others see the beauty, truth and reason immanent in your viewpoints.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Now all can see clearly the heart of this problem. These are rather obscure topics to most of us, and B9's writing only makes it more difficult to comprehend. This is what I tried to tell him eighteen months ago to no avail. Wikipedia is supposed to be written for a general audience with no prior knowledge of the subject, and anyone reading B9's musings in various articles is only going to get confused instead of educated. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Nor were you the first to encounter, and comment on this phenomenon. 65.46.253.42 (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• (undent) Actually the discussion I linked is from several months before that, but the overall point that this is a long term issue and has been discussed several times is valid. B9 refuses to admit there is any problem with what he writes and the way he writes it, ignoring or ridiculing anyone who dares to suggest otherwise. A perfect example from his talk page last month, a user asked him to review a policy regarding page names and his reply "I just gave the policy a deep graze and I have contravened nothing in fact I intuited it." [153] Is it just me or is that just gibberish? I have tried to parse the sentence out and it doesn't seem to be saying anything logical. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not just you. In addition to B9's unique prose and attitude, he seems to be fond of citing articles that he himself wrote at wikisource. Here he cites this wikisource page, which he wrote. It seems to be his translation of a Tibetan tantra. This article has similarly circular citations, as does this one. IMO this violates WP:NOR. I strongly recommend a user RFC. Perhaps Wikiproject Buddhism has someone who speaks Tibetan and can sort out the sourcing problem. Skinwalker (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Moving on with this discussion, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/B9 hummingbird hovering is now live and awaiting certification. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Swamilive

Indeffed sockmaster Swamilive (talk · contribs) has contacted me by e-mail requesting an unblock. I've suggest that (s)he use the unblock template, but have had another e-mail back saying that they are finding that they cannot edit their talk page. Block settings show that they should be able to edit their talk page. Any suggestions on how best to deal with this? The blocking admin (SQL (talk · contribs)) is currently inactive. Mjroots (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Their talk page redirected to their user page, and the redirect was protected. I have unprotected/blanked the talk page. They should be able to request unblocking now. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 21:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Swamilive requested an unblock, which was turned down, with a request that Swamilive show that they are sincere by providing a substantial improvement of an article on their talk page. Swamilive has responded saying the they intend to do minor improvement rather than major improvement. As long as the editing is constructive I don't see a problem with it being minor improvements rather than major improvements.

I'd say that by approaching an admin with a request to be unblocked, Swamilive is showing that {s)he has learnt from the block (i.e. appears not to have created yet another sock) and therefore should be given a chance. Maybe some editing restrictions would be required, such as being restricted to the Swamilive account. If unblocked, it can always be made clear to Swamilive that any problematic editing would lead to the block being reimposed - i.e. a suspension of the application of the block rather than a lifting of the block. The declining admin mentioned in his rationale that the blocking admin needed to be convinced of Swamilive's editing would be beneficial to Wikipedia. As SQL is inactive, this should not be a factor to consider. Other admins are quite capable of making this decision, given SQL's absence. Mjroots (talk) 05:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Pinch me if I'm wrong, but (aside from a few specific special cases) aren't we all restricted to one account? caknuck _° needs to be running more often 06:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No, we aren't all restricted to one account, I've got two! however alternative accounts must conform to WP:Multiple Accounts. Mjroots (talk) 08:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm the admin who declined the request--I responded with the {{2nd chance}} template after looking at his history. He was blocked for egregious sockpuppetry in August 2008 (see SSI report). Additionally, Checkuser confirmed two massive sockfarms after he was blocked. As near as I could determine, that was the last we heard of him until now. With that history, I felt we needed to see evidence that he was indeed willing to be a constructive editor before unblocking. The part about the blocking admin was already in the template. Blueboy96 12:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'm one of the editors who have dealt with Swami's socks and IPs (in fact, my user page had to be protected because of him). He hadn't been very active with his socking mainly because range blocks had been placed on him throughout most of last year up through the beginning of this year (see range block log). Every time that the range block expired, he almost instantly came back. While the range block is now expired and he hasn't been extremely active AFAIK, he did come back in February (see this edit) and in late March (see history of A-frame). Since I'm extremely biased here, I won't get too involved, but I wanted to make sure that most of his activity was known. Thanks. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 02:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Here's another edit, from 10 April. —Mark Dominus (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Holy crap ... after seeing that, this user in my mind doesn't deserve a second chance. Full decline. Blueboy96 03:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboy96, AGF only goes so far. Looks like Swamilive still hasn't learnt yet. Mjroots (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ani medjool

There is no conceivable good faith way that an editor who ever wrote this clearly[154] or demonstated template proficiency (subst, paramters) [155], could now be writing as terribly as [156] and using templates as poorly as [157]. I'm not involved in IP issues at all. I don't even know which side this editor is. I do, however, know that either they have transfered their account, which is an indefable problem, or they are trolling, which is an indeffable problem. In either case, they are unwelcome on that account. Why are we putting up with this just because every editor who has noted it is tainted? Look - I'm not tainted, I'm not winning some content dispute with this - just take action. Hipocrite (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't feel any urgency at the moment, but the case is compelling.--Tznkai (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at the language a bit. His very first few contribs were relatively good English, then it deteriorated quickly but continuously – not a sudden switch as if the account had been taken over by a different person, rather like a single person making a decision to pretend to be a weak English speaker. However, some early edits show there is quite an expert mastery both of English idiom and of Wikipedia lingo (e.g. [158]: "the source says what it says", "no ifs and buts", "trying to censor the article"; [159] "reliable sources from world-wide mainstream media") – but all of that sugared over with deliberately distorted grammar. This has all the looks of a sockpuppet attempting to cover their tracks. Given that they also appear to be a constant source of tendentious editing, I'd favour an indef block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As an FYI: I blocked Ani medjool for outrageous personal attacks earlier today. He wrote that he couldn't respond to this complaint, so I offered to copy-and-paste any replies he posted on his Talk page. Instead, Ani medjool chose to retire. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

He has retired before. Habitual incivility and battling, potential trolling, the comments that led to his block, and referring to the removal of Malik Shabaz's block notice with "delete lies by [Israeli] lobby puppet"[160] means that an extended or even indefinite block should be imposed so that he does not again come out of retirement to disrupt the project.Cptnono (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It was amusing being called a puppet of the Israel lobby. I just wanted to explain why Ani medjool wasn't responding to this complaint. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As I've said a number of times before, I believe this is a strawpuppet account and I'm surprised they haven't been indeffed already. Strongly support such an action. The disruption is continuous and highly offensive and there are no good content contributions to point to at all. Tiamut^talk 20:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Ani medjool is no stranger to ANI. Methinks it's time he was indefinitely retired from editing. Mjroots (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone ahead and reset the block to indef. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Good, I was going to do the same after reading this. I've seen him being disruptive before, and clearly isn't going to reform. Fences&Windows 15:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I am being stalked and simultaneously ignored. This paradox is so appalling, but it is crushing me.

Resolved

 – IP blocked with talk page revoked after this unblock request [161]. –MuZemike 21:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hohenloh (talk · contribs)

A glimpse into the problem

I am being treated appallingly by this person, not only have they stalked me (Such as when they reverted some perfectly legitimate edits for no reason whatsoever, such as here, here, here, and here) but the said person has also refused to engage with me like an adult, has bitched about me behind my back, accused me of being incivil (Which I find hilarious since the said person has treated me as little better than you would a rabid dog) and furthermore, has went out of his way to make my experience on this website a living nightmare.

I hope you can help, as as you can see, I am running out of patience with the conduct of this user and don't know why he is treating me in such a foul way. 86.40.210.11 (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind my saying so, this will hardly help... You might wish to refactor your comment, since that appears to violate WP:NPA. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The dynamic IP might 'refactor' these personal attacks while at it.[162][163][164][165].[166] RashersTierney (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why, he treats me in a terrible way, why should I have to be so passively aggressive with him, in the manner in which you seem to advocate. I find that kind of misconduct to be galling in the extreme. 86.40.210.11 (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Salvio giuliano, your comment as highlighted above is very poor form. Also, the comment you left at Talk:The Nation (Irish newspaper) was very unhelpful, and although I would not have deleted it, I really don't know what you expected to achieve by making it. The first two edits you give as examples seem to be fairly reverted - the first being a removal of sourced info with no edit summary, and the second being an unsourced and potentially contentious change of nationality. Hohenloh should probably be conversing with you rather than ignoring you, but I don't really see an issue with his edits. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. This appears to be a content dispute. Hohenloh ought not to have ignored you, but I do not think that warrants either this thread or your reaction. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me re-state - I find your NPA policy to be an utter joke, it fosters a culture of passive aggression, allows policy wonks to manipulate the rules of human courtesy, and defies all common sense. It is a religious mantra devoid of reason, and I REFUSE to abide by it. I don't understand why 90% of wikipedians engage in pedantic policy debates, when they ignore the substantive issues behind article creation and maintenance. Denis Diderot must be rolling in his grave! 86.40.210.11 (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If you refuse to abide by our policies I fear there'll be very little we can do... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I think it's accurate to say that if you refuse to abide by it, your Wikipedia career will be short. Wikipedia is what it is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

86.40.210.11 (talk · contribs): I suggest using article talk pages to discuss controversial article changes versus your current approach of attacking experienced editors. The latter will only result in your being blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh this is just great. The conspiracy unravels before my eyes. How conceited. I challenge an 'experienced' editor on his general courtesy, you scream about the rules - rules that he is clearly flaunting by the way - and then make me into the bad guy. I never expected to be treated in such a way, I've a PHD in modern Irish history you know, I actually know what I'm talking about and some of the obstruction 've met by online bullies is not unalike the schoolyard tactics employed by real life bullies. I deserve and demand a fair hearing, all of you are ganging up on me, please leave. 86.40.210.11 (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want the deference due to your degree, you'll want to go somewhere else.--Tznkai (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't expect deference, but that is the gulf in class between me and some users here. They interfere on issues they don't understand, then have the cheek to revert me. ME! I'd drink most of them under the table with my knowledge of 19th century Irish history. 86.40.210.11 (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Reliable, verifiable, third party knowledge? Or your own unverified research and stuff you learnt at school? Have a guess which is admissible on Wikipedia, and avoid binge drinking. SGGH ^ping! 20:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Were are you getting this mumbo jumbo? Everything I've changed, I've changed for the better. I merely reflect generations of historical scholarship, something your policy cannot defeat by absurd pedantrys. Try harder, your spirited defence of this creature of the system might impress you ravenous buddies, who hide behind their 'dear policy', but who refuse to logically and reasonably discuss this issue with the merit and intelligence and compassion it deserves. You have all treated me intolerably here, and ganged up on me for some kind of deviant reasons, I know not why. 86.40.210.11 (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well if you don't take the time to understand why the policy exists then Wikipedia is not for you. It is not built on what we say we know, but what we can verify and cite. If you can't reconcile with that, then perhaps you might want to publish your own knowledge in another medium, whereby it would become verifiable and Wikipedia might use it (so long as other third party peers conclude that it is a good source). Ranting about it on the ANI board isn't going to be very productive. SGGH ^ping! 20:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to stay, here are some policies you will want to read up on.:

• WP:OR
• WP:CITE
• WP:RS
• WP:NOT.

If not, well there you go. If you want to publish your own knowledge, I'm afraid that isn't what Wikipedia is really about. I suggest you write a book. SGGH ^ping! 20:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Where are you getting the idea that 'I want to publish my own knowledge'? I'm merely correcting some very grievously incorrect statements on this website. They are common knowledge, and exist in practically every narrative history of the period. I have edited nothing controversial, and if you took the time to listen to me, instead of judging me, you'd see that Hohlenhoh has very deliberately been stalking me, overturning perfectly fair edits for his own personal amusement. There is a clear and consistent case for harrasment to be made here.

As for your policies - I despise your policies. They were invented by internet lawyers so they could squash intellectualism and dissent and replace it with hideous pedantries and legal subtleties, which only allows extremists and bigots to stretch the regulations in order to dominate articles and insert their own minority viewpoints. My God, the contempt I hold for this website at this very moment is overwhelming. 86.40.210.11 (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. --Smashville^talk 20:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours.--Tznkai (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is so contemptuous, you presumably won't be rushing back after your block. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

After seeing this, am I the only one having the feeling that our collective leg is being pulled? Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and all in time for May Day. In other news, our esteemed binge-drinking Ph.D is operating across 86.40.192.0/19, but collateral damage is a bit high to rangeblock even anon-only. –MuZemike 21:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"I'll write a novel about you that will shame you all..." It sounds like he's already got a good start, from the flowery prose he uses here and elsewhere. I'm thinking a catchy title could be The Pickwiki Papers. Or if that's not catchy enough, how about My Wiki, Wiki Ways or Tropic of Wikicorn. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Wiki-Tavi? Conan the Wikipedian? Edit War and Peace? --Jayron32 23:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Abusive Admin. The 3RR Musketeers. "Citation Needful Things"--Smashville^talk 00:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A Tale of Two Cites? WinBeth? The Red Socks? The Sockpuppet Master? ANI-stasia..? - BilCat (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats from User:Poeticbent

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

Resolved

 – This is not a situation for WP:NLT. It is time to apply WP:DENY. Jehochman ^Talk 09:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: this edit.

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination), User:Poeticbent made the following legal threat in reference to a blog post (removed link):

"Which one of you did this (I removed a link to a blog post that accusses him of very grave criminal charges), you sick little bastard. I'm going to the police and I promise you, Crime Stoppers and the courts will find out who you are. It's just a matter of time, but you're going to pay for your dreadful lies, like all Internet criminals blinded by hate."

Since Wikipedia has a policy relating to legal threats, I felt this should be discussed here. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 23:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, do not go and block him under WP:NLT. He is not making any legal threat against wikipedia editors but against the author of one off-wiki blog, who could or could not be a wikipedia editor. He just discovered that someone made an incredibly difamatory blog on him, so it's normal that he is very pissed off. Let's not use WP:NLT as a big blunt hammer where it's neither needed nor intended to be applied.

At most remove his comment. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

And don't link directly to the blog post, you are only giving free publicity to that guy. The link is in the diff is you want it. (sorry if I'm being pushy, but that sort of stuff thrives in getting free publicity) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Given that it relates to something that happened offsite (and it appears to be a definite case of dirty tricks), I don't see that WP:NLT really applies here. There's not even anything that really solidly links that posting to what's currently going on at AFD.

And, I have to admit, if someone accused me of that I'd be pretty angry as well. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I definitely understand the anger! I'm also confused by the timeline here. The posting says April 9th, but the AfD started on the 26th. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 23:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. If necessary, also delete my edits which link to the blog. The blog looks "fake" to me, i.e., setup to anger Tylman. Since the claims are false, there should not be any links to it, or its claims. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 23:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm familiar with Wikipedia policies. My note was meant to inform the individual who produced that hateful page in blogspot.com about my real life intentions. I made a copy of that page and will take it to the police Monday morning. Meanwhile, the AfD seemed like the most appropriate place to share this information with the criminal who could NOT have originated anywhere else but there. My note was meant to reach only him. I'm sorry but there's no other way, at least not to my knowledge. I just found out about this today, although the lies were posted on April 9, 2010, I wouldn't even want to guess how these things are connected. -- Poeticbent talk 00:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Since User:Poeticbent seems to have confirmed he is going to the police (police lead to lawyers), why don't we just WP:RBI User:Poeticbent and move on? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • That's not helpful. NLT is meant to protect productive editors, not off-site trolls that may have come SPAing onto Wikipedia. See comments made above.--Chaser (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • NH, and how would that be productive? He never targeting a member of WP. –Turian (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Because it's a course of action that would only make sense if you forgot your common sense at home........ --Enric Naval (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• OK, let someone make veiled legal threats and leave them out in the open. Don't bother me none :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• He "has made no legal threat. He has not stated any intention to sue Wikipedia or any Wikipedian. He has not indicated any person legal dispute with Wikipedia." Quoted from penultimate post about another case discussed here. Ty 00:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• "And on that bombshell", I'm closing this since there is no proven need for Admin intervention. Rodhullandemu 01:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is by no means resolved. Nobody raised the blog on wiki but Poeticbent himself [167]. Using the wiki as an intimidation and/or revenge platform for off-wiki issues is by no means appropriate. If someone writes something defamatory off-wiki, and he storms in here writing "Which one of you did this, you sick little bastard", implying that surely the participants in the AfD on his biography are out to get him, that's by no means directed at improving this encyclopedia. It's simply using it as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Poison the well and all that. Pcap ping 07:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. I don't care if he overreacts a bit. Poeticbent is clearly the victim here, of an extremely nasty and persistent dirt campaign. He deserves the full solidarity and support of all Wikipedia editors as far as this problem is concerned. Exacerbating the issue by calling for sanctions against him is highly inappropriate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ditto about support for Poeticbent. I don't know anything about any dirt campaign, as I haven't read through Poeticbents' history, nor have I been following the Tylman article discussions. But I did just look up the blog page that Poeticbent linked, in his fury. In my opinion the blog page is libellous. One cannot rule out that a WP squabble has spilled out into a dirty tricks campaign in the blogosphere, and therefore WP cannot just pretend it has nothing to do with it. My opinion is that Poeticbent gets our full support, along with a warning that his legitimate grievance should have been taken up through proper WP channels rather than with this outburst of rage. Then, WP should contact law enforcement authorities and explain the situation. That said, I expect such a nasty trick as this was sent anonymously from an internet cafe and we may never find the perpetrator. Still, the blog site that hosted the information may be liable. In any case, WP legal team need to jump on this immediately and fully investigate it. I think we all deserve a statement from them. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Chumchum7 - Yes, the blog was outrageous, but it had nothing to do with WP as far as anyone can tell. My sympathy goes to Poeticbent but what is there for the WP legal team to investigate? What can they tell us in a statement, that it's unfortunate that somebody is publishing bad stuff on the internet that WP has no control over? Poeticbent should contact law enforcement and law enforcement can contact WP if it sees fit. It makes no sense for WP to initiate the contact unless we think we have some relevant info which we don't (AFAIK). And per Enric Naval, the last thing we want to do is give the attacker more publicity. The attacker is obviously some fuckhead who lives for drama and would just relish the attention. Note: we have no idea when that blog post actually went online. The dates in it are likely to be faked, so "April 9" is meaningless. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally I feel there are reasonable grounds for suspicion that there might be a connection between WP and the blog. All I'm asking is for the WP legal team to give us some guidance. Secondly, WP has an interest in deterring editors from escalating conflict in the blogosphere. Metaphorically, this is like a bar-room brawl - and somebody just got injured outside the bar. Are we, the bar staff, going to say its none of our business? If we care about the reputation of our project, and if we want to stop the possibility of this happening, we should get involved. But I would defer to our best legal adviser, or the highest authorities in our project. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree there is grounds for suspicion; I just don't see that WP (as an institution) is in a position to do anything at the moment, and we (us uninvolved users) are in even less of a position. If Poeticbent wants the WP lawyer's thoughts, he should call the office on the phone in private (actually that does seem like a good idea). It's certainly not for any of us onlookers to request something like that on our own. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have been contacted off-wiki with some critical evidence. It looks like Wikipedia might already be in possession of pertinent data about the perpetrator. The only question is whether such info (accessible to our administration) can be made available to others within policy guidelines, or, if its release would require intervention of law enforcement authorities and WP legal team since it concerns criminal acts committed outside this portal. I need to ask ArbCom about how to confirm the accuracy of tips I received today from the blogosphere. -- Poeticbent talk 19:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MaxxFordham (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – User given final warning by FisherQueen Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

User didn't get his way on Mitt Romney with regards to his views on educating people that the U.S. isn't the only country in the Americas, got away with edit-warring (maybe other editors were too kind) and is now continuing his campaign on United States. Somebody say something. user notified Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

208.186.134.103‎ (talk · contribs) just vandalized this post. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Seb az86556 (talk · contribs)

Resolved: No actionable complaints brought, no administrator intervention needed

User seems to think that she/he is some sort of "authority figure" here, as errantly suggested in [168] and HERE, when there's no apparent proof of that belief. Got away with trying to give some sort of false impression that she/he has more authority on how things are worded here than others have, enough to even create a false, nuissance report here. Somebody try to put a stop to this person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seb_az86556 user notified] MaxxFordham (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who knows the policies can enforce the policies ... it isnt just limited to administrators. If it were, their job would be a lot harder. I have no opinion on this particular content dispute, because I don't know what the full extent of the naming policy with regards to "US" vs "America" is, and have seen both terms in use on different articles, but from what I can see, a content dispute is all that this is, not really a case of misbehavior on anyone's part. —Soap— 10:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, Soap, I've seen those, too. I don't see why Seb az and the others think this is such a big deal. MaxxFordham (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Keep edit warring, but please read WP:3RR, so you know what the rules are. As I stated in the post about you above which you never bothered to comment on, you gt away with it once, but I'm guessing that won't last forever... (Oh, and before you continue, please get decided on whether you would like to use your IP or your account, otherwise you could find yourself at WP:SPI. Thank you.) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, seb, I didn't "get away" with what you think I got away with. All that stuff was already ignorantly reverted, and is still as it was when it was reverted.

And I DID bother to comment on your stupid post here, which comments were my post about you here. And don't accuse me of using my IP sometimes and my user name sometimes. You don't know whose user name goes with whose IPs. I have friends supporting me here, and if their IPs show up, then that's because they don't have user names.

MaxxFordham (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, dude. Keep it up. it's getting better every time. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay, yeah, whatever, haw, haw... You think you're so great, haw... haww... Look, you don't even know enough about referrals and links, etc. to quote MY edits! You put someone else's jumbo edit to this page as a link in your last comment, as if it were my edit to this page. If that's not a loser thing to do, then I don't know what is. Try forming your links right before posting them. IF THAT big edit came up with my name, then it's because of an edit conflict that I may have accidentally saved. I don't know what that big edit that came after ours is about.

Stop trying to be mr. big-shot power-user. It looks so terribly lame. MaxxFordham (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

OH! YEAH, seb, I see where some of the user-name-vs.-IP confusion came from now! I DID obviously create this section with your name (right here, with your name as the heading). What happened is that I closed the browser and then later opened it back up and then forgot to log back into here make this. Yes, that WAS me who made that, which is of course why I referred to myself having responded to you just above this. Simple mistake of forgetting to log in.

MaxxFordham (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

User:MaxxFordham, your desired change reads like a statement of opinion. I can fully understand why others are removing it. Comments like "mr. big-shot power-user," "terribly lame," and "stupid" are in violation of the rules against personal attacks. If you want the lede to reflect this point, the only way to make that happen is by finding a simple, neutral wording for it, and getting consensus on the talk page for it. You're never going to accomplish that if you're insulting other users, since your desired information won't be in the article unless other users are persuaded to agree with you. As I was just saying to my seventh grade students when teaching them about persuasive writing, "if you insult your readers, they aren't likely to agree with you." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not this "seb" that I'm trying to get to agree with me on the wording. I was simply questioning his/her ill attempt to try to gain some kind of artificial power by acting like some sort of "authority." MaxxFordham (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The link you provided doesn't show Seb claiming any authority he does not have. All Wikipedia editors who know the rules have the authority to enforce them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

MaxxFordham, stop shooting yourself in your foot. Your complaints about Seb's supposed power trip don't need any attention from admins, but I and others might take an interest in your edit warring. Fences&Windows 14:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

On the content dispute, placing a comment on the accuracy of the term "America" for the US in that manner is undue weight to the extreme, to wage what appears to be a crusade of some sort to change "American" to "US-American" is ludicrous. On the user's conduct, I find his edit summaries to be slightly antagonistic but not overly offensive - I haven't checked his contributions yet. It's obvious to me that his changes are nonsensical and should be considered vandalism in my opinion. SGGH ^ping! 19:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

access to delete logs

Is it possible for non-admins to request access to Special:DeletedContributions? It would be nice to have access to this information while patrolling new pages especially when researching a username before reporting a user for username violations or vandalism. It would also be nice to see the deletion log for an article to see if it has been the subject of an AFD previously as few articles include this information on their talk pages.--RadioFan (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This belongs at WP:VPR not here, but for the record its not going to happen, the foundation's legal counsel has vetoed it--Jac16888^Talk 12:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

See [169]--Jac16888^Talk 12:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thats unfortunate, it would be useful information new page patrollers that could be used to make better decision but I get the lawyers getting involved with this as well.--RadioFan (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you go to the page where you would expect the article to be, you should see the deletion log. For example, click Siberian language. You should see the logs of the eight times that the article has been deleted. Of course that's not the same as seeing the deleted revisions themselves, but you can get useful information just from the logs, such as whether it was deleted through AfD or CSD or something else. Also I hope you're not discouraged from ever running RfA in the future just because you have one failed run. Sometimes our best administrators start out that way. —Soap— 13:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder of that. It's a bit cumbersome to get to but it does provide the information that is needed to make better decisions. If it's been AFD'd before, the AFD mentions some of the same problems that thecurrent article has, a G4 is likely in order and it doesn't sound like admins have any better information available to them (such as the text of the original article) than you average editor. Also, thanks for the kind words. I learned a lot from that RfA process but more troubling was what I wasn't able to learn. A number administrators simply refused to respond to any questions beyond "if you dont understand now you'll never understand", but there are good admins and bad ones just like anything else. All that aside, I wouldn't turn down a nomination in the future but and am enjoying contributing by identifying the kruft for you folks to weed out. --RadioFan (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin votestacking and stealth canvassing

Resolved

 – it's nice when things work out like this --Jayron32 18:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The Christ myth theory has proven to be a very contentious article with many editors being dinged for edit warring and other policy violation. I recently tried to bring the matter before the ArbCom but it was declined as a content dispute. In the midst of that request, though, I asked if it would be appropriate to request additional "eyes on the page" at the Jesus Work Group, a Wikiproject associated with the article. An editor on the "other side" of the dispute, SlimVirgin, requested that I not do this [170] as she felt it would be a form of inappropriate canvassing. I obliged her. But I've recently learned that she herself has not abided by this request.

SlimVirgin initiated a RfC pertaining to the lead of the Christ myth theory article about whether to include a certain quotation [171]. She indicated that she had cross posted the request at both the Wikiprojects History and Religion. But that wasn't the whole truth. She declined to mention that she had also posted the request at Wikiproject Atheism [172]. What makes this so striking is that, at the time she posted her request, the article wasn't even a part of Wikiproject atheism. And while the article was a part of Wikiproject Christianity, she didn't bother to file the request there as well. Well, apparently realizing the difficultly, SlimVirgin quickly added the Wikiproject Atheism tag to the article after the fact [173], but even then she didn't bother to mention on the article's own talk page that she had appealed to that project.

Given that SlimVirgin posted her RfC to Wikiproject Atheism but not Wikiproject Christianity, this seems like a pretty clear-cut case of attempted vote stacking. And given that she never informed the article's editors that she had posted the RfC on that project, it further seems like a subtle case of stealth canvasssing. I've informed SlimVirgin of this incident report [174]. Eugene (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I posted this RfC on April 18 about the lead of Christ myth theory (the theory that Jesus may not have existed as an historical figure) in a number of places in an effort to attract fresh eyes: Village pump, Wikiproject Religion, Wikiproject Atheism, and Wikiproject Philosophy. That covered the bases: the pump for everyone, then the three wikiprojects for people interested in religion, people interested in opposing religion, and people interested in the philosophy of religion, because the RfC was about whether to add a philosopher of religion to the lead as a source.

It might be worth adding that I posted a request to Eugene five hours ago as part of dispute resolution to tone down his aggressive reactions to other editors. This report appears to be his (entirely non-aggressive) response. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. I was going to submit the AN/I request ever since NMJauthor informed me about the votestacking last evening. But when that came through I was already on my way out the door so I didn't get a chance to respond until this morning. I'm entirely willing to adopt a "less aggressive approach", but we need to all play by the same rules. You seem to disagree about that last point. Eugene (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, your explanation about each of the projects History, Philosophy, Religion and Atheism seems fine, and I can see your logic, but I can also see how avoiding the Christianity WikiProject in this case might cause some friction. If an article falls under a WikiProject of a particular religion, perhaps it would be easy to avoid this sort of situation (in the future) by placing a notice at that WikiProject's noticeboard also? In this case, I don't think there would be a problem in resolving the concern if a notice is placed at the Christianity WikiProject. I think that makes sense, but you might disagree, and of course, if I'm missing something, please let me know! Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Hanlon's razor can reliably be invoked here. Rather than assume that SlimVirgin is deliberately avoiding notifying the Christianity WikiProject so they can manipulate the discussion to their favor, we should instead assume that it was a mere oversight; they did notify what could reasonably be regarded as relevent WikiProjects, likely to include people with a wide range of viewpoints. There is no reason for admin involvement here anymore, since anyone can STILL notify the Christianity WikiProject with the same notice used at the other locations, and correct the oversight. Otherwise, there is nothing else to do here. --Jayron32 18:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this also; I seem to have neglected to address Eugene in my comment. Seems that this is resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, on the basis of the discussion here I've added the RfC notice in question to the article's remaining Wikiprojects. Thanks. Eugene (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Hurysz

Additional eyes needed at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Hurysz. I am growing weary of playing IP-Whack-a-mole with this guy. Perhaps someone could semiprotect it or something if they think that would be approrpiate. I am becomeing less objective on the need for that right now, as this guy is getting on my last nerve, so someone new should probably assess the situation. Still, the AFD could benefit from some watching given the problems, regardless of whether or not it is semiprotected.--Jayron32 18:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

We could separate the commentary by placing all of it on the AFD's talk page (which is becoming more and more the option for AFD disruption/SPA-flooding like this), or alternatively we can start over with a new deletion discussion. I don't know about semi-protection quite yet; both (yes, only two) two of the IPs have now been blocked. –MuZemike 18:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean three IPs have been blocked... I have blocked all three for clearly being the same person. --Jayron32 18:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest just ignoring this until closure and then letting the closing admin sort out which IPs are regular contributors and whether any of them are the same person. I'll be glad to close it when the time comes.--Chaser (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Orchestrated attack on Levi Leipheimer

See http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=6813&page=10. There appears to be an orchestrated attack against Levi Leipheimer, using as sources a blog, and a dead Internet Archive link. One of the forum participants is suggesting that the information be added to the article, and he'll try to get it reported at a reliable source so that the reliable source can then be used as proof. See his comment at Just keep reverting it, then apply for page protection, and in the meanwhile someone email me a scan of a hard copy of the sanction announcement and I'll get it on a non-blog site that can be cited as a legit reference. Woogee (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The Archive link is working now, it seems to be intermittent. But it's still a dodgy reliable source. Woogee (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless or until there's absolutely reliable sourcing, I've removed the "see also" links to List of doping cases in cycling and List of sportspeople sanctioned for doping offences. jæs (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted and protected the article to the pre-BLP violations. WP:BLP is a non-negotiable policy, and the spotty nature of the refs is unacceptable in light of such allegations. The minute something in a truly reliable source (well respected newspaper/magazine/journal) is cited, the article may be unprotected. --Jayron32 03:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

List of doping cases in cycling reverted and protected for the same reason. Acroterion _(talk) 03:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If the cite is from Velo News, that is a good bicycling magazine (velonews.com) and can be cited by page number unless someone thinks it's being misrepresented. RS's don't have to be on the internet. However, whoever said "time for an edit war" needs a warning if they are editing here. Tendentious editing an off-wiki orchestration are also problematic, and may call for intervention. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The cites were to a blog and an archive from winningmag.com that was not entirely available at archive.com. I would expect to see more than one source, either in print or on the web, for this kind of issue. The off-wiki canvassing to manufacture a source was of greater concern. Acroterion _(talk) 12:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

More information on that forum. One of the participants says, I placed a coke boogar in Levi's nose in the second picture on his wiki page.. The second image doesn't seem to have been edited for two years. Does anybody understand what this person is saying? Woogee (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I checked that too: it just appears to be somebody mouthing off on a forum. Some eyes on the subject are needed, as protection comes off in a few hours. Acroterion _(talk) 01:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A few hours and 29 days. I protected it for a month pending resolution of objection over sources. Given the freshness of this, I thought it wise to encourage use of the talk page... --Jayron32 01:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes: May 30, not April 30. Acroterion _(talk) 01:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what will come of it, given that these new editors to Wikipedia believe we are all objecting because Levi Leipheimer is our hero, despite several pleas for them to review WP:BLP. Their current stated course of action is that one of the new editors is also a journalist, and he plans to write an article and have it published in a reputable source so that there will then be a reliable source. The tail is officially now wagging the dog? jæs (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That's happened plenty of times before. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Piano non troppo and personal attacks and judgments

Originally, this started at the Angelina Jolie article, where this editor removed content regarding Jolie's appearances on various People lists and mentions. An informal request for comments was opened there with all editors speaking in favor of including this coverage and only Piano non troppo speaking against it. Tonight, Piano non troppo then tried to remove the same mention on the Anne Hathaway with no specific rationale given for its removal and another passage that discussed issues in Hathaway's personal life. My revert based on those being validly sourced mentions brought this post to my talk page, which in part attacked my post regarding my health, by saying "Frankly, I find it dishonest of you to claim on your talk page that you are "retired" and "suffering from health issues", while at the same time making controversial edits, and being heavily involved in talk page discussions." The edit summaries referred to my "dishonest editing process" by attacking my health as being dishonest. I responded by telling him first, that my health status is absolutely none of his business and posting that at times my health might prevent me from responding was a reason for me not to edit and that my talk page regarding retirement was from crime related articles. His response with the edit summary of "Calling on you to stop editing" was "I suggest you stop editing until you have resolved your health issues. It is dishonest of you to state on your talk page that you are compromised, while at the same time making controversial edits." My response once again stated that my health was absolutely none of his business, but to clarify told him that the health issues cannot be resolved and that it probably would eventually kill me and went on to explain without gross details that the issues revolved around vision issues. I also reiterated that comments from other editors on the Jolie talk page did not support his position and then warned that if he did not stop personally attacking me that I would file a report here. I then removed his post to my talk page, saying I didn't want his post on my talk page. His response was "Back off. When you revert my edit, give no explanation for that, state on your talk page that you are sick, ("This user is currently experiencing health issues that may affect his or her ability to work on Wikipedia"), then delete my message to you with the explanation "no, I don't want that left here" you are acting dishonestly. Being sick does not excuse bad behavior. Don't confound your bad behavior with a content dispute." In fact, I left clear reasons for reverting him, including that he was removing validly sourced content and noted that the Jolie talk page supported mention of the People lists, so that is a lie, and removing a personal attack from my talk page was "dishonest", whatever that means, nor was I engaging in bad behavior in return article content that was properly source. Mostly, I want this editor to stop making personal attacks and mind his own business regarding my health status, stop passing his judgment on my ability to edit Wikipedia because I have health issues (how petty is that?) and also to stop removing valid article content when a discussion on the Jolie talk page supported the inclusion. This is untenable behavior on Piano non troppo's part that I will not tolerate. My belief is that WP:NPA prohibits such commentary and attacks. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Those People lists are valueless celebrity twaddle though. I also support the removal of the content. Off2riorob (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Except you are missing the important issue here, which is PNT's attacks on my health issues and ability to edit. I'm not sure what he thinks is dishonest, that I clearly posted that I have health issues or my ability to think and follow WP guidelines regarding properly sourcing article content. Besides, the People content is properly sourced and included on myriad articles and has been supported. My issue I'm bringing here are the personal attacks and aspersions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of things going on, here. First, I only happened across the article Anne Hathaway (actress) because I had just watched a movie where I was impressed with her performance. The Wiki article seemed overly promotional, and I did a standard edit. This was no part of a systematic plan. Second, I wasn't impressed that 30 minutes after my edit, Wildhartlivie reverted parts they didn't like. This seemed to me like stalking. I wrote a message to Wildhartlivie, then on reflection, reviewing their personal page and edits, decided to retract my message -- because of their track record. However Wildhartlivie chose to respond anyhow, while deleting my message from their page. At this point I began to feel I was being manipulated. Third, for a editor to publicly state they are ill in a way "that may affect his or her ability to work, then continue editing as before seemed to me to be dishonest, and I said as much. Fourth, Wildhartlivie is a party to a complicated discussion which I started to distinguish between a reliable source and the encyclopedic nature of material within that source. Apparently, in their view, anything written by a source such as "People Magazine" is encyclopedic. I dispute this, and the discussion is in the initial phase — although Wildhartlivie seems to feel that a few comments from him and friends have somehow answered this. So there are a combination of factors here. In addition, I don't appreciate being stalked, or being told issues are resolved that are not, having my messages deleted, rather than answered, of having an editor imply that they are sick, and therefore should not be confronted. Finally, I do not lie, it is against my principles. Like anyone, I can be mistaken, or misunderstood, or hit the ENTER key without due consideration. Piano non troppo (talk) 11:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh horse hockey and yet another bad faith claim on the part of this editor. This is not complicated. Piano non troppo repeatedly posted personal attacks regarding my health. First of all, I responded to his post to my talk page regarding the personal attacks he was making toward me. I have every right in the world to remove personal attacks from my talk page. His bad faith assertions of stalking are just that. Go read WP:STALK and see his and my contributions lists to see if his assertion is true. The Anne Hathaway article is yet another article that is on my watchlist and which I edit regularly and when I saw that he was removing similar content that was properly sourced, I responded. Compare Piano non troppo's contributions history and mine. I rarely edit the same articles as he does, nor is there one iota of support for any such accusation. Stalking is a specious accusation that is in no way supported and I resent his implication of such. I wonder how this editor would feel "manipulated" - because he posted a personal attack, more than one time, about me or that he read my user page? To state that I didn't leave an edit summary when I clearly did is not true, which PNT knows. That he didn't like my rationale is too bad, there was one left. Twice. See here where my edit summary said "no rationale for removing this sourced content)" and here where I left a longer edit summary. It's hard for me to believe that this editor can repeatedly state that I left no edit summary is, in fact, untrue. To state that I didn't is factually untrue. How else does one interpret clear untruths? And let's not go into his aspersions of my understanding of WP:RS. If a source is considered reliable, then it acceptable to use it. As for the discussion on the Jolie talk page, it's been open for a week, with PNT and one other editor who responded just now the only support to remove validly sourced content. The responses are there, the skew of the responses are clearly not supporting PNT's repetition responses to the issue. That I know one of the editors who responded doesn't in anyway mean that everyone who responded there are my friends. That is a gross misrepresentation of the demographic of the responders. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does not accept inappropriate user conduct based on a medical condition. It's been tried before, didn't work." Looks like it's being tried again. Last week I has some confrontaions with Wildhartlivie over her unjustified removal of content from James Garner, which included her making fun of my spelling errors per this diff. The above quote was part of her response to my comments to an admin that I did not appreciate my spelling errors being made fun of because I had dyslexia. Actully, such comments should not be made by any user under any circumstances. So, while here on another issue, I notice that she is now blaming "inappropriate user conduct" on her own medical condition! Amazing! I can get into the details of our "interaction", and where I made my own mistakes, if needed. My point is there does seem to be a pattern of uncivil behavior emerging here, and it needs to be dealt with. - BilCat (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You are so far off base here, BilCat, that it isn't even funny. No one has said anything about bad behavior being blamed on medical conditions, nor should it be. In fact, my complaint here is that Piano non troppo was using my physical condition as a basis for his personal attacks against me and trying to force me to quit editing until they are "resolved". He was the one using physical conditions to launch attacks, at no time did I use my condition to try and justify anything. Read the entire issue again and factually see what the complaint is about. The uncivil behavior being reported here is by Piano non troppo, not me. You have it backwards. And by the way, as I said to you at the time, there is no way to discern that you have dyslexia, so using physical conditions as an excuse for anything is still inappropriate, especially when it is used as a basis to try to get rid of an editor who disagrees with you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• I did not use my health as an excuse for my behaviorher, yet you continue to falsely claim that I did. You are the one being disingenuous here. It is your uncivil behaviour that should be examined. - BilCat (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Further, a user making typos is not bad behavior, but making fun of the for doing so is, regardless of thier medical condition, or yours. - BilCat (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* Nor did I suggest you did, I simply said that using health issues is not a valid method to try and get rid of an editor. That you used the medical condition to complain about me has nothing to do with PNT's personal attacks. No one mentioned you in regard to that. Please give it up. I disagreed with you, I recognize that you don't like me because of that, but it has nothing to do with this complaint. Nothing whatsoever. However, your perception of what is going here doesn't seem to be clear. PNT attacked me because of my health. How is that related in anyway? Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• I was not using my health to try to get rid iof you, to to explain why I hightly offended at your uncivil behavior towards me. I don't like or dislike you, but I do dislike you continued misrepresentation of your own uncivil behavior. That's why I'm here, because I see a patter in your dealing with PNT. Actually, I don't like PNT that well from our interactions in the past, but in this case, he appears to be the victim, not you. - BilCat (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah geez. I didn't say that either. There was nothing uncivil in my comments to PNT and in fact, his use of my health issue note to use against me to try and force me to leave and launch personal attacks to suggest I stop editing is the issue here. Nothing I've posted here has been about your conduct. But make no mistake, PNT is not a victim here. He has not been disparaged or personally attacked. And I have not misrepresented anything here, I've posted diffs and links to what was said. I won't respond to anything else you say, but what I said here had nothing to do with you. Please try and assimilate that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It has to do with you own pattern of behavior. You aren't the victim here, but a willing participant with your own uncivil actions towards others, while playing the victim. That is why I am here, and threats will not get rid of me. - BilCat (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh for the love of Pete. I made no personal attacks or acted uncivilly toward PNT, can't you get it through your skull that he used my talk page note about my health to personally attack me and suggest that I should stop editing until my health problems were "resolved". I most certainly was victimized by this conduct and am not "playing the victim". I was attacked. Wholly and blatantly. And exactly what threats are you referring to that I made? That I wouldn't respond to you? How is that a threat? Talk about playing the victim. It wasn't about you, don't take on that cross. I'd suggest you strike that post. It's unsupported and unfounded and, in fact, fairly incivil itself. It's a sad thing when content disputes get twisted this way, truly it is. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Piano non troppo should focus on the content and behaviour of editors, not who they are or what they reveal about themselves. Commenting on the health status of another editor in a dispute with them is inappropriate. If you don't like their actions, that's what you should be talking about. Wildhartlivie should also tone down the comments, e.g. "horse hockey" (whatever that means) isn't very helpful. Are you aware of WP:WQA, where editorial clashes like this can be resolved without the threat of admin actions hanging over the involved parties? Please don't post to AN/I any further about each other and get back to discussing whether information from People magazine is appropriate for inclusion in celebrity biographies, getting advice from the BLP and RS noticeboards or an RfC if necessary. Fences&Windows 14:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of WP:WQA, but I'm also aware that nothing will come of posting there except some editors will say "Don't do that, PNT". I've yet to see conflict issues resolved there. What I am posting here about is a series of personal attacks by an editor and I do not see in any way that my posts here have any "tone" to them. I'm stunned that an adminstrator would state clearly "Please don't post to AN/I any further about each other" when I am complaining about a series of severe personal attacks that really need serious attention. Unbelievable. The entire initial point here is that it has been discussed on the Angelina Jolie article to a clear consensus. Moving on to another article and deleting the same content is pointy and inappropriate. But the personal attacks and disparagements included with PNT's conduct toward me really needs administrator attention. It is inappropriate and condescending. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"Horse hockey!" was a pseudo-expletive used by Col. Potter in the TV show M*A*S*H, meaning "Nonsense!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If I understand Wildhartlivie's post, this is clearly a WP:NPA issue. As such, I agree that the first report should probably be filed at WP:WQA. Piano no troppo's accusations of dishonesty and stalking were clearly inappropriate, as were his comments on W's personal health issue. Those comments might be best refactored or self-reverted.Smatprt (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I make a large number of edits. For Wildhartlivie to remove an edit in 30 minutes that happens to relate to a content dispute in an unrelated article appears to be stalking.[175] Piano non troppo (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You have nothing to support your suggestion of stalking. Read what constitutes stalking and try to apply it to reverting a pointy content removal by an editor when it shows up on my watchlist. And I'd further note that PNT's personal attacks were repeated on his talk page in response to a post made to him about this. This time he went on to suggest that my stating I have health issues that might interfere with my ability to edit was disparaged with ""I am sick, so can I do whatever I want" scam has been pulled by another editor. That editor, too, continued to edit much as they did before, but now also took self-righteous offense when anybody questioned them." I'd note that one of the edit summaries claimed "Disingenuous use of personal attack claim to win content dispute". The complaint here about his personal attacks is not disengenuous and it has absolutely nothing to do with "winning" anything. The response on Talk:Angelina Jolie was and is not in the air, consensus supported retaining the content, so "winning" is not on the line. I did not use my health as an excuse or reason and this comment is so far from appropriate user conduct that this editor's continuation of attacking me is totally inappropriate and needs to be stopped. Piano non troppo is the one that inappropriately dragged my health into contention and is such bad faith that it is sickening. And apparently administrators don't care to take steps to stop him. Discounting the seriousness of such posts and reluctance to say or do anything is disheartening. 17:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Funny how many edit wars, arguments, and fights this one particular user seems to get into, isn't it? I wonder when people will figure out the common denominator.—Chowbok ☠ 19:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Smile, referring to me, or her? Piano non troppo (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't noticed you in any edit wars or fights before.—Chowbok ☠ 20:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

And now we hear from my own personal wiki-stalker, who follows me around to post attacks and disparagements on any user talk page where he thinks I'll notice it or where I've posted. Also the editor who created his own personal attack page about me that went to MfD that speculated that everyone I post with and know on Wikipedia were sock puppets of mine. Nice of you to show up to cast more unfounded aspersions, Chowbok. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The behaviour here isn't exactly great all round. The health note on Wildhartlivie's talk page should be read in its entirety as it does not say that she is compromised in anything more than her ability to contribute to Wikipedia in a timely manner. Piano non troppo commented inappropriately on this but appears to regret at least part of the comment made. It's too late to retract and I don't think he aims to do that, but there are traces of good will in some of the subsequent comments and/or edit summaries. Wildhartlivie could perhaps revise her talk page note to be more specific in relation to her vision problems so that this type of comment is not made in future. There seems to be a preference for assuming bad faith rather than good faith that has caused this to fold into accusations of stalking that does nothing but add fuel to the fire. Speaking of adding fuel to the fire, this is not the first time Chowbok has entered a discussion to kick the boot into Wildhartlivie and I wonder when people will figure out that. BilCat, if you have dyslexia and contribute to a project that relies heavily on written expression and spelling, you have to expect people to comment on your edits. They should comment politely, but one way or another you need to be prepared for comments. You should also ensure that you are in the right before you comment. Looking at the edit history of James Garner, Wildhartlivie gave reasons for her edits which you disregarded. We should not be tolerating unsourced or poorly sourced material, and that was the general thrust of Wildhartlivie's edit which you restored with the comment 'better to tag uncited itimes than remove them wholesale'. That's completely the wrong attitude - if you add or restore information to an article it is your responsibility to ensure it's correctly sourced. You failed to take that responsibility. You made the first negative comment with the edit summary 'heavy-handed edits bordering on vandalism'. Most editors don't take kindly to accusations of vandalism and Wildhartlivie left a message on your talk page. It wasn't pleasant, and it was more unpleasant than it needed to be, and I'm not defending it. But it was a reaction to your poor behaviour. Your reply was equally bad. Leaving a message on someone's talk page to say that you're laughing at them is just plain rude, so if you're going to make an issue of Wildhartlivie's behaviour you need to be sure yours is beyond reproach, and it's not. Rossrs (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Look2See1

Look2See1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• In his edits [176], [177] and [178] calls out a user (myself) in an (article's) talk page, even after I warned him not to over both talk and e-mail. Shouldn't he reserve that for his or my usertalk? Also accidentally deleted some redirects (then blamed me for it) and exhibited bad form in movereqs, not that that matters. FYI, the consensus for the type of moves I made is at Talk:Angelino Heights, Los Angeles; though moves can be made without community imput. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Trails blazed)} 22:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

In addition, now he is apparently ignoring talk page suggestions and exhibiting a general lack of CLUE toward policies Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Trails blazed)} 00:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

re: User:Purplebackpack89

Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Purplebackpack89. Thank you. Content issues Civility problems

I am a newbie. I do not know what this process is yet. I take it seriously. My goodwill intent was for clarity of article linking and retrieval use.

Re: Purplebackpack89's calls out a user (myself) in an (article's) talk page, even after I warned him not to over both talk and e-mail." - I'm sorry but do not understand problem and never received understanding that a user's wiki-i.d. is not ok to refer to as is on all history pages of all articles I tried to discuss with him. His message was not comprehendible. I hope this isn't repeating that mistake again - I'm terribly confused - so respectfully suggested; if one reads my note to User:Purplebackpack89 talk page a half-hour or so before this it may help show the shared problem. Purplebackpack89's Also accidentally deleted some redirects (then blamed me for it) and exhibited bad form in movereqs, not that that matters. I have already explained to him it was my mistake I couldn't fix, and did not 'blame' him - I was over my wiki-tools head. However unskillfully and incorrectly I regretfully attempted to do it by, the essence of my message to Purplebackpack89 was "please discuss this with me and others, it is causing disruption, difficulty and confusion (his unintended vandalism)." My putting a notice on article talk pages was not vandalism, but my best effort to share concern.

A basic wiki-guideline seen is "be kind to newbies." That has not been my experience here with Purplebackpack89 yet. I feel attacked by a wiki-expert. Purplebackpack89 has erased my questions from articles' talk pages, may be wrong but thought it was not ok to delete non-vandal talk. Not knowing another route or how to use this page properly the best I can do it insert a ((vandal|Purplebackpack8)) above. The intention is not a struggle, game, or to be provocative ! - I've no idea what else to do. I've asked for his help before this note without success, and so will try this. Perhaps some messages from him are backed up while working on this, I'm not fast on a computer. Did not click on new wiki-message banner when have been in midst of writing concentration - not ignoring and can do no better as not tech-savvy. Very open to help resolve this and learn more about my mistakes, to not repeat them. I am not a vandal, please consider looking to my San Fernando Valley articles' edits to see sincere intent to be of service. I hope the ((subst:ANI-notice|Purplebackpack89)) above is the required notification to Purplebackpack89, the request is respected and will try a cut/paste to his talk page in case above isn't proper. If anyone reviews this please consider helping me to resolve it peacefully.

Thank you, ___Look2See1 (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, what the Sam Sheridan? This guy can hardly be classified as a "newbie"...he has over 1,000 edits (albeit very few on anything but article space). The guy at one point used broken links as part of a move justification; links he broke himself. Also, even newbies have to learn WP:CIVIL. I never accused him of vandalism; but incivility (hey Purplebackpack!), lack of CLUE, and bad form. And honestly, if you're over your wikitools head, just stop before you cause a major headache for some sysop Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 02:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Look2See1 guy still continues to be disruptive on my talk page and exhibit and general lack of CLUE, one that is inexcusable for a person with over 1,000 edits and three months on the city. There are things I've done that I've explained in an edit summary, on his talk page, AND on my talk page, and he STILL doesn't get it. I need some intervention here--look at his edits in Wikipedia space, User talk space, and article talk space to see why Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 20:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Editor Purplebackpack89, in my experience, is not honoring Assume Good Faith or WP:CIVIL protocol. To begin with expertise; this is my first computer (ever) and I am a 'newbie' - no argument from a stranger is wise or appropriate. Family and friends are amazed 'the Luddite' is even able to correct spelling in a wikiarticle. The "1,000 edits" are primarily doing ''article'' and "[[ category:__]]" links. I'm recuperating from surgery and so have the time to do numerous simple little edits, probably nothing "sysop" (whatever that may mean). My understanding is that it is not a requirement to be facile in code-lingua or be a technophile to participate in wikipedia. I respect those abilities but do not have them.

I'm not being disruptive on any of the talkpages, only trying to discuss, alone however without Purplebackpack89's comprehensible (or even direct now) responses in return. My phrasing is always polite (never in a "Look2See1 guy" gender presumptive and dismissive or "inexcusable" accusatory tone). Perhaps it's novices' questions that are disruptive to Purplebackpack89. Unfortunately with no help from Purplebackpack89, nonetheless I found on my own that the '3' to '2' names transition for the L.A. districts Name Template has been in discussion for some time, with consensus to begin. That is very acceptable (as if my sole opinion mattered). If Purplebackpack89 had calmly, clearly, and respectfully communicated that history and process (and not taken questioning personally) no misunderstandings would have arisen for any of us here.

Quoting Purplebackpack89 about me; "he STILL doesn't get it" and "general lack of CLUE" - is so because his attempts were in a jargon I do not use or comprehend. No one is unintelligent here, just different dialects. Purplebackpack89 continues to misjudge, misinterpret, and misunderstand my intentions, words, and actions. Purplebackpack89 does not respond or initiate to discuss directly together, and they are free not to do. The last two Purplebackpack89 entries above had no notification to me, perhaps only a first one requires that? Nonetheless, since Purplebackpack89 has consistently chosen to not work this out together, I need some intervention and counsel here please. This conundrum is trivial in the scope of life and world issues. My goal is simple peaceful resolution. Thank you for any assistance with this.---Look2See1 (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not polite to out a user on an article page; if you have to say something about a user, say it a) on his talk page, or b) here. Nor is it polite to pepper this page and your talk page with my name in bold or italics. You claim that me starting this thread is a personal attack, I reference WP:NPA. A personal attack would be "Purplebackpack has a small penis", not "Purplebackpack has violated Wikipedia policy". You also claim I'm taking edits in bad faith...remember that there's a limit to AGF. With regard to these additional entries, they are merely continuations of a thread (a discussion with ==This== at the top)...I'll notify you if a new thread arise Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 22:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

When communication is not mutually understood it is not helpful to our resolution of this issue. Eg: what is AGF. Please try stopping the using 'in-house' acronyms to a member of the wiki-public 'not in the circle.' My understanding is that wikipedia accepts people of different abilities and tech-fluency. At my 'basic level' I'm not starting new articles or making templates. I did get a 'Barnstar' for being a wiki-gardener. I'm grateful to help at that level. That limited skill set also precludes your use of sophisticated tech terms and jargon being successful or appropriate here however. It's often meaningless to me, and does not contribute to our resolving the concerns. Please retry to match the 'barnstar' on your talkpage for being an excellent communicator amongst editors, your award says: The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar may be awarded to those that show a pattern of going the extra mile to be nice, without being asked. This barnstar is awarded to Purplebackpack89, for his dedication to comprimise and his ability to work with other editors to come up with amicable solutions which satisfy everyone. -so we know you can. Thank you.

Look2See1 t a l k → 01:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

When you don't understand something, you should ask someone to explain. Most regular editors on Wikipedia are willing to explain things when asked, or when they sense that something is off. "AGF" for instance, is short for "assume good faith" - you can read about it at WP:AGF. Folks here use such abbreviations and acronyms because they refer to Wikipedia's policies and practices which get discussed a lot, and using them makes things move along a little faster. But, really, if you don't understand, you gotta ask! You can't just write off what someone's saying to you because you don't understand it, you've got to make the effort to communicate, and give the other person the chance to express what they're saying in a clearer way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I hereby resign from this issue. A mentor reviewed the communications and pointed out to me that neither party has had their communications mutually understood, both react to a negative phrase and miss the rest. So be it - no blame on either. I need to go and help with the Gulf oil spill situation. This now is a ridiculous non-issue here. [User:Purplebackpack89]], drop it, do not expect further communication with me. I dismiss the '((vandal)) report-admin request' I posted here (whatever your correct jargon may be). To Admin. persons, I will certainly listen and respond to your inquires or advice. ---Look2See1 t a l k → 02:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Where will we find these remarks from a mentor? I don't see them on your talk page, and I don't see them on the article talk page that was in question. Please post a link or diff, or tell us where they are, because I would really like to read them. As far as I can see, Purplebackpak89's comments are perfectly understandable, while your comments here, and ones such as this: [179]

More transparency before further changes, with notification and 'auto-forwarding' of 'old 3 names' titles (in both article links and new searches) could avoid difficult startles. The Reseda, Los Angeles, California (OR Reseda, Los Angeles ?? eg: the 'crap shoot' problem for now...) has discussion on talk page of neighborhood vs. district vs. census-designated place (CDP). If the change is inevitable perhaps doing so in district name alphabetical order would take out random 'crap shoot' searching now (or explaining another system being used).

are quite seriously opaque. I don't really have a clue about half of what you're talking about -- "the crap shoot problem"? "official startles"? I get the impression that English may not be your primary language. If that is the case, perhaps you should avoid editing which requires a command of the language that you do not seem to have at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

He has been talking to Chzz Diannaa ^TALK 01:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, but I didn't see anything there that would seem to fit L2S1's description; perhaps it look place off-wiki. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary comment

Do we need to be concerned about this potentially libelous comment? Grsz¹¹ 22:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say something to the user that left it. But give him a stern warning (like don't pull this shit again or its blocksville!). However, beyond that, I don't think anything is needed right now. --Jayron32 02:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I did, and got the type of response I was expecting from him. Grsz¹¹ 02:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If an edit summary is libellous (and this one certainly seems to be so), there are admin tools to remove it. RolandR (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

In my defense, he's an obvious rapist.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Indiana Wesleyan University/Wesley Seminary

Greetings.

I have been collaborating with other users for quite some time on the Indiana Wesleyan University article and created the Wesley Seminary article. The Indiana Wesleyan article has been largely unchanged for a couple years, making it an established article. Administrator's have even looked it over and congratulated me and the other contributers for how in-depth the article was for such a relatively small school. Indeed, dozens of hours have gone into making it so.

However, to my shock, a new user to the article, User:Inquietudeofcharacter, completely removed about 2/3 of the Indiana Wesleyan article (including photos and critical information) and changed the remaining 1/3, while completely deleting the Wesley Seminary article (itself having been largely unchanged for several months) today without even giving an explanation! In fact, his editing was so extensive, that I could not even undo his edits on the IWU article (fortunately, I could restore the Wesley Seminary article). All of this was done by one user without so much as a single word on the discussion board, so I feel that all my and the other hard-working contributers' work on the article has been thrown away. Now, if he wants to have a genuine discussion about changes to the article, that's one thing, but what he did was unacceptable.

Please restore the article to it's previous state prior to his first edit, so that a discussion can take place prior to any wholesale changes to an established article.

Thank you.

Flavius Constantine (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You can restore this yourself by just pasting the old version on the page. Also, you haven't seemed to talk to him about this before you created this, and I'm sure he might have a good (or bad) reason for doing all of that. The old version doesn't look like it has any problems, so I don't see a problem in restoring it until you guys hack out an agreement. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I did post a message on his discussion page. Like I said, his edits were so extensive, I doubt he can even restore it. Thanks for your comments.

Flavius Constantine (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it can be done very easily; i did it. I have also prepared a place for a discussion; please use it. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 04:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much! Flavius Constantine (talk) 04:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I move to close this section. Inquietudeofcharacter seems to have backed down and is now participating in the article's discussion board without restoring his edits, at least initially. Thanks. Flavius Constantine (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Resolved

 – Looks fine now Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone please clear out, and keep an eye on AIV. This is irritating. Aditya Ex Machina 08:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Vera Baker and WP:GRAPEVINE

Invoking a provision in WP:GRAPEVINE, "Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved.", I have fully protected Vera Baker and am now referring myself to ANI to be reviewed by the community. NW (Talk) 17:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Protection seems justified given the urgent BLP concerns, but would blocking the violator(s) not suffice? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The initial use of protection instead of blocking avoids NW appearing to strike against an individual editor if the two of them have a dispute. Maurreen (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

But blocking would tend to piss people off more than simple full-protection (unless obvious disruption warrants blocks, which this clearly isn't the case). –MuZemike 18:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

In addition, it is probable that other editors would add those claims so blocking would not be effective. Cenarium (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I endorsed NW's protection. Maurreen (talk)

• Endorse protection, WP:BLP violations and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Cenarium (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with full protection at this point, at it looks like only one registered account has been involved in adding those claims. Seems to me the better solution would have been to extend the semi-protection and hand out a long block to Onefinalstep (talk · contribs) for edit-warring and BLP violations. In fact, I'm about to block Onefinalstep now. Blueboy96 18:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at his contributions. Up to the 15th of March he had a whole lot of edits where he's removing uncited information from articles and there's even one 4RR warning on his talk page for removing "cited" criticism from Mark Levin. Now he pops up today wanting to insert crap sourced from a supermarket tabloid in another BLP?. This smells. I wonder if he has a little brother. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of Process The method used to deal with current event problem by NuclearWarefare NW is an embarrassment. The merits of the story itself have ample questions. See: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005010006. But to lock down the article without any discussion in TALK preceding, then to ask for the article to be deleted is more commentary on the matter than anything. Some does a Google on the name in the news, sees a Wikipedia entry, then see that the article does not make any mention of the news, but shows the article has just been locked down, and then the entire article is being asked to be deleted. Those events sent a clear message to the reader.

I suggest. The article be removed from a request for deletion. That the article make a brief mention of what is going on. Then to have the article locked down for two weeks.

The sentence could be. " On May 1, 2010 the National Enquirer tabloid ran an unsourced a story about an alleged 2004 affair with Barack Obama". --- Locking it down for two weeks from there does not leave the innuendo that this is being rapidly swept under the rug. Lastly she is a political fundraiser by profession, so this type of story is part of the politics that she is expected to deal with...this is politics.

Nuclearwarfare went off half-cocked, which given his alias is the last thing we need. Requesting this article for deletion will be seen as political commentary by Wikipedia itself, there is no reason to do this. Nuclearwarfare seems to just want to delete the news as it is being written, and delete the records. Reflect the events, and lock it down as the events unfold, a small amount of time will quell the problem --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment per discussion in the Causa sui incident of a week or so ago, when an involved admin is in doubt about whether to block someone or protect the page, I think it's better to protect the page and temporarily slow down several editors (there is no deadline) than to block someone and potentially cause a lot of drama. So NW did the right thing, protecting and bringing the issue here, even if uninvolved review concludes it's better to unprotect the page and block specific users. Uninvolved admins should check out the situation independently and take appropriate action (e.g. lift the protection and warn or block disruptive editors as necessary). There was a long thread at WT:BLP about this, that Maurreen may have been remembering. If review concludes that the protection was completely inappropriate and no action was needed, just AGF, unprotect, and let people get back to editing. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, what 69 said. I also was thinking of the Causa sui incident (I don't remember a related BLP thread). Maurreen (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if an administrator intends to open an immediate discussion about their actions and especially when they take an action that must be discussed, there's a lot to be said for taking the path of least drama and fixing things up to match the consensus when there is one. As a side note, Media Matters for America is not a reliable source for anything other than themselves, and of course neither is the National Enquirer - if they are the only source for this material, then of course it's proper to exclude it. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with the concerns of about MediaMatters, but in this specific case they linked to sources which are reliable. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1076695/Obama-hit-affair-smears-following-claims-attractive-aide-banned-wife.html

The take away, is this is an old story, it has been specifically denied by Ms. Baker. This is why I think a simple line addressing the matter, then locking it down for 2 weeks is responsible. As it stand now, it looks like its being swept under the rug. Reliable sources have reported on this matter. It is not just the Enquirer or Drudge. I am very disappointed to find the reference as locked and asked to be entirely deleted. It looks like a duck. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse protection. Due to the serious WP:BLP issues raised by this case, any hint of these rumors should stay off this article in its present poor state of sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This needs to be handled vs passing the buck, as it stands the protection and the request for deletion are a disservice to all. There are reliable sources for this, as shown above. Also note that the Ms. Baker commented back to the reporter, which means her remarks were for public consumption, so specifically to this matter it is unquestionable that she is a public figure. There are no BLP issues cased by my recommendation above. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Fully endorse protection per my comments on the talk page.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 02:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Repeated uploading of copyrighted material

131.191.53.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Infrequent contributor, but has continued adding copyrighted material after previous warning. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Previous warning was a month old, new one given. Only edits appear to be unhelpful but there are only five. Not sure that there is any persistent action that requires further effort. If a more immediate further violation takes place a block may be prudent to prevent disruption? SGGH ^ping! 22:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I was unaware there was an expiration time for copyvio warnings. I had previously read any copyvio activity after warning was grounds for blocking, e.g. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 74#Copyright blocks. Am I still missing something? VernoWhitney (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It is just a judgement call. As the discussion you link to mentions, blocking is largely a method of both preventing disruption and showing that we take copyright violations seriously. Disruption prevention doesn't really fit for me given the time between warnings and the total lack of edits, and a second blip after one warning could be a genuine case of idiocy (!) so I am edgy about a sudden block. It's not like persistent edit-war addition. I'm happy for another admin to review, if you'd like. SGGH ^ping! 00:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless it's the exact same copyvio, then I would bank that it's the same person behind the IP. Otherwise, AGF. –MuZemike 00:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you both for your reasoning. So long as this user isn't that active I'm not too worried about them, but I always like hearing from more experienced editors (and maybe I can avoid wasting your time with future cases that don't warrant a block). Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to rush in and block, but I don't think there's any doubt that it's the same editor as a month ago. All the edits pertain to The 39 Clues, even if they are in different articles about the series.—Kww(talk) 05:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Trueman31

I posted this matter on the 27 April 2010, but unfortunately it was overlooked (I'm not surprised, there was a lot going on that day).

On the 27, 6 accounts were blocked for being sockpuppets of Trueman31. Trueman31 first appeared on 7 July 2007 [180] and was blocked indefinitely on 3 September 2007 [181]. Since then, they have created many sock accounts ([182]) to vandalise various articles on Wikipedia (I believe most of the articles vandalised are usually EastEnders characters). One of Trueman31's traits while using the new accounts is to copy and paste the talk page of User:AnemoneProjectors to their talk page. He has also copied another user's talk page who reverted some of Trueman31's edits and on that day he decided to copy mine, which I found to be quite disturbing [183].

I come here to ask if anything can be done to stop Trueman31 from creating anymore accounts and to try and put an end to this. Thank you. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 00:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless he has a fixed IP address, there's little that can be done. I've had a look at the SPI pages, and it isn't clear whether he has. You might want to contact a Checkuser privately to see whether the IP appears to be relatively stable; if it is, a suitable block could be imposed. Rodhullandemu 00:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. He's not on a fixed IP. However, I am 99% sure that User:Trueman31 and User:Ln of x are the same person, and I am sure a few years ago, someone mananged to contact Ln of x's ISP and after that, the vandalism stopped for quite some time. AnemoneProjectors 13:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats from User:Draganparis

User Draganparis is obviously not content with just one case running against him, he pushes even more... First he threatened with legal action in the talk pages of two admins here [184] and here [185] and then he even dared post even more threats in the thread of the ANI case against him above[186]!!

His full text reads :

Dear Sir, I saw that you had problems with Simanos. I think that we all have. It seams that Mr “GK 1973” and “Simanos” pretend not to be aware that I disclosed my personality almost 2 months ago and that this has been verified by Wikipedia administrator. This protects me against defamation. Both users have been explicitly defaming me permanently since. Of course I had some harsh words for them, although not containing direct insults. I do not say that I will make a legal case immediately but I think that they should be aware of the matters of facts. The European jurisdiction is quite explicit, I am afraid; even the US jurisdiction has recently been quite clearly pronounced. I expect Wikipedia to respect its own rules regarding defamation and ban the two editors indefinitely. I want that the case finishes calmly without a scandal that may be really very serious indeed. (For further information please see my Talk page, present investigation page, Syril and Methodius, Alexander the Great, and Macedonia (Ancient kingdom) as well as their Talk pages.)Draganparis (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

and...

Sorry, a constructive SOLUTION This dispute takes quite ominous form and I think that the administrators should not hasten to make a decision. There are couple of important points to consider. 1. Illusion of the closed world of Wikipeadia makes editors to behave in quite particular way. Sometimes to go over the limits imposed by the real, external world (insult each other too strongly). And 2. The solution may be a more strict application of the internal rules and establishment of strict anonymity of all editors. Here is why. The illusion that the internal rules are general life rules applicable to the entire world is an exaggeration but very active editors tend to use vocabulary of the external world when being in Wikipedia. For example they will say that sockpuppetry is a crime, what may be an internal “crime”, but in the real world this is a part of normal behaviour, often highly praised behaviour. It is similar with other internal rules. Their meaning is the internal meaning which does not have much to do with the real external world. The other important aspect is anonymity The intensity of editing and the freedom of confronting concurrent opinions, as I suspect, is very much increased thanks to the anonymity. People are just unrestrained to propose more solutions if they do not care to expose their incoherency as persons, or to risk to make mistakes publically, or to show their ignorance. Anonymity also protects to certain extent against accusations for behaviour which is not in accordance with the customs of the outside world. The disputes that take place on Wikipedia are often very cruel and sometimes, if the protection of the anonymity would not be there, some discussions would not be held at all, or we would have frequent appeals to tribunals for defamation. If everybody would be acting publically, the intensity of editing, the confrontation of the opinion and the production would be limited. Indeed, may be that the quality of the edits would be better, but the productivity would be, I may only guess, much, much lower. Now the actual situation of a confrontation of me, as not anonymous, and the other two editors, who retained their anonymity, has created very asymmetrical situation. I am completely protected from strong attacks and defamation, but they, since anonymous, are not,. The fact that it is known who I am, every defamation may be seen as damaging to me and may qualify for juridical procedure in the “outside world” and almost automatic condamination of the other party. As I mentioned, the recent legislations and the US jurisprudence show that this might be very fast procedure. This kind of asymmetry is not beneficial for Wikipedia. Certainly intense defamatory discussions are also damaging but these could be better managed (what was not the case this time). Therefore my conclusion is that anonymity must be a condition for an editor on Wikipedia, under the condition that the administrators apply the rules of Wikipedia particularly these related to incivility much more strictly then they have been doing.. My conclusion concerning this particular case is that the great responsibility for the dead run must be taken by the administrators who permitted that defamation goes on for too long time (until this very moment) with almost no warning, or with occasional ineffective warning (to Simanos). Certainly the important responsibility is on the party which insulted (GK1973 and Simanos). Certainly, I should not have been permitted to disclose my personality since this immediately created inequality in protection against defamation. I could defame, but the anonymous opponents could not, or if they did, they had to count with application of the laws “external” to Wikipedia. My bottom line is in fact that the administrators must apply rules more strictly and that the ALL editors must remain anonymous on Wikipedia. My suggestion for the solution of this particular conflict would therefore be to certainly punish the party which insulted me. The punishment should be some reasonably long block. However, I should be asked, as soon as possible, to open a new anonymous account and thereby become equal to other editors in respect to responsibilities and vulnerability to the insults and defamation. The administrators must be asked to apply the rules more strictly, and in the future the non-anonymity should be forbidden on Wikipedia.Draganparis (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope that after these manifests, the community will see through this self-made mask DP has been trying to build to present himself as some kind of victim and understand what we had to deal with for months now from an editor already twice banned from the beginning of the year. GK (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Well, the fact that he thinks there's such a thing as European defamation law (and his use of "legislations") makes this threat laughable, but still; WP:NLT. Suggest blocks. Ironholds (talk) 06:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeffed for legal threats, as per usual practice. Tim Song (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I sometimes think we should have a special barnstar for dumbest legal threat of the day. This one might have won were it not for the item a couple of sections below. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)