Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive581

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Request closure of the Thierry henry handball Afd[edit]

It's overdue now, and the place is starting to stink of socks. MickMacNee (talk) 13:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, it was closed as a 'Keep' about a half hour after the previous statement... Honestly I think 'No Consensus' would be a better because it'd leave future options far more open for other actions instead of forcing a fight uphill to even get a discussion going. Consensus? On text volume and majority vote, yes. Weighted result based on Wikipedia policy? Iffy. Most Keeps using "it's obviously notable" as a reason doesn't address any actual Wikipedia policy. Really would have to suggest a result change to No Consensus in respect to the strong case made for delete with Wikipedia policy guiding them. daTheisen(talk) 02:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I was also surprised by the decision. That the article would not be deleted was obvious, but it looked like a rather obvious "no consensus" or "strong" based on the opinions expressed. I would agree with daTheisen about a review of the decision.Jeppiz (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Go through a deletion review just to say "no consensus" if you wish, but my reading of many of those arguing for deletion was that they favoured retaining the content either through a merge or renaming, which amounts to keep. Those citing WP:NOTNEWS give a certain reading of Wikipedia policy, but others disagreed with them; we have no policy that prohibits writing articles about recent events. Fences&Windows 23:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

More stalking and AFD shenanigans from User:IP69.226.103.13[edit]

Yes check.svg Resolved. sock blocked by gwh ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I posted an "article for deletion" on a rather dubious, probable urban legend known as the "Shotgun Man." see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shotgun_Man. Within minutes, User:IP69.226.103.13 jumps out of nowhere to disrupt the process -- accusing me of being "bogus" more than once and generally employing a snarky, nasty, uncivil tone. This IP has made such comments two days in a row now and is making my wikipedia experience unpleasant. I did some checking up on this fellow and I notice that he has been in trouble for this before. see this ANI report from 2 Nov. 2009. This user, User:IP69.226.103.13 had even been permanently banned for such conduct. Apparently he has learned nothing from his experiences, having been banned and re-admitted into Wikipedia and already engaging in the same antisocial nasty behavior already even less than a month later. Gerbelzodude99 (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

User:IP69.226.103.13 has been notified of this discussion. Crafty (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Notified by User:Crafty, User:Gerbelzodude99, on the other hand, notified User:Betacommand for some reason. Think about that. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my post on the AfD page. The AfD is nonsense posted by a single purpose account that joined for the sole purpose, it appears, of nominating this article for deletion for no apparent purpose (no deletion purpose). Impressive that it took this user one edit to find the article and nominate it for deletion. Then, in less than a dozen edits on wikipedia he posts an AN/I, notifies, not me, but User:Betacommand. I suspect sock puppetry. ANd, this is boring, please someone with sanity just close it. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Sirs, that is because User:Betacommand knows more about the unwelcome antics and stalking propensities of the user in question than any other citizen of Wikipedia. Gerbelzodude99 (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I too suspect sockpuppetry. Crafty (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Suspect is too weak a word. A brand new account created yesterday, whose first edit was to (properly formatted) nominate an article for deletion, and then launch an ANI complaint against a user, is clearly a sockpuppet of one form or another.
From WP:ILLEGIT (illegitimate uses of sockpuppet accounts, under WP:SOCK) -
  • Editing project space: Alternate accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections.[1]
  • Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternate accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternate accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.
  • "Good hand, bad hand" accounts: Keeping one account "clean" while using another to engage in disruption.
Gerbelzodude99 - If you would like to come clean as to your other account, and agree to abide by WP:SOCK in the future and not act disruptively, we can wrap this up without further sanction. Please cooperate here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Awww, but I love the Plaxico effect :-( (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I guess I just see the best in folks. ;) Crafty (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the suspicion of sockpuppetry. Noming an article for deletion isn't a usual first edit. Aw crap Crafty's here, I gotta get outta here. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, you better run punk. ;) Crafty (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I have applied an indefinite block (not permanent) on User:Gerbelzodude99 as they went quiet rather than explain themselves in a timely fashion. If they identify themselves and their other account and pick one as their permanent account going forwards, the block is not intended to be permanent on all participation on Wikipedia. The abuse here was so blatant as to require attention, but not so deep as to require long term sanction on the master account, IMHO. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I am too new in Wikipedia to say a word, but I am very frustrated with this nonsense raised by Gerbelzodude99. I want to stand to support User:IP69.226.103.13 I've seen him investing his precious time doing outstanding editing and working hard on complete verification of facts. To my experience User:IP69.226.103.13 is very dedicated editor who helps Wikipedia to be the decent place and the reliable source. I would suggest you, dear Gerbelzodude99, to stop attacking dedicated editors but rather collaborate if appropriate. I have no idea what the real user ID is in fact related to your new one but the matter you have raised here should be resolved by cutting this irrelevant disturbance. Please step back and do not attack editors like User:IP69.226.103.13, please let them execute their noble and outstanding service to Wikipedia. I beg a pardon if I was too emotional. Thanks in advance. --3ont~☺~ (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Restore broken WP:RS page move, please?[edit]

Resolved: Please discuss on the talk page

Wikipedia:Reliable sources was moved to Wikipedia:Verifiability/reliable sources without discussion. WP:RS gets a lot of traffic, linking and auto-management by bots and archivers. These are now broken and will require a ton of manual intervention to fix. Can this page be put back please? In the future, if important and long-standing resource pages are going to be moved, it should require notification, discussion and time just to make sure nothing breaks. Thanks. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

People have been discussing doing this for years, with no objections. I've posted on the page to see if there are objections. If there are, we can hold a poll, but I'd be surprised if there are, because the point of RS is to expand on V. WP:RS directs to the same page it did before; nothing is broken, and its guideline status remains unchanged, obviously. Having it as a subpage will help to avoid the guideline being inconsistent with the policy. SlimVirgin 22:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I hate to contradict you as I'm sure your action was meant in good faith but the discussion did not start until after the page move. As for "people talking about it for years", there has been no discussion on the talk page and the oldest, non archived thread on the page is nearly 2 months old. I would say the page should be restored to its original location and a discussion held as to whether or not it should be a subpage of WP:V. HJMitchell You rang? 22:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, this can be discussed on the talk page. Thank you! Majorly talk 22:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved now. Juliancolton moved it back. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Astonishing: Verifiability for contentious material is non-negotiable. Reliable sources are the means by which verification is achieved. This is Wikipedia 101 and the two stand together, or not at all. Rodhullandemu 00:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sock claiming a different sockmaster?[edit]

I had recently blocked User:Highenergypulses as a sock of User:Chrislipthorpe, as it was a used to continue an edit war at AIDS denialism, and blocked the sockmaster 72 hours for this as well as misleading edit summaries/minor edit use. [1], [2]. Chrislipthorpe has not contested the block. However, things have taken a bit of a bizarre twist, as Highenergypulses is claiming to be someone else's sock: [3], and has apparently brought along a new sock to make sure I knew it: [4]. To me it looks like an interesting way of claiming not to be a sock (especially given Chrislipthorpe's early misuse of edit summaries and minor edits, indicating more experience), but does anyone else recognize this type of behavior? Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like he has a touch of Evil Genius Syndrome. You know there was an anon posting something about being Teh Unstoppable 1337 Puppet-Mastah on Ten of All Trades talk page earlier today. I'll see if I can sniff up the diff. Crafty (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok [5] that's from a named editor (User:UranusMoons) and this [6] is under the IP he was using. I don't know if these are any help. Crafty (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Certainly looks like the same editing pattern, and attitude. But, the question still remains—was Chrislipthorpe the victim of this would-be evil genius, or yet another sock of his? Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
That I cannot say. Perhaps consult the Sacred Chickens?. Crafty (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
If the original editor contests, may do that. Otherwise, going to block the obvious second sock and call it done for now. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia article nominated for deletion by thrice-banned user (vandalism and self-promotion)[edit]

Hello, administrators.

The user currently known as Beetleguice [sic] has been cyberharassing me via Wikipedia for several months now. He started out as Azayas4reel. Since then, he has adopted various sock puppets, including HarabianNights, Harabiannights1, Tainotalisman2 and now Tainotalisman8 and Beetleguice [sic]. He was banned for vandalism and for self-promotion (he created an article for himself).

All of the above stated users write in the same inflammatory style and misspell the same words (most notably "playwrite" instead of "playwright"). Please ban him again (as both Tainotalisman8 and Beetleguice) and prevent him from vandalizing again on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with the article on Banjee [2]. It should not have been nominated for deletion. Thank you so much.

Ronald Backardy (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Ronald Backardy.

Hello, administrators.

Since I wrote the above letter to you, there have been two comments asking for the article to be removed, one by Penumbraborealis and one by someone named Overdarainbow. I firmly believe these are by the same person and that would be the user originally known as Azayas4reel. When this person was harassing me via e-mail, he once quoted The Wizard of Oz. (He wrote me, "How about a little fire, scarecrow?" after calling my boss in an attempt to get me fired.) He is not respecting Wikipedia's guidelines at all. Overdarainbow has no previous history editing Wikipedia so why would Overdarainbow know to delete an article? He is upset that his article was deleted and is now trying to exact some sort of cybervengeance, I suppose.

For the record, the paragraph regarding the stage play Banjee include several reviews including one from the Village Voice which is annotated in the Wikipedia article itself. He is trying to make a mockery of Wikipedia and its guidelines. Please ban him (and his varying sockpuppets) from editing on Wikipedia. Thank you so much.

Ronald Backardy (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Ronald Backardy.

The current AfD is, in my view, a train wreck waiting to happen--the nominator and all of the voters have practically no edits to their credit. I'm tempted to speedy keep and block the whole lot, but wanted to seek other opinions before doing so. Blueboy96 03:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that's a very good idea. @Kate (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Kate and Blueboy. Close it down and clean 'em up. Crafty (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Support speedy keep and block the socks, but why not also asking for CheckUser (can be done speedily because of the obviousness of the case)? Perhaps other socks and masters come out. Materialscientist (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I was gonna do that too ... it's pretty obvious that these are somebody's sockpuppets. Blueboy96 03:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, maybe the master is indeed blocked already. Who knows (except for CheckUser :-)? Materialscientist (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
AfD speedily kept, and SPI case started--in the process of blocking the lot. Blueboy96 03:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of talk pages[edit]

The account Stars4change (talk · contribs) has been used for general discussion about topics, rather than improving articles. Despite numerous notices on the editor's page, no action has been taken. Could an administrator please look at this. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Earlier discussion here. You should have notified him, I'll do that now. Dougweller (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia article nominated for deletion by thrice-banned user (vandalism and self-promotion)[edit]

Hello, administrators.

The user currently known as Beetleguice [sic] has been cyberharassing me via Wikipedia for several months now. He started out as Azayas4reel. Since then, he has adopted various sock puppets, including HarabianNights, Harabiannights1, Tainotalisman2 and now Tainotalisman8 and Beetleguice [sic]. He was banned for vandalism and for self-promotion (he created an article for himself).

All of the above stated users write in the same inflammatory style and misspell the same words (most notably "playwrite" instead of "playwright"). Please ban him again (as both Tainotalisman8 and Beetleguice) and prevent him from vandalizing again on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with the article on Banjee [3]. It should not have been nominated for deletion. Thank you so much.

Ronald Backardy (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Ronald Backardy.

Hello, administrators.

Since I wrote the above letter to you, there have been two comments asking for the article to be removed, one by Penumbraborealis and one by someone named Overdarainbow. I firmly believe these are by the same person and that would be the user originally known as Azayas4reel. When this person was harassing me via e-mail, he once quoted The Wizard of Oz. (He wrote me, "How about a little fire, scarecrow?" after calling my boss in an attempt to get me fired.) He is not respecting Wikipedia's guidelines at all. Overdarainbow has no previous history editing Wikipedia so why would Overdarainbow know to delete an article? He is upset that his article was deleted and is now trying to exact some sort of cybervengeance, I suppose.

For the record, the paragraph regarding the stage play Banjee include several reviews including one from the Village Voice which is annotated in the Wikipedia article itself. He is trying to make a mockery of Wikipedia and its guidelines. Please ban him (and his varying sockpuppets) from editing on Wikipedia. Thank you so much.

Ronald Backardy (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Ronald Backardy.

The current AfD is, in my view, a train wreck waiting to happen--the nominator and all of the voters have practically no edits to their credit. I'm tempted to speedy keep and block the whole lot, but wanted to seek other opinions before doing so. Blueboy96 03:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that's a very good idea. @Kate (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Kate and Blueboy. Close it down and clean 'em up. Crafty (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Support speedy keep and block the socks, but why not also asking for CheckUser (can be done speedily because of the obviousness of the case)? Perhaps other socks and masters come out. Materialscientist (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I was gonna do that too ... it's pretty obvious that these are somebody's sockpuppets. Blueboy96 03:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, maybe the master is indeed blocked already. Who knows (except for CheckUser :-)? Materialscientist (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
AfD speedily kept, and SPI case started--in the process of blocking the lot. Blueboy96 03:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of talk pages[edit]

The account Stars4change (talk · contribs) has been used for general discussion about topics, rather than improving articles. Despite numerous notices on the editor's page, no action has been taken. Could an administrator please look at this. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Earlier discussion here. You should have notified him, I'll do that now. Dougweller (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on my user and talk page[edit]

I seem to have picked up a wikistalker. :-) Someone who dislikes me has been vandalizing my talk and user pages. Today I logged in to find this [7]. Yesterday, I had this [8] on my talk page. Oddly enough, this post [9] appeared quite some time after discussion at that forum had ended, and not long after the vandalism to my talk page. It's actually kind of funny. But it would be nice if someone could investigate as I'm quite sure this is not some random person who jetted in from Slashdot [10] and "isn't familiar", but is probably someone who hates me for my contributions to the WP:NEWT stuff. The comment on my userpage about "100% defense" seems familiar somehow. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I see... <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
One IP was blocked for 31 hours for the personal attack. If attacks persist, report it back here. Fences&Windows 01:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
The wikistalking continues with one of the IPs now threatening that if my "real name is leaked it could become a significant issue for me". [11] Again, I'm quite sure this is not a random IP but a regular Wikipedia editor. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
The threat of outing should be taken very seriously as an attempt to intimidate an editor. I suggest a CU be performed immediately to ascertain which, if any, registered user(s) are involved and then block them. This is serious business. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I definitely appreciate your taking this seriously. I did file a request at SPI; if someone wants to run a quick checkuser we should make a note there as well so folks don't step on each-others toes. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Go for it. I have to run now. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
To whomever responds: here is the link to the SPI report if needed [12]. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Untangling multiple redirs around Visalia and related articles[edit]

Resolved: Heavily related matter posted to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Visaliaguy. daTheisen(talk) 07:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This user is weaving a tangled web of multiple redirects and moves around Visalia, Visalia (disambiguation) and related articles. I can't see enough of the histories to sort it out, would appreciate assistance. Thanks, Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 07:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Yikes. I thought this was going to be a case of bulk redirect or category toying this is a mess. Just massive numbers of small edits continuously is one thing, but moving/redirecting and working heavily on very superfluous child articles is another. Sock case! Or at least a need to consolidate accounts. Reported user sure knew how to handle things from day 1 of the account 2 weeks ago. For all intents and purposes this "started" at this edit on 11 September 2009; when below users made all edits, edit summaries disappeared and talk pages were never touched. Keep in mind these are entirely unproven tidbits put together with logic and subjective evidence available like behavior/edit patterns. SPI deals with this, but giving it here since I have no idea if this is 100% worth looking into or not. Anyway, this group as a whole covers literally 98% of all edits on the main article in the last 500 edits, and most all edits on child articles. (Links are to contribution pages; most don't have a user page or a talk page...)
Extremely suspicious:
  • User:Visaliaguy [13], established contributors to related articles for some time. Has had zero disagreements with or changed edits from VISALIAso559 nor used user or article talk pages for anything. Lead candidate for parent account.
  • User:VISALIAso559 [14], created 2 weeks ago and was doing larger-scale full-blown Wikipedia edits in less than an hour after creation on the exact same things all the other users on this list were doing.
  • User:Parisian415 [15],
  • [16],
  • [17],
  • [18], with the 3 IPs Geolocating there. Not true evidence but still incriminating.
Only a tiny bit less suspicious than the above, but still way up there
  • User:Gemini818 [19], and
  • User:Ilovevtown [20], seemed to perform the editing tasks that WISALIAso559 does now, ever since that account was created. The two ceased edits around 8-9 November never to return, but typical "work" replaced with and done on the new account.
Common calling card of all the named accounts seems to be copyvio image problems, uploaded repeatedly. This second set far less, however, suggesting at least some duality in identities. Still, zero chat with, disagreements or edits against any of the others listed here.
Very unlikely compared to the rest, compared via Geolocate / behavior / edit histories around Wikipedia:
  • There are other editors with perhaps 1 or 2 entries, but seem to be related to random vandalism. This is mainly on 7-8 October and didn't actually change the article content at all.
  • User:Ohnoitsjamie is noted as being quite diligent in RCP work in what looked to be a rather odd situation a few days ago.
Duck Test: Fails. Common Wikipedia logic says that it would be impossible for 10 'different' users to get along and never need to communicate on any matters whatsoever either personally or relating to an article. Not just one article, but the whole set of them worked on interdependently. At the very least, a few should have objected to the massive canvassing.
I also see... 5-6 pages that'll probably end up in AfD over notability and long-established precedent on Wikipedia municipality articles, and one category doing the same. A few article examples would be Divisadero, Visalia and Encina Street. Wikipedia is not a fast food shop directory for anywhere to sit down for a burger at the mall, and not the white pages directory for posh neighborhoods in your city, contrary to what the articles created under the city would lead your to believe. Actually, I'd love to take up a discussion on how Hot dog on a stick in the mall is notable. However it's worth noting that Visalia Mall sneaks in for notability and survived an AfD a year ago. The fast food places? Not so much notable. Good grief. Um. So yea, there's my research(?). This should be fun to clean up. Plenty of the content added is quite fine from the "gang" but yea, a lot of entirely unnecessary stuff. It appears that PRODs were put in some of the articles I'm scratching my head over, but were just blanked without explanation or contact to the placing editor despite these being experienced editors working on the articles. Lastly, there's the whole issue of the inherent POV push from users openly willing to take usernames showing their relation to their article of choice. Right! Opinions? And is there any way to write up this stuff so that doesn't take a few hours? daTheisen(talk) 15:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC) -- Edits: daTheisen(talk) 15:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
You'll want to file at WP:SPI; a quick look shows intense but obvious socking. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Aha! Thank you. I actually feel better that it wasn't all in vain. I started that all as comparison between the two usernames mentioned and for an hour straight kept looking backwards and realizing how ridiculous it was. Really, it looks like it could have started in 2006 but hardly matters now. To original poster-- feel free to use my info to post at SPI (it would mostly be copy-paste I think), or if you're not around now I'll have at it later today when I have some more time. daTheisen(talk) 17:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Original poster replies: Many thanks Datheisen. This one gave me a headache just trying to understand what had been done. I've never posted to SPI and I'm sure I'd screw it up, if you would be so kind I'll watch and learn. Regards, Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 23:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

User Syjytg requesting unblock[edit]

Syjytg (talk · contribs), indef blocked in March 2009, has requested a review of his block at my talk page. You may recall him as a tendentious editor who spent most of his time focusing on having his edits remain on pages, with little regard for consensus, policy, or just plain collegiality. I created this thread on his talk page, outlining a tendentious editing pattern. Later, after being blocked for edit warring, he pointed fingers at others and rarely took responsibility for his own actions. He then started socking, for which he was indef blocked. There's more; a review of his talk page will show others' points of view along the way, not just mine.

Syjytg has decided he wants to return to editing. I see no evidence of socking, and I do see evidence of reading policies associated with returning, including the "standard offer" and the idea that an admin can open a thread here at AN/I to discuss unblocking the user. He requested (as an IP) that I do so, and I requested he place a statement on his talk page, under his own account, acknowledging past behavior. He has done so, and while I can't say I think it's an overwhelming attempt, I do feel there is some sincerity behind it. I also note that he does not appear to have resorted to continued socking in the intervening months, which is a positive sign (if true).

I think any unblock must include a tight watch, which I would participate in but not want to take full responsibility for. Other thoughts solicited.  Frank  |  talk  15:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

....Was posting on your talkpage as an IP not itself socking? Just asking. Or do you feel it was justified as a way of attracting someone's attention. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it was a reasonable means of opening communication on the subject. He apparently wanted to contact an admin first, for the purpose of opening this thread.  Frank  |  talk  16:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Why not? They seemed to have requested an appropriate unblock request, evidencing they have reviewed and understood policy. On that basis any further problems with editing means that they have chosen to disregard policy, and the block can be re-instated. If everyone understands that, then they should be allowed to prove they can contribute to the project in the correct manner. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense moves[edit]

Fakus_Edition_2008 has moved a number of pages and I'm not sure if it's vandalism or good intended but completely misguided edits. The most bizarre is moving Rioplatense Spanish to the nonsense name of Argentine Castellane. People in Uruguay would certainly protest against being called "Argentine" and while Spanish may sometimes be called Castillian in English, it is never called "Castellane". The user has also performed other, similar moves but they have been reverted. I would suggest that the article is moved back to Rioplatense Spanish and that the user is cautioned against moving pages. It is obvious from the user's user page that his English is not very good, so he may not be the ideal person to invent new article names. As "Argentine Castellane" goes to show.Jeppiz (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, what is Argentine Castellane? I would move the page back, but the previous page is currently a redirect, so I can't move it to that title. We need an admin to do this for us. --Rockstonetalk to me! 23:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, and something should be done to prevent similar oddities. A user moving a page to a nonsense title, and ordinary users cannot move it back. The system is made for trolling and vandalism. Wikipedia has had the fantastic article on this little known language called Argentine Castellane for quite a while now.Jeppiz (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, I moved it back to the original title. Fences&Windows 00:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
The editor, who gives his full name on the talk page, is 13 years old. Dougweller (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
My instinct is to remove the sensitive information/blank the userpage and request oversight. Too fussy? Crafty (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've edited his userpage to remove some information and posted an explanation on his talkpage. Crafty (talk) 06:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche abusing Twinkle, harassing IP editor[edit]

Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) yesterday harassed an IP at User talk: That IP made six edits to Anwar al-Awlaki. Two of these edits included informative edit summaries that made it clear this was a good-faith objection to content in that article, and not vandalism. The IP's edits began at 16:55 and ended at 17:09, and no one else edited in the meantime, so the IP could not be said to be edit warring.
Beginning at 17:26, Epeefleche left five consecutive vandalism warnings on the IP's talk page, v1, v2, v3, v4, and v4im.
The IP editor asked at Talk:Anwar al-Awlaki what was the problem with these edits and how they constituted vandalism. Epeefleche did not reply. I responded to the IP's question by informing the IP that these edits were not vandalism, and I recommended the editor register an account. Epeefleche responded on the IP's talk page by calling my comment to the IP "wikihounding."
Epeefleche also abused Twinkle rollback by calling a different IP's edits "vandalism." That IP did not use an edit summary, but that does not make a content dispute into vandalism.
I raised these issues at WP:AN3, but as I familiarized myself with the purpose of that board, I decided it was not the correct venue. I have tried to discuss the harassment of the IP editors with Epeefleche there, but Epeefleche sees nothing wrong with the harassment.
I understand that Twinkle use can be revoked for misuse, and harassment of new users can require a block. I ask that admins take both possibilities into consideration. ~YellowFives 15:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, if someone else could please welcome the IP at User talk: and make clear that the Wikipedia community understands these edits were not vandalism, and the IP really is welcome to make an account, that would be lovely. I am afraid that Epeefleche's newbie-biting and ownership of the article is going to drive away good-faith editors. The article itself is a huge WP:UNDUE problem at the moment and would benefit from others' involvement. ~YellowFives 15:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
This sequence does seem pretty odd. made six consecutive edits to the article. Epeefleche apparently reverted them all one-by-one and left a separate warning for each. In general, there is not enough discussion on the talk page to match the revert warring in the article. Wknight94 talk 15:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
This appears to be a plain old edit war. Epeefleche should not get to label his content opponents as vandals just because they are IPs. Triplestop x3 16:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've informed Epeefleche of this thread. Basket of Puppies 16:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Good. Looks like several editors including the IP disagreeing with Epeefleche. There's a political element here also. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The worst thing is leaving five consecutive warnings; I'm absolutely baffled - as well as disheartened - by Epeefleche's actions! GiantSnowman 18:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Although I cannot cite chapter and verse of examples, Epeefleche has been doing this repeatedly for a long time. It's not a new behavior. Is this the first time it's been reported? Editors who counter Epeefleche's edits or comments are also followed and their edits, comments, or articles are then disrupted. This really needs to stop. I cringed before writing this, knowing the possible consequences, but it's the right thing to do. --Sift&Winnow 19:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Hi. Stepped out of a meeting that will tie me up most of the day, but here's the lay of the land. 1) Most of what YF raises, he already raised--and is already addressed in depth here.

2) As to using Twinkle, I just got it and used it for the first time ever a day or two ago, so if I'm hitting the wrong button let me know. I thought it just did exactly what reverts would do before Twinkle.

3) The IP is clearly a vandal. I first looked at his two edits directly before the Awlaki edits. He reversed the black and white population percentages for an area. I checked, and confirmed it was vandalism. That's no "first time user mistake". That's blatant, intentional vandalism. In his next edit he inserted unsourced text, so that the Wikpedia article says the Nation of Islam worshipped a false prophet. I then, concerned, without even stopping to revert those, rushed to see each of his edits to the article I was working on. He: a) inserted unsourced opinion as fact, b) inserted snarky commentary as article text, c) deleted a reference that did mention 100 ... saying it didn't ( that lie YF refers to above as "informative edit summary"); d) inserted unsourced opinion ("exposing a propoganda war of neocons") as fact, and e) deleted a sourced statement and its ref saying (with wp terminology, even though he is "new") "if that doesn't define POV, I don't know what does" (YF's second example of "informative edit summary").

And yes, after having determined from the pre-Alawki edits that he was given to non-good-faith vandalism, I took each of those as vandalism (understanding v to include blanking as well as insertions). And as I looked at each in turn, I reverted him. And I believe that each time I reverted him, I left a warning. He didn't reply to me on his page, or on my page, and I didn't see his comments on the article talkpage, which I now see were the last comment in a thread. I'll be happy to get back to him. Jumping back into the meeting in a moment.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who's getting a big kick out of this ridiculous debate... am I?-- (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Nope. :) Crafty (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is now on a short vacation at the wikipedia comedy club. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
You are incorrect about the IP's action at Montgomery Village, Maryland. Look at the version right before the IP's edit. It says something very strange.
  • The racial makeup of the area was 29.24% [[African American (U.S. Census)|White]], 61.90% [[white (U.S. Census)|African American]],
White and African American have been switched already in the wikilinks. This was done earlier by a different IP. It looks to me like saw that there was a problem, but wasn't sure how to fix it, and did the best they could to make sense of it. That appears to be the action of a good-faith contributor. ~YellowFives 19:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
As for the edits to Islam in the United States and Anwar al-Awlaki, you need to read Wikipedia:Vandalism. Or let me quote it for you. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism". ~YellowFives 20:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
And a person doesn't have to be very experienced to have heard of POV and NPOV, even including those acronyms. Every time you edit Wikipedia, it says "Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view." The talk page at Talk:Anwar al-Awlaki says "POV" 11 times. And even the mainstream print media has discussed Wikipedia's policies. While NPOV might be rare outside of Wikipedia, POV is not. If that is how you make your claim that this editor is a vandal, I might suggest a read of WP:AGF. ~YellowFives 20:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
What you call unsourced opinion appears to be a summary of Awlaki's publications. It would be better to make clear that these are summaries and not Wikipedia's own opinion, but again this is obviously a content dispute and not vandalism. ~YellowFives 20:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche, even ignoring therest of this, you certainly made one very basic error. "The IP is clearly a vandal. I first looked at his two edits directly before the Awlaki edits." Very good, apart from the fact that these edits were more than two weeks (for the most recent) and more than a month (for the older one) before the current incident. What evidence do you have that the IP who made the edits on Nov. 23 is the same person that made edits on Nov. 7 or Oct. 16? Fram (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Epee left a long explanation on the IP's talkpage. It appears that none of the edits that were labeled (and the IP warned) were vandalism, as per the definition. They may not all have been according to policy, but they were not vandalism.
Twinkle is a useful tool - it allows you to do valid things quickly and easily. However, it also allows you to make mistakes quickly and easily. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
As someone who just saw this controversy for the first time just now, it appears to me that Epeefleche was responding to the same problem I have seen, namely people growing instant Wikipedia muscles. It appears he was trying to reverse the negative effects. It appears he may have been slightly heavy handed, given the multiple warnings left. This on one page regarding one person. On another page, I coincidentally just awarded him a barnstar for his excellent work. It appears from his talk page that he has garnered quite a few barnstars for his excellent work on quite a few other pages. Given all that, I think what is going on here regarding Epeefleche is also slightly heavy handed. If Epeefleche needs guidance, that's one thing. To call it abuse is another. Do I sense a double standard? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you clarify what you mean by "people growing instant Wikipedia muscles"? This discussion was necessary because Epeefleche dismissed even a friendly welcome to the IP as "wikihounding" and still can not admit any wrongdoing. On the IP's talk page, he is currently insisting upon an act of contrition from the IP editor before he will extend good faith. The IP has nothing to apologize for. Some honest mistakes made, followed by a civil question of "what did I do wrong," meet the highest expectations we should have from inexperienced editors. Epeefleche chose to ignore the evidence against vandalism at Montgomery Village, Maryland, and went to the IP's page demanding an explanation. That article was so tremendously screwed up when the IP encountered it, it is unreasonable to hound the editor for some explanation of what should have been done differently.
Epeefleche did act abusively. This might not be a cause for ongoing concern if there was now some expressed self-awareness of wrongdoing. We're still waiting for that. ~YellowFives 16:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Epeefleche, I don't know what "wikihounding" is, but I do like Seamus. Is it possible simply withdrawing the wikihounding statement may defuse tensions? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Some editors already indicated above their view that this thread is ridiculous. But as I've received a request on my talkpage to keep it going, so as not to be disrespectful I'll add a few items. 1) I've left the IP this message. YF's above comments suggest that perhaps he misconstrued the message. 2) The IP edits were disruptive, over more than one article. If he did not intend to be disruptive, but was simply accidentally in a series of edits deleting material backed by RSs, making a misstatement, inserting false information, inserting opinion as fact, and inserting text accusing a group of living people as following a false prophet (which I gather YF and BW believe), I apologize for misconstruing his motives. And have so indicated on his page. 3) Others on the Montgomery Village page have referred to similar revisions by IPs on that page this year as vandalism--see here, here, and here, and a glance through edits on that page show many (the bulk?) are IP vandal edits. 4) I don't have any evidence that this IP was only one person. But there is no indication that this is a shared IP, or school or the like. It is of course possible that disruptive edits were made by different people, consecutively, on the same IP address. 5) BWilkins and YF have asserted more than once that the disruptive edits were not vandalism. If he intended them to be disruptive, it would appear they were vandalism. Happy T day to all.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
"I don't have any evidence that this IP was only one person. But there is no indication that this is a shared IP, or school or the like." Epeefleche, you are aware that many, many IP adresses are dynamic? Have you any evidence, besides the fact that in your view, both the older edits and the new ones were vandalism, that they were made by the same person? Same or closely related articles, same style of posting, whatever? If you don't, then it is totally unacceptable to judge the actions of the current editor of that IP address by the actions of previous editors on that address. Barring evidence to the contrary, one has to assume that an IP editor is not the same person as a previous user of the same IP address. Fram (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
1. The 2nd disruptive edit (on Nov. 7) was to "Islam in America". The more recent disruptive edits (Nov. 23) were all to an article on an Islamic religious leader who was the Imam at a US mosque (and his connections to three of the 9/11 hijackers and the Fort Hood shooter). I'm uncertain why you see disruptive edits to articles on such a narrow subject matter as proof that we have two different editors here. 2. By analogy--if IP edits are disruptive over time, its not my understanding that we give them a pass, and fail to warn or (if appropriate) block the IP just because it may be a dynamic IP. 3. I'm not even sure what harm you are protesting here. I didn't revert the first two edits. Or even raise them to the IP's attention. All that happened was that they raised my level of concern about his later edits, and led me to review them carefully.
Are you complaining that my level of concern was raised--because you feel I shouldn't have had those concerns (and not done anything about them), because we may have two different people here who happen to be making disruptive edits to Islam-in-America related articles from the same dynamic IP? Frankly, I'm puzzled.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say that I have proof that they are different editors, I asked for evidence that they were not. The subject matter may indicate that, bt is not enough to convince me. Whether the subject matter is specific or not depends also on the origin of the IP address (if it the address of e.g. an Islamic institution or an predominantly Islamic country, then interest in these subject matters may be logical for different editors). I have not said that we shouldn't warn or block IP's, I indicated that we have to assume that an IP editor is not the same as the one that edited two or four weeks ago, just like it is not necessarily the same as the constructive editor of the four edits before that (e.g. on Ali al-Tamimi, an article you edited as well). Fram (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
The IP is in Maryland. Where 99.8 percent of the population is not Muslim.[21] I stand by my other points, and still have no idea where your comments are going. Unless there is reason for me to respond further, I'll deprive those who are "getting a big kick out of this ridiculous debate" of further pleasure, and leave this as my last comment. Happy Thanksgiving to all.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
You still maintain that his edits previous to Nov. 23 were disruptive, where in actual fact one was clearly helpful (even though it didn't fix all the earlier vandalism by other editors), and the other was perhaps not helpful, but largely correct and not disruptive. So even if it was the same editor, his previous editing should have earned him good faith instead of working against him. Fram (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Fram, if as I suspect you're referring to this helpful edit, that was in October. Never mind, I misread "previous to Nov. 23." ~YellowFives 11:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I've already discussed why I had thought that edits such as the Nation of Islam worshipped a "false prophet" were disruptive, and I've already as you know apologized twice to the IP for making the wrong assumption at the time and leaving warnings if those edits were in fact good faith and not vandalism. I'll add that I now understand that it would have been better to not leave any warnings or to at most leave one if it was in fact vandalism. I apologize for that as well, and will be more careful in the future.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
You've told the IP that you believe they were acting in bad faith, but you apologize if you're wrong. That's still assuming bad faith, and that's not an apology, because you aren't accepting any responsibility for your mistake, shifting all the responsibility to the IP editor. What you are calling "disruptive" has no basis in Wikipedia policy. On the contrary, WP:VAND is clear: "Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism." It is not vandalism say just once that Wallace Fard Muhammad was a false prophet, and if the IP could be educated about what we mean by NPOV and RS, there's a potentially useful edit in there, saying that he is widely viewed by other Muslims as being a false prophet. Yes, it would have been better to leave no warnings. It would also be helpful to read the vandalism policy and understand what disruption actually means. ~YellowFives 17:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
YellowFives, I think the horse is well-beaten here. Let's try and leave him a way to quietly nibble some crow and get back to being the long-term editor that he is. We're not trying to beat Epeeflech into submission. Although apologies are nice, they're not forceable. As per my most recent addition to the bottom of the thread, there's a way for everyone to move forward - so let's move forward :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • BWilkins, Wknight94, Triplestop, Dougweller, and GiantSnowman are all trying to tell you that your behavior here has been disruptive. Why are you ignoring the substance of their communication?
  • You still have not acknowledged that you made a mistake in interpreting the edit at Montgomery Village, Maryland, which was not vandalism. Even now that you know it was not vandalism, you are still using it to assume bad faith of this IP editor.
  • This IP has never disrupted Wikipedia. Not once. The IP has made edits which were not useful, and edits which you disagreed with. These were all objections to content, and the IP should be counseled to read our policies so that objections to content can be implemented in a useful way. (You still have not explained why you objected to me offering such counsel.)
  • Now on the IP's talk page, you are accusing the IP of bad faith, and demanding an explanation before you will assume good faith. You say here "If he intended them to be disruptive, it would appear they were vandalism." That is exactly the problem. You have no evidence that these content objections were intended to be disruptive. You have assumed bad faith. The only edit you ever offered as evidence of possible vandalism was that to Montgomery Village, Maryland, and now that you know that wasn't vandalism, you're still assuming bad faith anyway.
  • You offer a dishonest false dichotomy: either the IP made edits completely accidentally, or the IP was disrupting Wikipedia. The more likely truth is that the IP made every edit deliberately, in a good-faith attempt to improve Wikipedia, without full knowledge of how our policies work. It is clear that none of the edits constitute vandalism, as it is clear that you will not read and try to understand WP:VAND, yet you continue to portray the IP as a vandal.
  • You still have not acknowledged that leaving 5 escalating vandalism warnings in 8 minutes, when the editor had already stopped editing 17 minutes ago, is unreasonable and intimidating behavior.
  • You have now possibly intimidated a good-faith editor who had made constructive edits away from contributing to Wikipedia further. If you can not admit any problem with your actions here, even now that the problem has been explained to you, then there is no assurance you will not do it again, and you should be blocked to prevent you from further disrupting Wikipedia. ~YellowFives 11:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Blocking seems unnecessary, but removing Twinkle may be a good idea, as it would force him or her to slow down and pay more attention to the edits. 12:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Agree, except if Twinkle is removed, it should only be for the shortest time period possible. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I keep looking for the following from Epeefleche:

  • a correct understanding of WP:VAND
  • an understanding of WP:BITE
  • an understanding of WP:WARN, especially as to purpose and method
  • maybe even a look at User:Bwilkins/Essays/SMART - realizing that a warning is a "sanction" in some ways and to some users (especially new editors.

At this point, removal of Twinkle may be WP:PUNISH (something else they should also read). However, I say that only if I see that there is an understanding of the above, and no further incidents. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Eppefleche has already apologized for the mistake about the Maryland town. It wasnt't due to using twinkle, but from not looking far enough back in the history--a common error--I';ve made the same mistake myself a few times. As for overuse of the word vandal, we tend to be prone to that collectively. I 'd suggest the first step is finding a way to reword templates and the like to use it much much less. It is often misused the way he did. I'd suggest a warning where it appears to not use it if some lesser term would do. . However, I think Yellow Fives is overusing a term also: failure to AGF. This is a strong accusation also, and it is also overused. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Apologies again to all concerned.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
This all seems excessive. Perhaps it was OTT to say that these IP edits were vandalism, but they do look odd and this is a highly sensitive subject. There is also reason to suspect that the IP may be another Editor in disguise. But please can we reduce the level of wikilawyering it has become disproportionate. I'd recommend that Anwar al-Awlaki be semi-protected to reduce the likelihood of such incidents in the future. NBeale (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Unless you have specific evidence that this IP is another editor in disguise, that's a rather over-the-top accusation, NBeale. What is your evidence, and have you opened a sock puppet investigation? It's ironic that you denounce this thread as "excessive" while you take it to the furthest excesses yet. ~YellowFives 10:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
DGG, I do not believe I am overusing the term, and I think you would be hard-pressed to explain how this could have happened were Epeefleche assuming good faith. Had a welcome template to the IP not been interpreted as a personal insult, no further disussion would have been necessary. If we're now going to discuss my behavior, I'm OK with that, either here or at my talk page. But I will need diffs or quotes, and much more specific explanations of just what I've done wrong, because this vague criticism illuminates nothing. ~YellowFives 10:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Postscript: This makes for curiously interesting background reading to the above, as it relates to the article to which the edits were made.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


This editor has made a series (of the same) bizarre edits to the Battle of Kursk page. Despite the illogical revisions, which have been reverted by two editors, he proceeds without common sense to edit war. I am asking for someone to have a word, or necessary, prevent him from editing this page. Dapi89 (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the user about this discussion. GiantSnowman 22:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello Giant, thanks for leaving the message on my page. The issue is rather straightforward. My opinion is that the Battle of Kursk was primarily a land battle, and is famous for tank battles etc. Hence the land battles should be mentioned first. The opposite opinion is that the air battles chronologically came prior to the land battles and hence should be mentioned earlier. As for the user Dapi, I have been abused by him enough times, and hence am starting the thread below to complain about his lack of civility. Steel2009 (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
And there you have it, My opinion. This individual fails to understand the most basic premise of wikipedia. You have been reverted by two editors. Cease and desist. Dapi89 (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Steel2009, this won't need admin attention if you stop reverting and discuss your opinion on the talk page of the article. Read WP:BRD for more informaion. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sure, I can discuss on the discussion page. I did leave short messages with the edits but if discussion page is better, I can do that. Steel2009 (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
As per my entries to the discussion page of Battle_of_Kursk I have accepted the last version of the article created by editor Hohum after he/she reverted me, so this one can now be closed. As for the other article Blitzkrieg I have left a message on the discussion of the issue started by Hohum. Steel2009 (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious editor at Barnard College[edit]

I'm not going to go through the bureaucratic nonsense that one is typically advised to go through so I hope that someone can step in and block SPA Wkiwoman for her blatantly tendentious and consensus-violating edit warring at Barnard College. Her editing history and the article's Talk page make the situation clear. --ElKevbo (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's very clear that this user is edit-warring and unwilling to compromise or even try to reach consensus. Basket of Puppies 18:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I have blocked the user indefinitely. Invite review of this action here. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Indef seems a bit harsh given recent editing patterns, but I note that she has never edited on another subject and has a habit of posting the same thing over and over again on talk pages. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Support block. There could be some nuances to the exact relationship between Barnard College and Columbia University. An open-minded exploration of that relationship would be fine, but steady month-after-month reverting, going on since September 30, is not fine. The term 'SPA' is correct in this case, since this editor's only interest on Wikipedia is in showing that Barnard students are somehow disenfranchised in the relationship with Columbia. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. While I'm not entirely convinced that an indef block is the way to go, it's clear that something had to be done. I, too, am saddened that these events have overshadowed what probably should be nuanced and careful language and content in the article and I hope that we can constructively figure out how best to handle that now. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

given that this editor has not edited any other article, I do not see that the block is excessive. It's not that we are inhibiting useful work from her in other areas. DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


Not sure if anyone noticed this since it's way up on the page [22]. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the SPI report. If there is a positive response that needs sysop action then I can do the necessary. Any further instances of vandalism/harassment in the meantime can be reported to AIV for quick(ish) action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, may thanks! Apologies for our earlier misunderstanding. :-/ I blame it on the Asperger syndrome. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Carol Queen / IP using,[edit]


Warned user, take arguments to the talk page and always assume good faith

Yesterday, this anon editor made several edits to Carol Queen which were flagged by abuse filters as possible BLP violations and/or vandalism. I reviewed the edits, which amount to moderately argumentative, clearly unbalanced discussions of the article subject's sociopolitical writings, with significant sourcing problems and removed them, mentioning WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP in my edit summaries. The anon is repeatedly reinserting the edits, posting personal attacks on me on my talk page and on the article talk page; the most recent talk page edits includes an announcement of intent/threat to harass me over the dispute ("If you think those editors "hounded" you before, you ain't seen nothing yet"). The anon certainly appears to be an at least moderately experienced editor editing out of an IP to avoid scrutiny. I believe the Carol Queen article should be at least temporarily semiprotected and the IP should be blocked for socking, incivility, and refusal to comply with BLP and related policies. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll warn the IP to AGF for starters.. and then review the history A8UDI 17:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Ask for semi-protection to clear the ring and then do a nice cleanup, maybe? I'd argue that you're still almost being too generous with what's left! You're at 3RR, do you need someone to watch it while waiting for protection? daTheisen(talk) 17:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:Everyme[edit]

Self-admitted in this edit summary: [23]. Less than helpful "contributions" so far, so perhaps someone wants to issue a block.--Atlan (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Some context need to connect those IP edits to an account. Fences&Windows 01:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
F&W--if you look at the edit summary, "Dorftrottel" is the previous name of banned User:Everyme.GJC 02:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, what Gladys said. I have no reason to believe the IP is making that up. Anyway, I don't think this situation requires immediate action, but if no action is taken at all, I do wonder what the point is of keeping Everyme blocked.--Atlan (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
That was precisely the context needed! Why is Everyme blocked? Block evasion as a reason to block indefinitely seems a bit, well, circular. Fences&Windows 17:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Blocked for harassment and personal attacks. After that, the block was extended a few times for block evasion, eventually extended to indefinitely.--Atlan (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I blocked the IP for two weeks. Fences&Windows 18:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
See also User_talk:MuZemike#Another_case for another IP. For more background, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Everyme. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

possible bad image: File:Babypamper.jpg[edit]

Resolved: blocked and blacklisted. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Babypamper.jpg has been used as an unpleasant image in the nuisance page I Fucking Hate You, With a Smile. Is it a candidate for {{Badimage}}? Pseudomonas(talk) 13:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say yes. What article is it for? A8UDI 13:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, lord yes. And being used for vandalism. No encylopedic advantage for it. (Also almost put me off my lunch when I first saw it, which is a good reason in itself for deletion.) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 14:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
You might also want to nominate it for deletion from the commons. See commons:Commons:Project_scope#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose and scroll down to Examples to see how this image might not qualify for being on the Commons. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Propose block for User Vcrmaster[edit]

Resolved: Obvious vandalism only account. Chillum 16:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel that User Vcrmaster should be blocked preferably for 24 hours for general incompetence , trolling, vandalism and breach of wikipeida guidelines. Please discuss this matter further with me and other users. (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hardly an admin issue atm, two test edits and two warnings. If it continues then it goes to vandal noticeboard. RaseaC (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I have notified Vcrmaster (talk · contribs) about this discussion. Incidentally,, why do you feel Vcrmaster deserves a block? What evidence do you have for "general incompetence, trolling, vandalism and breach of wikipdia guidelines"? GiantSnowman 15:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
No one noticed the total humor in this? See this post where someone is objecting to a block on their that had expired 6 days earlier, stating they are said that IP and not a sock of someone else. They then sign it. Apparently forgetting they're at a different IP, it's signed with this 81.132 fellow, thus 100% solving their own case against themselves that never needed to be objected to in the first place. Hmm. So Mr/Mrs = that was used to revert edits of the indef block of one Mcjakeqcool a week ago. Chillum kind of had a no-brainer, but the user isn't the source of what's almost surely to continue in some form. It's just ironic that IPs lived even while looking as suspicious as the user. daTheisen(talk) 16:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I blocked this user before seeing this ANI report, I followed a note on the users page to here. I don't by default investigate every person I see making a report of vandalism, particular when that report was not involved in my decision to make the block. Chillum 20:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Darrenhusted and Speedy Deletion tags[edit]

I really hate to bring this up, since the user is generally doing a lot of positive work on vandalism and new page patrols and I don't want to drive a hard-working volunteer away, but the issue below is starting to become a problem.

Darrenhusted (talk · contribs) seems to over-tagging new articles for speedy deletion. Mostly with A7 and G11. With A7, the user is tagging articles that are outside the scope of subjects, tagging article with clear claims of importance, and tagging articles that have been kept after AfD. With G11, the user is tagging articles that are clearly not spam.

Darrenhusted has recieved numerous messages about the use of speedy deletion tags, including this message. Yet Darrenhusted continues to inappropriately tag articles for SD.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying we all have to be perfect with how we tag articles for SD. Even I have made a mistake or two in that area. But the idea is that we learn from our mistakes, and we avoid being disruptive (either intentionally or unintentionally). Given the high number of inapproriate tags and the continuation after recieving numerous talk page messages about the problem (which Darrenhusted never replied to, other than removing them from his talk page manually archiving the messages), this is something the community needs to deal with.

The problem is that it discourages new members from continuing to participate in Wikipedia when their articles are tagged for speedy deletion. This can especially be a problem when new users are told their articles will be quickly deleted for reasons that don't seem to apply to their article.

I would propose the following temporary editing restriction:

Darrenhusted is restricted for three months from personally tagging a Wikipedia page for speedy deletion, except for the editor's own user pages. I've revised the proposal slightly - see below. Singularity42 (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I would also appreicate hearing if anyone has any better solutions... Singularity42 (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Revised proposal:
Darrenhusted is restricted for three months from personally tagging a Wikipedia page for speedy deletion, except for Darrenhusted's own user pages and pages where Darrenhusted was the only substantial contributer. Singularity42 (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Non-admin comment: A form of mentorship is probably more appropriate. How about creating Darrenhusted/CSDs and letting him fill it with recommendations and rationales, then you, me, and anyone else who wants to can use his recommendations as suggestions to tag. Here's the important part: Over time he'll see the ones that we accept, the ones we reject, the ones we accept with changes, and the ones someone else already tagged and he'll be able to get good enough we can restore his tagging privileges. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Much better idea, provided Darrenhusted is willing to go along with it as well. If so, I would be happy to be involved. Singularity42 (talk)

Yeah, I'm not going to be mentored, nor create a sub page where people vet my CSD tagging. Here is a different solution, I won't bother. In my last 500 edits I have tagged 50 articles under CSD which have been deleted, and some which have been turned down. Some of which I PROD-ed. If an admin does not view an article I have tagged as a CSD then I'm fine with that, the process is CSD-PROD-AfD. CSDs get applied then either the article is deleted, or they get turned down and the editor can pursue the other avenues. If my CSD tags are judged as disruptive then I will skip that step, it's not worth the hassle. And I didn't reply to Singularity42 'cause there was nothing to say. I read it, I archived it, and given that the notice was on my talk page there is nothing out of the ordinary, there are plenty of notices on my talk page that I don't bother responding to. But now, Singularity42, you have your response. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(BTW - I did not start this thread because my message had not been responded to - I assume the message was read when it was manually archived. The issue is that the problems raised in the message were still continuing, which combined with the lack of a direct reply, was an issue. Singularity42 (talk))
What helps most is sending each article to the proper channel in the first place, according to WP:Deletion policy. Articles that meet the CSD criteria should be nominated for speedy. Articles which uncontroversially should be deleted but do not meet those criteria should be nominated for PROD. Articles about which there will be an argument or that need discussion go to AfD. It is not helpful to nominate obvious speedy candidates for AfD--it adds to the already excessive workload there. Nominating articles that do not fit the CSD for speedy is even less helpful, because they might accidentally get deleted--admins are not perfect. If in doubt, Prod is often a good choice,because I and the others who patrol there will move things to where they belong if necessary. DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Since Darrenhusted continued making bad speedy nominations after this response (e.g., tagging Omega gamma delta as a G2 test page), I have temporarily disabled WP:TWINKLE for him, until this issue is resolved. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reply to Darrenhusted's comments). I think right there is the heart of the problem. As pointed out by DGG, it is not CSD --> PROD --> AfD. Each one serves a different function. It is possible (and, in fact, usually normal) for something to meet normal deletion policy (and would therefore fall under PROD or AfD) and not meet the very narrow scope of CSD. There may also be something that seems to meet deletion policy, but the deletion is obviously not going to uncontroversial. Therefore, PROD would not apply. Basically, each of the three deletion methods serve very different purposes and have very different scopes. One is not an escalation of the other. They should be treated differently as very seperate processes. Singularity42 (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

user:Xenos2008-racism, accusations of illegal acts[edit]

  • user has been blocked for vandalism and incivility 1
  • user has (following the block) made racist comments to the effect that Greek people are assholes and peasants


  • user has been warned on at least three occasions by an administrator user:Henrik

3 4 and by myself user:Anothroskon 5

  • user then proceeded to make further racist comments to the effect that Greek people are nationalists and racists


  • User has finally accused me of belonging to a far-right, semi-legal group and of having threatened him in public, the latter of which would be illegal in my jurisdiction. 6
  • I had taken the user to WP:AE but the case was deemed to be unimportant since the user was at the time for a long time inactive. This is no longer the case and in any event the user has commited what would appear to be further breaches of WP policy in the mean time. Thanks.--Anothroskon (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I am not active on WP: I am responding to allegations of racism by Greek nationalists. I have given up trying to remove the biases and falsified history on WP. Xenos2008 (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Dude... if you want us to take you seriously as a troll, you're gonna have to try harder than that.-- (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, this is the first time I think I've laughed in the Administrator's Noticeboard /Incident section! --Rockstone (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
This section is a constant source of comedy for me.-- (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
He called them peasants? Next thing you know, he'll be calling them upstarts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm always partial to varlets. --NellieBly (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately not entirely funny. I have left the user a warning. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually something weird was going on with this editor the time he was active: personal attacks & rascist comments [[24]], talking always about a fictious Greek propaganda scenario and his personal problems with the academic community in Greece [[25]].Alexikoua (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If any of you are serious (and you can be sure that the Greek editors are not) to understand what this is about, I suggest you ask any foreigner living in Greece. Personally, I have fewer problems than most, so the last allegation by Alexikoua is malicious and indeed typical of how Greeks deal with foreigners. I do not have a personal agenda and am being attacked for not supporting Greek propaganda: this also is typical of Greek behaviour on the internet and generally. If you do not know anything about Greece, then do not be so foolish as to think it resembles the USA or Europe. It is a Balkan country. Xenos2008 (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please mind that user:Xenos2008 means this last part to be a slur and not as a simple geographical fact. In his mind being Balkan probably amounts to some sort of personal defect, never mind about being Greek as well. As I said on the talk page I could produce evidence to the effect that Greeks are neither more nor less nationalist, racist, peasant or assholes than any other group of people but that would imply crediting his position as something other than a racist rant. --Anothroskon (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Please bear in mind that Anothroskon is a Greek and his opinions and so-called evidence are part of the problem, not the solution. Xenos2008 (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a desperate need for more non-Greeks to be editing Greece-related articles, and a great deal of leeway should be given to such editors, given the inevitable hostility they will come up against. However, I know that administrators seem to prefer articles to be wrong and quiet, rather than right but busy with edit wars, reverts, and controversy. Meowy 21:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Meowy, would you be willing to clarify what you mean by the "inevitable hostility" statement and whether this is tied to one particular nationality as you phrased it? I am asking for a clarification to avoid a potential misinterpretation as a simple ethnic insult. Thanks. Antipastor (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Your own reply might be an example of that "inevitable hostility", since I wrote nothing that suggested it is "tied to one particular nationality". It is a fact that most Greek related articles, especially ones dealing with contemporary Greece, are going to be edited by persons with some sort of Greek background, and that many of them are going to consider such articles "internal matters" for Greeks only, and are going to edit those articles to remove anything that they consider to be "anti-Greek". Meowy 03:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. Your predictions about hypothetical situations are not "a fact" though. But, anyway, I see what you mean, and from what you said in your first sentence, I take it that you mean this could happen for articles about any country. So this does not seem to warrant a special justification of a kind of problematic behavior discussed in this thread. I think that on the contrary, in sensitive and potentially controversial situations, the standards for civility should be higher to avoid an obvious degradation of the editing environment, and this must apply equally to all parties of course. Antipastor (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

──────────── Um, no. There is way for non-Greeks to get involved with editing Greek-related articles without having to go and make general stereotypes of Greeks. Are you also saying that in order to encourage non-Jewish people edit Jewish-related articles, we should put up with anti-semitism? Of course not. Same thing here. Xenos2008 has been told to edit without degrading Greek people (and saying all Greek people have a peasant mentality, or that we shouldn't expect rational arguments regarding Greece because it is a balkan country - whatever that means - is degrading, insulting, and not constructive). Xenos2008 has been warned by administrators after this thread started. He chose to ignore that warning and continue making such comments in his posts on this thread. Wikipedia should not have to put up with this behaviour. Singularity42 (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a person, so has no say in what it should put up with or not put up with. The content of articles is all that should matter, and is all that the users of Wikipedia care about. If Xenos2008 knows enough about Greeks to touch at some sensitive points in their self-identity, he probably knows enough about Greece to make a positive contribution to Greece-related articles. BTW, when the complainant talked about being accused of committing "illegal acts", I was assuming they were sheep-related ones - now that is a general stereotype of Greeks! The comments Xenos2008 has been making are not actually stereotypes, they seem to me more like internal criticisms that I (would hope) Greeks make about fellow Greeks (or that any society might make about its self-perceived negative qualities). OK, they are probably not helpful to the editing process, but to compare them to anti-Semitism is completely OTT. Meowy 03:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a community, and the community can say what it will or will not accept. There are plenty of examples of that. The community can say it will not accept repeated offensive behaviour that ignores warnings, including making broad, offensive stereotypes about Greek people. This includes broadly saying Greeks have no respect for Wikipedia and that Greeks have a peasant mentality, that the entire Greek society is racist, that other editors complain about his/her behaviour solely because they are Greek, that a Greek person cannot follow a reasoned argument, simply because they are Greek, that it is typical of Greek people to attack anyone that does not follow a Greek nationalist agenda, and Greece should not be taken seriously because they are a Balkan country (whatever that means), and that editors should ignore another editor solely because the editor is Greek. Wikipedia as a community does not have to accept this type of behaviour, especially after the editor in question has been warned but still continues. And what is wrong with comparing to prejudice against other enthnical/religious groups? Isn't that what is happening here? Singularity42 (talk) 04:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I gotta back Singularity here. Racism and culture wars are not welcome on Wikipedia. Going down that road leads to blocks. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
These are mostly misrepresentations or misunderstandings of my position. I work in a Greek university, publish with Greek colleagues, and never have problems with imposition of conventional nationalistic views on my work. It is with the wider public that the problems arise, for the reasons stated on my Talk page (school education). There is also a real problem on WP because it is not established academics writing the articles on Greece, and the Greek nationalist viewpoint prevails. One or several of the Greeks protesting here know my real name and have had very nasty arguments with me on other websites, where their racist views have been condemned. Their response? to accuse me of racism against an entire society for daring to open my mouth. I have no intention of editing on WP, but I am responding to these allegations to defend my personal reputation (as all of the Greeks here seem to think they know who I am). Xenos2008 (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  1. I neither know nor care to know who User:Xenos2008 is irl apart from my objection to his accusation of me having threatened him in public which would be illegal.
  2. Who one is irl doesn't and shouldn't matter in WP where we are judged by our edits. And the user's edits have been presented above so people can draw their own conclusions.
  3. I have neither exchanged nor wish to exchange any communication via the internet with the user and this includes other websites, emails etc.
  4. My accusations of racism against the user however stand and he has but his own outbursts to thank for that. I point the reader to the list I prepared above as well as the one presented by User:Singularity42 and finally to two warnings the user has received from as many admins (Georgewilliamherbert and User:Henrik) and despite which he persists undettered. Thanks.--Anothroskon (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

And the incidents which led to my comments, such as false historical "facts" which I deleted and were persistently replaced by Greeks, are all ignored. The arguments presented for such behaviour include "you have to prove that such and such did not happen" simply because all Greeks believe that such and such occurred. There are no sources, and no evidence for such beliefs. When there are sources used, they are highly selective and almost always supporting the Greek nationalist point of view.

It is not racist to say that a society has a general problem with nationalism, peasant mentality from its recent history, racist mentality etc: these are verifiable facts actually written by Greeks amongst others, regardless of what Greeks in the USA or elsewhere may think. Furthermore, the issue of IRL is relevant, because it is well known (even from my nickname) that I am not a Greek: the outright hostility expressed to me here has been very clear, and is racially motivated. Again: ask any foreigner living in Greece...Xenos2008 (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read wp:NPOV before editing further articles. We are not hostile because of who you are, but rather because of your edits. We do not know, nor do we care to know, who you are in real life. We don't even care what nation you are from.--Rockstonetalk to me! 01:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Xenos2008, I wonder, can you cite some examples (on Wikipedia) of that hostility which you think is racially motivated? However, making comments about editors and their motives and their society isn't going to lead to your content-related edits being more likely to survive - so in the long run, what is the point of making such comments? I think you should give an assurance that, in the future, all edit summaries you make will be restricted to descriptions of the changes you have made, and all article talk-page comments you make will be restricted to the content of the articles. As I said earlier, there is a desperate need for more non-Greeks to be editing Greece-related articles. I hope that giving that assurance would be enough to allow you to continue to edit Greece-related articles. Meowy 02:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Meowy, thank you for your open-minded approach. Since this is my second ID on WP (a few years previously I edited under my real name) and it has proved equally impossible to deal with the nationalism of all Balkan nationalities, but especially Greek) I have no intention of editing anything on WP. When adult and university educated Greeks spout schoolbook propaganda as the truth, and simply refuse to deal with facts, there is no possibility of compromise or decent quality historical articles on WP. One person, however expert, cannot fight off another 20 who know little of their own country or the basic principles of academic research.Xenos2008 (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The above comment by the user is borderline incivility and personal attack but considering the other much more serious infractions of his (racism) I believe it can be safely ignored. And to answer your question Meowy, the point behind his making such comments is simply that he has to vent. I agree with the need to have more Greek editors edit Greek related material which is why some time before this discussion I had invited on several occastions PMAnderson 12 to help edit the Greeks article. You too of course are invited. I have also recently placed the article Byzantine Greeks on peer review and I would thank anyone reading this to take a look. By the way PMAnderson has very strong opinions on the Greeks article's failings but manages, for some unfathomable reason, to avoid calling Greeks assholes and peasants or shouting "fuck you" at other editors. The reason of course is that he is not a racist.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Do please check your statements for Freudian slips! So revealing, this subconscious nationalism that eats away at people's brains. Xenos2008 (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia isn't an academic institution - it is a medium for the dissemination of propaganda. It disseminates a lot of other things as well - useful things, and mostly true things - but its distinguishing feature, its unique selling point, is propaganda dissemination. It is about time the academic world gets a bit of backbone and begins to confront the evil that is at the core of the Wikipedia concept. Because of the scale of the problem I don't think this can be done internally by just editing Wikipedia articles. Meowy 22:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I repeat, for those who choose to ignore it: It is not racist to say that a society has a general problem with nationalism, peasant mentality from its recent history, racist mentality etc: these are verifiable facts actually written by Greeks amongst others, regardless of what Greeks in the USA or elsewhere may think. I should also mention that revisions I have tried to make taking sources away from student unpublished materials and towards published articles (including my own) and Greek nationalists systematically revert to the student material out of spite. This is not beneficial to WP: it is a typical Greek cabal approach, making sure that "outsiders" cannot participate except on the Greek terms. So, Anothroskon can bleat as much as he likes, but his protests are either deluded or false. Xenos2008 (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, enough. Consider this a warning. You can repeat "it's not racist" as much as you want but, when many people here are telling you it is, you should listen. We don't care what your personal experience or opinion is. Your comments are offensive and derogatory towards an entire ethnic/racial group. Stop it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 01:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
No. NOT ENOUGH! Who are you to tell me what is racist? Do you publish on racism? I do. Do you have any expertise in this area? I don't think so. So cut the WP crap that you think a lot of people saying something makes it the truth. Try living in the real world, for once. Xenos2008 (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Dial back the attitude, Xenos. That response just lost you a vital amount of good will. Like with yours truly, who does live in the real world. -- llywrch (talk)
I will echo the calls for Xenos to tone down his language, but I will also call into question the labelling of his comments as "racist". Attributing a particular set of actions or prejudices to the citizens of a particular nation is by no means racist. It may be wrong, it may be inflammatory, and it may be unhelpful, but it is not racist. Please show how his comments denegrated a "race" of people. They may be nationalistic, but racist they are not. I would caution Xenos to be more considerate in the future, but I would also chastise Anosthroskon for his hyperbolic wielding of the "racist" tag. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
While Greeks do not constitute a race they do constitute an ethnic group and it was at this group as a whole that comments were directed and not to the individual editors the user had issues with. Hence the application of the term racism. The term was used to imply ethnic and not racial discrimination as indeed it is often used (e.g. according to the UN conventions further there is no distinction between ethnic and racial discrimination). The former is what Xenos2008 engaged in and for lack of a better term (I have never heard of the word ethnicism used) I used racism. If you are still not happy we can compromise and call him a Greek-baiter. Doesn't change what he wrote.--Anothroskon (talk) 07:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Since both race and nation are arbitrary distinctions that we humans make to distinguish us from not-us, I think it is moot what you call it. Bloody-rude-characterisation-by-ethnographic-stereotype is a bit of a mouthful for me.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Fortunately the user is inactive the last weeks, that's the only good thing in this situation. At Sept. 6, I received a short e-mail from him, written in the usual style he is used to. I didn't paid much attention since his activity died down the following days. The e mail is forwarded to Georgewilliamherbert. Alexikoua (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
You're more than likely right about the word "racism" here Throwaway85 but had Xenos responded in the dispassionate, rational manner you just did, there wouldn't be half the drama & nastiness we've seen so far in this incident. amazing that someone who claims to be an academic could not keep his cool & be rational. :-/ llywrch (talk) 05:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, right, academics are not allowed to get angry about fraudulent history, propaganda or general intolerance of racial and ethnic difference. Do any of you non-Greeks live in Greece or a Balkan country? do you have any idea of what goes on here? Xenos2008 (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if academics get angry about whatever. However, if you get angry at someone on Wikipedia & rant on at them, even if they deserve it the best that will happen to you is that you'll be ignored. The worst is that you get banned. You have the training, & I would expect the brains to channel that emotion into persuading us to see your point. So far, I wouldn't grant you tenure on what you've posted here. -- llywrch (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

R1a talkpage turning into one persons blog opinionating about problems in genetics literature "generally"[edit]

The Talk:Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) page itself is the best evidence of what the headers says. I was criticized for long postings on earlier attempts to get help on this problem. It has since developed further. I think the following diffs are plenty. They are simply the several edits made so far by User:Pdeitiker to create the current version of his latest creation on that talkpage: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. Although I have written a response and tried to treat it as if there is a discussion going on [32], past form shows that this user will probably continue editing what he has written, partly in order to make the response look wrong. If this is not disruptive editing, what is? Genetics articles with popular interest are hard enough at the best of times to get balanced.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hurrgghhh. This is a clear series of WP:TALK violations. Anti-Kurgan-hypothesis ranting has a long and ignoble history, from the Hindutva fanboys at Out of India theory (who want the PIE urheimat to be India), to Rokus01 (talk · contribs), who, from memory, wanted it to be in the Netherlands. Some unholy alliances resulted. No one is denying the theory has its problems: at the same time, it is the most widely accepted and fluent explanation available: certainly "academic mainstream". Where this guy is coming from is not clear but he's certainly not offering anything constructive. Thoughts on what to do? Moreschi (talk) 12:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Moreschi asks about the background to "this guy". Examination of the talk page will show that this is not the only blog-like subject taking up space there, and heading towards OR, SYNTH, etc. User:Pdeitiker's background is in genetics, and he has explained his interest here as being trying to show that a genetics article can be brought up to GA level. Articles he works on such as Mitochondrial Eve have been heavily criticised for jargon. Therefore he became interested R1a while it was recently being brought from a very poor standard to a much better standard (according to all other editors following this article). Therefore, the basic theme of most of his digressions is to try to argue that the article is actually "crap", despite what everyone thinks, and needs his urgent large-scale re-writing. I have tried to keep this short.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)::
Oww, my eyes. My gut reaction? User:Pdeitiker and you could both use a day off. The text blob there (247k!) is just so huge that, though you diffs are entirely reasonable, it would take hours to pick out counterpoints or anything close to neutral out of it. Looks to be mostly rambling to try to take the last poke at a hideous pile of horse meat, and you both likely are looking at it as gaming or an attempt at mass POV pushing via the bulk posts. This is going to look like the cheap way out of giving an answer, but since you're about to tear your hair out, just message the other user and admit that it's not worth the stress and you think a weekend away would be helpful. Oh, and don't take the bait on anything, jeesh. Reading some lines of your user talk page comments looked like a game of macho intellectual thumb-biting on the hope that maybe one of you will go way out of line on more direct civility somewhere. Try to think of it that way. Don't let someone trick you into doing or saying something extremely dumb when you're confident policy and guidelines are with you. Nothing is looking terribly productive.
For simplicity on what would probably be a result of looking over chat, just say everyone has had a ... "frustrated tone" to this point? Look back, relax, talk through and get multiple opinions from the other editors of where consensus stands so there's a starting point to work off of. Those in opposition might not end up caring, but it does matter if there have been discussions done on what a current status is so that it's easier to see where disruption is from. Consider this your first advice on backlash and dispute resolution that people like to draw out for no reason; don't shop forums or specifically write to any editors about it, even if it's just to get a starting consensus. WP:RC. Crafty disruptive editors will spot all of it and gladly post a list of diffs a mile long about how you'd trying to pile-on. daTheisen(talk) 13:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
The record shows that I have tried leaving the article, and that Pdeitiker did as he says he will. Pdeitiker's stated aim is to treat what has been achieved there recently as crap and re-write it. In the words of another editor: "Left to his own devices, Pdeitiker would convert this article into Einstein's theory of general relativity as he has done with Mitochondrial Eve"[33]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
BTW I know what you mean about "crafty disruptive editors" and I know at first sight it might look like such a case. But it is not. Pdeitiker really seems to have confused himself about what Wikipedia rules are, and in this state he has shown now several times that he will make major unilateral changes to the article when given a chance. I am concerned not to let that happen. Other editors have expressed a quite clear consensus that recent editing direction has been a major improvement. This article was an edit war minefield for a long time. We should really try to avoid a bull in a china shop messing that up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not totally convinced. Should the page be about the gene flow only, or should it give a general discussion on the spread of languages and cultures? They do not necessarily correlate close with genotype. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I do not think we can seriously propose that Wikipedia can treat the whole enormous field of interdisciplinary speculation (linguistic, genetic, archaeological) about ancient population movements as "fringe"? If the literature is full of it, in all three fields, and it is notable and mainstream, what are the options? Pdeitiker's proposal is clear: we make our own judgments. Let me by the way point out that the subject of "ancient population movements" is touchy. There is always some group or another watching for any slight sign of bias against, Albanians, Serbs, Turks, Indians, Africans, whatever. These articles are increasingly being read by a wider public. But I have now managed to damp down massive edit warring in two articles like this, E1b1b and R1a by compromising and trying to see the good in all sides, and I know that Deitiker's approach is simply not possible or desirable, and that Wikipedia's guidelines actually work: let every reasonable opinion be mentioned, in context, with alternatives mentioned, etc etc. WP:UNDUE. Please also do not forget the reality of the context: the problems of the Kurgan hypothesis have only now been raised after a new editor mentioned them, and good on him, this section does need work. For Deitiker this is only the latest in quite a number of desperate attempts to argue that the article is "crap" and "disturbingly badly" written, and people need to start giving way to Deitiker "or else" because only he knows how to make the article "encyclopedic". (The quotes are real. Diffs available.) Strange thing is that he also openly says that his interest in the article is because it has been brought to a relatively good level for a Y haplogroup article, and he wants (he literally says) to try to be part of getting it to GA level, both as an example to other Wikipedians, and also and in particular to put me personally through a "painful" experience of "self improvement". Just read the talk page. I have seriously tossed up making a case for Wiki-hounding.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Just to make one thing clear before admins switch off: yes, the whole enormous field of interdisciplinary speculation (linguistic, genetic, archaeological) about ancient population movements is very speculative. Nearly everyone who complains about how speculative it is really has a valid point. But this valid point helps no one when it comes to deciding how to edit on Wikipedia. It is simply a challenge to be solved without too much wikidrama if possible. If we have massive and obvious violations of wikipedia talkpage violations this job becomes quite difficult.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I do not see the primary problem as talk page violations, but rather Ownership. He is not the only person to have expressed this attitude, but his attitude towards this is indeed quite extreme, and does seem to need some considerable adjustment. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you make the insinuation about WP:OWN. I've tried stopping editing, and that did not work. We've had other editors agree with me and get hounded off the page [34], or asked to post elsewhere [35], etc. The guy seriously will make the page more like Mitochondrial Eve. If saying that this is not good is "biased" then OK, I'm biased. But I think you can not have looked at Mitochondrial Eve and its record then. It is chalk and cheese. Sometimes saying one article is better than another is not biased.
Simple enforcement of wikipedia talkpage guidelines, or even just a couple of people saying what they are in particular real cases, would probably do a lot. In some ways this is a weird case. In some ways it really is a no brainer. One basic point is that while Pdeitiker thinks he can say things like "you are not arguing me, but with Wikipedia" over something like for example, bullet points, or the number of paragraphs in the lead; while he thinks he can review the article and then cite himself in third person as a critic, or call for a GA review during a content debate, and then tell everyone he just did so in order to ensure they give way and work to a deadline, thinks he can rewrite his posts after replied to or even edit replies, etc etc etc...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:TLDR Obviously there are deeper issues here. I will answer one critique from DGG. Language and genes do not often flow together. For example the Irish speak and IE tongue but are genetically more closer to the Basque than they are to any anatolians. There is neither a cultural, linguistic, metal age or any other cultural association with the genetics. It is quite common examining HLA haplotypes to find finger print haplotypes shared by two different peoples that have no known historical or paleocultural link what-so-ever other than common Eurasian origins. It is also not too uncommon to see papers show certain links, which are soon followed by archaeological studies that support those links. I have a nose for speculation, and that material that has been on this page for quite some time reeks of speculation. The bottom line, and Andrew will probably agree with this, using either shallow SNPs (surface phylogenetic variation) or STR diversity (the clocking of which is highly questionable) the range of migrations times from or to Eastern Europe extends over 1000s of years. The problem is the the Kurgan culture existed for only 1500 years, and the bigger problem is that cultural flow from eastern Europe into other parts of Europe have been suggested in many studies. Here are two studies that go into great deal about the late paleolithic Mesolithic and Early Neolithic and are online.
  • Late Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Early Neolithic in Lower Alpine Reoing between the Riveris Iller and Lech (South West Bavaria).-Birgit gehlen
  • Review- Final Paloelithic and Mesolithic Research in a Unified Germany- Street et al., Journal of world prehistory:15 (4) 2001
  • An example of Gene-Language study gone wrong: The correlation between Languages and genes:The Usko-Mediterranean peoples. Human Immunology 62:1052-1061 (2001).
As per Andrew_Lancaster and his clearly WP:OWN attitude concerning my edits to the page. Eventually you will need to deal with this issue in Arbitration. Final commen