Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive481

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

Noticeboard archives


Please help clear names/User labeling me a racist and not AGF[edit]

Hello. I'm hoping that admins can help fix my checkuser case. It was worked out directly with ArbCom as I wrote them and User:FayssalF many times explaining that I am NOT Saxaphonenm. We are two separate people who share similar interests. However, because it still indicates that we are the same person, it seems many people are confused and are not AGF. I have been following a recent incident regarding Sax and it seems because of some misinformation on that checkuser page, some people are still confusing the two of us.

It started when Huldra claimed:

"*(Oh, I was going to add that many of the new editors sounded exactly the same to me, but then I saw this: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Einsteindonut. I guess that explains a bit.) Regards, Huldra (talk) 10:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)"

It then continued with Perdito wrongly claiming that a recent "incident" has something to do with me and that I am the whole reason for it

Perdito then claimed that I am a racist because I posted a video he didn't like as I was trying to make a larger context point saying that many "antisemitism" cases could be prevented if more people tried to focus on positive things about Jews and Israel (as opposed to the negative which oftentimes seems to plague many sources and WP.) I was just trying to make a general point, not claim racial or religious superiority. Perhaps the point was lost on him and perhaps posting that video was not the right thing to do, but it was merely trying to highlight Jewish/Israeli contributions (vs. the obsession we see all over the place of alleged war crimes and oppression, etc.)

Perdito verified that he thinks I am Sax and thus I am to blame for the entire incident (which had nothing to do with me.)

I'd just let the record show that while I did have multiple accounts (in which I established when I first started out and didn't even realize it was "against the rules,") I don't think I ever used them abusively except for one time in order to avoid the 3RR. Since that time, I was blocked for one week and had stopped using the multiple accounts for a long time prior and made an agreement with myself that I was not going to use them anymore as soon that I understood that it was wrong.

Sax had an indef. ban which was reversed because of the mistake. There were other mistakes with the checkuser as well. I'm just posting this to show how one "checkuser" mistake has now led two editors to have the wrong impression of me and to not AGF, so if there's anything you can do to help, I'd appreciate it.

It might also interesting to note that all of this happened as a result of me originally bringing up a case of someone posting a flag of Jihad and swastikas on my profile and on an article in which I was working on. Seems that people who are dealing with these problems might be facing some unfair consequences merely for our pro-Israel views. It also seems that many pro-Israel editors are "throwing in the towel" on WP because of these issues. It is my hope that WP can be more fair in the future toward myself and others. --Einsteindonut (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

We would need verification by ArbCom or Faysaal himself before we can do anything, as we cannot act on hearsay, no offense. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 23:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand. I have notified Fayssal of the issue. Well, what do you think about Perdito not AGF here and labeling me a racist for the video I posted? --Einsteindonut (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it's worthy of a warning for personal attacks, but not any further admin action. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Einsteindonut: firstly: could you please change the weasel word you use about me? You say "Huldra claimed".. Now, "claimed" is listed as a weasel word. If you changed it to "Huldra wrote", then it would be perfectly neutral. Thank you.
Secondly, you write that this "has now led two editors to have the wrong impression of me and to not AGF". But Einsteindonut: WP:AGF does certainly not demand us to disbelieve a checkuser report! I do follow AGF, and I believe checkuser,..until, (possibly) the checkuser is changed. Regards, Huldra (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe it is necessary. You were, in fact, claiming that some new editors sound exactly the same to you. This is not a WP article, so I'm not sure of I have to make an incident report "neutral." You did make a claim, so I wrote it as such. I don't believe the issue is with you, though you were the first to use the inaccurate checkuser report to back your claim. My issue is more with the checkuser report, for the simple fact that it is causing people to assume bad faith and make false claims. In other words, I'm blaming the checkuser report, not you. --Einsteindonut (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Huldra, WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV are both article policies and have no bearing at all on ANI. ED, you might want to request another RFCU to prove your innocence if it cannot be proved with whatever communication ArbCom of Faysaal himself has. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Erik. I did send an email correspondence with ArbCom and the Ombudspeople (again.) I also notified Fayssal. I'm not sure how to request another RFCU? I've never done it in the first place, but if an admin w/ checkuser power (if there is such a thing) can could help, I'd appreciate it. Thanks again. --Einsteindonut (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Go to the WP:RFCU page and follow the instructions there. However, it is best to wait for a response from The Powers That Be first, before you get into the RFCU drama. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Dignity to all[edit]

(cross-posted at Wikipedia talk:IPCOLL)

The CU result found out Saxophonemn and Einsteindonut editing from different locations but using the same user agent. Saxophonemn identified himself later on. I then unblocked him with a "I trust[ed] user's e-mails to prove innocence" rationale.

I hope that would stop the never-ending mutual accusations and provocations. I amazed by all those cartoons and incivility (Eleland), Mark Twain's irrelevant quote (Saxophonemn) video (Einsteindonut) and Jaakobou (comments directed at Tiamut a few weeks earlier), etc... Do we still block for wp:POINT, unnecessary and inflammatory acts?

Admins, please sort out the mess with objectivity and profesionalism and please stop arguing about WP:UNINVOLVED. This message is directed mainly to ChrisO and Elonka. I urge both of these admins to stop it or let others deal with the sitaution(s).

Partisans, please don't flood threads with repetitive wikilawyering.

To everyone, there's one important thing to all of us... Dignity. To understand racism we must first understand dignity. Let's start with this... Dignity does not consist in possessing honors, but in deserving them. (Aristotle)

P.S. By the way Erik, CU on oneself to prove innocence "are rarely accepted, please do not ask." And the issue of Saxophonemn/Einsteindonut has already been clarified. As I said above, accusations of sockpuppetry should stop. Any further accusation would be faced by a block. And any further provocative comments from any side would be faced with harsh blocks. -- fayssal - wiki up® 03:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"The CU result found out Saxophonemn and Einsteindonut editing from different locations but using the same user agent." - TRANSLATION: The two users were editing from two completely different locations, but are both mac people who (like most mac people) update their software regularly. From the very beginning, I tried explaining this and Sax disputed it as well. Lesson learned? Two mac people should not have similar POV's and work on the same articles or else you risk unfair blocks and false allegations of sockpuppetry. Again, while it might have been out of place to share the video, I explained the context of why I was doing it. It was not to inflame nor provoke. Regarding honors and dignity, I prefer this Twain quote:

"It is better to deserve honors and not have them than to have them and not to deserve them." -Mark Twain

Thanks. --Einsteindonut (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey Donut,
Just as a courtesy, you should inform users personally that you're taking things up with them on this board. You didn't. Live and learn.
As for your accusation of me accusing you of racism and not WP:AGF... Well... I'll WP:AGF and assume you have some kind of massive reading-comprehension disability. I presented you with an example of how your words could be misinterpreted as racist, formulated as a suggestion for a new and inexperienced editor. Where you get me accusing you of racism and bad faith, I can't imagine.
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 01.10.2008 07:01
No "massive reading-comprehension disability" here, just the ability to read between the lines. I'll admit posting the video here was out-of-line. However, you seem to have missed the point as to why I posted it and then suggested that I might have been using it to insinuate Jewish/Israeli superiority or supremacy, when you said,""You wouldn't be using it to insinuate anything like Jewish/Israeli superiority or supremacy, now, would you?"The fact that you said a beat later that you will AGF does not necessarily make it so, as you used the same technique above to AGF to "assume you have some kind of massive reading-comprehension disability." Your usage of an "AGF disclaimer" doesn't necessarily shield one from NOT assuming good faith and from NOT making personal attacks (as you have now done how many times?) In other words, (despite my alleged "reading comprehension disability") it's very clear to me that you are not AGF and you are also personally attacking me. If you were offended by the video, I'm sorry. I didn't make it, I posted it, again, to give others like yourself some perspective. --Einsteindonut (talk) 07:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Aha, so you're saying the racism happened in your head (i.e. "read between the lines")? So everybody should take your commentary at face value with a dose of good faith while you're free to read racism between the lines everywhere else? Not very convincing and not really WP:AGFing on your behalf...
This discussion is more than over. pedrito - talk - 01.10.2008 14:45
P.S. Erik, if you can show me where I don't WP:AGF and accuse Donut of racism, I will gladly take any warning to heart. I just really don't see where that happened... Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 01.10.2008 07:01
I wasn't saying you had, I just meant (maybe I came across wrong) that if you had, then it would be warranting of a block. Let's all calm down and get back to what we're supposed to be doing here: writing an encyclopedia. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 23:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you still debating here instead of collaborating in writing an encyclopedia? Do you both need some bit of dignity or prefer some blocks? -- fayssal - wiki up® 17:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that was directed at me, but I believe I have the right to clarify and discuss my POV with regard to the incident in which I am bringing up. Efforts of collaboration are stifled because of these issues, so I believe working out these issues are, in fact, aiding in the collaborative effort of the encyclopedia. If that was a threat of blocking me (yet again) then I really do not appreciate it. This issue is not quite "resolved," and I do not see you nor ArbCom doing much to help clear my name or Sax's name despite the fact that the checkuser was inaccurate.--Einsteindonut (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how making your user page into a pseudo attack page here helps your cause. Get out a piece of paper and a pencil and take notes, or open an editor on your own computer and copy and paste to it. Copying pieces of conversations on another users talk page and placing them on your user page, AND then making a listing of administrators, attributing them as supporters of the content of the dispute because of their support in reduction of a block, appears as a smear campaign. Perhaps you should take a step back from the Eleland dispute and assess your motives. I notice a distinct lack of participation in it by Sax, or are you lobbying on his behalf? AGF is well and good, but stretching it to its limits will eventually render it invalid.--JavierMC 02:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice and no I'm not lobbying on behalf of Sax.
Einsteindonut, this is not the place to "clarify and discuss [your] POV". Your doing so at length on this forum has become quite disruptive and is starting to test the community's patience. It would perhaps be forgivable if there was evidence from your content contributions that you are here to improve the encyclopaedia by an examination of your <200 edits to mainspace in the time which you have been active since early August. Why are you here? I mean this in all seriousness, as a significant content contributor myself. Are you here to participate or simply to argue and do battle? If the latter, I suggest you go find, or start, a blog. If you wish to participate, then do so and spend your time more productively than coming here and making loaded accusations against a wide range of people. Orderinchaos 03:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm here because I have every right to be here. I wasn't aware of any editing quotas which had to be filled. Some people have jobs. I'm not asking for your forgiveness because I don't believe I've done anything wrong. I'm bringing an issue up to the admins and ArbCom hoping they can help. Thank you for your advice. --Einsteindonut (talk) 04:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I should probably have used "excusable" instead of "forgivable", in retrospect - it's what I in fact meant. Orderinchaos 13:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we close this? Jd2718 (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really satisfied that no official action has been taken on the checkuser page. I have put my own disclaimer there but it would be more meaningful coming from ArbCom or an admin who can do it. I think the fact that a checkuser is at least 50% wrong is troublesome. --Einsteindonut (talk) 04:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Harassment, personal attacks, lack of good faith and civility[edit]

Resolved: Wikidea blocked by Gutza for 48 hours for incivility.

User Wikidea (talk · contribs) constantly refers to me as a troll, moron, idiot, pest... [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] [7], [8] He regularly accompanies those personal attacks with wishes for me to "go away" or "get lost". [9], [10], [11] Apparently he wants to drive me away for Wikipedia by constant harassment. His actions also included tagging my user page. [12] Two months ago I reported this issue on Wikiquette alerts but attacks didn't stop after that. Until now he was warned about his behavior by three admins [13], [14], [15], [16], and several users [17], [18], [19], [20]. Also, in a recent FAR that I started he also accused SandyGeorgia of being a "spoil-sport" and he generally showed a lack of good faith. [21] -- Vision Thing -- 21:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I've told wikidea twice (and sort of a third time), to stop making personal attacks ([22], [23], and [24]). I make no comments on the behavior of Vison Thing, good bad or indifferent. Protonk (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Good grief, he even lays into SandyGeorgia! Any good reason we should not wield the banhammer here? That is one bad-tempered dude, with not a lot going on to offset the anger and aggression. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Now that I'm actually told what this was about, and I can respond, the first thing to say is, "that's a personal attack, dude". You probably didn't read the page on Sandy. Yes, in my view, she's a spoil sport, and yes Vision Thing is a highly disprutive editor. In fact, he's the most persistently callous, editor I've come across in four years of contributions. I think it's pretty appalling that I wasn't told about this page to reply. How dare you chat about me behind my back. Show some respect, dude. Wikidea 22:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikidea blocked 48 hours. --Gutza T T+ 22:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Guy - with due respect, Wikidea is a prolific editor with thousands of content and value-added edits to law related articles. If you think he's acting out of line you're entitled to call it as you see it but to say there's "not alot going on" to imply he's not a productively contributing editor crosses the line into personal attacks. Please don't fight incivility with more incivility. Non Curat Lex (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC).
Fair enough, I accept that there is plenty of past good work, but right now he seems to be in meltdown. A short lock will probably not fix that, he needs help and support from his friends - if you are one of them, please email him and start the process. Guy (Help!) 08:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
There's also plenty of past incivility and warnings against personal attacks, long before this incident. The argument that "the other guy is wrong and I'm a good contributor so I can make personal attacks and be incivil" should never be allowed to fly. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 13:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible range block (2)?[edit]

Resolved: Range re-blocked for a month. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC). Therefore archived. Please?

I brought this up on September 16, and a 2 week block was made. Less than 2 days off the block, an IP from the same range ( (talk · contribs)) is back on their soapbox. Any chance for a new block here? --OnoremDil 11:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --OnoremDil 11:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Pioneer Courthouse Square[edit]

This is an edit war that has been taking place since 2006. A user who has operated multiple sockpuppets has been attempting to repeatedly re-insert content via WP:SPA accounts that read "There are lots of people that go to Pioneer Courthouse Square. Some are businessmen stopping for a bite to eat. Others are families out to see Portland. And some say that the square has many homeless persons who congregate there although most are harmless."

Multiple established editors have reverted this content over the last two years, only to have it restored periodically by the involved SPA accounts. In the process, at least 15 sockpuppets have been banned. Now, User:Beenturns21 appears to be the latest sockpuppet incarnation.

I was going to wait until the current semi-protection expired and if it continued to then request indefinite semi-protection if the vandalism continued; but a new (incorrectly placed) mediation request has been created at Pioneer courthouse square where the user appears to be taking the issue to while waiting out the current semi-protection that expires on Oct 2nd; so I believed this needed to be escalated to WP:ANI.

The user involved has demonstrated a complete disregard for Wikipedia policies and guidelines ... some of the onces involved are WP:NPOV, WP:WEASEL, WP:OR, WP:SOCK and WP:3RR. Because of this, I would request that the latest user be banned, and due to the tenacity of the user involved that the article placed in indefinite semi-protection. Is a mediation case required for this - or can such action be taken here given the evidence below?

Here's a summary of the accounts that have attempted to inserting the content ... due to the large size of the evidence involved, I've listed it within a toggling collapse box.

Thanks for taking a look. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 18:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I have moved it to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pioneer Courthouse Square. hbdragon88 (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Is your comment to indicate that this does need to go through mediation despite the provided evidence of past sockpuppetry/trolling, or is it just informative that the "mediation" request has been moved to the proper location? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 19:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I would support indefinite semi-protection of Pioneer Courthouse Square. When there has been the amount of past abuse documented at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pioneercourthouse I'm not sure why mediation should still be considered appropriate. New SSP reports should be filed as necessary to deal with probable socks such as User:Yourew21 and User:Beenturns21. See also Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pioneercourthouse. If it is possible that all this abuse may trace back to a single editor, a Request for Checkuser might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to indicate that it is in the proper location. I detest when things are not in the right place. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Shucks, Iridescent beat me to it. I was going to block for "WP:SOCK and general lameness", vandalism is so much more prosaic. Seriously, guys, this is someone trolling us, keep the sockpuppet page to hand and there should be no great drama about playing whack-a-mole with any more that come along. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we are being trolled, and it's a waste of time for everyone. For all you assume good faith junkies out there, I suggested alternate wording for the disputed passage on the article's talk page. But I'd suggest that nobody waste more time than I just did writing that on trying to reason with or otherwise figure this out. "Revert, Block, Ignore" (RBI) is the best advice I've seen so far. If a checkuser and subsequent blocks/sitebans can end this nonsense once and for all, please hasten to make it happen, dear admin types! Katr67 (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I am not related to these so-called "sock puppets" that you speak of and I certainly do not appreciate your accusation. I am simply an interested user who has been observing this conflict from a distance - until now. It appears to me that the person who has been inserting this text about homelessness may have an argument that you have not considered. Rather than rudely reverting and banning him/her, you should try to engage in a conversation or mediation with him/her. The text he/she is trying to put in is not THAT ridiculous. In fact, maybe there's a way to get his point across in a way that is encyclopedic and will please everyone. I have seen much worse things that trolls have said. Instead, It looks like a case of a new user who has been harassed and abused by Wikipedia "elitist know-it-alls" who have automatically assumed that this is a troll. Why not see if a compromise can be reached. It does not appear that a good faith effort to compromise has even been attempted. This is why I nominated this article for mediation and I would be pleased to be a mediator if this user does in fact return It appears that this is what's needed. But I fear that these editors/admins are so stuck in their ways and convinced that this is a troll. I am 70 percent sure that he is not a troll in the traditional sense but merely a confused and harassed editor. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beenturns21 (talkcontribs) 22:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked the above as a sock, but I'm thinking that there may be a better way to solve this. It seems the user would like to try this a different way, though the end goal is the same. I'd support an unblock on the condition that conversation about the inclusion happen instead of adding it back into the article. It may also be necessary for the mediation. So, unblock if need be. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I am friends with the original author of this controversy, pioneercourthouse. He informs me that he is willing to discuss this dispute. In fact he is very eager to discuss it and hopefully come to a compromise. I urge you to unblock him immediately so mediation can take place. He tells me that it is very important (in his view) to have information in the article about homelessness but he is willing to compromise if others will rationally discuss this. Mediman43 (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

How many SOCKS is this editor going to use to push their POV? I sincerely doubt someone is going to call a "friend" and have them create an account on wikipedia to belabor an obvious removal of POV information in an article. Two years of debating the addition of this material and still no reliable source for the information? That in itself should point to the unreliability of the information or if not completely unreliable, the undue weight it carries for inclusion. If it were noteworthy, why no reliable coverage by media in all this time. I'm frankly astonished at the tenacity of this editor.--JavierMC 02:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I did not say pioneercourthouse "called me." Indeed, he did not call me but e-mailed me. We are good friends and have been so for quite a long to. I beseech you to please use common sense and attempt to listen to the points of myself, merely a common editor who wishes for you to listen to reason. And by extension, you should listen to pioneercourthouse. I have a feeling that he is terribly sorry for the trouble he's caused and merely wants to explain himself and discuss how to put information about homelessness in the pioneer courthouse square article. I happen to be from Portland and I do know for a fact taht there are many homeless people there. Perhaps he was trying to force the issue, but you should try to have a civilized discussion with him instead of just banning him. That is rather rude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediman43 (talkcontribs) 03:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if we assume good faith that you are not a sockpuppet; you would still be a meatpuppet, which per established arbitration rulings would still be treated as a single entity sockpuppet for purposes of Wikipedia policy and guidelines.
As to being rude; from what I can find in the article history, Pioneercourthouse is the one who brought the actions onto himself by engaging in sockpuppetry to force an issue, and lied about doing so (first confirmed via a Checkuser on Dec 26, 2006 performed by Jayjg and later further explored during a review of suspected Sockpuppets).
On the content of the article, any new sources should be discussed on the article talk page - the only current source mentioned fails as a reliable source. This is important because the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. First hand experience is original research, and not a basis for statements in an article. A third party reliable source is needed for the content. Also, any source provided should establish why it's notable to mention it in relation to the article - from the suggested text addition, I fail to see where it's any more notable than any other location. Homelessness exists in all major cities throughout the world; it is hardly unique to Pioneer Courthouse Square‎. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 03:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow the admins and other editors seem so wrong on this one. Geeze, at least have a conversation with the guy about his edits. Perhaps he has soem rational reason for what he's been doing. Just reverting and banning the guy for no reason seems counterproductive and likely to cause more problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairedit99 (talkcontribs) 16:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And we have additional likely sockpuppet/meatpuppets:
Their user pages have been tagged as likely socks - is something further required? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 17:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
And now we have Beenturns23 (talk · contribs)
Note: in addition to the above Beenturns accounts, a quick scan of user account logs show that the following user accounts were all created within a few minutes of each other on Sept 27th: Beenturns23, Beenturns24, Beenturns25, Beenturns26. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 19:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked all the User:Beenturn## accounts created so far (not bothering to note this on user or talk pages, if anyone wants to, knock yourself out). I suggest someone file a Checkuser to find the underlying IP creating the socks; I don't have time to do it myself, sorry. --barneca (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks, abuse and wikistalking by Mathsci[edit]


Summary I’m reporting Mathsci for his repeated attacks at me. During the past days he has wiki-stalked me and in different edits called me a troll, called me unintelligent, ridiculed my ability to think, mocked my English skills and called me a drama-queen. I’ve tried to resolve the issue at his talk page three times now, but instead of engaging in any discussion he just continues to direct personal abuse at me. This has been going on for several days and he has been warned both by myself and by other users, but as he keeps ignoring all calls for him to improve his behaviour, I’ve taken the issue here.

The whole thing started with a comment I made about an article I perceived to be in bad shape [25]. Let me stress that this is not a good comment and I can understand other editors correcting me, as one did in a civil manner and we have both since enjoyed a long and constructive discussion about how to improve the page. Mathsci, however, took this as a pretext for starting many days of abuse and wiki-stalking of me. His first response was to call me a troll [26]. As I have close to 4.000 edits on Wikipedia and not a single block, why would I start trolling now? He continued by calling me unintelligent [27]. Since that, he has followed my edits and edited Marseille, Aix-en-Provence and Puyricard immediately after me, which seems to prove that he’s watching my edits. He has been so eager to attack me that he did not even bother to check which articles I were editing, and had to revert himself in the article [28], [29] and remove the accusation he had left at my user page [30], [31]. Most people with a sense of decency would at least have apologised then. Instead, Mathsci went back and searched for another error and have now decided that Aix wasn't the capital of Provence [32] - despite him claiming yesterday that such was the case [33]. This is fine, factual disagreements are a part of Wikipedia, but apart from targeting my changes Mathsci always use highly offensive and aggressive language. Instead of just changing my edit, he felt the need to explicitly point this out to me on my talk page, to tell me that my English is bad and that I’m unable to think [34]. This is the behaviour of a bully, not someone interested in improving Wikipedia.

After Mathschi’s first attacks, I wrote to him twice on his talk page to resolve the issue, but his only response was to delete my comments [35], [36]. He has been showing bad faith from the beginning, not only in the troll comment but later on when he mistakenly accused me for editing Marseille in bad faith on my talk page [37]. When he thought I had claimed Marseille to be the old capital of Marseille, Mathsci claimed that that capital was Aix [38]. When he discovered that that was exactly what I had said already the first time, he immediately changed his mind about Aix being the capital of Provence [39] so that he could continue to attack me. Not only that, but he attacks my language skills and my ability to think [40]. (Ironically, he claim that since I called Aix the "ancient capital" of Aix, my English skills are bad [41], yet Mathsci wrote exactly the same thing [42].) At this point I took it to his talk page a final time to ask him to stop this disruptive behaviour, but he just answered with still more abuse [43]. At that point an administrator stepped in to warn Mathsci over his personal attacks directed at me and point out that he has been warned for this kind of behaviour before [44], but his only response was to delete that comment[45], as he had done with all the other comments about his behaviour. As I’m fed up with having a user calling me all kind of names, questioning both my English skills and my intelligence and following me around from page to page, I’m filing this report. I believe users like Mathsci do more damage than good to Wikipedia.JdeJ (talk) 10:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, this is nothing new. Mathsci has been blocked for harassing other users before. JdeJ (talk) 10:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • On reading your diffs I can see why you are upset. Mathsci's latest comment to Elonka that more than edit summaries are required for blocking is incorrect and I agree that a block should occur if the editor offends in this way again. That said it appears that Elonka's warning has provided an at least 8 or 9 hour respite and we can only hope that the editor take that warning to heart. I suggest that this thread is left open for a short time and you come back should you be again targeted. Others may feel that Mathsci is blocked now - I do not as yet - but I would not argue against any other admin that does.--VS talk 11:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about the respite, after Elonka's warning, one of the last things Mathsci made before going off-line was this comment [46]. It's not as serious as the previous ones, but he agains takes the time to call my good-faith edit to Aix "silly and unhelpful" and "Surely, Elonka, you cannot be serious?". I also object to his repeated accusations that I "blanked one third of a page". I removed a table from a page and I have pointed out in detail why I did so, having found several errors in the page. He is as free to disagree with me as any other user, but it's neither constructive nor intended to stop the fight that he keeps repeating this accusation against me of blanking (=vandalism) even after I've gone to great lengths to outline the errors I perceived to be quite severe in the table I removed. JdeJ (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • This discussion should be happening at wikiquette alerts. If a user is having difficult communications, it is best to approach them in a less heated manner than to threaten blocks. Editors who have a history of conflict with Mathsci should back away from the situation. The goal is not to antagonize Mathsci until they crack and provide a reason to be blocked. If we are trying to actually help Mathsci and JdeJ to get along and edit collaboratively, uninvolved editors who have no history with these users should help. I oppose blocking good faith contributors, except as a last resort. Several uninvolved editors should watch the situation and counsel Mathsci in an effort to avoid a block. I also do not see evidence of stalking. If Mathsci has followed JdeJ to completely unrelated articles, please post diffs, otherwise, avoid making unfounded accusations of a serious nature. Jehochman Talk 12:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
    • If I recall correctly, this was brought to WQA at one point.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I did find it after some digging (Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive49#User:Mathsci), but I'll leave it to others who've looked at this incident to comment on its relevance (if any). Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
        • The relevancy is questionable, at best. The editor who filed that complaint ended up indefinitely blocked for serious policy violations. I filed Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Perusnarpk which lead to the block. Jehochman Talk 13:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
          • I don't dispute Jehochman's version for a second, my impression of him is that he is an honest and helpful administrator. But Jehochman, when you talk about uninvolved administrators without a history with any of us, isn't it so that you have a history of standing up for Mathsci? I don't claim for a moment that that would make you any less suited in this situation, but surely the same would go for administrators who have previously been involved with him or me in both good and bad ways? JdeJ (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Everyone is free to comment here, no matter what their level of involvement. Since I became aware that Mathsci has had some difficulties, I have been trying to help them, as I do for many editors. As it happens, in at least one instance Mathsci was being persecuted by a pack of disruptive accounts. Other administrators agreed, and those accounts were blocked. Jehochman Talk 14:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • About the accusation of stalking, it is of course impossible to ever prove for sure. I do however find it strange that immediately after Mathsci first called me a troll and unintelligent, he followed me to Marseille [47], to Aix-en-Provence [48] and to Puyricard [49]. The last of these, Puyricard is an article that Mathsci had never edited before, it begs belief that he just happened to go to it for the first time ever by pure chance immediately after I went there. So yes, I think that the accusation of stalking is at least not unfounded, since it's rather obvious that Mathsci is wathcing my contributions. Nor do I see him as a good-faith contributor, he has repeatedly been showing bad faith and continued to do so even after I've tried to explain the reasons behind my edits. I wish to add that I took matters here as a last resort after having tried to discuss the matters directly with Mathsci three times, only to be met with new abuses each time. JdeJ (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, that is evidence of troublesome behavior. Can we wait for Mathsci to respond now, and see if they are willing to comply with my request? Jehochman Talk 14:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
JdeJ's assessment of the situation with Jehochman is correct, in that Jehochman does often run interference for Mathsci and try to protect him from sanctions. So I would recommend that Jehochman try not to post too much in this thread, and instead allow other more uninvolved admins to participate. As for my own opinion, I have been observing Mathsci's behavior with concern for a few months now, since it was brought to my attention that he was engaged in a dispute with Michellecrisp (talk · contribs). Mathsci appears to have a tendency to stalk users with whom he is in a conflict, and he tends to make the same comments as he has towards JdeJ, accusing them of trolling and low intelligence. It's easy enough to spot, as he frequently puts his insults right into edit summaries. Mathsci does do good work on articles, and multiple admins have tried communicating with him both on- and off-wiki to try and get him to work in a more collaborative manner. He has received multiple on-wiki cautions, on his talkpage, other admins' talkpages,[50][51] and at the Math WikiProject.[52] Unfortunately, Mathsci has not taken these cautions to heart, as the behavior has continued unabated, even though he was already blocked once for harassment.[53] Bottom line, I would support a block, whether it be now, or if he has another inappropriate outburst in the future. Though he's a good writer, this does not outweigh all the good writers who we may lose, because they are driven away by his antagonistic attitude. --Elonka 16:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


  • Mathematics: this is a complicated issue which it is not appropriate to discuss here. I have contributed a signficant amount of content, which has required a lot of work on my part. These mathematical contributions are meticulously sourced and detailed. Early mathematics articles on the wikipedia were less well sourced, more like essays; this evolution in article style is normal. But the change in culture has led to problems, which I am happy to hear that Paul August and Charles Matthews are working out calmly.
  • wikistalking: Elonka has made some inflammatory claims above. The allegations of wikistalking have been retracted by JdeJ. Aix-en-Provence, Marseille and Puyricard were discussed on my talk page with User:Choess in connection with Hugues des Baux and the other Lords of Baux on September 27th-28th and were situated just above where JdeJ posted (three or four times). I am a frequent contributor to articles on Provence, France and French culture and watch the articles for the town where I live and the city in which I work. Elonka has not provided diffs to prove serial wikistalking by me of a series of wikipedians.
  • Elonka remarks - antagonistic, dismissive and condescending - could do with refactoring. What she has written seems itself like an "inappropriate outburst". Many of the comments apply only to interactions between her and me. In the Michael Atiyah affair, where a group of meatpuppets attempted to insert libellous unsourced material into his BLP, I was attacked all over this wikipedia numerous times. Fortunately, on contacting FT2, Charles Matthews, Nishkid64, Slrubenstein and Alison behind the scenes, things could be resolved without coming to ANI. Elonka did not help much, despite being asked.
  • I rarely use the word trolling to describe edits (not editors) nor unintelligent or stupid to describe edits (not editors). It is true that I regarded Jagz as a "polite troll" and that I used the other words to describe Elonka's protracted campaign to include me in one of her imagined "lynch mobs".
  • Which users have been lost, Elonka? Jagz, MoritzB, Fourdee, Zero g. It's not a great idea to generalize like this. Other editors like Harland1 have actually apologized to me for getting involved in Elonka's machinations (for example on wikiproject mathematics).
  • It is hard not to see Elonka's intemperate outburst as coming from some grudge she bears against me, perhaps because I dared to criticize her handling of Jagz, Zero g and Koalorka. I hope that this was not the case.
  • Elonka has attempted to criticize Jehochman here and MastCell on his talk page for their "softly, softly" non-confrontational approach in this situation. Dbachmann was also involved in this storm in a teacup and indeed was in agreement with me at the time on his talk page. Both JedJ and I agree that we got off on the wrong foot, but there are now no differences of opinion and we are friends. I have no idea why the situation escalated in this way after just one edit of mine. I can't help thinking that somebody might have been pulling strings behind the scenes; but it has made me quite uneasy about continuing to edit this encyclopedia. Elonka does not seem to be a positive force as far as academic editors like me are concerned; she seems more comfortable with POV-pushers.
  • Wikipedians are judged by the number and the quality of their mainspace edits. Administrators, such as Moreschi, have explained this to Elonka on numerous occasions, but it still apparently has not sunk in. Indeed Elonka seems to be in dispute with a fair number of administrators at the moment.

Mathsci (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Since Jehochman's note, Mathsci has refactored two of the offending comments ([54], [55]). That's encouraging. Let's do what we can to promote de-escalation rather than assuming that another outburst, and a block, are "inevitable". Let's extend Mathsci a fraction of the forbearance routinely lavished upon editors with less constructive material to their credit. Some of his commentary and edit summaries were out of line; JdeJ was certainly correct to raise the concern. Given some of the history, I think Mathsci is more likely to respond positively to commentary from admins other than Elonka. I will be happy to add my voice to Jehochman's asking Mathsci to disengage and interact more civilly. If that fails, we can revisit the issue. MastCell Talk 16:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
While I understand why this complaint has been brought, I also have considerably more background. User:Paul August and I have been working to put in place some effective mediation within the Mathematics WikiProject. Both editors involved are experts, and we can ill afford to lose either of them. Without going into details, I have very good reason to believe that the root causes of the dispute (rather than the behavioural symptoms) are something that can be treated. Therefore I request a measured approach. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Support deferring to Charles and Paul. I see much merit in allowing experienced, involved (in content, not in conflict) editors take a crack at this. Thank you, Charles. Jd2718 (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I think allowing Charles and Paul's mediation measures time to get up-and-running (and to have an impact on the productivity and volumes of behavioural problems at the Mathematics WikiProject) would be the best course of action for the time being. In 2-3 months' time (time scale adjustable, with Charles' input: how long do you anticipate the new strategy should take to work), should their measures not be as successful as one would hope, we can re-assess the matter, with a view to how to tackle the matter. I suggest the specific complaint brought against Mathsci be closed in lieu of the ongoing progress at WQA, and any action that would otherwise be taken waived in favour of the mediation strategy being implemented. Let's go softly-softly, here; the blockhammer is probably not the most helpful option. Anthøny 17:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
On time-scale, there are matters relating to policy and its application to discuss, which should be a relatively short business. Defusing the animus that has got mixed up in this affair might take longer, but an agreement between the editors to keep away from each other on the site might also be put in place without too much ado, while we work on it. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Mathsci may be more responsive to commentary from admins other than Elonka. Both Jehochman and Mathsci endorsed her adminship recall proposal that was initiated by the former editor. Her comment here may be seen as retaliation for those endorsements by some. Others may see it as a pointed disregard of Mathsci's earlier and politely worded request that she not involve herself in this matter and is thereby intended to be provocative.[56] While I assume that her comments are well-intentioned, I think it best to avoid any possible appearance to the contrary unless the circumstances are compelling. I am troubled, too, by the "inevitable" wording that contrasts with the exemplary tolerance that she has extended to editors who are far less constructive than Mathsci. Toning down that sentence was helpful.[57] I think a measured approach is indicated in this matter. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I have replied to MastCell on my talk page, where all is revealed. Many thanks for the measured and helpful comments here. Mathsci (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add that this matter is resolved, as far as I am concerned. It was unfortunate that Mathsci and I got off to a bad start but the situation has calmed down and I'm sure we'll be able to co-operate in a constructive way in the future. I most certainly do not want to see Mathsci blocked, he has made many constructive edits and is valuable to Wikipedia. He has offered his apologies and I've offered mine for our heated exchange and I believe that no more needs to be said about it. I wish to thank the other users and administrators involved in this discussions for constructive and meaningful comments that helped to diffuse the situation. JdeJ (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

IP doesn't get it[edit]

Would someone please take a look at IP (talk · contribs)? The only recent contributions have been to remove a properly sourced section about an incident on the Newington College page (and refuse to discuss it on the talk page). Also, the IP appears to continually try and delete the page for James E. McPherson, both edit warring to keep the CDS notice on there, then repeatedly adding the AfD notice without actually creating a page for deletion. It seems this IP is here to disrupt. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It wont let me create the afd page. can somebody do it for me —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

They tell me to go to the talk page which i do then they delete what i say! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Revert, warn, if he exceeds final warning, block. No admin intervention needed at the moment, in the future AIV might be more appropriate. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
This appears to be a new editor trying to argue that the disputed sentence in Newington College gives undue weight to an issue, but unable to navigate a talk page to present their opinion. I've helped them with the talk page posting, and we'll see if there's a consensus on the inclusion of the material. Hopefully this then resolves this into a content dispute and not anything requiring admin intervention. Euryalus (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Remember that IPs can't create AfD pages. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

IP Vandalism at Talk:Hydrogen[edit]

A small range of IPs keeps deleting the contents of Talk:Hydrogen, as can be seen in the revision history. All but the most recent IP has been warned about the unconstructive edits - rst20xx (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblock and semiprotect if necessary. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Very lucky for that range to be small. It looks like contribs within are all vandalism, probably by the same guy. You might want to verify this, if you have the range tool. ~ Troy (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
No-one's done anything about this yet.... rst20xx (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Go to WP:RFCU to ask for a checkuser, propose a rangeblock, and make a mention of this section. From the IPs in that range that I've spotted (,,,, and, my estimate would be the range of, meaning that 16 users at most would be affected (don't forget to mention that). Remember that it can take about a week for a checkuser to look at the request, so you just have to keep your eye on it for that long. Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Lesson learnt - rst20xx (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson and FAC[edit]

Resolved: This is an inappropriate forum. An RfC has been filed to try to resolve the content dispute. Karanacs (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC). Therefore archived. Please?

I'm taking this here because I just can't deal with User:Pmanderson's actions on FAC or on the Samuel Johnson article anymore. I have contacted quite a few people to deal with this, but this is out of hand. I don't even know where the reverts are anymore, because its buried in the text. Besides claims in the FAC that there is plagiarism (because we used the word "informed") and claims that "cannot now rely on any of this article to represent its sources correctly or completely", the user has taken a biography, pushed it into a medical section, and when told that it is not a medical work and does not belong in the medical section between actual certified individuals who are trained in diagnosis, he labels the section as POV. He has misrepresented the source as a historian (hes a professor of literature) and misrepresents the text (he relies on Oliver Sacks, and not Sacks's quotes on Johnson, but just in general).

This is becoming very upsetting for many of the FA Reviewers and editors of the Johnson page. I have spent a lot of time working with many of the reviewers to fix different wording, language, and the rest to accommodate all concerns and consensus, and this user just whole sale adds in unnotable information to a page that is already far too large and has subpages for the information and rearranges and expands text into areas where it does not belong. The page has become completely destabled, which is one of the things that prohibits a page from becoming a FAC, and it would seem that this FAC will either be ruined because of the changes that he wishes to make which go against the lengthy consensus, or destroyed because of the destabilization. I have worked with Johnson for a very long time. I also have all of the sources listed if anyone wants to verify any of the information. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I was just about to file a request for Mediation; unless OR declines it here, I shall file one. The fundamental problem is that OR is defensive of every jot and tittle of xer prose; reading the FAC will show tons of her abuse, and complaints about it; xe lectured peaceful Awadewit as much as me. The FAC has gone on much too long, and should probably be closed.
The problems here are entirely content issues; I checked two points in Samuel Johnson, and found neither supported by the source. I am now beleaguered by the following alleged citation rules:
PM Anderson, I'm very confused by your points.
  • One must not cite a source without quoting its exact words - what does this mean?
  • One may not cite a passage of a dozen pages if other footnotes cite pages in the middle - is somehow inaccurate? Are you not sure how it's inaccurate? What's your actual objection?
  • Psychiatrists are medical doctors. How are they not qualified to comment on someone's physical health?
  • Your diffs are to your own comments in the FAC, or to the history of the article. What is it you're actually referring to?
  • I don't understand your point about OR and notablity.
  • The part of the sentence that is accurate to the source should be cited. Ideally, it should be at the end, but if there is a complex sentence with two points from different sources, it's quite ok to cite which fact came from which source. --Moni3 (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Look at the diffs. PM is quoting claims made to him by Ottava. Thatcher 17:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you; that's the problem with explaining a situation to third parties - one assumes too much. (I am not quoting exactly, since xe is sometimes elliptical, but the first diff is I have a problem with your recent change because it uses Bate when not giving a straight out quote, for example.) These are my best guess at what Ottava Rima means; I have no idea why xe thinks we must do these things. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • This is an unfortunate situation involving several of our good humanities editors, each of whom want the article to follow the lines that interest themselves, and are quite skilled in making arguments about it. I have my own personal interest in the subject, and my own idea of emphasis here, different from the others. I made some comments at various times--a few were followed, but I found continuing there would mean to keep arguing on everything indefinitely. I do not think want to assign fault --each person there is skilled at argument and not very willing to compromise. None of the diffs should be seen out of context--they were part of a long series of arguments in which everyone was generally quite stubborn, and over-insistent on detail; their analysis would mean reanalyzing every sentence of the article & every footnote. The sort of academic questions raised are the sort that are never settled, and in the academic world they typically continue for an entire career--originality tends to mean differing as sharply as possible from everyone. One rarely sees true cooperative academic writing in the humanities: SJ himself once said, that he didn't see how two people could write something together, that joint authorship must mean that each person wrote some of the parts, but separately. I find it very disheartening that some of the relatively few people we have in this subject should have such difficulty adapting themselves to the Wikipedia medium. They would rather argue indefinitely, than have an article they though imperfect. Such stubbornness would basically rule out the possibility of FAs, since no qualified reviewer will agree totally with anyone else. DGG (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I did an RfC instead. There is a petition to Raul to finally close the FA here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Since Might Morphin Admins® have rather limited powers of blocking, deleting and protecting, and there seems no one here to block and nothing to protect and delete, I think the appropriate place to raise this issue is Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates. It certainly seems pointless to continue the FAC at this time. Thatcher 18:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Edit warring, charges of plagarism and other personal attacks, and templating a page because of a disagreement are no longer under the authority of administrators? There is a page disruption, which is clear from the edit history. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
If Ottava really wants to start trading charges, I will begin with her words to our learned colleague Awadewit: your ignorance, before you start making things up. I am, for the moment, willing to overlook xer more recent incivility; the FAC has gone on for a month, and it extenuates much. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Summary of the FAC shows 26 supports, 2 opposes, and 2 neutrals. I would like it if you would take that into consideration before you say "It certainly seems pointless to continue the FAC". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
This is not the appropriate place for disputes over FAC. I believe the RfC that has been filed is the right next step. Karanacs (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

@Ottava, you did not provide any evidence of those things. I suppose it would be within an admin's authority (under certain definitions of the concept of "community sanctions") to declare that certain editors, who were disrupting the FAC, are banned from further participating in the FAC for some period of time, but a this would be controversial and b are you sure your own actions can withstand that sort of scrutiny? For example, the claim that the Health section is a medical section, and you cannot put in "historians" who are not doctors is utterly ridiculous. Shall we remove the claim that Julius Caesar may have had epilepsy or that Abraham Lincoln had Marfan's syndrome, because the sources are not doctors? Biographers are tertiary sources, a good biographer researches his subject from all angles, consulting primary and secondary sources. The claim that a particular biographer relied on an unreliable or fringe source is certainly worth evaluating, but the blanket claim is just not supportable. Article content disputes are best resolved among the parties through the normal methods (RFC, mediation). Any time you ask an admin to step in, you take the risk that you will get stepped on. Are you sure you want that? Thatcher 20:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, I thought I provided evidence by linking directly to the plagarism and other claims. "Shall we remove the claim that Julius Caesar may have had epilepsy or that Abraham Lincoln had Marfan's syndrome, because the sources are not doctors?" Thats not my point. My point was that we are over the limit for words, and we already have medical sources saying the material 100% without needing him to regurgitate it because he prefers to have his selection of what the page stated promoted. The labeling of the section as POV and the edit warring is a severe problem. "Shall we remove the claim that Julius Caesar may have had epilepsy or that Abraham Lincoln had Marfan's syndrome, because the sources are not doctors? " I would rethink these claims if they are not made by doctors who are trained in diagnosing. And Thatcher, I know I edit warred on the page. I can't tell how much and where, because there is too much confusing. With the page going back and forth, its almost impossible to tell which is edit warred and which was changed to accomodate other people at FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Resurrection and Immortality[edit]

I have semi-protected both articles, each for one week, because of an edit war, posting of fringe theories, spamming, and soapboxing. Other sysops blocked the offending editors. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
See also my talk page and User talk:DJ Clayworth FYI. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

o.O Looks like a good round of actions to me. The editors involved should probably be editing snake oil instead... Watchlisting both of the above, as I suspect there will be more.... Tony Fox (arf!) 22:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Titles of Kosovo geography pages[edit]

There has been a slow edit war of the titles of certain pages related to geographical features in Kosovo, as far as I can see most recently between User:Ev and User:Albnaian, including regular moves between Serbian and Albanian names. Examples include Pashtrik/Paštrik and Sharr Mountain/Šar Mountains, as well as others. Edits today suggest that this may be taking a turn for the worse and going beyond good faith behaviour. For example, after moves in one direction, speedy delete typo CSD-R3 tags were wrongly placed on the resulting redirect from the other language (it should not be used in language cases). Since those tagging edits prevented reverting moves, the redirects were instead deleted as CSD-G6 as housekeeping and routine non-controversial cleanup to enable the re-moves (they clearly are controversial). --Rumping (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it proper for a user to edit other people's comments on this page?[edit]

This edit doesn't seem proper. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. EdokterTalk 23:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • My bad, thought that guy made a mess of this page since it is already over 322kb in size, just wanted to do some clean ups of disruptive and redundant double posting which that user has created in the first place. Anyway, this page is taking way too long to load as it is... so there! --Dave1185 (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ten Lost Tribes Issues[edit]

A couple requests at WP:RFPP] came in and were serviced, regarding Ten Lost Tribes and its talk page, by me. While I can see a content dispute on the article, the IP(-hopper) involved is also trying to use the talk page as a soap box and generally being a nuisance ([58], [59], [60], [61]). I've protected the Ten Lost Tribes article for one week (full-protection as a content dispute) but these comments give me pause in assuming good faith towards this person. Any suggestions on what to do here short of taking sides? -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 23:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The IP74 has been blocked for one month. GrszX 23:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
After another look, IP74 was used by indef-blocked User:Serenesoulnyc. (talk · contribs) is adding the same things, looks like a block needed here as well. GrszX 23:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Is 72. another Serenesoul sock? I'll block, but I want to know if this is another sock to see how long I block for. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 00:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Similar edits at that article, similiar Kashmir related edits. Possibly worth a Checkuser? GrszX 00:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll get on the blower to Ali - I'd prefer to hear her wax lyrical on IPs than listen to Palin put barbecue sauce on her foot to make it taste better. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 01:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Umm - from past data, the 74 account is  Likely to be related to Serenesoulnyc (talk · contribs). The 72.248 account is geographically near to the other IP and resolves to OneCommunications which is nearby. So that's a  Possible. All in all, I'm not seeing a massive amount of activity and there doesn't appear to be any underlying accounts there - Alison 02:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Blocked 3 weeks. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 04:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ten Lost Tribes; Talk:Ten Lost Tribes[edit]

Resolved: See Ten Lost Tribes Issues above. Any further abuses can be taken to AIV; this appears to be puppetry by an indef'd user. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 05:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see here and here for the latest in the ongoing attempts of myself and several others to put an end to one person's crusade to delete the same material from the Ten Lost Tribes article for invalid reasons (see explanation at the above links) dozens of times while refusing to answer any attempt to communicate with him, after a half dozen IP blocks or more and several rounds of temporary page protection. Let me know if you have any questions. I'm exhausted from writing about it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Blocked for 24 hours by slakr