Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive514

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Mehran Mangrio[edit]

Mehran Mangrio (talk · contribs · logs)

This editor has been inactive recently, but created a bunch of images with copyright problems, created questionable articles, restored them multiple times, etc. What should be done? Could an admin (or a few admins) go through his contributions to look for problematic edits/uploads? Thanks very much in advance, Enigmamsg 22:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I have nominated most/all of his images for deletion previously. A few may remain. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Israel Shahak article[edit]

Issue:
1. Deletion of other user's posts. I can't find any explicit policies on deleting other users' posts from talk (not his talk, article talk), but it seems like a very bad thing to do. See here.

2. Escalating revert war between User:Jayjg and: myself, User:Dynablaster, User:Nishidani and User:PalestineRemembered at Israel Shahak

a. each and every change we make, he reverts with wikilawyering, and outright dismissal of consensus opinion.
For example, he refuses the consensus opinion of some CAMERA articles aren't appropriate for use in the article due to our acceptance "EI's propaganda spin" - that CAMERA is an absolutely trustworthy WP:RS. Oddly enough, he states that, "CAMERA was attempting to do was to bring some of the more egregiously anti-Israel articles in line with Wikipedia policies" - to which the evidence seems to be directly the opposite.
b. additionally, he seems to dismiss Israel Shahak's writings and readily accepts any criticism on the basis that "Shahak was likely knowledgeable about chemistry, but he was a non-expert when it came to the works for which he is most famous, his polemics on Judaism." - while there is no policy on this, it seems to be disingenuous to involve oneself in an article to which one cannot maintain a neutral stance.

Before this escalates any further, I ask for an administrator to intervene. The chances of a calmly discussed consensus being reached, seems to be nil. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, from my view the wikilawyering seems to be entirely the other way. For example, you keep insisting that you can insert original research into an article because you are simply stating "FACTS AS THEY ARE". I've brought up that very issue on the NOR/N noticeboard (Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Shahak_vs._Jackobovits), only to be followed there by PR, who, not content to insert irrelevant soapboxes onto the article talk page, insists on inserting them on the NOR/N board as well. Perhaps you can explain how a two and a half year old discussion which mentions neither Shahak nor Jakcobovits can be, to use PR's words, "on just this topic". I defy anyone, in fact, to explain how PR's comments are actually on the topic of the article, which is Israel Shahak. In addition, I object to your mis-stating my positions on, well, practically everything. I did not, for example, state that CAMERA "is an absolutely trustworthy WP:RS"; rather, I pointed out that EI's spin on CAMERA's motives were not fact. In any event, I'm not seeing where this rather standard type of content dispute has become an administrative issue. Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd rather not personalize this, though there is a problem with the way Jayjg has consistently defended the extensive citation of worthless smear sources against Israel Shahak on that page. I'm not interested in edit-warring, and have advised that each improbable smear be analysed according to standard criteria before we actually work the page. But the page does have a troubled history. We have managed to keep pages on other controversialists in the area, such as Norman Finkelstein, relaqtively clear of poor partisan smears, yet this has invariably failed with this page, and many editors havce given up on it. I understand why the Israel Shahak page is so subject to special treatment: he wrote a critique of totalitarian tendencies in a certain vein of Judaism, and this is sensitive stuff. But the way to handle this is not to trivialize the subject by citing extensively gossipmongers with their lethal rumours, but to look for criticism by competent scholars of where Shahak's scholarship is wrong, if wrong.
There is almost nothing on what he actually thought, but a lot on innuendoes, smears, patent lies, and deliberate misinterpretations of what he thought, by agitprop specialists of mediocre credentials, such as, to cite one example only, Rachel Neuwirth. There is no reliable source I know of which says Shahak was an antisemite. Many critics of antisemitism were his intimate friends. Yet this rubbish is consistently defended. The result is an unbalanced page, thick with suspicion, and short on intelligent NPOV material on his thought. I simply would like clarification from administrators and fellow editors on how much of these 'trashing' polemics by non-notable polemicists without a knowledge of Shahak's life, and without his kind of academic formation, is allowable. That he is hated is obvious. It should be noted. I however fail to see why patent smearing by non-notable people who have a clear agenda to continue a whispering campaign against him should be given more than passing mention, with a few references to the mags that print their hackwork.Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you would actually "not personalize this", rather than claiming you don't wish to, then proceeding to do so. Shahak was controversial in a way that Finkelstein was not, in that Shahak wrote polemical books about Judaism, while having absolutely no expertise in the area. His works on Judaism are comparable to Robert Spencer's on Islam, except for the fact that Spencer has a degree in a relevant field, religion, whereas Shahak did not. It is for precisely this reason that Shahak's views have been considered antisemitic. Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
My not wishing to personalize this meant, in context, that the problem is not immediately 'you' personally, but the fact that the page is a mess of smears from quarterbaked POV warriors in the war over national images and ethnic honour. That you happen to be a longtime defender of this rubbish is secondary. The former is what I should like to be addressed. As to your remark about no expertise, Shahak read Talmudic and rabbinical literature for 40 years, and, secondly, closely followed the development of fundamentalism in Israel. That Shahak is not an authorized authority on Judaism, which you repeat ad nauseam, is wholly immaterial to the issue. Shahak is famous for a book he wrote on one current of Judaism, as Karl Popper is famous also for a book on Plato's thought, though he wasn't a qualified classicist. The page on Shahak therefore must deal with that critique. I'd be more than happy to see good sources from within the academic mainstream on Judaism cited in their deconstructions of his interpretation. We don't have that. We have a ragbag of smears about an ostensible antisemitic attitude by the usual bunch of tabloid warriors in the lowermuddle brow level of the commentariat, skewering him with smears and insinuations that are palpably wrong and trivial. As for your view that 'Shahak's views have been considered antisemitic' because he wrote a polemical book on Judaism, I'd like a source for that.Nishidani (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
"That Shahak is not an authorized authority on Judaism, which you repeat ad nauseam, is wholly immaterial to the issue." Wow. And yet you wish to use him in a "Criticism of Judaism" article. Right, then, let's toss out WP:RS altogether. Time to take it to WP:MFD? Jayjg (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou, Nishidani, I did not realise that the views and publications of an Israeli professor (and probably one of the very most notable "critics of Judaism" in the world, ever) is excluded from a Criticism of Judaism article - I wonder whether non-specialists such as Ayaan are excluded from Criticism of Islam?
No, I see they're not. There are 4 "approving" mentions of Ayaan and a referenced article of hers. (On top of numerous other such critics). If we go to Ayaan Hirsi Ali's own article, she is (approvingly?) quoted saying "Violence is inherent in Islam — it's a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder." I wonder why the hate-filled views of this critic of Islam (who has admitted on television to lying even about her own name and date of birth) are considered worthy of inclusion in at least two places, while the views of the respectable Shahak are not considered worthy of inclusion anywhere.
(Before there is another stinging attack on me for daring to comment on Ayaan Hirsi Ali's reliability and interference with this message or a block on me with false claims of BLP, I should state that I respect and appreciate Ayaan, and I think it entirely proper that her views are aired). PRtalk 11:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I am one of many, many who has totally given up the Israel Shahak-article. We can only note that no critic is too insignificant to be noted on that page. However, strangely, Israel Shahak´s own views are all apparently "non-notable" on Wikipedia. Have fun. Huldra (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Err, yes, Shahak's polemics on Judaism aren't reliable sources about Judaism. Why on earth would you imagine they were? Do you really think, given the hundreds of scholars of Judaism who have written on the topic of Judaism, the thousands of books, and tens of thousands of scholarly articles, that we should be quoting the works of chemists? Jayjg (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, rrright, but anybodys polemics on Shahak is a reliable source about Shahak? I recall how hard I had to fight to at least keep neo-nazis like David Duke out from the Shahak -page. As for the "hundreds of scholars of Judaism who have written on the topic of Judaism, the thousands of books, and tens of thousands of scholarly articles" written on Criticism of Judaism; hmm, no, I don´t know about them. They are certainly not in the article. Why don´t you add them, Jayjg? Regards, Huldra (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the quality of sources one will find on Shahak will in any way approach those you will find on Judaism? Are you really suggesting Shahak's writings on Judaism compare in any way to those of the hundreds of actual scholars of the topic who have written about it? Absurd! Jayjg (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
You are not answering my question: if there are "hundreds of scholars of Judaism who have written on the topic of Judaism, the thousands of books, and tens of thousands of scholarly articles" written on Criticism of Judaism; why don´t you add some of them? And for most of us it is not an absurdity, but a hypocrisy, to demand another standard of notability on Shahak-article -sources, than say, on Criticism of Judaism-sources. Regards, Huldra (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Huldra, it is you who is not answered my question: "Do you really think, given the hundreds of scholars of Judaism who have written on the topic of Judaism, the thousands of books, and tens of thousands of scholarly articles, that we should be quoting the works of chemists?" Jayjg (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
This TalkPage contribution does not concern the conduct that is the subject of this ANI, it does not concern the article where the conduct is under scrutiny and it does not concern any of the 3 policies (WP:TALK, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV) that the author is accused of breaching. It adds no information concerning the subject of the article, or any peripheral subject. In fact, it concerns a different article entirely - or rather, not even that, but the refusal of another editor (so far) to be dragged into an off-topic discussion. PRtalk 14:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
This comment from PalestineRemembered was precisely on-topic, but removed by Jayjg. I fail to see how its removal was justified - he's simply using a previous NOR discussion to communicate that NOR is not a black and white issue. The only reason I can see for Jayjg removing it, is that it presents a strong case that his wikilawyering on NOR isn't as watertight as he makes it sound. Instead of allowing PalestineRemembered's observations to weaken his stance - he summarily deletes them from the discussion.
Or has it suddenly become policy, that it's OK to delete other user's comments just because one doesn't want others to see them?
As for his edit-warring, Jayjg simply reverted a large number of changes - citing only WP:SELFPUB contention in the discussion, but completely ignoring the extensive comments in history, where the changes were justified. It seems Jayjg is far more interested in stonewalling the other editors, than discussing changes and improvements that the article is in dire need of. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
This comment from PalestineRemembered was precisely on-topic, but removed by Jayjg. - and there you have it. A comment by PR referring to a 2 1/2 year old discussion which nowhere mentions Shahak is somehow now "precisely on-topic". As for the material I restored, I explained in a number of different areas on the Talk: page why I disagreed with the various edits. And yes, the removal of Cohn because he was somehow "self-published" in Israel Horizons, a magazine with which he has no apparent affiliation, was one of the more ridiculous of those edits that I reverted. Jayjg (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I think editors imagined that anything that was worth writing and true 2.5 years ago is still true and valid and useful - and some were startled to discover that messages were being deleted and important information was being concealed from him.
Of course, if the rules have changed since you explained the exact meaning of "Original Research" back then, then it's most fortunate we have you to explain the new system to us. PRtalk 23:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Jayg seems to have completely missed PalestineRemembered's quote, "The debate is about whether the disputed edit constitutes "analyzing and arguing with," as some here assert and assume but do not demonstrate; or whether it constitutes "summarizing and paraphrasing," as others here have demonstrated exhaustively" - no, it's not about Shahak, but it's quote precisely on topic for the question of WP:NOR - but Jayjg simply deleted it out of hand. PR didn't try to bring up the Finklestein debate - he simply used it as a reference on the question of interpretation of WP:NOR guidelines. I fail to see how that's completely off topic. I can, however, see how it might threaten Jayjg's position and he'd want to delete it, and hope nobody calls him on it. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
So, you really think that a 2 1/2 year old debate, about an entirely different topic, using entirely different sources, will actually be able to shed light on the discussion here? Or rather, is it another example of an attempt to re-hash an old debate, one which in no way can have an impact on the current issue? The latter, of course, which is why I removed it, as opposed to your insulting assertion that it might "threaten Jayjg's position". The only thing it "threatened" was wasting everyone's time with irrelevant material; no fear, however, you've ensured it has done that anyway. Jayjg (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes - the 2.5 year old discussion was highly relevant to the removal of "Jakobovits provided no evidence to substantiate his claim, and Shahak did not deign to respond". That's why I brought it up. I'm sorry that you're ashamed of what you were saying 2.5 years ago on the subject of OR, but my bringing it up short-circuited the wiki-lawyering that has been so prevalent at this article. It was valuable to other editors, as indeed were each of my other messages (listed below). Do you have an objection to writing articles to policy? PRtalk 10:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent)The whole WP:SELFPUB argument is moot, by the way - the discussion had gone on to WP:WEIGHT - I questioned whether or not such an amateurishly written review, in an obscure little magazine, really has a place in Shahak's article. But Jayjg completely ignored the development of the discussion and arbitrarily reverted the change (and all others). I think this is quite telling that he's edit-warring and not trying to discuss points of contention to reach a consensus. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The whole "SELFPUB" argument was only "moot" because you were called on it. The only "telling" thing was that when your original rationale for removing the material was utterly refuted, you then moved the goalposts, and suddenly declared that the real issue was "WEIGHT". Jayjg (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
PR, while I don't think it was a good idea for Jayjg to delete this comment, (i.e. the first diff given by GrizzledOldMan above; see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments), I note that he's called it "soapboxing". At the moment I don't know enough about the discussion to know whether it was soapboxing or not. If it was on-topic for that article talk page, it must have had some connection to article content. I would appreciate it if you would explain to me what suggested change to the article that comment was connected with, and how, or give me a diff of a comment that explains that. You might want to use the article talk page or my talk page to avoid taking up too much space on this noticeboard.
I've added the article to my watchlist but am not sure whether I'll have time to get involved in editing it. Coppertwig (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how I can respond without again being accused of SOAP-BOXING. Even this ANI is now being interfered with! PRtalk 09:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

All honour to Jayjg for trying to keep reasonable perspective in this article. I fail to see any reasonable reason why the edit conflict should be taken to the Administrators' noticeboard... -- Olve Utne (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikilawyering, deleting other editors' comments in talk, edit-warring against four other editors? You applaud that? Seriously? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, the first and third clauses there describe your own actions. I note that your edits have been reverted by six editors in whole or in part. Jayjg (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Without advanced tools enabling others to identify all these reverts as being on edits of GOM then your evidence is worthless. What I'm seeing is insistence on including personal abuse of the subject, such as "Dr. Shahak, whose nose is longer than Pinocchio's in any case, does not tell us the whole story of the incident".
One of your reverts concerns the removal of a qualifying statement "Jakobovits provided no evidence to substantiate his claim, and Shahak did not deign to respond", which is exactly comparable to the discussion that sprawled across 15,000 words here on the inclusion or otherwise of accusation of antisemitism levelled "without specifically citing statements of doubt or denial.".
Now, I can understand why you don't wish the GOM and other editors to read what you were saying about OR 2.5 years ago, but it is totally and completely wrong of you to interfere with messages that inform him of policy. Not content with interfering with the TalkPage, this ANI, concerning your conduct, has been re-titled to make it appear as a content dispute. PRtalk 10:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and not appropriate for this board. Take. It. Somewhere. Else. Thanks, all. IronDuke 00:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a content dispute and does not belong here. By the way, the fact that Jay is willing to take on four edit-warring editors at the same time is not a bad thing; it shows his dedication to making sure articles comply with Wikipedia policies. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Totally inappropriate for this forum. This is clearly a conflict dispute. bad faith here seems likely.69.242.115.186 (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
"you then moved the goalposts, and suddenly declared that the real issue was "WEIGHT""? Did you bother to check the discussion thread? I didn't move the goalposts - the discussion had moved on from that. The goalposts didn't move - you didn't read. If it doesn't belong here - then
  • 1. Where does it belong - since Jayjg is completely refusing to accept consensus, and simply edit-wars hos POV to death?
  • 2. Where does the comment removal issue belong, if not here? If it's pretty clearly against policy to remove comments without VERY good reason - where should that behaviour be discussed? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Interference accelerates, even ANI not safe This ANI concerns interference with my messages.
Here were the messages removed, material from me that intimately concern policy (Bogdanor is non-RS and CAMERA is non-RS and Moshe Sharratt quoted by neo-Nazis and 15,000 words on OR and editors defending subversion of WP). All removed as "irrelevant".
Rather than the ANI deal with this blatant interference, the problem has now accelerated to an even more absurd degree - because this ANI, which is entirely about Jayjg innovative style of OWNERSHIP has been re-titled from "Jayjg" to "Israel Shahak article" (by the subject of this complaint in two stages here and here).
I hesitate to offend every administrator in the project, but if you cannot strike down behavior this gross, then what are you doing here, what do you think you're protecting? Does honesty in conduct (and with it, honesty in articles) have any place in the project? PRtalk 09:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think, as I said on the page, that the page is a disgrace, and it needs some administrative attention. That Jayjg's excessive control of it is problematical is neither here nor there. The page has languished because of edit-battles, evidently stands in need of oversight, and Jayjg, though an administrator, is certainly too taken with his own particular dislike of Shahak and his works to exemplify the neutrality of judgement this troubled page requires. So 'Israel Shahak' rather than 'Jayjg' is a reasonable change, even if Jayjg himself is responsible for the alteration.
I see ref to 4 edit-warring opponents of Jayjg, as if he were cornered by mugs and valiantly holds out in defence of NPOV. Name them, by all means, but check the record to document that they edit-war in each case. Secondly, this is not simply a content dispute. Jayjg has, see above, consistently moved the goalposts by repeating that Shahak is not a reliable source on Judaism, when no one is arguing this. He has arrogated to himself the role of judge in a tribunal on the merits or lack of them, of Shahak's book, and thus in saying implicitly that he, as a wiki editor, is an authority on Judaism, and we must take his word for it that Shahak's book gets things nwrong, is 'a non-notable screed' as he puts it.
Jayjg is entitled to his private opinions. Since many scholars, published by University presses, do cite Shahak's interpretation of one fundamentalist vein of Judaism, and since this is not an article about Judaism, but about Shahak and his interpretation of a variety of rabbinical thought, it is totally inappropriate for Jayjg to hold the page to ransom because he does not like Shahak or his book. The only work he does there is to keep in trashing comments by the usual suspects, virulent kibitzers from the partisan activist commentariat. All efforts over two years to try to bring the article up to snuff, as NPOV, have failed before his obstructive behaviour. That is problematical, though I don't know whether this is the appropriate forum for air the issue. It is certainly appropriate to note here that Jayjg should be asked to drop his endless mantra about Shahak and Judaism. Judaism, like Christianity or Islam, is subject to endless interpretations from many angles. There is, unlike Catholicism, no one given interpretation as to what it is, or isn't, and to come to the article with an animus against one scholar with a Popperian approach to part of that tradition, and declare it 'unreliable' is to assert an authority that is arbitrary as it is in violation of what editors are supposed to do, keep their own views from influencing their decisions as to what is relevant or of qualitative value in describing something or someone to NPOV requirements.Nishidani (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong, but usually threads initiated on AN/I involve some sort of violation of WP policy that can be improved by administrative attention. Just what is the problem, aside from you are not happy with the article? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it a violation of Wiki policy for an administrator to revert references invariably to a scholar and his work on the single grounds that in his personal opinion, that scholar is unreliable, despite the fact that the said scholar and his books are widely acknowledged. Isn't it a violation of some rule to rule the roost, ride shotgun over an article, and for several years show hostility to the subject of that article, and rigorously defend the inclusion into that article of every piece of slanderous garbage editors can find by trawling for scuttlebutt over the internet?
My problem is that I have an academic background, know nothing of the wiki rulebook, use commonsense and the probative intelligence in editing articles required at a university level. And yet I find that this approach is held hostage by endless wikilawyering on key articles by people who wish to trash Israeli or Jewish intellectuals as liars or antisemites simply because they are exercising their democratic right to dissent. I'm sure were I a practiced pettifogger, that I could annotate the gravamen of my objections to the way that page is edited by an extensive recitation of nuanced passages in the wiki lawbook. Fundamentally my objection however is to the despoiling of the reputation of a scholar by innuendo from poor sources that insinuate he was an antisemite simply because, as Allan Brownfeld of the Jewish Council for America wrote that Israel Shahak was rebuked, spat upon and threatened with death for his defense of human rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories. That this trashing abounds in a certain scurrilous world of scaremongering by second-rate minds can be noted in a line or two ()Ecco. Jayjg's refuses to accept that all this crap on the page violates WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, since it also is gossip that comes from fringe purveyors of sensationalist smears (WP:FRINGE). That it is untrue need not be noted, perhaps, even if the American State Department, Washington think tanks, and organs like the Jewish Council for America would never have extended their hospitality to Shahak had he been, as Werner Cohn, Bogdanor and Rachel Neuwirth assert without a skerrick of proof, an antisemite. But editors like Jayjg should lay off defending undefendable smears on that page. His position there is an attack position. I don't think editors who attack a page should be on them. I dislike Alan Dershowitz, and consider him to be . . . Precisely for this reason, I never edit that page. Call it ethics, even though the extensive wike rulebook has no place for them.Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The violations are clearly stated at the top of the thread. Your confusion with this being a content issue is the fault of someone changing the title of the section. The issue which we have been arguing, is Jayjg's behaviour. The connection to the content of article is secondary - sparked by others' attempts to make changes.
Despite Wiki policy against deletion of other users' posts, however, I've yet to see a single administrator criticize the act. If the policy on this has changed recently, please be so kind as to explain it, so that we might at least settle part of the dispute. There's plenty of "soapboxing" posts I could clean up from article chats to help streamline the Wiki project - not to mention simplifying debates where "irrelevant or redundant" comments are posted which I do not feel are worthy of inclusion in the chat. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
See [1], which says "Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll say this once more, then hopefully I'm done: people who post here with complaints that are purely content disputes (and therefore frivolous for the purposes of this board) run the real risk that future complaints will be ignored. Try an RfC on the article, for starters. But please take it away from here. IronDuke 15:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how this is a content dispute. It involves deletion of other people's posts - which seems to be a violation of wiki policy. Also, edit-warring between Jayjg and the rest of the editors - which, unless reversion-warring is acceptable practice - once again quite relevant to this thread.
The issue isn't over the content itself - that can be discussed in article chat, if people don't simply go revert-warring when there's a disagreement. The issue is the behavior of Jayjg - which I was led to believe from my limited understanding of wiki policy, were in violation. If edit warring and deleting other user's comments] are not violations of wiki policy, then please confirm so and we can be done with the thread. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Off topic posts can be removed, however removing a post from an editor you're in dispute with is probably a bad idea. PhilKnight (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Removing comments does not violate policy. It could theoretically violate a guideline, but in this case probably hasn't. Even if it had, this would not be the place to complain about it. Way too minor. As for edit-warring 1) No, it is not relevant to this board. There is a board for it but since 2) You are certainly one of the edit-warrers in question, you would essentially be asking for someone to block you. Is that what you want? IronDuke 15:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Technically there's 4 wanting to change the article, and 1 blocking it - so I am 20% of the problem. Since the that's been answered, then it seems I'm done here - any article talk comments I deem to be spurious - poof. Edit-war and just keep it under 3RR. Righto - gotcha - understood. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I haven't reviewed the entire discussion yet, but just replying to this last comment: you make it sound that when 4 editors edit-war with one, it automatically makes the one editor wrong. This is incorrect, as all five editors are wrong for edit-warring. However, on the one hand we have one editor who has been on Wikipedia for years as an admin, checkuser and arbitrator, while on the other we have several users at least one of whom has a long block history and constantly displays a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy; so numbers aren't always the most important. If the edit-warring becomes serious enough, I suggest protecting the article temporarily while the disputes are resolved on the talk page, and ask all editors to post short and on-topic messages, with no soapboxing which is so prevalent in I-P articles. I will post more as the issues becomes more clear to me. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it rather odd that Jayjg would be accused of going against consensus for disagreeing with four editors who essentially edit as a bloc rather than individuals and likely coordinate with each other off-wiki.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I, too, find myself in disagreement with user Jayjg. Let me say clearly for the record that I have not conversed with any of these editors before today, and certainly not in private. Please consider withdrawing your remark. Dynablaster (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the entire discussion yet, but just replying to this last comment: you make it sound that when 4 editors edit-war with one, it automatically makes the one editor wrong

Ynhockey. I haven't checked others, but for myself I haven't edit-warred on that page. Grizzly mentioned this, and it was mentioned further that four edit-warred with Jayjg. Whoever asserts this should check and see who is edit-warring, and get their diffs right.Nishidani (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be a very strong presumption against removing talk page comments by generally serious contributors. If anything, one should be more cautious in doing so when the contributor in question is one with whom you have a scholarly or political disagreement. If you think such a comment is irrelevant, it's a lot better to say so than to remove it. - Jmabel | Talk 20:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment #2: after reviewing the page history more carefully, I can't help but ask why the original ANI poster made this report. This is clearly a content dispute, and not one editor edit-warring against consensus. In fact, it appears that there are several editors on Jayjg's side, and actually less editors on the other 'side'. But all of that doesn't really matter because disputes like this should be solved in talk. I suggest protecting the page temporarily and addressing the immediate issues on talk, removing any soapboxing which seems to appear here and there. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ynhockey, several things are worth noting in response to your posts:
  1. The "several editors on Jayjg's side" (Malcolm Schosha, Brewcrewer) are all resolutely nationalist editors who arrived there today, after this AN/I report was filed.
  2. Jay, who regularly claims he has "won" debates he has actually lost, was indeed edit-warring against consensus here.
  3. Jay has an established history of seriously harassing the editor whose comments he inappropriately deleted in this case.
  4. The Israel Shahak article appears to be a trainwreck of NPOV-violations, with Jay's familiar talk-page games currently preventing its improvement. Jay, moreover, has an established history of using any negative sources he can find for the subject of that article, no matter how badly they fail WP:RS.
That Jay "has been on Wikipedia for years as an admin, checkuser and arbitrator" is a fact worth reflecting on, but it does not alter these other facts listed above.--G-Dett (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, all of the above is either misleading or outright incorrect. It's funny that you accuse certain editor of being 'resolutely nationalist', which is a severe bad faith accusation, and also ironic because the editors appear to be from North America talking about a Polish-Israeli, and I don't have to comment on the nationalism and POV tendencies of the opposing editors. Your personal attacks against Jayjg are also out of place, as there is no evidence that he did any of those things, and if there is, feel free to present it here (if relevant). But again, my suggestion is to protect the article and work out the dispute on talk. I don't think there's any point in arguing with me about the editors involved, or even the content, if my suggestion is not addressed. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy to substantiate any of the facts with which Ynhockey is unfamiliar; interested editors should post to my talk page. I don't want to clog up this page with what is generally known.--G-Dett (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close[edit]

This is a content dispute that has now spilled onto AN/I. It is not appropriate for this forum and this discussion should be closed and the involved parties should follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. --Ryan Delaney talk 22:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Heartily seconded. IronDuke 22:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Even if you decide that what's happening on that article is largely an ordinary content dispute rather than systematic disruption, there still remains the issue of Jay inappropriately deleting talk-page posts by another editor. That's an issue even if you don't agree/aren't aware that Jay has a record of seriously harassing the editor in question.--G-Dett (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
As I said above, even if Jay had done that inappropriately (and I see no evidence that's true), it would be, at worst, a guideline violation -- not for this board. IronDuke 23:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
If you want to report that, then report that. You and nearly everyone else related to this thing have decided that ANI is the appropriate place to debate who did what to whom, despite multiple outside commentators trying to tap you with the cluebat. Due to the complexity of the debate it is extremely difficult to impossible for anyone interested in investigating the propriety of that aspect of Jayjg's behavior to do so.
Anyway, I'm not too interested in having a meta-debate about whether this is appropriate for AN/I. It looks like just about everyone who tried to make heads or tails of this thinks this is the wrong forum for this kind of discussion, so if you have further complaints about Jayjg and you want to see something actually done about them, you should either resubmit the report with the content focused on something that is related to the legitimate purpose of AN/I or take it somewhere else. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
If I want to report that, I should report that? Good G-d, Ryan. Here's a little gentle tap of the cluebat: the first sentence of this AN/I report was "Issue: 1. Deletion of other user's posts." Partisans jumped in with impressive alacrity to obfuscate this, a move you summed up as follows: "just about everyone who tried to make heads or tails of this thinks this is the wrong forum for this kind of discussion." With you at least, they succeeded.--G-Dett (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
You can decide if you want to make it easy or hard on the people who might want to help you resolve this. If you make it hard, you will always have your story about how unfairly you are being treated and how unreasonable everyone else is, but you won't get the result you want. That's all I have to say about it. --Ryan Delaney talk 03:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughts.--G-Dett (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Might I ask, since so many people are saying ANI isn't the place for it:
  • 1. Where user post deletions should be discussed?
  • 2. Continuing edit-war using whatever means - what _IS_ the place for it, then? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring should be reported & discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Let me repeat what IronDuke wrote above - as you are certainly one of the edit-warriors in question, you would essentially be asking for someone to block you. Is that what you want? NoCal100 (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • 1. When you refer to "user post deletions", do you mean these pointy ones?[2] [3] [4]
  • 2. When you refer to "Continuing edit-war using whatever means", are you referring to yours and Dynablaster's reflexive reverting of any edit I make to the article? Jayjg (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
If the admins believe my actions are deserving of a block, then I'd accept that. I did not contest that. So long as the blocks are handed out impartially and in proportion to the number and gravity of the violations - then yes. I'm fine with that.
If I posted in the wrong forum, then I extend my apologies to all involved. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Issue #3, The ultimate layering. As pointed out earlier, the original post was entitled with a user name and one specific talkpage deletion, which he had made. It originally also included a edit warring charge against consensus of other editors, which could be content specific. But, then things really changed[;] when that the same user changed the TITLE of this section, and thus its Framing (social sciences), of the issues for discussion[. As noted by another user[, this appears to have been done] in two stages here and here. This is the worst appears a much worse kind of violation on top of the initial ‘incident’ and [seems] a significant one. The fact that the user is also an admin and that this specific action is was not fully discussed [since it occurred before 'motion to close'] is amazing; absolutely amazing. Does this [or any] user/admin get earn some kind of Teflon shield [with which] to deflect his specific actions of to an article where it originally developed? [T]his [seems an] absolute violation of the intent of AN/I. This is subterfuge getting a free pass, despicable quite appalling, [and with] no [a seemingly limited understanding of] ethics, as noted above by others. Hot Not as cool as when I started. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC) CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you be willing to consider refactoring your post and removing some (perhaps even all) of the incivility? It would be appreciated. IronDuke 15:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I was willing, and did re-factor the comment, as anyone may see. I note however, that this effort apparently had little positive effect concerning discussion of the removal/editing of talk-comments on AN/I, particularly changing the TITLE. But, I note that as long as I continue to question the 'motion to close', the sweep it under the carpet archiving BOT is ineffectual. If the above-stated 'incident', which I am pursuing is not of import as an 'incident', then tell me so in unambiguous terms with a reasoned wiki-why, and I will sheath my sharpened pen and return to productive editing. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, CO48, it is much appreciated. To answer your question (which I think I may already have done above), the issues of changing the title and removal of comments, and the merits thereof, would not usually be handled here: neither was a violation of policy -- and indeed, there were strong arguments for both. You might try Wikiquette, that's probably closest for this sort of minor kerfuffle, though I suspect you will find no catharsis there. IronDuke 15:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable spam on user talk page[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved: Not an issue that requires admin intervention. SoWhy 13:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The following appears on the top of this user talk page. Of course I clicked on new messages whereby I was sent to an off-Wikipedia page. Spam.

You have new messages (last change).

I have not tried removing it nor asking for it to be removed, as an earlier request (on another matter) to the same user got no response. I am hoping that an admin who agrees that this is unacceptable will take action. Thank you. - Hordaland (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You got rickrolled. MER-C 12:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I get it, thanks. But I still think it's inappropriate here. - Hordaland (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I see no evidence that the user has been asked about this message bar before. In fact it looks like he added this bar only a day ago. LeaveSleaves 13:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I hope by now someone has asked this to be removed. The orange bar brings attention to new messages and thus this will be hit a lot by editors who go to this page. I agree it's totally inappropriate, it needs to be removed. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Seems like harmless fun to me. How about asking him to remove it, instead of crying foul of it here, without his knowledge?--Atlan (talk) 13:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I have requested the removal of the orange bar here. Let see if action is taken, if not someone needs to take action imho, thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Oh well, I was bold and removed it while you were posting that. Meh. //roux   13:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
A lot of people have this banner on their talk/user pages. I've seen some point to practical joke on WP, other times to other WP pages, YouTube, a personal photo, etc. Don't you think you are getting worked up about something incredibly minor?--Tufacave (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but WP:USER is relatively clear about not using simulated MediaWiki messages, for what I think are tolerably obvious reasons. //roux   13:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:USER says they are frowned upon, not forbidden...and if there has been consensus either way in the past, it's been to allow them, even if they are incredibly stupid. --OnoremDil 13:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:SMI (the direct link to the section) actually says they should be avoided except for testing purposes; you forgot that bit. They're bloody stupid, they serve no purpose except to annoy, they should be removed on sight. The point of the MW system messages is to provide alerts to users. Faking those messages dilutes the utility of the alerts. //roux   13:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't forget that bit. I ignored it, since every discussion that's been had about this has led to the same conclusion. They're stupid, but not forbidden. Speaking of bloody stupid...here's a bunch of time wasted discussing what should be a non-issue. --OnoremDil 13:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Er, I believe the term for that is cherry picking, and as such does not make for a sound or logical argument. I've removed such nuisances from talk pages before, and would not hesitate to do so again. Tarc (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
And exactly what kind of administrator intervention is required here? Lectonar (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Well, to quote ThuranX from a couple of years ago: "i'd say that if they lead to a potentially offensive article, or off-site, then there might be grounds for asking for a more appropriate link and then Admin intervention, ..." (found on page linked by Onorem above), and this one led off-site. I hadn't heard of WP:SMI, and am glad to know about it, thanks. - Hordaland (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
What a great way to discourage a productive editor who's been here since 2004. Well done, people. yandman 15:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I think its just harmless fun. We don't need to be so serious all of the time. Everyone needs to lighten up, and move on.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Conflict of interest at The Big Issue[edit]

For a long time now (since well before I edited the article), there has been an editor using several IPs (mostly 212.159.25.129 (talk), also 77.101.244.143 (talk), 79.173.141.42 (talk) and 149.254.224.147 (talk)), to repeatedly insert a "response" from The Big Issue's publications department into the Criticisms section of this article. (See, for example, this most recent instance.) Other users and I have left messages on the talk page explaining why this is not appropriate ("Wikipedia is not TBI's soapbox" and such), and I have left COI notices at the editor's main IP, but the editor has continued (I've switched over to leaving vandalism warnings, and he's on level 4 now). I have actually reported two of the IPs just now because they're active, but for the most part these guys are only active at long intervals (every couple weeks or so), so in the long-term I don't know if temporary AIV blocks will be helpful (although, if it's any consolations, these IPs have been SPAs lately; it doesn't appear that anyone else is using them, so maybe a longer block would be warranted). I'm just wondering if there's anything that can be done about this (other than me reverting over and over again). Thanks, rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)talk/contribs 14:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised they are pissed off - the whole section is based on a single article in a student magazine which looks at homelessness in a single city. Needs a re-write and hopefully we can engage with the publication department of that magazine. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've rewritten it. Thanks for the comments. For now I'll just sit back and see if the new section appeases them; if they do continue, though, is there any action that can be taken? rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)talk/contribs 15:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Need uninvolved admin - OR / misinterpretation of sources by User:Uruk2008[edit]

I'm having an insertion of factually inaccurate information / original research and novel synthesis / sterile revert problem with Uruk2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) on several articles:

See discussion on: Talk:Nuclear_weapon_design#Fourth_generation_weapon_information_-_hypothetical_vs_real Talk:Thermobaric_weapon#Extent_of_damage_claim User_talk:Uruk2008#I_believe_that_you_mean_well...

I AGF but he's inserting information which I know and have sourced as being inaccurate. As I am an involved party I would like to request that an un-involved admin take a look at it. It's not quite completely sterile reverting on his part - he finally left some edit comments - but he's not addressing the factual problems in what he's saying. I believe he has made a whole bunch of factually suspect or outright wrong claims in recent edits and something needs to be done.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg User(s) blocked. for 24 hours for edit warring. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

IP user continually tries to reintroduce band promotion material into Glam Metal[edit]

Resolved: Sprot 1 week. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

IP User75.50.127.73 (talk · contribs) Continually tries to re-introduce material on a band called Revlon Red that is of promotion nature [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], and again [22].

The user has been warned [23] and seems either not to understand that Wikipedia is not for advertising or wants to keep on taunting. Would some one do something to stop this otherwise the user will continue to reintroduce the material over and over again. Brothejr (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • One week of semi-protection and the IP is temporarily blocked as well. The fee for this service is to clean it up so some of those tags can come off :-) Guy (Help!) 21:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Tom Lennox[edit]

Resolved: Blocked for 48h, hopefully the user will think about future conduct as some edits are good. Black Kite 18:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see Tom Lennox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) ... as you can see from his talkpage and contributions, he is becoming increasingly disruptive. He referred to someone as an "asshole" in an edit summary, and has continued to act in a similar manner since being warned. Users have provided policy to no avail. Your action/assistance is appreciated. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: this was originally a WP:WQA incident yesterday. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Well seeing as he is now activly vandalising Wikipedia by blanking pages and not jsut being incivil I think we can block him. For the convinience of anyone who doesn't want to dig through his contribs, here is an edit sumary in which he labelled someone an idiot.--Pattont/c 17:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, whoever is insisting that the Silence of the Lambs is a "horror" film is a bit ridiculous, but that is no excuse for the incivility in his reverts. It does make the decision-making easier when the incivility is so blatant, at least. Tarc (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was a "horror" film... Garycompugeek (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
You do a lot of editing on Circumcision ... now that would be a horror film...a real hack and slash. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

[-Unindent-] It appears that Tom lennox is continuing the edit war using an IP address (see here). Should this be escalated to SPI? Should the block be extended? Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Please. Rules. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of sourced genre on Within Temptation[edit]

Resolved: discussion to continue on article talk

Please feel free to move this elsewhere/ask me to if it's in the wrong place. I've never been clear on where to actually go with cases like this. It isn't actually breaking 3RR, but I don't want to end up breaking it myself.

1st: [24]

2nd: [25]

3rd: [26]

4th: [27]

User:Ada Kataki continues to remove the "gothic rock" genre from Within Temptation, despite it being sourced. The source in question is allmusic. The user has been told that allmusic is a reliable source, and that if he disputes this he should take it to the noticeboard. The user refuses to accept this and continues to revert. I don't want to get into an edit war over it, but I don't see that there's any need for discussion either: Allmusic -is- a reliable source, that's all there is to it. Note that he doesn't remove allmusic full stop: he only removes it where he doesn't agree with it (see diffs).

Is anyone willing to help in stopping these reverts? Prophaniti (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

From a cursory look around various archives, it appears Allmusic is considered to be a reliable source, but when it comes to genres it's generally preferred that it's not the only reliable source. This discussion should really be taking place on the talk page. I suggest you invite Ada to discuss the issue on the talk page and try and find another reliable source listing "Gothic Rock" as a genre - if you can then I can see no reason it can't go back into the infobox. About the only thing administrators can do here is lock the page to stop a potential edit war or issue brief blocks for 3RR violations if applicable - they have limited ability to deal with content disputes. If you have no luck, try dispute resolution. Exxolon (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Exxolon. The problem is, I don't see any need for discussion in the first place: Allmusic is considered one of the most reliable sources there is. The only circumstance I could think of where it shouldn't be used is if it's outweighed massively by other sources. In this case it isn't. I doubt discussion would go anywhere, given the user's hostile manner, but I'm willing to give it a shot. Prophaniti (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I've posted on the Music Wikiproject asking for assistance (and I've notified Ada explicitly they are being discussed here) - if you get no joy, try mediation or an RFC. Exxolon (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Allmusic is all music, a web-based, non-genre-specific music data bank, co-operating with the music industry. It's definitely not a reliable source for genre definitions. Reliable sources are genre-specific publications such as books. Books about Gothic rock. Within Temptation (and also Lacuna Coil) is a METAL band. They've nothing to do with the basically style elements of Gothic rock. Gothic is a POST-PUNK genre and definitely not an outgrowth of METAL music. --Ada Kataki (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Please take any further discussion to the talkpage - if you cannot reach agreement, use the WP:DISPUTE processes. Exxolon (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the kind of case that lead to the extended Music project discussion about genre fields in infoboxes in September and October (see Music project archives). I have sympathy with both sides here. IMO the solution is to avoid including subjective information in these boxes, and try to agree a form of words in the main text that satisfies individual circumstances. --Kleinzach 02:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

IP edit warrior at Illuminati[edit]

Resolved

We have a problem at the Illuminati article. An IP editor (using several related IP adresses) keeps removing the same paragraph over and over. I could report this at 3rr, but I think the the problem goes beyond just 3rr... A major concern is the obvious fact that the editor seems to have an extremely poor grasp of English... this makes discussions almost impossible. He does not understand our explanations and it is often very difficult for us to understand his complaints. Blueboar (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the contested content ([28]) does include unsourced information pertaining to possibly living people, and a probably inappropriate external link. What do you want us to do?  Sandstein  21:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure what you can do... all I know is that the language problem is more than I can deal with and I need assistance and advice. If this were a normal content dispute, I would be able to at least try to have a reasonable dialogue with the other editor in an attempt to reach a consensus... that isn't possible in this case. The language bar is just too wide. I come here because I don't know where else to get assistance and advice with this. See my attempts at communication at the article talk page. Blueboar (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The article has been semi-protected until February 25 independently of this report.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

New university project or keen undergraduates?[edit]

See the following new articles: Computer science at strathclyde and Livingstone Tower (where said department is based), and the following users who have contributed: User:Group5cis, User:CSgroup7, User:Cs104group7, and User:Smilers.

The new users and their names and editing topics are suggestive of a group effort, and it's my view that the department is not notable for an article. Anyway, I thought some people here might like to investigate and take any action they deem appropriate. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Also University of Strathclyde CIS Department (which may actually be a good article), Strathclyde Personal Interactive Development and Educational Resource and User:CS104Group11, User:Kimscottross. Verbal chat 16:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • If you feel the articles aren't notable you should deal with them in the usual manner. –xeno (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    • That isn't the reason I brought them here, it is due to usernames suggesting group editing as part of a course or project. Verbal chat 16:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Hmm, they look like they could be group accounts so a note should be left about our policy on that. Looks like uxepat has left a message to them. –xeno (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mention group accounts though, maybe I should go back and add that. – ukexpat (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 Done  – ukexpat (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I just made a complete mess of trying to notify these accounts, so if Ukexpat could continue his sterling work I'd be grateful. Sorry if I wasn't clear in my original notice. Verbal chat 16:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason to disagree with your guesses about this being an improper group efford are correct. On the other hand, even if we assume that this is true and that Smilers is someone actually involved rather than being another editor who happened upon the situation, I don't believe that s/he should be seen in the same light: Smilers' contribution log begins nearly three years ago. Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Stevewunder[edit]

Resolved

Could someone have a look at this user's contributions. Examples of contributions: [29] and [30]. Contribution history: [Contributions:[31]]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There's also talk page gems like this one:[32] He's had a number of warnings about this type of behavior.[33]Idag (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The disruptive editing continued even after he had been warned that he was reported here. Blocked for 24 hours. Jayjg (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:151.199.197.142 as chat room[edit]

It looks like User talk:151.199.197.142 is being used as a chat room by a half-dozen high school students. I would dig into it myself and point all the folks to WP:NOT#CHAT but my electricity is out and I only have about three minutes of juice left in the UPS. If someone else could check it out, I would appreciate it. Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 05:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the inappropriate edits from the talk page and I've blocked three of the four new accounts who edited there. The fourth, Krasilschic (talk · contribs) has actual edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Titian[edit]

I've temporarily protected this page, as editing of it has become newsworthy. Discussion welcomed in this section at the Talk page. --Dweller (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

194.203.158.97 Titian and the Conservative Party (UK)[edit]

194.203.158.97 (talk · contribs · count)

It is being reported by the BBC that Titian has been vandalised by Conservative Party Central Office. I have identified the IP address used. Looking at the talk page there is a warning about an edit to Tosser but that edit does not appear in the account history and the link to the diff is dead. Was deletion, oversight used to remove the edit? In which case why is the warnign still visible on the user talk page I suspect that Wikipedia-literate journalists may already have noticed things. --Peter cohen (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There are three deleted edits to Tosser in that IP's deleted contribution history. Warnings aren't automatically or routinely removed simply because the offending edit has been deleted. BencherliteTalk 16:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
BBC report here. – ukexpat (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
This might explain why David Cameron is under "attack" by numerous IPs, including someone from an IP at the Daily Express changing his date of birth. --Blowdart | talk 17:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Excellent. Birthdaygate --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps David Cameron should be semi-protected? If the press is going to vandalize, let them at least sign in :) - Nunh-huh 17:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Most of the vandalism is coming from one IP that I've already blocked - if someone were to ask at WP:RFPP I'd be inclined to say Stop x nuvola with clock.svg User(s) blocked. GbT/c 17:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
But then again, what do I know? GbT/c 17:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I think 24 hours of semi-protection will probably help, which is why I protected the article—the last thing we need are journalists claiming that we're having a big row with that party because their representatives have acted inappropriately and then dubiously accused us of inaccuracy. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 17:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
When I cleaned up the IPs talk page due to vandalism, I removed the warning about vandalising Tosser, I am sure I checked the IPs edit history before removing this warning, but how can I know it is a valid warning if it is not in the IPs edit history. Martin451 (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, it was a valid warning having looked at the deleted edits, but it was rather very stale, so no harm done in removing it now. BencherliteTalk 10:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

New user spamming articles[edit]

Resolved: No admin action necessary here. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 11:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've run across a user, Jhalapch, who's spamming articles with links to ClassicGameRoom.net (he links to the main page, not an individual review as his edits claim). It looks like that's all he's done. I don't want to clean up after him, just to have him do it again. Is there a bot that can revert all his changes? Can he be blocked? Thanks. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 22:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You can report him to be blocked at WP:AIV if he has been sufficiantly warned. (It looks like he hasn't been sufficiently warned yet.) As for reverting his changes, anyone with rollback can do it easily; just drop me (or anyone else you know of who has rollback) a message and they can revert everything in a couple seconds. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
User has not been active since before this report was placed; marking this resolved. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 11:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully Request to Repeal 72 Hour Block[edit]

Resolved: No admin action necessary

To Whom it May Concern:

Today I made a minor edit to the Billy Graham Wikipage. The edit contained a blatant and obvious false fact about Billy Graham. The purpose was to educate one of my co-workers as to why one must carefully choose what they use from Wikipedia as a source because anyone can edit information. When I went to undo my edit, a user had already caught the misinformation and reversed my edit.

When I went to the individual's page to leave a quick apology and explanation I found that my account was blocked.

I would like to respectfully request a repeal of my instated 72 hour block. If not, would an authorized moderator please send along my apologies to the user who reported the abuse. (I would have done the same thing has him.)

Very Respectfully,

205.56.145.36 (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You're not blocked, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to post to this page. None of the users who have edited Billy Graham in the last week are currently blocked. GbT/c 10:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
With the continual pattern of unhelpful edits from that US Navy IP address, one would think that due to its high-profile nature, users from that location would create accounts so as to not cause as much embarrassment to their fine organization. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, now I just feel ridiculous. I saw a banner state that I was blocked. Thank you for the correction.

Mr. Wilkins, the point was to show my co-worker that *anyone* could edit Wikipedia; even without an account. I am sorry if you feel this incident constitutes an embarassment. I don't believe I have much of value to contribute to Wikipedia at this time, and so I believe I don't need an account.

Very Respectfully,

205.56.145.36 (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, which contain the relevant guidelines. --Killing Vector (talk) 10:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
What he was probably seeing was a banner left over from a previous block, from last year. Wilkins is right that the various warnings and blocks on that page do not speak well of the Naval personnel that use that IP address. We expect a higher standard from our military than junior high school vandalism. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
What you saw was a banner left for the user who's talk page you visited, who had been blocked for 72 hours at some earlier point, and no one else had posted to their page subsequently.-gadfium 11:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Which user page would that have been? In any case the IP user ID has 2 blocks of 24 hours in the past year [34] and none for 72 hours. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Presumably User:Mike Doughney, the editor who reverted the anon IP. Mike Doughney was blocked for 72 hours on the 8th of February. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 11:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Aha. Yep, that [35] would be it. And obvious, too. Looks like it's time to get my eyes checked again. :( Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Images used in Intelligent design covered by Non-free content policy?[edit]

Unresolved
Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/ID-NFCC due to size issues. MBisanz talk 15:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Tag-abuse by Dicklyon of a page for which he is already in formal mediation[edit]

This is newly repeated tag-abuse by Dicklyon of a page for which he is already in formal mediation (here).

Dicklyon recently nominated Feminine essence theory of transsexuality for deletion, a nomination which was defeated nearly unanimously [36]. He immediately followed-up by filing an RfC [37], which also failed to provide support for his POV about the page. Apparently displeased with these outcomes, Dicklyon multi-tagged the page [38], with the edit summary “a few tags to point out some of the made-up assertions in this stupid article.” Those apparently being insufficient, he added more: [39][40].

To fast forward a bit, the mediator has referred to the issues about the page as "water under the bridge" (here). Now apparently displeased with that, Dicklyon added to the page another dozen or so dubious-tags, who-tags, and cn-tags (here). (He has inserted more tags than the page has sentences.)

I am posting this at ANI instead of the at the vandalism noticeboard because, in my opinion, tag-abusing a page for which one is already in mediation and for which one has been forum-shopping for opposition is a very different issue from regular vandalism. Dicklyon has a substantial history of blocks [41] and topic banning [42].

Although Dicklyon has every right to disagree with the page and to accuse me of any of many things (and he does), this is not how to participate in dispute resolution.

I have notified our mediator here, and I am making this ANI post because it's not quite appropriate (to my mind) for the mediator to perform anti-vandalism and other admin actions for the same case. Finally, because I am also in the mediation, I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to revert the page on my own.

— James Cantor (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I reverted it as blatant tag-abuse. LOLthulu 22:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Is there a policy or guideline someone could point me to that defines tag abuse? I ask because of a totally unrelated article, but it may help in could be looked at. Thanks ;) — Ched (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
It's described at [[WP::Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism]] — James Cantor (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC)

In this case Ched, wp:POINT is exactly what Dicklyon is broadly guilty of. Look at #10 under the 'Gaming the system' for a more specific clause. There may be more guidelines we could cite, but Dicklyon himself said "a few tags to point out some of the made-up assertions in this stupid article." Because of the repetitive nature of this issue, WP:STICK also applies. NJGW (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon just reverted the vandalism right back onto the page [43].

Thanks anyway, LOLuthan. Dicklyon used the edit summary "That was a complete revert and gave no idea which aspects of my calls for discussion of dubious claims were considered inappropropriate." Personally, I think that's just doing what WP:civility calls "playing dumb" and "Taunting or baiting" to pull you into a dispute with him. I think an admin's look is necessary. (The mediation broke down, by the way.)

— James Cantor (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

And yet again. [44]
His edit summary this time: "Reverted 1 edit by NJGW; These tags are not pointy; they are serious; please address on the talk page".
— James Cantor (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

He's now at 3rr. I mentioned that on his talk page, and started a talk page section to discuss how to continue. NJGW (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that Cantor had mentioned this on my talk page; I missed that before, as another item came in after it. My point with the tags was to more specifically point out the assertions that are dubious, in the sense of being made up as opposed to being supported by the sources that Cantor cited. This can also be addressed in mediation, assuming that resumes, but to help the issue along I felt it appropriate to indicate those specific aspects of the language that are dubious, or, in actuality, quite absurd and unsupportable. If there's a better way to do this, someone please let me know. Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

At Talk:Feminine essence theory of transsexuality#Dubious I've add three subsections on the first three dubious tags; I want it to be clear that each tag had a serious intent, and that I was not intending this a pointy tag abuse; but I can see why it might have been taken that way by some not familiar with what James Cantor has done with this article. I invite your comments on the talk page. James has also not approved moving forward with the new mediator, after he gave the old one a vote of no confidence, so it's not clear how he thinks this is going to get resolved. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid user:Dicklyon has added another seven tags to the page again. [45] Although he added seven tags, his edit summary is "first three dubious tags, corresponding to the discussion sections that are open on the talk page," bringing his current total number of tags on the page to 12. In addition to the vandalism itself, I don't know if that counts as an official "fourth revert" (being 28 hours from his first revert), but to me personally, this smells like a violation of the spirit.
— James Cantor (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Dick made 2 edits in the past 24 hours, only one of which is a revert. He is also discussing this on the talk page. This is a content dispute, not a 3rr issue/Incident. NJGW (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
You don't regard adding so many tags, some to already "fact" tagged sentences, as disruptive? It may not break the letter of any rules, but is certainly against fostering a collaborative spirit. The first time may have been good faith, but repeated additions are unecessary/pointy - the points should be discussed one at a time. For a typical editr this would be no big deal, but during a formal mediation it indicates a lack of self-control. (Although i'm not sure why fact tagged sentences are allowed to remain if any editor disputes the sentence, but that is another matter).Yobmod (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I had the same reaction. An RfC/U regarding this and other aspects of Dicklyon's problematic user-conduct, where folks may comment located here.
— James Cantor (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruption by User:Mihai cartoaje at Peter Breggin[edit]

A long-standing situation needs to stop. I have had little to do with this article, but I have noticed a pattern usually seen when COI editors or subjects edit their own articles without understanding our rules very well. I don't think this user (MC) actually is Peter Breggin, but the editor is acting like an ill-behaved meatpuppet. Here are some relevant links:

MC is misusing BLP to delete whole paragraphs of properly sourced material for various reasons. Edit warring and possible 3RR violations are the order of the day. One of MC's most absurd arguments for deleting well-sourced negative material is because some of them are "opinion". Well, that's what we do here, we document opinions and facts using V & RS. Deletionism and removal of all negative material is destructive, and the editors who are doing the editing need help and more eyes on the situation. A large cluestick needs to be wielded, followed by short blocks (2-3 weeks), topic bans, and then banning if necessary. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I would like to add that Mihai cartoaje uses completely inappropriate arguments when interpreting sources, as documented on the talkpage and in the edit history of the Breggin article ("they don't believe what they say",[46] "he was paid by Lilly to find this, otherwise nobody would ever have seen it",[47] etc). --Crusio (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
This spat is about a remark made in an article in Forbes which states that Breggin supported children having sexual relations, and that he later changed his position. Breggin himself (as User:Peter Breggin) complained that the Forbes article is misleading on other points. So, this is fairly controversial. If the article on Sarah Palin said something like that, you'd have an army of editors trying to remove the statement as coming from an unreliable source or other WP:BLP reasons. I've edited that statement on Breggin's page to give proper attribution. I have to say that User:Crusio, probably due to his professional bias, attempts to lampoon Breggin a bit too much on Wikipedia. Xasodfuih (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Really?!? Lampooning?!? For my educational benefit, could you give me an example? And what, exactly, do you think my "professional bias" is? --Crusio (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Xasodfuih, I'd really appreciate if you could explain yourself. Currently the Breggin article for the most part consists of puffed up stuff, with only parts of the criticisms on him included. As an example, it is proudly mentioned that the journal he founded is published by "Springer Publishing Company". Everybody knows, of course, the prestigious scientific publisher Springer Verlag. So try Googling "Springer Publishing Company" and you may get a surprise. Any attempt to qualify the statements in the article has been rebuffed by a host of POV pushers, so I've given up. Similarly, anybody knowing scientific literature, citations, etc. will see that the lists of articles and multiple mentions of Breggin's publications in "peer-reviewed journals" really are mostly puffery. Yes, I agree, this lampoons Breggin, but I did not put that stuff in there and any attempt to remove it is being prevented by the same POV pushers that want to promote Breggin and his views. Without all the puffery, the article would look more encyclopedic and would in fact also look better for Breggin, IMHO. --Crusio (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry if I assumed too much. Seeing how proud you are of you own h-index and the discussion on Breggin's page on that I assumed you put that in, as well the citation comparison between Breggin's obscure journal and the top psychiatric journals. It's no great mystery that some peer-reviewed journals are crap; who does the peer-reviewing obviously matters a lot (I'm just writing this for anyone else reading this, you obviously know it).
  • I don't agree that Breggin's article is mostly puffed up stuff. There are some WP:SYNT claims that greatly overemphasize his role in SSRI black box labeling (I've tagged them as such), and enumerating the journals he published in is a bit silly. But last 1/3 or so of the article is very critical of him ("Expert witness" and "Mainstream psychiatry exponents' criticism of Breggin"). I agree that more could be said there, but that should preferably come from more credible sources than Steven Milloy/FoxNews. Xasodfuih (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It's dangerous to assume too much... :-) If I remember correctly (it's a while ago), someone inserted some text on how much Breggin was cited by mainstream psychiatrists (funny how people attacking "mainstream" medicine/physics/astronomy/whatever always yearn for recognition from that same despised mainstream) and I then indeed put in hard data on how much he was cited (or, rather, how little he was being cited, the figures basically mean that he's being ignored by mainstream science). I did not put in the citation comparison between his, as you say, obscure journal and other journals, as I found that not fitting for the article (but I admit not having felt compelled to remove it at the time - must have been irritated by some POV pushing editors - not a good thing, but understandable, I hope). I did prod the article on the journal and it was deleted without contest. It would never survive AfD as a scientific journal anyway. In any case, the article is slowly improving.... As for me being proud of my h, it's really not that high, you need to take the duration of someone's career into account. One of my colleagues has 41, now that is high, I'll probably never reach that in my lifetime ;-) --Crusio (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • PS: you're right about "mostly", there's quite some criticism in there, too. It would have been more correct to say that there's "a lot" of puffery in the article. I have pared down the publicaiton list, trying to be as non-controversial as possible, basically only taking out editorials and letters to the editor. I'd appreciate if you could have a look at it to see if you agree. --Crusio (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The long discussion is about this: [48]. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't write all that you're attribting to me. Stop twisting facts. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(ECx2) On the Peter Breggin article there are users whose only activities at that article are to denigrate him. Since there aren't enough neutral editors willing to spend time keeping out BLP violatins, the article is regularly turned into an attack page with BLP violations. Even the bio subject has complained about it. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's face it, "neutral editors" are rare, and usually neutral because they are ignorant of the deeper details of a controversy. They are sometimes good for cleanup, for refereeing in dispute resolution situations, and for interpretation of policies, but for content they aren't always very good.
Neither you nor any of the other editors at the article are "neutral", as far as I can see. I sit somewhere in between, since I disagree with some of Breggin's methodologies and broadsided (too wide-sweeping) attacks, and yet I do agree with some of his concerns about the overuse of certain drugs. Basically being against any unnecessary use of drugs, supplements, or even vitamins, I tend to sympathize with cautions regarding their use. This goes hand-in-hand with my love/hate attitude toward the pharmaceutical industry. So far my few edits have been pretty innocuous cleanup attempts.
As far as the article goes, I am basically concerned with your removal of sourced information, your misuse and misunderstanding of BLP to justify deletions of whole paragraphs of properly sourced material, your antipathy towards the use of Quackwatch (a very notable source that has been exonerated in a recent ArbCom amendment of a previously inaccurate finding), your failure to understand our most basic policy, the NPOV policy, and your antagonistic attitudes towards other editors at the article. Deletionism is very destructive, especially when it's whitewashing. Around here, whitewashing gets punished by the debate attracting more focus and publicity.
As far as the complaints from the bio subject, unless there are proven inaccuracies of a serious nature, we couldn't give two hoots about them. Article subjects regularly complain about their bios not being sales brochures for their ideas. We are writing an encyclopedia here. We're not in the PR business, and we are not Breggin's spin doctor. If you don't want your dirty laundry displayed here, don't become notable. You and Breggin need to read about Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences:
"If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, your company, or your pet idea, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels. Content is not deleted just because somebody doesn't like it. Any editor may add material to or remove material from the article within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually. More than one user has created an article only to find himself presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. If you engage in an edit war in an attempt to obtain a version of your liking you may have your editing access removed, perhaps permanently."
"In addition, if your article is found not to be worthy of inclusion in the first place, it will be deleted, as per our deletion policies. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about."
"Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked." (Source.)
Right now, your editing and talk page behavior are precisely described by that last paragraph and you may should be blocked. Consider this your warning. You have (once again) been made aware of this guideline. You act like you own the article.
Our reaction to improper complaints should always be resistance to attempts at whitewashing, and thus the negative material that is properly sourced will be included, enlarged, and strengthened, and poorly sourced material will be strengthened using better sources if possible. If that isn't possible, then of course they should be deleted per BLP. But objections will usually have the opposite effect of what is desired by the article subject, IOW they may achieve a short-lived Pyrrhic victory, with very negative consequences for them. On top of that, the media are often aware of such attempts at whitewashing and they just love to publish about it. Better to keep silent. Only make very serious complaints. They will be heard. We have to balance our concerns with being a serious encyclopedia, and being a tabloid newspaper. We include all forms of well-sourced opinions and facts. Period. Get used to it. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Attempting to give an less involved opinion on Wikipedia is like trying to break up a street fight: you're guaranteed to get pounded from all sides. I'll let you highly involved fellows continue to duke it out. Xasodfuih (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Nobody's pounding on you. For the moment, nobody from either side has reverted your edits to the Breggin article. The above remarks from Fyslee are clearly directed at MC. And I didn't pound you either, I just asked whether you could explain what you meant when you said that I was trying to lampoon Breggin because of my professional bias. --Crusio (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed this and want to assure Xasodfuih that my comments were indeed directed at MC, not you. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Userspace pages, worries about good faith, stalking and so on[edit]

Resolved: Let's please not let this escalate further. This is a matter suited for dispute resolution at best, but you two should really separate from each other for a while. seicer | talk | contribs 13:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems he's simply not going to stop. Just when I think: finally, the mess on the ANI talk page was done, Dayewalker made this, which I presumed (in good faith) was an intention to pursue dispute resolution, given the matter was resolved well before-hand to warrant anything else. After requesting clarification on some comments by others, an administrator suggested that Dayewalker may not be pursuing dispute resolution, but may have a similar rationale to that specified here. I decided to have a look for the actual page referred to in the diff, and came across several others instead: User_talk:Dayewalker/Apoklyptk, User_talk:Dayewalker/Sandbox01, User_talk:Dayewalker/Penn, User_talk:Dayewalker/Sauve, User_talk:Dayewalker/Lando, User_talk:Dayewalker/Sockfile, etc.

What is most troubling is that some of these, particularly User_talk:Dayewalker/Lando, goes as far back as December last year. While replying to another comment made by Dayewalker, I decided to make him aware of the fact that I will request such pages be deleted, particularly those that are so old, as they do not comply with userspace requirements. His response was to accuse me of stalking his contributions because I'd come across that contribution from December last year. Making those sorts of accusations purely on assumptions of bad faith is disruptive. The assumptions of bad faith need to stop, and so do these userspace problems. If this means that he needs to be banned from interacting with me, or commenting directly or indirectly on me, for however long I'm still here, then so be it.

To clarify, ...lists of fault-finding diffs, users described as "problem users", negative postings, and other matters of a generally uncollegial kind, should be written only if needed, kept only for a limited period, and only for imminent use in dispute resolution or other reasonable and short term dispute handling. They should not be allowed - deliberately, through passage of time, good faith, wilful allusion, or neglect - to create some kind of perennial "hall of shame" or list of "disapproved, shunned or negatively viewed users". Users are encouraged to avoid keeping such content on the wiki when there is no good cause. Uninvolved users and administrators are encouraged to be willing to check whether such pages may be removed, if they appear to be dormant, redundant, or not presently "live". from here.

I request the following:

  1. Someone to inform him of this thread (I won't go near his talk page when he makes such accusations);
  2. For the stale pages in question to be deleted;
  3. For the ridiculous accusation of stalking to be retracted in full;
  4. For Dayewalker to leave me, and my edits for that matter, alone. As I noted in my final comment; in all honesty, I'd rather not have contact with an editor that acts to be more disruptive than finding better ways to amicably resolve a dispute.

Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Ncm, you're the one who is supposed to inform me when you post about me to ANI. When you refer to my single edit followed by talk page discussions with you as "disruptive," you misrepresent the case.
In terms of good faith, I tried to discuss your actions over your edit war at ANI [49] with you, but you continued to revert five times to post your side of the matter until finally three different editors reverted you. As I pointed out to you earlier, when it looked like you were purposefully edit warring, I went ahead and typed up the diffs in case you wouldn't stop and a report had to be filed. Even after the ANI matter was finished (and numerous editors asked both sides to stop), you continued to bring it up and argue over the details of a truly lame edit war. An admin finally got you to quit. At the conclusion of the matter, I summed up the situation and saved the page in my own userspace.
I saved this page for several reasons, not the least of which is that I correctly assumed that Ncm would show the same level of civility he did in the ANI matter and attempt to cause problems for me one day. When that day happens (unfortunately sooner than later), I'd like to be able to show any admin who asks where this situation came from and the original ANI thread.
That day is here, apparently. The link to the situation is here, just as Ncm pointed out.
No link to this page exists anywhere on wikipedia. If Ncm hadn't been going through my contributions looking for some kind of evidence, he would never have seen it, and it links to no other page except the ones he's linked it to. After going through my contribs, Ncm began posting the link [50] [51] [52] on three different talk pages, and when no one responded to him, he brought it here. Never once did he come to my page and ask why the subpage exists.
As Ncm points out, I've done this before. Admin Kralizec! pointed out to Ncm here [53] a similar discussion where I told CadenS my philosophy on these pages, and how they're not harmful. Most of those pages chronicle old situations, and would hopefully never be used. However for an example, if I need diffs of my own personal long-term stalker for an admin to issue a range block or see the evidence to protect my page, I have them [54]. I edit from multiple computers, so having the diffs is a great help to me in some cases. Again, those pages have no active links to them.
I'm not assuming bad faith here, I tried to talk Ncm out of an edit war (in which I only made a single edit), and didn't file a case of any kind on him. I'm certainly not the first editor to feel that Ncm has overstepped his bounds, and his behavior towards me validates that feeling. If he'll just leave me alone and stop posting about me (as I've asked him to do), as far as I'm concerned the matter will be over. When Ncm stops making this whole dead horse an issue, I'll blank the page myself. For now, I'd prefer to leave it as is since this is obviously still an active discussion.
Summing up, I'm sorry this wound up here. This is getting lamer and lamer with each iteration, and I've tried to steer the conversation to its correct location [55] and end it [56] [57] [58] without further wasted time. As I told Ncm on his page, I'd rather not have anything further to do with him, if only he will have to stop digging in my contribs and posting reports to numerous other pages in hopes of getting me in trouble. Honestly, I consider every single word I just wrote in my defense as just wasted time in response to a frivolous complaint, and I'd rather get back to actually helping the wiki. Thanks in advance for your time. Dayewalker (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
This complaint is far from frivolous. His definition of stalking is so incredibly ridiculous that his use of the word is simply a personal attack - can someone please make him retract the claim?? It's simply not legitimate as an accusation. Yet he finds he has free license to litter my talk page (and every other page) with more rants trying to justify it; that's nothing more than being disruptive.
Not only does he apparently have difficulty understanding what stalking entails, but he apparently also has difficulty understanding when it's a laundry list of grievances is permitted and when it's not. That's evidenced by his persistent denial in the response above. Can any arbitrator from ArbCom actually find his use of userpages in compliance with their ruling? Absolutely not; some have been around since December last year when "they should be...kept only for a limited period, and only for imminent use in dispute resolution or other reasonable and short term dispute handling." What is so difficult to understand about that?
As Dayewalker refuses to voluntarily do anything about them, or his personal attack, this does require administrator intervention. The pages need to be blanked or deleted; his comment needs to be forcibly refactored; and he needs to understand that he cannot continue to make those pages if he intends on leaving them around for months merely because he "changes computers".
I gave him a caution that he needed to have those pages deleted or I'd make a request myself; he responds by pretending there's stalking. I move forward with my request asking for admin intervention so that it's deleted; he claims that it's stalking too. How else do you describe this sort of behaviour than disruptive? He makes a response that clearly is long enough to be tendentious in the hope that no admin will intervene: my only fear is he will be successful in warding off admins. Finally, I have no obligation to inform Dayewalker of the ANI myself; I just have to ensure that someone informs him - and I made a request, given he's still wrecklessly and disruptively maintaining his frivolous stalking accusation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Now he's resorted to changing the title of my ANI - can someone please tell him to back off? [59] When an editor makes an accusation, the title stays the same and the closing comment notes whether it's legitimate or not. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I changed your title because your accusations are very much in doubt. Much like the ANI case [60], you're willing to edit war to make an attack in a summary. Fine, whatever ends this quickest.
I answered your accusations above and you responded with further accusations that I went into too much detail. Fine, I'll sum up. You edit warred at ANI, and I was about to file a report on your when you made your fifth reversion in less than 24 hours. When you stopped, I just saved my sandbox page. Since then, you've continued to argue about the ANI case across several other editors pages (as shown above), and now have come to ANI to try and get your way. As of today, you were still complaining at Krazelic!'s page about the ANI, and making atacks on me without informing me. That means this whole situation is still active, and I'm perfectly within my rights to keep a report of it in my space in my defense.
I'll make the same offer I made above, please leave me alone. Stop posting to multiple places to try and get me in trouble, and show me that you're going to let your incident go, and I'll blank that page myself. When this is settled, I'll gladly request deletion of it. Until you stop attacking me on multiple fronts, it's evidence. Dayewalker (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
If you actually addressed what I was saying, this would be done with, but you keep skipping right around the issue. If this was merely about a page on me, I would've frowned and kept walking. I'd be happy with your assurance, had this not been online since December. Again, that is not permissible.
The other issue is your stalking accusation; I'd be happy to mark this resolved and as nothing more than an allegation that I will never look at again if you retracted that - you refuse to so this does not become something I will let go in the absence of someone else refactoring it for you.
After that, I'll be happy to not encounter you again - and I don't doubt that you'd look forward to that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see anything for an admin to do here. I do think each of you should try staying away from each other, there are so many articles which could be helped by your skills, this shouldn't be too hard. Dayewalker has said he'll be asking an admin to delete the note-taking pages, which I think have been mistaken for something they are not. Beyond this, if y'all truly want to waste your time, please take this to WP:DR. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree. You are both valuable editors and there is no sense in letting this spiral out of control. There is always a point from where you can't step back and, though you're close, you're not there yet. Best to move on and ignore each other. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 14:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
As I know from my own experience, Ncmvocalist is like a pit-bull when someone has upset him: he'll keep hanging on until the arm is off. The content in the userspace is a work in progress he's entitled to keep. There's nothing for an admin to do here, besides perhaps warning Ncmvocalist for frivolous forum-shopping, following good users around and attempted bullying. And Ncmvocalist, please stop handing out "cautions" to people you are in dispute with; none of them will ever take them as cautions since you are not an admin and even if you were you be too involved enough to do anything. Instead of trying to bully Dayewalker, focus instead on improving your own behavior, because that's the real way you will avoid trouble. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Miklebe impersonating User:Mikebe[edit]

Resolved: User indefinitely blocked for spam/apparent harassment. –xeno (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

All of User:Miklebe's contributions are linkspam; furthermore they're linkspam for an organization that User:Mikebe opposes including and which he has been the target of harrassment for (by socks of User:Newcrewforu) in the past. --Killing Vector (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have just reverted most of this user's edits, simply because most of his links are invalid links (404 errors). E Wing (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
He's put all the links back up. --Killing Vector (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Mikebe has raised a complaint of impersonation against User:Miklebe here. --Killing Vector (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Reverted remaining links and warned him 3 times for link spam. Thanks for the info. E Wing (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Mikebe asked me as an admin to keep an eye on Beer style and I have been doing that. While both sides of the argument there are not being very productive, I consider User:Miklebe to be particularly unhelpful and I suggest he is banned if he does not respond to the warning about his user name. Any htoughts? How long should we let him have to respond. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
A username created intentionally for impersonation, trolling, and harassment? Would definitely support a hard block. –xeno (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Username impersonations are especially frowned upon because no doubt they will hurt the editor whose identity is being maligned. I wouldn't give the editor much time at all. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(thread un-archived) The user has not responded to requests for discussion about their user name. They have also gone and re-added the links. --Killing Vector (talk) 10:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Seemed like checkuser might be helpful, here; Miklebe (talk · contribs) appears to be related to Tonyelsnow (talk · contribs) and Perapera (talk · contribs). For the time being I'll leave Miklebe another message asking for comment, with a very concerned outlook if they continue to ignore that request, but have no objection if someone else takes action in the meantime. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
If that's the case then it might also be worth looking at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Therascal99. That user's been harrassing User:Mikebe in the past and has impersonated User:Editor437 in the past as well... --Killing Vector (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... from a purely technical standpoint, a relation between this group and that groups appears to be possible, but can't be proven or disproven with the information I'm currently looking at. Examining behavior might be more conclusive. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Both groups tend to harp on links to the BJCP, that being the edit war on Beer Style that involved User:Mikebe on the exclusion side. --Killing Vector (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Note: User:Miklebe re-inserted all spam links, just reported him to AIV. E Wing (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I blocked, given the weight of evidence above. I've asked the user to respond on their talk page to what has been said here and said that Luna Sorry to volunteer you! or I will review the block if an answer is forthcoming. Otherwise, that's that. ➨ ЯEDVERS dedicated to making a happy man very old 11:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. :3 – Luna Santin (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Nonstop OR from Rktect (talk · contribs) despite 3 1/2 years of editing including a ban and blocks[edit]

I am here to ask for help from the community in dealing with this editor, who for 3 1/2 years has constantly posted OR both to articles and to talk pages (which at times he turns into virtual mini-articles. In 2005 he was banned from all articles to do with weights and measures (metrology) and he has been blocked 6 times for breaking the ban, OR, 3RR, etc, the last time being a month's block last September for Disruptive editing: Persistent insertion of original research in articles. This seems to have had no effect on him and he has continually received comments from other editors on his original research and soapboxing on talk pages. Since mid-January I count perhaps 8 editors commenting on his talk pages on his original research User talk:Rktect/archive 5 and User talk:Rktect - most of his past talk pages seem to have vanished.

Rktect considers himself to know a lot about the ANE, the Bible, and hieroglpyics. This may well be the case and perhaps a reason that most of his edits are using his knowledge to create original research. In articles which involve hieroglphics hs often inserts edits based on this knowledge, including his own new translations such as this one of the Merneptah Stele [61] which I note he has also inserted in our article on the Shasu [62] (I see he has recently created Shashu as a stub). His explanation for this is here [63] and the reaction of two other editors here [64].

Recently he also edited Chedorlaomer to claim that the name is Akkadian (see talk here [65] where another editor says it is original research), that the name Pi-hahiroth is Phoenician -- see this version of the article [66] and the discussion on his talk page here [67] and added the claim to Asherah pole and Asherah also - all on the basis his own research.

Some other examples of edits and comments on talk pages are [68], [69] (where he was trying to turn on article about the biblical story of the passage of the Red Sea into something on Red Sea trade -- I think, it's often hard to tell what he is doing).

He disagrees as to what is a primary source also. Eg, he thinks that the Bible is not a primary source, see [70] and [71].

Wading through his edits and talk page comments is, I'm afraid, tedious as he tends to add a lot of his own knowledge and references to it rather than references that directly discuss the article in question. Some of this may look like content dispute at first but I feel that enough other editors see it as original research that it is worth bring here. I've also just found this while looking for his missing talk pages: User:Rktect/Doug Weller. I'll put a notice on Rktect's talk page about this. dougweller (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Doug, I have MfD'd that as being... well, just wrong. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. A bit weird also, I wasn't bothered, just amused. dougweller (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I suggest banning this editor. The history suggests willful non-compliance with policy despite being told many times over what policy is and how it works. Certainly any other measure is unlikely to be effective, as they all seem to have been tried already. Moreschi (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Absolutely agree. I don't think this is the first time concerns have been raised about Rktect, either. Guy (