Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive543

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

Noticeboard archives


Caroline Cossey[edit]

An anon user has been repeatedly removing Ms. Cossey's birth name from the article, apparently on the grounds that a) the information is already in the infobox and does not need to be duplicated, and b) that this information somehow violates BLP and constitutes some form of "humiliation" towards the subject. This in itself is nonsensical because the two arguments are incompatible, and I have reverted several times now because a) an infobox summarises article content, it does not replace it, and b) the details of Ms. Cossey's childhood are public knowledge and are covered extensively in her own autobiography. I think I'm right in saying that there are no BLP issues here and I think I'm right to revert, but I have no desire to edit war and would appreciate some input from a third party. PC78 (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe request a "semi-protect" at WP:RFPP? Just a thought. Commented on talk page. — Ched :  ?  15:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Currently under discussion at the article's talk page; looks like a content matter, more than something needing admin intervention just yet. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Threats from User:Mathsci[edit]

Resolved: TheThankful indef blocked as sockpuppet of indef blocked User:Gregory Clegg

I would like to ask for someone's assistance in dealing with User:Mathsci who has used threatening and belligerent language since I began attempting to edit the article Europe. Initially refusing to dialogue on the talkpage, the user repeatedly reverted my edits without discussion, with the result that I was blocked for 3RR. I am, as has repeatedly pointed out by User:Mathsci , a relatively new editor to Wikipedia, so unfamiliar with many of it's conventions. However, I understand the topic, and I do not understand why I would get blocked for posting numerous sources that support my position. The European article as it currently stands is at worst in error, and at best only providing one side of a contested understanding. I would like to rectify this. I find the agression and threats quite disturbing, and were it not for the fact that I care about the correct facts being presented on Wikipedia, would have left ages ago. I realise this may well not be the place to voice my concerns, but I honestly do not know where else to put it, or what to do. Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. Regards--TheThankful (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

User:TheThankful resuming preblock behaviour[edit]

TheThankful (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring on Europe and Western Culture. This block was extended for a further 48 hours for block evasion through a sockpuppet. His proposed edits to the lede of Europe have been rejected by all editors. As soon as his block expired, he resumed arguing the change to the lede that had been rejected. When I explained why his change was POV-pushing and might if he continued reverting result in a future block, he made a report on WP:WQA about me without informing me. He interprets my explanation that his continued pre-block behaviour could result in further blocks as a threat. He is continuing to argue tendentiously. Mathsci (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime I see he has posted here as well, so he seems to be forum shopping. Please could someone reblock him for disruption and harassment. Mathsci (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
While I sympathize with your situation, it seems to me that it'd be premature to block for either of those reasons, as he could just not know the proper way these kinds of things should be handled. If he is as you say continuing pre-block behavior (edit warring/use of sock) report him for that. If he's not gone that far yet, maybe the situation can be defused instead of escalated. DreamGuy (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see my above request. I have not made any edits to the Europe article, so I do not see how I should be blocked for returning to an edit warring behaviour. I have posted sources on the talk page that support my contention that the article is in error. If someone could explain how I am able to present and discuss such information in a manner that does not get me blocked, that would be awesome, as I was under the impression, this is what the talk page was for: discussing ways to improve the article. If Mathsci is in fact in error about my "disruptive" posting I'd appreciate that being made clear also.
Thanks again.--TheThankful (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
i think both of you need to cool off a bit here. Mathsci was right to warn you about your behavior in general, and you shouldn't have been posting the same complaint multiple places (personally I think the WQA one should have been left open and this one closed). DreamGuy (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see the last report [1] where TheThankful lied about his sockpuppetry. He is continuing to lie. Mathsci (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
DreamGuy, please don't comment if you have no familiarity with the previous recent event. This is quite unhelpful on your part. Leave this to the two blocking administrators and the third administrator who said they would watch TheThankful's behaviour. Mathsci (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dreamguy, I certainly didn't close the other thread. As I stated I was unsure about where to post.
This is an example of the personal aggression from Mathsci This is just your own personal synthesis. If you cannot distinguish between the cradle of civilization and Western culture, I don't think there's anybody here that can help you. You seem extremely confused. Until you find some way to come to terms with classical antiquity and how it is represented on wikipedia, you are probably best off not trying to edit here. At the moment you just seem to be trolling on this page. Please go somewhere else.
I don't see how calling me confused or telling me to "go someplace else" is in any way civil. I am asking for assistance in dealing with this. If it belongs on another forum, please direct me there. As for the warnings about my behaviour, could you please elaborate? I don't see how posting sources on a talk page constitutes reverting to a 3RR behaviour.--TheThankful (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Mathsci, I am certainly not lying. Anyone can go and check the words that have been written. Lying just isn't an option. ;-) --TheThankful (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
You resumed the same disruptive behaviour prior to your block and are now POV-pushing in exactly the same way that led to your previous block. You lied about not using a sockpuppet User:LemborLembor, which has been indefinitely blocked. I cannot threaten with a block, but can warn you that if you resume the behaviour that led to your first block, you will receive even longer blocks. That is it is not an uncivil threat; it is wikipedia policy. In that sense you chose deliberately to misrepresent and harass me by forum shopping. Your activities on the talk page were a resumption of the arguments you were making prior to your block about the edit you were warring over which has been rejected by mutliple editors.Mathsci (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The precise place where TheThankful is lying is in saying that I reverted his edits several times. In fact five or six editors reverted his edits. I composed the new compromise sentence which is now in the lede, was sourced and which has acquired consensus. (See the ANI report cited above for a record of TheThankful's previous disruption and lying.) Mathsci (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes it's a resumption of the position I took, because I was not blocked for taking that position, but for making 3RR. I have ADDED to the position with many sources, where previously there was one, which you disputed. How is this not kosher? It seems odd that rather than argue the position and the references concerned, you're arguing with ME and seeking to have me blocked. This to me feels like unnecessary aggression, which is why I posted here.--TheThankful (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Your behaviour continues to be disruptive. Multiple editors disagree with the sentence you want to include and yet you p:ersist. You are arguing tendentiously on the talk page. If you wanted to add substantial sourced new content to the main body of the article with precise page references from sources, that would be a different thing. Instead you want to insert an improperly sourced sentence in the lede that you concocted yourself, that nobody else agrees with. Remember the lede is a summary of what is in the main article. But your disruption didn't end there. It consisted of you reporting me twice by forum shopping, which precipitated this report. You also followed me to Cailil's talk page, which seems to be harassment/bullying. Mathsci (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I do want to add substantial new material. But if I can't even fix one sentence, why would I try?--TheThankful (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The normal method with a big established article like this is to add sourced content to the main body of the article first and then possibly adjust the lede afterwards if need be. Removing sourced content, however, is not usually an option. I understand that you have edited very few wikipedia articles. You have edited some articles connected with a church in Singapore, where some of your edits were based on personal communication with members of that church. This is not usual WP sourcing policy and you might have got the wrong impression from that. Mathsci (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
How is my editing of the Singaporean article pertinent? For the record, I was replacing a reference from an alleged private email, with known facts which included a newspaper interview. In the end a neutral statement resulted. But that's completely beside the point and a straw man. The ajustment of the lede was a precursor to any further edits. Bear in mind, the initial lede which I changed credited WESTERN Europe as the origins of Western Culture, before it settled on the Greece sentence. I went for a neutral statement. If there wasn't such a broohar I would have written both positions, and sourced the Mesopotamian origin position. --TheThankful (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
It was improperly sourced for a BLP. [2] Mathsci (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • First off both of you disengage. Second Mathsci's warning was appropriate and the above thread by TheThankful is not constructive. I'll warn you once TheThankful to reflect on the tendentious behaviour that got you blocked previously and not to repeat it. Also TheThankful forum shopping is not impressive please stop it--Cailil talk 00:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cailil, thanks for that. If you'll notice I have not edited the article at all since being blocked, so why am I being warned not to tendentiously edit it again? Am I being told not to post sources and argue how the Europe article can be made better? Is there something on the talk page that contravenes Wikipedia law? If so, I would appreciate being informed so as I am, as Mathsci likes to point out, a complete novice at Wikipedia and somewhat confused. Thanks for your contribution. --TheThankful (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:TE applies to comments and talk page discussion also. These comments are not civil or constructive [3][4]. Please read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL - just becuase you've got sources doesn't mean you can ignore behavioural and/or talkpage guidelines--Cailil talk 00:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

<-While looking into this, I rechecked User:TheThankful to make sure he hadn't resumed using sockpuppets. Much to my surprise, I discovered that he IS a sockpuppet from the Gregory Clegg family of puppets. I have blocked him. --Versageek 01:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

All's well that end's well :-) Mathsci (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have blanked User talk:TheThankful, as he was using it to soapbox while blocked. It may be necessary to lock that page if this continues. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion[edit]

See [5]. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Tony Maggs[edit]

Hi - can an admin put this page on his/her watchlist. For some reason over the last 48 hours persistent attempts have been made to indicate that Maggs is deceased. There is no evidence on the Net to this effect not has any proof or reference been made to support this. It has not been restored to the Deaths in 2009#June 2009 but the page is subject to this ridiculous vandalism. I left a polite warning to the last individual to engage in this behavior (User:BleuDXXXIV). (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for three days. Tan | 39 23:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Just for the hell of it I checked here, which you would think would have his death listed if true. Anyway, I've watchlisted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on administrator[edit]

Resolved: No immediate administrative intervention required here. — Aitias // discussion 00:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have filed an RfC regarding administrator User:Ryan Delaney, whom I feel has committed misconduct by abusing his administrative tools in an excessive and punitive manner, contrary to several policies. Please consider commenting or possibly asserting at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryan Delaney. I am having serious problems with Internet Explorer 8 and will temporarily be unable to respond to comments. I hope I filled out the RfC correctly. Thank you for your time, again comments are appreciated. Some guy (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be part of a series of forum shopping edits. 8-( Toddst1 (talk) 00:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the term "forum shopping edits". I was advised by Ryan Delaney that I could place a notice here requesting comment on the issue. This is not part of a "series" of anything; I have requested comments on no other pages, though I asked for clarification of policies in compliance with dispute resolution steps. Some guy (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

User Born2cycle, tendentious editing and a flat refusal to engage in any sort of mediation[edit]

Born2cycle (talk · contribs) is engaged in a long-running edit war in Lane-splitting. Take a look at the talk page and you will see that this editors actions are classic for a tendentious editor. A great example is the merger discussion in that article - you will see that rather than just file a concise objection to to the proposal this editor has argued with each and every contributor to the proposal. Then, when it seems the majority view has been reached with regard to the merger this editor then attacks (me) when next steps are discussed. Read the whole talk page, my own, those of User:Dbratland and you will see a user who consistently refuses to get the point and who continues to be disruptive and is close all the time to making personal attacks. Mediation clearly won't work so I would appreciate some insight or actions from admins to improve or control this editor's behaviour. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I protected the page while this is sorted out. I'm sure it's the wrong version though. Toddst1 (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I've attempted to step in, both on the user's page and on the lanesplitting article, and I've followed his drama on this article, its talk page, and the AfD for it. The wikilawyering this user has done over the years is astounding; this isn't a content dispute so much as a tendentious editor. The lanesplitting issue has been posted to ANI before, as has another issue (see also: 1 2). Note I've tried not to get involved- my opinion here isn't because I feel "wronged", it's just because I've seen it as a bystander. tedder (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
In looking over user talk: Born2cycle, there does seem to be a pattern of WP:TE there. Toddst1 (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Yep, and I'll restate what I was trying to stay above- handling this as a content dispute or edit warring is simply treating the symptom, when the cause is a large amount of wikilawyering. tedder (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
In which case a more organized review is called for. The place for this sort of review is an RfC which at least provides some structure. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Casliber, I am opening a user RFC for this: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Born2cycle. It'll take a while to gather everything together. tedder (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not engaged in an edit war. Please note the lack of any links to evidence of an edit war. I hope everyone will agree that the burden is on those who accuse me of edit warring to show that, a) there is an edit war, and b) that I'm engaged in it. Some editors seem to imagine there is an edit war, perhaps based on my comments on the talk page, but that's not evidence of an actual edit war, much less one I'm engaged in. I try very hard to not make article edits for which there is no consensus. The last time I edited the article in question was simply to add a {{fact}} tag to a recently added statement that I believe reflects a POV not supported by sources, much less reliable, authoritative ones. That edit was soon reverted, and I did not insist on putting it back (though I've said I will in a week, if the statement remains without citation). Most if not all of my edits to the article have been relatively minor and not even questioned. All of this doesn't even amount to anything close to three reverts, much less an edit war.

I am not engaged in tendentious editing, which is defined at WP:DISRUPT as "editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors". I admit to trying very hard to address all points raised on talk pages.

The one thing I might be guilty of is this kind of disruptive editing:

  • their edits are largely confined to talk-pages, such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article

I'm just one person. If my edits on talk-pages are preventing other editors from reaching consensus, I'm not sure how that can be, but I apologize. I assure everyone involved that is not my intent. I'm quite open and willing to agree to disagree. What I try perhaps too hard to correct is when apparent disagreement is really misunderstanding. When I see evidence of that I try to explain (and re-explain) what I'm saying, in the hopes of either reaching the point of agreement (through me coming to understand what the other is saying, in case I was the one misunderstanding, or vice versa), or at least agreeing to disagree. I thought that's how we developed consensus in Wikipedia... "Wikipedia works by building consensus, generally formed on talk pages or central discussion forums. ... When conflicts arise, they are resolved through discussion, debate and collaboration."

The only real issue in dispute here is about who has the burden to provide citations when material in an article is challenged. Dbratland 1, Tedder 2 and Biker Biker have argued or at least implied through their edits that it is the one challenging the material that has the burden, or at least a share of that burden. I think it's clear that it's the one who adds or supports the challenged material who has the full burden. That's certainly the way I am with respect to material I add to articles. I suppose one can view this as wiki lawyering, but it seems to me that a fundamental principle in Wikipedia, per WP:BURDEN, is that the editor adding material to an article must provide the sources supporting it, not the editor who challenges it. If anyone wants to have mediation on this issue, I'm open to that. Every time I raise this issue, I'm accused of.. well, see above, rather than anyone discussing this issue.

Other than that, I see no point of contention. I disagree with the proposed merger, but I can't do anything to stop it, and I won't. But when faulty arguments are made in favor of the merger, I do point out those faults. Is that a problem?

I will continue not attacking anyone personally, and will do better at not getting as close as I did earlier today (sorry about that Biker Biker). --Born2cycle (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC ready[edit]

The RFC is ready for endorsers. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Born2cycle. I notified previous users who have had similar interactions, and will notify Born2cycle if it proceeds. tedder (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

For crying out loud. I have better things to do. You know how many times I have made edits to lane splitting? 23. Twenty-three! And how many of those edits have been reverted? 1. One! How many of my edits have been reverts of others? One, maybe two. The rest of it has been harmless discussion and debate on the talk page. And because of that two ANIs and now an RFC? Pardon me for seeing this as a case of "we can't refute his arguments, so let's refute him".
Once again, I suggest we all focus on article content, and finding sources that establish the veracity of any material in the article that is challenged, or might be challenged, per WP:BURDEN. Every else is disruption. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The pattern has been established. I'm putting the RFC live, and (considering this) will consider posting here enough notification. tedder (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Legal Threat[edit]

Resolved: Blocked by Juliancolton (talk · contribs). — Aitias // discussion 01:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm reporting a legal threat on the Wikipedia:Help desk by an ip, User:, seen here. The ip is apparently upset that it's article on a company was deleted, and is threatening legal action if an article about the company or anything related to it is ever put on the site. I do not know how serious this is, but I thought that it would be better to be safe than sorry.FingersOnRoids 01:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a rather empty threat from an IP with one contribution. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

As a regular editor, I propose that the IP be blocked from editing for a period of one year to prevent the user from editing. How about it? Opinions? —Mythdon (talkcontribs) 01:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh god, complains WILL be filed. What have we done?! -- Darth Mike (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on the ip's remarks at the help desk earlier tonight, I found this in the deletion log and subsequently blocked User:Fingercallous indefinitely for that legal threat.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand Parliament IP removing critical material from an MP article[edit]

I note that (talk · contribs) has five times removed sourced critical material from Sam Lotu-Iiga, while also making apparently benign but unsourced changes to the article. This IP address is currently assigned to Parliament of New Zealand, so there may be a conflict of interest. I have now blocked the user. Since this is potentially newsworthy, I am reporting it here. Note that we had a somewhat similar incident at the beginning of April, when an MP was criticised in Parliament for editing his own Wikipedia article. See Talk:Richard Worth.-gadfium 01:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You'll also want to give a heads-up to the Communications committee. They have a noticeboard on Meta, here, where you can leave a note. --auburnpilot talk 02:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I've reported it there.-gadfium 03:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


I'd appreciate some assistance regarding Nicholas Beale. It was created on April 1, 2007 by Chiinners (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)—a suspected sockpuppet of the article's subject, who edits as NBeale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and who wrote most of the article. [6] It was deleted as non-notable after an AfD on April 30, 2007. [7] NBeale complained that correct procedure hadn't been followed, and a second AfD was held on May 11, 2007. The result was delete again. [8]

The subject posted the article to his userspace at User:NBeale/nclb. Laura H S (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), an account with very few edits, moved it back into mainspace on March 24, 2009. [9] I restored it to userspace on March 29. [10]

Today, Sofsonline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), another account with very few edits, moved it into mainspace again. [11] I restored it to userspace [12] and advised Sofsonline and NBeale to go to DRV. [13] [14] NBeale has now moved it back into mainspace. [

Some more discussion here from March this year, where Snalwibma, Plumbago and I advise NBeale against recreation.

There's a clear conflict of interest, not only because the subject has written and keeps restoring the article himself, but also because most of the sources were written by him too. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as the article itself goes, I'd say that if you're concerned about notability AfD is the best place to go now. It should've been taken to DRV before it was moved back (and I'll say as much to NBeale), but now that it's in article space there's no point going to DRV just to have DRV say "Go to AfD". Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a speedy WP:CSD#G4 candidate to me, unless there is a valid DRV overturning the previous AfD. I don't see a point in going to AfD just to have the consensus there be to speedy it and take it to DRV. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The subject has hinted that I have some ulterior motive for wanting it deleted (for the record, I'd never heard of him before March this year), so I can't speedy it myself. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I've tagged it with {{g4}} (and warned NBeale) rather than speedying it myself. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • My concern is if the edits to the article from being userfied to when they were placed back in the mainspace constitutes the "explicit improvement" caveat of CSD#G4 noted above. Is there a notability indicated now that was not apparent when the article was AfD'ed? If not, then G4 speedy would be in order - if not apparent then another AfD seems to be the solution (I am assuming that notability is not obvious otherwise there would be no discussion here). The actions of a couple of accounts who fortuitously "found" this article, after varying spells of not editing at all - but on related topics when they did, and moved it into mainspace may appear suspiciously opportune in their timing, but AGF dictates we consider the content primarily. While not anticipating an AfD, the question is if notability has been established while the content was in userspace. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
FWIW the stated reasons by the editors for moving it back were that the subject had co-written Questions of Truth which was not the case when the earlier article was deleted 2 years ago. (BTW FWIW none of the editors mentioned is a sock-puppet, it was a 3rd party who put the article in my userspace, and the only time I moved it was to undo the 2nd unilateral reversion by SlimVirgin (who had clashed with me on another matter) NBeale (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I note that the a major contributor to Questions of Truth is one NBeale, and I would comment that being the author of a notable (in the Wikipedia sense) book does not confer notability upon the author. As regards the other editors who unilaterally decided to move the content into mainspace in their first edits for a greater or shorter period of inactivity... do not protest too much. I note the article is again tagged for speedy deletion, and it may be wise if Laura H S or Sofsonline - should they be reading this - were not to remove the template. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I can't say that I'm surprised this has happened again. But I'm disappointed that NBeale persists in getting involved with his own article so flagrantly. We've warned him time and time again not to get involved on grounds of WP:COI (and plain common sense), but it would appear that he can't stop himself. It's bad enough that he's vainly edited his own article so thoroughly, but to restore it to mainspace is frankly ridiculous. Especially since WP:DRV, at least as I read it, requires more than this. As for the new user who restored him, they're another of these "light" editors with only a handful of edits to their account. I'm certain that they're not a sockpuppet, but previous attempts to create/restore Nicholas Beale have involved meatpuppet-like editors with similarly "light" contributions. (As an aside, NBeale has solicited for the restoration of his article on his blog.) Anyway, I'm not sure of the best way to proceed from a policy perspective, but a review along the lines indicated by WP:DRV may be in order, and I would (again) strongly advise NBeale to watch from the sidelines. Not least because his activity to date is exactly the sort of behaviour that's liable to turn editors against him and prevent an objective assessment of the notability of Nicholas Beale. --PLUMBAGO 22:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
It looks as if Nicholas Beale may be borderline notable – but (assuming that User:NBeale is indeed the same person) what makes it so difficult to tell is that the article is almost entirely written by the subject himself, based on sources (his recent book, his blog) written and controlled by the subject himself, and bootstrapped into notability by (a) wikilinks to and from other articles largely created by the subject himself and (b) a claimed association with number of moderately well-known people (he once dedicated a book to Charles Handy, we are told!). There is almost nothing outside this self-generated web of material to support the claim of notability, and almost no external evidence that he has done anything of note in “social philosophy” or “management consultancy” (the two phrases he uses in his article to describe himself). What is really worrying, however, is NBeale’s obvious burning desire to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, the massive conflict of interest involved, his blatant canvassing of support for his “cause” on his blog and on WP user talk pages, the massive contributions of single-purpose accounts and meatpuppets to that cause, and the subject’s breathtaking arrogance and refusal to follow the advice he has been given and stay out of the discussion. He is trying to bully the Wikipedia community into submission, and this misuse of the project should not be tolerated. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Snalwimba. Is fair to make so many (demonstrably false) accusations and then demand no response on the grounds of COI? The article should surely be considered on its merits. I am certainly not seeking to "bully" anyone. NBeale (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Which of the things I have said is false? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • These accusations are very concerning and if NBeale is in fact violating policy action should be swift. However, in regards to the article, I think there is a marginal level of notability, especially following the release of Questions of Truth. That book has gained recognition by the mainstream media and has put the author ahead of most in his field popularity-wise sayeth I would hate to see an article be punished by the actions of an editor. God knows how many popular wikipedia articles have been created by banned users. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Hardly a fair assessment. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I move that NBeale be sentenced to indefinite blocking per his years long insistence on engaging in COI (he created the article on his book as well). I also move that his sentence be suspended per his making no edits to any article subject in which he has any involvement. Should he violate this condition... "Hammer Time". ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I see the CSD template has not been decided upon by an admin. I will watch the page for developments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
An indef block is essentially a death sentence for the article. I don't see anything truly controversial about his edits and while COI is definitely an issue, a permanent block is extreme and unnecessary. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The speedy request has been declined. I should think that either an AfD is filed, or it is let to be. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I have declined the G4 speedy on the ground that the article has been expanded and one possible reason for notability has been added, coauthorship of an apparently notable 2009 book with Polkinghorne. This does not mean he had a major role, but it does justify another discussion at afd. I said "very week keep" at the previous afd, but i would rather someone else bring the AfD so i feel freer to comment at it DGG (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I've opened the 3rd AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Beale (3rd nomination). SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Continued incivility and baseless accusations from User:Jayhawk of Justice[edit]

Resolved: OK .. nothing more left to see here, enough drama for all - time to move on back to building the 'pedia — Ched :  ?  06:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Some of you may remember this user, some of you may not, either way, awhile ago he was blocked, mainly for saying stuff like x is on the side of vandals, x is trolling. This user, after almost half of a year of inactivity since their block, has started up again, and is on relatively the same path, calling editor's opinions and reasons 'agenda driven'. Besides that, after their half-year of inactivity, they immediately come to my talk page in order to taunt me and accuse me of things without citing evidence, which, by policy, is a personal attack. Clearly this user has not learned from their first block.— dαlus Contribs 04:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

  • People can hopefully see through this. I've created some articles on Wikipedia and I try to keep an eye on them. Within the span of six or seven months, Daedalus has attempted to delete one of my articles four times. One of them, he attempted to delete as soon as I returned to editing yesterday. He has me on some sort of list of people he "hates" (I know that's not the right word, but I don't know what else to call it.)

    He is also obviously trying to bait me into an argument by posting an ANI about me and leaving a template on my talk page threatening me with a block. Why is Daedalus allowed to do this? Look at his edits. He always drags people to ANI. He accuses what seems like every vandal or uncivil editor in Wikipedia history of being one of his or Gwen Gale's stalkers (why does she need him to keep a list for her...).

    If you don't believe this guy is a loose cannon, look at all of his requests for checkuser. It's not for fishing, and yet he has incorrectly attempted to link vandals together dozens of times in some bizarre effort to claim that numerous editors are all actually one person stalking him. Isn't that odd?

    Note how about once a week he gets reminded to tone it down. When will the warnings cease and the blocks begin?

    Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

    • They are not YOUR articles. Once you hit that "save page" button, it becomes the community's article; if you don't wish for your stuff to be mercilessly edited by others, then you shouldn't submit it. Also, looking at your contributions since your last block, things are not looking good, especially vilifying Deadalus969 of hooliganism and using non-English terms Internet slang like lol in edit summaries. MuZemike 07:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't know what prompted this response. I said I created some articles and keep an eye on them. I never said I owned them. I mean, as far as I knew, creating articles and keeping an eye on them is what people were supposed to do here. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Um... not in any way commenting about the pros and cons of either editor here but ... since when is using an abbreviation like "lol" in an edit summary a transgression? BTW and FWIW, AFAIK abbreviations and initialisms are NBD. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
        • It's how it's used as opposed to when it's used. MuZemike 07:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Oh sure, I've got no problem with the idea that innocent words or expressions can be used in ways that are meant to be biting or insulting, I was just thrown a bit by the use of "non-English terms" in your description. As my mother always told me: it's not what you say, it's how you say it. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Made more clear above. MuZemike 07:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
              • It is still in error, however. Note that "I see you've got me on some sort of list of hooligans." is not a statement that the person being addressed is a hooligan. Uncle G (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that at the AfD, four editors are making note of the repeated attempts by a single nominator to get the article deleted, and multiple comments run towards observations of a very personal nature to the nomination. It's hard to not see harassment in four nominations of a single article by one person. ThuranX (talk) 09:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I totally agree with this assessment. The same editor nominating an article 3 times in less then a year is bad faith in my eyes. If the article truly deserves deletion someone else will take care of it. I can understand why someone would feel harassed and make accusations about another editor, I don't see a failure to cite evidence, the 3 AFD's speak for themselves. Ridernyc (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Seems right. @JoJ; it's late here, but if you'd like to have a chat tomorrow, I'm up for it. It looks like you could use a few pointers. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to ask these editors to avoid one another and to enjoy collaborating and engaging in civil discussion with the many other editors here on Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

JoJ's edit summaries leave a lot to be desired, they obviously have a problem with Daedalus and it would be best if they not ineract. Having said that, I strongly disagree that the AfD nomination is bad faith. Have you read it? Since when do we give "a pass" to somebody with the hopes that someday they become notable? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)!

Since when do we keep nominating an article in a short period of time which such an overwhelming amount of consensus to keep it? Ridernyc (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Strikes me that there is more to this than just enjoining the two of them not to interact. While it is true that JoJ is not perfect, there's a pattern of behaviour that is a bit concerning to me. Looking at some of the interactions here, I am troubled. Daedalus969 gives the appearance, at least to me, of picking at JoJ until JoJ snaps... not good. I would again caution D to try to edit more collegially. (starting with the choice of topic headings... contrast "Continued incivility and baseless accusations from User:Jayhawk of Justice", which is rather strident, with more neutral ones that might have been chosen. I'd also like to understand more about this list ... I find it somewhat concerning. ++Lar: t/c 19:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Care to elaborate?— dαlus Contribs 20:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
About what? I think your nominations of this article give the appearance of bad faith, and it is indeed at best an odd coincidence that you chose to renominate the article shortly after the return of a user that was blocked in large part due to interactions with you. I think keeping lists of "bad users" tends to be discouraged absent some clear explanation of purpose and a timeframe for the use of the list. Further, I think your interaction style could be more collegial in general. So please explain why you are keeping the list, what the long term goal of it is, and please explain why it's a coincidence that you nominated the article when you did. That would be a start to assuaging my concerns. ++Lar: t/c 21:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I nominated the article because it is clearly about a non-notable figure, as to the timeframe of when I nominated it, it is because it has been seven months since the last nomination. As to the list, maybe you should try reading it, instead of taking a passing glance and expecting others to explain it to you. It is obviously to keep track of problem users who have shown they have no qualms about violating policy to get what they need. If a user has a history of incivility, it is to keep track of them should they continue on that path, it is for building evidence against them, and most of all, it is for keeping track of the numerous stalkers myself and Gwen have acquired. To the long term goal of the list, it is hopeful that, if my stalkers slip up and use regular IPs, a rangeblock could be issued, given enough IPs to help narrow it down so there is no collateral.
But do tell me, Lar, how would you keep track of a user without any visual aid. Will you remember why you even watched their page ten years from now? I wouldn't think so, given various variables.— dαlus Contribs 21:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
So you nominate an article that you feel fails meet notability even though it has been kept on 2 previous occasions. You track users who you feel cause problems. But then you freak out when someone claims you have an agenda against them? Sorry but you are far from the innocent bystander you try to claim to be. Ridernyc (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I feel that it fails WP:ENTERTAINER, which it does. I don't think an article about an actress who has had a single role in a single movie is not notable. As to freaking out, yes, I get angry when someone personally attacks me without a shred of evidence to back up their claims, like you appear to be doing right now. Do tell me how I am not innocent here.— dαlus Contribs 22:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I think enough people have already pointed out to you how you are not innocent. If you choose not to listen, there is really no reason for me to continue. Ridernyc (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
No, people have said that they think the nominations are bad faith. That is not pointing out fact. You, nor them, have yet to cite any evidence that I am other than what I say, so either put up, or leave.— dαlus Contribs 23:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a lot of evidence. It isn't normal procedure to nominate an article for deletion four times, especially one that has been kept quite easily each time. As has already been pointed on the deletion page, you didn't even wait the length of time that had been recommended before returning. You're being uncivil with other people right now on this thread even though they are just asking you to explain a few things. Plus, there is no denying that you constantly drag people to ANI, and there is no denying that you have a very poor record at verifying all your alleged stalkers. Even on this very thread, you claim to be stalked by someone who will eventually get sloppy and all the dominoes will fall in place. Isn't it much more likely that you've decided a bunch of people you don't like are all just one person? Isn't it more like that you're just paranoid? And pardon me for breaking the rules a bit here, but isn't it just a tad bit possible that you enjoy the attention all this drama brings? Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
If there is a lot of evidence you shouldn't mind linking it with WP:DIFFS, along with pointing out specifically which sentence/phrase was uncivil. Otherwise, they constitute personal attacks, and you should remove them. Perhaps you would also like to back up your accusation that I constantly drag people to ANI, or perhaps you would like to accuse everyone that does the same thing. Yes, I take users here that breach policy, do you have a problem with that? Why don't you take it up with every other person that does it instead of nitpicking everything I do.
Now I am going to be uncivil. Yes, I claim I am stalked by someone, as they have posted a blog addressing mistakes I have made, and listing my real name against my wishes. They have gone out of their way to stalk me off and on wiki, and harass me, on and off wiki. Why am I not allowed to keep track of someone who does that, hmmm? I'm not paranoid, the not all of the stalkers listed are related to each other, such as my most recent one, an IP user from New York who thought it was a good idea to harass me off-wiki. As to the drama, I don't enjoy it, I am however sick of your continued incivility and refusal to take back your personal attacks.— dαlus Contribs 01:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand how you can claim Jayhawk of Justice is making random personal attacks when, after reading some of the posts you've made on his talk page, it appears that you've been doing your fair share of harassing as well. I also don't understand how you can claim he's "stalking" you when you continuously post on his talk page. I think if someone were to look into your other "stalkers" it would become apparent that you kept up communication with them as well. I'm not sure what you think stalking is, but what's going on here is not stalking. It appears to be more like a flamewar. Wikipedia is not a forum. Please take your flamewars somewhere else.  Anonymous  Talk  Contribs 02:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do tell me[edit]

Am I paranoid, for thinking that the following accounts are related, given the information linking every account:

So, tell me again, why am I paranoid for thinking that several users who all show up out of nowhere to harass me are related?— dαlus Contribs 01:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Aren't you the least bit embarrassed that other people are reading this? This is lame. You've tried to delete one of my articles four times, and now you're trying to get it redirected because the fourth deletion attempt is going to fail. You repeatedly post on my talk page, and you have me on a list of people you don't like. You claim to have a stalker or stalkers, yet an overwhelming majority of your checkuser requests have failed. Why not just take me off your list and leave me alone? In fact, why do you keep in contact with people you claim are stalking you? Honestly, nobody is being fooled by any of this. They can look at my edit history and tell that I started out pretty poorly. Now I'm just keeping track of the articles I created and trying to get one guy to take me off his list of villains. Your talk page and edit history however are filled with warnings, requests that you remain calm, and weird, dramatic spats. I don't know what will rehabilitate your editing other than a block. (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC) (Uh oh...I used my IP address instead...this could be the evidence you've neeeded... Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC) )
An overwhelming majority of my CU requests have failed. Care to cite specific cases? Otherwise, I'm pretty sure you're wrong, I've dealt with many sock cases, and many of them have been sucessful. It hasn't been 100, like you say above, so you're just pulling numbers our of your ass. Again, and again, and again, you say a whole lot of stuff, but yet again, you fail to back any of it up. What a surprise. Further, it isn't a list of enemies, as I stated above, it is to keep track of problem users, like yourself, you continuously personally attack others. Like that blatant lie about my talk page history. Care to link the specific diffs, or are you just going to continue to fling your non-existant mud like some little kid?— dαlus Contribs 03:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Daedelus969: Are you here presenting all of these as socks of Jayhawk? If so, please request a Checkuser, so that we can block him and all his socks indefinitely. If not, then this is a distraction, or a play of 'No, no! Pity me more than you pity him!' Either way, you don't look better for it. I'd say the simplest explanation is you've pissed off a few people, or one OTHER person. Jayhawk seems quite willing to stand here himself without socks. Given the length of your Hit List, I'd say odds are good you've got two or three people pissed at you. One socked to harass you, and a few others followed suit. You need to establish that the above list IS Jayhawk, or withdraw the implied accusation. ThuranX (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
There is no implied accusation. JoJ said I was paranoid for having a list of stalkers, the list above is showing why I think the accounts are related. JoJ is not related to the stalkers, I never said that, but he has continued to insult me and others without backing up what he says with diffs as evidence. He continuous says I'm incivil. I have yet to see a single post that provides the evidence that proves that. I'm not going to sit here while someone hops around and tells me I've violated our civility policy without providing evidence to prove it. As I have learned such a is a personal attack.— dαlus Contribs 03:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Dædαlus, in the three days that JoJ has starting editing again, you have threatened to have him blocked[15], left multiple messages (dare I say provoking?) on his talk page[16][17][18][19], brought an AFD (for the 3rd time)[20] against an article he started and brought this user to ANI[21]. All because he commented once[22] about his name on a list that you keep and because he claims you have an agenda against him. You claim no one is providing diffs therefor you claim these are personal attacks. Material has been presented, which you've disregarded or dismissed, and I've presented more. Further, having his name on this list [23] leaves the impression you have an agenda against him. - Josette (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Threatening to have him blocked? Maybe you should say the same to every single person who leaves a level four warning on a user page of users who are personally attacking others, as JoJ has done. I left multiple messages as he has refused to respond to any of them, leaving edit summaries which lable my posts as something they are not. He has repeatedly said I have violated the civility policy, along with other accusations, without evidence. I'm not denying anything, he has yet to provide any, period. The evidence you provide simply doesn't count, as all of JoJ's claims of incivility appeared before the diffs you provided occured, therefore, if he is going to provide any diffs, they are going to have to have been in the past.— dαlus Contribs 04:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Again another giant list of differences and evidence that you keep requesting and you ignore all of it.Ridernyc (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Again another bad faith accusation by a user who doesn't even bother to read my posts. I told you that originally, JoJ accused me of being uncivil. That is why I went to his talk, and demanded that he retract the accusation, as, he has not cited any evidence. The evidence you cite does not count, as it occurred,(now please read this) after the initial accusation. In order for JoJ's accusation to not constitute a personal attack, it must contain evidence to what he alludes to.— dαlus Contribs 05:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
No it all started when you put his name on a list then nominated his article for the 3rd time in 7 months. He then justifiably asked you what your problem with him was and you then started this whole mess. 05:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

For reference, I have nominated User:Daedalus969/list for deletion[edit]

Please see: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Daedalus969/list. I believe this page is inappropriate and should not be retained. Since the page was mentioned in this thread, more than once, I've made note of this nomination. ++Lar: t/c 04:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


I'm going to be trying to take a break in a bit, very soon. I'm going to seek admin assistance in this as I am addicted to this website.— dαlus Contribs 06:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a tool for self-enforcement; I used it to take an enforced month-long wikibreak awhile back... Tan | 39 06:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
That would be this. //roux   06:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I hope I set it up right. Just check my most recent contribs after this one. Admins, I've set it for june tenth. I hope I have that correct.— dαlus Contribs 06:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia does indeed have an addictive quality to it Daedalus. Enjoy your time off, soak in the sun, smell the flowers, and when you get back, you are welcome to visit my talk page if I can be of any assistance. I suspect that a passing admin would prefer to close this bit of a drama now .. and we can wll get back to business. Cheers to all. — Ched :  ?  06:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure this archiving wasn't perhaps a bit premature... there are loose ends. I shan't unarchive, but I do want to close with this thought... feedback has been given to Daedalus969 from many participants here that a change in their approach is needed. This matter is now put in abeyance, not settled, as if the pattern of attacking everyone who gives candid feedback we saw above continues, there will need to be further discussion. But I hope that after a break, a fresh start will be made and Daedalus will become more collegial and less combative in his approach. ++Lar: t/c 11:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

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


LibStar (talk · contribs) posted the following comment to this forum:

This summary is misleading, as the disambiguation page was created by User:King of Hearts, the admin that closed the DRV. In no way did I "circumvent DRV". LibStar is aware of this [28], but still persisted. -- User:Docu 20:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Which summary? Libstar is indicating that four individuals have agreed that [[29]] is the correct sequence of events based on their reading of the logs. If you think the summary is misleading, then you should address the summary by Tarc, not the demonstration by Libstar that people agree with Tarc. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)
I don't see how this requires an admin intervention? for the full story I invite anyone to read here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Luxembourg relations (2nd nomination). LibStar (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I think this is in a new thread because the previous thread was closed. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Agilo for Scrum[edit]

Resolved: see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Agilo_for_Scrum. Not appropriate for ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

why is this article being deleted. i use this tool all the time and people deserve to know more about it. if you have trac on here, then agilo deserves to be here too.

If's that the case,reliable third party sources are available and if you add them to the article it will becomes undeletable! Otherwise, when that AFD concludes, that article will be deleted, regardless of what other articles we have. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry/vanity coupled with possible notability[edit]

I'm at somthing of a loss as to how to proceed here.

User:Sitharama.iyengar wrote and reposted what was clearly an article on himself, several times and through a sockpuppet account as well despite warnings I gave regarding COI and potential copyright issues. No response on his talk page, which really steams my fleckmans. The material doesn't Google out, but it appears to be a direct copy of what may be his bio on a university's faculty guide.

He does seem to be notable, but there are no references to back the claims. Frankly, I think the article should be deleted, salted and both accounts blocked, but this is kind of a gray zone. Any suggestions? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: I Googled just the name and I only got a couple of relevant hits. He teaches at Louisiana State and has a page on the LSU website along with his CV, which is here. If he passes the WP:PROF smell test, I'm all for an article, but it's coming off as self-gratification at this point. Just my proverbial $.02 if I may. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I blocked this account for 72 hours, with an explanation, and salted the article. Tan | 39 16:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Tant. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


I have brought this here regarding this Wikiquette alert. The relative links are visible on that alert, but basically user:Oxana879 responded uncivilly to a deletion nomination of an article, and then responded likewise to two editors warning them about civility policy and the personal attacks policy. I followed up with this edit warning them of the consequences of refusing to comply with our wikiquette rules, and they responded with this edit. Since warnings and suggestions linking policy have no effect on this editor, I believe only administrator intervention can have the desired effect at this point. Thank you. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for violation of WP:NPA. Tan | 39 16:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. It is unfortunate as she seems to want to contribute constructively, but she can't keep accusing those who disagree with her of bias. Hope she realizes that Wikipedia doesn't allow this type of behavior after this block so she and everyone else can get back to contributing. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Oversight abuse[edit]

Resolved: Oversight complaints are handled by Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see [ id=294318683#Possible_oversight_abuse_and.2For_mistakes this]. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean this? Not sure why the edit was reverted (something about the user)? Feel free to delete this if someone sees fit. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Would this qualify as a legal threat?[edit]


At a closed AFD, an IP deleted the content and wrote that "further action will be taken" if all mentions of the person in question aren't removed from Wikipedia, also suggested that there was some defamation of character there. (The article was deleted in February.) Dawn Bard (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a legal threat, but as this comes from an IP, a forewarning may be enough. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I've courtesy blanked the AFD, which resulted in a delete. That should be enough. –xenotalk 19:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I was curious, so did a wiki search and found a redlinked mention in the KOR dab page. As it was redlinked and unsourced, I also removed that entry. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 19:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Good lookin' out. –xenotalk 20:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Barek. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Renewed edit warring by User:Balkanian`s word[edit]

Resolved: Blocked, Tiptoety talk 18:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

On June 1st, this user was blocked for 55 hours for edit warring on Illyrians [30]. No sooner had this block expired that he immediately resumed edit-warring, reverting here [31] and here [32] two previous edits of mine in Himare [33] and Andros [34]. He then proceeded to become involve in an ongoing edit war on Igoumenitsa [35], Parga [36], Paramythia [37], and Margariti [38]. In Paramythia, he also performed the following partial reverts [39] [40], which are partial reverts to this [41] version. Similarly, in Margariti, he performed this partial revert [42] to this version [43] (re-adding a notable person). He has since begun participating in discussions, and I was prepared to drop the case, but he again reverted in Andros just recently [44]. So we have 1RR in Himara, 2RR in Andros, 3RR in Paramythia, 2RR in Margariti, and 1RR apiece in Parga and Igoumenitsa. There is clearly a pattern of disruptive edit-warring behavior here, and it needs to stop. --Athenean (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week Tiptoety talk 18:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

--- Apparently not resolved. There is discussion on the user's Talk page about whether the block was appropriate, but now there is an SPI investigation going on as to whether a new IP user is Balkanian's word editing while blocked. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Inglourious Basterds and a brain fart.[edit]

Resolved: Page moved back over redirect.  – ukexpat (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Could an admin help out with reversing a page move please. Being in pedant mode and thinking that even Tarantino could spell correctly I moved Inglourious Basterds to Inglorious Bastards (2009 film) only to find out immediately afterwards that "Inglourious Basterds" is in fact the correct spelling. So could some kind admin please reverse my brain fart. Ta very muchly. --WebHamster 20:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done - no admin intervention is required, marking as resolved. – ukexpat (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much, and so quickly too :) --WebHamster 20:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for letting Quentin mis-spell as he pleases :) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki something[edit]

Let me state for the record that my Wikipedia ID is Ti-30X

On June 1, 2009 at 01:45 (UTC) (diff here) materialscientist tells me to please use the complicated format that he uses (ref name = xxx) {{cite journal}). Believe me, I tried because it is an interesting way to format. But I also understood that there was no consensus from what I had read in the guidelines up to that point. There is consensus on what information the citations should contain, which I was always careful to provide. I left him a message that I had run into a problem using the citation tags that he recommended. diff here - see yellow block

Then I amended my message. (see green block here) I wrote that I noticed that at the bottom of every edit page the only requirement for reference tags is (ref) (/ref) tags. I wrote that if you look at the bottom of any edit page it says "Cite your source (ref)(/ref). I told him that I believed this is acceptable at wikipedia. I wrote that I appreciated his advice in this matter, but I looked at his way of citing articles as too complicated. If he wished to alter my citation tags, in this article, to suite his preference, he has my permission to do so - I won't mind. In addition,that was the first time I ever encountered materialscientist.

So I figured that was that, and no problem.

Apparently that was not true

On June 2, 2009 at 04:35, after admonishing me for edits that I did or didn’t do with the reference tags on an article entitled The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?, he then threatens to revert my edits on future work that I contribute to Wikipedia.diff here His edits on the citation tags, in this article, was excellent work. But, after that threat in my talk page I am really uncomfortable. Essentially, materialscientist is telling me that I must prescribe to his method of editing. At this point, I began to feel inhibited about contributing to Wikipedia, and I see in the guidelines, that Wikipedia intends for all of us to have a good experience contributing, in whatever form. In addition, he went over to "The God Particle" on his own, of his own volition. I never mentioned it to him prior to his notifying me of his edits.

At this time, also, I became concerned about another matter. Material wrote to me: ""please avoid personal phrases (such as) Author X observed..." in favor of "...was observed in" link here First of all, I have no idea, at this time what he means but, here’s the point: Either in wiki guidelines, or from advice that I have read from wiki veterans, the articles are in essence reporting. So, in an article, when, for example, I write “Dr. Kaku writes nanotube technology will become useful in the coming decades” This is in essence reporting, and to establish this is not from me as original research. So, when I read part of a message, whcih tells me not to do this from materialscientist, who has threatened to revert my future contributions on Wikipedia, I become overly concerned. Especially, when it can take hours and hours working on articles. So, with this hammer over my head, I feel uncomfortable contributing to Wikipedia.

Another incident happened at on June 2, 2009 at 04:59. Materialscientist signed out on a talk page using my Wikipedia ID. He wrote in the revision history of an article that he signing for user Ti-30x, which is me. He wrote that he was "pretending to be a bot". diff here If you look at the yellow box, there is where I posted without signing. In the green box materialscientist has signed my name with a message stating he did so above the green box. This is inappropriate. I have to ask, so how does he sign my name? Is he able to counterfeit anybody’s name here at wikipedi? Does he have access to my account?

Another matter occurred surrounding an article entitled Physics of the Impossible. This is an article that I have been personally editing. I have been communicating with two administrators, OrangeMike and Gavia Immer, concerning this article. Apparently they understand that I am new to Wikipedia, because I have made some bonehead mistakes. But, they have patiently allowed me to work on the article. One administrator, OrangeMike, is a man of action and few words concerning this article in. But, I have learned a lot from his few words.

One day he abruptly removed a section of the article, and I admit I got upset. I posted a message on the article talk page expressing my ire and trying to cite Wikipedia guidelines that I was right and he was wrong. And, I reverted the article to what I originally had. Then I posted the same message on my talk page, I think.

Then Gavia Immer reverted the article back to what OrangeMike had, saying she agreed with Orangemike. I sent the same message expressing my ire, and included Wiki guidelines to her talk page. Finally, I began to cool down. I only mention this because here is where materialscientist chimes in with ‘’’Could anyone please indicate which notability criteria does this book meet ? Thank you." June 2, 2009, at 03:39 here is the diff

And it doesn’t stop there. He goes over to my talk page and writes: “Could you please indicate which notability criteria does this book meet ? Thank you. June 2 at 03:38.diff here

And it doesn’t stop there. He goes over to OrangeMike’s talk page diff here and writes: “Sorry for butting in. I just came across this article, asked any evidence of its notability and got an answer from user:Ti-30X that he doesn't know, but he believes it is the notability of the book's author. I do disagree with this reason and suggest Afd-nominating the article. What do you think ?" June 2, 2009 at 04:41

In this message he says “sorry for butting in” but that is exactly what he is doing. As I stated earlier, I am communicating with two Wikipedia Administrators, already, about this article. And neither of them was mentioning notability. In fact, I was the one who mentioned notability earlier, but the two administrators let me blow off my steam. And neither of them, had at that time, mentioned Afd nomination for this article. But, materialscientist did. So, not only do I feel that, earlier, he inappropriately chastised me, and threatened to revert my future contributions, as mentioned above – but now I feel that there is something personal in this, but I have no idea what it is.

In addition, I started on Physics of the Impossible with the intention of working with those two administrators that I mentioned. I can’t speak for OrangeMike but I think he has been keeping a watchful eye on the article. I did make a mistake in not conferring with them as I originally intended. But, neither of these administrators have ever belittled me, chastised me, or ever threatened to revert my future contributions, if I didn’t follow their prescribed method.

I have noticed that Materialscientist is very polite at the end of most of his postings. But these polite words do not appear to match his actions.

I started my "Physics of Impossible" protest and revision at approximately 02:18 on June 2, 2009. diff here And 2 hours and 20 minutes later (by 4:41 on June 2, 2009) materialscientist is recommending this article for deletion. I have never seen materialscientist work on or contribute to this article, yet at this time he is deeply involved, but only with concern for notability and recommending Afd.

So, to make a long story short materialscientist now has personally placed one of those templates on the top of the Physics of the Impossible page that begins: This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.

I’m sorry but I feel like he is over reaching somehow. You administrators will have to figure that one out.

And related to this he has posted notices of the Afd on OrangeMike’s talk page and Immer gavia, as if they wouldn’t see it when they went to the article. diff here I feel that he considers this an accomplishment – but that is my interpretation of posting this notice to their talk page. It may be wrong.

I feel harassed and uncomfortable so I am placing a complaint here.

I also appreciated the advice on how to deal with harassment in the Wikipedia guidelines They were very helpful to me. I actually took a two day break from Wikipedia (almost two days), so I could cool down and gain perspective.

Thank you for your time. I forgot to sign - here it is. Ti-30X (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I am making an addition here. One the main points that I was trying to get across is that I am not going to pulled into an editing war with another user. For example, if User(A) flippantly or unjustifiably reverts User(B)'s edits, then User(B)comes back and reverts User(A)'s edits, then he (or she) comes back in reverts that edit, and so on. Then both users end up here anyway. So, I am nipping it in the bud. Also, I am not going to get pulled into a situation where terse or inappropriate statements are flung back and forth between two users. Another thing - before June 1st at 0145, when I was editing Metamaterial I never heard of this guy. I never worked on any articles with him, and I had no knowledge of his existence. Suddenly in the span of about 1 day, he is telling me that if he has edit my citations again he will revert my contributions. Right there, that is telling me this is a potential edit war waiting to happen. That was from his work in "The God Particle." Before June 1st he had nothing to do with "The God Particle" and now its my fault that he went in and chose to streamline the citations? The article, already, had a B rating before he went in there. No one else, before this tried to make an issue of the citations, where it was going to end up in an edit war or terse words. And, like I said, he did an excellent job with those citations. But why make it my fault that he volunteered to do it? Why make it an issue of future consequences? I lined things up in the article, the way I did, to show what this situation was evolving into. It would not have done any good for me to take matters into my own hands, nor would it do him any good to take matters into his own hands. The other point is that in a matter of two or three days, he went from someone I didn't know even existed, to someone who is suddenly very involved in stuff that I am working on. Including the article for Afd nomination. Look, I knew the Afd nominatiion was coming, after he brought it up. The point is - it is one more thing that I was working on, that I have deal with, on an intense level, with someone I didn't know two or three days ago. I expected that an administrator was going to post the Afd nomination, but that is beside the point. Why did this guy jump in, out of the blue, from nowhere, and run with the Afd nomination - an article that I was trying to put together? When he signed a message for me, in my name, combined with all this other stuff is a little scary. Ti-30X (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC) I actually made this addition several hours ago, but forgot to sign.

Holy tldr batman! Seriously, I did read this, and the editor in question is in NO WAY hounding you. First of all, while Wikipedia does not demand the use of any one particulat format of referencing in any article, the "best practice" is to use a single format throughout the same article; if one format has been established, then there is no compelling reason to add new references under a different format. All he is saying is that; if you are having trouble formatting references correctly, ask nicely at the article talk page or at Wikipedia:Help desk and someone will help you out. Secondly, please remember that assuming good faith is a core principle of Wikipedia. 04:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Jayron - please read the whole article Ti-30X (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Some quick responses to being named in the above (look it up for yourself; i'm in there): 1.)I am, of course, not an admin, and have not represented myself as one to the best of my knowledge. I hope that Ti-30X hasn't gotten the wrong impression from anything I said. 2.)Materialscientist's admonition to '"please avoid personal phrases (such as) Author X observed..." in favor of "...was observed in"' comes in the wake of Ti-30X's repeatedly phrasing basic physics facts in the form "according to Dr. Michio Kaku, water is wet". It's the constant namedropping of Kaku that's a problem, not grammar per se. 3.) The AfD notifications are a non-issue. Materialscientist notified Orangemike and myself because we had both been giving Ti-30X advice on how to edit more in line with Wikipedia's general policies; I can't speak for Orangemike, but I would have been aware of the AfD regardless. I don't see any Wikihounding myself; if Materialscientist and Ti-30X disagree on basic content issues, that's not Wikihounding, but a normal part of our editorial process. Ti-30X seems overly sensitive in this regard. Gavia immer (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Michio Kaku is mentioned in 81 articles in Wikipedia. This seems excessive. Is there some promotional activity involved? Are most of those refs coming from the same editor? --John Nagle (talk) 07:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Dunno, but an IP edited him into to Cosmological Argument, and not into any others. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
In response to this:
In the green box materialscientist has signed my name with a message stating he did so above the green box. This is inappropriate. I have to ask, so how does he sign my name? Is he able to counterfeit anybody’s name here at wikipedi? Does he have access to my account?
Ti-30X, adding somebody's signature to a post that they have forgotten to sign (or neglected to sign because they weren't aware that they should), in particular when stating clearly in the edit summary that they add the signature on the other person's behalf, is a courtesy to the editing community. As you know, talk page posts should include the signature of the person posting the message to make communication easier (and in some cases, to make it possible!) The signature is just a string of text, and anybody can add that string representing anybody else's name, there is no need to log into somebody's account to do so. There is even a bot which checks for unsigned talk page posts and posts the signature of the editor to them. To represent oneself as another editor maliciously is of course not allowed, but in this case, as indicated by the edit summary, the intent was clearly not malicious. Because the history of any Wikipedia page is available to everybody, it is always possible to check who wrote what, so serious impersonation is almost impossible. --bonadea contributions talk 09:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I made an addition, under my original post, to help clarify why I posted this in the first place. Also I changed the title for this post. Ti-30X (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Notes by Materialscientist:

  • User:SheffieldSteel kindly pointed me to the {{unsigned}} template which is a proper way to sign for a user. Thank you.
  • Admittedly, I've been terse to Ti-30X, but I did not mean to be unfriendly; I offered my help and did help. I hope he/she forgives me and returns to the WP learning process.

That said, I am worried by the above note showing that

  • The user tends to make dramas out of thin air;
  • I take his word that he/she will not engage in the edit wars (as he already reverted several good faith edits) and will discuss the issues at the corresponding talk pages.
  • The user has a tendency to rewrite his posts after others have replied on them. Would someone please comment on this (as a general practice).
  • The user is still in the stage of learning how to sign and reference his edits, but he is already keen to track and analyze WP behavior of editors and admins and to criticize that at ANI.
  • With all do respect to professor Kaku (after all, he is a talented popularizer of Science), I do agree with the above note (by John Nagle) that his spread over WP might be excessive and might need to be looked after. I am glad to see that my Afd of the Physics of the Impossible resulted in quick and drastic improvement of that article, so that Afd might not apply anymore. On the other hand, I am worried by the speed and coordination of the rescue effort (just a note, no back thought).

To summarize, I am grateful to Ti-30X for revealing some potentially troubling issues and would not waste this thread, but use it as a fixing feedback. Materialscientist (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Requesting deletion of image file I contributed because of vandalism[edit]

Resolved: Being discussed elsewhere. –xenotalk 21:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I am requesting that the File:US_Transcontinental_Railroads_1887.jpg that I contributed on June 2 now be deleted because of vandalism attacks. Please see here for discussion of this matter. Thank you. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

There's no way uploading a higher-quality version of a public domain map is vandalism. Please discuss this at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 June 3#File:US Transcontinental Railroads 1887.jpg. --NE2 17:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
That discussion is proceeding, but meanwhile, Centpacrr (talk · contribs) has been trying to make the image go away by adding speedy deletion tags and deleting the high-resolution version of the image. They may have hit 3RR on the image history. It looks like that editor is very unhappy; they've just discovered that their claim of copyright on a restored versions of a 19th century U.S. Government document isn't as strong as they thought it was. --John Nagle (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The issue about which I am unhappy is not the copyright of the lower resolution of the restoration which I gladly released under GDFL. That is a straw man.
The issue is that I am raising is that User:NE2 has replaced that file with a copyrighted higher resolution version of my digital restoration which he pirated from a privately owned and operated website in violation of terms of that site's user agreement to which all users of the site are required to agree in order to access. Despite explaining this too him in great detail and pointing out that the higher resolution image was an illegally pirated file which by accepting that agreement he was not authorized to either download from that site or upload to Wikipedia or anywhere else, he has continued to substitute it for the lower resolution version which I had freely contributed and released to the Wikipedia community. The only reason that I have asked for the file I contributed to be deleted is because this user keeps replacing it with the different, pirated file. The rights to that file have not now, nor have they ever, been released to Wikipedia.
I am perfectly willing to leave the file I originally contributed and released to Wikipedia in place. However the file that User:NE2 substituted for the file I uploaded is a completely different file to which he did not have the right to either upload or release. See here for a more detailed discussion of this matter. (Centpacrr (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC))
(Non-admin disclaimer) If the issue is already being discussed via the WP:PUF process, why are you bringing it here too? – ukexpat (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
What is there for admins to do here? This is clearly forum shopping as there is already a valid discussion going regarding this. Please let the other discussion play itself out, and don't try different locations if the original discussion is not going your way. See [45]. Also, please do not mischaracterize the edits of others as vandalism. Use of that word is loaded, and only actions to emotionalize the discussion in ways that are inappropriate. This is a civil disagreement over the copyright status of an image; and the discussion over that situation is already happening in another venue, so is inapprorpiate here. 21:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I have never asked for a page deletion before (let alone one which I created) so was unfamiliar with the procedures. I am now making all comments in the other location, and humbly withdraw the claim of "vandalism" which was the incorrect and inappropriate term for me to use in this instance. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

Page blanking by apparent COI editor[edit]


User Cofcmarketing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), apparently affiliated with the College of Charleston School of Business and Economics, has blanked that page with the statement "This page is not an authorized page of the College of Charleston and needs to be deleted". I wasn't sure how to handle it, so here I am. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

  • User got blocked. Nothing more needs to be done. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 19:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Sad to see a new user shoot her/himself in the foot with a first edit. After reading the page in question, I'm not sure the subject passes the notability standards. Cofcmarketing probably could have gotten the page deleted if she/he had listed it at AfD, & had not blanked it. -- llywrch (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Not really; with a name like that, they're clearly only here for their interests. We're not losing anything. HalfShadow 19:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
        • See User:MuZemike/Plaxico (I should really make that into some sort of an WP essay someday as opposed to a separate article). In all seriousness, they have no grounds to revoke contributions made under the GFDL, and this is not a BLP issue, so good block. MuZemike 21:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Maybe, HalfShadow, but this case is much like the thief who robs a food bank to feed his hungry children. It's such a dysfunctional way to solve the problem, one either laughs -- or loses hope for the human species. (And if the staff of this institution can't figure out how to produtively contribute to the encyclopedia "anyone can edit", God help their students!) -- llywrch (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Indeed. There's the issue of the article being sourced to unpublished firsthand interviews, for example. Uncle G (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

CSI:New York edit war[edit]

IP's (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs) and Hornean (talk · contribs) are engaging in repeated changing without citation and sometimes blatant fiction on the CSI: New York pages, including list of characters. (there will be a long list of these edits by one of them, then it is another, etc). There has also been similar changes in the CSI: Miami list of characters which has included listing former characters as dead by suicide when they have not, and speculation of a former cast member returning. I do not want to get blocked by the 3 revert rule, so I am having to keep my hands off the articles. Can this be investigated as I do think I've given enough information to do so. Thank you. TristaBella (cannot log in at work) (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Segregated into its own section. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 23:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know there was a CSI: New York Edit War. Is that about Wikipedians out of New York? **slap*. MuZemike 23:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and everything looks a lot cooler and gives you a lot more information. The checkuser function for example has a massive computer screen with all sorts of weird multicolored lights. Then it outputs the IP address, user agent, name of the individual editing, their date of birth, and any criminal records they have. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Also shoe size, favorite Stars Wars character and preference for plastic or paper. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I came back and tried to do the linking right. I am not as experienced and I do think an offer of help would have been better than a trout slap. Trista (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I was trout-slapping myself for the intentional Freudian slip I made above. MuZemike 00:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Alright, then. Trista (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Gergana30 removing constantly referenced text and pushing POV[edit]

Gergana30 (talk · contribs), who appears to be a sockpuppet, has removed referenced text (including Britannica) several times and has pushed unsourced fringe theories in the article Bulgarians repeatedly. She also just broke the 3RR rule there. Please take the necessary measures. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I see no 3RR violations. However, I've protected the page for a week to allow the content issues to be argued out on the talk-page instead of in edit summaries ;) WP:SSP is the place to go if you have sock concerns. EyeSerenetalk 13:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Bakhack creating new pages without any content[edit]

User:Bakhack has created (by now) three new articles, all variations of the original HAJİZADEH Elshan Mahmud oglu (now deleted). I've just warned him. If he continues, I'm afraid I'd have to request a block. Cheers. I'mperator 13:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

He's also moved on to removing the speedy deletion templates :/ [46] Cheers. I'mperator 13:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I've issued a short block to slow them down, and encouraged them to take the time to read the relevant policies (which they have already been given links to). EyeSerenetalk 13:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Probable block evasion[edit]

There's a user on a static IP at (talk · contribs) that's acting very strangely and fairly disruptively.

Does anybody with experience with past pseudoscience related arbitration and blockings recognize this person? NJGW (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

NJGW, please show slightest decency and honesty, and also point to your edit diffs, where you bait and cherish me with petty remarks. Also, I am trying to understand why supplying my edits with arguments and references means 'behaving strangely and fairly disruptively'. I am sure other will look at more diffs than those provided here and judge by themselves. (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring and attacking editors while wikilawyering is disruptive to the project. Appearing from nowhere, with full knowledge of policies, while ignoring questions about your prior editing history is strange. NJGW (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
You obviously misunderstand your role as an editor here on Wikipedia. You ARE NOT an inspector. You are doing more edit warring then me because unlike you, i provide arguments in my summaries and talk pages when i make a revert. (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
ps. what you asked me about my past is a borderline harassment (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The difference between NJGW and you is that he has diffs corroborating his claims. Show me proof he is in the wrong, posthaste, because I'm more inclined to believe him based on his evidence. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 21:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
ok, i'll post diffs in a minute93.86.201.173 (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

petty remark [51] and almost a haressment [52] as proving him i was not blocked would reveal my real name, then argument that he keeps ignoring [53] showing 100+ books in favor of my categorization, and 1 book in favor of his. i can post diffs for his other accusations too -- pertaining to other articles. (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
another example Talk:Free_energy_suppression#anyone_can_find_better_source, as you can see, i don't edit war, i discuss, but unfortunately, there don't seem to be many others interested in discussion. (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
How do reconcile [54][55][56] and [57][58][59][60] with "i don't edit war"? Please leave your content issue (that "free energy" is not a pseudoscience) out of this area. NJGW (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
You missed to post diffs of arguments posted on talk pages in between of above diffs. Also, i never claimed 'free energy is not pseudoscience', i claimed 'alternative energy is not, and neither is free-energy suppresion'. do you get the difference? (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, edit warring is reverting without discussion, and you may notice from my contributions that in between article edits, there are quite a few talk page edits. (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Patently wrong. Edit warring is edit warring regardless of whether you stop to make talk page edits or not. Declaring your intentions on a talk page does not give you carte-blanche to force your particular version of an article to be the one that is visible. WP:3RR does not list the use of talk pages as an exception to edit warring. The correct pattern of behavior is Bold. Revert. Discuss. Not "Bold. Revert. Discuss. Revert. Discuss. Revert. Discusss. Revert. Discuss. Revert. etc." Once an edit has been challenged, stop making it over and over. 04:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
ok, so i guess others can revert without discussion, but i can't even with discussion. i'll have that in mind. (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Wrong again. Others are not allowed to edit war either, whether they discuss or not. No one is. If you feel that another person is violating a standard of behavior, the proper response is not to violate the same standard of behavior yourself. "Oh, look, someone else is edit warring. That means we can all edit war!!!" It doesn't work that way. Only you are responsible for your actions. Don't violate the standards of behavior and you will not get blocked. It's not that complicated. 17:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
revert wars: If someone challenges your edits, discuss it with them and seek a compromise, or seek dispute resolution. Don't just fight over competing views and versions. you see, on three articles I challenged their edits, and my objections went unanswered, while my edits were reverted. (talk) 07:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
If you are concerned, seek dispute resolution. Perhaps a third opinion would help break the dead lock. See, here's the neat bit. The edit war stops when you stop. If you don't revert them back again, there is no edit war. If you think your version is better than theirs, there is a right way to go about it. Seek a consensus by using dispute resolution.