Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive548

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Ancient Egyptian race controversy[edit]

The administrator User:Hiberniantears has reverted and protected the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy. This in my opinion appears to be a violation of WP:PREFER.The administrator has reverted to a version that is four months old. Regular editors to the article had worked to build a consensus over the last four months, and within one day it has been reverted. A thread was posted on the fringe theories notice board Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy. But user who posted this thread, Dbachmann, didn't make any notification on the Talk:Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy. So to our surprise, all of a sudden we have users reverting to a four month old version without even discussing on the talk page. [1]. I believe that such type of editing is inflammatory. We have not had edit warring on this article for two months and it has been resurrected by users who are not willing to reach a compromise and gain consensus. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

AGF, Wapondaponda. I am uninvolved in this article, and took action based only on my review of the thread at the Fringe Theories board, the ArbCom case, and the article history. I was operating off what I found in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann, which led me to restore the version I reverted to as it appeared approximate to the version mentioned in the case which Moreschi put in place. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I want to assume good faith, but it is not helpful if an administrator reverts and protects an article. It just does not leave a good impression at all when there is a content dispute. There is no reason to believe that Moreschi's version is as good as any other version, he is an editor like the rest of us, and I will argue that we have proved him wrong. We have worked on this article for the last four months, we have not had edit warring, and the last time the article was protected was four months ago. Within one day Dbachmann makes some unilateral edits and the everything falls apart. I think it is pretty obvious who is causing trouble here. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
That is a ridiculous response, quite honestly. What you would have seen at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann is clear evidence that Dbachmann is an over-opinionated editor who has been sanctioned previously for making disruptive edits, including to this very article. Moreschi has not been involved in this article for a long time, and if you had read the Moreschi version you would have seen that it is seriously incomplete and in fact contains numerous tags calling for more info - which your protection now blocks us from adding. If you had Assumed Good Faith yourself, and actually read the latest version (i.e. excluding Dbachmann's damage) you would have noted that there is no unbalance in the content, the mainstream opinion is clearly stated in all sections, all content is closely referenced, and all content closely links to the title. Why did you instead revert the article to an arbitrary, seriously-incomplete and useless version, without engaging the many editors who actually worked on this article? Please unblock this article, re-instate the months of work that have built this article up since this deliberately-useless version, and instead block Dbachmann from making unilateral edits to this article without first achieving consensus. Wdford (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
What is ridiculous is any claim of consensus. You seem to misinterpret a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The article has for months been an example of WP:SYN and not so subtle POV-pushing. Good action. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
It is not a good action, because you know very well that protection is just temporary. There were no problems on the article until Dbachmann showed up. Of course WP:CCC applies to any article, but Dbachmann, just posted comments on the talk page and made unilateral decisions about content. There are several editors who don't and won't agree with this. Wapondaponda (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, User:Dbachmann "showed up" 4 years before the first edit ever to the current article, so your comment probably refers to some recent event. And if you think the article was fine in this version, you are very wrong. That article is not about the Ancient Egyptian race controversy, it is refighting it. It's full of original arguments and WP:SYN. It does contain very few sources about the controversy, but is a collection of otherwise unrelated facts that support one side or the other in the controversy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion, but I felt the article was quite comprehensive. I didn't agree with everything, but that is the essence of compromise. If anyone wanted to know anything about the race of the Ancient Egyptians, it was found in that version. The current version is just a topic on Afrocentrism. A topic on which many contributors have little interest in. Furthermore, many reliable sources deal with the topic of the race of the Ancient Egyptians, in the same manner as the consensus version. The facts remain that there is a content dispute and there are ways to deal with content disputes, discussion and consensus building. Going behind the backs of other editors to get a particular version protected is somewhat disingenuous. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
What is weird here is that an administrator reverts then protects a page! What kind of neutrality is that? I can understand if the administrator wants to protect (I may disagree, but I understand). But I fail to understand why the administrator reverts! --Lanternix (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Hiberniantears, I'll accept your justification for your actions however what your actions resulted in was fulfilling a deliberate attempt by Dbachmann to sabotage months of work by other editors on this page. I recommend that the user Dbachmann be permanently banned from the article and that it be unlocked so that we can continue to build on and refine an article that was showing alot of progress. AncientObserver (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Seems like a bad case of WP:WRONGVERSION. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Support the action by Hiberniantears to prevent this article being hijacked by POV-pushers. --Folantin (talk) 07:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hiberniantears action itself hijacked the article in favor of a biased POV. How do you justify reverting months of work on which the current editors have reached consensus in favor of an older version of the article which does an inferior job of addressing the topic? This is censorship. So far there has been no attempt at a civil discussion about the credibility of the material in the recent versions. Dbachmann came to the article started making disruptive edits without attempting to reach consensus with the other editors and has now sought the aid of Admins to do his dirty work once he realized that he could not have his way. AncientObserver (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Once upon a time, back in Wiki pre-history, this article was a section on the Afrocentrism article. It became obvious that it was uncontrollable, and it was spun off by an Afrocentrist editor (user:deeceevoice) to became a separate article. There Afrocentrists and White Supremacists, Arab-Egyptians, and anyone else with a racial axe to grind, battled incessantly over how white or black the Egyptians were - usually projecting modern Euro-American categories onto ancient peoples. The article became a complete and utter mess, with quotations from Herodotus intermingled with genetic studies, and with no sense of the changing contexts in which ideas about race developed and how this applies to the various modellings of 'race' in Egypt over history. The minimal version preferred by dab is one solution. The other (which was preferred by User:Zara1709) is to contextualise the debates clearly by showing how they emerge from race-politics and 'science' at various times. Unfortunately the "true believers" will not have either of these arguments, and the article invariably sinks into a morass of claims and counter-claims, competing pictures of "white looking" and "black looking" pharaohs etc. Paul B (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Paul, alot of progress have been made on this article. Attempts have been made to address all aspects of the history of this debate. There has been very little edit warring and a consensus was made on the direction the article would take. The latest action has set the page back not just in terms of material progress but intellectual maturity. The content of the article can be disputed in a civil manner on the discussion page. There is no justification for reverting months of progress because of the complaints of a certain editor who is clearly threatened by the material that has been presented. I agree with Wapondaponda, this action was uncalled for and needs to be corrected. AncientObserver (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, the article has become gibberish. Let's look at just the opening sentences:
"The Race of the ancient Egyptians is a subject that has attracted some controversy within mainstream academia and the broader society. The ancient Egyptians depicted themselves as having a different appearance to the other nations around them. The modern mainstream opinion is that the ancient Egyptians were a mixed race, being neither black nor white as per current terminology."
Being neither black nor white does not make you a "mixed race"! What is "the broader society"? The is virtually no useful meaning to this phrase. Paul B (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be one of those things where there's a request for comment which does not get anything solved which is followed by a request for comment after another month or so which results in several users being banned from editing anything involving ancient Egypt. Is there a way we can cut out the middlemen here and simply allow the community to dole these things out, thereby preserving the content of Ancient Egyptian race controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) from point of view editors?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the fact that an article was created with the title in reverse, and redirected to another page where editing can proceed, my guess is that we can't control the problem at the admin level. See: Controversy surrounding the race of the ancient Egyptians vs Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Forking seems to be one of the issues surrounding the problem. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Ryulong's assessment. Let the editors police the article, only if there is excessive edit warring should middlemen intervene. Wapondaponda (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Try again. I'm suggesting that we put topic bans in place for everyone who can't agree to disagree.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection Policy break[edit]

From WP:Protection policy:-

When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version [ ... ] Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists.

Speaking as someone who has experience in this field, I think that the administrative actions of Hiberniantears were clearly a good faith attempt to follow policy, and thus the original complaint is unfounded. If there are any other immediate issues, perhaps they could be discussed in a separate thread. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No such clear point exists. The version protected by Hibernantears is just as equally controversial. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Blueboar had previously reverted to the same version with a similar intent, so it's easy to see why Hiberniantears chose it. Wapondaponda, when you find yourself arguing that the wrong version of an article has have been protected, you are probably directing your energies in the wrong direction. You'd be better off spending your time on the article talk page, discussing what improvements should be made, with reference to reliable sources. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Precisely. My aim was not to reward any one group of editors with the correct version of the page. Instead, I looked at the ArbCom case, as well as the edit history to see which version, or relative example of a version, was being reverted to, and thus chose the February version because it does predate the sudden growth in the article which a casual reading revealed had very wide variance in subject matter from the February version. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
SheffieldSteel, the majority of people who regularly edit the article are in general agreement on the preferred version. Blueboar is not a regular editor to the article. His revert was based solely on the posting at the fringe theories noticeboard, the posting to which none of us regular editors were notified, ie Dbachmann did not post on talk page of Ancient Egyptian race controversy, that he had a thread on fringe theories noticeboard. He went behind our backs. We already have five pages of talk page archives on content, we don't need to re-discuss this. When the article was placed on probation there was a blocking spree of users and Moreshi took advantage to institute his "preferred version".These threats of blocks and other draconian measures basically scared away all editors to the article. In February a bunch of us editors who were not involved in that probation dispute started working on the article. We looked at what Moreshi had termed the "Afrocentrism meme" and we concluded that it was original research because we had clear evidence that scientists and scholars have been interested in the racial and ethnic origins of the Ancient Egyptians and a lot of this controversy had nothing to do with Afrocentrism. If you read the Descent of Man from 1871,Charles Darwin discusses the controversy, and yet he is not in any way connected to Afrocentrism. So our decision was to expand the subject to cover, anyone who has discussed the topic. This is clear in the talk pages archives. During these four months, Dbachmann had ample opportunity to share his views on the subject, I am sure he watches the page, he could have expressed his opinion at any time. Then one day in June, he unilaterally decides to revert four months of editing. Of course Administrators 99% of time back each other up, there is a little bit of old boys network, and Jimbo Wales has specifically said Admins shouldn't disagree with fellow admins, except in the most egregious cases. So I naturally expect a favoritism toward Dbachmann's opinions as opposed to us nobodies. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Immediate attention needed[edit]

Immediate attention is needed at Population history of Egypt and User:AncientObserver, who is reverting this article which is not about Afrocentrism or controversies to the preferred (massive, filled with fringy OR and SYNTH) version of Ancient Egyptian race controversy - he had previously moved the article to a new title, where he placed a draft of Ancient Egyptian race controversy, which was, again, the massive, fringy OR an SYNTH version. Weren't admins empowered to ban people who were disruptive from this entire topic area? Why are SPA's allowed to run roughshod? Hipocrite (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. As per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dbachmann, User:AncientObserver has been blocked for 24 hours. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If it's not broken, don't try to fix it[edit]

There was no problem beforehand, and admin intervention was unnecessary. As I mentioned previously, there was no edit warring for at least two months and the last time the article was protected was four months ago. We regular editors have started to self police the article because we find admin intervention tends to unnecessarily raise temperatures. We recognize that the article is on probation and we always stress that the article is on probation when edit wars seem apparent. I think a lot of the editors involved exercise a lot of restraint when working on the article.There are some editors who don't like the subject and the content, but it's a controversy, we shouldn't expect everyone to love it. The article seems to always invariably converge on roughly the same content, which means that the content is actually a fair representation of the controversy. Whether the article is protected for a week or 3 months, when the period expires, editors will be prepared to restore the content. Administrators should not take sides in content disputes, because the admin may have no knowledge whatsoever of the subject matter. Rather administrators should enforce policy. My advice is if it's not broken, don't try to fix it. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Already Administrators have started blocking users, such as Ancientobserver, totally unnecessary controversy. There is no need to raise temperatures and get editors upset causing them to make errors. Let sleeping dogs lie. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The block is not punitive, but merely a means to temporarily stop disruptive editing. In this case, I protected a page in line with an ArbCom case, and when an editor created an alternative page in order to get around the page protection, then I blocked that editor for disrupting the page protection. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you did what you had do. But this was after the horse had left the barn. My point is that these editors put a lot of work into researching these articles and trying to reach a consensus. If you simply revert four months of work, its not surprising that someone makes a mistake. In other words you may actually be causing editors to break the rules. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why some admins have a problem with this article at all? One disruptive editor (with a long history of disruptive editing) should not be allowed to undo months of genuine good faith edits - why then is this bad behavioiur being rewarded like this? A succession of admins have exercised their own POV here to censor valid and referenced information purely because they don't agree with the content - why is this allowed? This topic is of much general interest - Google it and see how much interest you find - so why should there not be an article which discusses the actual content itself? If certain admins think a particular sentence is SYNTH then point it out and let's fix it, but a general statement that the "whole article is full of SYNTH" is unhelpful at best and dishonest at worst. If there is any merit at all to the suggestion that this article "needs" to be about merely the history of the controversy rather than the substance thereof (and I see no such merit, but whatever) then why can there not be a complementary article that does focus on the substance of the controversy? It seems that whichever way we turn there stands some admin with an array of WP:WHATEVER-THE-HELL to block that avenue, all seemingly aimed at preventing the substance of the debate from being aired. Scientology has an article that dicusses in detail the substance of the viewpoint, as does Timewave Zero and many others. Why should this particular controversy be so ruthlessly suppressed? Wdford (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Re protected[edit]

Whilst I'm quite happy with HT's protect, others seem to be using it as an excuse to complain. So I've reprotected it in my name [2]. All happy now? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

What difference does that make? The problem the majority of editors have is that the article has been reverted 4 months back and locked in the first place. We are very unhappy with the protection regardless of whose name it is under. AncientObserver (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
William, so now that you have protected the article, what are your plans and how long is it protected for. Are you the go to guy now. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
@AO: the difference is, you now have no case to make at ANI. Please go back to the article talk page and discuss substance rather than process. @W: I plan to watch the article talk page and see how you get along. The protection period is as before. Yes William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This is unbelievable! What "substance" should we discuss on the talk page? This perfectly good article was reverted and then blocked without any discussion on substance, based on the disruptive editing of a known disruptive editor. Apart from that one editor, who refused to discuss anything before making his disruptive edits, the other editors were working constructively on the substance of the article. Surely the correct approach would be to restore the article, and then challenge Dbachmann (and any others) to validate his proposed changes to the article on a case by case basis? Does Dbachmann have veto power over this article now? If not, then why is he being rewarded for breaking policy and accusing constructive editors of being trolls, despite several formal warnings on this very issue? Please could you clarify what "substance" you think we should discuss, and who we should be discussing it with? Wdford (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

How is it that the one "disruptive" user is the only one not an SPA? Hmmmm.... Auntie E (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hiberniantears[edit]

The aforementioned administrator recently reverted to a four month old version of Ancient Egyptian race controversy and protected the article. It appears that the administrator has gotten too personally involved in the controversy to be impartial and objective. He is recently quoted as saying[3].

"Likewise, maybe RfC isn't exactly the thing, but we need something that allows us to enforce the ArbCom sanctions, while also having the authority to say "we won't say what the correct version of this article is, but we are saying that the current version is plainly wrong". As you note, no matter how many people we block or ban, new socks or meat puppets will always be hovering around waiting for us to take our eye off the ball, or to engage us to the point that we could be viewed by ArbCom as "involved". Unfortunately, it looks like those of us admins who feel this way are becoming an increasingly rare breed around here lately (Moreschie, Fut. Perf., ChrisO, etc)."

It's very telling that the administrator thinks in terms of "us" and "them". The administrator seems so willing to pull the trigger and block or ban users. Hiberniantears also seems to think that he has the knowledge and expertise to determine what "is plainly wrong". Unless he is an Egyptologist anthropologist or archeologist, he doesn't have the authority to determine what is plainly wrong. That is not for him to do, it is the community's role to determine content and the community has agreed to follow wikipedia's policies and guidelines when doing so. Finally the admin appears to disparage other administrators believing that only him and a select few (Moreschie, Fut. Perf., ChrisO, etc) know what they are doing.

It is clear that Hiberniantears has become personally involved. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you've misinterpreted the above post in every major respect. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I second SheffieldSteel. The evidence presented here so far is of an administrator using good judgement within policy, not anything abusive. Wapondaponda - please take this to the article talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


Isn't this already being discussed? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I have misinterpreted the post, there are his own words. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't sound to me like he is using good judgment. It sounds like he has become personally involved, doesn't appear to show good faith in his fellow Admins and is branding the other editors on the article as troublemakers without just cause. He's not being objective at all. AncientObserver (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I would urge anyone reviewing this matter to read the entire post. This is an admin discussing how best to enforce NPOV policy while avoiding giving the appearance of being involved. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The best way to enforce NPOV policy is to point out specific instances of POV, and either reword them correctly yourself or else tag them and then challenge whoever to fix it up. Reverting four months of work back to a crippled version and then blocking it, is not going to fix anything. How could this be considered appropriate? Wdford (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


Based simply on the page history of the article, HiberianTears should not have reverted, according to our normal rules of page protection, but should have blocked it as found. I think we are quite unequivocal on that. I do not necessarily think our rule makes much sense, as what one would logically want to revert to is the version before the edit warring began--the difficulty with an article like this is finding such a time. HT I think in good faith attempted another way, which also makes a certain degree of sense--reverting to a relatively neutral short version with a minimal amount of disputed content. The advantage of having a flexible rule, is we can do what is best in the situation, but several good non-dogmatic editors here seem to disagree on just what is best in the situation. so perhaps there is some advantage in the plain rule that the protecting admin, after removing only absolutely clear vandalism and copyvio and blp--none of which apply here--, must protect the article as xe finds it. So Wapondaponda's revsion should be reverted to, pending dispute resolution. But I certainly have wished many times i could have done as HT intended to do here, and protect what I thought the best version in an article about which I had no particular interest. DGG (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I was previously under the same impression, but as I understand it, an uninvolved administrator can revert to a less controversial version, or one which predates a conflict dispute. In this case, I chose a version which appeared to be almost identical to a version hashed out last year and cited in the ArbCom case I based my actions on. Had that version not been mentioned in the ArbCom case, than I would have protected it at Wapondaponda's version. The important thing to keep in mind is that I don't have a preferred version of this article. I only reverted to a version that was identified in an ArbCom case. As for my comments cited above, they accurately reflect my view of the situation, but both the comments and my view were formed after I took administrative action. Likewise, I have never edited the article in question, nor do I have any intention of doing so in the future. Having views on policy, and recognizing that an article has issues with skilled POV-pushers does not make me an involved administrator. The article clearly has an ongoing conflict, and when the protection is removed, that conflict will continue, and the ArbCom case only has guidance that will allow us (or bind us) to continuously apply blocks and page protection. Since the problem is really centered on the article actually be redefined in a back and forth cycle, the ArbCom ruling needs an additional device along side it which firmly establishes what the actual topic of the article is. I floated the idea of an RfC, but in thinking about it, that only becomes a vote and a drama-fest. Neither of which is an intellectual way to go about building an encyclopedia. What this article needs is an actual certification on what it is about. To be honest, I am somewhat at a loss on how to go about that. Perhaps some sort of committee of experts who can make content rulings. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Follow up. Sheffield Steel was a few steps ahead of me and already posted the relevant protection policy wording on an earlier thread for this same discussion. You can find it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Protection_Policy_break. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't describe it as an on-going conflict, there have been no edit wars, no blocks and no protection for 4 months. Not all the editors agree on the content, but we have agreed to disagree. Wdford is not in the in the "Afrocentric camp", in fact he has had major disagreements with Afrocentrists [4]. Yet Wdford and the "Afrocentrists" are in agreement on restoring the previous version . What more in terms of compromise could wikipedia ask for, two opposing sides agreeing. Of course there is a third camp, who don't want an article at all, and these are the people causing trouble. They don't know what they want, but they know what they don't want, whereas we know what we want. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I see it, at WP:PREFER. It was changed back and forth in a series of edits , to include or not include the sentence "Administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists" There was discussion on the talk page for [WT:PROTECT]], but I do not think consensus was achieved there; it remains an open question. It remains an open question in my mind as well, because i can see the arguments on either side. I've reopened the discussion there [5], because it should be divorced from this particular case. DGG (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


Regarding Wapondaponda, see the confirmed CU results below concerning sockpuppetry. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Wapondaponda[edit]

Resolved: User:Wapondaponda has been indef blocked by an amazing admin.

User:Wapondaponda is a sock of User:Muntuwandi and a checkuser should easily corroborate this. I had high hopes that s/he could edit productively but clearly that is not the case. A number of the redlinked editors involved here are most probably socks of this user or other banned users. Good luck. Feel free to send me an email if you need more more corroboration of primary claim above.PelleSmith (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd just sent an email to WMC saying that they had the same editing habits. Mathsci (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Please file a SPI report. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
LOL, looks like a case of Wikistalking Wapondaponda (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I took a look with CheckUser, and it appears likely that Wapondaponda, Shashamula, and Muntuwandi are all the same person. Dominic·t 07:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Wapondaponda showed up on the Wiki right as I decided I had better things to do than report never ending Muntuwandi socks. Many of Wap's editing interests are in line with Muntuwandi's (not to mention the identical POV in those areas -- including the article at the heart of this ANI report). Wap's appearance at Evolutionary origin of religions is what tipped me off back then. Apparently one of Wap's POV sparring partners has had a similar intuition. Someone else will have to file the SPI. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Realizing this isn't a formal SPI report, but since Dominic did run the CU, does this count? Hiberniantears (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Since when do we need an SPI report to block sockpuppets? --Akhilleus (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
We don't. I just wanted to confirm that this is in fact confirmed. Just crossing the T's and dotting the I's. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to watch the process unfold. While you are dotting things etc, please review the Policy - using various user names is actually allowed (although I can't understand why) as long as the various accounts are not used in concert for destructive purposes. Per Dominic's CheckUser review, seemingly Wapondaponda has not broken the rules on this article - even assuming they are indeed all the same person. "Similar editing habits" doesn't automatically make them the same person - for instance we have a few admins on this very article who are showing very similar preferences in suppressing material - is that allowed, or should we block them too? Per the CU policy you need to follow a fair amount of red tape before doing a CU review - were those rules all followed, or do those rules not count when the subject of the review has been pointing out errors committed by admins? Wdford (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser evidence means that there is technical data involving Wapondaponda and Muntuwandi's accounts that make them the same person. As Muntuwandi is a banned user, he is not allowed to edit under any name, including Wapondaponda and Shashamula. In reality, I had been investigating this and requested that a check be made because I recall Muntuwandi's activities. PelleSmith's comment about the accounts possibly being the same led me to ask Dominic to perform the checkuser. Users are banned because they cannot work amicably with other users. There has been no evidence to connect anyone else with this banned user yet. And the following accounts will be blocked for it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you stating that I cannot work amicably with other users. I've been editing for the last 8 months and nobody seems to have a problem. In fact there is a group of us editors who are in general agreement, and we have amicably agreed to disagree on content related to the Ancient Egyptian race controversy. This is somewhat of a sideshow, and it unnecessarily distracts from the main controversy. As Wdford has pointed out, I have not broken any rules in this particular article. It seems that User:PelleSmith has an unhealthy obsession with Muntuwandi, to the point of wikihounding [6], [7].He or she has even sent harassing emails to me about Muntuwandi. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser evidence proves that you are indeed User:Muntuwandi. Regardless of the fact that you may have been "nice" for your use of this account, it still does not excuse the fact that you are an alternate account of a banned user. This and any accounts confirmed to be connected to Muntuwandi will be blocked. It is simply the assumption of good faith that has stalled this action on your Wapondaponda and whatever other accounts you have made.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Technical evidence is ambiguous, and only indicates likelihood not certainty. Muntuwandi has been indefinitely blocked from my understanding. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see m:CheckUser policy. Technical evidence and behavioral evidence are used to determine information in checkusers and other sockpuppet investigations. This was the case for you. And an indefinite block on a user is not an indefinite block on anything else regarding that user. The underlying IP address is not affected beyond a specific period of time. And this IP address was used to link you with Muntuwandi, who, according to all we know, you are (at least with my knowledge of how the checkuser tool works). Muntuwandi under any name is not allowed to edit the English Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
There is also the possibility that you (Muntuwandi) run Wikichimba (talk · contribs), but only behavioral evidence can prove this at the time being.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


Wapondaponda, you seem to be trying to argue semantics. Once an editor is permanently banned, they may not return to editing Wikipedia, barring a successful unblock request through appropriate channels. Note, I use the term "editor" to refer to a person, not a userid. Based on CU, you will have trouble convincing anyone what you are not the original banned user. By trying to do so, you are harming your own cause, as now you are someone who is willing to try to avoid bans. If you wish to edit Wikipedia again, you will need to login to your original account, apologize profusely, and ask for reinstatement. I would suggest genuflecting with a great deal of humility. If your unblock is declined, then that means the Wikipedia community does not trust you to edit yet, under any userid. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks like an open and shut case. Then I suggest that you end this so that we can all move forward. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I have. I've indef'd you as a sock William M. Connolley (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • As Bugs (or was it Porky Pig?) would've said it... I believe, I believe that's all folks! --Dave1185 (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Was that really necessary? I am disturbed by the level of viciousness the Admins have against the editors defending the more recent version of this article. If Wapondaponda was a sockpuppet of another user then banning him is justifiable but mocking him after he's left is immature. I give Wapondaponda credit for demanding that we get a fair shake on this matter. He was a constructive editor while I knew him. AncientObserver (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Because of your lack of indents, I cannot tell which post you're complaining about. He was NOT being mocked, "that's all folks" is a fairly common phrase, used in closing something. Often it's "that's all folks ... nothing to see". If the editor is indeed constructive, then let him come back properly and prove it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
He was clearly being mocked. Saying "That's all folks" (like Porky Pig) is like singing the "Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye" song. I just get the impression that the Admins are strongly against the existence of this article. AncientObserver (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • ALL I can say is: "Nothing has meaning except for the meaning I give it"; so stop putting words into my mouth. Nuff said~! --Dave1185 (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments AncientObserver. It's one of the greatest absurdities that I have been "indefinitely blocked" specifically since I have not committed any malevolent acts towards anybody or on any article. Of course I have been quite anti-establishment which has what has gotten me in to trouble. I have frequently disregarded the administrative class. But that's in the past it's time to move on. I've been editing wikipedia for four years now. I've been editing or reading articles literally every day since I started. So it is a little bit unrealistic to for me to simply disappear because a few editors think so. In other words, I am still around in some shape or form, thanks to the current technological limitations. Most likely I'll be around "indefinitely". I will lay low for couple days until things cool down, but I am still here, if one looks hard enough one could easily find me. Wapondawandi (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Wapondawandi is now indef blocked. Just to make sure: AncientObserver and Wdford are unconnected to these accounts, right? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I assure you that I am not a sockpuppet. The Admins can go ahead and check me if they haven't already. This is starting to look like a witch hunt. I hope that this situation with Wapondaponda does not delay the decision on whether or not to unlock the article. AncientObserver (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Few scientists lend any credence at all to "race theories". This article is a disgrace. It should be deleted or reworded into "Ancient Egyptian skin color controversy". CABlankenship (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a number of genuine scientists have been quoted in this article. And while you are correct that the concept of "race" is generally discounted as a scientific concept, (which was clearly stated in the article as well), there are nonetheless millions of people who still take the concept seriously - hence the controversy. You are entitled to your own opinion, but please don't call for censorship on articles about issues that you personally happen to dislike. Wdford (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Since Wapondawandi was a sock of a banned user, all his edits to articles can be deleted. --Folantin (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
This article seems to be an unhelpful and WP:UNDUE fork. There are scholarly articles written by recognized egyptologists, e.g. this book
  • Redford, Donald B. (2004), Slave to Pharaoh: The Black Experience of Ancient Egypt, Johns Hopkins University Press, ISBN 0801878144
which give a completely different view of ethnic groups in Ancient Egypt. It is worrying that this book has been used neither in this fork nor the main article Race of Ancient Egyptians. (Both articles share the same quirky set of references.) Mathsci (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem I have with that book is [cut]

Hello folks. This is resolved: anyone who wishes to discuss the substance of the article is very welcome at Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy William M. Connolley (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion?[edit]

I blocked Johnny Spasm (talk · contribs) for repeatedly changing an IP editor's signature to include a nickname instead of an address. An anon earlier showed up on my talkpage complaining about the block -- extend block for evasion?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Done, and the IP blocked as well. Toddst1 (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Goodness, this guy is persistent... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this user page an end run round CSD?[edit]

Resolved: Page "tweaked" (read: eviscerated) by CMLITC

Would an experienced admin please check out the user page of AlexandruOfficial (talk · contribs)? I can't make up my mind whether this is an end run round a CSD notice or whether it's a wiki version of a MySpace page. Either way it feels not quite right, but not enough for me to start an MfD. The editor only has 27 edits, 24 of which are to his user page. This may be a chance to head off something further down the road. But hey, what do I know, I'm not an admin? :) I'd just like someone with more experienced eyes to check it out. Thanks. --WebHamster 10:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say that it is violation of both WP:USER and WP:SOAP, under which violations I have redacted the content of another editors talkpage already today. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Bihar 2010 persistently creating empty articles.[edit]

Resolved: The user is blocked for 1 week for disruptive editing. AdjustShift (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been advised to take this here from AIV. This user has repeatedly created articles with no content - 8 in the last two weeks. They are generally about future cricket tournaments and he creates the page with only a template. Several people have warned him, besides the multiple speedy deletion notifications, and nothing has changed. I would suggest a block might bring the issue to his attention but I'll leave it up to you on what action to take. Thanks, |→ Spaully τ 12:56, 21 June 2009 (GMT)

Looking in more detail at his edit history I note he has contributed quite a bit of good information and that he seems to be learning. I still feel it would benefit from admin input however, so please do take a look. |→ Spaully τ 13:59, 21 June 2009 (GMT)
I've blocked Bihar2010 for 1 week for disruptive editing. The user has disrupted WP by creating inappropriate pages. He was warned by multiple editors to not to do so. AdjustShift (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Would you consider dialling the length of that block back, given that this is apparently a good-faith contributor and this is his first-ever block? Either that, or explain the terms on his talk page under which you might shorten or lift the block? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
TenOfAllTrades, do you know why this is his first block? Last time, I was generous enough to give him a chance. On 22 May 2009 he created the bios of Priyanka Rehan and Delwar Rehan. Who is Priyanka Rehan? Priyanka Rehan = Priyanka Chopra. And who is Delwar Rehan? The spouse of Priyanka Chopra!
Priyanka Chopra is a famous bollywood actress, and of course, she is unmarried.
Despite such disruptive activity, I didn't block Bihar2010, and warned him.[8] One week block is not the end of the world. He can come back after one week, and contribute positively to WP. AdjustShift (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

User:GameGuy95[edit]

This user can't seem to understand how Wikipedia operates. On numerous occasions, he has failed to provide reliable sources for his edits (later telling me, when confronted, to "look it up"), performed drastic actions such as article splits when not even discussing with other users first (although he did post to the talk page asking "I'm bringing back the syndie split. Anyone who rejects, may them speak now or forever hold their peace." Five minutes later, he split the article, not even giving any other editor a chance). He seems to have difficulty interacting with other users (as can be seen here under all of his edits). I have warned him twice for various things, but he continues to violate those warnings and seems to do whatever he pleases. Oh, and he never adds his signature to articles.

My argument is that the Who Wants To Be a Millionaire (US game show) article has gone for this long without a proposed split; why would it be needed now and all of a sudden? --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)--( 17:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

User:De Unionist[edit]

De Unionist is currently engaged in a pointless attempt to make a point on the September 11th Talk Pages. He has made personal attacks, attempted to derail discussion into attacks on other users, and clearly has no interest in the article's talk page he is currently assaulting. I am requesting intervention. --Tarage (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This is absolute nonsense. I am trying to get a consensus across the project wrt the usage of the label 'terrorist'. I have had snide remarks made against me and continuous edits deleted for trivial reasons. Is the talk page not the place to discuss these issues. Are we to be censored when the subject gets too close to the bone? --De Unionist (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Not nonsense at all. Take a look at his talk's talk page and you'll see he's edit warring in a couple different area's and has already been blocked once for his edits. Why do we put up with this? RxS (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
What Tarage and RxS are saying is correct. De Unionist is disrupting the 9/11 talk page by making inappropriate and needless comments. A neutral admin should look into this, and ask De Unionist to stop his disruptive activities. AdjustShift (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I certainly welcome a WP:neutral admin have a look at this because what we have here is unacceptable. Can one not bring up a pertinent subject for discussion. A discussion which not only relates to the article concerned but many other similar articles and also affects the entire ethos of the Wikipedia project. Just because an issue was looked at a long time ago doesn't necessarily make it correct at the present time. What we have here is an attempt by several editors to stifle debate and discussion simply in order to protect their own WP:NPOV. This is not the way the project works. Instead of assisting me they have gone out of their way to be obstructive with other name calling in the most obnoxious way. I have attempted to show WP:GF but without reciprocation. --De Unionist (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, one can bring up a subject for discussion. But your idea of discussion is edit warring [9] [10], personal attacks and using Wikipedia as a forum [11] [12] [13] [14] and pointy behaviour [15] [16]. You've already been blocked twice [17]. You're being disruptive in two areas, both of which are under Arbcom sanctions. RxS (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
De Unionist's activities are totally disruptive. He has continued to push his POV despite repeated warnings. He was blocked before, but he hasn't learned anything. I'm involved, so I can't take actions against him. I think a neutral admin should decide whether to block him or warn him. AdjustShift (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I have removed a userbox from this editors page that was deleted per this MfD but I am fairly certain that it will be reverted. BigDuncTalk 19:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

IP blocked for blanking discussions is back on a new IP, evading the block, and blanking discussions again[edit]

3 month blocked IP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.11.100.50 is back as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.11.107.144 and doing the same blanking

block log showing how he's blocked for 3 months for this behavior: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3A86.11.100.50

here he is, evading the block and blanking: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Darren_M._Jackson&diff=prev&oldid=293366993

It should also be noted that this banned IP user is User:Diamonddannyboy. There are previous ANI discussions about this issue, but he sort of disappears for a bit then comes back with the same old behavior.Theserialcomma (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. Noted also on your talkpage, in case you wish to pursue the SPI matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible suicide threat[edit]

User:I am me i think created the page Matt Whitehead. That article has been speedy tagged, but I thought maybe this merited response as a potential suicide threat. I've not come across a situation like this before; perhaps someone knowledgeable can help. Gonzonoir (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I found Template:Suicide response and have added a note based on that to the user's talk page. Gonzonoir (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Changed speedy deletion tag to {{db-attack}} and blanked article, since it is clearly an attack page / negative unsourced BLP. decltype (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Has been speedily deleted by User:PhilKnight. Ale_Jrbtalk 21:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks: is there anything else we need to do here? Did I misread the situation? Gonzonoir (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't look too credible, but the response you gave was ok. Most of the time we just RBI... at least in the last few cases I've seen come up. –xenotalk 21:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it was more a list of 'bad things' the author had made up about someone else, rather than a credible threat, but it's better to be safe than sorry. It was fine to bring it up. Ale_Jrbtalk 21:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Now there's something Britannica never had to deal with... Gonzonoir (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

IP blocked for blanking discussions is back on a new IP, evading the block, and blanking discussions again[edit]

3 month blocked IP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.11.100.50 is back as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.11.107.144 and doing the same blanking

block log showing how he's blocked for 3 months for this behavior: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3A86.11.100.50

here he is, evading the block and blanking: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Darren_M._Jackson&diff=prev&oldid=293366993

It should also be noted that this banned IP user is User:Diamonddannyboy. There are previous ANI discussions about this issue, but he sort of disappears for a bit then comes back with the same old behavior.Theserialcomma (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. Noted also on your talkpage, in case you wish to pursue the SPI matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Alex contributing[edit]

Alex contributing (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · sockssuspected)

  1. recreated Thracian tribes.
  2. posted profanity on my Talk
  3. reverted {{db-g4}} for Thracian tribes, with an edit summary of ‎(your rationale is flawed cocksucer, do something constructive).
  4. continues to revert renaming of the old category, with an edit summary of ‎‎(I did not agree to your stupid ass decision, cocksucker bitch that you are).
  5. has been warned
  6. continues his profanity
  7. is now in an edit war with 2 editors
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Blocked for 3 days, but I think that might have been too lenient. Second opinion? (Ok, where the heck did my section edit links go?)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The section edit links disappeared when somebody added __NOEDITSECTION__ to {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox}} and {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}. --auburnpilot talk 20:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
If he's blocked, why isn't there a block notice on his talk? Exxolon (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
While it's generally good practice to leave a block notice/explanation, it isn't a requirement (as far as I know). When a blocked user attempts to edit a page, they are greeted with a block notice and the explanation given in the block log. I leave a block notice following the vast majority of the blocks I place, but only because I use a script to block users and it automatically tags the talk page. --auburnpilot talk 21:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Because I spaced. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible suicide threat[edit]

User:I am me i think created the page Matt Whitehead. That article has been speedy tagged, but I thought maybe this merited response as a potential suicide threat. I've not come across a situation like this before; perhaps someone knowledgeable can help. Gonzonoir (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I found Template:Suicide response and have added a note based on that to the user's talk page. Gonzonoir (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Changed speedy deletion tag to {{db-attack}} and blanked article, since it is clearly an attack page / negative unsourced BLP. decltype (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Has been speedily deleted by User:PhilKnight. Ale_Jrbtalk 21:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks: is there anything else we need to do here? Did I misread the situation? Gonzonoir (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't look too credible, but the response you gave was ok. Most of the time we just RBI... at least in the last few cases I've seen come up. –xenotalk 21:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it was more a list of 'bad things' the author had made up about someone else, rather than a credible threat, but it's better to be safe than sorry. It was fine to bring it up. Ale_Jrbtalk 21:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Now there's something Britannica never had to deal with... Gonzonoir (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons) disputed tags[edit]

Could an uninvolved admin take a look at the placement of disputed tags on this manual of style. I removed them a month ago since the discussion was stale, but was reverted. I removed them again couple of days ago but was again reverted by User:Oicumayberight who seems to think that if only one editor thinks there is a dispute, there is a dispute. See also this unresolved discussion. Garion96 (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears that there has been no discussion in more than two months (since the beginning of April), so I removed the tag. I didn't do it as an administrative action, so please don't consider it an endorsement of anything or as an indication that I intend to take any admin action. I left Oicumayberight a note advising him/her to start a request for comment or take some other steps to resolve the issue before simply restoring the tag. --auburnpilot talk 22:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. An RFC already took place, that was closed at 30 April. See here. Garion96 (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

sock of User:Muntuwandi at Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy[edit]

User:Bolongala. Could someone who hasn't made substantive comments on the article or talk page do the honors, please? (Check the section on Ancient Egyptian race controversy above for context.) --Akhilleus (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

And now, User:Kobolola. These are fantastically easy to spot, but he seems to have built up a bunch of throwaway accounts: this one was started in October 2008.

Perhaps people could keep an eye on Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy, since he seems to head there immediately? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Open AfDs[edit]

If anybody gets a chance, User:Juliancolton/Open AfDs needs to be scanned for any overdue discussions. Thanks. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


Possible disruption on Cognex Corporation[edit]

I'm growing gravely concerned about contributions's behavior on Cognex Corporation. Cogvoid has been edit warring to restore material in violation of WP:WEIGHT and engaging in some pretty clear "I didn't hear that" behavior in discussing it on Talk:Cognex Corporation. While I would rather not resort to accusations of bad faith, it's become pretty clear to me that this editor is an SPA.

Exemplary diffs

Further, consider the user's edit history, which is exclusively or almost-exclusively related to Cognex Corporation. Even consider the username; Cogvoid, like Cog(nex)void. This user has had it explained to him/her repeatedly why the content is problematic, to the point that his/her continued refusal or inability to comprehend it has become disruptive per WP:IDHT at least. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

At first glance, this would look like a content dispute. But looking at Cogvoid's history, I have to agree--we're definitely looking at an SPA here. I'm inclined to hand out a block for disruption--thoughts from anyone else? Blueboy96 18:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
As a note, the diff above labeled "restore material" is incorrect; it should have been this one instead. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


I dont know how this process works. But I have been accused of exactly what this editor has done. There is a pattern here that borders on bullying. The issue is the way that this editor applies the standards set by wiki unevenly.

There is a court case I want to post on this page. It is a sexual harrasment case in which a legal precedent was set.

the harrsment case had as evidence court transcripts of the appeal in question and was linked to by a university for educational purnpose, it had multiple reference to court cases citing this as a precedent in law. This is relevant to the page because accusations this company made in a rebuttel and actions it took caused the definition of abuse in law to be expanded. This is far more reliable than posting a "landmark case" with no proof of it being landmark other than a headline that contained the word "landmark" also i am unable to find wiki's policies on legal documents.


The lemelson case that has been allowed by this editor, passes the editing because he sais it was covered in many newspaper. I asked for for a proper arbitor to apply some judgement to this dispute.

He sites my user name as evidence of bad faith. I am asking for a ruling. Who i am does not matter. Further suggesting my identity with no proof and when I have clearly opted for anonimity can not possibly be acceptable. IP addresses prove nothing. Threats similar to this one have been made when I have clearly asked for explanation.

I told him to just bring this to the attention of a proper arbitor. I am new and having trouble doing this. If the ruling is in his favor i told him I wont touch that page again.

ah.. shit just remove my account. I have pissed away enough time. This editor has clearly shown poor judgement. I dont remember how i got into it with him.

--Cogvoid (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[User talk:cogvoid|talk]])

It should be noted that there are two matters here: the content and the behavior. I would argue that the content dispute is in fact resolved (per multiple uninvolved editors agreeing against Cogvoid; see WP:EAR#court documents. and WT:RS#Rulings in an american courts for example), and what remains is Cogvoid's behavior which (considering the resolution of the content dispute) is disruptive per WP:IDHT. While Cogvoid's verbiage is suggestive of someone who poorly understands our policies, guidelines and general practices (e.g., WP:CONSENSUS), his/her continued disruption and the apparent SPA status implies to me a preventive block would be in order. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Please just read the argument on my page. I dont think that an editor should be able ignore arguments and facts and delete posts left and right only to report a user for bad behaviour. The arguments he makes show that the editor is not using good judgement and he seems to be doing this purposely. just read. His contemptuous of contributors and he behaviour has been an outrage.

--Cogvoid —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

Note that cogvoid keeps suggesting that I have a hidden relationship with Cognex ([26] and [27]), despite the fact that I previously stated my past relationship (back in 2002) on the talk page [28] and in WP:EAR#court documents. [29]. --agr (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


I do appologize for that, I was confused about comments the editor had made an I misunderstood what he had been suggesting-so he tells me. If i could take it back I would. Will somebody please use some judgement and answer the questions at hand in the dispute User:ArnoldReinhold initiated. The double standard applied to content is clear as day. Is there no one on this site up for a little reason and truth.

--Cogvoid —Preceding undated comment added 22:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

Cogvoid, you realize that you are editing with a conflict of interest, correct? MuZemike 22:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Look back at what this page was before i saw it. It was a marketing brochure. Not only were facts unsubstaciate -i think I remember falsehoods, I remember one statement somether to the effect of"cognex was the first company to use normalized correlation" I asked for evidence because this method is older than computers and I believe it to be false. THere is an important truth that is being suppressed. All I want is to introduce the slightest bit of truth. read the arguments raise it with whoever rules on these things and i will never touch that page again if I am wrong. I am not even going to address that attack there was never any concern for "good faith" or neutrality before I came accross this court case by accident. I am raising an issue. This double standard serves nobody.

--Cogvoid —Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

May I remind you that we are looking for verifiability, not truth (cf. the first sentence in Wikipedia's verifiability policy). MuZemike 23:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
And hey, Cogvoid, add a fourth tilde to your signature, so you don't have to have the bot adding a date after every one of your posts. Thanks! Tan | 39 23:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


ok i have listed a number of source verifying this case, it is cited in many court cases as a precedent its used on a university site to show how to not handle the sexual harrassment. There is a video of the actual appeal there are summaries of breifs there is too much evidence to list here. I have answered alot of these arguments on my talk page. when i said truth. I mean in terms of the arguments that have been made over editing standards they seem much different on this page all of a sudden than anywhere else. Can you tell me what that is? check my talk page I have been dealing with rediculous arguments for days. Check the standards this issue has been held to and start applying it around wiki and %70 of the site will vanish. Thats it for me. I dont know how you guys keep at this all day.


--Cogvoid —Preceding undated comment added 00:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC).

You know it just occured to me. I am sitting getting upset feeling that I am being unfairly treated. Upset about all the attacks, obfuscation, intentionally skewed judgement and lack of respect toward me. Some of these arguments have been infuraitingly assinine. The hypocracy of this editor harassing me and then having the nerve to report me here. I am filled with respect for the courage that woman showed to allow herself to be treated this way rather than let these people walk all over her. How humiliated she must have been. SHe managed to set a precedent.to hell with this. --Cogvoid (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Cogvoid

I blocked Cogvoid for 72 hours due to disruptive editing. Tan | 39 00:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I was just about to give them indefinite. All their editing appears related to the one article, and it is pure disruption. They seem to have some sort of heavy conflict of interest. Jehochman Talk 00:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
By all means, don't let me stop you. Seriously, go ahead and change it if you think it's appropriate. Tan | 39 00:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Not to influence the choice in any particular direction, but of note to elucidating such a COI might be the long past contribs of contributions, which has certainly been used by Cogvoid. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 01:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
My suggestion would be to stick with the original 72 hours. It's easy enough to extend it, or ban editing of the Cognex article, if disruptive behavior persists.--agr (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
How about that IP? Should that block be hardened to include the IP? MuZemike 03:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd tend to agree with agr- if Cogvoid can't act within our rules following the release of the block, then for sure make this a more permanent solution. As to the IP... It has been used to edit war on Cognex Corporation, but I'm willing to AGF that it was an accidental edit while logged out. However I do think some of the contents of that other userpage which the IP edited, possibly coupled with the contents of a deleted article which the other user created may show the nature of Cogvoid's overall COI a bit more clearly. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Abidreh[edit]

Can someone deal with this fellow please? Nothing but an extremist SPA devoted to hyping up Pashtun people and related topics and POV-pushing. Also note that on the talk page, he says that Hamid Karzai is not a Pashtun and keeps on blanking him, because apparently, his racial status is dependent on him following "blood for blood" "eye for an eye" and "tooth for a tooth" YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Undue POV move please[edit]

Resolved

Could someone look at reverting this move? Thank you! -- Banjeboi 03:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it back. Aside from the new title seeming to thwart a reader who might try to type his name into the search box, it shouldn't have been moved whilst an AfD was still on. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! -- Banjeboi 04:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Peter Dobrev[edit]

IP user user:168.7.241.58 refuse to stop putting his fringe theories on Early Cyrillic alphabet and Glagolitic alphabet. I've reported it at Fringe theories, and other editors have been very helpful in reverting him, but he won't stop. He's received a few warnings on his talk page, but a block would save us the trouble of continual reverts. Block also requested at WP:Fringe, but I thought asking here might be quicker.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A fair amount of warnings and no talk page edits, I say block just to get the IP to discuss. -- Darth Mike (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I have issued a block, and following block-evasion a rangeblock. 24 hours. --dab (𒁳) 07:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Misspelling[edit]

Resolved

Neda Soltai, is misspelled, and the page has been locked, so please one of the admins, move the title, to her correct name, which is: Neda Soltani. --Kaaveh (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. --Kaaveh (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Trust Is All You Need[edit]

User:Trust Is All You Need keeps removing the refimprove tag from articles (see this edit, this edit, this edit, this edit, this edit, this edit, this edit, this edit, this edit, this edit and this edit) saying in the edit summary "You don't need sources for episode summaries", "stop vandalizing" "vandalism" and "Its a FL, it can't be unsourced, if it was i couldn't have been a Featured list" he has also removed references (see this edit and this edit) saying in the edit summary "Vandalism" and "I don't like vandalizme" and he is edit warring (see here and here). Also he is not listening to reason (see my talk page and his talk page) and on my talk page he said "The majority if not all of the wiki articles follow my rules, you can't expect Stargate related articles are going to be the only ones that follows your stupid guidelines can you?". Powergate92Talk 18:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Warned user. Tan | 39 19:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Powergate over here is not listening to reason, while i see the need for guidelines. I follow how FA are written and all them share on thing in common. Plot or overview section are not referenced, while i know this goes against the guidelines. It seems to me that this particurlar one is not followed. I've asked powergate92 to start a discussion about this many times, but he denies and rejects and wants to continue edit warring instead. My reason for doing this, is that most of those rules when referencing guidelines and list of episode articles are that the majority of them are refernced the same way i reference them. See FA Star Wars, Doctor Who and Lost (TV series) among others. Here are FL List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, List of Lost episodes and List of Doctor Who episodes. All those FA and FL and more are referenced the same way i reference them, but he is bent on following these guidelines which no one follows, at least the majority as i've noticed.

Just a note, i'm note the only one that disagrees with this guys edits, an example is this. I would love to discuss this, so we can get to a conclusion about this guidelines which is not being followed. So any comments? --TIAYN (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

These are not guidelines these are Wikipedia policys. Powergate92Talk 19:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Which are not followed by the majority of wikipedia community! --TIAYN (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I did start a discussion a week ago at WT:WikiProject Stargate#Refimprove tag at List of Stargate Infinity episodes. Powergate92Talk 20:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
You should start this discussion at the guideline page, that discussion over their does not discuss what i'm talking about. I wanted you to start a discussion about if that rule was valid, sine it is not used by the majority of the wikipedia community which can see on the FA's and FL's. You are following a rule the majority is not following. If the majority don't follow the rule, what gives you the right to push it on others? --TIAYN (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Plenty of users disagree with your reftagging, see this ongoing discussion. --TIAYN (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
That discussion is not about the refimprove tag. That discussion is about a user who thinks references on that article should be removed. Powergate92Talk 21:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
This behaviour is disruptive and has to stop. The articles that I spot checked all need the help that the tags point out and removing them from many articles in this fashion is very pointy. ThemFromSpace 20:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)e
Are you saying Lost (TV series) needs more refs? Cause that what he means, he wants plot overview to have references. But no articles references plot overview or sections... They just never do it... --TIAYN (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Ideally, every single fact on Wikipedia should have a reference. That's the whole point. It doesn't matter if other articles don't, because every article should, no matter what it's about. //roux   21:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that may be true. But i don't see the reason for adding the reftag if a dusing of articles, even FA and FL which represent wikipedia's best work don't even reference plot overviews. Tell me, have you ever seen a film section referecing the plot? No You haven't, because its not normal. But Roux, if you are right, we should start demoting alot of futured content bent around TV, film and literature among others because they don't reference the plot overview. You know why they don't reference the plot overview? Its because the series and the episode does itself. We don't need to use the Template:Cite episode template on the "Rising (Stargate Atlantis)" article, because the article is referenced by itself. It would not make any sence to use a cite web template, saying i referenced the plot from the episode Rising, when the article itself is Rising. The same problem is on the show pages, the show references itself. --TIAYN (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Except that plots, in my opinion, should not be referenced directly from the show, as that is a form of original research. Plots should be attributed to secondary writings about each episode. People need to be able to look up a newspaper clipping or a website or a magazine article to verify the details, not have to somehow hunt down a specific episode of a specific TV show. //roux   21:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
You won't find the entire story of Days Of Our Lives, Doctor Who, General Hospital or any other show. Yeah they will tell about it in short form, but its not the newspapers, magazines or any others job to write the entire story arc for a series in a article. This is one of the reasons we don't reference plots, since you only need to watch the film/episode/read the book or listen to a audiobook of some kind. Its redundant. --TIAYN (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm closing the discussion on how to referencing plots with this, Wikipedia:Plot summaries#How to cite. --TIAYN (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I see this editor is still at it after being warned (check the summary). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
What, i'm keeping him updated in the discussion, whats wrong with that? --TIAYN (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
See also, this. I did not find this link another user did trying to give an answear in a neutral point of view. --TIAYN (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Plot summaries is a Wikipedia essay and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television/How_to_write_an_episode_article is the Style guidelines for WikiProject Television so they are not officially Wikipedia rules and need to be changed per WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research as WP:Verifiability says "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed" and WP:No original research says "Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research". As Roux said plots should not be referenced directly from the show, as that is a form of original research. Powergate92Talk 00:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
No its not, you can reference the show plot overview with the show itself--TIAYN (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Quick question, are you going to read anything anyone else says or are you just going to keep repeating the same thing over and over? Let's be blunt here:
  1. All facts on Wikipedia must be sourced to reliable, secondary sources. While occasionally other types of sources are used, reliable secondary sources are always better. We must report what other people have said, not what we think ourselves based on what we have seen.
  2. See 1.
Is that clear yet? //roux   09:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) WP:PRIMARY clearly states that primary sources can be used as long as they are not interpreted. It's usually simply not possible to reference the plot from a secondary or tertiary source and consensus was always that plot summaries can be primary sourced while plot interpreations cannot. The problem here is though more than that, it's a dispute about how to handle different sections and articles and I would urge both users to discuss these differences at the correct venues instead of making any further edits. For example,Powergate92, if you think, the guidelines of the WP Television are incorrect, discuss it with the WikiProject in question, don't come here because some other user is following them. And TIAYN, if you notice that someone is disagreeing, stop making the kind of edits and try to start a larger discussion. We have plenty of dispute resolution venues - use them. This noticeboard is not really the right place to sort such a dispute. Regards SoWhy 09:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

-

See Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." See also Wikipedia:Consensus, "Policies and guidelines document communal consensus" --TIAYN (talk) 09:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, motion pictues and television programmes can be used to reference articles, that means the show can reference itself. :D --TIAYN (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Please explain how not using the best sources we can find, free of OR, improves the encyclopedia. //roux   17:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I just started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is a TV show a reliable source for its own plot summary and characters section. Powergate92Talk 17:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

User:ResearchEditor socks?[edit]

I'm having network problems, or I would have done a more elaborate report. There are serial SPAs adding similar material to his to Satanic ritual abuse-related articles. Following is a list of my most recent relevant edits.


  • 16:09, June 21, 2009 (hist) (diff) m Satanic ritual abuse ‎ (Reverted edits by Acredf (talk) to last version by Arthur Rubin) (top) [rollback]
  • 15:35, June 21, 2009 (hist) (diff) m McMartin preschool trial ‎ (Reverted edits by Hmstot (talk) to last version by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )) (top) [rollback]
  • 15:35, June 21, 2009 (hist) (diff) m Indictment: The McMartin Trial ‎ (Reverted edits by Cpd822 (talk) to last version by Polbot) (top) [rollback]
  • 15:35, June 21, 2009 (hist) (diff) m Lost in the mall technique ‎ (Reverted edits by Goocom7 (talk) to last version by Arthur Rubin) (top) [rollback]
  • 15:35, June 21, 2009 (hist) (diff) m Michelle Remembers ‎ (Reverted edits by Creyell (talk) to last version by Arthur Rubin) (top) [rollback]
  • 15:34, June 21, 2009 (hist) (diff) m Day care sex abuse hysteria ‎ (Reverted edits by Starpitx (talk) to last version by Arthur Rubin) (top) [rollback]
  • 15:34, June 21, 2009 (hist) (diff) m Elizabeth Loftus ‎ (Reverted edits by Iflgot (talk) to last version by Arthur Rubin) (top) [rollback]
  • 13:19, June 21, 2009 (hist) (diff) m Satanic ritual abuse ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Boimaa identified as vandalism to last revision by JGabbard.

Any ideas? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

  •  Confirmed, see my block log. Thatcher 15:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, here are some more, on Sybil (book). All throwaway accounts apparently.

--Slp1 (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

173.81.182.46[edit]

Resolved: Ip has been blocked for a month Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 13:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

User:173.81.182.46 has been removing sections of television station pages after several warnings. The user has been blocked numerous times for his/her behavior yet still makes the same edits over and over. Last block was for 1 week and 3 days and the editor was back to the same edits over and over. I am requesting a longer block or some form of assistance to get this user to stop his disruptive editing. - NeutralHomerTalk • 12:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is more a case for WP:AIAV; The administrators there take into account previous blocks and the recency of those. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I have also taken it to AIV, but since this has been going on for awhile, I thought some admin input from ANI might be necessary as well. - NeutralHomerTalk • 12:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Move[edit]

There were many versions of Neda Soltani's name, finally BBC Persian has made it clear that her correct name was Neda Agha Soltan (ندا آقا سلطان). The page has been locked, so please one of the admins, move the title, to her correct name, which is: Neda Agha Soltan. --Kaaveh (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:RM for instructions on how to request a page move that you cannot perform yourself. Shereth 15:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Network of Excellence[edit]

A copyright notice was added on the term Network of Excellence. I have removed it after adding some argumentation in the talk page. Can you please check if what I have done is correct, advise if something has to be done (decide whether or not there is indeed a copywrite problem, and if it is the case how to address it). Thanks --Nabeth (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The last two sentences of the first paragraph (including the bulleted list of two items) are a verbatim copy from this site and, in my opinion, certainly need to be rewritten. Also, the second and third items under "References" should be deleted, since Wikipedia articles cannot be used as references for other articles. Deor (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks. Someone appears to have done the changes in the mean time. Concerning the verbatim copy, this is true, but these were just a couple of lines and properly referenced. Besides, the [30] is an information site from the European commission which content is aimed is to be largely disseminated, and which does not content 'original' material. Anyway, the new page appears ok for me, and at least does not prevent people to understand what a NoE is about. Thanks again. --Nabeth (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
No, but they can be used as "See Also"s -- if they hadn't already been used in the article text above.--SarekOfVulcan (