Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive555

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

Noticeboard archives


User:Onesius and punctuation-related edits[edit]

User:Onesius (contribs) has been making a number of punctuation- and spelling-related edits which are at odds with WP policy (WP:LQ, WP:ENGVAR, etc.). Several editors have tried to steer him towards policy on his User talk page, but to no avail. He recently left a less-than-civil comment on a User's page, which could be a simple mistake or could be something more. Any opinions on what, if anything, should be done in this situation? Wyatt Riot (talk) 09:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I had a quick look and all of the articles that the user has "corrected" seem to be on American topics, where correcting punctuation to the American dialect would seem to be appropriate. But the comment on that user's page is way out of line, and that level of cold hostility was not warranted or required. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC).
So what's the point of site-wide standards if we're not going to use them? I can understand differences in spelling between US/British/Canadian/etc. articles, but punctuation is a basic element that should be consistently applied throughout the project (in my opinion). If there are to be differences, these should be specified in the style guide (I would disagree with doing this, though). Mindmatrix 17:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:ENGVAR came into play on this edit, at the very least. There may have been others, not sure. Would it be appropriate to rollback these edits, as there are many of them and they clearly go against the current style guidelines (WP:LQ)? Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I think so, so long as you note that the edits have been made in good faith and you reference WP:ENGVAR in your edit summary. WP:LQ is disputed, so I wouldn't rollback based on that though. Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC).
Punctuation is site-wide - there is no difference in punctuation between UK/Irish English, American English etc. However (as a fan fiction writer) I can confirm that an awful lot of people use bad punctuation and justify it because they are from a different part of the English speaking world (this applies to UK English people as well as everyone else). Forms like "Goodbye", he said "I'm going". (comma/full stop outside speech marks) is always wrong unless I believe one is writing some kind of computer code, hence the editor's remarks about computer code.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, all, First, I apologize if I offended anyone. Also, I thought I was having a one-on-one discussion with someone who had initiated the discussion. Nevertheless, the running postings (whatever the proper term), which I believe are on some sort of discussion board concerning punctuation, were pretty "direct" & I thought my tone was more subdued than many of those comments. Nothing I said hasn't been said, in substance, before me and in much more pointed terms. I have also seen references to being "mercilessly edited," which also implies the appropriateness of a certain tone. Sorry if I misunderstood. Second, I gather from the heading that this is not the place to continue a substantive discussion, so I won't. Third, it was my understanding there was a difference between "policies" & "guidelines" (although if someone could direct me to a link defining those, it would be helpful) and, as has been oft-stated by others, the Wikipedia "guidelines" on punctuation (i.e., "logic" punctuation) are not grammatically correct except perhaps in computer code-writing. English isn't "logical" in spelling either but somehow we all endeavor (I hope) to spell correctly. Prior to being a college English professor I was a magazine editor. My Wikipedia edits have all been in good faith and in an attempt to improve the writing. (I have also had the temerity to correct grammar errors, e.g., on the use of "that" vs. "which.") I hope that is OK with all of you. Fourth, what is this place (site, or whatever the correct term)? Thanks. Regards, --Onesius (talk) 05:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Saravanakumars adding unsourced opinions[edit]

Resolved: warning provided to Saravanakumars.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 12:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will tell me if there's a better place for this. User:Saravanakumars (and some IP editors) has been editing all the Tamil film director pages. All these pages have the format of a table with the year, the name of the film, and a column for comments. In the column comment he keeps adding "Hit", "Super Hit", "Flop" etc.[1] [2] are a few of about 20 examples. That these are opinions is shown here for example [3] , where he's altering what one of the IPs has said. He's been warned by me [4] and I've explained the problem [5] [6].

However, he doesn't believe what I say [7] "This is the format for cinema related articles. ... If you still not understand what I am doing, please wait for some time. are the only man against me. How much do you know about tamil cinema ? I have worked in some films too. So please stop your undo in future." and has now started edit warring with myself and other editors who keep removing his edits [8][9][10] - reversion of User:Cst17[11][12][13] revert by User:Ronhjones .

Could someone with a louder voice explain WP:V WP:RS to him.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I have provided Saravanakumars with a third level stern warning. Should he return again with this type of original research, uncited edit please let me or a fellow administrator know. Best wishes Virtual Steve --VS talk 12:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Ta. I'll keep an eye on him.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Pleasure - I will close this one off as resolved for now. Feel free to come directly to me if necessary.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 12:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Shades of Anwar saadat (talk · contribs) YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Not seeing it myself. He was even-handed in categorising films from all directors from flop to blockbuster. It was only that it was clearly his own opinion that bothered me.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel harrassed by user Makrand Joshi, kindly help[edit]

Resolved: Already dealt with at WP:WQA. Editor to be advised re: Forum Shopping
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Dear Administrators, I am not a person who posts regularly. Yet when I try and edit a page, then a user called Makrand Joshi ( reported me for being a sock puppet after just one editing of the Iipm page. The report was found to be false (for the moment). After that when I wrote on the discussion page (, user Makrand Joshi tried to accuse me again of being a sock puppet.

I need help in handling user Makrand Joshi who is not using the right words with me. Please guide me on how to proceed and help me. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wifione (talkcontribs) 12:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Forgot to sign Wifione (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Dealt with at WQA (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Persistant Incivility[edit]

Could you please warn Poeticbent about his disruptive and uncivil behavior in the article Massacres of Poles in Volhynia ? I have a detailed example with all the relevent diffs and links of him falsifying information here: [14]. When he got caught changing the info, he then decided to move it to the back of the article. The discussion with full context is here: [15] and abusive messages here: [16] and here [17]. This guy had been blocked before when writing on a similar topic: [18]. Ironically his user pages states he follows a 1RR policy, which is obviously false. I'm pulling back from further reverts with this guy for awhile. I'm not looking for a block, just a warning so that he settles down a bit. Thanks!Faustian (talk) 06:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that Poeticbent has already been found to use wikipedia as a battleground. He is supposed to have a mentor to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice, but that is obviously not working. Ostap 16:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


I have been the subject of an extreme personal attack from Pixelface which I do not think should be allowed to stand. This sort of thing bothers me, because it is not about a personal issue at all, but about Wikipedia policy rather than a contraversial subject matter such as politics or religion. I have politely asked Pixelface to edit out the ad hominen attacks out of his post, but received further abuse from him on his talk page. I feel I must take a stand on this issue, as a I know other editors have been subject to similar abuse.

I am proposing that Pixelface is blocked until such time as he undertakes to desist from ad hominen attacks on other editors. Although we have our disagreements about policy, I value his strong views. The personal attacks in our disucssions are little more than flamming, which should be stamped out with swift administrator intervention. I have ignored previous attacks, and stuck my neck out for Pixelface in the past, but this last attack oversteps the mark. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I see strong language but I see nothing along the lines of a personal attack.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec) It's strong, but I can't see a personal attack - the diff seems to be a firm judgement on your views on the subject, but it's on your views, not on you. The pair of you would do best in disengaging from each other for a few days. ➲ REDVERS Buy war bonds 09:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec) There's something about "anyone with any intelligence whatsoever", which is a bit condescending but I've seen a lot worse. What I'd like to hear, in one sentence, is what this issue is about. Don't give us a megillah, give us a one sentence summary. A "Cliff(s)Notes version", as it were. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
If this is not as serious as I thought, then then there is nothing else I can do, and nothing more to be said. Complaint withdrawn. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
You did not answer the questions. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Sheesh...Wall of text. Hoo...Lemme just...sit for a bit...HalfShadow 18:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Montefiore Windmill[edit]

User:Gilabrand has repeatedly removed the name of Jaffa Gate Mill from the article. Even after I provided a specific reference for the name as requested. I'm not wishing to get into an edit war, but the alternative name should be in the lead per WP:LS and also in the infobox where there is a space provided for alternative names (see Gibbet Mill, Rye for an example of a mill with a number of names).

Can an admin look this over and restore some normality to the article please? Mjroots (talk) (forgot to sign originally :-/ )

User:No More Mr Nice Guy has also removed this sourced info. Does this article fall within the remit of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles? Both these editors are mentioned in that case. Mjroots (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I've added the article to WP:IPCOLL/Current Article Issues. PhilKnight (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

COI: Spam from WAgency234[edit]

WAgency234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) created spam at The Wannamaker Agency and also on userpage. Both ads have since been CSD'd. I reported the user initially to UAA and, as a result of review there, moved the report to COIN. COIN instructed me to "request an admin look into the account." I am here to make that request. Tckma (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The article and the user page created by this account have both been speedy deleted. They have no other contributions. I suggest you leave them a {{uw-coi}} notice on their Talk. If nothing more happens in the next couple of days, the report could be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sambokim (talk · contribs) COI, repeated copyvios, etc[edit]

Okay, I did some work on an article to attempt to bring it up to GA status awhile ago and it was an uphill battle against one user. The user in question works for the subject of the article and is involved in various aspects of the operation including english PR. He pretty much copy and pastes Press releases into the article and has a set of links he likes to push into the EL list that all promote the team (though most of them are currently being used as references). I've exchanged chat with him on various talk pages an email or two as well, and on his talk page. He's been warned multiple times not to copy and past Press releases into the articles but now that they're gearing up for the hockey season again, off we are. Back in January I had to remove the PR text multiple times trying to clean up the article because he would just put it back in over and over. Affected articles are: Anyang Halla and Asia League Ice Hockey. He makes lots of good contributions, but he has an obvious COI and can't control himself with the press releases and promotion. I was away for a bit and just got back to find out I yet again had to clean the copyvio and link spam out of the article [19], [20]. You can see the previous warnings on his talk.--Crossmr (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

and of course thisSamuel_H._Kim. I'm sure he's notable enough for an article, but he can't even resist turning that into a promotion.[21]--Crossmr (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Review requested of administrative actions[edit]

Resolved: Discussion was automatically archived after 24 hours without comment -- there was no vandalism involved.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've recently become involved as an admin in a couple of disputes on Aircraft of the Battle of Britain and Battle of Britain. These have involved most of the regular editors there, but the flies in the ointment appear to be Hiens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Kurfürst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), both of whom have been conducting campaigns for edits that do not appear to be supported by consensus. These content issues have been discussed, some at great length (see Talk:Aircraft of the Battle of Britain and associated archive), to the point where in my judgement further contention is becoming disruptive.

As a result, when a complaint was made on my talkpage that Kurfürst was unilaterally changing content on Aircraft of the Battle of Britain while it was under discussion I blocked him for two weeks (following warnings from myself and other admins that further disruption would lead to sanctions). The relevant talk-page thread is here. Because I previously intervened to unblock another editor that had become frustrated with Kurfürst to the point of edit-warring, Kurfürst is now convinced that I'm supporting one version of content over another and giving a free ride to certain editors. The dispute revolves around the extent to which the RAF used a type of aircraft fuel; the only possible explanation for my actions is that, being British, I feel so strongly about 100 octane that I'm prepared to abuse the admin tools.

Hiens I have only warned to date about flogging dead horses, because he resurrected an apparently settled content dispute on Talk:Battle of Britain. However, he too seems to have reached the conclusion that I'm abusing the admin tools and preferring one set of editors (and one version of content) over another. On a procedural note, I have not edited either article or commented on the content itself.

In my view the regular editors on those articles have been dealing for some time now with some extremely persistent, stubborn, and opinionated users. There has been a detrimental effect on both the articles and other editors who've chosen to work there, to the point where some good editors have begun to react badly and others have dropped off the radar. I believe our established article-writers are our most valuable resource and must be protected, but dealing with these type of situations is never straightforward... so finally I come to the point of this long post :) I'm requesting an independent review of my actions, and if possible another set or two of eyes on the above articles and editors. Thanks! EyeSerenetalk 09:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
"Stop it EyeSerene , it won't do you any good Stop falsely accusing others of things you guilty of yourself All sorts of historians give all sorts of figures. Murray uses secondary sources You are a liar and you know it ; I have no issue no case I am done with you EyeSerene The community should deal with you now ; your defense is completely distorted and piece of crap up ala I can understand you're upset about losing the argument, but you are just going to have to be grown up about it and accept it "

Hey sorry Gentlemen I got carried away ! this is a true example and the exact phrases of User Dapi89 and his colleague EnigmaMcmxc , and he always find some other one colleagues to praise him – like User Jacurek - and say thank you Dapi89 I understand your frustration ! Simply it is amazing and pitifully this time the Wiki Admin justify this level of discussion by saying
" There has been a detrimental effect on both the articles and other editors who've chosen to work there, to the point where some good editors have begun to react badly and others have dropped off the radar " really …..
You are making a political maneuverability to free them ; people can disagree and moderator can interfere to ask them to get back to the subject or place his knowledge on a source or analysis .. But not this way Mr. EyeSerene where u deleted part of the discussion which have absolutely no bad words no insult , no attacking on other , no personnel attack ….
But you said - the majority against it J probably ratio of 5:3.
And it is “ extremely persistent, stubborn, and opinionated users. “ oh really ..

If another administrator frees you from the charges of concealing your identity and protecting, the cursing and personnel insult, then I am sure you will not be quited from one charge!
Simply the lack of knowledge skill and been incompetent to mastering a hot discussion Didn't ever came to your knowledge that - The results of Battle of Britain - Dowding quoted about one phrase from the Official documentation as a myth and it would be dangerous for the futre ... The outcome of the battle is a long controversial subject and the debate still going on till these days .. It is not a problem for users to trade POV and sources and also not a problem for Administrator to interfere and ask users to calm down, press them to provide sources or criticize the validity of some sources or analysis .... etc Something you didn't do it!!!! you simply remained in silence and only interfered to attack or punish !

There were long discussions with Dapi98 before on discussion page for Battle of Britain
it was simply deleted and some good Administrator answered Dapi89 - when he said all historian agreed this understanding and the Administrator in nice way tried to stop him ( by saying have you cited R.Overy or "I forgot his name"....) ; I wish you can restore this deleted discussion which demonstrate Dapi89 calling R. Ovary contradicted while now he is using his book as a source!
Please restore this discussion and see the Administrator ... he was totally different from you and I wish you will follow his style where as he said about the BoB ; it is a national Myth and I wouldn’t touch that hot subject, he was fair and straight in his comments. I wonder why this discussion was maliciously deleted

--Hiens (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have just looked at Talk:Battle of Britain, and I can only conclude that EyeSerene did what every admin should have done, and that Hiens is coming very close to being blocked as well. Discussions are good, but endless "I can"t hear you" arguments where consensus and WP:NPOV is attacked by stamina, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE should be stopped, and in some cases blocks and/or topic bans are the only method left to achieve this. Fram (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
tl;dr - complainant is requested to can the fancy rhetoric and keep it simple.--Tznkai (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Surely this can be summarised without nine paragraphs and assorted funky formatting? I'm not seeing anything obviously actionable. ~ mazca talk 17:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There was no "malicious deletion" here -- all threads are archived after 24 hours without new comments. Marking resolved.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Landless Farm[edit]

Resolved: Not exactly "landless" if you keep roaming on the same pasture. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 21:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Landlessfarm got blocked because of a promotional username and because the user createdUser:Landlessfarm/Landless Farm. The user made another account called User:Drala486 and continued it by creating the article Landless farm. Joe Chill (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Bagged it and told it to make unblock requests at the original account's talk page. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 21:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


Resolved: Take it to dispute resolution, people. This isn't the place. lifebaka++ 18:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This editor continues to indulge in personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith since his last Arbcom civiltyrestriction ended, repeatedly displaying incivility when others state their disagreement with his unorthodox views concerning use of quotes in footnotes.

The latest incident occurs at Talk:Thomas Henry Barry. After I made one revert with a "See talk" content-focused explanation on the article's Talk page, he reacted with accusations of meatpuppetry. Moreover, he put down everyone in disagreement with him by using insulting terms "Rleve's team" and "surrogates". I am not one to become embroiled in wikidrama, and it is with regret that I bring this matter to the attention of other admins here. Alansohn's contribs are extensive and of considerable benefit to the project overall. But this misconduct does necessitate community attention, in light of his previous Arbcom sanctions for similar conduct.

His history of accusing admins of bad faith and twisting words of others was the subject of Arbcom sanctions in June 2008 (ref: Alansohn Arbcom case) which imposed editing restrictions for one year, following this RFC.

Since the restriction, a pattern of more of the same continues — he has been blocked 3x already in 2009 for making persistent assumptions of bad faith; incivility, and personal attacks. As indicated by this latest manifestation of such continued unacceptable behavior, a community version of the editing restriction should now be imposed.

To the best of my knowledge, I've had no previous interactions with him, except for this brief, pleasant exchange almost two years ago (6 November 2007). Nor have I been a party to the past Arbcom/RFC cases involving this editor or blocked him myself, it should be noted.  JGHowes  talk 10:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Since the arbitration imposed restriction has expired and the last block was in April I'm not entirely sure that we can or should block for this unwarranted attack. Maybe asking the arbitration committee to reimpose the restriction would be a better was of managing Alansohn's behaviour. ((disclosure - I see the user at lot at DRV and while their language can be a little intemperate, I have never considered them particularly troublesome.)) Spartaz Humbug! 12:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you have anything in the way of diffs for those admins who are too lazy to go hunting for them </me waves>? On the basis of the initial comment, pending such examples, my view is that the end of an ArbCom restriction is not permission to resume the conduct that lead to the sanction; the sanctionee is supposed to have adopted better practices during the parole/ban, etc. Usually ArbCom findings have some general points about editing in good faith, etc. and some examples of such violations in respect of the parties, so it can be therefore assumed that the editors effected are fully warned of the consequences of resumption of such behaviours. If there has been some return to bad habits, then perhaps there is a case for the application of severe sanctions? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Since one of the four members of the discussion in question is User:Rlevse, a current admin and Arbitrator, and he does not appear to have commented on Alansohn's remarks, why are we speculating on what ArbCom would do if they were only aware of the situation? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

JGHowes, I believe this situation could be much better handled by talking to Alansohn (which I note was not attempted first) or through the use of dispute resolution. I suggest you try one (or both) of those. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have not gotten involved in the edit war that User:Rlevse started and that User;JGHowes has jumped in on. My involvement has exclusively been on the article's talk page, which is exactly where it is supposed to take place. I have been diligently trying to understand why three admins, including a bureaucrat, would be involved in pushing an edit war based on an arbitrary style preference that is part of a Wikipedia design feature of the citation templates. Whatever the real issue may be here, no editor has discussed anything on my talk page, and Rlevse appears to prefer having his surrogates push his position. A separate ANI discussion regarding matpuppetry by User:Rlevse involving User:JGHowes active involvement, with evidence provided, appears below. Alansohn (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:MEATPUPPET violations / edit warring by User:Rlevse / User:JGHowes[edit]

I first met User:Rlevse at the article George Thomas Coker in December 2007, where I attempted to reinsert sourced content he had deleted about a film Coker appeared in. As it turned out, Rlevse has a longstanding relationship with Coker and repeatedly edit warred to remove sourced, relevant content despite his clear conflict of interest in which the article's subject demanded that the content be removed. Above and beyond Rlevse's edit warring at the article, several editors jumped in to support Rlevse's biased position, many with a pattern of extensive relationships with Rlevse, most notably User:Sumoeagle179 (see here) and User:Dreadstar (see here). None of these editors had ever edited the article before and appeared to have no connection to the article other than a longstanding relationship with Rlevse.

With much persistence in maintaining the integrity of this article and the project as a whole. The material about Coker's appearance in the film Hearts and Minds is in the article and remains there today. To exact his revenge for daring to challenge him, Rlevse appears to have cynically manipulated Arbcom in his role as clerk to manufacture a case called "footnoted quotes" in which Arbcom refused to deal with the subject at hand and created a series of policies on "protecting" BLPs that remains a classic example of abuse of power.

I saw a discussion a few days ago at User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and checked out the article Thomas Henry Barry, which I made a few tweaks to. The discussion at Talk:Thomas Henry Barry revolved around an edit war that Rlevse started to remove quotes in footnotes, a practice he doesn't like. After a blind revert of these quotations by Rlevse (this diff), User:JGHowes -- who had never edited the article before -- jumped in with a blind revert of his own (here), followed by another blind revert by Rlevse to his same preferred version (this diff). User:AdjustShift has jumped in (here) with the helpful edit summary of "remove needless quotes".

I have not gotten involved in Rlevse's persistent edit war that he has undertaken in conjunction with what appear to be meatpuppets. I have exclusively raised the issues at the article's talk page, trying to understand why three admins, including a bureaucrat, would needlessly create an edit war over a subject that Arbcom itself refused to address when Rlevse tried to raise it and which uses a built-in design feature of Wikipedia's citation templates. At the talk page, I have offered a very simple solution; ignore the quotes. No one will be forced to use them, no one will be forced not to.

Over a 48-hour span, User:JGHowes made a total of 12 edits, eight of which were to the Barry article and the article for R.A.C. Smith and their associated talk pages. JGHowes appears to have no connection to either article other than Rlevse. JGHowes and Rlevse have a clear relationship, with Rlevse having the most edits of JGHowe's talk page, and JGHowe being in the top 20 of the more than 1,000 editors who have edited Rlevse's talkpage.

This is not the first time that Rlevse has abused process. The pattern is for Rlevse to get into a conflict and then to bring in meatpuppets to push his position, while he can claim to be uninvolved. As a bureaucrat, we should be expecting the highest standards of practice and behavior, not a shameless use of meatpuppetry to get his way on what has to be one of the lamest and most needless edit wars in Wikipedia history. A brief block and a warning that future incidents may well result in loss of administrative privileges for him and his meatpuppets for continued abuse will likely prevent further such incidents by User:Rlevse. Alansohn (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Tan | 39 16:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, so who's right, Alansohn or User:JGHowes see above report about AlansohnElen of the Roads (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not looking for anyone to be right and this is the worst possible place to make this decision. I have tried to discuss this issue at Talk:Thomas Henry Barry and I have refused to get involved in the edit war that Rlevse / JGHowes have initiated. My suggestion there is to walk away from the article and allow each editor to edit as they see fit without escalating what would have to be one of Wikipedia's lamest edit wars, one which I will be adding to WP:LAME. Until JGHowes raised the nuclear option of bringing this issue here to ANI and accompanying that with all sorts of threats, it appeared that the edit warring had slowed down and that this would end by all parties moving on and learning to respect each other's edits. There is no issue here other than one that Rlevse appears to be manufacturing and the best solution here and at the article is to do absolutely nothing. Alansohn (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


JWatts1959 (talk · contribs) is a nearly single-purpose account who has done very little other than alter Carrie Underwood discography so as to add misleading claims regarding her #1 singles. Specifically, the points of contention are "Don't Forget to Remember Me" and "I Told You So", both of which reached #1 on a secondary singles chart (i.e., Mediabase) but not the Billboard charts. I should also note that a.) no other discography on Wikipedia uses Mediabase, and b.) the Mediabase charts are not in any sort of archive, so they fail WP:V. This has been going on for quite some time now, and despite multiple level 1 and level 2 warnings, this user has made no attempt to stop, usually edit-warring with good-faith editor Caldorwards4 (talk · contribs). Caldorwards4, myself and other editors have tried to tell him that we only follow Billboard peaks for American artists, as including other charts would be indiscriminate, but nobody can seem to get through to this persistent user. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 19:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a puppet of Billboard. In fact, we don't want to give undue weight to another company. Unless Mediabase can be shown to be highly unreliable, a note that the song was #1 on the Mediabase chart would seem reasonable. In my city, it was found that the radio ratings were inaccurate because when they started to use meters instead of diaries, the audience size changed significantly. Perhaps all editors can try to rationally discuss the matter. I am willing to be an informal mediator, if asked. Another possibility is to use the Billboard data and note in the text that other sources, such as Mediabase, have shown certain songs to be as high as #1. Or are you seeking a block of JWatts1959?User F203 (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not seeking a block, just mediation. As I said, the Mediabase charts are reliable but are not archived anywhere, and since their positions can't be independently verified, they should not be included — also, some other editors seem to agree that including non-Billboard American chart positions is overkill. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 20:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
While unlikely, it is possible that JWatts1959 is the former Congressman who accidently typed 1959 when creating a user name instead of 1957, his year of birth. While unlikely as Watts is a common name, I have read that politicians have been indefinitely blocked before. Some people may not want to give deference to politicians and may even want to block them, airlines routinely treat politicians better, even giving flights priority to land on time. User F203 (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
What would remotely make you think this was J.C. Watts? --Smashvilletalk 20:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by LightningMan[edit]

Resolved: lifebaka blocked the lot of 'em for edit warring.

User:LightningMan has made several personal attacks against User:Sportslogo Editor LightningMan is verbal abusing me. LightningMan has called me "Are you a man of your word or just a pest?" [1] "what are you, six?", "your laziness". "nd I'm not the only one who thinks as I do either. So? What are you, six?"[2]

This issue is regarding [22] and for some reason, LightningMan continues to delete the table because he believes this will be too much work. He gives opinions as his reasoning and refuses to acknowledge my hardwork. Your advice or intervention would be appreciated.(Sportslogo (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 21:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC).

No comment on the possible attacks, but I've blocked both users for edit waring at American Basketball Association (2000–), with 20+ reverts each today. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience advocacy[edit]


An administrator really needs to go in there and clean house. There are three users in particular who have set-up shop and are basically known pseudoscience promoters on Wikipedia. I will not name names, but behavior such as this is unacceptable. Wholesale removal of so many entries is simply edit warring plain and simple.

I have no objections to people discussing individual entries and whether they fit the inclusion criteria. But there is absolutely ZERO discussion of this removal on the talkpage. It was simply done unilaterally.

ScienceApologist (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Without accusations, I asked the most recent editor to remove 30K from the article to please use the talk page first, and reverted that content back in. I can't pretend that I fully understood each of the removed topics, but Lunar Effect, Polygraphs, and Iridology, three I read through, all were topics where I was either familiar with their status as pseudo-science (Lunar Effect, Iridology), or that they had significant citation thereof (Polygraphs are notoriously unreliable, thus not evidence in court, but the summary went further into it than I knew.) Though my review was cursory, the editor removing didn't even make use of explanatory edit summaries, so I feel he can make the effort properly at the Talk Page. ThuranX (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems all over Wikipedia there are controversial edits being made without explanation every day. Not sure what to do. QuackGuru (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Just keep on fixing them. ThuranX (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The Consultant Pharmacist review is about twice as long as the other reviews in the article for no reason. I already discussed this on the talk page but I was ignored. QuackGuru (talk) 06:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I left that in because it shows a single critic talking about a flaw and it's problem. Someone who identifies a flaw usually will give short shrift to the fix, but that section, as he wrote it, seemed more balanced than the older version. ThuranX (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent) I've mostly been ignoring that article because it gets too contentious, but my recent impression is that discussion has been fairly reasonable despite some moderate edit warring. User:ScienceApologist's only contribution to the talk page in the last few months was to announce this AN/I posting. Per WP:DR, some better initial venues for his concerns could include discussion on the article talk page, user talk pages, RS noticeboards, and so on. --Middle 8 (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate Middle 8's avoidance of the article, when a drastic edit such as the one I outlined above happens and I am bound by certain sanctions not to do anything about it, the only recourse is to appeal to outside help. Where one appeals to outside help is a matter of opinion, mostly. Administrative help is most appreciated since this list is subject to discretionary sanctions due to previous arbcom decisions. Past history of unhelpful discussions and indications on the talkpage of very combative editors indicated to me that the appropriate course of action was to ask for an administrator to help. I thank ThuranX for looking in to the matter. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


I am the editor who removed these sections. I clearly explained the reason for their removal on the talk page as follows: "Per request that insufficiently sourced entries remain on the talk page while sources are being found. Most of these have no source that terms them pseudoscience or the equivalent. If there is a source, it is inadequate or disputed." Additionally, I did not simply delete these entries but rather moved them onto the talk page for further work.
The standard of this article, clearly stated in the lead, is that it lists topics "characterized as pseudoscience by organizations within the international scientific community, by notable skeptical organizations, or by notable academics or researchers." When such characterizations are absent, the topics should not be included even if we are quite sure that they "are" pseudoscience; verifiability, not Truth, is in question. None of these sections - with one potential exception - remotely qualified; there was simply nothing whatsoever to show that they had been so characterized (even using a generous standard for equivalent characterizations). The only even slight exception had one citation to Popper; though I would normally consider this to be a good supporting citation, Popper had expressly been denied to be a sufficient reference for this purpose in a lengthy recent discussion of another topic. hgilbert (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no request on the talk page at all for a blanket removal of "insufficiently sourced entries" nor is there any discussion of what entails an "insufficiently sourced entry". Moreover, on the talkpage you just indicated that a notable skeptical organization, Quackwatch, is not a good source when the inclusion criteria seen in the lead of the article expressly indicates that notable skeptical organizations are used as sources. Removal of, for example, time cube from the list is especially ironic given that arbcom itself identified it as an obvious pseudoscience. No one is objecting to your insistence that we get better sources. What people are taking issue with is your unilateral removal of entries without even the hint of a discussion. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
SA, I will respectfully suggest that taking a possible article conflict to a noticeboard is way premature. The issues you raise are content issues and, absent edit warring, using admin tools would be radically inappropriate. To my understanding, you are not banned from Talk pages, generally, you could have raised these issues there, and AGF would suggest that you expect to be able to resolve them there. Personally, I consider going to a noticeboard a step to be avoided in dispute resolution, absent emergencies, which content issues like this never are.
You have many possible steps to take, in any case, before coming here: article Talk page discussion, asking one of the active editors to look at the problem, which should certainly be done directly with an editor before complaining elsewhere about an editor's work!, asking a third party to mediate any disputes you can't resolve directly. Setting up a situation for "people" to disagree with an editor, based on your report here and no sustained experience with the article, I'd consider mildly disruptive at least, I wish that AN/I didn't function like that, but it does.
(AN/I should be 911 -- emergency services -- for admin action based on clear cause, which you didn't assert. Instead you asserted a content position, and I'd argue that by doing so in this way, you are violating the substance of your ban, which allows you to discuss and suggest on Talk, but not to push content, and soliciting response here, as you did, and as you argued above, is a form of content pushing with a possible result similar to meat puppetry. Don't worry, I'm not about to file an AE report! I believe you are a highly valuable contributor, but it's important you be very careful around pseudoscience or fringe science topics, you have a tendency to be a bit attached there.) --Abd (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Normally, Abd, I'd agree with you. But in this case we're looking at violations on an article that has a notorious history. Normally someone doesn't call 911 when an anonymous stranger knocks on their door. But there exist contexts where calling 911 because a stranger knocked on your door is perfectly reasonable (I'll leave you to imagine such scenarios). Similarly, we don't normally report a 25% blanking of an article to ANI, calling it a "content dispute". But when the article in question has been the subject of a half-dozen arbcom rulings, discretionary sanctions, three AfDs, a few topic bans, and at least two indefinite blocks, we call in the cops for even a minor disturbance. I also have my hands more-or-less tied at that particular article due to circumstances beyond my control. I'm not the one causing editorial disruption because I haven't edited the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Hgilbert's list on the talk page [24] seems to be an indiscriminate copy-and-paste. I just looked at Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory which in the article has been described in an editorial by Gerardus 't Hooft, an editor-in-chief at Springer and Nobel laureate in physics, as fundamentally flawed. It's hard to find a more unambiguous or public labelling of a purported theory as pseudoscience. I am familiar with this article, a radical reworking of a deleted BLP. It shows that Hgilbert is making unjustified assertions and, by the sheer scale of his attempted deletes, is disrupting wikipedia. He has been reverted. Hopefully now he will take greater care in what he asserts and listen to others. WP:ANI was a reasonable place to post, since not all users have this article on their watchlist, even if they're familiar with or have contributed to the page. WP:FTN would have been an alternative place to post. Of course there are undoubtedly oddball editors on wikipedia prepared to denigrate 't Hooft and label this subject as an emerging science, a paradigm shift, etc, etc, ... Mathsci (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of AfD system by User:Bettia[edit]

Resolved: To DRV please. Black Kite 19:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Can some please have a look at the actions of the above editor. "He" has recently closed two AfD's for a footballer without good reason. --Vintagekits (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Your incivilities and frivolous nominations do not help the situation. Jeni (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
These "frivolous nominations" where what exactly? All my nominations were policy biased. --Vintagekits (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
And all of Bettia's closures were policy based, as he has explained. GiantSnowman 15:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. WP:DRV is where to go if you feel strongly that these articles should be deleted. I see you making frivolous nominations, though. Tan | 39 13:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Note I have blocked Vintagekits for 3RR violations. I have told him that if he promises to not continue inappropriate reversions that I will unblock. This is unrelated to the appropriateness of the AfD nomination and is purely a 3RR block. Chillum 14:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Another note I have unblocked Vintagekits based on a promise that he will not act disruptively in this matter. If he fails to keep this promise I have no objection to any admin reinstating the block. Chillum 14:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

As I explained to Vintagekits, I closed that AfD as a Speedy Keep under clause 2.1 - "obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations (such as recently featured articles)". As the article had recently passed its Good Article nomination, I felt it qualified. As for me supposedly being 'non-neutral', I presume this stems from a totally unrelated difference of opinions which he has been having with myself and others (with him being quite uncivil at times, which one uninvolved editor commented on at his user talkpage). Bottom line is closing two bad AfD nominations then protecting them for 6 hours to prevent disruption is not what I would call an abuse of the system. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 14:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment, actually you didnt explain it to me - I had to post twice on your talk page before you would even acknowledge me.
  • "obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations" - what a load of BS - the guy has never played a game of professional football in all his days and I outlined that in the nomination. It is certainly note a "featured article" - I written one almost singlehandedly (cough*shine halo*cough) - it had just passed a scathing GA review and there was no mention of notability.
  • Your are a non neutral admin and should have closed it because you are biased. I would have thought that you would have remembered that biased admins from the FOOTY Project should stay the frick away from closing AfD's when they have been invovled disputes in that area. Or have you forgotten Davey O'Connor's review when another biased FOOTY Project member wrongly closed an AfD. Sure should remember it because you endorsed the deletion - thankfully the community stepped in to overturn it.
  • I am not here to cause trouble for but God sake give me a level and fair playing field to play on.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
That's enough of that. USer has been repeatedly warned about this; I'm blocking. Tan | 39 14:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
That seems a bit odd to me, even with Vintagekits' background. The originally nomination does not appear frivolous to me at all. Looking at a bit of the history, Bettia certainly shouldn't have been the one to do the closing either. Quantpole (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Bettia's point is correct, even if I don't particularly agree with having articles about footballers who fail to meet WP:ATHLETE. However, if someone does not agree with the closure, he/she should use WP:DRV instead of opening up more and more duplicate AfD cases. --Angelo (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Please let's not somehow manage to deflect this onto the admin again (I'd be beyond surprised if there were admins with whom VK doesn't have previous at this point). Vintagekits has been repeatedly requesting deletion of the bios of footballers in the lower English leagues recently due to disagreeing with the same happening to Irish players. Over and over again they've been dismissed due to the strong existing consensus over the threshold that's been established for footballer notability here and elsewhere. There is not a chance that the AfD being discussed here would have resulted in a delete, so who closed it is unimportant. Right now, a block is preventing even more editors' time being wasted as VK attempts to singlehandedly overturn a consensus which he's repeatedly blamed on "the FOOTY cabal", along with the usual levels of invective. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Regardless of the GA criteria, I don't see how this player passes WP:ATHLETE, or for that matter WP:N either, because all the references are either statistical, match reports, or very local news sources. There have been some WP:POINT nominations of minor footballers recently, and I speedy closed one myself, but this should've been left open. Black Kite 15:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I have declined VK's block. Please be aware that they can't defend themself when they are blocked so be careful what you say. I am totally uninvolved with this, but VK does have civility issues at the moment. Hopefully, they will calm down sufficiently to have the block reduced so they can participate in this discussion. – B.hoteptalk• 15:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The main issue was that this was the wrong venue and the wrong way to go about it (claiming abuse, civility issues, 3RR violations, repeated postings despite warnings). While I commented above that I thought the AfD itself was frivolous (I do), this did not factor into the block. Tan | 39 15:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the block, and I've told them as much. Definitely the wrong venue here. Trouble is, it may end up being on his talk page now... :( – B.hoteptalk• 15:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree that this was worth a block, especially of 72 hours. I've been tempted to block VK recently for some far worse comments he's made, especially in AfDs, but this was just frustration (even though yes, it was probably the wrong venue). Black Kite 16:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
His continued abuse on his talk page would say otherwise. I was pushing for a reduction, now I would say protect his talk page. – B.hoteptalk• 16:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I did just suggest protecting his talk page on said talk page, however that has now been blanked. Jeni (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I had removed his talkpage access for his block before I saw that. --Smashvilletalk 16:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This would appear to be based on the assumption that any article that passes GA must have a notable subject. It would be nice if this were true, but to assert that it must be true, or is grounds for blocking, is facile optimism. VintageKits will not be improved by blocking him when he is right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
He was not blocked for his views on this AfD. Whether or not he was right was irrelevant. He was blocked for being disruptive. As I stated in multiple areas, including above, he was blocked for persistently taking this to the wrong venue, making bad faith accusations, edit warring (including 3RR violations), and being incivil. Tan | 39 16:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I decided to go back and look at the timeline here...and I believe we've erred. However, what did he do between the unblock and the re-block that was disruptive? The original blocking admin unblocks at 14:08...5 minutes after telling him to go to ANI. His only contributions at ANI after his block were both in response to statements directed at him. I can't see what is blockable here and he is merely defending himself here. It's hardly disruptive. --Smashvilletalk 18:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I think Tan blocked him for this - yes, he's swearing, but he's not actively telling anyone to fuck off, it's just frustration. Given VK's latest unblock request, I would be tempted to accept it. I would prefer Tan's input, but he hasn't edited for a few hours. Thoughts? Black Kite 19:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
If Tan blocked him for that, then it should be removed immediately, as Chillum had already blocked him for it and then unblocked after discussion. Anything done prior to the unblock at 14:09 should not be taken into account here. We don't punish the same crime twice. --Smashvilletalk 19:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
You are correct (I forgot that I am on BST, which is 1 hour away from UTC), and I will unblock. Black Kite 19:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Reasoning above seems sound.--Tznkai (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Why is Vintagekits still around? This is his eleventybillionth block. HalfShadow 19:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Because he's a productive editor that occasionally loses his temper. Actually, if you look at the block log since he came back from his indef, it's only a few blocks in over a year - the length of the log is because of lots of tweaking of the blocks. Black Kite 19:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but WP:CIVIL is policy, and should be respected anyway, regardless of his contributions. As far as I can see from his block history, he still can't realize and fully accept our policies, so I wouldn't really agree about unblocking him but, instead, I would actually suggest to begin considering different solutions, tougher if necessary. Users who only manage to disrupt Wikipedia only because of their own points should not be allowed to repeat their mistakes forever and ever. --Angelo (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • And admin that abuse their powers to "win" arguments should be stripped of their privilages.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • If you're talking to me, just be aware that I've always respected Wikipedia policy, and all of my admin actions involve only semi-protection of heavily vandalized articles, deletion of recreated material and blatant copyright violations and a very few blocks against vandal-only accounts, not before notifying them with multiple warnings. And anyway you're not in the right position to judge my actions, given your account history and your approach with other users, including (and especially) admin users. In case you don't know, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and I see no interest in collaborating and building consensus from your recent edits. --Angelo (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
For the record, it would have been nice if I was consulted prior to this, and this unblock was extremely poor form and completely against consensus (unblock declined twice before). Black Kite, how many fucking times do I have to fucking state that he wasn't blocked for swearing - but for disrupting after being warned not to? This was not the venue for this, DRV is, and he was told to take it there. Instead, he came flying back into ANI screaming about BS (short for "bullshit", as we all know). Plain and simple, the disruption continued after he was told not to. I couldn't give a fuck less if he was swearing or not - so stop making strawman arguments about why I blocked him. Tan | 39 21:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Considering the original blocking admin told him that ANI was a good place to go before unblocking him...and all he did after his unblock was respond to people who were responding to was that disruptive? You can't tell someone not to come to ANI just because you don't like the topic they brought. --Smashvilletalk 21:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Apologies, Tan, but I can understand why he was frustrated by a ridiculous bit of Wikilawyering over the AfD. I have come close to blocking VK recently for an outbreak of incivility on AfDs, and will be keeping a very sharp eye on his conduct from now on, but I - and others - couldn't see how the block could stand; if he'd come straight back onto ANI and started NPAing everywhere then fair enough, but he was stating - in not the best terms, admittedly - his irritation with how he believed the AfD process was being circumvented, and I have to say I agree with him on that one. Black Kite 23:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem with this type of unblock is that it is often interpreted by the blocked person as a tacit endorsement of their behaviour. Chillum 22:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


Editor is unresponsive to attempts to discuss edits. [25] [26], removing citation tags without explanation. [27] Your advice or intervention would be appreciated. Dlabtot (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think you need to calm down a bit and look here [28]. Took me all of two minutes to find, and I know nothing whatever about Klingon Opera Japanese symphony orchestras. I think those are most of the symphony orchestras that don't have articles - you would be better served by leaving them as redlinks (or even looking for the information yourself!!). Wiki2go appears to be a fairly new user, they have no previous comments on their talk page, and your immediate reaction is to accuse them of vandalism for taking out all your unnecessary citation tags.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
So because you disagree with my edits, you think it ok for Wiki2go to not respond to repeated polite requests for dialogue? I'm also puzzled by your admonition to 'calm down'? What is it that let you to believe I am not calm? lol Also, by all means, if you can find citations to add to the article, I encourage you do so. I don't believe this is the right venue to engage in a content debate, however. That would be more appropriate on the article talk page. Dlabtot (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your frustration with a user who is not talking to you, and I agree that Wiki2go could have helped the situation by saying why s/he took the templates off. However, my point was that if I could find citations in <30 seconds, you could have found same in less time than it took to add alll those citation templates, which would have avoided this whole thing. I have added the link to the Japanese resource to the article talkpage.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, you didn't actually find citations in 30 seconds, because citations have to be to reliable sources. But again, this report was not intended to spark a content or sourcing debate, but simply to report the refusal of an editor to engage in discussion. Wikipedia works by consensus and if an editor is not willing to engage in discussion I don't see how they can be a productive member of this community. Dlabtot (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am hopeful that this has now resolved - dialogue has started on Wiki2go's talk page, and the article on symphony orchestras now has quite a few (reliable) sources.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

IP User a.k.a. User:Lysdexia (banned)[edit]

Resolved: blocked 31 hours by Blueboy96

Banned user User:Lysdexia appears to be editing again under an IP. The IP user signs posts as "lysdexia" ([29] [30]) and engages in the same bizarre line of editing as User:Lysdexia (e.g., the black body affair), determined to rewrite articles in neo-Anglo-Saxon. Some examples of IP-lysdexia at work: [31] [32] [33]. User:LjL has warned IP-lysexia repeatedly at User talk:, but the unconstructive edits continue. Strad (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know who Lysdexia was, but other than that, I confirm the above account: extremely weird edits (though short of blatant vandalism) and a refusal to come to anything close to reason on the talk page. --LjL (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
This is Autymn DC, well known from mathematics and physics forums. I thought she'd disappeared in 2006 ... but now she's back, even on twitter. Mathsci (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
You know, some of those edits on Jabberwocky almost made sense. The channeling of e.e.cummings is worrying though.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Blocked 31 hours. Blueboy96 22:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Marc Dreier Page: Please unlock[edit]

Chase me ladies... locked this page in early june, 2009. please unlock as current events must be updated: his sentencing was in early june and his penthouse was sold. thanx much. Furtive admirer (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

An extra set of eyes[edit]

Resolved: User, originally blocked 12h, is now indef-blocked with talk page fully protected. MuZemike 00:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

would be appreciated over here. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 23:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Too much info from a 13 year old[edit]

What do we do when too much info is posted by a 13 year old? See redacted. Edison (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say to blank his user page and then explain to him on his talk page why posting personal information is a bad idea per WP:CHILD. --javert (stargaze) 01:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Doing that now. And contacting Oversight. → ROUX  01:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
It was originally created in the mainspace, but another editor subsequently moved it to Damian2dab's userspace. I think it could just be deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Julian, deletion is better than blanking. Couple that with roux's contacting oversight, and I believe that we're through here. --javert (stargaze) 02:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
If something like this happens in future, could you please take it straight to oversight and not to such a public place like this?--The LegendarySky Attacker 02:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
that is now the second time you ec'd me saying what I was going to say. Get out of my brain! → ROUX  02:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
As opposed to requesting oversight (which might take a while to get action, though quick enough in this case), an admin could speedy delete the page in question. Is that acceptable? Edison (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a problem with oversight. When I contacted them once, for some reason the software sought to use my regular email, with my name attached, rather than the email account attached to my Wikipedia account. I have not used IRC, but I have also heard of posts to IRC revealing personal identity in the form of the identifying info in the email account. How does one force Wikipedia to use the anonymous email account associated with Wikipedia rather than the regular, identified email account? Edison (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses whatever email you have set in your preferences. It cannot magically switch from one to the other. However, what you probably did was click on the mailto link that creates a message in your usual client to be sent to What you should do is use the Special:Emailuser/Oversight link. → ROUX  03:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I have for the last few weeks been patrolling new user pages, and I'd say deletion the best. I leave them a note using a template - (User:Backslash Forwardslash/Userpageedited) - which explains things well enough. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
When I previewed my one message to oversight, it definitely had sought to ignore the email set in my Wikipedia preferences and use another which revealed my real world identity. That is why I hesitate to use the "contact oversight" function. Edison (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Again: no, if you are using the Special:Emailuser function it can and will only use the email located in your preferences. Period. You'll notice there are two links on the RFO page:
Request removal by email (for anyone).
(or simply compose an email to )
Request removal using Wikipedia's email form.
(for Wikipedia users with email enabled in their preferences only)
The first one is a mailto: link. Clicking on this will open your default email program (or web-based email, if you have it setup to do so) and compose a message to using whatever email address you have set up in your email program.
The second link goes to Special:Emailuser, which will allow you to compose a message to the same place, using whatever email address you have setup in your Wikipedia preferences.
There is no way at all that Wikipedia can insert an email address that you do not have set up in your preferences when using the Special:Emailuser function. None whatsoever. It can only use the address it knows, and presuming you have set up your preferences to use the correct email address, there is no way it can know your other address. → ROUX  03:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The Rambling Man preventing anyone but established registered editors from participating in the featured article nomination process[edit]

Resolved: For now. No doubt we'll see them again. Black Kite 00:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The Rambling Man is preventing anyone but established registered users from participating in the review of an article that has been nominated for featured status. He also is preventing anyone but established registered users from editing that article. Finally, he is deleting valid comments ((1), (2)) made by users that he believes, without any proof, to be using proxies. Shouldn't the article's nomination be withdrawn until the semi-protection expires given that 95 percent of Wikipedia readers are now locked out of the process? Is there precedent for an article with documented inaccuracies to be promoted to featured status while 95 percent of Wikipedia readers are prevented from improving the article and commenting on its nomination? Seems to me that The Rambling Man, who was recently admonished by the arbitration committee for refusing to use proper dispute resolution procedures, is once again abusing his administrator tools. Please refer to this recently archived but unresolved ANI thread, too. Comments? (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You are User:Chidel, an editor blocked for sockpuppetry and who continually uses open proxies to avoid the block. Indeed, it is most likely the IP address you are currently using is yet another open proxy. Blocked editors who continue to jump from IP to IP to continue to edit are disruptive. Indeed, your unblock request was denied by User:Jayron32 with the following: "...this account appears, quite clearly, to be a a secondary account which does not conform to the rules for such accounts..." - your very first edit was to AFD a tennis article. I have semi-protected the pages in question to prevent further disruption. It appears you have now moved to IP to avoid even further scrutiny. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Chidel, Rambling Man did the right thing. There are no questions about it. Kingturtle (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Someone who can determine that the two IP's are open proxies should block them as such. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
And the community decided to delete that article. Where was the disruption by Chidel? (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's the paragraph in List of ATP number 1 ranked players with the tag (in bold) that should be there (but is not being allowed by rogue administrator The Rambling Man because he cares more about getting this article to featured status than factual accuracy): "The method used to calculate a player's ranking points has changed several times. As of 2009, it is calculated by totalling the points from the four Grand Slam tournaments and eight mandatory ATP World Tour Masters 1000 tournaments. It also includes points from the player's best four eligible ATP World Tour 500 series tournaments and their best two results from ATP World Tour 250 series, ATP Challenger Series, and Futures Series.clarify|subst:July 2009|reason=This is an overgeneralization that does not apply to players who were outside the top 30 in the last year-end rankings. Refer to the actual ATP rulebook, not a secondary, summary document like an incomplete FAQ. The ranking points of players who qualify for the year-end ATP World Tour Finals will additionally include points gained at that tournament." (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, every time you switch to another IP , you make dealing with you slightly easter. HalfShadow 21:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring is your reason for existence, I guess. You did 53 reverts in 30 minutes spread over 6 pages. That's on average, 9 reverts per page at a rate of 18 reverts per page per hour. Bragging about it also is part of your modus operandi: "I'm fully capable of doing this all day. If you think you can 'wear me down' you don't know me. All your doing is adding to my edit list." Nice job! (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
And giving yourself away appears to be the reason for yours. Ah well; Darwin was right... HalfShadow 22:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've just semi'd WP:AN3 for the same reason. Nice of them to give us more proxies to indef, though. Black Kite 00:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's making me look great. Not that I need help or anything, but still... HalfShadow 00:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The disruptive editor may be completely clueless about how to collaborate with people in writing an encyclopaedia, but doesn't xe actually have a valid point (even if only by accident)? The article content in question and the FAQ that supposedly supports it do not, after a very rapid comparison, appear to be saying the same things. Uncle G (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If someone else is willing to post the same information (assume it's verifiable), go ahead. My only problem is and was that he was posting it. I have absolutely no interest in the information at hand; simply with who was posting it. They were banned. That means we don't want to hear from them anymore. Hopping on to a random IP and continuing on like nothing happened just isn't on.HalfShadow 00:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
As I recall, the rule is that anything posted by banned editors is subject to removal on-sight. Regardless of an entry's alleged usefulness, banned editors cannot be allowed to undermine their ban - period. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
This guy may be the best open proxy honeypot in history. If he keeps at it, we could end up blocking every open proxy on the internet in a few months! He makes it so easy to find them all... --Jayron32 02:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'm uncertain as to whether I should be impressed by stupidity of this magnitude or run away from it screaming. HalfShadow 03:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Tyciol's talk page reformating[edit]

I'm not exactly sure if this is the right place. Tyciol (talk · contribs) has a habit of reformating talk pages to suit his preferred format even though he has been asked several times to stop it by multiple editors.[34][35][36][37][38][39] Despite all of this, he feels fully justified in his "cleanups". (User talk:TheFarix#Refactoring) He then when on to open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Reformatting for a broader opinion only to have his position unanimously rejected. Even though his reformating has no consensus, he has continued to reformat talk pages.[40][41][42] --Farix (Talk) 02:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A bit tricky: on the one hand, he's not really harming anything, but on the other, he's not stopping, either. I mean he absolutely shouldn't be doing anything to user pages, but beyond that... HalfShadow 02:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not seeing a need for immediate admin action (block), but a user conduct RfC may be warranted. I came across Tyciol in mid-2008 when he was refactoring archives (diff, Help talk:Archiving a talk page#Do Not Edit). At the time, I had been working on {{talkarchivehist}}, which shows alterations – including Tyciol's edits – to an archive through diffs. Flatscan (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


Being abusive and racist on the Talk:Pakistan page [43], constantly disruptive and continous POV in numerous articles, asking politely and warned on numerous occasions, still persistant, user's talk page full of warnings and complaints. Has now become racially abusive. Khokhar (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I was about to raise this here myself as an escalation from WQA. The worst one I've seen so far is this one (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Yup, that comment was rather incivil, wasn't it? But I think all he needs is to do is to have a calm down. Wouldn't you agree?--The Great 20th Century Kettle Boiler (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)The Great 20th Century Kettle Boiler (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note - this user is currently blocked for 24 hours and was not notified about this thread. I have notified them but of course they will not be able to respond for another 22 hours unless unblocked or a talk page section is transcluded here. Exxolon (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I hope you have taken it to his talk page, sir or madam. You could always try to work things over with a good little chat.--The Great 20th Century Kettle Boiler (talk) 05:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)The Great 20th Century Kettle Boiler (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I feel sorry for the College of New Jersey if the history course there is so bad that he thinks India is one unified racial group, nevermind Pakistan as well. User is a nationalist. User is bushing this nationalist POV and being disruptive and racist while doing so. The key bit about nationalism is that the user is going to be convinced he knows The Truth (tm) and everyone else is wrong, and is unlikely to change. My suggestion - a topic ban from India/Pakistan related articles and a complete ban on any further ad hominem attacks or racial comments. Violating this rule gets blocks of increasing length. Ironholds (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd support a ban from articles relating to India or Pakistan, in addition to civility parole. PhilKnight (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Support from me. Has he been notified of this thread in some way or shape? Ironholds (talk) 08:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
On his talk page. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose the ban. You blocked him before allowing him a chance to speak here?--The Prejudice (talk) 06:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)The Prejudice (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I just noticed the relationship between this topic and WP:ANI#Nominate for WP:LAME? Ignore? Other?.—Kww(talk) 01:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The editor has now been blocked for a week. PhilKnight (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
They reinstated the problematic edit noted in the thread linked by Kww above, so in the light of that, previous edit-warring blocks, and this thread, I thought our productive editors could probably do with a break. EyeSerenetalk 18:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I do hope this user gets banned from India/pakistan articles and doesn't get away scot free in a week, the user clearly doesn't care about the offence he causes judging by some messages he left on user talk pages after the initial incident and being banned for 24 hours.Khokhar (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

K.Khokar, your comment sounds like a personal attack against this editor. You may benefit from learning WP:NPA.--Right Angle Fish 90 (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Right Angle Fish 90 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Can we get a little inspection of the sock drawer? I'm missing a blue one. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

socionic sources showing esoteric connections[edit]


Physics of Consciousness Boukalov A.V. Conscience and the Universe

It is shown that the universal vacuum if viewed as a conglomerate of relativist fields may be described as a giant computing system that controls movement of micro-particles and macro-bodies (planets, stars, etc.) Alike physical processes run in semiconductor crystals of modern computers used for construction of artificial intelligence systems. As an analogue of macro-computer, the Universe in total inevitably possesses attributes of consciousness and intelligence, and its particular subsystems interact with human consciousness and find their interpretation within the framework of religious systems and beliefs. Key words: consciousness, physical vacuum, computer, computations, religion. --Rmcnew (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Note - this is blatant hermeticism, is cosmological, and states things that could be quoted from the kybalion


Analytical Psychology Kameneva I.P. Psychical Energy: Symbols and Metamorphoses

C.G.Jung's ideas on psychical energy are considered in the context of his psychoanalytical experience set forth in his work Libido, Its Metamorphoses and Symbols. Symbols of psychical energy indicate the direction of its movement from the mother to other objects and images, which in general reminds dynamics of Kundalini energy in Tantra Yoga. In A.Augustinavichiute's model the scheme of informational metabolism of each type determines specifics of its energetic potential and in separate cases also aptitude towards certain esoteric practices. Key words: symbols, consciousness, unconscious, archetypes, psychical energy (libido), system of Chakras, psychical functions, informational metabolism, energetic metabolism, mental loop, vital loop, socionics.

Note - this statement, even as an abstract is clear that socionics in relation to the theoretical model of the founder ausura augusta has an aptitude to esotericism. What is that esoterism like?


In 1980—1995 socionics existed as a "club of adherents" outside the official psychology. Groups of socionists appeared in different cities of the Soviet Union, but this was not enough to make socionics recognized by official psychologists. On the one hand, such isolation from psychologists positively influenced socionics: it developed without Marxist-Leninist stereotypes that overloaded Soviet psychological works of that time. On the other hand, such isolation created an illusion among many socionists that socionics were not a part of psychology, it rather were “a new science” with its own methods, subject etc. This was a dangerous trend: there was a real danger that socionics would turn into something esoteric, mystical.

Note - why was there a danger of socionics becoming something that was just esoteric or mystic?

rmcnew's view[edit]

Perhaps I should explain the situation here. The wikipedia page is overrun 99% by western proponents of socionics theory who do not personally use esoteric methods with their understanding of socionics (and are actually personally against those sort of applications); however, it is substantial that socionics, as it has been learned by these proponents 100% over the internet through Sergei Ganin's website, who himself presented socionics as "something similar to MBTI without any emphasis on esoteric methods) is in fact connected in its original form currently and from the founders themselves with mystic and esoteric methods, including the usage of chakras, hermetic derived and similar philosophy, and current new age theories derived from people such as Consteneda.

I should note in reference that without including an esoteric section with a non-proponent section in the article, a large portion of the socionics world who have a legitimate use of socionics with esoteric and mystical methods would be without representation, and a large portion of the non-proponent socionic world, such as the rational skeptics, would be without presentation. Therefore, it is an act of neutrality to include such a section. For neutrality purposes and as a volunteer representative of these viewpoints, I defend these viewpoints, though I do not necessarily hold to them myself. I defend these viewpoints because I feel that they are underrepresented and repressed, and that acknowledgment of these viewpoints are a means of integrity, honesty, and respect towards the theory of socionics. I am highly disappointed that there are others who do not share this view and wish these viewpoints to disappear. I will state, however, that in the russian language there is a large majority of socionist whose applications of socionics are of a mystical and esoteric quality. Those who edit wikipedia are majorly of the empirical branch of socionics who wish to turn it into a legitimate science. It is my utter goal to represent all of these viewpoints in the article, but many of the editors do not want representation of these viewpoints at all in the article, and only uphold just one viewpoint.

I would like to also answer the charge that progress is being held up by my presence in the article. This charge is completely and utterly false. I don't understand why the other editors who want nothing to do with the socionics section that deals with esoteric and criticism of socionics just start editing the other parts of the article that deal with something else, and let those who are interested in helping to rewrite the portions written by me (esoteric and criticism sections) just help find sources and rewrite those portions aaccording to the sources. Those who are making this charge that I am holding up progress feel that if they can ban me from the article, that there would no longer be representation for the viewpoints I have been (to my best ability) neutrally describing and to a certain degree against my own personal usage of socionics theory, which is empirical and non-esoteric and non-mystical. I am basically the entire author of the esoteric article itself as well as the radical skepticism critic portion. I have asked for help numerous times from people such as niffweed, tcaulldig, and rudieboy to rewrite the article according to a win-win more neutral standard, but this help has not only been denied I find out that these same people are wanting to block any representatives of these viewpoints out of the article so they can (according to my perception) monopolize the wikipedia socionics article for one viewpoint in socionics only, when it is not the only view in socionics theory. I am seriously disappointed and find these actions to be non-neutral in light of the whole article.

I would like to say something else also. The esoteric and mystical viewpoints in socionics theory are heavily substantiated by verifiable sources. Those people who are complaining have been avoiding looking too deep at those sources (or even at all) and instead have resorted to passive-aggressive ad hominem attacks in order to avoid dealing with discussions of the issues neutrally with the hopes that the representation of the various viewpoints would be forced out and thus the information. I should note that wikipedia is not a place to monopolize for just one viewpoint, and I am not going to allow for that. Unfortunately I am also currently alone in that effort to represent these other viewpoints among some of the other editors. Some of the editors have also suggested shortening chapters 10 and 11 in the socionics article down to two sentences or less, but it seems to me like this is simply a coy to avoid dealing with the substantiation of the esoteric and mystic issue by those who are not partial to those applications, so I disagree with the suggestion unless under more reasonable terms (such as stating the same information shorter and with better quality). I also disagree with any suggestion that the total disappearance of sections 10 and 11 (removing them completely) warrants progress on a rewrite, which is typically the claim by those who have made the current complaint. I do agree that lack of cooperation (meaning refusal to help to find verifiable sources, unneutrally debunking verifiable sources or refusing to do any rewriting themselves personally using verifiable sources) by some who have been making the complaints have been effectively blocking progress to a win-win solution, because these people are for win-lose. They want their view and no others. I am for win-win solutions. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attacks made on Talk:Strawberry Swing[edit]

User:Das Ansehnlisch has made two personal attacks against User:JD554. The first can be found here. After the first remark, JD554 gave him a final warning for personal attacks [44], and I warned him on the article's talk page. However, he made another attack this morning here. I need an admin to take a look at this to decide whether to block or not, because I am not sure the final warning template being used as the first warning was warranted, given that the first attack was just a simple "screw you". However, the second attack was much worse than the first, and might warrant a blocking regardless. Taking a look at the user's talk page, it seems clear that he has a history of editing in bad faith. Fingerz 21:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette Alerts are <---thisaway. I can see some incivility on both sides - yes Das Ansehnlisch said "screw you", but sticking a level 4a single shot warning template on his talk page instead of trying to TALK to the guy also qualifies as incivility. Can't see anything here for admin action.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Those personal attacks were inappropriate and should be dealt with accordingly. However, JD554 could've been more helpful to that editor.--The LegendarySky Attacker 02:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not condoning incivility, but an exchange along the lines of "I don't agree so screw you" "4a single shot cease or die warning" "Shut up, you're not helping, you suck" which started on 22 July and was over six hours before the third party referred it here is a bit stale, don't you think. If they had carried on hammer 'n' tongs then yes, it did need admin action, but when I looked the protagonists seemed to have separated and Das Ansehnlisch had gone elsewhere to create an article on a different song.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason I gave Das Ansehnlisch his 4a warning was due to his previous incivility[45][46] and creation of attack pages (which led to him being blocked[47]). I would also like to ask Sky Attacker what more I am expected to do to help Dad Ansehnlish appart from the numerous times I've tried to explain Wikipedia's guidelines to him.[48][49][50] as well as the numerous attempts to help the various editors (inlcudind Das Ansehnlisch) at Talk:Strawberry Swing[51][52][53][54][55][56]. And Das Ansehnlish's contributions to the discussion (as well as the ones given in Fingerz initial statement) include these[57][58]. --JD554 (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Troublesome New User[edit]

While in the midst of my search of recent contributions, I came across a new user, Youngmann (talk · contribs), going on a POV pushing/WP:OR spree across several law school articles. I've already engaged him, so I really can't do anything to stop him...he insists on adding [this edit] to TTT, this OR-ish edit to University Canada West and this lovely WP:OR-filled edit to Law school rankings in the United States. The conversation on my talk page isn't pretty...he doesn't really seem to want to get it. I'm not sure what "you go to Cooley" means, but I'm going on a limb and thinking it's some Canadian form of an insult...anyway...I've engaged him...I can't really do anything about it...he does appear to have surpassed 3RR on a few of these articles, but again...since I'm pretty involved in the dispute here, any action I take is going to be fairly uncouth. --Smashvilletalk 20:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like "Cooley" is some form of ranking system: I referenced the Cooley ranking with different sources. No comment on the other aspects of this, but I'd not worry about being insulted just yet ;-) Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 20:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I hope they weren't refering to coolie. No, it looks like they meant Jehochman Talk 20:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC) - Its a law school that is ranked in the 4th tier by the US NEWS, yet creates its own ranking that states it is the 12th best law school in the country, even ahead of Stanford! It also has a nearly open admission policy. When I said "you do go to Cooley" I was inferring he was a student of the school, and that's why he was deleting my referenced criticisms of their ranking system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngmann (talkcontribs) 20:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

My post on University Canada West is a list of criticisms that are referenced. It is a private for profit university that created its own wikipedia entry, of which was a clear advertisement for how great it was. I saw on the news that it is in fact going through alot of controversy in Victoria BC and I wanted to highlight that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngmann (talkcontribs) 20:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

EDIT - I have gone in and fixed the University Canada West page to remove any apparent bias you think it may hold.

To be honest with you, I thought Wikipedia took better care of its new users, as not to sway them away (thus losing out on potential editors in the future in hopes of greater content.) My Wikipedia contributions are over. Let companies like the Eminata group (who are known to rip off students) advertise for free here, be my guest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngmann (talkcontribs) 20:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Potential Bomb Threat[edit]

Resolved: More silliness than ominous, I think.

Here. Can anyone in the UK contact the school? --Smashvilletalk 21:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A bomb threat, really? From the same person who brought us this? I see no credible threat here, or even any threat at all. Why waste time on it? Friday (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Better safe than sorry? I didn't know we had started ignoring suicide/bomb/violence threats around here... --Smashvilletalk 21:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
A Trusted Source search shows the IP is located in Wigan, England. - NeutralHomerTalk • 21:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
A bomb threat would involve an assertion that there is or will be a bomb at the school. I see nothing like that here. Friday (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
So, if you turn on the news tonight or tomorrow and learn a bomb was detonated at that school, you will be OK with the statement you just made? - NeutralHomerTalk • 21:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Friday that there is no credible threat here. If someone feels compelled to contact the school, however, there is no harm in that either. Shereth 21:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Considering that the rest of the IPs edits involve changing the content to such as "It has been involved in several different Fair Trade scandals, consisting of an evil bookshop and various fund raising events. Most recently, four pupils visited Potato, Tanzania in East West Africa, as Byrchall has links with Wazalendo Cannibal High School." and the fact that schools in the UK are currently shut, I think this can safely be ignored, don't you? Black Kite 21:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
They're still at it with the silliness. I've given them a Very Stern Warning. As for contacting the school - at 10:30pm on a Friday night when the schools are on holiday anyway? Unlikely.Tonywalton Talk 21:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently as a child I engaged in a great many arson threats. We had a song about the school burning down. Anyway, I blocked this IP for 31 hours. Friday (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

  • and since it's a dynamic IP, I semi'd the article for the night. Marked resolved. Black Kite 21:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable behavior of My cat's breath smells like catfood[edit]

This editor, My cat's breath smells like catfood (talk · contribs), is lacking proper etiquette, using Wikipedia mainly as a platform for his childish amusements. His edits on various articles are questionable at the very least. New articles he created, such as this one and that one, are unconstructive and perhaps offensive to many who might view it. And his edit summaries are rather unacceptable considering he resorted to offensive language in a few edit summaries including usage of the “F-word” and phrases pertaining to a particular part of the male anatomy.

It is one thing to see a minor edit that isn’t correct, and fix it. But to see an edit like that, and make such a huge deal out of it like this editor did in such a brash way, I’m sure such behavior is absolutely unacceptable. This is an encyclopedia, not a playground for irrational editors to do whatever they wish on here. This nonsense should not be allowed here. I request that an administrator take a look at this editor’s list of contributions see what I’m talking about, and issue a warning to this editor for his intolerable behavior. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 08:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent contributions seem a bit worrying - see the edit summary here, this redirect, this edit summary, this article... it goes on - not directly vandaltastic, but disruptive and childish. I noticed you didn't inform him about the AN/I thread, and I've taken the liberty of doing so. Personally I'm in favour of a stern cut-the-crap warning and escalating blocks if he keeps it up after that, but we'll see what he says in reply to the ANI notification. Ironholds (talk) 08:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm having trouble finding anything productive in the user's recent edit history. While there's nothing that's over the line enough to warrant an immediate block, we shouldn't encourage people who appear to not be interested in writing an encyclopaedia. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC).
Also note the practical joke on his page (he's mocked up a "You have new messages" alert that leads to the page Practical joke. Fooled me, so nice one! but it's going to piss the hell out of someone with less patience ......Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, he's not the only one with that fake bar. That's an old joke that people did years ago (and some people still have them today). (X! · talk)  · @873  ·  19:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I was only thinking it was unwise for an editor whose actions were likely to draw admin attention to his talkpage. I lol'd, but the admin aiming to deliver a final warning might not find it so funny.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

As much as I enjoy users with a skewed sense of humor (mine is so offbeat you wouldn't believe