Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive560

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

Noticeboard archives


Lamest edit war ever?[edit]

Resolved: Unblock reviewed and declined. Mfield (Oi!) 23:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Both accounts indeffed

Or at least the lamest edit war I've encountered in my time as an admin.

Nearly 100 reverts over the course of an hour at Psychosurgeons - over the presence of a comma. If this isn't a candidate for WP:LAME, I don't know what is. I've blocked both these intrepid grammar warriors for 24h each. I see that Gold Scratch has made an unblock request. Anyone like to deal? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Wow. Unblock declined and editor directed to read WP:3RR until they understand it. Mfield (Oi!) 23:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps they're unsure whether 48 is greater than 3? Black Kite 23:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Would it be just *too* devilish to replace the contested comma with a semicolon? ;) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
        • After looking at the article I did wonder whether the band are actually notable at all ... Black Kite 23:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh good grief! Mfield beat me to declining. It's clear that the requesting editor's thinking is "My opponent has been blocked, therefore I've no reason to edit war back, so you can unblock me.". It seems all too likely, given that, that the edit war will start right back up again when both editors blocks expire, so some attention may be needed 24 hours from now.

    Ironically, the editor who so far hasn't made an unblock request is the editor who at least tried to initiate talk page discussion (edit, edit). Uncle G (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

    • Yes I noticed that and am fully expecting this not to be the end of the matter. I also think this article probably wouldn't survive an AfD, there's not much to indicate that they meet WP:BAND. Mfield (Oi!) 23:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, GS seems to have made the first discussion post at 22:18[1], and was the first to try to discuss things through the edit summaries, but no matter. Celestra (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
        • You're right. Uncle G (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Silly question: Is this the same preson (doing this as a joke on WP)? The AlexBeales account was created today, and specifically for that purpose, and it doesn't look like there was an IP doing anything before to suggest Alex regged an account to do that. The only reason I think this is the one oddity in the pattern here around 22:36 - 22:39 when Gold Scratch undoes his own (where Alex would have done it) and then undoes that but two minutes later. I can understand undoing something and then realizing shortly afterwards it was already fixed and undoing that fix, but something is really fishy there. --MASEM (t) 23:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Now that you mention it, it looks like they're editing from the same connection; could still be distinct people, but it's likely they know each other at the very least. Whether it's two people or one, that paints this whole affair in a rather unsavory light. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Accounts created within 3 minutes of each other from the same connection, and straight into that edit-war. I'd be tempted to indef both of them for taking the piss. Black Kite 00:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Well if the accounts resume right where they left off at block expiry, I for one would support going straight to an indefinite block, based upon the above. (I was going to make a different suggestion, along the lines of what Kurt Shaped Box said above, which was quite a good idea. But that suggestion was based upon the premise that the accounts were acting in good faith, which these checkuser reports indicate to be less likely.) Uncle G (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Both editors were aware of the 3RR as they had both warned each other about 2/3 of the way through the war. User:Gold Scratch even claimed on my talk page "All he has done it(sic) argue and swear at me." Martin451 (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In light of the the more recent information I have indef reblocked them both for abusing multiple account/meat puppetry. A very good explanation will need to accompany any unblock requests. Mfield (Oi!) 00:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Hey, comma's, need, love, too, y'know. HalfShadow 01:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • And maybe so do unnecessary apostrophes :-p Mfield (Oi!) 02:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
      • An apostrophe is just a comma with a view. HalfShadow 02:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Avoid: "excessive" punctuation; because, it makes (many) sentences, hard to "understand"!!! Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
          • all of you keep using capital letters too and i find that very annoying georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:48, 25 august 2009 (utc)
              • A thoughtful writer knows there are better ways to provide emphasis than using all caps. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
                • OMG OMG OMG. the blink tag. Why is it allowed... *wanders off to give self edit filter rights in order to set the world straight* Protonk (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
                  • This is why I'm glad Opera and IE8 seem to ignore the blink tag entirely :-P. Next up, that classic of 1998, the scroll tag (on second!). Nate (chatter) 06:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Oi! I resemble that remark... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I needed a good laugh. Thanks to the original knucklehead (or heads depends on what was actually happening here) and all of the comedians who followed up. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

revert page move please[edit]

Could someone help revert this page move of Michael Brandon (pornographic actor) to Michael Brandon (pornography), he a BLP best known as a pornographic actor; disambiguation to (pornography) seems against our MOS, WP:QUALIFIER, and logic. -- Banjeboi 05:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  • that user has made more than a dozen of these moves in the past few days. Protonk (talk) 09:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Indeed they have, anyone up for a discussion with them on disambiguation protocols? I've gone through the move log and these all should be fixed. They also are mistaking, understandably so, that disambiguations need to be modified more than we need; if there are two Jane Foo's we only need to differentiate between them, not all Jane Foo's. And people shouldn't be disambiguated to genres and media vs, a job descriptor. These all should be removed to more MOS-compliant titles. -- Banjeboi 11:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done***Alex Sanders (pornography) - best known as actor
 Done***Ian Scott (pornography) - best known as actor
 Done***Jonathan Morgan (pornography) - best known as director
 Done***Patrick Collins (pornography) - best known as director
 Done***Belladonna (pornography) - best known as actor
 Done***Lizzy Borden (pornography) - best known as actor
 Done***John Walton (pornography) - best known as director

 Done***Alexander Devoe (pornography) - no disambiguation needed
 Done***Jan Novak (pornographer) - best known as director

  • There are more. I would really prefer that the user come here and discuss this rather than having me just revert all of them. Protonk (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually I looked through all of their moves and the above list, to date, are the only ones I think need to be fixed. -- Banjeboi 20:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • This is a long standing editor, first edits in 2005, who appears mainly to concentrate in gnoming around BLP's, initially music artists. They should be fairly knowledgeable in what is MoS compliant. Has anyone asked them for their reasoning? From a review of their edit history and summaries I don't believe they are doing this in any POINTy manner. The good thing is, that should there be a decision to rename the articles it will likely to be a new one and not require moving over redirects and stuff. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I think they genuinely are misguided a bit on disambiguating in some cases as the majority are fine. I likely should have looked if there was a pointy pattern but had honestly only seen the one so was looking to get that one fixed, I hadn't realized that there was a slightly bigger batch. I'll message them now if no one else has. -- Banjeboi 20:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I've left a note for the editor and moved the articles I could as noted above, Could someone mop the rest? -- Banjeboi 21:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

incivility by user UweBayern[edit]

An user called UweBayern launched arrogant anti-Polish attack here: [2] IMO arguing that Polish sources can't be used while German can is arrogant beyond belief. Not happy with that he even went on comparing dissagreements (sourced) on the numbers of the Germans expelled after WW2 with the hollocaust denial which is completely shocking and sickening. Similarly he also compares the respected historian Ingo Haar with people "who argue that only one million Jews died during the war". [3]. Loosmark (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. Have a word with him about trying to avoid calling people names, regardless of how, and call it a day. This hardly needs our attention. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
It is ill advised to compare anything to the Holocaust. That way does not lie productive debate. But please settle it on article talk pages, not here.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Steps to solving this problem. Step 1) Discuss with user. Step 2) WP:WQA. Step 3) WP:RFC. Step 4) Maybe come back here if behavior persists. Please try other things before making this your first attempt to solve a problem. --Jayron32 16:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I would say that UweBayern's comments were not uncivil, but still ill advised. I've advised him informally on his talk page, but gotten an indifferent reception. I don't think there's anything admins can do at present. Suggest we mark this resolved and move on to the next one.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I've to disagree, yesterday he left this cynical and provocative message on my talk page because he didn't agree with an edit of mine or sth [4] and today he continued with his incivility with edit describtion like this one, [5] and now i noticed he wrote this about me on his talk page [6]. On top of that he continues to claim on the talk page that the German sources are ok but Polish are useless [7] how are Polish editors supposed to work in such atmosphere? Things as request for comment are useless in this situation and if the admins don't care to intervene even in clear cut cases like this one then what for do we have admins anyway. Loosmark (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm aware that this is a topic where emotions run high. Plainly you need to work with him to find a compromise. AN/I is one of the last resorts, not the first. Obviously what he said is impolite. But that doesn't mean admins roll in there guns blazing. We expect people to try to work things out themselves. If that fails, then there are things that can be done. Not necessarily here.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Plainly you need to work with him to find a compromise. Ugh, compromise on what exactly? Compromise on that he becomes a little less incivile? Compromise on his stance that German sources are "quite neutral and scholarly", while Polish sources "are completely useless to anyone except the Poles" and "are generelly known for their strong Polish nationalist bias/intellectual dishonesty"? Thanks for the idea but no, Polish sources are just good as the German ones and if you think i'll try to beg sb to "compromise" on such a self-evident fact you are wrong. Loosmark (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps compromise on how the sources are used, that kind of thing. I haven't read the article, but I did read a book a year or so ago on what happened to Germany and Germans after the fall of the Reich. From what I recall, there are great differences on the number killed, whether there were atrocities, that kinda thing, between German and Polish/Czech/Russian/Baltic (i.e. the countries that expelled Germans) sources. Possibly both sets of stats can be used. Don't give up before you try.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't get your point, we are having these discussions on sources and methods on the talk page there for a long time. However, the problem with this new guy is he is pushing things on an all new level: it's not that he questions the validity of a single Polish source (which might be wrong but it is something that can be discussed). The problem is that he's trumpeting around that all Polish sources are useless (he even claimed somewhere that Polish sources are no sources) while German ones are good, objective etc, etc. Obviously that is very offensive and can only needlessly heat up the debate. Loosmark (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible violation of editing restriction[edit]

Resolved: User blocked for 24h.

Allstarecho (talk · contribs) is "is banned from commenting on or to Bluemarine (talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia" as recorded at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Does this edit to User_talk:AKMask#Matt_Sanchez constitute a violation of that ban? Note that Bluemarine himself started the topic to which Allstarecho has replied. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes it does, and I have blocked ASE for 24 hours. Regrettable, but a fairly blatant violation. I note that this was only 19 days after the restriction was imposed, which doesn't bode well. Black Kite 19:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
It might have been a "hmm...maybe nobody's watchin'" test. Test was either successful or unsuccessful, depending on your POV. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's a success for those who support the outspoken bigot Matt Sanchez aka Bluemarine. Just what they were hoping for. DuncanHill (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
As a big old homo, I despise everything that Matt Sanchez stands for and says. However, the fact that he is a vocal homophobe does not excuse the disruption ASE was engaging in. I would have to echo Bwilkins' thoughts that this was boundary-pushing; ASE has an unbroken pattern of that sort of thing, and indeed had stated he simply would not follow the editing restriction. → ROUX  17:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Matt Sanchez wouldn't be editing anywhere on wikipedia (let alone editing in a way which is undoubtedly pushing the boundaries on his community sanction) if he wasn't being protected by some people who should know better - there are plenty of banned editors who have engaged in far less obnoxious behaviour than he has. DuncanHill (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with that. However, that's a bit of a straw-man for ASE's behaviour. Another wording of his restriction, in my kind of terms, is "stay the fuck off anything relating to any of this shit". ASE was testing the waters here and/or thought no one would notice. How hard would it have been for him not to make that comment? Did it help anything? Tan | 39 17:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
It didn't make anything worse. ASE is by no means perfect, but he's like the driven snow compared to some of his more outspoken critics. To block for that comment was at best silly, and to my mind does nothing to produce a better editing environment. DuncanHill (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
You are clearly unfamiliar with ASE's history. And there is no way in fucking hell that I would defend Sanchez or his bile; I am defending the need for Wikipedia to be free of disruption. Sanchez will be dealt with; the simple fact is he was (recently, at least) following the rules and ASE was not, and ASE's behaviour was part of a long pattern of him doing whatever the hell he wanted while claiming dewy-eyed innocence. → ROUX  18:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't make the mistake of assuming that I was referring to you as a defender of Sanchez or as one of ASE's more outspoken critics. Silly blocks do nothing to reduce drama, they do nothing to improve the editing environment. Admins behaving in a ridiculous manner does nothing to reduce drama, or to improve the behaviour of others. The sanction on ASE was ill-conceived (that is the AGF version of what I think about it) and ill-executed, and phrased in such a way as to make it a stick to beat him with, rather than a tool to encourage improvements, which is what it should have been. DuncanHill (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's clear that you don't see ASE's comment as violating his restriction. Looking at his talk page and here, I'd say you are in the minority. Chalk it up to admins behaving in ridiculous manners, if that makes you feel better. Tan | 39 18:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I may be in the minority, but I am also in the right. I've been in the minority before, and vindicated eventually. DuncanHill (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there going to be some court ruling on this comment? I'm curious as to what will "vindicate" you here. Tan | 39 18:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the motivations of certain of those who sought the topic-ban on ASE will become clear in time, as will those of the one who started this thread, and I think that the topic-ban itself will be recognized as ill-conceived and ill-formed. DuncanHill (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I started the thread - what do you believe my motivations are? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that my block has expired, and since I didn't get an opportunity to say shit in this thread before being blocked... I didn't comment on or to Bluemarine nor did I even comment on the article about him. I commented on POV editing differences and that was to an entirely different user. This had nothing to do with someone's delusional and paranoid opinion that this was "testing the water hoping no one was looking". It doesn't matter whether or not Bluemarine started the thread. I wasn't commenting on him or to him, only on editing POV differences and to another user. What if Bluemarine starts a thread on ANI about anything? Am I supposed to never post to ANI again? What a farce.

After more thought on the matter, it's even more absurd as my topic ban prevents me from commenting on or to Bluemarine, the user. It says nothing about commenting on or to the article about him or article content about him as a public figure - unlike his own topic ban from the article about him. Which leads to another issue, and only proves I was right before during the lynch mob circus to implement a topic ban against me. In that circus, everyone kept saying I didn't need to report him that someone else would do it. Well, his topic ban specifically says to stay away from the article pages about him. Yet, I got blocked for NOT commenting on or to him, but he has yet to be blocked for his recent edits to the Matt Sanchez article talk page, in violation of his own topic ban.

The wiki-stalking and hounding by Delicious Carbuncle, and this tattle-tell thread is just another example, has become creepy. I've asked him to stop posting on my talk page. He did it anyway. I've asked again. And I'm saying it here now in a much more public forum.. Delicious Carbuncle.. do not ever in your Wikipedia existence post to my talk page again. -    allstarecho     20:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It is inordinately depressing that you were incapable of saying anything here without personal attacks. Maximus shittus? Really? Get over it. → ROUX  20:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Calling something, not someone, maximus shittus is a personal attack these days? You get over it. -    allstarecho     20:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Uh huh. You frequently assume we're all very stupid and we should believe your increasingly disingenuous explanations. I suggest you stop; it's tiresome. → ROUX  20:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
If it's tiresome to you, stop butting in the conversations. Simple. -    allstarecho     20:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Calling me paranoid and delusional also isn't a personal attack. At least, I don't take it as such; I couldn't give a fuck less what ASE thinks of me. Tan | 39 20:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
And vice-versa of course, as far as what you or anyone else thinks of me. You weren't the only person to offer up the opinion so I wasn't attacking anyone, only the opinion. -    allstarecho     20:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, common ground. Tan | 39 20:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Ottava Rima[edit]

Discussion is yielding more heat than light. No consensus to ban anyone. Recommend (per others in this thread) that participants in Talk:Persian Empire voluntarily restrain from editing it for the next 48 hours to let the situation die down. NW (Talk) 23:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

Ottava Rima has now several times threatened to call my university to complain to my department about me. I'm pretty game for any kind of actual argument about content, but this seems really over the line to me. It's probably stupid that I use my real name on wikipedia, anyway, but this is quite upsetting. john k (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a round-about way at an attempted outing. Bad idea. - NeutralHomerTalk • 22:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Just ignore him. Asking for reprieve here is fruitless. someone will block him, another admin will unblock. People will whine about how we aren't treating the "real" editors with enough deference and how we don't understand OR's subtle blend of sarcasm and wit. It's not worth the damn trouble. Protonk (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Lar appears to have handled it, so there really isn't anything to do here. Prodego talk 22:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I said I would complain about them not educating people properly. You do know that misquoting people is a breach of civility, yes? But you have breached civility quite a bit lately: "I would have just called their history department and demand what the hell they are teaching their kids. : D Ottava Rima (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)" (the actual quote, which is what you do, instead of making things up) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on the above comment, perhaps Ottava does need some reeducation. Prodego talk 22:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  • My take on it would be that the first one is a bit over the top and uncivil but basically translates to be as casting doubt on your knowledge on the subject (and Ottava quickly redacted it on request), whilst the second one has a smiley at the end and is clearly meant as a joke. I also notfied Ottava of this thread, since you didn't. Black Kite 22:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    Actually, I beat the request by 17 hours. Lar probably saw it when it was posted at Wikipedia Review. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    Ah, indeed. Refactored accordingly. Black Kite 22:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Lar didn't handle it, he made a single comment, and any substantial review should include the Persian Empire talkpage. The running battle there has completely dissolved into petty nastiness, and it might do the article and the discussion quite a bit of good to topic ban the top two or three combatants until they can internalize WP:BATTLE. Nathan T 22:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Nathan is right - I immediately removed the comment, as it was only a jab at someone displaying that they have academic credentials and involving themselves in many history related disputes while having a user talk page filled with complains by people who have spent a lot of time in the fielding about strange views of history. I don't take kindly when I see what appears to be someone boasting a degree in order to verify a strange perception of reality. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Ottava, that talkpage is a mess and the responsibility falls on a number of experienced editors who should know better - but your hands aren't clean, even leaving aside the comment you redacted. For a group of obviously educated and articulate people, it should be 100% possible for all of you to hold a discussion (even an argument) without constantly disparaging each other. If you can't agree, escalating the warfare is not the solution; find a mediator, step back from the dispute, propose a short recess (taking advantage of the protected status of the article), etc. "You're an idiot!" "No, you're an idiot!" is childlike behavior and all of you are intelligent adults. Nathan T 22:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
People know that the one thing that sets me off is academic dishonesty. And anyone trying to rationalize the blanking of 60k worth of content that is mostly cited will upset me, especially when they are pushing a fringe POV, edit warring, and are unwilling to even bother to listen to consensus, references, or even be logically consistent. I don't take kindly to people that appear to be actively trying to destroy the encyclopedia. I slave at this encyclopedia because I believe that it can have a great reputation and be a great source of information. People like that are the ones dragging it down and giving us a bad name. What kind of ridiculous laughing stock would we be when our Persian Empire page, a high and top priority page, is reduced to a 1k tiny mention that ignores 1200 years worth of important history dealing with the subject? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Explaining who I am on my talk page is not boasting. I have never boasted about a degree. And you're continuing to make personal attacks on me here, and to make unfounded claims about me. Okay, I accept that the second statement has a smiley, but the basic issue - that Ottava is going around saying that I'm lying about my credentials and threatening to expose me - is real. And Ottava's removal of the original comment was made because "I don't expect he'd answer anyway," or some such, not out of any recognition that it was out of line. john k (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
My exposing of you was already done by pointing out a contradiction in your knowledge that is not only found on that page, but lodged against you by many people on your talk page. You either don't have the background you claim or you have a POV and opinion that is fringe. Or, perhaps you just got stuck on a side and couldn't back down. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
So you follow up declarations that you did nothing wrong with a continuation of the same attacks? How does this help your case, OR? ThuranX (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I support a full ban from Wikipedia against Ottava Rima. I don't see why we bother to keep him her it around when intentional and serious off-site harassment threats are being made. ThuranX (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary, and proposing Wikipedia bans in these circumstances (where it is sure to fail to achieve to consensus) is just inflammatory. Nathan T 22:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I quite often think Ottava is wrong on a large number of things, but here there's no substance to this complaint. One slightly uncivil remark (that was stricken), and one clearly meant in jest (even including a little smiley). That doesn't count as harassment or threats or anything of the sort. I suggest just moving on and tagging this resolved. The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 22:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I support ThuranX's full ban idea. Enough is enough. - NeutralHomerTalk • 22:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Lets see, Neutral Homer - I have had two FAs passed this month (The Lucy poems and To Autumn), and a third about to pass, along with over 10 GAs in the past 30 days, and most of the DYK records. What have you done except to inflame drama at ANI? How about a counter proposal, you and ThuranX banned. I am sure that many more people would want that. I have contributed more to this encyclopedia in the past thirty days than your whole career here. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Can we keep the bragging to a minimum, please? --clpo13(talk) 22:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
If I was to brag, I would surely do more than show only about 5% of my major contributions to this project. I am merely pointing out the logical absurdity. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Was I supposed to be impressed? Oh sorry. Wow, what incredible work, how ever will I compete with you. I must go retire now in shame. </sarcasm> Grow up, this ain't third grade. You did wrong, you have done wrong in the past, time for you to go. - NeutralHomerTalk • 22:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia first and foremost. I prove every day that I am here to contribute. you only prove that you know how to fuel drama. The more you respond like that, the more justification you put forward for your banning. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
If you're really not in third grade, then I suggest that you start behaving like you're not in third grade. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I may not understand why we keep you around Thuranx, but I certainly don't understand what your or my personal prejudices have to do with anything being discussed here. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
(ECx7)I have no idea what this comment is about, I made no mention of anything but OR's threat to harass him offsite, which is against our policies, and frankly, the law in most civilized parts of the world. I see nothing improper about suggesting that such an editor be shown the door, forcefully and with finality. ThuranX (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
You are being dishonest. What you said was "I support a full ban from Wikipedia against Ottava Rima", a ban that nobody had proposed. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Really? It's understood that I'm proposing it as well. No, you've clearly got some other issue with me. No clue what it is, but I don't think it's worth caring about, either. ThuranX (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Ottava can be sarcastic and rude sometimes, but there really isn't a reason to ban him. So why would that even be an option? Prodego talk 22:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Prodego. Ottava is one of our most prolific content creators. A ban would hurt the project more than it would hurt Ottava. →javért breakaway 22:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

OR and I aren't buddies... but I don't see the basis here to block or ban or even sanction OR... I find OR's first comment a little overboard, but self redacted, so I'm willing to ignore it. The second one was possibly in poor taste, but in reality just a bad attempt at humor. Personally, I think a quick, "think before you write" message has already been sent and received by OR and that this could be closed.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict times 6 - holy crap) Ban Ottava!? Sure, he can be a pain in the ass, and he'll own up to that. But you propose we ban on of Wikipedia's (IMO) best article writers? That's just sad... iMatthew talk • take my poll at 22:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
If he had done something ban-worthy, it would be a reasonable proposal. But, since the only offending comment was immediately withdrawn, there isn't even anything to take action against. That just makes this all the more ridiculous, and I think we can all see that there's absolutely no reason to ban. The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 22:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I have to comment now... yes, I think the call for banning was premature. But I think this notion that we can't ban OR because he's one of the top content editors is bunk. I can think of half a dozen editors who basically get away with murder because they are among our best editors. The real priviledged class aren't the admins, but rather a handful of editors that we don't want to lose. Yes, I am guilty of defending them myself... but it's a shame when we start citing their content contributions as reasons to ignore other issues. Do I think OR should be banned or sanctioned for this? No, but that has ZERO to do with his being in that elite group of editors, it has to do with the merits of this incident. Basically what a few of you are saying is that OR can do whatever the hell he wants and because he's one of the elite editors, will never have to worry about anything. This is a faulty message. If the actions require sanctions, then they would require action regardless of who it is.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
That's not what I see anyone saying; perhaps that your own prejudice showing through. There was no call for a ban until Thuranxs decided to raise the stakes, and no real offence by Ottava that would warrant anything other than a mild slap on the wrist. In contrast to your view I think that prolific content editors are hounded out of the project by crap like this, by no means allowed to "get away with murder". It's editors like Thuranxs and far too many others who get away with murder. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
If prolific editors are hounded out of the project, it's because they act as if they are immune to sanctions and then leave in a huff because they find out they aren't. I've seen it firsthand and it's pretty ugly. --clpo13(talk) 23:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Just take a look at Ottava's block log to see whether your assertion of immunity to sanctions holds any water at all. Or even mine. Frankly I'd prefer it if people here were more honest and simply told the truth. "I hate Ottava and I want to see hime banned." The rest is just bullshit. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Ottava's block log for the past year is immaculate. His last block was in July 08. You're block log... we won't go there ;-) But the point remains, I have no problem defending actions or saying that the actions do or do not deserve to be blocked, based upon the actions and whether or not said actions have a pattern. What I do have a problem with are statements such as, you propose we ban on of Wikipedia's (IMO) best article writers? That's just sad... or Ottava is one of our most prolific content creators. A ban would hurt the project more than it would hurt Ottava. Those are not valid reasons (just as "X is one of best admins.") If the person demonstrates a history of abuse or problematic behavior, I don't care who they are. I don't think a block/ban is necessary here based upon the merits of what I've seen in this case. If I were to go based upon personal feelings, then yes, I wouldn't mind seeing Ottava blocked/banned. He's made his opinion of me clear enough. I think his attitude and the way he likes to bait others is deplorable. But based on the initial evidence presented, I do not see it.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly disagree with any sort of a ban for reasons outlined by Balloonman. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a storm in a teacup (especially as the issue seems to involve Classical history, and john k's page says he's specialised in the mid-19th century, so credentials seems slightly a red herring). Ottava Rima does however seem to be at the centre of things at Talk:Persian Empire. Perhaps an uninvolved admin could volunteer to look at that situation and try and help things along. At any rate, there seems no justification for anything beyond an admonition (caveat as always: on the available evidence). Rd232 talk 22:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I repeat, not worth the damn trouble. Please close this thread down, someone. Protonk (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Propose Archiving[edit]

It is clear that Ottava is not going to be banned for this. It is also clear that if someone just boldly archives this, there will be more drama. Therefore, I propose we gain consensus and mark this resolved/archived. The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 23:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I object to that. Within this very thread, he's renewed the same attack that brought him here. How is it at all sensible to let him take MORE shots at the othe editor, then protect him from the consequences? ThuranX (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

So he gets to continue to make personal attacks on me here, and then you collapse the whole thing so I can't even complain about it? At this point, not only Ottava, but various other people are more or less accusing me of lying about my identity. Apparently, because Ottava Rima writes good articles, he can cast doubt about me with impunity, and his friends can agree with him. Let me note that this is a situation where I never claimed any authority whatever based on credentials - it was Ottava Rima who brought them in, in order to attack me and cast doubt on them. The statement which convinced him that I am a liar or a crank is, apparently, that I said in a minor point of clarification to someone else who said that the Roman Empire split in 476, that in fact the Western Roman Empire ended in 476, and the two haves had split before that. Does anybody but Ottava Rima think that such a commonplace and unremarkable statement indicates that I must be either a liar about being a history graduate student or a crank? I will admit that the discussion had gotten heated and uncivil well before that point, and that I played as much of a role in that as anybody. But it's quite another thing to start attacking somebody and calling them a liar, even if we ignore the threatening to call my department thing. And he continues to make the same attacks, over and over again, on the page here. I've been on Wikipedia for six years. I'm sure I've gotten into more than my share of unfortunate and probably unnecessary arguments - I like arguing and I sometimes get a bit hot in such disputes. But I've never had anyone question my basic integrity in the way that Ottava Rima has been doing, and continues to do. The fact that almost nobody seems to care is particularly upsetting. john k (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The same thing happened with another user. That person could do no wrong because they wrote good articles and did good work...well, according to his enablers. Finally, after many trips to AN and ANI, he was put on major restrictions. Just let it go, let things take their course. Sometimes it is slow, not as fast as we would like, but things will work themselves out. - NeutralHomerTalk • 02:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't really care at the moment whether Ottava Rima is restricted or not - it seems to me he probably should be, but that's really only a secondary concern. What I would like is some acknowledgement that it is not okay to repeatedly attack me, and some sort of vindication that his attacks are unjust. Almost nobody above even seems to see any problems with any of Ottava's behavior besides the one "minor insult" that he "quickly removed." But, to quote Marlo Stanfield, my name is my name. Ottava Rima is making false accusations about me. Other people seem to agree with him, or else not to care whether he makes false accusations, because he writes such wonderful articles. If he can get away with it, then that validates the attack. I am not someone who frequently gets into being a drama queen on ANI - I'm not sure if I've ever posted here before, and I certainly haven't done so in years. And I don't mind if someone virulently disagrees with me, or thinks I'm an idiot. I do care that someone is accusing me of being a liar, and not only that, of having perpetrated a lie for the past six years in order to mislead people here. I really would just like to clear my name from this baseless accusation. john k (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
That kind of situation is a clear indication that a hard look should be taken at the user, and the enablers. Anyone who continually excuses a user in my opinion is nearly as guilty in terms of committing the violations that they commit.--Crossmr (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hippo43 reverting good edit on British Isles in contravention of warning on page not to do so.[edit]

Resolved: Nothing to see here. Black Kite 23:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

User Hippo43 reverted a good edit on the British Isles page, where an academic source was used to rephrase existing text and to provide University level support for the text. He uses a false and untruthful edit summary to claim that there is consensus to do so. See these two diffs. [8] and then [9]
The article edit page states "Note Due to a long history of edit warring, this article is temporarily under an editing restriction. Do not revert or undo another editor's revert. If you do so, you may be blocked from editing. Instead, follow the bold-revert-discuss process and discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Once a consensus has been reached on the issue, normal editing may resume. Thank you."
I believe Hippo43's edit is clearly contravening this note. (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please close this. The edit restriction is specifically to do with reverting a revert, not reverting an edit. Hippo43 did not revert a revert. Also, it's normal practice to place a notice on Hippo's Talk page for things like t

his. --HighKing (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'd understood it the other way. My bad. Closed. (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
IMO, there was consensus to exclude this statement in this particular section, but to include it in a later section. A reference was added, which is contradicted by other sources, and the text was changed, and there was definitely no consensus for these changes. Apologies if I've misunderstood the edit restriction. --hippo43 (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

User ignoring talk page messages[edit]

A week ago, Fractyl came to me and said that there were issues on Crisis Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with Cyster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) because the two disagreed on translation or whatnot. This resulted in me coming in, removing everything but a barebones list of characters based on the page, and putting in neutral and as close as possible translations. I then advised him not to edit war with Fractyl (and vice versa) [10]. He seemed to be ignoring me entirely as he made the changes that I politely requested he not make. After making these two edits [11] [12], I left him this message. After seeing this edit I left him this message. Cyster seems to be ignoring me or simply does not acknowledge that the talk spaces exist. As far as I can tell, he is not aware any pages exist outside of the article space.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

  • The problem of course is that blocking xem will also prevent xem from using the article's talk page. This sort of situation does make one think that a form of MediaWiki editing restriction where an account was prevented from editing anything other than talk pages might be a useful tool.

    Clearly, this is simple ownership, and repeated reversion to the editor's preferred version. Note that xe has been using edit summaries for communication, but has clearly reached the stage where xe is now just reverting without attempting to discuss even using the edit summaries. In the absence of a tool such as the aforementioned, protection of the article on the Wrong Version might force the editor into using the talk page. That would prevent Fractyl and you from editing the article, too, though. Do you really want that? Uncle G (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

    • Protecting the article will probably not solve anything other than preventing Fractyl from improving the page on his own without Cyster's repeated reversions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Talk:Speed of light[edit]

David Tombe (talk · contribs) has been waging a vehement campaign at Talk:Speed of light and WT:PHYS to claim that the fact that the metre is defined in terms of a fixed value of the speed of light has invalidated much (if not most) of the science of physics. The speed of light in SI units has been fixed since 1983, <sarcasm>yet the scientific community seems to have been totally unaware of the tautology for 26 years until David Tombe decided to expound on it at length on Wikipedia.</sarcasm> This user's behaviour is disrupting attempts to improve the Speed of light article, a former featured article: it obviously falls under not only WP:SOAPBOX but also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience (lovingly known as WP:ARBCRANK). I feel that a topic ban is in order. Physchim62 (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What conflict resolution did you use before asking for a topic ban? Ussually that is a last resort as I understand it. Upon a review of the users talk page I don't see any warnings for using the talkpage or any recent warnings period. From my standpoint there doesn't seem to be anything that can be done here yet as not one whit of resolution of this dispute before running here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I notified the person in question they had a thread here as I didn't see he was notified on his talk page.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
This is an ongoing problem with David. There was a WQA report about his behavior and a somewhat related, drawn-out ANI report that included him a little more than a month ago, albeit related to a different set of incidents. However, he seems to have removed from his talk page the notices and the resulting WQA advice given. I would add that David is not only disruptive on the talk pages but also outright uncivil with anyone who disagrees with him (essentially calling them idiots or accusing them of being part of a conspiracy to suppress the truth). --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't comment on speed of light, but the volume of traffic in the related WT:PHYS thread has been making it nigh-unreadable for other purposes for the last couple of days. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the dispute at speed of light was ongoing long before I got involved. I entered as a mediator in order to try and ascertain what the dispute was about. I discovered that it was about attempts to prevent another editor from elaborating on something important. The 1983 re-definition of the metre, in terms of the speed of light, has had a major effect on the concept of the speed of light. The non-physics readership will not be aware of this major change from the traditional approach, and so some kind of elaboration is necessary in the article. I do not see any basis here for an allegation of disruptive editing. I have not made many edits on the main speed of light article. As for FyzixFighter's opportunist intervention here, it should be noted that FyzixFighter has conducted a prolonged campaign of undermining my edits. The latest case involves removing referenced material from a history chronology. FyzixFighter's 'modus operandi' is to consistently remove edits of mine and then pose as a victim of incivility. He will go to the talk page claiming that he doesn't want to discuss the topic in question because I am being uncivil to him, and he will seldom engage in discussion of the actual physics in question. A closer scrutiny of FyzixFighter's behaviour will reveal that he is merely removing edits that contain physics that he wasn't previously aware of. David Tombe (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

David Tombe page banned[edit]

Jehochman, Your example of my assumption of bad faith was the very passage which I have just written above in my own defence. The other examples which you have cited prove absolutely nothing at all. David Tombe (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with a topic ban. The first action should be to decide, on he basis of a consensus on the talk page, that a certain topic that has been discussed with David has been settled and continue to discussing this is not relevant to improving the article. Then, if David (or someone else) kicks off yet another discussion on the same topic, we can simply revert the talk page. Then, if David were to revert that deletion and edit war over the talk page contents, you have a more basic edit warring problem which can be brought there. Count Iblis (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Given that this falls under the Pseudoscience (WP:ARBCRANK WP:ARBPS) decision, this really should have been at AE. Anyway...could someone please provide a link where David Tombe was given a warning with a link to that same decision? Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting to see evidence regarding what crank science or pseudoscience Jehochman has in mind. My singular point on the talk page was that another editor should have the right to draw the very important distinction between the speed of light in the traditional sense, and the speed of light subsequent to the 1983 decision to define the metre in terms of the speed of light. That distinction needs to be made high up in the article, for the benefit of the non-physics readership.

Hardly a basis for a topic ban or accusations of crankery or pseudoscience. Can anybody see an edit of mine on the first history page of the speed of light article? David Tombe (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I imagine that the "crank science or pseudoscience Jehochman has in mind" is the same as the crank science that David has raised repeatedly here where every other editor has either pointed out (often repeatedly) the scientific errors or that it is WP:OR or both.--Michael C. Price talk 16:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I support Jehochman's action, but want to note that this has little to do with pseudoscience. It may be "bad science" or "crankery", but those aren't the same thing as pseudoscience. The reasons that Jehochman gave are the correct reasons. Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
"I am not an admin"...but Jehochman appears to have acted quite properly, and in a timely fashion to prevent further disruption. My opinion itself is worth little, but I fully support him in this case. Doc Tropics 17:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I support Jehochman's topic ban. I keep seeing the name David Tombe coming up in connection with strange edits of physics articles. I reserve judgment on whether quite enough data has been collected in the present discussion compared to how a proper topic ban is presented. If Tombe has not yet been properly notified of WP:ARBCRANK WP:ARBPS, I support giving a proper notification, and then reissuing the ban if Tombe does not make any concrete promise of reform in the mean time. If it turns out that any formalities have been overlooked, consider refiling the matter at WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ed, The strange physics edits that you are talking about perhaps ultimately came down to one issue. That issue was,

The identification of one of the terms in the radial planetary orbital equation as centrifugal force.

I got into alot of trouble over that, but I was eventually proved correct. I can't think of any more off hand. But the current issue here seems to be because of the opinions that I have been expressing on the speed of light talk page. It's certainly not about actual edits on the main article. Ultimately, I have been trying to educate these guys about the fact that the famous equation c^2 = 1/(εμ) is purely a consequence of experimental measurement of the right hand side. They have been arguing against this and showing me Maxwell's equations, as if I had never seen them before, and they have all totally overlooked the fact that Maxwell incorporated the above equation into his own equations as a consequence of an experiment in 1856 by Wilhelm Eduard Weber and Rudolf Kohlrausch. I have shown them all the exact paragraph in the relevant paper. See page 49 of the pdf link at [19]. There is no bad science, or pseudoscience, or crank science going on on my part.

This vendetta has been motivated purely because they have all been proved wrong. When has anybody ever been topic banned from an article on such minimal input, when others who are actually engaged in an edit war on that page are not similarly banned? David Tombe (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Although Jehochman's first charge looks proven I am not convinced by the evidence provided that David has indulged in "General incivility and assumptions of bad faith." I would acquit him of that charge.--Michael C. Price talk 18:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
As I remarked before, David has a history of incivility and assumptions of bad faith. See the WP:WQA report placed last month, the warning/advice resulting from the report, and other previous examples: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. Some recent examples appear to indicate that he has yet to understand that such behavior is wrong: [25], [26], [27]. I realize these aren't from the Speed of light dispute, but they do show a pattern of behavior that is disruptive. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm thicker skinned than some, but looking at the recent links I still see no violation of AGF. I do see someone who rates quite highly on the crackpot index and will never change. That should be the basis of the ban, IMO. --Michael C. Price talk 08:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I can admit that, after dealing with the editor's not so recent behavior for awhile, my tolerance for being told I delete stuff because I'm afraid of the truth and for being compared to the thought police has become greatly diminished. I'll work on having thicker skin. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

So then according to Michael Price, the crank science in question was in the textbooks up until relatively recently, and we have not even established yet if it has been totally removed from the textbooks. The crank science that Michael Price has drawn our attention to relates to an experiment that appears in modern advanced level physics textbooks which I used as a physics teacher. The question being posed at the wiki-physics project page is exactly about whether or not that experiment has been removed. David Tombe (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I logged this action in case it falls under WP:ARBPS. If not, the sanction is still appropriate in my responsibility as an administrator to protect the project from disruption.I could block the editor indefinitely. Instead, I chose to ban them from 2 of our 3,000,000 pages, a much lighter sanction. Jehochman Talk 22:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Severity is not the issue. If you're not following the terms of discretionary sanctions from that case, then it's an ordinary admin action and I don't see how it can be logged there. Those terms were specifically designed to avoid any action, without a warning. As the imposing admin, can you (or someone else) please provide a diff to where David Tombe was given a warning with a link to that case? Btw, was he counselled on taking steps to improve? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure if it's what you're looking for, but the thread at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Experimental_determination_of_the_electric_permittivity contains, among other things, several instances of editors trying to explain to him what sort of references and citations he'll need in order to make a case for the changes he wants to make to speed of light. Lots of examples of him using circular reasoning and either not understanding or not acknowledging the points raised by other participants in the thread. If the WP:PHYS thread is still continuing in the same vein by the time the weekend rolls around, I'll put together a proper diff list for you and ask for further sanctions, but right now I'm going to hope that discussion will yield a solution. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No Christopher, This is just an opportunist swipe from you because I showed you to be wrong when you claimed that the equation c^2 = 1/(με) can be derived theoretically. I made my final statement on the matter at the wiki-physics project page. You yourself know the truth fine well, but you're never likely to admit it. You know that c^2 = 1/(με) is a numerical relationship which follows purely as a consequence of the experimental determination of the right hand side. David Tombe (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I rest my case. This is also probably a good example of civility and AGF concerns. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Christopher, You are rather presumptuous in claiming on your edit title that I received quite a bit of a coaching at the wiki-physics page, when in fact it was you that received the coaching. You previously had no idea how the numerical relationship c^2 = 1/(με) came to be in Maxwell's equations. And it seems that none of the rest of you did either. This is one big witch hunt because you were all shown to be wrong. And for you, this opportunistic swipe is just one big face saver. David Tombe (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually David, you have significantly shifted your position as a result of the coaching on the wiki-physics page (which is good) although you deny this (which is bad). BTW, although I earlier acquited you of violation of AGF you should be aware the recent statement (above) You yourself know the truth fine well, but you're never likely to admit it. violates AGF. I think you know what the consequences of this are likely to be. --Michael C. Price talk 09:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael, In what respect did I shift my position? Can you please clarify this statement. David Tombe (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Endorse per EdJohnston. There are many troubling examples that demonstrate problematic conduct, and attempts made by involved editors to reason with him, including both here and here. Btw, thank you Christopher Thomas for highlighting these examples. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Ncmvocalist, What about my attempts to reason with Christopher Thomas? What makes you so sure that Christopher Thomas was the one that was correct in the dispute? David Tombe (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
David Tombe, I was purely referring to the conduct issues and approach, rather than who was correct in the content issues. Jehochman has been extremely generous by imposing a restriction that still leaves you with the ability to responsibly edit any other pages on Wikipedia - there's a lot to choose from. I suggest that rather than let this privillege go to waste, you should reflect on your approach in the various examples users refer to, and find ways to improve it if you encounter similar situations. This may involve reviewing fundamental Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, I was not particulary active at the speed of light article. I heard that in other areas of wikipedia, a person was given a 3 hour block for very definite incivility, and that caused a huge backlash that lingered for a while. What exactly is so generous about an indefinite topic ban for an article that I wasn't even active on at the time. I was nothing to do with the recent edit war there. And let's get these supposed incivilities into perspective. Under severe provocation, I doubt if anything I have said on this thread amounts to anything worth talking about. On the contrary I have seen no end of assumptions of bad faith being directed at me on no evidence at all other than empty inuendo, such as flashing a lengthy physics debate at a non-physics readership. Nobody seems to be worrying about the freedom of others to go around calling me a crank. So if you are going to make inuendos about my conduct issues and approach, I need you to be more specific. I do not accept Christopher Thomas's self appointed status as a physics arbitrator and I discount his allegations totally. David Tombe (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Does it matter that an uninvolved Admin supports the page ban as appropriate? Or am I beating a dead horse by offering my opinion? I've read this thread & the related one at WT:PHYS, which show at the least David Tombe is violating no original research; at the most, he is being disruptive over insisting on the inclusion of his own idiosyncratic understanding of physics. Maybe he should have a look at working on some of the 3 million other articles on Wikipedia: for example, I can't imagine working on the biographical stubs of physicists would lead to the same issues that these two articles did. -- llywrch (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure about that. There seems to be another long thread at Talk:History_of_centrifugal_and_centripetal_forces#Johann Bernoulli II where he's claiming one interpretation of an issue and several other editors are disagreeing and trying to explain to him the basis of their disagreement. If I understand correctly, a page name change is also muddying the waters for that discussion. However, I've only taken a superficial look at the thread's contents. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Christopher, That's enough of your assumptions of bad faith. You have misinterpreted the situation there too. There was an issue about whether or not Maxwell's use of centrifugal force to explain magnetic repulsion is an admissible topic for the article entitled 'history of centrifugal force'. I was suggesting that it is an admissible topic. End of story. You are coming here making malicious allegations because of a debate at WT:PHYS that didn't go your way. You come here in front of a non-physics audience acting as if you and the others at WT:PHYS are the three wise men, and that you had a big problem not being able to explain some issue in physics to me, and you assume that everybody will automatically think that you must be right. Drop it. Why not go to Uncle Tom's Cabin and stir up a civil war there? David Tombe (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No Llywrch, You have got it so badly wrong. Let's finally hear what the truth is. The WT:PHYS thread contains a query regarding changes that have taken place in the textbooks since 1983 in relation to the re-definition of the metre. This change seems to have had the effect of reversing the direction of a well known equation in physics. That equation is c^2 = 1/εμ. This equation is an empirical equation which reads from right to left. It's origins lie in an experiment that was performed in 1856 by Wilhelm Eduard Weber and Rudolf Kohlrausch. The equation links experimentally determined values in electromagnetism to the speed of light. Since 1983 however, this equation has been reversed and now reads from left to right. We now use a defined speed of light to define the quantity ε on the right hand side. The argument at WT:PHYS involved the attempts of about four editors to persuade me that the equation c^2 = 1/εμ follows from Maxwell's equations. All of them, with the exception of Christopher Thomas failed to comprehend the fact that Maxwell himself incorporated the numerical relationship from the 1856 experiment by Weber and Kohlrausch. Christopher Thomas at first tried to say the same thing as the other three. But when I pointed this fact out again, he backtracked and said that the experimental bit is only needed for the numerical relationship. I told him that that is exactly what I had been saying. Christopher Thomas then came to ANI and claimed that many people had been trying to reason with me but that I didn't acknowledge or didn't want to acknowledge what they had been saying. He then started to discuss gathering evidence with a view to what sanctions would be appropriate for me. The actual thread at WT:PHYS was then actually presented as an exhibit of evidence to prove that I was being disruptive. Christopher Thomas was obviously totally confident that the non-physics readership here would believe everything that he said. I then defended myself against this malicious allegation and gross assumption of bad faith, as a result of which I was then accused of assuming bad faith for likewise doubting that he didn't want to acknowledge the true facts. It seems that accusations and allegations are fine when they come from some editors, but that from other editors, even a defence can be taken to be an assumption of bad faith. So my question to you, Llwrych is 'Just what makes you so sure that Christopher Thomas is right?' All these allegations about crankery and pseudoscience are an attempt to hide the truth of what was discussed at WT:PHYS. And all these allegations of incivility are just rubbish. David Tombe (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I made no such backtrack. The relevant posts are here and here, and say the same thing in slightly different ways. This is an excellent example of you misunderstanding what editors are trying to say to you. After the second try, it became clear that useful communication was unlikely to be possible, so I stopped participating in the thread. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Christopher, but that just doesn't wash. If it was merely a case of you failing to persuade me of something in physics, then why come to ANI to make a serious allegation and to talk about sanctions, and with such a confidence as if it was already decided beyond any doubt that you were right, and as if it was a matter of certainty that everybody here was going to believe you. Your allegation against me is one big sick joke. David Tombe (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

David Tombe, which of my statements are you saying "No" to? That an uninvolved Admin supports the page ban? Or that I'm beating a dead horse? Or perhaps my understanding that you are promoting original research? If you are not promoting original research, then please share with us a reliable source which supports your assertion that the redefinition of the meter in 1983 is both relevant to the importance of this equation & notable. Otherwise, kindly submit your findings to the appropriate periodical for review and publication & drop this line of argument which has gone on far, far too long. You have been banned from editting those pages, & so far you have not said anything which addresses that ban, let alone convinced me that it is not the proper solution. -- llywrch (talk) 06:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Llywrch, You have got two closely related topics confused here. The discussion at WT:PHYS related to an issue at the vacuum permittivity page. The isse there was about whether or not the experimental determination of electric permittivity was removed from the textbooks subsequent to the re-definition of the metre in 1983. I was basically asking a question, and the first answer that I received was from Steve Byrnes, who suggested that the experiment in question is indeed still in the textbooks. But then Headbomb came in and formally stated the 'new physics' position as regards units and definitions, which we all know anyway. I reminded him that the equation in question is an experimental result. The argument with other editors then followed. This particular ANI thread was opened up by editor from the speed of light page because of opinions that I was expressing on the speed of light talk page. I was backing up an number of other editors on the issue that the re-definition of the metre, and its affect on the speed of light needs to be clarified for the benefit of the non-physics readership. Sources pointing out the tautology in the new definition were provided at that discussion. Chritopher Thomas then entered this thread as a 'novus actus interventus' and changed the subject to the discussion at WT:PHYS. He held up the very existence of this discussion at WT:PHYS as an exhibit to prove disruptive behaviour. He boldly assumed without any question that the entire non-physics readership here would accept his verdict on the matter without any doubt. He seemed absolutely confident that nobody here might remotely suspect that Chritopher Thomas could be wrong. David Tombe (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not confusing any topics here. I am not addressing the merits of your idea. I don't know why you seem unable to comprehend that. I was -- & still am -- limiting myself to its appropriateness for Wikipedia. And to repeat myself again, your obsession with this getting this idea into Wikipedia is clearly a violation of the rules of Wikipedia: No original research. Unless you can show that this is not some discovery of your own -- that this is a matter of interest in at least one article published in an appropriate periodical or electronic forum -- you are heading towards more serious sanctions. And answering every mention that this is not appropriate for Wikipedia (due to concerns about original research, notability, etc.) with yet another explanation of this idea only accelerates your journey to this regrettable destination. -- llywrch (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No Llywrch, I do not have an obsession about putting this point into the article. I was merely backing up Brews ohare. When I first went to Brews's talk page a couple of weeks ago to ask him what this dispute was about, I didn't even know anything about the 1983 definition of the metre. As you can see from my recent dialogues with Brews, I was a bit confused as to what the argument was about. But I investigated the facts and then realized that Brews had a very legitimate point. It annoyed me to see how everybody was ganging up against him and trying to sweep his point under the carpet. So I joined in at the talk page to emphasize that point. I made very few edits to the main article, and I had already stopped editing on the main article well before the recent edit war. I was nothing to do with the recent edit war when the page was locked. I have ended up being the only person to be banned from the pages in question. This fact demonstrates a gross act of bias on the part of the administration, and I am currently appealing to Jimbo Wales to have the ban lifted as a matter of principle. Meanwhile, I have been advising Brews ohare to show his sources, quote from them loud and clear so that all you administrators can hear, and then quietly pull out. Because it is a waste of time for Brews and others to have to keep repeating themselves to people who are clearly incapable of being coached, or who don't want to know. David Tombe (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I regret this ban on D Tombe, and think it is unwarranted. He has a different view from orthodoxy on several issues, but that does not mean his contributions are not useful. He has added helpful discussions of historical matters in the past, and on this page speed of light has simply sought to gain attention for some misconceptions by many of the editors contributing at the moment who are unable to argue points logically or by reference to sources and would rather settle matters by this sort of administrative action executed by an administrator who is perhaps not able or perhaps unwilling to delve into the details of the matter. This block should be rescinded. Brews ohare (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Brews ohare, your comment might be taken more seriously were you to properly sign your post. As for the question of "obsession" & "good faith", the matter would never have reached WP:AN/I had he let the matter go long before. Or at least respond to this discussion in the expected manner -- addressing the points, rather than repeat the discredited matter. Both of you are getting tedious on this issue. -- llywrch (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I mistyped 3 tildes instead of 4 when signing. I'm not surprised you find the matter tedious, but that is because admins fail to enforce discussion of sources in place of opinions. Opinions just recycle, and most of the speed of light discussion has been recycling of opinion made possible by refusal to address presented and quoted sources. Brews ohare (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair response on the tildes. However, about this "refusal to address presented and quoted sources", had David Tombe presented a link to this material several days ago, rather than presenting every other imaginable response, we might have had a useful conversation on the issue. Instead, I have been subjected to a practical lesson in why so many regulars at WP:PHYS complain about him: I honestly don't know if he is trolling me or truly is too dense to understand anything less subtle than a whack on the back of the head. -- llywrch (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Llywrch, This is a demonstration of your total bias. You said that I should have dropped the matter long before. You obviously haven't even studied this prolonged argument. I was only involved for a very short time. And when you say that I should have responded to the discussion in the expected manner, what exactly was that supposed to mean? Can you please clarify that statement. Please pick out the very best example that you can find where I have not responded in the expected manner. Some of us here are a bit too long on the tooth for these silly games in which one lot of editors are free to express their opinions and deliver insults, and where another lot are considered to be cheeky if they dare to answer back. Drop it Llyrwch! David Tombe (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Easily done: look in the thread of this argument. I originally posted my support of this page ban, & you immediately replied with a regurgitation of your opinion on the matter -- not a response to my point -- you had violated the rule on original research in that discussion. When I clarified my statement, you repeated your non sequitor, talking about your idea & not failing to respond to my allegation of original research. As for rudeness, your comment to Christopher Thomas above on 08:24, 20 August 2009 is a prime example. And as for dropping this topic, I'm perfectly content to drop this at any point. You seem well on your way to being banned from Wikipedia, & need no help from me. -- llywrch (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Llyrwch, Please show me the original research. And as regards Christopher Thomas, once again you demonstrate your bias. Christopher Thomas comes here with a copy of a debate that took place at the wiki-physics project and he presents it as evidence of disruptive behaviour and starts to talk about sanctions. He presents it to a non-physics readership in the hope that they will believe what he says to be true, and also knowing that others who are knowledgeable about the details will know it not to be true. That is a method of whipping up hysteria and it is a method that has been used to stir up civil wars in recent history. David Tombe (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought you wanted me to drop this thread. Oh well. The original research content is obvious. From your post above:
changes that have taken place in the textbooks since 1983 in relation to the re-definition of the metre. This change seems to have had the effect of reversing the direction of a well known equation in physics. That equation is c^2 = 1/εμ.
Who else has raised this issue in the relevant peer-reviewed literature? If no one, then it is either original research or a question more suited for the Help Desk. If someone has, then furnish the citation. Simple as that. And to conclude, your comments above above Christopher Thomas are inappropriate & uncivil; you can make the same point without resorting to statements like "That is a method of whipping up hysteria and it is a method that has been used to stir up civil wars in recent history". Were I not involved in this conversation with you, I'd block you for it, & invite any uninvolved Admin to act appropriately on it. -- llywrch (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

OK Llyrwch, Now we're finally getting to the point. The physics which you have discussed here relates to the debate at WT:PHYS. As you can see, I was merely asking a question. I was not pushing this issue in any article. It was quite a legitimate question and I gave my final verdict at WT:PHYS yesterday. One thing is absolutely sure, and that is the fact that the thread at WT:PHYS did not in any way constitute disruptive behaviour. It was a rotten malicious act on the part of Christopher Thomas to come here to AN/I and present the thread to a non-physics readership claiming that it amounted to disruptive behaviour, in the full knowledge that they would believe him, and in the full knowledge that I would know that the allegation was not true. It's time that you got off your high horse and stopped this overwhelming concern for perceived insults against Christopher Thomas. Ironically, Christopher Thomas was the only one on the thread who actually grasped the point in question. But rather than saying 'Oh yes! You have a point', he came straight to AN/I with this nasty malicious allegation. You don't appear to have made the slightest attempt to have investigated this matter in an impartial manner. There were insults delivered against me by another of the contributors to the WT:PHYS thread. Michael Price was boldly going around labelling me as a crackpot. You didn't blink an eyelid at that. So I suggest that you just drop this issue once and for all because it is one big farce. David Tombe (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I would drop this issue -- maybe you missed the part of my first post to this thread where I asked if I was beating a dead horse by offering my opinion -- but you have been so stubborn in missing my points that I felt compelled to try to explain myself. Sheesh, you're still banned from those two pages, & still I endorse that action. The only change from my original post & now, after everything that has been written, is that I'm convinced that you are either a kook or a troll. Maybe this discussion has convinced yet a few more people one of those is the case; in any case, neither of those are people the community wants here. Someone who isn't a kook or a troll would be concerned about being thought to be one, & consider changing his behavior to escape this misperception. And that said, I have nothing more to say. -- llywrch (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed uncivil shortcut[edit]

For the record, I have removed and deleted the WP:ARBCRANK shortcut. This shortcut is uncivil and implies that people are "cranks" if they are sanctioned under this particular decision. Keep in mind that editors on either side of the Pseudoscience issue can be sanctioned; I am fairly certain someone whose agenda is promoting mainstream science is not going to appreciate being labeled as a crank. If someone wants to go updating the shortcuts used in the sections above, they can use WP:ARBPS or WP:ARB/PS. Risker (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Had that been tagged for speedy deletion, I would have declined it. I would prefer you undelete it and send it to RfD, please. I don't think your interpretation of the shortcut is the only or primary interpretation. Protonk (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I support Risker's speedy delete. It's a form of soapboxing, and totally inappropriate. It's speedyable under G10. Horologium (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
That's an exceptionally broad reading of G10. Protonk (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Let's not argue about non-essential details like a shortcut! Jehochman Talk 23:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
All hail political correctness. --Michael C. Price talk 08:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

IP sock evading page ban?[edit]

Since David Tombe was page banned, (talk · contribs · WHOIS) suddenly surfaced. This IP has a total of 4 contribs, all today. The first is a diatribe here against the admin who page banned Tombe[28] (since deleted). The other 3 are edits (since reverted) to Speed of light, from which Tombe is page banned. Coincidence? —Finell (Talk) 20:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Finell, I want to be quite clear about this and I'm getting sick of all these malicious allegations. That IP server is not mine and I did not make those edits. I don't get involved in matters to do with the speed of light in inertial frames of reference. And I have seen many edits in the past from a variation of that number. I haven't checked it, but I'll bet that it comes from Virginia. Please don't make accusations until you have got your facts straight. David Tombe (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
It's trivial to check this either way via CheckUser, and a serious enough issue (potential ban evasion) for checkuser to be worthwhile. Anyone care to do so? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Finell, I've just noticed that you have written about this on the speed of light talk page. Since, I am not allowed to defend myself on that page, I'd be obliged if you could return there and explain the situation fully. David Tombe (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a Verizon IP address that resolves to a company based in Virginia. David, whether or not it was you, you must admit it reeks of duckism, so don't jump all over people. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

BWilkins, All I'm seeing here are words like 'disruptive editing', 'crankery', 'assumption of bad faith', 'incivility', and now 'ban evasion'. There was no disruptive editing because I wasn't even in the front page history log of the article in question. There has been no crankery because all I have been saying is that c^2 = 1/(εμ) reads from right to left, and not from left to right. The allegations of 'assumption of bad faith' have all been based on defensive comments that I have made against another person's assumption of bad faith on this very thread. I have been accused of not seeing sense when coached by many. The truth was that the many in question came to me one by one claiming that Maxwell's equations proved c^2 = 1/(εμ). I told each one in turn that Maxwell himself got that result from an 1856 experiment of Weber and Kohlrausch. One of those many was Christopher Thomas who then came to this thread to discuss sanctions as a consequence of that interchange. The incivility has already been firmly dismissed by one of my opponents who has been referring to me as a crank. Nobody bats an eyelid at the insults and assumptions of bad faith that come at me from others. And now we are hearing cries of ban evasion because some anon edits the article and speaks up in my defence. And now you are telling me not to jump all over people! I've worked very hard to get some physics articles written more accurately for the benefit of the readership. There is no need for this kind of carry on. David Tombe (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is evidence of ban evasion, checkuser should be requested. There's not much point in alleging something unless efforts are made to resolve the accusation. Jehochman Talk 13:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The evidence that David Tombe was responsible for the edits by the IP seems to me to be extremely weak. I expect that a request for checkuser would be refused. The editor behind the IP seems likely to me to be the same one responsible for piping up in support of David Tombe in the previous AN/I thread where his activities were discussed. The IPs concerned on that occasion were (talk · contribs · WHOIS), (talk · contribs · WHOIS), (talk · contribs · WHOIS), (talk · contribs · WHOIS), all of which are Verizon's. Several other editors pointed out then that it was unlikely to be Tombe ([29], [30], [31], [32]).
David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

David W., Thanks for pointing that out. And come to think of it, why were the anonymous's edits here at ANI deleted anyway? Is it only the edits of critics that are allowed at ANI? David Tombe (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The edits of this user and the IPs certainly do dovetail quite nicely though when viewed in totality. This certainly is WP:DUCK territory. Tarc (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, Go and check when I last edited the speed of light article and ask yourself 'is there any connection between the contents?' David Tombe (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: David Tombe evidently had some issues logging in, and edited this page logged out a couple of times a short while ago. His IP is therefore on public record, and resolves to BTNET in the UK. The Verizon IPs are unlikely to be him - although who they are beats the hell out of me. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

To set the record straight, I am not David Tombe, however I would like to be him, and admire him very much. What I admire most is his dedication to the integrity of truth in physical science. This is contrasted to the generally poor quality that I find in the typical Wikipedia article. In short, David seems to be a lot smarter than you guys in general. I do think that Brews Ohare is on the right track as well. I am a long time student of physics and science and it makes me cringe to read a Wikipedia article. I generally find numerous mistakes, mistsatements and general distortions of fact every time I read one. I certainly would like to see the poor quality of the articles improved. It seems to me that the conspiracy of editors is to keep the errors and misstatements in the articles. So David Tombe is my hero, because he is one of the few brave fellows who really is trying to do something about the poor quality of Wikipedia, while the rest of you editors seem to like the way it is, full of errors and misinterpretations. I vote to keep Mr Tombe here working away, busy keeping you guys honest, and demanding that the quality of Wikipedia live up to the users expectations. (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

And the best of British to you Mr. Yank. David Tombe (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
This is either an elaborate ruse or some kind of really creepy Wiki-otaku. Tarc (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The only Wiki-Okatu here is on the part of the editors obsessed with the removal of legitimate criticism of the pervasive mis-statements and generally biased viewpoints presented in Wikipedia. The Wiki-okatu here in smearing Mr Tombe is pretty unsavory and it shows clearly that Wikipedia has a bias and it is the intent of the editors to maintain that bias so they can stroke their own egos. Now that's Wiki-okatu for you. By the way, is it my imagination, or just a fact that there is a Wiki term to apply to any situation when the editors want to eliminate other legitimate editors that are better informed? They just accuse them of some obscure wiki-something. That is really Orwellian in my opinion. (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
It isn't a wikipedia term; otaku is a Japanese term for excessive-compulsive fanboyism. Tarc (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I though it just meant obsessive compulsive silliness. But if it isn't a legitimate wiki term why mention it? Are you trying to create a new one? Don't you have enough of those already? Plain english is always sufficient, don't you think? The complusion to denigrate others on this site is clearly evident here. I am wondering why you don't just get to work and fix the mistakes in the Wiki articles? (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt that there is a crusade against D Tombe that will use any pretext for complaint. Its origin is hard to pin down. As it seems unlikely that it actually has to do with D Tombe per se, I am concerned that it has more to do with editor reaction to minority viewpoints: a persistent effort to present a view, no matter how accurate or well documented by accessible sources, will lead to editor hostility when it is opposed by a number of editors, even though they make no attempt to support their opinions by sources. That is a kind of groupthink attitude that is quite pervasive among WP editors, and sometimes enforced by admins simply because it is a majority view (not a supported or accurate view). Brews ohare (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Brews, Thanks for your support. But the sad thing is that not once on this thread have the relevant issues of balance in scientific articles even been discussed. These pantomines become reminiscent of the mock trial in Alice in Wonderland. They can be summed up by what I would call the "How dare you insult Christopher Thomas!" syndrome. It's a free for all as far as hurling abuse and malicious allegations are concerned when it's in one direction. But you'll notice how certain bullies couple it all with 'and don't answer back, or you'll be blocked!'. If you've come here to make a reasonable representation on the issue of combating group think and abuse of the consensus rule, then I fear that you have come to the wrong page. David Tombe (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

personal attack from recently unblocked User: Koalorka[edit]

User: Koalorka just returned from a block that was shortened under controversial circumstances. Since his questionable unblock, he has returned to prove that he is clearly not ready to discontinue his abuse: comma ... it is not my goal to match wits here with stubborn basement dwellers...You've proven time and time again that you're not at all interested in contributing anything of value to Wikipedia...your persistence in stalking people in matters completely unrelated to yourself is astounding. I count 6 blocks for harassment/NPA in his block history so far. I have not interacted with him directly in the past 6 months or more; however, he has decided to go out of his way to attack me in a discussion that was about an admin possibly misusing his tools -- the discussion was not directly about Koalorka. The unblocking admin even admitted that he did not object to Koalorka being characterized as abusive. there is definitely a pattern of abuse here. Theserialcomma (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

And once again I've had to notify the user in question about this thread. Notification is MANDATORY, not optional. Exxolon (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the heads up. Further evidence that the user has no interest in anything content-related. This is a normal response for Theserialcomma, every time his disruptive editing patterns and wiki-stalking are pointed out, the user responds with a barrage of ANIs, RFCs and any other imaginable means of suppressing their opponent. My editing history stands on its own merit. Most of my blocks comes from foolishly responding to provocations such as this. Koalorka (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Could I suggest know...thinking this stuff about him. Not actually typing it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
more unprovoked personal attacks. further evidence that this user has no interest in collaborating in a civil manner. after 6 blocks for NPA you'd think someone would learn to relax, you know, their personal attacks. Theserialcomma (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to as that if the ANIs and RFCs are meant only to harass you, why have you been blocked so many times? If they were solely a means of personally attacking you, wouldn't Theserialcomma be the one to be blocked after these? Kotiwalo (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not specifically referring to my case. Theserialcomma has previously been blocked for harassing and baiting others, I'm simply pointing it out now because he recently made statements against an admin he's clashed with before. The difference being, I don't start ANIs for the sole purpose of retribution. Koalorka (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
ETA: I'm not going to begin digging up diffs, as I'm not really interested in crusading against him. My words were simply meant to advise those unaware of his numerous clashes with a number of editors involved with WP:Firearms, going back to a minor content dispute which I vaguely remember. Since then he's been involved in close to a dozen ANIs. He's developed a pattern of behaviour that is contradictory to "progress". Pointing out a disruptive trend is not a personal attack. I understand that my wording may be perceived as being snide and contemptuous. Koalorka (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
which part might be perceived incorrectly, the part where you said it is not my goal to match wits here with stubborn basement dwellers]? i could see how that might be perceived by some as a personal attack and not just "pointing out a disruptive trend". by the way, i have reported probably 10 people to ANI/ANE/etc., for incivility, edit warring, all sorts of things. That is what you do when users are abusive: you report them to admins. That is what I will do to you every single time you make personal attacks against me: You get reported. you've been blocked 6 times for NPA, sockpuppetry, and whatever else. you've been told repeatedly to stop and you won't. how long of a block do you need to stop making unprovoked personal attacks? [[33]] [[34]] Theserialcomma (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to share my opinion that from what I've seen, a significant portion of theserialcomma's activity on Wikipedia is being extremely hostile to others and trying to get other people in trouble. I think this is just another entry in a long line of ANIs he has filed against Koalorka. Koalorka isn't very friendly either, but it seems to me that theserialcomma repeatedly baits him and also files ANIs in the persuit of harassing him. But it would probably be good to get the opinions of other editors with more experience dealing with the two of them. Some guy (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, ANI is his third most favourite editing spot [35]. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you derive that information out of that page. Some guy (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Click on the link marked "most frequently edited pages" towards the bottom of the page. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, never noticed that. Some guy (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • are you people kidding me. you are making ad hominem attacks on my character which is irrelevant to the fact that koalorka made an unprovoked personal attack. i have not interacted with him at all in the past 6 months. he came onto an admin's talkpage to attack me. he is an abusive and uncivil user with 6 NPA blocks. the amount of times i've supposedly used ANI doesn't have anything to do with whether the user i just reported was uncivil. was he? either it's acceptable behavior for someone with 6 NPA blocks or not. incivility has no place here, and lame ad hominem attacks against the claimant is just poor argumentation. was it uncivil? are koalorka's unprovoked words acceptable? regardless of what you might think about me, i think i was attacked by a serial abuser and i reported it. that is what i tend to do. i believe that is what you are supposed to do. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
You seem to stalk him everywhere and incessantly attack him or try to get him in trouble. You had no connection in any way to the ANI discussion regarding Koalorka but you jumped in to attack George for supporting Koalorka. If you're actively trying to get Koalorka in trouble by constantly stalking and baiting him, your motives are bad. I agree that Koalorka is often hostile and not very good at working cooperatively, but this is a very inappropriate way to deal with the situation. If we were in kindergarten and I stole your lunch and you punched me and I told on you and you got in trouble and I didn't, would that be fair? You behavior is intrinsically tied with the equation; you are trying to dodge scrutiny to focus the blame on Koalorka. Some guy (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Yep, see my comments above. Personal attacks are not only allowed, but encouraged. Those who object to the attacks are the ones who get slapped down here. The person making the attacks gets coddled and tutted over because someone has the nerve to think that personal attacks shouldn't be tolerated. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
What? That's a damn far stretch of my words. I'm not really saying that Koalorka shouldn't be scrutinized, I don't want to make a decision either way about that, I just think Theserialcomma's motives should be questioned for all the reasons I've already said. I had a difficult battle a few weeks ago where an administrator tried to blame me for Koalorka attacking me, and I had to continuously argue that I wasn't baiting him and the whole thing was utterly ridiculous, but in the end Koalorka's block was upheld. EDIT: I don't care any more. Anyone can feel free to accept or ignore my comments. Some guy (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the underlying issue(s) or the contributions of any other involved editor, but I have blocked Koalaorka for 24 h for the "basement dweller" attack combined with his exhibiting continued battleground mentality in this thread. Personal attacks are not to be tolerated under any circumstances.  Sandstein  22:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say that Sandstein's block is consistent with the relevant policies. Chillum 00:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
All right, I'm sorry for throwing my hat in, I guess it was somewhat hypocritical of me. Some guy (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban of Theserialcomma and Koalorka[edit]

(Copied on WP:ANI and the users' talk pages and Wikipedia:Editing restrictions)
I'm going to one-up that. Every location in which Koalorka and Theserialcomma are butting heads has multiple uninvolved administrators participating. Their interactions have overwhelmingly been either baiting or attacking each other, and completely unrelated to article content, for a while now. Given that there's always an admin looking over their shoulder, they have no need to be reporting each other to ANI or WQA (or 3RR or anywhere else - someone else who can act will notice), and that they are unable to interact in a constructive manner, and that both have risen to the level of disruptive in responding to the other...
Koalorka and Theserialcomma are topic banned on each other. Broadly construed, neither may revert each others' edits, follow up a talk page comment by the other, comment on the others' talk page, or report the other to noticeboards.
If one violates, and no response is forthcoming within twelve hours, the other may make a single line notification to an uninvolved administrator with a link to the topic ban and the diff of the particular edit which violated it. If no response is forthcoming within 18 hours, a second admin, and if no response is forthcoming within 24 hrs a post to ANI with the same information. In no case may either party engage in additional discussion unless asked direct questions by uninvolved admins.
You both go to your corners and stay there. If one comes out swinging, they go down. If you both start swinging, you both go down.
Lest there be any question about it - this disruptive behavor on both of your parts has at this point exceeded community patience and the sum of your positive contributions to Wikipedia. Stop, or your tenures on Wikipedia are at the end. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
While this strikes me as a good solution, was there any discussion about it anywhere? Some guy (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Nope. It's within admin discretion to do this. The community may, of course, override it at any time. Discuss away if you have comments or concerns. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Is it? That doesn't seems substantiated by Wikipedia:Ban#Decision_to_ban. Some guy (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The policy is a little ambiguous as written, but similarly to how any administrator can indefinitely block someone, topic bans have similar dynamics.
We can and often do have a community discussion / proposal prior - and if one is done, and a consensus is reached, the topic ban then is something that has to be appealed by Arbcom or by a second community discussion, not a single admin's fiat, even a well thought out and well justified one.
Topic bans outside of areas Arbcom has designated can be issued by an admin - but are subject to revocation by an admin, or by the community.
Admin can do this - admin, community, or arbcom can override.
Community can do this - arbcom or community can override.
Arbcom can do this - Arbcom has to override, or Jimbo, technically.
Admins do it by individual WP:BOLD initiative more often than the community - every few weeks. Not every day, but we fortunately don't have all that many deeply divisive disruptive users. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

GWH has a conflict of interest here. I complained about his ability to admin fairly yesterday, and so this is no surprise. Please show diffs that justify this, and also i would like an uninvolved admin's input Theserialcomma (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

As I have stated on Theserialcomma's talk page, I don't believe I have a conflict of interest, but I think it's entirely appropriate if other uninvolved admins review and the community comments. I think that the situation has made the necessity of this edit restriction self-evident - many community members, beyond myself, are expressing that they are at the limits of their patience with all sides. This is fundamentally protective to both parties - if they do not stop, they are likely to end up indefblocked soon, and this is the cleanest and fairest way to get them both to stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

as i said LONG before you punitively attempted to punish me with a topic ban for ME getting attacked, WITHOUT DIFFS! i have no faith in your ability to admin fairly. i'd appreciate some diffs to justify this topic ban, and an uninvolved admin's (not jeske couriano!) input. and please provide diffs. thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  • i request diffs to justify my topic ban --for the fourth time--, and an uninvolved admin's input on whether this is appropriate based on the facts and GWH's COI. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Chummer, shut the frag up! Practically all your contributions history is slotting some chummer off, and then going Buck Rogers on them with drek accusations of harassment and ad hominem attacks. You are not the victim under any circumstance, TSC, you are the agent provocateur. Now slot off! -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 19:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Nice use of science-fictionish vocabulary there. :) — Rickyrab | Talk 01:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • So you want diffs for prolonged harassment, chummer? That's like asking for a snapshot of a bank during an off-period during a string of robberies. Your contributions history is the only evidence necessary, TSC, and I don't like the fact you're insinuating yourself in unrelated affairs, only damning yourself even more. Keep that screamer open, chummer, and I'll have no recourse but to go to WP:AN and ask for a community ban for harassment of countless others, personal attacks, and general refusal to assume good faith. I've had it with your self-victimization, chummer, especially since the evidence is YOU provoke every response you get. Stop acting like a bakebrain! -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 21:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Jeske, that's enough. You're crossing the line into personal attacks against Theserialcomma, here and elsewhere, and that's not helpful or constructive (and not good admin behavior). Please don't make the situation worse or cause another incident by your actions here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
At this point, I would strongly suggest an RfC/User on Theserialcomma. There have been multiple threads in a very few weeks here on ANI that have followed the same pattern - TSC comes to ANI with a complaint, is accused of baiting, lashes out at GWH and demands input from uninvolved admins, and finally dissolves into a snipe-fest with Jeske. This pattern serves no purpose but to aggravate all the involved parties and take up ANI space. McJEFF (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

C.Kent87's unblock request[edit]

Resolved: Account unblocked. User:Seddon 05:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Raising this here since the blocking admin, Seddon doesn't seem to be around (the unblock req is pending since last Thursday). The user has been blocked after this Sockpuppet Investigation, where he was found using multiple accounts. After a second look, I confirm the connection and the fact that he has used his alt, Cali567 in a deceptive manner on several occasions. He's promising to stick to a single account in his unblock request, and considering his contributions I think we can give him a second chance. What do you think? -- Luk talk 08:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally feel that he can afford to wait a little longer for Seddon to review. This will not only give Seddon the chance to comment and act if he so wishes, but also the user concerned some time to reflect rathor than re-entering the editor pool immediately with little or no time to seriously apprehend that he was in the wrong and that he needs to be follow wikipedia's policies and guidelines more carefully. An un-block request (imho) is almost an instinctive reaction to a block and can be well written with no brain effort what so ever, whereas some time away from the wiki will allow the user to get out of any drama cycles that they may have been in that would cause them to degrade to sockpuppeting. I feel a reduction in the block is warrented, perhaps to the duration of a week from the original date, but I would not go as far as to remove it all together.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
It'll be a week since he was blocked in a few hours, so I don't see your point. From the unblock request, it seems to me he has done plenty of reflecting already. Seddon seems to be around, so I'm not sure what we're waiting for.--Atlan (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
*bangs head on wall* Aye, your right.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I left a message on Closedmouth's talk page endorsing the unblock, and as seen he was the reviewing admin presumed he would do the unblock. My endorsement still stands. Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 22:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks :) -- Luk talk 12:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


Logos5557 (talk · contribs) insists on uploading copyrighted images under "fair use" for their private article which, after much prancing around on AfD, they are condescending to host in their user space. I considered just speedily-deleting the lot, but I opted for attempting to give the images the benefit of doubt for possible fair use. I am now given last warnings and lectures on the purpose of Wikipedia adminship for my pains. I would be grateful if somebody else could handle this. See:

The first is straightforward as a copyrighted 1955 painting (by Picasso). The second is a card of the "Egyptian Tarot" taken from a 1951 book, which may or may not be in the public domain. The third is a copyrighted book cover warped beyond recognition by some image processing software into a mere decorative vignette.

thanks. --dab (𒁳) 08:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  • They're all non-free by the looks of it, and WP:NFCC#9 is very clear here, so I have removed them and left a note. Black Kite 09:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • dab, first of all; I did not insist on uploading copyrighted images, I just tried already uploaded (by myself) images to save from deletion, by adding proper licensing and fair-use rationale. However, in response, you did not agree with my trials (this is just fine) accompanied with incivil sarcastic tone directed to an individual named Rueckert, who has no relevance with this issue. You openly insulted an individual while performing your "adminship". You did not care of my good faith warnings and continued to use your incivil tone, this time directed towards me. You were warned just for your incivil style & tone. I see no obstacle now to realise the subject of my warning, i.e. arbitration request against your adminship. You really have to learn from scratch how to admin. Blackkite; you removed imageboxes completely, which was also not correct thing to do. You should just remove the images from wikipedia since they are not associated with any mainspace article. Logos5557 (talk) 11:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Labelling the images with a speedy template is better than simply deleting them. Other editors get an opportunity to find a mainspace article to place the images and preserve them. (myself I have saved a couple images this way) --Enric Naval (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


This user repeatedly delets interwiki to Azerbaijani wikipedia in this page [36], [37]. Please, explain him that it's inadmissible. Wertuose (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

  • It's not as simple as implied. This isn't just removal of interwiki links. This is removal of interwiki links to an article at the Azerbaijani Wikipedia with the title az:alban xaç daşları when it is clearly (diff diff, talkpage discussion) in dispute in this article whether that name is verifiable. I strongly suggest participating in that talk page discussion, Wertuose. Other editors are. Edit warring like this edit of yours will not lead to a good place. Be warned that if another administrator were to come along, you'd be right at the border of a three-revert rule block by now. As Wertuose and (talk · contribs), which identity and timing of content edits says is you logged out, you've done three reverts on this content within the past 24 hours. It's a strong suggestion for a reason. Discuss, don't edit war. Uncle G (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Benjiboi and myself at Wikipedia talk:Paid editing[edit]

For about a month now the whole Wikipedia:Paid editing discussion has been churning. For those familiar with the RfC on paid editing, it should come as no surprise such a page would generate more heat than light. However there has recently been a problem with the volume and nature of the edits, I suggest, coming from User:Benjiboi. There have been more than 100 talk page edits in the past few days, most of them coming from either Benjiboi or myself.

While discussion is encouraged, I feel that (i) the sheer volume of edits of the two of us on the talk page has reached a problem and (ii) discussions with Benjiboi are not going to be resolved through discussion. I believe, after a month of trying, it is easy someone to not be convinced by discussion when they are paid to not be convinced. Benjiboi, for instance, is not convinced that conflict of interest would apply to someone getting paid specifically to ensure a particular policy were created on Wikipedia. Other editors have noted his ownership of the WP:PAID text. The talk page is full, to my read, of comments which are tendentious, dilatory, or otherwise disruptive. He's repeatedly declined to participate in any dispute resolution.

I have come to realize my own responses to Benjiboi's comments have become enabling and themselves problematic. I proposed that he and I agree to a limit of one edit (one signed comment in a particular section, not comments in every section done in one edit) limit per day. He declined, so I come here to ask for community support in making this an obligatory sanction for both Benjiboi and myself. I am generally loathed to restrict access to talk pages, so I wanted something short of a ban, or even a topic ban, however things like