Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive599

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

Noticeboard archives


User Off2riorob[edit]

Resolved: User:DeanButlerFan blocked by User:Rklawton NawlinWiki (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob is violating his position by removing referenced material from the talkpage for Gordon Brown. I suggest you block him for trolling. (DeanButlerFan (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC))

Somehow, I think that suggesting that Gordon Brown is autistic (based on a random blog) may perhaps be a slight BLP problem. Could some kind admin handle this sock? -- Bfigura (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting it, it's a very well known fact taht he has Asperger's Syndrome. Hence his inability to live normally. Anyway, all the information is cited. Off2riorob is just a Labour supporter deliberately damaging the article. (DeanButlerFan (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC))

Can we please block the instigator of this report and close? TIA --Tom (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This is sooo not worth the time.[edit]

This kind of activity is what drives any sane person away.[1][2][3][4]. Wholesale revert, deletion and silence. That the well referenced and supported text could be improved is not even in the same universe as making every character printed vanish from the article entirely. (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh. What a surprise.[5] _99.141.249.226 (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Why is there no discussion of this on the talk page? –xenotalk 20:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a range-blocked IP user 99.1xx (see SPI case and ANI report) back to his usual tricks. Re-blocking the IP is the best solution, but the 3-month durations seem a little light. Now he's flaunting the 3RR as an act of "civil disobedience?" Xenophrenic (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 before I saw this. Feel free to increase. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[edit] (talk · contribs) continues to edit disruptively despite warnings and blocks. This IP has already been blocked 4 times. Twice for vandalism, once for vandalism and edit warring and once for just edit warring. Basically, they have been blocked several times for repeated behavior. Not only that, to continue their edit warring and disruptive editing, they used proxies and a sock. This can be seen with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AFROdr. It seems like they moved out of the proxies and went back to their original IP. Is it possible to block this IP or protect the pages their editing? Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 22:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing vandalism today. I'm seeing a content dispute. Take it to RfC. Rklawton (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Problem is that they are not open suggestion and instead have gone ahead continued to edit war despite comments from opposing editors. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 23:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
And the recommendation from RfC was? Rklawton (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Misread that there. Was thinking of something else. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 23:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
They do seem to be involved in an edit war and are in violation of 3RR. Woogee (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Block evasion from AFROdr also? Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 23:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I've blocked for 3 months. That IP address has been consistently disruptive for nearly 2 months now. They just recently came off a 1 month block and went right back to what they were doing. I'm hoping that this longer block will make them give it up for good and move on to something else. -- Atama 00:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael Doret[edit]

Whilst I'm ensnared in the world of NFCC, could someone please look at Michael Doret and make a decision on whether that gallery of (tagged for deletion) NFCC images is a bit of a no-no as far as NFCC usage is. I have an idea but as I seem to have pissed off too many people this evening already I'll let an admin decide. By the way, sorry for the colon instead of a pipe. I keep moving round the house and one machine is a Mac and the other a PC and those symbols are in the exact opposite position on each machine! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly doesn't look valid to me! Huge copyright violation. Woogee (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the claim that File:MDoret.jpg was published prior to 1923 may be... um... mistaken. Woogee (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The uploader is now claiming that the artist has released copyright claims for release to "his wiki". The uploader's baldfaced claim notwithstanding, we need proof of this release. Woogee (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Haida Chieftan's socks[edit]

Resolved: IP's were blocked --NeilN (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Haida chieftain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing, POV pushing, soapboxing and being a general nuisance on Canwest.

User:, previously identified as Haida Chieftan logged out, is continuing to add his vital messages of The Truth (TM) concerning CanWest's financial predicament. Could someone block this IP for a bit (seems to be currently stable to Haida Chieftan, so perhaps 24 or 48hrs) - I want to go get some sleep. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

About time he was finally blocked. I said it would probably end up being necessary... HalfShadow 23:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

(Mysteriously?) Deleted User:Praxidikai[edit]

Resolved: per Plaxico, I guess —DoRD (?) (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there! I came across Praxidikai's user page user page and it seems to be missing without a deletion log or anything. What's going on?

In the talk page, there seems to be some accusation of "suck puppeting" by User:Rklawton, who appears to be an admin. So, what's going on here? -- (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

An account needs to create a user page to have one; they don't just magically appear. Praxidikai has never done so. Deor (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

User ShortstopVM and the case of the serial uploading[edit]

Could an admin have a word with ShortstopVM (talk · contribs). In spite of pages of of copyright warnings this editor insists on uploading far too many NFCC living person images of the Zima girls (whoever the hell they are). It looks like this user is far too enamoured of these examples of eye candy to make any effort to learn the ways of Grasshopper and the philosophy of Copyright. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. This is Morton's fork: either COI or image policy violations. And creepy too if you really want my opinion. And it could be COI and image policy violations and creepy, in which case someone should win a prize. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Cheers, though it may only be creepy if the uploader is my age! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
It seems the uploader is a 19 year old women, so it's not so much creepy as, errr, fashionable.--Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I think she's female, so it may be less creepy. :) But she does say on one of the uploads that the image was found at, so it's unlikely she's the owner. Woogee (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I think we could just chalk this up as a newbie who is inexperienced with the ways of the Wiki. Lets just hope that we haven't scared her off, as people that age are a dime a dozen. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Likebox deceptively sourced infraparticle[edit]

If I may intrude here, but this is about me after all ...[edit]

I place my comments first, because I am, after all, the one affected. I ask that you not move them.

  1. let me start with this: I have never deceptively sourced, or badly sourced, an article in my life. I have explained this to the blocking administrator, who agreed that he or she misinterpreted my comments. Nevertheless, I still have two blocks --- 3 months for vandalism and 1 day for edit warring--- on my record. I will say it here unequivocally: I am proud of these blocks.
  2. It is difficult for me to believe that Headbomb, who read the sources provided, knew a few of their contents, and discussed one of them in depth, could possibly believe that the article was deceptively sourced. I used the sources to answer a few of his questions about Noether's theorem, and resolved one of his confusions about the electromagnetic current. If he thought they were deceptive, why didn't he say so on the page? Why didn't he give an example of a deceptive source?
  3. The questions headbomb were asking were at too low a level. It would be as if an article said "Abraham Lincoln, the American president who led the U.S. to victory in the Civil War, was gay." And somebody then said "Oh yeah? You say he was American? Prove it!" The issues raised by headbomb and Finell were at too low a level for the artice, and the sourcing that I was providing ended up describing things that are not relevant for infraparticles, but just general background knowledge, things everybody needs to know. The only relevant source was Buchholz, the rest of the sources were a joke. This was exactly what I said on Wales' talk page. I can't understand how people misinterpreted it.
  4. In the discussion below, Count Iblis raises the issue of sourcing mathematical derivations. These should be sourced not equation by equation, but in logical blocks, to texts that contain the same argument. The discussion should be paraphrased mathematically. There is no dispute about this. The citations to Buchholz are the block-cite for this article.
  5. It is imperative that frivolous administrative actions such as this not be consequence free. I have had three specious complaints against me in the past few weeks: 1. Outing Brews ohare 2. IP socking 3. purposeful vandalism. This type of harassment is very bothersome.

I place my comments first, because I am, after all, the one affected. I ask that you not move them.Likebox (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Headbomb[edit]

Infraparticle was stubified after a deletion discussion (linked in the top of Talk:Infraparticle) to remove OR and other unsourced material. A while after, Likebox restores the old version, triggering a revert war between several editors (myself included) over whether unsourced material is appropriate. This also triggered several discussions over at WT:WikiProject Physics, and him filling an erronous WP:3RR report (here).

After several discussions, Likebox gives in and begins sourcing the article. He later admits during a rant on Jimbo's page that he deceptively sourced the article in order to prove some point, and that he's proud of his blocks.

Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I also request protection of the stub version of Infraparticle to allow us to ensure that the text reflects the sources. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I now request protection of the tagged version of Relations between heat capacities, Methods of contour integration, and Helmholtz free energy, based on the admission of Count Iblis that these are deceptively sourced as well. I don't know if a block is in order, but a strong warning sure is at the least. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
You really do not get it, do you? I used only three examples out of many hundreds of articles containing good explanations that are difficult to source. Count Iblis (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that's creative: POINTY, disruptive, bad data, edit war. Most people just try one or two. I recommend an indef block. Rklawton (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is what you get when you demand sources for trivial statements. I will admit right here that many of my contributions to Wikipedia have also been deceptively sourced. I have written derivations that are just as OR as what Likebox has done. But my work has been on more elementary subjects and I'm a less controversial editor. In my case it wa susually others who put in sources over my objections, precisely becuase I'd rather have no source than a deceptive source. But in my case deletion of derivations/explanations was never an eiisue. In this case, however the explanation was going to be deleted unless it would be sourced, which is a ridiculous demand. Count Iblis (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Rklawton, Headbomb and Finell are the two who are in the wrong here. They were edit warring in a ridiculous way, by repeatedly removing an essential paragraph of the article. Count Iblis (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Example 1 Relations between heat capacities is improperly sourced. Why? Because someone demanded sources for trivial mathematical derivations. The source does not cover the derivations at all (it wasn't me who put in the source).
Example 2 Methods of contour integration is improperly sourced. I'm not involved here, though.
Example 3 Helmholtz free energy, largely rewritten by me is not adequately sourced. If it were made a demand to correct that, then I could put in some sources, but then the sourcing would be improper in the way Likebox meant. Count Iblis (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
After seeing this diff and in the light of their previous block history and the above, I've now blocked Likebox for three months. -- The Anome (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I really don't see how this is justified. Headbomb and Finell are ultimately to blame for escalating a minor problem to a huge ridiculous conflict. Headbomb, who unlike Likebox is not an expert in quantum field theory, some time ago made the mistaken judgement that the article was larglely nonsense and put it on AFD. The AFD discussion was conducted mainly by non-experts who decided to keep the article but remove an unsourced paragraph. Likebox restored that paragraph because as an expert in the field he knew that it was correct and also necessary for the article. Why headbomb decided to through in his weight and edit war over that paragraph, I cannot comprehend. Count Iblis (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
If they think the block is unjust, Finell can post an unblock notice on their talk page if they wish. The normal conditions will apply. -- The Anome (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Likebox you mean? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I would suggest anyone who is caught purposefully adding improper refs should be blocked on sight for sneaky vandalism. That type of deception is not allowed. βcommand 01:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Two wrongs don't make a right. There is clearly a problem here, but this is not the way to sort it. I suggest that all the editors involved find somewhere to discuss this, and attempt to resolve these issues in good faith before this escalates any further. -- The Anome (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Well as far as I was aware, the problems stopped when sources began to be added, and we were all collaborating on the article. The revert to the stub is simply a precautionary measure because the sourcing has been deceptive (I've set a draft of the unreliable version on the talk page so we can keep working on it, and readers aren't mislead). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • To be fair, the block record quote is taken out of context. Somebody was trying to use his block record as reason to disallow his edits. HalfShadow 01:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
This was yet more edit-warring after a history of repeated blocks for the same reason. The quote suggests that they are completely unrepentant about this. -- The Anome (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
But LIkebox did not edit war, he stuch to 1RR as his probation demands. In this case, Headbomb is really in the wrong, not in the sense of violating Wikipedia's rules, but by defending such an unreasonable position. From the POV of an expert in the field like Likebox, this is extremely provocative. Count Iblis (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes he did, see the WP:AN3 thread. Where he admits to 2RR (and still unconvinced he's not the IPs). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is silly, as nearly every editor at sometime violates WP:POINT in order to make a point, as here. It's not vandalism to put in a cite for some mathematical transformation to satisfy some bunch of people who wouldn't know if it was needed or not. And it certainly cannot count as vandalism if you admit it later, to make your point, as here. Likebox wasn't "caught"-- he "turned himself in," after making his point. And his great sin? Adding cites for math steps inside the article, which explain the transformations in the proof, but aren't per se relevant to the article subject. So what? How else to get people who merely want more cites for a long article, to listen to the fact that use of experts on WP has major flaws? Yes, an "expert review needed" tag exists, but where are we paying attention to it, when we really need it? Not here. (I see no tag). Do I have to remind everybody that editors who actually understand any siognificant quantum field theory on WP, can be counted on one hand? I'm not one of them, but I know enough of it to recognize when somebody knows a lot more. The rest of this looks like people totally ignorant of the subject, who are flexing their wiki-muscles simply because they can. I see no vandalism (an unhelpful cite is not a vandalism-- it's simply an unnecessary cite). Even if there was vandalism (made-up cites, say) this is an IAR case, inasmuch as clearly Likebox's purpose is, and was, to improve WP. That is all the defense he really rationally needs. He was trying to write a detailed explanation of what an infraparticle is, and nobody would let him. SBHarris 01:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Please take this to an RfC[edit]

This has clearly gone beyond a simple edit war, and beyond simple admin intervention. Both sides have a point, and it's not my place to say which is right, nor is this the venue to sort it out. I suggest you file an RfC, and take this to arbitration. I'll reduce the block to 24 hours to let Likebox participate. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment. -- The Anome (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not beyond simple edit war or admin intervention, because that's all it is. All articles that've been found as potentially misleading should be tagged as such, and work can continue on the talk pages. If things turned out to be inaccurate, or badly sourced, the article will be rewritten and new sources will be found. If the articles are accurate, and correctly sourced, then tags will be removed. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
But did you really find anything? Likebox makes a comment and you happen to find what Likebox mentioned. I mention three examples and you have happen to find exactly those three (out of the many hundreds). And what I and Likebox mean is that the explanations cannot be sourced in the way you would like to see, not at all that they are misleading. Why not end your crusade right now and get back to editing? Count Iblis (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like Headbomb to stop tagging the three examples I mentioned. I simply mentioned them because these articles are vulnerable to the same problem that we have with infraparticle, albeit the articles are mostly at undergaduate level. Any article that does some nontrivial explaining will suffer fromm the same problem. usually editors collaborate and accept that you cannot source every clarification to make the material understandable (because a textbook will write for students). The three articles I mentioned are either not sourced in the way headbomb wanted for infraparticle (but this has never been seen to be aproblem by the involved editors), or they are sourced in a i.m.o. misleading way (the sourcing has been done by others over my objections). Count Iblis (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

To be very clear about this, I can easily expand the list of examples to a few hundred Wiki articles. Count Iblis (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do, I'll add {{accuracy}} to these as well so it adds them to the physics cleanup listing and reminds the readers to be careful when reading to particular articles. Using general references is fine, but certainly not references that have nothing to do with the sentence/passage supported. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
We're only talking about general references that suggest more than it should be. When I rewrote the thermodynamics articles in early 2008 I started a few discussions about the problems with the previous versions. Why Wiki-policies regarding sourcing alone were not enough to prevent huge errors etc. etc. That fell on deaf ears. I made some suggestions at the time onn how to improve the situation, but people did not want to listen. Half a year ago, I tried again by writing up WP:ESCA, and again what we saw was a knee jerk rejection by people who don't like these ideas. Anyway, the articles in question for which these ideas are necessary exist. I put in quite some effort to remove a huge number of stupid errors from thermodynamics articles. Likebox has done a lot of work on field theory articles, the article on the Ising model and other advanced topics. But to reject all these efforsts just because they seem to be incompatible on some very minor policy points is just ridiculous. Everything is verifiable from appropriate textbook but, of course, with going through the derivation, as any physics student has to do, not from literal quotes. Count Iblis (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Likebox's editing of Infraparticle should be dealt with here[edit]

I don't have time right now to discuss this at length or to look up old diffs. I will make a few quick points:

  1. Let's limit this AN/I to User:Likebox and his editing of Infraparticle. I don't know enough about User:Count Iblis's conduct or the other articles he cites as examples, and that sounds like a broader topic. User:Likebox's conduct in connection at Infraparticle is, on the other hand, simple and can be handled easily here, without an RFC.
  2. I don't know about the other articles that Count Iblis raised, but the challenged content that Likebox added to Infraparticle was not simple, basic, obvious statements about elementary physics. It was advanced physics with long blocks of equations.
  3. When other editors objected to Likebox adding unsourced content to Infraparticle and reverted his material, he admitted to adding misleading sources to keep his disputed, challenged material in the article. He didn't just admit it; he bragged about misleading the other editors: "At the moment, the opponents can be distracted by smoke and mirrors."[6] Talk about hubris!.
  4. In its context, Likebox's deceit was a tactic in his edit war over Infraparticle. Given Likebox's admitted disdain for Wikipedia's core policy of Verifiability, his deceptively using false source citations to evade that policy, and his block record for prior edit warring, he should be blocked until he demonstrates that he will abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, whether he likes them or not. Likebox's conduct jeopardizes Wikipedia's reliability, which is the reason for the Verifiability policy in the first place. Likebox's edits can no longer be trusted, and we cannot assume good faith when Likebox himself admits to conduct that is bad faith.
  5. Likebox's deceit wasted other editors' time. Late last night, assuming that Likebox's source citations were in good faith (I don't have easy access to the sources themselves, so I assumed that the cited sources supported the statements for which they were cited), I spent almost 2 hours copy editing the content he added, adding missing wikilinks, fixing incorrect wikilinks, and fixing Likebox's citations (many of his citations were incomplete and therefore uninformative to the reader, he filled citation templates incorrectly, he cited a preprint without citing the published journal article, etc.). Headbomb spent time doing the same. (Almost half of what I did didn't get into the article because Headbomb made a lot of the same fixes at the same time, so I had an edit conflict when I tried to save a big block of edits. I copied my edited version to my user space to reconcile it later with what Headbomb did). All wasted time.
  6. Likebox has additional relevant history that implies that his editing of Infraparticle has a particular POINT:
    • A few months ago, Likebox had a bitter edit dispute with lots of drama over his attempt to insert his own mathematical (or logical) proof into an article. I think it was Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Likebox claimed that his proof was a simpler equivalent to existing, published proofs. But, the proof was his own creation, i.e., OR, and other editors disputed it. I vaguely recall that there was a dispute about another of Likebox's proofs in another article.
    • During or in the aftermath of this dispute, Likebox and a couple of allies, including Count Iblis, then proposed to weaken Wikipedia's policy on OR. More drama, but the proposal was defeated by a very substantial consensus.
    • Around the same time, Likebox was one of 2 or 3 supporters of Count Iblis's ESCA policy proposal. The core of the proposal was that science articles should be edited, and editing decisions made, based primarily on "reasoning from first principles", rather than based primarily on reliable sources. A very substantial consensus defeated that policy proposal on the ground that it would seriously weaken the Verifiability policy. So, ESCA was converted into an essay. (I haven't done a detailed comparison, but my impression is that the current ESCA essay places more emphasis citing sources than did the defeated policy proposal). (Despite that resounding defeat, Iblis proudly proclaims on his talk page that he edits science articles as though ESCA were policy.)

Likebox's conduct here is a serious example of gaming the system. It cannot be tolerated, and a severe sanction is required to stop Likebox's willful violation of Wikipedia's policies.—Finell 05:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Finell, for your "few quick points". Perhaps you and Headbomb need to cool off? Infraparticle was making progress, which you've succeeded in reversing. Great work guys! --Michael C. Price talk 06:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was trying to help in that process too, when I thought that Likebox's sources were for real. He made fools of us, so it is back to the drawing board with the article, since Likebox's content cannot be trusted until every line is verified, or until someone competent and trustworthy rewrites it from scratch.—Finell 06:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Since this is a more concise version of all the brouhaha above, the only thing I have to add to this are links of convenience:
Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I also had in mind the diffs for my item 6, Likebox's relevant history. It's all just a vague, but unhappy, memory.—Finell 06:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I think you'll find [7] summarizes the most recent iteration of the Gödel's incompleteness theorems trainwreck, which has been going on for quite literally years. (talk) 06:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me address this for the record: "During or in the aftermath of this dispute, Likebox and a couple of allies, including Count Iblis, then proposed to weaken Wikipedia's policy on OR. More drama, but the proposal was defeated by a very substantial consensus. Around the same time, Likebox was one of 2 or 3 supporters of Count Iblis's ESCA policy proposal. The core of the proposal was that science articles should be edited, and editing decisions made, based primarily on "reasoning from first principles", rather than based primarily on reliable sources."

To be clear, ESCA or some other guidelines along the same lines are necessary for certain class of technical articles where simply sticking to sources is not good enough. In no way is anyone saying that sources should be ignored. To the contrary, in addition to sticling to sources, you need to do more nonrivial work. The essay gives some suggestions on how to act. I have discussed problems with thermodynamics articles to death here on Wikipedia a long time ago and it was my rewriting of them which ultimately led to ESCA about a year later. ESCA in its original form, took for granted that we all know that things should be properly sourced. The later version emphasize this more, precisely to deal with the comments from other editors who mistook it as licence to do OR. Count Iblis (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There is still a fundamental problem with Infraparticle. The main sources provided seem to be to the small school of researchers in algebraic quantum field theory, the followers of Rudolf Haag - Buchholz, Schroer, Doplicher, Fredenhagen, etc. This group is usually considered to be on the fringes of quantum field theory: the article does not make that clear. At present the lede is mathematically nonsensical, with its confused discussion of Hilbert space and Fock spaces. I suspect that this is due to the fact that (a) inappropriate sources are being used and (b) editors are writing beyond their level of competence. One of the other mathematics articles that has been mentioned, Methods of contour integration, essentially a list of examples, also has glaring problems. Why is there no mention of holomorphic or meromorphic functions in the lede or the main text of the article? There are huge numbers of classic texts (I added Titchmarsh's book, first published in 1932), yet it's hard to find these in the references. In all these cases, sources exist and should have been found before writing the articles. That is why both these articles seem rather odd. It has very little to do with special guidelines for writing scientific articles. Mathsci (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Outside inside view[edit]

Disclosure: I have met Likebox personally, and consider Count Iblis and Headbomb to both be allies of mine here at Wikipedia.

I think that this dispute argues for the need to have a Wikipedia:Science council. Both sides make good points, but both are talking past each other. Count Iblis and Likebox are correct that the rules for citation and prose control in mainstream science articles are necessarily relaxed due to the difference between pedagogical prose and primary source prose. At the advanced level of the best science articles in Wikipedia (and here I speak of mostly physics and astronomy articles of which I am familiar) the sourcing is at best approximate in order to accommodate the prose style of this encyclopedia. Headbomb is correct that sources are absolutely necessary, but it is not necessary that the reader of our articles must necessarily immediately understand the connection between the sources and the prose of the article. I could refer to a number of science articles that are Featured Articles where this is the case, but I won't for fear of stoking the fires.

In part, what's happening now with the maturity of Wikipedia is a need for quality control. There are cases where a novel approach should be excluded as original research and there are cases where a novel approach should be viewed as simply an appropriate paraphrase and simplification of sources that are not original research. It takes an expert to decide which is which. We are simply not equipped here at Wikipedia to determine that.

In this particular dispute, I believe that Count Iblis and Likebox are actually correct, though they are combative. Unfortunately, knowing the culture of Wikipedia, I'm afraid that what will happen is enforcement against the behavioral issues associated with these two valuable editors rather than what should happen which is a careful consideration of the results of the editing. The article is in better shape in the way Count Iblis and Likebox want it to exist.

ScienceApologist (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Block review[edit]

I am concerned the block is based on a mistaken reading of Likebox's statement here. The blocking admin evidently read this as an admission that Likebox himself had deliberately inserted false references. However, the way I read the statement, he was merely saying that references inserted by others had been false or irrelevant. The statement seems to have been taken out of context: it was evidently in response to Finell's preceding statement that "As a result of[...] work on the article by me and other editors [...], Infraparticle is now reasonably well sourced". Evidently, Likebox's response that "The "sourcing" of infraparticle was a joke" referred to those additions. – If this is true, the block seems fundamentally misjudged. Fut.Perf. 10:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Almost. Likebox was actually saying that he inserted the references in spite of them being asinine. I've been on that end of the stick in writing here. While not the nicest thing to say, he was certainly not saying that there was anything intrinsically wrong with the references he provided, only that they were boneheaded and seemed to detract from the content of the article.
Imagine writing an article about Abraham Lincoln for the Simple English Wikipedia and having a bunch of editors complain that they didn't understand the words you were using. "Abraham Lincoln was the sixteenth president of the United States." you write, but they don't just want a source for that fact, they also want a source for the fact that the United States has a president and that there exists a number sixteen. Is it possible to find such sources? Of course. But if you are a historian trying to write about Lincoln, looking for such sources is really, really annoying. You might find some sources and insert them, but you'd find it ridiculous. The sourcing is a "joke" because it is so idiotic. That's what Likebox was saying. Nothing more. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Yep, I'm beginning to understand his point. He's explained it here himself now. Given this statement, I think we can safely say the charge of deliberate falsifying of sources should be dropped. This leaves the charge of edit-warring against consensus to be assessed. (Note: I only now notice Anome had actually already reduced the block from 3 months to a mere 24h for edit-warring, so maybe this part of the discussion was moot anyway, but then Anome didn't say he did so because he had dropped that serious accusation). Fut.Perf. 10:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, that's my fault. I already changed the block length and reason yesterday after reading the discussions many paragraphs earlier: I should have added a comment here when I did it. I still think this issue is just the tip of a much large science article iceberg, and I suggest that all involved should take this to an RfC. -- The Anome (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Update: I've now unblocked Lightbox, in response to their unblock request. -- The Anome (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't see what there was to misinterpret in these 2 statements in Likebox's post on Jimbo's talk page:[8]
  • "At the moment, the opponents can be distracted by smoke and mirrors." That can only be interpreted as intentionally deceiving his "opponents". Further, his characterizing other editors, with whom he is supposed to be collaborating to reach consensus, as "opponents" is another demonstration of his edit warrior approach to editing Wikipedia. I certainly didn't think that I was Likebox's "opponent" when I insisted that he supply reliable sources for the material he added to Infraparticle. I thought I was another editor trying to be sure that the article was accurate, and that enforcing Wikipedia:Verifiability was the way to ensure accuracy.
  • "I am very proud of my blocks." These are his blocks for edit warring. He repeats that statement, this time in all italics for emphasis, in this AN/I.
Maybe Likebox need some form of counseling or mentorship. There are plenty of places where he can write what he wants as he wants. He can publish in a peer reviewed journal, if his material is good enough, or he can self-publish anything for free on the Internet. But if Likebox wants to help build this encyclopedia, he needs to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.—Finell 00:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
There's absolutely no need of mentorship. Likebox's explanation of his meaning in User talk:Likebox#Blockedthis thread is clear, straightforward, and perfectly acceptable. What he did is completely within guidelines & policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I want to point out that the last five or six items on my block record are for similarly silly things. I hope that editors do not use the block record to bias their decisions on cases here, snce it will cause Wikipedia to lose editors who are willing to do the hard work of confronting biased or misleading articles.Likebox (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

persistent POV at 1961 Indian Annexation of Goa[edit]

I am currently involved in a content dispute with a Portuguese editor(possible multiple) on 1961 Indian Annexation of Goa. The editor started off by dramatizing the events to focus on Portuguese "bravery" as an annon and now has one (maybe two) accounts:User:Goali and User:Olivença. Most of the user's claims have been unverifiable and he insists on mainitainig the number of Portuguese v/s Indian troops as 3300 v/s 45,000(more likely 30-35,000). Doesn't seem happy since I pointed to a Portuguese source that puts the number of troops at 4500 with a citation. Has reverted my edits claiming that the source doesn't cite the numbers[9],[10] while I have clearly mentioned it on the talk page [11]. Editor has now carried over his POV to other related articles: [12] and [13]. Im at my wits end.Im tired of this, please help --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for a while to cut down the IP and new account problems, and blocked the Olivença account per WP:DUCK as an obvious sock. I've also left Goali a warning about edit warring. You could have tried approaching them directly on their talk page; this might have achieved better results sooner :) However, hopefully they are now aware of the way we work, so if there are any further problems please re-report. All the best, EyeSerenetalk 08:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


User:Sameboat is apparently not happy with the current state of this. The situation now is that after almost two weeks, they are the only user objecting to the removal of stock colours from the template, as well as having plenty of guidelines against them. They have decided that they don't want to listen. I have attempted to carry out the removal, it having become clear from the debate that the formatting (use of colour and boldface) was not appropriate. The other user is having none of it. There is now nothing more to discuss (there being more heat than light at this point), there having been no real progress away from the current consensus position of "remove the colours", so I closed the discussion (there being no need to delete anything), with what I believed to be an accurate summary, in an attempt to spare us all some blushes and save us wasting any more time on it (Sameboat refusing to allow anyone to make any progress at this point). User:Sameboat also apparently doesn't believe in non-admin closures of any kind (it being reverted with the specific reference to "user without administrative power").

I, for one, have no intention of beating dead horses, hence stepping well back from the keyboard for a while. I would appreciate if someone would suggest User:Sameboat to do the same, as I no longer have the energy or the patience to do so. (talk) 06:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

When you create a section on this page, your are required to notify the user that this discussion is going on here. Woogee (talk) 06:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
User has been informed. Rgoodermote  06:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I have listend to the comment and agree to replace the colored text by colorbox in the {{HK-MTR lines}}. The anon disagrees becuase he suggests that the colorbox is inappropriate to appear in the prose of 300 articles. While the template is predominantely used in the tables and templates. The anon does not agree substitution by colorbox from the template as well in favor of the prose. The anon is obligated to perform the removal of the template from the article one by one manually because he is the only one to oppose the colorbox being used in the template. (Not to mention that he justifies it by saying he is supported by other discussion participant. But in fact they only agree on substitute the colored text.) Yet he intents to leave the hill of mess to me, the defender. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 07:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:OFFER unblock request of MyMoloboaccount[edit]

MyMoloboaccount is a sock of Molobo, who was blocked for a year in May 2009 per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Molobo/Archive. Molobo was later blocked indefinitely as a compromised account. MyMoloboaccount now requests unblock per WP:OFFER and promises not to sock again. As recommended at WP:OFFER, I am referring this request to the community for discussion and am placing the unblock request on hold. This is a procedural referral; I have no opinion about the merits of the request.  Sandstein  22:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

  • First, let me correct a factual misunderstanding that might arise from the above: "MyMoloboaccount" isn't a "sock", it's a straightforward alternate account created because Molobo apparently had concerns over the security of his original account. The socking for which he was originally blocked was unrelated to that; it was about Gwinndeith (talk · contribs) (see SPI case). Second, a concern: Molobo was centrally involved in the EEML case, being the owner and creator of the infamous mailing list, and IIRC heavily active in the coordination of the disruptive activities for which several of his friends got banned. It is my understanding that he wasn't implicated in the final remedies of the Arbcom case only because the arbitrators considered him already covered by the community sanctions anyway. Anybody who wants to consider unblocking should first make themselves familiar with the evidence page of that case. Fut.Perf. 23:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I have struck out part of the above. My apologies for getting Molobo mixed up in my mind with somebody else (Digwuren). Molobo was active on the list, but not among the most central figures. I no longer have the archives at my disposal and must admit I couldn't say for certain, from memory, just how problematic his conduct on the list was. Fut.Perf. 07:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
User Type Sanction
(quoted verbatim)
Special Enforcement Details Expiration Date
Note: User subsequently lost control of account and is now editing as User:MyMoloboaccount
Revert limitation

Molobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is limited to one revert per page per week, and should discuss all reverts he makes on the relevant talk page. If he violates this limit, he may be blocked by any administrator for any time limit up to a week.

After four upheld blocks due to violation of this restriction or other issues, the indefinite block will be reapplied.

Sanction imposed from this discussion.
MyMoloboaccount has a 1 year block for sockpuppetry (see SPI conclusion on 1 Jun 2009 and block notice on 1 Jun 2009) which expires 1 June 2010, after which the restrictions are to be reviewed by the community.
Civility supervision

If Molobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) makes any comment deemed by an administrator to have been incivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, he may be blocked for any time limit up to a week. Note: if Molobo is disrupting talkpages with tendentious filibustering, that comes under the civility supervision as well.

For clarity, I updated the final column, but otherwise I have had no involvement with this case. My thought is that the block is in force until 1st June, so it is too early to discuss this, so I would oppose unblocking. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Steve, Molobo is making his request under WP:OFFER which states that the editor needs to wait six months, rather than full term of the block before making the request. Molobo's waited eight nine - hence it's definitely not "too early" to make this request.radek (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
You are quite right, Radeksz. I have stricken my "oppose", as at the moment I have no opinion on this - I need to look into the history a bit before making a reasoned comment - obviously, if the 1-year block had been ArbCom-imposed, then that would be different, but as this is a community sanction, then it should be considered. Thanks for pointing out my mistake! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
As blocking admin, I cannot support this. RlevseTalk 03:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Rlevse, I believe you simply reblocked the account after the conclusion of the case. Likewise Future Perfect's block was procedural (and done on Molobo's request after his original account became compromised) - and as an aside FP's statement above is factually incorrect on several points (I have emailed him to notify him of his error). The actual blocking admin in this case was Avraham (who should be notified).radek (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

In general, I am a firm believer in affording people the opportunity to learn and grow, and absent evidence to the contrary (as some of our recidivist puppeteers have amply demonstrated) if a user wishes to come back and be a productive member of the project, by all means. However, I would suggest "trust, but verify" at least for a little while, and I would suggest that Molobo accept some form of mentorship or guidance. If someone here is willing to act as Molobo's "big brother/sister" for a while, and Molobo accepts that messing up this opportunity will all but remove any trust the community may place in him, then I personally have no issues with an unblock and a welcome back. However, I am just one voice among many, for what that is worth. -- Avi (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment I too, am in favour of second chances. In this case, the editor appears to have waited a reasonable amount of time. Any restrictions applied to the original account should be understood to apply to the alternate account, and the editor should be under no doubt that if unblocked, they will be under scrutiny and further problems will lead to a long block. If they want to contribute constructively, welcome back. Mjroots (talk) 06:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As with Avi and Mjroots, I am also in favour of second chances. If the editor wants to edit constructively, then that should be encouraged - however, I also think that mentorship along the lines of Avi's suggestion would be a good idea - and also that this is a 'last chance' - if they cause problems, then they should be indef'd. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose unblock:
    • Molobo (talk · contribs) aka MyMoloboaccount has been disruptive ever since he created an account in 2005 (block log, [14])
    • He was blocked for socking after he was conditionally unblocked from his second indef ban (see table above). This already was the n-th "last chance".
    • After he was blocked for socking, he continued to be one of the most active members of the EEML (Wikipedia:EEML#List_membership, WP:EEML/Evidence). Since I was the one who initiated the SPI that led to his last block, I was one of the targets of these activities, e.g. this attack Molobo initiated against me just after his block. His participation in the arbcom case showed no sign of acknowledgement of fault. To the contrary, he used his condidtional unblock during this case to sling as much mud as possible, particularily in my direction (see here). The case only closed in late December, and his participation there does not indicate any willingness to change his behavior. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • In addition to what I wrote above: second chances are fine and all, but with a user who was banned not just for sock-puppetry, but for persistent POV-related poor behaviour, with a block log as long as my arm stretching over several years [15], a "standard offer" of return should never work on the basis of a mechanical "has been quiet for so many months" basis. Instead, what we need from him is a firm commitment demonstrating understanding of the root causes of this disruption in his own attitude to the underlying content issues, and how he intends to approach these content issues differently from now on. If he can't make such a commitment, then all superficial "no more socking" or "no editwarring" or "no incivility" promises are worthless. – A second thing, if I'm not mistaken, when he was blocked for sockpuppetry last year he kept vigorously defending his innocence, and the dispute over the proof of his socking or lack thereof was causing quite a significant amount of meta-disrution. He now says he hasn't been socking "since last May". Does that mean he finally admits he in fact was socking back then? Fut.Perf. 09:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree that some kind of mentorship + articulation on intended good behavior is needed. I also think that WP:OFFER, from reading what it says, was actually specifically designed for cases like these, where you got a problematic user who at the same time CAN make positive contributions (which is where the mentorship comes in).radek (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Request to uninvolved eyes - then consider this case take in mind this:
    • user's in question record breaking block log;
    • fact that user in question was already placed for indef ban for two times and only was saved by well know buddies of his.
    • fact that during his SPI case he denied being sock master, however now it seems that he admits it. Therefore conclusion can be drawn that he deliberately mislead community during SPI investigation back then.
    • that the most "proficient" defender of this user on this newest ANI thread, not only has historic ties per WP:EEML, but seemingly violates ban imposed on him by Arbitration as well. M.K. (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment On the face of it, I would be inclined to support the request (subject to someone mentoring them), as per AGF. However, although the unblock requests says that MyMoloboaccount will not sockpuppet any more, I note that MyMoloboaccount does not mention the editing restrictions, and I would be unwilling to support the request without MyMoloboaccount specifically mentioning these and confirming that they will keep to them, and that any further disgressions would result in an indefinite block, with no further "chances". -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
AGF is fine as long as there is no evidence to the contrary. Molobo kept on editing throughout his block, via his EEML proxies. The last such proxy edit was in December, just moments before his EEML proxies got restricted [16] (eg Radeksz, who is participating in this thread and did some of the proxying for Molobo before he got topic-banned). It seems odd to restrict the proxies and unblock the one who ordered the proxy edits. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This looks like a reasonable application of the standard offer. Any editing restrictions that would otherwise be in place upon the Molobo account should be restored. Possibly new restrictions should be crafted as an alternative to mentorship, since it appears that no mentor is available. Durova412 17:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
With regard to the editing restrictions, MyMoloboaccount sent the following email through Wikipedia to me:
If you mean the Revert restriction and civility restriction, then I am fine with them being in place. I didn't mention them since they were not the reason for block and therefore not a issue in unblock. But I assumed they will remain in place.
I am going to leave a message on their talk page asking Mymoloboaccount to confirm this there. However, subject to mentorship and/or further editing restrictions, I feel that this would be a reasonable use of the standard offer. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Update: Mymoloboaccount has confirmed this statement here -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I remain unconvinced, and I am asking myself where this whole talk of a "standard" offer comes from anyway. How did people conceive of this notion that people get a routine get-out-of-jail card for simply "no more socking"? No more socking is the minimum requirement for not having one's block extended to indef, and nothing more. Any reasonable "standard offer" must include an editor addressing the root causes of what got them sanctioned. The root cause here was POV-pushing, and I'm not seeing any statement from Molobo indicating that he will be editing in a substantially different manner than before. Shockingly, I'm not even seeing anybody asking him about that. Revert limitations and civility paroles are just superficial make-up designed to contain a fundamentally disruptive editing disposition. What we need in such cases is something different; it is a fundamental change of stance. Fut.Perf. 20:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Step 2 of WP:OFFER is "Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban." The standard offer isn't just "no more socking", that's only the first step. If the editor doesn't address the root cause of what got them sanctioned then they aren't honoring the provisions of the standard offer and it's rendered moot. -- Atama 21:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per User:Skäpperöd. Molobo bypassed his ban via User:Radeksz[17]. Radeksz and several other EEMListers are currently banned from Eastern European topics. Molobo's return would most probably end up in proxying other EEMListers. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


[18] - Gibnews (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) freely acknowledges that he is associated with this site, which is currently subject of a discussion at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Please inform Gibnews of this thread. Tan | 39 00:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Gib has been informed. I've commented that it's a conflict of interest for Gib to link to that site at the conflict of interest noticeboard because he is the person running the site, and it can be perceived as self-promotion. I believe he brushed off any COI accusations because they were originally brought up by an editor he feels has a grudge against him, and he has accused that person of harassment (see the noticeboard discussion). But others agreed with the concerns, and I think Gib would agree that I'm not biased against him. I definitely don't have a problem with him as an editor, I just think that he shouldn't be linking to his own site, and I'd like him to stop. If others think that the site is useful, they'll add it. -- Atama 01:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I thought the gibnews site was going to be blacklisted. Burpelson AFB (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm about a week out of date on this issue, but AIUI there are two similarly named sites - and, and it is only re the latter that there is talk of blacklisting. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
There's a backlog at the blacklist. Given the vindictiveness of some spammers I can understand why people are reluctant to join in there. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Firstly the discussion about ended with the view that it can be cited for primary material.
In the case of Its my view that it has not really been gone into in enough depth. Lets get some things clear, firstly any references to the site are not intended to be 'spam' or site promotion, but to refer to original documents that are retained there with permalinks. If there are better links to the same thing great. If there are none at all it seems very negative to remove them.
Secondly Yes, I'm in the business of building websites for people. was the first one I created. Is it my personal site? no, its owned by a company. There is no element of 'self promotion' involved, indeed the site does not promote anything to do with me or web design services.
The website that DOES that is not mentioned or cited in Wikipedia, its a totally separate thing. I am not mixing business with wikipedia editing.
So the accusation of Spamming is unfounded as the site is not selling you anything. It may be that I have been over inclined to use it as a source for original documents in Wikipedia as I know they are there and some of them are hard or impossible to find elsewhere.
I resent the suggestion that everything I do, or have done for the last 15 years is in some way suspect. I've created over a hundred websites for clients, now just because I happen to spend some time editing wikipedia and contributing first hand knowledge about Gibraltar which upsets some editors who want a different view of it promulgated, is that so wrong?
In another discussion on an/i another editor asserted I was using socks, and was in fact an infamous banned user. That led to an online lynch mob assembling. None of that is true, and that attitude has biased any neutral review of this issue. The main area cited is the list of documents. I have not written any of those, simply designed web pages. So there is no conflict of interest, and the documents there all indicate their sources and status. --Gibnews (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, to Guy... The blacklist proposal seems to have been rejected. There's little support for it and I see no need for a blacklist, because we don't have multiple people spamming it. Per WP:SPB, the blacklist is a final resort when all other methods have been tried and failed, but really there's only one person adding the site (Gibnews).
To Gibnews, spam does not have to be financial in motive. WP:REFSPAM concerns references that are added for non-financial reasons. You said before, "I resent the suggestion that everything I do, or have done for the last 15 years is in some way suspect." Unfortunately that's how conflicts of interest work. At the very least, if you include information about a web site or link to a web site that you've been affiliated with, that will give your additions added scrutiny. When people object to the inclusion of that information, that COI just makes the issue worse.
The sockpuppetry accusation, you just have to let it go. Many legitimate editors get incorrectly identified as sockpuppets, even me! You keep bringing that up in every discussion, it's not helping. -- Atama 18:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
RH is making new accusations that I am using to revert him removing references. Its nonsense but if you repeat lies often enough people believe them. Again, the CONTENT being removed is original not my creation. Its rather like banning references to a newspaper made by one of the printers or the man who did the layout. --Gibnews (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
No, Gibnews, there are for the last two edits that included (which I looked at) several other sources available. All we are asking is you to go into discussion, as you are connected with the site (as we would also ask the printers or the man who did the layout if he was too focussed on his own site). I see you have started to use other sites as well, and that is certainly recommendable, no-one banned you, no one blacklisted You say that has the best information available, if you can show that RH is removing references that can not be replaced by anything else, then that would be reason for discussion, until now many can and have been replaced (also by RH). --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

User:ADM violating the terms of his unblock from indef?[edit]

ADM (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

The above user was indefinitely blocked in February of 2009 for "Inappropriate advocacy". Discussion on the user's talk page indicated a distinct and definite bias, and the unblock was denied with explanations such as "Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to speculate about the insidious political leanings of others; we're here to write an encyclopedia, not to function as a blog." The user made a plea for clemency and claimed that s/he "solemly pledge[d] 1) to no longer make controversial edits on issues relating to the Vatican and the Jews (and other similar socio-political issues) 2) to no longer edit in an obnoxious newsblog pattern." As such, the unblock was granted.

However, it appears that ADM has reverted to his/her old patterns. Please see the article that s/he recently created: Jewish sex abuse cases, which engages, in many people's opinions, in speculative original research and synthesis, and the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish sex abuse cases, where the user accuses those who disagree with him/her as being "Jewish partisans and zealots" and has basically accused those trying to explain the concept of WP:SYNTH to him/her (mainly, myself) of trying to [ "protect the reputations of noted child abusers.", somethnig I personally find rather disgusting and abusive.

I believe that ADM has violated the terms of his/her unblock and the indef block should be restored, but, obviously, I am biased as I am involved in a AfD discussion with the user and have been the target of said user's veiled accusations. Therefore, I am asking the larger wikipedia community to weigh in on the subject. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment : I did not find this to be controversial at all and did not expect ANY controversial responses. So, if I was involved in such a debate, it was purely on an accidental basis. I also forgot about my pledge, and was not aware that it was still binding after over a year without problems. I think most Jews on Wikipedia should not consider me as their enemy, and should also peacefully acknowledge that there have been abuse problems in the Jewish community, just like in the Catholic Church. ADM (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Not a particularly compelling defense. Indef block reinstated. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the indef block decision has already been made, but I hope it's still OK for me to add my support to it - I came back this morning to have another look at the AfD issue (which was still a civil discussion when I left it last night), and was horrified by ADM's personal attacks on people who thought the article should be deleted as "Jewish partisans and zealots", and further accusations that people who thought it was WP:SYNTH were accusing him of making the whole thing up. (For the record, I'm not Jewish) -- Boing! said Zebedee 04:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • For others wishing to check into this situation I have been concerned about numerous talk page posts on various articles that weave a narrative linking Jewish people, pedophilia, LGBT people and, at times, Michael Jackson. They all follow an innocent enough sounding "I think the article should include" or "it's interesting to note" and then too often cites possible sources that are wildly inappropriate. Most of those were quickly dismissed by other editors including myself but this had been going on for months as a low hum which borderlined as soapboxing. I didn't realize their were issues elsewhere. -- Banjeboi 15:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: rights alteration[edit]

Jrcla2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
I've blocked this contributor for 24 hours for repeated copyright infringements. I subsequently removed autoreviewer, since copyright issues make that inappropriate, and rollback, since he used it to revert contacts on his talk page about copyright issues. I believe given the note at Wikipedia:Rollback feature that "The rollback feature is a fast method of undoing blatantly unproductive edits, such as vandalism and nonsense" and the subsequent note that "If there is any doubt about whether to revert an edit, please do not use this feature. Use the undo feature instead, and add a more informative edit summary explaining your revert. Misuse of rollback may cause the feature to be revoked by an administrator." that this removal was appropriate. Block notices and copyright violation warnings are not vandalism or nonsense, and using it in this fashion is inappropriate. No question about the block (since he had been warned long ago), but I'd welcome review of the rights reversion. This is the first time I've done that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Rollback can be removed at any time. Using it to remove copyvio warnings on your talk page seems like as good a time as any :) No problems here. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm surprised you only blocked for 24 hours, but I suppose that's your call. As for the rights removal: I'm not so sure on the revocation of rollback. On the one hand, what you say is true; on the other, removing things from your talk page for any reason is generally considered acceptable. But considering that he was using rollback to try to hide copyvio concerns, I suppose it is fair to remove it in this circumstance. NW (Talk) 23:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Support both, if not longer block. Use of rollback to remove legitimate warnings is not what it's designed for. If the warnings were bogus, ie vandalism, then that'd be okay to me as that's what rollback is intended for. NJA (t/c) 08:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I support too. I agree with NW, that everyone is allowed to remove anything they want from their talk pages, with some exceptions (like declined unblock notices while the block is in effect). But you don't use rollback for that. -- Atama 17:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Libelous vandal, multiple IPs[edit] (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs) has been making libelous edits to a number of articles in the past day or two. The above IPs are obviously all the same user/group of friends at Luther College. Not sure what the standard response is for this situation (a rangeblock of Luther is probably draconian), so I'll hand it off to other admins.--Father Goose (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and placed a SharedIP notice on the remaining two IP talk pages. Sometimes these tags (especially when they are so descriptive like these) are enough to get them to stop as it scares the living daylights of them. It's probably because they assume they are "anonymous" and can get away with things. We're then proving them wrong. Doesn't always work, but this technique has proved it's merits on a several occasions for me. Rgoodermote  06:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked all 3 with a schoolblock. Shouldn't hurt anyone else really, there were no other edits from those IP addresses. Might not help either, I guess. I watchlisted male prostitution. Dougweller (talk) 06:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Ha ha! I'm sorry, but I can't help it. "I watchlisted male prostitution" just seems like a classic line. :) Good blocks, by the way, but I'm still laughing. -- Atama 18:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Reset 1rr restriction for user Radiopathy[edit]

Resolved: User placed on an indefinite 1RR restriction. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Radiopathy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) George Harrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user was placed on a 1rr restriction at 22:36, October 29, 2009 UTC for 6 months. They were also blacklisted from twinkle per their using it to edit war. They have since violated it several times, and have created maybe two ANI threads requesting it be rescinded, which were both declined. I will try to find and link said happenings if required. Those happenings, however, are not at what is at issue here. What is at issue, is his most recent behavior, where he violated his 1rr restriction, and even violated 3rr after being told by an admin and another user(not me) that he was at fault. The timeline is as follows(earliest at top):

There is a bit more, but I don't believe that is needed. Per the above, I am asking that his 1rr restriction be reset back to 6 months instead of the 2 that are left.— dαlus Contribs 09:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy's statement[edit]

Your statement here

  • Forget the 1RR sanction; let's talk about a rise. Radiopathy •talk• 03:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I meant a rise in my pay for the time I spend here. It was an attempt at humour, but I forgot I was at Wikipedia, where the whole concept is foreign. You can extend your 1RR for the rest of time for all I care. I wouldn't be surprised if I came back in six months to find a discussion about me still going on. It's obvious why Wikipedia is an international laughingstock. Get a fuckin' life already. Radiopathy •talk• 23:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


Radiopathy = blocked for a week, so I don't think a statement from him will be swift in coming unless copied from his talk page. Ks0stm (TCG) 09:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Double EC: Nevermind, Daedalus is a step ahead of me. Ks0stm (TCG) 09:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Already taken care of. A section from his talk page is transcluded here.— dαlus Contribs 09:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Easy call, by the looks of it. Guy (Help!) 12:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
What I don't get is that someone blocked the newbie who was most likely never aware of any of the policies. Too bad. May have just scared away a potential good editor. Oh well, damage is done now.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand how Radiopathy missed the sundry inline (and handily online) citations eleven times. The edits he was reverting were straightforwardly not vandalism. This said, further down the article does say the LA County death certificate listed metastatic non-small cell lung cancer as the cause of death, although the source cited there, while mentioning lung cancer, says nothing about a death certificate. Hence, it looks to me as though Radiopathy, at least, truly believed the sources supported lung cancer as the cause of death but made a very big string of mistakes by reverting a good faith edit eleven times. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Looks like User:Radiopathy is retired again. I guess he trying to break Brett Favre's record.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Disregard it. His attempts to retire never stick. I don't know how MO regarding them, but discussion should continue.— dαlus Contribs 21:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, he likely hasn't really retired, and is only using that tag as a way to halt discussion in lieu of oh, he's required, I guess the proposal is moot now. ..Especially considering that he posted his unblocked request(04:40, February 21, 2010 UTC) after he replaced his talk page content with a retired tag(03:49, February 21, 2010 UTC). Retired? I don't think so. Discussion, as said, should continue.— dαlus Contribs 21:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Daedalus969, his "retirement" should be irrelevant to this discussion. He's done it before on several occasions when he gets frustrated with other editors. As for the other points, I have no doubt Radiopathy was doing what he thought was best. However, as shown before, Radiopathy doesn't care when his ideas cross with policy. I'd support the 1RR completely, as the edit warring line appears to be very blurry for him. Dayewalker (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The block of Timothy92834 was completely appropriate. I may be the editor who Daedalus969 is referring to when he wrote above, "and even violated 3rr after being told by an admin and another user(not me) that he was at fault". If so, that's not correct: I didn't tell Radiopathy he was at fault. I did say it was a content dispute, and not vandalism, and while I agree with the block of Radiopathy, Timothy92834 is more at fault than Radiopathy. Timothy92834 ignored messages from Radiopathy, me, and Zero0000 to stop reverting the page and discuss the issue on the talk page. He made no attempt to do so. I don't think he is a true newbie; he has few edits from his account, but his edits indicate someone who knows how wikicode works, WP policies, etc., more than a real newbie would. If he comes back after the block and repeats the revert, he should be blocked again.

Both users were wrong to call each other's edits vandalism, and that is an ongoing issue with Radiopathy. In some cases, if he disagrees with a content change, he calls it vandalism, and then feels free to revert at will without regard to 3RR (and more recently, his 1RR restriction). It's too bad; he has made a lot of good edits and defends a lot of articles from real vandalism. In this case, I think he was correct to revert the original change(s) by Timothy9283. The sources are not air-tight either way and discussion was required. On the other hand, Radiopathy should have used other means to respond when Timothy92834 repeated the edits and refused to discuss the issue. Radiopathy did try ANI, and was told it was a content dispute, which was true, but not the whole story. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

At first blush I did worry that the block of Timothy92834 might not have been called for, but when I looked into it, saw he hadn't heeded the messages and only fed the edit war with Radiopathy. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy, please explain your position more clearly. As it is now, it is rather vague.— dαlus Contribs 03:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Some background: I first came across the editor while handling 3RR reports at WP:ANEW in Oct'09 and since then have had occasion to: (1) block the editor for 3RR violation; (2) lift the block early assuming good faith after emailed and on-wiki assurances that the editor would not edit war anymore; (3) apply a 6 month 1RR restriction after consultation at the 3RR board since the editor resumed edit-warring within hours of being unblocked! (4) caution the editor at least twice for subsequent violations of 1RR; (5) block the editor twice for violation of 1RR and 12(!) RR. What's amazing is that I have had to take so many admin actions w.r.t. Radiopathy even though I don't follow his/her contributions, nor do we have any apparent overlap in the articles we edit or watchlisted. All these actions were solely in response to occasional patrolling of the 3RR board, or complaints posted on my talk page by other editors - and thus possibly represent only a fraction of the infractions. Abecedare (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Support/Oppose reset of 1rr restriction back to 6 months[edit]

This section is to make support or opposition of the proposal easier to follow.— dαlus Contribs 23:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Support - For the reasons already stated above.— dαlus Contribs 23:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support indef - Change to indef. The user does this thing where they 'retire' for a few months then come back. It will be like the restriction never existed. Indef puts a stop to that.— dαlus Contribs 08:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Extend it, to indefinite ideally, since he seems to be having trouble acquiring WP:CLUE. He can ask for a review when some months have gone by without incident. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Extend to indef, per Guy - though frankly, I'm not convinced that 1RR alone would necessarily be sufficient either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I have to agree that an indefinite 1RR restriction is needed, which can be lifted once the editor has clearly demonstrated that they can avoid edit-warring without such external limits. (see more detailed background above. Abecedare (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Since 1rr is a helpful notion for any editor to follow, most of the time, I see no worries about making this indefinite until he shows some willingness not to edit war. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I think 12 months is appropriate now. Good job on this Daedalus, both sides went overboard there. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Extend to indefinite, user clearly incapable of getting the message per previous ANI thread. GlassCobra 19:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support extending it to indef, based on his last comments on his page. He doesn't care about getting it, it seems. It's a shame a good editor is undone by civility and common sense, but that seems to be the case. Dayewalker (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

To prevent premature close[edit]

This is simply to prevent the bot from archiving this thread before an uninvolved admin has reviewed and closed it.— dαlus Contribs 05:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Involved admin using their powers in a BLP dispute[edit]

Resolved: Issue has been handled via OTRS. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A BLP concern has been expressed about the inclusion of WP:REDLINKs for amateur athlete on 2010 United States Women's Curling Championship. These women are private citizens, amateur athletes who are not competing at the highest level of their sport (which in curling would be the Olympics and World Champsionship) and per WP:ATHLETE do not qualify for an article much less a redlink with it shiny target for vandalism. Responding to these BLP concerns, I removed the names of most of these non-notable amateur athletes. One of the editors who reverts this was an admin, User:Earl Andrew. I then started a section on the talk page where the BLP concerns were clearly laid out. Earl Andrew not only ignored these BLP concerns and revert back but also protected the page under the auspices that my actions were vandalism. I know that at least one of the women involved has filed an OTRS so the BLP issue is being escalated on that avenue. What concerns me here, and the reason why I'm bringing this to AN/I, is an involved admin using his powers in a dispute involving BLP issues. At the very least Earl Andrews should have gotten an uninvolved admin to look at the matter. Can an uninvolve admin look into Earl Andrew's behavior and counsel him on how to handle these types of BLP issues in the future? AgneCheese/Wine 20:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

A national championship is clearly the top level of a sport so that argument is fallacious. Also, almost all curlers are amateurs, even those competing now in the Olympics (only the Chinese teams and two of the British men are full-time curlers, the rest all have day jobs), so their amateur status is also irrelevant as an argument. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect. For US Woman's curling it is the Olympics and World's are the top levels. Nationals are distinctly the third rung down on the ladder. These woman only need to sign up for a spot to be one of the 10 teams that compete in nationals, except on the rare year when more than 10 teams sign up. This is not like Canadian curler where they have to go through club, region and provincial play downs. AgneCheese/Wine 21:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I bow to your knowledge of the actual situation. I agree that there's no reason the names should be redlinked, as there's no reasonable certainty that an article on them will pass notability requirements (and an article can always be created if they move up in status), but I do think that having their names there is reasonable. My suggestion, then, is to leave the tables in place, but remove the redlinks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Admin is clearly involved, so I unprotected the page. They should use WP:RFPP if the content dispute persists.
That being said, I'm not entirely sure I understand how this is a BLP concern. If the list of participants is sourced, it seems fine for inclusion (even if they don't have individual notability for their own articles - in this case, wouldn't simply delinking be a better choice?). –xenotalk 20:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe that the objection is to the redlinks, not the names themselves. Tarc (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Sure, but reporting user is deleting the names outright [19]. –xenotalk 20:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, yea I see that now, lopping off the 2nd, 3rd, etc... finishers. Well to Agne27 then, would you object to a non-linked entry for the others? Tarc (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
The OTRS ticket mentioned above: