Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive611

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

Noticeboard archives


This could be confusing ...[edit]

I had another user pointed out to me today that could cause confusion with my username. But, they've had their account since 2001, and mine was created in 2006, so that must make me the "imposter" ...

I wanted to ask about this, to see if others believed the risk of confusion was great enough to require one of us to need a new username (probably me, as the other account is older). The two accounts are:

The other user has been around longer - but has far fewer edits, and we're not active in the same areas on Wikipedia - which is probably why we hadn't come across each other until now.

Is general opinion that the risk of confusion high enough to require using WP:UNC, or can we leave the usernames for now? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 02:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

At the quickest glance, yeah, it could be confusing. But it people take the time to look at the names carefully, I see no problem. I actually seen the same name at first glance, but then again, I am Lysdexic. - NeutralHomerTalk • 02:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Also a quick click to each userpage would hopefully show which user you had gone to if you had cause to speak to either one. SGGH ping! 02:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion. For now, I've added {{distinguish}} to my userpage. I left a note on Berek's talk page informing him about this discussion as well, so hopefully he'll also consider doing the same. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 02:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
You could add something in your signature to further identify you. Woogee (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I've added a distinguish tag to my user page - hope this helps! :) Berek (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Berek looks to be a very low-volume editor (their talk page, never archived, has only 25 threads, and goes back to 2003!) that rarely involves themselves in talk pages or the "meta" spaces of Wikipedia. Doubt it will be an issue; {{distinguish}} would be best on both pages- just in case. –xenotalk 20:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sharia article undergoing drastic restructuring, we need a time out to more fully discuss[edit]

Re: user Jayzames and sharia article

Hi, please protect the Sharia page (or help somehow) until I can figure out what the intentions are of a progressively persistent, rude, biased editor. I'm a newbie and I've been to the arbcom (declined, but one member expressed concern) and the editors advice (no response) and this problem is getting worse by the minute over here.

I am trying to work through my concerns with Jayzames and we are dialoguing but he is making progressively more drastic changes in the article and this evening sections are moving, new ones are appearing, and I can't see whether material may be missing.

I am not trying to stop Jayzames, I am trying to clear up some problems while there is still time. If he is sincere, he can take some time to work through these issues. I doubt his sincerity.

We need to take a deep breath here, but my concern is the article may get to a point where it will be difficult to recover, and not all his actions appear to be in good faith.

This article is of course a sensitive one and I see bias in the changes, POV centric changes, promotion of deleterious material to the lead of the article. Prior attempts at discussion have met with limited success, but he generally will not correct or change due to my objections beyond the typographical level.

We are talking maybe close to 100 changes to the article in the last couple of weeks, running about 10 a day now. No consensus on these changes. We are talking, but he's not stopping or correcting anything but typos.

Diff for last 5 days

More important recent talk topics

Thanks Aquib (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Jayzames notified here Aquib (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what an Admin can do here that can't be handled by a non-Admin. All an Admin could do is to block one or both of you, or prevent the page from being editted; & since you state the two of you are talking, any of those options would be inappropriate. On the other hand, any material Jayzames removes will still be in the article history & can be restored at any time. (If that isn't good enough, make a copy of the earlier version & save it in your own userspace, say at User:Aquib american muslim/scratch.) Second, seek one of the conflict resolution steps listed at the top of the page, like mediation or opening an RfC over certain points in the article. If none of those steps work to your satisfaction, yes, you can return here & open a thread, but the result may be one you are not at all happy with. -- llywrch (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

OK Thank you Aquib (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Strange/vandalous editing of User:Finger woman[edit]

Resolved: Finger woman given finger.

I first began noticing Finger woman (talk · contribs) while doing new pages patrol. After encountering her handiwork I took a look at her contrib history, which mostly seems to be childish and/or sneaky vandalism and inserting inappropriate tags. He or she doesn't seem to respond to talk page warnings, but continues to muck about here, so I wanted to bring it to admins' attention. Some examples: adds a "no content" speedy to an article about a TV show, messes with pages in someone's user space, uploads a file tagged as vandalism, creates a hoax article (later speedied). There are other examples This person seems particularly fond of adding speedy tags to legitimate articles. — e. ripley\talk 17:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a simple case of vandalism. She's up to a level 3 from myself. Keeps it up it'll be an indef block soon enough. Canterbury Tail talk 17:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
All right. Glad someone's watching who's in a position to do something about it. Thanks. — e. ripley\talk 17:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I saw this last night. Seems to have started right back up with the same thing today. Counting the numerous deleted contributions, I've had enough. blocking indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Mwhs ban request[edit]

Resolved: Account indef blocked by User:Tnxman307

I've been dealing with a rather disruptive account.

  1. The account exists to promote its own organization Mami Wata Healers Society of North America Inc. as an WP:SPA with a WP:COI
  2. The account acknowledged in an AfD discussion that it won't add links to its organization, yet it repeatedly has [1] in a variety of articles [2](and more)
  3. The account name violates our user name policy in that it promotes its own group (MWHS = "Mami Wata Healers Society")[3]
  4. The account is operated as a group account[4] and edits as "we"[5] in violation of our sharing accounts policy.
  5. In retaliation for removing this organization's links, this account has been attempting to delete its previous edits to one of its articles [6].
  6. The account has accused Wikipedia of consisting of "racists" and "pedophilias" [sic] [7]
  7. The account is also likely editing under User: See edits [8] and [9]

I propose banning this account. Since I've been the only one (lately) to interact with this account, I thought it appropriate to seek additional opinions. Rklawton (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That account can be blocked as a role account and as a promotional username. See WP:UAA and WP:U. Brad 19:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Edwin Black[edit]

I have a real problem with this edit, in which an SPA inserts into mainspace an opinion piece from Mr. Black that is (1) factually inaccurate; (2) non-notable; (3) an attack on Wikipedia; (4) along with a follow-up article, is dedicated to the "ongoing investigation" and attempted stalking/outing of me. While someone has questioned the addition in talk already, I think the situation deserves some administrative attention. Thanks in advance. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Read the first point made at WP:SPA#Handling and advice. How precisely does the edit of the second diff constitute an attempt at outing? This accounts edits are not block-worthy. An attempt at outing, on the other hand, would be. AGK 00:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The SPA isn't the point, and I guess you need to know the entire history of Mr. Black's recent adventure with Wikipedia. The two articles Mr. Black has now published clearly attempt to track me down, and I don't think they're of significant encyclopedic value to include in his Biography. I'm not asking for a block, I'm asking for an administrator (preferably one familiar with the recent events) to evaluate my position and remove the material (if warranted). I am obviously not able to do so myself, as I'm the subject of both articles. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Also the question of whether Saxstudio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is somehow proxying for Black or a sockpuppet thereof, who is currently blocked for legal threats and block evasion using IPs.
I am concerned enough to be reviewing, but it wasn't clearly evident what the right answer is to all this. You're not wrong to be concerned, Blaxthos, but I don't want to just do what you asked without thinking about it. Someone else might have a more concrete first impression, I will keep thinking about it if not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks George -- I wouldn't expect anyone to take my advice without contemplation and consensus. ;-) I generally bring matters here when I don't know what the proper answer is... My main concern is simply having that sort of content removed from Wikipedia. If the community feels that there may be more of the same from this user, then I leave it up to you guys to decide that and take whatever action is appropriate (and I think there's a good case to be made for both serving as a proxy/meat/sock of a banned editor, and for the likelihood of continued questionable activity). Thanks for reviewing, all! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
It seems I've been pulled into the Black's articles as well for deleting some of the article links Saxstudio has posted to Wikipedia, plus the spammy posts (of the SAME article!) on several pages. My impression is mostly positive - he's obviously intelligent, but seems to make odd mistakes and refuses to follow the policies of Wikipedia. His posts last week from his (now blocked) IP address have been helpful, and I think he'd be able to offer a fair amount to the articles in question. He is actively trying to ferret information about some users. *shrug* It's an interesting situation. Ravensfire (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Why is Saxstudio not blocked? This is a blatant sock / meatpuppet. Guy (Help!) 07:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Meatpuppet, I think. Looking at their contrib history, they seem to have an independent existence before becoming Black's acolyte. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Should you have a question of me, you may ask me directly at or you may phone me with your number not displaying. That said, I think is matter is resolved. If I was not allowed to comment here, I can withdraw the remark. Edwin Black Edwin Black Washington DC (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I thought Black was blocked? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Did you have a question I can answer for you. I can be reached on email at the address above. Or you can phone me.Edwin Black Washington DC (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Mr. Black was unblocked earlier today by User:Shell Kinney. Stifle (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned over the talk page message posted at User talk:Edwin Black Washington DC. Especially the two sentences, "If you have a comment, don’t leave it here. I will erase it, until I can create a manageable and useful space. Instead email me at with your real name and your approximate location—country or state—and I will try to reply swiftly." Some editors may not wish, and do not have to, provide their real names or even their "...approximate location—country or state...". I'd also like to get some clarification from the "...senior Admin..." as to what their discussion was about and if there was any impact on Wikipedia. The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 21:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No one needs to ask me a question. But if you would like to, I am happy to answer offline and private. You may say Ireland, or Ohio, or LA, or Tel Aviv. I have received many notes and exchanges from Wikipedians in this fashion and they have been quite gracious. And if you CBW would like to ask me a question, or receive a book, you may send me an email as indicated, or phone me with your number blocked, you are welcome to do so. I am happy to help all. Edwin Black Washington DC (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not that I wanted to ask questions, as I think our areas of interest are a bit different. I'm just concerned that some editors may wish to ask but would be intimidated by the need to release their real names. The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 23:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
CBW, from what I can see, I suspect you are interested in music. As am I--very much. We might have more in common than you think. I won't be checking the WP page for messages. My recent attentiveness is now over. Indeed, until recently, I did not check on Wikipedia much. I do not lodge on the net. I am hundreds of messages behind from readers asking questions on all manner of topics. I try to do a few reader emails each day--but I am months behind. I prefer to answer questions at a lot slower pace but I will try to prioritize emails from Wikipedians. Often I am in archives or events or lodged in my work--right now this minute turn of the century, 1902-1914 UK and Europe. Wikipedia has some good entries. Later I will be posting a notice for any who wish to be referred to my researchers page. However, that will be a bit down the way. I hope this helps. Edwin Black Washington DC (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

threat of violence?[edit]

I came across (and reverted) this edit. "Death to..." a named person. Anybody want to try reporting that to law enforcement authorities? -- Why Not A Duck 17:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like typical juvenile nonsense. –xenotalk 17:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Xeno...see Zac Brown Band. Ks0stm (TCG) 20:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably the best thing to keep in mind when considering whether to contact authorities is that the police generally won't do anything if they can't identify the target of the threat; I occasionally report such situations myself, and learned from the police that without a clear target, it may not even be a crime. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Systematic destruction of the Sharia article[edit]


Help please I'm a newbie.

I reported this incident yesterday outlining my concerns about the edits going on. Decided to try one more time to try to work through this with jayzames. I've also been to arbcom (declined with some level of concern expressed) and editor's advice (no response).

This evening, I noticed that almost the entire contents of "Classic Islamic law" section had been moved. Or deleted, I have no idea. The article has been so shuffled it is hard to say what's in there and what isn't.

This move was accomplished by user:j8079s while user:jayzames was in the process of making a ton of moves.

So a rude jayzames is pouring bias into this religious article, talking, but not compromising on any of his objectionable changes. Promising more changes. And suddenly j8079s pops in and makes a couple of moves interspersed with jayzames (titled move some stuff), lifting almost the entire contents of "Classic Islamic law" super-section out and dispersing it or doing who knows what to it.

This article is under systematic attack. It's going to take a lot of work to clean up this mess.

Can you stop this attack on the Sharia and restore the page? There is a lot of carelesness and systematic bias and this just looks like systematic vandalism to me.

I do not have the ability to stop this attack, I need help.

Thanks Aquib (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, nothing is lost, and I think you're overreacting. If when the dust has settled on this bout of editing people agree that the previous version was better, it can be reverted. I don't think coming to AN/I is the best approach - ask at relevant WikiProject and open a request for comment to get outside opinions. This is a content dispute, not vandalism, so please don't bandy that word around. Fences&Windows 01:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

OK Thanks Aquib (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Narayana Engineering College[edit]

This article has a problem with an editor continuing a slow edit war and refusing to engage in discussion, ever. I was originally drawn to the article with a conflict of interest noticeboard report made by Johnuniq. He suggested that there may be a conflict of interest, that the article's author, Gangleader1989, might be trying to promote the school.

You'll see the initial state of the article here, which was tagged as a copyvio. The copyright notice was removed by the author, and while some of the paraphrasing was cleaned up somewhat it wasn't completely fixed. Johnuniq then improved the article immensely, removing the last copyright violations, some excessive detail, inappropriate whitespace, redundant external links, peacock terms, and did some copyediting. A bot flagged the article as an orphan.

Since then, the author has repeatedly reverted the changes made by Johnuniq and the orphan tag from the bot: [10][11][12][13][14][15]

(Note that the author sometimes edits under their account, and sometimes as a dynamic IP.)

My original intent was to try to draw the editor into a discussion, but they won't communicate. You can see on their talk page that there are numerous warnings and two different requests to discuss the article but they have been ignored. I'd have brought this to the edit war noticeboard but I know from experience that unless the three revert rule has been broken that appeals there are generally ignored, and as far as I can tell this editor has never reverted more than once a day. But clearly, the attempt to own this article and the refusal to communicate is a problem.

I don't know if I would be considered "involved" now at the article, as my only edits to that page are to undo the continuous reverting back to the author's preferred version, but to be safe I'd rather open this up to other administrators. I'm not sure how to reach this person, and I'm afraid a block might be necessary.

I have notified both Johnuniq and Gangleader1989 about this discussion. -- Atama 16:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You can block an editor for edit warring if there is a consistent low-grade edit war - and this does qualify as one. That said, I think the editor is acting in good faith (though misguided) so I'd suggest a specific warning ('such and such edit is not appropriate and you will be blocked if you do x again' sort of thing) first. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Technically, I'm engaged in the same edit war now, as I've reverted 3 times too (over the course of a week). I'll leave a warning about not engaging in an edit war though it seems a bit hypocritical. With the copyright concerns, though, I can't see how I could not revert. As you said, these look like good faith edits so I can't call it vandalism. I'll definitely leave a warning, and see if anyone else on this noticeboard suggests that I'm being too heavyhanded, then I'll rethink my approach with this editor. Thanks! -- Atama 18:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
That's not their only problem, User talk:Gangleader1989#Image problems. The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 20:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Getting off-topic, but their edits appear to be introducing text copyvio in other articles too. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Nah, I wouldn't consider that off-topic, I should probably have titled the topic "Gangleader1989" since my concerns are only with that editor, but I thought this topic header was more polite. :) I wasn't aware that the copyright violations extended beyond the one page, since the editor is not only adding information in violation of copyright, but reinserting it after warnings and refusing to communicate, I may take a wait-and-see approach and if they do so again it might be best to indefinitely block them until they show that they understand what is wrong with what they're doing. Unfortunately this editor does use dynamic IPs, so blocking the original account may not actually stop the disruption, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. -- Atama 21:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I forgot to mention they had uploaded some more images but I couldn't seem to find them anywhere but here. The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 22:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Another article with the same problem is Padmasri Dr. B.V Raju Institute of Technology. At one time, that article and the Narayana Engineering College article were extremely similar, with similar promotional content and inappropriate external links. I stumbled across the Padmasri article while investigating the Narayana article, and I suspect the two organizations are related (or competitors?). It is likely that Gangleader1989 does not understand how Wikipedia works and imagines that endurance will triumph. I would not think any action is warranted yet (apart from the numerous warnings now added to their talk page). For the record: I removed another copyvio at Magadheera (added by this user). Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


User:WhisperToMe Although this user is a hard working and tireless user who has done an abundance of good on wikipedia, it is my understanding from reading the policy on canvassing, that This post violates the votestaking portion of the policy. This is the second time that WhisperToMe has violated this policy. It seems that it is done to sway consensus, and therefore is disruptive.

I saw no other place but here to post this complaint. If there is a better page, please direct it there please.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

  • That doesn't look like a violation of WP:CANVASS to me. He sent a fairly neutral message to a single editor that has an interest in the topic. The other one was an open message (to no particular editor) to members of a project.Niteshift36 (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Remember that nuetrality is only one part of canvassing. There are other ways to violate canvassing.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm aware of that.....and I don't see where this violates it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Would it help to know that these were not just random postings, but were selected by WhisperToMe, because he knew that these other users already agree with him on this topic?--Jojhutton (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • You provided 2 diffs. I looked at them and I don't see it. Posting to the projects talk page is hardly canvassing. And asking a single editor for assistance in explaining something doesn't seem very sinister. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
How is he 'votestacking'? Such content decisions are not votes. Talking to two other editors in the space of a month hardly constitutes a grand violation of WP:CANVASS that might require some admin intervention. What is this dispute even about, where is it being played out? If you expect others to take action against WhisperToMe you need to explain the situation much better. Fences&Windows 01:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
So let me get this right, just so I can add it to my brain housing group. Its Okay to post on another users talk page, whom you already know agrees with your POV, making them aware of a discussion, in order to sway consensus on that discussion? Is that correct--Jojhutton (talk) 01:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_California#Portals_of_Los_Angeles_and_San_Diego. Although there seems to be 3 in favor of adding the portal and 3 against, the pro side seems to have claimed victory and moved on.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
This looks more like asking for a WP:THIRD opinion in a dispute between editors. There is nothing that violates WP:CANVASS here as the messages are limited in scope, fairly neutral in tone (though the April 28 comment could have been better), and open. Vote stacking does not apply as there is no !vote. —Farix (t | c) 02:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
The term "Votestacking" is confusing, since there doesn't really need to be a vote. (Although a vote is taking place). According to the policy, votestacking is:
Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion.
Since WTM had a clear idea, that those other editors would side with him in this debate, leaving them messages, in order to sway favor, is disruptive. Remember, that canvassing is disruptive when they are done as:
Mass posting OR Biased OR Partisan OR Secret
Notice the "OR"s. That means that only one of these, violates the policy.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • we see all the "or"'s.......we also understand that just a single one of them doesn't make is canvassing. It is a graduating scale. Would it be too obvious to mention that it's also a guideline (not a policy) that says common sense should apply. I think that's what everyone else here is trying to say. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC) vandalizing my WP user page, and the address hasn't been warned[edit]

Resolved: vandlism took place in January Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

this IP user added "Please edit my user page it sucks" to my page when I specifically told not to edit my user page. Block this user from editing. This address was traced to Graham Middle School in Mountain View, CA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasper Deng (talkcontribs) 05:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

uw-vandalism1 now given. Will observe. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
moved from AN.

Speedy deletion Uighur house redux[edit]

On April 24th a thread was initiated here by a contributor who had tagged the redirect Uighur house with a {{db-g3}} -- the tag for pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes. An administrator chose not to fulfill that speedy request, and the nominator raised that here for further discussion.

There is actually a deeper story than the nominator chose to reveal -- one that, IMO, concerns a deeper problem. I am bringing this up now, rather than on the 24th, as the nominator did not fulfill their obligation of giving all involved parties a heads-up of the WPANI discussion, and I didn't become aware of the discussion until after the thread had been archived.

I am sure many people who read the thread clicked on the what links here button for "Uighur house". I am sure they wondered why the redirect didn't have any incoming links from article space.

What they didn't know was that the nominator had previously removed the wikilinks to that redirect: [16], [17].

Late last fall the nominator removed these valid and useful wikilinks, and several thousand other valid and useful wikilinks, in a series of 250 edits, listed here. The only explanation offered for these excisions, at the time, was that offered in the edit summaries -- "clarify and unlink an interpretation of a questionable source".

I've explained, in more detail, my concerns over the excision of thesse several thousand valid and useful wikilinks, on Talk:Uighur house. I've explained, in more detail, on Talk:Uighur house, my frustration with trying to find a policy-based explanation in the nominator's replies to my requests for their use of the term "questionable source".

Recently I have told the nominator, several times, that I take at face value that they honestly believe they have offered a valid, policy-based explanation for this massive series of wikilink excisions. In return I have asked them to take at face value my assertion that I have done my best, and I can't find a policy based explanation for this series of excisions in any of their replies. I asked them to either paraphrase the key part of their argument, from memory, to cut and past the key part(s), or to provide diffs to the key part(s). I am sorry to report they declined to paraphrase, cut and paste, or provide diffs.

In my opinion the redirect should be restored to the status quo ante, and all of those excisions of valid and useful wikilinks should be restored.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Uighur house isn't mentioned on the Al-Qaeda safe house article.--Scott Mac 14:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I googled "Uighur House" (with quotes) and there were no Al-Qaeda references (except for those on Wikipedia) until the second page. While this doesn't necessarily mean anything, it does point towards the phrase being used more as meaning 'a house that Uighurs live in', and not anything terrorist related. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

None of the passages Geo Swan pointed out in the other articles needs a link through that redirect. If you really have a passage where you need to link the text string "Uighur house" to that Al-Qaeda safehouse article, you can easily do it through a pipe, there's no need for a redirect. But the passages you cited ([18], [19]) hardly qualify for even that: in the first, there actually was no such string to begin with, and in the second, it was inside a quote, and according to our style guidelines, we don't do links from inside quotes anyway. Apart from that, as a search term for a manual search the phrase is utterly implausible. I really can't see a need for this redirect. Fut.Perf. 15:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

And wouldn't the proper target for this redirect actually be yurt? That's the first thing which occurred to me, not that it was an al-Qaida safehouse or sanctuary. (In which case, we'd need to link it to Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, & all of the other places where al-Qaida historically have found sanctuary.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not seeing any connection of Uigher (guest) house to mean an Al-Qaida safehouse, but rather an instance of a guest house with Uigher connections being used as a one. That would be like terming US Italian cuisine restaurants as "Mafia killing eatery" because of the number of mob assassinations carried out or planned in such places; what activities might be undertaken in a place, or for whatever purposes it may also serve, should not become a denominator for the term unless there is a reliable third party source that deprecates the original meaning; just because one source might use the term does not mean it is the usually understood one. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Further, I do agree with Geo Swan that the particular speedy template was most certainly inappropriate, and likely violated WP:AGF in respect of a well regarded contributor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I noticed that in the two diffs where Iqinn allegedly delinked the Uighur house redirect, the delinked link in the first diff was actually to [[suspect guest house, Jalalabad|Uighur house]], so the actual link was to Suspect guest house, Jalalabad, which is a still-active redirect, that Geo Swan created, to Al-Qaeda safe house. I have since noticed that on 7 September 2009 (and maybe on other dates, too), Geo Swan apparently created a lot of weird redirects to articles about Al-Qaeda safe houses; these redirects include Arab guest house, Kabul; Algerian house, Jalalabad; Riad safe house, Karachi; Zacharia guest house, Jalalabad; Tunisian guesthouse, Jalalabad; and many others. (Maybe it has something to do with this.) Propaniac (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

  • No i did not act in bad faith. There is no basis to redirect Uighur house to Al-Qaeda safe house. Exceptional claims need exceptional sources but there are no sources at all that draw this connection.
  • User Geo Swan has written more than one thousand Guantanamo related articles and created about ten thousand Guantanamo related redirects. Good job! This is not a personal attack against him. I just do not think these three redirects are a good idea.
  • Wikipedia has a good reputation and i want that is stays like that. To link somebody or something to Al-Qaeda is a serious issue and we should take this serious.
  • Exceptional claims need exceptional sources and we do not have these sources. Uighur house has been redirected to Uyghur people and i suggest it stays like this.
As I stated before, this redirect is an absolute no-go. Just as there is BLP, there is an (at least ethically) implied BEE (" ethnicities"). Should the redirect be restored, I will promptly take it to RfD. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Iqinn, no one has accused you of bad faith, here, or on Talk:Uighur house. Over on Talk:Uighur house I explicitly said I was not asserting bad faith on your part.
  • WRT WP:RS I think if you check again you will find I have directed you to this and other academic papers, either on various talk pages, of by citing those papers in these articles. Geo Swan (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Several respondents here have written that they can't find WP:RS that connect the term "Uighur house" with al Qaeda. Actually several teams of academics, including a team at the US Military Academy at West Point, have analyzed the Guantanamo documents the DoD was forced to make public. What these academic studies have noted is:
    • that the Guantanamo documents don't clearly define a distinction between the suspect houses they call "guest houses" and those they call "safe houses".
    • that the DoD documents treat an alleged stay in a house they explicitly identified with the Taliban, or one they explicitly identified with al Qaeda as seriously as an alleged stay in those houses they were suspicious of that they didn't explicitly list as being al Qaeda or Taliban houses.
  • After noting this, these academic studies then state that, in their analyses, they followed the DoD lead, and treated all houses, analysts identified as suspicious houses as seriously as those explicitly named al Qaeda or Taliban houses. I'll offer an example below. Benjamin Wittes and his colleagues at the Brookings Institute published several papers analyzing the Guantanamo documents. In the document I cite below they list 130 captives whose detention was justified, in part, because they stayed in a house intelligence analysts found suspicious. They wrote that, according to the DoD documents: "130 stayed in Al Qaeda, Taliban, or other guest- or safehouses." That list of 130 captives they list whose detention was justified because they stayed in suspicious guesthouses includes six Uyghurs: Arkin Mahmud, Ahmad Tourson, Bahtiyar Mahnut, Abdul Ghappar Abdul Rahman, Emam Abdulahat, Ahmad Muhamman Yaqub.
    • Benjamin Wittes, Zaahira Wyne (2008-12-16). "The Current Detainee Population of Guantánamo: An Empirical Study" (PDF). The Brookings Institute. If the government’s allegations against detainees are uniformly credited, the following picture of the current population emerges ... 130 stayed in Al Qaeda, Taliban, or other guest- or safehouses.
  • In my user space I drafted an article I have tentatively titled: Uyghur guest houses suspected of ties to islamist militancy. Although it is not quite finished I think it shows that there are plenty of reference that show that intelligence officials in several countries suspect that Uyghur guesthouses that house Uyghur expatriates are being used by radicals for finding new potential recruits, or for training those same new recruits. If there is agreement here that my draft is a reasonable one I suggest "Uighur house" redirect to the new article. Geo Swan (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • On the first sight i think there are some flaws in terms of WP:OR in the article in your user space. Sure all WP:RS but on the first sight there are instances where you combine material from two or more sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

POV-pushing, against-consensus edits, edit warring, and failure to engage in discussion by Realwords101[edit]

User:Realwords101 has persisted in making edits to Dancehall that contradict sources used in the article, often with the addition of completely bogus citations of sources that in no way back up the changes being made. Of particular concern are this editors contributions to Dancehall, an article about the subgenre of reggae that emerged in the late 1970s, with several changes of the origin of the genre to be the 1950s ([20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]). I and two other editors (User:Spylab and User:Sabrebd) have reverted these changes, and at least 2 of us have asked Realwords101 to discuss this on the talk page. I have also pointed out the need for references to actually back up any changes being made, and that edit-warring is likely to get him blocked. Other edits by Realwords101 include this edit to Deejaying which is just nonsense, and these which claim one of the most notoriously homophobic songs is in fact a protest against child rape, again with a bogus citation that says nothing of the sort.

I am very much of the opinion that Realwords101 started out aiming (with some of his edits at least) to be constructive, but as all attempts over a 4-day period to get him to engage in discussion and follow consensus have failed, I am reluctantly bringing this here to find a solution. I am sure that any attempts to revert his edits on this article will be met with further reversion to his preferred version. I also strongly suspect that User:Rbeharrie is the same person from the pattern of edits. --Michig (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There's been a peculiar request at WP:RPP by user:Wordsforyou requesting 'full control' of the article. The request was their first edit. I'll have a look around, but I think I hear ducks. GedUK  09:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Meanwhile, the nonsense continues ([31]). Could somebody perhaps take some action?--Michig (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Wordsforyou indef blocked, Realwords101 blocked for a week for sockpuppetry and disruptive editing. Fences&Windows 18:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.--Michig (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic incivility at Chopin talk page[edit]

Could an admin have a look at the thread here (this diff is my second attempt to delete the thread as off-topic and generally unpleasant; I don't know if it will stand). Did I do right? Is there anything we can do about these people? (I presume many admins will be familiar with them and their unending personal attacks and counterattacks.) Can they be prevented from interacting somehow?--Kotniski (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that you very much did indeed do the right thing. I'd also like to say that I regret my part in the affair and that I allowed myself to be wound up enough to react, I should not have done so. The idea of Loosmark being prevented from interacting with me is a hugely attractive one but not one I fear which is actually workable, unfortunately. Varsovian (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The topic of discussion was Chopin nationality and as everybody can see my posts were actually about that. On the other hand none of Varsovian's posts were about Chopin, in fact his first comment [32] clearly tries to re-fuel previous arguments from the London Parade article and transfer them to the Chopin article. Not happy with that he started to repeat that I accuse people of racism, something I have not done. I've asked in the past if he has any problems with anything I have done to either fill a report on me or stop defaming but to no avail.  Dr. Loosmark  18:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
"[your suggestion] can be vied as a bit racist." [33], "[your suggestion] can be viewed as a bit racist" [34], "I will repeat it for the third time: that comment can be viewed as a bit racist. So what are going to do now?"[35] "Dan please, it's well know that you like to provoke Polish editors" [36]. I point these out purely to prevent anybody from thinking that I am actually defaming Loosmark. Varsovian (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Nice manipulation but the diffs Varsovian provides above are not from the Chopin page, they are from a nearly 2 months old (!) discussion about renaming the Kazimierz Pułaski page into Casimir Pulaski where an editor suggested that everybody whois mother language is not English should not vote. I said that can be viewed as a bit racist. That's all that it was to it. As for Dan, he made a weird comparison of Chopin seeing himself as Pole to a person seeing himself as dog. In my opinion that was really bad taste but maybe I have misunderstood him as he later explained it was an analogy from a movie. I don't think at all Dan is racist, he is a nice guy, knowledgeable and in general a good wikipedia editor. Yes, sometimes me and Dan disagree and have discussions but usually wikipedia articles improve as a result so the idea that I think Dan is racist is beyond ridiculous. But I guess nowadays anything goes on wikipedia.  Dr. Loosmark  18:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Kotniski, it is not for you to be the judge and jury of what is appropriate on these talk pages. Please immediately replace all of the information you removed and this attempt of yours to censor other people's opinions and statements. You are certainly within your rights to report anything you like and get an evaluation. This removed thread, and I'll agree with you that there is plenty of useless "fluff" interspersed within it, has a lot of good arguments concerning Chopin's heritage. If there is incivility or violations of Wikipedia policy taking place at the thread, the appropriate solution is not airbrushing them away. They are best evaluated where they were written and in their proper context. Again, you should not to take this matter into your own hands and pick and choose what stays on a talk page. You ask, "Did I do right"? No, what you did was not right. Next time ask that question before you unilaterally decide what goes and stays at a talk page. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

(od) I would like to point out that this latest round of bickering was fomented with Kotniski's removal of referenced information presented here [37] by User:THD3. This presumably was not done solely because of his dislike of the information, but because ostensibly a consensus had not been achieved concerning the matter. Sometimes consensus is reached easily and courteously, sometimes by what seems like pulling out teeth, or a least the similarity of having a root canal done. My main concern is Kotniski's assumption of some kind of authority giving him the unilateral carte blanche to remove my and other editors thoughts on any given subject. If you have a particular problem with something specifically said. Good, take it to the proper place to be evaluated. This project not dictated by some kind of totalitarian mentality where you can decide how a discussion needs to be conducted. And Kotniski let me remind you the article page and the talk page are two distinct entities with different requirements. If I remember correctly opinions are permitted on the talk pages. If they lead to an improvement of an article that is very good, but if they don't, then they don't. That's the way it goes. Same for the way those opinions are presented. If and when they cross the line, and that behavior his found to be actionable, it should be dealt with. Not with you arbitrarily deleting what you find either objectionable or inappropriate. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

We have policies against incivility and personal attacks. We have guidelines that say what belongs on talk pages. Removal of inappropriate content from talk pages is something that happens quite often, and rightly so (whether it was rightly so on this occasion I leave to the judgement of others). More importantly, what do you suggest can be done to stop the continual personalized squabbling?--Kotniski (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
If you see any posts by me which you consider to be inappropriate or in breach of any WP policy, please notify me of them by leaving a message on my talkpage. A outside opinion is almost always welcome. Varsovian (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Kotniski, you might want to read WP:TPO. You shouldn't touch other editors' comments except in very specific circumstances. Specifically mentioned in the guideline is that you don't remove "messages that are merely incivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial." In the future, don't delete messages that you don't like, or you may end up with sanctions against you. The kind of material you can remove are libel, personal details about an editor, copyright violations, personal attacks (which doesn't include any and all incivility), obvious trolling, and vandalism. Sometimes people remove completely off-topic discussions as well, or discussions not related to improving the article (such as asking someone's opinion about the article subject) but use discretion when doing so, it's usually best just to remind the person to not go off-topic. -- Atama 21:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I did that - but my pleas to get back on-topic were ignored. --Kotniski (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Kotniski, I respectfully suggest that you replace the thread that that you unilaterally took it upon yourself to delete. May I also suggest that if anyone participating at that thread is dissatisfied with their contributions there to draw a line through their remarks. Kotniski, that's not how Wikipedia works. Nor do you have any authority to delete other people's opinions. Again, if you think any of the comments made are actionable, feel free to bring those specific remarks to the proper channels. Dr. Dan (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Kotniski, Dr. Dan is absolutely right. Please do what he has courteously requested of you, if you have not already. Editors in this discussion should be aware of a prior ANI filing here [38] which resulted in a DIGWUREN arbitration enforcement warning here [39]. That ANI is now closed. As can be seen, the evaluating administrator advised that continued misconduct (namely, failure to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial processes there or in the wider Eastern Europe topic area) should be reported at the WP:AE noticeboard in accordance with the procedures documented there. Thanks, -Chumchum7

Move reversal request for Solution stack / Software stack[edit]

A recent page move from Solution stack to Software stack warrants reversal. This was a GF move by InternetMeme (talk · contribs), but it has a few problems:

  • It wasn't a move, it appears to have been done by cut & paste. This has trashed the edit history.
  • It wasn't discussed beforehand. Actually I'd raised it myself a year or so back, but there was no consensus (well, no reply at all).
  • It's a bad change. "Solution stack" is an article on web stacks (e.g. LAMP) that's a good topic, but not the clearest of names. It really wants a name that is more specific (web solution stack, or a better idea). This change has made it less specific instead. The article is now linked quite inappropriately as software stack from articles such as Android (operating system), which are quite different things altogether. It would be a bad change to re-write the article from its current useful scope to the broad scope - they're two different articles.

Owing to the edit history issue, I think this needs mopwork to fix it.

This article should instead have been:

  • Moved to web solution stack or some other, web-specific name (or else not moved).
  • The previous redir at software stack expanded to a generic article or disambig.

Andy Dingley (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I've undid the redirects as they don't involve the history being kept. I don't care about the title, so anyone can inform me if they want the article moved over the redirected history. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Harriet Harperson[edit]

Harriet Harperson (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

A user account only used for advocating a POV, advancing Labour Party propaganda, POV and derogating their Conservative opponents and users who happen to disagree with her. In addition, offensive comments far over the line. The attack page Nasty Party should have been enough to send her to eternal wikivacation. After so many warnings warrants an enforced wikibreak till the election is over. In short, please spare the wiki community of that troll. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog | woof! 19:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved from AN.
  • Dunno about being a troll but the username is clearly a violation of our user policy cos its a parody of Harriet Harman's name. They can find something else to edit under. I have softblocked the user. Spartaz Humbug! 19:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, someone being a troll is a bit subjective , I agree. WP:NPA, WP:NOT aren't. Disseminating political propaganda and slander on the even of the election should be taken seriously. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog | woof! 21:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


User Talk:Ericdohr was made two attempts to create an attack page on someone named Greg King (Milwaukee). The first was speedly deleted yesterday (April 27th) and the second was submitted today through Articles for creation. This user has not edited any other articles. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

These pages aren't really attack pages, but are just jokes in the Chuck Norris/Bill Brasky vein. TNXMan 20:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


This user was indefinitely topic-banned from all articles in the Israel/Palestine conflict area [40]. He was subsequently banned for 24 hours[41], 48 hours[42], six months[43] and eventually indefinitely[44], for using sockpuppets to circumvent this ban. Despite this, he continues to create socks, and to edit from IPs. I reported onre of these at SPI yesterday[45], but the user is still using this IP, and continues to edit-war from it: [46], [47]. Can steps be taken to deal with this glaring abuse, and to prevent Drork from continuing to hold up two fingers to Wikipedia? RolandR (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

RolandR tries to silence people who don't share his views. I'm sure other people on Wikipedia knows better. Am I wrong? (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
PS - The complaining user uses his userpage for political propaganda. He writes he's anti-Zionist, supports the Palestinian "Right-of-Return" and plenty of other political, sometimes offensive slogans. His job here is to silence people who don't share his views. He edits articles which he obviously cannot be objective about. This is a North Korea-approach, that should be condemned. (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I should have thought that the responses above were enough to gain a block, and it seems that Tim Song agrees with me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

What we need is a range block on this clown's ISP, [48]. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

But Bezeq is Israel's main telecoms provider, and blocking it would block very many Israeli editors. Since, despite the comment above, I do not actually want to silence people who do not share my views, I do not think that we can go along with Tarc's proposal.RolandR (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
He's on too many different ranges, so there's too much collateral damage. Tim Song (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
How about blocking a few of the ranges anon-only. Yes, he can still create socks, but at least we can indef each one as it pops up... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see here a group of Wikipedians. I see here people with a serious ego problem, and too much politics on their minds. Roland, it is nice of you to allow Israelis to edit. You will be monitoring their edits and revert them every time they say something in favor of Zionism (knock wood) or Israel. BTW, I'll be more fair and honest than you are willing to be. My name is Dror Kamir and I'm from Holon, Israel. Enjoy your anonymity and sense of power. (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Now the folks at will have something to work with. Tarc (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
In a subsequent SPI investigation, the Drork sock above posted information (now removed) regarding my identity [49]. This too should lead to an effective block. RolandR (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this the guy who delivered a talk about "Cross-Cultural Dialog through Wikipedia", on Wikimania 2008? If so: Deep, deep sigh. Huldra (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not what AN/I is for. Go rant somewhere else. Breein1007 (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think "rant" is a proper descriptive for Huldra's comment, though it certainly could be applied to some of DrorK's comments above. Care to rephrase? Tiamuttalk 09:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to mention how impressed I am with the degree of concern you're showing over a banned editor totally flouting his ban, though I have to agree, if you're going to tell somebody else to rant somewhere else, it would be better if she was actually ranting.     ←   ZScarpia   11:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Dror Kamir: "I was afraid they would not listen to me." (translation) - Very sad (and a pity that writing an encyclopaedia isn't listed as a motivation).     ←   ZScarpia   01:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Riderless horse[edit]

Can I get some help with this article please? Some IP (who also seems to be User:Cillyness) keeps inserting false information. The information they are inserting goes against well documented information from JFK's funeral. I have left them messages but they don't respond. - Josette (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The part about Sardar appears to be true, if the History Channel site is correct; however, the editor copied-and-pasted from that article, which is not allowed, so I removed the paragraph. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Sardar was a horse given to Jackie but he was not used in the funeral of JFK. That was a different horse named Black Jack [50]. It is all pretty clear if anyone wants to spend the time researching this. Thanks. - Josette (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
So the HIstory Channel got it wrong? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Yep. - Josette (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sigh..., User:Cillyness is back again with the same copyright vios and false information. - Josette (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 12 hours and warned not to insert copyvio. ObDisclose: Josette informed me of this matter offWiki. Since no other admin (Thanks, Bugs, for your help) seems to have taken an interest, I figured I better in the interest of domestic tranquility, but it seemed pretty open and shut to me. I take no position on the content dispute except to note that I apparently paid for a LD call to the JFK library to validate that the History Channel indeed has it all wrong... the US Army site tells a different story. But that's not my concern. :) ++Lar: t/c 11:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
The History Channel perpetuating wrong information? Horrors!!! </sarcasm> -- llywrch (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As a note, this block has been extended by another admin. ++Lar: t/c 02:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Angelamuziotti and AfD tampering[edit]

Resolved: Puppeteer, puppet, and source IP blocked—Kww(talk) 00:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Angelamuziotti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account who has been participating in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zamora (musician). Unfortunately, this user's conduct is out of line. They've been warned and persist in the following behaviours (links are diffs):

  • Deleting other users' comments: [51] [52]
  • Striking other users' !votes, when it was the only such !vote made by the user on the page: [53] [54]
  • Moving other users' comments to other locations in the discussion and distorting the threading: [55] [56] [57]

The user was warned, specifically about the striking of remarks [58], but has persisted in the other behaviours, in spite of the edit summaries when the edits were reverted.

An account by the same name is also involved in a sockpuppet investigation at the Spanish Wikipedia [59]. There was also a sockpuppet investigation on en.wikipedia [60] the last time this article went through AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alejandro Zamora), where the conclusion was that sockpuppetry had taken place but had not influenced the AfD.

So, my primary concern is the behaviour of User:Angelamuziotti. Secondarily and related is whether Katydelmar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), another single-purpose account, is a sockpuppet—although I was waiting on the sockpuppet/checkuser request there to see if the outcome of the AfD was affected. —C.Fred (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the only contributions by user Angelamuziotti on Spanish Wikipedia are related to Zamora, including creating an article on him and defending it at an articles for deletion discussion, using the same arguments used in the AfD in English Wikipedia, so there is no doubt that this is the same person. And yes, as C.Fred has indicated, the user has been accused there too of sockpuppetry. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I will follow the rules- I hope the same thing from the other side.

Angelamuziotti (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If she weighs the same as a duck, she must be made of wood. And therefore... caknuck ° needs to be running more often 02:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I've just left them a vandal-2 comment for this continued messing around--after they promised here not to do that anymore (if that's what they were saying above). Drmies (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse: is there a CU request? I have no doubt that these two quacking things have identical DNA. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Nothing is listed as open at WP:SPI. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 03:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to hide:

My co-workers have tried to create the article in past ocassions in both and Katydelmar works in my office and we share the same Internet connection. Angelamuziotti (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That is called meatpuppetry and is treated exactly the same way as sockpuppetry. Updated Wikistalk report Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care. You can treat us as one entity according to WP:MEAT.Angelamuziotti (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes one entity, allowed one !vote at AfDs, which cannot therefore speak as if with separate voices to create an illusion of consensus. Plus, those who have a conflict of interest in regard to subjects, such as articles about themselves or close associates, need to refer to WP:COI to understand how their editing needs to be limited in regard to those subjects. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No WP:COI. We don't have any relationship with the subject of the article. However, who assures us that other people who voted "delete" in this AfD (mostly admins) are not the same people, or there is a close relationship (between themselves, or the Wikipedia CEO, or the Arbitration Commitee per WP:ADM), if they all have admin privileges, and admins can change logs and everything as they want?

To summarize: It does not have sense to ask for the result of a poll, to the manufacturer of the voting machine.

Angelamuziotti (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

An administrator can't do any of those things. Also, the assumption that evil admins are tampering with the AFD to try to get your article deleted is quite ridiculous.
To summarize: You're wrong and you haven't addressed any of the concerns raised in this thread.--Atlan (talk) 08:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Also AfD's are not, or at least should not be, a poll. Taemyr (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it sounds like a joke for you, but I am starting to think that. and more to the point if the article gets deleted- I will take it to another level, because I proved that my article fulfilled WP:MUSIC Angelamuziotti (talk)

He's been warned, if he moves or refactors or strikes another editors remarks at that AFD he should be blocked immediately to prevent further disruption. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

At who are you referring? Angelamuziotti (talk) 09:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll go out on a limb and say Angela is probably a she.--Atlan (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry. I am not going to touch any comment from other people. You have my word. Angelamuziotti (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet that's exactly what you did right after that comment, [61]. It was probably an edit conflict, so pay more attention to those as well.--Atlan (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. That's right (edit conflict) I will be careful to avoid this in the future. Angelamuziotti (talk) 10:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Angelamuziotti and Katydelmar are the same person. It's a complete WP:DUCK. They have edited only in the same places, their edits are not just rather similar, but extremely similar, and even their use of English is similar. "Katydelmar works in my office and we share the same Internet connection" is totally implausible. Two independent editors who "don't have any relationship with the subject of the article" and are editing independently in the same office just happen by chance to choose only the same limited areas of Wikipedia to edit, and are so similar in outlook that their edits are astonishingly similar??? A remarkable pair of colleagues. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
And don't forget the other four accounts listed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Alejandrozamora who disrupted the first AfD back in January 2007. And the fact that the IP used by Katydelmar resolves to Caracas, Venezuela, the home town of Zamora (musician). If I wasn't already involved, I'd block both accounts until the AfD is over (at least). — Satori Son 15:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Considering the plethora of comments like these, I'm surprised that Angela hasn't simply performed a non-administrative closure as keep on the AfD. I love how people create a problem and then claim it's solved after no one agrees with them. Drmies (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I've got no idea why this was dragged out so long. I've declared it duck season, blocked Katydelmar indefinitely, and blocked Angelamuziotti for two weeks.—Kww(talk) 15:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) blocked for a week as well.—Kww(talk) 15:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Whoa Kww, I turn my back for a week and you're an admin, blocking left and right! Thanks, and congratulations! Drmies (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Support all three blocks. (Full disclosure: My comments in the AfD were inappropriately stricken by both named accounts.) — Satori Son 18:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

On category titles, BLPs, and Andrew Brons[edit]

User:Sumbuddi is knowingly breaking the rules against edit-warring. He's doing this because he is confident that, under WP:BLP, he is right to continue removing the category "British Neo-Nazis" from Andrew Brons. The category's main page says that it is a list of people who are, or have been, British neo-nazis. Brons has been a neo-Nazi. The content of the article makes it clear that he is not a neo-Nazi now. Sumbuddi feels that the category tag indicates that he is, currently, a neo-nazi, and so he can continue reverting the tag indefinitely because it is a violation of the BLP policy. You might notice edit summaries like this, which was what caught my attention, expressing his confidence that he is right and his low regard for other opinions. Other users feel that the category correctly includes people who used to be neo-nazis, and so Sumbuddi is subject to ordinary edit-warring rules. My question is... should Sumbuddi be blocked for edit-warring in this situation? Your ideas are welcome, because my hand hovered uncertainly over the block button, then off it, then on again, and so I came here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I broke no rules, so it's unnecessary to impute any justifications for doing so.
Secondly, I have a note at the top of my talk page that do not want to receive template messages. There's a good reason for that, and it's because they are used by editors like the one you link to above as a weapon in enforcing their POV: I removed the label 'neo-Nazi' from the page on 24th April, it was added back on 29th April, which I then reverted. In response to that ONE revert in FIVE days, McGeddon, rather than attempting to engage in discussion, decides that he will slap a 3RR warning on me and revert the page.
At that point he'd made the exact same number of reverts as me to that page; unlike me he took no steps to engage in debate, simply reverting the page (and he reverted again shortly after).
I have responded to all offered opinions, I don't however see that I should tolerate 3RR warnings on my own talk page for ONE revert when that person was simultaneously edit-warring and ignoring Talk. Sumbuddi (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I should probably also point out the discussion at WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Andrew_Brons: 'Putting him into a "neo Nazi" category requires as much secondary RS support as saying "Mr. X is currently a member of the neo Nazi movement".', and I would suggest that the relevant action here is to ensure that the category is moved from Andrew Brons, as against further discussion of removed warning templates on my talk page.Sumbuddi (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
The category has been removed and the page protected now, which I am happy with, though I would like to point out that not only did I not break 3RR, the 3 reverts I did perform were only after taking all appropriate steps to try and resolve the dispute (responding to all Talk comments, flagging at WP:BLP/N, etc.) Sumbuddi (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Here are your edits: original edit, first revert, second revert, third revert, fourth revert, fifth revert, sixth revert. While you stopped at three reverts in a 24-hour period, and thus did not technically violate 3RR, it would have been reasonable to block you for blatant edit warring (since five other editors obviously disagreed with you on the BLP violation). But since this is a sensitive and controversial issue, I'm not sure a block is warranted or helpful at this time. In the future, however, instead of edit warring, please let other editors help determine if you are correct. Your request at WP:BLP/N#Andrew Brons was the right way to go; you should have let it take its course. — Satori Son 21:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
As the admin who protected the article, I support Sumbuddi's interpretation, and the correctness of him ignoring 3RR. He should have made his reverts clearer that they were, in fact, made under the auspices of the BLP 3RR exemption. In such a case, where local consensus differed from BLP, I would only support a block of an editor who invoked BLP in an objectively unreasonable manner. I've been putting some thoughts on the topic together at WP:CRYBLP. Really, people, if we're going to include former Neo-Nazis who are no longer so associated, the better solution is to include e.g., a "Former Neo-Nazis" category, to distinguish what's sourced as past association in the article from current reality. Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Jonas Poole[edit]

An editor I have worked with before (not always in agreement) mentioned a dispute to me the other day regarding pilot whales in the Whaling in Iceland article. There is a couple day edit war. I chimed in at User:Cetamata's page and User:Jonas Poole made a personal attack ("God, you people are fucking idiots.") that I find unacceptable. I have recommended to Cetamata that he use the talk page even more on this one and maybe open an RfC but Poole has totally crossed the line. It appears that he understands the civility guidelines from looking at his talk page so I did not bring this to the etiquette board.Cptnono (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The first step is to discuss it with the user, which you have failed to do. The second one is to bring it up at WQA, which you have not done; I appreciate he may understand the civility guidelines, but you've yet to show any kind of pattern that would really justify bringing it here. Ironholds (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Complex spamming issue[edit]

Resolved: Taking this to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Mangoe (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I would have taken this to WP:AIV but it's a little too messy to deal with there. Basically what's happening is a pattern of long term spamming over a couple of articles, particularly in scone (bread) but also now slopping over into orange flower water and bitter orange. Originally edits were being made by Chrissytomson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), where I laid a warning. Now we have a new user Chrissylarson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) making the same edits (example), along with an IP editor (talk · contribs · WHOIS) adding links to the same website (example). I think it's a reasonably safe bet these are all the same person, who was notified on their original talk page by me after a string of these edits. I've also dropped a "cease and desist" on the new user talk page, but given their response to the first warning I don't think this is going to help. Anyway, I'm getting tired of this and would like this person blocked in as many places as necessary. Mangoe (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest requesting blacklisting of the link at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist? —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 21:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, that would appear to be the right solution. Thank you. Mangoe (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Be sure to warn the user with each revert (using {{uw-spam1}}, {{uw-spam2}}, {{uw-spam3}}, {{uw-spam4}}). After the fourth warning, if it continues, AIV will generally take action if the spamming continues. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 22:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime the accounts could be blocked as spam only accounts. There is usually no need to run through several levels of warnings with obvious accounts.--Crossmr (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Format modifying vandal is back[edit]

Please see User_talk: The six months blocks on the various IP addresses listed there has expired and they're back to messing up formatting again. Woogee (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Admin Materialscientist beat me to the block button by about a minute; they're now blocked for the next year. That should resolve this, I hope. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

AE request[edit]


Could some uninvolved admin look at Wikipedia:AE#Incompleteness_theorems? Thanks, — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Race and Intelligence article[edit]

This appears to be beyond the abilities of AN/I. A user conduct Request for comment has been suggested as a more appropriate venue. I commented below, but with a different opinion. Anyone should feel free to reopen this if they think there are still matters that can be resolved here. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)}}

Disruptive behavior from user:Slrubenstein[edit]

User:Slrubenstein has been involved in the race and intelligence article for quite a while, and was pretty civil in his behavior there before the past week, but has rather suddenly began making personal attacks against other users. I attempted to warn him about this behavior here; however he’s ignored my warning and continued to engage in the same behavior. The majority of his personal attacks have been directed at user:Mikemikev, but he’s made several against me also.

[62] (Directed at Mikemikev) “Scientists disagree all the time - it is the whole point of science. But they can do so while respecting one another's contributions to science. That you are not capable of this just shows your ignorance of science (or that you are a crappy scientist). […] Apparently you do not understand even this simple sentence.”

[63] (Directed at Mikemikev) “This is utter and total @#!*% that simply demonstrates Mikemikev's attempt - conscious or reckless - to destroy this article […] All mikemikev is doing is pushing his own POV even if it makes us the laughing stock of the literate world.”

[64] (Directed at Mikemikev) “The version that I left, after deleting Mike's vandalism, was not "my" version. It was the version we arrived at through mediation, and which David Kane wrote, before mediation ended and Mike came here to sneak back in his ignorant POV.”

[65] (Directed at both me and Mikemikev) “Now, I DO understand regression to the mean, and I DO understand basic population genetics, and I know that what Mikemikev and Captain Occam have written is SO wrong, that they simply do not know what they are talking about. Do you see the problem? When I do not understand something, I do not edit on it. Yet here are two editors who clearly do not understand something, yet they think that they can explain it to others via our encyclopedia. I think that is dishonest, disingenuous, @#!*% that in a small way makes our encyclopedia an embarassment, the kind of website college professors tell their students not to visit. Do you see my problem now? Because I know these guys are writing encyclopedia content on things they do not understand, I cannot assume good faith on their behalf. I just cannot. They are charlatans. And if this is how I feel about them, I cannot interact with them or work with them on the same article, you know how important AGF is.”

[66] (Directed at Mikemikev) “Your trolling, you are just trying to get me to waste my time by repeating what I wrote yesterday, and what was written during mediation, in the hiopes that I will get tired of your trolling and go away.”

[67] (Directed at me) “You know little about science, yet come to this article just to push your racist point of view. Fortunately, there are many other editors who will put science above your racist ideology.”

[68] (Directed at me) “Captain Occam's standard seems to be: any view that does not agree with mine is bad. Well, so what else is new?”

I’m reluctant to recommend a block for Slrubenstein, because he has contributed to this article in a positive way over the past several months, but recently there has been a major change in his behavior. As I’ve reported here, his main activity there lately has been edit warring (also after being warned about this); it ultimately resulted in page protection rather than a block because a few other users were edit warring there also.

As far as how this should be dealt with is concerned, I think Slrubenstein’s most important comment is the fourth one that I quoted (with regard to me and Mikemikev): “I cannot interact with them or work with them on the same article”. I’m not making personal attacks against anyone there, and I’ve only reverted the article once during the past two days, so in this case I don’t think Slrubenstein’s inability to interact with me and Mikemikev in a constructive way is my own fault. If by his own admission he is unable to do this, and he is the one who’s edit warring and making personal attacks as a result, I think something needs to be done about this. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that temperatures have tended to run high in this article. Some of this is diffused in the very long talk page, which has saved the article from many reverts. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree about temperatures running high, but I think most of us who are debating about this article have managed to avoid making personal attacks against other users involved in it. I also don’t think there’s any evidence of Slrubenstein’s behavior having calmed down; his most recent personal attack that I quoted is his most recent contribution. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Slrubenstein is an admin and has been a user in good standing since 2001, there are very few active users on Wikipedia who have a longer or more respected history. You've been here for under two years, much of it intermittent, and the race and intelligence article has been a focus of yours almost from the outset. I'm sorry but in any conflict between the two of you that requires weighing the relative commitment to the goals of the project or judgement of the project's mores, I'll be backing Slrubenstein. I suggest you find a way of working productively with him before you get blocked yet again for edit warring on Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy (Help!) 22:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
This isn’t a discussion about general level of contributions to Wikipedia or my own past conflicts with users unrelated to this report, it’s a discussion about the specific user conduct within the past week that I’ve brought up here. A user’s history of contributions does not excuse them from having to follow rules such as WP:NPA. In accordance with the rules of this noticeboard, can this discussion please remain focused on its actual topic, instead of straying to unrelated accusations and side-discussions within the discussion? Thanks.
Incidentally, if there is somewhere other than AN/I where I should be posting in order to report disruptive behavior from an administrator, I would appreciate knowing what it is. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec) It would be better to base your position on an examination of the circumstances of the event, Guy, rather than on the reputations of the users involved. Equazcion (talk) 00:24, 15 Apr 2010 (UTC)
One of these two has a history of crying foul over the article which has been an obsessive focus of his for some time, the other does not. See how that informs my judgement of the merits of each successive complaint? Guy (Help!) 09:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
*Wow. I have respect for Slrubenstein. But Guy/JzG, I think your comment is way off-base, though you may well have given voice to a misapprehension that plagues other sysops as well. The mop does not by any means entitle Slrubenstein to better treatment than Occam is entitled to. Frankly -- it is precisely the opposite. The admin rules, and the bases upon which actions can be taken against admins, makes it quite clear that sysops have greater, not lesser, obligations than do non-sysop editors. Furthermore, as the oft-quoted "don't bite the newbies" guideline suggests, it is the newer editors -- not the more experienced ones -- whom we should take extra care with. Your "Slrubenstein is an admin ... I'm sorry but in any conflict between the two of you that requires weighing the relative commitment to the goals of the project or judgement [sic] of the project's mores, I'll be backing Slrubenstein" sends a terrible message. I'm hoping that was accidental, and will be redacted. It's IMHO contrary to some very important wiki guidelines, and is precisely what non-sysops say on a regular basis when they see sysops covering each others' backs in questionable circumstances.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that Guy's rationale is not productive or appropriate. Maurreen (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I have noticed more sysops, than editors, being unafraid that their misbehavior may result in sanction, or even just censure.
Are Wikipedians divided up in a two-tier social hierarchy, in which the admins are the elites that can flout policies and guidelines with impunity? -- Rico 04:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec) While I can see tempers becoming elevated, I don't see anything which would qualify as a personal attack. I think some of the comments are coming close to being incivil, however. Perhaps everyone involved needs to take a day off and cool down before coming back to the article. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
In context, the very minimal testiness is actually a sign of great restraint on the part of Slrubenstein whose judgement I trust quite substantially. The article topic is of immense interest, which means it is of immense possibility for head-butting. Nothing to act upon, to be sure. Collect (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
If the consensus here is that these quotes from Slrubenstein aren't incivil enough to warrant action, I'll accept that. However, I would still like it if someone could do something about Mathsci's attempt below to hijack this thread into a complaint about me, and in the process evade the requirement of notifying me on my userpage the way he would have to do if he were posting a thread about this issue normally. As I pointed out in my comment there, this is the third time he's done this in an AN/I thread in the past month. If you look at the two prior threads where this happened, you'll see that his conduct in both of them was fairly disruptive, particularly in terms of his series of personal attacks against Ludwigs2. But nothing's ever been done to prevent him from continuing to repeat this same behavior in multiple AN/I threads. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Slrubenstein's wikiquette in that usertalk could use improvement, but an ANI thread with allusions to a block proposal is a bit much. Captain Occam seems a little too eager to provoke drama by bringing it here. (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I was actually hoping for something more along the lines of a warning from another admin that if he feels he’s unable to work collaboratively with other users on this article, it would be better for him to leave the article alone for a little while until he feels differently about this. I’m well aware that over the past several months, Slrubenstein’s contributions to this article have been more positive than negative, so I think I agree that a block would be excessive. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Your proposal of "a warning from another admin" implicitly implies you want a threat of sanctions. If you just want someone to suggest Slrubenstein try to dial it back and/or take a break, anyone can do that, not just admins. I thought of leaving Slrubenstein a note but decided that it's enough if he looks over this thread and takes in the issue. The suggestion that Slrubenstein is having trouble working collaboratively seems to carry a presumption that the edits he's objecting to constitute meaningful collaboration themselves. Given Mathsci's report, without knowing more, I'd say that presumption is not necessarily a done deal. (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
“The suggestion that Slrubenstein is having trouble working collaboratively seems to carry a presumption that the edits he's objecting to constitute meaningful collaboration themselves.”
My saying that was intended only as a paraphrase of Slrubenstein’s own comment about me and Mikemikev: “I cannot interact with them or work with them on the same article.” To me, his saying that sounds like an expression of unwillingness to work collaboratively, but perhaps I should have been clearer what I was referring to. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • A quick note on the actual issue. Of the above diffs, much of the language was not IMHO inappropriately uncivil. The only language that gave me pause was: a) "or that you are a crappy scientist). […] Apparently you do not understand even this simple sentence.”; and b) "They are charlatans". And even those two, in the broad scheme of things, and under the circumstances, might not trouble me. Without delving deeply, I'm unsure. At the same time, sysops especially are supposed to model good behavior for everyone else. If Slrubenstein were to make an appearance here, and say he apologizes if his colleague was offended, and didn't intend to offend him, I would be happy to consider this case closed -- and I hope that Captain would agree.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I'd say calling someone's actions "trolling", unless it is demonstrable, a personal attack. Doing so out of disagreements with another's viewpoint would certainly cross the line of exemplary behaviour expected of an Admin. I'm sorry, but I agree that JzG's back-scratching is pretty lamentable too. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I'd say that Slrubenstein was getting pretty frustrated with some perceived non-consensus edits and the flow of some of the talk page discussion, but don't agree with him that this causes permanent damage to the encyclopaedia or that there is some sort of crisis brewing which requires such strong and emotive personalised language. Wikipedia editors are often not experts on all (or even any) areas of the subjects they are editing, and this is particularly true when subtleties of statistics and nebulous concepts like race and intelligence are involved. With time and patience, all these issues can be explained and ironed out in the article. He's fully aware of his own frustration, but I don't believe he has misused his admin authority here. If Slrubenstein could lower his expectation of the knowledge of his protagonists, but increase his willingness to communicate his knowledge uncritically, we could take a slower but surer path to resolution. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Captain Occam, I don't know the background to this and it's a lot to read, but in general if Slrubenstein is getting frustrated in this way there's a reason for it, because he's a good editor. That's not to give him a free pass, so please don't anyone else misunderstand that. It's simply that he does tend to know what he's talking about. Captain, I don't know whether you yourself have an academic background in this area, but it's the kind of subject that's difficult to write about without knowledge of the scholarly sources. That could be the source of Slrubenstein's frustration. Sticking closely to the very best sources is often enough to resolve these things. SlimVirgin talk contribs 14:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I have refrained from commenting up to now because I am concerned about turning this page into an extension of a conflict on another page. This is my perception of events: I have long believed that racist editors (often SPAs or "very few purpose" accounts) have sought to hijack certain WP articles in order to push their views, often under the cover of fringe science. Race and Intelligence is one such article. Now, we had a lengthy (four months?) mediation in which I thought I was consistently civil, and under the mediator's guidance sought compromise with all participants of the mediation regardless of my prior experiences with them. The mdiation ended with David Kane revising the R&I article based on points of consensus. Within a day, Mikemikev2 and Occams Razor started changing it.

The specific issue had to do with regression towards the mean. This is a statistical phenomena one inds any time there is a bivariate distribution (i.e. most scores are close the thg average, but some are above it and some are below it). Mike and Captain kept adding material stating that this is caused by genetics, so when it occurs with IQ scores it is proof that the reason blacks have lower average IQ than whites is, they are, as a group, naturally less intelligent than whites. Racism aside, this misrepresents the science, and the way they wrote it violated NPOV and NOR.

The mediation is over. I participated in the mediation in good faith, and thought we had achieved a workable consensus accommodating multiple perspectives. But as soon as the mediation ended, Mikemikev and Captain Occam referted to their SPA POV-pushing. I reverted to David Kane's original mediation consensus version.

Over time other editors have noted flaws in the aticle and I have made changes to the passage reflecting other people's comments - I just want to keep SYNTH and POV violations out.

I actually am aware of my own anger about edits that violate a mediation consensus, and are made in a way that show an utter disregared for collaborative editing - Mikemikev and Captain Occam have never modified their edits to respond to concerns I have voiced on the talk page. I actually went to the mediator to express my concerns, not only over their edits but over my behavior.[69] Please note that Captain Occam provides this edit-dif above, but misrepresents it. He states, aboe that this comment was "Directed at both me and Mikemikev." Not true, it was directed at Ludwigs2 the mediator, an in the comment I explicitly said that I was considering dialing back my involvement in the Race and Intelligence article because of how angry I was, watching Captain Occam and Mikemikev push back into the article things that we agred to take out in mediation.

Many of you might think that, if there is solid science saying Blacks are intellectually inferior to Whites, well, we need to say that in articles. Let me remind you of NPOV: we have to present this as a view, not as the "truth." Moreover, there are many scientists who tak issue with this claim, this is by no means a consensus among scientists. Yesterday, I began to involve myself in a new argument on the talk page, about whether or not to include the views of Stephen Jay Gould. Gould was a Harvard biologist and one of the leading experts on evolutionary theory, and published a book examining claims that certain races are intellectually inferior to others has a biological basis. Mikemikev, Captain occam, and Distributive Justice have been fighting to keep this source out of the article. It looks like any view that questions their view will be excluded. This to me is edit-warring. And yes, when we are talking about whether blacks are inherently inferior to whites, I think the stakes are high and we better get the science right and be fanatic about complying with NPOV. When a group of editors disregard these concerns, it does make me angry, and I am glad I went to Ludwigs2 to have an honest discussion with him about it, and I am trying to restrain myself. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi SL. It is, of course, where one or more editors view the stakes as being high that emotions tend to run the highest, and civility finds itself most at risk. I don't think the issue on this page is "who is right". But rather, whether the involved editors can comport themselves in a civil fashion, within the wiki civility requirements. Some of the editors on this page feel that some of your language (though not all of that cited) may have approached or passed the border of acceptable communication, and been somewhat short of what is expected of an admin. Would it be possible for you to apologize if your colleagues were offended? If that were the case, I for one would be happy to consider this case closed.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Slrubenstein, two points:
1: Let’s keep the discussion here to user conduct, rather than rehashing content disputes here. There’s already a lengthy debate on the article talk page about Galton’s Law of Ancestral Heredity (which is what this issue is about), and whether what Arthur Jensen and Richard Nisbett have written about it as it pertains to IQ scores should go in the article. Since the discussion of Galton’s Law as it pertains to IQ is in the source material from both sides of the debate about this topic, it’s questionable whether we should be second-guessing the validity of the source material like this, but either way that’s not what we should be discussing here.
2: If you look at the discussion during which we were first coming up with the article outline, you’ll see that consensus actually supported the inclusion of this line of data, although we didn’t add it to the outline itself because we weren’t sure which section of the article it belonged in. When Muntuwandi proposed his own version of the outline, not everyone agreed that this point should go in his own version of it, since his outline wasn’t data-centric. But for the outline that we ended up using, the data-centric one proposed by Varoon Arya, multiple users agreed that it should cover Galton’s Law of Ancestral Heredity and how this applies to IQ scores, and nobody raised a problem with this until we tried to actually add it to the article.
However, even if you were right both that Galton’s Law of Ancestral Heredity had nothing to do with genetics and that there was never a consensus to cover this topic in the article, that still wouldn’t justify your personal attacks against me and Mikemikev. It’s easy to point out that you disagree with a piece of content without attacking the user who added it.
“Mikemikev, Captain occam, and Distributive Justice have been fighting to keep this source out of the article. It looks like any view that questions their view will be excluded. This to me is edit-warring.”
I should point out that before the article was protected I had reverted it only once during the previous two days, while you had reverted it four times within the past 24 hours. For me to be disputing on the talk page whether Gould’s views on IQ are notable enough to belong in the article, without editing the article itself, does not fit Wikipedia’s definition of edit warring. That’s just a normal content dispute, and the only problematic thing about the way I was expressing my viewpoint about this topic was the fact that I disagreed with you.
I think you need to recognize the fact that there’s a legitimate scientific debate as to what’s causing the difference in average IQ scores between races. Not everyone who thinks that genetics are contributing to it is necessarily a racist; they may just interpret the data differently from you. One of the things we reached consensus on in the mediation also is that this viewpoint does not meet Wikipedia’s definition of a “fringe theory”, so I don’t think you should be implying that it does.
Epeefleche: If Slrubenstein apologizes to me and mikemikev for being uncivil towards us, and agrees to make an effort to avoid this problem in the future, I would be happy for this thread to be closed. In fact, because of Mathsci’s effort to convert this thread into a complaint about my conduct in a separate article, I would prefer that this thread be closed before it drifts any further off-topic. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that would go a long way to resolving this issue, perhaps long enough for the content disputes to be resolved amicably. I would also suggest that, as a further gesture of goodwill, you commit to take more account of comments from Slrubenstein. You have seen here he is generally respected as an editor. I have noticed that on technical issues, his understanding is often similar to mine, and these have included some matters of mathematical fact rather than opinion. And the list of participants Slrubenstien mentioned above includes someone who seemed to reject my reasoned argument with little attempt to understand it, and when Slrubenstein supp