Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive632

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Vexorg on Criticism of YouTube[edit]

Criticism of YouTube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an article I keep on watchlist because, well, people don't like it, and often include unsourced material about their pet peeve. One such user, Vexorg (talk · contribs), has been doing this on-and-off sometimes (he did this back in February). He's hit the article again, here. Now, in his edit summary, he says that he's restoring sourced material, and he's technically right... if you count them as sources. Most of the "sources" are to Youtomb or political/religious channels on YouTube about ZOMG CENSORSHIP (and for the record, I actually subscribe to Thunderf00t; I just don't see him as an RS for Wikipedia). But the worst part is the anti-IDF paragraph... using sources such as Portland Indymedia and American Freepress, full of anti-Israeli invective which, to crib from Alan Grayson, would blame the Israelis for ruining the suicide bomb industry if they ever found a peaceful solution to the conflict. And these are proper sources? At the very least, I recommend the "reviewer" right be stripped from him; as he cannot differentiate between reliable sources and horse manure, he cannot be trusted with a tool that could potentially introduce libel into BLPs. Sceptre (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I have reported this user for edit warring... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Sceptre_reported_by_User:Vexorg_.28Result:_.29 on this artickle. Please not his offensive comments in his reversions. I also read his politically motived diatribe in his summary above and cannot take it seriously as it simply reflects his personal subjective opinion on the sources in the article Vexorg (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Clerical note, the page in question has been protected for one week to (hopefully) induce discussion and stop the edit war. --Chris (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Still, the "reviewer" right should be removed. Vexorg simply can't be trusted with it. Sceptre (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The above exposes your childish agenda because it goes BEYOND the contention on this article and attacks my editor status as a whole.Chris was right in protecting the page to to stop your edit warring. Looking at the edit history of that page you have a clear 'ownership obsession' of that article. All I did was restore properly sourced material. YOU jumped in with an immediate edit war obsession straight away because another editor trod on your perceived territory. . Vexorg (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I did not protect the page to stop Sceptre from edit warring. I protected it to stop the edit war. As you so correctly pointed out, it takes two to edit war. Do not misconstrue my action as support for your position. --Chris (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Jesus, how many times do I have to say this? YouTube is not a proper source. YouTomb is not a proper source. Indymedia is not a proper source. American Free Press is not a proper source. And there is nothing "childish" about upholding the policies of Wikipedia, which, sadly, I seem to be the only person doing so for that article. Well, and Chris too. Thanks for protecting the right version. :) Sceptre (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Jesus, how many times do I have to say this? YouTube is usually not a proper source. :) Cptnono (talk) 05:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe YouTube et al fall squarely under WP:SPS. So yes, they would usually not be proper. --Chris (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Here are only four out of dozens examples from user:vexorg edit history: removing a note that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is anti-semitic; arguing that the "Zionist Occupation Government" conspiracy isn't anti-Semitic; Inserting BLP on Tony Blairabsurd editing. With such record the user should be banned on a few topics at least, and not given reviewer rights.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Eech. He's worse than I thought. No wonder I was the subject of personal attacks. I mean, I'm already considered far-right at my university for not thinking Israel should be wiped off the map :P Sceptre (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Vexorg does seem to be a very problematic editor. Someone else pointed him out earlier, and looking at his contribs I can see why. Not just in relation to Israel, but really just about everything. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Vexorg has a longstanding and disruptive pattern of POV-pushing and incivility. Cordelia Vorkosigan (talk) 07:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Given this discussion and his block history, I'm going to remove his reviewer rights later today unless there's some strong objections. Dougweller (talk) 09:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral for now. "The permission is removed at the request of the user, the community, or the arbitration committee." Removal would seem to have to wait until more discussion by the community has taken place. Under the current phrasing... Doc9871 (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I am also unsure about removing his reviewer rights, this effectively disenfranchises a user, he does have issues, but are his additions vandalism, if they are only poorly cited or POV then they can be dealt with through reverts and reports as usual. Has he misused his reviewer rights? As more is known about the reviewer right now the community could use a discussion as to if and when the rights can or should be removed. Also as the pending changes trial is about to expire and is in need of consensus support to continue, the reviewer right could be redundant. Off2riorob (talk) 10:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: the reviewer right can be removed at the request of the community. I see Dougweller's comment above as initiating such a request. I'd suggest that !votes should be made with that in mind, and not whether Dougweller is correct in removing the right (Dougweller hasn't removed the right: they've opened a community discussion about removing the right). TFOWR 10:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note That's correct, I'm not going to remove his right without some form of endorsement of that action. But I can't see how it 'disenfranchises' him. And I simply do not understand why someone with a substantial block history for edit warring (Feb 2010, 4 blocks in 2009, 1 in 2008, 1 in 2007) should have been granted the right in the first place. This latest block just underlines the issue. Dougweller (talk) 11:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
There are plenty of experienced quality contributors that have substantial block history for edit warring. Has he misused the reviewer right? Off2riorob (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
That may be so,, and I don't know if he's misused the right, but do we want them to have reviewer rights? It's a serious question. Dougweller (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
After the two months trial now more is known about the workings of the tool and it is closing today or tomorrow and community consensus support is required to continue, here Wikipedia:Pending changes/Closure. I would say if it is kept then a discussion on the points your asking is needed to clear these issues up. Personally I am of the opinion that the tool is primarily designed to be quite easily issued and is primarily designed to keep actual vandalism out of articles and if a user has not violated that then he has a right to keep the tool. Off2riorob (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
This is obviously moot, so I'm not going to take any action. I'll probably comment in any discussion if it's kept, as I think this should only be given to trusted editors, and that many blocks for edit warring shows he isn't to be trusted. Dougweller (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes agreed its moot at the moment. Other users have recently also commented in support of your position but I agree that is a needed topic of discussion only really possible after the community decides if we shall keep the tool. I also note that although not opined for a lengthy period there was not one comment in support of removing the right from the user.Off2riorob (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The reviewer right should only be revoked for misuse of the reviewer right.Gerardw (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree; in my opinion, if, through their actions, an editor shows that they don't understand our policies regarding BLPs or reliable sources, then, even if they do not technically misuse the reviewer right, it can be revoked. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 20:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • As initiator, Salvio is entirely on the money. Given how much power reviewer gives a user—in effect, they could become liable for defamation litigation if they are found to have accepted a defamatory edit—and how the right introduces defamation to a volatile article for about 95% of the readership if said edit is accepted, an editor would need to exhibit that they can identify reliable sources and understand NPOV, at the very least. Sceptre (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that Vexorg's longstanding pattern of engaging in disruptive and uncivil editing is causing a problem. They are repeatedly POV-pushing on talk pages and in article space, have been warned many, many times on their talk page about incivility and edit warring (for example, 1, 2, 3), and are persistently incivil (for example, 1, 2). And, for some older civility problems, I left a post on the user's talk page months ago regarding a discussion in which the editor was participating in which he persistently accused everyone disagreeing with him of having a sinister political agenda:1. Now, I'm glad that Wikipedia doesn't block people for simply holding fringe views. But when an editor combines POV-pushing for fringe views with persistent personal attacks on other editors, at some point you have to wonder what they are contributing here, and how to get this editor to stop being disruptive to the community.... Cordelia Vorkosigan (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Frank Fascarelli[edit]

User:Frank Fascarelli is the newest incarnation of banned editor User:Torkmann. His signature style is to create a new account because we have not banned his IP address and nominate articles for deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

From what I can see, Richard Arthur Norton is a pompous, foolish person that enjoys accusing other people of crimes that only exist inside his own mind. I see that he has had several blocks for incivility recently. He is following me around, striking out my comments, and taunting me. He is making me not wish to contribute to wikipedia. Are all editors like this? Frank Fascarelli (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Richard A. Norton also has a knee-jerk reaction to blame a "sockpuppet" whenever one of his articles is being deleted. see this "sockpuppet" complaint. Frank Fascarelli (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Indeffed. Maybe a friendly CU can look for IPs and sleepers, but that doesn't seem to fit the MO. Protonk (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Is the IP blocked, or just the account? That is 8 times an account has been blocked, but he keeps using the same IP. Why isn't the IP blocked? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
    • He uses the same IP every time? I have no idea what is IP address is because I'm not a CU. The IP that account used will be autoblocked for 24 hours, but that's it. Protonk (talk) 03:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't know, folks. He's vowed to move to Cote d'Ivoire where his IP cannot be traced and become an admin so he can, well, you folks can read the rest of that diff ... :-) –MuZemike 03:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I've put a checkuser block on the IP; there was one earlier in the year, but it expired. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I've closed these AFDs per WP:SK 3...

There are a few others I left open because they have an outstanding delete !vote. Not sure about this one..

"Convert to category" might be considered a delete !vote. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What are the other AfDs besides the ones you listed? I would like to see if the articles can be rescued. SilverserenC 03:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I was still tempted to close these per WP:IAR --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I've already got the Manz Corporation covered. I'll see what I can do about the other two. It would help if you went and voted in the AfDs yourself, whether it be for Keep or Delete. SilverserenC 04:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
No need, Armbrust struck his delete !votes so I punched keep on both. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African-American pornographic actors has 2 delete !votes. One is an rather sarcastic. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Victim numbers mentioned in Soviet War in Afghanistan[edit]

Can someone have a look at these edits on the numbers of victims? Vandalism?

  1. 15 aug 2010 15:26 Professor john enistein (Overleg | bijdragen) (88.056 bytes)
  2. 15 aug 2010 15:07 Professor john enistein (Overleg | bijdragen) (87.970 bytes)

--JanDeFietser (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Replacing cited figures with uncited ones? Seems pretty clear cut to me. I've reverted them. S.G.(GH) ping! 16:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
And welcomed the user and told him/her that you raised this thread - don't forget you have to do that. S.G.(GH) ping! 16:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thanks and sorry that I forgot that warning. The exact number of casualties is a topic that I would rather like to skip, if you don't mind--JanDeFietser (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:PRODSUM is broken[edit]

Looks like some changes to {{prod}} have prohibited non-BLP prods from being parsed properly by DumbBOT. I dropped a note on User talk:DumbBOT, but it does not yet appear to have been fixed. And, of course, since prod is subst'ed, any new changes will still take a while to percolate through the backlog... Jclemens (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Aggressive user talk and behaviour[edit]

Resolved: nothing for an Administrator to see, advice given. Off2riorob (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I brought this issue here previously regarding user Ronz (I don't know what happened to that posting). I've asked this user to leave me alone, but he persists in what feels to me like harassment. At issue is his repeated editing of my talk page and trying to initiate WP:BATTLE with me there. I really, really, really just want him to leave me alone, that is all I want. I'd prefer to not have to abandon wikipedia as I was just getting started with it (trying to contribute my understanding of wiki policies on talk pages as assistance) and hoping to move to actually editing articles in time. But when I asked another user who responded to me here previously, what to do, not only did Ronz jump into the discussion, the other user made me feel like I'm the problem. So if that's the case, I will leave, but if trying to be reasonable and civil is a problem here ... well I don't really know what to say. Please help me understand what's going on, it very confusing.ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Previous ANI discussion --Ronz (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't see anything worthy of a report, is this about Naveen Jain? Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, my concerns are regarding his activity on my talk page, especially after I've asked him to please just leave my talk page alone. Obviously wikipedia business is still an acceptable use of the page, but beyond that I have asked him to refrain as it feels personal. ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Have you considered WP:ADOPTION as a new user that seems to be in need of a little guidance I recommend that to you, have you had another user name or account? Off2riorob (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I hadn't heard about WP:ADOPTION until now. That sounds like it would help (should I decide to continue involvement here). I have not had another user name or account. I've read many articles, of course, and even wrote an essay in high school about how community-controlled knowledge (like Wikipedia) is a peek into the future of human endeavour. Now I regret getting involved here. I literally stumbled onto a page that sparked my legal interest (future law school student). I've spent hours reading the wiki guidelines and hours and hours searching for material to help expand that page. I'm thinking it's probably best at this point for me to take the high road, concede that somehow I've acted inappropriately, and if I find the strength, return to the wiki guidelines and maybe try again some day. At the very least it has been a learning experience. ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I will close this then as there is nothing worthy of any action. If you decide to stay then do consider the adoption as it is very useful, you are of course welcome to ask me for advice on my talkpage and I will gladly help you if I can. Off2riorob (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attack User Boxes[edit]

Resolved: User blocked for personal attacks. Fences&Windows 23:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone tell me if I'm overreacting or if the userboxes on Mark Sheridan (talk · contribs)'s page are unacceptable. I removed them once as personal attacks and they've been reinstated and I'm not interested in some war with this user. Canterbury Tail talk 12:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagreements are fine, userboxes calling specific users bastards are not. I've removed the userboxes again and warned the user to stop doing so, or be blocked. WP:NPA is there for a reason and very much applies here. ~ mazca talk 12:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict with Mazca)They are so pathetic I nearly burst out laughing. That's the lamest disruption I've seen for a while. No, they are absolutely NOT acceptable and I see they have been removed again. They should stay removed. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
That's entirely what I thought (and knew) however since it obviously involves me I brought it elsewhere. Canterbury Tail talk 12:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
It's important to note that this user has had a previous final warning for NPA against Canterbury Tail. Since then these boxes have appeared at least twice. Toddst1 (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing that up Toddst1. Based on that, I have handed out a block. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Revoke rollback permission for Docboat?[edit]

Resolved: Editor urged to brush up on WP:ROLLBACK; no need to revoke the privilege for the moment, however. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 22:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In March 2008 User:Docboat was granted rollback permission. However, Docboat seems to lack enough experience here to use it wisely. On August 14, 2010 Docboat used rollback on Anismus and William Frederick James Harvey, in both cases disrupting other editors in the midst of improving those articles. Both articles have now received intervention from additional editors in relevant projects. Docboat also used rollback in a similar manner on Lance et Compte, Family Guy (season 9), and Wesleyan University. I think use of rollback in this manner is not in the best interest of Wikipedia. Docboat personally undid the rollback on Anismus, and I appreciate that, but Docboat's rollbacks on the whole have wasted considerable time and effort by myself and others. I ask that Docboat's rollback permission be revoked. I understand that Docboat can request rollback permission again, and it may be granted again. That would be fine with me. 66.167.43.31 (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Has someone spoken with Docboat and reminded him of WP:ROLLBACK? And have you notified him that he's under discussion here? Kudos, by the way for your grasp of Wikilingo and policy, unusual for an IP.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Result of tedious hours spent searching and following links. Yes, I have approached Docboat on their talk page and notified them too. I am very dismayed by the high error rate I see in reverts made by page patrollers, and I think WP:DONTBITE pays too little attention to what to do instead of biting. 66.167.43.31 (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I see Docboat has not edited since an hour before you dropped him a note, which was late this morning. Perhaps it would have been best to discuss it with him or at least allowing time for him to respond (keeping in mind that a few editors around here actually have lives). Just in the interest of not having us rush into anything, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Also I see a very friendly and apologetic note from Docboat on your talk page]. Very appropriate. I will say that it is very easy to mistake an edit, at first glance, from an IP as vandalism. I will confess to having erred there myself. Not everyone wants to join, but having a username does get you a little more respect, which is not a reflection on you, unhappily most of our vandalism comes from IPs or else brand new editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
It would seem that Docboat hasn't edited much in that past year, only deciding to begin using rollback again a few days ago after only 8 edits since last October. Perhaps Docboat does have a lack of experience, but I would have made some of the same rollbacks too, especially that defecating edit. A reminder of WP:Rollback is all that may be warranted in this case.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. A nice note. There is no reason to remove rollback from someone who is at least trying to use it properly, and who hasn't shown that he won't learn.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
As a side story, I had Rollback removed once for making a single poor revert. I didn't even get a reminder, it was just yanked, albeit with the promise to restore it in a few days. Apparently it was to teach me to slow down. It was restored in a few hours after a consensus determined that the removal was unnecessary.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
So much contention! Since Docboat was notified and will no doubt check this thread, he should know to refresh himself on policy, and I think we can mark this resolved.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Where should I edit today?[edit]

Resolved: Not an admin issue, try Wikipedia:Community portal for ideas. Fences&Windows 23:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Which articles would you suggest I edit? My knowledge is very broad, ranging from abstract algebra and insights into advanced geometry and group theory, to 19th century literature, specialising in crime fiction, to an enthusiasm for contemporary culinary techniques and a love of fine dining. So where would you all suggest I start my wiki-editing career? 188.221.144.7 (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Wherever you like. Welcome to Wikipedia! Administrators don't tell other editors where to edit, it is completely up to you. Why not register and get a user name? You'll be taken more seriously.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Reminds me of Where do you want to go today?. Come to think of it, if we ever advertised we could use that as a slogan. "Where do you want to edit today?" --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

User's talk page blocked for no good reason[edit]

Rev. Ian Cook (talk · contribs) was blocked for trolling, but then he was accused by Excirial (talk · contribs) of being a sock puppet of Pastor Terry-John (talk · contribs). Despite the timing and claims of being clergymen, both men behaved in opposite manner (Cook approves of Wikipedia, Terry-John thinks we're possessed by Satan), and sockpuppets of Terry-John have attacked Cook ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]), and attacked me for trying to help Cook ([6]). Unless there are checkuser results saying otherwise, there is no reason to say that Rev. Ian Cook is a sock puppet of Pastor Terry-John (Terry-John appears to be too stupid to run a well behaved sock, all his socks have been bad-tempered trolls). Despite this, PMDrive1061 (talk · contribs) has redirected Cook's talk page to his user page and put up a "blocked as a sockpuppet" notice when he was NOT blocked for that reason and when there is NO EVIDENCE that Cook is a sockpuppet, and then protected Cook's page. I left a message for PMDrive1061 explaining this, but he has decided to retire, without responding to my message at all. So, I need someone to undo PMDrive's work (I can't undo the redirect, I can't undo the protection, and as a non-admin it's not quite within my authority to remove the "suspected sockpuppet" message), or show me how Excirial and PMDrive1061 (who have otherwise been model admins in my view) have not been trigger happy. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): Per this PMDrive1061 has retired because of offwiki stalking and nothing being done onwiki (when it pops up onwiki) to fight it. I think it best to just leave PMDrive1061 alone, he has reached his limit of Wikipedia and we owe it to him (after all the hard work he has done) to just left him disappear. - NeutralhomerTalk • 23:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Fine, but will someone clean up after him? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Probably needs a checkuser to make sure the accounts aren't together or part of other sockpuppets, then an unblock. - NeutralhomerTalk • 23:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
But the block wasn't for sockpuppetry, the trolling Cook was blocked for was for going around saying "bless you for the work you do here," how is that anything like Terry-John's trolling of saying we're possessed by Satan for just being editors here? The only reason Cook was accused of sockpuppetry was because he and Terry-John are or claim to be clergymen, and they joined roughly around the same time. That's it, and there's plenty of evidence against sockpuppetry. It's completely unnecessary, but if it will get someone to do something, fine, include it. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
There are two issues that make a connection plausable: timing of account creation; and the fact that subsequent socks of Pastor Terry-John have singled out Rev. Ian Cook's talk page and through that found your talk page - it would be odd for them to find this specific blocked account and then to remain fixated on it unless there's a connection. That may be enough to justify the need for a checkuser ... but I agree that without that firm evidence, we should AGF and at least permit talk page access for now. I'll re-allow talk page editing for now - restoring further access can be discussed. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 23:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Page unblocked. I meant to do so earlier, but as you can see by my recent history, I've been busy. Sorry about the misunderstanding. Goodbye. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Took me a moment to realize you had already unprotected it was why I wasn't seeing protection to remove. :-) --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 23:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Rev. Ian Cook is, regardless of any connection with Pastor whoever, an abuser of multiple accounts; he is also User:Reverend J. Connolley, User:Pmoultrie, and User:TheRevC. He's probably also some or another serial socker, but it doesn't really matter who; this abuse stands on its own. --jpgordon::==( o ) 00:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, RevC is Cook according to a check user (before he had our policy on sockpuppets explained to him because it was assumed he was Pastor Terry-John), but where are you getting the rest from? Reverend J. Connolley (banned for being a puppet of Pastor Terry-John) left a nasty message on Cook's talk page (just like PTJ), and I'm failing to see any connection between Pmoultrie with any of this. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, jpgordon has checkuser access. He didn't state specifically, but I am guessing his statement above is based on a check. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 00:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. I guess I should say so when I make declarations like the previous. --jpgordon::==( o ) 00:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, fuck me, without checkuser access this was all I could see. Nevermind everyone, I'm sorry for the mess. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No big deal. It gave me the opportunity to peek and get rid of a bunch of PTJ's sleepers. --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Ian, they're trolls, either friends, or the same guy on two connections. This is what they do.
@PMD; bummer, best wishes. Jack Merridew 09:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Teh User:Rev. Ian Cook trolled me on meta; [7], feigning to be User:A Nobody. There're two more of the same by m:User:NotAnybody, just above; [8] [9]. Both accounts are unified. I get this a *lot*, which contributed to another mess somewhere ↑↑ on this page. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

These two now blocked on meta; m:Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat#a couple of cross-wiki-trolls. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Its always best to confirm with a checkuser, and make sure. Hate to see innocent users get blocked, although that doesn't seem to be the case here.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The "Rev. Ian Cook" account *was* confirmed by Josh, just above, and the accounts are unified, so that's the same account on meta; it was blocked here and went off to meta to troll there. Someone shut down teh talk pages if there's another peep; block User:NotAnybody, too, as a sleeper, who was rightly blocked for trolling on meta. I was pointed at m:Steward requests/Global to get any globally blocked, if needed. These are garden variety trolls; they get swatted with the edge of a garden spade on a daily basis. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, guys, they're all GEORGIEGIBBONS socks and are just there to waste your time.  Confirmed, BTW. I tagged a handful and left the rest as they're all blocked anyways - Alison 06:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Request to permanently block user 24.160.114.178 and permanently protect article Michael W. Dean.[edit]

Resolved: IP has been blocked for 39 hours and Michael W. Dean doesn't have enough recent disruptive activity to warrant PP at this time. Whose Your Guy (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

User 24.160.114.178 has made seven edits to Wikipedia, all of them vandalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.160.114.178 Suggestion: permanent block of user.

Also, article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_W._Dean has had ongoing vandalism over months from a bunch of persistent, unregistered users, suggest permanently protect the page. Other than the vandalism, the article is not very active edit-wise, and will not suffer from having edits limited to registered users with proven useful edits.


(also posting second paragraph on "requests for protection.") Thank you! ElizaBarrington (talk) 03:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would anybody want to vandalise this. More's the point, why did somebody bother to write it in the first place? Oh, well the intrinsic problem with Wikipedia is that it will always attract people with ,let's say, psychiatric difficulties. A healthy dose of tolerance and shrugged shoulders is required. Petebutt (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Report the IP to WP:AIV (ensuring the talk page has enough warnings on it), and request the page be protected at WP:RPP. See my note in the resolved section above. Whose Your Guy (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Thehelpinghand's political propaganda[edit]

Just want to make sure, is the propaganda in favour of Tony Blair on User talk:Thehelpinghand allowed on Wikipedia?. I removed it previously, but the user warned me on Wikinews that it was allowed by an administrator. Diego Grez what's up? 16:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Gah! Diego! I blocked you, dammit!!! :). I saw that on WN; if you look at the WP talk page, Deskana is questioning if he really did say that. See here for en.Wikinews. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
My feeling on this is that it is not really worth pursuing. Thehelpinghand has bigger problems right now. It's silly and it makes a mess of the page format, but it's not hurting anyone. Best to let it drop since they are indef blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
About it being "allowed by an administrator", I recall him asking that on irc help channel, basically all we told him is that noone really cares what you have on your userpage, just don't violate WP:UPNOT. -- œ 12:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-free image on user page[edit]

Resolved

On August 11, 2010, I removed a non-free image from Chris9086 (talk · contribs)'s user page, since the image violated both WP:NFC and undoubtedly some WP:BLP policy (since the image in question is of Jorge Garcia's face). I also left a notice on Chris9086's talk page. On August 14, 71.17.173.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who'd originally placed the image there, re-added the non-free image and left a disrespectful and uncivil comment directed at me in the edit summary. I refuse to revert the change since I currently practice a one-revert rule on all namespaces in order to avoid starting a possible war. I'm at a loss as to what to do at this point. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 17:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps nom it for deletion?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it's used on an article. However, I reverted the addition, welcome/warned the IP - and will block for copyvio should they re-add it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Why is an IP adding images to other people's talk page? Unless the IP is Chris, not logged in.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Great, thank you guys very much. Wehwalt, yes the image is actually the album cover for Weezer's Hurley. I was curious about the IP/User relationship as well, but I was less worried about sockpuppetry than the copyvio. (The IP's edits are so few.) – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 17:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
That IP was my friend doing that as a joke, just so you know. We didn't know about the non-free image rule, so sorry about that. Chris9086 (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
My friend/brother/cat did it :D. In seriousness though, if you are able to swing by our policies on WP:COPYRIGHT and just familiarise yourself with them that should be fine. Also, have your friend learn some manners. Cheers Chris. S.G.(GH) ping! 17:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Aaaannnd, the IP added it back - left some moronic content on his talkpage, and has been blocked for 31hrs for copyio, as warned/promised. If it's really Chris' friend, then maybe Chris wants a block too for WP:MEAT? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I did inform Chris that his "friend" needs to stop acting like an idiot and his conduct reflects badly on him. S.G.(GH) ping! 12:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblock Needed[edit]

Resolved

I am having consistant problems with the 75.170 range on the WGGH page. For the past year, it has been the same repeated vandalism over and over and over. It is tiresome. I have, again, requested page protection (got it last time), but I think a rangeblock is needed. Could an admin take a look at the history and see if a rangeblock can be put in place? Thanks...NeutralhomerTalk • 19:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

A range block seems a bit much, as long as its only one page. Wouldn't a simple page protection be better? Or do you think that there are other pages?--Jojhutton (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I think what NH might be thinking is that given the range of IPs seem to have no other edits other than to WGGH, why apply a semi protection to exclude all IPs when one can exclude one IP range with no good contributions. Though I would never dare to presume what he is really thinking... the reality would frighten me, I'm sure. In any case, it is semi protected for now and given that it is such a tiny article perhaps semi protection would not hurt it no matter what it's duration. S.G.(GH) ping! 19:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Does user SGGH have a conflict of interest with WGGH? Or just by accident a similar name. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
This article seems to fail WP:CORP which is the notability (companies) page. Does radio stations get special treatment such as "all radio stations are notable"? I know high schools are given special allowance to have articles no matter how obscure or non-notable they may be. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking that if the range was having vandalism edits on one page, why wait for them to go to another and start something. Kind of ABF on my part, I know, but I have seen no good edits from this range other than vandalism on WGGH. @SGGH, don't worry, what everyone is really thinking frightens me too. @Suomi, yes, all radio stations are notable. - NeutralhomerTalk • 19:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Do they all geolocate to wherever WGGH serves? And how long are you thinking for a block? That's another consideration: semi protection can be indefinite but I doubt an indef rangeblock would be considered. S.G.(GH) ping! 19:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I just learned that radio stations are not automatically notable. WP:BCAST says "Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming." If WGGH does not have a large audience (probably not), established broadcast history (don't know), or unique programming (no), then it can be AFD and deleted and the vandalism will cease to exist. I do not know WGGH so I cannot say Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Most likely your right about the notability, but thats an interesting angle on fighting vandalism. Delete the page and vandalism will go away.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Well if it doesn't pass notability criteria then whatever its edit history it doesn't really matter. AfD it if you wish as failing notability. S.G.(GH) ping! 20:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I recommend not going for AfD. There is precedence set by past AfDs that radio stations are notable. - NeutralhomerTalk • 20:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree. No need to waste the time. We all know the outcome way in advance don't we? There always seems to be enough fanboys to create a no-consensus. Just see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Slater, to see what I mean.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
These unwritten precedents are ridiculous. They stem from a time when we had different criteria, and they are basically 'Well, that's the way we've always done it, go away now." And they are accumulative, first there are just a few, then people say 'That's what we did last time', and so it goes. I say either put it into the guideline or let decisions be made according to our written guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
We do have a guideline, acutally...WP:NME. The precedence from the AfDs, well, you can go search AfD, I am not diggin' for 'em.
Suomi Finland 2009 and I are hashing this out on WP:WPRS, another WPRS member is actively updating the page with sources, so I request this be marked resolved and pushed to WPRS. - NeutralhomerTalk • 21:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


That's specifically not a guideline, just an essay. Dougweller (talk) 08:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


So, I presume that Neutralhomer is withdrawing his request for a range block??? If not, then this isn't resolved. I have no opinion since I know nothing about WGGH. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Like SGGH I'm too frightened by the prospect of imagining what Neutralhomer thinks, but I'd regard a rangeblock as unnecessary now that the page is semi'd. There is still the open issue of radio-station notability, but this is probably not the best venue for that discussion. TFOWR 21:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I just figured since we have a discussion going at WPRS (the radio station WikiProject), it wouldn't be cool to fragment the discussions. Yes, I am withdrawing my request for rangeblock (since it isn't needed now...might be later but we will cross that bridge then). - NeutralhomerTalk • 21:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


Ok, but I'd like to point to examples of the problem: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WCRX-LP and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WLRY. Dougweller (talk) 08:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, but we ought not to clog up ANI with such policy discussions now. I'll drop by the Wikiproject and see what they say. S.G.(GH) ping! 12:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Chartered Accountants of Australia[edit]

Hi there. Can we please change the page Chartered Accountants of Australia to Chartered Accountants in Australia ? I would do it, but cant because the current page Chartered Accountants in Australia automatically redirects to Chartered Accountants of Australia. I hope that makes sense and you can help us please. Many thanks. Charteredaccountantsdigital (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the correct name of the article? Because there is non titled Charterd Accountants of Austrailia. As an aside, your username is in violation of our username policy. Whose Your Guy (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 Done - Institute of Chartered Accountants of Australia moved to Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia leaving a redirect. JohnCD (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:United States Senate: World Greatest Deliberative Body[edit]

I am referring this to the Admin notice board as the debate has got way out of hand and one user is continuing to engage in wikilawyering and personal attacks against myself. A third opinion was asked for in this case, which has resulted in the user expanding their personal attacks. Please can this be sorted out as this kind of behaviour towards myself is unacceptable and removed the ability to debate the issues at hand. I have though also made a claim that this user is acting as the article owner which I believe to be a true statement but may be taken as unhelpful. This is due to the nature and continued personal attacks and attempted character assassination of myself. --Lucy-marie (talk) 08:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I am, presumably, the editor in question. If this is indeed the appropriate forum for LucyMarie to direct her concerns (my own opinions notwithstanding, a legitimate issue about personal attacks would presumably be better dealt with first on the user's talk page, and then at WQA, and then at an RfC on user conduct), and an administrator wishes to investigate this 'situation' (no death threats, racist attacks, or legal threats are involved), I advise them to read the talk page of the United States Senate article. The Rhymesmith (talk) 09:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect, Lucy-marie, I don't see it as a personal attack for one editor to say that another is completely misinterpreting policy. If we couldn't say another editor misunderstands policy, we'd have no way to conduct consensus building discussions. Furthermore, while I admit to skimming parts of that quite long debate, I didn't see either side "wikilawyering"--you were both looking closely at policy to solve a content dispute. Can you point to a specific diff which you think is a personal attack, that meets the definitions in WP:NPA? I do think the debate spiraled out of hand, but I am hard-pressed to say that the blame for that lies with The Rhymesmith. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The comments I take issue with are comments after towards the end of the third opinion which are in bold and are only there to attempt to create an impression of me a bad faith editor. Rhymesmith has trawled through my history and dug up some poor editing I did when I first started. The comments had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand and were only there to try and discredit me as an editor. If Ryhmesmith is allowed to get away that level of personal commenting which only designed to diminish another editor as opposed to actually commenting on the content of the article then no serious discussions’ purely on the issues can be had.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The following are a selection of diffs which I consider to ammount to personal attacks diff 1 diff 2 diff 3 diff 4 diff 5 this diff states Rhymesmith is deliberatly not assuming good faith 6

Please take a look at the above as I consider the above to ammount to personal attacks.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


Firstly, I am not mandated to assume good faith under circumstances where I have explicit grounds for not doing so. My grounds are articulated alongside the actual statement of not assuming good faith, and stem from Lucy Marie's behavior. Good grief. Now, from WP:NPA - a partial definition of a personal attack.
I am perfectly happy to defend each of my remarks, if requested, by showing how I am commenting on explicit instances of unhelpful behavior by LucyMarie in the course of the discussion, as opposed to merely my attempting to disparage her. My accusations of alogia, for example, are not intended to belittle her, but to simply establish that she has "repeatedly and unrepentantly refused to debate in a logical fashion", just as my remarks about her history of disruptive and POV editing are perfectly apposite to her approach to the US Senate article, and just as my remark about her either having no grasp of Wikipedia policy or deliberately "slinging bull" to support her viewpoint is something which can easily be established as true in the context of the debate. I don't see the need for a humiliating proof of this, but I will provide one, if necessary. The Rhymesmith (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The above diffs I have provided are in my opinion attacks as they comment directly on me and not on the content being discussed. Also claiming you are going to provdide proof of something that will be for humilation only is again in my opinion a personal attack.

--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Commenting on you as a direct function of your conduct is not a personal attack, as far as I'm concerned, just as calling an actual vandal a vandal is not a personal attack (as Qwryxian has analogously pointed out, above). Nevertheless, I am not going to clog up this page with another extended "argument". If someone wishes to read the whole discussion at the Senate talk page and then wishes to do something, I will be happy to defend each of my remarks as a function of your behavior. The Rhymesmith (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


The whole purpose of having the no personal attacks policy has been blatantly missed. The nutshell clealy states.
It appears as if you have inverted that by commenting on the contributor and not the content.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I've reviewed all 6 diffs above. I do see a lack of civility, but it's mild and seems born of frustration. I'm not taking The Rhymesmith's side here, as I haven't reviewed the entire conversation (nor do I feel compelled to) but all of those comments were observations on behavior, not personal attacks against you. There's a difference between stating that a person has said something stupid, and calling someone stupid. Sometimes people do try to game the system by insulting people in a round-about way by following the letter if not the spirit of the no personal attacks policy, but I don't see that here. We don't censor people, and if a person finds another person objectionable they are free to express this, our "call a spade a spade" essay illustrates that well. I will say that "incoherent and opinionated blathering" seems unduly harsh and while not a personal attack, seems less civil than it can be. Lucy-marie, if you feel that The Rhymesmith is overly rude to you, we do have a noticeboard for that, although it's unlikely that action beyond a reprimand would result. This mostly seems like an issue for dispute resolution, and as a third opinion was recently sought it seems like that dispute resolution process is underway. You might want to seek more help with a request for comment to bring in more people to the debate if the discussion is stalled or otherwise not progressing. -- Atama 21:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

User:90.200.240.178[edit]

The above IP address has a persistent history of adding poorly sourced controversial material to BLPs (eg1). He has instigated and continued edit wars at several articles, antagonising several users (eg2). This appears to fit a pattern of behaviour that led to other IP addresses being blocked (eg3). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Point of order: those IPs were not blocked but (the ones which are actually me) changed periodically. I'm told this is due to my ISP assigning "dynamic IP addresses". I would like the allegation that I am evading blocks to be struck out. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
This user has edited from several IP addresses and at each of them has persisted on adding negative, controversial and dubious material to BLP’s, and other articles resulting in a great deal of disruption, and has attempted to evade blocks by using a changing IP. From IP addresses User talk:90.194.100.16, User talk:194.80.49.252, User talk:155.136.80.35, User talk:90.197.236.12,User talk:90.207.105.117, User talk:90.197.224.58 edit warring with multiple users including pages;
this article, here here here here here here.
Again at This article here, here, here, here, here.
Again at This article here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here (after several discussions and warnings discussion, warning, warning, BLP noticeboard discussion. Again
this article here, here, here, here, here, here, here. BLP noticeboard discussion.
This Article here, here, here, here, here.
This one, here, here, here, here, here, here, here.
This Article here, here, here. Amongst a lot of other reverts of similar disputed content dating back to 6th July 2010.
Serious BLP issues Here dating back to 29 june 2010 [10]. Numerous reverts and disputed inclusions up until August 5, including tagging blatant vandalism as factual here, including ridiculous images here. History of taking sources out of context and misquoting sources for example here, here, here, here, again after ref had been cross checked here. Personal attacks example, example Blatant vandalism example, here Monkeymanman (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Extreme POV pusher[edit]

I find User:Chrono1084 as an extreme POV pusher who is twisting information in the Prostitution in Afghanistan article. For example he starts the article with "Prostitution in Afghanistan seems to flourish, as the traffic in women for it did under the Talibans, in the country although it is one of the world's most conservative." and uses this as as a source to support his POV. That source only contains 1 sentence which states "Under the Taliban in Afghanistan, the traffic in women for prostitution thrived." The fact is under the Taliban prostitution was very strict and less people were involved. This is what the article itself says and is backed by so many official reports. Chrono1084 also keeps adding "some kids being sold into it by their family" which is poorly sourced and is irrelevant in the article because prostitution generally includes people who may have many different kinds of family problems and we shouldn't point out a specific one. Chrono1084 may be the same person as User:Nuwewsco, who also edits the same articles with very similar styles. He keeps reverting my edits and I don't know how to stop him, please help. Thanks.--Jrkso (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Who are you kidding? Unlike me, you keep on deleting sourced info that doesn't pleases you or you interpret it the way you want. I would like to know what this book contradicts except for your POV. Also I'm willing to do a user check to prove to you I'm not Nuwesco.--Chrono1084 (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

To admins, I reported the user here just so you know.--Jrkso (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"Prostitution in Afghanistan seems to flourish, as the traffic in women for it did under the Talibans, in the country although it is one of the world's most conservative" hardly seems like a neutral or suitable way to start an introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The whole article is a complete mess. I've tried to do a bit of work on it - but it might need a complete rewrite --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 13:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
You've done a good job, I agree the intro and the article should be rewritten.--Chrono1084 (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Just as a remark on style and syntax - that first sentence is horrific, and should be charged with war crimes against the English language. The Rhymesmith (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Both Jrkso and Chrono1084 have been given 24 hour blocks for edit warring (not by me, I hasten to add). Dougweller (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't going to add this, but looking again at the sentence he seems to have added to the beginning of the lead, I changed my mind. I don't know about this article, but there is a bit of a dispute at Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi over what a couple of us see as an NPOV problem with his edits, which are emphasising the 'luxuriousness' of his villa (while not mentioning his house arrest inside it). On its own this is not a very major dispute, and some editors won't see this as an NPOV issue, but if it is part of a pattern...Dougweller (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I rewrote the lead because it made me cross-eyed; but I agree the material needs a good look into. For anyone interested in the content issues I also left a talk page comment. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 14:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I've struck my comment above after being told this was being discussed on his talk page (there's no discussion with him on the article talk page, which is where I looked, but the subject was discussed a few weeks ago there). Dougweller (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Teeninvestor violating voluntary restriction[edit]

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

Two days ago I blocked Teeninvestor (talk · contribs) for continued hounding of Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs). See ANI discussion. I offered TI unblocking if he agreed to a voluntary restriction - an interaction ban, pretty clearly spelled out and agreed to here on Aug 11 and recorded at User:Teeninvestor/Restriction. Since then the editor has violated the ban by editing Great Divergence, Economic history of China (pre-1911) and Chinese economic reform within 1 month of GPM. I've blocked TI for violating the restriction, but would like a broader review of the situation. Note that there is already a RFCU open for TI about different issues. Toddst1 (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly reasonable to restrict someone in this way. He now has to look through history to see which articles he's allowed to edit? There must be some way of reformulating the restriction in a way that makes more sense. If Teeninvestor is editing reasonably, he should be able to edit any page. If he's not editing reasonably, he should be blocked. I see no purpose to such a restriction. Friday (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Not commenting on the merit of this particular incident, such a restriction is difficult to respect for the restricted user and very easy to game, if the other party wants to keep them from editing a particular article or a group of articles. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 18:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
He seems to have misparsed the restriction as a 1-month ban on editing articles recently edited by GPM. But in any case this was a comment on GPM (who had started the GAR). Kanguole 18:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The whole condition detail seems a bit severe to me and he only had a 48 hour original block and got these conditions imposed for an early unblocking, and the conditions appear to be easy to violate and of course he has and now he has a three week block, it seems a bit much to me, the condition should be removed as it is nothing but trouble. Allow him to finish off his original 48 hour block and remove the condition. This will also allow him to defend himself at the RFCU. Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with the others that this restriction seems to be the type that can easily be used to game the user into getting a longer ban. I deem "interaction" to be talking with the other user in non-mainspace directly (or being involved in a discussion that features the other user in a major way) or directly reverting or being involved within only a few edits on an article in mainspace with the other user. Saying that GPM edited the article a month ago and TI editing it now is interacting with him/her is ridiculous and impossibly restrictive. And, as Off2riorob stated, the restriction is impossibly harsh for just an early unblocking of a 48 hour block. In short, I do not consider this incident "interaction" and feel that TI should be unblocked immediately. SilverserenC 18:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Teeninvestor knew full well before the block which articles were contentious between him and others users including me because we were interacting on these for several weeks now and they are actually closely related in terms of contents, many relying on the same set of scholarly references. The disputed articles were no more and no less than seven:

  1. List of regions by past GDP (PPP) per capita
  2. List of regions by past GDP (PPP)
  3. Military history of China (pre-1911)
  4. Economic history of China (pre-1911)
  5. Chinese economic reform
  6. Great Divergence and
  7. Roman metallurgy

On all articles (or their talk pages) has been a lot of action in the recent past and a lot of users were involved. Particularly, Teeninvestor's edit behaviour on these articles was dealt with at length on his RFC/U. In this light, I find it hard to believe that Teeninvestor who writes about economic history and historical statistics had over night lost his ability to count up to 7. It were only those seven articles out of 2.5 mio and Teeninvestor happened to edit three of them within 24 h of the agreement. Moreover, he indirectly violated the agreement, as I see it, by trying to get another user on board for Economic history of China (pre-1911). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: Those who claim that there is a time gap of one month between my last edit and Teeninvestor's should please provide evidence for that, because is actually no such large time gap. Most importantly, my editing stopped only because Teenivestor relentlessly reverted me and others, not because I, as others, agreed to his version in any way. The editing only moved to other pages where the contentious questions were much the same. In other words: The whole dispute ran across the seven articles in circles and to pick out a single example where there may be a time lag of one than one week is missing the full picture of the dispute. Regards. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent incidents and notifications[edit]

I begin to hate this reporting, but Teeninvestor just does not seem to find the stop button: Since the lifting of his second block, he has been trying to mobilize other users to confront my edits, speaking lowly (and falsely) of my contributions and also those of User:Kanguole and User:Gnip in the process and denouncing other users as a "little clique" who wants to oust him from WP):

Notifications:

His notifications of other users are very much a continuation of his 'policy' to draw the attention of other users to my edits, which he has already attempted with Nev1 after the restrictions were first imposed on him.(For clarification: I'd be happy to discuss my edits, but the users have to come on their own accord) His disregard for the interaction ban vis-a-vis admins has also its precedence in this attempt which also occurred after the first block was lifted.

Editing of restricted articles:

Both sets of actions are against the voluntary restriction agreement agreed upon with Toddst1, reconfirmed by Patar knight and recorded here, which explicitly stipulates that Teeninvestor should refrain from talking about me and from editing any of the seven articles above, among them explicitly Chinese economic reform. I have notified Patar knight of this. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Postscript: This post (first sentence) reveals to me that Teeninvestor has not understood in the least what the voluntary restriction agreement and all this is about; he doesn't even seem to be really aware that such a restriction exists. I am at loss of words and have nothing more to say. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

May I ask where Teeninvestor badmouthed me? I was only recently aware of the fight btw GPM and Teen, but I don't believe I was involved in it. Gnip (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2010
Check out Speaking lowly of the edits of us three here and here, the last diff including in both cases your edit at Military history of China (pre-1911) (which I checked btw and which is correct). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe I never referred to your edits, as you were correcting a grammar error.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Not correct. Gnip made a change to contents. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think Teen was referring to me, considering I was changing Gun's edits. It was only a slight change anyway. I was just making sure the claims fit with the sources. There's nothing more to it than that. Gnip (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban proposal[edit]

I was going to make this earlier but discovered Teeninvestor had been blocked and had agreed to a voluntary interaction ban.

I am now going ahead and proposing the following interaction ban:

Editors User:Teeninvestor and User:Gun Powder Ma are banned from interacting with each other. This editing restriction shall include a complete prohibition from comments on the respective user talk pages, filing reports on admin noticeboards, reverting edits on articles, commenting in other venues about the other party, or directly responding to each other's comments on article talk pages. This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as the editors stay away from each other. The restriction is to be interpreted broadly. If either party feels that the other party has violated this ban or other Wikipedia policy, and no uninvolved administrator responds to the violation within a reasonable amount of time, they may notify 1 uninvolved administrator of the incident on that administrators' talk page 12 hours after the original perceived infraction, and if that first administrator does not respond by at least acknowledging seeing the report within 24 hrs they may notify a second uninvolved administrator in the same manner, but in no case more than 2 notifications on-wiki. Repeated spurious reports to administrators using this mechanism shall be grounds for blocking for disruption.

This would be logged at the edit restrictions page if enacted by community etc. It would not have a fixed duration, ie it would last until repealed by the community.Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you're good at this. SilverserenC 19:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Withdrawing I've been convinced that this is not necessary nor a good idea. Sorry if I've created any unnecessary drama (there is such a thing as necessary drama I think). Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose: Teeninvestor has also been banned from interacting with another user, Tenmei. And, frankly, I don't see why several users should be banned from articles Teeninvestors edits when it is obviously him who creates the stir. I don't like the idea of creating an exclusive lane for problematic users at the cost of other users. I don't like it even less since he is the subject of an RFC/U, not me. Have you taken a look on how many users find Teeninvestor's edit pattern problematic? More than half a dozen, in fact. On how many more users do you want an interaction ban to be imposed so that this one user can go his way? I don't see the least reason why I should be singled out to pay for Teeninvestor's aggressive edit pattern.
I have edited for four years on military, economic and technological history and I don't see a reason why I should suddenly give up a good part of it because of one problematic user. I am frankly disappointed by your one-sided approach. Teeninvestors breaks the agreement and you shift 50% of the blame (or rather its consequences) on me. Real neutrality does not lie in simplistically distributing the blame equally on all shoulders as you well know, but to judge everyone according to one's actions. So forget it. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
"should be banned from articles Teeninvestors edits " Perhaps you may want to re-read the exact language: a complete prohibition from comments on the respective user talk pages, filing reports on admin noticeboards, reverting edits on articles, commenting in other venues about the other party, or directly responding to each other's comments on article talk pages. You cant revert each others edits, or directly respond to each other on talk pages, but there is nothing saying that you cannot edit the same articles. --Active Banana | Talk 19:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Not reverting? This is unworkable. Not that I am fond of reverting (a waste of time), but it is impossible to work on an article effectively if there are sacrosant statements which cannot be changed. Effectively, this would mean that there would be two separate articles created on one page. I can agree to the whole ANI stuff, but I want my right to edit and revert to remain intact. If I overstep the 3rr or whatever, block me, but don't take it away from me. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that editing under such conditions would probably not be easy, but perhaps would not be completely impossible - working by gaining prior consensus of edits on the talk page etc. --Active Banana | bananaphone 15:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: This conflict has got to stop. If this passes, we should unblock TI. Toddst1 (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Support. One-way interaction bans never work and the current editing restriction appears to be overly harsh. Interaction bans are not a way of allotting blame, but only to stop conflicts and disruption; therefore, you shouldn't construe one imposed on you as a way of saying you're wrong or disruptive or whatnot. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 19:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Support. Doug's proposal seems a reasonable and balanced measure, intended to keep the peace; it limits the interactions of users who've been engaged in a long-running series of disputes. It offers no judgment or prejudice against any party. An interim measure, pending further and future decisions. This might have worked, but: Haploidavey (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Oppose: Teeninvestor's self-justifications further down the page worry me; sorry, don't know how to do diffs, but see under "Topic ban for Teeninvestor proposal"). After all that's been said, he still justifies his misunderstanding of what's required and relevant to topic. Gun Powder Ma has no such difficulties. I'm now in favour of limiting Teeninvestor's editing rights. I'm opposed to any editing restictions on Gun Powder Ma. Haploidavey (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Notified users of RFC/U, since they are most knowledgable about the whole thing. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - seems fair to both sides. I also support the unblocking of User Teeninvestor. Off2riorob (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Most of the disruption seems to come from Teeninvestor, particularly his high degree of incivility and wikihounding of GPM. This is the reason he was banned from interacting with GPM in the first place. It seems unfair to impose restrictions on the victim as well. The stipulation that This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as the editors stay away from each other. is also problematic and seems unworkable, and can potentially lead to all kinds of problems and misunderstandings. Athenean (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's a neat, balanced solution, but this is not a balanced situation. The trigger for this was Teeninvestor's behaviour at Roman metallurgy, where he has been edit warring to remove a well-referenced figure for Roman iron production, not because he has a different figure, but because he finds it out of line with what he knows about China (I am not making this up). It's also unworkable, both for them and other editors on these articles (not that the one-sided version was much better). Kanguole 20:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Gun Power Ma, I was going to propose just this before I even knew there was any agreement. I also agree that it is Teeninvestor who is the main problem. However, I'm not convinced that a one way ban is a good idea and I know that both above and elsewhere I've seen them opposed. We'll see what others think, I'm flexible if we can find a solution that brings this conflict to an end and stops other editors from wasting time on it. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Really, Dougweller, this is not only unfair to me, it strikes me as completely unworkable and could probably lead very quickly to a confusing situation which would rather increase the risk of blocks for both of us. With such a ill-conceived and ill-defined framework, neither Teen nor me would be able to assess the consequences of our actions properly and risk involuntarily massive (and unjustified) blocks. In other words, the situation would rather escalate and not even necessarily because of bad intentions on either side but because the whole arrangements has massive shortcomings, loop-holes and grey areas. Yesterday, I promised to stick to the interaction ban for four weeks and that's what I still intend to do.
There are these seven articles above which are contentious and which are edited by both of us. Other than that, Teen and me have had in the past not seen much overlap. If Teen keeps out of them for the next month and does not follow me I don't see any particular problem. So my proposal is let's wait for the four weeks and the outcome of the RFC/U. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment If there is some way to insure that, I'm happy with it. I certainly do not want to hinder your editing. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Procedural remark: I noticed that nowhere do we describe what a topic or interaction ban actually is, hence the need to draw up detailed rules for every case. I've attempted to describe our usual practice on the relevant policy page, Wikipedia:Banning policy#Types of ban.  Sandstein  21:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - the blocking administrator has added wikibreak templates. Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not quite gone yet but on my way out. For the record, any administrator is free to modify the existing block on TI, unblock or modify the voluntary restriction in place. Toddst1 (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Right, thanks for that. Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose restriction on GPM Teeninvestor seems to be the aggressor here. And its not the first time either. They need to learn to edit collegiately or go somewhere else. Spartaz Humbug! 22:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose this would not improve content, and would likely harm it. As I've said elsewhere, if there are problems with GPMs content contributions, they're subtle and hard to detect (i.e. i haven't found any). Teeninvestors, on the other hand, are nationalistic, rely on weak sourcing, and are skewing content.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment Having seen quite a number of the edits of both of these editors, I can't disagree with your comments about their editing. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose restricting Gun Powder Ma. (Comment placed out of order because it pertains to preceding.) I have confidence in Dougweller's view, but if GPM's contributions to article content aren't at issue, he should not be placed under restrictions that inhibit his efforts to create high-quality articles. That's what we're here for, and from what I've seen, his work is good. WP is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, not a Safe Place for people lacking competence to edit. This business of cowing productive editors because they aren't nice to CPUSHers has to stop; send them to WP:CHARM SCHOOL instead. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
A. This gambit is bad for Wikipedia going-forward; and in the context of the RfC/U, it becomes a little like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory (转胜为败).
B. This thread arises from a number of factors which aren't captured by this proposal. It is both untimely and short-sighted.
C. The understandable frustration of Dougweller and others is justified. This puts a spotlight on problems which Coren identified in 2008, including the need for
  • More awareness of a growing issue that is poisoning the very essence of collaborative editing that makes Wikipedia possible: real-world factions that vie for control over articles, turning them into polemical battlegrounds where surface civility is used to cover bias, tendentiousness and even harassment. All of us need to take a strong stance against that sort of "polite disruption" and those who use our rules of civility as weapons, recognize that long-term warriors are toxic, not vested, and investigate beyond surface behavior issues -- see here
  • Less timidity in addressing issues related to contents (POV warring, tag teams, academic dishonesty). All of us should be more active at curtailing content disputes. Academic integrity should become a priority; unlike "simple" incivility, the damage caused by editors misquoting, plagiarizing and editorializing destroys the credibility of our encyclopedia -- see here
  • Increased transparency -- see here
Summary restatement. This approach moves us towards throwing out the baby with the bath water. --Tenmei (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • oppose, sorta. I don't have a strong objection to the interaction ban being put in place, but I don't think it will solve the problem. While both parties' behavior is objectionable I think this is a case where we shouldn't say that both parties are equally at fault—Teeninvestor is more responsible for this situation than Gun Powder Ma, and sanctions should fall more heavily on the party who's more responsible. I'd rather see a topic ban for Teeninvestor, or perhaps a site ban. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support at this point, an outright interaction ban would be best, since both sides are at least partially responsible for this drama through their stubbornness. This would formalize what Teeninvestor has already agreed to do in his unblock request through e-mail to myself. However, recognizing that the consensus is that GPM has (perhaps arguably) had a lesser role, I would not be opposed to a weaker sanction on GPM. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Please allow me to summarize briefly the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor. Opened by User:Nev1, this has been running for almost a month now. In this period:
Now sit back and think a minute. How much clearer can get the picture? How much clearer can get consensus? I won't object to your observation that I have behaved stubborn at times, too, and this has been pointed out to me by other users (and I will work on that), but your notion that "I am also at least partially responsible" is at complete odds with how the drama around Teeninvestor actually evolved and what the community believes. I bet you won't find a single user from above who believes that Teeninvestor's edit pattern would not have been problematic if I had not opposed some of his edits. I fully accept that my actions are placed under close admin scrutinity and that I am liable to strong admin reaction if they are deemed improper which is only fair. But I will object to any simplistic portrayal which reduces the said user's problematic overall edit pattern to a sort of Western stand-off between him and me. This was never the case. In fact, Teeninvestor has edit-warred against multiple users on multiple pages over an extended time span, and that's exactly what the current RFC/U shows. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I proposed a similar proposal to User:Toddst1 before. I won't comment except to say that if anyone's interested in my side of the story, I presented an overview here 1 before I was blocked (and that BigK HeX didn't participate in my RFC).Teeninvestor (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose sanctioning Gun Powder Ma: The proposal is based on the premise that the parties are equally at fault, yet the discussion so far and the RfCU do not back up this assumption. To the contrary, it seems that Gun Powder Ma has spent a lot of their spare time to prevent damage to the project. A simplifying "it takes two to tango"-approach is likely to cause harm in the long run - we need editors who dispute problematic edits, and not let those wo introduce them have their way as everyone shys away in fear of sanctions just for that. If someone is disputing problematic edits and/or challenges problematic behavior, it is not the dispute (symptom) that needs to be remedied, but the problematic edits/behavior (cause). Skäpperöd (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Perhap in order for an admin to better gauge consensus, it would be better for everyone who's expressed their opinion to also state if they're involved in the underlying content dispute. As far as I'm concerned, I'm entirely uninvolved. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 15:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked[edit]

I've unblocked Teeninvestor per an e-mail he sent me through the Wikipedia e-mail system nearly half an hour ago. For transparency, text was as follows:

Since if he follows those provisions, incidents like these will not arise, I've unblocked him with caveats that he follow what he's agreed to do in this e-mail to avoid further drama. If those provisions are held, there is no reason why he cannot be unblocked to constructively work on non-controversial articles. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Teeninvestor's promise to "address the issues" at RfC[edit]

In order evade a restriction here which explicitly preserved Teeninvestor's participation in the RfC, Teeninvestor crafted a sentence in the section above here:

"I promise to respect this proposal, stop interacting with GPM, and to address the issues involved in my RFC such as use of sources, NPOV, etc."
The edit history for the RfC here shows that Teeninvestor has indeed invested time in adding to the RfC. However, there is no evidence of fulfilling a promise to address issues which were made clear in July. In the absence of specific diffs, the so-called "promise" is a sham.

This becomes a significant factor in decision-making about potential remedies. If Teeninvestor made good on a modest promise, it would be seen as a good step in a constructive direction. --Tenmei (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban for Teeninvestor proposal[edit]

I want to put up a proposal for discussion which predates the failed interaction ban. This I still find a impossible and unpractical scheme. I propose a topic ban for Teeninvestor on military and economic history. I firmly believe only a solution where there is a clear red line would be helpful in easing the dispute and not having the opposite effect of unintentionally aggravating it. From my experience as an editor, a sufficiently clear red line can only be one which stipulates that certain articles and section are taboo to interaction. The above proposal that users can edit one and the same article but only on the condition of not interacting with one another in any way I find thoroughly unworkable and a sure receipt for disaster. This would almost certainly lead to the destruction of our accounts in a cloud of confusion and allegations and counter-allegations, if we start editing the same articles.

Moreover, a majority of users, particularly those with past experience of TI's behaviour, agrees with me that a ban which would place the same restrictions on me as on Teeninvestor would be unbalanced and unjust to me given his aggressive edit pattern. Obviously, the topic scope can and should be better/more narrowly defined, but our disagreement has been practically confined to questions relating to military and economic history (particularly with what I regard Teeninvestor's continual efforts to subsume European and Western history under China by making strained and unnecessary synthetical comparisons as someone else fittingly observed), so I am positive we could work something out if the majority of users believes a ban of some sort is necessary. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

But you are his main opponent, your suggesting restrictions for him is clearly better avoided, also, teeninvestors restriction that was imposed by Todd has no value and should be removed and forgotten about. What you guys need to work on is getting on, you have what looks to me as a content dispute and you both seem to be intelligent just with opposite views, try to meet in the middle and add both sides to the articles. For the duration of the RFC simply avoid any further fall outs. Off2riorob (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Disagree. I am not his "main opponent" or what you make of it for the reasons given above. Perhaps you would like to read the RFC/U on Teeninvestor first to get more background info. I won't comment any further on TI, but I don't see a reason why this proposal should be less seriously discussed than the one above. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I think it likely that the RfC will settle these matters anyway, and sooner rather than later. Interim, I don't characterise this as the failure of two sides to settle their differences in a content dispute. Just some thoughts here; on the one hand, cited content based on scholarly sources. On the other, generalised appeals. Coming in from left field, "civility" issues (yes, scare quotes; it's possible to edit and discuss tendentiously and destructively, all with the most winning good manners). Maybe a couple of own-goals, one or two fouls worth a penalty. But should all this be lumped together and redistributed evenly between both "sides"? I'm beginning to wonder about the usefulness and justice of a judiciously even-handed ban in these circumstances, even if temporary. Haploidavey (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
This link proves that I never cite my sources. Same here and here. I wonder if any of the editors above who claim I have weak sourcing has accumulated more numerous and reliable sources than this?Teeninvestor (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I may well have, and I'm certainly someone who has said before that you've used sources improperly - you must recall discussions about WP:SYNTH. I don't want to rehash old arguments, just point out that I am speaking out of experience. It may well be that you no longer do that, I haven't looked at discussions involving you for a while. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Apologies, Teen. Your link compels me to clarify my position. My comments here apply to editing at Roman metallurgy. My contribution as an outsider at the RfC is limited to the same. Haploidavey (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
For the record I also cited several of the sources there such as Wagner 2001 and Needham 1986 for the dispute on Roman meatllurgy, but apparently no one wanted to look.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
This is not about the content, which you should take to the relevant page, where it has been stated repeatedly that sinologists are not experts on ancient Rome. Arnoutf (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

In my view Teeninvestor should stay away from any historial China-Europe comparison, either on Chinese history, or on Europe History pages, as in both cases he seems to promote a "China was the best" non neutral POV. How this would be captured in a topic ban is beyond me, as it involves all European and far east articles but those only on comparative history. Arnoutf (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I have one thing to say: The speed at which the quality and balance of the articles involved have declined is truly astounding. I intend to respect my editing restriction and refrain from editing these articles or topics related to this in ancient Chinese history, but these diffs speak for themselves 12 3.Teeninvestor (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid they do not speak for themselves, unless you intend to show that Gun Powder Ma is encouraging restraint in the making of sweeping "best of" and "first to" claims. My involvement is limited to Talk:Roman metallurgy (where I tried to put myself in Teeninvestor's shoes and see his grounds for questioning information) and previous exposure here and there to GPM's work in areas pertaining to ancient Rome. My concern as I review these proceedings is that Teeninvestor mistakes criticism of his methodology for personal attack, and equates "balance" or "neutrality" with the need to make truth claims more appropriate to the Guinness Book of World Records than to an encyclopedia. Report information, and leave it at that; what good are claims of national superiority, and always debatable "originality"? This raises questions of POV pushing, fairly or not. Also, at Talk:Roman metallurgy, Teen argued insistently while asserting factual information that was point-blank wrong and easily corrected, if he had bothered to conduct neutral research; he deleted material that was properly sourced, without offering sources that directly contradicted GPM's valid sources. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Those edits by GPM et. al. are hardly examples of "encouraging restraint". It seems that they are doing exactly what they were complaining of Teeninvestor in his RFC/U. Specifically, they all made sweeping and controversial changes—apparently taking advantage of Teeninvestor's ban to settle their every content dispute with him and then some—with misleading edit summaries. It is difficult to evaluate the enormity of the edits without being involved with the articles for a long time (for example, the dispute over citing Robert Temple for uncontroversial facts is not resolved to the satisfaction to anyone except GPM), but some of the changes are no less nakedly partisan than Teeninvestor's.
Among other things, Kanguole's edits in the Great Divergence replaced all images of Chinese industry, opulence, etc. with European equivalents. Gun Powder Ma introduces his own superlatives, gloating that the Song dynasty was "completely" conquered, and adding an obscure Tang defeat at the hands of the Arabs to the economic history of China. While I must give Gnip Gun Powder Ma some credit for contrastedly not marking his mega-edit as a minor edit, Gun Powder Ma tried to subtly explain away a Ming defeat of the Dutch East India Company as simple numerical superiority. All of the edits are riddled with unexplained removal of sourced content, which if done by an IP or new user, would be immediately reverted as blanking. Some of the memes like "Sinologists are not experts on ancient Rome" are indeed reasonable for articles like Roman Metallurgy. But especially because it's the Greek and Roman specialists that chased Teeninvestor out of their articles and followed him into history of China articles, removing any mention of comparative weaponry/economy there with this rationale, instead of refuting them with their own sources, is scoring political points; not helping to build a better encyclopedia. Quigley (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
First, ANI is not about contents, about which, secondly, you seem to be clearly not well-informed: The Song dynasty and the whole of China was completely conquered by the Mongols in 1279, the Battle of Talas between Arabs and Chinese has significance for Chinese history in that it marked the beginning of the Tang decline and twelve users to two have voted Robert K. G. Temple here to be an unreliable fringe author which must not be used with regard to Chinese and world history. If you disagree, take it to the talk page, but please do not try to confound the issue here by making unqualified statements with regard to contents. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The focus of my comment was behavior, not content. In other words, you have portrayed yourself as an unbiased editor who has encountered a problematic chauvinist who doesn't follow the rules, and are now saving the encyclopedia from him with just the facts and restraint. This well-argued denial of the "it takes two to tango" maxim has saved you from sanctions imposed on Teeninvestor, which is unusual (it has been noted by others) in a dispute like this.
But to reiterate, you and the other named editors are using the same weapons that you objected to in Teeninvestor: sweeping changes with misleading edit summaries, edit-warring to support an imagined consensus, and removal of sourced content that contradicts what you know to be The Truth. For Teeninvestor, that's Chinese superiority in a certain time period, and for you, that's European superiority in the same. This is not to suggest that you deserve equal sanction, or that the diffs I just looked at are representative of your whole history with Teeninvestor, however, I think this behavior does explain some of Teeninvestor's recent aggravation. Quigley (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
There is no denial, rather you seem to be totally unaware of the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor which contradicts the general thrust of your tango argument. It should also be pointed out that only yesterday you came to know of this dispute, yet today you have already formed a strong opinion. Perhaps you spend the night sifting the countless diffs on TI's problematic behaviour, allowing you to give a balanced and informed view, but this does not appear to be the case. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I have been aware of the disputes between you two in the various forums since 7 August, when I corrected one of Teeninvestor's overzealous interpretations of sources in this diff. I have read Teeninvestor's RFC/U (and ironically enough, reviewed it last night) and referenced it in my original comment, but being unfamiliar with the RFC process, I did not (yet) add my own assessment. I don't hold "strong" opinions on this dispute as you imply, but it also should be noted that that hasn't stopped the coterie of editors from Roman Metallurgy from strongly endorsing your views based on their short experience with Teeninvestor. The reason I commented on your behavior and not Teeninvestor's is because I don't believe I have any unique insights to offer on the latter, not out of partiality to him. Quigley (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
WTF? I didn't make those edits. In fact that link you provided looks like editing done by Gun Powder Ma, yet for some reason my name is in there instead of his. I do admit that I did make an edit over a battle between the Dutch East India Company and the Ming in the battle of LiaoLuo Bay. But it was not my intention to "subtely explain away the defeat as simple numerical superiority". In fact if you looked at my edits there is no mention of numerical superiority at all. In fact I decreased the number of ships on the Ming side and increased it on the Dutch side. If there was a fault it would be for not providing sources, but then again the page never had any sources to begin with, and all my sources for that article is in Chinese. Gnip(talk) 11:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Quigley, you appear to have missed that each of the diffs Teeninvestor gave and you repeated spans a sequence of edits. You may wish to examine the individual edits and adjust your accusations (e.g. regarding edit summaries and minor edits). Kanguole 17:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, Gnip! I looked at it again and the diff Teeninvestor provided was between three of Gun Powder Ma's revisions, intended to show the sum of the changes. Your edit was just the one after them, so the software displayed your username. Indeed your own change was small and uncontroversial, and I have revised my comment to reflect that the controversial edits were GPM's. Kanguole, I struck out the portions of my comments referring to the edit summaries/minor edits. Quigley (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you could explain which of my 14 edits to that article constitutes "edit-warring to support an imagined consensus" or "removal of sourced content that contradicts what you know to be The Truth". Unless you have specific concerns about my edits, I do not see why I am required to stop editing that article. Kanguole 17:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
As I said in my correction message, the most aggressive edits were GPM's alone. The "imagined consensus" I was referring to was that Robert Temple was an unreliable source for everything related to Chinese and world history, which GPM promotes by making reference to a majority vote on the RSN (which is not what consensus is), repeatedly labeling him a "fringe source", and mentioning Temple's unrelated thoughts on extraterrestrials whenever his name is mentioned, so as to discredit him to editors who aren't willing to investigate Temple more.
Removing (even common, corroboratable) information sourced to Temple seems to account for most of GPM's content removal, but there are others: in this edit alone on iron vs. wooden ploughs (apparently offended by the implication that the Romans did not use iron ploughs, which the text did not say), removing information on the sprouts of capitalism and proto-industrialization from Myers and Wang and others, and labor productivity statistics sourced to Allen that he could not personally verify. There were further removals relating to disputes that he and Teeninvestor had not resolved on the talkpage, such as of Chinese iron production numbers. I postface this by emphasizing that I am not bringing the content of GPM's edits into dispute, but am responding to a query by Kanguole about what I considered to be nontransparent and uncongenial "removals of sourced content". Quigley (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
It's ok, Quigley. Now that I read over it again it's obvious that the mistake wasn't intentional. I admit I overreacted, due to the sheer surprise that wiki could actually show edits not done by me but under my name. Gnip 13:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
As you say, Quigley, most of my removals are due to the community decision to not use Temple. But even here I left many claims in place with a citation tag. As for the wooden and iron plows, Pericles and me have already been for days in an intensive exchange of sources here where Pericles confirms that, while Chinese agriculture was advanced, its technological level in comparison to other world regions was exaggerated by Temple. The iron production numbers have been extensively discussed now and the issue was considered solved by everyone bar TI. This will be my last post on the matter which has run its course here. You, as everyone else, are invited to participate at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor#End of RFC/U. Regards