Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive680

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

Noticeboard archives


Actionable and disturbing vandalism, please respond sooner than later[edit]

Sanchristobal76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User Sanchristobal76 has been uploading an image of himself(hopefully it's not someone else) in fetishistic clothing onto multiple articles.

These are all just from the past half an hour or so. He has a history of doing this as evidenced by his repeated attempts to insert these images of himself since Nov. 30th. Ban him.AerobicFox (talk) 03:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In addition to making himself a new poster boy for the old saying about fools names and faces often seen in public places, I thought "original research" was against the rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
As is photobombing and self promotion with low quality pictures.AerobicFox (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Same expression, whether in Lederhosen or... stuff. I'd he happier in Lederhosen, swigging a Maß... Doc talk 04:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zombie433[edit]

Zombie433 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zombie433

This guy has been long term nuisance for those of us over at WP:FOOTY and keeps on reappearing with a new IP every few days - the ones in the category are just those we've managed to catch, God knows how many more are out there - any chance we can get a rangeblock or something please? GiantSnowman 14:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblock definitely, if possible - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

All his IP's are from the same general area. It's likely he is just using his school or library's computers as zombies. A range block should handle that.AerobicFox (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody fancy helping us then? My request back in January at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations for "a long term solution" was also ignored... GiantSnowman 12:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
This user has vandalized 1000's of BLP's User wrwr1 [[1]] has tried to repair some of the damage, but this is gonna take years....Cattivi (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

His added info was all wrong? Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No not everything, maybe 10-20% is a product of his vivid imagination, but that's still a lot with the number of edits this user has made. At least 50% is OK, the rest is not appreciated by everybody. And it's not only en.wikipedia, other wiki's copy ,those need to be looked at as well, even 'reliable' sources like clubwebsites copy en.wikipedia Cattivi (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
No, I'd say the vast majority of his edits was adding false information to BLPs - not a minor offence, and hence why he has been indeffed. GiantSnowman 14:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
As the admin who blocked him, I'd like to make it clear that he was blocked because we couldn't trust his edits rather than because they were all hoaxes. Nevertheless, he's blocked, and ideally should be prevented from socking. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
As far as the list says, all but 2 are from the range of ( The question is, are his actions severe enough to block 16384 IPs, knowing that he has some access to IPs out of this range? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Ask a trusted wikipedean who lives in Ghana, Nigeria or Cameroon, and who has a bit of knowledge about (sports)papers and magazines in these countries (How detailed are their reports on local football) , and you will have an idea of the scale of his vandalism. There is a possibility zombie is used by footballagents to make obscure footballers look good, Cattivi (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments on talk page[edit]

I reprimanded a new user User:ImperiumCaelestis on his talk page for failing to abide by Wikipedia rules and guidelines, and uploading images under false licenses while claiming authorship of them. As such, i tagged them for deletion and informed the user as well. Instead of being civil and admitting his mistakes, he defensively resorts to counter-accusations of incivility and name calling (Judas Iscariot). After i warn him that any further name calling will be reported here, he dares me to do so. Furthermore, at the end of the previous message, he makes a subtle insult against me with the following statement, "My faith in the supremacy of grey cells over grey hair only increases with each piece of correspondence I receive from you." As such, i would appreciate it if the concerned administrator could do the following:

Joyson Noel Holla at me! 10:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I submit my protest in the manner user Joyson Noel has presented his feedback right from the outset. His style of communication is sharply antithetical to Wikipedia:BITE and Wikipedia:Don't_tear_others'_heads_off. What was a technical irregularity certainly did not warrant the use of words like you been stealing' and you happen to be a Hindu with the odd name Lui Godinho.

If you kindly peruse Talk:Kanara_(Canara)_Konkani you will find that I have had healthy interactions with veteran users like PratikMallya, Aoghac2z , 'Yes Michael? and AshLin and have heeded to them and have appreciated their way of putting things across.

It is not only I, but also user AshLin who has found Joyson Noel' language of correspondence offensive. Kindly peruse [[2]]

user AshLin has also conveyed his annoyance at the language used User_talk:Joyson_Noel#Anout_your_post_at_User_talk:ImperiumCaelestis.

I wish to make known that Joyson Noel's language is unbecoming of a veteran and an unwelcoming experience for new users. I appeal to the concerned administrator to take cognisance and necessary action. Godspeed!! Imperium Caelestis 11:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It is now known that you two don't like each other. I don't think any admin intervention is necessary here. I don't see any egregious personal attacks. Maybe the copyvio accusations warrant a closer look, but I hope users don't expect admins to start finger-wagging at mature adults. We can't take sides or scold other users when they don't get along, all we can do is protect the wiki from disruption. -- œ 12:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


Joyson, you're violating WP:NPA and WP:BITE. Those sorts of warning messages are not acceptable even in the case of outright vandals; them, we just block. You adopted an excessively confrontational tone from the first contact I can see, and that's not OK. You need to stop doing that.

Imperium - claiming copyright on someone else's images here is an excellent way to be permanently blocked from contributing here. Violation of others' intellectual property rights is not OK. Even if material is in the public domain now, putting your name anywhere near a copyright without properly crediting the original author is extremely questionable. Even if you transformed it somehow, the original ownership and credits have to be respected and properly noted. "Own work" is entirely unacceptable under those circumstances.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── admins œ and Georgewilliamherbert, I begin my note by thanking you. I admit, as have on earlier occasions, that I had a problem in finding the right copyright templates and filling factual information in the infobox.

If you kindly peruse my talk page, you will find that I have also been questioned regarding the copyright status of certain images I uploaded earlier and the administrators (e.g. B) were courteous enough to read my comments and suggest accordingly [[3]] The images in dispute were downloaded from Facebook and I had no key words to make a search on google for the details of the same; having uploaded those images, I also appealed to veteran users to peruse the articles and offer their criticism (as against censure) [[4]]. I give you my unequivocal assurance that I do not aim to violate intellectual property rights. I am just getting used to filling the infobox; customising copyright templates is still a handicap. PD and copyright templates pertaining to India are few and one has to go through a volley of discussions and subsequent editing. This is an enlightening experience and helps avoid similar errors in the future. I assure you that I am liaising with AshLin to learn the tricks of the trade and get all images factually reworked.

It is not that I have any personal misgivings against Joyson Noel. I maintained a welcoming stance in my conversation. I appreciate the genuineness of his concern; I have a problem with his articulation. These are two snippets of the initial correspondence I had with him:

The only issue regarding the Konkani language agitation page was that an eager beaver administrator marked it for deletion citing it was not as per the standards of a stub just as I was creating the page. please enlist the other lot of issues Look Joyson Noel, I am not an antagonist. That article speaks of a history that is common to both you and I, and I'd like you to submit constructive criticism on that article's page if any. We could get into hair splitting arguments on whether Canara/Kanara Konkani is prevalent or not. We could also team up and help our mā̃ybhās rise out of the ashes. I leave that to your discretion. The manual of styling is something which you too can help out with. mog āso!!

My dear fellow Konkani Joyson Noel, Those articles belong to all of us. They are our common history. I have no issues with users editing and contributing information so long as there is a reason. It is killing when someone just deletes one's contribution without discussion and overlooks offered evidence. Your advice is, and will be, well received. Don't wait to be asked, just hop onto the bandwagon.

kindly peruse [5]

warm regards, Imperium Caelestis 12:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Imperium is lying and has deliberately misquoted the statement. I said, unless you happen to be a Hindu with the odd name Lui Godinho. This was part of the response to Imperium falsely claiming ownership of an image, when In fact, the image belongs to a Lui Godinho. Furthermore, I don’t find the use of the term “stealing” objectionable, as it was used to accurately describe Imperium’s dishonest plagiarism of non-free images while claiming it as his own. Furthermore, this is not the first time I have contacted with the user. My first contact was here, when I offered him helpful tips as I discovered that he was a newcomer with a lack of knowledge on basic rules. After a while, I implored him to take some time off editing here and study the rules which he ignored. See here. If my reprimand was harsh, then it was in light of his flagrant disregard for my advice and the rules. Nowhere in our correspondence have i taken to name calling, false accusations and personal insults. I accepted his request for help and what do I get in return? When I reprimand him with the intention to correct his attitude, i get called “Judas Iscariot”, falsely accused of being uncivil, along with the false charge of insulting Hinduism as well as rebuked for reprimanding him. Let alone the fact that he does not even show the maturity to admit his own mistakes. Even after warning him to steer away from personal character attacks, he goes ahead and makes a subtle insult against my intellect. Make no mistake! I do not request you to take any severe action against him, merely to do what is right and warn him against behaving like this in the future.
Regarding the offense taken at my statement by Ashlin, please see the discussion here at my talk page. The misunderstanding has been cleared. He felt that I was taking Imperium’s anger out on him, which was not the case.
He is manipulating our correspondence to make me look bad. These are the excerpts of my correspondence towards him. Do these sound rude or biting?:

Joyson Noel Holla at me! 14:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I find Joyson Noel's name and religion charades grossly offensive. I come from an age that has seen a Muslim Malcolm X, a Catholic Fr. Prathap Naik and a Hindu Julia Roberts. I appeal to the administrators to take cognisance. His use of Biblical terms in correspondence with other users, and obtuse reasoning, is appalling. I appeal to the administrators to advise him to join a course on formal writing skills and verbal reasoning in the English language. I pray the older veteran takes my comments in good stride. It also looks like the user considers the three years he has tenured in Wikipedia as a major professional achievement; I say this as he has been consistently harping on this and trying to tower over me through his previous pieces of correspondence. I suggest he refrain from self-sympathising by using phrases like He is manipulating our correspondence to make me look bad.

As far as the images are concerned, I reckon that Wikipedia has an internal mechanism and they are being dealt with accordingly; I pray he understands this, and does not use this page to voice his concerns on the image issue.
I reiterate, I have no personal problems with Joyson Noel. I have seen his user profile and he comes across as a user, younger to me and quite enthusiastic. My proposition is only that he refrain from using directive language and a confrontational tone. I would like to submit to the user, through you, that if he does not refrain himself from doing so in future, I shall make a request that the user's administrator and auto-control rights be withdrawn.

warm regards Imperium Caelestis 07:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You are both being far too wordy. I'm sorry, but you are not coming across as constructive. Also, please stop emphasizing your opponent's name by copying his coloured signature all the time. I don't know why this is, but in my experience doing this while discussing a complaint against another user is almost invariably a sign of an unconstructive, hostile stance. Fut.Perf. 08:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── hahahaha(pardon me for this rendition)...I am an Indian national and coming to the point for me, and my countrymen (as was with colonial England), is a lengthy process of edits, revokes, abrogations and propositions. Hence the verbosity. The British law that we inherited follows the process of an opening statement, followed by arguments and counter-arguments. being a novice on Wikipedia, I deemed it best to follow that same time tested approach. Your point is noted. I shan't use copied signatures of users I have a difference of opinion with. Godspeed!! Imperium Caelestis 08:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

So, you insist you are the freelance photographer Lui Godinho and as you have yourself claimed in your userpage, a Hindu too? I’m not saying that those with non-Indian names cannot be Hindus, but how many Goan Hindus does one meet with Portuguese names! It’s a very rare occurance. To my knowledge, there were a few Hindus from villages in Bardez which did have such names. But almost all of them reverted back to Indian names after 1961. A few Catholic Gaudas re-converted to Hinduism in the twenties and sixties and maintain their Lusitanian names. But the well-known photographer is not a Gauda! I’m unaware of his religious orientation, but he is most likely not a Hindu. The well-known Goan journalist Frederick Noronha is in my contact list and is a friend of Godinho. So, if Imperium is insisting that he is Godinho, I can obtain Godinho’s email id from Noronha and verify the truth of the matter, simply by asking him if Imperium's account belongs to him
I find it disgusting that Imperium is playing the “Religion card” on me again, while simultaneously accusing me of religious bigotry based on my ethnicity. After all, since I am a Mangalorean Catholic, I must be a Roman Catholic too. Right? ...... Wrong! I have been an Atheist since the age of 15. Furthermore, I am an Antitheist, which means that I dislike religion in general and am not in favor of Christianity. Furthermore, no one in his/her right mind would construe the quoted statement as anti-Hindu/anti-Hinduism. By use of the sentence, one could more easily accuse me of being anti-Portuguese than anti-Hindu. Of course, we know that such a supposition would be absurd. So, why should a sensible person pay any heed to this nonsensical allegation?
Why would a staunch atheist and anti-atheist like myself use Biblical terms in the first place? Could Imperium provide an instance of such a use? Who resorted to name-calling me “Judas Iscariot”, probably in light of my ethnic background, after i tagged the Commons images for deletion? Wasn’t it you, Imperium? So, it’s more likely you’re the religious bigot and not me.
As for obtuse reasoning, one merely has to look at your comments in this page to see evidence of it. For instance, interpretation of my comment as anti-Hindu bigotry, claim of my reprimand on your persistent disregard for friendly advice and basic Wikipedia policies as "incivility", the objection to the use of "Stealing" to describe your theft of images and claiming authorship of them, etc, among many other examples. I can go on and on about this.
For the sake of common decency, I would suggest that you refrain from reprimaning me for supposed uncivilty, religious bias and obtuse reasoning, if you lack the ethical bone to abstain from them yourself. It’s not your place to do that.
And why shouldn’t I look at my three years tenure in Wikipedia as an accomplishment? During my tenure, I have created 79 articles and made minor and major contributions to hundreds more. Compare that to your limited experience and your own edits, which includes a lack of awareness and disregard of Wikipedia norms and rules, and you will see why I am in all rights, a far better Wikipedian than yourself. Now, you will probably dispute this. "Hey, i've received a barnstar. Doesn't that mean that i am a good Wikipedian?" Simply the fact that a user has given you a barnstar doesn't mean that he gave it, because he was impressed with your edits. As Wikipedians usually do, he probably gave it to motivate you. One look at your created articles (Canara Konkani, Goa Konkani language agitation of 1986 - far worse prior to my few corrections and title change) reveals a lot of unsourced original research and haphazard editing. The fact that your edits have been disputed by every editor you have come in contact with doesn't in any way make you even an average Wikipedian. An editor is to be judged by the quality of his edits, as opposed to the single barnstar that he received for motivational purposes.
Time and again, Imperium has shown an incredible lack of ethical conscience, as evident from his persistent lying and shameful lack of acknowledgement of his own behavior. Instead, he is trying to deflect criticism from himself and the topic at hand (persistent personal attacks in spite of warning), by putting forward counter-allegations. This is a defense mechanism on his part. He will definitely do so again. I fear that to continue to respond to defamatory attacks and slander from someone of his kind would somehow serve to validate them, putting me in the same boat as him. I leave it to the administrators to suggest that he refrain from this kind of behavior in the future. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 10:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── What was initiated as a message to take cognisance of an alleged insult, was splashed into the sewers of name versus religious identity and has finally been tinged in the dark hue of ethnicity. My man, do get hold of yourself. Your communication is turning out to be a classic case of argumentum ad nauseam. User Joyson, as much as I am a moderately religious person and a practising Hindu, it must be understood that your religious predilections, as mine, are not relevant to the subject of this conversation. The word Judas Iscariot is used as, a simile, to refer to a person who, notwithstanding one's reliance on them, lets them down. I urge you not to take up an "anti-Portuguese", "anti-religious" or any other anti prefixed stance or bring it into public domain unless it is called for, and certainly not on the Wikipedian platform.

User Joyson must refrain from mental processes that result in the usage of phrases like "to my knowledge", "most likely not", "probably" on Wikipedia; these can be termed as unsubstantiated statements.

I am sure the administrators will take note of the belittling posture in your last paragraph and will weigh it against your claims to be a responsible and welcoming editor. I can not comment on how efficiently you have contributed to Wikipedia; I can certainly comment on how irrelevant a veteran you have proved yourself. I feel the administrators have already given their views on the matter and it is unwise to continue deliberation on this matter. This will be my last piece of correspondence on this matter on this page. I thank the administrators for their discretion. Imperium Caelestis 12:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You call a person “Judas Iscariot” when he has back-stabbed you, not when he has let you down. You called me so after I tagged your plagiarized images for deletion. I never cease to be amazed by much more absurd your reasoning gets with each passing comment. Furthermore, my "relevance" or "irrelevance" is not for you to decide. If you expected me to take kindly to your cheap under-handed behavior towards me and not criticize you for your misdeeds, then you are in for a big surprise. I am normally very helpful and nice to people as evident from my earlier interactions with you. However, i do not take well to those who ignore friendly advice and then instead of admitting his mistakes like a mature person, responds with lies, name calling, slanderous allegations, etc. So, you shouldn't be surprised at all when faced with such harsh criticism. By the way, i find Imperium's claim that "I have no personal problems with Joyson Noel" very hard to believe. If this is the case, then it would be very odd for him to request that the Goa_Konkani_language_agitation_of_1986 article's name to be changed to the original one without any proper reason, after reporting him to ANI, especially considering that he had earlier completely agreed with me on his talk page. I can't find any other logical explanation for this sudden change of mind. I, however, don't feel that the administrators have deliberated on this matter and await their views. I trust that they will take the right decision. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 12:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I submit my apologies for coming out with this message inspite of stating that my previous message was my last one as the latest message by user Joyson warrants an addendum on my behalf. I would like to make known to him that I do indeed have no misgivings, personal problems or bias against him. I enjoy each piece of correspondence I receive from him. I consider him a unique specimen created by Providence on the seventh day of Genesis and his writings and views only help me get to know him better. I appeal to him to continue his communication on this subject, or any other in this matter, on my user page. I shall not communicate my views on this page on this matter unless called for by discerning administrators (read-third person). I wish user Joyson success in his endeavours. Going off the air... Imperium Caelestis 13:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In keeping with his past conduct, Imperium shamelessly continues with his name calling and insults again:
I consider him a unique specimen created by Providence on the seventh day of Genesis
How much more evidence does one need? This is the third time! Joyson Noel Holla at me! 13:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we've seen enough. I've interacted with both editors in question, and in my experience, both of them are mature, reasonable editors. Lets not blow up the issue. As mentioned by an editor above, admins cannot discipline editors. Konkani is for all of us, Wikipedia is for all of us. If there is really an issue, let us sort it out amicably. Yes Michael?Talk 19:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── user Mike, It's a simple case of Much Ado About Nothing. Having read the other articles on this page, I felt ashamed to submit my arguments on this page. It is too trivial to be presented here. I was left with Hobson's choice as I was directed to this page to give my side of the story. Nevertheless, do read an interesting article on the Lusitanisation and delusitanisation of Roman Catholic Gaud Saraswat Names sandwiched between the comments. Also read the autobiography and self-appraisal. Please enjoy the hillarity in the conversation. That is all there is to it. warm regards Imperium Caelestis 19:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Imperium, the only hilarity to be found is in your absurd "reasoning" (I use that in the loosest possible sense) and arguments. Take for instance, your objection to my use of the term "Stealing" to describe your theft of images and claiming authorship on them, among many other examples. I can't say that these are to be enjoyed, merely ridiculed and pitied. Furthermore, i mentioned some info about a few Hindus (obtained from a credible book i've read), especially Hindu Gaudas having Lusitanian surnames, not Lusitanisation and delusitanisation of Roman Catholic Gaud Saraswat Names as you have foolishly pointed out. Time and again, you have proven that you don't know what you are talking about. I understand that you are too lazy to read comments carefully as well as to study basic Wikipedia guidelines, but this is no excuse at all! I repeat, I am not asking any administrator to take sides, merely to reprimand him for the persistent personal attacks that he has shamelessly resorted to, as this violates WP:PA. Mike knows very well who is at fault here, but he has ignored them because he believes that reprimanding Imperium does not make him neutral. I'm not asking anyone to take my side, just to do what is right! I'm tired of asking this. If administrators cannot be trusted to discipline editors when they repeatedly get out of line, then who can? I must admit that my faith in the ability of administrators to take timely and just action is waning. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 06:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


Both parties have been given a final warning on abusive behavior and personal attacks. Further hostility will result in a block. I sincerely hope these two will avoid each other in the future. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You just can't keep a good man down[edit]

Visitor10001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Remember this guy? The one who didn't get blocked for this and this because he said he was leaving? Remember how calling other editors "assholes" and "douchebag" for reverting him wasn't good for a block because he said he was leaving? Well, brace yourselves for a shock; he's back. But wait, there's more. Now he's announcing his intention to sockpuppet if he doesn't get his way on his favorite article.

Here's the backstory: Redemption theory is one of those goofy tax-protest scams that says you're not legally required to pay taxes, and if you follow some obscure procedures you're legally excused from doing so. Real lunatic stuff. Visitor has been employing the equal validity fallacy to insist that the fringe ideas be given equal treatment with what the FBI, the Treasury Department, and the Department of Justice (in short, the reality based community) say about it. Here is an example of his thinking (if you can call it that) from my talk page, where he carries on about the "fraudulent U.S. government". You get the picture. It doesn't go anywhere good. His latest edit to the article is attempting to use this as a reliable source. This is a report written by a guy who at this very moment is sitting in a Federal prison cell because he followed the same bad advice he gives in this report.

Now I realize this may look like it's somewhat of a content dispute, but check more of his recent diffs. And remember, this is a fringe theory that has more consequences than most. Unlike disputes about who wrote Shakespeare's works and whether the lost continent of Atlantis ever really existed, if that article gives any credit or validity to "redemption theory" and our readers follow it, it will take them by a short route to federal prison. We owe our readers better than that. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If he's vowing to sock, he deserves the block!Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 10:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
This is a bit tricky. I cannot believe that this editor is not going to do something in the near future that won't get him blocked, but nothing he has done since his return is in violation of policy (even the threat to sock isn't, as it appears more to be rhetorical musing). I would also be wary of blocking for the past PA's, since the block period would likely have expired by now. I suggest that we wait, civilly engaging with him regarding WP:CONSENSUS where thought necessary, until he makes an inappropriate comment and dealing with it at that time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
If blocks are supposed to be preventative, then their statements fully justify one. They are making it clear that they intend to disrupt Wikipedia until they gets their way. IMO, this should be treated similar to an NLT block: indef until they back off the threat. Resolute 19:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • In a rational world, we could block this guy based on WP:LOON, block any accounts that suddenly show up to continue pushing the same ridiculous POV, and move on with our lives. Someone who pushes this silliness is never, ever going to be helpful in building a respectable encyclopedia. However, this is not a rational world, this is Wikipedia, and in this environment LHvU is probably right: we need to go thru the charade of pretending that it is only a matter of explaining our complicated policies about not being an edit-warring POV-pushing loon, and the lightbulb will go on an he'll start churning out FA's, and the extreme likelihood of this happening is worth the weeks of disruption it creates for everyone else. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I thought better of this, and was going to just block him indef, but I see FPaT is faster than me and has blocked for a week. I support the block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Even though this is not a rational world, last time I looked persistent tendentious editing was blockable. Blocked a week, as a start. Fut.Perf. 15:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Just to note for the record, his last edit before being blocked was this taunt on my talk page.
Also a question. Does it make any sense to think there should be some special level of scrutiny on tax-protest related articles due to the serious legal consequences that could accrue to anyone if they got erroneous or suspect information from a Wikipedia article? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia quite clearly states in many places that it cannot be depended upon for legal advice. How could we, with editors from hundreds of countries contributing? --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, this is certainly collegial. Corvus cornixtalk 21:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Block changed to indefinite, and talkpage privileges withdrawn. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Known IP edit warrior is back[edit]

The editor has a long history of disruption, edit warring, and consequent blocks under different IPs, while the most recent ones are:

The user has been discussed on this noticeboard 3 times:

Overall, the following IPs has been used by this user:

So far the user has faced 7 blocks ranging from 24h to 7d. The connection between the IPs can be established, taking into account the same writing style, and the same behavior patterns, such as edit warring, ignoring warnings, own talk page blanking, area of interests, geography. The most recent and serious violation is 1RR on Palestine-Israel articles:

  1. 1st and 2nd reverts on Mira Awad within 22 hours.
  2. 1st (1, 2, 3) and 2nd ([6], [7]) series of reverts on Palestinian Christians article within 22 hours.

The user seems to simply ignore warnings and blocks, for that reason I'm asking for administrative action. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Please consider the following connected IPs, raising the total number of blocks to 10:
I'm deeply sorry to say that, but the first problem of the user is WP:COMPETENCE. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

i do not know any of the above ips and i have no connection with any of them! u can not come up with a connection of some people from different ips or even countries edit the same article or agree with something that others do not agree withm ,means that they r the same person! ur accusation makes no sense, and i find it very offensive! u owe me an apology!-- (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"different ips or even countries edit the same article "
You may be unaware of this, but you can trace all IPs to a general area through a variety of websites. All IPs that begin 213.6 are from Essen Germany, and the IP is from Munich Germany, so it is clear that these IP's are not from different countries.AerobicFox (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

These IPs have also been reported here, not long ago. Soosim (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Related to the same case, a few bad faith AIV reports against people who reverted their edits (including yours truly), a report on 3RR noticeboard which was a copy of my report on them with the names changed to reflect their POV, whining about the reports on Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism and removing my comments from the page while at it (see [8] [9] [10], note that the first removal of my comments by User:Kubigula was accidental and was self-reverted). Also, I think their response to Soosim's request for mediation implies either serious lack of understanding or just pure lack of interest towards collaboration. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the "report" u filed against my ip and other ips, all what i know is that i am not associated or connected with any of them, and do not know what is this all about anyways!-- (talk) 07:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If the IPs deny the connection between them, despite the notable similarity of the edit patterns, is it proper to treat this as a sock puppetry and open an SPI case? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think User:Summer Vacation may have gone off the deep end...[edit]

Summer Vacation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and I have had a short but eventful history together. Our interactions began with a mass-reversion on a major category shift without consensus. Discussion of that at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Waterparks.. Insults against other contributors and personal attacks happened there.

Then after cleaning up an article on Camp ASCCA, Summer Vacation posted on the talk page of Elen of the Roads, which Elen of the Roads replied to and then notified me about. I then responded, explaining that I believed at that time that the user was acting in good faith, and indicated matters related to Summer Vacation relating to WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL that I was troubled by.

On Sunday, checking up on my cleanup on Camp ASCCA, I noticed that the image that I had left in the infobox had been deleted. I followed the trail for that back to Commons, and discovered that a mass-deletion of a number of Summer Vacation's images had occurred (see the thread on Commons). This is where I discovered that the remainder of Summer Vacation's images were likely copyvios. This led to commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Camp Farwell images uploaded by User:Summer Vacation and commons:Commons:Deletion requests/All remaining files by User:Summer Vacation, citing copyright concerns.

Now today, I sit down to Wikipedia and find this posted on my talk page, and discover that the same message, with a few modifications here and there, has been cross-posted here, here, here, here, and here.

I have put up with quite a bit on Wikipedia as of late, but this is seriously crossing the line on harrassment. I believe that Summer Vacation has kind of gone off the deep end, and I am starting to become concerned about what this user might do next. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The same off-the-deep-end rant was also cross-posted here and here on Commons. Will be notifying Commons' equivalent of ANI as well. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
More like gone off the shallow end... from the high board. :( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't credit him with that much athleticism. Ps. I didn't realize there was a template for small writing, ty for using it above.AerobicFox (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I first used it when I noticed someone else use it. Unfortunately, I failed to note who it was. :( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I first used it when I noticed someone else use it. Unfortunately, I failed to note who it was. :( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
"How could anyone that ugly upload a picture of himself? No wonder he has no life."
Is a clear violation of WP:NPA. I recommend warning and/or temp block. Admins! I summon you!AerobicFox (talk) 06:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Since the other guy didn't upload his own portrait, just imagine how he must look, compared with the guy who did. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't show my face after a 30 ft. dive into 12 in. water.AerobicFox (talk) 07:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I've been involved with this user and I believe a temp block would work best. The user started out being friendly and accepted comments as seen here however since the reversion of his category changes by SchuminWeb, Summer Vacation's attitude changed. I posted a message on his talk page after he began the attacks in an attempt to commend him for some of his earlier edits (adding coordinates on hundreds of articles etc) and to advise him to continue with some smaller changes to learn the ropes. I also offerred my assistance if he required it. Summer Vacation replaced all of the content on his talk page with "Positive, Creative and Constructive Notes Only - All others piss off. HA!". I feel the user had the right intentions and would be of great benefit to Wikipedia if he took the time to learn the ropes and to understand that there are guidelines and procedures that we follow. Despite WP:COOLDOWN I think WP:IAR may come into consideration here and a cooloff block could be implemented. Themeparkgc  Talk  08:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
His userpage (prior to him replacing it with another version of the rant and Floq blanking it [11]) does not inspire me with confidence that he is prepared to work with us. I advised him yesterday [12] that SchuminWeb was not a vandal and that saying he was could cause problems. I have left him what I consider to be a final warning [13] - if he goes off like that again, I will block him myself if someone else doesn't get to him first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Now that I have everyones attention, I would like to make a point about respect. The procedure here at Wikipedia is to destroy and justify. Not a single person asks the author first, or tries to reach a consensus about a large change first, prior to undoing a lot of work. Do you people really understand the impact that this has on an author or someone who is trying to help clean up Wikipedia. You slap someone in the face, and then expect them to say thanks. SchuminWeb and Themeparkgc know that I posted my purpose and scope on my user page first, and they could have contacted me at any time about the changes that I made. I also made it clear that what they are doing is arbitrary and that the rules are not being applied evenly, especially in summer camp and amusement park articles. All of these articles are ads, and have no educational value whatsoever. Amusement park articles have surplus photos that should be deleted exactly as the Public Domain photos were deleted at Belvoir Terrace. Amusement park ride descriptions should be deleted exactly as the activities were deleted at Belvoir Terrace. Themeparkg will fight to the death to prevent this from happening, since this is his hobby. A strict application of the rules would wipe out all amusement park, waterpark and summer camp articles, as they are nothing more than promotional ads. And they duplicate what is on the park website. And the photos are not educational. So, until you people get your act together, and show some respect for others, Wikipedia is not worth my time. Summer Vacation (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, where to start. First, do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Also, please attempt to remain civil with your communications and be aware that personal attacks are never acceptable, discuss content and contributions, not personal opinions on the person's looks, living conditions, lifestyle, etc. Next, you do not own the articles, changes are made by community consensus in line with site policies and guidelines - you seem to feel that you can make all the changes you wish, but that others must follow your personal processes instead of Wikipedia guidelines and processes. Others have attempted to assist you, yet you proceed in your actions , continuing as if you didn't hear them, either misunderstanding the advice given or not reading the assistance given. Also be aware that other articles not following appropriate content guidelines does not mean that a new article can avoid those guidelines - Wikipedia is a big place, and some articles can go quite a while before being cleaned up. Wikipedia also has policies and guidelines that distinguish appropriate content structure and notability, most of which revolve around verifiability using reliable sources while maintaining an objective neutral point of view. --- Barek (talk) - 14:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
You forgot - users who make bold changes should expect to be reverted from time to time. TThe correct course when this happens is to discuss the changes on the talkpage, and reach a consensus with other editors. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried to resolve the issue on his talk page a few days ago but gave up after it became clear that he was simply too worked up to accept any form on conciliation. It's a shame because I think his heart is (or perhaps was) in the right place and we collectively failed in communicating tactfully to avoid this mess. As it stands though, I can't really see options that don't involve a block. Pichpich (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  • He says he has retired on Commons [14] but his original userpage had the same 'my way or the highway' approach - [15]. Bit like my dad building IKEA furniture - never stopped to read the instructions. It would be a shame if he's gone, as he probably does have a lot of resources if he can get those photos properly released. Not so sure about some of the articles though. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a block is needed right now, and placing one while the disruption has ceased would simply act to inflame him more. Basically three paths from here: Either he follows through on his intent to not edit here - which would be a shame as he does seem to have acces to some useful resources if he would take the time to follow the copyright requirements to get propper release authorization; or he takes a wiki-break to relax a bit, hopefully reconsiders some of the tips that had been given, and begins to contribute again with a recognition of the concerns that have been presented; or he returns and continues his disruption, in which case a block would likely result.
For either of the first two options, a block would not be preventative, and would at best be meaningless and at worst counter-beneficial to Wikipedia. If they continue with disruptive edits, we may be forced into a block as a next step - but for now, lets wait and see, and hope for the best possible outcome for everyone involved. --- Barek (talk) - 16:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  • He's started back up again, with someone bending over backwards to help, shows no sign of getting it, nor of wanting to get it, so I've blocked him indef. While I suggest that he not be unblocked until there is some hint of a significant change in approach, I'll explicitly say that anyone who wants to overturn this, or change it to a block of fixed duration, doesn't need to talk to me first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
    • An indef block sounds like a fine solution to me. There comes a point when one has to say that it's terminal, and that whatever we do, we're just wasting effort. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


[16] A wholly unwarranted, threatening talk page message. I simply removed a recently added header I thought was unneeded (and clearly explained such in my edit summary here), merging the material in the header above it, in line with WP:BRD. Instead of proper discussion on the talk page (where previous concerns of mine have never been addressed), I get a clear threat from someone trying to WP:OWN the article.

Funny thing is that the edit wasn't even by Tomatosoup97, but User:Oanabay04, who's pattern of edits and behavior is similar. oknazevad (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

A vandalism warning was clearly inappropriate, a level 4 warning all the more so, especially from an experienced editor. Rlendog (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
That is an interesting contrib history for Tomatosoup97. Very sparing over the years, but with a fair knowledge of WP protocols, and a suggestion of a harsher stance than someone with a similar editing history such as, for instance, Oknazevad (a couple of specific transport subjects and Billy Joel...) As for the warning, which I note you have removed, I think it can be ignored. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Odd, I don't remember editing Billy Joel. oknazevad (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Oknazevad, you've notified Tomatosoup97 but not Oanabay04 - please note you must notify ALL editors you ask this board to look at - I have notified Oanabay04 for you. Exxolon (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
My bad. I've never files an ANI before. oknazevad (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Please remove me from this subject. For the sake of transparency, it should be known that I am familiar with the user with the handle of Tomatosoup97 and have communicated with the person before. But this threat did not come from me, and it does seem a tad harsh. Thank you kindly.Oanabay04 (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I still have concerns about your lack of communication on the talk page at SEPTA Regional Rail, but I apologize for dragging you into this. oknazevad (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Since you are apparently familiar with this editor, perhaps you could advise them on the appropriate use of warning notices and what does and does not constitute vandalism? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

maybe i overreacted, though don’t think so. oknazevad, while knowledgable on many Wiki editing techniques, is a blowhard and suffers from WP:NICE and WP:OWN, editwise. several cases noted below: CASE #1

  • do not make personal attacks
Reproduced thread collapsed for clarity

Nuvola apps important.svg Please do not attack other editors, as you did with the edit summary you left with this edit. Although you were correct that the IP user should not use the talk page as a forum, the incivility in your edit summary is never acceptable. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, calling someone a "moron" in an edit summary is a really bad idea. You might want to take a "breather", and read up on policy, Oknazevad... Doc9871 (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for doing something, anything, to handle that persistent moron IP editor.
Prari (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)”

CASE #2 the Rudeness continues with the WP:OVERLINK. That entire argument was an example of nitpicking and not acepting that several editors disagreed with you. Epeefleche is respectful, you arent

Reproduced thread collapsed for clarity

I think you may be misreading wp:overlink, when you say it does not apply to leads (and use that as a reason to re-link New York City). Rather than revert, I thought I would drop by and say hi and ask you to perhaps take another look. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it didn't apply to leads, but to infoboxes (where you had delinked New York City). My understanding is that infoboxes, as well as each row of a table (sortable or not) should be able to stand on its own and not be dependant on anywhere else in the article for wikilinks to other articles. (And vice versa.) That is the reason I re-linked New York City. Not that there isn't some egregious overlinking in the NYC Subway article, which includes some termslinked twice in the same paragraph. Those I would fix if I had the time. oknazevad (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I stand corrected -- I had intended to say infoboxes. Following up on your statement that " Infobox links are not WP:OVERLINK." What is the basis for that statement? I've never heard anyone assert it as a position, and can't see it in the relevant guidances. The relevant guidance does somewhat clearly indicate that words such as New York City should not be linked. I see no exception for infoboxes, nor any that makes sense to me when considering the rationale for the rule.
I am also of the understanding (as has been discussed on policy pages) that the infobox stands on its own. That means that if the phrase "asdg" is linked in the text, you may also link in it in the infobox. But it is not a basis for linking in the infobox words that should clearly not be linked in the text, whether they be the word "the" or the geographical location "New York City."--Epeefleche (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, see I vehemently disagree that New York City should not be linked in the main text. While it is pretty obvious to anyone with any intelligence that the New York City Subway is in New York City, we cannot assume that the reader knows anything about New York City. We must keep those reader in mind in our editing.
WP:OVERLINK exists to guide against linking irrelevant terms (because they're distracting in their irrelevance) and linking the same term an excessive number of times (because they're visually distracting). That is the essence of the guideline. New York City is hardly an irrelevant link for the New York City Subway article. Even if all other links were removed, I would abolutely insist that New York City be linked, along with rapid transit, as those are not only the most relevant terms, they are clearly the fundamentally defining characteristics of the system. That is to say, the one semtece version if he article would read: "The New York City Subway is a rapid transit system that serves New York City." All else beyond that is elaboration. oknazevad (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The guidance says: "What generally should not be linked ... Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including ... the names of major geographic ... locations". Where is our disconnect? Do you think that most readers of the English Wikipedia do not understand what "New York City" is? Do you think that New York City is not a "major geographic location"? The rule seems somewhat clear to me, and application of it to delinking of New York City rather uncontrovertible, to be honest.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article ← That's our disconnect. As I fully explained in my last edit (which you must have ignored), New York City is of supreme relevance to an article on the New York City Subway. Period. It is a fundamental, defining characteristic of the system, namely what city it serves. It is actually the second-to-last thing I would delink in the article. But I already explained that. oknazevad (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

OK; I see your viewpoint, but am not quite convinced. But of course I may be wrong. I'll post this at the guidance, w/a diff leading here, to see if we can get consensus. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Oknavezad, can you point to the styleguide that restricts the ambit of styleguides from infoboxes? I've seen this fiction put about before by infobox / link-everything people, and it doesn't cut the mustard. Tony (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't find an explicit guideline that call for always linking in infoboxes, but that doesn't make the argument often put forth that it is standard practice "fiction". Not all conventions on Wikipedia are explicitly codified or recorded, and the widespread practice of heavy linking in infoboxes appears to be a major example of "consensus by silence". So, in short Tony, no I can't point to the specific style guide, but that doesn't make me wrong. And, frankly, I'm not on trial in a court of law here, so I don't particularly appreciate the tone of your question, which I find overly legalistic and confrontational. oknazevad (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, in defense of Tony, you made a rather stark assertion, as your basis for reverting me. Writing at the outset: "Infobox links are not WP:OVERLINK." I asked you somewhat gently above: "What is the basis for that statement? I've never heard anyone assert it as a position, and can't see it in the relevant guidances." You didn't respond to me. Now, it seems that what you are saying is the standard -- presumably based on what you've seen during your 5,000 edits -- is not in fact reflected anywhere but in what you've seen. Which is at odds with what Tony and I have seen in our combined 90,000 edits. So, I'm just wondering if perhaps there is a possibility that your presumption is not the case; and whether to the extent that it is the case, it should be deprecated.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

CASE #3. Then there’s this to oanabay04“Oh, where do I start with this load of crap?” Nuff Sed.

CASE #4: an entire set of your edits annoyed someone and i dont see any response from you unless you edited them out which based on your [page] you do alot of so you come out smelling like roses:

Reproduced thread collapsed for clarity

I cannot agree with your comments about this article. My response to those comments is as follows:

First, the Polish language article has many paragraphs about the architecture of station buildings, illustrated by many images. These paragraphs make it clear that the topic of station building architecture deserves a separate article. Secondly, there is a clear distinction in the English language between a station building and an overall station facility that includes that building. In any case, has a "worldwide view" (or "global perspective") policy. Thirdly, I have created dozens of new articles on individual train stations (most of them translated from other languages), and contributed to dozens more. I can assure you that Grand Central Terminal is not a typical station. In fact, the main reason I created the station building article is that I kept encountering places in articles about individual stations where a link to an article about station buildings would have been appropriate. Although I could already provide links to, eg, goods shed and train shed, etc, there was simply no station building article in as yet, when one was required and several were available for translation from other wikis.

Please see also my comments on Talk:Station building. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

oknazevad fails on the following on all counts:

How oknazevad has been allowed to continue is deplorable.Tomatosoup97 (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This (most of which looks irrelevant) seems to be in response to another recent thread here on ANI. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I've notified Oknazevad that you've revived this. Tomatosoup, would you mind explaining the point of this, other than that you don't appear to like Oknazevad? lifebaka++ 15:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
These were all resolved amicably, and yes are quite irrelevant. But, as background, the first was my overreaction to repeated vandalism to my talk page by a persistent vandal (who was blocked shortly after), the second was my exposure to a contentious guideline, the last was properly discussed and resolved with a larger group of editors. The third was, admittedly, in poor taste. It was a content dispute that grew over-heated. But, as I said, it was irrelevant to this discussion, and the WP:OWN issues behind it. oknazevad (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullying in academia[edit]

Can somebody close this please ? AFD has been going on for 11 days. After about 7 days (ref my comment in the AFD: "COMMENT: Thanks to User:Novickas we now have 4 text sections and 9 dfferent inline references.--Penbat (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)"), bullying in academia was given a major rescuing overhaul and ever since there has been 6 straight keeps.--Penbat (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It will be closed in due course. No need for haste. There is a clear move toward keep. SilkTork *YES! 21:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Working Protonk (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Closed as keep. Like I said in the closing comment please take some of the criticism raised in the AfD onboard when improving the article. Protonk (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Problems at Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM)[edit]

I still hesitate to do this, but I think enough is enough. I became aware of this situation recently when PPdd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) made new section at Talk:Alternative medicine claiming that he had found a source confirming that AltMed/TCM is pseudoscience (or something like that) - a “prominent TCM practitioner” had said (in an interview with another TCM practitioner) that he thought TCM was ‘a science’ because of its complex rituals in planting, harvesting and preparing medicines, even if ‘lab science’ didn't confirm its effectiveness (I'm paraphrasing) diff. For almost two months now, he has “worked” on Traditional Chinese medicine, introducing obscure medicines (like human penis), deleting sources he didn't like as “NRS” (probably meaning non-reliable source) while admitting that he couldn't assess at least some of them because he doesn't have access to them and/or doesn't speak the language and cherry picking sources that match his POV. When others tried to revert him, he assumed it must be a sockpuppet/meatpuppet attack, opening a case and adding everyone to it who objected to the way he changed the article (SPI case); while one editor later admitted he had, unaware of WP:SOCK created two new accounts, when he learned of the policy he promptly abandoned them and - as suggested by PPdd diff - changed his user name (which by the time was his real name). PPdd added his new name to the list of suspected sockpuppets even though he was the one suggesting the re-name, so he must have known that this is not a sockpuppet but the the same account. Those who want to change the article are constantly accused of either having a COI or not knowing anything about TCM (TCM practitioners are usually accused of both, and imho he's also showing signs of ownership.
Since it was made clear to the newer/less experienced editors that simply reverting or deleting material they don't like isn't OK, the most active opponents of PPdd (Mallexikon, Herbxue and Calus) have started using the talk page instead and - in my eyes - made reasonable suggestions. An experienced editor (Ludwigs2) very early on told PPdd that his both his editing style and the results of it were less than ideal and said he (Ludwigs2) wanted to try and improve the article. When Ludwigs2 offered his help on the article talk, most of the editors there agreed that this was a good way to move forward, but somehow it made PPdd feel he had to “out” himself [17] [18] to show he was competent. After Ludwigs2 started working on the article yesterday, he was reverted almost immediately by an IP user who later registered an account and another IP that had never before edited Wikipedia. In a sockpuppet case initiated by Ludwigs2, PPdd later said that the new user was a friend of him using the same internet café, that he knew her well and had told her about “what Ludwigs2 had just done after [PPdd] walked away”. After telling people for some weeks now that they should give him time to finish “his” work on the article and assuring them they'd be happy with the final result, he should give Ludwigs2 the same opportunity at least for some days and he certainly shouldn't do what he'd call recruiting meatpuppets if anyone else did it. Could an admin please have a closer eye at the article and weigh in if things get too hot? --Six words (talk) 10:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In response, I am a fairly new editor, though my edit counts are misleadingly high and only for a handful of articles. I also note that I like Six words, and added her as one of the very first on my user page “list of helpful editors”, because she is a nitpicker for accuracy on my edits, which although frustrating at the time, help improve WP and help improve my own editing skills. I just deleted Ludwigs2, but kept her, because I still have the same opinion. Also, I responded here[19].
I add the following, point by point.
  • "I became aware of this situation recently when PPdd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) made new section at Talk:Alternative medicine claiming that he had found a source confirming that AltMed/TCM is pseudoscience (or something like that) - a “prominent TCM practitioner” had said (in an interview with another TCM practitioner) that he thought TCM was ‘a science’ because of its complex rituals in planting, harvesting and preparing medicines, even if ‘lab science’ didn't confirm its effectiveness (I'm paraphrasing) diff.”
  • The talk alt med comment was I response to Ludwigs2 claiming no TCM person claimed it to be a science, and in this source not only overtly stated it was a science because of elaborate and meticulous occult practices, but that it did not believe in reproducing results in controlled conditions, or verifiability at all.
  • ”For almost two months now, he has “worked” on Traditional Chinese medicine, introducing obscure medicines (like human penis), deleting sources he didn't like as “NRS” (probably meaning non-reliable source) while admitting that he couldn't assess at least some of them because he doesn't have access to them and/or doesn't speak the language and cherry picking sources that match his POV.”
  • I never introduced “obscure” medicines, they are all either highly used or highly discussed in Chinese literature and the press. I deleted hundreds of NRS and NMEDRS things from the article, and within days restored them ALL with RS, or reworded per MEDRS. When I came to the article, it had almost no sources, now almost all lines are referenced, and no content has gone missing or been kept out that I am aware of. I did ask for translations of Chinese script sources in the footnotes, per WP:V, but I did not object to the content to go back in while the editor worked on translating them. When I first deleted the esoteric content, which was inconsistent with other RS and content, I expressly moved it to talk to discuss and get help sourcing, so it would not be lost from the article. I never deleted sources “I did not like”, but moved all unsourced content to talk and called out for RS on it, which, if not responded to, I found the RS and I moved it back in. I never “cherry picked” sources, but used sources to support what was already in the article, and for added content, based it almost solely on pro-TCM advocacy sites, the opposite of my own POV, per WP:ENEMY.
  • "When others tried to revert him, he assumed it must be a sockpuppet/meatpuppet attack, opening a case and adding everyone to it who objected to the way he changed the article (SPI case); while one editor later admitted he had, unaware of WP:SOCK created two new accounts, when he learned of the policy he promptly abandoned them and - as suggested by PPdd diff - changed his user name (which by the time was his real name). PPdd added his new name to the list of suspected sockpuppets even though he was the one suggesting the re-name, so he must have known that this is not a sockpuppet but the the same account."
  • I did not ASSUME it was a Sock/meat attack, they admitted it, and it WAS one, and ten accounts are tagged, five blocked, and financial COIs and SPAs admitted to. Further, in the sock/meat investigation, User:Herbxue/User:BMatson/[[User:BrendanMatson[[ admitted they all came in together as COI SPA, but based on responding to a “discussion forum” he refused to provide a link for. Recently, User:Calus provided the link[20]. The link is for AFTER they all came in, a deliberate lie in an ongoing sock/meat investigation. The editors in question deleted 3RR warnings from their talk pages after being noticed, then continued to edit war as COI/SPAs with the various accounts, some of which are now blocked. I suggested a rename for anonymity, added the new name to the Sock list to help that editor out so it would appear he was different than the first, and helpd him archive talk page discussion that might reveal his identity. In fact, the accounts were created after 3RR warnings, to continue edit warring. User:Calus deleted the 3RR warning from his talk page and continued to war. They claimed they all came to WP in response to a discussion forum, as their response to Sock/MEAT accusations. Herbxue refused to provide a link to the forum, constantly changing their story around, and just recently Calus finally provided the link [21], a post created AFTER the sock/meat accusations! No one is investigating this, and I am not familiar enogh with WP process to know what to do about this lie.
Please check the page for the sock puppet investigation. It should be closed as everything has been found to be exactly as I repeatedly explained it to be. The link you refer to is not where I heard about the WP problems. I am not part of a group with any of the other editors. Also, I have only contributed sensible posts to the talk page since my first day on the WP TCM page when I tried to remove the snake oil and "moxing" photos. You continue to try to discredit other editors who are not associated with me based on my newbie mistake of creating user jdaybreak before I knew about user namechange. There is no SP/MP attack going on. You also outed me which is not acceptable. You owe Calus and everyone else you wrongly accused of SP/MP an apology.Herbxue (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • ”Those who want to change the article are constantly accused of either having a COI or not knowing anything about TCM (TCM practitioners are usually accused of both, and imho he's also showing signs of ownership.
  • I did not accuse anyone of COI. Before I ever mentioned COI, the ten or so new editors in question ADMITTED they were COI and SPA practitioners, with a financial interest to alter the appearance of TCM at Wikipedia, deleting standard TCM medicines that look “shocking” or “bizarre”, images they do not like, content they do not like, and RS and MEDRS they do not like. I am not showing "signs of ownership", as can be seen by my cooperation with Mallexicon's (an admitted POV COI-practitioner) numerous edits which I have left untouched, except to ask per WP:V for translations of the citations. My "signs of ownership" are that I have defended any addition of RS content by any editor no matter what their POV, helped others find RS for their edits in a reasonable few days, and I have objected to deletion of any RS content that most any encyclopeida reader would want to know, no matter what the POV.

  • "Since it was made clear to the newer/less experienced editors that simply reverting or deleting material they don't like isn't OK, the most active opponents of PPdd (Mallexikon, Herbxue and Calus) have started using the talk page instead and - in my eyes - made reasonable suggestions."
  • Herbxue and Calus are admitted SPA/COI’s with a financial interest, who said the WP article is damaging their business. They admit they came to WP with 10 others “from” a “discussion forum” to create an artificial “consensus” to alter the TCM article to “better promote TCM’s image to the general public”, or something like that. When asked for the web address of the “discussion forum”, their stories were all over the map, culminating in the claim that this[22] is the forum, BUT THE DATE OF THE FORUM POST THEY CAME TO WP IN RESPONSE TO IS AFTER THE DATE THEY ALL STARTED. Mallexicon has been making a large number of edits almost continuously since at least November, and I have worked well with him, despite his admission to being a .

  • "An experienced editor (Ludwigs2) very early on told PPdd that his both his editing style and the results of it were less than ideal and said he (Ludwigs2) wanted to try and improve the article."
  • Ludwigs2 admits he is not experienced in this field, and yesterday he deleted almost the entire line by line RS cited lead in admitted ignorance, and tried to gut the article RS content to achieve his self admitted POV, to be later supplemented with research to back up knocking out the all of the RS content. When he first objected at talk months ago, to including anything about the “alternative anatomy” and physiology, supernaturally qi driven blood that self propelled itself not by pumping of the hear – THE essential fact upon which TCM is based, Chinese alchemy upon which TCM medicines are made, Chinese atrology as to using the day and hour of birth for diagnosis and as to planting on the solstice, sympatheic magic basing the medicines, etc. When the list of medicines showed toxic poisons as being considere helpful, not harmful, e.g., The TCM “King of the 100 herbs” is aconite, the “Queen of Poisons”, he objected to having any medicines listed at all, even though they were there since the article’s inception, only discussing their ecological impact, not use in TCM. He argued that this was a minor part of TCM. In fact, most of TCM is family practiced, and not via doctors. Among the doctor part, 75% is the medicines, a fact LUdwigs2 just deleted and falsely reworded to what he wanted it to be.
  • When I pointed out that he sould read about TCM before making claims as to what it is, he did not do so, and instead did NOT help out as he said he would, contrary to what Six words was misled into believing via the false and fact omitting accusations and assertions of Ludwigs2. Instead, he advised a SPA/COI-practitioner editor that he was an expert at Wikipedia politics, and could come in after I did months of work on the article, and delete anything or any presentation of information such as images, using his political skills, so that SPA/COI need only to have patience.

  • "When Ludwigs2 offered his help on the article talk, most of the editors there agreed that this was a good way to move forward, but somehow it made PPdd feel he had to “out” himself [23] [24] to show he was competent."
  • The is the second of his “offers” to “help” the SPA/COI/SOCKs. As the talk page shows, “most” of the editors were the undisclosed new SPA/COI editors, who admitted to coming in to create an artificial “consensus” to whitewash the images and content of the article. In fact, Ludwigs2 overtly threatened to make huge MOS violating style changes and ridiculous UNDUE claims, WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION ON THE TALK PAGE at all, then eliminated. I “outed” myself because Ludwigs2 clearly knew nothing about TCM based on his preposterous statements in the past two months, and just admitted this after deleting the entire lead, then saying he had to do research to see if he was correct about it, even though the lead had multiple RS for each line for months, and Ludwigs2 replaced this with his own false NRS POV opinion. In addition to completely deleting the RS lead, and POV gutting the RS content to remake TCM in the pre-image he would research to find RS for, he publicly accused me over and over about not knowing anything about TCM. In fact, I am a dry-climate plant expert, and chief American scientist for a huge Chinese conglomerate that among other things, makes pharmaceuticals from TCM medicines. How else could I reply to his accusations of bad faith editing based on my ignorance of the subject, and his repeated uncivil name calling as to that, other than a partial outing, which I would like deleted where it occurs.
I will continue this point by point response after a break. PPdd (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to defend everything PPdd has done in this case, but will just make it clear that the matter is complicated and there's another side to this matter. PPdd is correct in that sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry has been involved here, with an attack by multiple new editors who responded to a short article on a website which complained about the acupuncture article. User:Herbxue is a professional L.Ac. who "teaches classes in herbal medicine, fundamental theory, and the TCM treatment of immunological disorders and oncology." He is also director of education at a large "college of oriental medicine" with multiple campuses and thus has a huge COI, as do many of the MP who are also professionals who profit from favorable articles. Most have been blocked as obvious socks and meat puppets. The SP/MP situation has calmed down and a couple have remained as editors which is okay, but they need to learn our policies. They still wish to make the acupuncture and Traditional Chinese medicine articles look more like sales brochures and Ludwigs2 is enabling them by vandalistic mass deletions of properly sourced information. Instead he should be organizing the material in a collaborative manner since PPdd's formatting may have left something to be desired (although it did make sense). Most of his content was well-sourced and that is being deleted by Ludwigs2 whose typical strong arm threats have gotten him an AE block that is contested. The situation is a mess and more eyes are needed on the situation since it's basically a mass attempt to create a non-NPOV article and PPdd has felt it rested on his shoulders alone. Others need to get involved, since so far it's mostly promoters of fringe POV who are showing up to create a fringe consensus that violates NPOV. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I have to say that Brangifer's assessment is a mischaracterization of what is happening. PPdd does not have competence in the subject and has emphasized obscurities as the main bulk of the article. The ONLY thing about the page that had multiple accused SP's actually editing were two photos that even skeptics agreed did not belong on the page. Everything else has been independent editors, include people who seem to have been around for a long time. I am a full-time academic who's job is to teach and explain TCM and I get paid the same whether there's 5 or 45 students in my classes (I prefer 5:)). I'm here because the page was VERY POV when PPdd was left to torture it, and I have only been advising on the talk page. Please read everything I've ever written and you will agree I am only here to tell you what TCM is and is not, not to up-sell its efficacy. If you look at the version of the page Ludwigs2 edited, it is more appropriate in style and more neutral in tone (I still think its hypercritical - but it is not the absurd mess that PPdd keeps reverting to). I am willing to live with a slightly hyper-critical view of TCM but not the grotesque and absurd spectacle PPdd has made it out to be. The community has taken more interest and most agree that PPdd has been disruptive, takes ownership inappropriately, and is ignoring community consensus to let someone else edit the page. In my opinion, PPdd should be limited to posting only on the talk page. Then he still gets a voice but cannot dominate and undo everyone else's efforts.Herbxue (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
A few points:
  • @ Brangifer: Your attempt to attack editors rather than discuss content issues is against policy and common decency. You should be ashamed. to whit:
    • Nothing I have done is vandalistic in the slightest, and accusing me of vandalism without reason or cause is offensive and disruptive. I was in fact organizing the material, but made no headway because of blanket reverts from sockpuppets.
    • Your automatic assertion that anyone who knows anything about the topic is a fringe advocate is detrimental to the encyclopedia and a deep violation of AGF. One would think that someone who actually knew something about TCM and acupuncture (such as a professional L.Ac., teacher and director of education at a larege "college of oriental medicine") would be an incredible asset to the page; claiming COI and casting him as a fringe advocate without evidence is groundless, mindless crapulence, and you should know better
    • You are in fact supporting PPdd's sock-puppetry and tendentious editing practices by attacking other editors on the page, so do not lead of with a disingenuous denial that you're doing so. I am sick to death of science editors who put in-group loyalty ahead of the project's interests.
  • PPdd's "well-sourced" additions all deal with nostrums and preparations that have the same relationship to TCM that homeopathy and magnetic healing bracelets have to scientific medicine. to whit:
    • PPdd self-admits [25] that he takes his information from 'TCM advert sites' (assumedly internet sites that sell purported chinese remedies) backed up by MEDRS RS (meaning medical sources critical of these particular remedies). This is akin to writing a medical article on 'impotence research' by using the information in spam viagra emails and the sites that try to stop them.
    • more than 50% of PPdd's additions deal in glorious detail with animal penises, human and animal feces, and even the purported consumption of human organ meat, few of which are a significant aspect of chinese medicine (they are either historical curiosities that are never practiced or elements of quackery praying on sexual impotence fears). The only significant ones he lists are "ass-hide pellets" and "deer penis" (ass hide is used to make pill casings much the way that western medicine has used rendered animal fats to make gelatin tablets or use pig intestines as a casing for various products; penises of various slaughtered animals in the west are also put to use - what do you think goes into hot dogs?)
    • more than more than 90% of the remainder of PPdd's additions focus solely on materials that are poisonous, which disregards the facts that (a) many common western medicines - such as curare - are also poisonous but perfectly usable as medicines under the proper controls, and (b) few if any deaths from poisoning occur from TCM practice.
In other words, PPdd has been writing a drastically unbalanced article that only deals with topics that the western reader will view as offensive, disgusting, or dangerous, and now he is using unpleasant tactics like sockpuppetry to make sure that that unbalanced version of the article stays in place.
I don't really see why this was brought to ANI, but such is life. However, I would appreciate it if an administrator would formally caution Brangifer on civility and AGF to prevent him from indulging in further scandal-mongering or attacks on other editors. --Ludwigs2 16:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks like meat puppetry/off-wiki canvassing on one side and sock-puppetry/off-wiki canvassing/meatpuppetry on PPdd's side. I don't think either case is proven, though. Both sides should simply behave better. Your opinion that the western reader will view the facts about TCM added by PPdd as offensive, disgusting, or dangerous is beside the point, Ludwigs2. The question is whether they warrant the weight he's giving them. This aspect of the dispute is over content and does not belong here. Unless someone can prove sock puppetry, meat puppetry or off-wiki canvassing, this thread doesn't belong here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I didn't bring the issue here, and PPdd is clearly guilty of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PPdd, and is clearly editing in an agressive, tendentious manner. The other side I don't know anything about. There is no question about whether PPdd's additions warrant the weight he's given them - they don't. but you're right, that doesn't need to be discussed here. --Ludwigs2 17:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Clearly there is a question over weight here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't think either case is proven. The link provided by Calus sure smells like canvassing but it is dated after the article was rushed by pro-TCM editors. Probably there is another forum thread or blog post that no one is disclosing dated just before the rush of editors but, without a link, that's just conjecture. The case against PPdd is pretty ducky, but not as probable as the case against his interlocutors. Please just behave everybody, and go back to civil argument. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
        • No, there is no question of weight at all for anyone who has a modicum of knowledge about the topic or uses even a trace of common sense. Or is it your opinion that people have been using chinese medicine for something like 1500 years just for its poisonous-deer-penis-and-fecal-matter teas? Of course, the real person to ask is Herbxue, who reputedly has extensive training and knowledge in the field, but according to brangifer he's some sort of scurrilous fringe advocate. In short, the only possible way to credit PPdd's edits as reasonable and balanced is to create such a cloud of ignorance and suspicion that no one can possibly tell what reasonable and balanced is. To my mind, that's a ridiculous and anti-encyclopedic way to handle things.
        • To your other point, PPdd has admitted to knowing Daniela intimately, and discussing the article with her. the fact that she instantly sprang to reverting to his version, using his language to justify it, is more than enough evidence of meatpuppetry (and that's giving him the benefit of the doubt that this 'daniela' person actually exists)--Ludwigs2 17:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Please don't attack the common sense of those who disagree with you and take the content dispute to the article's talk page.
          • If she were editing to his instructions, sure. But that's not what's been admitted to. PPdd has admitted to exuberance on the part of a friend. I'm not sure I believe him. But I don't know he's making it up either. I do know that someone posted a call to action on that Wordpress blog. And the flood of editors to the page looks even more wrong than PPdd's story. Please all go back to civil argument and behave from now on. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
            • Look, if you want to play public defender for PPdd, that's your business. I can't imagine why you'd want to do that, unless you have such a poor grasp of the context of the dispute that you can actually (somehow) think that he's in the right on this issue and needs to be defended blindly and implicitly, but whatever. I suggest you let it go, unless you have something other than blind prejudice against the topic motivating you. --Ludwigs2 17:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
              • Charming. I couldn't give a toss about the content dispute. If I did, I'd be discussing it on the article talk page. Take it there. I do care about editors canvassing, puppeting and insulting other editors. None of you comes out of this looking pretty. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Human penis, pubic hair, and feces are NOT "highly discussed" in TCM literature. Please "Materia Medica" by Dan Bensky or 中药学 Zhong Yao Xue published by Shanghai U of TCM (a standard reference text for TCM Universities in the PRC). PPdd found something on the internet and called it RS. PPdd not a subject matter expert so does not have a proper sense of context for the stuff found on the internet.Herbxue (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
No doubt. Please argue it on the article's talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
You mean the talk page where sockpuppetry and tendentious editing is rendering all discussion and progress meaningless? lol --Ludwigs2 17:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Try to win by force of argument and drop the personal attacks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Which personal attacks are you referring to? the part where I describe what's actually happening on the page? get real. And yes, I will continue trying to se reason on the page, and I will eventually succeed in getting the point across. It's just disheartening the amount of effort I'm going to have to go through just to get a set of simple and obvious revisions into place. Thank you for being part of the problem. --Ludwigs2 17:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I know. It's hard. Do not question the common sense of other editors who disagree with you. Do not play the man. Address the arguments. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Anthony, if it were a matter of winning by force of argument then it would have been settled by now. There is consensus that PPdd's approach to the subject is inappropriate. But it requires him agreeing to accept the consensus of the community. I have asked him to do that several times and have led by example - stating I would accept Ludwigs edits even though they still seem hypercritical. There has to be a mechanism to prevent ownership of the page and disregard for community consensus building.Herbxue (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The only tools you have are policy and the quality and clarity of your arguments... on the article talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Herb, never mind. Anthony has apparently made up his mind, and it's doubtful that any arguments you might make will change that. --Ludwigs2 18:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been almost two hours, and no administrator has yet cautioned brangifer about incivility, personal attacks, and AGF for this post, so I am making a second request that this be done, on the assumption that administrators missed my previous request. thanks.--Ludwigs2 18:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Which words do you find problematic? I see you object to "vandalistic". Well, I call mass removal of sourced content without collaboration vandalistic. That's my term for it, whether it's done by an IP vandal or a pushy editor who has a habit of threatening (and you got an AE block for it) other editors and then marching in and deleting things. That's not very collaborative. You should have done it by discussion. I might well have supported you if I had noticed such an approach. Instead you allied yourself with editors who wanted a sales brochure of an article. Not smart.
Keep in mind that we all were - without your involvement (and your refusal to consider the matter) - just coming out of a massive sock and meat puppet attack that involved SPI and blocking of a number of IPs, and you chose to side with them. That automatically raised lots of suspicion. Fortunately the matter has settled down. My comments should be seen with that history.
I did not defend PPdd ("PPdd's formatting may have left something to be desired"), but I do object to your bully tactics, and I'll defend any editor whom you treat in that manner, and apparently I'm not the only one, since you got blocked for it. Why do you repeat it here? BTW, you are in error above ("scurrilous fringe advocate"??). I welcome professionals ("The SP/MP situation has calmed down and a couple have remained as editors which is okay, but they need to learn our policies.") when they have learned what NPOV means, but when they wish to remove criticism of sourced content, I have reservations. The matter could have been dealt with more collaboratively, rather than barging in and deleting.
It's pretty amazing that right after your block for threatening PPdd you attempt to bully Anthonyhcole here. I must say he's got a very patient way of dealing with your nasty behavior, and you don't like it when I call you on such behavior. Your call for someone to caution me rings pretty hollow when the pot is calling the kettle black, but you typically season your pot with threats and bullying. I rarely comment on it, but this time I did. For that I deserve a barnstar! Defending other editors against bullying isn't wrong. You're fresh off a block for such behavior and if you keep it up, I wouldn't be surprised if you got another one. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It's all well and good to talk about consensus-building and discussion at the article talk page, but as anyone who has spent much time on Wikipedia knows, it's not always possible. It's just too easy to sit there and hit revert a couple times every 24 hours until the other person has the sense of decency to stop. And that decent person's only recourse is to seek outside help. There was already a complaint at WP:NPOV/N which did not solicit much new input; Requests for Comment are broken, and so here we are. I'm not quite giving up on discussion at this point, but so far it does not look that promising, so there may be a topic ban request or an arbitration request down the line. I don't think we're quite there yet, but I'm new to the article. II | (t - c) 20:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I've been mentioned here in a few places, so I am going to comment. However, I'm going to keep it brief since I feel the whole matter has already taken too much of my time and attention. In my inexperience as an editor I let myself be goaded into behavior I would not otherwise condone. I followed the lead of the person who was the cause of frustration and resorted to cries of vandalism and accusations of bad faith. It takes two to tango, I will not sit here and try to defend all my actions, I've come to believe that I should have tried to remain civil despite the other parties actions. I've also come to learn that there is no point in trying to defend myself, since that then becomes fuel to misquote and be used as accusations against me. (vis a vis providing a link to what made ME aware of WP articles was twisted be a link about some imaginary "group" of sock/meat puppetry- even though the timeline is totally different and I was in most likely hood one of about 20 people to ever read the blog article I posted.) My actions were wrong, and I am sorry. I am able to admit that now since cooler heads and more experienced editors are now paying attention to the article, and that makes me feel less of a sense of injustice. I know I am not alone in my views of the tragedy which is the TCM page. That being said; PPdd has made it impossible for anyone else to work on the article. He refuses to agree to any consensus and resorts to accusations mentioned above. I realize that people like me who focus on single articles are often very disruptive, but if you look at my actions, you will see that I am not to blame in this instance. I have no objection to some of the crazily absurd content on that page, but I don't feel it should comprise the overwhelming majority of the information about TCM. I understand content should be discussed on the talk page, but again, PPdd has made it impossible for any revisions other than his own to be made. He has repeatedly inferred his own bias (i.e. claiming to make TCM herbs into REAL medicine) and agenda to make a point about TCM. The simplest way to fix this is for PPdd to be banned from editing the TCM page.Calus (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
No, I don't think PPdd should be banned from this article. He definetely did a lot of good here - the citation level has improved and there's less esoteric blah blah in the article. However:
  • PPdd, as I told you before I think you're moving too fast. You repeatedly deleted a few good edits of mine (sorry I'm too lazy to diff but I guess you remember) - in error, as you stated you yourself, but not everybody is as patient as me, and people tend to take these things hard. You consequently mistake me for other users (I am not a "COI preaticitioner with a financial interest", for example. I'm a general physician who happens to work in Shanghai. I don't practice TCM and I never said I did). These are all mistakes that typically happen if you do too many things at the same time. I know your intentions are good but this clash here was inevitable
  • Yes, PPdd seems to like to emphasize the bizarre sides of TCM (astrology, human parts, animal products etc.) and I already complained about that on the talk page. As long as there are as many editors active on the article as now, however, I think those TCM-fringe-phenomenons can be put into the right perspective. Mallexikon (talk) 05:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Massive breach of consensus[edit]

User:Rememberway merged Fukushima I nuclear accidents back to Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant against earlier discussion, that concluded in splitting of the articles. This all happened while the events were being featured as the top current event on the main page. After the back-merge there has been massive, absolutely unanimous consensus against the merge. Given that the back-merge discussion only lasted for 45 minutes and involved only three editors, and User:Rememberway had to constantly ignore multiple editors who warned that there was no consensus to perform the back-merge, I think the decision is quite obviously a breach of clear editor consensus, and ought to be reverted. However, Fukushima I nuclear accidents is protected, and the split can not be performed before it is unprotected. --hydrox (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I am seeking an admin to de-protect the accidents article and give a blessing that the obvious consensus is for two separate articles, and thus end the counter-productive edit war. Protecting the accidents article is one way to end it, but results in a situation that is against the wish of the majority of the editor community. Also, many other major Wikipedias have separate article for the plant and the current accident (browse to wikitext bottom for list). --hydrox (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a case of m:the wrong version being protected. I understand that consensus is, at the moment, heavily against merging, but is there any reason this cannot wait a day or two to let more users contribute to the discussion? lifebaka++ 16:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that the page that is supposed to deal with the power plant is now very long and hard to follow, because it has massive amounts of info on the 2011 events. This was the original reason for the split. Back-merge was done at 08:34 UTC, and it's now closing 16:30 UTC. If absolutely required, I would say 16 hours is enough to give time to all parties on all time zones to give input in a fast-developing articles like this, but this could also be interpreted as a case of WP:SNOW, given the overwhelming opposition to the back-merge after 8 hours. This includes a comment by an independent party. --hydrox (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Consensus is pretty clear for two pages, but the revert war created a huge mess. For a while there was two separate versions being simultaneously edited, which would quickly lead to divergence and some fixes being in one version but not the other. For that reason, I think the protection should remain for a while more while we take some time to hammer down consensus and think about how to implement the split, which is harder than it sounds while the article is being heavily edited. There's no rush here, we can wait a day. Anyone think 08 UTC tomorrow seems like a good time to close the discussion and implement the result? henriktalk 16:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to wheel war but my judgment as an editor is that the incident (at least the Fukushima I incident) need to be broken back out. There is no question in my mind that a page for the incident is merited. Protonk (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Doing the re-split now --hydrox (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that the articles shouldn't be split right now. Contrary to what people are saying the merged article is well under the size limits, and the articles were getting grossly out of step. By breaking the article on the site from the accident on the site in practice you end up with duplication; it's essentially a copyvio about the site.Rememberway (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
While there's a lot of editing going on (and there is a lot), keeping them in one article is much more sensible.Rememberway (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:Copyvio? Given the back and forth on this it wouldn't surprise me if there is a copyvio as the edit history as required by our licenses is lost somewhere strange but simply splitting an article, whether necessary or not doesn't automatically lead to copyvios. Concerns of excessive duplication etc are understandable but a different thing. The way to handle any copyvio concerns is by insisting editors ensure they provide attribution in the edit history when copying between articles which is always going to be a risk anyway whether the article is merited or not. In any case, in the event of a split it's usually made clear content came from the other article which is potentially sufficient even for content later copied. Also while I haven't looked in to this particular case but in some events even if not violating the size limits, having too much on one incident in the article can lead to undue weight concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • well I opposed separating the article in the first place and supported re-merging. The combined article is nowhere near too long since the power station article had been an unnoticed stub for 3 years before this all began. They might have the potential for multiple articles, but so do lots of things. I consider it was a mistake to do the original split. Some editor have since resisted adding details about the plant to the accident article on the grounds that it is duplication, but you can hardly discuss an exploding power plant without explaining what is exploding. This was particularly true since the power plant article was, as I said, only a few paragraphs of basic information. It was also the case that whether or not the merge today was merited, at the time no one was about for hours as far as I could see to comment upon it or express an opinion. In the same way that someone today decided to merge the two articles when no one was about, yesterday someone decided that a vote of 9 for split against 7 to not split was a consensus to do so. Someone commented that the power station and accident artciles have become two of wikis most visited pages: I think that suggests anyone interested wants to read all the information in both articles. Someone needs to sort out a big history mess.Sandpiper (talk)
Sorry, not copyvio, duplication. The articles have to summarise everything in their scope, so the main article on the plant has to summarise the accident, including in the introduction; that's the policy. It all happened on the plant site. It just wasn't being updated at all. And I don't buy the undue weight thing; this is going to be the thing that everyone remembers most about the plant, and all the sources are going to be talking about for *decades* ;-).Rememberway (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm unsure how that position leaves you in opposition to a split. If the plant article is not keeping up with the incident article then the solution is to edit the summary in the plant article to reflect information on the incident, not move the incident into the plant article. Protonk (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I think you can discuss the technical exacts of the accident on one article but still keep the details needed to understand the whole picture on two pages, if it helps the structuring of the information. Again, I point to Chernobyl disaster for reference. --hydrox (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Re-split done[edit]

Article has now been re-split, and I hope there will be more throughout discussion next time a previous consensus is overridden. --hydrox (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill was very similar to this, and it was split early on from both the BP article and the Deepwater Horizon article. It makes abundant sense to split the articles so they can develop, so long as a clear hatnote guides readers to the place they are most likely to go. Of course, there should be brief mention in the main reactor article that there is an ongoing incident, and it should probably be in the lead, but otherwise it should be brief and clearly linked. Ocaasi (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Eyes Needed[edit]

With workers leaving the planet, eyes are going to be needed on the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant article and possible semi-protection if necessary. Related articles might need eyes and semi-protection as well. - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 02:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I hope they're just leaving the plant, not the planet. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Yeah, "plant" not "planet". Wow...BIG mistake there. That's what I get for typing too fast and not checking for mistakes. - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 03:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Hey, if a 9.0-magnitude earthquake hit my town, my house was destroyed by a 40-foot tsunami wave, my workplace had an explosion (or two), and I might have been exposed to high amounts of radiation, I'd probably want to leave the planet, too. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • See Liquidator_(Chernobyl). That was the first thing I thought when I saw Neutralhomer's post about workers leaving the planet. :( (talk) 05:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


Can an admin please take a look at Eyriq86? This guy makes tons of changes to MMA wiki articles that are almost all disruptive. I'm sure he's broken the 3RR rule, resulting in edit warring, without recourse. He's been warned constantly, and never replied to the warnings or made an attempt to stop disruptive editing. There was even another ANI already filed for him before but was archived and nothing has changed as a result. Instead he continues to edit MMA articles disruptively like crazy. I mean, just look at his contribution history. He marks all his changes as "minor" and refuses to respond to warnings or talk things out. This guy makes tons of edits every day, PLEASE someone take some sort of action. There's some discussion about him at the MMA Wikiproject talk page, here. Please, please, please don't let this get archived without someone looking into it. I can't possibly revert all his changes to all the MMA articles myself and these disruptive edits and lack of response clearly shows this guy is not editing "in good faith". Dachknanddarice (TC) 19:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-communication is simply not an option, especially when edits are problematic and have been identified as such. I've indefblocked Eyriq86. This may seem harsh for a 'first offence' (though I agree there's quite a warning history on their talk page), but indef doesn't mean permanent and it seems to me to be the only way to ensure they can't ignore the concerns. I'm open to a suitable unblock request, though I suggest it will need to include an undertaking to constructively respond to advice and learn from it, and to edit in accordance with site policy in future. Regarding the earlier ANI thread, unfortunately stuff does get missed and archived, but it's meant you've put up with this for longer than you should have had to and for that I can only offer my thanks for your patience and commitment to the site. I hope you are now able to get back to trouble-free editing :) Best, EyeSerenetalk 10:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Sambokim's IP needs blocked[edit]

Resolved: IP blocked 1 month for adding spam. Let me know if the user account starts editing again. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sambokim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) This user was previously blocked for spamming up various Anyang Halla related articles with PR related copyvios. His job is English PR for the team, his English ability is not that great, as evidenced with previous discussions with him. After the last block he's mostly edited as his seemingly very static IP address: (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and while he does make the odd good contribution, he simply cannot resist adding any and every news story that ever mentions Halla to any article remotely related to Halla, his own, various players, the leagues page, hallas page, etc. A week was insufficient and he sometimes edits sporadically, so I would surmise at least a month might get his attention.--Crossmr (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The behaviour of User:Nmate[edit]

The context[edit]

On 8 December 2010 I was unblocked and granted a second chance after an indefinite block, becoming again a contributor with full rights. Since then, I've been a very active wikipedian and all my edits were made in accordance with the wiki policies. The fact that I've become a trustable user was also recognized by the admin HJ_Mitchell, who gave me reviewer rights.

Nmate (who was notified about this report) may have violated WP:HARASS, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:TALKO, WP:NOSPADE and WP:PLACE.

In the first place he posted a message on my unblocking admin's talk page asking for details about how I was accepted back in the comnunity

Secondly , he reverted me with no explanation on János Bolyai article. When I asked for a clarification on his talk page, he refused the conversation

Next he filed a report accusing me that I fight against sock puppetry, "instead of flattening to a sequestered corner"

Nmate engaged into an edit war against me at Lajos Kossuth article. The edits he was trying to revert were explained on the article talk page, but he refused to participate at the discussion, preferring to simply revert.

He posted a message on my talk page asking me to leave WikiProject Hungary

Nmate also accused me of "trolling" and deleted my post on User:Yopie 's talk page, breaking WP:TALKO

Later, when I explained him that it is mandatory to inform other users when filing reports against them, he replied me the following "If I