Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive687

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

Noticeboard archives


User:Beefman in violation of WP:TALK?[edit]

Beefman seems to be in pretty blatant violation of WP:TALK at Talk:Abiogenic_petroleum_origin. Please review that pages history. Would it be possible to get an admin to deliver a warning so this does have to go to AE? Thanks, NickCT (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)After review, I think User:Beefman might have been acting in good-faith. Either way, there seems to be some kind of silly revert war going on on this talkpage. Admin might want to step in. NickCT (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
User notified. Regards, GiantSnowman 18:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I see Beefman was blocked for edit warring. That's a pretty aggressive block, IMHO, even if it is for only 12 hours. Is there more to this than a review of the talk page history would show? If the user has a long prior history of this kind of thing I don't know about, that would go a long way towards easing my mind. In particular, Nick's comment about AE leads me to think there's more to this than meets the eye, but there's no notice on the talk page about what ArbCom ruling applies, so I be confused.
At the very least, Beefman's removal of a personal note, having nothing to do with the content of the article, and directed only to him, which probably should have gone on his user talk page, is reasonable. I'm going to go remove it now, to prevent Beefman from doing it again upon his return and possibly getting into further trouble.
I agree with OM that the Hoyle comments should stay, but I don't understand why either one of you think it important that they stay in some particular spot. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The removal of others' comments on a talk page is not OK unless it's a BLP or a personal attack or something - none of that appears to apply here. Beefman was asked to stop removing/moving the comments yet he/she persisted. I debated whether to call this an edit war or a disruptive editing block and you could argue that I should have used the latter, but I had a hard time seeing it as anything constructive or something that should be allowed to continue. The request to stop did not generate any change in behavior so the options left were protecting the talk page (usually a bad idea as that silences everyone) or blocking the user for a very short period. If another admin wants to unblock or change the block reason, I'm ok with that but I didn't see this as very controversial. Toddst1 (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
To remove any doubt, I've unblocked Beefman/shortening the block to time already spent. It's clear that the objectionable behavior has stopped. Toddst1 (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
To clarify here, my AE comment was inaccurate, and, as Floq mentioned, potentially confusing. I don't think there are any ArbCom rulings here. I also think that Toddst1's block was a bit quick, but frankly, while beef's actions might have been "reasonable" (as I was trying to imply when I said "good-faith" above), I think they pretty clearly violate WP:TPO (especially as he was asked to desist); hence, I'd say that while Todd's block might have been harsh, it wasn't unreasonably so... NickCT (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

user Borchica[edit]

A problem has arisen with user:Borchica on Semir Osmanagić it involves a dispute over the status of Mr Osmanagić’s PHD. The source provided [[1]] I have been unable to verfiy this. He claims that the PHD is mentioerd near the bottom of the page. In fact (as he has now informed my you have to enter may 2010 in the search tool) I have still been unable to verfiy this PHD. He has re-inerted (or removed the failed verification tag) three times now [[2]][[3]][[4]]. He has failed too repond on the talk page when I raised this [[5]]. The sources does list a Mr. SEMIR OSMANAGIÆ [[6]] but the spelling is very different from Mr Osmanagić’s name so there is no evidance they are the same person. Also this [[7]] list is Phd as 2007 (not 2010). Thus whilst he have an SPS for his claim to a Phd the source that keeps being re-insereted is a bity iffy.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this conversation is best had (at least first) on the article's talk page?--Epeefleche (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I guess he is edit warring on a BLP. Could be admin worthy here or at WP:AN3. This seems to be the info Borchica is referring translate renders it as a June 2010 PhD in "sociology science" (SOCIOLOŠKIH NAUKA) for a Semir Osmanagić.
Here's the International University of Sarajevo referring to him as "Dr.".
..and although his home page says Sarajevo, June, 2007 I guess that could be the date he started the project. The image files from the award ceremony are prefixed with "doktori nauka rektorat jun10". Sean.hoyland - talk 17:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Although I don't think it's worth much, the University of Sarajevo did grant him a PhD, I know this from an offsite contact. Osmanagich's name has a variety of forms and spellings. I'm more bothered by his continued failure to listen to other editors and his attacks on them - see Talk:Bosnian pyramids#Sources & deletions. Even trivial things, eg [8] where he reverted my removal of all the links - mainly to bookstores which didn't even mention Osmanagich on the linked page. My edit summary had said not to link to bookstore links. He's new and should be given some slack, but I think he's had enough now and needs to try to build consensus and WP:AGF. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion but rather then explain that Æ is sometimes a variant of ć he just says that the name is often spelt differently (indeed he makes no mention of Æ). In addition I felt his reply also had a rather insulting tone [[9]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I do not think one should ascribe tone to the remark. He did try to give an explanation. I'm no expert on Slavic names but I also get the impression that the Æ in question may be more of a typographical or rendering issue so the user not addressing that particular bit may have been because he was unsure of the cause. From what has been said so far it seems Borchica has been accorded suspicion due to the controversial nature of the subject. Borchica says Osmanagich is a PhD, from the above that seems to have been verified. If the user is new and is being harried, which it seems he is, an exasperated reaction on his part is understandable. Lambanog (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus ban of Sockmaster BlueMondo131 from Bob's Burgers and List of Bob's Burgers episodes[edit]

Those of you editing Bob's Burgers and List of Bob's Burgers episodes know that we've had a problem editor on our hands obsessed with the inclusion of the information on THIS EDIT that every other editor on two talk pages, Talk:Bob's Burgers and Talk:List of Bob's Burgers episodes, has described as trivia without verifiable cultural relevence. Numerous editors, including myself, have contributed to this one editor an article's length of advice, feedback and links on the talk pages explaining policies regarding verifiability and sources, notoriety, trivia, ect. that he either ignores or selectively reads to misquote back to us in an anemic attempt to make his point, which can simply be summarized by this; he wants it, and you can't make him not have it. He is not interested in policy or MOS, not interested in collaboration, not interested in consensus, not interested in anything other than dumping a table full of trivia, unsourced or woefully undersourced, and expecting us to clean up his mess and make it useful. His obsession with this disruption even goes so far as to attempt deleting RPP requests, which has now become moot, as he has learned the art of auto-confirmation and is a now practiced sock master with a growing file of accounts to his name. This clutter has been reverted ad nauseum, and yet returns daily, sometimes hourly, from a randomly created sock account. As of this posting, he basically challenged us to do something about him; following a comment to an admin I've been conversing with about this matter, saying I'm ready to go in the edit summary, he once again posted this fluff within twelve minutes of my last comment with edit summaries on the two separate pages saying l e t s GO! (a fair assumption that notification has been made, and add WikiStalking to his list). I believe it is time to discuss a ban of BlueMondo131 to put an end to this constant disruption, and to discuss whether additional preventative measures, such as a rangeblock to prevent new account creation by BlueMondo131, are necessary. KnownAlias contact 06:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What user KnownAlias is failing to mention is that throughout the discussion of determining where the content should be moved, the user recommended my IP be blocked effectively cutting off all communication. Instead of compromise or even attempting to reach a consensus, the user insisted on removing me from the equation. Upon this communication cut off, I was forced to create an account to keep the lines of communication open. This is considered “sockpuppeting” but I openly admitted that I was the previous IP upon the second post I made while still attempting to form a consensus.
After providing paragraphs of points with other completely unrelated users, user KnownAlias accused and reported all the opposing opinion’s IPs and usernames as sock puppets of my account to once again remove myself and anyone with differing views from the topic. [[10]]
At this point the user KnownAlias would reiterate previously proven invalid points to a level of obvious inconsideration of all the valid arguments. It was clear that the user KnownAlias was no longer listening and doing anything in their power to work around solving the problem. This includes provoking edit wars.
I have now been forced into defending the article the only way possible.
WP:POINT specifies that you should not disrupt wikipedia to prove a point. I have done nothing to disrupt wikipedia as I have only added harmless content. The user KnownAlias and his meat puppetry of admin are the disrupting parties that lock the page. As user KnownAlias makes inferential comparisons, I should be allowed the same privilege; such that WP:BURDEN specifies that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, under the same logic, it should be true that the user who locks the material is the one that is disrupting the page. --KTDizzle90 (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Are the images at tinypic screenshots? If they are then it violates WP:COPYRIGHTS which says "... if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work.". CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
And blocked indefinite for persisting in adding the links. If anybody thinks it too harsh then change it. No need to ask me. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
See for yourself; . The bigger problem even with that is there's no relatable information, just the screenshot. It doesn't even identify coming from an episode, much less which one. And THIS SOURCE was even worse; the "interactive Burger of the Day menu" at the bottom of the page only contains two that actually appeared in the first episode. The rest are original to the site. And that still doesn't address the issue of the "Neighboring Business" section, which was never sourced. And all of this was explained to him, but every time you trashed one source, his solution was to switch back to the other. And, BTW, my edit history of consensus building and collaboration speaks for itself; I'm the only editor who made even half an effort, even in spite of objecting to the material in question, of incorporating it. This editor's history also speaks for itself; he didn't start socking to have a voice over a block, but several, which got him blocked. And the first RPP was for the main Bob's Burgers page, which was before I joined the conversation. My position is clear; sock consensus was bad faith, and I rescinded my support, however reluctant it was to begin with, to these edits. KnownAlias contact 07:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
It also bears noting that most of the sourcing conversation on the talk pages was about the notoriety of the "Burger of the Day", which this editor is just assuming. And that speaks to what I was saying before about a selective understanding of Wiki-policy to defend his position; he quotes back something he found about editors seeking out sources in good faith rather that arbitrarily reverting the edit, and I'm fine with that (do it all the time myself), but as it was pointed out to him in the first conversation that predated me, no such evidence of it's relevance exists, so how do we source his edit? He provides no single link to any article espousing it's cultural relevance, no effort to incorporate it in an encyclopedic manner. Just a trivia table nowhere close to MOS. KnownAlias contact 07:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
And it shouldn't be too harsh to indef. block him. Like I said in the opening you can add it to the list. He'll have a new one by this afternoon. KnownAlias contact 08:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the allegation of "cutting off communication", I didn't see any attempts to communicate that were being cut offs. None of the additional accounts BlueMondo131 created attempted to discuss the matter on the talk page; they all went straight to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If such images are copyright violations, then they fall under our WP:ELNEVER .. hence - immediate blacklist upon first abuse (I've done that now). Please do that on next occasions immediate. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Noted; sorry. KnownAlias contact 08:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
No probs, most editors don't know this.
I have now armed XLinkBot in a very, very hard way for this case - please revert this edit if XLinkBot is causing too much or too bad collateral damage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Woah, i thought we finally settled this problem. He made another account, huh? I recommend a scan of recent account creations and block the one that sounds too obvious. If he persists, why not block his whole IP range for a week? And change the protection level of the page. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:58 14 April 2011 (UTC)
That would be a jump to full protection. I felt no qualms semi-protecting the article, because the edits that would have been excluded were predominantly the sockpuppetry listed above. Full protection of the article would cut off every non-administrator from editing the article, and that felt like too much of a "the bad guys have won" outcome to go to that step if there are intervening ones that can be effective.
That's why when KnownAlias came to me asking what's the next steps to take, I recommended the discussion come here, to see if there's broader support for an IP range block. That's a pretty harsh step too, but I think there will likely be less collateral damage there than full protection, (I'm not a CheckUser, so I couldn't tell you what IP(s) BlueMondo131 has used or what side effects it would lead to.) so that's my recommended next step. —C.Fred (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest, that if XLinkBot fails (I will not comment on wiki about it, mail me, or find me on IRC), that we apply the abuse filter for some time. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Previous editors complained about the lack of sources; DavidP provided direct links to the Bob’s Burger Episodes on the Fox website as there are no better sources than the content itself. User KnownAlias misunderstood the source as linking to the Interactive burger of the day widget. Although, this does provide ample proof that it’s a notable component of the series. After the previous information not being good enough for user KnownAlias, we provided stills which fall under Fair Use(not copyright infringement). Once again sourcing was discredited. Even though they are copyright free, I have never advocated these sources, but was threatened to provide them.

The Simpsons Couch gag [[11] ] is dauntingly similar to burger of the day in notability and provides very few sources. The episode number should be sourcing enough as it is on the Simpsons article. It has been stated many times that “Because it’s there doesn’t mean it needs to go here”. WP:OSE but it also states that this can be a valid argument when used correctly as above.

The above posts discuss hardly anything about the content, only ways to remove the user from posting it. Once again the accounts have done nothing to listen to the other side of the argument but merely side with a biased username. This is hardly collaboration but rather a public display of admin abuse and group debauchery. User KnownAlias accuses me of a ‘it’s my way or the highway’ attitude, when in reality it’s the other way around. -- (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Reality check: your ridiculous edit will never make it into the articles. Trying to paint any other editor in a bad light when you have acted (and continue to act) in such an inappropriate manner is only falling on deaf ears. Stop trying to introduce the edit. Okay? Doc talk 20:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Once again ignoring the article, targeting the user. -- (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
What else do you expect? You painted the bullseye on yourself. The worst transgression you committed in all of this was a failure to work within the community. Consensus does not mean everyone agreeing with you. You lose some of those battles, that's life. Your ever behavior has been, "but I'm gonna make this same point again, and you're going to give me what I want, right?" No, we are not. No matter how many times your mommy gave you a candy as a kid every time you said "PleasePleasePleasePleasePleasePleasePleasePleasePlease", it's not going to work here. We (on the Bob's burgers pages; I'm not gonna speak collectively for the admins here), and the governing policies of Wikipedia, do not agree with you. KnownAlias contact 20:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Time to drop the stick and walk away from the horse carcass. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
"(G)roup debauchery", huh? The IP is making vandal fighting sound a lot more fun than it is. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

A consensus ban is not going to work when he keeps socking incessantly. The following are  Confirmed as BlueMondo131 (talk · contribs):

Since BlueMondo131 is intentionally trying to bust autoconfirmed to edit both Bob's Burgers and List of Bob's Burgers episodes, I recommend full-protection on both. –MuZemike 20:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I found a favorite on that list...add editor impersonation to the charges. KnownAlias contact 20:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Can't we do pending changes? CTJF83 21:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Haven't worked on one of those, myself; but checking out the page, a level 2 does sound reasonable for this situation. KnownAlias contact 21:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
BTW, only Bob's Burgers is full-protected, while the List of Bob's Burgers episodes remains at semi. Doc talk 21:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 Done. Protection changed to full protection. Elockid (Talk) 23:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

One more bit of evidence: he logged back in as BlueMondo131 to edit his talk page [12]. I think that makes it clear that he has no intent of editing constructively in the future, so we should deal with him in that light. —C.Fred (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

He has also spammed his "taunting" on several of his socks' talkpages and, as a result, I have revoked talk page access from each and every one of the socks. Also, three more  Confirmed acocunts:

Underyling range blocked for 3 months. I don't care if it's from an educational institution or not, there has been nothing but abuse from that range the entire time. –MuZemike 04:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, i think he's operating on the episodes that have pages. He's claiming it's part of the format. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 8:50 15 April 2011 (UTC)

libel against Coventry University[edit]

Libel against Coventry University found at following posting:


__ (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

And just why are you reporting about a thread that's almost two years old? —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 00:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Seeing as the post here was the IP's first post, we're obviously dealing with a sock of somebody. Revenge is a dish best served cold :) GiantSnowman 00:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
A quick look at the thread suggests some uncomplimentary things were said about Coventry University, but I couldn't see anything obviously libellous (I am not a lawyer, blah, blah etc...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I can't find the 'libel' either. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
What? You mean "libel" dosen't mean "anything I don't like"? This changes everything... Sven Manguard Wha? 04:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


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

Resolved: Please don't tell anyone else that this Derek fellow was blocked by Tnxman307. Now, beat it~! *lol*

Please look at my edits and tell Alison. I wrote on Tnxman307's talk page. And please do not accuse me of being this Derek fellow. George Washington III (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a suspiciously specific denial. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 00:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
". Please do not tell anyone else that I am The Transhumanist." :D Egg Centric 07:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Block request[edit] continues to disrupt the article Jasmine (American singer). On 9 April 2011, the user reverted the article 3 times within a 24-hour period, removing a legitimate referenced section and disrupting the syntax of wikitables in the "Discography" section. In addition, related links were repeatedly removed. The user was warned about disrupting articles 4 times, and continued to do so anyway. I am requesting a block of this user. --Djc wi (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The user was told to use the talk page several times and never did. --Djc wi (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
If it's just cut and dry vandalism, warn the IP then take it to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. If it's an edit war, take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You're more likely to get a response there, as the people that go there handle those issues regularly. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Repeated arguments from User:Jnast1[edit]

User:Jnast1 has repeatedly failed to gain consensus to remove content in Rosie O'Donnell since August 2010. The user has repeatedly reverted and mentioned policies that have not been demonstrated to be applicable for removing the content. Moreover, the arguments have often been recycled and revisited by Jnast1, which have been disruptive to building consensus, especially after a WP:3O was received. Jnast1 has also started using votes instead of discussing and building consensus.

Jnast1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Rosie O'Donnell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The discussions have been at Talk:Rosie_O'Donnell#Restoring_.22Chinese_parody.22_section and continued on to Talk:Rosie_O'Donnell#Imitation_chinese_.28.22ching_chong.22_controversy.29.

Jnast1 first made an en masse content removal on August 30, 2010 of fully sourced content with an edit summary of "this is not notable and amounts to a smear against a living public figure." After discussion, the content was restored on September 6 by User:Str1977 with warning of "stop censoring this". However, Jnast1 again reverted the entire section on March 15 3:22 (UTC) with no detailed discussion on the talk page and with only an edit summary of "per NPov and Blp." After I reverted the unsubstantiated deletion, Jnast1 reverted a second time on March 15. After I added more reliable sources to the article to demonstrate that sources indicate the incident was not WP:UNDUE or WP:RECENTISM, Jnast1 reverted a third time on March 16 and did not WP:PRESERVE any of the fully sourced material. A warning on edit warring was issued to Jnast1.

A third opinion was given on March 16 by User:RightCowLeftCoast that explained how the content was notable per WP:GNG , was not WP:UNDUE, and not in violation of WP:BLPSTYLE. The 3O said other controversies should be added if reliably sourced, instead of arguing that this incident did not belong in the article. There was a concern about using direct quotes from protesters, and those have since been removed.

After an editor, User:Mixaphone, made one comment of "not notable" and deleted the article content without any further supporting explanation, Jnast1 has started counting votes instead of building consensus based on policy and sources. Despite the third opinion by RightCowLeftCoast, Jnast1 has continued to repeat that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, and still brings up WP:UNDUE and BLP. The latest recycling is on April 13. The content that has continually been reverted by Jnast1 despite Template:POV-section already being in the article, is now at my user page User:Bagumba/Rosie_O'Donnell. It uses 11 sources including 2 books, one of which is O'Donnell's autobiography, another is by academic scholars. I had left a warning on Jnast1 talk page on March 23 about reusing the same arguments being disruptive. After I summarized the sprawling discussion on the article talk page, Jnast1 collapsed the entire summary and started to campaign for removing content again without providing any new justification for removal of sourced material.

While good faith has been assumed to this point, WP:COMPETENCE is required to comprehend the points previously made and not continually rehash previous discussions and disrupting consensus building. —Bagumba (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There were numerous 'scandals' attributed to O'Donnell during her months at the View, we even have reliable sourcing to prove it, yet none of these really are a part of O'Donnell's life story except Trump's protracted blitz and O'Donnell's ongoing disagreement with Hasselbeck over the Iraq War which ended O'Donnell's co-hosting the show early. The opinions of other editors in favor of what amounts to character assassination expressed those opinions before the entire View section was cleaned up. After clean-up it became apparent that opinions were more in favor of removal but more opinions would likely help find concensus. To that end I was trying to find common ground with Bagumba so we could present a neutral request for comment. i have tried to move the discussion forward but Bagumba actually keeps repeating their same arguments rather than simply answering a direct question - did they feel my attempt to summarize the three options was accurate or should be changed. They have ignored my efforts to resolve this, even after I held my nose and re-inserted a non tabloid-like summary. For those who missed the opportunity they can still read the expanded version complete with extended quotes at Ching chong#Modern usage and now a back-up version at User:Bagumba/Rosie O'Donnell. I think the restating of our opinions is unproductive so would still like to get a neutral request for comment going. If anyone can help with that I welcome the assistance. Jnast1 (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll just say two things: WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BLP. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I find it unfortunate that these two editors were not able to reach consensus regarding the discussion at hand. I had hoped that content would be retained per verification of reliable sources, as I had not seen that the content regarding the issue which the 3O was about, IMHO, did not violate WP:UNDUE. Furthermore, if consensus could not be reached to retain content here, I had suggested an alternative of creating a sub-article regarding controversies related to the television show the view, and leave a summary on the O'Donnell page of related content with an appropriate wikilink to that new article; this alternative appears to not have been accepted by these two users.
Although consensus can change, to continue to remove content completely that is well referenced bring into question a users goof faith in editing, and makes other users question whether they are editing without a point of view to support. It's unfortunate that the users had not decided to seek additional comments through other resolution forums such as WP:RFC before bringing up a section here. That being said, if there are issues that the current active users believe cannot be solved even after attempts to mediate a resolution with non-interested editors weighing in opinions in an attempt to find consensus, this would be an appropriate step. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
A RFC is exactly what I was trying to get to; BTW I did not completely remove the material but trimmed it back to only what I felt was needed, another editor then deleted it all. With respect Wikipedia is not a tabloid so an article on controversies seems way off the deep end but maybe that can be another option for the RFC. Jnast1 (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Yet other subjects with articles such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News have articles specifically about the controversies that have been deemed notable. Furthermore, there are articles about affairs of public individuals that are deemed notable as well that are either contained within the public individual's article or have their own separate article due to size of content. Therefore whether a subject maybe be of a "tabloid" nature, if the event or individual is deemed to be notable it would warrant its own article, or possible inclusion within the primary subject's article. Of course BLP should be adhered to if it is on the primary subject's biography article, and on article's that are spun-out or separate from the primary subject's article or sections within the primary subject's article should still adhere to WP:NPOV. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

User: and Super (2010 film)[edit]

On April 14th, this user removed cited information from the article from an interview with the director stating that he was working on the film since 2002 and replaced it with "alleges" [13]. His edit summary stated [14] that it was unsourced, but this was untrue as the references backed everything up (they are refs 5 and 6). He also added in the Box Office reports from a website, with commentary that the results were "disappointing".

I restored the edits (I hadn't been logged in at the time) and substituted the box office results with information from Box Office Mojo, with a simple statement of the Box Office. I later included a statement from Mark Millar, who basically responded to the controversy that Super was ripping off his film Kick Ass saying that wasn't the case. Once again, the IP reverted my edits (once again saying that it was unsourced) and removed the Millar quote, calling it "Corporate spin" and WP:OR despite that it was sourced and that Millar had nothing to do with the production and had no personal gain to defend Gunn's film. [15]

He continued to remove the cited information and add in the "disappointing" comment. He later left a message on my talk page [16] saying that he was removing Gunn's cited comments because as it came from Gunn directly "that makes that info "subjective" and, not to mention, biased since he could be making it up/spinning his way out of a dud. You're drinking the kool-aid.", going on to call me a fanboy.

After I gave him four warnings on his talk pages for removing cited information (which he kept on deleting, saying it was vandalism), he changed his tune and instead "clarified" the section with adding stuff like "alleges" and "according to Gunn". [17] He wrote on the talk page that as the information was from Gunn, that means that they are allegations on level with people saying Obama was born in Africa. [18]

So basically it comes down to this:

1. I think the article should simply state the Box Office without any commentary on how good or disappointing it was. I also think the "production" of the article should simply state the facts without any doubt placed onto the director's comments (I.E. "alleges" or "he said").
2. The anon IP believes that "disappointing" is a verifiable fact and that since Gunn is "making it up/spinning his way out of a dud" we should repeatedly add "alleges" or "he says" to every statement he makes on the film's history.

I realize that I have broken the 3RR rule in reverting his edits, and I will accept any blocks for this. But it's clear from the comments left by the anon on my talk page and the discussion page that he has POV issues with Gunn and the film and that the article stands better to simply report the facts as opposed to offering commentary on how well it did or questioning the validity of the director's statements.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Both editors have been blocked for edit warring. I will also increase CyberGhostface's block length because of the comment "I realize that I have broken the 3RR rule in reverting his edits, and I will accept any blocks for this". It is not acceptable to deliberately edit in unacceptable ways with the expectation and acceptance of being blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


Never mind - already done.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Bob19842 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I ask that the user have his talk page access taken away, due to this abusive statement:[19] He was indef'd due to this one:[20]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Bulldog123 failure to self-revert against-consensus deletions[edit]

User:Bulldog123 made 2 dozen non-consensus, disruptive, below-indicated deletions. Of "see also's" in bios of Black actors listed in the List of black Golden Globe Award winners and nominees. The "see also's" point to the list. Bull was warned many times by sysops and other editors, and asked to self-revert in accordance with consensus. Bull's editing here is an extension of long-standing similar behavior. He has failed to self-revert. Leaving us with ongoing disruption.

Background. Bull first, in a number of comments at AfD, argued vociferously for deletion of the List of black Golden Globe Award winners and nominees. See here. He failed. Bull's view was non-consensus. It was considered, and was rejected by the community. The list was deemed a "keep".

Bull had made similar arguments, which were also rejected by the community, at:

  1. Bull's failed effort (first to merge, and then to re-name) the category "African American artists" here (the result: "keep as is");
  2. Bull's failed AfD of "African American film directors" here (the result: "keep"); and
  3. Bull's failed nomination for deletion of the List of Black Academy Award winners and nominees here (the result: "keep").

Bull's non-consensus mass deletions. Having failed to delete the list, Bull followed me to articles of actors on the list. Articles Bull had never edited before. In which I had added "see also's", pointing to the list. Bull deleted the "see also's" from the following 27 Black actors bios. Even marking some edit summaries "minor"—an inappropriate obfuscation.

Bulldog deletions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  1. 03:47, March 27, 2011 Beyoncé Knowles ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
  2. 03:46, March 27, 2011 Prince (musician) ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
  3. 03:45, March 27, 2011 m Whoopi Goldberg ‎
  4. 03:43, March 27, 2011 Whoopi Goldberg ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
  5. 03:42, March 27, 2011 Eddie Murphy ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
  6. 03:41, March 27, 2011 Samuel L. Jackson ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
  7. 03:41, March 27, 2011 m Sidney Poitier
  8. 03:40, March 27, 2011 Seal (musician) ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
  9. 03:40, March 27, 2011 Morgan Freeman ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
  10. 03:39, March 27, 2011 Halle Berry ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
  11. 03:38, March 27, 2011 Denzel Washington ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
  12. 03:38, March 27, 2011 Queen Latifah ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
  13. 03:37, March 27, 2011 Will Smith ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
  14. 03:37, March 27, 2011 m Cuba Gooding, Jr. ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
  15. 03:36, March 27, 2011 Bill Cosby
  16. 03:35, March 27, 2011 Dorothy Dandridge ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
  17. 03:35, March 27, 2011 Jennifer Hudson ‎ (rm SA behaving like categories)
  18. 03:34, March 27, 2011 Don Cheadle ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
  19. 03:33, March 27, 2011 Louis Gossett, Jr. ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
  20. 03:33, March 27, 2011 Forest Whitaker ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
  21. 03:32, March 27, 2011 Alfre Woodard ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
  22. 03:32, March 27, 2011 Ving Rhames ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
  23. 03:31, March 27, 2011 S. Epatha Merkerson ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
  24. 03:30, March 27, 2011 Tracy Morgan ‎ (rm SA)
  25. 03:30, March 27, 2011 Mo'Nique ‎ (rm)
  26. 03:29, March 27, 2011 Chiwetel Ejiofor ‎ (rem See Also spam)
  27. 03:29, March 27, 2011 Terrence Howard ‎ (rm See Also)

Reactions to Bull's deletions. Despite repeated requests by a number of sysops and editors that he do so, and consensus approbation of his actions, Bull failed to self-revert. See here. Bull had also been warned a number of times for disruptive editing, hounding, editing against consensus, and mass deletions—going back at least until 2009, as indicated here. A sampling of sysop comments relating to his mass deletions of "see also's" is as follows:

Sysop Bearian reverted Bull's above deletion at Beyonce Knowles, indicating that inclusion of the "see also" was valid. Bull then again deleted the entry. Without any explanation other than: "Undid revision 421703487 by Bearian (talk) rv – WP:NPA". Bearian added as recently as today: "This may be redundant, but ... Bulldog123 should self-revert whenever possible on these edits".[21]

Sysop DGG wrote to Bull on April 3, in part:

"the edits you have been making in removing group identity lists ... from articles after the ... lists have survived an XfD discussion, are purely destructive and irrational. I see from your talk page history you have received many warnings about this, and if I had not been myself involved in the arguments about these lists and categories, I would now consider blocking block you, and I will not object if any other admin does so."[22]


"many comments here and elsewhere certainly were objections to what you were doing, and would be reasonably seen as warnings not to continue, and I am pointing that out to you in case you had not realized, which I very much doubt. Second ... it is wrong to try to subvert a keep decision by removing content.... [T]hat we were opposed is ... the reason why it is not I who will block you.... That does not prevent me from giving an opinion if someone else wants to do it. I ethically certainly could take the matter to an/i, and ask someone else to.... If someone else should, they will, and I can and shall support them."[23]

Sysop Ironholds, reacting to similar mass deletions by Bull earlier this year, wrote Bull on February 3: "Could you explain exactly what that means, here, for example? Many of these people are quite obviously notable, and a lack of evidence of notability should be followed by a deletion discussion, not the removal of a "see also" section",[24] and "I'm ... reverting your edits. Please do not restore them until you can establish some sort of consensus that this kind of action is acceptable."

Given Bull's failure to self-revert his non-consensus mass deletions, after warnings and admonitions by multiple sysops and other editors, I'm bringing this here so that a previously uninvolved sysop can take action along the lines DGG has suggested above.[25]--Epeefleche (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I am going to use plain-speak here because it shouldn’t take so much of other editors’ time to boot tendentious, disruptive editors off the project. I’ve had ample experience dealing with Bulldog123’s disruption. He has a long and distinguished record of editing against consensus. The reason for this is he is a single-purpose account steadfastly opposed to any community consensus—no matter how global or article-specific—on these types of articles. He objects to them. He simply wants to achieve his ends at all cost. His crusade is pure disruption and far too many man-hours have been expended dealing with what is S.O.P. with Bulldog: Start an AfD to get rid of them. If that fails, tag-bomb the articles and delete whole swaths of articles. He never gives up. Here is his 500-count contributions list. A single-purpose editor. It’s high time that he finally be given an indefinite block. Greg L (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • There is no need to get consensus before pruning See also link farms. See also's are such a grey area that the only way to use it is to use common sense. The group identity articles are so problematic that I can definitely understand why Bulldog thinks they are not a good idea to include in see also sections. I would likely have done the same thing myself. No one has a duty to selfrevert if someone else disagrees with one's edit. If people don't like someone's edit they can revert it themselves. Calling Bulldog123 an SPA makes very little sense.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Also the most diruptive part of the "group identity" debate has been the personal squibble between Bulldog123 and Epeefleche. I would definitely support an interaction ban between those two editors.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Maunus—There is overwhelming consensus here. Reflected in the above diffs. And comments by sysops and non-sysops alike. Bulldog is ignoring consensus. Bull is not disagreeing with "someone else". This is not a "personal squibble". Unless you extend it to the many persons he is squibbling with, about the same subject manner. Bull is bucking consensus, expressed over many articles, and during the course of a great deal of time. A topic ban on Bull editing a certain topic of articles may make sense. But given that much of his activity consists of deleting articles and/or cats and/or lists of racial, ethnic, and religious minorities, a simple interaction ban placed on him would not suffice.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
None of the ethnic group category debates I have sen have been characterized by overwhelming consensus either way. And if there is such a huge consensus why don't some of all the consensual editors revrt his edits. Then if he reverts he is editwarring and you actually have something to report him about.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The discussion about his deletions, which is reflected in the above diffs, reflects a clear consensus as to his mass deletions. As is also plainly reflected in the diffs, Bull has been reverted. And he has edit-warred. And he has simply then moved on to further deletions, and further edit-warring—he has engaged in this same precise pattern of editing for many months. The community has until now tried to deal with him through reverts and warnings and discussion. To no avail. There is of course something to report Bull about -- Bull's continued editing against consensus. That is poster-child disruptive behavior, per wp:consensus. As that guideline instructs, where other efforts have failed, AN/I is the appropriate place to bring issues with "intransigent editors", where: "Sysops ... may intervene to ... impose sanctions on editors who are disrupting the consensus process inappropriately." The guideline tells us further: "Tendentious editing. The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive.... The consensus process works when editors listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they have decided on, and are willing to filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, destroy the consensus process." Bull's behavior is, as DGG pointed out, blockable.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not giving in to this persistent baiting and harassment by the Epeefleche/Greg L duo without clearing up their misrepresentations. First of all, this whole thing about "Bulldog being unhappy that the articles weren't deleted, so he tries to tag-bomb them and remove content from them" is one big fat lie. I tagged nothing improperly (or without reason). That some editors misunderstand or choose not to understand why can be solved by simply asking for a clarification. I added a "tp:trivia" tag to List of black Golden Globe Award nominees and winners because the entire lead was one massive pool of random trivia. User:Yaksar agreed with this and has since removed the trivia-laden lead. I knew that if I attempted removing it myself I would be reverted as a "vandal" by either Epeefleche or Greg L, so I instead of getting into an edit war, I added the tag -- which resulted in all kinds of hyperbolic accusations of "tag-bombing" and "tearing down an article." All untrue. Furthermore, I've asked Epeefleche numerous times for a self-imposed interaction ban between us. He responds to the first by merely deleting it off his talk page. He responds to the second request by rejecting the offer and instead rambling on and on about "me being an SPA". Epeefleche is only out here to "shop for a block" and railroad editors that oppose his trigger-happy ethnicity labeling. All my attempts to communicate with Epeefleche about content have been met by blanket reverts (such as this one here). If Epeefleche wants, he can simply re-add the "See Also" links - links that he added to prove a point during the AfD for List of black Golden Globe winners. However, I find nothing improper that I did by removing his spam (spam that continues to do this day -- with Epeefleche's persistent additions of See Also links like "List of select Jewish racecar drivers" to biography articles like Paul Newman).
I wish to bring to everyone's attention the staggering amount of See Also links Epeefleche added to articles of "Jewish sportspeople:" numbering in the hundreds. The vast majority of these bios have no references calling the sportspeople Jewish and a significant number are direct, blatant BLP violations.
I'll conclude by saying I'll HAPPILY agree to an interaction ban between Epeefleche and me (and if possible, between his pal Greg L and me). I've been trying to get one for months now. Bulldog123 02:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Points of clarification: 1) I'm entitled to delete messages on my talkpage. Bulldog's incivility in communicating with me is reflected in the warning Maunus gave Bull. It reflects just the sort of disruptive editor I have no reason to wish to hear from. As Maunus wrote to Bull, to close out Bull's last appearance at AN/I (emphasis added):

    "Please refrain from referring to other editors with any kinds of disparaging or pejorative terms, especially terms that evoke some kind of connections to historical atrocities or that are connected to nations genocide .... If you keep finding it too hard to interact civilly with other editors regarding the labelling of people by ethnicity/religion I suggest that you find a different area of the encyclopedia that you can edit with more peace of mind. Otherwise if the pattern of incivil interactions persist you may face sanctions."

2) As to Bull's personal attacks on me in his above post--at best, they are off-topic. At worst, they again breach our civility rules.
3) I appreciate Bull's offer now to not edit-war if his non-consensus mass deletions are restored.
4) Bull's response to requests that he follow consensus still is to label such requests "baiting" and "harassment". Similarly, Bull labels as "spam" what consensus has indicated are appropriate additions to articles. His closing comments are also of concern. Those portions of his post make me wonder whether Bull even now agrees to abide by wp:consensus. Notably, he has not said he would abide by consensus in the future. Instead, he says only that he will not buck consensus in this instance any longer because he has "no interest in "dealing" with [insult removed]" me.
5) Finally, I recognize that Bull would like to limit notice of his disruptive editing such as this AN/I, and input on it, by asking editors who point out his disruptions to not comment on his at AN/Is, etc. We don't "reward" disruptive editors, by in that manner muzzling those editors who point out their disruptive editing. Bull is, as indicated above, bound to follow the rules, including wp:consensus, and as the diffs indicate he has failed to do so for a long time now, despite many warnings by sysops and non-sysops alike. "Muzzling" the complainants is not the solution. Editing within wikipedia's guidelines is.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: When there is a list of items of this sort, there is invariably either see also's from the individual items, or a navigational box listing them. I agree there is generally no point in having both of them, but there needs to be something bidirectional tying them. (the "what links here" is normally useless, because of the extremely large number of items that appear there).

DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I agree with what Maunus wrote at 23:45-23:47, 13 April 2011 and 01:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC) above. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I also agree with the comments from Maunus that Tijfo098 highlighted. I would also mention that a person should only have a see also to a list if there is some special reason to believe that a reader would find that list useful, not merely because they are on the list. Do we add see also links to lists of people born in a place to the articles of every person ever born there? Do we add see also for the list of Harvard people to every person on it? NO. Those see also were behaving as categories and it was perfectly reasonable to remove them. If you want to include it on the article of everyone who falls into a category, it should be just that a category not a see also. Monty845 07:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Maunus's comments were addressed; one has to read the diffs and the guideline to see that they had already been addressed. Also, this is a discussion about a violation of wp:consensus, through disruptive editing. It is not a re-opening of the underlying substantive consensus discussion, formed by many editors over many months. Such a red herring derails us from the focus of this AN/I.
The consensus that such edits by Bull are inappropriate is reflected plainly, in the above diffs. See, e.g., the comments over an extended period of time by sysops Bearian, DGG, Ironholds, and ChedDavis, and editors Shearonlink, Adabow, GregL, Yolgnu, Hmains, Moxy, Sift&Winnow, Unitanode, and Ed Fitzgerald (let alone my own). We're looking at the consensus of over a dozen editors, many of them sysops, with an aggregate of well over half a million edits. Bull clearly continued, over many months of warnings and input, to ignore consensus. This, as the guideline tells us, is behavior worthy of sanctions. Furthermore, Bull's response fails to suggest that he, even yet, accepts the strictures of wp:consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • You might want to check out the edits Greg and Bull made to the DRV and the CFD at Category:Jewish American businesspeople (the CfD of which is still active) as well. Greg's edits were very, very, sarcastic. The upshot is they are trying to implement an overly strict/deletionist interpretation of WP:OCAT that the community has not expressed a consensus for Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 07:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • What can I say? That was a rare instance where I actually agreed with Bulldog123. That wasn’t because BullDog’s arguments were any more eloquent, but because a list of Jewish business people could never be sufficiently comprehensive to be of any real value to our readership and would just serve as more of a curiosity than anything else. I stated as much there and other editors agreed with that. Chock up the fact that I agreed with Bulldog in that instance as merely being the product of the effort to create “ethnic classes”-related articles having stepped over the line into absurdity. Greg L (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • According to WP:Single-purpose account, a single-purpose editor is one whose editing is broadly limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose. A perusal of Bulldog123’s contributions is very suggestive that he is a single-purpose account. The number of AfDs he has has nominated, only to see the nom fail, that then resulted in editwarring is troubling. Greg L (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
    • The problem is the concentration, not whether or not the edits or nominations are valid/reasonable/correct. For example, I do not think small shopping malls likely to be notable; I've nominated some for deletion via prod or AfD; consensus agrees with me, & they get deleted.If I did nothing else here but nominate shopping malls for deletion, most but not all of which were correct nominations, this would not be a reasonable way of working at Wikipedia. If I nominated every shopping mall I could find, small, or large, in batches, & removed all links to them whether or not they got deleted, I would be editing disruptively. If I did nothing else, I would be a disruptive SPA. The solution to this problem is for Bulldog to diversify his interests, not to stop editing. Ethnicity is important, but a concentration of edits involving ethnicity strikes me as a little questionable. That all the edits are removing information about ethnicity strikes me as particularly questionable. (Obviously it would be much more dubious if it were one particular ethnicity, but this does not seem to be the case.) DGG ( talk ) 20:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
      • If “diversify” meant “find something other to do that doesn’t generate so much conflict”, I agree with you. Yes, part of the problem, as you say, is one of “concentration”, which appears to mean “focus” on a particular topic. But we also have editors who focus, or specialize on narrow issues, such as atomic nuclides. That sort of thing is great; we need specialists. The concern I have with Bulldog123’s edits is the focus is not one of building the project but of ridding it of a whole broad class of articles when there is no community consensus to do so. Thus, his editing conduct could fairly be described as tearing down the project over a philosophical point of view over the propriety of an encyclopedia discussing such things. More troubling is he seems to be immune to social pressure; very little about his contributions history suggests otherwise. Given an honest reading of his contributions history, what is it about this particular case of being a WP:Single-purpose account does not warrant a more definitive remedy? Greg L (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

User Foghlopy[edit]

I believe that User:Foghlopy has deliberately falsified references in History of medicine. As I am an involved party I am coming here to request that another administrator takes the appropriate action.

I removed what seemed to me to be highly dubious information here and [26] and a similar addition to the Stethoscope article. This was based on a search of the cited book available in gbook snippet view which failed to verify the sources. Foghlopy responded by immediately reverting and posting on their talk page convincing looking quotations from the book. I subsequently opened an RfC on this and User: Tom Morris went to a great deal of effort to confirm that the reference failed verification in a library copy.

As well as wasting my time, and the time of all those who took part in the RfC, Foghlopy has succeeded in causing an editor to make a special trip to a library in London to resolve this. That's a considerable amount of disruption for very little effort on their part. SpinningSpark 22:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Nothing checks out. I even tried 56 BC and other phrases from the quotations in google snippets. Lets see if Foghlopy can explain here.Fainites barleyscribs 22:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, the quotations given on Foghlopy's talkpage are not in good English. Certainly not what one would expect from a scholar writing this kind of work in the '40's and '50's. This may just be typos in the copying I suppose but it seems odd. Fainites barleyscribs 23:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Could it be that Foghlopy is taking his quotes from a Chinese translation of the book? Older Chinese translations of scientific works (those done in the PRC) were notorious for this kind of falsification, and if that's where the editor's getting his quotes from it's possible he's not the one committing the act of falsification. --NellieBly (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
While that may be possible, Foghlopy cites Kessinger as the publisher and I am suspecting that this is more some kind of test of Wikipedia's ability to remove false information. The user has been around since 2009 but has done nothing else other than occassionally return to modify the same edits as if trying to invite a response. If this is correct, then it is a disruption only account. Since their initial response to me at the beginning of the month, which happened very quickly, they have not responded to my request for scans of the book pages on their talk page, nor to the RfC. I can't help recalling that there was a controversial Wikiversity project to carry out just such testing around the same time frame and checkuser may be appropriate to see if there are any more of these. SpinningSpark 06:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
You mean the actual chinese translation has nonsense added? I can see that for the stethoscope but why would they add patent nonsense about surgeons having ask the church's permission for drugs or operations? Just to highlight how enlightened they were in comparison?Fainites barleyscribs 12:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I didn't make a special trip: I generally don't for resource requests unless the topic is something of immense interest. I wait until I'm going to the library anyway: I was there doing research in my own field (philosphy) and took half an hour or so to look up this reference. The books on the history of medicine are only a few doors down from the philosophy books. That said, if the community feel that based on my evidence User:Foghlopy is making bad-faith edits, it would certainly be a reasonable thing to implement a punitive block if only to discourage people from making up citations and potentially wasting the time of WP:WRE volunteers in the future. Ideally, I'd like to spend time helping good-faith editors make articles better rather than tidying up dodgy citations. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I've indef. blocked him. He hasn't responded further to the issues raised here or on his talkpage. If it all turns out to be an innocent mistake, which currently seems unlikely, he can appeal and produce the evidence.Fainites barleyscribs 12:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Tangential comment: am I the only person reading who considers any reason to make a trip to the library -- especially a well-equipped one -- is never a disruptive one? Or am I the only one here who would welcome an excuse to make a trip thence? (Not that I believe this justifies adding garbage to articles, but I couldn't get too angry were I in this situation.) -- llywrch (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey - is that an offer? Could you go to a big city library and look some thing up for me in the Canadian dictionary of slang etc? Fainites barleyscribs 08:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Send me a list. (I'm only half-kidding, too.) Next chance I get to go to one with a Canadian dictionary of slang in its collection (there's a decent research library here & it's just down the street from me, so to speak, but I don't know if it has the reference work you're asking for), I'll see what I can find. -- llywrch (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't consider the trip to the library disruptive: as I said, I go there anyway and don't make special trips just for looking things up for Wikipedia. I'm not at all angry about doing the research–just as I wouldn't get very angry about having to do jury duty–but I do think that when people are discovered to be inserting dodgy references, the full weight of an indefinite block or some equally severe punishment should fall upon them as a preventative measure: they have still abused the trust of other Wikipedians. I have absolutely no complaint about doing library research, but I do prefer doing it when the result is constructive rather than disciplinary. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

User Rklawton "A dirty, rotten, low-life, disruptive trick"[edit]

Hi, all. I'm having a difficult time communicating with admin user Rklawton in a thread (link/permalink) at the talk page for our article on Prescott Bush, grandfather to George W. Bush. The conflict started after he and another user deleted the only mention in the article of the matter of Geronimo's bones, a single "see also" link to our article on the Native American Chief.

I'm not asking for help with the content dispute, which has to do with whether allegations should be included in the article that Prescott Bush dug up bones from a graveyard when he was stationed at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, in 1918, and then presented those to his pals in Yale's Skull and Bones society as being those of Geronimo, who was buried at Fort Sill in 1909.

I am asking for admin help, though, to prevent Rklawton's very aggressive, ownership/battleground behavior from continuing. After I objected to his post saying I was "sneaking around", and I provided further basis in policy for including the content, he wrote, "There's consensus not to add that kind of crap to this article, so it will be removed on sight."

By saying there was "consensus not to add that kind of crap" he appears to have meant anything critical of Prescott Bush, even if that criticism does happen to have been reported by every major news outlet in the United States, and been discussed at some length in at least three books. An investigation of this article's history gives me the strong impression that Rklawton, in concert with one other editor primarily, has been essentially standing guard over this article, intimidating other editors who seek to add any critical information.

( Editors who want to examine that assertion further should review this section of our article, which has been a special point of focus, and especially should compare the weight given there to the 2004 article from The Guardian − not quoted from at all, and dismissed as the work of a "conspiracy theorist" − to the weight given to this nearly illegible primary source and this 2003 statement from the Anti-Defamation League, quoted essentially in its entirety to dismiss the allegations in the later 2004 Guardian article as "an internet rumor". )

I next posted additional policy links and discussion to the talk page, and Rklawton responded with this post:

"a well considered and thoughtful reply"
Let me be more clear - this bullshit was removed previously from the article. Trying to re-add it via "see also" was a dirty, rotten, low-life, and yes - disruptive - trick. So the disruption was adding it - not removing it. If you want to add it back - discuss it here first. If you'd like to spend your time critiquing my editing, feel free, but Wikilawyering won't win you any points. In fact, Wikilawyering often backfires for reasons that should be obvious and don't bear repeating.

The "see also" link that Rklawton was objecting to here had been in the article, subject to some recent edit warring, for at least a year. He and another user deleted it on April 7th (UTC), I restored it, once, posting at length to the talk page about the policy basis for doing so, and he again deleted it, three hours later. I did agree on the talk page, btw, that a "see also" link wasn't the right place for this content, and stated my intention there, prior to Rklawton's comment above, to add it to the body of the article, something I haven't done yet.

I'm sorry to have to bring this here, but it seems pretty clear that Rklawton won't tolerate any critical information being fairly represented in this article if he can possibly help it, and that he's perfectly willing to try to bully other editors to prevent that from happening. I know he's an admin, but he's still obliged to conform to our policies disallowing personal attacks, battleground behavior, and article ownership, and I'd appreciate it if the community would take whatever steps are necessary to try to make him understand that. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I've no opinion about the content dispute, but obtaining the input of more uninvolved editors, such as via an RfC, might help. I agree, though, that the comment by Rklawton was strongly incivil and uncollegial, especially from an editor who as an administrator is expected to adhere to higher standards of conduct, and is in my opinion grounds for a block (though I am aware that many editors think that civility blocks are seldom useful).  Sandstein  13:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
The real and only issue at hand is whether or not we should included sourced but debunked and absurd rumors in a biographical article. However, in a classic case of bad faith editing, an editor wanted to blow up an initial mild rebuke to obfuscate the real issue - that an editor is trying to push unfounded, debunked, and ridiculous rumors into a biographical article. My response was tongue-in-cheek (note the edit summary), and ended up serving to illustrate only that the editor is obviously oversensitive and should be roundly ignored. As for Geronimo, that particular matter had already been covered and resolved a couple of years ago, but rather than bring up new citations or rationale, he or she drags up the same old citations - bah! Even if this AN/I turns out "against" me - there will be material affect, so the editor wasting everyone's time here. I suspect he or she is hoping to gain some "sympathy" votes. It's a classic case of gaming the system - a process in which at least one editor involved appears to be a pro. For some *really* interesting examples of Wikilawyering ad absurdum, check out the article's talk page where an editor cites an unrelated arb com comment to justify his ridiculous notion that removing any neutral text from an article is automatically disruptive. And frankly bullying people and Wikilawyering are far more disruptive than referring to a rumor as bullshit and an editor's attempt to reinsert it into an article via the "see also" section as "sneaky". Rklawton (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Calling it "a dirty, rotten, low-life, and yes - disruptive - trick" is a bit more than just "sneaky". It's really not the kind of comment that has a chance of being taken as "tongue in cheek" either - the edit summary certainly didn't say that to me -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
The personal attacks continue, I see. It seems unlikely that Rklawton plans to stop that, or to moderate his ownership behavior over the article, either. Re the content assertions he makes above, that this "was resolved" in this 2006 thread, that these are "unfounded, debunked and ridiculous rumors", and that I've "dragged up the same old citations," I'd only ask that editors look at the archived 2006 thread, at the high-quality sources I've cited at the talk page, and that they please note that of the nine reliable sources I introduced there, the first seven were from 2009 or later.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that the rumour has been debunked by everyone - even the attorney for the heirs did not say he thought there was a scintilla of truth to the tale. Clearly the tale has a place in Skull and Bones but is of essentially zero relevance to Prescott Bush at all. By the way, the tale has Bush being one of six or seven doing the digging of an (at the time) thoroughly unmarked grave which the Army officials did not even know the location of, and restoring it to an undisturbed state. By the way, the lawsuit was dismissed - not only against federal oppicials on sovereignty grouns, but also against Yale and Skull and Bones. It seems one must have some basis for a lawsuit. Collect (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Far from having "been debunked by everyone", what Collect is calling "the rumor" has been "reported by everyone", i.e. (nearly?) every major news organization in America, CNN, FOX, the AP, the NYT; you name it. And his assertion about the tribal representative's attorney, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, is a ludicrous distortion of his statement. Clark said, truthfully, that no one knows whether the skull the secret society has is Geronimo's, and that the action sought, among other things, to determine that. To get from that statement to Collect's not a "scintilla of truth to the tale" requires some pretty determined acrobatics.
Further, the suit was dismissed only because the U.S. government refused to waive its immunity re the Fort Sill theft, and because the grave-robbery law it was in part filed under excludes remains stolen from Native American burial sites before 1990. Its dismissal says nothing at all about whether Prescott Bush and his fellow club members "crooked" bones and other items from a grave in 1918. "Crooked", btw, is a euphemism that club members use to refer to their practice of stealing things from non-members, aka "barbarians" in their parlance, that they happen to want to put on display in their clubhouse on the Yale campus.
Skull and Bones has admitted that they have a skull, it's a fact that they call it "Geronimo's skull", it's been widely reported that they use it in their initiation rituals, and the tradition within the club has always been that Prescott Bush, along with some other so-called "Bonesmen", dug it up from the Fort Sill cemetery where Geronimo was buried, when Bush was stationed there in 1918. That Prescott and his pals are likely to have mistaken the grave and taken the remains of some unnamed person, rather than Geronimo, doesn't make this extremely well-sourced information any less interesting or any less relevant to the article about him. And the only source that I've seen Collect present on the article's talk page to support his "debunked" is from a biographer who Collect describes there by saying, "Kitty Kelley is not the best of all sources."
By answering the above, I do not intend to suggest that this AN/I thread is about article content: It most emphatically is not, and I'll not bother to respond to misstatements about content, again. I posted here in an attempt to address article ownership and battleground behavior, and those are the only matters that I'm asking administrators consider.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea what's going on here as I'm new to this page. There seems to be a preexisting conflict between editors that they insist on conflating with this editing dispute. The content issue in question is one that is widely discussed in many biographies, newspaper articles, and other RS sources. Whether or not the story is true or the lawsuit was successful is immaterial. It would be nice if some outside party could separate the editing dispute from the conflict dispute, because I don't think anything will get resolved if it keeps firing up this personality dispute. Gamaliel (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Gamaliel, I've never interacted with Rklawton before that I can recall, although Collect has been pretty unhappy with me since I took part in a discussion last year that ended in his being blocked. With respect to the actual article, you can see from its revision history that my previous involvement has been limited to two instances: In one edit I objected to the discrediting of an article in The Guardian as the work of a "conspiracy theorist", and on another occasion I removed copyvio text and then improved the subsequently-added cite/ref for the fact it had documented.
I'm not surprised to see Collect here, though: He's the other user who has, in my opinion, been standing guard over this article with Rklawton to remove or discredit any critical content. Between the two of them, for example, they've restored the characterization of The Guardian's article, by journalist Duncan Campbell, How Bush's Grandfather Helped Hitler's Rise to Power, as "An article relying on conspiracy theorist John Buchanan's work" at least seven times since February of last year.[27][28][29][30][31][32][33] Since I first noticed this, I've thought it rather curious behavior on Collect's part, at least, given his perennial claims at articles for conservative politicians that BLP policy prohibits the addition of this or that critical content.
I've never studied the matter, although it's my guess that there might be more to the Nazi finance issue than is present in our article currently. But you're perfectly right, of course, that it's not our role to determine whether the reports in this instance or any other are true, but merely to summarize the allegations made in reliable sources that are relevant to the subject, especially when they're so broadly reported.
I'd like to strongly reiterate, though, I'm not requesting assistance here with the content dispute. Rather, I've asked for assistance only because the personal attacks, battleground conduct, and (most problematically) article ownership behavior seem nearly certain to continue without intervention, and just as certain to prevent any collaborative resolution of the content dispute until they are addressed and resolved.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
When in doubt, make a slur on another editor. People who just look at your claim that somehow I was blocked for improper behaviour will not note that the block was viewed as unsupportable and improper. But then again, yoiu would not note this when making asides about others. The material is covered in the relevant article. Which is sufficient for rumours. [34] shows OhioStandard soliciting the block. King of Hearts trusted your version of the edit history, blocking me for a single edit long before the block. [35] and one editor (who is now an arbitrator) said two edits in over two days did not seem like "edit war." But then again, your sole aim was to get me blocked because your friend Screwball23 (who has a long block history) was blocked for actual edit war. Now can you let all this drop? Your attempt to raise a non-existent charge of edit war here is a gorss violation of polity. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh anent cleansing articles -- look at [36], and wholesale removal of RS sources at [37] when it suits his fancy. And, fun of funs, removing [38] from Prescott Bush presumably becasue it was favourable to him. Cheere. Collect (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Diffs one and two remove material attributed to sources which arguably are unreliable, while the third diff removes a copyright violation. Do you propose that editors seeking to include material supported by many clearly reliable sources in articles must therefore refrain from challenging the quality of any reference more authoritative than someone's blog, or are required to let cut and paste copyright violations stand? Chester Markel (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Anyone who's interested is welcome to examine the edits that Collect objects to above under a microscope if it'll make Collect happy. I'm sorry to hear, though, that my mention of the occasion that seems to have motivated his antipathy sounded like "a slur" to him; I didn't mean it that way, and I didn't intend to insult him by referring to it.
But his statement that user Screwball23 is "my friend" and that I thought Collect's block called for because of that isn't supportable. I interacted with Screwball23 six or seven months ago, I've made only this edit to any article he's edited, and I haven't communicated with him since.
Any editor can form his own opinion as to the basis for Collect's block, though, by examining the blocking admin's comments in the second diff he provided above. If Collect wants to address my involvement in that process any further, or better still, wants to try to work out a more collegial relationship, he's welcome to initiate a discussion on my talk page. I'd also suggest that it would be more productive to stick closer to the particular issue at hand: that of resolving the battleground and ownership issues that are currently in evidence here.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it'll probably be more productive if I refrain from responding to any further accusations from Collect, if I can reasonably do so. I'd appreciate it, though, if an administrator would take a look at a recent development (link/permalink) at another article. I normally enjoy editing here, but this kind of behavior is really beginning to impact that pretty seriously. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Fyi: Collect just posted a "Wikiquette alerts" complaint about me (link/permalink) citing, in part, comments I've made in this present thread.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
And the primary basis of that post was your ongoing incivility, wherein you appear to blame the entire problems of the world on me. :) Noting also your forumshopping here about whether an extensive quote verging on copyvio and vaguely related to the journal belongs in an article thereon. Now might you post somewhere without invoking my name or following me to various articles? Thank you most kindly! Collect (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
BTW, he apparently managed to completely misread Jclemens comment -- he stated that 2 reverts in 2 days was not "edit warring" in his opinion. But OS seems to relish digging through Wikipedia's search function in order to assuage his own incivility. I rather think digging through every edit a person has made indicates something of an obsession. Collect (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I have nothing to "assuage" and I didn't misread anything, nor will any other editor who examines the reasons admin King of Hearts gave for blocking Collect in the link Collect himself provided above. So, no, not much "digging" was necessary to find that, and no "obsession" either.
And re the "verging on copyvio and vaguely related" characterization he uses above to justify his actions and discredit mine, the cynicism in that just astounds me. It really (!) amazes me that he could try to use something in which he's so indisputably and egregiously in the wrong to try to accuse me of misconduct and copyright violation. The strategy seems to be to fling whatever mud he thinks might possibly stick.
I can only guess that Collect is hoping users won't bother to click a link to examine his accusations. I'm hoping you will. If you don't examine any other claim he's made, please examine this one.
I don't "blame the entire problems of the world" on Collect, either. I only want him to be accountable for the ones that he purposely creates.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Apart from the amusing irony of apparently being characterized by Rklawton as a "clueless noob" at WQA, of all places, this really is getting old. I'd be really glad if anyone wants to take the time to carefully examine the allegations posted at WQA in their context, but to try to keep from fanning the flames I don't intend to reply to the substance of Collect's or Rklawton's accusations unless an admin wants to ask me about some specific point.
It's probably safe to say that if any ordinary editor had exhibited the same degree of article ownership and ongoing attacks toward an admin as Rklawton and now Collect have felt free to employ here and elsewhere, and had repeatedly demonstrated every intention of continuing the same behavior, that the problem would have been dealt with before things got to this point.
I've tried hard to remain civil, and to address this issue on a policy basis rather than a personal one, but that approach hasn't been working, and this just keeps going farther off the rails. Will someone with the authority to do so please step in here to prevent this behavior from continuing?  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you would have better luck if you decided not to make every post about personal conflicts which you seem to attract? I find it quite tiresome to find my name in every post you make, and I suspect the same is true of Mr. Lawton. Collect (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Yup, I'm horribly ashamed for attracting so much conflict by reverting one edit and proposing the addition of impeccably sourced content to an article that you and Rklawton hold dear. It was hugely presumptuous of me to have forced him to become so aggressive and contemptuous like that.
I didn't intend to respond to you again, but an accusation coming from you that I attract conflict is just too ridiculous. People here are smart enough to look at our respective block logs, at the number of times others have found it necessary to start an RfC about either of us, or raise an issue here, at any other board, or at WQA about either of us. They can be trusted to decide fairly which of us attracts personal conflicts. It may save others some time, though, if I mention that your fresh new WQA complaint is the first time anyone's ever been motivated to favor me with that kind of attention that I can recall. I'd really welcome close scrutiny of that by neutral parties, btw.
I'm sorry that you don't like seeing your name in my posts: I tend not to address you directly because I've found doing so nearly always results in interminable, wrangling debates that I view as wholly unproductive. I don't intend any disrespect by it, but I'm also not willing to debate you endlessly, either. With that explanation, I'm going to return to that expedient: I doubt anyone here is really interested in seeing us argue.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
An RfC with 14 CANVASSED votestacking participants of which 3 are now permanently banned from WP, and another 5 have not appeared since on WP? Wow. All you can do is dredge up the past instead of looking at the present. Sorry OS, I happen to think you need a mirror instead of a microscope. Have a nice day. Collect (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Sure, no doubt you were framed, and no doubt the six admins who've blocked you were all biased against you, too, as have been all the users who've brought complaints against you here, as well. I'd have no occasion to "dredge up the past", as you put it, or even to mention it at all, if you'd learned from it to change your behavior. But you wanted more recent? After you extended this to WQA I saw that last month when you filed a report there about a different editor that you've been fighting with interminably, that you went on the attack when a wholly well-intentioned and unbiased editor who only wanted to help tried to do so. I'm sure you feel you were completely right to do so. I'm also sure that most other editors will see your conduct in that thread very differently.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Since three of the folks who were CANVASSED are now permanently gone, and five of the others have made absolutely zero article posts since, and the initiator actually apologized to me, I wonder just what you are (thinking.) The discussions about the latest "blocks" are also clear. Yet you seem to think that attacking me in some way improves your case against an admin? Sorry -- your TLDR wall of text postings here show your preoccupation all too well. Thanks. Also I note you seem to edit your prior posts without adding new timestamps, those who look back will see your changes. Collect (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Was "I wonder just what you are (thinking.)" meant to be clever? I'll tell you what I'm thinking:
I'm thinking that canvassing or not, a person really has to work at it to get people as angry as you clearly did. I'm thinking you're the only one I saw who apologized, and that your "last-minute acknowledgment on the eve of arbitration", as Newyorkbrad put it, just barely tipped the scales for ArbCom to decline the case.
I'm also thinking it might not have been the best plan to take my single mention of your RfC/U and run with it the way you have: If user Phoenix of9 actually apologized to you for filing the complaint, as you say he did, then it seems pretty odd that he would have followed that up six months later with this request to have you blocked based on that RfC/U proceeding. Since you're so eager to prove yourself in the right about this, and since you've said before that Phoenix apologized to to you for starting the RfC/U, I'm sure you'll be glad to clear up any doubt by showing us all where he did so?  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The one who apologized by email was Ikip who had drafted the RFC/U. He also posted on other pages indicating an apology. Phoenix is the one to whom Jimbo said: Your behavior and attitude in the ANI thread is not ok. (where Pof9 sought to have the Bible banned as "hate speech" from all Wikipedia articles), and whose history at AN/I is colorful. So Pof9 is quite irrelevant here, and your desire to prolong this discourse seems quite inutile for benefiting Wikipedia at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Since Phoenix_of9 isn't here to defend himself, I don't mind doing so. Here's what he actually said, in the same thread that you pulled your "not ok" criticism from: "I'm not saying any quote from the bible is 'hate speech'; I am talking about 'Leviticus 20:13' which seems to call for killing of gay people." Btw, according to the RfC's revision history it actually was Phoenix_of9, not ikip, who initiated the process. Good to hear that ikip sent you an e-mail, though.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I would note that Ikip drafted the page in his own userspace. We have long since reconciled. I consider the person who writes the draft to be the writer. YMMV. And apparently does. Note, however, WRT Jimbo's words to Pof9 - I did not write Jimbo's words. I guess you seem to elide that part. Cheers. I think if you keep posting, you can keep this an active thread for another year or so. <g> Collect (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I have no idea about whatever is going on between Ohiostandard and Collect (although Collect's actions here certainly don't look good), but I took a look at the issue relating to Prescott Bush. I agree that it's a content/Wikitequette issue and not really actionable here, but I do see what appears to be a major failure to assume good faith on the part of Rklawton (and the personal attacks/implications of being "sneaky", etc.) on his part are unbefitting what I would expect from an administrator. Rklawton should have simply pointed Ohiostandard to the previous discussion on the issue of Geromino's bones - it was discussed in 2007 in what is now an archived portion of the talk page - and not proceeded to attack OS. Likewise, perhaps Ohiostandard could have looked there after being told "it was discussed" and attempted to bring the concerns to the talk page again. Kansan (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Kansan, for taking the time to sift this, even to searching the article archives yourself. I appreciate that, because although the exchange you've suggested re the archives actually did take place, your comment prompted me to search again, and that turned up an additional thread, from 2009, beyond the "2006" material I'd already seen. ( It actually includes a couple of 2007 - 2008 posts, too. ) I've now read the archive in its entirety, but I still didn't find anything that could remotely support Rklawton's statement, viz. "There's consensus not to add that kind of crap to this article, so it will be removed on sight."
May I also mention what seems to be a small misunderstanding that I think might stem from Collect's having started a WQA report? You wrote, "I agree that it's a content/Wikitequette issue and not really actionable here". If that's your opinion, it's fine, of course, but then I'm confused by the "agree", since no one had said that previously. The WQA complaint that was started didn't name Rklawton as a "defendant"; it was filed by Collect against me. His report says, with Rklawton's concurrence, that he believes I've insulted the two of them in this present thread, and also just him, Collect, separately.
While the name-calling and such that's been directed my way has been pretty troubling, it's the battleground/ownership problem that's most disturbing to me since Rklawton and Collect have made it clear that they think they've done nothing wrong, and that they have every intention of continuing the same behavior. As I wrote at the outset, "I'm not asking for help with the content dispute ... I am asking for admin help, though, to prevent Rklawton's very aggressive, ownership/battleground behavior from continuing." Again, I really appreciate the significant time and work you've put in to help sort this, very much. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I love the part where OS writes that he's "tired of being civil." I don't see how making personal attacks or feigning offense could be considered civil. Indeed, OS is one of the most unpleasant editors I've run across, though I don't keep a list. Never mind his Quixote-like quest to find some way to add a myth/rumor to a well written, high profile biographical article, his attempts at Wikilawyering are what puts him over the top. Seriously, how many people here enjoy wasting their time on that sort of crap? It's far more pleasant for one editor to call another a "jerk" if need be than to have him post an out of context and ridiculously applied quote from an arb-com write-up on a case unrelated to the subject or any of its editors in a bald-faced effort to try to intimidate or bully people into accepting his non-neutral point of view. In OS's case, he picked the wrong editor. I know an ass when I see one, and I'm not afraid to call him out on it or to stand up to him. Rklawton (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You've misquoted me. This is what you're referring to:
"I've tried hard to remain civil and to address this issue on a policy basis rather than a personal one, but that approach hasn't been working, and this just keeps going farther off the rails. Will someone with the authority to do so please step in here to prevent this behavior from continuing?" (emphasis added)
I'm guessing that your remarks represent a response driven by overcharged emotions rather than by any intentional malice, and that you'll think better of them shortly. If that occurs, and you'd like to delete your post in the next few hours, you're welcome to do so, along with this reply, if no one has responded below by then.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay. A person who will leave so direct and intentional an insult in place for 30 hours isn't going to come to his senses any time soon. No apology then, and no retraction; and every indication short of an explicit statement that he intends to continue in the same way.
Everyone here, both administrators and regular editors, knows that a non-admin would have been blocked and article-banned days ago for the progressively escalating battleground behavior and the ownership promise to revert critical content on sight.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Article content question: Does BLP apply to someone dead 40 years?

Does BLP really apply to someone dead 40 years?[edit]

Or are we onto "general" article status? 50? 100? Merrill Stubing (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it depends what the laws are in your nation. In some cases, even the dead have publicity and other rights, and in some cases these rights are inheritable. It is probably best to apply a BLP-like standard, but since the person is gone, they won't be really affected by things, but heirs or family might be hurt financially or emotionally. -- Avanu (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Publicity rights only deal with commercial uses of a name or likeness, such as to endorse a product. So it isn't a concern on Wikipedia any more than trademarks are. postdlf (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Merrill, were you responding to the BLPish claims you'd seen on the talk page for our Prescott Bush article? Wikipedia's policy about the biographies of living persons only applies to living persons, in any case, although I agree we should be mindful of a subject's dignity, whether living or not.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Strictly, BLP itself refers only to living persons. However, remember that anything dealing with a deceased person could impact their living children or relatives. Reveal that someone 30 years dead had an affair, and you could cause harm to their 30 year old son, for example. Best to have good sources, living person or no. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Especially where the living descendant is wikilinked to the article, I would suppose, in your opinion. European law, which would only apply if any editor lives in Europe, appears more protective now of the dead than does US law. IMO, de mortuis is good practise. Collect (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

In a nutshell[edit]

Closing this section. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Rklawton and Collect are incensed that I reverted this deletion of a "see also" link in an article dear to them both, and then stated my intention on the talk page to add content supported by almost every major news outlet in America. Rklawton responded by erroneously threatening, "There's consensus not to add that kind of crap to this article, so it will be removed on sight.", calling the impeccably sourced material "crap", "sensationalist crap", "nonsense", "gossip", "rumor", "bullshit", calling my action "dirty", "rotten", and "low-life", and calling me personally "sneaking", "disruptive", "a wikilawyer", a "clueless noob", and "an ass". His pal Collect, who has been trying to keep this and other critical content out of the article for almost five years, joined in and filed an entirely frivolous WQA report claiming I had insulted the two of them. They both think this is perfectly proper behavior, and they've given the community every reason to believe that they plan to continue it.

A Proposal:

So far, no admin has been willing to intervene, presumably because Rklawton is an admin himself, and his fellow admins know any block against an admin is likely to be overturned immediately unless it has nearly overwhelming community support. I propose the community offer that support. More particularly, I propose that we either tell the truth and formally exempt administrators from our policies against article ownership, battleground behavior, and personal attacks, or that we affirm the following resolution.


"Rklawton should be blocked for 12 hours for battleground behavior and ongoing personal attacks, and should be article-banned from Prescott Bush for ownership behavior for a period of one week. These sanctions should not be overturned without a consensus to do so that's as broadly-based as that under which they were imposed. Any continuation of the behaviors that led to these sanctions after they expire should be met with a progressively increasing or indefinite article ban."

Um -- this is an improper use of AN/I, and your conduct on multiple noticeboards for the same issue is, at best, forum shopping. You have been the subject of WQA more than once now, and your desire to somehow make WP conform to your personal editing standards is not going to occur. I suggest, in fact, that you simply withdraw this strange usage of this page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Um -- this is a perfectly proper use of AN/I, and your comments seem purposely deceptive. As I already told you, the first and only time I've ever been the subject of a complaint at a notice board occurred five days ago, when you, yourself, started a WQA report claiming that I had insulted you and your contemptuous friend Rklawton in this very thread. As for this solicitation of a single uninvolved user who was unknown to me, I admit it was unwise, but less so than this solicitation of your friend, and much, much less so than this unrelated solicitation of over 50 editors, since you brought the matter up. And no, your post to Rklawton was not a "required notification", since he wasn't the subject of the WQA you started. Now I'll thank you to stop trying to disrupt the !vote I've initiated here by refusing to indent, and to thereby turn this back into a normal threaded discussion.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
A word more about your "multiple noticeboards" accusation: When I saw a post at WQA immediately above mine, saying, "I don't think that administrators should be calling other editors names" I felt pretty giddy to hear someone actually say so, and reacted without thinking about policy. Not much harm done, since someone collapsed the comment and no one joined the discussion here because of it. But I'll of course try to remember to control my response to anything like that in the future. It was just pretty great to hear someone else say it, was all.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Non-admins are allowed to support or oppose this resolution, too. Please add your !vote below, using this same "leading asterisk" format if you know how to do that. If you don't, then any format will be fine to express your choice. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Not so proud to be a Wikipedian today[edit]

Remember the editor-in-chief of a very prominent newspaper who implied on this board that Jimmy or the Foundation had been bought off or intimidated by legal threats to delete the BLP of a billionaire who was involved in a very unpleasant controversy? That angered me, but what prompted me into action was that Jimmy posted a message to the debate thread here saying he and the Foundation were leaving it up to us to decide whether we would have an article about the man or not, and what it would include.

The process and outcome of our collective decision could have given a billionaire grounds to sue the Foundation into the next century if we'd handled those irresponsibly. That was a "cast your bread upon the waters" kind of choice Jimmy made, if you follow; it took serious stones. How can you not honor something like that?

I put off my RL work, and everything else, and was able to devote something like the next 16 hours to finding every source I could about the man and the controversy he was involved in. I did that because I felt pride in our collective enterprise, and I wanted our editorial and research process to be painstakingly scrupulous in the matter. I wanted it to be more so, in fact, than the editorial process of the newspaper our critic represented. And it was.

I was pleased to have had the privilege of helping contribute to that result, like a great many other editors did, too: I finished my research, wrote up my results, and posted a long analysis and conclusion. ( Please don't discuss the topic here; the thread is in archive 644 if anyone feels he has to look.) Then I forgot about Wikipedia for few days. I didn't even thank him for the comment, except on my talk page (which I'm sure he never saw) because I felt kind of embarrassed by the praise. But this was one of the comments that followed my post, with apologies in advance for the argumentum,

Indeed. Amazing. Makes me proud to be a Wikipedian.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)       

I don't write articles here, or I haven't yet, anyway. I'm not bad at research, though, and I like doing it. Every few months or so I take on some larger project that way, but most of the time I spend here, I do bits and bobs, often with existing political articles. I write for publication very slowly, though, so I usually just offer what resources and results I can on talk pages, with occasional attempts to help out on some of the boards. So no articles, and I don't want to be an admin, either.

But we all bring what we can offer to the party. I've been glad to bring that, but I'd guess that over 20 admins must have seen this thread now, and among those, only Sandstein and a new admin, Boing! said Zebedee, have even commented. We all know the outcome would have been very different if Rklawton wasn't an administrator. I don't really blame him, though: He's just a hothead who thinks that being an administrator means he's privileged to ignore our putative social contract. It turns out he's right: I didn't know it was that way here. But I'm not especially enthusiastic about volunteering my time in a context where I'm a second class citizen, and the first class ones are free to treat the rest of us with such contempt.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

(removed by Ohiostandard at [39] ) The diff is [40]. Direct response to This strikes me as an exceptionally thoughtful, well-reasoned, and empathetic comment. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC) I note that you extensively relied on "court documents" which is contrary to WP:BLP on the topic. Thank you for bringing my attention to what was apparently an eminently deletable article. Collect (talk) 08:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
If anyone is interested in the correct context for the quotation I provided above, they'll need to locate it in Archive 644 directly, rather than relying on the foregoing statement or the diff it includes.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I give the exact diff. Are you insinuating in any way that I gave an "incorrect context" to the quote for which you gave absolutely no context at all? Or is this again "let's see if I can blame Collect for something since he found out that I removed his post from the noticeboard again" time? Collect (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Not really. I'm an admin and I'm reasonably sympathetic to your position on the actual content matter (though not so much as to take an active interest in the article), but this looked to all the world like a spat which would be better handled through a drama-defusing process like RFC rather than trying to get people censured through a straw poll at ANI. As for the "we know it would be different if Rklawton weren't an admin" thing, I don't see very much in here which has anything to do with whether Rklawton is an admin. You can't simply assume that if you take something to ANI and nobody pays much attention that it's because the other party is an admin. And of course you haven't helped your cause at all by continuing to be incivil in your closing statement above. This should probably be closed now, and taken to a more appropriate venue to concentrate on the content problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
The next paragraph summarizes why I brought this to AN/I. In hindsight, it would have been more productive to have posted something similarly concise right at the outset.  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC) (late edit)
Chris, I've been asking for help here for six days, and everyone's looked the other way. I had the impudence to perform a revert of exactly one edit and to propose some impeccably sourced content on the corresponding talk page that an admin didn't like. For exactly that, and for very politely citing the policies that support that content for literally days, I've been been told I'd be reverted on sight, that my behavior was "dirty", "rotten", and "low-life", and I've been called "sneaking", "disruptive", "a wikilawyer", a "clueless noob", and "an ass". I never responded in kind; not once. Your fellow admin's friend started a WQA thread against me, with this as his leading complaint. You look at that link, and then you tell us all if someone who's capable of that degree of willful misrepresentation is someone who's valuable to the task of building an encyclopedia. A person who tried that in a RL job would be fired on the spot. These two have made it clear they intend to continue their behavior, and I finally got it that no admin here cared.
So I decided regular users might, and I initiated a !vote. I admit I was angry by then. A saint would have been. And what happened? Someone collapsed the attempt, calling it "a farce". I'm still angry, and despite your protestations to the contrary, it's simply preposterous to think that any non-admin would have gotten by with half so much. I admit I've been getting much less patient as the days have gone by, but any irritation I've expressed still hasn't amounted to