Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive725

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Sock trolling Knox articles[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Resolved: 32alpha4tango and his sock Porkchop n Applesause have been indef blocked. Please file future SPI cases under the 32alpha4tango name. --Jayron32 15:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

...and trying to create as much drama as possible to stir things up. Several editors have reverted so now he has created an attack page here.

As he came on during March with the influx of other Knox socks, a checkuser would be a good idea to see which sock he belongs to. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"Knox socks" ??? are those the editors who were banned for trying to use honest reliable sources, and for not toeing the line, and who've ultimately been proven right? --32alpha4tango (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The editors who were indef blocked were being disruptive, socking, edit-warring and violating other policies. The opinion piece that you've read is wrong on multiple counts.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I actually had no interest in this article - a couple of times I tried to read it to figure out what was going on and the article never made sense. Finally, after reading enough external sources, I realized that Amanda Knox was convicted with no reliable evidence, no motive, and no priors. The European press and Italian prosecutors engaged in character assassination for lack of evidence, and Wikipedia swallowed it - hook, line and sinker. This really needs to be explored. --32alpha4tango (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
P.S. can someone please point me to User:John's rfa. It's not listed here. --32alpha4tango (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I think Jimbo had intervened in this matter to overturn to unfair banning of editors, but I do think an investigation in the editing of the Kercher murder article is in order. This case is a good test case to see if Wikipedia functions correctly, because Knox was acquitted based on the known facts that were available in the media for quite some time. Therefore, nothing dramatically should have changed in the Wiki article before and after the acquittal, other than a paragraph about Knox being acquitted. The editing history of the article shows much more changes than just this, which points to a serious problem. Count Iblis (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
No, in looking through the talk page history, Jimbo was ignored for months. It's up to us. --32alpha4tango (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Ah, hello, whichever Knox troll you are. Feel free to create a page throwing random untrue accusations around if you want, but I do know that all those editors who were blocked (bar one which may have been a false positive per WP:DUCK, and was later unblocked), were blocked for the correct reasons. Have fun now. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Good Heavens! I really seem to have struck a nerve. --32alpha4tango (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
A number of editors tried to use wikipedia for advocacy, and that was not appropriate. Hence, they were swept away. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Is there a previous SPI case for this? WilliamH (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
No, because the vast majority of the accounts were meatpuppets recruited via off-wiki means, and hence Checkuser-proof. Having said that, the majority of the blocks were for disruption and gross incivility rather than meatpuppetry. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. WilliamH (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Some (but by no means all) details at User:Pablo X/spa. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
This is the block log of the likely sock. The opinion piece that he linked to did not state the names of the admins but he has insight on who blocked him. The author of the piece is PhanuelB.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The admins were listed in the comment section of the article, which you apparently missedPorkchop n Applesause (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Looks like alphatango is violating his block. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
So why do you think I'm PhanuelB? Simply because I'm asking some uncomfertable questions? What exactly is your evidence that I'm a 'spa'? Perhaps it's more likely that I was made an administrator in 2003, created tons of great content and hundreds of articles, and left the project in disgust because of idiots like you, occasionally returning to see if anything has changed. --32alpha4tango (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Left in disgust, why? Because we wouldn't let you abuse wikipedia for advocacy? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh my, seems I've struck a nerve. Now, you are acting like the Phanuel that we know...already stooped to incivility. Where did you get the admin names that you are questioning about? The opinion piece didn't include them and you say that you didn't know much about it. Interesting that you call out this particular set of admins.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The admins were listed in the comment section of the article, which you apparently missedPorkchop n Applesause (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Just another white knight from the Amanda Knox fan club. One would have thought that since the object of their devotion was able to skip out of Italy that this sort of angry advocacy would have subsided, but I guess we're just seeing the post-PR game now. Tarc (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been a few hours now, so could a Checkuser please confirm whether or not a CU was run on me and what the results were. Thank you. --32alpha4tango (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Why? You got a plane to catch? :) Checkusers have lots to do, and generally they will work on a given case at the level of urgency that they deem appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
It should be noticed that 32alphatango has been removing Baseball Bugs's comments from this thread. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
In all fairness, does anyone honestly believe that the removed Baseball Bug comments add any value at all to this conversation. He's a troll. --32alpha4tango (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
We love Bugs! He has a way with people that is irreplaceable. It's kinda funny that you are calling him a troll.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll admit, that Baseball Bugs sure does like to get into the middle of a lot of drama, but I wouldn't call him a Troll. More like one of those annoying lawn gnomes that we all love so much.--JOJ Hutton 03:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Warned for refactoring - a warning promptly removed from the talk page. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
It should also be noticed that 32alpha4tango has a history of animosity with Bugs. He was blocked earlier this year for this attack on him. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Aha! I thought that editor's name sounded familiar. So now he's called editors here "moron" and "idiot". We're waiting for the time-honored variant, "imbecile". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
And it should be noticed that 32etc has created User:32alpha4tango/Censorship at Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
He still hasn't answered the question about why he singled out those particular admins either. Claiming that he didn't know much about it and then listing them specifically comes across as dishonest. Phanuel is here to self-promote.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The admins were listed in the comment section of the article, which you apparently missedPorkchop n Applesause (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Let's be honest, that article was pretty shabby for a long time, and probably represented one of Wikipedia's most notable failures in the past few years. Why shouldn't that be discussed? If it shouldn't be discussed on the talk page, where should it be discussed? I won't go crying "censorship", but rather, "Wikipedia editors aren't willing to honestly assess what they did wrong". Buddy431 (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and it should be done by people who are not sockpuppets of blocked editors. --Jayron32 03:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
(re to Buddy) He wasn't there to discuss the article. Where did you get that idea? He was there to try to open a dialog on blocked and banned editors and attempt to lynch admins. He was told that the article talk page was not the place and his comments were precisely removed because it was inappropriate. He didn't mention the article or suggest any edits.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't give a crap whether or not he's a sock, the user should have been indefinitely blocked for his outright blatant harassment of everyone he comes across with. Having blocked him some 4 months ago, it's bloody obvious he's not going to change his behavior one single bit. –MuZemike 03:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

He was blocked for 24 hours; the blocking admin had a simple cut-and-paste failure when providing a diff; he removed it from his page while calling said admin an idiot [1]. I've extended the block to 72 hours. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I've opened an SPI case for this, just to get to the bottom of this. Not even sure who the master is... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I actually semi-oppose the extention of the block. I don't expect people to be happy or polite about being blocked, and I am certainly a big enough boy to take being called an idiot with all the due consideration and gravitas the comment was made with. It is in fact true that I apparently cut n pasted the wrong diff. He can vent there to that extent without causing me any impulse to extend, though I'm not going to undo the additional time myself under the circumstances...
In terms of long term behavior, I suspect that MuZemike is right, but I think a SPI is the best venue. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
SPI case has been closed, and 32alpha4tango and his sock have been blocked. Resolving discussion. --Jayron32 15:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Alan Friedman[edit]

We need more eyes on this page. Alan Friedman was the head of FBC Media, a PR company, which is now undergoing bankruptcy procedures in the UK. This has apparently angered some of its former employees, some of whom have taken to making the Alan Friedman article an attack page [2][3][4][5]. Keep in mind Friedman's own PR men have edited this page to remove information about a scandal FBC was involved in earlier this year [6][7][8][9][10]. Hopefully some admins can stay on top of this WP:BLP issue. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 14:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been going on for a few days now, and most of the registered users doing these inappropriate edits appear new, so I requested temporary semi-protection. CityOfSilver 16:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Tnxman307 has semiprotected the page for ten days. CityOfSilver 16:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Mickie James edits[edit]

Can I get a admin to act as a third-party to take a look at Mickie James. Curerntly present at the article is this statement: "She is currently in a relationship with fellow TNA wrestler Nick Aldis, better known as Magnus", which has as it's ref the Wrestling Observer Newsletter. We had for a time a very persistent IP address who would remove the statement without leaving any explanation. Given that the anon editor had been bouncing between several IPs (124.150.73.254 ([11]), 124.171.237.142 ([12]) and 124.148.49.9 ([13])), I semi protected the article. With that the IP created a user account (User: Mickiefan2005) and started Talk:Mickie_James#Edit_request_from_.2C_26_October_2011. They've also left a string of insistent edits on my Talk page - see User talk:Tabercil#Mickie James info.

As I said, can I get a fresh set of eyes on the situation? Tabercil (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Its Not True Because Other Wrestling sites haven't reported it yet means nothing its just rumors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickiefan2005 (talkcontribs) 16:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin comment- It doesn't matter if other sites have not reported it, Wrestling Observer is a Reliable Source.--SKATER Is Back 17:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, note left on the talk page. Problem here is that the Observer is generally considered to be a reliable source for wrestling-related topics; I've suggested that if the editor opposed to the comment has any sources stating the opposite, they present them for rational discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. <G> Tabercil (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Many-single purpose accounts of quantum mechanics[edit]

Talk:Many-worlds interpretation 20 October 2011

WP:SOAPBOX I used {{inappropriate comment}} to hide the various copies of his physicsforums.com posts promoting a poll of "the happy few" who responded to his emails:

  • 14:16, 20 October 2011 "Sorry to put some questions on your beautifull dreams about eternal life and your infinite twin brothers. You are really really good at quoting wikipedia and fallacy's. It's such a shame you don't understand what they mean, and don't have a clue about how to apply them. This is deleted, because I probably insult you, but if that's the case then well you got insulted by the truth. You are so obvious biased, that it hurts. I'm really serious, with all the good faith in the world. By the way I don't really care about getting it published, I care about the truth and so should you. I don't know if you're aware that wikipedia has influence on the opinion of people, and if you have any ethical standars what so ever. Or that you are just completely blinded by your heroes, or a idea that's not generally accepted. But please be honest to yourself. Look in the mirror, and think really hard. And ask yourself the question 'Did I do good'? I'm affraid I speak to a conscience and a rationality you just don't posses. So I will leave you to delete all the criticism and posts by me and others you so kindly call harassment. And with a song that captures your attributions on this site perfectly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtLu"

YouTube won't play the song in the US due to a copyright issue, but it's "Arctic Monkeys - Dance Little Liar (humbug version)". By harassment, he's referring to an alternate WP:SPA/SOCK? who makes WP:SOAPBOX pos ts to the talk page, see Talk:Many-worlds interpretation#Special Difficulty with Improving This Article - Harrassment. Maybe they're friends, but I'd be surprised if they turn out to be socks, this WP:SPA was more his style, or this one. Anywho he didn't leave it there "I'm on the brake of being banned here, so let's just make it happen." So I'm hoping someone will accomodate his request for a nice loooong block.—Machine Elf 1735 06:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know I referred to SOCK, because for me that wasn't clear. My message was ironic, because I got a warning for a block. If you see the site you will see that reasonable suggestions on the site are brushed away with really strange arguments, and are sometimes deleted by quoting all sorts of fallacy's that aren't relevant, without further clear explanation. Also my personal opinion is that this site is very subjective, but everyone of course can be the judge of that.
I posted the song because the main editors in my opinion didn't listen to reason, so I made a reference to something that may catch there attention. Of course this could be deleted. But to block my account, would be the world upside down. To say that my account of wikipedia is a single purpose is account would be a little bit soon, because I just got it. And I don't have any other accounts.
p.s. I also did a reference to a completely reliable poll I conducted that hasn't been published yet (that he quotes happy few, is just a sign of my honesty, not against it), I posted it on the discussion site (not the 'real' site), because I thought it was a useful contribution (and more reliable than the vague polls currently on the site). Of course this can be deleted (though I think the reason given aren't relevant at all).
My email wasn't a single purpose email, it was also to inform all the participants of the poll (to which I have mentioned my name explicitly) about the results.
I put it on the site to give the people that wanted to know more about the poll some information, because I put a summary of the poll on the discussion site. My poll can be refutable, because I mentioned the names clearly. Of course there could be more people who reacted, and I could have deleted those. But then again I posted my results to about 30 very prominent physics, so the risk of some prominent physicist saying: Hey I was in this poll, why didn't he mention me, would be awfully big.
But then again it hasn't been published, so it can be deleted I guess. So I will not go against that decision. (I do think I could post my questions about the reasons why it's got deleted, but if someone wants to delete that to. Be my guest.)--Willempramschot (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Willempramschot (talkcontribs) 10:32, 26 October 2011‎
Yes, ironically, that was your most helpful suggestion yet. You seem to comprehend the strange and irrelevant reasons well enough. Your amateur poll is original research. Simple as that. Of course, permission to use a subject's name and email wouldn't have been necessary for an anonymous multiple choice question. Grateful Physh irony, nice. However, it remains unclear how littering the talk page with all that useless WP:OR can be construed as a sign of honesty on your part. I've never suggested it was a sign of dishonesty. Much like your speculations about my philosophical beliefs, my moral failures, my heros, my lies/fallacies, my incapacity for reason/understanding/sympathy, etc. etc., you seem to have difficulty separating your vivid imagination from your collaborative expectations. You insist that you're right, often irrationally, and while you simply dismiss objections and advice, you passive aggressively retaliate, despite being aware of the strict policy against personal attacks, you sermonize in multiple installments about imaginary aspects of my person. Your invitation to be "your guest" and delete your polls, is a bit too blasé considering how frequently you accuse me of deleting, when the truth is I've never deleted any of it, not even your polls, and I haven't touched your opinions, your screeds, your character assassinations, or anything else, as you perfectly well know, I merely hid the polls right were you left them.—Machine Elf 1735 17:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I've included a link to this discussion on the article's talk page. Thank you for the ample demonstration, apparently you can personally attack those users with impunity.—Machine Elf 1735 02:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I posted them 3 times in different sections because I thought that they wheren't in the right place. One time I didn't saw it anymore and I didn't knew it was deleted so I posted it again. this I believe was in one day.
My posts aren't irrational. There is a person who said he picked random books, and noted reactions of regarded physicists, you said something in the lines of 'well I guess you could go on with that' and 'I'm sure if you note mwi-haters tell a lot of smack about mwi no-one would object.
So opponents in the line of John Bell are 'smack talkers'. Ok.
Then my amateur-poll know has now got reactions of eminent physicist that say they have no objections about getting it published, Frans Wilczek said he had no one problems with getting his views out in public, (Carlo Rovelli) thanked me for the useful exercise and had no problem to get his comments and vote in public. One said he didn't want his name mentioned, but has no problem with this poll in public. (that's an argument for deleting it, I guess).
But to call it an amateur poll is nonsense. Look at the poll, look at the reliability. This what you do is called an authority fallacy. Look it up.--Willempramschot (talk) 05:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I will give you some information of why I posted the comments.
I visited the wikipedia website of mwi. I saw a reception that was mostly postive, with some negative comments that respected the mwi. Only one quoted person didn't respected mwi (Asher Peres) but he didn't respect any quantum mechanics interpretation.
So I thought to myself, Wow is this true, is this incredible idea so well established?
Then I looked at the talk page which suggested a reception page (wich said to be based on randomly selected books) that was really negative. So I didn't know who to believe.
I decided to also select randomly books in the libary, and also I got a very negative image of the reception.
But then again I wasn't sure. So I decided to conduct a poll. The poll with randomnly eminent theoratical phycisists and astrophysicists also had a negative reception for mwi . So I decided to post it on the talk page. :::I did it with the background informations, and arguments to show that it was a reliable poll.
I would have expected and accepted, that it either stayed on the page, or either to get a comment like ' we don't accept original research , so I will delete it but very interesting tell me more about it.'
But no it was 'nonsense', it was 'an amateur poll'. Etc. Etc.
So that really got me thinking, is this site really interested in showing the best possible (I mean based on facts) reception at all?
Therefore I thought my questions about the motives of the editors of this site where legitamite.
(by the way I'm Dutch, so there can be linguistic mistakes, but I think I make my points fairly clear).
--145.18.244.70 (talk) 09:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)--Willempramschot (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
My questions aren't a fallacy (in my opinion) because they aren't used as an argument against mwi. (Though I will admit I think mwi is false).
To quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem (I normally don't like this kind of quoting, because I think fallacy's are prety much there for common sense, and you do fine whithout quoting them. But in this case I will make an exception)


The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy,[2][3][4] but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[5]
--145.18.244.70 (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
--Willempramschot (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
You posted five times in three sections.
WP:IDHT—I gave examples of the irrational excuses and dismissiveness (case in point). I said "often", not invariably or entirely. I'll quote you:
“My posts aren't irrational. There is a person who said he picked random books, and noted reactions of regarded physicists, you said something in the lines of 'well I guess you could go on with that' and 'I'm sure if you note mwi-haters tell a lot of smack about mwi no-one would object. … So opponents in the line of John Bell are 'smack talkers'. Ok.”
Notice that I've quoted exactly what you wrote; you can't even be bothered to get the gist of what I'm saying. They're not related, they're out of order, and if John Bell was trolling the MWI article, you'd want to keep that under your hat. I can't imagine you mean to vindicate the putative rationality of your posts by misquoting my posts and getting lost in your imagination… In short, I have no idea what your talking about.
Wow, the whole thing about you and "he", AIMW32, is just remarkable. That the alternate content he posts to the talk page was your original inspiration for the poll… naturally, you brought it to the talk page. I can certainly see where someone could get the impression it's OK to publish their research for discussion on the talk page. BTW, in the future please strikeout rather than altering your posts to the noticeboards, thanks.
No one but you has called your poll "nonsense"; both WP:OR and WP:RS were explained to you by two different users, and you don't seem to have reached the stage of acceptance. It was only just yesterday that I used the word "amateur". I thought it was rather charitable, have you claimed even that level of expertise? Have you become a professional pollster? You do yourself a disservice to invite the comparison; the lack of rigour was self-evident. For example, you were afraid the answer you wanted wasn't getting as many votes as it could, so you changed it from "false" to "probably false" (and you don't remember when)… Frankly, I wouldn't have voted for either of your MWI statements, but 10% did. That's not "very very" few by any stretch of the imagination, but this too is irrelevant. It's highly unrealistic to expect other editors to give you the weight of an "eminent physicist", much less 28 of them.
Here's a no nonsense approach for next time: grab an WP:RS and add to the article, not the talk page. Don't expect to rally support, no one is currently committing suicide or loosing any sleep. People aren't going to edit the article for you, but they will spruce up technical and language details. It doesn't need to be perfect, just verifiable. That being said, make your own posts clear. Use a dictionary for words you don't understand (like Ad hominem), and go easy on that cake next time Dutch.—Machine Elf 1735 02:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Racist vandalism to User talk:Malik Shabazz[edit]

A series of IP addresses is adding a photo of a noose to User talk:Malik Shabazz, several of them, over and over again. Is semi-protection necessary? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Semi'd for 3 days. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Based on the geolocation of the IPs, I'd say that was some sort of raid. WilliamH (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
If there is anyone who deserves a ribbon and a raise for being sent the vilest of crap and still continuing to do valuable work here, it's Malik. Do we have a Wiki Nobel prize? Drmies (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Barnstars. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
[post by User:Tarc deleted]
Looking at the the talk page of that editor, that seems to be a result of his own request rather than any wrongdoing. (talk) 07:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC) My comment was referring to [14] (talk) 07:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
What? Are you saying that User:Malik Shabazz has asked people to post nooses on his page? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
No, he was referring to a deleted edit in which somebody pointed the finger at User:Mbz1. Folks, this is why you don't delete comments, you strike them through. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Umm, a rope used to hang nineteenth-century Englishmen isn't racist. Nyttend (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
That is a really obtuse assertion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Not in itself, but it's merely a continuation of previous racist garbage posted on his talkpage, such as this (admin only). Black Kite (t) 01:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat?[edit]

Can someone please take a look at the actions of Mideastunity (talk · contribs)? This edit appears to be a legal threat. And his edits to Walid Phares suggest edit warring with multiple accounts/IPs including 96.25.239.17 (talk · contribs), JudgeDred1975 (talk · contribs) and TEOS2011 (talk · contribs). Peacock (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The explicit threat does appear to have been removed by the original author, although the "libel and defamation" verbiage remains. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle) 19:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
They removed the worst of it, but what they left still crosses the NLT line.
I have indef blocked both for legal threats and separately for being a single-purpose advocacy account (NOT, SOAP). I also left a ARBPIA notification, should they retract the legal threats and agree to stop pushing the agenda / soapboxing to the degree they are now... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks George. Since the article in question, Walid Phares, is a BLP this user may have a valid concern. The material he was removing was critical of the subject, but it is referenced. I don't feel qualified to evaluate whether this material is compliant with our BLP policy so it would probably be a good idea for a few more eyes on the page. Peacock (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
My impression of the content - it's negative, but not accusing him of committing crimes or serious personal failings. It's referenced, but by B-grade references (websites rather than print media, etc). It's relevant to pose questions about its quality, BLP suitability, etc. It's not a clear yes or no.
That said, the last thing we need is dedicated SPAs wading in with legal threats and edit warring in this topic area, BLP issues or not. They need to be addressed by people willing to discuss the situation, review the material and Wikipedia policy, and act rationally and in a consensus-seeking manner. Even if it's determined that the BLP aspect was valid, that doesn't excuse the specifics here in any way.
If possible, review by other uninvolved editors/admins on the article talk page would be ideal. Having had to wade in on the NLT / behavioral issue I prefer if the content side is resolved by others - avoid appearance of conflict of interest, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I saw this user's RFPP for the article in question and was reviewing it but decided that it was more a content dispute than vandalism issues, and I don't protect pages due to content disputes to avoid involving myself in them. I did notice that he was loosely throwing around the libel language but he had removed the lawsuit part by the time I saw his reply. All in all I support this block for the reasons given. Ks0stm (TCGE) 23:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Delettion discussion for Ultimate Challenge MMA[edit]

I was wondering why Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Challenge MMA is still open. It was opened on October 18 and there have been 9 participants, only 1 of which voted to keep the article. Papaursa (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I took care of it, as it wasn't too terribly complicated. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Joefaust[edit]

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: Joefaust (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from paragliding and hang gliding-related pages. Swarm X 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There have been a spate of article creations and problem edits by User:Joefaust, many of which I can't document here because they have been deleted, speedily or not. He has also responded to deletion of some pages by recreating the discussion through creation of the AFD talk page. Now I see that he has responded to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triangle control frame (2nd nomination) by recreating/expanding the material in his user space here: User:Joefaust/Hang glider (control-frame parts). There isn't a WP:SNOWBALL's chance that this would survive an AFD were it let loose in article space. His talk page testifies to the extent of the problem with its long list of notices of now-deleted material; there has been little attempt to engage him there, but one can see a lot of frustration on article pages, as for example on Talk:Paragliding, the main article of which has been protected since 12 October in response to his attempts to change it. I also see that as I have been typing this he has been making more dubious articles in his userspace. I'm not sure exactly what ought to be done but his editing has become disruptive and too many people are having to chase around cleaning up after him. Mangoe (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I am simply participating in WP editing in good faith efforts. I am participating politely in Paragliding consensus effort. I respect all deletions and study the comments by editors for improving content. Admin is welcome to delete any content they wish; no problem here. I am not an admin, but just a reviewer contributing editor. The discussion for deletion on the Triangle control frame never invited me into the discussion; I stumbled over the matter after the matter was closed; several of the editors apparently could not see that control frames in hang gliders have the iconic triangle of three parts as THE iconic control frame without which modern hang gliding would be a totally different matter; that triangle is grasped at every launch, during the whole of flight, and during landing; huge sales occur to replace the three parts for hordes of reasons. The wing and its control frame give an aircraft that works well. The deletion of that article might be the spur to develop a larger article on control frames of hang gliders where the triangle iconic control frame is one among many noteworthy control frames; I am working on that draft project in good faith in my user space; is there some WP guide that I am missing here? Thanks. What is this "dubious articles" comment; that is the purpose of draft and contributing...to bring forward potentially excellent articles for the WP project; not every draft will be in article space; perhaps the draft will be merge for section in another article that exists. If such effort is unwanted by the WP project, please tell me and I will stop contributing. People who decide to chase me might have issues that break WP guides; interested admin might look into the chasers, as they may have non-WP motives. Also, I go around and clean up articles on many topics; you are welcome to see my contributions to WP; spelling, better links, improving phrasings for readers, illustrating, etc. Is not that which contributors do...chase chances for improving WP ? Joefaust (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Mr. Faust, this long passage is an example of the problem. You have a theory about aircraft structure, but we have to insist that you are not an acceptable authority on the subject, and that we should not include your analysis in Wikipedia. And as far as "potentially excellent", the numbers of articles you've contributed that have been deleted is really rather high. I'm sorry I forgot to notify you about the deletion discussion, but really, it seems to me that the only difference your participation was likely to have made was to have increased the length of the discussion several-fold; we cannot accept terminology that you have made up yourself, and on that basis, the article was doomed. You seem to be having a great deal of trouble following the rules. Perhaps you should seek out a mentor (there is a program for that) but as it stands your enthusiasm is a liability until it be directed towards proper contribution. Mangoe (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Speaking as one of the editors that has been running around after this user trying to clean up and replace opinion and historical quotes with modern cited facts (and as a paraglider pilot of many years) I would concur that something needs to be done. Quite what, is clearly up to those who understand WP policy and procedure of which I know little, if anything. I would also like the WP admins to be aware of the comments at the end of User_talk:Qwyrxian#Paragliding where I received a copy of a direct email from User:Joefaust that, unless I am mistaken, is a blatant WP:CANVASS, although I believe this may be being handled by admin User:Qwyrxian (who, in my opinion, has the patience of a saint). I will not post again here as this is hardly the place for debate by contributing editors. 88xxxx (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Quick check in here: yes, Paragliding, paraglider, and all related articles are in a bit of turmoil right now. As far as I can tell so far, the real problem is that all of the contributors are experts (like, they have admitted real world identities of people with 20, 30, 40 years as pilots, often specifically in the field; they are also very active on websites about paragliding). Thus, on talk pages, they find it very difficult to actually argue about sources rather than argue about what they "know" to be "true". As a result, the articles in question are not in great shape--neither preferred version is particularly well cited. I've been trying to sort things out, but the process is just beginning and I've been sidetracked the last few days. Yesterday, Joefaust raised a possible canvassing concern; I meant to get the input of other admins, but haven't got that far yet. So if someone could kindly look at this edit on my talk page; 88xxxx posted the bulk of the possible canvassing email there. The signatory of that email, Rick Masters, is apparently the leading person on the internet arguing that paragliders are death traps that no sane person would ever fly, not when they could fly a hanglider instead. As far as I know, he is not openly editing WP right now, but his presence floats around the discussions all the time. I'm not sure that there's any direct admin action to be taken at this time, though Joefaust is certainly trying my "saintly patience"...let me add more later. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Given the email header on that, it seems the signatory of the email = Joefaust. (BUT, isn't that running dangerously close to WP:OUTING?) - The Bushranger One ping only 22:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
After a bit of thought, I'm pretty sure it is - I'm redacting herewith. I'm not sure how to RevDel without losing everything, can another admin have a look at fixing that up if need be? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The spam email was from User:Joefaust to an unknown number of recipients, including 88xxxx (me), quoting Rick Masters and appearing to drum up support. Incidentally, the user has openly admitted to being Joe Faust as can be seen here: [[15]]. Over to you guys... 88xxxx (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
My opinion is that Joe is attempting to edit in good faith, but has a difficulty with original research and synethsis of material, as well as a slight conflict of interest from being involved in the industry. If you note the TCF deletion discussion linked to by the OP - the only place "triangle control frame" is mentioned anywhere is in Joe's work, here and elsewhere, and literally nowhere else. I'd suggest mentoring, perhaps? Also, I'll be posting a link to this disussion at the Aircraft WikiProject talk page, since they've been concerned about Joe's edits for a little while. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I think that Joefaust just crossed my personal line from "needs help" to "bad faith contributor". Paraglider was an article created by JoeFaust, it went through an AfD and was speedily redirected to Paragliding by The Bushranger. JoeFaust then decided to make it into a dab page, which I ended up reverting eventually since that was not what the AfD decided (if JoeFaust disagreed with the close, he should have gone to DRV). So then we started discussion on the talk page as to whether or not the Paraglider was better as a dab or a redirect. Joefaust basically believes that the definition of "paraglider" at Paragliding is too narrow, thus the need for all of these extra articles; the discussion is currently ongoing, but last time I checked Joefaust hadn't really presented any good sources to support his wider use of the term. But, again, ongoing, so consensus could change--talking is good. I just checked Joefaust's contributions, and I see that he is now essentially trying to circumvent the discussion by turning Paragliders (note the plural) into the dab page he wants Paraglider to be. In other words, he is intentionally going behind the backs of other editors, avoiding current consensus, so that he can get his way. This is unacceptable behavior. Joefaust can either follow WP rules, and actually discuss topics (with sources, not just from his own opinion), or he can find another website to edit. I'm obviously too close to this, so maybe I'm overreacting, but that dab page comes pretty close to confirming to me that Joefaust is not here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia but just to push his own POV (which appears to not be one commonly held in the field) about what a paraglider is, their history, and how dangerous they are. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I would agree with that, excessive kite material was added to an aircraft structure article some time ago (two years or more) and we had a civil discussion. English does not appear to be Joe's first language (I may be wrong) and he is clearly not appreciating what 'encylopedic' means. His enthusiastic efforts need to be applied somewhere else or added here within the guidelines. Cleaning up after editors is a big problem and it needs to be highlighted in this case, hopefully Joe can understand this. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
...and in this corner, he's forking paragliding again, hoping that WP:AFC will promote Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paraglider (gliding kite). Mangoe (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
And on top of that, I found the following set of pages waiting to be unleashed on the world:
Many of these duplicate articles which have already been deleted at least once. I also see that he took it upon himself to promote his own article out of AFC: [16] Could we please stop the madness? Mangoe (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
May I also point out Category:Deaths by hang gliding...ugh... - The Bushranger One ping only 01:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Restored from archiving for further discussion; datestamped one week in the future to avoid archiving. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Once again User:Joefaust is moving pages from his "User" area into WP, and once again they are being AfD. World Paragliding Association. 88xxxx (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Given his complete inability to "get it" and his continued use of Wikipedia for spamming and self-promotion I would support an immediate block on this user. - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Since we have a clear consensus on action here, including opinions provided by a couple of admins and because this editor has been continuing on his merry way unheedingly, I think we can probably close this discussion and have an uninvolved admin action this. - Ahunt (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban[edit]

I agree with the concerns expressed about this editor, he seems to be in a WP:COI in the areas of paragliding with regards to businesses that he owns and is on some sort of crusade to greatly raise the profile of paragliding on Wikipedia through bombarding the encyclopedia with numerous badly written, poorly sourced, opinion pieces to promote his own ideas and POV. A lot of it seems to come under WP:SOAPBOX. The tendentious nature of all this volume of non-encyclopedic content is causing a lot of time to be spend at AfD by a lot of editors getting rid of these incomprehensible POV articles and this is preventing more useful work from getting done. Because there clearly seems to be WP:AXE, WP:POV and WP:COI problems here and because communicating these problems seems to result in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I would suggest that a topic ban on articles related to paragliding and hang gliding would be appropriate. - Ahunt (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Support topic ban, broadly construed. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Editor is not independent enough to edit neutrally in this area. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I thought there were signs that he was going to take a break but I see in Talk:Paragliding that he continues to go on and frankly it seems far less than coherent. Mangoe (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Joefaust's attempt to use Paragliders as a disambiguation page stinks of an attempt to use WP:BOLD in bad faith to undermine discussion. Basalisk inspect damageberate 12:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support has a clear conflict of interest in the subject indicated by creating articles on his own organisation World Paragliding Association where he even mentions himself as founder. Cant guarantee with such a clear COI that the editor doesn not have a neutral point of view. MilborneOne (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • NOT support: Hey guys and gals, there are other perspectives on each action and effort. I am listening, learning, studying as fast as possible about WP guides. I have participated politely in discussions and am fully open to consensus. In the effort I look for solutions and drafted in user space things to support discussion. For instance, Jontyla and 88:xxxx asked in discussion directly for missing sections, if seen; and 88:xxxx directed "more the merrier" and so I drafted in User space an outline of sections that I thought would be something for the article on Paragliding; it was not easy to give that work to help the program. Editor Q___ said that outline would never fly; but some would work, perhaps; well, the effort thus was a positive contribution: many sections that editors could survey to see if any works for the article. That effort was an effort to build the encyclopedia; my enthusiasm to answer two editors and the aiming for a robust article that admins say has lots of problems should not count against me, I would think.
I was on the understanding that one could draft things in User space; so I have been doing that in an effort to help solve what others were seeing as a problem; I explored various things; such is what WP seems to tell me is welcome. User talk:Joefaust/List of articles mentioning "paraglider" is another recent effort to help the program. Editor Q____ and others were seemingly addressing whether a WP user would approach WP with "paraglider" with something other than the activity of sport paragliding; well this new draft article is aimed at helping visiting users to negotiate "paraglider" in WP. I entered the link into the consensus discussion that is ongoing in Paraglider discussion space. That is, I am working collaboratively with others. WP articles know "paraglider" beyond activity in sport; the group of editors have not yet reached consensus on even the nature of the article "paragliding" and we are still struggling with the machine word "paraglider".
I am learning the ropes, not avoiding the ropes in the editor space. I have been pausing, studying WP guides. Biting a contributor is against WP.
In the root start of the article World ParaGliding Association I recused myself from AfD on the org matter as COI. COI is not a bad word; COI is something to note, respect, and to flag for caution. I will not enter the article to edit after its start; any editor in the world may edit the article; and any editor may advance it well or injure it; other editors may bring in better references, etc. I recused or in a sense banned myself from that article after its start; WP will decide to keep it or not or send its contents to be a section or note in some other article; I will not do those actions.
I have no business operation in paragliding; paragliding is part of my hobby. I have interest in thousands of WP articles and edit in many of them.
If one wants to explore some of the roots of some of the tension in discussions on "paraglider" and "paragliding" then explore the online treatment that Johntla and 88:xxxx gave to a simple topic thread in their forum that I started. Giuseppe is the keyword.
Editor Q_____ in dab discussion on "paraglider" matured to suggest a "compromise" which was fruit of the good work that we all were doing; I brought in resonance with a link to draft work User talk:Joefaust/List of articles mentioning "paraglider". The work has been a good-faith struggle; I have not seen a remark yet on the merit potential of such a List article. Joefaust (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, the draft article link is rather: User:Joefaust/List of articles mentioning "paraglider" Joefaust (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Correction: Jontyla and 88:xxxx Joefaust (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I've been patient, and tried to help. I get that Joefaust has a lot of knowledge about aviation. However, given the very message above, I must support a topic ban. Joefaust must know very well that we don't have articles titled List of articles mentioning X. Deliberately ignoring the discussion on Paraglider and creating a duplicate dab article at Paragliders shows that xe will take every opportunity to push his POV he can find. And finally this note above, which if I'm reading it correctly, implies that all of his tendentious editing was actually a good thing for the encyclopedia...I recommend a topic ban, but give Joefaust a clear opportunity that if xe can demonstrate an ability to edit constructively in other topics for 6 months or so, then xe could have that topic ban lifted relatively easily. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support A large proportion of Joe Faust's edits have been reversed or substantially altered by other users. I support a ban JMcC (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I just want to be clear, too--the ban needs to cover all aviation topics; limiting it to paragliding would not work because one of the fundamental problems is that JoeFaust has an idiosyncratic definition of what paragliding is. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - that was why I said "broadly construed", although I would not object to "aviation and aviation-related topics" being the wording. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I concur. Joe's list page shows intent to go after pretty much any aviation-related page. Mangoe (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Here is what I think paragliding is for recreation and sport paragliding as done by 88:xxxx : The people fly paragliders adapted to their purpose. Not deep, not disruptive. Good RS are available for that.
Qwyrxian: I did not know that WP does not have lists for articles mentioning or dedicated to a topic. I drafted the item in user space to participate with you in the collaborative project on discerning dab for "paraglider" as you were pressing and pressing for how a visitor to WP might have an interest that would end in some other place than sport/recreation paragliding. I was participating in our discussion with high interest and energy in good faith. I see lists throughout WP and prsented the page to you in our discussion without putting it into main space; indeed, the side-support project is not done. I thought you would look at it and get a hint that visitors could approach WP with paraglider interests that are different than just rec/sport. The machine has place in WP much aside of such rec/sport. Joefaust (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC) The idea of a List of articles came from seeing some list; that simply sparked the idea to make a list; the only space that I now about to create a list is in User space. List of wikis and List of articles about local government in the United Kingdomand List of articles about Three Mile Island. So, why not a List of articles about paraglider ? It felt natural and a plus to WP. Joefaust (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for finding those; I've nominated both of them for deletion. Regarding you, perhaps that was a good faith thought for an article, my apologies for assuming you knew it wasn't. That doesn't change the fact that everything you seem to do is to find every niche in Wikipedia you can (whether it is new or existing articles) to get your message out there. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Qwyrxian, glad I could help. Note the three, not just two articles. In similar vein are are hundreds of more: MORE lists of articles.Joefaust (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban. I'm not sure that Joe isn't acting in good faith (according to his lights), but like Ahunt I feel that given that he so spectacularly doesn't "get it", there really isn't much choice. (Edit: note, I'm not an admin) Jontyla (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment - I have to agree that a topic ban across all aviation-related topics is warranted. Even as this debate has been going on the editor in question has been carrying on adding external links to articles, which rather run contrary to his pleas above. - Ahunt (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Did you note that the external link was one short sentence to an entity that does not belong to me, that was missing from the section, and that in good faith I was simply doing some contributing; notice the date of the add. The article tags invited improvements. Is not this what WP project wants done? Instead of encouraging advance that article, it feels like you would have me not to have added that sentence; that would be confusing to me. Joefaust (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support ban on aviation and kiting related topics. I'm not sure if non-admins are supposed to edit here, and if not please delete this edit. I've been heavily involved in trying to correct this users changes to such pages and consequently have spent some of the past weeks trying to decide if Joefaust's editing was malicious, or just misguided thanks to his distorted world-view of what a paraglider is or isn't. Frankly, I feel pretty sure it's both. Firstly, rewriting pages and renaming standard equipment, forcing editors to revert & re-work major sections and then the locking of the paragliding page. Then showing blatant disregard for debate, refusing to be persuaded that he has no consensus and holds a fringe, minority viewpoint (in many cases, a minority of 1) and trying to bypass discussion and force his ideas into pages without discussion or consensus. All of which went AfD, I might add. I'm close to this, for sure, but that's because I am a paraglider pilot of many years and would not wish, for example, to see a paraglider described to the curious public as a 'kite' in an encyclopaedia. The sooner this user is blocked from editing such pages the better. 88xxxx (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Any uninvolved admin would be enlightened to research the timing of 88xxxx into the paragliding-paraglider situation following his treatments in the forum where he posts. Topic keyword: Giuseppe. That kind of treatment followed me into this paragliding-paraglider scene. Please look how he followed me in WP in this last month. I trust that an uninvolved admin well weight the conduct. His following and pattern has affected matters. Thanks to someone to take an equitable look. Thank you. Joefaust (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd say you should focus on the message, not the messenger(s). Following people? Patterns? This is not the place for anything other than debate as to your behaviour, as viewed by independent administrators of WP, who most likely know little of, and care little for paragliding. Joe, if a user wishes to see what I have edited on WP, they can view it at Special:Contributions/88xxxx. Likewise with any edits you have made. The only pattern I see emerging from my edits is trying to tidy up after what consensus suggest are the inappropriate edits you have made. This is a noticeboard for the admins, if you wish to question my behaviour on WP, I think your supposed to do it here: User_talk:88xxxx and then maybe ask an admin for an opinion on it. Keyword: Paranoia? 88xxxx (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Stuck in limbo[edit]

Could some uninvolved administrator please take a look at this, and either do something, or determine that nothing will be done? Mangoe (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I second that - we have a clear consensus on what the problem is and the action required here and yet this just keeps dragging on. This needs to be closed and actioned now. - Ahunt (talk) 14:12, 26 October 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.

Ruining Game's plot[edit]

99.174.161.230 has kept on ruining Gun's plot. Putting synopsis with no known sense and doesn't even put a summary of his edits. I tried to talk to this person but he/she just kept on going, vandalising a good wiki page. I don't know if he/she even has a reason of this nonsense Godzilladude123 (talk) 04:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Godzilladude123

You must notify any user you mention here. I've notified 99. for you. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a content dispute. He's just trying to shorten the plot, which he feels is too long. I've semi-protected the page for a few hours due to the edit warring, but beyond that there's nothing to see here. Swarm X 06:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Joefaust[edit]

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: Joefaust (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from paragliding and hang gliding-related pages. Swarm X 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There have been a spate of article creations and problem edits by User:Joefaust, many of which I can't document here because they have been deleted, speedily or not. He has also responded to deletion of some pages by recreating the discussion through creation of the AFD talk page. Now I see that he has responded to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triangle control frame (2nd nomination) by recreating/expanding the material in his user space here: User:Joefaust/Hang glider (control-frame parts). There isn't a WP:SNOWBALL's chance that this would survive an AFD were it let loose in article space. His talk page testifies to the extent of the problem with its long list of notices of now-deleted material; there has been little attempt to engage him there, but one can see a lot of frustration on article pages, as for example on Talk:Paragliding, the main article of which has been protected since 12 October in response to his attempts to change it. I also see that as I have been typing this he has been making more dubious articles in his userspace. I'm not sure exactly what ought to be done but his editing has become disruptive and too many people are having to chase around cleaning up after him. Mangoe (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I am simply participating in WP editing in good faith efforts. I am participating politely in Paragliding consensus effort. I respect all deletions and study the comments by editors for improving content. Admin is welcome to delete any content they wish; no problem here. I am not an admin, but just a reviewer contributing editor. The discussion for deletion on the Triangle control frame never invited me into the discussion; I stumbled over the matter after the matter was closed; several of the editors apparently could not see that control frames in hang gliders have the iconic triangle of three parts as THE iconic control frame without which modern hang gliding would be a totally different matter; that triangle is grasped at every launch, during the whole of flight, and during landing; huge sales occur to replace the three parts for hordes of reasons. The wing and its control frame give an aircraft that works well. The deletion of that article might be the spur to develop a larger article on control frames of hang gliders where the triangle iconic control frame is one among many noteworthy control frames; I am working on that draft project in good faith in my user space; is there some WP guide that I am missing here? Thanks. What is this "dubious articles" comment; that is the purpose of draft and contributing...to bring forward potentially excellent articles for the WP project; not every draft will be in article space; perhaps the draft will be merge for section in another article that exists. If such effort is unwanted by the WP project, please tell me and I will stop contributing. People who decide to chase me might have issues that break WP guides; interested admin might look into the chasers, as they may have non-WP motives. Also, I go around and clean up articles on many topics; you are welcome to see my contributions to WP; spelling, better links, improving phrasings for readers, illustrating, etc. Is not that which contributors do...chase chances for improving WP ? Joefaust (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Mr. Faust, this long passage is an example of the problem. You have a theory about aircraft structure, but we have to insist that you are not an acceptable authority on the subject, and that we should not include your analysis in Wikipedia. And as far as "potentially excellent", the numbers of articles you've contributed that have been deleted is really rather high. I'm sorry I forgot to notify you about the deletion discussion, but really, it seems to me that the only difference your participation was likely to have made was to have increased the length of the discussion several-fold; we cannot accept terminology that you have made up yourself, and on that basis, the article was doomed. You seem to be having a great deal of trouble following the rules. Perhaps you should seek out a mentor (there is a program for that) but as it stands your enthusiasm is a liability until it be directed towards proper contribution. Mangoe (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Speaking as one of the editors that has been running around after this user trying to clean up and replace opinion and historical quotes with modern cited facts (and as a paraglider pilot of many years) I would concur that something needs to be done. Quite what, is clearly up to those who understand WP policy and procedure of which I know little, if anything. I would also like the WP admins to be aware of the comments at the end of User_talk:Qwyrxian#Paragliding where I received a copy of a direct email from User:Joefaust that, unless I am mistaken, is a blatant WP:CANVASS, although I believe this may be being handled by admin User:Qwyrxian (who, in my opinion, has the patience of a saint). I will not post again here as this is hardly the place for debate by contributing editors. 88xxxx (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Quick check in here: yes, Paragliding, paraglider, and all related articles are in a bit of turmoil right now. As far as I can tell so far, the real problem is that all of the contributors are experts (like, they have admitted real world identities of people with 20, 30, 40 years as pilots, often specifically in the field; they are also very active on websites about paragliding). Thus, on talk pages, they find it very difficult to actually argue about sources rather than argue about what they "know" to be "true". As a result, the articles in question are not in great shape--neither preferred version is particularly well cited. I've been trying to sort things out, but the process is just beginning and I've been sidetracked the last few days. Yesterday, Joefaust raised a possible canvassing concern; I meant to get the input of other admins, but haven't got that far yet. So if someone could kindly look at this edit on my talk page; 88xxxx posted the bulk of the possible canvassing email there. The signatory of that email, Rick Masters, is apparently the leading person on the internet arguing that paragliders are death traps that no sane person would ever fly, not when they could fly a hanglider instead. As far as I know, he is not openly editing WP right now, but his presence floats around the discussions all the time. I'm not sure that there's any direct admin action to be taken at this time, though Joefaust is certainly trying my "saintly patience"...let me add more later. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Given the email header on that, it seems the signatory of the email = Joefaust. (BUT, isn't that running dangerously close to WP:OUTING?) - The Bushranger One ping only 22:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
After a bit of thought, I'm pretty sure it is - I'm redacting herewith. I'm not sure how to RevDel without losing everything, can another admin have a look at fixing that up if need be? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The spam email was from User:Joefaust to an unknown number of recipients, including 88xxxx (me), quoting Rick Masters and appearing to drum up support. Incidentally, the user has openly admitted to being Joe Faust as can be seen here: [[17]]. Over to you guys... 88xxxx (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
My opinion is that Joe is attempting to edit in good faith, but has a difficulty with original research and synethsis of material, as well as a slight conflict of interest from being involved in the industry. If you note the TCF deletion discussion linked to by the OP - the only place "triangle control frame" is mentioned anywhere is in Joe's work, here and elsewhere, and literally nowhere else. I'd suggest mentoring, perhaps? Also, I'll be posting a link to this disussion at the Aircraft WikiProject talk page, since they've been concerned about Joe's edits for a little while. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I think that Joefaust just crossed my personal line from "needs help" to "bad faith contributor". Paraglider was an article created by JoeFaust, it went through an AfD and was speedily redirected to Paragliding by The Bushranger. JoeFaust then decided to make it into a dab page, which I ended up reverting eventually since that was not what the AfD decided (if JoeFaust disagreed with the close, he should have gone to DRV). So then we started discussion on the talk page as to whether or not the Paraglider was better as a dab or a redirect. Joefaust basically believes that the definition of "paraglider" at Paragliding is too narrow, thus the need for all of these extra articles; the discussion is currently ongoing, but last time I checked Joefaust hadn't really presented any good sources to support his wider use of the term. But, again, ongoing, so consensus could change--talking is good. I just checked Joefaust's contributions, and I see that he is now essentially trying to circumvent the discussion by turning Paragliders (note the plural) into the dab page he wants Paraglider to be. In other words, he is intentionally going behind the backs of other editors, avoiding current consensus, so that he can get his way. This is unacceptable behavior. Joefaust can either follow WP rules, and actually discuss topics (with sources, not just from his own opinion), or he can find another website to edit. I'm obviously too close to this, so maybe I'm overreacting, but that dab page comes pretty close to confirming to me that Joefaust is not here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia but just to push his own POV (which appears to not be one commonly held in the field) about what a paraglider is, their history, and how dangerous they are. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I would agree with that, excessive kite material was added to an aircraft structure article some time ago (two years or more) and we had a civil discussion. English does not appear to be Joe's first language (I may be wrong) and he is clearly not appreciating what 'encylopedic' means. His enthusiastic efforts need to be applied somewhere else or added here within the guidelines. Cleaning up after editors is a big problem and it needs to be highlighted in this case, hopefully Joe can understand this. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
...and in this corner, he's forking paragliding again, hoping that WP:AFC will promote Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paraglider (gliding kite). Mangoe (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
And on top of that, I found the following set of pages waiting to be unleashed on the world:
Many of these duplicate articles which have already been deleted at least once. I also see that he took it upon himself to promote his own article out of AFC: [18] Could we please stop the madness? Mangoe (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
May I also point out Category:Deaths by hang gliding...ugh... - The Bushranger One ping only 01:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Restored from archiving for further discussion; datestamped one week in the future to avoid archiving. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Once again User:Joefaust is moving pages from his "User" area into WP, and once again they are being AfD. World Paragliding Association. 88xxxx (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Given his complete inability to "get it" and his continued use of Wikipedia for spamming and self-promotion I would support an immediate block on this user. - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Since we have a clear consensus on action here, including opinions provided by a couple of admins and because this editor has been continuing on his merry way unheedingly, I think we can probably close this discussion and have an uninvolved admin action this. - Ahunt (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban[edit]

I agree with the concerns expressed about this editor, he seems to be in a WP:COI in the areas of paragliding with regards to businesses that he owns and is on some sort of crusade to greatly raise the profile of paragliding on Wikipedia through bombarding the encyclopedia with numerous badly written, poorly sourced, opinion pieces to promote his own ideas and POV. A lot of it seems to come under WP:SOAPBOX. The tendentious nature of all this volume of non-encyclopedic content is causing a lot of time to be spend at AfD by a lot of editors getting rid of these incomprehensible POV articles and this is preventing more useful work from getting done. Because there clearly seems to be WP:AXE, WP:POV and WP:COI problems here and because communicating these problems seems to result in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I would suggest that a topic ban on articles related to paragliding and hang gliding would be appropriate. - Ahunt (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Support topic ban, broadly construed. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Editor is not independent enough to edit neutrally in this area. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I thought there were signs that he was going to take a break but I see in Talk:Paragliding that he continues to go on and frankly it seems far less than coherent. Mangoe (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Joefaust's attempt to use Paragliders as a disambiguation page stinks of an attempt to use WP:BOLD in bad faith to undermine discussion. Basalisk inspect damageberate 12:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support has a clear conflict of interest in the subject indicated by creating articles on his own organisation World Paragliding Association where he even mentions himself as founder. Cant guarantee with such a clear COI that the editor doesn not have a neutral point of view. MilborneOne (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • NOT support: Hey guys and gals, there are other perspectives on each action and effort. I am listening, learning, studying as fast as possible about WP guides. I have participated politely in discussions and am fully open to consensus. In the effort I look for solutions and drafted in user space things to support discussion. For instance, Jontyla and 88:xxxx asked in discussion directly for missing sections, if seen; and 88:xxxx directed "more the merrier" and so I drafted in User space an outline of sections that I thought would be something for the article on Paragliding; it was not easy to give that work to help the program. Editor Q___ said that outline would never fly; but some would work, perhaps; well, the effort thus was a positive contribution: many sections that editors could survey to see if any works for the article. That effort was an effort to build the encyclopedia; my enthusiasm to answer two editors and the aiming for a robust article that admins say has lots of problems should not count against me, I would think.
I was on the understanding that one could draft things in User space; so I have been doing that in an effort to help solve what others were seeing as a problem; I explored various things; such is what WP seems to tell me is welcome. User talk:Joefaust/List of articles mentioning "paraglider" is another recent effort to help the program. Editor Q____ and others were seemingly addressing whether a WP user would approach WP with "paraglider" with something other than the activity of sport paragliding; well this new draft article is aimed at helping visiting users to negotiate "paraglider" in WP. I entered the link into the consensus discussion that is ongoing in Paraglider discussion space. That is, I am working collaboratively with others. WP articles know "paraglider" beyond activity in sport; the group of editors have not yet reached consensus on even the nature of the article "paragliding" and we are still struggling with the machine word "paraglider".
I am learning the ropes, not avoiding the ropes in the editor space. I have been pausing, studying WP guides. Biting a contributor is against WP.
In the root start of the article World ParaGliding Association I recused myself from AfD on the org matter as COI. COI is not a bad word; COI is something to note, respect, and to flag for caution. I will not enter the article to edit after its start; any editor in the world may edit the article; and any editor may advance it well or injure it; other editors may bring in better references, etc. I recused or in a sense banned myself from that article after its start; WP will decide to keep it or not or send its contents to be a section or note in some other article; I will not do those actions.
I have no business operation in paragliding; paragliding is part of my hobby. I have interest in thousands of WP articles and edit in many of them.
If one wants to explore some of the roots of some of the tension in discussions on "paraglider" and "paragliding" then explore the online treatment that Johntla and 88:xxxx gave to a simple topic thread in their forum that I started. Giuseppe is the keyword.
Editor Q_____ in dab discussion on "paraglider" matured to suggest a "compromise" which was fruit of the good work that we all were doing; I brought in resonance with a link to draft work User talk:Joefaust/List of articles mentioning "paraglider". The work has been a good-faith struggle; I have not seen a remark yet on the merit potential of such a List article. Joefaust (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, the draft article link is rather: User:Joefaust/List of articles mentioning "paraglider" Joefaust (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Correction: Jontyla and 88:xxxx Joefaust (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I've been patient, and tried to help. I get that Joefaust has a lot of knowledge about aviation. However, given the very message above, I must support a topic ban. Joefaust must know very well that we don't have articles titled List of articles mentioning X. Deliberately ignoring the discussion on Paraglider and creating a duplicate dab article at Paragliders shows that xe will take every opportunity to push his POV he can find. And finally this note above, which if I'm reading it correctly, implies that all of his tendentious editing was actually a good thing for the encyclopedia...I recommend a topic ban, but give Joefaust a clear opportunity that if xe can demonstrate an ability to edit constructively in other topics for 6 months or so, then xe could have that topic ban lifted relatively easily. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support A large proportion of Joe Faust's edits have been reversed or substantially altered by other users. I support a ban JMcC (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I just want to be clear, too--the ban needs to cover all aviation topics; limiting it to paragliding would not work because one of the fundamental problems is that JoeFaust has an idiosyncratic definition of what paragliding is. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - that was why I said "broadly construed", although I would not object to "aviation and aviation-related topics" being the wording. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I concur. Joe's list page shows intent to go after pretty much any aviation-related page. Mangoe (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Here is what I think paragliding is for recreation and sport paragliding as done by 88:xxxx : The people fly paragliders adapted to their purpose. Not deep, not disruptive. Good RS are available for that.
Qwyrxian: I did not know that WP does not have lists for articles mentioning or dedicated to a topic. I drafted the item in user space to participate with you in the collaborative project on discerning dab for "paraglider" as you were pressing and pressing for how a visitor to WP might have an interest that would end in some other place than sport/recreation paragliding. I was participating in our discussion with high interest and energy in good faith. I see lists throughout WP and prsented the page to you in our discussion without putting it into main space; indeed, the side-support project is not done. I thought you would look at it and get a hint that visitors could approach WP with paraglider interests that are different than just rec/sport. The machine has place in WP much aside of such rec/sport. Joefaust (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC) The idea of a List of articles came from seeing some list; that simply sparked the idea to make a list; the only space that I now about to create a list is in User space. List of wikis and List of articles about local government in the United Kingdomand List of articles about Three Mile Island. So, why not a List of articles about paraglider ? It felt natural and a plus to WP. Joefaust (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for finding those; I've nominated both of them for deletion. Regarding you, perhaps that was a good faith thought for an article, my apologies for assuming you knew it wasn't. That doesn't change the fact that everything you seem to do is to find every niche in Wikipedia you can (whether it is new or existing articles) to get your message out there. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Qwyrxian, glad I could help. Note the three, not just two articles. In similar vein are are hundreds of more: MORE lists of articles.Joefaust (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban. I'm not sure that Joe isn't acting in good faith (according to his lights), but like Ahunt I feel that given that he so spectacularly doesn't "get it", there really isn't much choice. (Edit: note, I'm not an admin) Jontyla (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment - I have to agree that a topic ban across all aviation-related topics is warranted. Even as this debate has been going on the editor in question has been carrying on adding external links to articles, which rather run contrary to his pleas above. - Ahunt (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Did you note that the external link was one short sentence to an entity that does not belong to me, that was missing from the section, and that in good faith I was simply doing some contributing; notice the date of the add. The article tags invited improvements. Is not this what WP project wants done? Instead of encouraging advance that article, it feels like you would have me not to have added that sentence; that would be confusing to me. Joefaust (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support ban on aviation and kiting related topics. I'm not sure if non-admins are supposed to edit here, and if not please delete this edit. I've been heavily involved in trying to correct this users changes to such pages and consequently have spent some of the past weeks trying to decide if Joefaust's editing was malicious, or just misguided thanks to his distorted world-view of what a paraglider is or isn't. Frankly, I feel pretty sure it's both. Firstly, rewriting pages and renaming standard equipment, forcing editors to revert & re-work major sections and then the locking of the paragliding page. Then showing blatant disregard for debate, refusing to be persuaded that he has no consensus and holds a fringe, minority viewpoint (in many cases, a minority of 1) and trying to bypass discussion and force his ideas into pages without discussion or consensus. All of which went AfD, I might add. I'm close to this, for sure, but that's because I am a paraglider pilot of many years and would not wish, for example, to see a paraglider described to the curious public as a 'kite' in an encyclopaedia. The sooner this user is blocked from editing such pages the better. 88xxxx (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Any uninvolved admin would be enlightened to research the timing of 88xxxx into the paragliding-paraglider situation following his treatments in the forum where he posts. Topic keyword: Giuseppe. That kind of treatment followed me into this paragliding-paraglider scene. Please look how he followed me in WP in this last month. I trust that an uninvolved admin well weight the conduct. His following and pattern has affected matters. Thanks to someone to take an equitable look. Thank you. Joefaust (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd say you should focus on the message, not the messenger(s). Following people? Patterns? This is not the place for anything other than debate as to your behaviour, as viewed by independent administrators of WP, who most likely know little of, and care little for paragliding. Joe, if a user wishes to see what I have edited on WP, they can view it at Special:Contributions/88xxxx. Likewise with any edits you have made. The only pattern I see emerging from my edits is trying to tidy up after what consensus suggest are the inappropriate edits you have made. This is a noticeboard for the admins, if you wish to question my behaviour on WP, I think your supposed to do it here: User_talk:88xxxx and then maybe ask an admin for an opinion on it. Keyword: Paranoia? 88xxxx (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Stuck in limbo[edit]

Could some uninvolved administrator please take a look at this, and either do something, or determine that nothing will be done? Mangoe (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I second that - we have a clear consensus on what the problem is and the action required here and yet this just keeps dragging on. This needs to be closed and actioned now. - Ahunt (talk) 14:12, 26 October 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.

Ruining Game's plot[edit]

99.174.161.230 has kept on ruining Gun's plot. Putting synopsis with no known sense and doesn't even put a summary of his edits. I tried to talk to this person but he/she just kept on going, vandalising a good wiki page. I don't know if he/she even has a reason of this nonsense Godzilladude123 (talk) 04:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Godzilladude123

You must notify any user you mention here. I've notified 99. for you. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a content dispute. He's just trying to shorten the plot, which he feels is too long. I've semi-protected the page for a few hours due to the edit warring, but beyond that there's nothing to see here. Swarm X 06:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Dohezarsersdah problematic editing[edit]

User:Dohezarsersdah has gotten into an extremely lame war on Theocracy removing content on the basis that websites cannot be used as sources. Despite numerous warnings and pointers, he is continuing to war over this. I have an RPP request in but it has not been acknowledged as of yet, and enough is enough. Calabe1992 (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

An indef block for disruptive editing should be considered, but it is reasonable to wait for a response. (He has been notified of this discussion). He has made five nearly identical reverts at Theocracy over several days and appears to be ignoring all feedback. His account was created three weeks ago. He has been editing aggressively on other articles as well. His recent contribution history is full of reverts. This edit is plain vandalism. Might this possibly be a sock? The edit summaries do not suggest a new user. His talk page would contain 20K bytes of warnings by now if he had not been constantly removing the warnings. That's pretty fast work for a three-week-old account. EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I must second your thoughts. I'm taking a look at his contributions, but haven't found any other accounts sticking out as of yet. Note that this account was created on 10/2, but didn't edit until 10/8. Calabe1992 (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree. The editor has been as flexible as a bot in his/her edits. Dohezarsersdah violates 3RR, edit wars, then blanks the warnings from his/her talk page. I feel this editor will not understand the fruitlessness of editing this way and the usefulness of editing via talk page discussions from anything short of a block. The time off also may help the user in the form of a wikibreak.--Louiedog (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I don't see forcing a wikibreak as a good objective for a block as that is not what a block is intended for, but I don't think this user will stop the destructive habits unless a block is enforced. It comes back to simply protecting the articles from him. Calabe1992 (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Well I blocked the account for 24 hours for violation of the three-revert rule before seeing this thread; if someone could kindly copy any comments he makes on his talk page to here, that would be appreciated. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I also think this account may be a sock. His edit summaries are a bit perverse, eg [19] where he wrote "source needed (it's false anyway)" (note that it was sourced), [20] where he deletes references and says "no references", [21] where he deletes a source and writes "DON'T DELETE SOURCES", etc (eg one where he removes a source from this century saying it's antiquated while elsewhere he uses a 1909 source. That he has a nationalist agenda is clear, eg his edit summary "undoing a turk's changes" and his edit-warring to remove a well-sourced comment that someone born in Iran came from a Turkish family. Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Here is his response:

This is ridiculous. From basically my first edit, I have been harassed by "trigger happy" admin who have reverted my edits on site, and left "warning" messages on my Talk page saying "your edit on x page doesn't seem to be constructive". They usually then, without exception, realize they've made a mistake, and then moved on, without apologizing. Apparently though I upset the user "Dougweller" to such an extent that he and a set of aggrieved admins decided to dedicate themselves to my undoing, with no regard for the Wikipedia encyclopedia project, but continuing to edit war my contributions which are all only to IMPROVE the accuracy of the articles (topics on which I have a great deal of expertise) in order to pursue their petty vendettas. Is it too much to ask for a "Oops, sorry I was wrong there, I didn't mean to assume you were being disruptive"? Obviously it was. So I returned their acidity, and continued to click the "undo" button as often as they did.
You'll notice on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy), Yopie's edits (3 reverts) actually degrade the article. I have no problem with the section, but it must be accurately referenced. A random website called "jewishvirtuallibrary" is not a proper source - neither is an opinion piece in a newspaper.
You'll notice on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi#Sufi_doctrine) Calabe1992 (an admin) reverted my edit and then pasted yet another ugly "warning" on my talk page - obviosuly, before realizing that he was mistaken.
You'll notice on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alevi) Dougweller (an admin) and Kafka Liz (a senior member who has been on Wikipedia for "4 years, 2 months and 17 days") have been edit warring to remove ESTABLISHED FACT that Bektashi was Persian (he was born in Persia, spoke Persian, and wrote in Persian... the Betkashi's elders are called "Pirs" for christ's sakes, a Persian word) and REMOVING the source I worked to find and that they were apparently too lazy to find themselves (The Harvard Theological Review, Cambridge University Press, Vol. 2, No. 3, Jul., 1909, (p. 343).
You'll notice on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haji_Bektash_Veli) Dougweller (the admin) apparently followed me and carried on the same behavior.
You'll notice on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world), The Mark of the Beast (an admin?) and Metricopolus (another admin? - i don't know, they all posted "warnings" to my page) did the same thing. I had to fight "tooth and nail" to restore the correct information.
So yeah, I apologize if some of my comments haven't been particularly "civil". But when all these admins and established users edit war and "warn" me of "vandalism" when I'm only trying to improve articles on topics they clearly know nothing about, it gets a little old. Dohezarsersdah (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I find it pretty disturbing that an admin, Dougweller is allowed to behave this way. He says: "we have a reliable source that says his family was Turkish, no reason not to use it, if we have a source saying something else, use that also)", so I do exactly that, and then HIS VERY NEXT EDIT DELETES the source I just added! (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alevi&action=historysubmit&diff=457551448&oldid=457544689) Way to "pratice what you preach"! Dohezarsersdah (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I responded as follows on this talk page: In any case, saying "He says: "we have a reliable source that says his family was Turkish, no reason not to use it, if we have a source saying something else, use that also)", so I do exactly that, and then HIS VERY NEXT EDIT DELETES the source I just added! (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alevi&action=historysubmit&diff=457551448&oldid=457544689)" is not accurate. What actually happened was that the edit I reverted was [22] which removed the sourced statement that his family was Turkish rather than add something else also, as I suggested. What I was trying to get across was that the sourced statement that his family was Turkish should be left in, but if we had a conflicting statement that his family was Persian that could be added as well to indicate that this was uncertain. As for following anyone, yes, like many other editors when we find an editor vandalising (as was clearly done earlier at Peaches Geldof and Off2riorob (talk · contribs) who is on my watch list, we look at the editor's other edits. Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Looking at other complaints of his, the result of Yopie's edits at [[Theocracy was to leave the article in the state it was before Dohezarsersdah edited it, so I can't see how that degraded it. Dohezarsersdah objects to using The World Factbook, saying "websites can't be used as sources," and to [23] which he calls a random website although the author (and director of the Jewish Virtual Library is Mitchell Bard, who certainly looks like a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think Dohezarsersdah is truly paying a lot of attention to any of what is being said. He writes "You'll notice on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi#Sufi_doctrine) Calabe1992 (an admin) reverted my edit and then pasted yet another ugly "warning" on my talk page - obviosuly, before realizing that he was mistaken." - first of all I am not an admin, and second of all, what is "realizing that he was mistaken"? I didn't revert myself; just didn't happen to want to war with him over something meaningless to me. Calabe1992 (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • - As per his edit history - he has so far been a disruptive user, lets hope he takes this community warning to heart and takes on board the advice. As User:Dougweller said, he attacked me and he deliberately vandalized the article of a living person - He's unblocked now after his 3RR block - if his previous disruptive behavior starts back up, block again for longer. Off2riorob (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
He's back - his talk page comments aren't exactly friendly, but the main problem is that he is insisting that a reliable source is wrong but in particular that we shouldn't use the source to say that Haji Bektash Veli is from a Turkish family, which is exactly what the source says, but that he is from a Turkic family - see his latest reply at Talk:Haji Bektash Veli. I can see another edit war brewing as I see no reason to interpret a source in this way. (I'll also note that I don't care if this historical figure is Turkish or whatever, but it's clear that there is a problem here with him and things Turkish). Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
We've given Dohezarsersdah lots of time to respond to this ANI thread, and he has not done so. Nothing he has said on his talk page indicates a positive intent. (He is very good at removing warnings). Since he burst onto the scene as a nationalist edit warrior just three weeks ago, and he only appears to be on Wikipedia for disruption, it would be logical to proceed with the indef block that was suggested at the top of this thread. EdJohnston (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Need some feedback on this situation[edit]

Hi,

I've just had a user come back regarding some edits I made almost 9 months ago(!) making accusations like I "made their life a HELL", that I had accused them of lying (when I'd just added some cn, disputed tags) etc. I'd rather someone else came in and added their input to this matter (if only for the record) as I don't think it would be constructive me adding any more to this on my own(!)

The discussions are at

Ubcule (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

What administrative action is required here? The user appears to have popped out of nowhere, flamed, and then left again. I suppose the editor could be warned, but that's not likely to accomplish anything if he's already left. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
There were two reasons.
To be honest, when someone starts making unjustified (but serious) accusations of harrassment, trolling and making someone's life "a HELL"(!) against me- whether the other person believes it or not, I'd prefer someone from outside to take a *brief* look at the situation, put their view on record.
This person came back after almost 9 months and starts making hysterical baseless accusations- I don't want (or intend) to let this escalate into some silly drama, but given this person's apparent animosity towards me, I suspect trying to explain myself further to them- they've already got the wrong end of the stick in several areas- would make it worse. I'd rather someone from outside posted a very brief note (still assuming good faith, even if their conduct was bad!) to this person. Ubcule (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Lobocursor has made a request which will probably be met with instructions on how to scramble his password. Should that not happen, if he makes any other personal attacks I'll block the account myself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Note: Similar accusations left on my talk page and I responded there (I'll cc Lobocursor's talk page in a second). I don't think this warrants intervention by admin. I see someone making good faith edits to the article but is completely unaware of the processes of the project and taking reverts too personally. I tried to encourage the editor to read up on the rules and such. We'll see if they stick around or not. Wikipelli Talk 12:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Eyes needed on Ratnam concept school[edit]

Several editors (User:202.83.18.229, User:Geetha devi and now User:60.166.5.157) have been adding the same promotional text to this article. Discussions started on user talkpages, the article talkpage and at dispute resolution have all been disregarded. As recommended by User:ItsZippy, I'm bringing this to ANI to get some input from the pros; this looks like disruptive COI editing and may involve using multiple accounts to avoid 3RR (although I'm loathe to call "Sock!" with so few edits from the potential puppets, hence no SPI yet).

I'm also aware that the article needs moving to Ratnam Concept School, but have left it until this issue is resolved Yunshui  10:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I became involved after responding to a submission at the dispute resolution noticeboard. As Yunshui said, the same promotional content has been repeatedly inserted by numerous editors (they could be the same person, but I feel it might be premature to make the judgement). We have both reached our 3RR limit in removing the content. The issue seems to be the conduct of the users involved, who are not responding to attempts at discussion (on the talk page, their own talk pages and the DRN), so the involvement of an admin would be helpful. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 10:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
WP:RFPP would have been helpful ... I've full-protected for a week. Work it out :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
... now, if someone whose Twinkle is working would be so kind as to add a welcome template to the IP's and User that discusses how promotion is bad, I'd appreciate it. Assume ignorance of the rules (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that, much appreciated. I've welcomed the three users with the NPOV welcome template. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 11:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sonic Generations[edit]

I've raised this at WP:RPP, but it needs resolving more urgently than that - I suspect this is an raid, as it's not possible to edit the article at all due to edit conflicts from constantly hopping IPs. I'm not going to notify all the IPs involved, because, frankly, I'd like to do something else with my life at some point in the future... Yunshui  14:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind; Closedmouth got in there and fixed it whilst I was typing the above. Yunshui  14:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Joy: Use of admin tools -while involved- in a content dispute[edit]

Resolved: Per Jehochman, no admin action required causa sui (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The page Moroccan was a redirect to Morocco since 2004, in September 2011 an IP redirected it to Moroccan people, on October 22nd, another IP turns the page into a disambig page whilst we already had a Moroccan (disambiguation) page, I undid that edit but then User:Joy came along and undid me, we've tried to talk but only seconds after I first replied User:Joy unilaterally deletes the page Moroccan and moves Moroccan (disambiguation) to Moroccan and merges the two histories while disregarding the previous consensus and disregarding that he should not use the admin powers he has while involved.

I think using the admin tools to force a "fait accomplit" on a simple user (me in this case) constitutes a serious misuse of admin tools and I want a proper action to be taken and the page Moroccan to be restored to its pre-September version until we reach an agreement on what should be done with it. Tachfin (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no forcing involved, you can still continue to impose your opinion as you did before. But instead I direct everyone to the fine explanation at Talk:Moroccan. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Regardless you shouldn't use admin tools while involved in content disputes, WP:INVOLVED is pretty clear. I wasn't imposing anything just restoring the previous version that nobody complained about. A non-admin cannot obviously restore the history of Moroccan