Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive726

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

Noticeboard archives


CueCat article[edit]

I'm asking here because of a block and un-block that I've done on the most recent user that appears to be a sock. Before proceeding, I wanted to get additional input from other editors.

On the CueCat article, there has been some strange activity over the past week. I've never edited the article myself (that I can recall), but placed it on my watchlist due to some 3RR activity, which has since lead to some likely quacking sounds. Note: prior to this activity, the article hadn't received much editing in several months.

The first edits were by Ran kurosawa (talk · contribs), whose edits were reversed with the reason "revert extensive whitewash". They restored their edits[1] and made claims of working on a book and having several thousand pages of supporting documents they could provide to Wikipedia[2]. After restoring the content, they then stopped editing for a while.

Next, within two hours, Factiod (talk · contribs) began editing the article and edit-warred with multiple editors over the same material - eventually being blocked by me for 3RR violation. On their talk page, they claimed to be writing a book and having several thousand pages available to supply to Wikipedia[3].

Now, today, the new account Proofplus (talk · contribs) posted to the talk page with the same material. Initially I blocked this account as I thought it was block evasion then corrected to a sock-block ... however, as the accounts hadn't (as yet) been used in attempts to game the system nor used abusively, I've undone the block for now. (Note: The user is making unblock requests on their talk page ... perhaps the auto-block is still there? It didn't appear to be in place, but perhaps I missed it?)

I believe it highly likely that these three accounts are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets, but would appreciate having some additional reviews. To me, the quacking is so loud that I doubt an SPI would be accepted (behavioural evidence is pretty strong here, to me). But, I would like additional eyes to take a review. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 19:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: there had been an autoblock, now lifted by User:Steven Walling (thanks). --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 19:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Update: The most recent editor is making a good-faith effort to discuss and not edit war over the content. While I still believe there is sock and/or meat-puppetry taking place, the most recent account is attempting to follow normal DR processes to gain consensus. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Proofplus has been posting to everyone's Talk page who's been involved in the brouhaha about the article and inviting them to respond to his comments. Despite his apparent efforts to be "good", I'm not convinced that his account isn't related to the others. He, like the others, calls himself a researcher. He also talks about IP sets and other issues related to patents. His English, like the others, is poor. Still, trying very hard to assume good faith, I have replied on the article's Talk page to his comments, as best as I could understand them.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, ProofPlus here, female first, grammer is not the topic. Next, I see a continual recurring theme, but I am not really sure about what you are talking about - "same group". But first, since I am from Israel, maybe you are detecting a diffence in language syntax. But, I can see your need to point out others flaws. My understanding is - notify everyone that comments are being made, share ones research and then ask for comments. Did I miss something? My message was vey clear. Posted facts. Gave links. Made suggestions for corrections to the record. I understand the submission issues and have followed them and submitted the links for review. So, maybe that you can understand? If you are having a hard time understanding and reading (I used to tell my Profs that too to bluff them) then I suggest you seek some help and maybe others here can understand my post. I will happily answer any questions, but won't egnage in the sexist stuff trying to say one is incompotent due to language barriers. Hope this is clearer for you now Barek - which is in fact a good Hebrew name!( (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

Better for you to log into your account when posting. Thanks for the gender correction, but nothing I said was sexist, nor did I say you were incompetent. Also, you didn't really provide sources for your statements on the CueCat Talk page. In any event, what I did in response was I restated what I interpreted you to say so you would understand what I was responding to. It also permits you to correct my interpretation if you think I got it wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

maybe a clarification here. IS Meatpuppet some insult to me being a woman posting in what is so strongly a mans enviroment? Is this ok? Please stop, I find that term very offensive. I have checked my talk page and do not have multiple replies, but Barek states "everyone's talk page". I would asume then Barek is posting to and from multiple accounts? Is this possible? Please help me understand this when possible. Many thanks.(ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talkcontribs)

As far as I know, the term meat puppet is not gender-based. See WP:MEAT.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Please verify who signed the comment to which you are replying. It appears that the comment "everyone's talk page" was made by Bbb23, not by me. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Barek, happy to know meat puppet was not an attack on me. I just provided the following information to Andythegrump and it may be relevant here. But, to confuse me with someone else is not okay and I am sure you can verify such through computers and connections. This may help explain the renewed interest in the cuecat device. Hope reposting it here is fine. (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

SNIP>>Here is my interest in Cue cat. RPX Corp is a public company. One of the old Paul Allen and groups guys collecting IP. They actually own the patents on the technology that was cuecat. Their stock is down 50%, but the cuecat stuff is their largest grouping. Microsoft, Google and others have licensed the former cuecat patents at $6.6 million each company and there seems to be 60 plus companies who have done the same. Supposedly these patents read heavily on G4 and other stuff and since I read the public filings I am very interested. The research I do is FINANCIAL in nature in Middle Eastern markets and seems this stock in RPX will take off and I want to know the facts. While investigating the facts of cuecat, I came across the wiki reference for cue cat and the record is just wrong and factually incorrect and I took it upon myself to add what I found out. Hope this helps. But there is big stuff in the financial markets going on relating to this OLD technology as you call it, but the patents are not old and are the next big thing. Comments? and you can find this is all public record, so I am not saying anything out of line or such. I own no stock in RPX corp, nor am I an investor, I am a researcher doing my required homework for getting to the heart of this technology (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)) (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talkcontribs)

I'm even more confused now. What's the connection between CueCat and RPX Corporation? Nil Einne (talk) Edit: It seems not only do they share a similarity of interest in CueCat but both ProofPlus and User talk:Factiod#whats all the blocking and hub bub about? came to CueCat while investigating patents. Nil Einne (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems User:Ran kurosawa was trying to create Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/J. Hutton Pulitzer. But parts of that seem a lot like the source [4] so it's likely a copyvio unless Ran kurosawa is actually the author of the website which raises further implications. In any case, another reason to look out for their work. Nil Einne (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Proofplus continues her odd behavior. After I responded to her comment on the Talk page here, she "responded" by opening another section here as if no one had responded. I might also add that she has not provided any links on the Talk page, despite her statement that she has. The various editors involved in these articles - to the extent they are different individuals - are eating up a lot of other editors' time for pretty much nothing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible block avoiding IP[edit]

An IP has indicated to me on my talk page that they are editing as an IP because of previous accusations of sockpuppetry.[5][6]. They are currently on but frequently change. I would be interested if anyone knows who the original account is and if they are currently blocked. This IP is adopting an argumentative approach on the talk pages of several other users [7][8] and should be stopped if this is block evasion. SpinningSpark 19:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Community Discussion of Topic Ban and Interaction Ban[edit]

Disruption: Users Jurriaan and Jurrian also multiple IPs[edit]

Notification of most rececent IP most recent user account

User Jurriaan (also User Jurrian, also multiple IPs) has a basic and fundamental problem with Primary and Original research policies, and repeatedly disrupts talk pages by engaging in primary research. diff demonstrating persistence example of conduct This recent version illustrates the depth of page disruption

This has been persistent, spread across 12 months, multiple articles in a constrained topic area, and spread across multiple IPs and their user account. A list of IP accounts from Jurriaan's user page lists:


Given that Jurriaan is unwilling to abide by basic encyclopaedic policy, I'd like them restricted from contributing to topics on Marx, Marx's works and political economy broadly construed until they're willing to abide by our sourcing policies and policies on disrupting talk pages by soapboxing. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) A quick look through the ISP list shows all of the listed addresses as being registered to the same upstream ISP, except the last one, which appears to be a static ADSL registration on a separate ISP. All of them, however, geolocate to the same area. I'd suggest opening a full WP:SPI report, because  It sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. Yes, I know, I promised never to use that template again. The shoe fits too well not to put it on here. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I strongly object to Fifelfoo's allegations and accusations. There is no evidence that I have disrupted anything. I have merely committed the sin of referencing some ideas by Karl Marx to Karl Marx's own text, whereas Fifelfoo feels that only a secondary source interpreting Karl Marx would be authoritative on Karl Marx. Actually, I am not interested in contributing my time to improving the article on commodity fetishism or anything else, if I get falsely accused of disruption. I have cited the IP numbers on my user page specifically so that my edits can be verified, it is not a big secret. I have no idea what your "megaphoneduck" is about. User:Jurriaan 3 Nov 2011 20:46 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
SPI isn't the main issue as the User/IP isn't avoiding previous restrictions. The problem is, "I have merely committed the sin of referencing some ideas by Karl Marx to Karl Marx's own text" an unwillingness to abide by our policy on original research and the extensive (and abusively framed) discussions on talk pages on the same point. The User/IP has extensive access to the entire secondary literature on Marx, and is deeply aware of the masters—but do they turn to Mandel, or Lafargue, or Bukharin, or Cardan? To any of the heterodox or orthodox scholars? No the User/IP attempts to produce their own understanding from original texts. This behaviour has been continuous since 2010 on commodity fetishism at least. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Consider this diff of Surplus product over October where Jurriaan edits under the minor tag the following content into the article:

The translation of the German "Mehr" as "surplus" is in a sense unfortunate, because it might be taken to suggest "unused", "not needed" or "redundant", while literally it means "more" or "added" - thus, "Mehrprodukt" refers really to the additional or "excess" product produced. In German, the term "Mehrwert" simply and literally means value-added, a measure of net output, (though, in Marx's specialist usage, it means the surplus-value obtained from the use of capital).

This, and the paragraph "In modern economics…value of inputs." which is footnoted against an argument from first principles.
The User/IP clearly understands scholarly conventions; but, is unwilling to operate within the original research conventions of wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Character mask is content almost entirely authored by the User/IP over 2+ years. It includes wonders such as:

One of the centrepieces of Marx's critique of political economy is that the juridical labour contract between the worker and his capitalist employer obscures the true economic relationship, which is (according to Marx) that the workers do not sell their labour, but their labour power, i.e. their capacity to work, making possible a profitable difference between what they are paid and the new value they create for the owners of capital (a form of economic exploitation). Thus, the very foundation of capitalist wealth creation involves a "mask".[17]

[17]: ^ "...the paid and unpaid portions of labour are inseparably mixed up with each other, and the nature of the whole transaction is completely masked by the intervention of a contract and the pay received at the end of the week." - Karl Marx, Value, Price and Profit, part 9.[8] "Since Lassalle's death, there has asserted itself in our party the scientific understanding that wages are not what they appear to be - namely, the value, or price, of labor — but only a masked form for the value, or price, of labor power." - Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875), part 2 (emphases added). [9] Cf. the Resultate manuscript in Capital, Volume I, Penguin edition, p. 1064, where Marx uses the word "vertuscht" ("covered up").

Which belong in journal articles or conference papers, and not on the encyclopaedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

IP editor - persistent failure to source / incomplete sourcing[edit]

IP editor periodically updates or edits information on pages relating (directly and indirectly) to the University of Michigan but consistently either 1) fails to provide proper sources for the edits, or, 2) provides a source but includes it only in the edit summary and not in the article to accompany the factual edit. This latter practice requires in each instance that another editor 1) notice the edit; 2) check the supplied source; and 3) edit the article to reflect the updated ref. If no one makes these corrections then after a while the article's assertions no longer match its cited refs and cleaning them up is likely to entail a laborious process of reconstruction. I make the necessary fixes on pages I have watchlisted, but otherwise have no appetite for following the editor around and cleaning up their incomplete edits. I've asked the editor several times to learn how to cite refs, see User talk: and following that effort, added relevant templates through level 4 on their Talk page, all to no effect. The editor does not respond in any fashion (indeed a review of the IP’s 200+ contributions reflect no contribution to any Talk page), and the practices continue. I have been reluctant to seek a block for what seem to be, essentially, sound factual edits but these changes requires the diligent attention of at least one other editor to ensure that the pages are not slowly degraded, and on the whole the practice is disruptive. Also I think that the editor’s failure to engage at all leaves few other options.

I previously sought advice on how to deal with this at WP:EAR, which discussion seems to have run its course. The advice there amounted to, “seek a short block”. I’d appreciate any assistance or advice that this group may offer. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If they've received multiple warnings and are not changing their practices I would report them at WP:AIV. Doniago (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, just checked out the IP's talk page. I'd say you could file at AIV now if they are still being disruptive. Doniago (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Doniago, AIV is not the appropriate venue as the IP has not edited since yesterday and their edits are not clear-cut vandalism. This is a long term issue with poor or incorrect sourcing over many months. That being said, JohnInDC's last message to the IP was a clear explanation as to why the edits are problematic; if they continue their behaviour when they begin editing again then a block will be necessary. I have watchlisted the IP's talk page and will monitor their edits moving forward. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm content to have another set of eyes (or two) here and unless someone has a different idea about how to proceed, I've got my answer. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Someone who makes work for others (by doing references incompetently) is not exactly a good-faith contributor. I suggest a short block to get this editor's attention if they will not participate in any discussion of what they are doing. If they continue to edit Wikipedia with the same practices (now or later) while ignoring the issue presented at ANI, then we have a problem worthy of admin attention. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

IP and Mommie Dearest[edit]

Before List of films considered the worst descends further into edit-war territory, I would like someone to take a look and see if they can 'splain things to the IP in such a way that it gets his attention. Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped for now, but I'll watchlist the page. 28bytes (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. That's one of those articles that has always shown a tendency to expand or contract based on personal opinions, which is why we try to keep some good reins on it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
That's some fun reading. Reminds me of this book. 28bytes (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • He's back. Another edit showed up in recent changes. FYI, it is my opinion that the article will always tend to edits like that, is very subjective, and prob should not exist for those reasons (although I am aware that I am in the minority on that Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
FYI, vandal's IP is‎ Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)‎
Edit warring ≠ vandalism. Anyway, Carnildo has protected it for a week. 28bytes (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Edit-warring is bad faith, though; and the guy did essentially section-blank; so I think the term vandalism is appropriate Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
No, it's not. 28bytes (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
You're right, there's a difference between vandalism and good-faith but wrong-headed editing, and this is the latter. And refering to Purple's earlier comment, yes, the page attracts lots of editorial opinions, which is why strict sourcing to hopefully multiple "worst movies" sources is required. For example, if Roger Ebert says "I hated it!", that carries a lot more weight than if an editor says "I loved it!" It's never going to be an exhaustive list. If you look through the Maldin book, for example, you'll find hundreds of them labeled "BOMB". This particular article is intended to list just a few, widely discussed bad movies. The examples serve an educational purpose about what can go wrong in moviemaking. (In the case of Ed Wood, of course, you can say it's pretty much "everything".) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Single purpose account, misuse of article for soapbox[edit]

The new SPA account, User:The99declaration has made some rather obtuse postings on the article 99 Percent Declaration that could constitute legal threats and are certainly WP:SOAP [11] --Amadscientist (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see explicit legal threats, but I do see problems with the username. That username definitely needs a change to an individual one. –MuZemike 02:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I understand MuZemike's post...but not the unsigned post by User:Pugugil below.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
What post? [post-cleanup]. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The post that was deleted. Perhaps he meant something by it. Your question seems tongue in cheek at best and dishonest at worst.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Dualus has been doing a little manipulating of that spam post and the users talk page.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

User:The99declaration is apparently Michael Pollok, a criminal defense attorney and the author of the first drafts of the 99 Percent Declaration. Please help keep this important contributor! There are very serious WP:BITE issues on the part of Amadscientist, who has repeatedly blanked[12][13][14][15] the author's correspondence from Talk:99 Percent Declaration because there is a content dispute concerning very recent events with the Occupy Wall Street Demands Working Group. Instead of welcoming The99declaration, Amadscientist wrote this as his first message on his talk page: "Single purpose account. Misuse of article space for personal soapbox is unacceptable.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)" and became upset when I welcomed the user. I do not believe Amadscientist is here to write an encyclopedia nearly as much as to try to push a point of view, and I have complained about tag-teaming on Talk:Occupy Wall Street where such behavior is still clearly in evidence. Please help. Dualus (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

See formal ANI complaint below.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk page blanking continues to WP:BITE the original author of the 99 Percent Declaration -- what can be done to save Mr. Pollok as an editor?!? Dualus (talk) 05:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I could always apologize for biting the newcomer, but that does not excuse your manipulation of the talk pages, or your refusal to stop unwanted contact.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Am I to understand that you are referring to my restoration of material I posted to Talk:99 Percent Declaration from new user Mr. Pollok's comments on the deletion discussion, as "manipulation"? Why do you think I am not allowed to post to talk pages? Dualus (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Recommend merging this section with #User:Dualus manipulating spam posts of other editor and talk pages below. Dualus (talk) 05:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit war at Luchow's[edit]


I'm bowing out, since Mrs. Drmies is wondering what's keeping me. Beyond My Ken notified me of something brewing in Luchow's, particularly some ownership issues. He was right; I've reverted, left notes on the user's talk page, and finally a 3R warning. I came withing one clock of blocking them for disruptive editing and edit-warring, but I should leave that to someone else, if it has to come to that (I hope not). Your interest is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I blocked BruceWHain (talk · contribs) before seeing this message, but not much has changed so my block still stands. Tiptoety talk 04:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I was about to pounce this one, darn. Here's the block log and offending edit for archival purposes. Tell Mrs. Drmies that we apologize for keeping her waiting! m.o.p 04:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
...and I have declined Bhatman ... err ... User:BruceWHain's unblock ... which wasn't really an unblock ... then again, just like Chuck Norris, Bhatman wouldn't need an unblock. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Professional wrestling throws[edit]

I am involved in the edit warring which has been going on at this article which it looks like has had citation concerns for four years. I am trying to avoid it getting out of hand by using edit summaries, the talk page, and posting about it here. Can we get more eyes on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Folgertat (talkcontribs) 20:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC) --Shirt58 (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Edit warring on a wrestling article. I assume it's scripted. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, as far as the content of the issue is concerned, it's not clear to me why, in this edit some unverified things are removed and others aren't, but that's a matter for the talk page. Wile I don't want to count and do things with dates and times, it's clear that y'all are edit-warring, though some (User:Francis Marks) do it worse than others (you)--without edit summaries and explanations. Both of you should stop, right now, and edit only to the talk page and work it out.

    In the meantime, there is nothing here for an admin to do, and I don't rightly see why this report is here. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  • For the record, I've given both 3R warnings on their talk page. I consider this closed: any further disruption should be dealt with first on the 3R noticeboard, and such a report will probably be followed by a swift block. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Phoenix and Winslow[edit]

User:Phoenix and Winslow has made an attack against a company that is unwarranted and offensive, its also one in which he holds a bias against the company as it won a court case that defines Ugg boot as a generic in term. If this was made against and editor or a individual person I'd have no hesitation in blocking the users account before bringing it here for review. The thing is this isnt an individual its a company Uggs-N-Rugs but P&W description of the company is matter we should be concerned about Wikipedia is not a soap box, IMHO sanctions should be taking to address this action as its clearly intended to disrupt the discussion and prevent consensus. Gnangarra 06:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

    • User advised[16] of discussion Gnangarra 06:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Err, I really don't see it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I assume the reference is to referring to "Uggs-N-Rugs" as "Uggs-N-Muggs". To be honest, I do see a problem with some very POV claims being posted, repeatedly, with a lot of aggression towards Australian companies and editors, that sometimes feels to be borderline trolling. I'm not sure that it is something that could be handled here, though, but I'm also not sure what the best route is. Try for mediation again, perhaps? - Bilby (talk) 09:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
My first instinct here was to regard this as a specious attempt to have dissent shut down (in isolation that's nowhere near a blockable offense and would be worth a rebuke at best if the subject were a BLP), but looking through the discussion there's certainly something troublesome about Phoenix and Winslow's approach to the article. You know you're heading down the wrong path motives-wise when you begin making analogies to the way Barack Obama's BLP is free of conspiracy theories and use it as an unfavourable comparison. Phoenix and Winslow should be advised to leave his personal opinions of the subject at the door when discussing them: the rest should take care of itself, given that it seems to have been established that P&W is in a distinct minority on the content matter. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


I picked up a 3O request for the article Giles Coren, but I don't think my response there is likely to make much difference. The dispute concerns an edit war over adding the sentence "he is best know for his anti-Polish prejudice" to the lead.

Can I suggest semi-protecting the article and blocking account creation from the IP address?

Thanks.--FormerIP (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

IP blocked 72hrs. If he comes back on same IP it will be longer, if IP changes I can semi the article. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Structural inequality in education and Structural inequality[edit]

New article Structural inequality in education appears to be a copy of an old version of Structural inequality. I don't know anything about the subject matter, so have no idea whether they are OK or not, or whether the articles should be merged etc. However, the attribution has now been broken so something needs doing about that please. Polequant (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as the talk page of the original article has a discussion going back to last month where this was planned out, was there a particular reason that you chose to run straight to the drama board with this rather than simply sending a friendly note to the user explaining what he missed, or alternatively simply fixing it yourself? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
And can you tell me how I can sort it out please? I cannot do a manual move as there is now something in the way. That is why I brought it here, not for any drama. And I see you are an administrator, so you can sort it out. I would be grateful if you could do the honours. Much obliged. Polequant (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The user's already left a note to that effect on the new talk page. If you want to make it more formal, add {{split from|page=Structural inequality|diff=|date= 22:17, 3 November 2011}} to the top of tjhe split page. If we were being incredibly pedantic we could histmerge the new page from the user sandbox, but it doesn't really matter because the sandbox page has only had a single editor who is the same as the author of the new page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
It didn't look like a split to me, it looked like a copy-paste move and a completely new article in it's place. But if that's all that is needed for attribution then fine by me. Feel free to close. Polequant (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
That's basically what it is. I'll split the history when I have time later, if no one else has. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Contributions for User:[edit]

Due to some bad mojo over at commons where Yorsh797 made some bad uploads, I went over to check en-wiki to see if it was ok here as someone had included the images in some pages, and I assume that IP is the user in question. I notice the user is making small edits related to number of goals and assists mostly, but some edits doesn't make any sense, for example [17] increases "caps" a lot, but decreases "goals". I asked Yorsh797 yesterday if he had any references to the numbers, but haven't got any reply. Thus I would like for a wider analysis of this matter, as I'm no expert in mexican football, and I've could have mistaken some relevant data here that makes everything logical. AzaToth 18:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

User Boabkal[edit]

Could an Admin check the edits of this user:

User Boabkal is personally attacking me. He accuses me of being pan-Turkic even before I had a conversation with him.

See: Talk:Great_Seljuq_Empire The source for the Turkification of Iran and Azerbaijan

This user is pushing his POV and original research. I had sourced material explaining some sentences. But he doesn't like those sentences and then declares the whole book as: 'bad, misleading and false' and he deletes the sourced material. He is pushing his own POV and original research and accusing me the whole time and personally attacking me.

The source doesn't deny that Seljuks were under Persian influence, it just says that under their rule the Turkification of todays Iran and Azerbaijan started, because then Turkic peoples started to migrate towards those areas.

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talkcontribs) 16:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(to be helpful) ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 17:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

[21] Here he/she is already accusing me of spreading 'black pan-Turkic propaganda'

In the last sentence here [22] he says: 'I can only conclude you're biased (i.e. pan turkic) and based on the other violations in your userpage history, I am certain of it.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talkcontribs) 17:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

  • I have welcomed[23] the editor (only 16 edits) and left a personalized uw-npa1 on BoAbkal's talk page,[24] including hopefully helpful information on dealing with disputes which included other relevant links (undue, pov, balance, relevance, dr) - as well as a note to be careful on wording so comments are not misconstrued as a personal attack.
Does anyone deem any further actions are needed? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 18:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Can any admin tell user Boabkal not to delete the two sources that explain about the Turkification of Iran and Azerbaijan? DragonTiger23 (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's simply removing citations that support the article, let us know. If it's changing content to something you disagree with, you need to take that up on the article's talk page and engage BoAbkal there. A polite note on BoAbkal's talk page to meet you there may be a good start. Admnistrators (except as required by an ArbCom case or community decision or for policy violations or similar) will not engage in a content dispute in administrative capacity. Once they involve themselves in the content, they can no longer act in such capacity.
So, if the issue is the first one, please provide a few diffs - that can be addressed. If it is a content dispute, try working it out on the talk page, or engage in some form of dispute resolution. If you need help, let the community know here, or post a message on my talk page. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 03:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

DragonTiger23, please do not pose yourself as a victim of personal attacks because it will not work with me, and you have no evidence of it. Furthermore, if you want to claim that I personally attacked you (which is false in that regard), then look no further than your claim of me vandalizing an article, when in fact it does not constitute as vandalism at all. That accusation you brushed on my name is, however, a form of personal attack, in which I think the admins should look into.

Judging by the series of violations you have committed, as seen in your user talk page, it is evidently clear that the Great Seljuk Empire article is not the only one you attempted to change in order to give a biased 'Turkic' point of view. There are loads of other articles in which you personally changed in order to give a biased Turkic view on, not least of which are articles such as the Latin Bridge.

On 23rd of August, you were blocked by an admin for "persistent revert-warring across multiple articles motivated by national POV agendas".

I have no doubt in my mind that the so called source you provided in your Great Seljuk Empire article on the so called 'turkification of Iran' was a bad one. Bad either because you made it up, and then provided anything as a source (to make it more believable), or because you used a source that is not academically qualified. The sentence you wrote, furthermore, went on to CONTRADICT what most academically qualified sources in that article were saying, i.e. that the Seljuks had no intentions on turkifying Iran. As I have clearly pointed out in that article's talk page.

You are in the wrong here and I will personally see to it that your attempts of spreading disinformation in Wikipedia articles does not succeed.

Wa Salamu Alaikum.BoAbkal (talk) 07:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Please could an admin explain to this person to stop his agressive attitude against me. He is making Wikipedia:No personal attacks here and when he edits here [[ Wikipedia:No original research Seriously just because he doesn't like the sentence of the source he declares it as 'not academically qualified' Because first of all reed this [25] who is BoAbkal to decide that this author and the other authors are 'not academically qualified'. And this is the other author: [26] They are both academics, experts on history, that User boabkal personally attacks them just shows how pathetic biased he is. Are there no admins to stop this nonsense??

With a quick search on google books I found many more sources on (Seljuks Turkification) seriously this is written in so many history books, I didnt make this up. here [[27]], [[28]]

on the matter of the Turkification of Iran/Azerbaijan. Because this is already a fact. But there is no way discussing with Boabkal, who would equally name all of those sources as bad and the authors a not academical. This is simple because Boabkal is not neutral he is trying to push his point of view, deleting sources when he doesnt like them.

This is the online version of the source (so I didn't made it up, as he falsely claims) [29]

Here [30]

Can you believe this user boabkal?? Simply said, he is biased and insists on deleting the sources regarding the Turkification of Iran and Azerbaijan. He uses the most simple argument: The sources are bad. This user does not care anything about the source or wikipedia rules. He accuses me the whole time of spreading pan turkism, how did he come u with that I dont know, If I would write one time he was pan iranian, I would be blocked, I dont want to personally attack anyone but it seems he himself is describing himself actually, he seems to be ethnically biased and tries to push his pan persianism. I have learned from experience that for some reason many Persian have racism against all things related to Turkic/Turks. And they get away with it all the time on wikipedia. DragonTiger23 (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Salamu Alaikum,

Your post just above proves how ignorant you are. What made you come to the conclusion that I'm Persian or Pan Iranian? I couldn't care less about either Turkic or Iranian cultures. My motive is to make Wikipedia clear from bias and disinformation. For your information, I'm Qatari, from Qatar, an Arab country.

Your sources contradict the commonly accepted scholarly views that academics worldwide have attested to. Your source is not an encyclopedia. It's a history book written by one or two authors and its titled as an encyclopedia but it isnt. Encyclopedias have references from academics and scholars to support their information. That source you gave does not.

I will continue removing it as it contradicts what the Seljuk Empire stood for.

I told you time and time again I have nothing against the statement, but the validity of the statement. It is not a valid statement. Your sources contradict mainstream view. That is all.

PS: Continue this discussion in the talk page for the article rather than cowering away. BoAbkal (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You want to make Wikipedia free of Bias and disinformation? Then start by deleting your account for you are the one who is spreading his bias. The source contradicts nothing, and its 100% valid, you want to remove two sources from two different authors written by academics by using your own Original research. Are there no admins to stop this?? It is vandalism. Thank youDragonTiger23 (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ramanatruth keeps blanking a section.[edit]

I noticed Ramanatruth keeps blanking an entire section atAdvaita Vedanta. (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you please show any diffs as to why you say this? Also I notified Ramanatruth of this. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to do that, but if you look in the history, it should be obvious. Ramanatruth keeps deleting "Claims of Buddhist Influence Section" which I know has been there for a while. (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

See [31] for edit history of Ramanatruth. There is just a couple of entries over the past two days. Two appear to be section blanking.--Nowa (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

From Ramana Truth


I have spent years learning and practicing Advaita Vendanta. If you have content disputes with my edits lets discuss. Why should you guys block me. I am new to wikipedia but will add references to validate all my content. I want to make sure Advaita Vedanta is represented right in Wikipedia.

Advaita philosophy , the concept that "Brahman is all that is", is mentioned in the Hindu Holy book, the Bhagavad Gita which predates the birth of Buddha.

Ancient texts that talk about Advaita Vedanta which predate the Birth of Buddha

If you want I can add multiple references to validate Advaita thought and the birth of buddhism.

Advaita Vedanta is the central tenet of Hinduism mentioned in the Upanishads texts which include Bhagavad Gita.

Adi Sankara and Ramana Maharshi led the Hindu renaissance by explicitly taking about Advaita Philosophy to bring the Indian population back to Hinduism, when Buddhism was spreading in India.

I request you to have a dialogue to make sure that the Advaita Vedanta is represented right.

Reporting edited content as vandalism prematurely without discussion defeats the spirit of an open encyclopedia.

User Boabkal disruptive edits at the page of the Great Seljuk Empire[edit]

Can any admin have a look at this page and the harmfull edits done by user Boabkal. The problem is that this user is deleting two sentences based on sources. First he agressively accused me of being Pan Turkist and spreading pan Turkic propoganda, afterwards he attacks the source and authors.

Here [[32]]] and Here [[33]] in the Talk page

I am asking any Admins to watch these page and explain to this user and stop him deleting sources.

Thank youDragonTiger23 (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you let us know about 6 sections above. Did you check there? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

BLP violations and incivility by user Xizer[edit]

Xizer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has reverted to their old block laden past behaviour and is edit-warring at William_Adams_(judge) overturning consensus reached at WP:BLPN and engaging in gross personal attacks: diff1. I request a block of this user to prevent further disruption. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary "Haha. Do it, bitch." causes me an immediate high level of concern. Ks0stm (TCGE) 02:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Ks0stm. Please also look at the report below where Xizer alleges incivility on my part yet provides no examples. This is tendentious editing on top of gross incivility and violation of consensus arrived at WP:BLPN and edit-warring BLP violations as well. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Are Keizers (talk · contribs) and Xizer related? Ks0stm (TCGE) 02:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't know. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Three-revert rule violations and incivility by user Dr.K.[edit]

Dr.K. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is currently edit-warring at William_Adams_(judge) overturning valuable, well-sourced contributions to this article that are not in any violation of Wikipedia policy. As this is now Dr.K.'s third revert of the article today, this user is now in violation of Wikipedia's three-revert rule as the rule clearly states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.

No consensus on WP:BLPN has been reached as to whether or not this article should contain information pertaining to current events surrounding the controversial Internet video that has surfaced and has now been mentioned numerous times by credible news outlets such as CNN and NBC.

Go read the discussion of the article on WP:BLPN. It's literally just four dudes discussing whether or not the article should even exist, not what content should be included in said article. Xizer (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RRN is the best place to report edit warring. As far as the talk page is concerned, why not take it to AFD if people think it should be deleted? That would solve the problem for a while. Noformation Talk 02:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This report (by Xizer (talk · contribs)) is based on a severe misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia (hint: this is an encyclopedia and not a place to shame people regardless of what vidoes may show), and a severe misunderstanding of WP:BLP. The most recent edit by Xizer at William Adams (judge) (diff) added an attack piece with edit summary "Haha. Do it, bitch." Dr.K. is urged to revert as many times as necessary to protect a BLP. If Xizer could indicate that they now understand proper procedures, no further action need be taken. If such edits are repeated, particularly without serious discussion, Xizer will need to be separated from the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I should also note that Xizer is actually misquoting the policy page. Nowhere at WP:3RR does it say the sentence he quotes above, nor is there any sentence or statement at WP:3RR which could be reasonably paraphrased or interpreted to mean what he says. No further statement on the substance of his complaint, but I am not made sympathetic to his argument when it contains such a deliberate and obvious mis-statement of policy. --Jayron32 03:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
A classic WP:BOOMERANG. I agree completely with the block. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
That's quoted from Template:3RR. Noformation Talk 03:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. So stricken. I should note that that particular wording should be changed, I'm not sure I like it much, but I will not discuss it here further, as this is not the venue. I'm headed to the template talk page to start a discussion... --Jayron32 03:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: (See also the thread above) I have blocked Xizer 48 hours for the flagrant incivility in this edit summary. Ks0stm (TCGE) 03:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the block, especially given his intention to continue to edit war. This is completely unacceptable here. –MuZemike 05:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Also agree. Given this, he should know a helluva lot better. WilliamH (talk) 07:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

William Adams (judge)[edit]

I need some independent eyes on this article. There is an edit war brewing with some editors wanting to introduce news articles (many of which are copies of each other) to the WP article while the AfD is going on. IMO, there's too much naming and shaming going on, and I'd block the article completely, without those links, but I guess I'm not neutral enough (also, I watched the video and I'm kind of sick to my stomach). Some quick and decisive action would be appreciated--or, if not action, a note at the AfD itself. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Oh, yeah, see also the section(s) above. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I haven't watched the video, but even assuming it's sickening, I don't understand how User:Sceptre gets away with calling the judge a "reprehensible cunt". As I stated on the AfD page, it's remarkably uncivil and a BLP violation. Sceptre is, of course, entitled to his opinion, but it doesn't mean he can express it with impunity here. (As an aside, I don't know if "cunt" has a different meaning in British English, but in American English, it's one of the more offensive and vulgar words in the language.)--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • And you just repeated it, tsk tsk. Yeah, I saw that too, and I don't know what to say. I'm on record as defending some of our regular uncivilians, so I shouldn't say anything. But it's rude, in any language, and while the person in the video is really doing disgusting things, it's not our place to comment on that. Sceptre really shouldn't have said that. How he gets away with that? I'm not blocking for civility, lots of admins aren't. I guess that's all there is to it. You're free to slap a warning on their talk page, of course. Just don't call him an asshole, cause I'd block you in a heartbeat. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I really don't know how to respond to this. He does something wrong. You acknowledge that. Yet, you seem to be more interested in taking a jab at me ("tsk, tsk") for my commenting on it and threatening me with a block for something I haven't done or even contemplated doing ("call[ing] him an asshole"). I suppose one day I'll learn my comments about this sort of thing almost never gain any traction. I suppose, too, I should be grateful (sort of) that you didn't ignore me. To quote you one more time: "I guess that's all there is to it." --Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Bbb23, lighten up ('tsk tsk' is a joke--I didn't know you were so humorless, and such a literal reader). You completely misread my comments--how you don't see that I agree with you (I acknowledged the rudeness!) while, at the same time, I am telling you that we simply don't usually act against such civility breaches is not clear to me. And yes, that is all there is to it: you will not find an admin who will block for a remark like that, and while that is sad, perhaps, that is the way it is. I don't go around calling people names like that, you don't, and Sceptre shouldn't either. Now what do you want me to do about it? I left them a warning--do you want me to hand out an instant block for a bad word? Until you understand the predicaments that go along with having ideas about civility, until you understand the difficulty of enforcing a policy on civility, and until you see that some people express themselves in ways different from yours, maybe you should ignore everything I say, including this. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Drmies, I'm not "humorless", but I am often "literal", and I did misunderstand what you said. Thanks for the clarification.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm glad. More clarification: I do NOT think lightly of these things, lest my tone makes one believe that. If I did, I would have just passed this over and said nothing, like (I assume) many others did. Thanks Bbb, for pointing it out here. Please forgive my strong response. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Now that we've cleared it up, there's nothing to forgive. I actually appreciate your sticking with me while we fleshed it out.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

99 Percent Declaration[edit]

99 Percent Declaration is undergoing major disruptive editing during an AfD discussion. There is no way of knowing what we are “keeping” or “deleting”. It would be helpful if a disinterested administrator reviewed and took appropriate action.--Nowa (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This AfD is only two days old. I'd like to give it some more time to develop consensus. m.o.p 21:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into this. The issue isn’t AfD, but edit warring during an AfD. Consider this version at 20:45, 4 November 2011 versus this version three minutes later--Nowa (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
After studying the history of the AFD page until my eyes blurred, I have realized that you mean the ARTICLE itself. I have blocked User:Factchecker atyourservice for 31hrs for massive edit-warring on this. Please take future edit-warring complaints to WP:AN/3RR for proper service, and be far more clear as to the problem. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Let me add that FIXING the article during the AFD is not a bad thing - in fact, it's recommended. AfD often helps bring articles to someone's attention who then has the knowledge/opportunity to fix it ... that's what the WP:ARS used to be about ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you,but in all fairness you should ban all editors engaged in the edit war. In fact, I think the page should be fully protected during the AfD. It has become a political battle ground.--Nowa (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, I have blocked the other disruptive edit-warrior that was found as well ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for attending to the situation.--Nowa (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Dualus manipulating spam posts of other editor and talk pages[edit]

Note: Recommend merging this section with #Single purpose account, misuse of article for soapbox above. Dualus (talk) 05:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Dualus has been using the spam soapbox message left on the article 99 Percent Declaration [34] and on the "Request for deletion" discussion by another user. He placed the text on the talk page to make it look like a message left there by the editor and also signed the post as the editor in question.[35] [36] He also went to the editors talk page and began manipulating a post left there by me.[37] He has also seen fit to request off wiki discussion against my previous request that he not contact me further on my talk page.[38] [39]--Amadscientist (talk) 04:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I strongly object to the blanking[40][41][42][43][44] of my contributions to Talk:99 Percent Declaration and the WP:BITEing of Michael Pollok at his talk page. Dualus (talk) 05:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I strongly object to your manipulation of another editors post. Something I have warned you about before.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
What precisely are you complaining about? How can you accuse me of "manipulation" when you have just blanked the same section from Talk:99 Percent Declaration four times over the space of an hour? Have you read WP:TALK? I know you have already been warned about edit warring. Dualus (talk) 05:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
It appears that user Dualus has been attempting to request contact of editors off wiki. I am not the only one,[45] although I have stated clearly his contact on my page is not wanted.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I have been attempting to tinychat with those who have been accusing me of trying to push a point of view. Only one editor has agreed to do so tomorrow. If any admins would like to join in, that would be great. Unless there's some reason it isn't allowed. In the mean time, would someone please restore my blanked material to Talk:99 Percent Declaration? Dualus (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Dualus is an extremely disruptive and tendentious editor. He has a habit of hounding editors who disagree with him to the point of harassment, often pressing them to talk off-wiki.[46][47][48][49][50] Inserting disputed content into articles without adequate discussion,[51][52] Making bad-faith accusations against anyone who disagrees with him,[53][54][55][56][57][58] and is a constant state of "I didn't hear that!" where he argues the same points ad nauseum regardless of how many times they have been refuted by multiple editors. [59][60][61][62] He has had an edit-warring noticeboard complaint about him in the last 24 hours, and it doesn't take more than a look at Talk:Occupy Wall Street,Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 26 or the article talk page in question to get a clear idea of this editor's propensity for disruption. Trusilver 06:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself, Truesilver. At least, not without combing through about 500 man-hours of absurd editorial conduct by the user in question, in order to document the utter disregard for both substantive content policies and the policies relevant to maintaining a collaborative atmosphere. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I recommend reviewing those diffs. While some show honest mistakes, I don't see how any of them show "an extremely disruptive and tendentious editor." Honestly I have no idea what tendentious means. I welcome discussions about my behavior, and I have been trying to reach compromises. But for now, would someone please restore the blanked material of mine back to Talk:99 Percent Declaration? I don't want to be accused of edit warring simply because I am trying to keep my own article talk page section, from the author of the subject of the article, no less, from being deleted. Dualus (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Ownership of articles?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
When I refer to "my talk page sections which you have repeatedly blanked" I am not saying I own them, I am saying I put them there. Per WP:TPO it is completely inappropriate for you to delete them! Dualus (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's what the policy says. Are you suggesting that the material you keep deleting is somehow a BLP issue? Dualus (talk) 07:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not see the BLPVIO. Please can you explain on the article talk page how it violates BLP. Spartaz Humbug! 07:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
If an editor makes a claim on the article itself with no references it is contentious, regardless of the fact that they claim to be that person. The continued use of this material by Dualus is a clear BLP issue. Is this incorrect?--Amadscientist (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, its an incorrect application of BLP. Its good reason to depreceate the content and we couldn't use it as its as meaningless as a usenet posting but its not a BLP vio. Spartaz Humbug! 08:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Please see the talk page for specific accusations against named parties that do make this a BLP issue. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I have added the exact sections of BLP violations as requested.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Where? Dualus (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I, too, would like to see some links. However, anything posted by that redlink and claiming to speak for someone has to be considered a BLP violation unless proven otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Dualus continues to replace this contentious material and has been edited warring against the policies and spirit of Wikipedia. I wonder if a block for these actions as well as unwanted contact would be appropriate at this time?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

"Unwanted contact"? Are you referring to the fact that you keep deleting whatever I write on your talk page? I recommend that interested parties review your deletions of my questions on your talk page. In the mean time, what is the specific reason you keep blanking the message from Mr. Pollok? Dualus (talk) 07:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • ENOUGH ANI is not a venue for bickering between participants in a content dispute. Please can you both stop the back and forth and allow other people to go through the allegations and consider them. Flooding the section with arguing between the two of you is going to get you both blocked if you don't stop. Spartaz Humbug! 07:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I would challenge the presumption that the editor called 99-whatever actually is who he claims to be.[63] In fact, the "conservative" thing to do, as per BLP rules, would be to assume that he is NOT, and that anything he says could potentially be a BLP violation, as it would put words in his mouth. Now, if the actual subject can be confirmed to be that guy, then it's a different story. But that would have to be done by reliable sourcing, not by a red-link claiming to be someone. For example, if CNN has an interview with the actual guy, and he says "I'm editing Wikipedia under this 99-something user ID", that would tend to make it more credible. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. If an individual claims to be the subject of the post and asks for modifications, are they not usually directed to OTRS to prove/disprove the claim first. Putting information in the article or on the talkpage because "I'm Foo, so I know it" is likely to be a BLP violation. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Really, I'm afraid I don't see that as a BLP then or now since its not uncommon for real people to post things related to them. The unattributation is obviously grounds to depreciate the comment and we wouldn't give it any weight whatsoever but I'm still struggling to see how it violates BLP. Maybe this is another case of BLP creep. Is it worth a general discussion on this anywhere to try and get a wider consensus on this point? Spartaz Humbug! 05:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Did you wish me to post those sections here and the precise areas in the spam from the redlink editor? I could also post the e-mails sent to me that were legal threats but that seems unneccesary at this point as the editor has received an idef ban and I have passed them on to another admin, but if you feel this should be made public to be defined as threats to Wikipedia for a permanent ban I can. For some reason I think he assumes I am an admin or the reason he is being banned.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

More edit-warring[edit]

I created this edit-war notice less than 1 day ago, which caused the page to be protected.

As I wrote there, Dualus has previously been cautioned for edit-warring on several occasions (which is also mentioned above), and seems to think that merely commenting on a talk page justifies continued addition, without obtaining the agreement from other editors.

Now, xe is doing exactly the same thing on another article - making an addition [64], and when another user removes it [65] Dualus puts it back saying "replace per talk" [66].

But there's no consensus on the talk - just Dualus saying he'll add it, and one other user removing it.[67]

Dualus is causing disruption on Wikipedia, and I think xe should now be blocked; many users have tried to explain our policies, guidelines and norms, but Dualus seems incapable of following them.  Chzz  ►  20:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I am in total agreement. Every time I come across this editor, I see someone (usually very patiently) attempting to explain some policy that User:Dualus is not following, only to see it explained again the next day, and again the day after, and so on and so on. At some point, it starts getting hard to assume good faith and one has to start thinking the user is intentionally being disruptive. Trusilver 21:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think he should be indef banned myself but then I have less history with the editor and I guess requests to stop contact by editors must be requested here. So, if he is not given an indef ban I would request that he be blocked from making any posts on my talk page.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Specific sections of BLP violated[edit]

Criticism and praise[68]: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.

The information was not originally presented in a responsible, conservative or disinterested tone, or repeated in that manner. It was copy pasted simply to repeat the accusations and information.

Challenged or likely to be challenged [69]: Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article.

No references of any kind were used when this was placed in the article and repeated again on the talk page.

Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material [70]: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards.

This constitutes original research and is not sourced at all. Returning the material is a violation of this section after my removal of it.

Avoid gossip and feedback loops[71]: Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources.

The user that placed the material is an anonymous source and we cannot divulge who it actually is or is not, since the user used a username and not a real name and is simply a new Wikipedia user, it fails as a reliable source and should not be repeated even on the article talk page.

Using the subject as a self-published source[72]:Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: # it is not unduly self-serving; # it does not involve claims about third parties; # it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; # there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; # the article is not based primarily on such sources.

If Dualus is going on the assumption that this is indeed the actual person, it violates this section as being self published on Wikipedia and does not meet the standard for use on the article or the talk page.

Presumption in favor of privacy Avoid victimization[73]: When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

The editor that placed this here is playing the victim even though he is not mentioned at all. By repeating these claims and accusations this violates this section.

Privacy of personal information and using primary sources[74]: With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. In a similar vein, articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted. See above regarding the misuse of primary sources to obtain personal information about subjects.

We have to assume the privacy of the subject above the belief that the user is being honest about his or her identity right now. The user has not posted any further evidence or references to prove such and repeating the information violates this section.

People who are relatively unknown[75]: Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see above. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there is additional protection for subjects who are not public figures.

Little to no restraint in repeatedly adding the information back. No secondary sources. Repeating the information is questionable.

Subjects notable only for one event[76]: Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.

If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.[5] In addition, some subject specific notability guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports) provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event.

Undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. Nuetral wording is not used by either the original editor or Dualus by repeating it. There is no notability present in the posting from an anonymous user.

Privacy of names[77]: Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons.

This person and the people he accuses have not been widely disseminated and in fact some have been intentionally concealed. No value in adding these names in the article as originaly done and then repeated on this talk page.

Where BLP does and does not apply Non-article space[78]: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate. When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot. The same principle applies to problematic images. Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion.

The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages. The single exception is that users may make any claim they wish about themselves in their user space, so long as they are not engaged in impersonation, and subject to What Wikipedia is not, though minors are discouraged from disclosing identifying personal information on their userpages; for more information, see here.[6] Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of No personal attacks.

Legal persons and groups[79]: This policy does not normally apply to edits about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with the other content policies. The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources. --Amadscientist (talk) 08:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh for heavens' sakes, 1 second of googling finds several professional pages with contact info for that lawyer guy. If there's doubt that he is who he says, someone could email him and/or ask him on usertalk to confirm identity with OTRS. Yes there is a BITE problem going on. He should be thanked for his willingness to contribute here and given any help he needs, even if he's currently making typical newbie errors. We all made errors like that when we got started. (talk) 09:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanked? So many "occupy" articles were started that Wikipedia simply became a place to host their manifestos...Lord help us that doesn't happen again and say "look, we made the big time on Wikipedia!" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Biting problem? If that single action I made over rides his use of a name to promote his agenda and his spam message that earned him an indef block, I am pretty sure I would have joined both Dualus and that red link editor in a block of some kind. Right now I am more concerned with the exact reasons why Dualus didn't earn the same indef block for repeatedly spamming the talk pages against Wikipedia policy in the same manner. I am also concerned with the exact reasons why Spartaz feels this is NOT BLP issues and violations. He had me post all my exact and specific concerns and then just blew them off in a single post the same way Dualus has in talk page discussions. I go to his talk page and I perceive hand holding by this admin for the editor in question. Taking such care to guide one editor and then demanding exacting information from another seems to be a perception problem on my side so I have no choice but give him (Spartaz) the benefit of doubt. I wish he would extend that same courtesy to me. I have followed the direction of that administrator by posting at the talk page of that article. I have delivered the threats from the red link editor to another admin and I have also included an unsolicited e-mail from another editor that seems to show Dualus attempting to get one editor to work for him. I already have a phone number left to me in a legal threat against Wikipedia of the supposed editor. I suggest the Wikimedia Foundation use it. OTRS the guy and go from there. He has made accusations in that spam against individuals. What else do you need? Dualus repeats these accusations by this editor without public Wiki permission by the editor. I realize this proves nothing. But it is more evidence against Dualus than he has to prove any accusations he has made against others.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Spartaz, with all due respect, you had me give specific reasons why I feel these are BLP issues. Now please give your equally specific reasons why you think they are not. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Kai Chen Qiu[edit]

Can someone take a quick look at the edit history of Kai Chen Qiu and then delete it? It's a hoax page, but the number of new editors working on it may indicate sock puppetry. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It's just been deleted, but it might be worth checking on the socking issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
There's a good chance there's meat in those socks, but nonetheless this was a good block. Typical bored schoolkid nonsense. The autoblock that's been added should put an end to this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Another one Kaichen Qiu Nil Einne (talk) 09:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Considering User:Edgar181 deleted Kai Chen Qiu, it seems fairly obvious where User:Edgar131 got their name. From the edit history, the autoblock doesn't seem to have helped with the socks. Nil Einne (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
See also:
- Voceditenore (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
The problem seems to involve other articles now, see the 3 edits of (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) that I reverted. Nil Einne (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Pembury Hospital[edit]


Not an issue after all.

Pembury Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm not sure, but I think I've messed up on this one. The Pembury Hospital article was originally at that title. Another editor boldly moved it the The Tunbridge Wells Hospital (which is what the NHS Trust calls it). I G6'd the original title and then moved The Tunbridge Wells Hospital back to Pembury Hospital (per WP:COMMONNAME). However, in doing so I appear to have lost most of the edit history of the original article. Would another admin kindly look into this and sort out anything that needs sorting out? Apologies for the mess. Mjroots (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Everything's fine: I can see all the history at the Pembury Hospital page, and only the move at the TWH page. I suspect purging your cache would force the page to display the full history for you (that normally works for me when I have the same issue...) BencherliteTalk 08:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I couldn't work out why it wasn't showing, as I didn't think that what I did was incorrect. Hence my post here to check. Mjroots (talk) 09:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

When I tried to save an edit...[edit]

Resolved: The village stocks have a new member, buried in trout. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 21:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

A flag went up saying... "Hello! Due to your recent edit war on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, Aaron Muszalski, an administrator here on Wikipedia, has flagged your account for one more chance. Your edit below was not saved, but will be saved if you use the "Save Page" button again; if you think your edit may be against Wikipedia policy, please re-think your actions. Wikipedia always welcomes constructive contributions, but we are required to block your access to editing if you violate policy. You may back out of this page without saving your edit by clicking here. Thanks, Aaron Muszalski (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)"

Rest assured, I have no edit war in Real Housewives of Beverly Hills...and how the heck does anyone have a user name of "Master of Puppets" and how the heck can someone interpose such a message when someone is editing?? Please someone figure this out...

Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

See this ( permalink ) for an explanation. HurricaneFan25 19:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
and I'm guessing his username comes from Master of Puppets. Black Kite (t) 19:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
It's good to assume good faith, even when someone flags your account, mistakes happen. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I can only offer my deepest apologies. Maintenance of an edit filter I was using for a test went awry, and it happened to save before I was finished with the regexes. I've lifted this and am terribly sorry to anybody it affected. m.o.p 19:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
To clarify: I can guarantee that the filter was incorrectly programmed. Anything it flagged (which, in this case, was everything) was probably good content. m.o.p 19:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Time to dust off the village stocks it seems ;). Alexandria (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Yup, this was a genuine, if colossal error, corrected in seconds. WilliamH (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I am reminded of a conversation on #wikipedia-en-admins that started "hey, did you know it's impossible to delete the Main Page?"... Black Kite (t) 19:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
─────────────────────────Oh look what you've done, even the bots aren't happy now ;). HurricaneFan25 19:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I wondered why 28bot was crying... 28bytes (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Same thing happened to me and I got the same notice, but just briefly. North8000 (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to brag-ban MoP[edit]

I propose a six-month ban on bragging on the part of User:Master of Puppets. They claim to have broken Wikipedia, which is grandstanding of a magnitude not becoming of a regular administrator; as far as I know, such claims can only be made by bureaucrats. MoP may return to bragging if they survive six months without braggadocio or if they delete the main page during that period. Intermediate bragging will lead to a lengthening of the ban and a free cussword on MoPs talk page by the first fifty editors. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to thank people for understanding and making light of this situation - rest assured, it won't be happening again. Ever. m.o.p 19:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Two gifts for MOP:

Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Follow me to join the secret cabal!

Crunch, crunch!

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

OK...I am getting the sense of humor now...LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 12:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I seriously need to edit something that does not have the words "occupy" in it.....(that will probably help me take stuff less seriously...and improve articles I have abandoned over the last two weeks)--Amadscientist (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Collis Potter Huntington‎ birth date anonymous reversions[edit]

An anonymous user has made multiple reversions of the birth date in the Collis Potter Huntington‎ article, replacing a date that is supported by a reference and is the consensus previously reached on the article's talk page: [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86]

The anonymous user has indicated in edit summaries and on one of several talk pages no interest in discussing the subject or compromising. I'm not sure what else to do. Could someone take a look at this? -- Pemilligan (talk) 02:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to add to the basic info here, I was part of the discussion to reach consensus on this topic back in 2007 (see the article's talk page). I was asked this week to take a look again. I haven't had a chance to do more thorough research yet; my first thought is to keep the original consensus since the new edits don't appear to me to add a strong enough reference to support the disputed date. Also, part of the original consensus was to show both dates in the article noting the references for both, and it appears that that part of the consensus has been disregarded by editors since then.