Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive772

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Jimmy Savile and Talk:Jimmy Savile (Sir Jimmy Savile) ("FORUM" and NPoV issues)[edit]

Would an uninvolved administrator, especially a British or a British-Isles-based one, say that there are non-NPoV editing or PoV-pushing going on in the article for Jimmy Savile and in Talk:Jimmy Savile? I would also suggest that at least one (unnamed) over-enthusiastic user might in fact be using the talk page as if it were a forum for the general discussions of some sort, on Jimmy Savile. I thank you. -- KC9TV 17:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

  • You might want to tag it with {{current}}. I'm not an admin but I'll give you my 2p as someone uninvolved - the abuse claims should go to the end of the lead, the picture should be reverted to the one I saw a few days back and the section relating to the abuse allegations, while cited to BBC News and The Telegraph amongst others (so it should stay) doesn't necessary have due weight. I'm reminded of a similar media circus around Pete Townshend some time back, except he was still alive to defend himself. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Good idea on the current event tag. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I am personally somewhat uncomfortable with this particular tag/template, and I did not agree to be the one who actually put it up, as I am not certain that all this actually meet the strict definition of "current events", bearing in mind that the primary events of the allegations were supposed to have taken place at least, if not more than 30 years ago (or at least this is what some might say). I am however otherwise content with this. -- KC9TV 21:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Are you really "temporarily inactive" as your Talk Page states? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the {{current event}} template could be tweaked, or a similar template created for this kind of editing issue? The allegations may be about things Savile did years ago, but the media storm is now. This kind of "belated" controversy is a regular occurrence - for instance when a politician's opponents find something dubious the politician did in the past and turn it into a media storm. Or when the police restart a big old investigation. Or when somebody makes controversial revisionist remarks about 20th-century history. And so on. So, I think it may be helpful to have a tag for "Right now there are lots of people talking about something that happened in the past; the article may be subject to change; take your finger off the revert button..." bobrayner (talk) 10:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Block review: User:Andycjp blocked indefinitely by User:Tznkai[edit]

GOOD BLOCK
Overwhelming consensus block was good Nobody Ent 09:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am requesting a review of my own block of Andycjp. By way of background I closed the above thread by topic banning (after reading a rough consensus to do so) Andycjp from evolution, creation, and the origin of species. I notified Andycjp of the topic ban, and tried to secure him a mentor who shared, or at least understood his religious idiom. In my independent review of Andycjp's edits, I believed he may have been suffering from some combination of language and cultural barriers, and might become a productive editor, even though he had gotten quite confrontational of late. User:Jasonasosa agreed to try to mentor him, but quickly reported back on my talk page (see User_talk:Tznkai#TB) that there were serious problems. I left a message for Andycjp urging him to be cooperative, treat Jasonasosa with respect, and to tell me if he wanted to be an editor. User:Boing! said Zebedee even took down a strongly worded, but quite accurate message to try to help out. In response Andycjp simply said "we are all sinners" and when I asked again if he wanted to be an editor, he asked "Do you wish to get to heaven ?"

At this point, I blocked him. Not because I am offended that he wants to know whether I want to go to heaven (I do, for certain values of heaven), but because I have reached the same conclusion that others have upon talking with Andycjp: he has a mindset incompatible with Wikipedia. He seems to be here, at least now, to wage some sort of cultural or spiritual war, or use Wikipedia as a platform for proselytizing. He is uncooperative and uncommunicative. That all having been said, this is a sensitive issue, and deserves close review.--Tznkai (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Good block. He was given the opportunity to show that he was here for the improvement of Wikipedia, and not for other motives. The topic ban discussion should have been a call to him to change his ways. He shows no sign that he has. Though he hasn't actually violated the exact letter of the ban, as far as I can tell, he only narrowly avoided an indef block through the topic ban discussion, and his hostile passive-aggressive behavior you highlight above has convinced me that he's reached the end of his WP:ROPE as far as I can see. No need to suffer this any further. --Jayron32 04:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Good block. I don't see how it could have been solved any other way, per WP:NOTHERE. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Good block, IMO. While I at first agreed that a topic ban in lieu of a indefinite block could work, almost every reply by the editor since has convinced me it will not. This edit to philosophy of science, where Andy linked assumptions, a disamb page whose first sentence states "based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts", seemed an indication that he intended to push the limits of his topic ban as much as he could, and while not centered on evolution or creationism, it was a spurious addition to a science article that seemed like it could be connected to the behavior that got him topic banned. Almost every single remark on his talk page since then has been a religious quote or platitude, seemingly aimed at inflaming other editors and making a "martyr" of Andy in his cause. We really do have enough drama around here without someone using Wikipedia for self immolation. Heiro 04:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
    • He's done a few more like that, like overlinking "unique" in non-math contexts, etc. I'm not assuming bad faith, but he's got a clear competence problem. Enough time was wasted cleaning up after him. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Good block. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Endorse block until user agrees to cooperate. I'm a Christian, as displayed on my userpage, and I still agree with the block; Wikipedia (an encyclopedia) isn't the place for pushing your opinion. FWIW, I've always believed it more beneficial to the faith to actually be a good Wikipedian and be cooperative and courteous towards others rather than edit warring and trying to proselytize all over the place. --Rschen7754 05:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Good block. Unfortunate, but necessary. Tznkai's approach of trying to engage Andycjp was commendable, but it has to go two ways, and Andycjp's complete failure to engage but instead to carry on proselytizing really left no alternative. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Necessary block. I don't know if andy was capable of constructive edits, but he seemed to think the spirit of collaboration didn't apply to him. Editors who refuse to honestly discuss issues simply don't belong here. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • First, let me start off by saying that I was wholly impressed by Boing's post on his talk page delineating why it is not permitted to alter existing sources for the purposes of pushing his own religious POV. It was very tactful, reasonable, and demonstrated respect for Andy's perspective. I'm also pleased with the efforts of Jason and Tznkai to try and bring him into the mold despite having a conflict of interest. It did not work, which is oftentimes the case when dealing with editors who have demonstrated an inability to separate their views from their editing habits. If we were to allow Andy to continue editing, there is hardly any doubt that he would remain unwilling to acquiesce to community norms and abide by the core policies of which Wikipedia was founded upon. As such, he is fundamentally unsuited for contributing to this website, as our aspirations for Wikipedia are far detached from his own. Tznkai's block was the inevitable conclusion of this schism. Kurtis (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Good block. This user had plenty of chances to change their attitude during the last AN/I, and instead starting quoting the Bible at anyone who tried to help him. Afterwards, he was graciously given a mentor, but remained as stubborn as ever. What it comes down to is simple: this editor does not wish to change and is not here to edit constructively. I endorse this block. – Richard BB 06:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Good block. There's no reasonable prospect of the user editing within Wikipedia's policies and the user has effectively made it clear he doesn't want to try. DeCausa (talk) 08:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support block, unfortunately. Appreciate User:Jasonasosa's attempts, but in order to change, the subject has to want to change, and this subject was unwilling to adapt to Wikipedia norms. dangerouspanda 09:41, 11 October 2012 (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.

External link in article body[edit]

  • Site: www.motherstrust.org

An IP editor (his IP address changes every now and then) is adding an external link centric portion in 1) Ramakrishna 2) Gauri Ma article. Their addition is completely unosurced other than only that external link, which I think is not WP:RS. The worse thing is they are continuously writing in article body "More photos can be seen here [link]., more information can be found here: [link]. This article Ramakrishna is still affected where you'll find the link www.motherstrust.org multiple times in article body! --Tito Dutta 06:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I have posted notice in two of his IP address talk pages– 1) User_talk:75.198.11.140 2) User talk:75.219.181.57 --Tito Dutta 06:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

There are more:

Added to XLinkBot, will have a further look. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks Dirk; I'm glad there's smart people around. Drmies (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat at Arattupuzha Velayudha Chekavar[edit]

Saw this article at AFC, passed the quick sniff-test so published, but noted this apparent (confusingly-phrased) legal threat in the lede:

Arattupuzha Velayudha Panicker was an Ezhava warrior who lived in the 19th century in Kerala, south India and fought against caste oppression by the upper castes.[citation needed] His original name was Kalisseril Velayutha chekavar''.The present Chekavar who are rooted to the blood of Arattupuzha Velayudha Panicker are grouped here- https://www.facebook.com/groups/144351819022209/.

If anybody intend to undo the edits on the latest would violate the copyrights from the family and would be filed a case against the same. Copyright has been registered and is strictly prohibited.--Sumithsomarajan (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Not quite sure what to do with this, so leaving it for the moment just as evidence. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a misguided attempt to force the Facebook link into the article. As legal threats go it is remarkably clueless, but a legal threat nevertheless. I'd assume the usual block per WP:LEGAL would be a formality? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Matthew, it is so idiotic that it's hardly credible. The user just came off a block for edit-warring; they seem to have more blood than clue. Then again, not everyone may realize that the threat is idiotic, and what counts here is the perception of a threat, so I will block per LEGAL. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh yeah, seemed awfully goofy, but reporting on general principle as it's really not an adult way to deal with edit disputes, and sets bad precedent. Turns out to that the article is a dupe of a 2010 article Arattupuzha Velayudha Panicker, so not much lost there. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Rangams13[edit]

I happened to notice somebody report Rangams13 (talk · contribs) to AIV, who is already blocked as a sockpuppet. This user is using his talkpage to keep deleted material in there, which was deleted as a result of this discussion. Can somebody revoke his talk page access? Also there are some IP editors editing the page as well. Klilidiplomus+Talk 16:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  •  Done I have revoked talk page access for the account and semi-protected the page. I've also watchlisted the user talk pages of the involved socks. De728631 (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Nuttawat[edit]

I happen to have this talk page on my watchlist, and I see that for quite some time this user gets templates informing them on speedy deletion nominations of their articles. I am not an admin, and I have no access to the deleted edits, but my understanding is that the articles get deleted, and then user just recreates them in the same state, without bothering to reply. On one hand, we do not have so many users writing about Laotian footbal clubs, on the other hand recreation of the same articles more than five times in my opinion goes over the top. Could some admin please check the deleted edits, and if the articles were indeed recreated multiple times give the user the final warning, and possibly next time block them from editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

IP self admitting block evasion[edit]

Reaped. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 20:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am not at all familiar with the history, but here we have an IP self admitting that they are editing while under a block. [1] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done the user has been blocked by Reaper Eternal. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:46, 11 October 2012 (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.

On and off edit warring at Schmidt Sting Pain Index[edit]

No admin action should be required. Discussion is proceeding on the article's talk page. —Torchiest talkedits 13:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This IP user has waged a slow-moving edit war on this page, claiming that the descriptions are "made up" and did not come from Schmidt. Several users have provided reliable sources on the talk page that indicate that such is not the case (and though this won't count as a reliable source, an entomologist friend of mine who happens to personally know Schmidt confirmed that the descriptions did indeed come from Schmidt). I should not hand out blocks personally as I am involved. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I must be overlooking the sources on the talk page ... can you point me to the right threads on that talk page? Is there a reason they haven't been added to the disputed section of the table? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Immediately preceding the table is an explanation of the origin of the descriptions in which the source is Snopes.com. I'd found a journal article before that mentioned the same thing, but I'm having trouble finding it at the moment. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
The descriptions do not come from any papers published by Schmidt. Only one source is reliable enough to back the claim that these descriptions appear in an article by Schmidt, and that would be an article by Schmidt that contains them. If you can't produce such an article, your "my friend says" or "this journalist says" are totally irrelevant. 190.44.158.38 (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any reference to Snopes on Schmidt Sting Pain Index or Talk:Schmidt Sting Pain Index, nor do I see a reference to any other article which is claimed to give the source of the descriptions. Could you please reproduce here the bibliographic details of the publication in which the descriptions appear? In the absence of such a citation, it appears that 190.44.158.38 is correct to remove the information as unreferenced and unverifiable. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
WP:RS does not require that we get claims from the horse's mouth. We just have to get them from a reliable source. Just as an example, I'd like to point out Charlemagne - we have well over 100k of content about that dude, but not a single word of it was written by Charlemagne himself. Instead we rely on how scholar A reported the work of scribe B who described the life of king C. As long as scholar A is reliable, we're happy. However, we do need a reliable source - specifically, we need enough detail so that somebody else can look it up and check that it supports the content. bobrayner (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Of course. I was only asking for a citation to the "publication in which the descriptions appear", not to where they originally appeared, though as the article wants to quote the descriptions verbatim, the latter would clearly be preferable. The descriptions in the table which were removed by 190.44.158.38 had no cited source, primary or otherwise. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
If Schmidt said what it is claimed that he said, it would be easy - incredibly easy - to find the source. Scientific articles are hardly kept hidden away, are they? Comparisons of contemporary scholars to historical figures who died 1200 years ago are not realistic. Seeing as no-one has yet managed to find the paper in which these "descriptions" allegedly appeared, I think we can safely say it doesn't exist. The question relevant to this discussion is why User:Ohnoitsjamie has been edit warring to keep unsourced and unverifiable claims in the article? Why did he not discuss it on the article talk page? Why did he not discuss it with me? Why did he go straight to AN? 190.44.158.38 (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm confused. The American Entomologist link has the text of the descriptions used in the article, and the piece was from "Summer 2003", two full years before the Wikipedia article was created. Seems like pretty solid and straightforward sourcing to me. And to be clear, that article specifically cites Schmidt's work in its references. —Torchiest talkedits 17:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Unlike apparently anyone else, I actually read the Schmidt articles cited by that article, and the descriptions, unless I somehow managed to overlook them, do not appear. This apparent belief that somehow "reliable sources" can change what is actually in an original text is really mystifying. As is "Ohnoitsjamie"'s failure to even attempt a normal discussion before lodging a complaint, and as is the use of this page now as a forum to discuss the article content. 190.44.158.38 (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I made this same comment at the talk page and invite you to respond there. —Torchiest talkedits 19:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
That article does reproduce the descriptions, but does not attribute them to Schmidt. In fact, it quite specifically notes that they are not part of Schmidt's index but rather "colourful" media descriptions, leaving their authorship unspecified. So this article could be used as a source for the descriptions, but not to support the claims that they are Schmidt's or are part of the index (which were the very claims the IP editor removed from the article). —Psychonaut (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant The Straight Dope, not Snopes. The writer of TSD interviewed Schmidt; while Schmidt did not publish those descriptions in an academic work, he did provide them to a magazine. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
The Straight Dope article also doesn't specifically identify any published source for the descriptions. It says the descriptions were provided for a magazine article in 1996, but it doesn't mention whether this article was ever published, nor does it specify a title or issue number, nor does it reproduce all the descriptions themselves, so it can't be used as a reliable source for them. Again, can you provide bibliographic details of the publication in which the descriptions appear? If not, then I suggest that this ANI thread be closed. The editor was only following policy in removing unsourced (and possibly copyright-infringing, as another poster below theorizes) material. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
As Schmidt's list is obviously subjective and represents a creative effort, reproducing the entire list here with or without the very creative descriptions and even with attribution may be a violation of copyright. I think the best way to deal with this is as a general description of the index without reproducing it entirely. Reproducing the "wheedled out" version from Outside magazine is even more problematic in regards to copyright. Please see this essay for a broader and more informed view on the subject of copyright in lists. WTucker (talk) 12:42, 11 October 2012 (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.

Legal threat[edit]

Please see Talk:James Eagan Holmes#READ THIS FIRST regarding possible legal action. WWGB (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

From the talk page:

Lastly, because I was offering you access to privileged firsthand information having to do with this case, if you do reinsert my comments again, I will go to my counties courthouse and file for an injunction against your organization reinserting my commentary due to the fact that my statement was probably filed under seal, and thus is still party to a standing gag order. BWCBENCERVS (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I know from the news that there is a gag order. There is the possibility that someone subject to the gag order might have posted here then removed it and we might have republished it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I have emailed legal, but there is no information that establishes that there is an actual problem. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
In any event, wikipedia is not in the business of publishing "first hand" information. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a few minutes ago, I blocked the editor who made the legal threat, although for other reasons. I arrived here at AN/I in order to comment and ask about this matter in what I presumed would be a new section: I had no idea that the talk page was already being discussed here.

Holmes allegedly shot and killed a number of people at a cinema. Neither he nor the incident is of particular interest to me: memory tells me that my only involvement until very recently was to "!vote" to delete the article about him. Offhand I don't even know why the article has been on my watchlist. After a couple of weeks of very little activity at WP (and perhaps atrophying of my diplomatic skills), I glanced at the watchlist and noticed an edit to the talk page with an odd summary, and on 8 October posted a message that in retrospect strikes me as too tart (at least if I had the possibility of a future block by myself vaguely in mind).

The particular editor seemed misinformed about Wikipedia policies and unwilling to be informed. After posting increasingly indignant messages he then claimed to have no further interest in WP and to take this as a justification to remove his earlier messages.

Putting aside WP's relevant guidelines for a moment, this doesn't strike me personally as necessarily a bad approach: If a user's earlier comments have not been constructive, why indeed shouldn't he remove them and disappear?

But unsurprisingly the removal was incomplete, and removed other editors' comments too, and in general was unsatisfactory (and not in keeping with WP guidelines). So I reverted it (though I concealed various comments between {{hat}} and {{hab}}). And, after a bit more toing and froing, I blocked the editor for one week.

I invite some other admin to take a second look at the recent history of the talk page. In particular, any admin who thinks the block of one week is too long is welcome to shorten it without first asking me about it.

NB the editor in question has already announced that if his deletions are reverted again he will re-delete them via some new account or IP number. -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

PS Any admin wishing to hide, unhide, delete (in any sense of the word) or undelete anything that has been or is on that talk page may of course do so without asking me about the matter. -- Hoary (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you expand on the “toing and froing” remark? Because it sounds like you blocked someone over a dispute you were involved in, which is completely against policy, and if repeated, grounds for losing the admin bit. —Kerfuffler  thunder
plunder
 
02:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
"Toing and froing" was perhaps not the best phrase. I was thinking of a pendulum rather than a normal discussion. Look at the history of the page during this month to see (simply) a tussle between BWCBENCERVS and a number of editors, including myself, on what should be removed from the talk page. ¶ I'm puzzled by your allegation that this is a dispute that I was involved in. As I've said, the only involvement I can immediately think of is my "!vote" in the AfD, although the fact that the page was on my watchlist does suggest something beyond this. The single archive page of the talk page contains no mention of "Hoary". The current talk page doesn't show any involvement by me in substantive issues. No mention of "Hoary" in the list of the 500 most recent edits to the article itself, either. ¶ I do of course have at least the beginnings opinions on the event (or what I know of it), on the suspect, on gun control (or the lack of it) in the US, etc etc; as I'd guess do very many editors; but I don't remember having expressed these, let alone allowing them to influence either my contributions to the talk page or my block (which another admin is welcome to reconsider) of the editor. -- Hoary (talk) 02:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
That actually makes even less sense, because apparently then you blocked the editor for a single talk page violation without even a warning. —Kerfuffler  thunder
plunder
 
02:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
No, this editor has been warned already and refuses to understand that we require RS to build articles.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
 
02:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I can't help it if Hoary did not state his argument against the editor coherently. But looking at the talk page history more closely, it's very obvious that Hoary was engaged in the argument before the deletions, and as an involved editor, should not have taken any admin action. (And holy crap there are a lot of revdels on that page.) —Kerfuffler  thunder
plunder
 
03:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
You state that it's "very obvious"; perhaps you can provide some evidence other than "looking at the talk page history"?--Bbb23 (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
His edit summaries (particularly the one that cites OR) make it pretty damned clear to me, but providing diff links won't work here because it's all been revdeled. —Kerfuffler  thunder
plunder
 
03:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
You surprise me. Here's the list of edit summaries. (Apologies if I missed one or two: feel free to point out any mistake.)
  • Arbitrary Section Break 2: merge
  • Reverted edits by 108.69.252.105 (talk) to last version by Bbb23
  • Pages for Mr. Holmes' Victims: BWCBENCERVS should knock it off.
  • Pages for Mr. Holmes' Victims: Please take "OR" elsewhere.
  • reverting a set of deletions (and incidentally removing an addition or two, which I'll readd)
  • Background section: readding material I deleted just now
  • Background section: on truth, etc
  • Pages for Mr. Holmes' Victims: moving comments where they belong
  • Pages for Mr. Holmes' Victims: on tampering with existing comments
  • Undid revision 517133551 by 75.71.183.88 (talk)
  • The Red Light Camera Ticket: putting under hat/hab
  • Motive: putting between hat + hab
  • restoring to state preceding the latest removal (by a newly blocked editor) of material
  • CONSPIRACY THEORIES: Are they newsworthy?
Engaged in which argument? Or is a request to take "OR" elsewhere an "involvement" not befitting administration, and/or a reason for the admin not to block the particular editor? -- Hoary (talk) 04:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────What was needed was to advise the editor removing the defamatory material to contact OTRS for suppression of the defamatory material. Removing it, adding it back, removing it again, adding it back again several times has resulted in suppression of great deal more edits that is optimal. Unsourced defamatory material needs to be removed immediately and stay removed. I have, I hope, suppressed it all, if more is found please contact me by email or use OTRS. For what it is worth, my impression is that Hoary's actions were taken in good faith; it is a rather subtle point that a person known to have engaged in mass killing might be defamed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the inferral of good faith. I didn't pay enough attention to the content of the material. My (insufficient) hunch was that as long as it didn't finger other specific people or do other things that WP:BEANS constrains me from listing here, it would, in the bigger picture, be just so much hot air. (The person is, after all, somebody about plenty of other websites are bubbling over with virulent commentary.) The material could soon be hidden (a task that I started) or deleted (by somebody a lot more knowledgable than myself about what could reasonably be termed defamatory). Yes, I did and do realize that it is possible to defame somebody who has confessed to crimes. I'll take a different approach in future. -- Hoary (talk) 04:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, and Talk Page to it[edit]

Unless someone has serious objections (in which case feel free to revert me), I'm going to boldly close this as largely dealt with as summarised by SPhilbick below, before this derails any further. Blackmane (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the article Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford at least two editors, Tom Reedy and Paul B, continually express their POVs, thus distorting the historical image of the person to whom the article is dedicated. They have openly disclosed their bias and even enmity to Edward de Vere on the Talk page to this article. On this Talk page, there were also massive personal attacks on my address, which are not acceptable, including using of expressions like "you are making yourself ridiculous" and indirectly calling me "peanut gallery".

In my view, Edward de Vere as a historical person is to be described fairly and not with massive personal bias, disregarding the outcome of the solution to the William Shakespeare authorship question. And there was one very outrageous expression by Tom Reedy on 9 October 2012 on this same Talk page to Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, which probably everybody would call blasphemy. This expression was used by Tom Reedy in connection with Jesus Christ. The use of only this one expression, in my view, disqualifies Tom Reedy as an editor on Wikipedia. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 06:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

  • The above message has been posted at NPOVN (where I have replied), and at its talk page. The issue (did Shakespeare write the works that standard scholarship attributes to him?) was the subject of an Arbcom case (WP:ARBSAQ). Johnuniq (talk) 06:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
ANI readers can look at the thread to which the complainant refers Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford#Complaints_from_the_peanut_gallery. It is difficult to respond to an editor who makes such astounding comments as Zbrnajsem does, and this encourages satirical replies. Good faith and patience has already been supplied in spades. 'Bri[n]cknall', btw, for the uninitiated, is a servant who was stabbed to death by the noble earl. Paul B (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Link fixed.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Yep - while I have considerable sympathy with the suggestion that Tom Reedy could have chosen his words better (as indeed so could I on occasion, before anyone else points it out...), there are limits to how much pomposity an ordinary human being should be expected to bear. It seems to me that Zbrnajsem provoked the comments directed at him by starting a thread with allegations that Tom reedy had a "personal bias" driven by a dislike of de Vere "as a person, a historical person". Given that de Vere has been dead for four-hundred-odd years, this seems an odd suggestion to make, and one hardly conducive to fruitful dialogue. The thread was basically a provocation from the start, as I see it. Regardless of what action (if any) needs to be taken against Tom Reedy, Zbrnajsem needs to be told that goading people into inappropriate responses is itself entirely inappropriate talk-page behaviour, and that issues regarding NPOV are unlikely to be settled by making ridiculous allegations concerning the motivations of editors. I'd also point out that there is no requirement whatsoever that contributors have to like the subjects of biographical articles anyway - were it so, I fear to think what consequences such a requirement would have for say our article on Pol Pot... AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Andy, I was the one who broke the thread away to separate it from the original section that he had attached his comment to. The ridiculousness was overwhelming the serious editorial section, which I wanted to preserve. So technically he didn't start the thread, just the ridiculous discussion, hence my naming it "Complaints from the peanut gallery" (first definition). Tom Reedy (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Zbrnajsem: I find it distasteful that you have been ridiculed, and in no way condone what is - in my opinion - Tom and Pauls' stepping over the line from robust debate to personal attacks. However, it also - and again, in my opinion - appears you have brought this unpleasantness upon yourself, by advancing untenable positions. While I think the form of Tom and Pauls' responses was unacceptable, I fully support the substance of what they were trying to explain to you.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Please show where I made any personal attacks. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
For starters, the description of Zbrnajsem's contributions as Peanut gallery responses. I make no apology whatsoever for my personal opinion that Fringe theory POV pushers should be treated gently. They have their deeply-set beliefs. Those beliefs should respected, but gently rejected. When push comes to shove, as has occurred here, I still think the general standard of civility should still apply.--Shirt58 (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
You might want to waste a few hours of your life and review his talk page contributions, as well as User:Knitwitted's, with whom he often interacts on talkpages. They both waste time on trivialities while making minimum constibutions to the project, hence the section retitle, based on the first definition from the article: "A peanut gallery was, in the days of vaudeville, a nickname for the cheapest (and ostensibly rowdiest) seats in the theater, which was all too willing (in the view of the performer) to heckle the performer." I can't think of any better description, except possibly civil POV pushers, but I was trying to keep the mood light and--to knowledgeable WP editors anyway--entertaining. Both of them have been repeatedly (and gently) directed to WP help pages, policies, and procedures, but evidently they believe their time is better spent sniping at the heels of those who are trying to build an encyclopedia. This whole thing is just one more example of their disruptive strategies. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I repeat: Edward de Vere as a historical person is to be described fairly and not with massive personal bias, disregarding the problem of the William Shakespeare authorship question. I am ready to point out concrete editings by Tom Reedy and Paul Barlow which manifested, in my opinion, their personal POVs without serious historical background. I need only a short additional time for this evidence. I am sorry, but the whole article on Edward de Vere is problematic, and certain passages have the capacity to ridicule him and to make him almost a villain who he, in my eyes, was not. On the other hand, everybody with serious interest in this matter knows that there is a substantial community of very respectable persons, gathered since 1920, who believe Edward de Vere to be the true author of the Shakespeare canon. It is not appropriate to have an attitude to this dispute which leads to personal dislike of Edward de Vere. And there is no right for anyone to suspect me of deliberate actions to get certain responses from Tom Reedy and Paul Barlow. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Rubbish. Look at the contribs record. Nina Green made very detailed additions to the page, and virtually rewrote it from top to bottom, accepting as a key source the very work Tom Reedy and several others are using, i.e. the standard academic bio of de Vere. The page has technical and organizational problems, nothing new here. --Nishidani (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
This is getting sillier. I have made no "personal attacks" on anyone at all. My comment about the Earl's "smirk" and "poncy doublet" was an obvious joke, and in any case it cannot be construed as a personal attrack since the guy is long dead. For the record, I have no opinions about his smirk or his doublet, never having seen either of them in real life. Yes, I said that Zbrnajsem was making himself look ridiculous, but that referred to his actions. If Zbrnajsem believes that passages in the article make de Vere seem to be a "villain" he should say which passages they are, and why they are problematic. Many articles on Wikipedia make their subjects look like "villains", that's usually because they record actions that readers will disapprove of. If that's what RS say then that's what we include. Paul B (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, since Wikipedia is not, last we checked, run in accordance with Christian dogma, I'm unmoved by the so-called "blasphemy," and find the notion that the use of "blasphemy" disqualifies someone from being a Wikipedia editor well to the left of farcical. Quite aside from that such hyperbole is unbecoming a Wikipedia editor in my POV, I'm quite interested in what basis Zbrnajsem has for declaring that anyone has a "personal dislike" of the subject ... other than, apparently, that Messires Reedy and Barlow disagree with his own position. Ravenswing 12:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I checked with Jesus this morning and he said he forgives me for it and won't file a WP:BLP violation report, so it's a moot point. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Really very witty, Tom Reedy. Ravenswing, please read the Talk page on Edward de Vere, you will see that my points concerning the "personal dislike of the subject" on the part of Tom Reedy and Paul B. are simply true. This is, of course, a Talk page. Theoretically, they can say there what they want, if they don´t use unproper language, but their attitude towards Edward de Vere is obvious. I am the only one on this Talk page who criticizes such an attitude, but other persons who would probably like to do so are banned from this topic. Why actually, if they would edit only on Edward de Vere and not on the authorship question? I have the full right to do so, and on all Talk pages concerning directly or indirectly Edward de Vere. There is a lot of pages of this quality, and everywhere it is the same: E. de V. is something like a "minor mole in his molehill" and things like this, sometimes worse. Any person with a sense for historical writing should be critical to this kind of attitude to the subject. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think God needs you to defend him, Zbrnajsem, either with half-baked sarcasm or self-righteous indignation. Your confrontation with Tom Reedy, and your absurd ad hominem attack on him, culminating in an attempt to get him banned, carry no weight with the majority of users, except perhaps to make them think poorly of you. Could you, perhaps, rephrase your central concerns about the Earl of Oxford (rather than about Tom Reedy) in such a way that previously uninvolved editors can make something like sense of them, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
PS: Nice work there, adding a huge extra block to your comment after I had replied to it, and doctoring the time-stamp. And yet, despite having presumably seen my reply to you, you haven't answered the question I asked. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
This was a simultaneous editing, AlexTiefling, nothing else. What was then my "absurd ad hominem attack on Tom Reedy, culminating in an attempt to get him banned"?? Where, what? Have I used the words "please ban him"? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
In your own words, from the talk page: "And there was one very outrageous expression by Tom Reedy, which people probably would call blasphemy. The use of only this one expression, which should not be deleted by anyone because it is a corpus delicti, disqualifies Tom Reedy as an editor on Wikipedia." You repeated the same suggestion at the beginning of this thread. And you've repeatedly accused him of personally disliking the late Earl so strongly as to make him incapable of writing impartially on the subject. I consider this as an ad hominem attack, particularly as he has explicitly denied your claim, and you have gone on repeating it. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, Zbrnajsem, you've been told by several people now that you need to let this drop. Please let this drop now, or else we'll have to make you let it drop. Fut.Perf. 13:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a little harsh, I don't see any clear requests in the prior discussion. However, I'd find it helpful if Zbrnajsem could clarify whether this is an issue about POV (which makes it a content dispute, and belongs elsewhere) or a conduct dispute about Tom's post. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Here it is primarily a conduct dispute, User Sphilbrick. Thank you for your attempt to clarify. In order to simplify the case, I would then like to limit it on the attacks on my person already recognized by at least one of the participants (different from my person) on this section. On the Talk page to the Edward de Vere article, there were, in my view, personal attacks on my address, which are not acceptable, including using of expressions like "you are making yourself ridiculous" by Paul Barlow and indirectly calling me "peanut gallery" by Tom Reedy. I deleted the word "peanut" from the heading of the section "Complaints from peanut gallery", but Tom Reedy reedited it, adding that he would like it better so. I don´t want to reach anything else but an excuse on my address from the two gentlemen. Then we can cooperate on the related "Shakespeare matters" as we did before, I am prepared to do so. The POV matter is then a separate one, and it is being already discussed on WP:NPOV (I do think this is the name). It is, of course, a serious question, but what is not serious in the world of Wikipedia? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Zbrnajsem: again, you appear to be either unwilling or unable to see how you have brought this situation upon yourself. Perhaps Wikipedia is not for you.--Shirt58 (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • This is what used to be WP:WQA type stuff. Thread needs to closed and Zbrnajsem told that his grievance is a mixture of the trivial (the "peanut gallery incident"), the strange (calling the earl's death "kicking it" is "disrespectful") and the plain wrong (blasphemy disqualifies a user from Wikipedia). DeCausa (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't view being labeled as "peanut galley" as trivial. It won't make the top 100 of the all-time greatest insults, but it is directed at the editor, as opposed to the edit, so I've changed it. Tom has toned down the expression of frustration. (Thank-you Tom), and yes, the notion that an expression of blasphemy disqualifies one as an editor is nonsense. If my count is correct, two marginal complaints have been rectified, and the remaining complaint is not valid, so I hope we are done here.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Meanwhile, there was a good advice to me by User Sphilbrick, which I have appreciated very much. I have followed the advice. User Tom Reedy may have a look at the Talk page of "Edward de Vere". I don´t state anymore that a certain sentence written by Tom Reedy disqualifies him to be an editor. (But there should be a discussion on sentences like this one on Wikipedia, as everybody knows about religiously motivated fervour in the world and its consequences.) However, there is something, about which I would like to complain now. What is it that gives you the right for your following sentences, User Tom Reedy, as put down by you in this very section today (just part of what you have written), and directed to my person and to User Knitwitted: "...evidently they believe their time is better spent sniping at the heels of those who are trying to build an encyclopedia. This whole thing is just one more example of their disruptive strategies. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)". First, what disruptive strategies, where? In the article itself? This would be simply not correct. My editings there are really rather minor, because of the difficulty to add something to the numerous editings e.g. by Tom Reedy, and then - what is important - they have never been disruptive. On the Talk page? - I beg your pardon, User Tom Reedy, but there can´t be disruptive strategies on a Talk page. You would probably be happy without my contributions to the discussion, but you have no right to deny me an access to the Talk pages and to contribute. Altogether, you have no reason for accusations like the above ones. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Ask somebody else to explain it to you. I have no intention of spending one more minute on this. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Quite alright, I'll spend a few minutes. As it happens, Zbrnajsem, I've read the talk page in question. That on the talk page Tom and Paul had a jocular tone only could conflate, IMHO, to a "personal dislike" of the subject only to those with overdeveloped imaginations or personal axes of their own to grind. I am far readier to credit you - with your paean to Shakespeare on your user page, your insistence that people discuss these subjects in reverent tones, and that your relative handful of articlespace edits is dominated by the authorship issue - with an obvious personal agenda than I am them. Indeed, there can be disruptive behavior on a talk page ... where editors haul out spurious side issues, rather than discuss article building, is one example. Ravenswing 04:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

To my immediate predecessor in this discussion. Would you please explain to me what you mean with my alleged "handful of articlespace edits (being dominated by the authorship issue)"? Have you spent time for adding my edits to a total? It should be obvious that nobody has the right to prescribe me a certain amount of edits in articles on Wikipedia, especially in articles which are so heavily under control as the authorship issue is. You certainly know that a number of editors were banned for a longer time because their editings - as it was believed - supported a so-called fringe theory. And if I say that I also support this theory, and in the same time I perfectly know that any editing in favour of this theory would be reverted and I immediately made responsible for this "misdemeanour" - so what can I do? (I ask: Is such a conduct really fully compatible with the freedom of speech? - I do not think so.) Then I mostly can make only small edits like putting a capital letter at the beginning of a sentence where there was none. Exactly this has been my last editing in the article on Edward de Vere, you can have a look. And this is perfectly OK, or isn´t it??? However, there is no rule on Wikipedia that a supporter of a so-called fringe theory (which has been and still is supported by a number of Assistant Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States) is excluded from any Talk Page on this subject. If you don´t know this fact, please ask someone who knows. And besides this, you have certainly no exact information on the amount of my other editings on English-language and other national Wikipedia pages which have nothing to do with the Shakespeare canon. So what is your point, can you explain it to me? I hope you will do so, because otherwise it would be a little bit strange, given the fact that you addressed me. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC) Zbrnajsem (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Generic discussions are unlikely to produce any progress (although repetitively raising an issue with no suggestion for an actionable outcome based on policy can be disruptive, and that can lead to blocks). Please make a proposal, and supply evidence to support it. If the proposal concerns another editor, it should be made here. If the proposal is a concern about whether content in an article satisfies WP:NPOV, it should be at the noticeboard where you have already made a report (NPOVN). There has been no response to my suggestion at NPOVN that a specific problem needs to be identified. Johnuniq (talk) 01:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I don´t understand what you mean, Johnuniq. I was addressed by User:Ravenswing, so I replied. I explained my view of the matter to this user in a polite way. As to the other case, please have a look at my statement on the noticeboard of WP:NPOV. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 06:07, 12 October 2012 (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.

Post-closing addition to thread (per WP:IAR if necessary): All editors are reminded of the principles and remedies contained in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing again - MatthiasHuehr[edit]

User:MatthiasHuehr is removing external links from articles again, without good reason and ignoring my request to discuss them, despite being warned about his disruptive editing and invited to use the talk page to achieve consensus. Instead he is edit-warring after I revert his changes (I have not reverted his latest edits in order not to provoke this further). This is a repeat of his behaviour in July which is reported here. Since then his user contributions show he has continued disruption on a small scale, but not reacted to any reversions until the last couple of days - see Streckelsberg and Vitt. In my own view, the external links are not spam and do provide references or additional useful information to the articles. However, I am quite prepared to accept a consensus that reaches a different view after sensible discussion. My recommendation is that Matthias is given a final warning not to delete external links without first proposing and discussing them on talk pages or face an immediate ban of a length felt by the admin to be appropriate. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be the same problems with him in the German Wikipedia, with [[2]]. I am just supposing it is the same user, and he gives himself an en-3, so should be able to understand what we try to tell him. Ping me if you want me to message him in German. Lectonar (talk) 09:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I just saw you could do this yourself, messaging him in German I mean. Lectonar (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I have restored the links, and left a message on his talk-page. Lectonar (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I got involved in a previous bout of EL removals, in response to a 3O request - but didn't make much progress as MatthiasHuehr didn't discuss at all. Don't be fooled by the peaceful-looking user talkpage - several other editors have attempted to discuss the issue with MatthiasHuehr but it just gets removed... [3] [4] [5] bobrayner (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Vitt is a part of Putgarten and the official homepage of Puttgarten is kap-arkona.de! The other links are commercial hotel booking pages or satelite page for them. Wikipedia is not a link farm for commercial use ...--MatthiasHuehr (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)PS The deleting of THE OFFICIAL PAGE by you is the only abuse i can see!--MatthiasHuehr (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

@Bermicourt. Could you clarify. Are you talking about the removal of one external link and the changing of the other? Or are you talking about the removal of the references? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

No, in each case Matthias has repeatedly deleted several links, which in my view are perfectly acceptable, but won't discuss them in order to reach consensus. I think his point above is that, in reverting his latest round of editing at Vitt, I inadvertently deleted his correction of the link to Vitt's official page. If it is legit, then I am of course entirely happy for such a link to be inserted. Hope that helps. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The official homepapage of Vitt is kap-arkona.de not the page that Bermicourt linked as "official". Take a look at the impressum! As User of Wikipedia I want to go to the official page of Vitt and not to a booking-portal! Why id he do not link the official page? Why do he not refer the official pages? In the german Wikipedia are such pages not allowed as a referenz. Sorry, but this behavior looks like link selling to me.--MatthiasHuehr (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The policies of the German Wikipedia don't apply here. That said I have no idea if the references are valid or not. But it's something that you should have discussed on the talk page of the articles concerned or at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard rather than just removing them. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Please note also that the "External links" section on the English Wikipedia is not automatically a reference section. Instead it is mostly used to provide additional links related to the subject. Any references should got into a separate section "References". De728631 (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Brainbug666 -- Post-Finasteride Syndrome[edit]

Brainbug666 indeffed for multiple reasons. De728631 (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brainbug666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a single purpose editor who is devoted to trying to publicizing the side effects of a drug called Finasteride. His behavior, I believe, has become tendentious--basically what WP:NOBLE & WP: GREATWRONGS describe. I got involved in this when closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-Finasteride Syndrome, an article he created. Creating a non-notable article is not sanctionable, but he's displayed a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality there, as well as Talk:Finasteride and Merck & Co.. He seems very interested in promoting a group called the The Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation. After a flood of single purpose accounts on the Afd, an SPI was opened on him, and he retaliated by opening one on another contributor (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DangerGrouse). I'm convinced that he is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and I suggest a topic ban from Finasteride-related topics, at minimum. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  • What would have been nice was the SPI concluding that there was indeed sock puppetry going on. Unfortunately for you and other I suppose, that was not the case. Still, there's enough troubling behavior on Finasteride-related articles to warrant at least such a topic ban, broadly construed to cover the topic and not just the one article, and any next offense (including retaliatory action, etc) should be followed by an indefinite block. And maybe some nice clerk can close that bogus SPI quickly? Drmies (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

What is going on here is realy breathtaking, but ok, everbody can read, what is going on here. You can also see what I wrote about this on my talk. --Brainbug666 (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  • For the sake of clarity, what you wrote on your talk page is precisely the kind of thing that I was referring to with "any next offense" and "personal attacks". Do you understand? (I guess I'm letting this one slide...) Drmies (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little confused here. I see 10 article edits by this account, 3 or 4 of which (depending on your POV) add technical information that, although I'm in no position to evaluate it, looks plausible and uncontroversial. Yes, there is some attempt to add references to PFS, a couple of which seem to have POV issues, but this hardly warrants an ANI case. And lastly, with no evidence of sockpuppetry, it's inappropriate to keep repeating it. He should be warned for inappropriate use of the “minor” flag, though. —Kerfuffler  thunder
plunder
 
15:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot more article edits to the article that was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Post-Finasteride_Syndrome and then recreated as a redirect. Take a look at the AfD itself for a taste of the editor. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I've now read the AfD, and frankly it did not give me a good impression of any of the major players, including yourself. Way too much ad hominem. The only editor who seems to have actually made a substantiated argument on the “delete” side is Pondle. —Kerfuffler  thunder
plunder
 
16:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Meat was a valid concern for that AfD, but the problem that's appropriate for discussion here is the battleground mentality, prompted by what seems to be a personal interest in having specific issues included in Wikipedia articles. Whether there's a lack of appropriate manners on the other side (and I don't mean Mark Arsten, but Grouse) may well become part of this thread. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I´m also very confused here and shocked, what is going on on the english wikipedia. I just came here to make an entry, while I normaly work on another wiki and not the english one. When I came here I wasn´t baised, nothing, just made the entry, but less than 2 hours the article was for deletion, how can someone check all sources in less than two hours? Well, ok but what me realy starts to wonder, was the case that someone started a sockpuppetry what is still not removed. I another case where I started to do the same with some arguments for that, some of the admins here were very very quick. This is not the only example, where I and other can see that some strange things are going one here. Some users, are treated in a diff. way than others, entrys are treated in a diff. way than others. I mention this in the delet discussion. Sadly this gives me a very bad picture of the english wiki. Ohter users can do some things other not? Wiki is not a dictature, please treat everbody the same. If you dont do that you harm wikipedia. You can see this here and here.

So can one of the admins here please explain me, why my sockpuppetry case is still running since many days and other are done in only a few hours? --Brainbug666 (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Re: sock puppetry: your case was obviously bogus, for reasons explained on your talk page, so that's an easy close. The other had some behavioral evidence from the AfD to back it up. Beyond that, I don't know: I don't set the calendar, but I think there was a conclusion of sorts reached at yours, last time I looked. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Users who attack other users are treated differently than users who dont attack other users.
    • Article entries / content edits that follow policies of WP:V / WP:RS / WP:NPOV / WP:OR are treated differently that article edits that dont. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


  • User redpenofdoom, you deleted a link in the article, by claiming they are spam and self promotin. I asked you, whay you did that, there was a source for it and this lil part about that foundation not a medical part, what you called a activist group, the only answer you gave me that it is spam. So, what I dont understand is, why there are links on the merk entry to their side and a non-profit-organisation is called spam, if there were nothing about this Foundation in the media, ok. I would understand that, but in the case that there is a article about it. I thought realy this belongs to the whole entry. As it is done even for company sites. Even calling this a activist group gives the whole thing a very bad taste, cause it is not a acticist group, it a foundation for patients who suffer badly. Would you call this here also a activist group? The lack of compassion and

humanity here is breathtaking. The way some users here are treated and other not also. Everybody, who likes can read everthing, even what I wrote and make his owen picture. I dont have the time and willing to answer all the time, but when I read such things I must give a comment. Who would not? --Brainbug666 (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


  • user redpenofdoom, this is exactly, what I mean. You wrote this. Users who attack other users are treated differently than users who dont attack other users.

I am talking about the user dangerGrouse. look here please. Sorry I still dont get this argument. He attaked me, so when we both are attacking, why he is still treated differently than me? I exactly talked about this.

Than you say, Article entries / content edits that follow policies of WP:V / WP:RS / WP:NPOV / WP:OR are treated differently that article edits that dont. That is true, but since when this is not a valid source, keep in mind the source is not for a medical part. --Brainbug666 (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Just because a startup "organization" exists, does not make it notable. There are millions of existing, useful, and valid organizations that do not meet the criteria to be included in Wikipedia.
A quick glance at User_talk:DangerGrouse shows that you personally do not quite get the purpose of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA ... it's quite appalling the number of uncivil accusations you have levelled there - an adult, if "attacked" takes the noble high-road, and does not stoop to attacks of their own.
Consensus, which is the cornerstone of Wikipedia, has said that the article does not belong on Wikipedia, but that a redirect should. That's more than sufficient considering the "coverage". dangerouspanda 16:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, just because a organization exists, does not make it notable. This is totaly true. But this organization was in in a article of the AFR What you are saying totaly misses the point. Sadly I see this here very often. I said and asked, when we both attaked each other, and people who attak other are treated differently, why he is not treated in the same way. Your statement does not answer that and what you are doing is also attaking me personal. User dangerouspanda and dangerGrous. funny coincidences.--Brainbug666 (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Brainbug666 has been relentlessly posting on my talk page and slinging allegations which inlude: single purpose account, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, holding a sleeper account, and most recently, allegations that I am a pharmaceutical employee. A WP:SPI was for some reason opened against me, but the editor didn't name any other suspected accounts. I have been extremely patient with this person, and politely asked (as can be seen on the user's talk page) that this stops. I have declared myself as a junior editor and asked for specific, constructive advice from Brainbug666. Apparently this plea did not sit well with this user, because I have only been met with more allegations. This morning, I found a remarkable 10,750 character edit on my talk page from Brainbug666. I consider this, along with the false WP:SPI as being WP:HARASSMENT. As I mentioned, I am a new editor and still learning the ropes. I honestly don't know how else to deal with this person, so if anyone could offer some advice it would be appreciated. DangerGrouse (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
If you're suggesting I'm a WP:SOCK of User:DangerGrouse, I would love to encourage you to file an WP:SPI. You might also click to my userpage and find that I am indeed an alternate account of a completely different user. Your call. dangerouspanda 16:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
1) In your repeated attempts to insert the information about the advocacy organization into the deleted article you were simply using the organizations own website as your sourcing. 2) even with this third party mention, there is no evidence that organization deserved the full section about it that you kept inserting. 3) the article has been deleted and so quibling about content in a non existant article is not something that I am willing to engage with you any more. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I´m suggesting nothing I just said funny coincidences. The only thing I see here all the time, that some users here fully ignore things that other wrote. I wrote something about the treatment of users and you totaly ignore that.
Redpenofdoom, 1) the source for the organization, that I also posted here many times. 2)This is realy crasy, why some users totaly ignore, what others write? I realy dont want to repat myself the whole time, but igonoring things foces me to do that. You gave one again the best example for that. As we can the this whole things turns about me, where is the user DangerGrouse here? I wrote about that he attaked, but no one is talking about him, I asked, why he is treated in a different, ignored again. I ased for a quote, where I attaked I´m personaly? Ignored. Sorry, but do some users here forget that everbody can read this? This gives such a bad picture of wikipedia and it is a shame. I wrote many times my points. Ignored.

1) please, look at he finasteide entry check the sources and add that its also inhibits the 5AR type III. Ignored, Why? Wikipedia should be neutral and at the moment it is not. All those endless discusions are totaly useless, when some useres ignores what other write. I look what the user wrote and try to answer to every point. Short example.... Why did you delet this link....spam and selfpromotion........can you prove this, there is a source (AFR).....simply using the organizations own website as your sourcing. .....Source.....no evidence that organization deserved the full section about it. If it does in your oppinion, why haven´t you been constructiv and said, this can be done under public attention? This whould haven been constructiv. Deleting it is destructiv. ITs unbelievable what is going one here. So please, try to be neutral. There are many many other entrys here, who nobody cares about, but about this entry many users pops up and make statements, some users fight against this as their life depending on it and uses everything to downplay everthing other said. sockpuppetry has been used and many more, while they still dont care about other entrys. Even when I haven mention that. They will not change the finasteride entry, they will not work on other entrys. They just fight against one entry. I have to shut up, when someone makes a statement, like this is spam and selfpromotion and the only source is...the owen website, (source AFR) No, but I dont shut up, when people use things like that and if some here believes that I am wrong and just fighting for one simple entry, do what you want. I came on the english wiki, to make only this entry with no baise. But what was showen me here is the worst. This is not wikipedia and it is a shame, what kind of user here can become a admin. This is my statement. --Brainbug666 (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

nice methodes you got here now the user Dangergrouse changed the entry, where I showed what he is doing here. --Brainbug666 (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
As per WP:TPO, I consider your latest edit a harmful post since it is WP:HARASSMENT. If any other editors feel this action was wrong, please let me know. DangerGrouse (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah, this is no WP:HARASSMENT Where are here the admins? Do you think, all people are stupid?--Brainbug666 (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • BLOCKED - Combination of socking as an IP, WP:DE violation, battleground and WP:HERE. I just spent two hours on this before I saw this discussion, so the only thing that has changed was the duration, which is now indef. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 20:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree that a block was unfortunately needed here. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
      • First of all, I'm obviously not uninvolved, having raised the original SPI against the editor in question after some very silly meat-puppetry-style SPA contributions. Second, I would have contributed more substantially but the Australian time-zone ruled me out. I, and others, have tried to tread lightly on this one (with, perhaps, occasional frustrated lapses) given the editor's obvious broken English and seemingly limitless passion for this one particular topic. As the topic in question involves suggested pharmaceutical side-effects and ongoing medical concerns, there is an obvious need for editors to understand that those impacted by these issues will be passionate in pushing their opinion. But pushing a legal, medical or commercial opinion by promoting the view of a particular activist group is still WP:PROMO. Refusing to accept decisions made by consensus and responding by editing tendentiously is still WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and is disruptive. Raising a bogus SPI to "get someone" for opposing your opinion at AFD is still WP:POINTY. I had hoped it wouldn't come to this and actually took steps to close-out my original SPI so that everyone could just drop the WP:STICK and move on. Unfortunately, the editor in question has maintained a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and for all the reasons outlined by others above, this block was (unfortunately) necessary. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2012 (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.

Guy who got banned for vandalizing Armenian related pages is back[edit]

He got banned with the name KunoxTxa and more recently with Vagharshapat. Now he is back and using the name haynationalist. Can you permanently ban this guy? Ninetoyadome (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  •  Done and nuked 2 new articles and the AFD. Feel free to clean up the other edits as needed. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 20:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Community Ban discussions are at WP:AN Hasteur (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Ban isn't needed, I just assumed he meant block, so I did since I was familiar from blocking another sock of the same editor. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 22:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I did mean ban because the guy will probably come back and continue vandalizing. He has done it 3 times already. Ninetoyadome (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
        • A ban cannot technically prevent anyone from returning to Wikipedia under a new account since it is only a formal decision. Neither can an indefinite block because technical blocks are only able to prevent the user's access to selected accounts. All we can do here is watch out for possible returning sockpuppets. De728631 (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

wikihounded[edit]

Flickr - cyclonebill - Kartoffelpizza med rosmarinpesto.jpg
No admin action is required against the pizza cheese "freedom fighters" or "jihadists"; if anyone feels that there are behavioral issues in need of further scrutiny, I suggest filing an WP:RFC/U. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I believe I'm the victim of Wikipedia:Harassment by user Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). At Talk:Before Watchmen he appears to have checked my contributions just to follow me somewhere in violation of the WP:WIKIHOUNDING rules so I questioned him about that [6], pointing out his wording seemed like he was carrying a disagreement we had elsewhere over to there. The conversation over to my talk page at User_talk:Dream_Focus#October_2012. He refuses to answer me on how he found his way there, trying to change the subject and stating "Oh, I'm gonna keep ignoring your question, here OR there". He often states his dislike for the Article Rescue Squadron, which I am an active part of, and his desires to get rid of it. After posting on my talk page, he went to the talk page of someone else who seems to equally dislike us, and stated his desire to be rid of the ARS and to "topic-ban the one to three most egregious editors" [7] and I'm sure I'm one of those three. Please read the brief interaction on the Before Watchmen talk page, and then the bit on my talk page, before commenting. I want some opinions on his behavior please. Dream Focus 09:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Off topic for this thread, but there does seem to be an air of resentment against the Article Rescue Squadron, which I noticed when Pizza cheese got AfDed recently. Although I suggested "merge" and argued a lot of sources were inappropriate, I think enough was found eventually to tip the balance in favour of "Keep". However, if the ARS aren't finding quality sources to satisfy a keep !vote, they need help and support in improving their processes, not bashing them over the head as "the enemy". Likewise, I think the "I got Pizza cheese kept" userboxes that Purplebackpack mentioned are a special case of WP:STICK - you won the debate, now move on. The groups need to work together without mutual taunting. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
    That merge discussion is still ongoing on the talk page. I saw Milowent giving me a banner that declared me a "Pizza Cheese Freedom Fighter" as a joke, it not saying anything anywhere about "I got Pizza cheese kept". Dream Focus 10:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • His problems with Milowent's sense of humor had nothing to do with me at all. Dream Focus 11:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The point I'm trying to make is I think everyone has got a bit carried away and just needs to chill out, and remember that arguments need to be made on policy, and throwing insults either towards the ARS or from them outwards is generally counter-productive towards building an encyclopaedia. It's round about now I give everyone a really, really cute picture of a cat and ask everyone to think soothing, relaxing thoughts. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I was simply mentioning the work I do with the ARS is a possible reason he was after me. Reading the brief dialog exchange on the Before Watchmen talk page and on my talk page, do you believe he was in violation of the wikihounding rule? Dream Focus 11:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm all for more cats. Since I see myself mentioned, I'll quickly chime in that the "pizza cheese freedom fighter" box is obviously a joke. Its no different than the longstanding heavy metal band picture on my userpage with the caption "ARS meetup August 2010, stoked after indiscriminately voting keep on hundreds of non-notable articles." Editors are going to disagree strongly on some issues, but let's not forget we're all still human. Unfortunately a few editors have recently resorted to calling ARS a "hellhole" and such things over one disagreement, and claiming we're simply canvassing every AfD. Such behavior is extremely uncivil, but I'll survive. I've improved too many articles and found common ground with "deletionists" too often to get upset. As for the topic of this ANI thread, its obvious Purplebackpack89 followed Dream's recent contribs to come over there. I'm not going to read all the rules on whether that's proper, but my common sense view is that its not necessarily bad as long as one is constructive when they arrive there and act in true good faith, so just admit how you found it. But when you come over just to be contrary (which is probably the temptation), that's not constructive.--Milowenthasspoken 12:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy close as a load of hot air: This appears to be nothing than a thrice-blocked editor trying to get even with someone who disagrees with him. There isn't enough evidence to suggest WikiHounding; if I were so minded I could probably find a diff or two that suggests Dream is WikiHounding me. I don't really understand why I'm commenting on this thread anyway; nothing will come of it and I don't owe him any explanation pbp 13:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Sarcasam Oh look, it's a discussion about one of the most drama inducing wikiprojects in en.WP. DreamFocus, accept that because your activities and viewpoints are going to draw scrutiny of your edits. Scrutiny is not Hounding. If people are using valid reasoning for their viewpoint, you can disagree but that's not a reason to pick apart every single viewpoint that you oppose. I'm not seeing any particular pattern of following you around in PBP's recent history, so please feel free to provide a more defined string of events that shows this. Just as ARS's "notification" list can be used to mobilize for saving an article, it can also be used for mobilizing to delete an article. Perhaps the reason why both of you showed up on the same article is because there was an entry on the same notification list. Please Assume Good Faith on the part of others untill it is demonstrated that there is none. Hasteur (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm amazed at how much aggression there is towards the ARS. Can somebody explain to me, with reference to Wikipedia policies, what the key problems are with it, and what we can do to fix it? I've mentioned one - throwing lots of sources at an AfD without checking their integrity - what else? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, if you make Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron a focus of your editing activity, you will constantly run into the others who also do, pro or con. Taunting, which repetition of what might be called content free slogans or "battlecries" such as "passing GNG doesn't preclude merger" might be considered, is inappropriate. Win, lose, or draw, after each epic struggle, all participants must be willing, after a brief celebration, or a short but bitter cry, to Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Serious wikihounding where someone is constantly followed, contradicted, denigrated is of a different order of magnitude. If you chose to engage in an activity which will predictably result in minor, or even major, slights from time to time, you should be prepared to carry on bravely ignoring the minor hurts you may suffer from time to time. No action is recommended, other than to find another activity if you are thin-skinned. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:21, 12 October 2012 (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.

Removal of content from article[edit]

The article for Bishop George Ahr High School has been hit over the past 24 hours with a wave of dozens of edits from new users. As with this recent edit, many of the changes have been to remove material regarding the arrest of a swim coach at the school. That edit by User:Jcullinan had the summary of "Removed objectionable/unlawful material. As the case still has an open file, posting information as if it was concluded is a violation of terms of use and NJ law", while another edit by User:Rhghes2137 claimed that the material was removed "as it is an unauthorized usage of the school's information policy." Even with the page being semi-protected, the problems continue and further reverts don't appear to be likely to end the problem. I have left explanatory messages / warnings at User talk:Rhghes2137 and User talk:Wavesurferx54, but there doesn't seem to be any interest in meaningful communication, as evidenced by this edit by Rhghes2137 who added the text "My username is Alansohn and I am a hypocrite." to my comment on his talk page. Any ideas? Alansohn (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP1E, it probably makes sense to keep the information off until more clarity of how important it is to add becomes necessary, if this is over this the arrest of a coach. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure it is a violation of BLP; the coach has confessed to the crimes. – Richard BB 14:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Factual issues with respect to the school have been resolved, see http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-unpublished/2011/a1306-10-0.html User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


First of all, no one should have been editing your comment. That is childish and unhelpful.

Regarding the material in question: in addition to my stated objections on comment pages regarding the lawfullness of posting articles related to the sexual activities of minors and local laws regarding cases still going through the appeals process, I feel very strongly that putting the issue on the school's Wikipedia page (especially under its own header) is at its best too weighty for what is supposed to be an unbiased list of facts regarding a school and at its worst a biased attack on the institution. References to these articles would be better served on a "list of accused NJ teachers" or some other Wikipedia page - not the page that is supposed to give unbiased factes about the institution. At the very worst it should be mentioned within the Athletics section, but truly I believe it too weighty and biased to be included on an informational page. Jcullinan (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I would like to clarify that "unbiased" does not mean "non-negative". Negative subjects can and must be presented in from a neutral point of view. The article in question does not have to be a list of facts regarding the school. If the school were to come under intense scrutiny in the press for some action of theirs, the action's inclusion in the article would be perfectly valid, even if the basis of the scrutiny turned out to be non-factual. The scrutiny itself in the media would be an event. So long as neutral point of view were maintained, it would likely be acceptable in the article.
  • However, in this case while the teacher and student were both directly involved with the school in question, all events regarding the sexual contact between the two people happened off of school grounds. The school had no rule in the crimes. The event's inclusion on the article is most likely unwarranted unless there is significant reason, as reported in secondary sources, to discuss the school's involvement in the event. I don't see that here, and as such I don't think the material should be included.
  • With that, the behavior of certain parties in this dispute are out of line with our conduct policies. If it continues past warnings, blocks should be issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Having looked at the article, the single sentence referring to the incident and the references supporting it, my own view is that inclusion of the bare facts is appropriate. WP:BLP1E does not apply as this is not an article about an individual but about the school. The individual's name is not even mentioned (though it can be found by following the references provided to the news stories). This is not an ongoing case with an uncertain outcome; the coach was tried and convicted and the ongoing appeal is against the sentence, not the verdict. The conviction is well established and the event certainly concerns the school in that the school's coach and one of its pupils was involved; the sources provided clearly link the event to the school. I don't see undue weight being a problem here; one sentence is hardly going overboard, and its presence does not negate the positive image given by the lengthy list of honor clubs and sporting successes achieved. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Promotional edits at Vivek Wadhwa, and possible sockpuppet situation[edit]

Over at Vivek Wadhwa, I've been trying to tone down some rather promotional edits. Samisacat (talk · contribs) writes about me "(Restoring Wikipedia page after Nagle made drastic cuts without reason. Reporting Nagle to Wiki editors. Nagle's conduct is maliciously directed, as he destroys completely objective information, including the titles and descriptions of the author's work.)" [8]. I'm not sure where the "Reporting Nagle to Wiki editors" took place, so I'm bringing this here. There's also the comment in talk: "I just looked further into the user Nagle. He uses the pseudonym John Nagle, who was the former INS Commissioner during the exclusionary regime. He keeps removing content, ostensibly out of anti-immigrant biases." [9]. (Actually, "John Nagle" is not a psuedonym, as is clear from my user page.)

The promotional edits involve deleting articles about Wadhwa's self-promotion efforts (there are reliable sources for this) [10] and exaggerating the importance of his startup company (where he was demoted, then fired, resulting in litigation), and replacing them with lists of his many publications. I think I deleted too much in my last revert, though.

There may be a sockpuppet situation. The promotional edits come from

All have made the majority of their substantive edits to Vivek Wadhwa or its talk page, and have no user page.

I'm not quite sure what to do here. The subject of the article is notable, but primarily because of extensive self-promotion efforts. To what extent should those be inflated or deflated on Wikipedia? --John Nagle (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I think you should start an SPI, to get clarity on that issue and possibly separate the wheat from the chaff. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Definite self-promo claptrap, going to flag this at BLP/N, pruned a little, a savvy self-promoter using Wikipedia to push his new book, released the 2nd October 2012, word of advice! CaptainScreebo Parley! 19:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I have just been contacted directly by email (not via Wikipedia) by Mr. Wadhwa. He writes (excerpt): "John, I want to understand why you harbor such ill feelings towards me and why you are battling my former students on Wikipedia. ..." So now we know where the edits are coming from. Usually we get this problem with companies and performers, not businessmen/academics. Now that others are dealing with this, I'll let the article alone for a while. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Wow. Hey, it's disconcerting to get emails like that; don't let it get to you. When we invented the internet we should have thought about it, but we only saw the bright side. Well, we practically have an admission of meating here, don't we. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
          • If stuff like that bothered me, I wouldn't edit under my own name. It's just someone who doesn't realize that Wikipedia isn't PR Newswire. Not a big deal. (Thought for today: Wikipedia is one of the few media outlets left that doesn't publish press releases or "sponsored stories". Which is part of why it's worth working on.) --John Nagle (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

User:BeasttoBeast[edit]

Alright, I am getting tired of having to deal with this user's edits (as I'm sure many others are too). This user continues to upload images with incorrect or missing sources, massive amounts of white space, replaces articles with older and lesser quality images (this versus this, makes questionable uploads (see their upload and the original upload), has been unwilling to engage in discussion, makes edits that could be considered vandalism, and the list goes on and on. It's obvious BeasttoBeast isn't willing to ask for help or engage in civil discussion (just look at his talk page and contributions), so I'm at a loss of what to do. --GSKtalkevidence 22:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Attacks on wikipedian and BLP subject[edit]

User:ShowTimeAgain is a WP:SPA, edit warring to insert attacks and soap boxing against the Wikipedian and BLP subject William M. Connolley User:William M. Connolley : [11], [12] [13][14] (milder but still focussed on Connolley: [15][16]). The editor believes himself to be defending a deceased non-notable climate change denial scientist [17]: "If you'd care to read the reason why this file was uploaded, you'd realize this was the only way to defend the reputation of Professor Leroux against an unjust attack. ". Considering the accounts attacks on Connolley and knowledge of wikipedia, it seems a likely WP:DUCK as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  • CU found no links[18], but it isn't magic pixie dust and can't rule out meatpupptry. I do see some disruptive behavior, let me take a closer look. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 12:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Pointy behavior like adding to an AFD talk page after it closes[19], likely meatpuppetry at that AFD (I did the SPI investigation, BTW, which is still open). His combative and single purpose intent is obvious here [20], as well as his soapboxing at the AFD itself. (first link). Like most SPAs, he isn't here to build an encyclopedia, that is certain. Many SPAs serve a worthwhile purpose, and just have a single interest, thus pose no problem. This editor doesn't appear to be one of them. The question is: has he passed the threshold for WP:DE? If he hasn't, it is certainly within his sight, if not his crosshairs. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 13:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
ANI header states Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. Not seeing that on User_talk:ShowTimeAgain. Suggest this be closed pending completion of that step. Nobody Ent 13:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Technically, Nobody Ent is right. I suppose I worked the SPI and saw all the disruption that was taking place, including likely meatpupptry, leading me to conclude a positive resolution isn't very likely, but that is just my opinion. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 13:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
"he isn't here to build an encyclopedia," if true, is a facial case for an indefinite block. Furthermore, a cursory glance over the edits suggests that Wikipedia is being abused by this editor as a battleground. --Tznkai (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Are you trying to say Prima facie? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Pretty much. May have been getting something confused with facial challenge. Somewhere between per se and presumption.--