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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've no opinion about the content dispute, but obtaining the input of more uninvolved editors, such as via an RfC, might help. I agree, though, that the comment by Rklawton was strongly incivil and uncollegial, especially from an editor who as an administrator is expected to adhere to higher standards of conduct, and is in my opinion grounds for a block (though I am aware that many editors think that civility blocks are seldom useful).  Sandstein  13:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The real and only issue at hand is whether or not we should included sourced but debunked and absurd rumors in a biographical article. However, in a classic case of bad faith editing, an editor wanted to blow up an initial mild rebuke to obfuscate the real issue - that an editor is trying to push unfounded, debunked, and ridiculous rumors into a biographical article. My response was tongue-in-cheek (note the edit summary), and ended up serving to illustrate only that the editor is obviously oversensitive and should be roundly ignored. As for Geronimo, that particular matter had already been covered and resolved a couple of years ago, but rather than bring up new citations or rationale, he or she drags up the same old citations - bah! Even if this AN/I turns out "against" me - there will be material affect, so the editor wasting everyone's time here. I suspect he or she is hoping to gain some "sympathy" votes. It's a classic case of gaming the system - a process in which at least one editor involved appears to be a pro. For some *really* interesting examples of Wikilawyering ad absurdum, check out the article's talk page where an editor cites an unrelated arb com comment to justify his ridiculous notion that removing any neutral text from an article is automatically disruptive. And frankly bullying people and Wikilawyering are far more disruptive than referring to a rumor as bullshit and an editor's attempt to reinsert it into an article via the "see also" section as "sneaky". Rklawton (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it "a dirty, rotten, low-life, and yes - disruptive - trick" is a bit more than just "sneaky". It's really not the kind of comment that has a chance of being taken as "tongue in cheek" either - the edit summary certainly didn't say that to me -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The personal attacks continue, I see. It seems unlikely that Rklawton plans to stop that, or to moderate his ownership behavior over the article, either. Re the content assertions he makes above, that this "was resolved" in this 2006 thread, that these are "unfounded, debunked and ridiculous rumors", and that I've "dragged up the same old citations," I'd only ask that editors look at the archived 2006 thread, at the high-quality sources I've cited at the talk page, and that they please note that of the nine reliable sources I introduced there, the first seven were from 2009 or later.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the rumour has been debunked by everyone - even the attorney for the heirs did not say he thought there was a scintilla of truth to the tale. Clearly the tale has a place in Skull and Bones but is of essentially zero relevance to Prescott Bush at all. By the way, the tale has Bush being one of six or seven doing the digging of an (at the time) thoroughly unmarked grave which the Army officials did not even know the location of, and restoring it to an undisturbed state. By the way, the lawsuit was dismissed - not only against federal oppicials on sovereignty grouns, but also against Yale and Skull and Bones. It seems one must have some basis for a lawsuit. Collect (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Far from having "been debunked by everyone", what Collect is calling "the rumor" has been "reported by everyone", i.e. (nearly?) every major news organization in America, CNN, FOX, the AP, the NYT; you name it. And his assertion about the tribal representative's attorney, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, is a ludicrous distortion of his statement. Clark said, truthfully, that no one knows whether the skull the secret society has is Geronimo's, and that the action sought, among other things, to determine that. To get from that statement to Collect's not a "scintilla of truth to the tale" requires some pretty determined acrobatics.

Further, the suit was dismissed only because the U.S. government refused to waive its immunity re the Fort Sill theft, and because the grave-robbery law it was in part filed under excludes remains stolen from Native American burial sites before 1990. Its dismissal says nothing at all about whether Prescott Bush and his fellow club members "crooked" bones and other items from a grave in 1918. "Crooked", btw, is a euphemism that club members use to refer to their practice of stealing things from non-members, aka "barbarians" in their parlance, that they happen to want to put on display in their clubhouse on the Yale campus.

Skull and Bones has admitted that they have a skull, it's a fact that they call it "Geronimo's skull", it's been widely reported that they use it in their initiation rituals, and the tradition within the club has always been that Prescott Bush, along with some other so-called "Bonesmen", dug it up from the Fort Sill cemetery where Geronimo was buried, when Bush was stationed there in 1918. That Prescott and his pals are likely to have mistaken the grave and taken the remains of some unnamed person, rather than Geronimo, doesn't make this extremely well-sourced information any less interesting or any less relevant to the article about him. And the only source that I've seen Collect present on the article's talk page to support his "debunked" is from a biographer who Collect describes there by saying, "Kitty Kelley is not the best of all sources."

By answering the above, I do not intend to suggest that this AN/I thread is about article content: It most emphatically is not, and I'll not bother to respond to misstatements about content, again. I posted here in an attempt to address article ownership and battleground behavior, and those are the only matters that I'm asking administrators consider.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what's going on here as I'm new to this page. There seems to be a preexisting conflict between editors that they insist on conflating with this editing dispute. The content issue in question is one that is widely discussed in many biographies, newspaper articles, and other RS sources. Whether or not the story is true or the lawsuit was successful is immaterial. It would be nice if some outside party could separate the editing dispute from the conflict dispute, because I don't think anything will get resolved if it keeps firing up this personality dispute. Gamaliel (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel, I've never interacted with Rklawton before that I can recall, although Collect has been pretty unhappy with me since I took part in a discussion last year that ended in his being blocked. With respect to the actual article, you can see from its revision history that my previous involvement has been limited to two instances: In one edit I objected to the discrediting of an article in The Guardian as the work of a "conspiracy theorist", and on another occasion I removed copyvio text and then improved the subsequently-added cite/ref for the fact it had documented.

I'm not surprised to see Collect here, though: He's the other user who has, in my opinion, been standing guard over this article with Rklawton to remove or discredit any critical content. Between the two of them, for example, they've restored the characterization of The Guardian's article, by journalist Duncan Campbell, How Bush's Grandfather Helped Hitler's Rise to Power, as "An article relying on conspiracy theorist John Buchanan's work" at least seven times since February of last year.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Since I first noticed this, I've thought it rather curious behavior on Collect's part, at least, given his perennial claims at articles for conservative politicians that BLP policy prohibits the addition of this or that critical content.

I've never studied the matter, although it's my guess that there might be more to the Nazi finance issue than is present in our article currently. But you're perfectly right, of course, that it's not our role to determine whether the reports in this instance or any other are true, but merely to summarize the allegations made in reliable sources that are relevant to the subject, especially when they're so broadly reported.

I'd like to strongly reiterate, though, I'm not requesting assistance here with the content dispute. Rather, I've asked for assistance only because the personal attacks, battleground conduct, and (most problematically) article ownership behavior seem nearly certain to continue without intervention, and just as certain to prevent any collaborative resolution of the content dispute until they are addressed and resolved.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When in doubt, make a slur on another editor. People who just look at your claim that somehow I was blocked for improper behaviour will not note that the block was viewed as unsupportable and improper. But then again, yoiu would not note this when making asides about others. The material is covered in the relevant article. Which is sufficient for rumours. [8] shows OhioStandard soliciting the block. King of Hearts trusted your version of the edit history, blocking me for a single edit long before the block. [9] and one editor (who is now an arbitrator) said two edits in over two days did not seem like "edit war." But then again, your sole aim was to get me blocked because your friend Screwball23 (who has a long block history) was blocked for actual edit war. Now can you let all this drop? Your attempt to raise a non-existent charge of edit war here is a gorss violation of polity. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh anent cleansing articles -- look at [10], and wholesale removal of RS sources at [11] when it suits his fancy. And, fun of funs, removing [12] from Prescott Bush presumably becasue it was favourable to him. Cheere. Collect (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs one and two remove material attributed to sources which arguably are unreliable, while the third diff removes a copyright violation. Do you propose that editors seeking to include material supported by many clearly reliable sources in articles must therefore refrain from challenging the quality of any reference more authoritative than someone's blog, or are required to let cut and paste copyright violations stand? Chester Markel (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who's interested is welcome to examine the edits that Collect objects to above under a microscope if it'll make Collect happy. I'm sorry to hear, though, that my mention of the occasion that seems to have motivated his antipathy sounded like "a slur" to him; I didn't mean it that way, and I didn't intend to insult him by referring to it.

But his statement that user Screwball23 is "my friend" and that I thought Collect's block called for because of that isn't supportable. I interacted with Screwball23 six or seven months ago, I've made only this edit to any article he's edited, and I haven't communicated with him since.

Any editor can form his own opinion as to the basis for Collect's block, though, by examining the blocking admin's comments in the second diff he provided above. If Collect wants to address my involvement in that process any further, or better still, wants to try to work out a more collegial relationship, he's welcome to initiate a discussion on my talk page. I'd also suggest that it would be more productive to stick closer to the particular issue at hand: that of resolving the battleground and ownership issues that are currently in evidence here.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'll probably be more productive if I refrain from responding to any further accusations from Collect, if I can reasonably do so. I'd appreciate it, though, if an administrator would take a look at a recent development (link/permalink) at another article. I normally enjoy editing here, but this kind of behavior is really beginning to impact that pretty seriously. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi: Collect just posted a "Wikiquette alerts" complaint about me (link/permalink) citing, in part, comments I've made in this present thread.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the primary basis of that post was your ongoing incivility, wherein you appear to blame the entire problems of the world on me.  :) Noting also your forumshopping here about whether an extensive quote verging on copyvio and vaguely related to the journal belongs in an article thereon. Now might you post somewhere without invoking my name or following me to various articles? Thank you most kindly! Collect (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, he apparently managed to completely misread Jclemens comment -- he stated that 2 reverts in 2 days was not "edit warring" in his opinion. But OS seems to relish digging through Wikipedia's search function in order to assuage his own incivility. I rather think digging through every edit a person has made indicates something of an obsession. Collect (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to "assuage" and I didn't misread anything, nor will any other editor who examines the reasons admin King of Hearts gave for blocking Collect in the link Collect himself provided above. So, no, not much "digging" was necessary to find that, and no "obsession" either.

And re the "verging on copyvio and vaguely related" characterization he uses above to justify his actions and discredit mine, the cynicism in that just astounds me. It really (!) amazes me that he could try to use something in which he's so indisputably and egregiously in the wrong to try to accuse me of misconduct and copyright violation. The strategy seems to be to fling whatever mud he thinks might possibly stick.

I can only guess that Collect is hoping users won't bother to click a link to examine his accusations. I'm hoping you will. If you don't examine any other claim he's made, please examine this one.

I don't "blame the entire problems of the world" on Collect, either. I only want him to be accountable for the ones that he purposely creates.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the amusing irony of apparently being characterized by Rklawton as a "clueless noob" at WQA, of all places, this really is getting old. I'd be really glad if anyone wants to take the time to carefully examine the allegations posted at WQA in their context, but to try to keep from fanning the flames I don't intend to reply to the substance of Collect's or Rklawton's accusations unless an admin wants to ask me about some specific point.

It's probably safe to say that if any ordinary editor had exhibited the same degree of article ownership and ongoing attacks toward an admin as Rklawton and now Collect have felt free to employ here and elsewhere, and had repeatedly demonstrated every intention of continuing the same behavior, that the problem would have been dealt with before things got to this point.

I've tried hard to remain civil, and to address this issue on a policy basis rather than a personal one, but that approach hasn't been working, and this just keeps going farther off the rails. Will someone with the authority to do so please step in here to prevent this behavior from continuing?  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you would have better luck if you decided not to make every post about personal conflicts which you seem to attract? I find it quite tiresome to find my name in every post you make, and I suspect the same is true of Mr. Lawton. Collect (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I'm horribly ashamed for attracting so much conflict by reverting one edit and proposing the addition of impeccably sourced content to an article that you and Rklawton hold dear. It was hugely presumptuous of me to have forced him to become so aggressive and contemptuous like that.

I didn't intend to respond to you again, but an accusation coming from you that I attract conflict is just too ridiculous. People here are smart enough to look at our respective block logs, at the number of times others have found it necessary to start an RfC about either of us, or raise an issue here, at any other board, or at WQA about either of us. They can be trusted to decide fairly which of us attracts personal conflicts. It may save others some time, though, if I mention that your fresh new WQA complaint is the first time anyone's ever been motivated to favor me with that kind of attention that I can recall. I'd really welcome close scrutiny of that by neutral parties, btw.

I'm sorry that you don't like seeing your name in my posts: I tend not to address you directly because I've found doing so nearly always results in interminable, wrangling debates that I view as wholly unproductive. I don't intend any disrespect by it, but I'm also not willing to debate you endlessly, either. With that explanation, I'm going to return to that expedient: I doubt anyone here is really interested in seeing us argue.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC with 14 CANVASSED votestacking participants of which 3 are now permanently banned from WP, and another 5 have not appeared since on WP? Wow. All you can do is dredge up the past instead of looking at the present. Sorry OS, I happen to think you need a mirror instead of a microscope. Have a nice day. Collect (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no doubt you were framed, and no doubt the six admins who've blocked you were all biased against you, too, as have been all the users who've brought complaints against you here, as well. I'd have no occasion to "dredge up the past", as you put it, or even to mention it at all, if you'd learned from it to change your behavior. But you wanted more recent? After you extended this to WQA I saw that last month when you filed a report there about a different editor that you've been fighting with interminably, that you went on the attack when a wholly well-intentioned and unbiased editor who only wanted to help tried to do so. I'm sure you feel you were completely right to do so. I'm also sure that most other editors will see your conduct in that thread very differently.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since three of the folks who were CANVASSED are now permanently gone, and five of the others have made absolutely zero article posts since, and the initiator actually apologized to me, I wonder just what you are (thinking.) The discussions about the latest "blocks" are also clear. Yet you seem to think that attacking me in some way improves your case against an admin? Sorry -- your TLDR wall of text postings here show your preoccupation all too well. Thanks. Also I note you seem to edit your prior posts without adding new timestamps, those who look back will see your changes. Collect (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was "I wonder just what you are (thinking.)" meant to be clever? I'll tell you what I'm thinking:

I'm thinking that canvassing or not, a person really has to work at it to get people as angry as you clearly did. I'm thinking you're the only one I saw who apologized, and that your "last-minute acknowledgment on the eve of arbitration", as Newyorkbrad put it, just barely tipped the scales for ArbCom to decline the case.

I'm also thinking it might not have been the best plan to take my single mention of your RfC/U and run with it the way you have: If user Phoenix of9 actually apologized to you for filing the complaint, as you say he did, then it seems pretty odd that he would have followed that up six months later with this request to have you blocked based on that RfC/U proceeding. Since you're so eager to prove yourself in the right about this, and since you've said before that Phoenix apologized to to you for starting the RfC/U, I'm sure you'll be glad to clear up any doubt by showing us all where he did so?  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The one who apologized by email was Ikip who had drafted the RFC/U. He also posted on other pages indicating an apology. Phoenix is the one to whom Jimbo said: Your behavior and attitude in the ANI thread is not ok. (where Pof9 sought to have the Bible banned as "hate speech" from all Wikipedia articles), and whose history at AN/I is colorful. So Pof9 is quite irrelevant here, and your desire to prolong this discourse seems quite inutile for benefiting Wikipedia at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no idea about whatever is going on between Ohiostandard and Collect (although Collect's actions here certainly don't look good), but I took a look at the issue relating to Prescott Bush. I agree that it's a content/Wikitequette issue and not really actionable here, but I do see what appears to be a major failure to assume good faith on the part of Rklawton (and the personal attacks/implications of being "sneaky", etc.) on his part are unbefitting what I would expect from an administrator. Rklawton should have simply pointed Ohiostandard to the previous discussion on the issue of Geromino's bones - it was discussed in 2007 in what is now an archived portion of the talk page - and not proceeded to attack OS. Likewise, perhaps Ohiostandard could have looked there after being told "it was discussed" and attempted to bring the concerns to the talk page again. Kansan (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kansan, for taking the time to sift this, even to searching the article archives yourself. I appreciate that, because although the exchange you've suggested re the archives actually did take place, your comment prompted me to search again, and that turned up an additional thread, from 2009, beyond the "2006" material I'd already seen. ( It actually includes a couple of 2007 - 2008 posts, too. ) I've now read the archive in its entirety, but I still didn't find anything that could remotely support Rklawton's statement, viz. "There's consensus not to add that kind of crap to this article, so it will be removed on sight."

May I also mention what seems to be a small misunderstanding that I think might stem from Collect's having started a WQA report? You wrote, "I agree that it's a content/Wikitequette issue and not really actionable here". If that's your opinion, it's fine, of course, but then I'm confused by the "agree", since no one had said that previously. The WQA complaint that was started didn't name Rklawton as a "defendant"; it was filed by Collect against me. His report says, with Rklawton's concurrence, that he believes I've insulted the two of them in this present thread, and also just him, Collect, separately.

While the name-calling and such that's been directed my way has been pretty troubling, it's the battleground/ownership problem that's most disturbing to me since Rklawton and Collect have made it clear that they think they've done nothing wrong, and that they have every intention of continuing the same behavior. As I wrote at the outset, "I'm not asking for help with the content dispute ... I am asking for admin help, though, to prevent Rklawton's very aggressive, ownership/battleground behavior from continuing." Again, I really appreciate the significant time and work you've put in to help sort this, very much. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

You've misquoted me. This is what you're referring to:

"I've tried hard to remain civil and to address this issue on a policy basis rather than a personal one, but that approach hasn't been working, and this just keeps going farther off the rails. Will someone with the authority to do so please step in here to prevent this behavior from continuing?" (emphasis added)

I'm guessing that your remarks represent a response driven by overcharged emotions rather than by any intentional malice, and that you'll think better of them shortly. If that occurs, and you'd like to delete your post in the next few hours, you're welcome to do so, along with this reply, if no one has responded below by then.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. A person who will leave so direct and intentional an insult in place for 30 hours isn't going to come to his senses any time soon. No apology then, and no retraction; and every indication short of an explicit statement that he intends to continue in the same way.

Everyone here, both administrators and regular editors, knows that a non-admin would have been blocked and article-banned days ago for the progressively escalating battleground behavior and the ownership promise to revert critical content on sight.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does BLP really apply to someone dead 40 years?

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

I think it depends what the laws are in your nation. In some cases, even the dead have publicity and other rights, and in some cases these rights are inheritable. It is probably best to apply a BLP-like standard, but since the person is gone, they won't be really affected by things, but heirs or family might be hurt financially or emotionally. -- Avanu (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merrill, were you responding to the BLPish claims you'd seen on the talk page for our Prescott Bush article? Wikipedia's policy about the biographies of living persons only applies to living persons, in any case, although I agree we should be mindful of a subject's dignity, whether living or not.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This morning, I got forwarded a copy of an email signed by Sergey Fedosin and sent to physicists around the world, encouraging them to read Wikipedia's article Strong gravitational constant.

If you Google sergey fedosin gravity you see zero evidence of third-party interest in his gravitational theory but substantial indication that his very speculative theories now feature in Wikipedia and in Wikiversity as well. Wikiversity: wikiversity:Nonstandard physics/Gravitomagnetism wikiversity:Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter

Also User:fedosin seems to be an SPA devoted to promoting theories of Sergey Fedosin in Wikipedia articles.

The AfD for Strong gravitational constant was withdrawn on a statement from fedosin that Nobel laureate Abdus Salam had written about the topic in 1993. I would like to re-open the AfD but am not sure how to proceed. I also think this speculative and non-notable material also should not be in Wikiversity. betsythedevine (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have nothing to do with Wikiversity, I suggest expressing your concern to them directly. Under the instructions at WP:DRV, it says that if significant new information that comes to light which wasn't there during the initial discussion, you should start a new AfD.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also external links from the "fedosin" userpage on Wikiversity cite 4 Wikipedia articles which I think should get a closer look here based on WP:COI:

• Gravitational induction
• Strong gravitational constant
• Ball lightning
• Gravitomagnetism

If somebody here has a connection to Wikiversity, I would be grateful if you would look into it there. betsythedevine (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity permits original research; see Wikiversity:Original research. Adrignola (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of Fedosin's wikiversity material has already appeared on, and been deleted from, Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selfconsistent gravidynamic constants and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter. Bm gub (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been notified about this, but I'm uncertain what you want me to do. You can see in my archives (User talk:Reaper Eternal/Archive 4#Ball lightning) that I tried to discourage him from linking to his own website after he asked me for help, but that is the only time I have ever seen him. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, which was very helpful. I have asked the closing admin about re-opening the Afd, as suggested, and also asked for advice at the COI noticeboard, which is probably where I should have raised this issue in the first place. If anybody wants to hat my query, I feel I already got the help that I asked for. betsythedevine (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Googling his name in cyrillic rather than romanised returns 6 or 7 editorally checked & published sources of material but no obvious third party cites of his theories. That's not to say they don't exist using some contraction of his name, but it might be better if a fluent russian reader or writer confirms they dont exist. There may be grounds for considering the material as fringe rather than non-notable. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds a lot like both, if you ask me... --Jayron32 03:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree w/Stuart that it appears to be fringe. Am less certain as to whether it is also non-notable, but that may as Jayron suggests also be the case.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified WikiProject Physics. Hans Adler 07:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list of publications of Fedosin is here. Nothing notable even in Russian journals. Ruslik_Zero 09:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I can repeat here the same as at page

About e-mails. Yes I sent some e-mails of such text:

Good day. The article Strong gravitational constant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_gravitational_constant is under intensive discussion.

Please share your thoughts on the matter at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strong_gravitational_constant.

It was necessary because too little people discussed the article, only Bm gub, Fedosin and Robert a stone jr. In the letters as you seen no any evidence for acceptance of any theories.

Also about Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Selfconsistent_gravidynamic_constants. In Wikiversity is article Selfconsistent gravitational constants , which was reedit by me. I found it before in Russian Wikipedia in very bad condition. I think it may be useful.

About deletion of article "Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter". Up to now I do not understand why it was deleted. It was simple translation of Russian version.

Pages Fedosin and user page of Wikiversity user "fedosin" were made by physicist Sergey Fedosin and maintained by him personally.

About quantity of papers. I prefer more some good books then a lot of shot papers. Fedosin (talk) 10:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Fedosin email that was forwarded to me contained that text plus an additional paragraph: "As you work in field of gravitation you could see my last paper about General Theory of Relativity at http://vixra.org/abs/1103.0109 " Whatever the intention behind sending it, I think the email implies that Strong gravitational constant is a legitimate Wikipedia article concerning a notable topic rather than a self-published physics essay. betsythedevine (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that viXra.org is evidently a site set up by people who were unhappy with the anti-crackpot safeguards introduced to arxiv.org, the legitimate preprint server for physics and mathematics. It hosts such gems as "The Gëdel Thesis 'about a Incompleteness of Formal Arithmetics' is not Proved and This Hypothesis is not Similar to the Truth", a paper (in Russian) that apparently tries to refute Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Hans Adler 13:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out vixra; it's revealed to me a whole new world of cranks who want their ideas to be more widely known, and I'm now looking through some of the stuff they've sneaked onto other wikipedia articles... This is fun. bobrayner (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Would that be sufficient reason to add vixra.org to the blacklist? If my research is accurate, that website's not on it. Yet. -- llywrch (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several other language versions are also (slightly) affected. [13] Maybe it's even a case for the global blacklist? I don't know because I don't know what the trade-offs are. Hans Adler 23:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Although a vixra article by itself is unlikely to be a reliable primary source, or evidence of notability, it's easy to imagine such a link appearing legitimately in (say) a biography of a noteworthy fringe scientist, or an article about a theory that received wider notoriety. And there's the distant and never-yet-realized possibility that something on Vixra turns out to be important. I think the level of Vixra abuse is small enough to handle case by case. Is there some kind of bot that searches for "warning sign" links and posts to a noticeboard?Bm gub (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to leave a note that after inspection of the vixra links so far I am also against putting it on the blacklist. There appear to be legitimate uses, and it's not even clear that the illegitimate uses outweigh them. A bot looking for such links would be great. Hans Adler 23:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah viXra is real joke of a site. It's a place for crank and nuts, and other famous scientists such as Jesus Christ to (pre?)publish their nonsense when they can't shove it on the arXiv. As for a compendium of links, gimme 5 minutes. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well from the March 17 database, it looks like the only instance of "vixra" on all of Wikipedia was this, removed by Bobrayner a few hours ago, and here, and here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, even after being alerted to Wikipedia policy concerning WP:OR and WP:COI, fedosin continues to add his work to Strong gravitational constant. If some admin could issue a short block, that might get his attention. betsythedevine (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fedosin renamed the article in question, Strong gravitational constant, to Strong gravity, apparently with the intention that the latter would be the "mainstream" article and the original would remain a playground for OR. The name change is appropriate enough, the COI isn't, so I have changed Strong gravitational constant to a redirect. Hope this was appropriate and that it doesn't muddle the issue. Bm gub (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Bm gub, it is your false. I do not renamed the article in question, Strong gravitational constant, to Strong gravity. I do not say such: "apparently with the intention that the latter would be the "mainstream" article and the original would remain a playground for OR".

What was in reality? I take from the article the text of Bm gub and removed it to article Strong gravity. Since this text is for the article Strong gravity not for Strong gravitational constant. Afer it Bm gub in fact deleted the article Strong gravitational constant by redirecting from it to Strong gravity.

I ptotest against such action of Bm gub. Fedosin (talk) 09:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Argh! What Fedosin has done is a copy & paste "move" from Strong gravitational constant to Strong gravity, losing its history in the process. He did at least keep a diff in the edit comment, but it's till the wrong way to go about it. I think we may need an admin to do a history merge to fix this. And Fedosin, you need to explain why you moved the article content. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. This needs a history merge right now, before people start editing both pages and messing up the history even more. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see the beginning of text in article is: "Strong gravity is a (non-mainstream) theoretical approach"...

The text about Strong gravity, not about Strong gravitational constant. So I removed it to new page Strong gravity, which was created by me. At the page I inform Bm gub about it. So he know the history of removing his own text. Fedosin (talk) 04:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<-- Just to let you know that discussion is invited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strong gravitational constant (2nd nomination). I restored "Strong gravitational constant" to the state "owned" by Fedosin and undid the re-direct, so that people can discuss the material in a coherent way.betsythedevine (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 98.82.234.45 (talk · contribs)

User:98.82.234.45 continues to add unsourced content to numerous television stations after being asked to stop. I am hesitant to go on a revert spree, but with a slew of pages getting unsourced content added to them, I am unsure what else I can do. Requesting some help. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NeutralHomer, do you think the info being added is actually wrong? (It's a bunch of stuff about advertising slogans from radio stations). If not, then AGF and talk to the person nicely about citing the info. I left a usertalk message, maybe someone else can continue the conversation if there's a response. It looks to me like someone with an interest in radio station trivia, or if something is amiss, my next guess would be someone in the advertising business with a COI. But the stuff being added doesn't look all that spammy at first glance. Anyway, don't bite the newbies. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't that it is wrong or not, it is unsourced content and could very well be OR. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And this makes it different from 95% of the content of the articles involved in what way? Those articles are pretty much bereft of sourcing, especially in this area. If you want to clean up the articles, fine, but singling out one new editor for doing nothing different than what other editors have been doing is likely to do nothing but drive the new editor away. There's no sensitive content involved, and no indications found that the additions are dubious. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one, this editor isn't new by any stretch of the imagination. This has been going on for over a year now. Two, I am fairly certain we are looking at a sock of an indef blocked user, but can't confirm it with a CU. Three, yes, the pages do need more sources, but with very little people at WP:TVS, we can only do so much. If there were more people willing to source these pages, then I would be thrilled, but it is essentially only me and about one other person at the moment, so we are just cleaning up messes on the pages and together with working on other projects, we are stretched too thin. You want to help, please help and source the pages. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, which blocked user, and (again) do you think the info is actually wrong? Generally, "verifiable" on Wikipedia means that a source exists (or is presumed to exist) somewhere, not necessarily that the source is actually cited in the article. We generally only revert stuff if it's contentious or we think it's likely to be wrong. If you in your best judgment think that the edits are vandalism then I'd say go ahead and roll them all back, but post a message to WT:TVS saying what happened. Otherwise I'd say just make a note of the issue at TVS, so members can spot check a few of the edits at their leisure. If several fail verification then revert them all, otherwise don't worry too much. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will say this again, it doesn't matter if the information posted is correct or not, it is unsourced and more-than-likely OR. It could be very well be correct, but without a source, it doesn't matter. I have run into that problem myself on GA articles. No source, no go. So until the anon gets a source, they should all be reverted. But I will need an admin for a few since they have been covered by other edits. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I watch a lot of the same articles, although only for one specific issue. I have to say that it's hard to believe the legitimacy of these edits. The user is adding slogans to TV stations across the entire country. A large number of these are adding "local versions" of national network slogans (see this edit as a representative example. These are not current slogans, and many of them go back numerous decades. There is no way that the IP has personal knowledge of the local slogans of hundreds of TV stations across the country. So either one of two things is true: 1) The user has a reference that says "All of the ABC (e.g.) affiliates used a localized version of Slogan X in Y time period"; or 2) The user is aware of the existence of a slogan used in multiple places, and thus is speculating/assuming it was used at all affiliate stations across the country. If #1 is correct, then the source should be provided. #2, however, seems far more likely to me. At least with most of the unsourced additions to TV network stations, it really seems like the person adding info (usually to just one station or stations in one broadcast area) seems to be working off of personal knowledge ("I remember seeing that..."). But this really feels like additions based on, at best, supposition, and, at worst, intentional fabrication of information. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to our policies, can't unsourced material be removed by anyone and its up to the person arguing to include it to find appropriate references and WP:CITE them? Heiro 04:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, if the info is challenged, which it sounds like this is. It's disruptive and not good editing to remove stuff indiscriminately just because it's unsourced, if it's uncontentious and doesn't seem otherwise suspicious. There's a Wikipedia fork called Veropedia which requires sourcing for everything, but on WP there's a combination of WP:AGF and WP:PRESERVE, so it's a matter of judgment. Discussing with other editors (like this) before going forward is a good thing.

In this example AGF is diminished because of Neutralhomer's sense that we're dealing with a block evader, and by Qwyrxian's issue with the content itself. NH and Qwyrxian are much more familiar with this TV stuff than I am, so I defer to their judgment on both issues. (My own guess would have been someone sitting around with a TV reference book, or someone at an ad agency that had some kind of historical records). Neutralhomer, did the blocked editor (before being blocked) know how to use talk pages? You might also privately identify the blocked person to a checkuser.

Next step I'd say is see if the person starts editing again without responding to the talk messages. I just added to the earlier message I left there, saying responding is not optional and that they'll probably get mass-reverted if they don't answer. If you do roll it all back, leaving a report with a diff at WT:TVS (so people can find the stuff if they want to check it themselves) seems like a reasonable PRESERVE gesture. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 05:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, being that the anon hasn't stopped editing or responded to 75.'s posts for comment, I don't think there are editing in a constuctive manner and really, that's when my AGF starts going southbound. I am still hoping the anon responds, but if they aren't responding to a fellow anon (ie: 75.), then I don't think they are going to. I will give them a couple longer and then I am going to revert what I can and leave the rest to the admins who can revert over conflicting edits. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• We went through this same issue with the IP last week, and I will repeat what I said last week to confirm NeutralHomer is correct; many of these slogans are indeed unsourced, and in fact, were never used on the air at all on many of the stations, especially the national ones, which in the past usually only aired them in minute-long promos with a channel number butted into the network's image song that filled unsold commercial time to prevent dead air (and aren't used anymore as direct response ads now fill said time and make money). There is no way to source this except for YouTube (tenuous as a source at best) or a station actually having a detailed history of what slogans they used on their website or an anniversary special, which few stations have. As I stated previously the slogans are usually unneeded in my eyes and easily are WP:CRUFT and sections with them should be removed, though I'd rather have consensus before pursuing that avenue. Nate • (chatter) 06:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I see--you're saying that person saw a logo on (say) the Podunk, NH local affiliate of ABC, and then went and put that logo into the articles of a bunch of other ABC affiliate stations? Yeah, that is lame. Although, if there's a Youtube clip of the specific logo on a specific station, that does seem to show that it was actually used there. As for the cruft issue, hmm, I'm usually more bothered by cruft connected with products that are actively being marketed, than historical cruft that nobody has a COI about any more. I also notice the person hasn't edited since I left those messages (it's late evening where I am) and the earlier messages left for them (at least on that page) weren't that informative. Shrug. I don't see a whole lot of urgency to this (there's no crazy BLP allegations or anything like that) but if you guys want to revert as a content judgment, I don't have a problem with it. I take it that nobody thinks at this point that we're dealing with an actual newbie (those should always get some slack and understanding). 75.57.242.120 (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, at first I did, but after some digging, it became obvious we have a sock on our hands. I just couldn't tell you whose sock, it is one of two people though. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not to be rude, but 'It's one of two people, and I'm not going to share who I think those people are' type statements don't give us much to work with. You could be right, you could be wrong, but if you tell no one, we can't help you figure it out. If you don't want to say it publicly, maybe email it to one or two checkusers (they might not be able to a run scan, but they have more experience in recognizing socks than just about anyone.) Sven Manguard Wha? 06:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wasn't going to say because I didn't want to get accused of calling someone a sock of someone and it turn out to be they weren't, but if you want me to....OK. It is either User:Mmbabies or User:BenH. Both are prolific vandals, both have whole damn bedrooms full of socks and both have vandalized television station pages. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd probably lean more towards BenH (who I also suspect); MMB has been around, but only haunting his usual Houston, Dallas and Christian children's show articles and checks of the slogan IP's show none in the Houston area. Nate • (chatter) 18:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • It could also be User:Dingbat2007. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible paydirt

I came upon an editor named Revinchristian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has insisted that a digital subchannel, Shorewest TV in Milwaukee, airs on five Milwaukee stations and of course reverted this immediately. Suddenly though I seem to have hit a goldmine as this one has so much tenuous incorrect and false edits that it's going to take an hour-long rollback session to fix everything they edited. This edit to WFLA-TV meets the slogan MO quite nicely, along with this one to KHQA-TV, and an assertion that all four television stations in one market are going to come together in a big and very illegal monopoly, using this terrible MS Paint logo to assert their reailty (the same was done on WNEP, though without the fake logo). I'm thinking we might have enough to get a checkuser report in, and judging from their edits, it has to be Dingbat2007. Nate • (chatter) 09:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

69.0.11.9 (talk · contribs) - had similar radio station edits yesterday. Some appeared possibly helpful but for the most part, disruptive. The plot thickens?--NortyNort (Holla) 11:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The types of posting reminds me of Mmbabies as well. It's quite bizzare. --Rockstonetalk to me! 15:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you have a case I suggest you proceed to WP:SPI with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not MMB, as their MO is to stick to Houston and children's TV subjects and ramble on and on about them with an occasional injection of Spanish and an address to an apartment complex (I find him more annoying at this point than actually harmful to the site as rollback makes it very easy to keep him in line now). It's probably Dingbat as many of the stations tagged by Revin were smaller anonymous ones in the south and Texas, where Dingbat began way back in 2007. Nate • (chatter) 02:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason for not having flagged the image (which is derived from four copyrighted logos) for deletion on Commons? I've now done so (along with all but one of the user's other works on Commons: the other, while probably problematic for other reasons, isn't evidently derived from copyrighted works and then improperly licensed). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wuhwuzdat (talk · contribs) has nominated just about every fraternity Fraternities and sororities beginning with the letter Alpha for Prod or AFD. These drive-by twinkle nominations, including obviously notable fraternities, contained zero actual rationale--they all said simply "non notable organization." I attempted to discuss this with the user, who responded by opening a second afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Gamma (2nd nomination)) of an article I wrote, even while the first AFD was pending (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Gamma). Other users [14][15] attempted to discuss this with the user. Instead, the user posted aggressive comments on his talk page.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These mass AfD nominations are clearly inappropriate, but Wuhwuzdat has not done so again since you asked them to stop. If it starts up again, a block to prevent further disruption seems warranted. — Satori Son 03:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The following indiscriminate AFDs were filed after my request: [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23], not to mention the retalitatory 2nd AFD of my article, while the first was still pending.--GrapedApe (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are are absolutely correct. My apologies. (I mistakenly used the time of his snarky "request denied" response.) — Satori Son 14:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are they inappropriate enough to warrant a speedy keep close, where no other user advocates deletion? —C.Fred (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they are inappropriate, then they should be withdrawn -- otherwise, the the disruption is ongoing.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a larger discussion about the conduct of this user as a whole. They has been the subject of numerous previous discussions over bitey conduct and misuse of the deletion protocol. They've also been fairly unwilling to listen to other editors about their conduct. It saddens me that I see Wuhwuzdat here at AN/I on a what now feels like a monthly basis. elektrikSHOOS 03:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive76#User:Wuhwuzdat and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wuhwuzdat. — Satori Son 04:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just ban him from listing AFDs? In the process of closing them recently, I've noticed a rather large number Wuhwuzdat nominated that were unanimous keeps but for his nom. There is the odd valid deletion result from him, but as a whole his track record seems pretty poor. The AFDs seem indiscriminate and bot-like, such as his spate of "non notable former model" deletion noms (not that being a "former" rather than current anything is relevant to notability), some of which were easily verifiable as current models (e.g., here and here). Then I saw the mass fraternity AFDs, which really seem beyond the pale... Why waste other people's time responding to these and closing them when he apparently hasn't exerted even minimal effort or thought in listing them, clearly hasn't followed WP:BEFORE (such as here, where multiple sources were found by the first commenter within two hours of his AFD posting]]) or bothered to write more than a generic WP:VAGUEWAVE for a deletion rationale? And then from what I've seen, he doesn't even bother to come back and participate further to explain or defend his nom. Force him to actually participate in AFDs as a commenter so perhaps he might learn how it's supposed to work. postdlf (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD/PROD spree might have stopped for now, but that's the usual style - a rapid-fire mass tagging of a whole load of related articles, then ease off for a while. So there is usually no immediately ongoing action to prevent, but the next spree is as sure as eggs is eggs. The last spree was to tag whole load of articles about "glamour" models as non-notable, clearly without doing any checking first. A handful are likely to be deleted, but the majority will be kept as notability is not hard to show. I think we need a way to prevent the next drive-by spree, and the one after that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue, though a minor one, is that every single one of these AFDs is uncategorized. Have a look at Category:AfD debates (Nominator unsure of category), which normally has maybe half a dozen AFDs - we're sitting at over 100. If there's no category entered, you get Category:AfD debates (Not yet sorted) - but here, he specifically selected "Nominator unsure". This also goes for the models he listed last week (as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Sheriff and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melanie Jane, for example). Protip - they're all fraternities and sororities, so they're all organizations, and chances are models are going to fall under Biography. The categories really don't matter to many, nor is this itself a reason to topic ban this editor from AFDs - except that this example shows the level of care and forethought that went into these nominations (none at all). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that for almost every AfD nomination, there are 2 keeps. One is a snarky "If you half-assed a nomination, I can half-ass a keep statement". The second is a "I agree with the snarky keep". I suggest that GrapedApe and all participants on the AfDs reconsider assuming good faith and evaluating each nomination on it's merits. Hasteur (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did start out AGF with the nominations. I also posted them to the WP:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities list of active AfDs so the project participants would be aware of them. As I was doing that, I noticed that in addition to the minor/small fraternities that were being nominated (some of which aren't notable, and one of which I !voted to delete), there were some major organizations that were nominated, particularly Acacia Fraternity, Alpha Xi Delta, Alpha Tau Omega, and Chi Omega. Chi O was the last straw for me: that told me that no consideration of the article was being given, but it was a blind/pattern-based nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some articles that are questionable on their validity of being WP articles as such I've reviewed several and expressed thoughts on them... Working on the rest of the list. Hasteur (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension of Wuhwuzdat's Twinkle privileges

Within the past week, this user has also gone on a mass PROD spree for numerous bands, including one which clearly met WP:BAND and one which had previously been PRODed. This sort of massive-scale, drive-by tagging without any sort of regard for WP:BEFORE is detrimental to the project. I'd recommend temporary suspension of Twinkle privileges, as that's what all of the recent taggings have been done with, to help this user understand that this sort of behavior is unacceptable. elektrikSHOOS 04:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we just take it one step further, set a precedent and block per repeated violations of WP:BEFORE? –MuZemike 05:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see disruption here. The first AfD I picked out at random from the list he nominated was clearly justified. In the second case I looked at the organization might be slightly more notable, but the article had zero independent sourcing and lacked crucial information to allow even assessing notability. As long as there are cases like this among his nominations, I say it's worth looking at them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is being indiscriminate, then yes, by definition there are going to be some positive results. I don't think you mean to say that, for example, if he listed 50 AFDs, out of which two were closed as delete and the rest as keep, then it's a good use of everyone's time? Presumably we have other editors who are capable of identifying and listing those two deletion candidates without also flinging the other 48 at the community to deal with. I don't know what his ratio of keep-to-deletes is; perhaps we should do a formal count. But the absolute numbers of improper nominations (mass listings with only vague wave rationales and clear failures to follow WP:BEFORE) should also be a concern. postdlf (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, because then you'd have every AfD gadfly on Wikipedia screaming for blocks for anyone taking articles there in future based on precedent? WWD was apparently asked to stop and then stopped. That suggests a block is inappropriate. Nevertheless, I wouldn't be opposed to removal of Twinkle here, which genuinely would be a preventative measure. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, Wuhwuzdat had already been placed on the official Twinkle blacklist as a result of a prior incident involving his use of Twinkle. As of right now, he's still listed on said blacklist. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's redefining the array value here (see here) without himself blacklisted, might undo that, or just block him for it... - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted his local morebits copy (a WP:IAR speedy delete!) as it was used to avoid the Twinkle blacklisting. Feel free to restore this if there is consensus that this was an incorrect speedy deletion of course... Fram (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, that hacked twinkle has to be treated as an unauthorized bot used by an editor under bot restrictions (twinkle blacklist). Block and keep blocked until person agrees to stop the nonsense. Fram's deletion was perfect, I wouldn't have thought of doing it that way. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC) (Edited: if operation stopped some time ago then I guess blocking is not preventive). A pretty severe talkpage trouting is warranted though, IMO. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before we get to carrying out the sentence, can we at least get a statement from the accused? If Wuhwuzdat was blocked from using twinkle previously, deliberately violated the block by hacking around the block, and continued to use twinkle in a manner not supported by the community, then it is time to consider alternative preventative measures. Hasteur (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the previous Twinkle abuse did not result in a block, only placement on the Twinkle blacklist (which he deliberately violated). Additional preventative measures might still be warranted, however (whether or not he opts to respond here). — Satori Son 14:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from the message he got when he was blacklisted: "My apologies, but your continued refusal to listen to other editors' concerns (example noted above) forces me to take this action."^{[emphasis added]} The symptom may be that he's sending articles to AfD inappropriately, but is the root cause that he still won't listen to other editors' concerns and edits in violation of policy? In that light, skirting the Twinkle blacklist is a gross example of refusing to listen (by hacking his way back to Twinkle access). I'm not sure he needs to be blocked over this incident, but it needs to be made clear that the behaviour isn't acceptable and further incidents won't be tolerated—and likely would result in a block. —C.Fred (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note that as best as I can estimate, he has made tens of thousands of Twinkle edits since being banned from using it. :(Naraht (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh. I'd like to know what brought this on, myself. HalfShadow 15:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(non-administrator comment) - I just want to add that in my opinion all these ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK nominations were an exercise in disruption by this self-described "Semi-Retired" editor and there should be procedural keeps meted right down the line at AfD. There are clearly a few of the nominations which were inadvertently revealed to be probable failures of notability guidelines. I presume, probably quite accurately, that they will be renominated shortly. Further, at every Request for Adminship vote we hear the candidates reciting by rote that blocks are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive. Where has been the block on this editor as he drove his car down the sidewalk squishing pedestrians with his automated and obviously bad faith nominations for deletion? Just wondering... Carrite (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(non-administrator comment) I agree with Carrite to the extent that WuhWuzDat's role in the AfD process has been quite disruptive, in my opinion. I participate in many AfD debates, and try to do so thoughtfully and based on policy. My recommendations to "delete" almost exactly equal my recommendations to "keep". Sometimes, I expand and reference articles I discover there, as I did with Scott Backes, nominated for deletion by WuhWuzDat in March. My attempts to reach out to this editor to inform him that the article had been referenced, and request to reconsider the deletion nomination were met with a rude dismissal: [24]. This user's clear failure to observe WP:BEFORE and disregard for the letter and the spirit of deletion policy has been an enormous time drain on regular, thoughtful participants in the AfD process for a very long time. I am also convinced that this editor has alienated and frightened away many new editors who potentially could have been valuable contributors to this encyclopedia. I am also shocked that this user has hacked past Twinkle restrictions. I respectfully request that our administrators take appropriate action to prevent future disruption. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wuhwuzdat should be banned from nominating articles for deletion

Premptive Procedural Keeps by Carnildo

I understand that some of the nominations by WWD were ill concieved, but up to this point they had every right to nominate articles. As such the "Procedural keep as bad-faith nomination" closings by Carnildo are disruptive to the AfD process. WWD was a editor in relatively good standing when they made the nominations so why does the method that they used to nominate the articles or the fact that they nominated a collection of articles together qualify all of them for premtive closure. I noted on several that they were still lacking the reliable and verifyable sources (some for multiple years) that we expect for all articles. Perhaps I'm off the deep end but we don't disrupt processes because of who initiated the process. Hasteur (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the discussion here and on examination of the articles nominated, I did not see any evidence that the nominations were based on the merits of the articles; rather, that they were nominated for deletion based on being the first entries in a list somewhere on Wikipedia. I think I skipped all the articles where I saw a good-faith delete vote, but if I did close some that you think should be deleted, feel free to re-open them with your own deletion rationale. --Carnildo (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - These challenges were ALL made in bad faith by the unauthorized use of an automated tool. Each and every one should be shut down immediately and editor Hasteur should be warned against reopening these illicit nominations. Close them all and reopen the ones that need reopening legally. These debates are tainted. We need an administer to BE BOLD and shut them all down now. Carrite (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop accusing WWD of bad faith in the nominations, Carrite. It's bordering on a personal attack, and when combined with all the other attacks you've thrown in his direction over the past day or so, it's heading fast for blockable territory. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and quit forum shopping while you're at it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just looking for somebody to step up and do the right thing. Since you are an involved administrator in voting DELETE on several of these, asking you would have been pointless. As for my righteous calling a DUCK a DUCK in alleging bad faith on the part of an editor who has hacked his way into using a banned power tool to launch an undifferentiated deletion attack on fraternities and sororities beginning in ALPHA, feel free to open a new AFI complaint if you are seeking advice on whether this assessment is out of line. I stand by it. Carrite (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So where were the noms for Alpha Beta Alpha, Alpha Chi Omega, Alpha Delta Gamma, Alpha Delta Theta, Alpha Epsilon Pi....? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo, I think the nominations were based on the merits of the articles, rather than the merits of the subjects. None of the ones I saw in that last had any particularly-acceptable sourcing. Note that he PRODded Acacia Fraternity, but didn't return to nominate it for AfD, probably because the sourcing was better than the others.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with Sarek (and also he examples of well-written articles that were not nominated). WWD used twinkle in a manner inconsistent with both it and the sites terms of use. That was the problem, the nominations themselves were, while trigger-happy, not that out of the blue. The closings and forumshopping are more then a tad bit absurd. -- ۩ Mask 08:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Carrite that these nominations were bad faith by virtue of being made with a hacked tool, evading an earlier privilege removal. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 08:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That just proves my point though, the objections here are over the tool use by WWD, which seems clear will result in sanctions above. To be a bad-faith nomination means that the article wasnt submitted to afd with honest belief that it failed our criteria, not anything about how the afd was created. -- ۩ Mask 09:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment that "unsourced" and "poorly sourced" are not valid reasons for deletion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are saying is that an editor may remove the unsourced portions of the article, then get the article up on a "non-notable stub content" nomination? Raising the problem of unsourced/poor sourcing is a shortcut to say "If we followed our policies regarding sourcing, there would not be enough in this article to qualify it for inclusion". Hasteur (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No - if I'd meant to say that, that's what I would have said. There are ways to deal with unsourced content, but taking it straight to AfD with no checking is not one of them -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my entire time on Wikipedia I think I've seen exactly one occasion when this sort of "mass procedural close on bad faith" was appropriate. And this ain't it. Would that a few (dozen) people stopped conflating "failure to follow WP:BEFORE" with the "bad faith" provisions (#2 and #3) in WP:SK. It is hardly less disruptive to go around speedy-keeping articles en masse without an obvious consensus to do so. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, and I can't find it on the thread any more, WWD appears to be the only user on the Twinkle blacklist who employed this particular hack. I've gone through the rest of the list and none of the rest of them have a morebits.js sub-page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Chris aka Thumperward: there does not seem to be a necessity for a speedy procedural closes. We must separate the Twinkle issue from the validity if the AfDs. The automated tool use has its own problematic aspects in this case, but that should not necessarily be equated with a deliberate attempt at disruption. Perusing the AfDs shows evidence that many of these articles do deserve WP:N/WP:V scrutiny; even if WWD just got "lucky" and nominated a couple of iffy articles amongst obvious keeps, the correct response is to respond to the criticism of non-notability by finding appropriate sources. An article that cannot be properly sourced should be deleted whether or not the nominator made the proper WP:BEFORE efforts. It is, in my opinion, no less disruptive to spam multiple AfDs with nonconstructive and antagonistic comments that fail to address a notability concern (e.g., [26][27]). Instead, take the notability argument seriously, locate and integrate sources, and produce better content. There's a full week to do it. The encyclopedia will be better for it. I would ask for no further "procedural" closes. — Scientizzle 15:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 –  No action no admin action requested or required. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A while back, I tagged File:7 RAR Vietnam (AWM EKN-67-0130-VN).jpg with a {{watermark}} tag. User:Nick-D reverted the edit with a reason, and I didn't notice it until recently, and tagged it again likewise. User:Keraunoscopia removed the watermark, but reuploaded the image with the watermark. I then noticed the following line in the page:

The AWM requires that the AWM watermark is not removed from images sourced from its online database. Higher resolution versions of this image may be ordered through the AWM Website at www.awm.gov.au.

So now i'm ridiculously confused. I've been lead to believe that Wikipedia (and Wikicommons) frowns upon watermarked images and to seek out non-watermarked images whenever possible, yet there is....this. Can someone clear up my confusion about this? Like, would this sorta thing be allowed on Wikipedia in the first place, or is it a violation of policy?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 04:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For free-use images, watermarks are discouraged – they are unsightly and their terms of use allow it. When the image is being used under fair use, however, it's different (afaik). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused about this as well. After removing the watermark and uploading the new version, I only then noticed the terms in the licensing section (I now read these first before proceeding with any work). I went to the Australian War Memorial website (linked as the source of the image), found the copyright page, and then posted this question at the Help Desk, but because it's somewhat of a legal matter, it was suggested I take it to WP:MCQ. I did not follow through since I simply decided I would make the personal choice to not remove war memorial watermarks from this point forth. I did remove one piece of the watermark on the far left: the website address. I did not remove the war memorial stamp. Sort of a compromise, I suppose, but I can't deny that I'm not curious about what the correct way to move forward with this is. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that I believe this discussion is irrelevant to the purposes of the incident notice board, since there was no incident requiring administrative intervention. This question is most likely suited to the Help Desk or, as was suggested to me and mentioned above, WP:MCQ. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons does not allow fair-use images, period. WP allows fair-use images when the image is important and no free replacement is possible. That watermark is butt-ugly so I'd ask myself if the image is editorially absolutely necessary for the article. If not, I'd remove it altogether and submit it to WP:IFD (images for deletion). WP is not a marketing venue for commercial images, and it has too many images anyway. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this issue would be better handled elsewhere. For what it's worth, the AWM seems to have dropped the requirement on its website that watermarks not be removed from images taken from its collection database since I uploaded this image (presumably as part of what appears to be an initiate to become more Wikipedia-friendly which included them explicitly labeling which of their photos was and wasn't PD). However, as this is covered by copyright and was uploaded on a fair use basis, it seems to me that the watermark should be left on the image as a) removing it constitutes modifying the image, which is problematic for a non-PD fair use image and b) retaining the watermark is a courtesy to the AWM as it clearly marks this image as being its property and includes the AWM's reference number for the photo. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Nick, for clearing this bit, but what about IWM? Concurrently, I'm facing the same problem of watermark with uploading IWM images for re-use here and I've been notified on a number of occasions that they are in need of having them watermarks removed. Honestly, is there a better idea/solution to this confusing mess? Thoughts, anyone? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove the watermark then by definition you lose the additional rights granted to you by the copyright holder in the license. As such, you fall back to your statuatory rights, which include fair use. So either we host the image with the watermark and add a license tag explaining exactly what users can and cannot do with it, or we chop the watermark and use it under fair use. In any case it is far better if we look for free use images. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

• Dave1185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Notified

I believe the above user has violated BITE, NPA, and 3RR. Today, an apparently inexperienced IP editor (from a school IP) added information on a recent aircraft mishap to the Airbus A380 article. Instead of helping tutor the new editor, Dave1185 reverted the edit while also adding hostile hidden text threatening a block or a ban. After revert warring with that IP, Dave1185 then violates 3RR. At the same time, he was belittling, insulting, and threatening that and another IP editor on the article talk page [28] [29] [30]. In conjunction with all that, Dave was accusing the IP on its talk page of vandalism and violating 3RR, even though Dave himself had violated 3RR. Dave then tried to get the IP blocked by reporting it to the vandalism noticeboard, even though the IP's edits were clearly good faith edits by an inexperienced editor. Fortunately, the admins at the board saw through it and did not block the IP.

This is one of the most egregious examples of WP:BITE I've ever seen. I see that Dave1185 apparently has a clean block log, so perhaps this is just an aberration. I have apologized to one of the IPs on behalf of Wikipedia. The three violations (BITE, NPA, and 3RR) together may be worthy of a block, but perhaps a formal warning on Dave's talk page by any admin will correct the behavior. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 05:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the attitude by the IP is not necessarily golden, either. –MuZemike 05:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, why are all of Dave1185's edits being tagged as minor? –MuZemike 05:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's a fourth violation of a policy or guideline. Cla68 (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I asked him (Dave) to calm down a bit. Rather not see this escalate any more than it has really. — Ched :  ?  06:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That request was removed, along with the ANI notice by Dave1185. While he is at liberty to remove such notices, this is to be taken as having been read and understood. Should such behaviour continue, then maybe a short block would be in order. Mjroots (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the edits in question were not vandalism, I've struck through the warnings issued by Dave1185 to 140.247.126.237. Mjroots (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Dave1185 just commented on my userpage that he is taking a little break, which IMO amounts to a de facto block. Frankly, I am rather disappointed to the disproportionate treatment given here, which in effect is dismissing and even rewarding the IP's behavior. Perhaps Malleus Fatuorum (see RFC comment) was right: Wikipedia has become so desperate to attract new editors that it ignores the retention of existing editors.

That's not to say I condone harsh treatment of newcomers, but it doesn't seem fair that, many times, they get to cop attitudes at will and essentially get away with it. The last I remembered, everybody here should be a civilized human being (or a bot, but that's beside the point) and are all expected to at least conduct themselves rationally. –MuZemike 18:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and there I was thinking I was finding a balance. The IPs edits were clearly not vandalism. They were a genuine attempt to add info to Wikipedia. As such, Dave1187s warnings were not justified, which is why I struck them. I could have blocked Dave1187 for the reasons laid out in the opening post. I chose not to as I considered that doing so would not prevent damage to the project, any such block would have been a short one in any case. Whether or not Dave1187 continues to edit Wikipedia is down to him. One would hope that in future he is a bit more welcoming to newbies and a bit more tolerant of IP editors who are clearly not intent on vandalism. Unless the previously exhibited behaviour continues, there is no need for any further action here. Mjroots (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Experience demonstrates that we have a significant shortage of editors, especially new editors, and especially IP-editors; whereas we have such an oversupply of admins that requests for action never take multiple hours, let alone days, to be processed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree the IP didn't exactly react well this looks like a case of "you reap what you sow" to me. If Dave hadn't come on all insulting and accusing bad faith right out of the gate the IP may have gained a better understanding of what they did wrong instead of getting a very negative impression that implied clumsy ot uninformed editing is the same as deliberate vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something's out of whack with this complaint. Looking at the article history, Dave1185 is one of several editors who have been defending the A380 article against a variety of IP marauders in the last day and a half. One of the IP's ignored the already-imbedded statement defining what should be on the accidents and incidents list, so Dave added some teeth to it, but the IP ignored it and edit-warred with two different users (Dave being just one) over the inclusion of that one item he was trying to add. Near as I can tell, Dave and other editors were probably having their patience tested from all the IP garbage and were getting a bit exasperated. Dave's only real mistake was maybe being a little free with the term "vandalism". But the primary problem there is with the IP's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• My 2 cents. Reviewing the article history, I come to the same conclusion as BB. The term vandalism, also, is one that some editors have a view of that is at odds with the rather broad definition of it on wp. There does seem to be edit-warring going on by at least one of the IPs, but beyond that I don't see any AN/I-worthy conduct here.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• comment First, I admit that I'm not all that familiar with either the topic or the project to jump in and say "it should be this way". Second, I've talked to Dave a bit, and he's actually a really nice guy with a ton of clue. It does get frustrating trying to get new users who are stubborn up to speed. To be honest, when I first started, the "truth vs. verifiability" issue thing made me have tons of folks pulling out their hair I'm sure. IIRC, it took 128 editors, 64 admins, and an arb in a pear tree to get it explained to me. The bottom line is this: 9 outta 10 blocks could really be avoided if we talk to people. This one was a minor issue, and is over now - so .... Happy editing all. :) — Ched :  ?  21:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't agree with the conclusions that a couple of you have come to. I, of course, checked the article history when I was preparing this complaint, and I saw that the IPs were edit warring to introduce information. When I first started editing as an IP editor five years ago, I also acted the same way. I introduced uncited information. In my case, however, instead of revert warring with me, inserting threatening hidden text in the article, or telling me to buzz-off on the article talk page, patient editors explained to me how Wikipedia works. Dave should first have tried the carrot approach to persuading those IPs to edit more in accordance with our rules, failing that, perhaps the stick would have been the next step. The stick, however, should not be the first step. Cla68 (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – User(s) blocked.. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Landalva is a new contributor who started two articles, Adarsh_shreeramleela_samiti_khanpur_ghazipur and Dussehara. There have been many problems with these articles relating to content, lack of sourcing, POV, style/tone and similar matters - the whole gamut, in all likelihood, of issues that could possibly arise.

On several occasions myself or others have made changes and introduced maintenance tags, eg; [34] and [35]. On every occasion, the additions from contributors other than Landalva have been reverted by Landalva.

There have been attempts to communicate on Landalva's talk page, as well as warnings being issued for 3RR, removal of templates, failure to use edit summaries etc. Each attempt at dialogue has met with no response.

This situation is a mess and is not specifically a content dispute or vandalism. I would appreciate thoughts on how to deal with it because it would appear that the contributor is beginning to expand the number of articles s/he is creating, eg: Khanpur_Saidpur,Ghazipur and Narad-Moh - the issues already present seem to me likely to appear on these newer articles. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the talk page, the user has already received a last warning, and continued with behavior. This included a edit war warning, and continual removal of tags. Wouldn't it be grounds for a short block if the user does not respond and comply?

We definitely want to know if the user is acknowledging the warnings. Croben (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no acknowledgement at any point. And there have been further reverts of tags, POV fixes etc today, which is a good few hours after their last warning. - Sitush (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've indef blocked until such point as the user makes it apparent that he is willing to work in cooperation with others. Happy to lift if and when that happens. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'll go back into the articles later and fix the relevant bits, but not right now because I do not want to seem to the blocked user as if I have gamed the system. - Sitush (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A problem has arisen with user:Borchica on Semir Osmanagić it involves a dispute over the status of Mr Osmanagić’s PHD. The source provided [[36]] I have been unable to verfiy this. He claims that the PHD is mentioerd near the bottom of the page. In fact (as he has now informed my you have to enter may 2010 in the search tool) I have still been unable to verfiy this PHD. He has re-inerted (or removed the failed verification tag) three times now [[37]][[38]][[39]]. He has failed too repond on the talk page when I raised this [[40]]. The sources does list a Mr. SEMIR OSMANAGIÆ [[41]] but the spelling is very different from Mr Osmanagić’s name so there is no evidance they are the same person. Also this [[42]] list is Phd as 2007 (not 2010). Thus whilst he have an SPS for his claim to a Phd the source that keeps being re-insereted is a bity iffy.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this conversation is best had (at least first) on the article's talk page?--Epeefleche (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess he is edit warring on a BLP. Could be admin worthy here or at WP:AN3. This seems to be the info Borchica is referring to...google translate renders it as a June 2010 PhD in "sociology science" (SOCIOLOŠKIH NAUKA) for a Semir Osmanagić.

Here's the International University of Sarajevo referring to him as "Dr.".

..and although his home page says Sarajevo, June, 2007 I guess that could be the date he started the project. The image files from the award ceremony are prefixed with "doktori nauka rektorat jun10". Sean.hoyland - talk 17:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't think it's worth much, the University of Sarajevo did grant him a PhD, I know this from an offsite contact. Osmanagich's name has a variety of forms and spellings. I'm more bothered by his continued failure to listen to other editors and his attacks on them - see Talk:Bosnian pyramids#Sources & deletions. Even trivial things, eg [43] where he reverted my removal of all the links - mainly to bookstores which didn't even mention Osmanagich on the linked page. My edit summary had said not to link to bookstore links. He's new and should be given some slack, but I think he's had enough now and needs to try to build consensus and WP:AGF. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that, immeadiately after commenting on Wuhwzuzdat above, user:Rmzadeh prodded 3 articles created by Wuhwuzdat, as a revenge action due to previous interactions between the 2 users. see [44] [45] [46]. Clear case of bad faith prodding 64.53.177.123 (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)— 64.53.177.123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There is no Vendetta here, after looking through the users edits and finding problems with his articles I have taken proper action, Please notice that all articles stated lack any sources of reference and upon searching i failed to find any reliable reference, please also note that images published by user claim fair use with a link to a copyright page that does not exist but upon looking at the Denver library copyright statement I find that they have specifically prohibited the use of image without valid written permission. I have looked at the user's edits and acted according to Wikipedia guidelines. Looking at a user's contributions and flagging problems is a normal procedure. if there is an issue with my reasoning please state it so I may remedy it. also I suspect this ip is the actual user in question trying to evade being active so that he does not have to answer to the incident above regarding him, in which case i invite him to join us with his username instead. Thank you  Rmzadeh  ►  19:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Were you going through their edit history, or just clicking links found in this section of their user page ? Its quite a coincidence that all the articles you Prod'ed, or AFD'ed, as well as the article using the image you attempted to CSD as a copyvio were all linked there. 64.53.177.123 (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the category the alleged copyright violation image belongs to, written permission has been obtained for Wikipedia use of these images. As for the rest of your comments, I would remind you to WP:AGF. see also Wiki-stalking, and Wp:Outing If a user wishes to remain as an anonymous IP (as I do), he has that right. 64.53.177.123 (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on the prods, The first has a reference in a previous version that I re-added. I was in the process of challenging on that basis when the IP removed the tag. Due to the likelyhood of the 2nd and 3rd having similar offline references I'd be inclined to have challenced those as well. So regardless of the good faith/bad faith I'd consider all 3 challenged on merit. AFD is still available--Cube lurker (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have put forward the articles for AFD before reading your comment, I did search for reference but failed to find any reliable sources so if you reference it with proper sourcing I will take back my AFD. thanks :)  Rmzadeh  ►  19:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, I don't believe any of the AFD's were transcluded correctly. You might want to double check the instructions from the AFD template.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All are now refernced, per your above comment, please retract the AFD's. On a side note, the refernces were found with less than 30 seconds effort, have you read WP:BEFORE? . 64.53.177.123 (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the template issues with afd. you have used a book as reference (without any page number btw) which could not have been found on the internet, and you have used the manufacturer's website for the 3rd article which has nothing but basic specification of the locomotive, i still fail to source that "The engines are computer controlled, with the computer stopping and starting engines on a rotating basis, as required to produce the horsepower needed at any given moment." this is the only sentence written in the 3rd article and the source clearly does not verify such claim. I did mention that if reliable sourcing is added i will remove AFD but i do not consider the current sourcing reliable. Please add more sources  Rmzadeh  ►  19:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

since no delete comments have been added so there is no conflict, I will close my afds on 2 of the 3 articles based on now available book references which I can not verify but assume good faith. I will however keep the 3rd article on afd until better sourcing is provided. the source offered does not substantiate the claims made in the article and the article has very little useful substance.  Rmzadeh  ►  19:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor point -- AFDs are not for cleanup, so I imagine you are saying that you will close the third AfD if what you consider to be better sources are brought to your attention (not that they need to be added to the article).--Epeefleche (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is that article in question Railpower RP14BD fails Wikipedia:V Completely as it is made up of a mere sentence which can not be verified. The other 2 articles lacked any sources which made them perfect candidates for Wikipedia:V based AFD also, but since sources have been added I requested my AFD's to be withdrawn. however the Railpower RP14BD still easily fits deletion criteria based on lack of verifiability.  Rmzadeh  ►  21:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This Incident report has clearly gone off topic, to some extend my fault, I looked at the users history as he is being discussed in a real incident report above, trying to find none twinkle edits, in process I found the following pages and acted according to guidelines. I nominated these pages based on perfectly legit grounds and I have removed the 2 articles now sourced. This is by no means a personal attack, rather me taking care of issues as I caught them. Although I do find it funny that a user whose 99.9% of edits have to do with deletion of articles, fails to enforce the same standards to his own creations. I feel that this incident report by the above ip was very much overly exaggerated and in the wrong place. this board is not for petty claims, neither is it the starting ground for assumed conflict resolution and no talks were initiated by the ip before reporting this so called incident. I still stand by my decision  Rmzadeh  ►  21:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sysop Bearian reverted Bull's above deletion at Beyonce Knowles, indicating that inclusion of the "see also" was valid. Bull then again deleted the entry. Without any explanation other than: "Undid revision 421703487 by Bearian (talk) rv – WP:NPA". Bearian added as recently as today: "This may be redundant, but ... Bulldog123 should self-revert whenever possible on these edits".[47]

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

"the edits you have been making in removing group identity lists ... from articles after the ... lists have survived an XfD discussion, are purely destructive and irrational. I see from your talk page history you have received many warnings about this, and if I had not been myself involved in the arguments about these lists and categories, I would now consider blocking block you, and I will not object if any other admin does so."[48]

And:

"... many comments here and elsewhere certainly were objections to what you were doing, and would be reasonably seen as warnings not to continue, and I am pointing that out to you in case you had not realized, which I very much doubt. Second ... it is wrong to try to subvert a keep decision by removing content.... [T]hat we were opposed is ... the reason why it is not I who will block you.... That does not prevent me from giving an opinion if someone else wants to do it. I ethically certainly could take the matter to an/i, and ask someone else to.... If someone else should, they will, and I can and shall support them."[49]

Sysop Ironholds, reacting to similar mass deletions by Bull earlier this year, wrote Bull on February 3: "Could you explain exactly what that means, here, for example? Many of these people are quite obviously notable, and a lack of evidence of notability should be followed by a deletion discussion, not the removal of a "see also" section",[50] and "I'm following WP:BRD and reverting your edits. Please do not restore them until you can establish some sort of consensus that this kind of action is acceptable."

Given Bull's failure to self-revert his non-consensus mass deletions, in the face of warnings and admonitions by multiple sysops and other editors, I'm bringing this here so that a previously uninvolved sysop can take action along the lines that DGG has suggested above.[51]--Epeefleche (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am going to use plain-speak here because it shouldn’t take so much of other editors’ time to boot tendentious, disruptive editors off the project. I’ve had ample experience dealing with Bulldog123’s disruption. He has a long and distinguished record of editing against consensus. The reason for this is he is a single-purpose account steadfastly opposed to any community consensus—no matter how global or article-specific—on these types of articles. He objects to them. He simply wants to achieve his ends at all cost. His crusade is pure disruption and far too many man-hours have been expended dealing with what is S.O.P. with Bulldog: Start an AfD to get rid of them. If that fails, tag-bomb the articles and delete whole swaths of articles. He never gives up. Here is his 500-count contributions list. A single-purpose editor. It’s high time that he finally be given an indefinite block. Greg L (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no need to get consensus before pruning See also link farms. See also's are such a grey area that the only way to use it is to use common sense. The group identity articles are so problematic that I can definitely understand why Bulldog thinks they are not a good idea to include in see also sections. I would likely have done the same thing myself. No one has a duty to selfrevert if someone else disagrees with one's edit. If people don't like someone's edit they can revert it themselves. Calling Bulldog123 an SPA makes very little sense.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Also the most diruptive part of the "group identity" debate has been the personal squibble between Bulldog123 and Epeefleche. I would definitely support an interaction ban between those two editors.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Maunus—There is an overwhelming consensus here. Reflected in the above diffs. And comments by sysops and non-sysops alike. Bulldog is ignoring consensus, and you may dislike it. But Bull is not disagreeing with "someone else". This is not a "personal squibble". Unless you extend it to the many persons he is squibbling with, about the same subject manner. Bull is bucking consensus, expressed over many articles, and during the course of a great deal of time. A topic ban on Bull editing a certain topic of articles may make sense. But given that much of his activity consists of deleting articles and/or cats and/or lists of racial, ethnic, and religious minorities, a simple interaction ban placed on him would not suffice.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the ethnic group category debates I have sen have been characterized by overwhelming consensus either way. And if there is such a huge consensus why don't some of all the consensual editors revrt his edits. Then if he reverts he is editwarring and you actually have something to report him about.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus in the discussion about his deletions, which is reflected in the above diffs, reflects a clear consensus as to his mass deletions. As is also plainly reflected in the diffs, Bull has been reverted. And he has edit-warred. And he has simply then moved on to further deletions, and further edit-warring--he has engaged in this same precise pattern of editing for many months now. The community has until now tried to deal with him through reverts and warnings and discussion. To no avail. There is of course something to report Bull about -- Bull's continued editing against consensus. That is poster-child disruptive behavior, per wp:consensus. As that guideline instructs, where other efforts have failed, AN/I is the appropriate place to bring issues with "intransigent editors", where: "Sysops ... may intervene to ... impose sanctions on editors who are disrupting the consensus process inappropriately." The guideline tells us further: "Tendentious editing. The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. The consensus process works when editors listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they have decided on, and are willing to filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, destroy the consensus process." Bull's behavior is, as DGG pointed out, blockable.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not giving in to this persistent baiting and harassment by the Epeefleche/Greg L duo without clearing up their misrepresentations. First of all, this whole thing about "Bulldog being unhappy that the articles weren't deleted, so he tries to tag-bomb them and remove content from them" is one big fat lie. I tagged nothing improperly (or without reason). That some editors misunderstand or choose not to understand why can be solved by simply asking for a clarification. I added a "tp:trivia" tag to List of black Golden Globe Award nominees and winners because the entire lead was one massive pool of random trivia. User:Yaksar agreed with this and has since removed the trivia-laden lead. I knew that if I attempted removing it myself I would be reverted as a "vandal" by either Epeefleche or Greg L, so I instead of getting into an edit war, I added the tag -- which resulted in all kinds of hyperbolic accusations of "tag-bombing" and "tearing down an article." All untrue. Furthermore, I've asked Epeefleche numerous times for a self-imposed interaction ban between us. He responds to the first by merely deleting it off his talk page. He responds to the second request by rejecting the offer and instead rambling on and on about "me being an SPA". Epeefleche is only out here to "shop for a block" and railroad editors that oppose his trigger-happy ethnicity labeling. All my attempts to communicate with Epeefleche about content have been met by blanket reverts (such as this one here). If Epeefleche wants, he can simply re-add the "See Also" links - links that he added to prove a point during the AfD for List of black Golden Globe winners. However, I find nothing improper that I did by removing his spam (spam that continues to do this day -- with Epeefleche's persistent additions of See Also links like "List of select Jewish racecar drivers" to biography articles like Paul Newman).

I wish to bring to everyone's attention the staggering amount of See Also links Epeefleche added to articles of "Jewish sportspeople:" numbering in the hundreds. The vast majority of these bios have no references calling the sportspeople Jewish and a significant number are direct, blatant BLP violations.

I'll conclude by saying I'll HAPPILY agree to an interaction ban between Epeefleche and me (and if possible, between his pal Greg L and me). I've been trying to get one for months now. Bulldog123 02:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: When there is a list of items of this sort, there is invariably either see also's from the individual items, or a navigational box listing them. I agree there is generally no point in having both of them, but there needs to be something bidirectional tying them. (the "what links here" is normally useless, because of the extremely large number of items that appear there).

Points of clarification: 1) I'm entitled to delete messages on my talkpage. Bulldog's incivility in communicating with me is reflected in the warning Maunus gave Bull. It reflects just the sort of disruptive editor I have no reason to wish to hear from. As Maunus wrote to Bull, to close out Bull's last appearance at AN/I (emphasis added):

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

2) As to Bull's personal attacks on me in his above post--at best, they are off-topic. At worst, they again breach our civility rules.

3) I appreciate Bull's offer now to not edit-war if his non-consensus mass deletions are restored.

4) Bull's response to requests that he follow consensus still is to label such requests "baiting" and "harassment". Similarly, Bull labels as "spam" what consensus has indicated are appropriate additions to articles. His closing comments are also of concern. Those portions of his post make me wonder whether Bull even now agrees to abide by wp:consensus. Notably, he has not said he would abide by consensus in the future. Instead, he says only that he will not buck consensus in this instance any longer because he has "no interest in "dealing" with [insult removed]" me.

5) Finally, I recognize that Bull would like to limit notice of his disruptive editing such as this AN/I, and input on it, by asking editors who point out his disruptions to not comment on his at AN/Is, etc. We don't "reward" disruptive editors, by in that manner muzzling those editors who point out their disruptive editing. Bull is, as indicated above, bound to follow the rules, including wp:consensus, and as the diffs indicate he has failed to do so for a long time now, despite many warnings by sysops and non-sysops alike. "Muzzling" the complainants is not the solution. Editing within wikipedia's guidelines is.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I agree with what Maunus wrote at 23:45-23:47, 13 April 2011 and 01:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC) above. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I also agree with the comments from Maunus that Tijfo098 highlighted. I would also mention that a person should only have a see also to a list if there is some special reason to believe that a reader would find that list useful, not merely because they are on the list. Do we add see also links to lists of people born in a place to the articles of every person ever born there? Do we add see also for the list of Harvard people to every person on it? NO. Those see also were behaving as categories and it was perfectly reasonable to remove them. If you want to include it on the article of everyone who falls into a category, it should be just that a category not a see also. Monty₈₄₅ 07:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You might want to check out the edits Greg and Bull made to the DRV and the CFD at Category:Jewish American businesspeople (the CfD of which is still active) as well. Greg's edits were very, very, sarcastic. The upshot is they are trying to implement an overly strict/deletionist interpretation of WP:OCAT that the community has not expressed a consensus for Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 07:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Did anyone see that Bulldog has now mass-CfD American politicians of European descent? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 07:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Read Wikipedia:EGRS#Special_subcategories. Bulldog123 08:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here he tags a new user as a sockpuppet without providing any explanation or notifying the user: [52][53]

Here he removes a talk page comment by another new user and makes accusations of sockpuppetry. Again without any evidence or justification.[54]

The only faults of the these new users seems to be that they dare to disagree with the strongly held POV by Maunus.Miradre (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. (I assume you are just about to do that.) There has been a long wave of sockpuppet edits to these pages making the exact same kinds of edits and that these accounts did. They were both accounts that made their first contravening in a discussion in which Mikemikev was heavily invested using his exact POV and perspective. I reverted and tagged them per WP:DUCK. If any administrator looks at their editing pattern and Mikemikev's sock history and think I was wrong I encourage them to undo my edits those edits.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very controversial area with many interested users. The only justification you give is that these new editors have the same POV as Mikemikev (and which is the opposite your own)? Are all newcomers who disagree with you on these pages sockpuppets?Miradre (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Everyone has the right to tag suspected sockpuppets. The user can speak for themself and doesn't need your help. 2. regarding the removed talkpage comment, you could have reverted, you could have asked me why I did it on the article talkpage or at my talkpage, or by email, but you came here directly. 3. the edits of the newly registered user showed clear editing experience in the topic area and the same POV as Mikemikev. We have blocked several accounts as socks of him based on the same evidence. My judgment was that it would be a wastew of a check users time to send it there. I did not block the user, exactly in order to give them a chance to explain. You are allowed to disagree with my judgment of course, but it seems a little much to drag to ANI. Also I would kike to note that you are yourself an admitted alternate account of an established, but undisclosed, user, and your account is an SPA dedicated to pushing the same POV that Mikemikev did untill he was banned. I am not suggesting that you are a scok of him, because you are much too clever and civil, but you are not just a concerned user here, you are currently engaged in a dispute about your pov editing patterns involving at least ten other users who disagree with you.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Speaking as an observer only, I'm not seeing a particular need for admin intervention in this. Looking at the linked material, I'd say that Maunus was acting appropriately based on experience and available information. On the other hand, Miradre seems a bit aggressive in bringing this to ANI. That said, since Miradre and I have taken opposing viewpoints on a AfD in progress, it's possible someone might see my comments here as non-neutral, so this is as far as I go. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That Maunus have tried to ban me several times from the area should explain why I prefer neutral eyes to look at the situation. Newcomers certainly need help. See Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Maunus has presented no evidence at all for similarity to anyone else except being new and disagreeing with his own strongly held POV in these articles.Miradre (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Diff where Miradre admits to creating new account: "Yes, I have edited under another username before. But I did not change the name because I was banned. Obviously when editing such a highly controversial topic I want to remain anonymous." [55]. Since creation of this account, he has aggressively pursued what he sees as WP:TRUTH as a WP:SPA, regardless of what the mainstream view is: "Denying biological realities will help the disadvantaged group the least." [56]. See also AE/Miradre2. aprock (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aprock is another user who have unsuccessfully tried to ban me from this area in AE. I do hope anyone interested will read why I edit this controversial area in my explanation in the now closed AE case. See "My motivation for editing these controversial topics" in AE/Miradre2. Not that it is relevant for Maunus's actions here against newcomers.Miradre (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious from the edits that none of these users were newcomers in any sense of the word.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have never asked that Miradre be sanctioned in any way. In fact, one month ago I said exactly the opposite: "at this time I do not think Miradre should be banned, topic banned, or sanctioned in any manner" [57]. Miradre is a sufficiently skilled editor that if he can disengage from pursing his WP:CPUSH campaign, he would be an asset to the project instead of a liability. aprock (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is from the first AE. After you had unsuccesfully tried to argue that I was sockpuppet and regardless made inappropriate edits. You did not mention this view in the second AE but only again unsuccessfully presented arguments against me. If that was your view it would have been nice if you had mentioned it in the second AE.Miradre (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At no point during AE2 or during that SPI did I ask you to be sanctioned. The SPI was filed to determine whether the new Miradre account was created by a banned user. However, as I noted above, I do think that you could benefit greatly from refocusing your energies. aprock (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not familiar enough with this topic area, having stumbled into it recently, to be able to tell who's sockpuppeting as who, but I have been around Wikipedia a long time and I can spot a likely sockpuppet quite easily (though I can't always figure out who the sock master is as that usually requires topic-specific knowledge and experience). And yes, the account tagged by Maunus looks, walks and smells like a sock puppet.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do seem familiar enough to constantly agree with Maunus's view in the articles. What is this evidence for sockpuppetry? Simply deleting comments and tagging as sockpuppet simply because a new user disagrees with one's own POV is clearly inappropriate. Which is what Maunus did.Miradre (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm that just means that he is familiar with mainstream research into these topics.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus is an experienced admin, and I have never before encountered anyone who questioned his judgment regarding actions requiring administrator privileges. But you seem to be quite vehement in your insistence that his actions were inappropriate, or at the least premature. So, let me ask: would you be satisfied if he opened a WP:SPI investigation regarding the accounts in question? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As well as explaining his action to the newcomers and stop using this tactic against any new newcomers to these pages whose only offense is disagreeing with Maunus's POV.Miradre (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also for the record I did noty use any administrator privileges in this case.

My own, non-admin $.02 here, that account is quacking quite loudly to me. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a frivolous report: it is exactly the kind of frivolous ANI report which was mentioned in the findings of WP:ARBR&I concerning some of those still topic-banned. ipsocks of Mikemikev have been active recently. In the past they have targeted Maunus and left tell-tale messages on User talk:Maunus. That happened recently with 94.116.41.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Mikemikev has openly revealed himself in that range of IPs in the past: 94.116.72.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [58] and 94.116.40.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). A passing checkuser could verify if Ghf777 is Mikemikev. I would say that it was probable per WP:DUCK (the style and form of his past edits since his site-ban) and considering the renewed activity in this area. Mathsci (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. But in fact shows that the sockpuppet allegations was inappropriate. 94.116.41.214 geolocates to the United Kingdom. The second new user whose comments Maunus deleted and accused of sockpuppetry [59] geolocates to North Carolina! Miradre (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non sequitur. I'm in California, but if I was using my cell provider's broadband card, I would geolocate to Dallas. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, there is another anon troll that has posted form North Carolina before, I have reverted my removal of his comments.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what are you saying? That you have been regularly deleting comments from a New Carolina user who is not a sockpuppet but a "troll"? What does this mean, disagreeing with you? Miradre (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How would you arrive at that interpretation from my previous statement? I have undone my removal of the NC trolls comments, since it apparently wasn't Mike. What are you fishing for now? If I also were to give an apology it wouldn't be to you.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miradere, why are you asking these questions at ANI? You should be having this discussion on Maunus' talk page, which should also have been your first stop when you were looking for an explanation for the sock tagging. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus have several times tried to ban me from the area, wikistalks me, and has generally made it clear he dislikes me greatly. So obviously I prefer neutral eyes to look at this. Maunus have now admitted that he made a false sockpuppet accusation. This is why one should check evidence and behavior before simply accusing a user with a different POV from oneself of being a sockpuppet. I ask that he does the same with first user and does a proper SPI if arguing that this user is a sockpuppet.Miradre (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove the tag from his talkpage if you disagree with my assessment. I think the general agreement that the account looks like a sock account here at ANI suggests that I do not need to make an SPI. And for the record, yes I still think it would be best for the project if you were topicbanned from editing anything related to race broadly construed.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed that there had been several edits from North Carolina from The Triangle. That could conceivably be some kind of ban evasion, although there's no way of knowing. Mathsci (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accusing any particular banned user or just fishing for everyone in this area? Yes, I have removed the template and ask that you do a proper SPI if continuing the accusations.Miradre (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Mathsci (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody is allowed to mark a user page as a suspected sockpuppet. Mathsci (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But deleting the talk page comments is frowned upon. Especially of a new user. It is good Maunus admits he made an inappropriate sockpuppet accusation and has reverted his comment deletion. Regarding the other user I have removed the tag and ask that a proper SPI be done if wanting to continue the accusations against that user. I am satisfied with this outcome it if stands so.Miradre (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make an inappropriate sockpuppet accusation. I made a sockpuppet accusation that turned out to be incorrect.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This could have all been done on Maunus' talk page. Nothing was gained by bringing these matters here. Mathsci (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, Maunus has several times tried to ban me, wikistalks me, and has generally made it clear he dislikes me greatly. Considering my past interaction with him some neutral eyes were necessary. Which has now swiftly resolved the matter. I would also like to thank you for your valuable contribution of bringing up Mikemikev 's IP so if could be confirmed that one of accused newcomers was most likely was not him. Thanks.Miradre (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus has not been wikistalking you. He is one of the few editors who keep an eye on a collection of race-related articles. It seems highly likely that a motion will be passed by ArbCom which will make it more straightforward for sanctions to be imposed when problems arise in this area. Mathsci (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be good.Miradre (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the IP 174.97.236.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from Cary, North Carolina made an identical edit to you on another article. Here is his/her edit [60] on 20 March to Human genetic clustering and here is an identical edit [61] by you to Race and genetics on 24 March. Were you just copy-pasting? You also blanked almost all of the article Human genetic clustering on 24 March with this edit. [62] Was that a normal thing to do?

My own feeling is that semiprotecting Race and intelligence and its talk page would avoid recurrent problems with IPs. Mathsci (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As Blofeld is still posting on this matter in relevant places: I have commented on the matter here [65]. I trust that Arbs and Admins will ensure that this is the end of the matter. I don't intend to be insulted or trolled by this person again. I hope it will not be necessary for me to have to comment further. I will try to leave it to the Admins and Arbs as I always being told to do. Giacomo Returned 12:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In light of the two very serious gaffes that Blofeld made in the process of this debate, and the justifiable angry response to them, he should shut up about the whole megillah, and move to a totally different area of wikipedia to edit. I'm sure there is no shortage of other articles that could be created/edited and pushed towards GA status. Basket weaving, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I removed what seemed to me to be highly dubious information here and [66] and a similar addition to the Stethoscope article. This was based on a search of the cited book available in gbook snippet view which failed to verify the sources. Foghlopy responded by immediately reverting and posting on their talk page convincing looking quotations from the book. I subsequently opened an RfC on this and User: Tom Morris went to a great deal of effort to confirm that the reference failed verification in a library copy.

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

You're right. Nothing checks out. I even tried 56 BC and other phrases from the quotations in google snippets. Lets see if Foghlopy can explain here.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the quotations given on Foghlopy's talkpage are not in good English. Certainly not what one would expect from a scholar writing this kind of work in the '40's and '50's. This may just be typos in the copying I suppose but it seems odd. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be that Foghlopy is taking his quotes from a Chinese translation of the book? Older Chinese translations of scientific works (those done in the PRC) were notorious for this kind of falsification, and if that's where the editor's getting his quotes from it's possible he's not the one committing the act of falsification. --NellieBly (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While that may be possible, Foghlopy cites Kessinger as the publisher and I am suspecting that this is more some kind of test of Wikipedia's ability to remove false information. The user has been around since 2009 but has done nothing else other than occassionally return to modify the same edits as if trying to invite a response. If this is correct, then it is a disruption only account. Since their initial response to me at the beginning of the month, which happened very quickly, they have not responded to my request for scans of the book pages on their talk page, nor to the RfC. I can't help recalling that there was a controversial Wikiversity project to carry out just such testing around the same time frame and checkuser may be appropriate to see if there are any more of these. SpinningSpark 06:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the actual chinese translation has nonsense added? I can see that for the stethoscope but why would they add patent nonsense about surgeons having ask the church's permission for drugs or operations? Just to highlight how enlightened they were in comparison?Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I didn't make a special trip: I generally don't for resource requests unless the topic is something of immense interest. I wait until I'm going to the library anyway: I was there doing research in my own field (philosphy) and took half an hour or so to look up this reference. The books on the history of medicine are only a few doors down from the philosophy books. That said, if the community feel that based on my evidence User:Foghlopy is making bad-faith edits, it would certainly be a reasonable thing to implement a punitive block if only to discourage people from making up citations and potentially wasting the time of WP:WRE volunteers in the future. Ideally, I'd like to spend time helping good-faith editors make articles better rather than tidying up dodgy citations. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There were numerous 'scandals' attributed to O'Donnell during her months at the View, we even have reliable sourcing to prove it, yet none of these really are a part of O'Donnell's life story except Trump's protracted blitz and O'Donnell's ongoing disagreement with Hasselbeck over the Iraq War which ended O'Donnell's co-hosting the show early. The opinions of other editors in favor of what amounts to character assassination expressed those opinions before the entire View section was cleaned up. After clean-up it became apparent that opinions were more in favor of removal but more opinions would likely help find concensus. To that end I was trying to find common ground with Bagumba so we could present a neutral request for comment. i have tried to move the discussion forward but Bagumba actually keeps repeating their same arguments rather than simply answering a direct question - did they feel my attempt to summarize the three options was accurate or should be changed. They have ignored my efforts to resolve this, even after I held my nose and re-inserted a non tabloid-like summary. For those who missed the opportunity they can still read the expanded version complete with extended quotes at Ching chong#Modern usage and now a back-up version at User:Bagumba/Rosie O'Donnell. I think the restating of our opinions is unproductive so would still like to get a neutral request for comment going. If anyone can help with that I welcome the assistance. Jnast1 (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just say two things: WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BLP. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Original Poster admits that there is no need for administrative intervention. Third Oppinion, Requests for Comment, and WP:DISCUSS are reccomended to prevent this from continuing to be "a den of disruption and feuding" Hasteur (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article for the band Deftones has basically been a den of disruption and feuding for a substantial (see history). The area of concern is the genre of Deftones. Out of the last 150 edits, dating from November 18, 2010 as of this post, there have been 81 edits concerning their genre, which includes 55 of the last 100 edits (since January 3, 2011) and 29 of the last 50 edits (since February 20, 2011). For these edits, the activity has mainly been focused in the infobox and introduction sentence, and one part of the fight is whether or not they are either nu metal or experimental rock. While I'm not saying that all of them are vandalisms, because that would not be the truth, some of them are, and I am stating that there has been way too much attention toward the genres of the band's music; this is while the article itself has evolved and improved very little recently. Regular and/or recent participants in this genre feuding include Prove you're robot (links to contributions page, due to a lack of userpage), Wisdomtenacityfocus (contributions), several IPs named according to 93.39.XXX.XXX, 108.64.172.101 (I have dealt with this genre warrior previously and on other pages; this person has been blocked previously for genre warring), and others, including IPs. The conflict has extended to some of the album pages, such as, for instance, White Pony and Around the Fur. I have not done much in this conflict, although 108.64.172.101 and I reverted each others' edits briefly on the Around the Fur page and I posted a response to something that Wisdomtenacityfocus posted on the Deftones talk page. Also, on the Deftones band page, especially in the last 50 edits, there has been a lesser controversy amongst anonymous IPs as to whether Deftones were formed in 1988 or 1989. It is not as important, but I feel it is worth mentioning. Back to the genre, I do not care what genre or genres this band is, I just hope that a solution can be attained soon and that more edits can be performed to update or improve the article for Deftones, along with relevant articles thereof. I am not siding with any particular genre line-up, but I hope that one selected line-up can be agreed upon. Some extra opinions or actions could be useful. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 23:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Music can technically fall within the remit of more than one genre, so the concept of a 'war' over it seems a bit puerile. The best compromise would be to mention the genres most often cited by respectable sources, and to reference each accordingly. Something along the lines of "Deftones' music has been described variously as nu metal,^[1] alternative metal,^[2] blah^[3] and blah.^[4]" Surely that'd satisfy everyone, right? Seegoon (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do reliable sources say to verify any claim? GiantSnowman 00:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Can't they include both if both have references? Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 00:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the sentiment that music can have more than one genre. Also, as puerile as it is, genre fighting and useless genre manipulation are frequent occurences on the internet. There is a musical style and influences area for the Deftones band page. I have just been really fed up with such dispropotionate attention toward the genre, generally speaking. Maybe, for this page, the infobox could have its genre area removed? Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 00:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What admin action is being asked for here? This looks like a content dispute that should be dealt with on the article talk page, perhaps with neutral notifications to all potentially interested WikiPrrojects. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good point. Maybe administrative action is not necessary. I just want people to be aware of this unfavorable activity on the band page and relevant pages. Maybe it should have been discussed more on the talk pages and/or relevant WikiProjects before I brought it here. Eliminating the infobox's genre area could be a good idea, though; that's been done on another page, with led to good results. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 02:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

user:Guymacon engages in revert war about notability template ion the article without addressing the valid concerns. At the same time he accuses me of POV pusing and refused to admit that this is a rude term. I have never met this editor before. Suddenly he popped up from somewhere, and started digging dirt in my edit history. Please make him stop harassing me. I don't have any conflicts with anybody else. Lorem Ip (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the user in question, as should have been done hours ago. GiantSnowman 02:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Appears to be a content dispute that went overboard. There's a question of notability (and I don't have any problems saying that even though I use the software in question) which could be solved with about a half hour's worth of Web searching, but it looks to me like the two editors are happier taking potshots and WP:WIKILAWYERING each other than actually improving the article. Just my 2p worth. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman, this user has only a few hundred edits; forgetting or knowing to notify is easily forgiven.

More importantly, though, there is nothing here for an administrator to do. Guymacon has not been disruptive and initially was not uncollegial, and they explained in an edit summary why they removed the tag--referring to a similar edit made by User:Andy Dingley. Both Guymacon and Lorem Ip are at 3R, and I'm going to warn them for that. Guymacon left a POV pushing warning, which is an exaggeration, and left an npa-2 warning because Lorem said "I am not taking advices from rude people." Well.

I urge Guymacon and Lorem to continue on the talk page. Lorem needs to realize that sometimes it's over: there seems to be a (small) consensus that the topic is notable--and I note they brought this up elsewhere. Both need to chill and stop dropping templates on each other's and their own talk pages. Guymacon, you sound like you're baiting. Please stop. Lorem, you sound like you can't take no for an answer. Well, it's "no" here. No need for admin intervention; move to close. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to post on somebody's talkpage after opening an ANI on them, but without mentioning it at all, is just bad manners - regardless of whether they knew there was a formal ANI notice or not. Just sayin'. GiantSnowman 13:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks. You make a good point; I probably was slipping into baiting. I apologize and will try to avoid any hint of baiting in the future. Good advice.

I can't say I was wrong about the personal attack warning; I would have done the same with any editor who used such language. If anyone thinks this is a problem, I am open to correction, but I honestly don't think it was wrong on this particular point.

The POV pushing is debatable, and its fair to say that I exaggerated by labeling a persistent refusal to seek consensus over a variety of articles as POV pushing. I apologize for using that phrase.

I didn't request a third opinion, nor was I notified of the request, but of course I welcome any third opinion. I did encourage Lorem Ip to attempt to resolve his issues with my behavior at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct

I also once again encourage Lorem Ip to attempt to resolve the notability dispute through seeking consensus on Talk:Fritzing. Guy Macon (talk) 06:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kkalantar (talk · contribs) and his/her socks have been disrupting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kourosh Kalantar-Zadeh. see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kkalantar. admin attention is requested. LibStar (talk) 03:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the user has removed strike outs of clear votes from his/her socks. [67]. LibStar (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I'm concerned, this user might as well be blocked. Good luck sorting out that mess. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes the behavior is now extremely disruptive with the sole purpose of someone keeping an article about themself. LibStar (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 24 hours for reversing a "strong delete" to a "weak keep". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• BlueMondo131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Knownalias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

What user KnownAlias is failing to mention is that throughout the discussion of determining where the content should be moved, the user recommended my IP be blocked effectively cutting off all communication. Instead of compromise or even attempting to reach a consensus, the user insisted on removing me from the equation. Upon this communication cut off, I was forced to create an account to keep the lines of communication open. This is considered “sockpuppeting” but I openly admitted that I was the previous IP upon the second post I made while still attempting to form a consensus.

After providing paragraphs of points with other completely unrelated users, user KnownAlias accused and reported all the opposing opinion’s IPs and usernames as sock puppets of my account to once again remove myself and anyone with differing views from the topic. [[68]]

At this point the user KnownAlias would reiterate previously proven invalid points to a level of obvious inconsideration of all the valid arguments. It was clear that the user KnownAlias was no longer listening and doing anything in their power to work around solving the problem. This includes provoking edit wars.

I have now been forced into defending the article the only way possible.

WP:POINT specifies that you should not disrupt wikipedia to prove a point. I have done nothing to disrupt wikipedia as I have only added harmless content. The user KnownAlias and his meat puppetry of admin are the disrupting parties that lock the page. As user KnownAlias makes inferential comparisons, I should be allowed the same privilege; such that WP:BURDEN specifies that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, under the same logic, it should be true that the user who locks the material is the one that is disrupting the page. --KTDizzle90 (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are the images at tinypic screenshots? If they are then it violates WP:COPYRIGHTS which says "... if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work.". CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And blocked indefinite for persisting in adding the links. If anybody thinks it too harsh then change it. No need to ask me. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See for yourself; i56.tinypic.com/ngl0l.jpg . The bigger problem even with that is there's no relatable information, just the screenshot. It doesn't even identify coming from an episode, much less which one. And THIS SOURCE was even worse; the "interactive Burger of the Day menu" at the bottom of the page only contains two that actually appeared in the first episode. The rest are original to the site. And that still doesn't address the issue of the "Neighboring Business" section, which was never sourced. And all of this was explained to him, but every time you trashed one source, his solution was to switch back to the other. And, BTW, my edit history of consensus building and collaboration speaks for itself; I'm the only editor who made even half an effort, even in spite of objecting to the material in question, of incorporating it. This editor's history also speaks for itself; he didn't start socking to have a voice over a block, but several, which got him blocked. And the first RPP was for the main Bob's Burgers page, which was before I joined the conversation. My position is clear; sock consensus was bad faith, and I rescinded my support, however reluctant it was to begin with, to these edits. KnownAlias contact 07:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also bears noting that most of the sourcing conversation on the talk pages was about the notoriety of the "Burger of the Day", which this editor is just assuming. No single link to any article espousing it's cultural relevance, no effort to incorporate it in an encyclopedic manner. Just a trivia table nowhere close to MOS. KnownAlias contact 07:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it shouldn't be too harsh to indef. block him. Like I said in the opening you can add it to the list. He'll have a new one by this afternoon. KnownAlias contact 08:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Noted; sorry. KnownAlias contact 08:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, most editors don't know this.

I have now armed XLinkBot in a very, very hard way for this case - please revert this edit if XLinkBot is causing too much or too bad collateral damage. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At WT:Good article reassessment, several editors have expressed concern about reviews conducted by this user. Those specifically cited include Talk:Fund accounting/GA1, Talk:Karl Marx/GA1, Talk:Siege of Vyborg (1710)/GA1.

Instances where arbitrary criteria are applied during reviews include: "You're getting, on average, 20 views a day, which isn't that many, and usually need lots of viewers to make it a GA, or there'll be no point."; "Right then, well, all the citations are fine now, but having a picture really doesn't matter, especially as it is not something you can actually have a picture of. Perhaps you could put an accountant on or something."; "Right well, I'll fail this then. I thought it was good, but you've spotted some mistakes. Some days have gone by and it's still in that state. --Rcsprinter. What mistakes? Can somebody clearly say what are the problems with the article? --Piotrus| All the above.--Rcsprinter."; "A little to much history perhaps;could leave if it is important, as I wouldn't know as I have never been to New Zealand; but just seems a bit long;"

Messages about GA reviewing and lack of understanding of the criteria have been left, without response, on the user's talk page: [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74]

At WT:Good article reassessment#How to question the competence of a reviewer?, the subject of how to deal with a clearly inexperienced reviewer such as this has been discussed. DEspite invitation, the user has not responded to the discussion. It has been suggested that User:Rcsprinter123 should be formally required to abstain from WP:GAN reviews, in effect a WP:TOPICBAN requiring the user to refrain from reviewing articles for GA status. It is felt that the disruption caused by this user's reviews are damaging the good artcile process. I am notifying the user of this thread right now. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supplemental evidence of this editor's inexperience, and therefore unsuitability to conduct GA reviews include a misunderstanding of fair use rationale (this was added (incorrectly) after a logo was uploaded with no rationale at all); this rather childish reversion and edit summary; and then bizarre changes like this. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 09:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the information supplied, it looks like there is a severe amount of incompetence on this user's part in regards to GAN reviews. I would support a process ban to stop him from reviewing any further GA's and disrupting the GA process. Silverseren^C 10:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA reviews need someone to approach the subject with an open mind, and to take care that their review is fair and accurate. This is for the benefit of both nominator and the project. Therefore, I too would support the proposed ban until such time that this editor can show competence. One way to achieve this may be by writing articles and getting them to GA status himself. I've got 9 GAs to my credit, but I still don't feel ready yet to review a GA myself. Mjroots (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem mentioned above by Jezhotwells and three other editors is possibly confounded, in that the editor Rcsprinter123 has submitted quite a few articles at WP:GAN, and most of not all of them have failed: I have reviewed Talk:New Mills/GA1 and Talk:Hayfield/GA1, other editors have reviewed Talk:Chapel-en-le-Frith/GA1 and Talk:London Underground/GA1. It is clear from the lack of adequate corrective actions to these nominations that the editor does not understand the requirements (i.e. WP:WIAGA) of a GA. Simultaneously, Rcsprinter123 was carrying GAN reviews, probably in Good Faith, using his experience of these reviews in his own reviews without any real understandin of the review process. As stated above various approaches have been made via User_talk:Rcsprinter123, but not have resulted in any response. I therefore support a proposed topic ban. Pyrotec (talk) 10:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a previous ANI thread concerning Rcsprinter123's competence. Sadly I am not surprised the issue has not gone way and has spilled over into the area of WP:GAN. I would support a topic ban from reviewing, but wonder if more is not required as this is a pattern of behaviour. Nev1 (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a topic ban and agree that there may be a wider problem. Rcsprinter123 is only 11, and I think he is trying out different things out of boredom, but not really taking any consequences into account. For example in this thread he said he created redirects that were simply the target articles written backwards, because he was "Just bored". --BelovedFreak 10:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait...*blinks* What??? Um, yes, we may have a more extensive problem here. I still...what? O_o Silverseren^C 10:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are both (Nev & Freak) suggesting a Wikiholiday, then perhaps a short block rather than a permanent block would better because some of this user's edits are good - he/she seems to be quite keen on buses, for example. A short wikiholiday might give the user time to reflect on what is required of a Wikipedia contributor. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 10:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think something needs to be done as this has been going on for months, what that is something is though needs to be thought through. My feeling is that Rcsprinter123 is simply a too immature for Wikipedia; while there are good edits, these are mixed with time wasting, dodgy reviews, copyright problems, and random edits. I suppose some kind of mentoring may be a possibility, but it's been hit and miss in other cases and anyway an apparent reluctance on the part of Rcsprinter123 to interact regarding the GA reviews suggests this wouldn't be successful. In my opinion a block of some sort may be in order, not a permanent one as Rcsprinter123 will probably mature (he is only 11) but a lengthy one may not be a bad idea. Nev1 (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're not going to block an editor as some sort of coming-of-age rite. If he's not contributing productively at all then he'll should be blocked until he recognises that and promises to address it. If he's contributing productively in some ways and unproductively in others we should work to see if he can be accommodated without causing disruption to the project. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support a ban on GA reviews. As for general incompetence, his Talk page history is littered with not just incompetence, but apparently willful refusal to listen or talk. However, he has only had one block - a short one for a copyvio. So maybe just keep an eye on him and use the usual warnings/block route? Or perhaps a short block to try to head him off and get his attention now? (I would not support a lengthy block or a general maturity/incompetence block yet). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC) (No, I don't support any block just yet - strike that bit -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

(ec) I was not suggesting blocking as "some sort of coming-of-age rite" or anything of the sort. I was voicing my concern that Rcsprinter123 is simply not mature enough for Wikipedia and that the dud edits are causing a time sink that outweighs the good edits, hence why I think a block may be warranted. That may change with time. What do you suggest? Nev1 (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support a topic ban from the GA process - nominations and reviews - until such time as it's clear that Rcsprinter123 understands the criteria and can contribute productively. I think we block only if/when he refuses to learn, or if we get continued refusal to discuss problems as they arise. As noted above, there are useful contributions elsewhere from this user. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support the topic ban and strongly suggest that Rcsprinter123 seek mentoring or adoption. —DoRD (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly support a ban from GAN. Also this thread should be noted, from February. Here he abuses the page protection process to try to stop an article from being deleted, after he recreated it when it was deleted at AFD. I tagged a few of his articles for deletion, and as payback he went through my own creations and disruptively added cleanup tags to them. I would suggest he be blocked indefinitely, until he is able to show he has the appropriate maturity for this website. I'd say in at least 2 years. AD 13:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]