For at least the past 3 years, people have been telling Angie Y. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) not to add uncited personal opinion to articles. I ran across her recently when her editing on Willy Wonka-related articles was brought to ANI. Just about every time I trimmed something of hers out of an article, she would restore it with no discussion, even in the edit summary. Today she reminded us that her editing style isn't restricted to fiction: she edited the Priceline article, adding the text "One of Shatner's early commercials for the company had him sitting in a spaceship's captain's chair, in loving tribute to his famous Star Trek role." The existence of the commercial is uncited. Its position as "early" is uncited "Loving tribute" is opinion. "Famous" is WP:PEACOCKish.

As she has been told that this sort of thing is not acceptable for so long by so many people, I am forced to conclude that she is unwilling or unable to work within our community norms, and suggest that she be community-banned for at least a year.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is a problem... but I see a lack of blocks to tell her that this is a problem. I see only one from a couple years ago.. Surely a series of escalating blocks should be attempted before an outright ban, right? Friday (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, she tends to skirt right under the edge of blockability for any one incident. It's the long-term pattern I'm looking at here, and that's harder for a single admin to act on without this kind of discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She does seem to have a lot of warnings over the past few years telling her not to insert her POV into articles. Not sure what to do about it. Possibly assign her a mentor? Basket of Puppies 16:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like mentoring was tried, pursuant to her second RFC, but didn't go anywhere. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose editor is no doubt a pain but lack of long block log suggests lesser sanctions are not exhausted. Or you could have Willy feed her a candy bar that turns her into a huge helium balloon and the Oompa Loompas can sing as she floats away. Ooompa Loompa loopa de do ...--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it is a seriously issue that needs to be dealt with. Also wondering at the lack of previous blocks beyond the one, when her user page also shows a lot off issues with incivility, ignoring or harassing other editors when they try to correct her, constant lack of edit summaries and just reverting when people undo her OR/opinions. Also curious as to whether there has been any recurrence of the meat puppet issues which caused her one block. Her response to your warning about the OR of "Ah yeah"[1] however also strongly shows that you are correct in that she seemingly doesn't care. Looking at her contribs, she pretty much ignores her own talk pages and rarely tries discussing anything with others on other user talks[2], while her contribs to article talks seems mostly to ask random questions[3]. I also worry how much truth there is in her edits to fictional topics, when she is fond of injecting her own opinion into topics, and if any of her edits are being checked in those areas? Not an admin, so I don't know the rules on blocking, but I do think some kind of block and an editing restriction, at the minimum, would be a good start. Any violations to the restriction gets escalating blocks, until she exhausts the usual set, then go for a ban. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The editor's behaviour has been discussed here several times previously. TFOWR^propaganda 16:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Forgot to mention her RFCs above.
  • 5 July 2007
  • 11 December 2007
• Granted, it's been a while since the last one... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Block for a while. No evidence she works around them, so going for a ban isn't necessary. But (as one who has warned and reverted her many times) she's royally painful to pin down. Pushes right to the edge of a block, then backs off either by moving away from the target-page of the moment, or by saying she will change her ways. Again and again. With some good edits too IIRC. Taken together, the Park Service needs to give this forest a block even if each ranger doesn't think any one tree is irredeemable. Enough community time-wasting. DMacks (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Block for at least a week. This person seems adept at gaming the system here, and as I see it the record cited shows that. Too early for a ban, but count me in with those wanting accountability. User should be encouraged to discuss this issue here at ANI. Jusdafax 17:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, this user was once a pusher of birther arguments, pushing fringe sources at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berg v. Obama and at the main article. Old edits, yes, but this is clearly not a user that plays well with others. Tarc (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think that's really relevant to her current editing behavior. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse blocking for around a week or two perhaps. With increasing durations for further problems. This may very well end up a ban, but I'd rather see us get there in a few steps than just one. Friday (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Issue stern final warning, then block I feel that she needs to be put on last notice, and that any further infractions will result in an immediate block. The stern final warning will be indefinite for duration- meaning that in 6 months if she makes an infraction she will still be blocked. No one is irredeemable but some need special circumstances due to the length of disruption. Basket of Puppies 17:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only trying to help in any way I can. Angie Y. (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, Angie, is that the ways you try to help tend to make more work for everyone else. Even though many people have told you to add references to your edits, and not to put your personal opinions into articles, you keep doing it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Block now clear lack of competence, three years is generally enough time to determine if someone is capable of or willing to learn. Time sink, net detriment to the project on a review of the edits. Make it indefinite. If they cogently explain what they've been doing wrong and promise to never do it again, maybe unblock.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have imposed an indefinite block; there isn't really an established community block process here, but reviewing many edits going back several years, plus her talk page history, convinces me that the concerns raised here are valid. I believe that she is editing in good faith, but the net result of editing in good faith but with poor understanding of project goals and policies, the difference between encyclopedic factual content and personal opinion, is disruptive. If she comes to understand the policies and issues and seems likely to comply going forwards, any administrator can unblock her without consulting me, though given the community input above I think that bringing it back to ANI for discussion would be wise (at least a notification afterwards). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment —I've encountered Angie in the past (circa 2+ years ago, I think) and tried to gently nudge her in the right direction. I've not seen the recent issues other people have concerns over. If there is further discussion of this, I'll root through history and the more recent events, and offer an opinion. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• ... and I have declined her first unblock request with a couple of questions. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Block for only a week; an indefinite block is not necessary, in my opinion. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Block - indef. I was the admin who introduced her last AN/I (a few months ago). I have seen zero improvement since then, and her long history of non-improvement speaks for itself. I recommend she take up blogging instead where the rules are more lax. Rklawton (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse indef block that has already been imposed. I don't see the sense in putting a timer on the block if there's nothing to guarantee that it won't just continue once the block expires. It's up to her on how long it takes her to understand, and this way, sanctions will only be in place for as long as necessary. Of course, without socking, I don't think an outright ban is needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Amend to a couple of weeks to give her time to understand that no, we really mean it about the personal opinions. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse indef. The sanction can be lifted as soon as there is a reasonable undertaking to amend their approach to contributing; 2 hours, 2 days, 2 weeks... whatever. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on her interaction with the folks who have reviewed her request for an unblock, that will be a long time coming. She seems incapable of understanding what the problem is. (And as long as this is simply an indef block -- not a community ban -- I endorse this as an adequate response. A community ban in this case would be the equivalent of breaking a butterfly on a wheel.) -- llywrch (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse 1 week block - There needs to be some indication that this issue is taken seriously, but it's too early for an indef. Shadowjams (talk) 06:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Post-indef block comments

As there's been an indefinite block, some of the above comments are outdated. Further comments below. Shadowjams (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think an indefinite block is appropriate in this case. As discussed above, a progressive blocking structure would be more fair. This has clearly gotten Angie Y's attention. I would advocate a short-term block, followed by reconciliation, attempts at mentoring (I see above that's not worked before), and scrutiny. By indefinitely blocking we're just inviting a new username and alienation. Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think it has to come to this quite yet. Shadowjams (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Indefinite is not forever, the user does not seem to understand how to fix the problem (and seems to be suggesting that she has some issue personally that might make it impossible and that we should "understand") so indef is correct. I have left a suggestion that she try proposing some sourced NPOV changes on her talk page, to see if she can satisfy people that she can do it. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I share Shadowjams's concern, in as much as I feel that there should be a clear route back for Angie Y. That said, Guy has advised Angie Y. that there is a way back, so I'm happy with the indef block standing for now (i.e. until Angie Y. indicates that she's prepared to work constructively to end her block). TFOWR^propaganda 11:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Each case is distinct; using an indef block in all cases will obviously not be appropriate or ideal (and this should not be interpreted as establishing a precedent as such). In this particular case, my opinion has not changed - there is a clear way back and putting a timer on the block would not otherwise be helpful or sensible. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I dislike indef blocks, in the manner that it's a kind of "closed door" to the blocked editor. Although technically they can appeal the block, sooner or later, almost always they either 1) have their unblock request denied, or 2) they never edit again, which would mean that we may lose a possibly productive user in the future. A short term block of a few weeks seems like the best solution, as it isn't an indefinite block, and it gives the editor (who in this case is Angie Y) some time to think about her actions. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As someone who also has an autism-spectrum disorder (mine is PDD-NOS), let me just point out that it's very hard for many people on the spectrum to read between the lines. What may seem like a terminal case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT isn't necessarily so. I left a short note of encouragement, because she doesn't seem too receptive to criticism at this point (not really all that surprising). I think JzG's suggestion is a good idea, and hopefully she'll go through with it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't want to sound too harsh, but I do think that WP:NOTTHERAPY applies here. In short, she may have problems that may make it difficult for her to follow our policies, but that is no excuse for disruption. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd tend to agree with you, but my experience with people on the spectrum (I'm living proof of this) is that if you do give them enough chances, they'll catch on. I think a block may have been in order, but indefinite can be very intimidating. If this was made, say, a week or two weeks, that'd give her a chance to put everything in perspective and go from there. She does seem to realize now that there's a problem. Maybe if she had someone to bounce ideas off of if/when she gets unblocked- not a mentor, exactly, but just someone to help on the side. Hey, we gave someone else another second chance, and that seems to be working out all right. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While working on the Tito article, I looked up the reliablity of an author named Bernard Meares and rediscovered this little gem. It is the article "Titoism and Totalitarianism" that user SirFloyd created on en.wiki earlier but was later deleted due to its POV content. This is apparently a wikiclone which user SirFloyd uses to, among other things, stalk users and "strategize" his moves for the real wiki. Among the findings are:

• A page dedicated to countering user DIREKTOR's edits "Wikipedia & Political Agendas".
  • In it is a section "Wiki Articles that are manipulated by Neo-Communists" which contains a list of articles that user DIREKTOR has edited at one point or another.
  • In another entitled "Propaganda Pushing Editors" editors DIREKTOR, Ivan Stambuk, AlasdairGreen27, myself, BokicaK, and Zocky are listed alongside nationality and are apparently identified by SirFloyd as a clique.
• Another page "Nationalistic Editing on Wikipedia" discusses the "House of Bona" article which DIREKTOR and SirFloyd were engaged in. While he is careful to not mention names it is obvious at whom such quotes are directed at: "Wikipedia with its current group of editors is participating in that process [cultural genocide]."
  • Attempt at canvassing for the "House of Bona" article [4].

Taking this evidence into consideration, it is, in my opinion, that SirFloyd's intentions on Wikipedia are far from good faith. His actions are in violation of numerous policies including: WP:COI, WP:HOUND (stalking DIREKTOR), WP:NPOV (creating the POV fork "Tito and Totalitarianism" after his failure at the original article), WP:OWN (using a wikiclone to evade deletion and own an article), and WP:CANVAS. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 22:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Floyds intentions and contributions here have been very beneficial to the project. His contribution was deleted here and he is able to post it wherever he likes. He is perhaps in opposition to your group but that is good , we don't want everything from a single perspective do we. I also note that in those links you provide there is no mention at all of any specific people. I don't see anything requiring any Administration action.Off2riorob (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? "Director Croatian, Ivan Stambuk (Croatian), AlasdairGreen27 (Croatian), Producer (Bosnian), BokicaK (Serbian), Zocky (Slovenia) Wikipedia Administrator" ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Off2riorob.

• 1) being in opposition to someone is fine, its a way to ensure against POV, mine included. However, User:Sir Floyd is not reported here for being opposed to someone.
• 2) You are, as you say, a "close friend" of User:Sir Floyd. It comes as no surprise that you would support him even after this was uncovered, and its certainly not a surprise that you would judge his "lobbying" as beneficial to the encyclopedia.
• 3) Finally User:Off2riorob, I cannot believe you are being honest when you say you "don't see any mention at all of any specific people". Have you noticed this link? You see, it lists all users who dared oppose Sir Floyd as "communist propaganda pushers". Add to this that User:Sir Floyd has been attempting to WP:OUT users on this project [5] and I think you'll find this is not only actionable, its indeff block material.

Finally, I don't think anyone here is prepared to pretend he/she is stupid. It is perfectly obvious that User:Sir Floyd has been stalking editors, following them around, and marking their edits (as well as themselves!) for the attentions of his buddies. This explains much of the suspicious coordinated MEAT that's been going on in this Wiki. The purpose of all this evidently seems to be outnumbering editors with meatpuppets and bypassing proper discussion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are mentioned there as a POV pushing editor, I did not search all the pages. I know and respect Sir Floyds contributions here. He was in dispute with user direktor when I met him and helped him to become a good contributor here. I still don't see any issues worthy of Wikipedia Administrator action. There is nothing to assert any meat issues at all with Sir Floyd. I don't see any stalking. As I said, we don't just want one side of the story do we. So you present a six month old ANI archived thread with no action at all as a claim to Sir Floyd outing, nothing happened then, never mind now and a wikibiz article http://www.mywikibiz.com/User_talk:Ockham/Wikipedia_&_Political_Agendas#Propaganda_Pushing_Editors complaining about POV editing on wikipedia, not very startling is it. Perhaps you could try dispute resolution, or we could topic ban you both from Yugoslavian articles. Off2riorob (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh lol Off2riorob... We're not in any conflicts at all. I think you've conclusively demonstrated your "neutrality", not to mention a serious need to familiarize yourself with policy (WP:MEAT, WP:STALK, WP:OUT, WP:CANVASS etc.). I for one admire such dedication. Leave it for the guys here to read and decide, lets not clutter the thread up. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had one brief encounter with SirFloyd and after that it was clear to me that his motives are not good. If this does not convince others, then I don't know what will. -- Bojan  Talk  05:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The GFDL says that any content of Wikipedia can be copied and distributed everywhere. If this content will be deleted the content distributed must not be deleted. Please give me the part of GFDL where the license says that the distributed content must be deleted and I will accept your position. I would invite all persons, most of all administrators, to understand the principles of GFDL in detail. Do you need that also the old dumps of database will be corrected? In this action I can only see a "programmatic" action of a group and surely I will start to open an investigation about this group. --Ilario (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, GFDL was abandoned in favor of Creative Commons few years ago. But this is not the question. The question is that what Direktor stated above. -- Bojan  Talk  08:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've only encountered SirFloyd on the Tito article. IMO, he does have a bit of a point - some of the ex-Yugoslav users do wear extra-rosy-tinted glasses when looking on their former country. However, in my experience, SirFloyd wasn't doing anything to counter that productively. His modus operandi consisted of pushing his (IMO rather extreme) POV by listing out-of-context quotes, often from extremist and/or amateur authors. That in itself wouldn't be a big problem, because it can be countered with other quotes and sources. But, he also incessantly engaged in accusing other editors of having sinister agendas, which sort of kills any sort of productive discussion.

All that said, I don't care much about what he writes on other websites. If there are good reasons to believe that his activities on Wikipedia as a whole are a net loss for the encyclopedia, we should probably do something about it. If not, water under the bridge. Zocky | picture popups 09:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In hereby calling for action on this and similar situations, I would remind readers of the WP:ARBMAC ruling, which all of us are beholden to apply. What requires action here is that s/he is displaying the most grotesque bad faith imaginable, and the most extreme Balkan nationalist aggressive POV. I would like to work on articles with editors who think I can contribute something. We can work together well. In what way is it possible to work collaboratively in the true spirit of Wikipedia with someone who derides the whole idea(l) of Wikipedia, who describes and derides good faith editors as communists, who describes our articles as communist propaganda and so on. The Balkan Wiki area is overpopulated with POV monsters as it is. If Sir Floyd is allowed to demonstrate such POV and total bad faith and continue to edit regardless, then we might as well ring fence all of our Balkan articles as POV garbage that no-one with a sane mind should read. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have un-archived this discussion as it appears to have been prematurely archived. Toddst1 (talk)

This is pretty clearly off-wiki harassment by Sir Floyd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and calls for an indefinite block until such harassment is removed and ceases. Done. Toddst1 (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, no on can be judged in Wikipedia for something which is extermal to Wikipedia and most of all no one can be judged for his point of view. It seems to me a judgement of a person derived from some other persons who has the other extreme point of view. If Sir Ffloyd is extreme I cannot see that the persons who are judging him are neutral, absolutely wrong. I would add that in the article written by him there are also official documents and I am a little bit disappointed that their are judged like "secondary" sources. Sorry, but I would have a more neutral decision here. This is a discussion to judge a person where only few users are participating and most of all the users accused by him. In this case I think that the accused persons should not be considered to give to the community the opportunity to be more neutral and to don't consider the parts involved in the original discussion. --Ilario (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As there are quite a few externals would the blocking Administrator please point directly to the "off wiki harassment" ones and the exact content the harassment is referring to as regards the alleged Wikipedia:Npa#Off-wiki_attacks Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree. Having a personal opinion about something inside wikipedia, and espressing it off-wiki is a very different thing that doing harrassment. So i suppose it's necessary the blocking Admin will point clearly what exactly he considered harassment, just in order to not make his decision an unclear or fuzzy precedent. Theirrulez (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not understand why Sir Floyd was blocked. I cannot see personal attacks in that pages. He only expressed an opinion. An opinion is not law.--Grifter72 (talk) 07:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "resolved" tag. If I'm off base, please feel free to re-add, I won't object or consider that an issue. It just appears that this matter appears to remain under discussion. As far as I understand it's pretty clear that off-wikipedia behavior, however bad, does not by itself merit an on-wikipedia block. Nevertheless, off-Wikipedia statements can reasonably be interpreted as evidence that someone's presence on Wikipedia is not in good faith. Which is it? Incidentally, I have no idea what the underlying dispute is about and I don't think it's relevant to this particular question. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Npa#Off-wiki_attacks doesnt'seem to support the decision. Off-wiki attacks paragraph doesn't (of course) contemplate any sanctions like blocks, because: «Wikipedia cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions.» - Theirrulez (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:ARBMAC decision, and must be considered in that context. It is perhaps not surprising that the protesters that have surfaced since the block was made are three Italian editors (Ilario, Grifter72 and Theirrulez) that share SirFloyd's POV. I guess/suppose/am sure that the only reason that they all came here in a procession is that they all picked up the block on their watchlists. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it seems a bit of a "quid pro quo response": "You help us out with our POV-pushing, we'll help you out - maybe we can save the guy to fight another day, or shorten his block". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here as well asking a decision about this absurd unfair, discrediting and offensive attack against me posted by AlasdairGreen27 on a an Admin talk page [6], followed by DIREKTOR's attack [7], and preceded by another astonishing DIREKTOR's attack [8]. These above mentioned harassment posts were not off-wiki, but incredibly on a wikipedian users talk page.
This is to be considered as an official report. Theirrulez (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be fun to use the word "attack", but commenting on single-purpose edit history is not really a violation of WP:NPA. I cannot guess why you're inserting this here, though. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a side note, here: Wikipedia:Spa#Identifying_SPAs reads

Focusing on a single broad topic: When Identifying SPAs, it is important to consider what counts as a diverse group of edits. Very broad subjects like music, medicine, sports, history, and physics are diversified topics within themselves. If a user only edits within a broad topic, this does not necessarily mean the user is an SPA. SPAs edit a group of tightly related pages or a group of unrelated pages in the same manner.

In my opinion, Theirrulez is not an WP:SPA. And, by the way, he is an editor in good standing on it.wiki (he has brought an article to WP:FA, that is to say it:Rodi Garganico) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 01:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm not an WP:SPA. This is an attempt to lead us off-topic and the last try to influence other users discrediting me. After DIREKTOR replied here above, and after the admin GTBacchus clearly warned him and AlasdairGreen27 to stop the harassment, he demonstrated that he really doesn't matter to abuse wikipedia policy keep on harassing me more and more on the same admin talk page. And probably he and AlasdairGreen27 will continue until someone can stop them.

Anyways my contribution history is available, everyone who want to take a look it's welcomed. I want to remind to whoever could be interested about my contributions history to check also my former account User:Theirrules. After that please, I need urgent explanation about what reported above: the astonishing accuses I openly received. Theirrulez (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that SirFloyd has a point about Direktor being quite biased. That's my two cents on this issue. (LAz17 (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Aside Sir Floyd I would note how violent attacks AlasdairGreen and Direktor use to take to other contributors, engaging in perpetual edit wars and suggesting immediately that there are planetary conspiracies. It's important to underline AlasdairGreen was called into the discussion by another user (Producer), just to reform a bunch of fire ([9]). I would note that AlasdairGreen has been blocked once ([10]) for "personal attacks" and "harassment") and that he despises the Wikipedia project, having written literally he believes that Wikipedia is dominated by "the International Court of Wikipedia", formed by a panel of f..ing American Teenagers "([11]). Who at the time, one minute after, took care to remove the astonishing insult in the AlasdairGreen's edit was "strangely" Direktor ([12]), coincidentally the very pair who point the accusing finger at me! How can all this be coincidence? And after talking about "clique" by others!

I would ask all of you to consider whether this is a good way to contribute to the project, since I always behaved correctly in enwiki. Theirrulez (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have indicated that material dear to another editor, which in fact led to that party being banned from the content for a year, has been once again reinserted without any indication that it does not violate WP:FRINGE, and more than a little serious question that it does. I have removed the material determined to be fringe per the Fringe Theories Noticeboard once again, and request the review of any interested administrator for their input regarding the correctness of doing so, and have indicated as much on the talk page of the article in question. John Carter (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide us a Fringe Theories noticeboard discussion archives link?

On first impression, the material is not what I think mainstream beliefs say, but it's sourced to sources from mainstream academic publishers, so there's nothing obvious to an "outsider" to the issue about what's truly fringe and what is not.

Also, you need to notify the other user ( {{subst:ANI-notice}} on their talk page ).

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is discussion in the archives, prior to the ArbCom, which indicated that the Eisenman theory qualified as fringe. The discussion of the Tabor source can be found at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#The Jesus Dynasty. I have also included material from the three reviews I was able to find regarding the Tabor book toward the beginning of the Talk:Ebionites#Possibility of bringing the article back up to FA, which also at least indicates the material from the various encyclopediae I consulted which have all, so far as I can tell, pretty much ignored both Eisenman and Tabor. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which arbcom case? Neither you nor he is listed in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Involved parties ... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites, when searched for correctly.

According to that, there were no findings of fringe information on either side. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The only finding related to edit-warring, there were no content conclusions. This is a typical example of John Carter's misrepresentations. John Carter is pushing his Catholic-POV into the article. The article is already overly biased towards the Catholic conservative position (see article talk page.) --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above editor seems to believe that Encyclopedia Britannica and various books by Brill Publishers, etc., all of which ignore Eisenman and Tabor, can also be ascribed to his allegations of "Catholic bias" as well. Also, please note the repeated requests made by me for any sort of other sources supporting Eisenman and Tabor, and that all such requests have been ignored. Regarding allegations of leaning toward Catholic sources, I don't think I have never actually heard such an allegation before, and certainly not without a clear representation of what other, non-biased, mainstream sources are available, and without an indication of what is contained in them, as is the case hereJohn Carter (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has just expressed his view (which I agree with) that "you only seem capable of providing reviews written by religious dogmatists". Oh, and he provided an alternative review. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The material on the fringiness of Eisenman can be found basically at Talk:Ebionites/Archive 7 beginning around September 2007. That discussion seems to indicate that there are real WP:SYNTH and other concerns. John Carter (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(restoring apparently accidentally deleted section I posted)

Reading some outside reviews of the Tabor book, http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/04/jesus-dynasty-part-two.html and http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/mayweb-only/120-32.0.html for example, the criticism I am finding is from a Christian perspective, not a historical one. I am concerned by the confirmation bias issue User:Michael C Price brought up.

You may be right, but I'm not seeing any obvious disruption or lack of valid content dispute here; what is there for administrators to do here? What are you asking for? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that there have been repeated requests made of both parties to provide any indpendent sources which indicate the material in question has received mainstream support in any verifiable form, and that such requests have received no clear response. The question of historical criticism basically relates to the sourcing. The Encyclopedia of Religion, amond others, indicates that there is no evidence to link the various Ebionite attestations, and other sources indicate that there is insufficient material to say that the Ebionites, Nazoreans, et al. can be differentiated with any degree of certainty. Regarding the accusation of bias, J. Gordon Melton described the SLU library as being one of the best religious libraries on the planet, and didn't say anything about it having a Catholic bias, although, as a Jesuit school, I do note that it has more Catholic materials than otherwise. And, I guess, my request is to review my action, to see if it was appropriate, in part because another party on the article talk page seemed to threaten to bring my actions here anyway. John Carter (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I should not be used as a forum to force a decision over content. That is supposed to be achieved by consensus among the editors or through mediation. I have already requested that Jayjg provide informal mediation to smooth out some of these process difficulties, see User_talk:Jayjg#Request for informal mediation. The issue of WP:SYNTH is a separate matter of conflation of sourced content. That has been addressed by temporarily removing the content in question to the talk page where it can be be sorted out later. This trip to AN/I seems to be an end-run to avoid mediation and request a summary judgment. Ovadyah (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot control the opinions of others. I came here to receive a judgement on my actions, nothing more, and have placed my reasons for my taking the actions I have. If I am found to have behaved incorrectly by individuals not previously involved in the discussion, then, obviously, I would welcome the reversal. That is all. John Carter (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should also correct a factual misstatement. The paragraph in question by John Carter was not recently added into the article. It was content supported by multiple sources that John Carter deleted from the article without discussion. That deletion was reverted. The material in question was not contributed by Michael C. Price. It was mostly contributed by Str1377 who was editing collaboratively with me at the time in an effort to improve the content during FAR. Ovadyah (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admit the editor above may be correct. However, I note once again that for all the "commentary", no independent sources indicating the material is not regarded as qualifying as fringe have been produced, despite repeated requests for same and evidence to the contrary produced. John Carter (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request is very unusual. I don't recall many literature reviews where the reviewers pronounce articles to be "mainstream". Anyway, even critical reviewers that question Tabor's conclusions claim that he is speculating too far beyond his primary sources. They don't claim they are due to a lack of scholarship. He is making a conjecture about what may have happened, not proving a theory based on experimental data. Ovadyah (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are not particularly usual either. And WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE remain policy and guideline anyway. Regardless of certain parties apparent failure to assume good faith about my stated reasons for my actions, which, as I have indicated, were prompted by a comment about possibly having them bring this matter to this page, what is the reason for continued conversation which doesn't directly relate to the base subject? John Carter (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to my comment on the article talk page about AN/I, I made it clear that was a step to be considered only if mediation fails or is rejected by the parties. I don't want to waste anymore admin time, so unless we are still missing some important facts that relate to this incident, I am done here. Ovadyah (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to figure out just what the bone of contention is here. I would assume that the disputed material is collected in this diff, but if this is the case, then the dispute is over whether to include 2 books (FWIW, although Eisenman's book has been reviewed as a serious work,, I found it almost unreadable & somewhat bizarre) & the relationship between the Christian community at Jerusalem led by James the Just, Judaic-Christianity, & the Ebionites cult. However, the two sides seem inexplicably entrenched over such a minor disagreement, & maybe the three individuals here -- John Carter, Ovadyah, & Michael C Price -- should all walk away from this article (remember -- to repeat the old saying -- there are 3.3 million other articles) & let some new editors work on this article. Otherwise, everyone involved is going to either get themselves banned or burned out over this matter. -- llywrch (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. As I noted previously on my talk page, this article seems to attract editors that either have a POV to push or an axe to grind diff. Unfortunately (for me), I know a lot about this subject, having actually read the books and publications, and I keep getting dragged back into it. I only became involved because John Carter contacted me about bringing the article back up to FA quality. My involvement, however, does not include any schemes to provoke Michael C Price into an edit war to get him banned from Wikipedia. I am out of it once proper oversight can be established to return the article to FA quality. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, to an extent. And my involvement only extends to getting individuals who may be either SPA or have only a limited interest in the topic, such, as for instance, being involved only to the extent of promoting a single book or two, to perhaps recognize that those books seem to be out of the mainstream and not deserving of the amount of space they have in the article, and, if they continue to refuse to address the issue of weight given those fringe theories, to perhaps act in accord to the guidelines at WP:COI. Ovadyah has requested the input of a former arbitrator, and I would welcome his input. John Carter (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case readers are puzzled by Ovadyah's reference to

"schemes to provoke Michael C Price into an edit war to get him banned from Wikipedia."

Ovadyah refers to John Carter's email attempts to include Ovadyah in John Carter's tag team. This, and John Carter's attempt to supress this leak does not reflect well on John Carter's integrity. I believe these actions seriously call into question John Carter's ability to edit the Ebionite article in a NPOV fashion, to put it mildly, and perhaps his role as a Wikipedia editor in general.--Michael C. Price ^talk 21:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I was confused at first about why John Carter was slamming my qualifications for working on the article - citing SPA and COI - when he approached me about resuming work on the article in the first place. But the reason is now clear to me. He couldn't have me perma-banned from an article I hadn't touched in over two and a half years. He had to convince me to resume editing on the article first. The content dispute is just a smokescreen. That's why no one can make any sense of it. The admins should understand that these plans will simply be put on hold again until a new crop of admins comes along, unless a more permanent solution is found. Ovadyah (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above statement by Ovadyah is extremely amusing. Ovadyah has long maintained on his talk page a link to current Ebionite groups. It is also fairly obvious from his own response to the comment I made on his talk page that, at the time, he knew it was because of his statement that those who call themselves Ebionites today and Messianic Jews do not get along. Considering that Ebionites are almost his sole interest here (at least so far as I have seen), that he clearly indicated by that comment a degree of knowledge of the otherwise apparently non-notable current Ebionites which is itself remarkable, it seemed logical at the time, and still does, to question whether he is in fact an adherent of some sort of this neo-Ebionitism and whether that would constitue a COI problem as per WP:COI. The fact that the FA version of the article also apparently failed to address any issues which might indicate that the Ebionites were hard to distinguish from other Jewish-Christian groups at the time, thus weakening any claims to neo-Ebionites as opposed to more notable neo-Essenes, possible neo-Nazoreans, etc. and seems to have all but ignored the "evyonim" of the Dead Sea Scrolls, makes the question of possible bias even more obvious. Regarding the alleged attempt to get Price blocked, I am willing to forward the email sent to any uninvolved parties asking for it. However, what was basically said and implied was that, given the long-term history Price has had of making comments which do nothing to address the matter of sourcing, which are clearly visible from the talk page, refusing to provide sourcing, and otherwise generally non-constructive behavior, it seemed and honestly still seems likely to me that, should such behavior continue, he in time would face additional sanctions. John Carter (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that there was a religious test being applied to editors that determines what articles they can work on. Maybe Orthodox Jews should be informed they can't work on articles related to Judaism or Israel because, after all, they are Jews. If there is such a policy in place I would like to hear about it. The conversation John Carter keeps coming back to, where I found out that modern Ebionites don't get along with Messianic Jews, took place almost four years ago when Loremaster and I were doing some research on the Modern Ebionites section of the article. Keep talking John Carter. Ovadyah (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note John Carter's logic: Ovadyah has a strong interest in the article, therefore he has a (presumed) religious POV, therefore a COI and should be barred. By contrast John Carter's Catholic POV does not disqualify himself from editting the article. Why is that?

I note that John Carter has admitted the tag-teaming charge.

As for constructive comments, I long ago suggested that, in view of the radically opposing POVs present about Ebionites, the article present the different POVs in different sections. John Carter rejected this suggestion, prefering to impose his POV (The Truth, as far as he is concerned) on the entire article. This he does by maintaining that any view he doesn't like is a minority/fringe view, and then deletes it; the truth is that all POVs about Ebionites are minority views; there is no mainstream consensus. --Michael C. Price ^talk 04:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The real purpose of this incident report is to cleanse the Ebionites article of the corrupting influences of atheists and heretics. That is to be accomplished by perma-banning anyone who is suspected of holding beliefs different from the right-belief of John Carter. Now is the time to witness to your faith John Carter. Confess or Deny. Isn't that the reason we are here? Ovadyah (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A disagreement arose between myself and User:SandyGeorgia over the Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome article. I tried at first to speak with Sandy on her Talk Page before moving it to the article Talk Page. It began when I removed unsourced or poorly sourced POV material from the article. She responded by reverting it, expressing bewilderment in her edit summaries as to why I did this ([13][14]), even though I detailed my rationale in my edit summary. In the course my attempt to talk with her, she has engaged in the following behaviors:

• Violated WP:Civility with name calling ("obnoxious") and rudeness ("Do you not read edit summaries?"). She has also accused me of "personalizing" our discussion, even though I have not engaged in similar behavior, but have merely tried to politely advise her that this is not appropriate.
• Repeatedly accusing me of adding false material or making false, uncited claims in the article (I added no new material in the article).
• Challenging me on the basis of my personal knowledge of the subject (which is not a valid basis for editing on Wikipedia, and is a behavior to be avoided).
• Criticizing me for adding a dead link to a url that was in the article.
• Claiming that only BLPs and contentious material requires sourcing.

And so forth. I would appreciate that someone speak with this user regarding her violation of WP:Civility, and other related policies. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance (no comment on underlying content) I don't see anything wrong with SandyGeorgia's responses. It's miles away from an attack and hardly incivil. This is fundamentally a content dispute, and I'm not convinced your massive posting to SG's talk page the conversation that took place here was particularly explanatory; certainly SG's response was reasonable. Shadowjams (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC) (updated; i was incorrect about the page posting)[reply]

Calling someone "obnoxious" is not incivil? Falsely accusing someone ad infinitum of wrong doing in bad faith is not incivil? Ignoring one's edit summaries while simultaneously accusing them of the same by saying, "Do you not read edit summaries?" is not incivil? How do you figure this?

And what "massive posting" on her talk page? One paragraph is "massive"? Really? As for it not being explanatory, this is the "massive" paragraph in question:

I haven't made any uncited claims. Rather, it is the material I removed from the article that was not properly cited. As I stated on the article's talk page, sites whose content is user-generated, such as imdb and TV.com, are not considered reliable by Wikipedia under WP:RS, and neither of those two webpages make any mention of the episode in question being "seminal", being the first episode to depict Tourettes, or of people with the condition seeking diagnosis of it after seeing it. The TV.com page in particular never even mentions Tourettes. That's not a "claim", uncited or not. It's a fact. As I have given some detailed examples like these on the Talk Page, I'm not sure why you're continuing to claim ignorance of my rationale, as you did when you wrote the edit summary "restore yet another strange deletion of cited material", but if you want to refute the fact that the relevant policies are violated by this material, you can do so on the article's Talk Page. Otherwise, please stop reverting the article, and claiming the uncited or poorly cited material is actually cited. Thanks.

In what way is this not explanatory? Nightscream (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, calling someone obnoxious is not incivil to the point we should ban them from contributing. Shadowjams (talk) 08:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone obnoxious and asking if they read edit summaries is the shallow end of WP:NPA, perhaps it warrants some words of advice, but no one would ever get banned for that. SGGH ^ping! 09:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banning someone from contributing is not the same as talking to them about concerns about parts of their behavior. --83.135.75.108 (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it just me or is there a certain irony in this? Guy (Help!) 10:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking exactly the same thing. The section heading is a timeless classic. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has SandyGeorgia been notified of this thread? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've told her. SGGH ^ping! 15:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Whatever the merit of your complaint, Nightscream, it is not okay for you to use the rollback tool in a content dispute. Ucucha 15:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• SandyGeorgia reverted your edits. Eleven weeks later you revert her before discussing. She explains she is traveling so can't access her sources and asks you to wait, but you carry on. What would you call it? Anthony (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is going nowhere. Suggest Nightscream withdraw gracefully, if possible, with kudos for the notice he left on SG's talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowjams: "calling someone obnoxious is not incivil to the point we should ban them from contributing." And since I never said anything about "banning", this point is moot. I said that someone should speak to her about her policy violations, which they should. Saying that her behavior has not clearly violated WP:Civility is inane.

Ucucha: "Nightscream, it is not okay for you to use the rollback tool in a content dispute."

Anthonyhcole: Eleven weeks later you revert her before discussing. She explains she is traveling so can't access her sources and asks you to wait, but you carry on. What would you call it?" When edits are clear and unambiguous violations of policy, reverting is entirely reasonable, and does not require discussion, much less putting one editor's travel plans above all other editors' activities, since Wikipedia does not revolve upon any one editor's personal convenience. Discussion is only required when there is some interpretation of policy or element of subjectivity/aesthetics involved. Since I was fairly clear in the edit summary that accompanied my first edit of that material, what was discussion needed for? SandyGeorgia herself did not see fit to discuss reverting my edits with me, even if only to refute my application of the relevant policies that I cited, but somehow I'm supposed to discuss it with her, even though policy was clearly on my side in that matter? How do you figure this? Generally, when I notice someone unambiguously violating policy, I assume that they're a newbie, unless they begin reverting, at which point, I do discuss with them, as I did on her talk page here. By contrast, she feigned ignorance of my rationale with comments like "restore yet another strange deletion of cited material", as if I had not been clear in my edit summary and on her talk page.

I apologize if I misunderstood the scope of the rollback feature; I was under the impression that it was simply a tool to undo edits more quickly. Looking over WP:Rollback, I see otherwise, so I'm sorry about that. All in all though, I'm not sure what the substantial difference is between clicking on that tool, and merely undoing edits by other means, but if policy indicates that rollback not be used in circumstances like this, then I will no longer do so. Sorry for the misunderstanding on that point. Nightscream (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you were granted admin privilleges despite clearly having a most fundamentally flawed understanding on how rollback should be used? What is going on at RFA? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with any RfA that turned on whether a candidate should have rollback. If there is serious debate about that in an RfA, the candidacy is almost certainly lost.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might be mistaken then; I thought there were cases where admins lost the bit for inappropriately using rollback - if that was happening, then RFA would surely be a means of forcing candidates to familiarise themselves with how to use rollback appropriately. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The various guidelines and policies one must learn at Wikipedia are vast, and in my observation, learning them, even for an admin, is an ongoing process. There is no centralized, top-down process (that I am aware of) by which admins can learn every single nuance of every single rule, tool, resource, policy page, etc. The best we can do is try to be constantly open to improving, accepting constructive criticism, and taking responsibility for errors. Nightscream (talk) 04:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying very hard not to get sucked into silly edit- and flame-wars with User:Mathsci, but even the very first comment that disagree with him brought forth an immediate barrage of personal attacks. A WQA alert eventually got a non-apology apology, but personal attacks and blatantly offensive edit summaries have continued, and he seems hell-bent on edit-warring to write whatever he wants regardless of input from other editors. There's no question he's made some terrific contributions, but this kind of behavior can't be tolerated. May I suggest a one-day block to help him cool off and reconsider his approach? Rvcx (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am simply calloused and scarred from exposure to Climate Change Probation related pages, but I am struggling to see these personal attacks you complain of and can only think that your understanding of the phrase "knee jerk" involves some activity I would rather not be familiar with. I am seeing someone who is explaining how WP uses its sources, the need for comment to be sustained by reliable third party references, that quoting something accurately cannot be libelous, and that personal appraisal of an original source is not permissible. However that latter is clearly in the domain of content dispute, which is beyond the remit of this board. Unless you can specify what part of Mathsci's comment contravene WP:NPA, I very much doubt you will get much traction here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissing feedback on whether the cited sources support the statements in WP articles because I'm an "amateur" (used many times, of course never for Mathsci himself), accusing people of "making remarks off the tops of your head without any lengthy attempt to look at the sources" (despite repeated reminders that I have actually read the sources) and commenting "like a teenager playing a video game", demanding that I "get some grip on reality (unless of course you want ArbCom to be involved)", yet more allegations that I "hasn't read the sources- just knee jerk reaction", and the reversion of an edit supported by others on the grounds that "if you want to move towardss your 300th content edit do it elsewhere" seem a lot more like attacks directed at me (requiring very childish arguing over who has more "expertise" on the subject) than discussion of the content at hand. I don't deny Matsci's points about how primary and secondary sources should be used; I simply have not been able to verify the original phrasing of the text in secondary sources, and the primary sources suggest there's a good reason for that... Rvcx (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My review of the comments leads me to believe that although probably within the realms of a WQA referral - can you provide a link? - Mathsci was contrasting the findings of the third party sources with your own appraisals and, notwithstanding that you may or may not be an expert in the field, that would tend to be in the realm of Wikipedia:Original research and therefore not allowable (beyond the fact that Mathsci apparently believes your conclusions contrast to that of the reliable sources). I should note that I am not an expert at anything much than me, but a review of Mathsci's later comments - with the spelling mistakes and grammar - makes me believe that they were a little frustrated and might not have expressed themselves as respectfully as they might have. I would like to see Mathsci's comments upon this. Presently, I feel that this is a content dispute that has veered away from the preferred norms of interaction. Perhaps if Mathsci reviews the matter there might be some kind words exchanged about past comments and everyone can get on with the discussion? I will gently request that he takes a look at this section. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LHvU for letting me know about this and your truly horrible wikipun :)

• Rvcx's edits did not match the secondary source used [15]; he attempted to analyse the Jensen article himself
• There was no original research, just a summary of what appears in the secondary sources, a lot of which had been used for History of the race and intelligence controversy. Having produced 80,000 bytes of content with over 80 references, I can't really pretend not to be slightly familiar with the subject, often described as one of the most controversial papers in the history of psychology. A number of other people - from memory these include Slrubenstein, Maunus, Professor marginalia and RegentsPark - confirmed what I said.
• I did apologize for any misunderstanding twice here [16] (see in particular the final two statements). Mathsci (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 11 hours after your backhanded apology, you reverted an edit with the inappropriate edit summary "Rvcx (talk) no thanks - if you want to move towards your 300th content edit do it elsewhere". (You reverted Rvcx's edit 2 hours after it was made, despite the fact that he noted it on the talk page and appeared to receive acceptance from Professor marginalia, among others, prior to your revert). Your apology appears to lack any sincerity, and it appears 2 hours was not enough to read the discussion that was underway on the talk page. About an hour later, you were reverted on the basis that there was consensus on the talk page that Rvcx's edit was fine, but you edit-warred by reverting yet again here, failing to discuss your content reversion on the talk page. What is so difficult to understand about the fact you need to discuss reversions you make on the talk page and make appropriate edit summaries that don't go against WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF? Are experienced administrators failing to teach you how to appropriately deal with perceived or actual POV pushing, or is it a matter of being stubborn? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now Mathsci has reverted three times despite an apparent consensus and without a single comment on the talk page where the (minor) change was discussed. Rvcx (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally I see a potential sign of improvement - he's begun discussing his concerns on the talk page here; hopefully the edits in that discussion and in edit-summaries now comply with the relevant policies and preferred norms of interaction, even during perceived or actual difficult situations. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No such luck; "howlers" right out of the gate. Honestly, there has never been any indication that Mathsci has anything but disdain for third-party input. Rvcx (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Rvcx is editing too fast and not checking secondary sources. Here is what the secondary source says; [17]:

But he felt that 'the technique for rasing intelligence per se in the sense of g, probably lie more in the province of biological sciences than in psychology or eduaction'; eugenic reform rather than compensatory educationheld out the solution to the problem of the nation's intelligence.

I paraphrased this in two distinct ways, the first (diff 1) with the words "in" and "than" missing, and the second (diff 2 and 3) slightly closer to Wooldridge.

• He felt that the solution lay eugenic reform rather compensatory education surmising that "the technique for raising intelligence per se in the sense of g, probably lie more in the province of biological science than in psychology or education".
• He felt that the solution to this problem was through eugenic reform rather than compensatory education, surmising that "the technique for raising intelligence per se in the sense of g, probably lie more in the province of biological science than in psychology or education".

I did leave a message on the talk page [18] but Rvcx must have been editing too fast to read them, His version tht he and Captain Occam have edit-warred back into the article reads:

• He felt that eugenic reform would prevent this more effectively than compensatory education, surmising that "the technique for raising intelligence per se in the sense of g, probably lie more in the province of biological science than in psychology or education".

This is not what the secondary source says. Indeed as the secondary sources say, Jensen's paper starts off with "Compensatory education has been tried and it has apparently failed". There are no comparatives. Anyway since there are two versions I have only reverted twice. On the talk page, Rvcx discusses what the quote means in the primary sources. He says, it means "changing people's biology", [19] but of course it doesn't mean that all. As the secondary source states, "biological sciences" means eugenics: population control, which in these cases - as several of the secondary sources also say - means either birth control or sterilization. Certainly that is what is in the rest of the summary. Our task is just to paraphrase Wooldridge, the secondary source. This kind of error, apparent with the mention of "Changing people's biology" in interpreting the primary source, shows exactly why we use secondary sources. Mathsci (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to point out that when this issue was brought up at the BLP noticeboard, Jimbo Wales became involved in the discussion, and left this comment about it. His comment is about a slightly different piece of content than the one that Mathsci is edit warring over currently, but the same principle clearly applies. According to Jimbo Wales, we can’t claim that Jensen has advocated something unless Jensen has specifically stated that he advocates it—“we need it from his own words, not the synthesis and conclusion-drawing of his critics.” In the case of eugenics, even though some of Jensen’s critics have claimed in secondary sources that Jensen has advocated this, all that Jensen himself has stated is that eugenics is more likely to raise the IQs of low-IQ people than compensatory education is. Mathsci is not only edit warring to try and change the article against consensus; he is repeatedly inserting material that according to Jimbo Wales is probably a BLP violation.

And this is in addition to his repeated personal attacks, which have been near-constant for the past several months. I can provide diffs of some of the more egregious examples from before Rvcx became involved in this dispute, if anyone needs them. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I decided against getting involved in the WQA thread, but now that this has been taken to AN/I, I figured I should offer my opinion about it as someone who’s been the target of numerous personal attacks from Mathsci in the past. In general, the attitude I’ve observed from him is that no criticism of his behavior is ever appropriate because he’s a “user in good standing”. For an example of this, see his exchange with Keegan here. His attitude appears to be that “good standing” is a status that becomes irrevocable once it is earned, and grants immunity from any censure or negative consequences in response to policy violations.

I would certainly hope that isn’t how Wikipedia works. For a user to remain in good standing should be contingent on their staying civil, and not engaging in disruptive behavior, and I don’t think Mathsci can reasonably expect to stay in good standing after his behavior towards Rvcx and David.Kane during the past week, as well as his behavior towards me, Varoon Arya and Ludwigs2 over the previous several months. Assuming it’s the case that Mathsci’s history of contributions does not excuse him from having to abide by policies such as WP:NPA, I think it would be beneficial for an administrator to give him a hard dose of reality about this, and that it would help avoid similar problems from Mathsci in the future if an admin could make him aware that he does not have free reign to ignore WP policy without any fear of negative consequences. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with LHVU. This matter is related to the endless disputes about Race and intelligence. User:David.Kane made a post on WP:BLPN essentially arguing that academic sources have made libelous claims about Arthur Jensen, and has been supported in this position by User:Off2riorob and User:Rvcx. Mathsci has pointed out that there is substantial scholarly coverage of Jensen's positions and has explained the substance of this coverage and given citations and links to where it appears. Off2riorob and Rvcx do not appear to have followed up on these citations/links, and Mathsci is expressing frustration that other editors are not doing their reading. I find Mathsci's reaction entirely understandable; sadly, Wikipedia editors cannot be graded down when they show that they don't have command of the sources. In any event, nothing that Mathsci has said in the diffs provided is uncivil, and bringing the matter to ANI borders on the vexatious. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. For more background (not related to Rvcx) see this. In short, several SPA editors have been using WP:CPUSH to promote their views across a wide range of race and intelligence articles. Mathsci is about the only obstacle preventing SPAs and other enthusiastic editors from having free reign. Johnuniq (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply not consistent with what happened. Off2riorob and Rvcx followed up on the only citation necessary to validate a BLP violation, the writing of the subject. The violation has recently been corrected as a result of this. Mathsci made efforts for several months to maintain his virulent anti-Jensen material. His behaviour towards other editors during this time was appalling. mikemikev (talk) 06:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't think the content dispute here is that significant. It's crazy that such a protracted discussion was needed to change just a few words to ensure the text is verified by sources (both primary and secondary—let's not get into a lengthy debate here, but suffice it to say I think both are relevant). I have no particular interest in views across that article space.

What is significant is Mathsci's stubborn and confrontational attitude, and his assumption that he is entitled to insult and ignore everyone who disagrees with him, even over the smallest details, on the basis of his "score" in terms of number of edits. I didn't think that was the way Wikipedia was supposed to work. Rvcx (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My view, after reviewing what is written since I logged out, is that there is a content dispute relating to the subject, that Mathsci has used terminology that is not optimum, and those instances are being pursued in an effort to limit Mathsci's input in the dispute. The latter is not going to work, so I suggest that the point of contention is taken to dispute resolution; RfC or WP:3O would be my suggestion. To the parties I would comment, Mathsci might consider choosing their words a bit more carefully, and Rvcx, Off2riorob and others should separate the content dispute from the civility issues and find a way to get consensus on the content matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, it seems like LHvU is trying to taint other editors with MathSci's bad behavior. I have been incredibly careful to separate civility issues from content issues; thus the attempt to discuss civility here and at WQA and focus entirely on content at BLPN and the article talk pages. It is consistently MathSci who employs ad-hominem in content disputes and tries to deflect civility complaints with arguments over content. It is consistently MathSci who argues that other editors have no right to provide input, purely on the basis of who they are. It is MathSci who laces every comment with "anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot and they should fuck off" attacks, on multiple occasions actually threatening to escalate to ArbCom purely because an editor had the temerity to suggest that he could be in the wrong. I don't think any one comment is particularly egregious, but the overall message, sense of entitlement, and pattern of personal intimidation are both clear and intentional. At some point administrators should intervene to let him know that such an attitude is not acceptable, regardless of how many "content edits" he has made. Rvcx (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Akhilleus: 1) If you are going to make claims about me, then you ought to have the courtesy of making a direct link to the material. Here is the BLPN section in which I raised the issue about Arthur Jensen. 2) The first two uninvolved editors (talk and Rvcx) to comment agreed with me. Jimbo Wales was also supportive. And MathSci has given up on defending the specific edit that we had a problem with, that Jensen "has recommended separate curricula for Blacks and Whites." And the reason that he has given up defending it is that Jensen did no such thing. Now, we all make mistakes. If MathSci would just admit that this claim does not belong in Wikipedia, we could all move on. But, as is his usual practice, he engages in a blizzard of irrelevant citations and ad hominem attacks. This issue in this thread is whether or not such attacks belong on Wikipedia and, if not, what ought to be done about MathSci's behavior. Do you really believe that MathSci's behavior here and elsewhere is not "uncivil?" David.Kane (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors in this thread seem unconvinced that MathSci's behavior is unacceptable. Perhaps they are right. But they should look at the history of MathSci's behavior as discussed in previous ANI threads: [20], [21], [22], [23] and [24]. Note that other examples are available. My point is not to claim that MathSci is always wrong (or always right) in these debates. My point, counter Johnuniq, is that complaints about MathSci's behavior are not specific to his edits of Race and Intelligence related articles. His behavior is consistent, as best I can tell, across the range of his interactions at Wikipedia. Rvcx's experience with MathSci is completely typical. Is this what experienced admins want to see at Wikipedia? If so, I have little doubt that MathSci will continue to give it to us good and hard. David.Kane (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just take a look at the diffs shall we? The first two diffs refer to: A.K.Nole (talk · contribs). It was determined by a member of ArbCom that this user was wikihounding me and continued to so under a new account: they have been iinstructed by that member of ArbCom to deists. Next diff from 2008 ends as follows: I would like to add that this matter is resolved, as far as I am concerned. It was unfortunate that Mathsci and I got off to a bad start but the situation has calmed down and I'm sure we'll be able to co-operate in a constructive way in the future. I most certainly do not want to see Mathsci blocked, he has made many constructive edits and is valuable to Wikipedia. He has offered his apologies and I've offered mine for our heated exchange and I believe that no more needs to be said about it. I wish to thank the other users and administrators involved in this discussions for constructive and meaningful comments that helped to diffuse the situation. JdeJ (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC) The fourth diff was about Ethnic groups of Europe where a Suomi editor was removing good edits by Varoon Arya (talk · contribs) which are still in the article. Normal nationalist issues there. The fifth diff is by Danko Georgiev, MD, who was blocked for a week for attempting to out me as Alan Weinstein, then head of department in Berkeley,and actualy a friend of mine. So you get a γ- for accuracy but an α+ for misrepresentation and attempted harrassment. Mathsci (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note as an uninvolved editor, I have made a temporary change to stop the edit-war short of protection and blocks. See my comments at the talk and come to a consensus that does not violate policy. Enough is enough - if anyone involved wants to continue edit-warring about this matter, they proceed at their own risk. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that strongly about it and there is no ongoing edit war as you claim. So I have restored Rvcx's version, despite its very mild inaccuracy, which I don't really care that much about. However I do care about secondary sources as they represent one of the pillars of wikipedia editing policy and I hope other editors will continue to respect and abide by those policies. I'm sorry for spoiling the fun for the peanut gallery. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think others can assess for themselves whether there is an ongoing edit-war from just looking at your reversions [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]. That is, the same person usually doesn't make 3 identical reverts on the same page within 24 hours if that person doesn't "feel very strongly" about something, nor do they wait until the third revert before even bothering to discuss their issue(s). Some people take a long time to learn, but I suppose it would be better late than never. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this instance of edit warring ends up being resolved here, I hope there can also be a solution to the problem of Mathsci’s repeated personal attacks. This problem has been going on for as long as I’ve been interacting consistently with Mathsci, which is for around four months, and unless an admin does something about it I doubt it’ll be changing anytime soon. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, by now all these AN/I discussions have become part of "History of the race and intelligence controversy" as well. Count Iblis (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be an end to the personal attacks on Mathsci, as well. Some of Mathsci's comments do appear to be personal attacks, but so do most of the edits of the people complaining. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the moment it does seem to be a team of editors picking on me all over wikipedia. It includesd the familiar WP:SPAs: David.Kane, Mikemikev, Captain Ocaam and Varoon Arya. I edit Bach Organ Music. I'm editing Orgelbüchlein at the moment. I have the two main English languages source books by Russel Stinson and by Peter Williams (both edition). I also have also have severaal version of the scores. Previously I created Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes and Canonic Variations. Varoon Arya (talk · contribs) has followed me to this article and has started questioning the sources and the standard orthography. However, in all Bach editions there is now a standard spelling which I am adhering to. Breitkopf used a different convention in the nineteenth century, but adopted a different convention along with all other publishers of urtext editions from 1969. I have both of the German Breitkopf editions. In his edit summaries Varoon Arya has started questioning all those sources: the scores, the definitive book by Peter Williams, The Organ Music of J.S. Bach, Cambridge University Press and The Orgelbüchlein by Russell Stinson, Oxford University Press, the only book wholly devoted to the subject. [31][32] I am preparing a long table with 164 entries and he inserted apostrophes of the 19C version, which has now been dropped, probably beacuse of adherence to the autograph, now available in facsimile. Why is he leaving such sneering comments, why isc heasting doubt on the sources and why has he followed me to this article? I think this a concerted attempt by a team of 3 or 4 users to wikihound me. Mathsci (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin: even if that’s true, I think when you look at some of the worse examples of this from Mathsci, they’re of a different caliber than anything that’s coming from the people who are annoyed at him. Here’s a small sampling of some of the worse examples of this from Mathsci. There are a lot more than this that I could provide, but I think these are probably sufficient to demonstrate the point I’m making.

<= The onslaught continues here [33]. I think Varron Arya is trying to provoke an edit war. Fortunately the German 1991 Breitkopf edition is in exact agreement with the two books in its spelling and use of apostrophes.Mathsci (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[34] In response to a detailed explanation from Varoon Arya of why Mathsci’s preferred version of an article violated NPOV, Mathsci writes “Sorry, what you write is nonsense. Please stop wasting my time.” (This was Mathsci’s entire response to VA.) He considered this a sufficient rebuttal to Varoon Arya’s points to revert any efforts to address the NPOV concerns that VA was raising. I don’t think any of the rest of us consider snide comments like this a sufficient response to policy-based arguments that Mathsci makes.

[35] “BTW if you revert my edits you are very likely to be blocked for a considerable period of time, possibly by ArbCom.” I don’t think any of the rest of us have threatened Mathsci with blocks to try and scare him out of reverting our edits. He’s also done the same thing in some of his edit summaries, such as this one: “you'll be blocked if you repeat this POV-pushing”.

[36] “From the blog previously linked to his user page, Captain Occam has an extreme point of view in real life, which also extends to forms of holocaust denial.” I think this is probably the worst example, both because it’s false, defamatory and completely unsupported by anything in my blog or elsewhere; and also because I’m of Ashkenazi (European) Jewish ancestry and had relatives who died in the holocaust. The fact that I’m of Ashkenazi ancestry is mentioned in one of the userboxes on my userpage, which I know Mathsci has looked at, because at several points he’s brought up information he found at external sites that I’ve linked to there. I think he could have known both that this comment was false, and also how offensive I’d find it. And obviously, none of the rest of us have made these sorts of defamatory personal claims about him. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, could you back that up with diffs? Honestly, "most" of the edits from people complaining are personal attacks? I don't see a single instance on BLPN or the race/intelligence talk pages where I've made a personal attack against Mathsci. This thread contains links to dozens of diffs where Mathsci has. The attempt to paint everyone with the same brush in an attempt to exonerate Mathsci's uncivil and domineering behavior is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Rvcx (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. When are you people going to realize that Mathsci - no matter how much support he has from certain editors and admins - is an inveterate troll who uses intimidation, harassment, political gamesmanship, and other emotional tactics to try to dictate wikipedia content. He is simply not worth the trouble he causes. It's truculent ciphers like Mathsci that make editing wikipedia an excruciating experience.

So long as you all allow Mathsci to turn every page he touches into a full-scale cockfight, Wikipedia will not be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and it won't be a pleasant place to edit at all, at least not for anyone who doesn't kiss Mathsci's a$$.

No point in belaboring this issue, so I'll leave it at that. do with it what you will. --Ludwigs2 16:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you come here after this invitation from [37] Captain Occam (talk · contribs)? He has a habit of requesting "help" from other editors, either here, on other noticeboards or articles he's trying push his point of view on. Mathsci (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because a polite "this may be of relevance to you" is far worse than soliciting allies with personal attacks. Rvcx (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Mathsci; all Occam did was point out that you are (once again) engaging in bad behavior. If I had noticed on my own I would have made the same comment. I do not need help or invitations from other editors to recognize how badly you pervert the principles of Wikipedia. I am, in fact, shocked that other editors seem to think your behavior is acceptable. but that is between them and their own consciences. --Ludwigs2 21:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Ludwig2, yes your characterization of Mathsci's techniques are fairly correct. That said, they are also tactics being used by you and many of the SPA accounts that Mathsci mentions. The main difference between his edits and the others using similar tactics is that his edits are generally solid, whereas the edits of others are symptomatic of pov pushing. His behavior is not excused by the higher quality of his edits, and neither are the edits and behavior of the SPA editors excused by Mathsci's behavior. At the heart of the matter is the ability to edit wikipedia using well sourced secondary sources with a neutral point of view. Shining a spotlight on his behavior without discussing the underlying context and editing problems is a perfect example of tolling behavior. A.Prock (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aprock, are you accusing me of being an SPA account? Are you accusing me of trolling? Or are you simply diverting attention from the complaint about Mathsci's behavior? I'm sorry, but given the number of people that have had problems with Mathsci, it's a bit ridiculous to argue that all of them were at fault. The pattern is Mathsci himself; if you want to start threads about other editors (including me) then feel free. Rvcx (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ A.Prock: AProck - I've never had a squabble with you (or even thought badly of you). In fact, I can count the people I've had squabbles with on Wikipedia on one hand - everyone else on Wikipedia I communicate with well and cooperate with carefully and thoughtfully. My problem with Mathsci is that despite (or perhaps because of) his obvious skills as an editor, he treats other editors in a rude and supercilious fashion, one that I (personally) refuse to put up with. If he were to interact with me in a civil and restrained manner, then I would have the highest opinion of him, and we'd get along well. Because he insists on treating me like vermin, however, I find myself consistently having to clip his wings. I have no use for people who think they are God's gift to Wikipedia, and I have no compunctions about telling them what I think about their bad behavior.

No one gets trouble from me unless they bring the fight to my door, but I have little tolerance for bullies. Mathsci has a long track record of bad behavior, and he has brought the fight to my door more than once. Until he cleans up his act he should not expect me to be gentle or silent in my disapproval. --Ludwigs2 22:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Mathsci's behavior does cross into the realm of inexcusable on occasion. If you read the WP:CPUSH essay, you'll see that Mathsci's uncivil reactions are one of the typical outcomes for editors working on articles where WP:CPUSH is ongoing. A big part of the problem here is that there is an attempt to move the discussion away from content and editing issues to personal civility issues. This is a big reason why there are so many problems dealing with the WP:CPUSH problems. For uninvolved editors, civility issues are a lot easier to identify, pursue and discuss than content issues. A.Prock (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Aprock. The problem here is your attempt to move the discussion away from civility issues (which is what this complaint is about) to content disputes (for which this is not the right venue). Mathsci's behavior cannot be dismissed as an understandable reaction to manipulative POV-pushers—he has consistently treated every editor who disagrees with him in the same uncivil way from the very start. It would great if a good writer and researcher were also good at working with other editors, but unfortunately that's not the case here. Pretending there is not a problem with Mathsci hasn't worked so far and unless something is done about him the problems will continue in the future. Rvcx (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We're never going to resolve this dispute at AN/I or via RfCs: I think only ArbCom can deal with this situation. Long-term POV pushing by single-purpose accounts has turned the whole area of race and intelligence into an intractable battleground. I'd like to see all SPAs in this area topic banned. Fences&Windows 17:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree entirely. The continued attacks on Mathsci here and elsewhere are a distraction and a blot on the project -- no one should be subject to such vitriol simply because they're trying to uphold core Wikipedia standards. The SPA activity needs to be curtailed, and these accounts blocked from editing, or, at the very least, put under severe editing restrictions regarding both the "race and intelligence" subject area and attacks and complaints about Mathsci. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fences and Beyond My Ken: 1) This complaint against MathSci was bought by Rvcx. Would you describe him as engaging in "vitriol" or as an "SPA"? 2) Am I one of the editors who you seek to block? The only reason that I engaged in this thread is because Akhilleus mentioned by name in a misleading fashion. David.Kane (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is all a smoke screen. If we step back and look at the bigger picture, Mathsci may be involved in a few minor incidents from time to time, but he is not the problem on race related articles. Rather it is civil POV pushing, tag teaming, edit warring SPAs who are creating an atmosphere conducive for incidents. The solution to this problem already exists, topic ban POV pushing SPAs, and repeated threads on ANI will reduce or cease altogether. Unfortunately there has not been enough political will to implement this solution, though almost everyone, including the SPAs themselves, have acknowledged the existence of POV pushing SPA editing. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wapondaponda: Given your rampant sock-puppetry in the past, you are probably doing MathSci more harm than good by chiming in here. I, at least, have never "acknowledged the existence of POV pushing SPA editing." David.Kane (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Easy excuse to divert from the main problem and I have heard it countless times whenever editors try to discredit any edits I make. From my experience, it doesn't work very often which is why I am still quite active on Wikipedia. If a suggestion is good for this encyclopedia, it really shouldn't matter, and it usually doesn't matter who it is coming from. There might be a tendency to focus only on the negative, but there are some positives, I've been editing Wikipedia for five years now and I have experienced many of these controversies before. During that unfortunate period, Mathsci did participate in getting me blocked. But from my time on Wikipedia, I have encountered Mathsci's edits in a diverse range of articles. Most are uncontroversial and of good quality, so I am confident that Mathsci is not a POV pushing SPA, and that when this particular flare-up is over, he will move on to work on other articles. Overall he is a net plus to the encyclopedia. I cannot say the same for the band of SPAs currently holding a number of race related articles hostage. Captain Occam, Mikemikev, Bpesta have all acknowledged in one way or another that they are SPAs. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it incredibly discouraging to see that even in the face of conduct from Mathsci of the sort that Rvcx and I have linked to above, behavior which has no equivalent from any of the users complaining about Mathsci in this thread, Beyond my Ken and Fences & Windows both believe that the solution is to punish everyone but Mathsci. It really seems like what Ludwigs2 described might be the case: that there are certain administrators who will support Mathsci regardless of what he does, and that since Mathsci is aware of this fact, he knows that he has free reign to violate any policies here without any fear of negative consequences.

Aren’t either of the admins who are saying this aware that at this point, no more than half of the users currently complaining about Mathsci’s behavior are SPAs? The only users currently making these complaints who could arguably fit that definition are me, David.Kane and Mikemikev. Rvcx, Ncmvocalist, and Ludwigs2 clearly aren’t SPAs, and the first two became involved in the article only as a result of it being brought up at the BLP noticeboard. The current conflict between them and Mathsci is the result of them trying to remove material that (as I explained above) according to Jimbo Wales is a BLP violation, and Mathsci edit warring to reinsert it. Following Jimbo Wales’ instructions about how to comply with BLP policy is not POV-pushing, and the editors who initiated this complaint because of how Mathsci reacted when they tried to do this aren’t SPAs. In this situation, do you seriously think the problem is just with “POV-pushing SPAs”? If David.Kane and I weren’t involved in these articles, and it were only Rvcx and Ncmvocalist trying to remove the BLP violations, is there any evidence that Mathsci would be treating them any differently from how he currently is?

I really hope I can get through to you about what’s actually going on here, although I don’t have all that much hope about it. My understanding of the current situation is that Mathsci knows he can ignore whatever policies that he wants here, because he expects admins like the two of you to support him regardless of what evidence or arguments are presented against him. And judging by what I’ve seen thus far, it looks like he might be right that this is the case. If he is, then we may as well abandon all pretense of users being judged objectively on the basis of their behavior—apparently, the only thing that really matters is who the admins personally like or dislike. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Occam canvassing [38], and forum shopping [39]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they were no POV pushing SPAs, would many of these incidents exist. The history of these articles suggests not. This dispute has been running for eight months, Mathsci was not initially involved and during the mediation he did not participate for 2-3 months. During Mathsci's absence there was still name-calling, incivility, edit warring and blocks. It is evident that the real problem is the existence of SPAs rather than Mathsci's edits. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwigs2 may not be an SPA, but Mathsci was, for some time, the only remaining editor complaining about his (sorry, I can't think of a word which is both accurate and not a personal attack, ummm, let me think), "mediation" on Race and intelligence. He has a personal interest in Mathsci's being discredited, as it's the only way that his "mediation" might not be considered a reason for a ban. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The characterisation of the personal behaviour on Wikipedia of Mathsci by Ludwigs2, although strongly expressed, has much truth in it. Apart from that, the edits by Mathsci and his supporters to the article History of the race and intelligence controversy‎ seem to me and to several other people to be tendentious and slanted. Attempts to place a NPOV flag on that article have been repulsed. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

There is zero truth in Ludwigs2's unfortunate characterization of Mathsci as an "inveterate troll", a few paragraphs above. Mathsci doesn't make "deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors" (see WP:TROLL). On the contrary, a deep care for the encyclopedia seems to be what motivates Mathsci (and, admittedly, sometimes make him lash out in crude hyperbole). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Captain Occam canvassing [40], and forum shopping [41]."

Wouldn't it be appropriate for you to look into what's actually going on before making these sorts of accusations about me? I contacted Black Kite because he specifically asked me to contact him if there's more edit warring on these articles. As for Ludwigs2, I contacted him because during the four months that I've been interacting with Mathsci, he's the only person who's been the subject of more personal attacks from Mathsci than I have, and in a thread about Mathsci's personal attacks it seemed like it would be appropriate to have Ludwig's input.

If you look through the three AN/I threads in which Mathsci tried to get Ludwigs2 banned because of his actions as mediator, the first two of which were started by other users and hijacked by Mathsci, you'll see that Ludwig was begging Mathsci to raise his content disputes within the mediation itself, and Mathsci repeatedly refused. Mathsci's complaints in all three of these threads were almost exclusively either personal attacks on Ludwig, or content disputes over the article that he was attempting to resolve via administrative action against the user he disagreed with without attempting any form of dispute resolution with them, even when the user he disagreed with was specifically requesting this. This last thing is something he's done several times with me and David.Kane also.

Arthur Rubin and Beyond My Ken, are you going to make any attempt to address the points I've made about the attitude you're expressing here? Or are you going to continue expressing what appears to be blind support for Mathsci, while refusing to acknowledge any of the evidence that's being presented that his behavior really is his own fault, and not someone else's? --Captain Occam (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, I'm not going to make an attempt to address the points you've made. I agree that Mathsci can be abrasive, but, as he's not violating any of the Pillars, the good of the encyclopedia should be considered. Mathsci has made more constructive contributions than all the people who have complained about him, combined.

For those who consider this contrary to my view of Betacommand, so be it. His bots may have made more constructive edits than his detractors, but they also made more nonconstructive edits than his detractors made constructive edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Hjfhksdjf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked indefinitely as a sock of Alexcas11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've got at least one IP 71.97.187.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and nammed sock of this guy running around, and the named sock, Hjfhksdjf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been very busy, uploading a ton of images and recreating some of his favorite targets. He even got one of his favorites Scratte (fictional character) recreated using the IP sock and AfC, then sending it to AfD himself! Starting yet another SPI as I spotted what looked like two or three more sleepers, but could use some more immediate help in cleaning up behind Hjfhksdjf's mess to remove the over dozen images and pages he made. Would rather not have to go tag them all with CSD. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: SPI is here. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is now making threats of a sort[42], and the exact same denial his last sock puppet made...and has pretty much done his usual explosion upon detection-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hjfhksdjf (and seriously, when has a name like that ever been on the level?) is pretty much already dead. That steaming lump he added to my talk page was, as we call it, the icing on the cake. HalfShadow 22:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked as an obvious sock. All creations by the user or the IP have been deleted. –MuZemike 23:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beware the counter-block! SGGH ^ping! 00:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ESWI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is likely the owner/employee/etc of Education Solutions Worldwide Inc.[43], his edits are only to 3 or 4 articles directly related to that subject and his most recent edits were to restore a promotional copyvio to the Silent Way article [44]. Also possibly related is 206.223.177.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) the only other account to edit the Words in Color, which could probably be deleted as purely promotional. Most of their edits seem to be here to promote the concepts associated with their business and put links to various product pages in the articles. The other related article was on the academic himself Caleb Gattegno. I just removed the biography as a copyvio of another website. The rest of it is written to promote and explain the teaching method. Not the individual.--Crossmr (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you requesting of admins, and (since I can guess) would this not be better noted at WP:COIN? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what he's asking for is fairly obvious, but COIN may be a better venue. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just placed a G11 speedy tag on the Silent Way article as primarily promotional and incapable of improvement by normal editing. The first half of it, as discussed on its talk p., is also a copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this was an otherwise established editor with a track record who was editing one article inappropriately maybe COIN would be better. But this is a SPA whose sole intent seems to be promotional in nature and who is willing to violate copyright policies to push that promotional intent. In this case I think the COIN is secondary to the SPA/promotional/copyright issues.--Crossmr (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As an aside, I have seen one or two cases where a new user is genuinely confused by the subsequent deletion of text as an advert after it has been deleted and then released for copyright. If any admins are discussing copyright release with a user, it is probably better to check whether the text is so blatantly promotional as to be unusable, with or without release, beforehand. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if copyright was released, we don't copy and paste about pages or press releases into articles. They aren't usually remotely neutral. In this case there were several promotional links littered through the articles (to product pages) and the sole purpose of this account seemed to promote this academic and his work.--Crossmr (talk) 11:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Mystic Researcher (talk · contribs) is a new account that appears to be doing nothing but nominating articles for deletion that were created by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs). Since RAN has been in conflict with another editor for nominating his images for deletion (discussion on his talk page), this seems like a very pointy editor. Admin attention would be appreciated. Dayewalker (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editor notified on his talk page. He also just dumped 13, count 'em, 13 deletion notices onto RAN's page [45] Dayewalker (talk) 04:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well all the deletions are probably in order as the subjects aren't that notable. The fact that the user came here and nominated thirteen articles without making any other edits outside of that article makes me think that this is either Dalejenkins or a sock of a user. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the articles that were nominated for deletion was nominated because the article legitimately fell short of the guidelines for notable topics. Richard Arthur has written some great and interesting articles, I read a good number of them, far more than I nominated. Those that I did nominate had no assertion of notability. I invite you all to take a look at the the nominations I made and I'm sure you will agree. Ocean Mystic Researcher (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that I agree with you on the nominations, but I have a question: Have you ever edited before on Wikipedia? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) OMR, what other account(s) have you recently used to edit the encyclopedia, and why the current interest in Richard Arthur Noroton's articles and their notability? If you cannot come up with a plausible explanation I would suggest that your account be indefinitely blocked, and all of the nominations procedurally reverted or closed irrespective of their merits (which, looking at them, are questionable) per WP:DENY - Wikidemon (talk) 04:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not edited Wikipedia in years. My last account was User:Purplefeltangel back when I was 14. I still read Wikipedia pages sometimes, on and off. I noticed Richard Arthur Norton when I was reading the recent ANI reports about his files being deleted or something. I decided to read up on his articles, and found a few that fell, as I felt, short of notability guidelines. I didn't nominate all the articles that I read. Some of them were obviously significant, like supreme court judges and elected officials and such. I do stand by my nominations and certainly do not mean any disruption or harm. If you do block me, I am sure that someone here will second my nominations, or re-nominate the articles, since they are obviously non-notable. Just have a look at them please. Ocean Mystic Researcher (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Looking over these, none of these are either clearly non-notable or WP:SNOW cases of notability. One or two of these nominations in isolation from a legitimate account under normal circumstances would be entitled to an assumption of good faith and should proceed. However, (1) simultaneously nominating thirteen articles created by the same user (2) who is currently blocked (3) for behavior relating to his claim that a wikistalker is nominating his files for deletion (4) from a brand new WP:SPA account created two hours after the block, does seem WP:DUCK-ish (after ec - but please do note the plausible explanation for the SPA given above). The suggestion that others will engage in WP:POINT-y renominations does not seem too helpful. We'd end up with a drama-fest, with people voting to keep or oppose the articles for reasons other than a straightforward review of their notability. It is unlikely that a slug of deletion nominations can be handled in a fair and reasonable way, particularly with the article creator's account blocked. Even if it were not blocked, it would appear to be unduly punitive to force a longtime established editor to deal simultaneously with thirteen nominations of his articles. As an intermediate measure to avoid confusion and wasted effort, it seems best to put a template message on the deletion discussions that points to this report, urging people to hold off on commenting or closing until there is some clear decision how to proceed. My recommendation would be a speedy procedural close without prejudice to a legitimate nomination at a controlled rate of any of these articles that a legitimate editor believes in good faith to lack notability after the article creator is unblocked (and a suggestion to apply WP:BEFORE as well). - Wikidemon (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a legitimate editor, I am acting in good faith, and the articles are nominated for valid reasons. Some of them have even gotten "delete" comments already. Besides, the focus should be on the article, not the author, and not the nominator. If the article lacks a place in Wikipedia, it should be nominated for deletion, regardless who wrote it, or what collateral issues we may be having. Thank you. Ocean Mystic Researcher (talk) 05:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them have even gotten "delete" comments already. Yes, from the same editor, User:Mono, whose purpose in WikiLife, judging from their contributions, is to delete things. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, in isolation the individual nominations would be in good faith. I don't happen to agree with some of them but that's beside the point. Things have to proceed in an orderly way. Even giving Ocean Mystic Researcher every benefit of the doubt with respect to good faith and sincere intentions, nominating a bunch of articles for deletion at the same time, all created by a blocked editor, because you see that the editor is involved in an AN/I report over claims of stalking/harassment and deletion nominations, is not a good way to go. We could let the nominations run their course, a few may be deleted, others may be kept - but if so, at a minimum we should unblock the article creator so they can comment here and on the deletion nominations. I still don't think it's fair to subject an already-beleaguered editor to that kind of pressure. How far does he have to go to get some relief from being beleaguered? - Wikidemon (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This does have a pretty unpleasant feel to it: dropping 13 deletion notices in the lap of a blocked inclusionist is not a good situation, somewhat akin to poking a stick at a caged animal. That said, I have a hard time justifying procedural closings: the articles should have been created in a state that would allow them to survive AFD, so there shouldn't be any particular strain in defending 13 at once. If RAN was on a long block, there wouldn't be a good case for refusing to nominate articles he had created, and in that case he couldn't defend them at all.

However, people may want to look at WP:ILLEGIT: "Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections". If people decide this is a sock (and a speedy checkuser might be in order), then the account and the sockpuppeteer should be blocked, and I would endorse closing the AFDs in that case.—Kww(talk) 05:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is my only current account. I disclosed that I was Purplefeltangel, and I last used that account five years ago. Ocean Mystic Researcher (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't suggest going down that route without a checkuser to verify your statement.—Kww(talk) 05:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec - addressing Kww) Agreed, except the comment about creating articles that can withstand AfD without one's further involvement. Most or all of these articles contain unambiguous assertions of notability, sourced to major mentions in reliable sources. Principled arguments for why they are or are not notable will turn on the finer points of the various notability guidelines, e.g. does a local farm that's had a bunch of articles written about its activities and operations fail because it's of local interest only? Is a source that a woman was one of the richest people in her state not really helpful because it's more or less an obituary? 3 days is a mid-range block. For a productive editor who has created scores of articles to be unavailable to comment or improve an article for the first 3 days of a deletion nomination is already a bit sketchy - and would at a minimum weigh in favor of an unblock. But if the nominations are determined to be in bad faith, we can't reward that. Plus, even assuming the best of faith, combing over an editors entire article creation history to systematically nominate a bunch of them for deletion may be an activity we want to prohibit. If that's the punishment for getting into an AN/I fight, it creates a chilling effect. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just can't bring myself to support trying to prohibit articles from being nominated while their creator is blocked, which is the basic result of what you are saying. I think a checkuser is in order, and hopefully quickly. Can someone with access to IM get a checkuser to look at this situation pronto?—Kww(talk) 06:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please factor in as well that it is a holiday weekend here in the States: editing is likely to be below normal levels until Tuesday. (Somehow this situation feels something like a "data dump", where huge amounts of data are dumped on news organizations on Friday, knowing that they will probably not go after it full-bore until Monday, thus buying some time while, simultaneously, being able to claim "full disclosure".) The timing seems suspect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jdelanoy is gone from the SPI channel on IRC and the two other ones are idle. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem rather pointy and conveniently timed. There's no policy against going through a particular user's contributions and vetting them, but it doesn't seem like the wisest course at this particular point in time. It could be in good faith, but it looks pretty suspicious. That said, it looks as if all of the discussions already have several comments aside from the nominator's, so I'm not entirely comfortable with closing as a procedural keep. I also agree with Kww; I don't think it's a good idea to establish the idea that an article can't be AfDed while its creator is blocked, even if that might have been the better way to go in this particular case. Shimeru (talk) 09:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't imagine that the nominations were in good faith, certainly not as a new user's first activity. I think a Checkuser would be in order. (I've recused myself from the AfDs in question for hopefully obvious reasons of propriety.) ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 09:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems very unlikely, yes. Strains belief. But I don't suppose it's entirely impossible. Given this user's admitted method of seeking out these articles in particular, it seems like looking for trouble, at best. Shimeru (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting an inflexible rule that an AfD can't occur while the article creator is blocked. But 13 AfDs culled from a single blocked editor's list of contributions based on an AN/I thread related to his block isn't right. You can decide for yourself where we should draw that line, but wherever we draw it this is probably on the other side. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Everything about those AfDs... stinks. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taken altogether and given the timing, these don't look at all like good faith noms. The topics are on the edge of, or barely peeking over, the horizon of GNG, clearly harvested for a pointy spree. Hopefully a CU will have a look at this. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A "brand new user" whose first and only action is to nominate a batch of articles by a user who has an ongoing dispute with one or more other editors over deletions. This is so obvious that, regardless of whose sock it is, I am blocking it as a transparent violation of WP:SOCK. The assertions of good faith by the user are simply implausible. Guy (Help!) 09:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Good move on the block. I've got a horrible feeling about where the subtext of, "regardless of whose sock it is" is going, and would just like to say that it is not me and I object to no scrutiny and/or Checkuser to confirm this. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 09:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do find it very hard to believe that someone without an active account would create an account and flawlessly put together over a dozen AfDs on topics at the bleeding edge of the inclusionist/exclusionist kerfluffles minutes after their creator has been blocked. Moreover, all of the AfDed articles are cleanly written and built, with no worries other than perhaps a need for some talk page discussion as to whether further sourcing might help to show notability more straightforwardly. So even without the timing, templating anyone with a batch of AfDs on articles like this would make me wonder. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What Bullshit: Those AfDs should be deleted as harassment. Whether any of them are legitimate, a renom for another editor is always available. But if these stand, it just makes harrassing users even easier than it already is.--Milowent (talk) 11:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Would anyone mind if I speedy close them all as disruption posted by a likely sock? Gwen Gale (talk) 11:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Any article with legit issues can be resubmitted, and hopefully by an account with recent editing history and a good rationale. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing stuff at the computer all this afternoon so I'm here. I'll check back in about two hours and if I don't hear otherwise, I'm going to delete the AfDs altogether as disruption by a likely sock, so as not to muddy up the AfD logs and history. It's ok if some editors think they shouldn't be deleted, rather than speedied, please chime in here. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objection here, Gwen. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted all the AfDs that did not have useful or non-sockpuppet delete votes. The rest should stay, but I am going to strike the votes of Ocean Mystic Researcher. NW (Talk) 12:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should keep in mind that the likely sock may not be a banned user, although you noted it that way through the handy drop down deletion log menu. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between block evading sockpuppet and banned user is pretty slight, in my opinion. If I were closing an AFD, I would give both the same amount of weight. NW (Talk) 12:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think the drop-down log summary can be taken as fitting closely enough. I was only reminding, we don't know who did the (very likely) socking, we don't even know if they were evading a block (looks to me like something else is behind this, by the way). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser is looking into this situation. Ocean Mystic Researcher and Treasury Tag are  Unrelated. (Of course, the block of Ocean Mystic Researcher is nonetheless correct.) I will report back if we discover any further information. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's helpful to know, though for what it's worth, I wasn't thinking of TT. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! I'd be interested to find out who Ocean is a sock of, though, if/when the time comes. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 13:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict, to Gwen Gale) It's not the only possibility being looked at. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that from your last post, thanks for having a look. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Owing to NW's input, rather than deleting the AfDs that were left, I have done a procedural close on all the undeleted AfDs, so that the good faith comments made by editors can be seen later by anyone thinking of starting another AfD. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I compliment the involved admins and other users for their handling of this? I was a bit worried about how it was going to be dealt with, but I believe that you all have done the right thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, in his unblock request he claims that I put him up to it, which is, of course, untrue. See my statement on his talkpage. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 19:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who's the person that goes around attempting to get other editors in trouble by copying their editing styles using obvious socks? Could be another instance here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pickbothmanlol??Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Light current is another one, the sockmaster for Anne Maxight is another, Pioneercourthouse may be another. I like to think of them as all just one guy, because they're really (1) indistinguishable and (2) of no value whatsoever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – User apologized for his actions, and explained why he made those edits. Let's move on, everyone. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one was really a shocker, and I was tempted to let it pass as a severe error in judgment until my talkpage was flamed. Andycjp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been POV-pushing on smoking articles such as Smoking in Japan. I had hoped this was a one-off momentary lapse of reason by a sometimes productive six-year user. Recent edits are complete violations of NPOV, on a topic that is admittedly sensitive. Our job is to document only the facts, not to preach or to be a Public Service Announcement. The article text is not the greatest, however it is properly cite-tagged, and all Wikipedia articles are works in progress.

Examples of Andycjp's edits which can be considered vandalism include:[46]

• Tobacco Institute of Japan was hyperlinked to shinigami, the Japanese angel of death.
• removal of {{Citation needed}} tags supplanted by biased edits in the cited text.
• spamming Lung cancer onto two articles-there are already ample links at the main smoking article
• edit summaries reading "equal opportunity to die slowly and painfully?" and "Be dead"

I warned the user that he really needs to stop the POV pushing, at which point he flamed my talkpage. Everyone goes off the deep end occasionally; this user needs to understand this is unacceptable. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further I would ask that the edit summaries and purely disruptive material are stricken from the edit history. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I very much doubt that your second point will take place. For the first points, the two edit summaries: The "be dead" one doesn't seem to actually relate to the edit, and the other one about equality was the removal of an unsourced comment. I'll take a look at some of the others now. This is bit of a bad faith assumption. But at the moment you might have to provide some specific diffs, because I can't see many edits that aren't just a bit of a liberal use of the removal clause of WP:CITE which in it self would need discussion on the article talk without warranting an ANI report. Also, what is with all these revert wars on your talk page? And the "fuck you" edit summary? SGGH ^ping! 12:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the revert wars on my talk page were a dynamic IP that thought it would be great fun to repeatedly accuse me of vandalism Friday. Not a huge fan of trolls. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Andycjp complained on my talk page about something I didn't do and directed me to read the WP:NPOV page. I think this user could benefit from more effective communication with other editors, particularly when making changes to controversial or high-traffic pages. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 14:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of this seems vandalism to me. I'd feel more sympathetic if there were more attempts on Andycjm's talk page to address any issues with him. My thought is that these editors need to work this out someplace else. De minimus non curat AN/I .--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His talkpage is dripping with editors trying to address issues with him. The issue I'm trying to address, here, is whether these edits violate NPOV, and whether this user, not a newbie, should know better. Since addressing things there leads to snipes and jabs, here is indeed the place to address such things.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No indeed. The question of POV is what is laughingly called a "content dispute". We are administrators. Having the mop gives us no more insight into or authority over content disputes (so long as other rules, like 3RR are not broken, and the matters are not actually vandalism) then the next guys. And you say his talk page is dripping with people trying to address issues with him, that is good, that is why we have talk pages. Have you used it for the purpose I mentioned?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we have a POV dispute, some of his edits can still be considered vandalism. Diff of all of Andycjp's edits on "Smoking in Japan". Removing {{Citation needed}} notices, linking to shinigami, and removing large amounts of text are considered vandalism, but I won't template him. I would take this to dispute resolution, however, because of the POV conflict. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would discuss it with him first, and then consider dispute resolution. I agree, the fact that a six year editor is doing this suggests there is a reason for the edits. I doubt it is straight vandalism.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but the edits are still questionable. I'll discuss it with the user. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I try to encourage people to use AN/I as the last resort, rather than early in the process. After all, we will still be here if you come back!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to cause concern. I live in Japan and in my experience there is no set pattern to how Japanese people smoke at mealtimes, but if a source can be found I am not going to argue. Likewise children are clearly harmed by secondhand smoke- surely any citations needed are on the passive smoking page. As for shinigami, that probably was a misjudgement on my part- there clearly is a link between death and cigarette retailing, but in hindsight I probably should not have done that. My apologies.

I was not flaming anyone I was merely allowing Kintetsubuffalo`s reverts to stand. I do feel the page was pro-smoking though. andycjp (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that's not a problem, just remember that sometimes it is better to discuss proposed changes on the article talk page before making alterations that might be seen as significant. Regards, SGGH ^ping! 22:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/P51 Mustang fighter/Archive 76.102.27.141 (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is some pretty consistent vandalism occurring on this page for a candidate for governor of Texas. Looking at the history, there appears to be a string of SPA accounts and probable sock puppets. Would somebody with more experience review this with an eye towards filing a sockpuppet investigation and (hopefully) getting the underlying IP address blocked? 76.102.27.141 (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also relevant is F 86 Sabre Jet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who seems intent on creating attack pages regarding the candidate. 76.102.27.141 (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F 86 Sabre Jet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked indefinitely as a sock, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/P51 Mustang fighter. Some of the other vandals were also blocked as a result of that SPI. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Reporter given advice to resolve the issue, not that it is serious. SGGH ^ping! 16:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Guinea pig warrior moved LittleBigPlanet (PSP) to LittleBigPlanet (2009 video game). The move was not discussed recently (the previous discussion was for a different title and had no outcome), so I'm inclined to believe this was a bad faith edit. Thanks. -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 16:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you attempted to make a good faith post on their talk page first? SGGH ^ping! 16:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Engage with the editor. He may have felt that he was improving the situation and that no one else would care. Suggest you talk to him. Thanks for your thoughts.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made plenty of moves without discussing them. That in itself is not an indication of bad faith and there was no reason to bring it up here. Why not just simply undo the move? If he then moves it again without discussion then we can talk about edit warring or bad faith. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Agree with Wehwalt and Ron Ritzman. We do encourage our editors to be bold, so I would assume good faith and talk with the editor. In my opinion, none of the titles are descriptive enough—I would move the page to LittleBigPlanet (PSP game); however, that is another issue that should be discussed on the article's talk page. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Easily forgettable ex-editor is easily forgotten. Edits deleted, editor blocked, SPI raised. TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 18:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's remember the old times (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Something told me that a username like that would be trouble and I was right; just check the edit history. Would someone with the privilege of purging the edit history please do so? This doesn't deserve to be left on the history for this idiot and his idiot friends to gloat over. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of agree. I saw their first edit and hit "rollback" without bothering to even look at the diff. When I saw the (post-rollback) diff I nearly self-reverted. All the edits are pretty dull - the edit summary is about as exciting as it gets. Obvious troll is obvious, but ineffectual troll is ineffectual ;-) TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 17:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping that it's just a copycat who wandered over to ED and thought he'd try his hand over here at disruption. The username gave me pause since it implies he'd been here before. That's why I reported it in the first place. I've opened up a sockpuppet investigation as well. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Their edits are now gone. Leaving us just to forget the old times ;-) TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 18:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! You know, some things are just worth forgetting. Thanks for the help! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Whsazdfhnbfxgnh 2 is deleted, the other accounts are blocked indefinitely. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some newly registered accounts have created a 'Request for Adminship' page at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Whsazdfhnbfxgnh 2 --220.101.28.25 (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already gone. One as a vandal only account, the other for block evasion. SGGH ^ping! 18:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – TreasuryTag (groom of the second floor front) was there first.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously - I don't need this. User:TreasuryTag is following me around the site trying to get every image I upload to Dr Who related articles deleted. Bad WP:OWN issues and I'm losing my temper. I haven't bothered notifying him as he just reverts messages. Exxolon (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Oh, for Heaven's sake. I've been active in Doctor Who image copyright issues for years. Check my logs. It's not harassment. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 18:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_December_5#File:SilenceLibrary1.png and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_May_11#File:The_Time_of_Angels_illustrative_image.jpg and Talk:Partners_in_Crime_(Doctor_Who)#Adipose_-_pics_available and User_talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2007/Aug#Image_for_42. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 18:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exxolon, you need to provide specific examples if you wish to make a claim. However, following someone usually occurs when someone follows another editor to unrelated articles. If you are unable to resolve a dispute with another editor, the first step is content dispute resolution. Get other editors involved into whether these images should be included. TFD (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the image isn't all status quo, then it can rightly be tagged. TT's prolific work in this area often results it massive chunks of image checks. To follow one user is only logical, it doesn't mean you invent issues where they don't exist. SGGH ^ping! 18:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you, SGGH, though on this occasion, I wasn't even following one user. My watchlist notified me that the three images in question had been added to Flesh and Stone, The Vampires of Venice and Amy's Choice (Doctor Who) respectively, and I simply dealt with them like that. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 18:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is TreasuryTag's userpage September 2008: I mainly deal with vandalism and edit Doctor Who articles. I'm not convinced that TT's interest in Doctor Who is all that recent...! TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 18:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems all above board to me. Though I must ask TT how his sig changes so much all the time, one day. SGGH ^ping! 19:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:TreasuryTag/sig, substituted. :) Tim Song (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirm editors who are Dr Who fans are constantly adding copyright material to articles - usually just because they are new, and not familiar with our policies. Unfortunately, in most cases screenshots, publicity stills, images from the BBC website etc cannot be used as no non-free content rationale can be formed. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – editor Speered.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved editor forwarding this here.

A Wikiquette alert was filed a short time ago about this egregious personal attack on an editor, despite this warning a week ago. Requesting an admin to address the behavior. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours, his comment is not acceptable and he knows full well what is acceptable or not, because he has been told, and in fact warned for the final time. He can think it over during his block. SGGH ^ping! 18:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilsport! ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 22:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2 - personal attacks

Please see my talk page history [48]. Yworo (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not engaged in Harassment. The user has chosen to lie and when I proved it the personal attacks began. I then began to place notices on editor's talk page and defend my actions. Please fee free to see the invention of wikipedia policy and discussion related to a time-limit for providing citations for an article that has little traffic and fewer WP:V sources. The discussion around the editor's actions and my request for clarification are here. The editor has been posting on my talk page as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz, I know nothing about what started this or who (if anyone) is "right" about whatever it is. However, if an editor should choose to remove your comments from their own talk page, a templated warning not to engage in personal attacks will never, ever be the correct response . You did this twice. Please don't. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! Couldn't agree more. I did revert a deletion of the discussion, but that was done with a personal attack. I should not have reverted the editor's attempt at hiding their culpability since it was in the history. After that, I place two distinct warning templates for personal attacks for the editor made two separate personal attacks. The first warning was a level one, the second was a level two. I did not revert the removal of notices. The other edits I made were to respond to comments made about me on the editor's talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that User talk:Yworo should start to learn Wikipedia policy. Perhaps some admins can help. First, the editor claimed that there was a policy about how long a citation needed request should be on an article (feel free to look at the edit history on the Pente article) and then claims that I was breaking WP:3RR by adding information to their talk page. The editor is obviously not aware of wikipedia policy and is grasping at straws to cover-up their earlier action of misrepresentation of Wikipedia policy. Please note, I have not been back to the Pente article to restore the material that was removed under false pretence. While I understand that articles need WP:V material, there is no time-limit to provide material and the citation needed template is designed to gain WP:V from editors and to signal that the material may be dubious. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walter, according to WP:V and WP:BURDEN, once an editor challenges unattributed material, the only way to restore it is with reliable sources supporting it. The citation templates are a courtesy that some editors use to alert others that they are challenging the unsourced material, but there is no specific "time limit". Anyone can come at any time, regardless of templates, challenge and immediately remove any unsourced material. It is considered a courtesy to give others a chance to supply sources, but it is not a must. The bottom line is that all Wikipedia material must be attributable to a reliable source, and if challenged, likely to be challenged or quoted, it must be attributed. The burden of supplying the sources is on the editor restoring or adding the material. Crum375 (talk) 03:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)A couple of things. If someone removed unverified information from an article, I wouldn't reinsert without a source to back it up. WP:Verifiability states in a nutshell: Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The material has been challenge, find a citation for it. Also, if someone asked me to stay off his page, I wouldn't keep posting there. You have been. If you post there again, you will be blocked. AniMate 03:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. The material was already tagged with Citation needed. However the question is not about the material but about the editor's implication that there was a policy about how long the citation needed tag should be on the material. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood what he was saying, but it doesn't really matter. Calling a fellow editor "liar" is never helpful, and if you try to focus on improving the article, being nice, and assuming good faith, you'd be fine. Crum375 (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't try to reduce the quality of the article, however if you look at the proof, the editor fabricated a Wikipedia policy. Should we let editors do that? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you restore unsourced material which has been challenged, you are violating WP:BURDEN. If you accuse a fellow editor of "fabricating" things, you are violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. If you keep adding warning templates to a regular editor's talk page, you are being disruptive and probably violating WP:HARASS. Bottom line: focus on your own actions, try your best to add well sourced material to articles, and assume that everyone else is trying their best too. Crum375 (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the history of the article. The editor is inventing policy. So what you're saying is mind your own business and let people do what they feel like making-up policy as they go. Got it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read the history. I think you misunderstood what he was saying. But the key points are: assume good faith, be nice to others, and try to work on improving the article. Crum375 (talk) 04:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did assume good faith but questioned this idea that there is a time-limit to provide citations. I was nice to the editor. I stated that I wasn't aware of the policy. The editor then lied stating that there was a policy (although the editor may not have liked being challenged and added a throw-away statement in the edit). I then asked the editor to show the policy after pointing to the edit in question. After the editor was unable to give the policy, because of course there is none. I don't really mind that the material was removed although since there are few WP:V sources on the topic, it would have been better to have allowed an knowledgeable editor to find something. There are more prominent articles that have been cited for longer. With that said, the editor started becoming abusive. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it difficult to understand why you are continuing with this. Best if you take on board the comments here and move on. Lifes too short. Jack forbes (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with it, but Yworo wants me sanctioned for Harassment. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, you're the one that's tried to open an arbitration case over a simple misunderstanding. You did that because you wanted me what, congratulated? Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. Yworo (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2)In my view the best way to not be sanctioned is to move on, assume good faith, and not try to retaliate at the editor you are engaged in a conflict with. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can vouch for that. Take my case, I was truly harassed hundreds of times for half a year and it was a virtual one way flow. That evidence is irrefutable and no one has challenged that fact. This was reported multiple times to everyone including arbitrators. Nothing was ever done. I insisted that it stop and in the end they turned it around on me and I got sanctioned and the offending party received no sanction. They will accomplish "peace" by any means possible even if such actions lead to biased articles left in the control of editors pushing fringe viewpoints.--scuro (talk) 05:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – WP:ANI semi-protected for a little bit to prevent the excessive socking. –MuZemike 08:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• David.Kane (talk · contribs)
• History of the race and intelligence controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mainstream Science on Intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Disruptive blanking:

• Adrian Wooldridge (Cambridge University Press) [49] (summary of Wooldridge's precis of book)
• William H. Tucker (University of Illinois Press) [50]
• Michael Byrd and and Linda Clayton (Routledge)[51]
• Joan Freeman (Springer Verlag) [52][53]
• Donald T. Campbell, [54], [55]

Forum shopping on WP:BLPN [56], [57], [58]

Typical example

• Jensen quote blanked by David.Kane: "well-meaning but misguided and ineffective attempts to improve [the] lot" of blacks
• Actual long Jensen quote: "As a social policy, avoidance of the issue could be harmful to everyone in the long run, especially to future generations of Negroes, who could suffer the most from well-meaning but misguided and ineffective attempts to improve their lot."

David.Kane is an editor who mostly edits race-related articles where he engages in WP:CPUSH. This editor has somehow decided that Arthur Jensen wrote no articles mentioning African Americans and their learning problems. This is manifestly untrue and is reported in multiple secondary sources (history books, commentaries, academic papers and books) as well as in Jensen's original articles and books. Now, for whatever reason, he has decided that if there there is a statement in a secondary source about Jensen that he doesn't like, he can just remove it as a BLP violation. This he seems to regard as his passport for removing all content where Jensen makes remarks about African Americans: Jensen referred to African Americans as "Negroes" or "American Negroes" in articles and papers in the late 60s and early 70s. So far David.Kane has challenged material written by Donald T. Campbell, and William H. Tucker, on the grounds that they were written maliciously and misrepresented Jensen. However, the material is repeated in many secondary sources. William H. Tucker is still alive so allegations of this kind on wikipedia amount to some form of libel. Now he has removed text on the same subject by Joan Freeman, an English psychologist specialising in gifted education. Researchers in this particular area are extremely pro IQ-tests and in general have welcomed Jensen's work. So the idea that Joan Freeman is writing maliciosly in a Springer Verlag text book is highly unreasonable. It is another exmaple of David.Kane trying to remove all connection between Jensen and his documented statements on American Negroes. Similarly he has removed a section in the lede of History of the race and intelligence controversy which was a simple extract of what was is still in the main text taken from the book of Adrian Wooldridge, historian and managemant editor of The Economist. Similarly he removed a passage cited in a textbook of Michael Byrd and Linda Clayton (also cited in Tucker). I have no idea why David.Kane is doing this.Does he really seriously expect other wikipedians to believe that all these authors, many still living, are deliberately misrepresenting? In no cases so far have David.Kane's objections been any justified. He is using this as another method of WP:CPUSH to waste other editors' time, as pointed out to him by other users on the talk of the History article (notably Professor marginalia (talk · contribs)).

A few weeks ago he decided that all this material of this kind was fine, leaving "Kudos!" messages about the content. Now he is attempting to remove factual statements, appearing in multiple secondary sources, on the tenuous and usually unsupportable grounds that they are BLP violations. David.Kane is a single purpose user who is edit warring on History of the race and intelligence controversy to remove any mention of the documented fact that Jensen discussed possible policies involving African Americans.

It is absurd that he suggests that the English academic Joan Freeman could be writing malicious falsehoods in a book published by Springer Verlag. That really is going one step too far and is clearly an unreasonable excuse for removing properly referenced content. On the basis of his edits today, he will continue to remove any statements that don't suit him, claiming that they are BLP violations. That will exclude him from the 3RR rule. However it now makes it tremendously difficult in those circumstances to use any secondary sources, no matter how realiable or how eminent the author, when writing about Jensen. This does not seem reasonable and seems to be a misuse of WP editing policies. He has removed material four or more times in 24 hours, which would normally would result in a block for breaking the 3RR rule. Please could administrators look at the way he is trying to misinterpret wikipedia editing policy to cause disruption. I have no idea what his motives are. Apart from occasionally editing articles related to Williams College, he only edits race-related articles and usually from the hereditaraian point of view, that is, the recorded fact that African Americans score lower on average than White Americans has an inherent genetic cause connected with their race. Usually David.Kane is supported by editors that include Captain Occam, Mikemikev and Varoon Arya. Distributivejustice was another supporter but he retired as an editor (around about the time Ludwigs2 was blocked by BozMo). Many of these users almost exclusively edit race-related articles from the same point of view as David.Kane. Mathsci (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but wonder along the same lines as Mathsci here: these claims are made by otherwise reputable, reliable sources and therefore are acceptable, at least as being their authors' interpretation of what Jensen said. Specifically because it seems there may be issues as to where (and maybe whether) Jensen said exactly those things, it would be prudent not to put them in Wikipedia's voice, but to attribute them to their various authors. However, the fact that the same comments can be found in different sources lends strong credence to the fact that Jensen actually said those things. As long as proper attribution is maintained, I don't see that there is a problem to include them; indeed, I can see where Mathsci can contend that excluding them on the basis that these several authors are "misrepresenting Jensen's words" can be construed as a BLP violation of those otherwise reputable researchers. So, let's just make sure the comments on Jensen are properly attributed to their authors and let it go at that. I fail to see a BLP violation there at all.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the page move vandalism that's been going on in the past hour or so, are there any scripts or other tools to help automate revision deletion? It's a bit tedious cleaning up the mess one-by-one. Thanks in advance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 11:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it's still quite new, I would suggest probably not. I haven't rev deleted anything yet, so what exactly were you finding troublesome? Ale_Jrb^talk 12:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page moves (back and forth) and subsequent deletions create quite a few log entries, which can be tedious to fix, but I think most of the stuff actually did not require log redaction. Of course, some of it did. decltype (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Reverting moves is the issue I usually have with these situations - you need to manually move, rollback doesn't work. Typically I find myself - not necessarily correctly - thinking that speed is the most important thing. Earlier I stuck a db-attack tag on a page, then realised it was only the page title that was an attack. All very avoidable, but less than convenient in a "crisis" (not that these incidents are crises, but it feels like that when you see another editor being attacked). It would be good if rollback was a one-stop-shop for incidents like this, i.e. if it worked on page moves and new pages. TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 12:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the history of at least one user page was accidentally broken by an admin who were cleaning up, and I'm not sure if fixing it is worth creating a lot of new move summaries / log entries that would have to be redacted. decltype (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Mr.Z-man/moverevert2.js – Anti-page move vandalism script. Use with care. Unfortunately, it does not also revdelete logs. NW (Talk) 13:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Please do not use if there are oversighted logs in the way; I don't believe the script can handle that. NW (Talk) 13:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JIDF is bringing people to Gaza flotilla clash http://www.thejidf.org/2010/05/gaza-flotilla-wikipedia-continues-to-be.html

In only a couple of hours many new editors registered today have stared editing the article. Is there some way anyone can lock the article so that no new editors can edit it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's protection, but... since this is a current event I'd personally prefer to avoid that if it all possible (and I'll concede that it may not be...)

Apparently we're "group-thinking terror sympathizers and leftists" (per the JIDF), so I suppose steering new editors towards working on articles... like... these won't necessarily be to their tastes, but I do feel we should be welcoming these editors, even if their initial contributions may be less than helpful.

Disclaimer: I'm opposed to "the State", not "the State of Israel".

Cheers, TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 12:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Protection has already been requested. I'm inclined to move towards "yes please, let's protect and get edit requests onto the talk page instead", but purely because editing is no longer easy/possible due to edit conflicts. Crap reason for supporting protection, I know... TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 12:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support semiprotection. Definitely needed; the sheer volume of editing from IPs is making life difficult all round. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've granted both requests. You might want to consider whether full protection is appropriate, but I'll leave it for another admin to determine that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. I don't think full protection is appropriate at this stage but let's keep an eye on things to see how they develop. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I love the way anybody who is not completely uncritical of Israel is automatically an anti-Zionist and anti-Semite. Way to go, guys, that kind of attitude makes it much easier to spot and ban you. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preaching to the wrong choir, JzG. No one here fits that description.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, any chance of getting 2007–2010 blockade of the Gaza Strip put under the same protection for the time being ? Sean.hoyland - talk 15:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like everything in this area to go strictly by the book, so put in the formal request at WP:RFPP and in the meantime, I will look to see what is going on with the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at it and do not see much going on there. Very little vandalism. I probably wouldn't grant the request, but what I will do is not respond to it and let you take your luck with another admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles have been protected by Wehwalt. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Request withdrawn. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 12:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I not from my watchlist that some reent good faith and necessary edits by User:Amalthea actually need oversighting, as their content is still very visible.  Giacomo  12:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I don't understand these things, they are not showing as her contribs, but as "(Deletion log); 10:53 . . Amalthea (talk | contribs) deleted..." - anyway there is a quite a few of them. all showing as red links. also edits of "(Protection log); 10:49 . . MER-C."  Giacomo  12:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amalthea has the tools to take care of that himself if he so chooses. —DoRD (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK leave these vile statements or whatever they are where they are then for all to see.  Giacomo  12:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. I revdeleted some myself, and had notified Oversight (although I'm sure they knew already) who went through revisions and logs. I'd leave the rest of the log entries visible since they appear to be "merely" vandalism, including the one you refer to. Amalthea 13:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for Heaven's sake, do I have to spell it out - a clear real life Arb's Christian name and full name of an ex-arb are mentioned "???? is an old hag who loves censorship and hates freedom of speech. She is also ???? ??????'s whore. It and the others like it need oversighting. There are also numerous mentions of the same arb its username leaving peope in no doubt of the Arb's name. an earlier now removed summary was a "complete outing". They need to go.  Giacomo  13:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the one being referred to was oversighted, as I recall revdeleting the action myself. Many others have been appropriately revdeleted. Giacomo it's taken a few hours to clean up this mess. If there's any left, feel free to contact oversight or an admin. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed them hours ago and nothing happened. The one mentioning a Christian name has just a moment ago dissapeared, but various others remain.  Giacomo  13:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight apparently have been around. But tell me whose contributions and I'll get on to it. There have been many hundreds of edits involved in this cleanup. It won't be surprising if one or two are missed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The worst seems to have no gone, some 2feline refeences remain, but i am sure we have all read worse. However, this remains as a red link [59] perhaps that needs oversighting too. It is not flattering or true.  Giacomo  13:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if unflattering and untrue fit the criteria for log redaction. However thank you for bringing the others to attention. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a holiday weekend in both the US and the UK, so many of the oversighters (along with everyone else) are away. Additionally, the vandal may be thinking he or she is taking advantage of the results of the Oversight/Checkuser election, which were announced yesterday. The Arbitration Committee is discussing how to proceed in light of those results, and input on the issue is welcome (see WP:AC/N for announcement). Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Tenet Healthcare is temporarily semi-protected. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the recent history.-Regancy42 (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Locked for three days, user given words of advice. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Chloe81375 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely blocked, and his revisions are deleted. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chloe81375 has posted alleged personal information in a discussion on Talk:Bill Phillips (author)‎ with threats to post additional information on other users. See [60]. This is obviously a violation of Wikipedia's privacy policy (even if untrue). --Yankees76 (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a clear case of WP:OUTING. I see the editor has already been warned, though; should he redo this, I think he ought to be blocked.

In the meantime, an admin might consider using his magical REVDEL tool... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has already REVDEV'd it, and I've indef'd the user. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. Even though the user wasn't even close - it was more harassment than outing - thanks for taking care of the issue. Cheers. --Yankees76 (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]