Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

71.239.23.70 at Piccolo (Dragon Ball)

Resolved

 – Now he's just randomly screaming at people. I think enough time has been wasted here. HalfShadow 21:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

71.239.23.70 (talk) came in demanding that Piccolo (Dragon Ball) be renamed to Piccolo Jr.. Despite the fact that several editors informed the IP that "Piccolo" is the name used by the work in which the character is from, the IP continues to insist that it is wrong and that even the original creator is wrong in no using "Piccolo Jr." It's pretty clear by his/her comments, such as this one, as well as several attempts to edit talk page archives that the IP is only here to harass other editors and is not interested in contributing to the improvement of Wikipedia, much less this particular article. —Farix (t | c) 21:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look like he's made any edits since this report. Does anything need to be done here? GlassCobra 14:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

He/she has been editing under different IPs, such as 75.22.138.39 (talk). —Farix (t | c) 23:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you please block the IP or something? --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 16:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

IT'S not fair. I've had enough of him being called that fucking fake name. --71.239.23.70 (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if I remember right, he was only called that maybe a few times, during the original Dragon Ball. Throughout the rest of the series, including Dragon Ball Z and GT, he's reffered to as simply "Piccolo." As well, following your logic, he should have been renamed twice during the series, when he absorbed the powers of Nail and Kami. Since the use of his name is primarily "Piccolo" and not "Piccolo Jr.," then I see no reason to alter anything about his name simply because he was the child of the original Piccolo.--Iner22 (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

But he is a Piccolo Jr. The characters from the "Dragon Ball" series have to call him that name. He should be called Piccolo Jr. forever. Piccolo Jr. is not his full name or nickname. The only nicknames he has are Ma Junior and the Namekian. He doesn't have a last name. He never had a last name. He's just Piccolo Jr. the fifth and final nephew of Kami, the fifth and final son of King Piccolo, and the fourth and final brother of Cymbal, Drum, Piano, and Tambourine. He's not King Piccolo reincarnated, because first, he can't have his own child be his reincarnation. That's stupid. Cymbal, Drum, Piano, and Tambourine would then call him dad and father, which he's not. Second, reincarnations always have their past self's same facial structure, stature, and voice. Piccolo Jr. doesn't. And third, reincarnations are always portrayed by the same actor and actress who portrayed their past selves. Reincarnations are always described to be like that and are always like that. Kami and his evil twin brother King Piccolo were voiced by Takeshi Aono in the Japanese Dub, while Toshio Furukawa voices Piccolo Jr. in the Japanese Dub. Kami is his uncle. King Piccolo is his father. And Cymbal, Drum, Piano, and Tambourine are his brothers. King Piccolo and Piccolo Jr. are two different characters. So please, I want his biography changed back to way it was I had written it. --75.22.138.39 (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Now you see the type of rants we've had to put up with. He/she just keeps going on and on repeating the same points over and over and over again, despite multiple editors points out that the points are completely wrong. Its as if that by restating the points, he thinks that they will somehow become the truth. —Farix (t | c) 04:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

72.22: Could you provide reliable, independent sources of information which can be verified backing your contention? If so, then discuss them on the article's talk page, reach a concensus, and then have the article changed. If not, then the information in the article should clearly stand as it is. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any sources. I just know the truth about Piccolo Jr. and his family. And I'm a boy by the way. --75.22.138.39 (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No sources, no Wikipedia. "I just know" = original research, and is not permitted on Wikipedia. For example, I just know that my wife is the sexiest woman on the planet - still, no entry on Wikipedia for her. I just know that the kid who works at my local variety store is stealing beef jerky, but no article about it. I just know that Dirt 2 is the most awesome game like, anywhere, but it's not anywhere in the article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I just want him to called Piccolo Jr. forever and have those stuff about him and his family be true. It's not that hard. --71.239.23.70 (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This has been goin' on for almost, if not more than a week. Those of us who were on the article page have been trying to explain it to him. But I guess in his deluded world, his word is more important than the original author. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 13:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm just throwing it out there but he also vandilised the page. However, he reverted his own edits. but reverted his own edits. Click here for the history. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 13:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

He's a Piccolo Jr. That's his correct name. Stop calling him that fucking fake name. --71.239.23.70 (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a deluded world. I don't hate Akira Toriyama. I like him. I'm not saying his series "Dragon Ball" sucks. I still like the series and that's it. Me editing articles is not vandilising it, just fixing it up. --71.239.23.70 (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding false information is vandilism. If you like and respect Akira Toriyama, then you would respect his story. Facial structure and voice actors have nothing to do with it. If you continue to act this way, you will be block. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 16:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

But he's a Piccolo Jr. for crying out loud. He's not a reincarnation. I didn't add false information. Eh, Eh. Weighted Namekian shoes he wears. Not brown light-weight footwear or shoes. Weighted Namekian shoes. They're weighted. Weighted Namekian shoes that he never wants to take off. He’s keeping it a secret that they’re not weighted and never wants to take them off during a fight and have his bare feet shown, because it would embarrass him if he took them off. --71.239.23.70 (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Where are you gettin' this information? Do you have proof? I highly doubt it. Which Dragon Ball series are you watching? Because you're obviously not watching the same one I've been. Piccolo's King Piccolo's reincarnation. He doesn't have weighted shoes. The only thing weighted are his cape and turban, as shown in episode 3 of DBZ. You have no proof. All you're doing is spouting out nonsense, and I'm seriously annoyed of it. We've been trying to explain to you all of this for over a week. And we've made no progress. You keep making these statements as if you've never seen the series, but you claim you have. I honestly don't believe you. I just think you're nothing but a fanboy who believes their fanfic ideas are canon. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 16:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

He's not King Piccolo reincarnated. First, he can't have his own child be his reincarnation. That's fucking stupid. Cymbal, Drum, Piano, and Tambourine would then call him dad and father, which he's not. Second, reincarnations always have their past self's same facial structure, stature, and voice. Piccolo Jr. doesn't. And third, reincarnations are always portrayed by the same actor and actress who portrayed their past selves. Reincarnations are always described to be like that and are always like that forever. Kami and his evil twin brother King Piccolo were voiced by Takeshi Aono in the Japanese Dub, while Toshio Furukawa voices Piccolo Jr. in the Japanese Dub. King Piccolo even says this line before he dies. "Good luck my son. Get revenge on my demise. Destroy all of my enemies." Stop calling him that fucking fake and stop saying weighted shoes. They're called weighted Namekian shoes. His weighted Namekian shoes are weighted. He just never wants to take them off forever. He’s keeping it a secret that they’re not weighted and never wants to take them off during a fight and have his bare feet shown, because it would embarrass him if he took them off. His name's FUCKING PICCOLO JR.! --71.239.23.70 (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Any sort of proof? --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 17:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

King Piccolo says the "Good luck my son. Get revenge on my demise. Destroy all of my enemies." line in the FUNimation Dub of "Dragon Ball" and I just know that the others are true. Can you leave me alone on this now, please? --71.239.23.70 (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

FUNimation's dub isn't accurately translated half the time. No, I will not leave this alone. You have no way to prove any of this. You know why? BECAUSE IT'S NOT TRUE! You can't just say something and have nothing to back it up. In the Japanese dub, Piccolo refers to himself plenty of times as King Piccolo early on. When he was born, he retained all his memories as King Piccolo, though he still refered to him as a different person. Akira Toriyama's artwork has improved during the course of his manga, which is why they don't look like eachother, not to mention the fact that he wanted his audience to know the difference. Also, Piccolo doesn't age due to King Piccolo wishing for eternal youth. And though they're voiced by two different people in the Japanese version, in the FUNimation dub, he's only voiced by one. Though FUNimations dub is entertaining, it's not 100% credible considering it's translation is not 100% like some of their other shows. You've failed at proving your ridiculous accusations and lost. This discussion ends here. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 18:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, besides the fact that you have no reliable source, I'll take a different tack: My name is Brad. My dad's name is Brad. My grampy's name is Brad. Does that make me "Brad Jr"? Nope. What name does the character go by?? Piccolo or Piccolo Jr? What does he call himself? What do others call him? Who the hell cares about his paternity, really. Millions of people in the world today are effectively something "Jr" ... but that's not our name! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

STOP CALLING HIM THAT FUCKING FAKE NAME! IT'S PICCOLO JR.! PICCOLO JR.! PICCOLO JR.! PICCOLO JR.! --71.239.23.70 (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That's enough of that, thanks. HalfShadow 21:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you guys are simply being trolled, especially after that last post. Can we please just WP:RBI?--Atlan (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I just wondered what took you guys so long. —Farix (t | c) 01:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 22:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Would anyone have an objection if I blocked the IP user for this ridiculous behavior? I think anyone who has read further than the "W" in "Wikipedia" would understand that behavior like this is totally beyond the pale, especially on a noticeboard watched by a good portion of the admin corps. Leaving this individual unblocked, while it fulfills WP:DNFT admirably, also sends the message that foot-stamping, high-pitched whining, and cursing are somehow acceptable. Well, they're not. Yeah, I know--"preventative not punitive"--but this is a recent edit which could be repeated; and also, it's preventing other users from thinking they can have this kind of tantrum with impunity. (Edited to add: Nevermind--I'm just gonna be WP:BOLD. Blocked for 31 hours. Any admin who disagrees, feel free to undo the block...)GJC 01:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Good block. My only question is why you didn't block for a longer period of time (which I would have done after just seeing the above mess), given the user's history of immaturity, but oh well. MuZemike 04:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There's something on the IP talk page that purports to be an unblock request. Along with not using the unblock template, which means I only saw it because the talk page was on my watchlist automatically after the block, the user claims that -I- "made" him "lose his temper"--which is kinda rich, since I arrived well after his head asploded. Oh--and he still claims that his is the "right" interpretation of the work, and thus of the character's name. There may be more letters in "tendentious" then there have so far been years in this editor's life, but it certainly an accurate descriptor of his editing style. I think we may be dealing with something on the order of Time Cube, Jr. here. (MuZeMike--the ONLY reason I didn't block for longer is that it's an IP, IP's release and renew, other users caught in block, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Believe me, this behavior deserves a WAY longer block, but policy stopped me.)GJC 15:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I can assure you that his imformation isn't right. Plus he couldn't provide any proof, which I knew he couldn't. He wanted the article to be called Piccolo Jr. when in the series, he was never called Piccolo Jr. The only reference to that is in FUNimations release, when the Saga was called the "Piccolo Jr. Saga". In the FUNimation dub of Dragon Ball, for some reason, they refer to him as Junior (in the Japanese version, he was refered to as Ma Junior because that was the name he entered as in the tournament. Ironically, he was called Ma Junior in the 'Majin Buu Saga' in the FUNimation dub of Dragon Ball Z, which was dubbed before the 'Piccolo Jr. Saga'). In the end, in personal oppinion, he was nothing more than a troll and a vandal. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 15:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's no need to convince us, or offer proof for exactly HOW wrong he is; forgive me for the inevitable twinge of rudeness in what I am about to say, but we honestly don't care if he's right or wrong. We care very much indeed, however, about whether he can provide "proof" (aka verifiable sources, written by independent media in an editorially-monitored publication. He could call the character "Dale Earnhardt Jr.", for all of me, just as long as he can present a citation for that info from an independently published, editorially-monitored source by an author knowlegeable in his or her field. Anime dubs are not reliable sources; fan-written blogs or forum posts are not reliable sources; most especially, an editor's rock-solid, bone-deep conviction that They Know What Is Correct Information And Everyone Who Says Different Is Totally Wrong, is not a reliable source. That last, in fact, is pretty much the dictionary definition of original research, and we put about as much value on original research as a fruit-fly puts on a cheesesteak. Ultimately, if reliable sources can't be found for a piece of information, then it probably doesn't belong in the article at all--in other words, unless there's a reliable source showing the existence of the character-name controversy, it shouldn't be mentioned at all, and the character should be called whatever he's commonly known as in-universe. GJC 06:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys. How're you doing today? I'd like to apologize to all of you, even you Ryu from Monday. I'm alright now. --71.239.23.70 (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted, with the caveat of Don't Do That Again, Please. As I said above, it doesn't matter who is "RIGHT"; it matters who can offer independently-published sources to prove what they're saying. So eat some turkey, stay chill, find something else to think about. Or hell, spend the time obsessively searching for that gold-standard reference which irrefutably proves your point--whichever makes you happier, as long as it doesn't involve screaming obscenities in capital letters. Because if you do THAT, then that's where we're gonna use our collective Serious Voice. Deal?GJC 22:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Continual re-creation of deleted article about 'Team Touchdown'

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to put this - if it's not, I apologise.

A group of editors have been trying to re-create the same article, all about a non-notable group/club in NSW, Wales.

The deletion log entries are as follows:

• 13:18, 16 November 2009 Redvers (talk | contribs) deleted "Team touchdown" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
• 10:24, 17 November 2009 JohnCD (talk | contribs) deleted "Team touchdown" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
• 10:40, 18 November 2009 User:Peripitus (talk | contribs) deleted "Team touchdown" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team touchdown)
• 05:17, 19 November 2009 User:Acroterion (talk | contribs) deleted "Team-touchdown" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
• 05:44, 19 November 2009 User:Amorymeltzer (talk | contribs) deleted "Team touchdown FC" ‎ (A3: Article that has no meaningful, substantive content)
• 07:27, 19 November 2009 User:Gogo Dodo (talk | contribs) deleted "Team touchdown FC" ‎ (A7: Article about a group or club, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
• 07:28, 19 November 2009 User:Gogo Dodo (talk | contribs) deleted "Team-touchdown" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
• 19:36, 19 November 2009 User:Kinu (talk | contribs) deleted "Team / Touchdown" ‎ (A7: Article about a group or club, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

The editors involved include:

• Deanops (talk, contribs)

• Blocked: 09:26, 19 November 2009 DMacks (talk | contribs) blocked Deanops (talk, contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing)

• Special Operations (talk, contribs)
• Horse M (talk, contribs)

One of the variations is already protected from creation:

• (Protection log); 10:41 Peripitus (talk | contribs) protected Team touchdown [create=sysop] (expires 10:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)) (repeated recreation)

Is it possible to SALT using a regexp?
Something like T[e|E][a|A][m|M][*][T|t][O|o][U|u][C|c][H|h][D|d][O|o][W|w][N|n]*

I doubt that they are going to stop trying to recreate the article, as they have been so persistent so far!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• This [[1]] too for a little background. Users were editing a disambiguation page and adding their soccer club info repeatedly.. - 4twenty42o (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note All three of the above editors have been notified of this thread, included the one who is currently blocked -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I had nuked another variant (same regex):

• 09:25, 19 November 2009 DMacks (talk | contribs) deleted "Team Touchdown FC" ‎ (recreation of unreferenced article about non-notable subject that has previously been deleted after AfD)
• 09:06, 19 November 2009 DMacks (talk | contribs) deleted "Team Touchdown FC" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team touchdown)

Their repeated recreation after salting of previous spelling (after *its* AfD and then recreation) and associated cloning at Touchdown Jesus is what led me to block Deanops. DMacks (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Further to 4twenty42o's link, 2 more editors need to be added to the list:

• Feelin' Fine (talk, contribs)
• 144.131.87.72 (talk, contribs)

• I have left ANI notices on both of these editor's talk pages -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• (E/C) PimpdaddyMcPhee (talk · contribs) (blocked), Insertnamehere10 (talk · contribs), 124.149.98.97 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 121.218.220.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are also involved in this fiasco. Horologium (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have left messages on the talk pages of all except the first, which was indeffed. Horologium (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• There is also Team Touchdown, which I have deleted and salted, from user Team Touchdown (talk · contribs), for whom I planned a username block if he tried it again; he has had the article on his userpage. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team touchdown. I think we just continue to delete, salt, and block: they are under-14s, they'll get bored in a day or two. JohnCD (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I have filed a SPI case on the involved parties included from this thread. MajorMinorMark (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how much good that will do; I suspect these are meatpuppets, not socks. IIRC, Team Touchdown is a made-up football group; this is probably a bunch of guys trying to get their little club on WP. GlassCobra 23:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Another oddity: Insertnamehere10 (talk · contribs) was created by Horse96 (talk · contribs), an account with no edits. Horse96's only activity was creating Insertnamehere10, four minutes after creating the original account. The similarity of the name to Horse M (talk · contribs) caught my eye, as did the similarity of Special Operations (talk · contribs) and Deanops (talk · contribs). Horologium (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Millsy360 (talk · contribs) vandalised my talk page 3 times in quick succession: 01:46, 01:49 and 01:54. In between the last two, another editor came out of nowhere (only made one edit since creatign account): Bam.bam0406 (talk · contribs) 01:52. Bam.bam0406 has made no other edits, but I'm guessing it's another sock - the co-incidence is too high! MajorMinorMark, do you want to add those two to the SPI? -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 02:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• One more sock User talk:Millsy360 just found that one on the touchdown jesus article posting the same club crap on a disambig page [[2]] and vandalizing a user page [[3]]. - 4twenty42o (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Semi-protected Touchdown Jesus for a day, to prevent the socks from continuing there. JamieS93 02:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Another sock User:BananaMcFats. On a vandalism spree. Crafty (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• And another User:Jumpinpimp. Crafty (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Beat me to it but now the user is adding creating Teem Touchdown and adding the club stats to the Pumpkin pie article. - 4twenty42o (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• User:Angrytown, has jumped out of the sock drawer.--SKATER ^Speak. 05:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • BananaMcFats, Jumpinpimp, Angrytown all indef'ed, and added to SPI page. DMacks (talk) 05:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Confirmed - a whole bunch of accounts at the SPI case here - Allie ^❤ 06:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• They're back...

User:Monochrome Scope (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

...and blocked. DMacks (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wdford and colloidal silver, again

• Medical uses of silver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wdford (talk · contribs)

Could some administrator please take a look at the issue and decide whether Wdford has transgressed the limits of acceptable disagreement and is eligible for a topic ban? I had better things to do than to continue the controversy the last two weeks, but after an uninvolved editor commented on the low quality of the lead paragraph, I decided to clean up "the mess" that Wdford created with his previous edits to the lead. However, this only resulted in another edit war. His first edit since then made no sense at all, his second edit added a some information that was giving undue weight to some aspect, so I had to revert them both. His edits since then, aren't any better, he is actually confusing the (accepted) medical use of silver in clinical appliances with the (ineffective and potentially toxic) use of silver as internal medication - but I don't want to do any more reverts at the article today. Based on Wdford's edits I can only come to the conclusion that he is either trying to promote a partisan POV (advocating the use of silver as medication) or utterly incompetent, probably rather the second. In any case, he is making it imposible to work on the article, not only for me, but also for editors like MastCell. And now consider the previous history of the issue:

• Even before me or Wdford joined the discussion or started to work on the article, there were already two threads on it on the fringe theories noticeboard: 1, 2 and at least one thread one this noticeboard 3. So without doubt this topic is a contentions issue, and and a third editor was actually banned, first from the topic and then permanently for using a sockpuppet trying to avoid the topic ban.

• I have been in previous controversies with Wdford, and I can reasonably suspect that he is simply started to work on this controversial article to harass me. But this issue is actually less complicated than the preceding ones (it is not a race-related political issue, after all), so it is easier to establish why his edits are promoting a partial POV and are generally of a low quality - and I am tired of giving up on articles and running away from controversies anyway.

That said, I think the controversy at the article will continue until either one of us is banned. Or should I give up on this article to and wait until Wdford sabotages my work at a fourth article? Please take a look at this issue and decide on the appropriate steps. Zara1709 (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I've created another section at the article talk page here. My description of the problem there is probably more concise. Zara1709 (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, this is beyond pathetic. As I have repeatedly stated, I am merely trying to get a balanced article, which gives due weight to the very important and valuable contribution of silver to medical practice, whereas Zara has repeatedly tried to focus the article on colloidal silver and argyria (a relatively small percentage of the total topic.) All my edits work toward that objective, as can clearly be seen from the history pages. Throughout this endeavour Zara has come up with a range of excuses to revert valid, relevant and sourced material which highlight the medically-proven usage of silver, while continually dragging the focus back to her own POV of colloidal silver and argyria - despite me pointing out several times that her own sources admit that the argyria risk is minimal. I have never tried to indicate that colloidal silver is a wonder-drug or to hide the fact that it has downsides, I have merely tried to put that all in perspective, using reliable sources. There is no content dispute here, just one editor who wants to give undue weight to the relatively minor negatives and downplay the relatively important positives, and who takes personally all attempts to show a properly rounded picture of the topic.

I don't know what happened with first edit - it looked fine on the preview.

I have not confused anything - my latest edits actually made the distinction even clearer, by splitting the two points into separate paragraphs.

The previous "fringe" history is not all that relevant to this prticular complaint, because the scope of the article has since been widened significantly, and my contribution has been largely on the expanded side of the scope. I have not removed the contentious issues, merely tried to reword the lead section to put them in perspective against the much larger positive contribution which silver makes in the broader sense - exactly as envisaged when the scope was broadened to begin with.

There has not been any previous harassment as alledged by Zara, merely disagreement over weighting - where once again some of us dared to argue for balance against Zara's personal preference. This is just a play for sympathy, by an editor who often resorts to protests at ANI when she can't get her own way on an article.

Wdford (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

How about trying mediation? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Wdford, you can not honestly attempt to deny that Lansdown (2006) is talking about silver used in "water purification, wound care, bone prostheses, reconstructive orthopaedic surgery, cardiac devices, catheters and surgical appliances.", whereas Fung & Bowden (1996), are talking about "oral colloidal silver proteins as mineral supplements and for prevention and treatment of many diseases". You can also not honestly attempt to deny that you wrote this:

Fung and Bowen also point out that “Indiscriminate use of silver products can lead to toxicity such as argyria.”[8] Argyria is a condition in which the skin irreversibly turns blue or grey (from accumulated silver), which can be socially debilitating but which is not otherwise harmful. However , per Lansdown, “Silver exhibits low toxicity in the human body, and minimal risk is expected due to clinical exposure by inhalation, ingestion, dermal application or through the urological or haematogenous route.

With the word "however", you are creating a juxtaposition, where in fact none exists. Honestly, you are unable to even read and understand two short article abstracts in medical journals. What makes you think that you could meaningfully contribute to an article, when we already have a medical expert (MastCell) working on it? The only reason MastCell stopped working on the article was that he was driven off by at least one fringe advocate (DHawker), who was finally banned from the article after several months. This is the end of the line, Wdford. If you can't admit that your capabilities aren't up to the task of writing an article based on reliable sources (which, in this case, are articles in medical journals) you need to be banned from working on the topic, so that other editors might create an acceptable article. Zara1709 (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no juxtaposition, and none was intended. Lansdown agrees with F&B that it requires large-scale use of silver to cause argyria, and my quote shows that - you have simply left out the second sentence of that quote, which I included and which makes it all quite clear. The Lansdown quote however goes further than F&B, to speak about the toxicity of silver generally, whereas that particular F&B quote was only dealing with argyria. I am happy to remove the word "however", as it does not affect my argument or the intended sense of the paragraph.

PS - the Lansdown quote clearly includes ALL silver exposures, exactly as I said. Similarly, that particular line of the F&B quote clearly refers to ALL silver products as potential causes of argyria if used excessively, which is consistent with all other sources on that topic. I understood the two sources perfectly well, and I included them in the article to mean exactly what the original authors meant. My capabilities are seemingly quite sound actually - my only flaw is that I don't agree with your POV.

Wdford (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"There is no juxtaposition, and none was intended." Wdford, do you want to push this into a discussion on the meang of the word "however"? Your comment on the article talk page is only correct in one respect: Your version of the article is rubbish. You are still failing to see that we have two sets of reliable sources. One set is about "colloidal silver", and its use as alternative medicine. The other set is about various acknowledged external medical applications of silver. Because we have two different sets of reliable source, Floydian and MastCell were discussing whether it is such a good idea to have one article on these two different types of use - which is an important and necessary discussion. I personally haven't made up my mind in that matter yet, because I know that, as long as Wdford - who isn't actually able to understand this difference as he has illustrated with his comments here - is making edits to the article, we're not going to get that distinction establish there at all. If we want to have an article based on the most reputable sources available (medical journals), Wdford has to be banned from the topic. Zara1709 (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not failing to see anything. What Zara refuses to acknowledge is that the distinction between drinking colloidal silver and the other medical uses of silver is already made abundantly clear in the article as it stands - using her wording and her sources. We don't need a special article to pound on colloidal silver, as the unproven effectiveness and potential toxicity thereof are accurately stated here already, in dedicated sections. The only remaining problem is to agree on how much weight in the lead section to give the negative coverage of colloidal silver, vis a vis the weight to be given to the many other valuable and effective medical uses of silver. I think the lead is currently appropriate, by including a clear statement that silver is not toxic unless you overdose repeatedly over time (a view backed by reputable medical journals as well as government agencies, as my sources clearly show), but I am open to any other wording that gives the positive uses due weight. Wdford (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This kind of edit made by Wdford today [4] seems unhelpful. Mathsci (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you feel this is unhelpful? The information is relevant, it's valid and it's factually accurate - and it helps to give the reader a more rounded picture. If it's genuinely problematic I'm happy to reword it, but I am interested to know why it might be considered to be "unhelpful"? Wdford (talk) 08:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, the special sort of rounded so beloved of those who support crank theories. We know quite a bit about that on Wikipedia. But you're in luck, driving off the cranks usually takes many months and the burnout of one or two advocates of the mainstream view. Since the cranks never give up, you'll ave your preferred version in the end even if you get banned and another person writes it. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The UK NHS uses silver dressings and silver creams in hospitals very often, especially burns units, to reduce risk of infection. See, for example, Aquacell. This is evidence based, approved by NIChE, not quackery, etc. Just thought I'd mention it. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The medical use of silver is not a crank theory - try actually reading the many reliable sources included in the article. It would help hugely if those who claim to "know quite a bit" about wikipedia would actually read the material before commenting on it. Colloidal silver is a minor portion of the greater medical silver debate, and while I fully agree that the claims made on behalf of colloidal silver are thusfar unproven (and my edits never tried to hide those facts), at the same time there are many reliable sources that praise the value that silver adds to medical practice in a range of other uses - please see the article for a large sample of such sources. The quality of the article depends on the subject being reported objectively from all sides, in terms of wikipolicy, and an objective review of medical silver clearly shows that silver adds far more good than harm. An objective review of the reliable sources also shows that even the much-maligned colloidal silver products are not harmful unless consumed in quantity over a sustained period. All I want is balance - expose the cranks, but don't over-state the position, and don't try to throw the good out with the bad. Wdford (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Well, the diff I provided seems to have been some form of copy-paste, almost doubling the length of the article. In the diff I gave, there are TWO sets of references, external links, foreign language categories, etc and other content sections duplicated. Please look at the contents for your diff:

   * 1 Biological effects of silver
   * 2 Use as disinfectant and antiseptic
         o 2.1 Use as disinfectant
         o 2.2 Silver compounds in the treatment of external infections
         o 2.3 Silver compounds in medical appliances
   * 3 Other medical uses
         o 3.1 Historical applications
         o 3.2 Current alternative medicine use
         o 3.3 Government regulation
   * 4 Literature
   * 5 References
   * 6 External links
   * 7 Biological effects of silver
   * 8 Use as disinfectant and antiseptic
         o 8.1 Use as disinfectant
         o 8.2 Silver compounds in the treatment of external infections
         o 8.3 Silver compounds in medical appliances
   * 9 Other medical uses
         o 9.1 Historical applications
         o 9.2 Current alternative medicine use
         o 9.3 Government regulation
   * 10 Literature
   * 11 References
   * 12 External links

There probably was some kind of inadvertent error involved as well. Mathsci (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I see now - I thought you were referring to the two lines of content I added. I don't know what happened here - the edit looked good on the preview before I saved it, but I only checked the section I was actually editing and I didn't notice it was duplicating the entire article. I can't explain how this went wrong. It certainly wasn't deliberate. Apologies for the inconvenience. Wdford (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll go for a full revert of the lead

In the discussion above, both NotAnIP83:149:66:11 and Guy are right. Medical products containing silver are used in the treatment of wounds to prevent infections - but there is also a product called "colloidal silver" which is currently marketed as an alternative medicine, and which has no proven benefits, but may, after prolonged intake, result in making you look like a zombie. And I am only exaggerating a little bit here. Colloidal silver was also used as a conventional medical treatment until sometime in the 1940s or 50s, and some physicians who had to deal with cases of argyria heavily criticized it then. One of them (BRYANT (1940)) writes:

Despite the warnings that have appeared occasionally in the literature, many otolaryngologists still deny the danger of the production of generalized argyria from the use of silver-containing intranasal medication. [...] The physician who has seen even a single victim of full-blown argyrosis, with its typical generalized pigmentation of the skin, giving the patient a bronzed blue or slate color which has been described aptly as the appearance of a corpse suddenly come to life, must necessarily have been impressed with the importance of preventing such a condition."

I just thought that I provide you with this quote - for an article in a medical journal this is quite well-written. In any case, if among the medical uses of silver, some are explicitly advised against the article must make a clear distinction between these uses. The question of the article is not: Is silver good or bad for your health? I know that probably many people approach health issues this way, but to me this attitude seems to be profoundly stupid. I mean: Is Vitamin A good for your health? Of course, some intake of Vitamin A is necessary to be healthy, but this doesn't mean that you can't overdose it. The question of the article is: What kinds of medical uses of silver are there?, that is, if we want to keep the current title. Some of these uses are acknowledged from the medical profession, but the use of "colloidal silver" is not approved at all and potentially dangerous. So I am trying to get this distinction into the article and make it "abundantly clear". While I was doing this, I was in an almost constant confrontation with Wdford, who obviously had difficulties with making this distinction (he was using a source that was only dealing with acknowledged medical uses of silver in the section on colloidal silver, e.g.) Currently we are (again) discussion this issue in the lead. I personally think, that this issue is quite simple.

Generally, if you haven an article on a medical product which only has "minimal" side-effects, is there any reason, why would you want to mention that fact in the lead? I haven't done any work on medical articles otherwise, but let's check for example the article on Antibiotic. There is a section on "Side effects" in the article, but side-effects are not mentioned in the introductory paragraph. If, on the other hand, you have an article on alternative medicine product, which is advices against because of a complete lack of effectiveness and potential side-effects which are at least "cosmetically undesirable", you have to mention that in the lead paragraph. Not to mention it would be a violation of "wp:fringe". That said, currently the article Medical uses of silver is dealing with both kinds of medical products. So, unless we want to split the article and create a separate article "Colloidal silver" again, its lead paragraph should mention the acknowledge medical uses of silver and that there is also a 'medical' product called colloidal silver, which has dangerous side-effects. It should give a short explanation of these side-effects and possibly also mention when and why it was used as a medical product (which is a matter of interest, if it is not an acknowledged medical product.) I think that the preceding version of the lead paragraph achieved all this. If you take a look at Wdfords version, however, you will see that he moved the sentence on argyria away from its previos place between the two sentences on "colloidal silver", which doesn't make any sense, since only these colloidal silver preparations are known to cause argyria. He also added a quote: "Silver exhibits low toxicity in the human body, and minimal risk is expected due to clinical exposure..." which is true for the various clinical applications, but likely not true for these "colloidal silver preparations". The abstract of the article quoted is certainly not talking about colloidal silver.

That aside, Wdford didn't even bother with creating proper reference tags. His intermediate didn't address the concerns I have just raised at all. So I think another full revert would certainly be in order. Usually, of course, I wouldn't write such a long justification of a revert, but usually I wouldn't involve the ANI either. If you look at Talk:Medical uses of silver, you will see that this pattern has been going on for weeks now. Wdfords makes some edits to the article, which are highly problematic, I revert them and justify my revert on the talk page. But then, however, Wdford just makes a few more problematic edits at the article. From my previous encounters with him, I would come to the conclusion that he probably is going to keep this up indefinitely. Since I don't want to give up on the article, I need to attract some more attention into the issue, so, if that doesn't resolve it, I can start a RFC/U or an Arbitration Request. Zara1709 (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't start an arbitration case. You'll just bring more bureaucrats into the picture who know nothing about the subject. The medical uses of silver is no longer a fringe theory article, and shouldn't be treated as such. A relatively small section of the article should concern colloidal silver, including mentioning its history, and its historical usage. Argyria should then have a proportionate amount of the proportionate amount on colloidal silver. It would also be very helpful if either of you could find an article with a dosage or time frame to come down with Argyria, as every source makes it quite clear that it is a condition that comes from lengthy, heavy, and repeated exposure. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You are so completely wrong, Zara. The abstract of the article quoted is most very certainly talking about colloidal silver. Lansdown actually mentions colloidal silver by name. In fact, to quote Lansdown exactly: "Silver exhibits low toxicity in the human body, and minimal risk is expected due to clinical exposure by inhalation, ingestion, dermal application or through the urological or haematogenous route. Chronic ingestion or inhalation of silver preparations (especially colloidal silver) can lead to deposition of silver metal/silver sulphide particles in the skin (argyria), eye (argyrosis) and other organs. These are not life-threatening conditions but cosmetically undesirable. " Without a doubt Lansdown was including colloidal silver in that abstract. Your blatant misunderstanding of this abstract is thus clearly not a justification for yet another of your tedious full reverts.

None of my edits ever obscured the fact that colloidal silver is “not approved at all and potentially dangerous.” To state that I have “difficulties with making this distinction” is a flat-out lie, and a contravention of WP:NPA. Repeating your lie is not going to change the reality.

You claim it is necessary to warn about the risk of argyria, yet you consistently resist any effort to indicate that the risk from argyria is actually very slight, and the wording you keep reverting to reads as though any contact with colloidal silver could cause argyria. Since Lansdown was clearly including colloidal silver in the general statement that silver has low toxicity, if you absolutely MUST mention argyria in the lead at all then you need to state that the risk is minimal and that the safe daily dose is substantial.

Per the FDA in 2009: “However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a chronic oral Reference Dose (RfD) of 5 micrograms (µg) of silver per kilogram (kg) of body weight per day (5 µg/kg/day) based on a review of 70 cases of argyria that were associated with oral and other uses of silver compounds. For a 70 kg person (or about 154 pounds body weight), this would be about 350 µg of silver per day.” 1ppm is 1 milligram/litre, so colloidal silver at 10ppm would contain 10mg/l, or 10000µg /l. There are 5ml per teaspoon, so there are 200 teaspoons per litre. 10000 divided by 200 equals 50, so there would be 50µg per teaspoon. This equates to a maximum safe dosage of 350/50 = 7 teaspoons per day of colloidal silver at 10ppm. This also includes a significant safety factor. Assuming 30 days per month, the safe dosage is over a litre per month for a 70kg person, FOR LIFE.

Wdford (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm shocked that Wdford feels no shame in continuing his Wikistalking of Zara1709 - wait, no I'm not. I'm shocked that no one is going to step up and defend her and the encyclopedic qualitiy of the articles on medical subjects under assault by paid disinformation agents - wait, no I'm not. Carry on! Hipocrite (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This totally unsubstantiated allegation of being a "paid disinformation agent" is a blatant personal attack. It also demonstrates extreme bias, and a refusal to consider the validity of the edits in question. It is clear that Hipocrite is aptly named. Wdford (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wdford, I intentionally abstained from strong polemics in my last posting. I was trying to de-escalate this, but you apparently failed to notice. When I am saying that you "obviously had difficulties with making this distinction", I am only describing your behaviour as I am perceiving it. You shouldn't be accusing me of making personal attacks, but try to understand why I might describe your behaviour that way. But, as you illustrated often enough previously, you are unable to accept criticism. In the discussion here, you missed the subtle irony of Hipocrite's comment. And you are still not able to make a proper distinction between the different medical uses of silver, or at least you are unable to balance the weight that has to be given to each one. You write, that I would "consistently resist any effort to indicate that the risk from argyria is actually very slight.." On the article talk page, MastCell explained the medical concept of toxicity quite well a few weeks ago:

Perhaps a brief refresher on the concept of toxicity would be useful, at least as the word is generally applied to medical questions. The toxicity of a drug is generally considered together with its effectiveness; the two can't be easily divorced if one is trying to be - what's the phrase you used? - academically honest. For example, cisplatin is a highly toxic drug, but if you have testicular cancer, then it can save your life - so in that circumstance the toxicity would generally be considered acceptable. On the other hand, if a substance is completely lacking any evidence of effectiveness for any condition - as colloidal silver is - then any toxicity is excessive, because there is nothing to counterbalance it on the other side of the risk/benefit equation.

If you look at the quote I have given above from an article from 1940, you would have to admit that the risk of argyria from using colloidal silver is, from a medical perspective, not "very slight". There are other medical uses, for which Lawnsdown 2006 states that the risk expected is minimal. You stated in your edit summaries, that you intended your edits to "balance" the lead paragraph. What kind of balance is that supposed to be? You have just admitted, that even Lawnsdown 2006 mentions colloidal silver and that it has undesirable side-effects, although Lawnsdown's article, as far as it can be concluded from the abstract, it aiming at discussing the acknowledged medical uses of silver. Likely the main reason Lawnsdown is discussing the side-effects of medical products containing silver in the abstract is that he is aware of the promotion of "colloidal silver" as alternative medicine miracle cure. So you have admitted that even the reliable sources that are not dealing with colloidal silver as such are discussing its dangerous side-effects. I mean, the article is from a compilation Biofunctional Textiles and the Skin, Lansdown can't possible have written an article about colloidal silver for such a compilation. We have to balance the different aspects in the article the same way that the reputable sources do it. There are articles in medical journals specifically about colloidal silver, and there are other articles about different medical uses of silver, which, as you yourself have pointed out, also discuss colloidal silver and its "undesirable" side-effects. What does this mean for our discussion of "balance"?

I have previously explained why I don't think that we need to mention in the lead paragraph that "minimal risk is expected due to clinical exposure [to silver] by inhalation, ingestion, dermal application or through the urological or haematogenous route." I mean, we are trying to have a concise lead paragraph, aren't we? Also: Pointing out so prominently that some medical products involve only "minimal" risks looks weird. Have your ever seen a packet of pills with a big warning sign: "Only minimal risks expected."? If you look at the edit history of the article, you will see that Wdford explicitly added material on the antiseptic and disinfectant properties medical uses of silver, because he was "not allowed to reduce the paragraph on colloidal silver". The material on these uses needed to be expanded a little, but I personally didn't do that previously because I wanted to look for more reliable sources on that first. Wdfords version, as it stands now, is giving undue weight to these uses. I see no reason why we would need to mention that "minimal risk is expected due" to these uses, and Wdford hasn't attempted to give any reason, aside from his unexplained concept of "balance". So I have to remove some sentences again. And I am sorry for bothering the ANI with this issue, but I honestly think that Wdford has a problem with his conduct as an editor, and that someone needs to intervene here. Zara1709 (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, despite MastCell's intermediate edits, I came to the conclusion that it was almost impossible to fix the problems with Wdford's edits without a full revert. I don't know how long I can put up with this, but I am unwilling to accept that Wdford sabotages of my work at yet a 3rd article. Zara1709 (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Zara can't "fix" my edits, because they aren't broken. If toxicity is important enough to appear in the lead at all, then its important enough to be dealt with fairly and objectively. I will supply even better references to support the EPA safe dosage, and I have no problems with MastCell's various improvements to the wording. Zara has no valid basis to repeatedly revert a lot of valid and referenced material. Wdford (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wdford, I wrote a 6000 byte statement trying to explain the problem with your edits. If you are of the opinion that my concerns are unjustified, you at least have to attempt to make an argument. I'll revert again. If we can't get an administrator over here to deal with the issue, could at least someone lock down the article for a month or so? Zara1709 (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

My argument is utterly straightforward, and I have made it many times already since I started working on this article, but you choose to pretend otherwise. Here it is yet again:

• This article is about ALL the medical uses of silver, not just colloidal silver, and the lead should reflect this broad scope with due weighting to ALL the different aspects.
• Silver has many different valuable medical uses, while colloidal silver is only one aspect. This should be reflected by due weight.
• When it comes to mentioning the toxicity of silver, be it re colloidal silver and other forms, per policy the lead must summarise all aspects objectively and with due weight. To mention argyria three times in the lead, without actually putting argyria in context or clarifying the actual risk, does not constitute due weight.
• Your arguments for suppressing the fact that silver is minimally toxic do not hold water - a couple of extra lines to clarify the very important safety aspect is well justified in an article of this nature, which some people continue to believe is a "controversial" subject.

Instead of repeated mass reverts, why don't you accept that the valid and reliably referenced material is valid and reliably referenced, and work constructively with others to finish it off?

If you agree to mention argyria only once in the lead, with a wikilink, and leave the rest of it to the body of the article, then I am happy to streamline the rest of the lead likewise. However, if you insist on padding up the lead of this article with repeated mentions of argyria, then proper context is necessary and appropriate.

If you persuade other editors to split off a separate article dedicated to colloidal silver, the EPA safe dosage would still need to be included.

As we appear to have reached consensus on everything else, I will request some admins specifically to mediate on these remaining issues.

Wdford (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Colloidal silver deserves the main weight

Wdford, your statement: "This article is about ALL the medical uses of silver, not just colloidal silver, and the lead should reflect this broad scope with due weighting to ALL the different aspects." is wrong on a fundamental layer. If you look at the reliable sources that we have present at the article, you would have to admit that they devote quite some weight to the discussion of "colloidal silver". Your attempt to shift the focus of the article away from "colloidal silver" can therefore only be explained as 1) a lack of editorial skill at your part, or as 2) a deliberate attempt of promoting a fringe POV by selectively quoting the sources, or, and that would be even worse, as 3) part of a strategy to harass me. In any case, you need to be banned from the article. Zara1709 (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Zara is very wrong in suggesting that colloidal silver "deserves" most of the weight. Those sources that specifically discuss colloidal silver obviously focus on their chosen topic, but even those sources admit that the risk of argyria is small, and that argyria is not actually harmful. There are also a great many sources that focus on the various other aspects of silver in medical usage, and a number of those sources have been included also - as any objective person could easily check. I am not attempting to shift the focus away from colloidal silver, but I am attempting to give due weight to the many positive uses of silver as well - as I have said repeatedly from the beginning. The accusation of lack of editorial skill is a contravention of WP:NPA. The accusation of selectively quoting sources is not only WP:NPA but its also hypocritical, as Zara has been cherry-picking sentences since inception, while my sources are all reliable, valid and consistent. Finally, the accusation of harrassment remains as baseless as it ever was, and I'm sure any objective admin would agree that my edits have contributed significantly to broadening this article in line with the agreed expansion of scope - in the face of fierce resistence throughout. Wdford (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just an administrative note that I've reported Wdford (talk · contribs) at WP:AN3. MastCell ^Talk 18:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Zara's statement. The bulk of the article has been rewritten from the very heavily sourced colloidal silver article,[5] and as such can be expected to contain the bulk of those sources, with exception of several introduced when a section was moved from silver.[6] In addition to this, most of the rewriting of the article to its current format has been done by Zara and Wdford (with a handful by Vsmith, Hipocrite, and myself).[7] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

At least the article is full protected now, that could actually give us the time needed to discuss the issues. I mean, currently the lead paragraph says, among other, that the use of colloidal silver as conventional medication was discontinued in the 1940s due to "the development of safe and effective modern antibiotics..", which is misleading. An uninformed reader might conclude that colloidal silver simply was less efficient than antibiotics, whereas in fact colloidal silver never had any confirmed positive effect to begin with. My version was more exact (although I probably didn't find an optimal wording). Wdford then also added another source to the article, before it was locked down. The way that is currently worded, this is a misquotation. The one article quoted, judging from its abstract is only talking about localised corneal argyrosis, i.e. a discolouration of the eye due to accumulated silver. And even if the quotation was correct, someone would still need to copy-edit Wdford's writing a create a proper citation in the references. All Wdford did was cut&paste the URL.

And these are not isolated incidents. Wdford hasn't done a single edit to the article ever, that wasn't problematic in at least some aspects. After November 13, cleaning up after Wdford became to boring for me and I waited, to see if he would make any more edits. In fact he didn't. Then, on November 21, an uninvolved editor commented on the article talk page on the low quality of the lead paragraph. I then decided to fix the problems in the lead paragraph that Wdfords edits from a week before had created, but Wdford changed the lead paragraph again not even six hours later. What am I supposed to make of this? I almost get the impression that Wdford has been making bad edits intentionally, to pull me into an edit war. When I didn't revert him, he didn't continue editing. Under this impression, I think that the various solutions suggested here by various people wouldn't work - the only thing that would work is a ban of Wdford from the topic. Zara1709 (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Zara has selectively quoted the article in a rather misleading manner. The actual line in the lead paragraph currently reads: “In the 1940s they were discontinued due to both the development of safe and effective modern antibiotics and concern about argyria and other side effects of silver products.” The actual full quote from the source (Wadhera and Fung) says: “Over the last few decades, there have been several reported problems associated with silver ingestion, including intestinal ulcers and argyria. With the availability of more effective pharmacologic alternatives, physician-directed use of silver-containing products has significantly declined.” I think our sentence is a fair summary of the source – what exactly is the problem?

As regards my last edit, which mentions progress with laser treatments for argyria: my edit added the wording “laser therapy has been used to treat it with satisfactory cosmetic results”. I provided two sources – not one as Zara claims - one source which deals with argyria and another which deals with argyrosis. It cannot be a misquotation, as it is not a quotation at all – in line with WP:NPS.

As regards the accusation that I make bad edits on purpose to provoke an edit war, I reject that with contempt. I responded to Zara’s edits each time because Zara’s edits repeatedly deleted relevant and verifiable content in order to pursue her POV of biasing the article toward the colloidal silver issue – as is now openly revealed by her sub-titling of this very ANI section “Colloidal silver deserves the main weight”. When she paused with her mass reverts for a week I was happy to let the article cool down, but unfortunately on 21 Nov the reverts resumed. Since Zara ends virtually every post with a call for me to be topic banned, I am starting to wonder about the underlying motives.

And finally – interested editors are constructively discussing the issues right now on the talk page, and building a consensus. Why is Zara complaining here instead of constructively participating in that discussion?

Wdford (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Harrassment II

• 166.205.139.4 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

He's back as IP. 166.205.139.4 GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Who is back, what are they doing, where are the diffs, and where are they doing it? Frmatt (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's that one guy. (Seriously, though, a link would have been nice.) — Gavia immer (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's quite likely, more then one person aswell. Whoever it is, he/they are cowards. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Not an admin, so I don't see that there's a lot I can do here...but I'll keep an eye on this for a little bit and help out where I can. Frmatt (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

My edits are quite little: Spelling corrections, grammar, sentence fixings. Anyways, your help would be most appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you touch base with Jehochman and see if the rangeblock applied last time can be expanded/shifted/whatever to meet the new IP? Some people's kids just don't get the message. =/ Tony Fox (arf!) 18:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Just notified him. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank goodness the anon has chosen to revert my edits, as I'm not a prolific editor. Finding & reversing his reverts is quite easy. By bugging me, he's quite limited to what he can do. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The anon is known for 'bothering' Barack Obama related articles, too. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Dealt with. Jehochman ^Talk 19:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Here's another IP (166.205.131.82) by my harrasser, or as I call him the 'Little GD'. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have seriously notified the IPs about this discussion. ([8] [9]) GoodDay, what you did wasn't really notifying them...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 19:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

My AGF with that anon, eroded immediately in mid-October. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Three day range block of 166.205.128.0/20 implemented. Please tell me if this starts up again. NW (Talk) 18:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

List of marjas

There are two users (or possibly the same one) that keep removing on person on the list although he meets the appropiate criteria to be a marja. Both have breached the three revert rule, and have no intention of even establishing a concensus, although being invited to. One is User:Linux4ns and the other is an anonymous user with the ip address (173.34.93.7). Thank you.--عيسى (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Both Linux4ns and the IP have been made aware of this discussion. GiantSnowman 18:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Echoing GiantSnowman, I've notified Linux4ns. Basket of Puppies 18:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yousef Sanei is definitely a marja. But it turns out, he's a man so nice we've written about him twice. We also have the vastly inferior Grand Ayatullah Saanei article, sourced only to the ayatollah's own website. Its been marked proposed "merge" for yonks. I propose some bold admin redirect the "Ayutollah (sic) Saanei" article to Yousef Sanei and protect the redirect.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done I agree, the article was a self-published shed. Rodhullandemu 19:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The person they seem to have the problem with is actually Reza Hosseini Nassab. Although not very well know, he does meet the criteria of publishing a resala.--عيسى (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your information Giant Linux4ns (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What I did in editing those pages simply reflect my ideas. I did not vandalize in the articles. I just changed them in a way to exclude misleading information. That is my idea and I will continue to keep Wikipedia clean and accurate. Sometimes I forget to login and that's why my IP might be shown, but I do not think that would be a major issue. The discussion pages are full of my opinions and reasoning; and I try to specify the reason for changing each and every article.

Thanks for discussing this. Linux4ns (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of NPOV, your ideas are not relevent. Also, you must establish a concensus before editing. Until you can provide viable evidence to show Mr Nassab is not a marja, He will continue to remain on the list.--عيسى (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Brother, we raised many serious questions in his Persian discussion page, all have not yet been answered properly. I just didn't have time to translate them for English discussion pages. I will do so in near future so that we can have you elaborate on those matters. --Linux4ns (talk) 07:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

By all means, take you time to translate them. However, can you please not remove Mr Nassab until we have reached a consensus. I am suspicious about his credentials also but until we have solid evidence to show he isn't, we cannot remove him.--عيسى (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

*blink* What? That seems quite contrary to WP:BLP. Until proven that he is, he should be removed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not really the place. But i took at look and couldn't find a reliable source (don't speak farsi and my arabic is piss poor, so grain of salt) that identifies Nassab as a marja. So his removal seems perfectly reasonable to remove first, add back in when/if acceptable sourcing is found. That's the way we should do things.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: He self idenfities as a grand ayatollah on his website. This would mean he was a marja. Is there some doubt as to this credential? Both the users in the dispute appear to speak farsi, so what's the problem here?

Well basically a Grand Ayatullah is a marja-i taqlid (source of emulation). Marja-i Taqlids always publish a risala which is basically a manual with their edicts on certain topics. Mr Nassab does claim to be a marja and has published a risala. Thus he meets the specified criteria.--عيسى (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If there's no question as to his credentials, then of course he should be on the list. Seems little reason for doubt here -- so I'm with you. This should simply get back to that talk page now, though.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

True! I have continued this on the talk page, please follow and fairly decide whether his name should be on he list or removed until the issues are rectified. Thanks! Linux4ns (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Nassab (according to his [scientific certificate]) Is holding the highest scientific certificate and professorship document, issued by the Management Centre of Qum Seminary. He is a Mujtahid who has Resalah in English, Aranic and Farsi. He has followers who ask him to give his Fatwa to follow him. Those Fatwas are mentioned in his page of [Esteftaat] in his website. I think that he meets the specified criteria.Eihsan (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please continue on his talk page! Linux4ns (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes this should continue on the talk page. The problem was you keep removing him without establishing a concensus. I initially asked you to discuss first and reach and concensus. When you carried on removing him without one, I felt I had no choice but to raise this issue here. Hopefully this can be settled now :-)--عيسى (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see the discussion page! Linux4ns (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear friend! The other users asked you several times not to remove without reasonable and correct evidences. But you are keeping removing [[10]]. please respect the other users of Wikipedia and study the answer on the discussion page! Eihsan (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Un-needed, eccentric, and aggresive, "help"

After a long period of having him give comment over my shoulder while I tried to rebuild R1a, an article which had a long history of problems, and which I brought to a stable form, User:Pdeitiker went unilateral almost 2 weeks ago and started to over-write the entire article in order to make a WP:POINT to me personally (ad hominem though not an attack in any simple sense), about how to be encyclopedic in writing style. I should, he says, be pushing myself to get articles to GA standard. If I do not he will take actions. But, not only are his edits very ill-informed and written in poor English according to the other active editor of R1a in recent time User:MarmadukePercy, but also this User's record shows, that his writing style, and his talkpage manner, are not good according to everyone he has contact with. His behavior is also constantly on the limits of Wikipedia policy, both on talkpages and while editing articles. Diffs of just some examples...

That it is to make a point to me personally:

• The page will not self-improve if you also do not self-improve. [11]
• Again, this should be your baby, and there are about 6 days left before GA occurs, if by that time we haven't gotten around the basic issues of style and working, then I might replace the sections. However I would hope that you will take the initiative at this point, looking at other GA articles and these edits go about making the repairs yourself. I will focus on the lede, henceforth.[12]
• Of course the althernative is I could wait this out and plop a new lede and nomenclature section in before review. This should be your baby, your kind of like a food critic that never lites a stove to boil a pot of water.[13]
• [14]
• Andrew, the time for arguing is over. Either the page improves or it does not, Marmadukes criticism aside, this page has existed since 2005, that is 4 years, and it is still start class. WP:BOLD is exactly for these circumstances where things do not move along. I have set a deadline, if you guys want to tag team revert what I do that is fine, I am not starting an edit war. Both of you agree with each other, if you cannot, in agreement find a way to bring that pages quality up to standard, then please step back. Read the class guidelines and work toward bringing the pages quality up. The reason the page is still start class is because of all the unwarranted speculation dressed up as theory.[15]
• Thank you, since this is the first Y-article to challange at this level, keep in mind that the concepts and structures we use here may be precedences for reorganizing that page. This is mainly for Andrew's benefit, because I will not take part in the process of elevating that page.[16]

Note consistently giving WP:DEADLINEs for action.

• I am giving you ample opportunity to make the requested corrections in your own words. Since you are here arguing with me then it indicates you desire not to make the change and therefore justifies the reversion. Simply stated you are acting in abstinence to the guidelines. [17]

Pretending his advice, and deadlines, represents the demands of some sort of authority in Wikipedia (various forms) who is watching:

• you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with Wikipedia [18]
• [19]
• If you do not start following the MOS I will simply revert your edits back to my last edit. Your edits are clearly exemplary of WP:OWN because you do not want review the guidelines before making edits and/or reverting edits and will be a stumbling block for GA review. You must familiarize yourself with WP:MOS in progressing further until you do so further discussion here is futile. Am I making myself clear?[20]
• If I had split off R1a1a article the article would be done now and in compliance with WP:MOS, you are simply creating the need for more edits and more reorganization because you refuse to read the MOS. Get your act together! [21]
• There can be no doubt, you clearly have a problem complying with Wikipedia guidelines. If you cannot comply with wikipedia guidelines please stop editing.[22]

Accusations of bad faith, instead of properly responding to attempts to communicate about article-related concerns. For example:

• Again, I do not see it that way, you lace all your comments with ad-hominim attacks. I was simply trying to provide you with a template by which to go forward and you dragged me into this refute that, explain this, why is yours better than mine, and highly nit-picky attitude. (This is about a draft which he supposedly made for discussion [23], and which he later, after not answering any of the concerns, did post into the main article [24].)
• Again this level of critique can be consider an ad-hominim attack and aligns itself with statements you have made which align with WP:OWN. [25]
• It could almost be interpreted that by excessive points of discussion you might want to obstruct the improvements or replacement of your text, is this your intent? [26]

Showing that the threats of massive unilateral edits is real; in areas where he is either not well-informed about the reasons for previous consensus, and where he knows that he is definitely or probably editing against consensus.

• See his first edit on E1b1b, the deletion of a whole sub-section which in an area he was not familiar with, in context of his first talkpage comment there.

Note that the reason for investigating was a call for opinions about a COI accusation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Andrew complains about my actions on the E1b1b page but here is what I added to that page, reminding everyone that I am extremely skeptical of the Y-DNA work. I have no vested interest in Y-DNA at all. I was only trying to help him and other editors on the pages out. E1b1b_ancestry.png, E1b1b_phylogeny.png, Y_Hap_EM-81.PNG, Y_Hap_EM-123.PNG, E1b1b1a_phylogeny.png, Y_Hap_EM-78.PNG

All of these images were made from Wikimaps and scratch. Some of these images, I might add replaced images that were uploaded by Andrew and were deleted from Wikipedia for copyright violations. In addition I found errors in Andrews source of data which I reported back to him. I have always been trying to help Andrew. I helped to rewrite key sections of that page and that appeared to stabilize an edit war between Andrew and 2 other editors. Again Andrew does not see eye-to-eye with me on the cause. My opinion is that instead of adding gobs of data to these articles, he should be working, first, to make the material in the articles available to a general reading audience. If his thoughts and analysis are understood, IMHO, this would go a long way to stopping the perennial edit wars. He does not look at the issue like this.PB666 ^yap 03:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Splitting of R1a article [27], [28], etc, though not understanding how the information about the two new split subjects should be split. (See, before the split, [29], my responses to proposal, [30], [31] after the split [32], and my explanations[33], [34], then: [35].)

Talkpages are a major problem with this editor. There are so many examples there is not point giving diffs, though I can, of:-

• he frequently leaves comments unsigned
• he comes back to edit his remarks long after they have been responded to, making it impossible to follow discussion
• his indenting seems almost random
• he is prone to writing extremely long responses
• his responses are so poorly written some times, that their intended meaning can only be guessed at
• his responses very often do not stick the point, and are not responses as such at all (a characteristic which is particularly frustrating in such long postings)
• he often seems not to read the responses which come back to him, but to go one writing postings anyway

I have also now had cases where he seems to have deliberately decided to edit my own postings in order to change the overall impression to the casual reader: [36], [37]

There are several practical problems.

• First we have a complete over-write of the article. Here is a diff to my last version before ceasing to edit R1a, showing the style of changes: [38]. The differences are not to do with the science, but by both our accounts to do with style. I believe this is the opposite of improvement.
• Second I have a sort of variation on the stalker theme here, except that this person believes he is some kind of kung-fu master mentor, putting me through difficult experiences in order to make me strong. PDeitiker is already announcing publicly that he wants me to work on R1b next, according to his model [39]. Needless to say, I can not improve articles while this is happening.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Regardless of the content dispute, Pdeitikers removal of entire sections from talkpages and marking the edits minor are completely unacceptable for a start. (See [40], [41] as noted above) Exxolon (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It is only a start. I should perhaps point out that I am not well versed in how many examples I should give here, and I stopped when I started finding it too long. There are many more, but they are so easy to find if you look at his talkpage, mine, and R1a and its talkpage.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, concerning content, I think there is no dispute in any simple sense. The talkpage remarks show User:Pdeitiker constantly asking me to explain the subject matter, and when pressed concerning the knowledge reflected in his own edits, he has constantly pointed out that he is mainly teaching me about encylopedic style, and giving me a template of how to re-write more Y haplogroup articles in the future. He has indeed become quite annoyed about my argumentative nit-picking about things like "wordage" which can be fixed later in his opinion. Here is a draft of a section which he supposedly made so I could raise concerns: [42]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If your objective was to annoy, then you succeeded. What I saw Andrew was when I went about changing what you had done you became increasingly childish, and the more I attempted to change the more WP:OWN became an aspect. But Andrew I am not holding a grudge against you, I understand where you are coming from, the problem is you are going to have to shift your attitude for these pages to improve, because as long as you balk at Wikipedia guidelines and attempts to apply them to articles, you will have very little success at promoting and getting others to help you protect your pages.PB666 ^yap 23:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you do these people a favor and show them examples of your behavior over the last week. hmmmmmm. This would be a real nice test of your objectivity, particularly as a NPOV editor.PB666 ^yap 23:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You are the one making an accusation. Why don't you show a diff? I have not even been editing in this period. Concerning being an NPOV editor, the record shows that throughout many discussions, you have always treated me as one until I disapproved of your article split attempt. (Your first comment: "You are however right, I knew this was going to be complicated deal and I was hoping to create the page in a sandbox. However, it was already created."[43]) After I asked "please let's first create a situation where we can understand what we are reading" you immediately posted on my talkpage accusing me of WP:OWN[44]. Since then you have been a textbook disruptive editor, out to make a wp:POINT--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• BTW, if you review 72 carefully you will note that I did not remove an entire section, I moved that section to a new section as there were getting to many offsets. Some, very few passages of mine and Andrews comments were deleted. So to clear up that issue, no entire section was deleted from the talk-page.PB666 ^yap 05:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I removed those sections from the talk page because they were false statements made by Andrew against me repeatedly, when I finally showed him that these were indeed false statements I removed the argument only those specific aspects of the argument that pertained to the false statements.

Andrew has:

• acting more and more inappropriately with me
• I have tried my best to keep the argument civil
• he continues to push incivility and inappropriate remarks. Even on the present talk-page, saying I was wrong or did not understand even though I retained his good faith edit of a cladogram that was an improvement of my edit.
• He has been hesitant to improve the page following guidelines.
• He keeps claiming an issue regarding section titling was solved when the only person now on wikipedia part of that discussion was him. The other participant noted "In closing, I would like to remind everyone that the hierarchical haplogroup nomenclature, like the field itself, has been changing very rapidly; to illustrate this, take a look at Y haplogroup trees from 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, early 2008, and mid 2008." which is in agreement with my POV that section heads should use the version of clade representation which is least likely to change, least likely to break Page#section wikilinks.
• he does not want to repair his reference style, which has everything in the reference list truncated to {{citation |last = Author et al. |....
• When I converted the WP:MOS undesired bullet list to paragraph form, he reverted it.
• And BTW Andrew has also forgotten on two occassions to sign his talk page sections
• He has constantly gotten into edit-wars with other people, particularly on the E1b1b page, the page has not really improved since July when I tried to help him improve the page.

Andrew has blamed me for:

• wanting section headers that would be stable.
• Not explaining to him things found in WP:MOS (such as frowned upon bullet list and number lists)
• For changing my position when better evidence has come forth warranting a change of position.
• For changing the subsection ledes to make them more explanatory. The section lede for being reflective of the articles size and content in the article. PB666 ^yap 23:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Accused me of making false statements when in fact he was making false statements, when I showed him his false statements he did not apologize, and in fact I deleted those false statements as much as I could from the page without rendering on the other issues. PB666 ^yap 23:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• This is the way it has been for the last week or so, I am trying to help prepare this article the best that I can for GA refereePB666 ^yap 23:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Again you should read his comments about the applicability of WP guidelines throughout the discussion.PB666 ^yap 23:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You guys are going to have fun with this one.PB666 ^yap 23:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Since we are digging back into the past, take a look at this page Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA) and this page Haplogroup_E1b1b1a_(Y-DNA). These are the better versions, this is what I had to deal with in Late june. I worked on the first few sections of E1b1b trying to improve readability but gave up because the task was just a nighmare. This is what I was asked to walk into and referee [45], very little progress has been made on making either page more encyclopedic since I last edited those pages. Compare the E1b1b then with the R1a page now, and you can see at least some influence of what my intentions are. What you really need to ask Andrew is why isn't he working one making his two favorite Y-DNA pages more encyclopedic, more accessible to the casual reader. This is really the very heart of the issue, when I have pushed the encyclopedias agenda, what I have gotten is a very unpleasant response.PB666 ^yap 07:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You are indeed pushing your interpretation of the encyclopedia's agenda: fighting against Harvard citations, "et al.", bullet points, numbers in fraction form etc, and using any number of indirect ways to make a big WP:point. It is a good definition of why I have come to ANI instead of an arbitrator or the Wikiquette forum, in order to discuss you as a disruptive editor with an on-going issue. There are people who believe that being an extremist for a good cause is not being an extremist. That approach does not work on Wikipedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Nearly every edit warrior on Wikipedia believes that their POV is the Wikipedia POV.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'll start" one: The current state of the article is better than it was a month ago. two: It is policy that if references are done consistently in one style in an article, we add additional references in the same style, rather than change everything to whichever style we prefer. three: We do not remove our opponent's comments from a talk page four: it might be a good idea for both of you to work on something else for a week or two. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• DGG I selectively removed the comments from the talk page because they were false statements that were eventually proven to be false that Andrew admitted that he did not remember that he had placed yet another bullet list, the one I corrected to paragraph form. I refactored in what I thought were wiki guidelines, to remove unnecessarily inflammatory material when it is no longer germane to any discussion. That issue was resolved, IMHO, and we no longer needed to deal with who reverted whose correction of a bullet list. It was done in good faith.PB666 ^yap 00:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Also, DGG I disagree with you on the references, at least as they were being used. There were so many Harvard references dropped into text of certain pages that the pages almost became a dirty laundry list of Harvard references. It becomes a readability issue when referencing is abused. For articles that require alot of references clearly end notes are preferable. However I have no problem with Harvard reference system either alone or with end notes. The problem I have with the references is the current format used for almost all the Y_DNA pages is not complete reference. They simply place first1= Author1 et al. and don't fill out the author list. You cannot convince me that this is an acceptable alternative referencing system. In the case of some of my complaint, they don't even provide PMID even though PMID is available, try finding some of these papers online with one author's name and no PMID or catalog source. I stand by my critic as an expert on these types of publications, that particular usage of Harvard referencing is unacceptable, anywhere.PB666 ^yap 00:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

the way to deal with references lacking PMIDs is to add them. arguments or reverts over reference format are rarely a good idea. If you do want to make major changes in that, then discuss it on the talk p first and get consensus. Some scientific journals still list first authors only. I agree its not ideal, but it';s not something to fight over. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hundreds of references, you got to be kidding. Its actually worse that that, I showed Andrew how to capture references with PMID using the diberra template filler, which had been offline for months about the same time I came across the E1b1b page, which is easily converted to the citation style, with a couple of minutes of cutting in pasting in MSWord or Wordpad, you can have at least a four author, et al. reference. He acted as if i had committed high treason for suggesting that change. I went through the process step by step. He got very upset, I told him repeatedly that I was not suggesting he stop using Harvard referencing or the citation style, I was suggesting he improve the references, he got even more upset. Again even though I think the cite journal template is better I went out of my way to show him how to get complete citation template references quickly, and he got very upset. I don't think that is right. The tools are available, the process was explained, its not difficult, there was no reason for him to get angry. I have actually tried to use his references to find papers, and after failing I had to end up using a different search strategy. Referencing should suffice to find an article by modern methods, if it does not suffice then they should be improved. If I was truely interested in Y-DNA I would go about this process, but I am trying to be neutral in the assessment of how these articles improve, and I don't have the time to clean everyones dirty laundry. He needs to know how to improve these problems with these pages by himself, as it looks that no-one else is going to work for higher level improvements. I have done enough by showing him a quick and easy way how.PB666 ^yap 01:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a timeline of what has happened. Sometime in late October an author by the name of Cardenas2008 created a page called R1a1a. After reviewing the complexities of the R1a page I concluded that a split was probably the best way to quickly improve the understandability. However Cardenas2008 had only copied and pasted the R1a page on R1a1a. As a result I rewrote the R1a1a page so that it reflected the R1a1a aspect of R1a only, and I moved materials off the R1a page. Andrew and MarmadukePercy got very upset.

Andrew, instead of requesting a merger, unilaterally blanked that page, removed my content, and reverted the R1a page. I allowed this to occur under the commitment that he was going to make the R1a page more suitable for a general audience. I had been wanting to go ahead with the improvement of that page for a week or so before, but he had us waiting for some unknown latest paper. Well he finally got the paper (from me) and so I said there is no reason to wait any longer, either you can make the page understandable with this new information, or it needs to be split. He did do that, he worked on rewriting various sections, however these new sections and many aspects were not following the Wikipedia guidelines. Finally he had improved the understandability of the page that a split was no longer necessary, IMO. There were still issues, it was a borderline B-class article and he continued to argue with me about things like what number of Harvard references in one sentence too much, what is the better style for authors in the Citation template, etc. So I simply nominated the article for GA review to see what outsiders might say needed improving.PB666 ^yap 00:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

So I requested he change the format on these sections while I worked on the figures and tables for the page. What happened instead was he began throwing up smoke, all kinds of diversionary tactics, all kinds of new remarks for me to respond to, eventually I said enough is enough. It became increasingly difficult for me to help him work toward a better page when I was getting a constant barrage of rhetorical questions which aligned themselves with a WP:OWN attitude. I was up until 4 AM trying to satisfy his critiques of the 'nomenclature' section when what I really wanted was for him to make the improvements. I commented on a bullet list that remained uncoverted, I waited a considerable amount of time for him to convert this to paragraph form, and when he did not I converted it. He promptly reverted my edits. In all of this, none the less, I have continued to try, maybe not succeed, but to push in the direction of trying to bring this article up to GA status, not only for that purpose, but also so these editors will have something to look at when improving the Y-DNA articles. I want this article to be reviewed by outside referees so that we can get some desperately needed outside input as what are the best recommendations for improving the Y-DNA pages, i am less concerned about getting every single factoid correct or writing the most perfect explanation (which is the focus of his complaints). Because it is quite obvious from observing and listening to editors that there is a lack of clarity about guidelines. I would also like to see the comments about what I have added, for my own sake. However, to just dump a dog's breakfast at their feet and say help us fix this would not be fair to them or us either. Andrew continues to use the 'you don't know diddly' issue, however most of the people have commented that what we have done, together, has improved the readability and understandability of the page, which means despite the complaints here, the page is progressing. Not in the way I would like to see it progress, but in a high-testosterone kind-of-way.PB666 ^yap 00:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Andrew will calm down after the comments come, and we see that we all have defects that need to be fixed. I have no problem with the critique myself, I think we need guidance looking forward because they way the project has been dealing with conflict in the past is not productive, IMHO.PB666 ^yap 00:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As a user involved in this page over the past few months, I agree with Andrew Lancaster's assessment. Incidentally, Andrew and I haven't always agreed on things, but our dialogue has been civil, and we have worked together successfully. As soon as Pdeitiker appeared, the rules of the game seemed to change. Everything was personal; everything was a deadline; and every change became a slugfest. No matter what his genetics 'expertise' is – and I have reservations about that as he got backwards the most salient point concerning ancient Y-Dna in the Underhill paper – Pdeitiker seems to feel he can do it all. This despite the many comments on his user talk page from other editors complaining about his verbose writing style. My point is this: wikipedia editors have their strengths and weaknesses. The best editors here recognize those, and play to them. I know something about language – though Pdeitiker has insulted me on that score – and presumably he knows something about genetics. The best way for an article like this one to progress is for editors to respect each other's background. I have found this particular user high-handed, arrogant, and unwilling to listen. As Andrew Lancaster says, Pdeitiker seems to regard himself as the 'Bruce Lee' of genetics kung fu masters. He'd do better if he swallowed a dose of humility and came down off his high horse and deigned to work with others.That said, I am anxious for this article to be improved. I would like to go to work on improving its language, but fear that as soon as I do, 'Bruce Lee' will revert me. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please improve the language, I am only going to work on the lede, probably tonight, I will improve as far as I can and that will be it. OK, I will not revert your edits, if you want to look at my posting history I seldomly revert, I have never been cited by the 3RR and I generally always give people a chance to defend their reversion before I change them. I threaten to revert more often than I revert and I have kept my word about not splitting the article even though it was a violation of wikipolicy for Andrew to blank R1a1a page after major edits without calling for a merger. There are many areas such as the infobox, such as the bullet list in Eastern European migration section, such as the list of frequencies in the Second second that I have left untouched, there are many areas of the article that can and should be worked on and R1000R1000 and others have been making alot of edits, so why shouldn't you.PB666 ^yap 02:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

On the other issues, I have found myself immersed (more or less drafted by Andrew and Muntawandi) into wiki-war after wiki-war since July over terribly designed and written articles, and I am frankly tired of this. I have a 25 year perspective on the failures of Molecular Anthropology, and at the top of the list of marginal science are the Y-chromosomal studies. However Y-chromosomal studies are troubled, if you catch Andrew with the right timing he will say pretty much the same thing, the molecular clock is still greatly questioned, estimates range from 25 kya to 140 kya, and even if it worked NRY sequencing is rarely done, and comparative genetics is even more rarely done. And the STR dating that is used may be off by a factor of 3 fold. OK, so I have good reason to keep Andrews comments at a distance, why waste good thinking on bad data. The problem is that Andrew brings up the weaknesses of these approached when it is convenient for him but denies these issues when its not convenient. So again I keep his word at a distance. Caveot Emptor.

But for Wikipedia the problem is much worse, witness the last 3 months - there is alot, _and I mean alot_ of race-based promotion within HGH and including Y-DNA topics.

Here are some clear examples of riding over wiki-guidelines:

• Wiki-guidelines say clearly the long bullet lists are unwanted, and yet instead of building clades someone drops a long dirty laundry lists dressed as a cladograms into pages.
• Even when cladograms are made, such as in the R1b page they are not simplified and broken into understandable pieces instead they become a cobweb of confusion.
• Why are Y-DNA pages always involved in conflict, because editors are working to their own self-interested goals and not improvement of the encyclopedia.
• Why have I been asked to intervene in articles so poorly written that it is difficult to understand the core of the debate????PB666 ^yap 02:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I would encourage both of you to read wp:TLDR, wp:dispute resolution, and wp:five pillars. And that entire mess was TL, DR. I tried though. I did. I don't really see anything the admins need to do, here, though the TLDR thing might have just meant I missed it.- Sinneed 03:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• YOu didn't this is more of an arbitration issue anyway. I refactored my comments, thanks. PB666 ^yap 04:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The short version is that User:Pdeitiker is editing disruptively in order to make a WP:point. You only need to look at his own explanations of his intentions. This is NOT a content dispute as any glance at the diffs will show. Note that Deitiker gives no diffs above. His vague and confusing remarks are however clearly given in order to imply things. For example consider whether his vague accusations about my behavior match anything: I have not even edited R1a since Deitiker began his long threatened series of non-consensus edits. My bad behavior is just no agreeing with him. Unfortunately it seems that if you want to write disruptively on a scientific article all you need to do is make your talkpage postings long and confused, in order to put admins off.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly another false statement, guys, right here he has made this statement in front of you and now you know what the problem is. Here is R1a page before I began trying to make the page more encyclopedic [46] and this is the page after my last edit, on the lead this evening[47]. This is a combination of both mine and Andrews work, I am not taking credit for it all, The cladograms, however 80%, 80% and 100% my work, the table, Andrews but I reformated, the other two tables are mine entirely. Many many edits in the distribution section culling out alot of unnecessary material. It is generally agreed in the talk pages that the page is much clearer and much easier to read now.

The core issue here is that I am pushing the interest and the goals of the encyclopedia and Andrew does not like this, he thinks that he, not wikipedia guides should be the major determinants about what goes on a page and what is improved. Just look at his favorite E1b1b page, read the last sections, those which I have never worked on. Is it encyclopedic, is it appropriate for a general purpose reader? Here within his last statement is the core of our dispute, its not about content, its about making it accessible. As per motive, Andrew told me one time that he does these pages as a reference for his own personal studies, I have no problem with that desire, but the key desire should be to make the pages suitable for a general purpose encyclopedia. And I thank Andrew for saying this, because if he hadn't disclosed the above I would have had to go hunt down diffs. You saved me the effort, the bias is quite clear, my improvements were constructive, just too encyclopedic for you. The reason Andrew is here guys is that he tried to elicit negative responses to my changes and everyone agreed so far that the page has improved, both with his and my changes. Without getting a clear green light from the editors of R1a, he got frustrated and came here, that is closer to the truth.PB666 ^yap 08:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Give diffs for accusations? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have not said that I do these pages as a reference for my personal studies. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• As you and I both know there are only 3 editors who've commented on our disagreements, you, me, and User:MarmadukePercy. We form a consensus of 2, and you are the non-consensus writer. Such small numbers of editors is a frequent problem on specialized articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• This is yet another false statement. Aside from the comments here these are two comments from the talk page comparing the two versions (Which Andrew has primarily reverted to his version, with some improvements)

It could look half as good as either version and still look supremely superior to Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA). As far as this and that I favour as much explanation as possible for those learning, including long section titles for those who might be easily overwhelmed and need to keep going back to the top of the page.

— DinDraithou (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that there aren't any real substantive differences between the two version. Disagreements seem to be about presentation, prose and semantics. This paragraph appears to be more complex than it needs to be. Apart from the aforementioned paragraph, my initial impression is that both versions would be acceptable, especially when compared to typical wikipedia articles.

— Wapondaponda (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Unsigned remarks and quotes inserted by PB666. I note that both these people studiously avoided expressing any opinion about your first round of recent edits over mine. They just expressed positive remarks that this article, which you keep describing in panicked terms as a load of unencylopedic crap, that has to be changed urgently or else, has been a lot better lately, and is a lot better than other haplogroup articles. They are also explicitly saying that this was already before you started changing it, although you have implied that I should probably be banned from Wikipedia for this work! [48]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Example of your approach to listening to others: You proposed a draft; I commented as requested and you called me argumentative for doing this; then you inserted it with even the most obvious errors that had been pointed out still in place.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think this level and hostility of tone desires a reply, anymore. It is clear that if you compared the last version of my lede (above) that the previous version that I felt it was a draft in style and layout, I did not treat it as a fixture on the page, and a recommended others to edit this and improve it. Every attempt to work with you became increasingly inappropriate and hostile, for that reason I started ignoring your comments, it was clear that you did not want your wording to change, the attitude was WP:OWN and the reversion essentially proved the point. I don't think I need to make any further comment here, if your desire is to continue the hostile commentaries then we need to move this on to Arbitration as I recommended. Your current version contains a large and reader unfriendly run-on sentence so I wonder why you are pointing out specific errors of mine? What type of adrenalin is bringing out your repeated hostility?PB666 ^yap 13:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Name an example of hostility of tone. You answer every concrete point with these emotional accusation, on the talkpages, and this is your constant pattern since I asked you not to try splitting the article until we had understanding of R1a itself: [49]. So it is much more simple than you make out: you are a disruptive editor, because you constantly fill talk pages with such accusations when people are trying to discuss edits. To treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated. Concerning arbitration you've raised this many times and I've told you each time to put your money where your mouth is or else stop making these diversionary accusations. I am only asking for what Wikipedia policy normally demands. Answer good faith criticism rationally, and do not make accusations lightly.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is one, the most recent example of a great many: Regarding the evidence I put forward concerning the conversation between Andrew and Swin (quoted above) in an effort to create the most stable section names:

Why are you scared of moving this discussion to WP:HGH? If as you claim no one is reading it, then we'll see right?

— --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This is pure and outright bullying, schoolyard level. Andrew is trying to drive this discussion off the page, because all of the evidence points to him having a problem with the wiki guidelines for stable section naming.PB666 ^yap 14:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I just want to add, why am I keeping the discussion in R1a talk page here are the traffic statistics for R1a and here are the traffic statistics for [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Human_Genetic_History], I previous brought my reasons to Andrew with statistics, and even so he continues to bully on the issue. To the best of my ability I have corrected page or answer his critiques with reasonable explanations, this response is very typical of his recent behavior.PB666 ^yap 15:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's put this side subject (which is about a policy which affect many articles) aside. Please see my response here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Genetic history of the British Isles is among the worst and most awesomely misinformative of all articles, in case anyone here is looking for one to smash up in their fury. Sorry for the interruption. DinDraithou (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Not an interruption - you prove my point, but the only article I want to 'smash up' on is the mtDNA Eve page, that is improve.PB666 ^yap 04:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Pdeitiker is a knowledgeable editor and many of his edits have definitely helped to improve wikipedia. However Pdeitiker uses an unconventional idiosyncratic editing style. This approach typically involves quite a bit of verbosity and an abundance of technical detail. It is possible that the use of technical detail may be to intimidate other users who may be less knowledgeable about the subject matter. A similar but unrelated dispute took place on several threads in Talk:Mitochondrial Eve, such as this section and this section.

The nature of the problem is not blatantly obvious since many of the articles are quite technical. I believe that Pdeitiker can be an even more effective contributor if he addresses the concerns that numerous editors have expressed about his editing. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am very well aware of this, the problem with the mtDNA page is that - when I came across the pages a couple of months ago, it was a disaster, many blatantly false statements and complete misrepresentation of the literature. It has lost its featured article status and probably would not have even qualified as a GA, certainly not from WP:HGH point of view. I asked people who were editing that page to go about repairing the damage, the answer was don't talk to us 'fix it yourself'. I am perhaps not the best person for the task because I have been following the up and down roller coaster of mtDNA since 1994, and I am all-too-aware about the problems in the popular literature, and the level of debate in the primary literature, particularly recently with regard to mutation rates and clock consistency. I have now added to that page the essense of what should be considered, a key point of the remake of the page were recent literature that reflected on topics misrepresented in the previous page (e.g. what are the limits of the TMRCA, what is the relationship of population size, and was or was not there a population bottleneck). It is going to be an extremely difficult task for me to bring out the quality of that page, particularly since there are 100s of papers that reflect on the topic, many of them recent. As I have finished the draft of that page one author within the field read the page and sent me more references, so I need to encorperate these other lines of thought. The issue for mtDNA and the TMRCA is a complicated issue, the primary reason is that as one approached the extant population by traversing higher branch points, the mutation rates go insane. At some point in the near future I want to bring this article up for GA review, due to its high importance, which means exactly-I need to get rid of the technical lingo without getting the page back to a ill-written 'popular science topic' page. Any specific aspect of the page you think can be improved I would be happy to have a critique of the technical lingo, this page really needs it.These new additions reflect also on the popular media, for example the Current "PBS NOVA: Becoming Human" series which talks about the evolution of humans in 'Oasis' in Southern Africa. PB666 ^yap 18:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Having read the Y-chromosomal Adam pages, there are similar problems. This one should be easier for me since I have a more distal perspective.PB666 ^yap 18:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think these replies show the problem well, and my reason for posting here. In other words:

• On current trends more articles and their talk pages are headed towards the condition of Mitochondrial Eve, which is not good. Only a few Wikipedians so far have come into close contact with Pdeitiker and all apparently come to the same conclusions. But for the time being he feels quite justified in continuing as he has been doing. He has come to describe himself increasingly aggressively as representing the true aims of Wikipedia, improving the style and wording of these articles, and accusing others of using too much jargon and poor style. He also accuses others of unacceptable behavior on talkpages, in long postings that fill those talkpages. He reacts to words like "this is wrong" with accusations of personal attack and WP:OWN. But admins should look at what he has achieved at Mitochondrial Eve, and its talkpage.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Pdeitiker's verbosity and confused style, as in above response, might put people off, but is essentially his own personal talking to himself and trying to understand a subject and work out what he thinks, even when he is writing directly into the text of articles (or slightly less problematic, filling articles with invisible reminder notes). It is essentially textbook WP:OR.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel that my accusation that OR underlies what PD666 generally describes as his "pushing the encyclopedias agenda" (see above). I will try to keep it short by saying that he admits that his opinions about what is good and bad in the literature is guiding this pushing. Remarks indicating this can be found peppered throughout all his talkpages discussions, but for example see above:

"I have a 25 year perspective on the failures of Molecular Anthropology, and at the top of the list of marginal science are the Y-chromosomal studies. However Y-chromosomal studies are troubled, if you catch Andrew with the right timing he will say pretty much the same thing, the molecular clock is still greatly questioned, estimates range from 25 kya to 140 kya, and even if it worked NRY sequencing is rarely done, and comparative genetics is even more rarely done. And the STR dating that is used may be off by a factor of 3 fold. OK, so I have good reason to keep Andrews comments at a distance, why waste good thinking on bad data." (PB666 on this page above)

So, I know it is confusing, but OR is playing a role in all this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed how often content disputes involve subjects related to human genetics? This simply can't solely be due to its young, cutting-edge nature. (And I assume the vast majority of Wikipedians know better than to argue that one ethnic group is superior to any other.) For the record, I honestly expect half of the expert conclusions presently advocated will be found to be as plausible as Aether within the next 20 years. -- llywrch (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You are right Llywrch, and I have bent over backwards to present all points of view on mtEve, even adding authors work, by their own request, that I have disagreements with. Andrew calls this OR, but what it actually is presenting the breath of confidence that many studies have pointed. And you are right, there are many, many battles in the human genetics area, and Andrew has been a major participant in those battles, particularly with regard to geneologies. Also correct that Wikipedia should not be the place to treat every speculation as a theory, and every theory as worthy.PB666 ^yap 19:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

My comment wasn't directed at only one specific person. And remember, it takes two to have a content dispute. -- llywrch (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As Andrew has stated we are not having a content dispute, the dispute is how best bring forward wikipedia standards. I think A key problem, which aligns with what you said, regarding the R1a page (again a page I have only trying to help promote by the WP standards) is that originally there were four sections listed as different theories. Each promoted by their own sets of authors. Some of these had data that supported their points of view and some did not. In those original version support was given as per the popularity of the author and not the quality of the work or support. This is a problem with a great many pages in the HGH project. A person finds a paper with an author that supports their point of view, they then create a section in an article glorifying that persons point of view. And the next person comes along and does the same thing. I have been trying to reduce this 'glorification of pundits POVs' in these authors as a key step in ending the edit-warring and a key step in page improvements. Many folks who create these passages have no problem with an endless dirty laundry list of quotations, even though it denigrates the pages they have edited. This is why you have editors coming around asking for help cleaning up their pages. My point is, to Andrew, I cannot engage every battle, as some point those engaged in the battle need to put WP guides first other wise the pages will not improve, and the edit-warring will get worse because everyone wants their particular 'pundit-piece' highlighted relative to everyone elses.PB666 ^yap 20:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The pattern described here by Llywrch is indeed real, and I think both PB666 and I would recognize it. However, I would say it is more general, and concerns many technical areas which arouse interest amongst non-specialists (Egyptians, Climate change etc). The problem happens at the interface so to speak. But, I think a very central part of it is that admins are scared off and do not have the time to investigate what are essentially the same types of editing problems that are found all over wikipedia. Actions named above in this case are simple violations of wiki policy of varying levels of importance, but amounting to a strong pattern (deleting or misleadingly refactoring talkpage entries of others, nominating an article in a dispute for GA review and announcing it as a way to make a point, studiously interpreting all disagreement as a personal attack, refusing to sign talkpage postings, demanding that other editors accept OR, stalking an editor and assigning him jobs with threats if he does not obey, etc). Let's be honest. These would be more swiftly dealt with one way or another if edit warriors in this field were not so good at writing scary walls of words. Just my two cents anyway. I guess it takes two sides for poorly functioning dispute resolutions also? Concerning your speculations about the future, yes, many of the positions pushed by edit warriors in this field will be like aether one day. That's why it would be preferable to identify them better. I do understand this is normally quite difficult. This case is different. Pdeitiker is not a myth pusher, and hopefully he won't accuse me of being one. He is useful editor. He makes nice graphics and tables. He is good when a really bad article needs pulling apart. He is probably just someone who needs admins to explain the rules. Right now he has lots of experience editing obscure articles without contention and he feels that he can now start a program of changing all kinds of articles. This should be a simpler case than most which come up concerning genetics articles. Someone explain the rules at the very least? Let me explain it another way. Here is the article I have been working on, which PB666 has said is so "disturbingly" un-encyclopedic that I should be banned, and here is an article he got to have his run at: Mitochondrial Eve. I think some perspective would do a great deal. A quick peek at the facts and a few words might be enough. Stranger things have happened.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wall of words, like the above? WP:TLDR. Show me where I said you should be banned. What I did was compare your actions to two individuals that were banned, and indicated that you were acting like them. Aside from that you have made 2 major reversions, first on the R1a1a page and then on my correction of your bullet list that were not reflective of Wikipedias process of concensus building. First R1a1a blanking should have been preceded by a Merger request, particularly since the person who was working on the page and the person who created and filled the page were different editors. The second reversion you made went against the Wikipedia guideline "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs.", I asked you to at least correct the part that was reverted and you began arguing about how your ideas about the article were more important that WP:Guidelines. As I was trying to get you to comply you began accusing me of making false accusations and then making false accusations. It is as simple as that. I should note that I did not revert your edits, instead I worked with what you wrote working with the WP guidelines for editors. PB666 ^yap 22:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Insulting behavior of Andrew_Lancaster continues

See [50] Again, I am trying to help the improvement of the article, many critiques are being retorted with a bad faith criticism. Andrew has now ventured out and begun trying to create edit wars regarding other pages, and even criticize me for leaving a broad range of critiques on the articles GA1 review page, which I proposed. I do not think that Andrew_Lancaster is working to back off his insulting behaviors. He has even accused me of attempting to 'game' the GA process. I assure everyone here that I am reviewing the article in good faith, inserting critiques that I think are weaknesses, and I am not trying to undermine the article or Wikipedia. And would like everyone to note that I engaged the GA process to draft comments and critiques into an area where this type of edit warring greatly preceded me. I feel as if I am being attacked for trying to make these pages more encyclopedic, attacks which suggest that some individuals would prefer to block making these pages more encyclopedic.PB666 ^yap 19:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

These are the comments that I left on the R1a's talk page:Talk:Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA)/Comments. Am I trying to game the GA process? Or find ways to improve the page?PB666 ^yap 19:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

user:Xenos2008-racism, accusations of illegal acts

• user has been blocked for vandalism and incivility 1

• user has (following the block) made racist comments to the effect that Greek people are assholes and peasants

2

• user has been warned on at least three occasions by an administrator user:Henrik

3 4 and by myself user:Anothroskon 5

• user then proceeded to make further racist comments to the effect that Greek people are nationalists and racists

5

• User has finally accused me of belonging to a far-right, semi-legal group and of having threatened him in public, the latter of which would be illegal in my jurisdiction. 6

• I had taken the user to WP:AE but the case was deemed to be unimportant since the user was at the time for a long time inactive. This is no longer the case and in any event the user has commited what would appear to be further breaches of WP policy in the mean time. Thanks.--Anothroskon (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• User has been notified. 7--Anothroskon (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• I am not active on WP: I am responding to allegations of racism by Greek nationalists. I have given up trying to remove the biases and falsified history on WP. Xenos2008 (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Dude... if you want us to take you seriously as a troll, you're gonna have to try harder than that.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, this is the first time I think I've laughed in the Administrator's Noticeboard /Incident section! --Rockstone (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This section is a constant source of comedy for me.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

He called them peasants? Next thing you know, he'll be calling them upstarts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm always partial to varlets. --NellieBly (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately not entirely funny. I have left the user a warning. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually something weird was going on with this editor the time he was active: personal attacks & rascist comments [[51]], talking always about a fictious Greek propaganda scenario and his personal problems with the academic community in Greece [[52]].Alexikoua (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If any of you are serious (and you can be sure that the Greek editors are not) to understand what this is about, I suggest you ask any foreigner living in Greece. Personally, I have fewer problems than most, so the last allegation by Alexikoua is malicious and indeed typical of how Greeks deal with foreigners. I do not have a personal agenda and am being attacked for not supporting Greek propaganda: this also is typical of Greek behaviour on the internet and generally. If you do not know anything about Greece, then do not be so foolish as to think it resembles the USA or Europe. It is a Balkan country. Xenos2008 (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please mind that user:Xenos2008 means this last part to be a slur and not as a simple geographical fact. In his mind being Balkan probably amounts to some sort of personal defect, never mind about being Greek as well. As I said on the talk page I could produce evidence to the effect that Greeks are neither more nor less nationalist, racist, peasant or assholes than any other group of people but that would imply crediting his position as something other than a racist rant. --Anothroskon (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that Anothroskon is a Greek and his opinions and so-called evidence are part of the problem, not the solution. Xenos2008 (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a desperate need for more non-Greeks to be editing Greece-related articles, and a great deal of leeway should be given to such editors, given the inevitable hostility they will come up against. However, I know that administrators seem to prefer articles to be wrong and quiet, rather than right but busy with edit wars, reverts, and controversy. Meowy 21:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Meowy, would you be willing to clarify what you mean by the "inevitable hostility" statement and whether this is tied to one particular nationality as you phrased it? I am asking for a clarification to avoid a potential misinterpretation as a simple ethnic insult. Thanks. Antipastor (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Your own reply might be an example of that "inevitable hostility", since I wrote nothing that suggested it is "tied to one particular nationality". It is a fact that most Greek related articles, especially ones dealing with contemporary Greece, are going to be edited by persons with some sort of Greek background, and that many of them are going to consider such articles "internal matters" for Greeks only, and are going to edit those articles to remove anything that they consider to be "anti-Greek". Meowy 03:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Your predictions about hypothetical situations are not "a fact" though. But, anyway, I see what you mean, and from what you said in your first sentence, I take it that you mean this could happen for articles about any country. So this does not seem to warrant a special justification of a kind of problematic behavior discussed in this thread. I think that on the contrary, in sensitive and potentially controversial situations, the standards for civility should be higher to avoid an obvious degradation of the editing environment, and this must apply equally to all parties of course. Antipastor (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. There is way for non-Greeks to get involved with editing Greek-related articles without having to go and make general stereotypes of Greeks. Are you also saying that in order to encourage non-Jewish people edit Jewish-related articles, we should put up with anti-semitism? Of course not. Same thing here. Xenos2008 has been told to edit without degrading Greek people (and saying all Greek people have a peasant mentality, or that we shouldn't expect rational arguments regarding Greece because it is a balkan country - whatever that means - is degrading, insulting, and not constructive). Xenos2008 has been warned by administrators after this thread started. He chose to ignore that warning and continue making such comments in his posts on this thread. Wikipedia should not have to put up with this behaviour. Singularity42 (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a person, so has no say in what it should put up with or not put up with. The content of articles is all that should matter, and is all that the users of Wikipedia care about. If Xenos2008 knows enough about Greeks to touch at some sensitive points in their self-identity, he probably knows enough about Greece to make a positive contribution to Greece-related articles. BTW, when the complainant talked about being accused of committing "illegal acts", I was assuming they were sheep-related ones - now that is a general stereotype of Greeks! The comments Xenos2008 has been making are not actually stereotypes, they seem to me more like internal criticisms that I (would hope) Greeks make about fellow Greeks (or that any society might make about its self-perceived negative qualities). OK, they are probably not helpful to the editing process, but to compare them to anti-Semitism is completely OTT. Meowy 03:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a community, and the community can say what it will or will not accept. There are plenty of examples of that. The community can say it will not accept repeated offensive behaviour that ignores warnings, including making broad, offensive stereotypes about Greek people. This includes broadly saying Greeks have no respect for Wikipedia and that Greeks have a peasant mentality, that the entire Greek society is racist, that other editors complain about his/her behaviour solely because they are Greek, that a Greek person cannot follow a reasoned argument, simply because they are Greek, that it is typical of Greek people to attack anyone that does not follow a Greek nationalist agenda, and Greece should not be taken seriously because they are a Balkan country (whatever that means), and that editors should ignore another editor solely because the editor is Greek. Wikipedia as a community does not have to accept this type of behaviour, especially after the editor in question has been warned but still continues. And what is wrong with comparing to prejudice against other enthnical/religious groups? Isn't that what is happening here? Singularity42 (talk) 04:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I gotta back Singularity here. Racism and culture wars are not welcome on Wikipedia. Going down that road leads to blocks. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

These are mostly misrepresentations or misunderstandings of my position. I work in a Greek university, publish with Greek colleagues, and never have problems with imposition of conventional nationalistic views on my work. It is with the wider public that the problems arise, for the reasons stated on my Talk page (school education). There is also a real problem on WP because it is not established academics writing the articles on Greece, and the Greek nationalist viewpoint prevails. One or several of the Greeks protesting here know my real name and have had very nasty arguments with me on other websites, where their racist views have been condemned. Their response? to accuse me of racism against an entire society for daring to open my mouth. I have no intention of editing on WP, but I am responding to these allegations to defend my personal reputation (as all of the Greeks here seem to think they know who I am). Xenos2008 (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

1. I neither know nor care to know who User:Xenos2008 is irl apart from my objection to his accusation of me having threatened him in public which would be illegal.
2. Who one is irl doesn't and shouldn't matter in WP where we are judged by our edits. And the user's edits have been presented above so people can draw their own conclusions.
3. I have neither exchanged nor wish to exchange any communication via the internet with the user and this includes other websites, emails etc.
4. My accusations of racism against the user however stand and he has but his own outbursts to thank for that. I point the reader to the list I prepared above as well as the one presented by User:Singularity42 and finally to two warnings the user has received from as many admins (Georgewilliamherbert and User:Henrik) and despite which he persists undettered. Thanks.--Anothroskon (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

And the incidents which led to my comments, such as false historical "facts" which I deleted and were persistently replaced by Greeks, are all ignored. The arguments presented for such behaviour include "you have to prove that such and such did not happen" simply because all Greeks believe that such and such occurred. There are no sources, and no evidence for such beliefs. When there are sources used, they are highly selective and almost always supporting the Greek nationalist point of view.

It is not racist to say that a society has a general problem with nationalism, peasant mentality from its recent history, racist mentality etc: these are verifiable facts actually written by Greeks amongst others, regardless of what Greeks in the USA or elsewhere may think. Furthermore, the issue of IRL is relevant, because it is well known (even from my nickname) that I am not a Greek: the outright hostility expressed to me here has been very clear, and is racially motivated. Again: ask any foreigner living in Greece...Xenos2008 (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read wp:NPOV before editing further articles. We are not hostile because of who you are, but rather because of your edits. We do not know, nor do we care to know, who you are in real life. We don't even care what nation you are from.--Rockstonetalk to me! 01:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Xenos2008, I wonder, can you cite some examples (on Wikipedia) of that hostility which you think is racially motivated? However, making comments about editors and their motives and their society isn't going to lead to your content-related edits being more likely to survive - so in the long run, what is the point of making such comments? I think you should give an assurance that, in the future, all edit summaries you make will be restricted to descriptions of the changes you have made, and all article talk-page comments you make will be restricted to the content of the articles. As I said earlier, there is a desperate need for more non-Greeks to be editing Greece-related articles. I hope that giving that assurance would be enough to allow you to continue to edit Greece-related articles. Meowy 02:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Meowy, thank you for your open-minded approach. Since this is my second ID on WP (a few years previously I edited under my real name) and it has proved equally impossible to deal with the nationalism of all Balkan nationalities, but especially Greek) I have no intention of editing anything on WP. When adult and university educated Greeks spout schoolbook propaganda as the truth, and simply refuse to deal with facts, there is no possibility of compromise or decent quality historical articles on WP. One person, however expert, cannot fight off another 20 who know little of their own country or the basic principles of academic research.Xenos2008 (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Off2riorob after multiple extensions of good faith

Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Off2riorob has been blocked multiple times for disruptive editing. His most recent block was of a duration of 3 weeks. He has made promises to stop, and was warned that he would face an extended block if he edit-warred again after violating this promise.

• He was twice given extensions of good faith, after he promised not to engage in disruptive editing again - and he has reneged on those comments.

• Off2riorob is again engaging in disruptive editing 21:37, 23 November 2009, and 22:09, 23 November 2009.

I think that enough extensions of good faith have been given at this point in time. Some other form of action is appropriate instead. Cirt (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Where are the diffs of disruptive behavior? I looked at the two diffs provided above and I support the removal of that content 100% based on well establisehd policy. It is clearly undue weight and primary sourced, just as off2rio stated. As far as the content dispute those involved still need to use dispute resolution, but why are paragraphs and paragraphs of Bill Moyers opinions sourced to Bill Moyers appropriate for Karl Rove's article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Extensions of good faith given to Off2riorob

1. 16 April 2009 - 72 hour block for disruption at WP:GA article was reduced to 48 hours, after Off2riorob agreed in the future to seek out dispute resolution instead of be disruptive [53].
2. 29 September 2009 - Sanctioned with parole of 1RR per page per day for 5 weeks, instead of being given a "lengthy block". [54]

Prior disruption and blocks

See prior ANI threads detailing disruption by Off2riorob and blocks:

• 14 March 2009 - blocked 24 hours for disruption of a WP:GA article.
• 16 April 2009 - blocked 72 hours for disruption at same WP:GA article - Off2riorob was then given a good faith reduction of that block to 48 hours, after Off2riorob agreed in the future to seek out dispute resolution instead of be disruptive [55].
• 25 April 2009 - Blocked 72 hours, for disruption at same WP:GA article.
• 29 April 2009 - Blocked one week, for disruption at same WP:GA article.
• 19 July 2009 - Blocked 2 weeks, disruption at Tony Blair.
• 21 August 2009 - Blocked 3 weeks, block log edit summary by admin Chillum: edit warring yet again
• 29 September 2009 - Off2riorob sanctioned to 1RR per page per day for 5 weeks.

Comments by admin Chillum

• 25 August 2009 - Entry in his block log by admin Chillum (talk · contribs): "User gave word not to edit war in the future, reducing block", which was citing this comment by Off2riorob: [56].

• 22 September 2009 - Comment by admin Chillum: I am considering you to be fully aware of our edit warring policy in the future Off2, and will not be considering warnings to be needed in the future. You gave me your word that you would not edit war as a condition of your last unblock, given that you have not kept this word I will not be extending that offer next time you are blocked.

• 29 September 2009 - When I brought Off2riorob's disruption to Chillum's attention, Chillum responded: It looks like edit warring to me. If I was not taking a break from my admin tools currently then I would likely hold Rio to his prior promise. . Perhaps another admin will feel the same way I do, but my buttons are currently not being used.

Comments by admin Moreschi

• 29 September 2009 - I think we have the choice between a lengthy block, an indefinite block, and a 1RR per page per day revert parole.

---

As this user has engaged in disruption at an article I worked on improving quality to WP:GA, I would appreciate other administrators taking a look into this matter. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: I see that Off2riorob was also given a notice re edit-warring on yet another article [57]. Cirt (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment re Off2riorb's "good faith" (by nonadmin who has been recently sanctioned at ANI) - While it is clear Off2riorb's passionate involvement may get the better of them, I do not think "good faith" should ever be doubted. That is certainly not an excuse for not following through on promises, but I have never seen any action (however wrongheaded, though I am apparently 'one to talk' on that score) that did not clearly seem motivated by an attempt to conform what was happening to the ideals of Wikipedia: i.e. Good hearted, sometimes wrongheaded, loves Wikipedia. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is his actions after being given extensions of good faith in instances where he could have rightly received more strenuous blocks instead, not his motivations for those inappropriate actions. Cirt (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Popping in for clarification: back in April when I made the request that Rob's block be shortened, trust in his promise to avoid edit warring in future was the act of good faith. Rob's subsequent good faith (or lack of it) isn't at issue here, only whether he resumed edit warring. Durova³⁶⁹ 02:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Although I'm not familiar with Off2riorob's conduct in the past and conduct at other articles I can attest to his behavior and edit waring over at Karl Rove. He has been making a ton of very illogical changes and inputting his POV into the article. He has been actively hostile and unwilling to determine the consensus of other users. I think this quote of his below sums it up the best:

Give over, I don't need any consensus to remove this content, it is cited to primary sources and is clearly being given undue weight here..

I'm not making that quote up. He did actually say this in his edit summary after I reverted an edit of his that blanked a section of the page. To understand whats currently going on at Karl Rove you have to know that another disruptive user Malke 2010 who had been blocked previously for edit waring at Karl Rove had recently said the following on the talk page after a discussion was in progress on a recent series of edits by the two:

Yes, Off2riorob, you can go to the noticeboards, but the admins know all about Jusdafax, et al. Off2riorob, please take my advice. These old boys are arguing with you so that you waste your time defending your position instead of editing the page! It's a distraction game. If they make you look at the noticeboards, then you aren't editing the Rove page. Editors do not need to get permission from Jusdafax/Chhe/Soxwon/editor du jour to make changes to the page. Wikipedia is for everyone. We don't genuflect to anybody here. If you have something you want changed, Off2riorob, then go ahead and change it. You are wasting your precious time trying to obtain consensus from people who are determined never to give it to you. It's a game they play. Go round in circles until the new editor gives up and leaves. Well, I for one am not going anywhere and I hope you won't go anywhere either. If they revert your entries, report them for edit warring. Just don't take the bait. Make a statement on the talk page about what you plan to change, and then change it. Wikipedia is fun, it's for everyone. Edit away!

They didn't like how the discussion was heading so Malke 2010 put Off2riorob up to making the changes again anyway...which curiously enough he did. I reverted it. He then blanked the section again. And then Soxwon reverted it. The truth is that Malke 2010 has been just as disruptive as Off2riorob. These two disruptive users have somehow managed to find each other and are know colluding to input their opinions into more specifically politically related articles and removing factual information that they deem unflattering. I think both of them should be blocked, but you'll have to read the archives in the talk page to form your own opinion since this business has been going on for a long time.Chhe (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think s/he is a good faith editor, but the emotional involvement is a real issue. S/he just issued a general accusation on the talk page of British National Party that s/he would not be forced off the page by "IRA editors". So far despite requests no withdrawal or apology but that might just be time difference. The edit history on that page is very similar to that reported above. Someone needs to mentor this editor, or at least give them some advise. --Snowded ^TALK 01:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Having read the recent edits, I agree with Snowed. The intention may be good, but if it leads to this kind of behaviour it becomes disruptive no matter how good the intentions are. Calling other users "IRA editors" (WP:NPA, refusing to remove it when called upon, and blanking long sections under discussion with the motivation "Give over, I don't need any consensus to remove this content, it is cited to primary sources and is clearly being given undue weight here" (WP:OWN) are all troubling tendencies. The user has repeatedly evaded long blocks or even indefinite blocks by promising not to repeat this kind of behaviour, yet we see the same thing repeated over and over again.Jeppiz (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Allow me chime in and also urge a substantial, no-nonsense block for the disruptive Off2riorob. I will add to the evidence his uncivil comment yesterday on the Rove talk page, made to me: ...If you dispute my comments here I will move my issues to the relative noticeboards. Off2riorob (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC) This statement demonstrates palpable contempt for the core structure of Wikipedia, in my view, in that it openly proclaims cooperation with others is not his concern, and that should I disagree on the talk page I will be taken to "the relative noticeboards", a comment clearly designed to intimidate and chill disagreement. Since Off2riorob has a long pattern of this type of behavior, with lengthy blocks and various broken promises to behave, I submit that this disruptive editor is overdue for, as mentioned in the comment(s) above, a long or indefinite block. Jusdafax 02:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

My interaction with the editor was feeling that (s)he was attempting to WP:OWN the Alan Grayson article. 1 2.Scientus (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree, that's the term I was looking for with the Karl Rove article. Thanks. Jusdafax 03:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Despite extensive warning and civil requests this editor continues to make very uncivil accusations and act in a very poor way. Calling others "IRA editors" and continually attacking others rather than addressing the genuine concerns of other edits needs to stop. This editor seems to feel they are here to fix the deficiencies of other editors. If this disruption continues a block may be the only remedy and it seems from the above that this has been long term problem. Verbal chat 06:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I looked at the diffs in question and I support the content's removal 100%. It is clearly undue weight and primary sourced just as off2rio suggested. As far as the content dispute those involved still need to use dispute resolution, but why are paragraphs and paragraphs of Bill Moyers opinions sourced to Bill Moyers appropriate for Karl Rove's article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• You miss the point. We are talking about a long-term pattern of disruptive edits, and not just at the Karl Rove page but several others mentioned above. Please look at the bigger picture here. Jusdafax 06:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI isn't for "long term patterns" of anything. There was no edit warring on Off2rio's part. And not only is he in compliance with all our policies, but his edit is absolutely correct. I'm happy to post the mass of undue weighted he said she said, he said, she said, he said, she said, that was removed, because I don't think any reasonable editor could argue that such a mass of tabloid commentary belongs in an encyclopedia article. I think what's clear from this discussion is that Off2Rio needs to be on his best behavior and on his toes, because right or wrong people are going to come after him trying to get him blocked. This certainly isn't the first time we've seen ANI boards used to smear and go after editors whose viewpoints aren't "appreciated". His removal was proper, and it's unfortunate that it was reverted, but he hasn't made content changes since. The discussion on the talk page is ongoing (and clearly supports the content's being gutted down to a sentence or two). I don't see the problem. Couldn't the discussion have continued with the mass of undueweighted content removed or posted to the talk page for discussion? I see people remove content all the time, and it seems it's only when an editor's view aren't popular that we see them dragged to ANI for this kind of witch hunt. I suggest slapping a trout on the editor who initiated this thread and all those dredging up past mistakes trying to impugn an editor for making perfectly reasonable changes to article content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record CoM, I think you are right about the content issue on the Rove reported here, although being right on a content issue does not remove to discuss matters on the talk page. I am concerned about actions on another article and the IRA accusation which is unacceptable. Ideally this editor needs some advise and help to become productive. Endorsing edit waring and deeply negative comments will not help them. --Snowded ^TALK 07:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually aware that Off2rio is not a perfect editor, few of us are, but there are two diffs put forth at the top of this thread and they look entirely appropriate and certainly don't amount to edit warring. This is a content dispute. The polciies and guidelines, as well as the discussion on the talk page clearly supports Off2rio's position, so perhaps he should be encouraged to be more patient. But the problematic editing in this case seems to be from those creating and formenting an ANI report that's being used to dredge up a bunch of old issues. There just isn't edit warring that I can see in this case, and if there was the 3rr board would have been the appropriate venue. I also find Cirt's canvassing of every editor that's ever had a disagreement with Off2rio very problematic (most of them don't appear to have any involvment in this issue whatsoever). This thread should be closed post haste before things turn any uglier, and Cirt and the others pursuing off2rio should be cautioned to behave in a collegial and collaborative manner in the future and to refrain from the pursuit of confrontations with those with whom we disagree. We need to be civil to one another, and this is no way to resolve a dispute or differences of opinion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

My only real dealing with this editor is the issue outlined above. The main thing the struck me was that he responded to the block politely and with reason. While this editor does have a spotted history of disruptive editing, attempts to reason with this user can be productive(at least for a little while). ^Chillum 07:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, Off2riorob (talk · contribs) has a pattern of disruptive editing, saying he will stop, being extended good faith for these types of statements, and then violating his pronouncements about said behavior. Cirt (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, please provide diffs of the problematic editing. I see two edits, a removal of content and a single reversion back to that version. The edits are explained in the edit summaries and supported by policy. When I looked at your edit history, I found canvassing of numerous editors who've had disagreements with Off2rio in the past, but who don't appear to have any involvement in this dispute. I reiterate my suggestion that you abide by the spirit of our civility policy and show more consideration and collegiality to your fellow editors in future. This report does not put you in a good light. If you want to suggest better editing approaches to Off2rio, please do so in cordial and considerate fashion rather than seeking out confrontation and trying to dredge up old conflicts. The title of this thread is also highly confrontational and provactive. A more appropriate title might have been "Are these edit summaries appropriate?", but you probably should have tried to communicate your concerns directly with your fellow editor first. Take care. Happy Thanksgiving. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight, I apologize if my edits are seen by you as canvassing, my intention was to notify editors that had previously warned or blocked the user in question. When the recent reverts and disruptive editing by Off2riorob are taken into account with his own self-professed statements in the past about doing this again in the future, we see the problem. Please also see this comment by Prodego (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to go out, I see very little of substance for me to reply to here and ChildofMidnight has defended my case pretty damn well. Off2riorob (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that this is a good faith user who's a little overenthusiastic and a bit too sure of their own judgment. I agree that some of the diffs provided show editing in compliance with policy. I think what's needed is a little more willingness to listen to others and accept consensus.

  Perhaps Off2riorob would agree to seek a mentor?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The mentoring option has already been tried. Please see [58]. Cirt (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

When I was asked to look into the above issue as an uninvolved admin I did see disruptive editing that warranted a block. Reading this section I think that uninvolved admins, including myself, feel that no action is needed at this particular time. ^Chillum 20:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

At least in the case of the Alan Grayson article, I can vouch for Rob's equanimity. Scientus, who has here slandered Rob, has engaged in a disruptive edit war in the Grayson article, blatantly pushing his own POV while accusing anyone who disagrees with him to be 'pov pushers'. Trilemma (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Cirt, but I don't think your two examples (21:37, 23 November 2009, 22:09, 23 November 2009) provide any evidence of disruptive editing. Any link that contains the substring "blog" is deeply suspect here, for good reason. - Pointillist (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

After further study today, I am strongly moved to add that Off2riorob's extensive work on Bob Marley is quite praiseworthy, and his push to make the article a GA gives me pause. Indeed, were it not for his lamentable tone and approach in many articles on political figures, his major Wikipedia interest, I'd get on with him just fine. However, Cirt's bringing this here reveals a pattern far beyond the Rove editing, and that pattern continues to the present. As noted above, my experience with Off2riorob on Rove was not pleasant, as his phrasing comes off to me as arrogant and pushy less-than-cordial (he often defines edits as "worthless"), and is documented on my talk page as well as the Rove talk page. My concern: This could well intimidate editors who might be on the shy side. Since others here have noted problems with Off2riorob, I used Soxred's tool [59] to look at his namespace edits. How about 236 edits to Gordon Brown with comments in the talk page like "I am bored with this foolishness" (just one of many examples there) - Peter Mandelson "Give over, this is an encyclopedia not a comic. Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)" and his comments at Harriet Harman, Tim Guest, Tony Blair where he got a two week block, and the British National Party approach if not match Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.

I submit that were a RfC template, regarding Off2riorob's being brought to this noticeboard, to be put up on the many articles/talk pages Off2riorob participates in, there would be an additional number of editors here with stories of their unpleasant interactions with him. Cirt points out mentoring has not worked. After study, I see this is a tough case with more facets - good and bad - than I had realized. But while some of his article work ameliorates my hard-line taken above, I continue to regard this as a matter that requires administrator action. Jusdafax 19:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Editnotice for Wikipedia talk:About

Requesting that an editnotice phrased similarly to the existing box with warning exclamation point be added for Wikipedia talk:About due to its long history of unconstructive edits from anon IPs or very newbie editors; (mostly misdirected posting of random encyclopediform content, which by far drowns out legit posts). --Cybercobra (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Absent some strong evidence that people read and follow edit notices I'd just as soon semi-protect it. Protonk (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I requested that once before, but it was denied. In full disclosure, Wikipedia:About is currently semi-protected, and protecting both a page and its talk is discouraged by the page protection guidelines, but I think a case can be made for applying WP:IAR here. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Also, I'm not sure where it is stated, but there is some general suggestion not to use too many page specific edit notices. Here's what I suggest. We semi the talk page but add a sub-page where IP's can post. In order to do that, we can leave a link at the top of the page which opens the new page in a preloader a la WP:REFUND. If you look at the blue link you can see it opens the new page with Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Intro as a set of instructions. So long as people watchlist the IP page, we can have some not-as-bad outcome. Protonk (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
      • That sounds like a good solution to me. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Let me know on my talk page what you want the pseudo-edit notice to say and what you want the name of the sub-page to be called and I'll drum it up for you (or you can if you want). Protonk (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Should be done. Please tweak the link and explanation as needed. Protonk (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Signing without a signature

Is it ok to post a comment at a talk page or at AN/I and then simply date it but not actually sign it with their name (preferably containing a link to their userpage and/or talkpage)? I've seen someone doing this and it seems counterproductive to read comments and not know who is making them but I don't want to bother them if it's acceptable. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:Signature is the relevant policy. Sadly, it appears to only say that people "should" sign, but not that signatures are required. more. Do you think they are doing it maliciously or do you think they just forgot (if they forgot, there's a uw- template for that)?  7  09:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you'd find a community consensus to change that to must. Its been my experience that people who don't use signatures end up being admonished for it.--Crossmr (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

People should sign their posts with username as well as date. Sometimes, however, failing to do so is just a mistake. If you accidentally sign with five tildes instead of four, the timestamp appears without the username. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Just tell them to sign, if a user is new it usually takes a few weeks to grab the consept of signing. Who's the user? Secret ^account 15:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Since this is a perennial problem that occasionally involves stubborn editors who refuse to abide by SIG, why not make it mandatory? Is there any good reason to not do so? Deliberate failure to do so is usually part of disruptive behavior and should not be tolerated. It should be a default requirement that a sig contain username, time, and a proper link to their user page, at the very least.

I'm also wondering if complicated sigs shouldn't be forbidden, as we could cut our server park in half/third(?) by requiring basic, simple sigs. Those servers aren't cheap! Just take a look at how many bytes are used just on complicated sigs on any talk page. They often use more bytes than the message itself. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm disinclined to support making it mandatory if it will only be made so in order to "deal with" otherwise disruptive users. As for your second suggestions, see WP:PEREN. Also, in my opinion the overwhelming majority of signature disputes are tempests in a teacup. We expend a preposterous amount of effort on enforcing SIG already. Let's not expand that. Protonk (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The specific instance I noticed involves an editor who appears to be well-established and problem-free. I didn't know about the five tildes thing... all his other signatures seem normal so the instance I noticed last night was probably just a typo. As a general rule, I would support mandating a signature containing, at minimum, name plus a link to user and/or user talk page. This should be SOP. Without it, it's impossible to communicate directly with someone making a comment. It's important that everyone be able to communicate with each other and know who is speaking. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly mandatory for discourse. For instance, I could not sign my posts here and so long as I respected threading, you or (critically) a third party could understand that there was a back and forth (that's without signbot). I'll grant that it is pretty annoying and that editors who don't sign commonly fall into two camps: those how don't yet understand the norms and conventions and those who refuse to agree to them or are incapable of agreeing to them. We want a mechanism for dealing with the latter camp without bothering the former too much. In my experience we occasionally treat signature issues with problematic editors as a means to convict them of income tax evasion, rather than deal with the underlying problem. Protonk (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Except no one would know who made those posts without going to the history. If several people weren't signing their posts it would be a serious pain to piece together. For civil discourse, I think its absolutely necessary. For newbies, we obviously wouldn't ban them at the first indiscretion, we would treat it like any other editing issue. Give them some good faith reminders, etc. but if they've been reminded 5 times to place a signature and still won't do it, we need to look at why, same as with the second group.--Crossmr (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, but the worry is that when wikipedians get together and determine rule ABC is mandatory, enforcement of rule ABC tends toward the draconian. More worrying is that we have a tendency to lose perspective when dealing with mandatory. Having a sig is important. Having a sig that follows SIG is likewise important. A violation of either of those guidelines merits a response but doesn't merit our standard response, which is a 20 page long AN/I thread about how valuable sigs are with about a dozen comments that everyone should go back to editing articles (and that's the best case, we can also have superfluous and drawn out SIG RfCs). I'm merely saying that our traditional stance toward sig contributes to that hysteria. Protonk (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(←) Perhaps we can rely on the specific page guidelines to override the soft "should" in the signature policy. For example, this page says "Sign your post with "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automatically." at the top. I think we could safely argue that signatures are mandatory on such critical pages which already include specific instructions, without going to the lengths of enforcing it on every other page.  7  04:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one wondering if it would be too WP:POINTy if we all started signing our replies in this thread with five tildes ... ? — Kralizec! (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not? I know plenty of people who dismiss comments because they were made by a specific individual. You're responding to the comment, and who made it shouldn't matter. --Kbdank71 17:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The should is a problem for me, because if someone wants to be difficult about it, they're going to argue that should doesn't mean must and therefore they don't have to sign their posts which leads to a confusing discussion. the instructions say it, we have a template for it, people have been blocked for it in the past, there is no reason it shouldn't say must.--Crossmr (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be mandatory. That would eliminate the need for long discussions. Just like any other policy, it will be easy to point to it and explain that that's how things are done here. If someone doesn't want to be collaborative, wants to avoid the scrutiny of others, and/or be disruptive, then they aren't needed here. It's really very simple. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yup. The way I see it, it's kinda like when you bring up a specific person at AN/I. You're required to notify them that they're being discussed there. That doesn't mean we block people who forget to do so or missed reading that rule, we just mention it to them and ask them to remember next time. It shouldn't be a blockable offense unless someone is doing it repeatedly to be deliberately disruptive. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That's right. It would be the refusal to abide by policy that becomes the most aggravating disruption. Rules are of course made to avoid various forms of disruption, some of them minor, but still to keep things running smoothly and so we can have confidence in each other, as required by AGF. If someone violates that trust right up front by refusing to act in good faith, then they reveal that they aren't suited to this environment. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:H Debussy-Jones

This is a new account (two weeks) that obviously has been around the block regarding Wikipedia before. The talk page is collecting quite a bit of polite requests from myself, Jeni, AVraham, Bwilkins, Wildhartlivie, etc to stop making odd edits contravening WP:LAYOUT and other Wikipedia norms. The polite advice is not being taken, the talk gets archived immediately, and the stubborn behavior continues. The "new" user does not appear to recognize or accept that their changes are real problems and annoyances for people with non-standard browsers and ADA devices. There is nothing blockable here at the current time. As a warning, administrators will be acting on this in the future. Perhaps something more stern than polite requests from users might head that off. Miami33139 (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

H Debussy-Jones has been notified of this thread. Singularity42 (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

My thanks to Singularity 42 and JamieS93 for notifying me about this thread.

The status of my account has been looked into by ArbCom member John Vandenberg, who reported his findings here. Since he looked "quickly", if another CheckUser feels the need to investigate, I'm more than happy for that to happen. As I said before, for reasons of my own, all I ask is that the name of my previous account not be publicly revealed, unless the CheckUser feels it is necessary to do so.

I'm not sure there's anything else to address in Miami's post, since it all appears to be about a (potential) content dispute about style, and was posted before I'd even had a chance to read and respond to his last note on my talk page. I'm left with the feeling that the purpose of his note isn't actually to get administrator action, but to act as a cudgel to coerce me into accepting his pronouncements without discussion. I'm always more than happy to discuss my edits with other editors, but perhaps others will understand why I blanche at doing so under duress. Sach (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what relevance a checkuser has to the original post. Are you getting polite requests from different users about your format-related edits causing problems for other user's browsers? If so, have you responded to their requests? -- llywrch (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm odd, but when Miami says This is a new account (two weeks) that obviously has been around the block regarding Wikipedia before and The "new" user, I took that as casting doubt about the legitimacy of my account, hence my response.

Regarding the posts on my talk page, all have been politely acknowledged, most have been answered with an explanation (with no return response from the inquirer), some have been met with requests for additional information, and the latest from Miami was posted just before he opened this thread on AN/I (as his very next post, in fact) before I had a chance to respond.

Incidentally, Miami's post here is more informative than anything he posted on my talk page -- this is the first, for instance, that I've heard of "ADA devices" being part of his problem. As for "non-standard browsers", I edit with IE, but periodically check my changes under Firefox, Chrome, Safari and Opera to make sure there are no problems, so I'm not sure what "non-standard" browser he might be referring to. I would have asked him that question, except that he seemed to prefer to open this thread rather than discuss things with me. If I'm wrong about that, and he would like to discuss these topics with me, I'd be very glad of the opportunity to clear up any difficulties. Since I don't have an "ADA device", I invite him to send me some screenshots of the problems he's having with my edits via e-mail, so I can understand what he's experiencing and work with him to avoid any problems. Sach (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Llywrych, there is no relevance to a CU. it has been brought up before and the previous account was blocked (temporarily, this is not a banned user) for stubborn MOS changes. The fake naivety in that discussion and continued peculiar MOS changes is what made me think I should raise a red flag here, so that I can say "I told you so." if this is a future issue. Miami33139 (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up that previous AN/I thread. Obviously, I don't agree with your characterization of it, but I do think it's instructive. What it shows is that when someone points out to me a definitive policy ([60]), I quickly accept it ([61]), and then immediately go about reverting those of my errant edits which haven't already been fixed, ([62] and [63]).

Again, I reiterate my suggestion that you e-mail me some screenshots of the problems you see so that I can better understand your objections. Sach (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sach, do you take screenshots of a braille device? Do you take screenshots of a narrator? Do you understand that forcing images to 250 pixels causes mobile devices to waste CPU shrinking them to a 240 pixel screen? Instead of asking for how to conform your edits to these devices, how about you just follow the MOS, stop inserting whitespace, stop moving hatnotes under the infobox, stop changing section headings, stop forcing image sizes, and the other odd things you stubbornly insist on doing and have insisted on doing for years. The MOS, which you've been pointed to, explains some of the reasons for doing things the way it does, and it is usually only for a very good reason it should be ignored. You ignore it on purpose and this is harmful to the project. Miami33139 (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Miami, there is no need for such a tone, please dial it back a notch.

I'm glad that you've (finally) explained what an "ADA device" is, since I couldn't find anything that explained it, and didn't know you were referring to the Americans With Disabilities Act. So, in what way does adding an extra line of space to set off navboxes from "External links" sections so that they are easier to read effect such devices? Not having one, I don't understand.

As for image sizes, something north of 90% of the articles on Wikipedia have forced image sizes (since almost all infoboxes used forced sizes), so I think your complaint has much more to do with the way a Wikipedia page is rendered for mobile devices, and not with the layout of the page itself. My edits in that respect are all aimed at making an article clear and visually attractive, and are not forbidden under MOS. These are not "odd" edits, they are not outside of policy, and they are all done to make Wikipedia look better and make it easier for the user to take in the information. Sach (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your complaint about placement of hatnotes, I believe I understand the nature of your complaint now. In the future, it might be better when informing other editors of problems to actually point to something that will explain the difficulty, rather than simply making demands. As I've noted above, if I understand the problem and can see the relevant policy, I'm happy to comply, but I (and many other people) don't respond well to the Argument from authority. Sach (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have gone through my contributions and reverted those instances where I had moved hatnotes under infoboxes & lede images. My changes were visually preferable (since the hatnote still rendered at the top of the page, but the infobox or image moved up so space wasn't wasted), but I understand how screen readers might be thrown by it. Sach (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I share Miami33139's concerns that this is a return of a former user, notably User:Ed Fitzgerald, whom we had exactly the same problems with before, tenuous editing, inserting pointless spacing, moving templates around to suit his personal preference, renaming references to notes. Now, coming back as a new user isn't a problem as far as I know, but coming back to edit in the same disruptive way, that is where the problems are. Jeni ^(talk) 12:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

School Role Accounts?

I noticed

• Special:Contributions/Gfs6gradeA
• Special:Contributions/Gfs6gradeB
• Special:Contributions/Gfs6gradeC
• Special:Contributions/Gfs6gradeD
• Special:Contributions/Gfs6gradeE
• Special:Contributions/Gfs6gradeF

I'm not sure what to do with these. They appear to be some kind of school role accounts. The edits seem constructive, but accounts like this probably run afoul of our shared account guidelines and policies. I have left a message on the talk page of the first account asking for the teacher to contact me. Gigs (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the edits are constructive, but they're probably role accounts. It may be helpful to point the teacher(s?) responsible to Wikipedia:School and university projects too.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 19:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I left that link on the talk page of the first one. Gigs (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am stunned that these "students" haven't shown forms of vandalism. Doesn't mean that I won't be keeping an eye of them. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 22:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I can see you have WP:AGF memorized. Killiondude (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

AGF, like any other policy, has to be read and applied with a bit of common sense. We all know that edits from schools are very often vandalism so I completely agree with Pickbothmanlol. RaseaC (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Like most experienced editors, I am aware of vandalism and its sources. Nevertheless, announcing that bad behavior is expected from students is an excellent way to invite it. Acting as though good behavior is expected and is the norm sometimes encourages it. WP:AGF applies to individual Wikipedia users, and can be lost only by individual Wikipedia users' behavior. Policy does not permit creating exceptions to WP:AGF for categories of users. It is not Wikipedia's policy to Assume bad faith#From IPs, Assume bad faith#From students, Assume bad faith#From liberals, or Assume bad faith#From other suspect groups. There is a word for that kind of attitude: prejudice. —Finell 02:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I created these accounts for the teacher. There are 60 students. It seemed reasonable to create only 6 accounts rather than 60. The lesson plan is how to use, and edit, Wikipedia. Fred Talk 00:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Who is using the accounts - the teacher only, or 60 students? Cirt (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There was a fair bit of discussion, including confirming (as best I understand it) that the request was bona fide, how they would be used and supervized, the class purpose, how it would be organized, and "no testing by making bad edits". The requestor gave a full summary of how they would be using it, who controls the accounts and the logon/logoffs, and the approach they'd aim to follow. However Fred Bauder's more up to date with the specifics if that matters. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be best to add a note explaining this on the user page. Triplestop x3 03:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I still believe they should be banned for violation of the "Role Account" section of WP:SOCK. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 00:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

As it's reasonable to assume the admin who created these accounts knew what he was doing at the time, I do not. HalfShadow 01:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we know who said admin is? Can we contact him/her? --Rockstonetalk to me! 01:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

'I created these accounts for the teacher. There are 60 students. It seemed reasonable to create only 6 accounts rather than 60. The lesson plan is how to use, and edit, Wikipedia. Fred Talk 00:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)'

HalfShadow 01:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Or cast your eyes up 5 or 6 posts to where Fred tells us that he created the accounts. Really, if you can't be bothered reading the thread then don't bother commenting either. Kevin (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

user:Hipocrite and WP:NPA

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

Comment - I added the closure box at the suggestion of User:Ikip, which you can see below. Hipocrite is on Wikibreak until December 1. If you feel a need to comment further, then reopen the discussion, but say what practical step you want us to take. Comments left so far indicate that blocking him for NPA would not enjoy wide support. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Doesn't seem to be anything to do here and doesn't matter who was or was not acting like a dick since both parties seem to have dialed back the rhetoric. Probably best to avoid direct interaction for a little while.

--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The following personal attacks from user:Hipocrite certainly cannot be ignored[64][65]:

I'm not saying "can't we all just get along." Honestly, I wish you, and a host of other people who are interested in using this project to push their views would just shove off. I don't think you doubt for a second that you were, in fact, being a dick. Being a dick is not acceptable. If you are a dick, people, shockingly, might call you a dick. That might make them dicks also - but it certainly doesn't make you not a dick. Hipocrite (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn’t tolerate such blatant and unprovoked incivility between editors. Granted, this stemmed from a less than cordial message I left previously, but I apologized for that. WVBluefield (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If Hipocrite was a new user, he would be blocked immediatly for such attacks, statements like this should not be tolerated being said by anyone.

If no one does anything, which will probably be the case, I would say start a R F C 2, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hipocrite was in 2006. Ikip (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say you are mighty thin-skinned for what you dish out. Hipocrite called nobody a dick, he gave out good advice - "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", or, in this case, bad behavior by others is no justification for joining in. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"for what I dish out" and what exactly do I dish out? I may be less that cordial and jolly with editors with a long proven track record for edit warring and incivility, but I think had I stooped to this level I would have been banned permanently. WVBluefield (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Coming from a random editor, I'd say that you were asking for it. You can't report someone for voicing their opinion back, especially an opinion that's barely harsh at all. He didn't attack you personally, and there are far worse things to report people for. Gpia7r (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you really claiming that this was not a personal attack on me and if it was that I was aking for it? WVBluefield (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified User:Hipocrite of this discussion. Crafty (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I probably shouldn't have called him a dick so bluntly, but, let's be honest, he was being a dick. He should probably stop being a dick. I should also probably stop being a dick. In fact, a general reduction of dickish behavior would likley be a good thing. I suggest that people start with themselves, as opposed to someone else. Thanks for the feedback, I guess. Hipocrite (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

PS - I don't know why this was being brought here, as I decided I wanted nothing more to do with WVB after his parthian shot ("did I hit a nerve?"), thus resolving our interactions - there will be none. Hipocrite (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

For those who may not know it, Hipocrite is merely demonstrating the views articulated in WP:DICK. My advice to all involved is to just drop the whole thing and take the advice being discussed. No biggie in the long run, eh? --GoRight (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think over the past couple of days it has been strongly reenforced to me that wikipedia editors can justify any behavior, no matter how many rules, no matter how bad the behavior.

RE: "He didn't attack you personally"

"I don't think you doubt for a second that you were, in fact, being a dick. Being a dick is not acceptable. If you are a dick, people, shockingly, might call you a dick."

And then of course, Mr. Schulz, blames the person reporting this. Ikip (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Who is this "Mr. Schulz"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

To your last dying day! When you're a Jet, If the spit hits the fan, You got brothers around, You're a family man! Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite has acknowledged that the comment was inappropriate (albeit not in the most helpful manner since he reiterated the attack), so let's not escalate the feuding. We should all try to be as collegial and considerate as possible this holiday season. If someone gets out of line, just ask them to please focus on content and sourcing rather than other editors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior should not be tolerated. I'm disappointed with those who don't take wp:civil to heart.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Per Child of Midnight's suggestion, I have left the mild/friendly civility and assume good faith messages accordingly. Hopefully that will be sufficient. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just noticed the edit summary of "GTFO" and again here, which is abbreviated form of "get the fuck off," to be a bit needlessly hostile of a reaction to an editor's civil attempt at discussion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, he responds to the warnings with a disgusting assumption of bad faith as if there is some conspiracy against him. Given the other anti-ARS posts, this seems like additional mocking of that group of editors. Use of "shit" seems a bit much. And he is being warned for it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should stop with the passive aggressive warnings (which I'm sure you'll mention when this editor gets in a minor dust up with you and your pals "Hipocrite, was has been warned many times, tktktk") and the schooling behavior when one of your mates comes running to An/i. This situation was already long dead and buried, but you've elected to run around trying to stir up trouble. Prepare to be called on that when you do.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comment is unhelpful. We do support not incivility on this project. Period. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone close this with the top/bottom tags? Bigtimepeace already wisely closed this "resolved". Hipo has left on wikivacation. Nothing is going to come of this discussion. The community has been put on notice about the personal attacks. As i mentioned above, RFC is always an option if this continues. Ikip (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit war at Anarchism

Anarchism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), one of the most contentious and contended articles in the site's history, has been placid the past year or two, but a slow-burning edit war is in process at the moment. This talkpage thread has relevance. Uninvolved admin eyes solicited.  Skomorokh, barbarian  04:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you or somebody familiar with the article list the involved users with any relevant diffs for each, and state which policies you think they are violating. Then it will be possible to understand what corrective actions might be needed. Can you also notify any of those editors about this thread? Jehochman ^Talk 04:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It ain't rocket science, J.  Skomorokh, barbarian  04:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Eduen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be edit warring to add content that is opposed by multiple other editors. Is that the limit of your concerns, or are there others?

Could you notify Eduen of this thread, please. Jehochman ^Talk 05:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Eduen should be well and truly aware of this thread by now.--The Shower Singer (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Though the others involved in this edit war should also be notified. Just to be fair.--Eduen (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Consider me notified.. - 4twenty42o (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the irony is rich in reading a report titled "Edit war at Anarchism" on ANI. There ought to be a rule... Toddst1 (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That thought crossed my mind when I saw this topic pop up on recent changes.. Seriously though there are several editors there that would appreciate some insight from one of the veteran editors wandering the hallways.. - 4twenty42o (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of the article I'm leaving this one alone. Toddst1 (talk) 06:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Anarchism is not chaos or disorganization, thank you very much. Zazaban (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Then why can't the anarchists manage to put theory into practice and edit the anarchism pages in a cooperative fashion? Why does it always devolve into edit-warring that requires the authorities to stop? --Carnildo (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Usually, it's fine. As mentioned above, it's been all fine for two years, and quite a bit of quality stuff has been done. Explain, how does it always devolve into edit-warring? Or are you just assuming this? Zazaban (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I like Eduen's contributions very much, but I don't like his abrasive debate style and I feel it's doing a great deal of harm. Things could have calmed down months ago with most of the contributions stable and in place if he hadn't been so hostile. Zazaban (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

New user blocked

User:Black Kite has blocked a new user User talk:Boneyarddog citing (Disruptive editing: New account reverting on 1RR article; blocked as an obvious sock; may be unblocked with suitable evidence that it isn't CU will likely be useless, so not used.) This editor has made two edits one a revert and the other an explanation of their edit. Now there is no evidence that this is a disruptive editor or that it is a sock, so how can an admin just indef block a new account without any valid reason. BigDunc 13:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, I can't see any evidence of you taking this to Black Kite first, nor of Black Kite being informed about this thread after. Have I missed a couple of diffs? ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 13:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified both BlackKite and Boneyarddog about this discussion. GiantSnowman 14:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've suggested that Boneyarddog comments on their talk page. If the editor does comment, the comment can be copied over to this page. Mjroots (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm very confused. I saw no evidence of this user using the revert button, but he/she only seemed to be making a change. That change was followed by an explanation on the talk page. Also what is the deal with the one revert rule anyway. I see it as counter productive to the project and only contributes to biting new users. That would be the first thing I would get rid of. If we let the 1RR thing go too far, I see major problems in the future.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

One does not need to have a rollback button to revert. Syrthiss (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The "obvious sock" part is what people should be focusing on, not the 1RR. The explanation is that Black Kite probably knows something is up. Like Redvers said, the best way for this to have been handled is for BigDunc to make some inquiries directly to the admin, not posting it here. Tan | 39 14:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, trying to discuss it directly with the user or admin is the first step towards resolving any issue. Only if that fails should it be brought here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) BK already accused me of being the sock master and then apologised saying it wasn't phrased correctly, I accepted the apology and then without a shred of evidence regarding socking or any disruption indef blocks the new user. If disruption is reverting and giving your rational for reverting on the talk page the their will be no editors left here as we will be all blocked and BK can switch the lights off on the way out. BigDunc 15:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Who's the sock-master suppose to be? GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Who knows? The point is that when an account's first edit is to jump directly into the middle of an edit war, it's a sock. Of who it doesn't really matter. Take your pick. Wknight94 ^talk 15:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• A look at the article history will probably tell you enough. Revert war on 1RR article followed by brand new account popping up and reverting three minutes after account creatiion? Riiiight. As I said on the talkpage, AGF is not a suicide pact. Frankly 1RR probably is counter productive if it is going to result in socking, although it has had good results in other areas. I reverted the sock (purely because it was clearly a throwaway account to game 1RR, not because of the content), though I later expressed doubts about some of the content being edit-warred over. I am not going to edit the article further though, as it could be tenuously argued (and no doubt it would be, knowing this area) that I had inappropriately used my admin tools. I have already been accused on the talkpage of blocking the account purely because I am British, which I answered as it deserved. Black Kite 15:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd feel more safe, if we knew who was behind the sock. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Safe from what? This is as obvious of a sock as yer gonna get. Not all socks have "master" accounts; some people just jump from throwaway to throwaway. Tan | 39 15:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was a 'blocked' account trying to evade its block. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At best, it's a meatpuppet. As Tanthalas says, it's pretty routine. Wknight94 ^talk 15:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(ecx2There is no evidence of any wrong doing at all from the new account but fuck it blocked them in any way they might do something eventually so block it now. BigDunc 15:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have a problem with Black Kite - as seems evident - create an appropriate RfC or come up with something better than this. Marking resolved; there is no admin action necessary here. Tan | 39 15:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Suppose it was a stupid place to resolve an issue were a new user was blocked for NO reason great work Tan your a credit to wikipedia. BigDunc 15:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This is far from resolved! The editor has not even had an oppertunity to say anything. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You removed the resolved tag for that? We're going to be waiting around a long time here, then - the editor has been blocked indefinitely. Tan | 39 16:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure they can comment under their usual username instead. Black Kite 21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well Mjroot offered to post their comments here. Now were is the evidence that the editor is a sock! If there was an admin with a set of balls they would lift the block and the editor could comment it they wanted. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

So no evidence = indef block, plenty of evidence = nothing. Call editors "terrorist fanboys" and you get blocked for 3 hours, type the word "bum in an article you get blocked and when their is plenty of evidence of sock abuse there's nothing to be done? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(←) Seems to me Black Kite did the right thing here. Sound reasoning led to appropriate action being taken. Crafty (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of WP:1RR, but I saw no evidence in the article, that the article is under a 1RR rule as it is. The only mention is on the talk page. The talk page says that an editor is able to make 1 revert a day. Since the new user only made one edit, he/she did not violate the 1RR rule, according to what is written on the talk page instructions. This was a horrible block.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that Domer48 is so excited about this topic. Is it possible that this user account was his creation? It looks that way to me. Jdorney (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a very strong accusation. Do you have proof, or are you trolling?--Jojhutton (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I just find it suspicious that this user pops up (having made no previous edits or subsequent edits) just after Domer has started reverting in this article and in the same language as Domer, argues the same thing. It is also suspicious that Domer and Big Dunc, who is also reverting on that page, have suddenly jumped to this user's defence. Maybe I'm too suspicious, but to me this looks like Domer created this account to revert more once. If this is not the case then I apologise to them, but that's how it appears to me. Jdorney (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have genuine concerns about sockpuppetry, the honourable thing to do is initiate a Sockpuppet investigation. Crafty (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I could spend all my time doing that or I could try to continue editing the article. I was asked for my opinion, I gave it and said why I gave it. It's up to admins to do blocking policy, something I have no interest in doing. Regards, Jdorney (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Yet when it comes to admins, I always find it very alarming when admins who are involved in editing an article, are the ones who do the blocking. A user who is an admin should be able to distinguish between being an editor of an article and being an admin. I don't think that this was done in this case. No other accounts were given blocks for editing or reverting on the same article, including his own. Why was this one? If Black Kite had an issue with the new user, then he should have asked for help, rather than block a user he does not agree with. I know that this is a seperate issue, but this has become a problem all across wikipedia, admins abusing their tools.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

<facepalm> Actually, a bigger problem, which I find even more alarming, is users spouting off on WP:ANI without either reading the thread properly or bothering to check their facts, thus making themselves look ridiculous. I was not "involved in editing the article" (never edited it before), I didn't "block a user I don't agree with", (I merely blocked and reverted the sock because it was a sock). That was the complete extent of it. I did later post on the talk page about a completely different section of the article from the one the sock edited, but I haven't touched the article apart from that single revert. Feel free to refactor your posting at any point. </facepalm> Black Kite 07:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough on not editing the article. You seem involved now though. But what you are saying is that you just randomly came across an edit by a new user who did not violate the '1RR, but decided on your own, that this must be an obvious sock, without knowing anything about the article or whose Sock that this new user may be. That actually sounds worse. Please tell us your method for determining this? Was it a gut feeling or do you have actual evidence that we cannot see? I have heard alot of accusations about this account being a Sock, but does anyone want to back it up with an actual checkuser?--Jojhutton (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think domer is the master for this account. Protonk (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the edit war or identity of the probable sockmaster, but Black Kite's block was objectively reasonable, per WP:DUCK and WP:RBI, even for an involved administrator. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No way was it reasonable, per WP:DUCK and WP:RBI. Stop with the excuses please! The editor still has the right to respond. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Lets have a go at the duck test and see how it goes. Black Kite ignores Jdorney's personal attack on me, despite being warned about this type of conduct by three admin's,[66] [67] [68], they ignore Jdorney's canvassing of editors who share their POV, [69] [70] [71] [72] onto this article despite told to stop. Black Kite ignores Jdorney when they continue to canvess despite being told not to [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78], and then blocks an new editor you reverted and explained why they did on the talk page, Jdorney's desputed edit. Now when we know Black Kite ignores Jdorney's edit warring already, coupled with their latest disruption being ignored, do I here a quack? --Domer48_'fenian' 10:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I don't know why Domer finds it necessary to defend Boneyarddog so fiercely, but it must have something to do with the revert in question being against "opponent" Jdorney. Anyway, Boneyarddog seems nothing more than a throwaway sock, considering the lack of effort in getting himself unblocked. Block endorsed as far as I'm concerned. Too much time and energy is spent on this.--Atlan (talk) 11:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you get a grip of yourself. No eviednce has been provided to support the block! If you suspect that there is sock abuse you file a report. The logic here is, no point filing a report because there is no proof, so I'll block regardless! So shove your insinuation as to my motivation and while were at it, Black Kite supports Jdorney's edit if that is the way you want to look at it. How do we know Boneyarddog is male? --Domer48_'fenian' 11:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Since when is citing WP:DUCK not enough? Socks are blocked on that basis all the time, without filing a report. Fine if you disagree with the block in this case, but consensus here seems to be the block was sound. My "insinuation" makes more sense to me than "You block because you're British", which was your argument on Black Kite's talk page. I don't care whether Boneyarddog is male of female, btw.--Atlan (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The editor in question has requested an unblock. BigDunc 12:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Boneyarddog creates an account, and as his first edit jumps into the middle of an edit war, with a long and detailed posting which shows an in-depth understanding and skill in relation to wikipedia editing. This is clear and obvious sockpuppetry. Or at a stretch meatpuppetry. The editor in question has been notified of this thread, and can discuss it on his talk page.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 13:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh Please! You describe this edit as evidence of a long and detailed posting which shows an in-depth understanding and skill in relation to wikipedia editing. There is something here which is a bit of a stretch and its not meatpuppetry. If this is clear and obvious sockpuppetry file a report. On the other hand, for an editor with very very limited intelligence and intellect it migh have been a difficult edit. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There is something here which is a bit of a stretch and its not meatpuppetry. I wonder why you'd be so sure about that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well you can wonder all you like! Now the editor has placed an unblock request, I wonder how long they will be left waiting? --Domer48_'fenian' 13:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Not long. Obvious meatpuppet. All new accounts who jump straight into revert wars with their first edit should be blocked, and this is no exception. Moreschi (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

File a report then! What happened to assume good faith? --Domer48_'fenian' 14:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Domer, when it comes to you and your circle of Irish patriots, good faith expired a very long time ago. Moreschi (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well we can see were your coming from! That explains your declining this new editor. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche abusing Twinkle, harassing IP editor

Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) yesterday harassed an IP at User talk:98.204.201.79. That IP made six edits to Anwar al-Awlaki. Two of these edits included informative edit summaries that made it clear this was a good-faith objection to content in that article, and not vandalism. The IP's edits began at 16:55 and ended at 17:09, and no one else edited in the meantime, so the IP could not be said to be edit warring.
Beginning at 17:26, Epeefleche left five consecutive vandalism warnings on the IP's talk page, v1, v2, v3, v4, and v4im.
The IP editor asked at Talk:Anwar al-Awlaki what was the problem with these edits and how they constituted vandalism. Epeefleche did not reply. I responded to the IP's question by informing the IP that these edits were not vandalism, and I recommended the editor register an account. Epeefleche responded on the IP's talk page by calling my comment to the IP "wikihounding."
Epeefleche also abused Twinkle rollback by calling a different IP's edits "vandalism." That IP did not use an edit summary, but that does not make a content dispute into vandalism.
I raised these issues at WP:AN3, but as I familiarized myself with the purpose of that board, I decided it was not the correct venue. I have tried to discuss the harassment of the IP editors with Epeefleche there, but Epeefleche sees nothing wrong with the harassment.
I understand that Twinkle use can be revoked for misuse, and harassment of new users can require a block. I ask that admins take both possibilities into consideration. ~YellowFives 15:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, if someone else could please welcome the IP at User talk:98.204.201.79 and make clear that the Wikipedia community understands these edits were not vandalism, and the IP really is welcome to make an account, that would be lovely. I am afraid that Epeefleche's newbie-biting and ownership of the article is going to drive away good-faith editors. The article itself is a huge WP:UNDUE problem at the moment and would benefit from others' involvement. ~YellowFives 15:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This sequence does seem pretty odd. 98.204.201.79 made six consecutive edits to the article. Epeefleche apparently reverted them all one-by-one and left a separate warning for each. In general, there is not enough discussion on the talk page to match the revert warring in the article. Wknight94 ^talk 15:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a plain old edit war. Epeefleche should not get to label his content opponents as vandals just because they are IPs. Triplestop x3 16:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've informed Epeefleche of this thread. Basket of Puppies 16:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Good. Looks like several editors including the IP disagreeing with Epeefleche. There's a political element here also. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The worst thing is leaving five consecutive warnings; I'm absolutely baffled - as well as disheartened - by Epeefleche's actions! GiantSnowman 18:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Although I cannot cite chapter and verse of examples, Epeefleche has been doing this repeatedly for a long time. It's not a new behavior. Is this the first time it's been reported? Editors who counter Epeefleche's edits or comments are also followed and their edits, comments, or articles are then disrupted. This really needs to stop. I cringed before writing this, knowing the possible consequences, but it's the right thing to do. --Sift&Winnow 19:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hi. Stepped out of a meeting that will tie me up most of the day, but here's the lay of the land. 1) Most of what YF raises, he already raised--and is already addressed in depth here.

2) As to using Twinkle, I just got it and used it for the first time ever a day or two ago, so if I'm hitting the wrong button let me know. I thought it just did exactly what reverts would do before Twinkle.

3) The IP is clearly a vandal. I first looked at his two edits directly before the Awlaki edits. He reversed the black and white population percentages for an area. I checked census.gov, and confirmed it was vandalism. That's no "first time user mistake". That's blatant, intentional vandalism. In his next edit he inserted unsourced text, so that the Wikpedia article says the Nation of Islam worshipped a false prophet. I then, concerned, without even stopping to revert those, rushed to see each of his edits to the article I was working on. He: a) inserted unsourced opinion as fact, b) inserted snarky commentary as article text, c) deleted a reference that did mention 100 ... saying it didn't ( that lie YF refers to above as "informative edit summary"); d) inserted unsourced opinion ("exposing a propoganda war of neocons") as fact, and e) deleted a sourced statement and its ref saying (with wp terminology, even though he is "new") "if that doesn't define POV, I don't know what does" (YF's second example of "informative edit summary").

And yes, after having determined from the pre-Alawki edits that he was given to non-good-faith vandalism, I took each of those as vandalism (understanding v to include blanking as well as insertions). And as I looked at each in turn, I reverted him. And I believe that each time I reverted him, I left a warning. He didn't reply to me on his page, or on my page, and I didn't see his comments on the article talkpage, which I now see were the last comment in a thread. I'll be happy to get back to him. Jumping back into the meeting in a moment.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who's getting a big kick out of this ridiculous debate... am I?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope. :) Crafty (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: 66.177.73.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now on a short vacation at the wikipedia comedy club. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect about the IP's action at Montgomery Village, Maryland. Look at the version right before the IP's edit. It says something very strange.

• The racial makeup of the area was 29.24% [[African American (U.S. Census)|White]], 61.90% [[white (U.S. Census)|African American]],

White and African American have been switched already in the wikilinks. This was done earlier by a different IP. It looks to me like 98.204.201.79 saw that there was a problem, but wasn't sure how to fix it, and did the best they could to make sense of it. That appears to be the action of a good-faith contributor. ~YellowFives 19:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As for the edits to Islam in the United States and Anwar al-Awlaki, you need to read Wikipedia:Vandalism. Or let me quote it for you. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism". ~YellowFives 20:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

And a person doesn't have to be very experienced to have heard of POV and NPOV, even including those acronyms. Every time you edit Wikipedia, it says "Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view." The talk page at Talk:Anwar al-Awlaki says "POV" 11 times. And even the mainstream print media has discussed Wikipedia's policies. While NPOV might be rare outside of Wikipedia, POV is not. If that is how you make your claim that this editor is a vandal, I might suggest a read of WP:AGF. ~YellowFives 20:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What you call unsourced opinion appears to be a summary of Awlaki's publications. It would be better to make clear that these are summaries and not Wikipedia's own opinion, but again this is obviously a content dispute and not vandalism. ~YellowFives 20:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche, even ignoring therest of this, you certainly made one very basic error. "The IP is clearly a vandal. I first looked at his two edits directly before the Awlaki edits." Very good, apart from the fact that these edits were more than two weeks (for the most recent) and more than a month (for the older one) before the current incident. What evidence do you have that the IP who made the edits on Nov. 23 is the same person that made edits on Nov. 7 or Oct. 16? Fram (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Epee left a long explanation on the IP's talkpage. It appears that none of the edits that were labeled (and the IP warned) were vandalism, as per the definition. They may not all have been according to policy, but they were not vandalism.

Twinkle is a useful tool - it allows you to do valid things quickly and easily. However, it also allows you to make mistakes quickly and easily. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

As someone who just saw this controversy for the first time just now, it appears to me that Epeefleche was responding to the same problem I have seen, namely people growing instant Wikipedia muscles. It appears he was trying to reverse the negative effects. It appears he may have been slightly heavy handed, given the multiple warnings left. This on one page regarding one person. On another page, I coincidentally just awarded him a barnstar for his excellent work. It appears from his talk page that he has garnered quite a few barnstars for his excellent work on quite a few other pages. Given all that, I think what is going on here regarding Epeefleche is also slightly heavy handed. If Epeefleche needs guidance, that's one thing. To call it abuse is another. Do I sense a double standard? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Freshly blocked IP 70.121.37.111

Resolved

I just blocked this IP. A very savy, and "wiki-wise" IP. I cited WP:DICK. It seemed most apt. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT. "Disruptive editing: trolling, insulting, racist ranting"? Diffs? I'd undo this block this minute if I were an admin. The IP correctly cited policy in their defense of the first block and was actually quite civil about it... but was completely ignored. You gave no reason for a change to infed other than you disagreed, and you backed it up with an unrelated "talk" you had with Jimbo? You blocked him over one statement he made 2 weeks ago?!?!? No. No. No. No. You don't even know it was the same user on the same IP. You can't add an indef to a block because you feel like it or are generally insulted by past actions. IP has behaved since. Your talk with Jimbo was at the same time as the post you blocked over, so why did you not do it then? Some social networking use? Yes, and it stopped. Edit warring? IP never violated 3RR except on own talk page with is considered an exemption so long as it's not copyvio or blp/harassment-reated issues. The IP even correctly pointed out a 3RR violation by User:Eeekster. You cannot block for past actions, not after 2 weeks and when there's no proof without a CU. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

An un-involved admin came in and put that {{isp}} tag on the user's page and still a block was done without a CU of any kind? Doesn't this very specifically demonstrate that at this time you had zero proof that it was the same person at the keyboard behind this IP who made the 1 edit 2 weeks ago that was dug up as zombie ex post facto evidence? So one admin offers an indirect reminder that it wasn't necessarily the same person who made the racist comment 2 weeks ago, an uninvolved admin came in and said the 48hr looked heavy-handed but wasn't going to make a fuss about it, and the person with whom the "social networking communication" was done even came to the IP's talk page to their defense saying it was not harassment. Still, after all of that, just tossing an indef on top for fun? Suspicious. Your incivility parting statement of WP:DICK to define the IP was completely inappropriate, especially considering you had never spoken directly to this user before. Again, I'd revert the block in 2 seconds if I were an admin. Need more opinions. I have a likely theory about this all, but since it's all circumstantial evidence I won't discuss it right now. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reduced the block to one week and notified HamsterSandwich. It may be that it's a static IP, but we have no pattern of evidence for that yet, and as such, an indef block is the wrong way to go. GJC 19:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me of this discussion Datheise, this is absolutely unacceptable and the radical moves by Hamster Sandwich was completely unnecessary. I mean come on, an indefinite block on an IP? That's something I've never heard of before in all my years on here. And while yes, it's clear the IP address is very knowledgeable on Wikipedia I still think the block was unwarranted and drastic. Not to mention User:ESanchez013 had the audacity to accuse User:Tinton5 of meat puppetry and reported him to AIAV, how ridiculous is that? I even left a message on how disturbed I was. --A3RO (mailbox) 04:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm also disturbed at Hamster Sandwich's incivility when he blatantly called her(the IP) a dick and in defiantly blocked the user page so that only admins can edit it. That was also a radical move. I'm with Datheisen on this, but would also suggest desysop for Hamster Sandwich considoring you had 2 highly respectful admins, Xeno and Gladys, both tell you that you were wrong and it was a bad block. Someguy1221, the original blocker, also ignored this. --A3RO (mailbox) 04:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That's still sticking out at me as an extremely flagrant abuse of administrator tools to harass a specific user and would have to be up there on a list of worst things tools could do to someone. Blanking or deleting someone's content? That can all be undone. Openly calling someone... that, with no ability to fix it? What's worse? I'd have removed it immediately if I could have and it even took me a minute to figure out whey the damn edit tab wasn't available. If that were on any standard Wikipedia page in direct statement about a user and the harasser protected the page to sysop edit only, there'd be hell to pay. Hamster Sandwich has been editing the past 2 days but hasn't been responding to comments or questions.

I'll put up an actual ANI on the (real) ANI (non-talk) page tomorrow if the user still doesn't feel like talking it over. Fixing the side of it for the IP is good, but that only covers half the theoretical issue (at best). Side note-- if you do a full Wikipedia search for this IP you get some interesting results on some talk pages. I don't know why, but it was interesting to see. Well, I'd say 24hr more for Hamster Sandwich to comment is fair (72 hours total) before that's also noted in the case and it's submitted as a whole. Also, in case wondering, the only reason I ever caught this I think was because Huggle caught the 3RR and thus threw it to the top of the "suspicious edits" list... but on a user talk page and ...their own talk page? It took a good deal of actual research after that. Since I can't remember 100% certainly, I admit you could jab at me for selective pestering, though it'd be a waste of time to do so. My thanks to other editors for noting my comments and looking into it. Only pitfall of random unusual behavior patrolling is not being able to offer any kind of more immediate response. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 09:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Scratch some of that', apparently "official" debate is taking place on an uninvolved admin's talk page[79] so there is some statement from the original blocking admin.

(←) Considering that A3RO got rummed up a couple of weeks back and covered himself with something less than glory, perhaps we might take his calls for a desysopping of the Rodent Baguette with a grain or two of salt? Crafty (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope; still stand by what I say. Considering what he posted on Jimbo's talk page leads me to believe HE THINKS he is in a position of authority here.--A3RO (mailbox) 19:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Moved here from WT:Administrators' noticeboard. I am also marking this resolved, as productive discussions have occurred at other venues with respect to the block and length. –xeno^talk 19:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

So we're just going to let the possible violation of admin tools as mentioned by a number of editors previously slide through the cracks and go 100% ignored? The act of the block, its rationale and length are only a part of what makes this an incident... most of the talk above is about misuse of tools and the need for further investigation. A few of the acts are of the general variety that would get a normal user in a lot of trouble, so why are we just ignoring that it all happened in this case? Calling this "resolved" when 15 minutes earlier another editor posted a concern and had been slammed by another user before that. I don't want punishment or vengeance on the other things here, but I really don't understand why we're ignoring it. My opinions are expressed above and were basically ignored. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not been ignored. It has been noticed by many other editors at this point, and will go into the file. If the newbie admin in question begins to screw up more in this direction, then this will go towards establishing a pattern of problematic behavior. But everyone, even admins, gets to screw up once in a while. Lets hope it doesn't become a pattern, while I agree this was a bad block, I don't think any admin needs a instant desysop over something of this nature. --Jayron32 04:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) what Jayron32 said. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Very well. Since other admins have consensus about that I won't post separately regarding the insult to user followed by the page protection to avoid removing it. Just never again, I really hope. I removed my comment at the "resolved" mark above. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Repeated Reverts at Solid

User:Logger9 has reverted for the 3rd time certain edits on solid:

• I moved a figure showing an one-dimensional model of thermal vibrations to the "thermal properties" section; he moves it back to the top of the article.

You created a new section called thermal properties by copying the text from the image - word for word. Then you placed the image there. That text hardly constitutes section on thermal properties. The image was fine where it was, especially since it is now just a large blank space. -- logger9 (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• I deleted lengthy explanations of anorganic and organic compounds; he restores them.

The most basic chemical differentiation of solid matter is in terms of organic vs. inorganic compounds. To say that these sections are irrelavant is absurd, and the section on inorganics is actually quite brief. I don't understand why you are so dead set against them ? -- logger9 (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have explained my edits in edit summaries, in part also at talk:solid; he reverts without entering discussion and even without edit summaries.

This behavior must seen in the context of a long history of conflicts in which Logger9 has been involved, lately at talk:liquid and at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Solid: reverts by user:Logger9. In my humble and partial opinion, time has come for blocking Logger9 for a couple of days. -- Marie Poise (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you notified Logger9 of this thread? Crafty (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

<personal attack removed>.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Logger9 has been notified of this conversation. Crafty (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I also am concerned by the long-term edit behaviour of User:Logger9. I dissociate myself from the comment of the anon, though. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC).

Logger9 seems intent on forging ahead despite the good faith objections of other editors, to the point that it is becoming disruptive. I have suggested at User_talk:Logger9 that more discussion and less editing would be better, and that a response either there or here is required before further editing. If there is no response, or the same editing pattern continues I think a block will be inevitable. Kevin (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

At the same time Marie Poise tends to come across as overly agressive, which is not helping the situation. Kevin (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Several editors including myself have found the edits of logger9 to be of poor scientific quality and unhelpful to Wikipedia. In view of his continuing practice of ignoring pleas and warnings and ploughing ahead with his often inappropriate edits, for which he has been rebuked and blocked in the past, it is not surprising that irritation is aroused. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC).

Not saying it isn't understandable, just unhelpful. Kevin (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I hardly think she can be held to be at fault after having been called a parasite. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC).

It may be worth noting here that I am not editing the article. I wrote the article in its entirety, and I am trying to preserve the majority of its content. Paula Pilcher / Marie Poise is obsessed with removing certain sections. In certain cases, I don't see why that is necessary. -- logger9 (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I also find it interesting that everytime an article is blocked from editing, it is Paula Pilcher/Marie Poises version that is retained. Conicidence ??? -- logger9 (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments like this one are most unhelpful. Is this the extent of your response? Kevin (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out simply that Paula Pilcher or Maria Poise (or whatever name she chooses to be this month) had never even seen this article (nor any of the others she has tried to contribute to) until I tried to make something out of it. Her pattern on Wikipedia is to follow me wherever I go, trash my work (which is largely acceptable to everyone until she shows up), using a blanket deletion mode, then try to make make something completely different out of the article while creating an edit war -- which attracts massive attention. And when I try to make sure that my work is included, I automatically become the bad guy.

Now she has changed her editorial style in Solids -- thinking that if she takes the trouble to describe in detail each one of her deletions that they will all stand as a whole. The most interesting part is that none of the other educated editors seems to have any trouble with these sections except for her. Her most recent action was to remove the primary figure from the very top of the article, leaving a most conspicuous blank space where before we had a very informative and helpful figure. This figure was placed there by a member of the core of active science editors. As I said, she knows no bounds, and is relentlessly obsessive in her editorial behavior. Futhermore, she vows openly to continue with these editorial antics.

When questioned, she states simply that : "You are very bold in inserting, so you have to accept that I am very bold in deleting."

We don't have to accept anything. Her behavior clearly violates Wikipedia protocol.

Regarding the blanket deletions of my work, she claims that "I haven't done yet" and referes to the article on Solids.

And when queried by Wikipedia editor Woudloper regarding a more specific discusion of my work, she states simply that "I refuse to answer the above battery of questions."

She insults me continuously on all sorts of personal levels. Her attacks are continuously obssessive, aggressive, and highly destructive. None of her actions have been appropriate in this context. Just look at what she has published about me personally on Paula Pilcher user page. And somehow, still, she manages to gain the sympathy of those around her.

She knows no limits, and her technical experise is questionable at best. At one point, she was insisting in putting pictures of peanut butter on a page about the glass transition. I put up with the peanut butter for awhile (as did other polite editors) trying not to hurt her feelings, as she seems to be quite volatile. Her rude behavior has been dismised by others as being due the fact that she knows English only as a second language. What does that have to do with anything ? A personal insult in exactly that-- and it has no place in the educational arena -- anywhere.

I have never, ever, rejected ANY of her work. And yet her classical motif is to simply blanket delete ALL of my work. She follows the blanket deletions up by bringing in a hoard of sympathetic administrators -- none of whom would ever be able to read the theoretical contributions without a sufficient background in the subject matter. Then she dismisses my work in its entirety as "scientific blunder" (amongst a text full of other insulting adjectives) and continues with the identical pattern of her "Anti-logger crusade" on the next page that I try to contribute to. I taught envrionemtal science recently. And to to be quite frank, she behaves as a parasite in the classical sense of the word.

In the case of Liquids, any and all current editing could have all been done without an edit war or any adnministrative intervention. All she have to do is come contribute. My work could easily be included -- and edited-- below all the other material on a section for Theory of the Liquid State. If you wish to dismiss it because it is not accessible to an eight grader (or to Paula Pilcher, for that matter) then you had better go ahead and lay waste to the majority of your articles in science -- many of which I cannot even understand.

I am here to contribute on that level. And I have been happy to include readable introductory sections on all of the some 15 articles that I have been a major contributor on Wikipedia. My record stands for itself. I am giving you folks the best that I've got. What I can't understand is why she resents that so much. It's like I have this red target painted on my forehead. I really wish that she would contribute what she has to offer, and move on to something else besides what I am working on. It is something like being stalked -- literally.

I believe strongly in the concept of scientific education. In fact, I have dedicate my adult life to it. I have found Wikipedia to be an incredible resource on my classroom. Beginning this year, I have tried my hardest to make my most quality contributions on your webite. Please don't let Paula Pilcher/Marie Poise destroy that.

-- logger9 (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you able to respond to my request above? It's not just Marie who disagrees with your editing style, so we need to understand how you intend to work better with other editors. Kevin (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Do I have to accept being called a parasite ? For the third time, by the way: this text has been pasted elsewhere before. I admit, I have been bold in my choice of words, too, and I am ready to apologize: These days, kind mediators brought to my attention the importance of the good faith / bad faith distinction, and I am ready to retract whatever in my past comments might be understood as assuming bad faith. Yet, Parasitism (social offense) is quite another level of insult, and worse than the word for which just above someone immediately got blocked. -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have had no serious problems with other editors. Materialscientist did a massive overhaul of much of my early work, and I agreed with virtually everything he requested. We also agreed on a section removal in Solids (Chemical analysis), as per his reasoning. I agree with constructive editing. In anything but extreme cases, I don't agree with removing vital sections "because the article is too long". -- logger9 (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

While this discussion is still ongoing, Logger9 continued reverting without discussing at page liquid: he restored a subsection with crude speculations, supported by primary sources from the 1920s/30s, without answering to the reasons for deletion I had given in my edit summaries. -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

---

There are multiple issues here, but one just came up to my mind and without judging it, I invite (preferably uninvolved parties) for discussion. Please try your best to be brief.

Logger9 states that he uses his web-site http://www.wavesignal.com/ for on-line teaching. That web-site cites about 20 WP articles edited by the user as "on-line publications" for the courses. Please state your opinion whether or not this constitutes WP:COI and whether or not this might affect his possible protectionism of those articles. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 05:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Correction on your assumption. These articles have absolutely NOTHING to do with the courses I teach. They are simply there to show the readers (not just my students) my fields of expertise, and share with them some of my contributions. If this going to be a conflict, I will GLADLY remove them from my website at any time. In fact, at this juncture I will remove my website address (once again) from any text associated with Wikipedia. Thank you. -- logger9 (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In this context it might be interesting to note that one of the threads Logger9 started at talk:liquid is entitled "In Defense of the Realm". According to WP, "a realm is a dominion of a monarch or other sovereign ruler." - Compare this to how physics of glass, ceramics engineering, colloidal crystal, phase transformations in solids and so on are all linked to each other by "See Also" links: it really is a network of private publications, and nobody would have cared, hadn't Logger9 transgressed the bounds of specialist lemmata and tried to incorporate key articles like "liquid" or "solid" into his realm. -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for review of edit request,

To the template {{sockblock}}. Since only admins can edit that page, well, just please check the talk. But, in case you just want to know, continue reading: I want to remove the 'sock' categories from the template, as, more often then not, the userpage of the user is tagged with the correct sock template. Having the user talk page in the same category is redundant and makes counting the socks in the category difficult.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm unarchiving this as it was not replied to, and it is something that requires admin intervention. I need a reply to this thread.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Did you try adding an {{editprotected}} request on the talk page? Protonk (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. I completely forgot about that... Can't believe I didn't read the header. Well, let's see what happens now.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If nobody else objects to the removal of the category addition in a few days, I'll go ahead and remove it. Just ping me, Daedalus, after a few days if nobody else objects. MuZemike 01:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I agree w/ your reasoning but I didn't want to break the template. Usually the edit protected queue finds a template competent person in short order. Protonk (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

History purge needed at A.F.R.I.K.A.

Can I get an admin to perform a history purge for this article? The article was created with multiple copyvios by an indef blocked user, who has since returned using sock puppets to remove the {{copyvio-histpurge}} and restore some of the removed content. Normally I'd just leave the tag in place and let someone do it in their own time, but under the circumstances I'd rather see it done sooner rather than later. PC78 (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Done, but someone might want to check that I've deleted the revisions I ought to have deleted and not deleted revisions that I ought not to have deleted, as that copyvio-histpurge tag was a new one for me. Still learning after 2 years with the mop... Bencherlite^Talk 00:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Had a quick look, all good as far as I'm concerned. MLauba (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Can someone take a look at Gibraltar for some time we have had Spanish editors trying to make the article 'more Spanish' involving long discussions which are currently stalling in informal mediation;

Today we have a repeated attempt to include a long list of allegedly notable Spanish people under the heading who are most certainly NOT Gibraltarian people, as these are by definition British Citizens.

• Here

• Here

• reverted again here

The editor responsible for this is user:Ecemaml who has previously been blocked for misbehaviour on Gibraltar related issues. User:Cremallera may be a sock of his - can someone check this.

This looks very much like an attempt to start an edit war. --Gibnews (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm involved in trying to help mediate the disputes at Gibraltar. As I'm involved in the mediation and I've been an admin for less than a week I hesitate to use any tools but I've been watching over the situation. The only person who has violated 3RR at this point is User:Justin A Kuntz, but he informed me that he is taking a 2 day Wikibreak so I don't think there's any point in a block. Anyone who wants to help out and intervene, however, is more than welcome, as the heat on this article (and History of Gibraltar) seems to be rising. -- Atama頭 02:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Although you are doing a good job in trying to mediate in the Gibraltar article, it looks like there is an orchestrated attempt to disrupt that and other articles on Gibraltar and set up Justin and myself. Its very unproductive but frankly typical of the sort of harassment tactic continually used by the Spanish Government against Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've fully-protected the article both articles for one week while mediation is ongoing; it might take the heat out of the situation if editors can discuss things without needing to worry about what others are doing on the article. FWIW, I see no immediate reason to think that Cremallera and Ecemamlare are sock accounts, although an WP:SPI might be helpful to settle that. EyeSerene^talk 11:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad move. Loosmark (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Why? EyeSerene^talk 12:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well what if some other serious editors who are not involved in this dispute want to make some good edits? Loosmark (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}... I hope you don't mind me asking, but you're not a new editor. Is this a serious objection to what you must be aware is standard procedure in hot content disputes? Your userpage notes that you retired a couple of days ago; I can't avoid the impression that either you're making some kind of point, the reason for which is lost on me, or I'm being trolled. EyeSerene^talk 13:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Trolled!? I simply wasn't aware it's a standard procedure. Loosmark (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, no worries :) I just thought it was a strange objection. I apologise for misconstruing your post. EyeSerene^talk 14:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. So now pointless personal attacks, Spanish bashing, attributing "orchestrated disruptive intentions" to other editors, unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry and vilifying the Spanish Government is considered fair play in the Administrators' noticeboard? Still can't believe it. PS: actually, protecting the articles isn't a bad move given the current climate, in my opinion of course.Cremallera (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Something wrong with the dates

On the page for Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2008, when one clicks the date to arrange the state polls chronologically they instead are thrown scatter shot. Aug '07, Dec 07 then March 08 etc. Can that malfunction be corrected? Of course they are originally in an Newest-to-oldest order, but if you want to see it the other way or click it the top, it won't go back. It worked fine the other week. --Dudeman5685 (talk) 04:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The template {{Date}} exists, but I don't know if it allows for auto-sorting, and given that date ranges are used, it won't work anyway. I don't know of any other solution off-hand. Commons has commons:Template:Date that accepts separate parameters for year month and date, so it may be portable if there is no existing solution here. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

{{Dts}} is the answer for sortable dates, I think. Bencherlite^Talk 10:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit war developing over EL

DigitalC notified of this debate. EyeSerene^talk 12:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps BullRangifer should have participated in the talk page. Both User:2over0 and myself opined on the talk page that Homola (2006) should not normally be used in the article. It is already used as a reference in the article, and as such shouldn't be repeated in the external links section. I also deny any allegations about whitewashing, although I will point out that the article in question is a blatant POV fork. As for the links being previously being vettted, approved, and worked by editors at Chiropractic, you will notice that the links do not occur there, because they were deemed to violate WP:EL. This is again addressed at the talk page of the POV-fork. DigitalC (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Five-year-old deletion discussion reopened

Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/HYP_(universities) . I have no clue why this was done -- the original discussion seems never to have been closed, but the issues seem to have been settled by a consensus-accepted redirect. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It's User:Pickbothmanlol. He did a non-admin reopen of a very old VFD for no explainable reason. He was recently unblocked by another admin as a sign of good faith; he has a long history of disruption and socking, but had pledged to behave. I have no idea why Pickbothman he chose to do this, but it may be a good idea to ask him to come account for his actions. --Jayron32 04:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

He has a record of making dodgy nominations for deletion. I don't think he's acting in bad faith, I think he just has no idea what he's doing. Offers of assistance have gone unheeded. Crafty (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This user will have to be dealt with sooner or later. Since being unblocked just a couple of days ago, he's gone on a nomination spree at AfD (and nominated a couple of pages at MfD as well). Pickbothmanlol, as Crafty wrote above, doesn't seem to know what he's doing in a lot of cases. Many of the AfDs he's started are actually candidates for speedy deletion, and others are articles that should be – and are – speedily kept. Yesterday, he nominated a userspace draft by a new user for deletion at MfD; the MfD was soon closed as "keep" due to the invalid, bitey nomination. At AfD, he has (at least twice) nominated articles for deletion on the grounds that they were previously speedily deleted and then re-created. That is not, of course, a good reason for deletion at AfD in most every case. In one of these AfDs, the speedily deleted version of the article had been blanked by its creator and deleted per CSD G7; it's plain that a re-creation of said article would be perfectly valid. In another AfD, he asserted that the article was a re-creation of a speedily deleted article; in fact, it had been deleted after an expired PROD, and the new version was speedily kept. Pickbothmanlol needs to slow down and read up on deletion policy before nominating pages for deletion at this rapid pace.

Other bizarre behavior: Pickbothmanlol nominated Zink Dawg for adminship, only to decline to support that same candidate in the discussion section just minutes later. The RfA was closed per WP:NOTNOW. Pickbothmanlol has also made several requests at WP:CHU and WP:CHUU in the last couple of days without naming a reason for wanting his username changed. He sought usurpation of several accounts which had edited Wikipedia, and requested a change to a potentially offensive username, before settling on seeking usurpation of User:Blush, who has no edits. I would say the RfA was disruptive; the activity at WP:CHU and WP:CHUU hasn't been disruptive, but it's been bizarre (and it's kept clerks busy!). I would say this re-opening of a five-year-old deletion discussion is both bizarre and disruptive.

Bottom line: I think admins should take a close look at this user's behavior, because it's not likely to change on its own. 71.255.89.120 (talk) 05:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Wasn't logged in... A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a pure lulz account to me. 50% of all (non-deleted) edits in project space, 11% in article space, 0% in article talk space. [80] Article space edits mostly vandalism reverts, AfD notices, creation of Total Drama Wiki – read it before the AfD finishes.

Some example diffs from before he was first indef blocked: user page, first WQA report 1 hour after account creation

Exploits since he got a second chance include Adding satirical "VfD" template on a prodded article, resulting in an AfD, and the game he played with Zink Dawg.

Overall I am getting the impression that this user has a clue but no interest in working constructively with this account. Hans Adler 07:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reinstated the indefblock for now; I think this is a case for WP:COMPETENCE if ever I saw one. I've also notified the unblocking admin as they may have an additional perspective to bring. EyeSerene^talk 12:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Please block User:75.157.25.224

Resolved

 – WP:AGF much? Toddst1 (talk) 06:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Please block User:75.157.25.224. Nagara373 (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Pray why? Crafty (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably because he's messing around with things. 75.157.25.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) However, it looks like newbie mistakes, and Niagara should talk to the user first before bringing it here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Wiki stalking & harassment

Resolved

 – serious canvassing by 660gd4qo (talk · contribs). Looks like a disagreement. Toddst1 (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Datheisen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Wiki stalking. Datheisen try to stalking my edits. and keep revert it without any justificated reason. I don't think archived talk page is bad thing.[81]
• My edits[82] -> reverted by disruptive vandaism editor Datheisen[83] -> It reverted again by other user[84][85][86]
• Archieved talk page -> reverted by disruptive vandaism editor Datheisen[87][88][89] Can you give warning to him? This user CERTAINLY stalking me and harassment all my edits. How can protect me from his harassment? I need some advice. --660gd4qo (talk) 05:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Besides the fact that all of the above is factually incorrect, I'm writing up my own summary as we speak. Just give me a bit, please. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrongly accused me as a vandal. personal attack and threaten. write personal attack message to me. [90] I NEVER personal attack to him. But, He accuse me this message is personal attack to him.[91] And he said, "Oh, and you leave me little choice than to report you for disruption and harassment. Cheers~ "[92] he keep wronlgy accuse me as a vandalism. and disruption and harassment to my edits. stalk and revert my other edits in uninvolved places or vandalize my talk page is User:Datheisen. Please reconsider this user. and please warn him.--660gd4qo (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This user try to wrongly accusing me as vandal, stalking, personal Attack to me.

• Datheisen : This is the only warning you will receive'. You will be blocked from editing the next time you make a personal attack, as you did with this edit [93]

>> Wrongly accuse me, and he said "i did a personal attack to him" Check link[94]. I said to him "Can you keep neutral manner please? shall you? Use article talk page before reverting." Was it Really personal Attack to him?

• Datheisen : "Oh, and you leave me little choice than to report you for disruption and harassment. Cheers~"[95]

>> Bullying

• Datheisen : comedic rubbish[96]

>> He delete my warning message and said "comedic rubbish".

• Datheisen : I'm really sorry that an actually important discussion over puppets and tagteaming was interrupted by this gigantic time sink dropped on my head.[97]

>> Bullying

--660gd4qo (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This is what I have to spend my evening writing on instead of actual Wikipedia things? Sigh. This is my first and only statement on the matter unless clarification is requested by an admin on my talk page. Accusing editor isn't worth more of my time-- I said that a week ago after and can't believe they felt a need to go through this. Again. Can I just be left alone? Good grief. Nothing has ever been personal, and it's not about the content of anything. To me this is 100% about Wikipedia policy and guidelines, or responding to vandalism on my talk page.I don't at all care about the articles on things that don't interest, or the involved editors, etc.. I've never once spoken with any of the other editors, not do I have any direct content contributions. I came in to watch as part of a 3O request for the POV dispute, originally, and this has been the result. Any editor is free to look at my edit history as proof of my trackrecord and that I don't have anything to hide on this. I know I haven't grossly violated policy in any way.

Part 1: "Archive" dispute-- For one, user had just solicited an admin for assistance instead of coming here as I have repeatedly suggested every time they have a substantial problem with my edits. Since the user comes to the talk page of every admin ever discussing his/her actions, at least it'll hopefully actually stop with the suggestion to com here. The user gives a very unusual definition of "stalking" along with ignoring the actual occurrence. This last spat a bit ago started here[98] with essentially the blanking of an article talk page with no edit summary. I reverted it, as it's obviously not appropriate. It was re-blanked under the logic: rv vandalism. no dispute still going on. ...Which is 1) not a reason to remove content from an article talk page. Ever, and 2) still just really not appropriate. Third switches, edit summary to me rv vandalism. this is not blanking. this is archiving. currently, this section dispute is end. There were no links to the archive anywhere on the page, so I'm not sure how I was supposed to know this was an archiving action. ...And still, usually not good practice to remove the most recent discussions. I have no idea how stalking can be observations from a bold, red, large number appearing on my watchlist with no edit summary of archiving.

Part 2: Regarding diffs [99] [100] [101]. Situation was, again, large red number on my watchlist. I admit to previous issues with this page, but I am not a contributor to it. I reverted a set of 3 edits that seemed no different to me than a previous pattern of edits from this same user that resulted in an admin censure and a 1-day block last week. About my sole revert here[102] I will entirely admit missing that the reverted version had a blog in it. I freely admitted this on my talk page and welcomed that it be changed back without further complaint.

Part 3: The past with that article and this user. I will admit to being involved in a one-off revert war about a week ago in trying to pause a POV dispute. This user was eventually given a block for incivility and RR violation in this incident. I reported the 3RR violation here[103] at the time. User seemed to not understand the meaning of "3RR" and my posting and later follow-up edits were changed and chopped to bits by the user, making most of my statements impossible to read. Still, for going to 5RR user received a 1-day block and I assume that would be the end of it

Part 4: Extreme talk page harassment. See this[104] edit all the way through this[105]. Somehow I'm accused of edit warring for reverting 1 single edit, openly admitting I made a mistake when choosing the revert, and then leaving the article alone. My "personal threats" are my asking the user to stop disrupting my talk page and suggested they report civility matters. The irony of being called uncivil when the accuser is the only blanketing my talk page continuously? Priceless. The so-called personal attacks and threats were all requests by me to please leave my talk page, or at least make a cohesive complaint instead of spamming the page to death. Seriously. I just want to be left alone. I have no idea why the user is so easily upset. Compare their actions to mine, in that I don't spend hours throwing spam around complaining about their edits

Part 5: Response to accusations:

• Regarding my edit here[106]: Wrongly accuse me, and he said "i did a personal attack to him" Check link[111]. I said to him "Can you keep neutral manner please? shall you? Use article talk page before reverting." Was it Really personal Attack to him?

This was a Huggle template posting. It's pre-set. The edit even clearly says it's from Huggle (HG). Why a level 4 warning? Since this is following heavy vandalism a week earlier, I had every intention on reporting it if further edits were made, and I openly stated a week ago that any further harassment and I wouldn't put up with it.

• Calling this bullying: Oh, and you leave me little choice than to report you for disruption and harassment.

How is that bullying? This is my talk page being abused and attacks directed at me.

• He delete my warning message and said "comedic rubbish". Yup. I did. For one, I'm allowed to remove it since it's my talk page. Never mind that the user instantly clears any warnings from their own talk page. To me it was "comedic rubbish", for reasons that should be clear given my explanation of this all. General note though-- if you look through my edit summaries I usually try to say something humorous so I can relax a bit. I also considered the warning rubbish since I hadn't committed the infraction mentioned. Last week I gave the user a break and walked away. Actually, I literally said I was walking away since it wasn't worth my time. This was on a pretty low-end AGF that someone wouldn't come and harass me to such a degree another time. I was wrong.
• To my saying I'm really sorry that an actually important discussion over puppets and tagteaming was interrupted by this gigantic time sink dropped on my head: This was to another user in a different talk section. It's also 100% true. We were having a discussion about puppets and tagteaming against another user and it was interrupted by a gigantic time sink... I consider trying to stop harassment on my talk page a waste of time. If that's a fringe view of the policy... well I don't know what to say. Also, the irony of claiming this was me bullying the user when it was my talk page spammed... also priceless.

Was everything I said in the best possible interests? No. 100% civility is almost impossible in these instances. I'd say I'll agree to stay away from any pages this editor changes, but how can I just ignore massive blankingss and content removal when they pop up on my watchlist or the top end of "most suspicious" on Huggle? I cannot in good conciencie just ignore violations like that. They can always be reverted which is the "normal" solution, but this is what happens. Why should I be punished in any way for being bullied on my own talk page? Good lord. What a waste of my evening. Can I request a block from my userspace? I don't need this when there are 50+ CSD tag reviews I want to check and a heavy day for XfDs that I'd rather dig into. Be prepared for a ton of responding edits from the user that will only attack what I did and make no attempt to explain what they might have done. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, You NEVER discuss/dispute at article talk page. Even not talking before reverting. You never join in discussion at article. It was not your business. You just keep reverting my edits without any consensus. btw, he keep wrongly accuse me, and saying My archievements was "blanking". I archived it at here[107], and linking it at here.[108]

And, If you check old archieve,[109] Datheisen NEVER discuss/dispute at talk page. He just keep reverting without consensus.

His patern is simple

1. Stalking me
2. Reverting my edits
3. Wrongly accuse me as "vanadalism", "blanking"
4. Bullying - certainly not good faith editor

Can you give warning to him? This user try to stalking me and harassment all my edits. How can protect me from his harassment? disruption and harassment to my edits. stalk and revert my other edits in uninvolved places or vandalize my talk page is User:Datheisen. --660gd4qo (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Why it's blanking-- You need to link the archive on the talk page if you archive something. Otherwise it's the same as is deleting it since no one know where to find it. Why it's not stalking-- why wouldn't I "disrupt" all your edits? You just don't get it. It's not about the content or the articles or you. It's about policy. Rather, how you seem to misinterpret it all and/or ignore it often. I'd contest even a level3+ warning since I know I've done nothing above a warning. You need to stop complaining about what I did and instead explain what you did. Also suggest you read the definitions of "stalking" and "bullying" as admins suggested you do last time. You may want to look over more policy definitions and decide if if removing this notice would be better. Given the amount of time already wasted on this by us both and time that admins will have to completely waste. Defend what you did, not constantly attack the other. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You keep nonsense. Already linked the archive on the talk page. See [110] btw, all of your comments are nonsense.WP:uncivil,WP:tenditious, WP:Disruptive --660gd4qo (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Although this is already marked as "resolved", it keeps being discussed. So, hopefully this clears it up:

• The talkpage appears to have been appropriately archived, although I question why all of it was archived - some discussions are current.
• This is the only warning you will receive. You will be blocked from editing the next time you make a personal attack, as you did with this edit is a template message. It's neither "bullying" nor a "threat" per se.
• Can you keep neutral manner please? shall you? Use article talk page before reverting. was not a personal attack
• Oh, and you leave me little choice than to report you for disruption and harassment. Cheers not bullying - it's someone following process.
• comedic rubbish Not great communication style, but he's allowed to remove things from his talkpage in whatever manner he likes
• I'm really sorry that an actually important discussion over puppets and tagteaming was interrupted by this gigantic time sink dropped on my head. What's wrong with this? not bullying or even uncivil.
• I would remind both users of the bold, revert, discuss cycle. If someone undoes your edit, you do not simply redo it without discussion.

From what I see, a lot of this is based on a little bit of overly-aggressive archiving, and with a little WP:AGF, is that really worth a fight?? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

ARBMAC parole

I was put under ARBMAC parole three months ago, and recently contacted the admin who imposed it, User:Nishkid64, asking him if he would be willing to repeal it. He replied that he was too busy with RL concerns and advised me to post to WP:ANI, stating he was perfectly content to have any admin make a decision on the matter. --Athenean (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the rationale to repeal it? Toddst1 (talk) 06:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A substantial amount of time has passed and my editing behavior has changed considerably during this period. I have not edit-warred, made extensive (and successful) use of the talk page to resolve content disputes, and I have not once violated the terms of my parole. I invite any and all interested administrators to review my contribs log from this period and make a decision. --Athenean (talk) 07:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. The timing on this, with the holiday starting in the US, is not great, but your request seems reasonable. Hopefully someone in the next day or two can review and follow up appropriately. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Need help blocking ducks on AIDS denialism

• Chrislipthorpe (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Highenergypulses (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Chris's editing history consists solely of making fringey edits to AIDS denialism. After being warned of his impending 3RR violation, Highenergypulses was registered and made essentially the same edits. I'd have blocked them both myself, but I'm probably too involved on that page to make anything but the least controversial of blocks. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've protected it for 3 days, you might want to raise an SPI. Dougweller (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel an SPI is necessary for blatant socking, which is the case here.--Atlan (talk) 09:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Quack, quack. Sock blocked indef, sockmaster for 3 days. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat?

Is claiming a 3rd party will take legal action against WP a legal threat? Specifically, this edit. I42 (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a legal threat by the IP, unless the IP represents Kandy Rain. --Atlan (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a legal threat per above. That said, asserting that an article is defamatory, and then asserting that one of the subjects (mentioned in the article) has asserted that he/she will take legal action if a certain change is not made to the article is inflammatory and likely to be perceived as a legal threat (see WP:Harassment#Perceived legal threats). If there are factual inaccuracies, those particular assertions can be disputed in good faith, and chances are changes will be made appropriately. Alternatively, whomever may contact OTRS personally. In some cases, considering legal issues is appropriate in a proper legal discussion that is strictly academic - this is not one of them. The method employed here of asserting others (or not others) legal threats in order to impose changes is not appropriate. The pattern of conduct here has escalated to the point that it is disruptive enough to the point that I'd probably endorse a block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've warned rather than blocked (on both their talk page and the article talk page), though I agree they are being disruptive and have no argument if someone else wants to take further action. EyeSerene^talk 13:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Request closure of the Thierry henry handball Afd

It's overdue now, and the place is starting to stink of socks. MickMacNee (talk) 13:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)