Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:25, 23 February 2010

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • 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)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

User: Gabi Hernandez

User: Gabi Hernandez has been repeatedly warned for persistent disregard of image policies, and adding controversial un-sourced material to soap opera related articles. Warned numerous times. Continues to still disregard policy. Rm994 (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This case is a bit difficult to follow, since the user has cleared off warnings from her talk page several times. But from what I'm seeing of her contributions, a block or at least a stern warning--in both cases, with the next sanction being an indefblock--is in order. Blueboy96 23:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Myself and others have tried numerous times to be patient, offering helpful advice, not assuming bad faith, but she refuses to heed warnings. She does not understand that her refusal to follow guidelines creates more work on other editors who have to "clean up" behind her. Rm994 (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've encountered this user and have seen the problems described. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiClique

An apparent Serbian nationalist account, User:FkpCascais, and yet another sock IP (193.206...) are actively plotting ways to see how they may do harm to me and/or my reputation. I've already been attacked by the creation of an offensive mock account, User:DIREKTOR SPLIT. They seem to think I am a "notorious Croat nationalist propagandist", even though the last bunch who shared their goals were Croats accusing me of "anti-Croatian" edits (they are both wrong obviously, and this is why I may be a frequent thorn in the side of Balkans nationalist agendas). User:FkpCascais' edits happened to get blocked into place on the Chetniks article, and taking that as a validation of his revert-warring method of inserting unsourced controversial edits, the User has spread his POV-pushing activities to other "unsuspecting" articles, again entering POV Balkans nationalist edits contrary to presented sources and contrary to consensus.
(The editors are generally pushing for the removal of mention of the fact that the WWII Serbian nationalist movement, the Chetniks, have in fact collaborated with the Germans. This is unsourced, and is contrary to a large number of scholarly publications.)

The small "clique" is another in a long line of folks who seems to believe the best way to expedite their agenda on the Balkans articles is to provoke me and get me out of their way post haste by ganging up and listing out-of-context any negative aspect of my editing they can possibly find (in addition to the by now customary edit-warring and harassing used for the promotion of their goals and agendas). --DIREKTOR 12:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

And what are admins supposed to do here? Btw, DIREKTOR, what is your relationship with User:PRODUCER? You have quite an overlap in your editing:. Fences&Windows 14:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I rather think he hopes admins will apply the spirit of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions or one of the other ArbCom decisions regarding the various nationalistic disputes centred around Eastern Europe and/or the Balkans. I believed it common knowledge that there are blocs of editors who are "enthusiastically engaged in promoting certain viewpoints while deprecating those of others not so similarly enthused by use of their editing of articles and other spaces" and other editors such as DIREKTOR and PRODUCER who also edit largely within that group of articles. Requests at Admin Noticeboards for intervention in a real or imagined policy or restriction violation is quite common (although generally directed at DIREKTOR than by him). Perhaps it has only been me that noticed them these last few months? Oh, well, I may as well take a look... LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have warned both parties at User_talk:FkpCascais#DIREKTOR and the ip's talkpage. I would note that neither were advised of this discussion, so have linked to it within my warning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Fences&Windows, you made a very good point. There is very real possibility that User:PRODUCER is a sock puppet of User:DIREKTOR. I think that this claim should be investigated by an administrator as soon as possible. We all know what must happen if this claim is true. --Иван Богданов (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Now the above is much more typical of the usual DIREKTOR related posts to the noticeboards - a whole lot of innuendo and nothing (such as another SPI request) to back it up. Иван Богданов, please consider yourself under the same restrictions as FkpCascais above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm too much busy to launch an SPI request myself, but someone else should do that. Thanks to Fences&Windows, evidence to back it up is here - . Similarity is just too big to be an coincidence, isn't it? --Иван Богданов (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You think? No chance of simply two editors who contribute to similar areas? Any other "coincidences"? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

And they just have to be named for movie supervisory positions, in all caps. parallel evolution?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

There a number of copycat similarities between their userpages as well, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are the same person. I found a similar situation with User:Comrade Graham and User:Chargh, who signs himself as "Comrade Hamish Wilson"—they are twins. At my suggestion they added that info their pages. Pcap ping 12:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I am constantly being accused of being Serb nationalist and a vast number of similar nonsence. We have a very big problem here. User:Direktor just gathered Croatian made sources that (with some minor manipulation) cover his pushing of an entire movement (the Chetniks) and their commander, D. Mihailović, being considered a Nazy collaborators. The problem here is that by my edits, that simply clarify that the situation is not that simple, are putting in danger the personal interess of one editor (direktor) in doing his best to show them as Hitlers best friends... Direktor, as a Croat, and Tito enthusiast (Yugoslav Communist dictator), obviously pushes the articles to a total denegration of a Serbian Monarchic resistence movement, and its leader. Mihailovic was even condecorated by the USA and France for his efforts in WWII (a post-mortum trial was also held in the USA), so how can he be showed simply as collaborator? Aren´t we having here a completely different version, an article recently edited by one editor, in his way, and a complete blocking of any attempt made to try to put the article in a more NPOV way??? Please, don´t get too emotional with Direktors obvious manipulation and just see the facts. Other people have also contacted me in my talk page complaining abpout him, and, I didn´t knew, it was his 4th blocking! I have never had one before... His edits and the insistence in a sole collaboration side of the story are very untrouth and offensive to me (as a Serb-Jew) and to the USA and France politics (meaning they condecorated a Nazy friend, how ridicoulos. Please, can someone chek this. FkpCascais (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think anyone that has any knowledge of the activities of User:PRODUCER and myself knows that PRODUCER is not my sock. I mean, feel free to check up on that if you like, but this isn't the first time this issue has surfaced. I've reported and/or participated in the block of lierally dozens of socks "of all shapes and sizes" during my years on Wiki, and even if I were stupid enough to create a sock, I certainly would not call it "User:PRODUCER" when my account is "User:DIREKTOR". Also, my account is not named after a movie supervisory position - it is not in English (note the "K"). My username around here means something like "executive". But all this is besides the point... --DIREKTOR 08:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's within the realms of possibility that one of the Direktor/Producer usernames was creating having seen the other as inspiration, but I believe that's as far as it goes (if that). I've never suspected them to be accounts operated by one editor. It's true that Direktor has also occasionally crossed the WP:3RR bright line, but I've always found them to be reasonable and cooperative and their block log should not be taken as an indication that they aren't editing productively and in good faith. I'd echo LessHeard vanU; if there are specific allegations you'd like to make, file an SPI; otherwise, please drop the accusations. WP:DR has some useful suggestions for resolving content disputes. EyeSerene 09:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I just launched an SPI request (it can be seen here Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/DIREKTOR) about this issue. I hope that this request would help to put an end to speculations about User:DIREKTOR, User:PRODUCER and the relationship bethween them. I also hope that answers to these questions would be known to us very soon. --Иван Богданов (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Proofreader77

I realize and respect the fact that User:Rodhullandemu's blocking of PR77's use of his talk page was reverted based on him being an involved admin, but I feel the time may have come for someone uninvolved to examine that question. I have this user's talk page watchlisted so that I can see when there are any actual developments or unblock requests, but the user keeps using his talk page for things like this, posting rhetoric to support his behavior and posting "status updates" when nothing has actually changed. Equazcion 18:20, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)

With due respect they don't seem to be WP:Hearing that the, to borrow a word from the Arbcom case, bizarre communication after repeatedly being told to knock it off is unhelpful and disruptive. It may make sense to apply a short block or some alternative way that they can email for unblock if such a system is acceptable and also won't be abused. -- Banjeboi 20:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'd just leave it until the steam runs out and in a month or so archive it all. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. No one is unblocking him; he is de facto banned from this site. After everyone has forgotten all about him, we'll bag and tag the pages. Tan | 39 00:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• No need to unblock him (ever) and no need for the talk page to be unblocked either when it is being misused. Lock it down and let him email his unblock requests in. Clear misuse of the talk page when blocked calls for it to be locked down. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Good riddance. Maybe now he'll think about his approach and hopefully see what he did wrong, and why it was wrong, and promise to never do it again if unblocked(although unlikely).— Dædαlus 10:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I love the overpoliteness on Misplaced Pages. "Good riddance! Maybe now he'll um... you know, see that he was wrong and promise to be better. Yeah!" Hehe... Just saying. Equazcion 18:12, 21 Feb 2010 (UTC)

The user was getting on my nerves, to say the least with his incessant refusal to admit he had done any wrong, or was in the wrong at all.— Dædαlus 21:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone want to clean out the peculiar user subpages? In particular, SandboxA is bordering on an attack page and serves only to celebrate an unwelcome attitude. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I did send it to MfD a while back, but I withdrew after he got advice to keep such evidence gathering off-site. Obviously he didn't follow through. Pcap ping 08:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thought about it at the time, but I'm neutral on keeping the sub-pages for a few weeks: I shut down and tagged the user and talk pages because he was using them only to soapbox, rather than talking about what might be done towards an unblock. Given he can still email admins and arbcom about all this, while I guess it's unlikely he'll be unblocked anytime soon, I didn't think things had yet gotten to the threshold of a clean sweep through his userspace. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I "courtesy blanked" the content. It remains in the history. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppets?

xx.xxx.xxx.xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Perhaps, perhaps not, either way, I think it's a little strange for this IP to come out of nowhere and return 77's page to normal, where they have never edited such a page before. Would a CU mind looking into this?— Dædαlus 03:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Gimmetrow upped this jerk's block to a month; I extended it to indefinite. It's one thing to call people "idiots" or even "fucking morons". It's another to throw inexcusable slanderous comments around as this anon did. Whoever this anon is, he/she/it can find something else to do than edit Misplaced Pages. -- llywrch (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

IP's usually aren't blocked indefinitely, because the person behind a particular IP can change. Also, unfortunately, vandals say things like that all the time. Evil saltine (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Fwiw, based on the geo-location and the communication style, I doubt that this is Proofreader's sock. More likely, IMO, to be someone who holds a grudge against Gwen Gale and just went about insulting her and undoing her edits at Proofreader's page. Abecedare (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've had word through email, from another admin who looked into this wholly unbidden by me, that a CU has found, so far as they can tell, that there is no link at all between the IP and Proofreader77, which I take as happy news. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I did have my doubts that it was Proofreader77, & not just because it seemed to be too easy of a solution. (Now if those comments were in a sonnet form, that'd be a whole 'nother matter.) What made me see red was that (1) Misplaced Pages already has enough of a problem with incivility, & (2) we have enough of a problem attracting women of all ages -- let alone women willing to deal with troublemakers -- to put up with harassing comments based on gender & sex like that anon was making. I'm all for giving those kinds of problem users the old bum's rush -- which is one of those cases where an indef ban just might solve the problem. -- llywrch (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Nefer Tweety

User Arab Cowboy used a sockpuppet to repeatedly violate his topic bann and restriction. He also went to the Asmahan talkpage to defend his own edits he had made as the other account. Because of this he was topic banned for half a year from the articles and talkpages involved in the case.

The account Nefer Tweety has repeatedly removed the strike outs from the sockpuppet comments that user Arab Cowboy did. I would like to point out that the Asmahan article is on probation.

Copt:

Coptic Identity:

Asmahan: "to get rid of you and your sick stalking." this article is on probation and im sure this comment is disruptive and a violation of the principles of the case. Account Nefer Tweety has several times violated the principles with no action taken against him:

While removing the strike outs he also defends Arab Cowboys sockpuppet claiming it is not a sockpuppet although it has already been confirmed by several admins that it is: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Response by Nefer Tweety

The complaining editor, Supreme Deliciousness, was convicted of meatpuppetry on the same page, Talk:Asmahan, for making the exact same edits “corrections” to which another editor has responded.

Arab Cowboy attempted to stop Supreme Deliciousness’s stalking by using a legitimate, fresh start account. So, if there was any puppeting involved, it was the meatpuppeting on the part of the complaining editor.

On Talk:Copt and Talk:Coptic identity, Supreme Deliciousness continues to stalk another editor and strike out his edits for no legitimate reason. He had no previous input to those articles at all and only continues to strike through the other editor’s comments as a form of harassment by stalking, which is the main violation of the principle of Decorum of the Asmahan case. I am not subject to the remedies or principles of the Asmahan case, but Supreme Deliciousness is, and he has been violating those principles through meatpuppetry and harassment of other editors.

Supreme Deliciousness should be permanently banned from Misplaced Pages for his persistent disruptive practices and harassment by stalking. Nefer Tweety (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

There has been no meatpuppet invitation, and I have already been blocked for that misunderstanding when I asked a neutral editor to get involved. This ANI request is about your violation of the principles, and you removing the strike outs from comments made by a confirmed sock puppet. Comments that a sockpuppeteer did defending his own edits. After he created the second account he simultaneously continued to use the Arab Cowboy account editing articles and making posts at talkpages with both accounts at the same time and to repeatedly violate his topic ban and restriction with the other account.

The admins have already concluded that it was not a clean start attempt Therefor his bann was not lifted. And yes, you are subject to the principles of the case as you have been mentioned as an involved member of the scope of the case and you have been warned before by an admin for violating the principles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Nefer Tweety blocked 24 hours

Per my rationale at User talk:Nefer Tweety#Your editing privileges have been suspended for 24 hours. I am unconvinced by the logic of Nefer Tweety's response - an editor that is topic banned is not permitted to have their edits (or that of their sockpuppet) reinstated; otherwise the ban is pointless. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Without opining on the merits of the block, we need a less black/white rule about this: I had a devil of a time once where a banned editor made a good edit/addition to an article that improved the article substantially, got reverted because the banned editor was banned, and then was told that I could not independently choose to so much as add the source that the banned editor used with my own words, because then I was "reinstating a banned editor's edits." It's not like banned editors have leprosy, and we shouldn't cut off our noses to spite our faces if the underlying edits improve the encyclopedia. THF (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You are allowed to take personal responsibility for such an edit, but you (especially you as a known activist in some areas) should not assume that your judgement of what is a good source is necessarily unbiased. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

What Guy said - an independent editor may take ownership of an edit previously made by a banned editor, usually in respect of a content contribution (per Misplaced Pages:Banning_policy#Editing on behalf of banned users). It should be apparent that the new "owner" has confirmed the veracity of the content, and its compliance with policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

In the case of the Nefer Tweety account, it is far from being an independent editor, he have a long history of performing the same edits as Arab Cowboy which can been seen here: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU, your judgment was misguided. I am not topic-banned on the Copt and Coptic identity and I was not banned from editing Asmahan at the time Medjool was used. So, at least on Copt and Coptic identity, I could have reinstated those edits myself. Supreme Deliciousness had no business striking out my edits on those pages and as NT correctly pointed out, he just did it for harassment. Medjool was indeed a CLEANSTRAT account regardless of what others think. I did not defend my case against the charge of sock puppetry for reasons that I will not disclose at this time, however the charge was absolutely false. For you to build upon that false charge is propagating that falsehood. I ask you to please reinstate Nefer Tweety and stop Supreme Deliciousness's violation of the Principles of Asmahan through the harassment of other editors. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

My review of the case is that you are topic banned from articles relating to Asmahan broadly construed - that is relating to ethnic or cultural identity in the region - and Medjool has been indef blocked as your sock, which indicates that it was used contrary to WP:CLEANSTART. Therefore you were incorrect to have used Medjool to edit Copt/Coptic identity and Nefer Tweety should therefore not re-instated the edits. I see in all these matters your interpretation is at odds with everyone else (except where it limits Supreme Deliciousness' editing). Please try to understand, your viewpoint of what is appropriate is what is at issue - at least Nefer Tweety seems to have accepted my rationale. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The comments here show that Arab Cowboy used his sock puppet to repeatedly violate his topic bann and restriction and the arb admins have concluded that there was no "clean start" attempt. He used his sockpuppet to perform several edits at Coptic and Coptic Identity against his topic bann and restriction. Nefer Tweety, after he removed the strike outs from the puppet comments at Asmahan (which Arab Cowboy is banned from including talkpage) Coptic and Coptic Identity talkpages, Nefer Tweety also carried out the same edits as Arab Cowboy had made with his sock puppet in violation of his restriction and topic bann at the Coptic article and Coptic identity article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

just not sure ....

Main debate --> Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes/10th discussion
I am just not sure here about the guidelines. I would like some admins that know more about what is allowed and not allowed when it comes to deleting valid contributions to articles..You may have seen this in other noticeboards, but i think its time that admin sees what is going on..See if Admin can answer if your allowed to deleted infoboxs at will as a project guideline... I just dont think a WikiProject can mass delete things at will. Most of you have probably seen this debate before, but i would say what is going on is mass sanctioned vandalism (i use this word loosely as there edits are all done in good faith), just wrongly executed i believe. Anywas if this is not the place for this i am sorry, but this is the type of thing that i think the community should solve so the debate stops. Buzzzsherman (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I have also requested assistance from the Wikiproject council. This needs immeadiate resolution, IMO, as it has been dragging on for years. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't see this noticeboard being the right venue for that....--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok sorry i just though admin could answer the deleting question..O well i will move one

thanks Jubileeclipman this is here not out off malice..Its here because like you i think it has to be answered and put to rest.So i am asking all i can to solve it regardless of the out come. Buzzzsherman (talk)

Admins are now involved, anyway, so no problem. --Jubilee♫clipman 15:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This probably isn't an ANI issue but the debate has been restarted afresh: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Composers#A new perspective if any one here is interested. Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 17:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Reset 1rr restriction for user Radiopathy

• Radiopathy notified
• Abecedare notified
• Xeno notified
• Zero0000 notified
• John Cardinal notified
• Timothy92834 notified

Radiopathy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) George Harrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user was placed on a 1rr restriction at 22:36, October 29, 2009 UTC for 6 months. They were also blacklisted from twinkle per their using it to edit war. They have since violated it several times, and have created maybe two ANI threads requesting it be rescinded, which were both declined. I will try to find and link said happenings if required. Those happenings, however, are not at what is at issue here. What is at issue, is his most recent behavior, where he violated his 1rr restriction, and even violated 3rr after being told by an admin and another user(not me) that he was at fault. The timeline is as follows(earliest at top):

• 00:45, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 makes a change
• 00:48, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts with edit summary: a) factually incorrect & b) too lengthy for lead in any case
• 00:55, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts
• 01:01, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy warns user Timothy92834 of vandalism with level 1 warning
• 01:04, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts(1rr broken) with edit summary: rv vandalism
• 01:14, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts, adds more info, with edit summary: Added information about Harrison's cancer battle and death with references
• 01:04, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy warns user Timothy92834 of vandalism with level 2 warning
• 01:34, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy explains his position on User:Timoth92834's talk page
• 01:36, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts(2nd past 1rr) with note about earlier explanation(take note of the edit summary here, which speaks of possible automation)
• 01:43, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts with edit summary: Edits are factually correct and include multiple references.
• 01:48, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy warns user Timothy92834 of vandalism with level 4 warning
• 01:48, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 posts to article talk page
• 01:49, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts(3rd past 1rr, 3rr broken) with edit summary: rv vandalism
• 01:53, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts with edit summary: Added back in references and documentation
• 01:57, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reports User:Timothy92834 at WP:AIV for vandalism
• 02:08, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:John Cardinal replies on article talk page
• 02:16, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Zero0000(admin) declines report with content dispute tag, telling RP that the edits are not vandalism
• 02:18, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts(4th past 1rr, 2nd past 3rr) with edit summary: rv vandalism
• 02:24, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts with summary: Vandal adding incorrect information and remove references
• 02:32, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts(5th past 1rr, 3rd past 3rr) with edit summary: rv vandalism
• 02:39, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts, with edit summary: Added back referenced material and deleted personal opinion
• 02:40, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy replies to admin User:Zero0000's decline, disagreeing with them
• 02:42, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts(6th past 1rr, 4th past 3rr, 1st past 1st admin warning) with edit summary: rv vandalism
• 02:44, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts with edit summary: removed vandalism. Added back referenced material and deleted personal opinion
• 02:45, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:John Cardinal reverts with edit summary: Take content dispute to TALK!!!
• 02:48, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy posts to User:John Cardinal's talk page telling him that it isn't a content dispute(second time RP has been told that it's a content dispute)
• 02:48, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts with edit summary: removed vandalism. Added back referenced material and deleted personal opinion
• 02:52, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts(7th past 1rr, 5th past 3rr, 2nd past 1st admin warning)
• 02:57, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts with edit summary: removed vandalism. Added back referenced material and deleted personal opinion
• 03:00, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts(8th past 1rr, 6th past 3rr, 3rd past 1st admin warning)
• 03:01, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts with edit summary: removed vandalism. Added back referenced material and deleted personal opinion
• 03:03, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts(9th past 1rr, 7th past 3rr, 4th past 1st admin warning) with edit summary: rv vandalism
• 03:05, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts, with edit summary: removed vandalism. Added back referenced material and deleted personal opinion
• 03:05, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy posts to User:Timothy92834's talk page, asking user to discuss their edits
• 03:06, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts(10th past 1rr, 8th past 3rr, 5th past 1st admin warning) with edit summary: rv vandalism
• 03:11, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Timothy92834 reverts with edit summary: removed vandalism. Added back referenced material and deleted personal opinion
• 03:14, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Radiopathy reverts(11th past 1rr, 9th past 3rr, 6th past 1st admin warning) with no edit summary
• 03:18, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Zero0000(admin) fully protects article with edit summary: Protected George Harrison: trying again, blocking for 2 days ( (expires 03:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)) (expires 03:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)))
• 03:27, February 21, 2010 UTC, User:Zero0000(admin) deletes report with edit summary: article protected for 2 days, situation under control for now :)

There is a bit more, but I don't believe that is needed. Per the above, I am asking that his 1rr restriction be reset back to 6 months instead of the 2 that are left.— Dædαlus 09:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy's statement

Radiopathy •talk•

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like Black Mirror

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 05:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Radiopathy = blocked for a week, so I don't think a statement from him will be swift in coming unless copied from his talk page. Ks0stm 09:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Double EC: Nevermind, Daedalus is a step ahead of me. Ks0stm 09:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Already taken care of. A section from his talk page is transcluded here.— Dædαlus 09:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Easy call, by the looks of it. Guy (Help!) 12:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

What I don't get is that someone blocked the newbie who was most likely never aware of any of the policies. Too bad. May have just scared away a potential good editor. Oh well, damage is done now.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how Radiopathy missed the sundry inline (and handily online) citations eleven times. The edits he was reverting were straightforwardly not vandalism. This said, further down the article does say the LA County death certificate listed metastatic non-small cell lung cancer as the cause of death, although the source cited there, while mentioning lung cancer, says nothing about a death certificate. Hence, it looks to me as though Radiopathy, at least, truly believed the sources supported lung cancer as the cause of death but made a very big string of mistakes by reverting a good faith edit eleven times. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like User:Radiopathy is retired again. I guess he trying to break Brett Favre's record.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Disregard it. His attempts to retire never stick. I don't know how MO regarding them, but discussion should continue.— Dædαlus 21:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, he likely hasn't really retired, and is only using that tag as a way to halt discussion in lieu of oh, he's required, I guess the proposal is moot now. ..Especially considering that he posted his unblocked request(04:40, February 21, 2010 UTC) after he replaced his talk page content with a retired tag(03:49, February 21, 2010 UTC). Retired? I don't think so. Discussion, as said, should continue.— Dædαlus 21:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Daedalus969, his "retirement" should be irrelevant to this discussion. He's done it before on several occasions when he gets frustrated with other editors. As for the other points, I have no doubt Radiopathy was doing what he thought was best. However, as shown before, Radiopathy doesn't care when his ideas cross with policy. I'd support the 1RR completely, as the edit warring line appears to be very blurry for him. Dayewalker (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The block of Timothy92834 was completely appropriate. I may be the editor who Daedalus969 is referring to when he wrote above, "and even violated 3rr after being told by an admin and another user(not me) that he was at fault". If so, that's not correct: I didn't tell Radiopathy he was at fault. I did say it was a content dispute, and not vandalism, and while I agree with the block of Radiopathy, Timothy92834 is more at fault than Radiopathy. Timothy92834 ignored messages from Radiopathy, me, and Zero0000 to stop reverting the page and discuss the issue on the talk page. He made no attempt to do so. I don't think he is a true newbie; he has few edits from his account, but his edits indicate someone who knows how wikicode works, WP policies, etc., more than a real newbie would. If he comes back after the block and repeats the revert, he should be blocked again.

Both users were wrong to call each other's edits vandalism, and that is an ongoing issue with Radiopathy. In some cases, if he disagrees with a content change, he calls it vandalism, and then feels free to revert at will without regard to 3RR (and more recently, his 1RR restriction). It's too bad; he has made a lot of good edits and defends a lot of articles from real vandalism. In this case, I think he was correct to revert the original change(s) by Timothy9283. The sources are not air-tight either way and discussion was required. On the other hand, Radiopathy should have used other means to respond when Timothy92834 repeated the edits and refused to discuss the issue. Radiopathy did try ANI, and was told it was a content dispute, which was true, but not the whole story. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

At first blush I did worry that the block of Timothy92834 might not have been called for, but when I looked into it, saw he hadn't heeded the messages and only fed the edit war with Radiopathy. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy, please explain your position more clearly. As it is now, it is rather vague.— Dædαlus 03:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Some background: I first came across the editor while handling 3RR reports at WP:ANEW in Oct'09 and since then have had occasion to: (1) block the editor for 3RR violation; (2) lift the block early assuming good faith after emailed and on-wiki assurances that the editor would not edit war anymore; (3) apply a 6 month 1RR restriction after consultation at the 3RR board since the editor resumed edit-warring within hours of being unblocked! (4) caution the editor at least twice for subsequent violations of 1RR; (5) block the editor twice for violation of 1RR and 12(!) RR. What's amazing is that I have had to take so many admin actions w.r.t. Radiopathy even though I don't follow his/her contributions, nor do we have any apparent overlap in the articles we edit or watchlisted. All these actions were solely in response to occasional patrolling of the 3RR board, or complaints posted on my talk page by other editors - and thus possibly represent only a fraction of the infractions. Abecedare (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Support/Oppose reset of 1rr restriction back to 6 months

This section is to make support or opposition of the proposal easier to follow.— Dædαlus 23:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - For the reasons already stated above.— Dædαlus 23:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support indef - Change to indef. The user does this thing where they 'retire' for a few months then come back. It will be like the restriction never existed. Indef puts a stop to that.— Dædαlus 08:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Extend it, to indefinite ideally, since he seems to be having trouble acquiring WP:CLUE. He can ask for a review when some months have gone by without incident. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Extend to indef, per Guy - though frankly, I'm not convinced that 1RR alone would necessarily be sufficient either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• I have to agree that an indefinite 1RR restriction is needed, which can be lifted once the editor has clearly demonstrated that they can avoid edit-warring without such external limits. (see more detailed background above. Abecedare (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Since 1rr is a helpful notion for any editor to follow, most of the time, I see no worries about making this indefinite until he shows some willingness not to edit war. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support I think 12 months is appropriate now. Good job on this Daedalus, both sides went overboard there. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Extend to indefinite, user clearly incapable of getting the message per previous ANI thread. GlassCobra 19:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support extending it to indef, based on his last comments on his page. He doesn't care about getting it, it seems. It's a shame a good editor is undone by civility and common sense, but that seems to be the case. Dayewalker (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Stars4change, again

• stars4change (talk · contribs)

Stars4change had numerous problems discussed at this previous ANI thread (since it's relatively long, I'm just going to start a new section rather than drag the whole thing out of the archives). In summary, they are incessantly using talk pages as a soapbox, they've been warned, blocked, and warned again, have promised not to continue their behavior, yet the behavior has obviously returned. I saw them at Talk:Capitalism#Child_labour, making some questionable comments based on their history. Took a look at their contribs and found more soapboxing since they promised to stop, including: , and . A lot of rhetorical "do you think you could add this?" comments. I don't know why they don't seem to be getting it. Can someone take a look please? Thanks, Swarm 12:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this kind of soapboxing is not what[REDACTED] is for. It would be one thing if they were actually adding useful content to the encyclopedia but this constant railing against capitalism (and promotion of fringe material such as The Black Book of Capitalism and When Corporations rule the world) is not helpful. I would suggest a User RFC Soxwon (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I think it's beyond that. They've received a ridiculous amount of warnings, been brought up previously at ANI, had admins personally warn them, gotten blocked, received more last warning templates and have been talked to by more admins. I don't see what a User RfC would do at this point. They have shown that they understand what they're doing yet have continued doing it.

I get the impression that admins, for whatever reason, are reluctant to deal with this. Swarm 04:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This has been presented several times but archived without action. If no action is taken this time I will take it to Arbcom. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Admins aren't reluctant to deal with this. He had warnings in the recent past which resulted in a 48 hour block (I'm guessing you missed that). This time, I've upped the block to a week. This editor's edits aren't all unproductive, I see a lot of Wikignome work with typo fixes, etc. But those little fixes don't outweigh the continuous attempts to rail against capitalism and the western world on article talk pages. Having such opinions is fine, using article talk pages as platforms to protest against what you don't like is definitely not. The editor has been warned many times about this, and if they don't improve after this block is over, a block of a month or perhaps indefinite may be in order. -- Atama頭 00:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It just seemed like this comment was sitting without any admin response for an unusually long time, which gave me the impression that no one wanted to deal with it. Anyway, if you say that's not correct, I believe you. Thanks for taking the time. --Swarm 03:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent Iran-related edits

Can someone please scrutinise the recent edits by myself, 119.154.44.87 and 119.154.2.165 (who are probably the same person) to Academic publishing and Science and technology in Iran? I reverted the anon IP edits in good faith because I thought the anon editor(s) was/were pushing a point of view and the non-POV material was already adequately covered, but I've been reverted twice. Obviously the POV material must go but I am a bit concerned that I might be taking things too far by a full reversion. In addition I've now been accused racism on the articles' talk pages so there's a real risk of drawing other editors in to a nasty little fight. andy (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The source has questionable reliability, and the Iran article was definitely not a NPOV, it was obvious that the editor was pushing a Pro-Iran POV. I believe there was nothing wrong about your reverts. I'll post something on the talk pages of both users. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Left messages on both talk pages. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Actually I now have some doubts (apart from the racism thing). I don't know why you say the source has questionable reliability - it's very widely quoted by reputable secondary sources. andy (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Further, I now think I was wrong about the reversions (apart from the racism thing). Tidying would have been better. I'm concerned that this is an administrators notice board but the response and action is only from a rollbacker with much less editing experience than I have. I could have done it myself, which is why I came here looking for admin advice. andy (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

TheWeakWilled has left message for the two ips which state that 'it has been seen that your recent edits are violating the Misplaced Pages policy of keeping a neutral point of view on articles.'. However TWW failed to elaborate on that point by providing any evidence or links to edits that violate policy. Therefore I have left a message with TWW about issuing inappropriate warnings. Accusations of improper behaviour must be accompanied by evidence or the accusations themselves are improper behaviour. Weakopedia (talk) 09:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalistic renaming

Kitarora (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is going nuts with renaming of articles to stupid names. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the same guy as Edward Seler (talk · contribs) - see Sleeper page-move vandal a few reports above. Same creation date - 19 Mar 2009; same approach - no edits till today, ten innocuous edits to get autoconfirmed, then a spree of page-move vandalism. If we get more of these, might it be worth looking at user creations for that day and blocking any who have never edited? JohnCD (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If you ask me (not that anyone ever does), any newly created user that doesn't do anything within some reasonable time period, maybe a week, should be automatically rubbed out, as they are probably either forgotten by their creator or are up to no good. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It's User:JarlaxleArtemis. Got it covered by an edit filter now. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

And this apparently relates to the Fernanoteroleono section below. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Dwanyewest

The above mentioned user has done a number of questionable things associated with a flurry of recent AfD nominations:

• Canvassing: He is inviting those who do not like these particular articles to the discussions. See also this request that someone who seems to be arguing to delete in one of the discussions come join two others Dwaynewest nominated.
• Indiscriminate copying and pasting of comments: Regarding this reply, User:Dwanyewest has actually posted that exact same "It fails..." line across a host of Afds: see for example , (the MAIN villain in a series with multiple episode appearances and that was made into an action figure that appears on a top ten list), (one of the principal locations of the He-Man universe with appearances on television, in cartoon booklets, and as at least one playset that yes, I still have somewhere...), , , , etc. In fact, he nominated about THIRTY articles listed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements from the C.O.P.S. and Masters of the Universe franchises with near copy and paste nominations. Writing the exact same worded nominations and subsequent comments for episodes, characters, and locations does not feel right. These are not the same things. Moreover, the characters and locations vary considerably one from the other, i.e. how could the same worded argument possibly apply to a henchman with no action figure and who appears in one episode versus the main villain with multiple episodes versus the main villain's headquarters that also appears in comics and as a playset and especially when checking Google Books, these same characters and locations get different amounts of sourcing? What is more, I am seeing no reason presented as to why many of these could not be merged or even redirected as they are not hoaxes, libelous, or copy vios and a clear redirect location exists. Additionally, the same "original research" line is being applied to even ones that actually do have out of universe information sourced from a secondary source or two. I do not see any reason why per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE merges and redirects are not being discussed and considered first and it does not even appear that sources are being looked for prior to the nominations or that the individual notability of each article is actually being considered. It looks more like as someone said in one of them, the nominator is just indiscriminately mass nominating from categories.
• Double voting: See for example this in a discussion concerning an article he nominated.
• Removing friendly notices from the talk page: See for example this.

Warnings from other editors concerning AfD behavior include: from Jmcw37, from Janggeom, fromJJL, from DGG, from Dream Focus, from EEMIV, etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Dalejenkins, possibly? –MuZemike 19:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I share the concerns over Dwanyewest's flurry of inadequately considered AfDs and PRODs. He seems insufficiently familiar with the procedures and policies. See also the discussions at the Martial Arts project's page. JJL (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

He has been here for too long in my opinion to be Dale. I could be wrong though if Dale never edited his other socks on this IP, thus escaping the checkuser's attention. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• I will grant that there have been a couple of them that were questionable, but by and large, many of the articles I've personally looked at were a bit questionable. First, making the big issue about PROD's is a tempest in a teacup. So what, it got PROD'D. PROD's are ridiculously easy to contest and they give you 7 days to do it. All prod's are listed at the prodsum page. I became involved in this when a number of martial arts related prods were removed, not by addressing the reason for the prod, but with a cut and paste message telling him to go to the martial arts project to discuss it. I expressed my disapproval of that at the MA Project page. But the end result was good. We all reached common ground, constructed a plan to methodically clean up articles in the project and so overall, the outcome was positive. The other thing that I've observed in the process is that some people are of the opinion that a trivial mention of something is enough to establish notability or that a couple of trivial mentions can be added together to equal significant coverage. Then they take that opinion and (sometimes rudely) begin making accusations of bad faith actions. Rubbish! The AfD discussion is where that can be debated. People can, in good faith, hold one opinion or the other and dabte it and see what the community decided. I've nominated things that I still, to this day, don't feel have significant coverage, but the community feels a one paragraph review is significant. Ok, I have to accept that the consensus opinion differs from mine. Likewise, I've nominated things that others argued hard hhad significant coverage, but the community disagreed with them. That doesn't mean that they were acting in bad faith to argue the keep. Let the process function and abide by the consensus. But this is a non-incident and my biggest fear is that Dwaynewest will end up with some ridiculous sanction over what he believes is good faith action and something I don't see as being that disruptive. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Unless he is a sock acting in bad faith I would advise him to continue on. Most of the articles he has nominated shouldn't be here in the first place. ThemFromSpace 22:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You advise him to continue double voting and spamming discussions with copy and pasted comments? Or how about in some cases, not even providing a reason? Nothing that he has nominated should be redlinked. Sincerely, --A Nobody 00:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning in the edit summary that he is PRODding an article would be most welcome. He removed criticism in this regard from his Talk page. I missed some PRODs I would have wanted to have known about in this way. JJL (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Let's have a look at A Nobody's accusations one by one, shall we?
• First the accusation of canvassing. Dwanyewest contacted two people, one whose advice he was asking, and one whom he'd had previous discussions with about the articles in question. You'd have to try pretty hard to assume bad faith to infer canvassing here.
• Next is the claim of copy & paste comments at AfD. When you're nominating many articles which all suffer from very similar problems, it is only natural that the nominations will be similar. Insisting on original wording for each one seems to me to be an unnecessary and pointless restriction, especially since A Nobody has never shied from flooding AfD discussions with copy & paste comments himself.
• I've seen many discussions where the nominator has cast a single "delete" vote themselves, and nobody has ever complained before to my knowledge. Not an issue.
• Removing notices from your talk page is allowed. A Nobody does it on his own talk page quite regularly.
• Dwanyewest corrected himself when it was pointed out that he hadn't provided a deletion rationale, and now the editor who objected agrees the article should be deleted. No need to whinge about it on ANI.
• That brings us to the multitude of people complaining on Dwanyewest's talk page. I'll point out that EEMIV didn't object to the articles being nominated, just that the nominations weren't completed properly. Most of the other complainers were the usual suspects from the Article Rescue Squadron claiming D hadn't done enough searching for sources before nominating. And that brings me to the major issue. I've looked at a number of D's nominations and examined a good number of the "sources" being presented there as reasons to keep. They're mostly crap. Irrelevant fluff being presented to us as substantial coverage. I mean, just look at this load of rubbish sampled from several of the articles in question: a blog, a book that does not appear to contain the information claimed, an Amazon page where the DVD is for sale, a single paragraph advertisement on the Disney site, and two single-line snippets from TV guides , . Pretty feeble, if you ask me. And if anyone can tell me what this is supposed to prove I'll be eternally grateful. If this is the best the pro-keep side can do, then I think it's pretty clear that the subjects of these articles are pretty well non-notable and the fervent objections of the ARS ring pretty hollow.
• So to sum up, not one of A Nobody's litany of bitter complaints against Dwanyewest has any merit. If anything D should be barnstarred forthwith, and the perpetrators of this attempt to mislead the Misplaced Pages community with bogus sources admonished very strongly. Reyk _YO! 10:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Reyk's totally false comment above is deliberately misleading and consistent with his battleground distortions of reality to advance his biased agenda: "I'm off to fly the Deletionist flag over at AfD", "keepmongers," repeated use of WP:JNN and WP:ITSCRUFT, etc. We are not naive. That is why no neutral observer does not correctly sees the problems of these indiscriminate nominations, as the carelessness is revealed in the double voting, not providing an edit summary until told to, copy and paste spamming, etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Everything I have said is correct. Address the points instead of attacking the editor. Reyk _YO! 18:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I cannot address distortions. Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Yet this whole attack on Dwanyewest is a distortion. I have refuted all your points, you have failed to address a single one of mine. Oh, but wait, I used some snarky language in a discussion once so I must be wrong. Reyk _YO! 18:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
          • You are attempting to defend the indefinsible. You have not refuted anything, just presented a bias and inaccurate distortion of what is pretty clearly indiscriminate nominations that violate WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
            • Whatever you think. I feel I have made some pretty convincing arguments, and drawn attention to the misuse of sources that's been happening lately, that I hope the closing admins here will take note of. You can continue to point your fingers at me and go "OMG an evil scary kitten-eating battleground deletionist" or you can actually argue the point. I won't be holding my breath. Reyk _YO! 18:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
              • • I am happy to argue with objective and neutral points, not ones that are presented as part of "flying the Deletionist flag," i.e. that are inherently slanted. Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
            • It's the violations of WP:BEFORE, the lack of informative edit summaries on PRODs/AfDs, the malformed AfDs, and the general lack of understanding of policies that's most problematic for me, though the volume of the flood of martial arts nominations is also an issue--there's only so much time and energy to keep refuting AfDs of notable pages. JJL (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
              • WP:BEFORE is not policy, nor even a guidelines for that matter, and can be safely ignored if a user chooses to do so. The other issues seem more of a matter of unfamiliarity with the AfD process rather than a willful disregard. A bit of instruction from a wiki-veteran or two would be preferable to being dragged to an AN/I bludgeoning first. Tarc (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I propose that A Nobody be banned from raising new matters at AN/I or other similar venues until he has substantively, and constructively, addressed the myriad matters raised in his own RfC/U. ++Lar: t/c 19:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• I second that. Reyk _YO! 22:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Indeed. There was no call for this. Tarc (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This is just ridiculous. Start another case if you are serious about this. Two people who often criticize the Article Rescue Squadron, are now just being uncivil towards one of its more vocal members. Dream Focus 00:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• In response to Reyk's comment that "Most of the other complainers were the usual suspects from the Article Rescue Squadron claiming D hadn't done enough searching for sources before nominating." I'd like to point out that they were actually from the Martial Arts group first, others then pointing out the same thing as he kept nominating things elsewhere. The complaints are all valid, regardless of who gave them. You should always do some searching yourself BEFORE nominating anything at all. How many dozens or hundreds of AFD and prods should someone be able to do in a week's time? If most end in Keep, will the person stop mass nominating things, or keep on going? Dream Focus 00:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's put it this way, Dwaynewest has been sending multiple articles to AFD with the same rationales, despite the topics being entirely different, and when someone else makes a comment at one of the several AFDs, he copies and pastes his own version of that comment across every other AFD where he believes it is applicable. And he has copied and pasted directly aspects of policies and guidelines on notability to make it seem like he is making a point. Someone who has been on the site for this long should know how AFD and PROD and other deletion processes work. Why would a deletion rationale for a fictional character be the same for a television episode?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Whoa! Are you saying Dwanyewest should not cite policies and guidelines? I know those pesky things are inconvenient for people who write and defend the sorts of articles D has been nominating, but I think they're important. And I think given the way many of the AfD discussions are going, particularly on those execrable C.O.P.S character bios which are tending towards consistent consensus to delete, you'd be hard pressed to argue these are bad faith nominations. A few misfires early on, perhaps, but nothing to justify A Nobody going running to ANI over. This is a troublesome and insubstantial whinge from someone who is fast becoming ANI's version of a vexatious litigant. Reyk _YO! 08:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • That is in no way what I said at all. I said he should not be directly quoting policy directly (copy-pasting from the policy page) or copying and pasting things as subsequent comments on AFDs he has already started. If he has something to say, he can do so in his own words without going to WP:GNG or WP:whatever and copying and pasting the text directly.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Irrelevant objection. The policy and guideline pages are not copyrighted, and say what they're intended to say in very clear language. There is no problem with quoting them directly, none at all. I have occasionally quoted sentences out of them myself and nobody has ever complained. Insisting that he paraphrase them in different words is a pointless and arbitrary restriction. Reyk _YO! 09:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
      • That'd be fine and all if he didn't copy and paste the text from the page itself, including the references and other formatting aspects.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Ahahaha. Ahaha. Ha. You do realize he removed the formatting tags a minute later, right? Of all the inexplicable things to complain about, this has got to be the weirdest. Reyk _YO! 09:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Not the fucking point. He is making uninformed AFDs and using the same blanket reasoning on the AFDs despite the fact that aspects of WP:GNG/WP:PROVEIT that he is directly quoting/copy-pasting are being addressed. I found multiple references for the articles that I watch that he sent to AFD. That did not stop him from posting the same shit across all of those AFDs and the other ones.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Likebox deceptively sourced infraparticle

• Likebox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)
• Headbomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)
• Finell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)
• Infraparticle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

If I may intrude here, but this is about me after all ...

I place my comments first, because I am, after all, the one affected. I ask that you not move them.

1. let me start with this: I have never deceptively sourced, or badly sourced, an article in my life. I have explained this to the blocking administrator, who agreed that he or she misinterpreted my comments. Nevertheless, I still have two blocks --- 3 months for vandalism and 1 day for edit warring--- on my record. I will say it here unequivocally: I am proud of these blocks.
2. It is difficult for me to believe that Headbomb, who read the sources provided, knew a few of their contents, and discussed one of them in depth, could possibly believe that the article was deceptively sourced. I used the sources to answer a few of his questions about Noether's theorem, and resolved one of his confusions about the electromagnetic current. If he thought they were deceptive, why didn't he say so on the page? Why didn't he give an example of a deceptive source?
3. The questions headbomb were asking were at too low a level. It would be as if an article said "Abraham Lincoln, the American president who led the U.S. to victory in the Civil War, was gay." And somebody then said "Oh yeah? You say he was American? Prove it!" The issues raised by headbomb and Finell were at too low a level for the artice, and the sourcing that I was providing ended up describing things that are not relevant for infraparticles, but just general background knowledge, things everybody needs to know. The only relevant source was Buchholz, the rest of the sources were a joke. This was exactly what I said on Wales' talk page. I can't understand how people misinterpreted it.
4. In the discussion below, Count Iblis raises the issue of sourcing mathematical derivations. These should be sourced not equation by equation, but in logical blocks, to texts that contain the same argument. The discussion should be paraphrased mathematically. There is no dispute about this. The citations to Buchholz are the block-cite for this article.
5. It is imperative that frivolous administrative actions such as this not be consequence free. I have had three specious complaints against me in the past few weeks: 1. Outing Brews ohare 2. IP socking 3. purposeful vandalism. This type of harassment is very bothersome.

I place my comments first, because I am, after all, the one affected. I ask that you not move them.Likebox (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Headbomb (who brought up this complaint)

Infraparticle was stubified after a deletion discussion (linked in the top of Talk:Infraparticle) to remove OR and other unsourced material. A while after, Likebox restores the old version, triggering a revert war between several editors (myself included) over whether unsourced material is appropriate. This also triggered several discussions over at WT:WikiProject Physics, and him filling an erronous WP:3RR report (here).

After several discussions, Likebox gives in and begins sourcing the article. He later admits during a rant on Jimbo's page that he deceptively sourced the article in order to prove some point, and that he's proud of his blocks.

Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I also request protection of the stub version of Infraparticle to allow us to ensure that the text reflects the sources. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I now request protection of the tagged version of Relations between heat capacities, Methods of contour integration, and Helmholtz free energy, based on the admission of Count Iblis that these are deceptively sourced as well. I don't know if a block is in order, but a strong warning sure is at the least. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You really do not get it, do you? I used only three examples out of many hundreds of articles containing good explanations that are difficult to source. Count Iblis (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that's creative: POINTY, disruptive, bad data, edit war. Most people just try one or two. I recommend an indef block. Rklawton (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is what you get when you demand sources for trivial statements. I will admit right here that many of my contributions to Misplaced Pages have also been deceptively sourced. I have written derivations that are just as OR as what Likebox has done. But my work has been on more elementary subjects and I'm a less controversial editor. In my case it wa susually others who put in sources over my objections, precisely becuase I'd rather have no source than a deceptive source. But in my case deletion of derivations/explanations was never an eiisue. In this case, however the explanation was going to be deleted unless it would be sourced, which is a ridiculous demand. Count Iblis (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Rklawton, Headbomb and Finell are the two who are in the wrong here. They were edit warring in a ridiculous way, by repeatedly removing an essential paragraph of the article. Count Iblis (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Example 1 Relations between heat capacities is improperly sourced. Why? Because someone demanded sources for trivial mathematical derivations. The source does not cover the derivations at all (it wasn't me who put in the source).

Example 2 Methods of contour integration is improperly sourced. I'm not involved here, though.

Example 3 Helmholtz free energy, largely rewritten by me is not adequately sourced. If it were made a demand to correct that, then I could put in some sources, but then the sourcing would be improper in the way Likebox meant. Count Iblis (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

After seeing this diff and in the light of their previous block history and the above, I've now blocked Likebox for three months. -- The Anome (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see how this is justified. Headbomb and Finell are ultimately to blame for escalating a minor problem to a huge ridiculous conflict. Headbomb, who unlike Likebox is not an expert in quantum field theory, some time ago made the mistaken judgement that the article was larglely nonsense and put it on AFD. The AFD discussion was conducted mainly by non-experts who decided to keep the article but remove an unsourced paragraph. Likebox restored that paragraph because as an expert in the field he knew that it was correct and also necessary for the article. Why headbomb decided to through in his weight and edit war over that paragraph, I cannot comprehend. Count Iblis (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If they think the block is unjust, Finell can post an unblock notice on their talk page if they wish. The normal conditions will apply. -- The Anome (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Likebox you mean? Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• I would suggest anyone who is caught purposefully adding improper refs should be blocked on sight for sneaky vandalism. That type of deception is not allowed. β 01:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Two wrongs don't make a right. There is clearly a problem here, but this is not the way to sort it. I suggest that all the editors involved find somewhere to discuss this, and attempt to resolve these issues in good faith before this escalates any further. -- The Anome (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well as far as I was aware, the problems stopped when sources began to be added, and we were all collaborating on the article. The revert to the stub is simply a precautionary measure because the sourcing has been deceptive (I've set a draft of the unreliable version on the talk page so we can keep working on it, and readers aren't mislead). Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• To be fair, the block record quote is taken out of context. Somebody was trying to use his block record as reason to disallow his edits. HalfShadow 01:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This was yet more edit-warring after a history of repeated blocks for the same reason. The quote suggests that they are completely unrepentant about this. -- The Anome (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

But LIkebox did not edit war, he stuch to 1RR as his probation demands. In this case, Headbomb is really in the wrong, not in the sense of violating Misplaced Pages's rules, but by defending such an unreasonable position. From the POV of an expert in the field like Likebox, this is extremely provocative. Count Iblis (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes he did, see the WP:AN3 thread. Where he admits to 2RR (and still unconvinced he's not the IPs). Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is silly, as nearly every editor at sometime violates WP:POINT in order to make a point, as here. It's not vandalism to put in a cite for some mathematical transformation to satisfy some bunch of people who wouldn't know if it was needed or not. And it certainly cannot count as vandalism if you admit it later, to make your point, as here. Likebox wasn't "caught"-- he "turned himself in," after making his point. And his great sin? Adding cites for math steps inside the article, which explain the transformations in the proof, but aren't per se relevant to the article subject. So what? How else to get people who merely want more cites for a long article, to listen to the fact that use of experts on WP has major flaws? Yes, an "expert review needed" tag exists, but where are we paying attention to it, when we really need it? Not here. (I see no tag). Do I have to remind everybody that editors who actually understand any siognificant quantum field theory on WP, can be counted on one hand? I'm not one of them, but I know enough of it to recognize when somebody knows a lot more. The rest of this looks like people totally ignorant of the subject, who are flexing their wiki-muscles simply because they can. I see no vandalism (an unhelpful cite is not a vandalism-- it's simply an unnecessary cite). Even if there was vandalism (made-up cites, say) this is an IAR case, inasmuch as clearly Likebox's purpose is, and was, to improve WP. That is all the defense he really rationally needs. He was trying to write a detailed explanation of what an infraparticle is, and nobody would let him. SBHarris 01:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Please take this to an RfC

This has clearly gone beyond a simple edit war, and beyond simple admin intervention. Both sides have a point, and it's not my place to say which is right, nor is this the venue to sort it out. I suggest you file an RfC, and take this to arbitration. I'll reduce the block to 24 hours to let Likebox participate. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment. -- The Anome (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not beyond simple edit war or admin intervention, because that's all it is. All articles that've been found as potentially misleading should be tagged as such, and work can continue on the talk pages. If things turned out to be inaccurate, or badly sourced, the article will be rewritten and new sources will be found. If the articles are accurate, and correctly sourced, then tags will be removed. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

But did you really find anything? Likebox makes a comment and you happen to find what Likebox mentioned. I mention three examples and you have happen to find exactly those three (out of the many hundreds). And what I and Likebox mean is that the explanations cannot be sourced in the way you would like to see, not at all that they are misleading. Why not end your crusade right now and get back to editing? Count Iblis (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like Headbomb to stop tagging the three examples I mentioned. I simply mentioned them because these articles are vulnerable to the same problem that we have with infraparticle, albeit the articles are mostly at undergaduate level. Any article that does some nontrivial explaining will suffer fromm the same problem. usually editors collaborate and accept that you cannot source every clarification to make the material understandable (because a textbook will write for students). The three articles I mentioned are either not sourced in the way headbomb wanted for infraparticle (but this has never been seen to be aproblem by the involved editors), or they are sourced in a i.m.o. misleading way (the sourcing has been done by others over my objections). Count Iblis (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

To be very clear about this, I can easily expand the list of examples to a few hundred Wiki articles. Count Iblis (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do, I'll add {{accuracy}} to these as well so it adds them to the physics cleanup listing and reminds the readers to be careful when reading to particular articles. Using general references is fine, but certainly not references that have nothing to do with the sentence/passage supported. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

We're only talking about general references that suggest more than it should be. When I rewrote the thermodynamics articles in early 2008 I started a few discussions about the problems with the previous versions. Why Wiki-policies regarding sourcing alone were not enough to prevent huge errors etc. etc. That fell on deaf ears. I made some suggestions at the time onn how to improve the situation, but people did not want to listen. Half a year ago, I tried again by writing up WP:ESCA, and again what we saw was a knee jerk rejection by people who don't like these ideas. Anyway, the articles in question for which these ideas are necessary exist. I put in quite some effort to remove a huge number of stupid errors from thermodynamics articles. Likebox has done a lot of work on field theory articles, the article on the Ising model and other advanced topics. But to reject all these efforsts just because they seem to be incompatible on some very minor policy points is just ridiculous. Everything is verifiable from appropriate textbook but, of course, with going through the derivation, as any physics student has to do, not from literal quotes. Count Iblis (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Likebox's editing of Infraparticle should be dealt with here

I don't have time right now to discuss this at length or to look up old diffs. I will make a few quick points:

1. Let's limit this AN/I to User:Likebox and his editing of Infraparticle. I don't know enough about User:Count Iblis's conduct or the other articles he cites as examples, and that sounds like a broader topic. User:Likebox's conduct in connection at Infraparticle is, on the other hand, simple and can be handled easily here, without an RFC.
2. I don't know about the other articles that Count Iblis raised, but the challenged content that Likebox added to Infraparticle was not simple, basic, obvious statements about elementary physics. It was advanced physics with long blocks of equations.
3. When other editors objected to Likebox adding unsourced content to Infraparticle and reverted his material, he admitted to adding misleading sources to keep his disputed, challenged material in the article. He didn't just admit it; he bragged about misleading the other editors: "At the moment, the opponents can be distracted by smoke and mirrors." Talk about hubris!.
4. In its context, Likebox's deceit was a tactic in his edit war over Infraparticle. Given Likebox's admitted disdain for Misplaced Pages's core policy of Verifiability, his deceptively using false source citations to evade that policy, and his block record for prior edit warring, he should be blocked until he demonstrates that he will abide by Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, whether he likes them or not. Likebox's conduct jeopardizes Misplaced Pages's reliability, which is the reason for the Verifiability policy in the first place. Likebox's edits can no longer be trusted, and we cannot assume good faith when Likebox himself admits to conduct that is bad faith.
5. Likebox's deceit wasted other editors' time. Late last night, assuming that Likebox's source citations were in good faith (I don't have easy access to the sources themselves, so I assumed that the cited sources supported the statements for which they were cited), I spent almost 2 hours copy editing the content he added, adding missing wikilinks, fixing incorrect wikilinks, and fixing Likebox's citations (many of his citations were incomplete and therefore uninformative to the reader, he filled citation templates incorrectly, he cited a preprint without citing the published journal article, etc.). Headbomb spent time doing the same. (Almost half of what I did didn't get into the article because Headbomb made a lot of the same fixes at the same time, so I had an edit conflict when I tried to save a big block of edits. I copied my edited version to my user space to reconcile it later with what Headbomb did). All wasted time.
6. Likebox has additional relevant history that implies that his editing of Infraparticle has a particular POINT:
   • A few months ago, Likebox had a bitter edit dispute with lots of drama over his attempt to insert his own mathematical (or logical) proof into an article. I think it was Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Likebox claimed that his proof was a simpler equivalent to existing, published proofs. But, the proof was his own creation, i.e., OR, and other editors disputed it. I vaguely recall that there was a dispute about another of Likebox's proofs in another article.
   • During or in the aftermath of this dispute, Likebox and a couple of allies, including Count Iblis, then proposed to weaken Misplaced Pages's policy on OR. More drama, but the proposal was defeated by a very substantial consensus.
   • Around the same time, Likebox was one of 2 or 3 supporters of Count Iblis's ESCA policy proposal. The core of the proposal was that science articles should be edited, and editing decisions made, based primarily on "reasoning from first principles", rather than based primarily on reliable sources. A very substantial consensus defeated that policy proposal on the ground that it would seriously weaken the Verifiability policy. So, ESCA was converted into an essay. (I haven't done a detailed comparison, but my impression is that the current ESCA essay places more emphasis citing sources than did the defeated policy proposal). (Despite that resounding defeat, Iblis proudly proclaims on his talk page that he edits science articles as though ESCA were policy.)

Likebox's conduct here is a serious example of gaming the system. It cannot be tolerated, and a severe sanction is required to stop Likebox's willful violation of Misplaced Pages's policies.—Finell 05:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Finell, for your "few quick points". Perhaps you and Headbomb need to cool off? Infraparticle was making progress, which you've succeeded in reversing. Great work guys! --Michael C. Price 06:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was trying to help in that process too, when I thought that Likebox's sources were for real. He made fools of us, so it is back to the drawing board with the article, since Likebox's content cannot be trusted until every line is verified, or until someone competent and trustworthy rewrites it from scratch.—Finell 06:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Since this is a more concise version of all the brouhaha above, the only thing I have to add to this are links of convenience:

• Talk:Infrared
• Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Infraparticle
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Help_regarding_infraparticle
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Political_protection_for_technical_content
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Repeated_addition_of_unsourced_content_at_Infraparticle
• User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#An_old_quote

Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I also had in mind the diffs for my item 6, Likebox's relevant history. It's all just a vague, but unhappy, memory.—Finell 06:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find summarizes the most recent iteration of the Gödel's incompleteness theorems trainwreck, which has been going on for quite literally years. 71.139.6.157 (talk) 06:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me address this for the record: "During or in the aftermath of this dispute, Likebox and a couple of allies, including Count Iblis, then proposed to weaken Misplaced Pages's policy on OR. More drama, but the proposal was defeated by a very substantial consensus. Around the same time, Likebox was one of 2 or 3 supporters of Count Iblis's ESCA policy proposal. The core of the proposal was that science articles should be edited, and editing decisions made, based primarily on "reasoning from first principles", rather than based primarily on reliable sources."

To be clear, ESCA or some other guidelines along the same lines are necessary for certain class of technical articles where simply sticking to sources is not good enough. In no way is anyone saying that sources should be ignored. To the contrary, in addition to sticling to sources, you need to do more nonrivial work. The essay gives some suggestions on how to act. I have discussed problems with thermodynamics articles to death here on Misplaced Pages a long time ago and it was my rewriting of them which ultimately led to ESCA about a year later. ESCA in its original form, took for granted that we all know that things should be properly sourced. The later version emphasize this more, precisely to deal with the comments from other editors who mistook it as licence to do OR. Count Iblis (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Outside inside view

Disclosure: I have met Likebox personally, and consider Count Iblis and Headbomb to both be allies of mine here at Misplaced Pages.

I think that this dispute argues for the need to have a Misplaced Pages:Science council. Both sides make good points, but both are talking past each other. Count Iblis and Likebox are correct that the rules for citation and prose control in mainstream science articles are necessarily relaxed due to the difference between pedagogical prose and primary source prose. At the advanced level of the best science articles in Misplaced Pages (and here I speak of mostly physics and astronomy articles of which I am familiar) the sourcing is at best approximate in order to accommodate the prose style of this encyclopedia. Headbomb is correct that sources are absolutely necessary, but it is not necessary that the reader of our articles must necessarily immediately understand the connection between the sources and the prose of the article. I could refer to a number of science articles that are Featured Articles where this is the case, but I won't for fear of stoking the fires.

In part, what's happening now with the maturity of Misplaced Pages is a need for quality control. There are cases where a novel approach should be excluded as original research and there are cases where a novel approach should be viewed as simply an appropriate paraphrase and simplification of sources that are not original research. It takes an expert to decide which is which. We are simply not equipped here at Misplaced Pages to determine that.

In this particular dispute, I believe that Count Iblis and Likebox are actually correct, though they are combative. Unfortunately, knowing the culture of Misplaced Pages, I'm afraid that what will happen is enforcement against the behavioral issues associated with these two valuable editors rather than what should happen which is a careful consideration of the results of the editing. The article is in better shape in the way Count Iblis and Likebox want it to exist.

ScienceApologist (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Block review

I am concerned the block is based on a mistaken reading of Likebox's statement here. The blocking admin evidently read this as an admission that Likebox himself had deliberately inserted false references. However, the way I read the statement, he was merely saying that references inserted by others had been false or irrelevant. The statement seems to have been taken out of context: it was evidently in response to Finell's preceding statement that "As a result of work on the article by me and other editors , Infraparticle is now reasonably well sourced". Evidently, Likebox's response that "The "sourcing" of infraparticle was a joke" referred to those additions. – If this is true, the block seems fundamentally misjudged. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Almost. Likebox was actually saying that he inserted the references in spite of them being asinine. I've been on that end of the stick in writing here. While not the nicest thing to say, he was certainly not saying that there was anything intrinsically wrong with the references he provided, only that they were boneheaded and seemed to detract from the content of the article.

Imagine writing an article about Abraham Lincoln for the Simple English Misplaced Pages and having a bunch of editors complain that they didn't understand the words you were using. "Abraham Lincoln was the sixteenth president of the United States." you write, but they don't just want a source for that fact, they also want a source for the fact that the United States has a president and that there exists a number sixteen. Is it possible to find such sources? Of course. But if you are a historian trying to write about Lincoln, looking for such sources is really, really annoying. You might find some sources and insert them, but you'd find it ridiculous. The sourcing is a "joke" because it is so idiotic. That's what Likebox was saying. Nothing more. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I'm beginning to understand his point. He's explained it here himself now. Given this statement, I think we can safely say the charge of deliberate falsifying of sources should be dropped. This leaves the charge of edit-warring against consensus to be assessed. (Note: I only now notice Anome had actually already reduced the block from 3 months to a mere 24h for edit-warring, so maybe this part of the discussion was moot anyway, but then Anome didn't say he did so because he had dropped that serious accusation). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that's my fault. I already changed the block length and reason yesterday after reading the discussions many paragraphs earlier: I should have added a comment here when I did it. I still think this issue is just the tip of a much large science article iceberg, and I suggest that all involved should take this to an RfC. -- The Anome (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: I've now unblocked Lightbox, in response to their unblock request. -- The Anome (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what there was to misinterpret in these 2 statements in Likebox's post on Jimbo's talk page:

• "At the moment, the opponents can be distracted by smoke and mirrors." That can only be interpreted as intentionally deceiving his "opponents". Further, his characterizing other editors, with whom he is supposed to be collaborating to reach consensus, as "opponents" is another demonstration of his edit warrior approach to editing Misplaced Pages. I certainly didn't think that I was Likebox's "opponent" when I insisted that he supply reliable sources for the material he added to Infraparticle. I thought I was another editor trying to be sure that the article was accurate, and that enforcing Misplaced Pages:Verifiability was the way to ensure accuracy.
• "I am very proud of my blocks." These are his blocks for edit warring. He repeats that statement, this time in all italics for emphasis, in this AN/I.

Maybe Likebox need some form of counseling or mentorship. There are plenty of places where he can write what he wants as he wants. He can publish in a peer reviewed journal, if his material is good enough, or he can self-publish anything for free on the Internet. But if Likebox wants to help build this encyclopedia, he needs to comply with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines.—Finell 00:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There's absolutely no need of mentorship. Likebox's explanation of his meaning in User talk:Likebox#Blockedthis thread is clear, straightforward, and perfectly acceptable. What he did is completely within guidelines & policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Artw giving fair warning or a personal attack?

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

I'm not sure where to post this, but I've had altercations with this user in the past, so I thought here would be best. This particular user is maligning me personally on a variety of article talk pages:

So I put it to the board, is this sort of activity okay in light of WP:BATTLE? Should action be taken against this user? Should the notice be refactored?

I have thought for some time that it might be a good idea that whenever an article gets mentioned on a noticeboard that a notice be left on the talk pages of the relevant articles. But this to me looks like a character assassination.

ScienceApologist (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a bit over the top. I've suggested that Artw might want to self-revert some of the inflammatory language there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This editor has a habit of following editors he disagrees with around and making unfounded accusations, especially of canvassing for posting to a relevant noticeboard. He often goes too far, in my opinion, and definitely has a battle mentality. See his response to this thread on his talk page, for example. Verbal chat 09:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've certainly had a lot of trouble with the general behaviour exibited by contributors to WP:FTN, that's true. The advice given in that message is a result of that. And you certainly make yourself the center of any entanglement there and we've clashed several times, as we are doing currently over your odd interpretation of GNG over on the Jim Tucker page. I think you'll find this mainly comes from overlapping interests and the fact that editors that don;t agree with your methods are allowed to look at WP:FTN too.

Anyhow, the message is changed, os this is all fairly irrelevant. Artw (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced the uncivil and OTT material with a {{rpa}} tag. Artw can refactor to remove the incivility as he sees fit. I've left the notification that the article is being discussed at FTN, as there is obviously no problem with that. Verbal chat

• Artw has simply reverted the removal of the personal attacks, in effect repeating them, with the edit summary "Are you an admin? No, I do not believe so. Don't do that". I now believe that further actions is needed to stop continuing problematic behaviour, and that the attacks should be (re)removed. He has also made false accusations on User talk:SarekOfVulcans talk page. Verbal chat 19:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've modified the text slightly so no individual user is identified.

Please note that User:Verbal is substituting his own version, I shall be reverting his changes as vandalism. Artw (talk)

Stating that you will be reverting changes that are being discussed here "as vandalism" is hardly likely to earn you support. Perhaps refactor the paragraph under discussion along the lines of "Please make sure any content you wish to retain is cited to reliable sources." Rlendog (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that removing a version that that has anything personal removed borders on admin abuse, but it's clear there's probably not much point to following it up. Artw (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Please cool down, the edit summary "Removed notice regarding FTN, not happy with the version their pet admin favours" is uncalled for. Verbal chat 21:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a strong whiff of gunpowder in those talkpage posts and Artw's subsequent edits. I doubt that this verges into blocking territory, but a polite nudge in the direction of dropping the matter and never taking it up again in this manner would probably not go amiss. The last thing our UFO articles need is a bunch of editors getting their hackles up just because the sourcing might need some work. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that's generally the reasoning given for giving the WP:FTN guys as much rope as they get. It covers up a lot. Still, like I say, pretty clear that there is not an audience for discussing it here. Artw (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Offensive comments by NSH001

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Battleground editors warned and/or blocked.  Sandstein  06:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Today I came across an argument at the Talk:Carlos Latuff page between a number of editors about whether Latuff is a Holocaust denier. In the argument, User:NSH001 made extremely offensive comments that I believe are clear grounds for sanction, including comparing Israel to the Nazis (defined antisemitic by the European Fundamental Rights Agency), inappropriate soapboxing and incivility. I believe that, while all the editors in the dispute appear confrontational, the particular comment by NSH001 crosses all red lines on Misplaced Pages. —Ynhockey 02:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have just noticed Yn's notification on my talk page. I am extremely busy at the moment, so it will some time before I am able to respond properly, but I just want to say for now that this accusation of "antisemitism" against me is a particularly foul, obscene and malicious libel, wholly without foundation, the very opposite of, and totally contrary to, both my record in real life, and on Misplaced Pages. Disgraceful. --NSH001 (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have issued an arbitration enforcement warning (WP:ARBPIA) to NSH001 and advised him to stop the inflammatory political commentary, but do not believe that further administrative action is required based on this single edit.  Sandstein  19:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the bigger problem is the sourcing used to attempt to call a living person a Holocaust denier, but that's just me. nableezy - 20:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not quite clear to me which edit you refer to, but such problems should be discussed at WP:BLPN.  Sandstein  20:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Nableezy. NSH001 may have engaged in a little soapboxing, but I see nothing "extremely offensive" in his commentary. Trying to characterize Carlos Latuff a holocaust denier using sourcing that does not support that conclusion is however a huge problem. Tiamut 20:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Its also a slanderous lie given that Latuff is the author of this cartoon:

Tiamut, I am afraid you cannot understand how offended it is to compare Jews to nazis. He did not even bother to say "racist Israelis" he just said "racist Jews".--Mbz1 (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite sure its as offensive as someone comparing Palestinians to al-Qaeda (which happens all the time and I manage to deal with it). Misplaced Pages is not censored, Mbz1. However, Latuff is not an anti-Semite or a Holocaust denier and saying so without attributing that to a reliable source that says so explicitly is a BLP violation. Using EU definitions of anti-Semitism and a source that discussed Latuff's work within the context of Holocaust denial (without ever explicitly describing it as such) is WP:SYNTH and is not enough to make the conclusions you and others are trying to make on his article page. Tiamut 22:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've never compared Palestinians to al-Qaeda, and I never will. I will never compare all Palestinians to hamas either. If you call Simon Wiesenthal Center and European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights not reliable sources I am not sure what is a reliable source for you. I agree that Misplaced Pages in not censored, but, if it is non censored to host anti-Semitic propaganda of hate, it should be put to the right categories otherwise some could think that[REDACTED] is non censored only at one side. --Mbz1 (talk)

Mbz1, I never said the Simon Wiesenthal Center or the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights were not reliable sources. What I said was that using those two sources to conclude what you are concluding about Latuff is WP:SYNTH and its a WP:BLP violation. Neither one of those sources says what you are saying about him. Tiamut 22:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Mbz1, I don't know an inch about the problems between Jews, Palestinians, Nazis or Israelis, but I don't find that this cartoon is calling racists to the Jews. I think when the author says "racist Jews" is saying "those Jews that are racists". The phrase "racist Jews" is ambiguous in this sense, but look at when the author says "AS WELL AS racists who deny human rights to Jews". So the cartoon is against racists, in particular those that are jews, in particular those that attack the Palestinians. Maybe the author, in general can be accused or classified in certain ways, but this cartoon doesn't seem to be a reason.  franklin  23:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again according to European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights its working definition for antisemitism drawing comparison of the contemporary Israeli policy to that of the nazis is an example in which antisemitism manifests itself. This cartoon is doing just that "drawing comparison of the contemporary Israeli policy to that of the nazis". Jews or rather Israelis do not attack Palestinians neither because they are Palestinians nor because they are Muslims. They do not attack Palestinians at all. They attack Palestinian terrorists. Call that "racism" is a racism on its own.--00:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest we close this? NSH001 is warned and Mbz1 is blocked for the now-redacted BLP violation above. No further admin action seems to be required. This is not the place for general discussion about cartoons, antisemitism etc.  Sandstein  00:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Arnoutf distort the facts in and owns the Fethullah Gulen Biography

I started working on Gulen's biography recently and quickly realized that it is not that possible. I would like to raise my oncerns and let the admins be aware of the User:Arnoutf's inappropriate edits on Fethullah Gulen's biography:

1. User:Arnoutf owns the article. He does not prefer collaboration. He declare wars, instead. He does not accept requests for discussions and does not bother convincing others about his edits. He gives impression to naive editors that all other editors should convince him to be able to edit the article.
2. Not surprisingly Arnoutf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was already blocked before due to his edit wars on this page but he does continue exactly the same way.
3. Many naive editors are alienated by his disgusting POV pushing. Among recent a few: VndlRepellent, Hatice w, Madaya2000, meco, Icaz... His main tactic seems to be filing a sockpuppet case immediately once something he dislikes goes on. Surprisingly, his tactic has been working very smoothly. Unfortunately, as far as I could see, most of these editors are blocked indefinitely without a checkuser confirmation by some admins.
4. User:Arnoutf does not improve the article nor working on it. He just blocks others from doing so. He only reverts the uncomfortable facts in his perspective from the article. Please see the history page for many such logs.
5. User:Arnoutf distort the facts based on his seemingly racist/nastionalistic prejudges. Although the islamineurope reference does not mention "segregation of Turks" in this example, he add this incorrect, falsified information deliberately into the article and linking to the reference as if it is mentioned in the reference. A true encyclopedia editor would consider this as the most embarrassing behavior.
6. Arnoutf (talk) is vandalizing the page by blanking verified information and valuable scientific references regardless of the warnings. He is doing this at any time a change against his POV is made and fight back to push his POV. The history page is full of such similar logs.

These are many US based academics working on the area. I would like to suggest inviting an expert, based on newer wiki policy of biographies. Thank you. Wronghumor (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Fernanoteroleono

User:Fran Rogers has been adding incorrect information into two articles with a strong pro-transgender bias (see WP:NPOV). and . He is inserting information that says that men being attracted to men is heterosexual when, in fact, it is homosexual. He then banned me twice for correcting those errors. He is also censoring discussion of his misdeeds, even going so far as to delete it from the page history. This is a very common tactic of corrupt administrators hoping to stay in power. He even created an edit filter to disallow criticism of himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernanoteroleono (talk • contribs) 03:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I was actually going to mention something about this, Fernanoteroleono (talk · contribs) has been creating a ton of re-re-redirects for some reason regarding this article, it seems disruptive. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused here. Are you trying to say you're a sock evading a block? I'm not sure if WP:DUCK or WP:FOOTS applies more here... --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

tagged most of them. Creating redirects with ', ", and whatnot won't help your cause. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, making these redirects will not prove the argument. Indefinite block right off the bat without a warning seems a bit harsh, but a week is warranted after a proper warning. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

After Grawp any pagemove vandalism is a long-term block offense (since it's harder to reverse a move than an edit), especially when coupled with the breaching experimentation. —Jeremy 03:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Chances are in this case the user will just get bored and not make any more accounts, but if they truly have an issue, an account ban isn't going to stop them from being disruptive. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I guess it's irrelevant. User was blocked by Blueboy96. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi all. Say 'hi' to JarlaxleArtemis (talk · contribs) .... again! - Alison 03:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

...I can't believe I mentioned him when we were discussing him. Now it makes a bit more sense - Fran Rogers has been going thru legal proceedings to get JarlaxleArtemis out of our hair, so it's only natural that he goes after her on a public page. —Jeremy 08:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh...Doesn't it get annoying to block and re-block the same person over and over again? I don't know the history of this person, maybe they can't be rehabilitated to the point where they can be a productive editor, but has anybody ever tried? Doc Quintana (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

For your entertainment Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the only way to rehabilitate this type involves a chainsaw and several garbage bags... HalfShadow 04:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If rehabilitation or even the attempt at rehabilitation isn't possible, then you're right, it's best just to indef block, and revert without the drama. They'll come back and the cycle will continue, but the damage to the encyclopedia can be minimized, and that's the key thing. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This kid needs to find a girlfriend or something, jesus christ. Wiki is not World of Warcraft. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

But seriously, would you wish him on any woman? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've edited the section header to something more... appropriate. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 06:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I was confused for a moment when that section header popped up on my watchlist as I thought that some editor was being bold. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Too bold. I changed it to something more fitting of how Administrators should purport themselves. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? If someone regularly does the same ridiculous trick, and ends up getting blocked each time, then why shouldn't we make the thread title slightly humorous in pointing this out. Nothing in the changed title was offensive (he wasn't called a troll or anything, just a sock ,which he obviously was). There is no reason why admins should be so extremely PC as you seem to prefer. Fram (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – Blocked for edit warring. In future, do not post in multiple places, as your post to WP:AN3 was good and the most relevant board to make the report. NJA (t/c) 11:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – Block modified, will seek a new block here if required rather than handing out myself

Resolved – Changed to indef by Zzuuzz. Franamax (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – RfC under preparation, a much more productive step in dispute resolution. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – Not a legal threat - direct user to OTRS. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps revoking his twinkle access may slow down future incidents from happening? Connormah (talk | contribs) 04:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – An admin has blocked the account and oversight has been notified  7  05:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – Blocked 31 hrs by Materialscientist -- 7  06:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards