Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive575

IMHO, the IP's use of English was better than Ludvikus. Then again, I appear to have already made an blunder by

BWilkins ←track

) 13:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Involved admin in topic areas shouldn't be using ops in any kind of regard. Ryulong was desysopped not too long ago with ArbCom making very clear statements to this effect. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocking of “A” “nationalists” [10] – looks like support of “B” "nationalists" [11]. May be such definitely not easy issues better to be handled not by opera prolific editor with a big admin guns?94.179.181.178 (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm late for the party, but if you read the entire talkpage, there is 5v3, not 3v3 as indicated above. Hope, that says it all. Moreschi's actions are entirely justified, no need for a storm in a teacup. Brand[t] 21:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The blocking policy makes it clear that involved admins are not justified. By making such a claim as you do above, you do not benefit to Moreschi, but you undermine your future credibility in responses. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, the majority of your response is quite counterproductive, and I think you appear to have troubles accepting that anyones opinion can be different to yours. This is highlighted by your choice to focus on Brand's last sentence which is his opinion on the merits of this, rather than on his first sentence which notes a useful fact that there were clear issues with the filing complaint to begin with. This is further problematic when you bring up a user's credibility - neither is it needed at this discussion (or by policy), nor is it appropriate. By contrast, your first sentence would have been both appropriate and sufficient, on its own. You really need to start taking on the advice you were given during your previous block (or when it was lifted): to change your approach in responding to others, particularly those you disagree with. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocking policy is rather clear. It is not "opinion" based. If you disagree, please look at many ArbCom cases with such individual desysopped. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand why Moreschi is being criticized here. Let's have a look at the history of the article. The article was merged after the discussion at talk by User:NickPenguin [12], an editor, who has previously never been involved in AA issues. Gazifikator reverted the merge, [13] and started an edit war, despite the fact that he was placed on 1 rv per week parole. Gazifikator got blocked twice for edit warring on this article, trying to undo the merge. First time he was blocked by Sandstein, [14] and second time by Moreschi: [15] When edit warring on Radical Islamism became problematic for Gazifikator, it was suspiciously picked up by SPAs and anon IPs. First it was reverted by an obvious SPA Ptrustct (talk · contribs): [16], and then twice by 91.210.40.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). [17] [18] This pretty much looks like meatpuppeting, as the sock and the anon were continuing the edit war led by Gazifikator. Note that once the article got semiprotected, and edit warring using anon IPs became impossible, Gazifikator resumed the edit war on that article: [19] To me this looks like an off-wiki coordinated effort. And then when the redirect got permanently protected, Gazifikator took it here, complaining about the admin who protected it. I'm surprised that no one takes any notice of disruption by Gazifikator, of the off wiki coordinated edit warring with the use of SPAs, but the admin who tried to stop the disruption became a target of criticism. If someone is not happy with the merge, there are procedures for contesting it, but edit warring should not be tolerated and encouraged, especially when it involves violation of editing restrictions and apparent meatpuppeting. Grandmaster 06:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Noticed this from a Wikiquette thread. User:190.25.80.226 has made legal threats (claims he is being discriminated against) on Talk:Involuntary_euthanasia. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 05:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Which specific edit are you referring too? It would help a lot if you provided a diff.

Chillum

05:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to get a diff, but the user makes many edits in succession, and I can't yet find it. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 05:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Got it. [20] [21]. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 05:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a description of the "Euthanasia is murder" multiple IP spree disruption incident up a few incidents. I have blocked this IP for 48 hrs. Please block any more IPs participating in this as well.

If they won't slow down generating new IPs, consider rangeblocks and/or semiprotection of pages. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive/warring editor (and perhapsdefinitely blockable on that alone), but not legal threat IMO. DMacks (talk) 05:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Tweaked after looking at previous discussion of this edit pattern. DMacks (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Disruption and whining, but I don't see a legal threat there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the article for two weeks. Hopefully the block works, but he jumps IPs pretty often. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Why you protected the article? why you blocked me? It was not a legal threat, even the user who asked if that was a threat realized it was not a threat, that happened more than two hours ago, the thing was resolved and we continued discussing the article content!!! Now you blocked me saying that I was editing warring, but since we were discussing in the talk page two hours ago, I made no editions to the article. Should I think that this is a way to avoid the discussion because a lack of arguments and sources? 190.25.110.56 (talk) 05:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

¿Cómo se dice "disruptive" en español? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"...The Committee is well aware that the new Act does not as such decriminalize euthanasia and assisted suicide...The new Act contains, however, a number of conditions under which the physician is not punishable when he or she terminates the life of a person"

UN - Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee : Netherlands.[22]

And involuntary euthanasia is defined as a crime, be it as a murder be it as a assited suicide, that is a legal fact, why do you think it is disruptive and a pretext to block me??? see the source. Actually we were not discussing if that was true but if it was pertinent to include that information on the article and where. 190.25.110.56 (talk) 05:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not what it says in the quote box you posted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

To the anon - we will block any IP you use in this series of edits and protect any page, until you agree to stop

use wikipedia to fight your external political or social battles

.

What you are doing here is a gross violation of why Wikipedia exists and is offensive to our core goals and purpose of existence. Please stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Then what is the source saying? it is an example of the Netherlands, and says that euthanasia has not be decriminalized, it means it is still a crime. And I refered to the Netherlands because it is the only country were the involuntary euthanasia on new born has beeen declared not punishable and you can read that the definition of involuntary euthanasia in this wikipedia refers to that specific case!!!. 190.25.106.87 (talk) 06:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop this. We can block the entire IP range you're coming from if need be, and protect this page if necessary, along with all the others you're contributing to. You're being unspeakably rude to us by behaving in this manner. Stop now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Instead discussing the thing you are just blocking me. Even although I'm not editing the article, and eventhough I'm providing the reliable sources and arguments anyone asks for. I'm just inviting you to the discuss page. Let us continue in the talk page of the article instead of threating with blocks. When you arrived with your blocks we were already discussing the thing there, and I was trying to reach a consensus, for example, I was asking and waiting for a reliable source which demonstrates that the legal definition of involuntary euthanasia is NOT relevant to define it as whole. Now I will also wait for a reliable source showing that involuntary euthanasia is not a crime in some country on the world. Asking for those sources is a violation of the wikipedia policies? 190.25.110.182 (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Your contributions to date, and your approach to "discussing this", have been unspeakably rude and abusive by Wikipedia standards. If you do not stop this behavior we will stop you by blocking anonymous editing on the pages you're discussing on and if necessary blocking the IP ranges you are editing from temporarily.

Please believe me when I say that both:

• Your behavior has been unacceptable over the last day or so.
• We can stop you, and we will if you do not stop behaving badly.

If you actually intend to discuss this in a reasonable manner and in the appropriate places we will not do either of those things. But your comments so far have been grossly unacceptable. Please stop that behavior rather than force us to stop you. What you have done is grossly counterproductive. If you actually care about the topic and point you are trying to make, please look back at your behavior and think about it, and then change that behavior.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for the sources and the arguments. You are the one accusing, threating and blocking. If you think you are right, it is not my ethical problem. Three hours ago when I was warned and invited to discuss in the talk page instead of editing, I understood the right proceeding, I went to discuss the thing and I stopped editing, and anyone can see that we were discussing, in fact I was waiting for the answers to my questions, until you arrived blocking me and the pages. 190.25.98.152 (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This page has been semi-protected for the next six hours (or until another administrator judges that this incident is over). If you continue this harrassment behavior on other pages we will block your IP range. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

190.25.0.0/16 is soft blocked for 6 hours. Note that J.Delanoy had to do this on Sept 27 of this year over their earlier behavior - this user is intermittent but persistent. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Kmweber (talk · contribs) has begun editing again, and asked on GlassCobra's talk page for his user and user talk pages to be unprotected. I have done so, and have also undeleted the histories of both those pages. I vaguely remember some drama around the time that Kurt left the community, so I would appreciate it if someone could look over my actions. Thanks, NW (Talk) 18:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the user vanished. Vanished means vanished; it's not the same as a wikibreak. Majorly talk 18:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This was the state of the ban proposal during which Kurt retired. I don't think there was consensus to ban then and he seemed to acknowledge that his behaviour had been disruptive in a way that he had not intended, so unless there have been developments between then and now, I don't see why he does not deserve a wait and see approach.

barbarian 

18:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the consensus to ban was pretty apparent, but was made moot by the retirement of Kurt. If Kurt wants to edit again, then the obvious thing to do is to make a new account; if he stays away from the type of interaction that got people so exasperated then there will be no reason for the accounts to be linked. I don't know why Kurt is so keen to reactivate the old account, and am afraid that is indicates that Kurt still does not "get it" why people previously complained about him. That said, I would not be adverse to the content editor that previously edited as Kmweber returning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you would want him to create a new account. We should encourage him to stick to the old account if anything. Whether or not he should be allowed to edit is another matter altogether. And he did not

talk • contribs

) 18:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Doug is right. Creating a new account would make it look as if he tried to trick the community into thinking he was a new user. Just let him edit from the old account, if he does exhibit a problematic editing pattern again, we can act upon it when it happens. It's not as if he does not know that. Regards SoWhy 19:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

And looking back at the discussion, I do not see a consensus for an outright ban. A topic ban restricting him to article and article talk space does appear to have been getting solid support but I concur that we should let him edit and wait and see what he does. Has anybody talked to him about his choice to come back?--

talk • contribs

) 19:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I just notified him of this thread on his talk page. I note that he returned on the 9th with four edits in the article/talk space and two edits yesterday, one in article space and one requesting assistance from an admin with a deleted page. That plus the request for unprotection don't give me a whole lot of concern yet. I think we can close this thread as resolved in that no one has suggested that NW's unprotection was improper.--

talk • contribs

) 19:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I unprotected the talk page to let him do what he needs and so the tabs look right for other editors.Mitch32⁽The Password is... See here!) 20:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the community ban part, but it's certainly clear that there are a lot of people who would be happy if he refrains from posting in

WP:RFA indefinitely. If he wants to prove to his detractors that he is interested in making good faith contributions to Wikipedia, I strongly advise him to stay far away from there. -- llywrch (talk

) 20:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The rfa stuff is fine; there's a fucking huge slab of text there now about ignoring some votes. anyone running for admin who doesn't even read the rfa rules doesn't deserve to pass. anyone who thinks he's trolling shouldn't be feeding his. anyone who thinks his point needs rebuttal can e pointed to the fucking huge slab of text, and reminded that closing vote counters ignore his votes. He's a lot less disruptive than many other editors. (eg most frequent poster here) Remember Civility (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

With a name like that & all of those f-bombs in your post, I figure you live under a bridge yourself & have nothing to contribute here. -- llywrch (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

A general comment. Please stop recommending that past banned users should start up new accounts. Apart from the fact that such an action is technically possible (thought see Durova for an argument that evasion is eventually futile), it does us no good to suggest that obscuring account history is valuable. We have this bizarre community hallucination about the ideal banned editor who starts up a new account and edits productively outside a narrow topic area that got them banned. That either describes an exceptionally narrow band of editors or stems from rampant wishful thinking on the part of a community known for wishful thinking. I'm not disputing that some bans are de facto topic bans and that circumventing those bans may actually result in a net-good, just arguing that the track record is pretty shitty. The blanket suggestion should look like this: for bans imposed hastily or unilaterally, some unblock or unban without conditions should be considered (or with a topic ban as a sole condition). For bans imposed after some time (as KM's was), the standard offer should be extended. Not this garbage about starting a new account. Protonk (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Also a specific comment. Linking to the most recent ban for KMW obscures the fact that prior bans and topic bans had been enacted. Full disclosure, I supported one of the ban proposals after he left a particularly nasty comment to a new user on AN. But if he is back and wants to act like an adult, then welcome back. Protonk (talk) 08:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I was going to make a rather snarky addition to this discussion, but re-wrote my comment here because Protonk is 100% correct. The Wikipedia community has an amazing capacity for giving people second chances and AGF in the rehabilitation of formerly-former editors. If Kurt is willing to stop doing the things that nearly got him banned last time, then welcome back. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, let's give Kurt a chance to show us what he can do, and hope that he knows enough to stay away from RFA.

talk

) 20:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm no fan of Kurt's, and I never have been, but he's been away for almost a year, lets at least give him a chance to prove that he's changed his ways. He can easily be banned if he starts up with the same stuff as last time, but I think that the potential good if he just sticks to contributing in the mainspace is too tempting to just pass up. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC).

Weber was facing a total ban for months of trolling and harassment, and there was finally a consensus forming to get rid of him, and we allowed him to vanish on the proviso he wouldn't come back. However, I'm showing him some good faith, because he might have grown up over the past year (although, if he's still an Objectivist...). So I support allowing him back, on the provision that this is absolutely his final chance. If it even looks like he's going to start trolling or harassing people, he's gone and won't be back. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – An administrator has rectified the situation. --Favonian (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

We have a bit of trouble with an editor who on three occasions ([23],[24],[25]) has moved articles about fairly notable athletes to names under which they are not commonly known. According to the edit summaries this was done in order to make room for the creation of articles about other persons. The first two moves were undone by administrators, but now he is at it again. The third move is in fact a repeat of the first one. The editor has been notified that such moves are not appropriate, but this does not seem to have had the desired effect. Favonian (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A recent

As it hardly surprisingly closed non-consensus, the same nominator,

Resolved

 – IP blocked, talk page locked. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The IP 74.99.83.3 (contributions) is posting all over the place with demands that all "content" about User:FrancisLightHouse should be removed from Wikipedia. No actual legal threats, but needs to be nipped in the bud all the same, I think. It's probably a sock of the user. --bonadea contributions talk 16:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Left a stern note/final warning. If they post again, they'll be blocked. TNXMan 16:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Not having read this message, I have blocked the IP 6 months for block evasion as well as deleted and salted the previously-recreated user talk pages. If any other admin desires to undo my block and/or deletions, I am open to that. However, I know that everytime this vandal comes back, he is up to no good (just like a similar vandal that deals with courthouses). MuZemike 17:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Tnxman, for going over your head. MuZemike 17:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries here. TNXMan 18:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Didn't see this thread until now. Reviewed an unblock request, then found the IP refactoring my comments, adding their own unblock accepted template, and other, similar shenanigans - so I locked the talk page. I think we're done here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I already reported it at

I personally don't care one way or the other, but the IP has made almost no attempt to open a discussion concerning their changes beyond screaming about it on the talk pages of the article in question and then deciding that they'd 'discussed' it. I'm only reverting because he appears to be doing this without consensus. HalfShadow (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

All Music Guide says post grunge and neo prog. if A Beautiful Lie is an emo album, under the heading "Styles" there was written "emo". So, there aren't the sources thay say "30 Seconds to Mars is emo". Please, read the review.--151.49.225.4 (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to thank the IP address for pointing this out, the source that they are referring to is being misinterpreted. Let me explain; the "styles" section are not genres and do not warrant what is written on a Wikipedia article's genre section. Either way or another, this still would have "emo" stated, because emo is mentioned at the end of the allmusic review for 30 Seconds to Mars' A Beautiful Lie album. This IP address continuously denies this, and continuously edit wars, I've left this IP address already four warnings and should be blocked. -- GunMetal Angel 18:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

To GunMetal Angel: Please don't use WP:AIV for content disputes. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that's kind of my fault; I wasn't sure exactly where he should being this up. AIV seemed the best place. HalfShadow (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

At this point, on the content dispute, both parties appear to be in a 3RR violation on the page. I've posted warnings to the talk page of both 151.49.225.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Gunmetal Angel (talk · contribs). This needs to be resolved on the talk page, not endless reverts. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: A new IP (

quack test suggests the new IP is being used as a sockpuppet to attempt to circumvent the 3RR warning. --- Barek (talk • contribs

) - 21:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If the review says that the album is emo, it was referred like here. Please, discuss on the talk page.--Loverdrive (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Both Muntuwandi as well as Captain Occam are placed on a 0RR restriction for 1 month

--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In July, the user Muntuwandi was unbanned from Wikipedia under the condition that he follow 1RR and avoid engaging in disruptive behavior. However, over the past three weeks he has been violating these conditions, and multiple attempts to resolve this issue with him on his userpage have been futile.

Most of Muntuwandi’s disruptive behavior has been related to the Race and genetics article, and his desire to remove a certain image from it. Each time that he tries to remove it, he’s cited a different Wikipedia policy that he claimed it was violating; justification he’s given for removing it include original research, unreliable source material, that it’s “misleading”, and the availability of a better image. He’s also nominated it for deletion at Wikimedia commons based on based on the claim that it violates its source material’s copyright. Since none of these claims from him are rule violations per se, I don’t think it’s necessary to provide diffs for them, but the relevant point is that his desire for this image to be removed is not based on any one specific policy. Each time that one of his efforts to remove it based on a particular policy has failed, he’s begun a new attempt to remove it based on an entirely different policy; I don’t think he disputes this fact.

The important point here is the one reason for removing this image that Muntuwandi has brought up again and again, which is based on a personal attack and nothing else. Muntuwandi has found some of what I’ve written about this topic at a website outside Wikipedia, and based on what he’s inferred about my motives from what I’ve written there, he’s come to the conclusion that my motive for editing this article is not acceptable. Several of the times that he’s removed this image from the article, it has been because he dislikes my motives and for no other reason, such as this diff—he did not explain this removal on the basis of anything wrong with the image itself, but only that he believed me to have been intending to push a POV when I added it to the article.

Here’s a brief history of Muntuwandi’s use of personal attacks as a justification for this image’s removal:

Oct. 24: (1): “Occam on his talk page and blog has stated that he believes that there is a "biological basis for the concept of race".”

Oct. 25: (2): “On your blog, you state that this image proves that there is a biological basis for race. You have introduced the very image into the article race and genetics. It is pretty clear to me that you are trying to use this image in the article to prove that there is a biological basis for race.”

After the first two examples of this, I warned him on his userpage that this behavior from him was a violation of NPA policy. However, his behavior did not change.

His next personal attack, on October 28th: (3): “Occam stated on his blog that he believes that his image proves that there is a biological basis for race, though the authors of the image make no such proclamation... Occam has been insisting on using this image and he would like the community to pretend that the comments on his blog don't exist.”

At around the same time as this comment, his violated 1RR on the Race and genetics article, with two removals of the image (1) and (2), which were a little less than 21 hours apart. Because of this violation as well as his continued personal attacks, I warned him about this behavior on his userpage a second time.

Here is his latest personal attack, from earlier today: (4): “Naturally I don't expect you to care about such, since the most important thing for you is to show an image that you believe proves the existence of biological races.”

As can be seen from his response to me on his userpage the first time I warned him about this, Muntuwandi has tried to justify these personal attacks based of the fact that I linked to my DeviantArt gallery (it’s not actually a blog, but he can call it that if he wants) in a discussion with someone else in my user talk. However, this is irrelevant to the problem I have with his behavior, because my problem is not that I mind anyone knowing about what I’ve written elsewhere. As I’ve explained to him multiple times, the way in which he’s violating Wikipeda’s policies is by trying to get this image removed by attacking the contributor who added it, rather than the content itself. As pointed out by Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing, everybody has a bias, and the fact that any particular editor is biased does not matter as long as their contributions follow Wikipedia’s policies. But despite how many times I’ve pointed this out to Muntuwandi, he is continuing attack my motives as a reason why my contributions to this article aren’t acceptable, regardless of whether he can find a policy that my contributions violate or not.

There’s no end to this in sight. Neither of my attempts to resolve this issue with Muntuwandi on his userpage have made any difference, and neither does the fact that of the four editors currently involved in this article, (him, me, Varoon Arya and David.Kane), he is the only one who wants this image removed. His repeated attempts at this, citing a new Wikipedia policy after each of his earlier attempts based on another policy has failed, have filled more than half of the article’s total discussion—that is, including all of the archives—which could be considered a disruption even if it weren’t for his violation of 1RR and his repeated personal attacks. I think some admin intervention is necessary at this point. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User notified per

FWIW, and not the central point, that image is from 1994, and there ought to be a more accurate one available, considering all the work that has been done in the following 15 years on genetics of human populations. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There might be, but the section of the article that currently includes this image is discussing the research of one specific person--Luigi Cavalli-Sforza--and this image is one of the most frequently-reproduced representations of his results. The current reason for including it is just as an illustration of Cavalli-Sforza's research in particular.

In any case, I'd rather not debate about the content of the article here, since a content dispute wasn't my reason for posting here. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure where to begin so as to add as little to the [[WP::DRAMA]]. What Captain Occam fails to mention is:

• Captain Occam has been reverted on this by several other editors. One of the main objections (raised by at least 4 editors that I'm aware) was that the graph was not taken from Cavalli-Sforza, but from Jensen, who has been criticized for misinterpreting Cavalli-Sforza's results for his own ends.
• Muntuwandi in his objections has always relied on content policies (he's cited more than one, true) and not on Captain Occam's words on his own site.
• I fail to see how most of Muntuwandi's observations can be construed as personal attacks (personal attack = "you're an idiot" or something similar), although I can understand that Muntuwandi's guessing about Captain Occam's motives may have irritated him.
• Captain Occam's behavior, both on that page and on
  tendentious editing
  in its own right.

In conclusion, all I see here is basically a bitter content dispute, and little in the way of sanctionable behaviour. I'd say let the drama end here and point this dispute back to its talk page where it belongs.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of raising this issue at ANI as well. To start with, there is an essay at

WP:SPA. Captain Occam made this image file:populations.png, and uploaded it to the article Race and genetics. Captain Occam also placed a link on his talk[26] to his personal blog

in which Captain Occam states about the image

This image can be considered a visual representation of my argument against the claim that there’s no biological basis for the concept of race, which is a popular belief among sociologists.

It is not unreasonable to think that Captain Occam is insisting on using this image, because he believes that "it proves that there is a biological basis for race" as stated on his blog. I have therefore suggested that Captain Occam may be violating

WP:ADVOCACY. This is because the author of the original image, Cavalli-Sforza, stated that this image should not be interpreted "racially". Captain Occam's racial interpretation of this image is his own original thought and personal opinion, and it would appear that he is trying to use this image as a way to skillfully advocate his opinion on wikipedia. Wapondaponda (talk

) 23:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

However, whether there is anything wrong with the actual content of the article does not appear to matter to you, because you believe that my motives are unacceptable, even if there’s nothing wrong with my edits themselves. You are supposed to criticize edits on the basis of the edits themselves, not the motives of the editors who made them. This has been pointed out to you multiple times, but each time you ignore it. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User Mutuwandi has clearly broken his 1RR condition by repeated removing the graph.

Off2riorob (talk

) 23:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a semi-formal community, one cannot make comments off-wiki and expect wikipedians to switch off and pretend that those comments were not made, especially if they relate to a wikipedia article. I have cited many policy issues regarding the image but this has mainly because Occam has shown little interest in the surrounding text and the article in general, which I believe is consistent with

WP:SYNTH issues. I have removed the image for this reason. I have further stated that if indeed Occam had good faith intentions with using the image, then he or Aryaman, should write up text that is consistent with the source of the image and include it in the article. Occam or Aryaman have yet to do so but are claiming that I am edit warring when I have suggested what I believe, and hope others will too, is a reasonable compromise that an editor acting in good faith would definitely consider. Wapondaponda (talk

) 00:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Claiming that the article has synthesis issues is acceptable, although Varoon Arya has addressed this point the previous time you made it, and I suppose we can discuss this issue on the article talk page after this report is resolved, if the resolution doesn’t involve your ban being reinstated. But you’ve already made it clear that the reason you keep searching for new policies that you think this image violates is because you don’t approve of my motives for adding it. That’s the one point that you won’t stop bringing up, and as such it’s what I’d like to discuss here. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Muntuwandi has removed this image, which was added on July 4th with (as far as I can tell from the history) no negative response from any of the other involved editors, at least 5 times:

• October 16 ([27]) with the edit summary: "image meant to push a POV".
• October 24 ([28]) with the edit summary: "removed misleading image"
• October 27 ([29]) with the edit summary: " caption says "one of eight genetic groups to which all human populations belong", not what Cavalli-Sforza says"
• October 28 ([30]) with the edit summary: "replaced image with dendograms related to genetic distance matrix"
• November 1 ([31]) with the edit summary: "some reorganization especially human genetic variation"

Muntuwandi is fully aware that his/her actions are considered unwarranted by at least three other editors, and yet persists in removing the image with the apparent approval of one other editor (who has also removed the image at least 3 times ([32], [33], [34]). The reasons Muntuwandi provided for his/her actions changed every time s/he removed the image, and even when Occam made efforts to satisfy his/her concerns, Muntuwandi persisted in having the image removed.

I tried to diffuse the situation by suggesting a compromise between Muntuwandi and Occam in the form of an entirely new image, and began trying to discuss the issue with Muntuwandi in a rational manner. Just when the discussion seemed to be moving in a positive direction, Muntuwandi performed this edit, which not only removed the image yet again, but which also made substantial unilateral changes to the very section under discussion. Now he refuses a compromise, and instead insists that his preferred text and image be presented along side what other editors are proposing.

I was only recently made aware of the fact that Muntuwandi was formerly User:Earl J. Redneck III and was banned for disruptive behavior. I have tried hard to help resolve this dispute, but I find Muntuwandi unreasonable on this point. --Aryaman (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that you have cherry picked your diffs

• Image removed on 22 October by Ramdrake
• Image removed on 25 October by Wobble
• Image removed on 25 October by Ramdrake

So please don't give the impression that I have been unilaterally removing the image, or that there is near unanimous support for the image. I am no saint, but Aryaman is not exactly a saint either. I have seen some grumblings from other editors about Varoon Arya and Civil POV pushing [35]. His introduction on his user page is quite provocative. I believe he is entitled to his own opinion, but one wonders whether he can be neutral party in a dispute. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, a prime example of Muntuwandi's weird style of argumentation. This incident report is about Muntuwandi's behavior, not about the article, and not even about the image. I limited my comments to the appropriate scope accordingly, but he criticizes me for "cherry-picking" my diffs, ignoring the fact that such a thing in this context is expected. And what does my personal opinion on another, tangentially related topic have to do with Muntuwandi's behavior? Only Muntuwandi knows. --Aryaman (talk) 01:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, I think it’s worth pointing out that since October 26th—that is, for the past week—you have been the only person who’s continued to remove this image. You’re removed it a total of three times since then; this can be seen from the last three diffs that Aryaman posted, as well as the article’s edit history. You may not be the only editor who had issues with this image at first, but now that I’ve addressed some of the concerns that were originally raised about it, it appears that at this point you really are the only editor who still wants to remove it. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just noticed that no decision was ever made in response to this report from September about Muntuwandi edit warring on another article. Since that report apparently remains open, I encourage administrators to consider it in addition to this one in whatever decision they make. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's make this easy for you...

You're both edit warring over the image. I don't care to delve into correctness of the content issue.

Rather than pick one of you as "at fault" here I am simply imposing the following - you are both on 0RR (may not revert, in any way) on the article

Race and Genetics

, for the next month (as you've been doing this for at least that long so far). You both should have known better than to do this, and could have handled it in another nonconfrontational manner. Both of you are playing the abusive edits game - and you're both on time out.

If you can edit the article without reverting anyone over the next month, feel free. I don't see any sign you're being disruptive other than with the edit warring. But revert and be blocked.

Cc'ed at ANI, User talk:Captain Occam, and User talk:Muntuwandi Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and:

WHACK!

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi George, I understand that you have tried to create an "easy solution" to the crisis. But I have to disagree because this is not an necessarily an "easy problem". Captain Occam has been described by other editors as clearly "belligerent". He has already racked up two blocks for edit warring within the last month per his block log. He has openly asserted that he will engage in edit warring [36] and he has also stated that he intends not to engage in consensus building with myself because there is no need since I am on a 1RR probation, he will simply revert my edits [37]. Per his blog, Captain Occam has stated on his blog that he has a particular point of view, and that he intends to advocate it on Wikipedia. I have no demonstrable point of view regarding this article and I am simply interested in improving it. I don't know whether removing the image 5 times over a period of about 3 weeks is intense edit warring, I recall Occam having made about 10 reverts in a single day. My removal of the image may in fact help to improve the article. Occam stated on his blog that he hadn't read the original paper in which the image was published, stating Since I haven’t read Cavalli-Sforza’s original paper, this image is based mostly on Arthur Jensen’s analysis of Cavalli-Sforza’s results in The g Factor. After others had pointed out that Jensen is not a specialist in genetics, the general consensus was that the image could easily be misrepresented. Since then Occam has said he has read Cavalli-Sforza original paper and changed the sourcing from Jensen to Cavalli-Sforza. Lastly I have not said that I oppose the images that Aryaman and Occam propose under all circumstances. I have suggested that they can use their image if the cited correctly

WP:SYNTH by not combining information from several different sources, all of which are Wikipedia guidelines. All this is on Talk:Race and genetics. Should I therefore have restrictions placed upon me for following wikipedia's guidelines to try to improve the article. Wapondaponda (talk

) 06:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

But you wouldn’t be violating that policy, now would you? --Captain Occam (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don’t think this is the best decision. The relevant point here wasn’t the edit warring; it was that Muntuwandi was violating the 1RR that he had been placed under when he was unbanned. Since I didn’t have this restriction, the fact that I was reverting this article as often as he was shouldn’t have been the same type of problem in my own case.

This isn’t a content issue, and I’ve been trying to avoid the content disputes that other editors have been bringing up in this thread. It’s just an issue of whether Muntuwandi’s conduct has been violating the terms of his probation.

The fact that he’s been making personal attacks isn’t a content issue either, and that was the most important issue I wanted to resolve here, since both of my attempts to resolve it on his userpage have been unsuccessful. Is no one going to respond to this aspect of my report? --Captain Occam (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You are both misbehaving in a very public manner and place. The fate of editors who do that is usually short and unfortunate. Would you both please accept the Trout of Shame and knock it off, before I or another admin takes sterner action? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I’m willing to accept your 0RR decision, but I’d like you (or someone else) to do something about the original topic of this report, which is Muntuwandi’s continued personal attacks. 0RR will not do anything to stop him continuing to make these attacks against other users on talk pages. The newest one in Muntuwandi’s last comment here is probably his most serious so far—claiming that I have specifically stated that I intend to engage in

WP:ADVOCACY

. I’m quite certain that I’ve never said this, and that Muntuwandi does not have any evidence to support his claim that I have.

Because of ongoing nature of this issue, and the fact that resolving it with Muntuwandi on his userpage has been impossible, I’ll probably need to file another AN/I report about it if it can’t be addressed in response to this one. Since this issue was intended to be the primary topic of my report, though, I would prefer if it could be resolved here. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I (FWIW) support Georgewilliamherbert 0RR on the disputed article on both editors for a month, this still means that you can add as much cited content to the article as you like, and can join in or start discussion on the article talk page. This editing restriction will hopefully help to reduce the tension between you two.

Off2riorob (talk

) 13:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the perfect solution because Captain Occam and Varoon Arya work in tandem while Muntuwandi seems to be working alone and will likely suffer more with a 0RR restriction but, short of delving into content, I can't see anything better. Muntuwandi, if you remain unsatisfied with the compromise being worked out on the talk page you can always consider an RFC to attract wider input. Meanwhile, I guess this thread can be closed. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:118.138.192.123 has been slow edit warring on Socialist Alternative (Australia) over the inclusion, or non-inclusion, of various student union office bearers. The problem isn't the content dispute; but, rather, that the IP has stated they will continue removal, and has ignored Talk: and User talk: discussions on the point, and warnings. What do you do with an otherwise well behaved IP who has a bee in their bonnet and won't discuss?

Discussion attempts: Talk:Socialist_Alternative_(Australia)#Notability_of_current_members User talk discussion attempts and warnings to discuss: User_talk:118.138.192.123 Example of stated willingness to continue without discussion: User_talk:Fifelfoo#Re:_Socialist_Alternative Edit history of nine reversions without discussion since September: Special:Contributions/118.138.192.123

Advice, help? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment from a non-admin: Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Lists_of_people does not specifically mention student union office bearers. It mentions alumni, but says that "only those with verifiable notability" should be listed. It also says "On the other hand, a list within an article of past school presidents can contain all past presidents, not just those who are independently notable" - but whether this would include Student Union office bearers is debateable. My take on this would be that Union Office bearers should only be included if the appointment is for more than a year. Some offices are for a few years, others for one year. I would say that any President/VP/General Secretary could possibly be considered notable, whereas "Education Officer", "Welfare Officers" and the like would not be. But that is merely my take on this - the policy does not appear to be clear-cut in this particular case, so I would be interested in what admins would say. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 01:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

  Hi Steve, I don't know if you know the Australian union systems, but usually the President, General Secretary and Education officer (due to disposable budget) are significant local positions. VPs tend to be sinecures in non-militant student unions (cough cough). The other context is that Australia's relatively unitary student unions system means that holding local yearly positions influences the weight a faction exerts on the National Union of Students (Australia). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks for that, Fifelfoo - but as I said, I'm not an admin! I'd be interested in seeing what an admin will have to say about this though - this is a learning opportunity for me to get to know policy better. Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 02:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• User:118.138.192.123 advises that they can't edit this page to comment here. They've noted their opinion at Talk:Socialist Alternative (Australia) Fifelfoo (talk)
• In my defence, I am only removing irrelevant information. The people are not notable, they are student representatives within a group. Why not mention in the Labor Party's page people from Labor aligned groups who are office bearers? Or members of other groups who are also? I'm making the article concise, and contain only relevant information. The people are not noteworthy, and thus do not need to be mentioned on wikipedia. The only reason it seems these people would want their names to remain on the page is to gain some form of recognition by the public, which shows they'd only be using their positions as a way to become known and get somewhere further in life. (Career Politicians?) Either way. I will not remove the information until I've been given the go-ahead to do so, but I do not see why these people require their names up there, nor how they'd be considered 'notable' enough to be mentioned anyway. The NUS people, yes, I understand why they're notable, they represent the australian student population at large, but office bearers of individual universities do not and thus do not seem as noteworthy. Either way, as per what was said, these people do not meet the "only those with verifiable notability" criteria. 118.138.192.123 (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is primarily a content dispute, and administrators aren't "super-users" in the sense of possessing extra authority in content disputes. Whilst there may come a time when administrative action against one or other party is required for edit-warring, I don't think that point has been reached yet. So I don't think there's really a need for admin intervention; the solution will hopefully come if participation in the discussion can be broadened in an effort to reach consensus. The suggestion of a

Can someone ask the foundation lawyer if there's specific action we need to take if there's any death threat against the US president, even if those threats aren't particularly credible? I think the feds take all such things seriously, and want them to be reported. I don't know if not reporting them is a problem or not. Please could that be clarified, by the person responsible for WP legal stuff? Remember Civility (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Such things are almost always reported, for two reasons - first, to stop the harm from occuring, if it's indeed going to occur. Second, we're not equipped to judge which threats of violence are credible and which are not - so if someone threatens to kill someone, and we ignore it, and they actually do kill someone, the project and the foundation are placed in a tricky legal situation (and, obviously, we have the tragedy of someone dying as well). So, both to discourage such things, and to prevent harm, we report them. Reported or not, do you have the diff or article where the threat is? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In general, the way it works is:

1. A diff or user is reported here; they get blocked.
2. If necessary, a checkuser finds a general location for the user making the threat so that law enforcement can more easily pinpoint the perp
3. A user in the area will contact local law enforcement (or in this case, anyone in the US can call the FBI). If a checkuser was needed, the checkuser can provide limited information to the user calling the cops to assist in their investigation.
4. Cops take it from there.
   a/c
   ) 16:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. Sorry for the odd placement of my question and lack of heading. I'd meant to add it under a relevant AN/I report, where it seems like stuff was just being blanked without authorities being informed. Remember Civility (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)