Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive747

diff - User:Nikkimaria has been edit warring uncited date of birth and has reverted a good faith edit as vandalism - Youreallycan 02:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like she's reverting wholesale blanking. Am I missing something? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to know why YRC's linke takes me to "Staccato, Marcel Worms". You click on "history" or "talk", and it takes you to "Staccato". What nifty trick am I unaware of? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Keilana, and BB: YRC's diff had a typo (since fixed), so it was comparing the version of the page Marcel Worms that Nikkimaria edited to the version of the page Staccato from 4 February 2002. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Weird. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The vandal revert was a misclick, as I acknowledged immediately after making it. The other reverts involved restoration of sourced information. Youreallycan undid edits wholesale multiple times before pointing out that the DOB was unsourced; had he said so earlier, I would have omitted it. However, DOBs generally don't need to be cited unless they're controversial, and given that it was originally added by someone sharing the same last name as the subject, I see no reason to interpret it as such. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The user has just removed an addition I made that exposed two citations were cited to the subjects website - why is that? - Date of births are controversial if uncited - for an admin to edit war an uncited date of birth into a BLP is completely unsupportable within policy - her comments that the date was added by an account with a similar name as the subject and that makes her revert warring it back ok in are incredulous.Youreallycan 02:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Because URLs aren't publishers, and your edit presented them as such. If you'd like to present them properly, you're free to do so. Why do you say DOBs are "controversial if uncited"? Furthermore, had you actually explained what, specifically, you objected to rather than removing large swathes of cited content, this discussion would be a lot more productive. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The admin is continuing to edit war on the article and revert my good faith edits - The user has over 3 reverts ands should be blocked. Youreallycan 02:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Just cleaning up after you. Care to answer the question above? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Nikki's got it wrong on both counts. For one, dates of birth require citations. For another, the URL is where the info is located, no matter who wrote it. If a newspaper prints a column, was that column "published" by the columnist? No, it was published by the newspaper. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The publisher is the name of the publisher, not the URL of the publisher. For example, "New Bay Media", not "www.nbmedia.com". At least that one looks like mindless reverting on the part of Youreallycan. --Laser brain (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

How do you know who the publisher is in this particular case? Just because it has the guy's name in it, Worm-something, doesn't necessarily mean anything. I could have a website called bbblog.com. That doesn't mean some actual guy or company named B. B. Blog is the actual publisher. The best info you have is that the publisher is the URL name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

BB, had he actually said that it was the DOB that concerned him, we could have discussed that. But edits like this remove large sections of cited content for no apparent reason. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

He advised you in the edit summary that the DOB requires a citation. And you should know that anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Eventually, and once he said that I removed it. However, his reverts removed large swathes of cited content and undid helpful edits for no apparent reason. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

As a side note, most of the Dutch article appears to have been written by Marcel Worms himself in 2009> He included his year of birth.[54][55]Mathsci (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The original version here, including the full DOB, was written by someone who is most likely the subject's son. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

In effect, self-published. Totally reliable. Ha. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

He is a well-known pianist and the website is perfectly acceptable for these details. Here's another place where he's mentioned at length.[56] Mathsci (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• You know, there's an article talk page for a reason. Any particular reason you two can't talk to each other? Edit summaries don't count. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Frankly the both of them should be blocked for edit warring. Both know better and this never should have been brought here without some actual attempt at communicating. AniMate 02:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I'd think long and hard before blocking Nikki, unless you have 10 volunteers handy who will cover her workload while she's away. - Dank (push to talk) 03:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm not really planning on blocking Nikkimaria. I'd consider blocking YRC for general disruption. The amount of conflicts he's getting into these days is ridiculous. AniMate 03:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
        • True dat. To how many ANI threads has he been a party in the last month or so? Ravenswing 04:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've spent a while reviewing Youreallycan's history, block log, and so on. Here is a highly relevant bit of history: [57] Back in December, an administrator suggested after the latest round of trouble-making that Youreallycan had a penchant for "absolutism", "faulty judgement", "excessive personalization", "excessive willingness to escalate", and "insensitive / confrontational approach to discussions". At that time, Prioryman suggested mentoring, to which Youreallycan seemed to partially agree, while writing "[I] do not expect to be contributing more than occasionally and with a degree of irregularity". Not only did the mentoring arrangement not seem to materialize, but Youreallycan seems intent on diving headfirst into conflicts left and right and displaying most if not all of the behaviors noted above. This pattern shows an unwillingness to accept community feedback and an inability to engage in behavioral introspection and control. A lengthy block is probably needed. --Laser brain (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Nope - this shows no use of incivil language - which was YRCs primary problem in the past, and trying to inject his block log here is woefully irrelevant. DoBs are routinely considered controversial if anyone considers them so. And suggesting that the messenger should be blocked because of the "number of AN/I threads" is neatly Becketian. Cheers - I think this one is "done." Collect (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't think this is really about the content dispute itself—it's about the way YRC conducts himself, as in the thread I linked from December. The individual problems are only peripheral if he is engaging in one or more of them at all times. I don't see where in my statement I am "injecting his block log"; I only said I reviewed it, which is quite normal for an admin reviewing an AN/I report. Additionally, where did I say he should be blocked because of the number of AN/I threads in which he is involved? Just because someone above me wrote that doesn't mean I'm advocating that position. I suppose AN/I thread involvement is a useful indicator of how conflict-prone someone is, but only as a guide. If someone is either making constant AN/I reports or constantly the subject of them, don't you think that indicates something? I've noticed your m.o. tends to be taking contrarian positions even when the community discusses disciplining a user; may I ask what your reasoning is? Should Wikipedia be akin to Thunderdome? --Laser brain (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I think Laser's got it about right here. OfftoRioRob is passionate about BLPs-- sometimes to the point of missing the forest for the trees. When he's taking on a hard-working widely respected admin over a birthdate and with an issue where he didn't communicate well initially, and then misrepresenting Nikkimaria's vandal revert, which was a mistake she retracted, at ANI, we need to remind him to reign in his passionate stance on BLPs. It's an uncontroversial birthdate, and I'm sorry to see good folks discussing such a minor issue at ANI. Use the talk page, move on. Suggestions of blocking either-- both experienced users-- are over the top. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
        • ↑ This, exactly. I'm going to close this. 28bytes (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Cyber17 (talk · contribs) now socking as ThunderBolt17 (talk · contribs)

Neymar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Need some help, this user is not getting it, I copyedited about half of the article yesterday, before and after.

This user has been changing reffed info back to unsourced, adding non-NPOV peacocky stuff, messing up grammar and so on. I have reached my three revert limit and despite leaving edit summaries asking them to stop, appealing to them on the talk page they just continue putting their version back. diff 1 diff 2 diff 3

Each time the edit summaries seem to imply that they're just adding to the article but they seem to be copy-pasting their text back in, removing the stuff I cited above (for example the bracketed explanation that Peixe is the club's nickname). Proof of this is apparent where this IP's vandalism, which Cyber17 removed in his next edit now appears pasted back in his last edit to the page, see diff 3 above.

I left a level 2 warning about unsourced stuff on his talk page to no effect as well and the user has been notified. I'm off for now but would appreciate some input/action on this. Thanks. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 23:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• There's not much here for an admin to do. I've left a note on their talk page. Competence (linguistic and otherwise) is an issue here; let's see if they revert. If they do, drop me a line. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, saw your tp messages, I was going to bring up competence, seems like you've nailed it. I will keep you posted. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 00:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Bringing this back in case Drmies is not around and before the editor in question copypastes his grammatically incorrect, peacocky version back in. Please see this at my talk and this at Drmies talk for more info/further developments, plus these diffs, proving it's exactly the same user. [58] [59] You need to scroll down a bit to see the peacocky stuff, but you'll also notice the exact same (grammatically incorrect etc.) edits that he keeps putting back in, despite being nformed by both myself and Drmies that this is incorrect. Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

A competence block is probably needed here. If nothing else, a sock block is already required. Blackmane (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. ThunderBolt will be blocked permanently (obvious socking is obvious), the other 17 for a week for avoiding (well, attempting to avoid) scrutiny. Thanks Captain. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries, wow, interesting tool. Thanks for your rapid intervention. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

As a mediator, I am reporting this about a dispute between two editors. Urgent action needs to be taken. CosmicLifeform is edit warring, sending threats through e-mail and personal attacks to SkepticalRaptor for questioning the reliability of a source. Sufficient warnings have been given on CosmicLifeform's talk page. The current DRN discussion has been placed on immediate hiatus. For more information, please see:

1. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Younger_Dryas_discussion
2. [60]
3. User_talk:CosmicLifeform

Hi, I was notified about all this business, but I was only involved in that I reverted an edit by CosmicLifeform, thinking that it was a misguided edit meant for the talk page. I had no idea there was an extensive edit war, for what it's worth. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The claims that I am threatening SkepticalRaptor are patently false as an IP analysis will indicate. Also a quick review of my editing history will reveal that the nature of my edits on the pages in question were demonstrably minor and well founded by the depth and bulk of the scientific literature available on the subject matter and my intimate familiarity with it. Furthermore, my criticism of his familiarity with the established scientific literature were extremely mild and certainly do not constitute an attack on his person, and those criticisms can easily be verified by consulting an unbiased expert in the field. 02:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicLifeform (talk • contribs)

I believe that the alleged threats are off-Wiki. I had to rev/del the edits of another editor (

talk

) 05:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

CosmicLifeform has requested (by email) that I block him. I don't think this is necessary at the moment and am trying to persuade him to change his mind, but am willing to if he doesn't.

talk

) 09:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"Hi there, this is indeed CosmicLifeform, I have discussed this extensively with the Administrator via email and I have formally recused myself from any further editing of Wikipedia pages until I have thoroughly familiarized myself with the software and the Wikipedia philosophy and its rules and regulations. I am totally new to Wikipedia editing and its obvious to me at least that I should not be doing this until I have properly researched it. I apologize for any inconvenience I have caused Wikipedia administrators and editors."—email from CosmicLifeform. He`s going under a voluntary editing cessation. Don`t block unless he continues his disruptive edting. Best regards,

DR goes to Wikimania!

16:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

During a discussion with user

I believe you meant to link to

Talk:Samaritan#Samaritans as a Jewish_subdivision, you have it pluralized above. --kelapstick^(bainuu

) 08:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you K--I should have read your note before browsing. I have warned the offender; the case is closed. The plaintiff is urged not to run to this or any other drama board immediately but to pursue other avenues first, like, talking. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The

I've removed the "Motto: All hail Distributor108", but there appear to be no further occurrences of "Distributor108" in the article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• WP:RFA earlier today. [61]. His rationale for wanting the mop were particularly interesting. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib)
  20:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have indef blocked Distributor108, as this recent outburst, coupled with that block log, does not indicate a constructive or collegial approach to Wikipedia. Any other admin is welcome to adjust the block without needing to consult me, but I would recommend that we should need to see a convincing commitment to work collegially before unblocking. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

  Support the block. Clear issues either of competency or plain disruptiveness. --regentspark (comment) 20:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

  And the proposal of an arbcom case ... Mathsci (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

  Oddly, Distributor108

  Ravensfire (talk

  ) 21:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

  The editors unusual behavior (including the RfA asking specifically so they could monitor the article...wow) is such that I don't think they are capable of understanding now to participate here in a proper way. I would agree that the block was appropriate. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 23:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Except for one problem: Distributor108 didn't add that piece vandalism--it was added by

edit warring on the article page...the proximal cause for this block wasn't him. Given that, I'm not so certain an indefinite block is called for, though a fixed duration block is certainly appropriate for the more general problems. In any event, I'm at a minimum going to explain to Distributor108 that part of the claim on the block notice is wrong. Also, I would like Boing! said Zebedee's opinion on whether or not, given this new information, xe still would have made an indefinite block. Qwyrxian (talk

) 07:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• I was having technical problems with that article, and every time I tried to do a diff or look at a previous revision, I got a server timeout. So I apologise for misidentifying the author of that specific vandalism. But I did also look back at Distributor108's history, and I saw evidence of a long-standing battleground approach, and so I think some sort of block was warranted, even if I got the immediate event wrong. Anyway, I'm happy for any admin to unblock without consulting me, if they feel they have enough of a commitment to approach editing in a more constructive and collegial manner. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I've got a user who's twice removed a large section of material against consensus on the article Hilary Rosen.

• section deleted due to WP: Recentism. Section without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention
• Entire section violated WP: Recentism. You dont insert controversial/questionable information into WP and then demand consensus to remove it. This is not historic. See talk and only insert after consensus

I've tried to explain the inappropriateness to user, but I consider myself already involved and suspect this needs some words from an outside admin. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

To complicate the matter, the subject of the article has been historically active on her own bio, so we have to watch for self promotion / whitewashing. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

A few comments. First, you did not place a notice on the user's Talk page about this discussion; I've done so for you. Second, this appears to be a content dispute that doesn't belong in this forum. You can either keep it on the article Talk page, or you can always start a topic at

There's no genuine debate on the inclusion of the section-- it's a behavior issue, not a content dispute. The article has attracted a lot of self-promotion both historically and recently. The subject is a professional lobbyist/communication strategist with a history of editing her own article-- so I can predict with some certainty we'll need an admin on this article sooner or later. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying you believe CarrieBee is Hilary Rosen? If so, what's your basis for that? I don't think you've done enough to demonstrate a behavioral issue. Besides the issue of whether the section belongs in the article, is there something else?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

No no-- I'm not making that claim to have identified anyone. It's just an issue the page has faced and probably will face again, so admins might want to be watching that article. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I am sorry I am not really sure what this complaint about my behavior involves and it certainly is inappropriate and unwarranted in this context. I am also insulted you would dismiss the very valid points I made as "no genuine debate" and assume ill will on my part. I admit I am new to this and am probably learning about the rules regarding what goes and what doesnt in a WP article - and when the discussion warranted it, I would stand down. But regarding this recent debate on Hillary Rosen there is nothing of that sort and I believe that I have laid out my rationale clearly and politely and sourced it. I have not engaged in any kind of confrontational behavior or resorted to personal attacks questioning someone's intent and personal character/integrity to somehow score sympathy points because I cannot articulate my rationale. Please dont go down that route simply because you cannot support the rationale for your edit. I have done nothing in this recent edit that would warrant that.

Now to the actual topic at hand: please refer to the comment page for both the article and the discussion page. But to summarize my point regarding why I removed the section: I removed it because this is something that was just inserted (i.e. it has not been in the article for a while), it is controversial per WP: Recentism and insertion and keeping of such information ought to be reached through consensus. An editor cannot just go in and add any kind of information they please into any article, not just this one but any, and then insist on keeping it in there unless consensus is reached to remove it. I consider attempts to forgo such a discussion in favor of going behind someone's back to take the "this is a behavioral issue" route pretty unnerving.

So that is why I removed it. Not to vandalize or to pick up a fight or to just get a rise out of people as i am being accused of. Before inserting half a page of info in an article and violating WP: Recentism, I suggest a discussion on the talk page. Once consensus is reached, actions will follow accordingly. Thank you. CarrieBee (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Ms. Bee, how about you extend a wreath, an olive branch, a peace pipe, and remove that rather irksome warning from your user page? It suggests the kind of antagonism that worked well on Crossfire, but is outdated even on the cable "news" channels. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• OK, there is nothing here for an admin to do. This needs to be hashed out on the talk page. Carrie, meet Hector. Hector, meet Carrie. Both of you must have the interest of the project at heart or you wouldn't be here. Hector, there was no need to run to ANI rightaway (REALLY--come on now). Carrie, blanking entire (sourced) sections is generally frowned upon unless they involve serious BLP issues. Continue this on the talk page and rather than fighting over recentism (which by definition is an issue here), consider discussing
  WP:UNDUE. FWIW, I personally think that inclusion is warranted, I disagree that this can be called "historical" by any stretch of the word, and I think that the section can be trimmed perhaps a bit more. I also think that the sky is often blue, and that edit-warring leads to blocks. Now, Hector, you dragged her here--you make the tea. Carrie, you put that combative comment on your user page--you bring the crumpets. Bbb will set the table. Drmies (talk
  ) 23:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate if somebody would notify Vost about this discussion, as she/he has "warned" me that my IP will be "blocked from ever again editing on Wikipedia" if I post on the editor's Talk page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• As requested, Vost has been notified. Monty₈₄₅ 22:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    • The information that I provided on the Louis Farrakhan is in the referenced source. Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) is attempting to obscure the fact that he is removing legitimate edits by declaring that I am "out of control." This is an unsubstantiated and exaggerated claim. I will persist to correct the Farrakhan page as per the reference from the Southern Poverty Law Center. Please communicate to Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) that Wikipedia is not his personal playground for removing and adding information as per his own viewpoints. Vost (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Vost
      • In your peremptory threats to have people who disagree with you blocked, you are, in fact, acting out of control. Characterizing the legitimate warnings of admins (who do have the power to block you) to your talk page as "defacement" does you no good. Ravenswing 22:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Another threat from Vost, this time for a warning I didn't put on her/his Talk page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)