Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive881

Rtc made 2 edits [1], [2] to Germanwings Flight 9525 changing the summary of the info box to read "murder-suicide", both edits were reverted as unreferenced. Rtc alleges that they provided an appropriate reference [3], which is in German, however the Google translation doesn't seem to back this up [4].

Background aside the reason (as an editor who has chosen to stay out of the dispute for fear making things worse) I bring the issue here, is due to Rtc opening up a discussion on the articles talk page in a very combative frame of mind with what I can only describe as a foul mouthed rant [5]. Their last comment on the talk page was to demand that other editors include their preferred change [6] Rtc was given 5 warnings in a space of 20mins for personal attacks/ incivility [7], mainly by Ahunt with one by Prhartcom. The general tone of their contributions to the discussion seems to be one of an unwillingness to co-operate or to accept that others may disagree and that they are in a minority on issue in question.

It may also be worth mentioning the interesting history of the IP editor '179.153.241.50' whose first edit was to complain about the blocking of another editor (due to personal attacks) in a previous discussion about the same issue [8], their only edits have been to this article [9]. Their 2 contributions to the talk page include the deletion of one of Rtc's comments and replacing it with on of their own [10], and one in support of Rtc [11] (the only editor to do so).

I am aware that another involved editor has allready expressed their support for the issue to be raised here (albeit qualified by Rtc making the change again) [12].

Rtc will be informed that the issue has been raised here as soon as this case is submitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintonian (talk • contribs) 04:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I have now informed Rtc [13]. --wintonian ^talk 05:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If sanctions are preventive not punitive, I think this is premature, per this. Although I sometimes wish sanctions could be punitive, if only for the deterrent value. There would have been a better incivility case a few hours before my comment, sorry about that. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I hear you, but as I understand it sanctions aren't necessary the only option available, and a resolution doesn't require there to be sanctions. Beside it's a pity 'preventative sanctions' would not have prevented the tirade of bad language that the discussion started with. --wintonian ^talk 05:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and I think that would have been a viable option then. But people waited a little too long to pull the trigger, and I went and spoiled things by ending the discussion (I think). Unless someone new wants to jump in in support of Rtc's position, I think the discussion is dead. As for non-sanction options, you're referring to the slap on the wrist "stop doing that"? I have yet to see that have any beneficial effect. As far as we know, Rtc has already "stopped doing that" in this case. He has been around long enough to know that that sort of behavior violates

policy, that knowledge didn't stop him in this case, and it's pointless to simply refer him to a policy that he's already aware of. If there's another option I'm missing, I'm all ears. ―Mandruss ☎

05:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I see your point

WP:CONSENSUS are, regardless of whether he agrees or not. ― Padenton|✉

   06:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

That was one of the reasons why I didn't do so earlier as well. The other was that I was waiting for someone more involved to 'pull the trigger'. If this was a new editor then I might of suggested

WP:DRN, but in general I don't think issues around editor conduct are appropreat there. --wintonian ^talk

19:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment uninvolved, except for attempting to figure out what would be a good short summary in the early days. I've added a comment asking people to discuss on talk before changing the infobox - these lines have often been a point of contention in the early days of a frequently edited article.

talk

) 07:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment as an editor (with a seven year editing history) who attempted to update the Germanwings 9525 article to no avail, I can understand and empathise with editor Rtc's frustrations. The pompous highhandedness of certain Wikipedia editors can often drive another to incivility.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

As an editor with a seven year editing history, you should know this: If you feel you have a valid complaint, bring it in a separate thread; but there is no pompous highhandedness exemption in

WP:CIVIL. (I have not interacted previously with you, so it is not my pompous highhandness to which you refer.) ―Mandruss ☎

09:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment Rtc is an editor with a fairly substantial history of hostile interactions. His/her profanity and personal attacks on Talk:Germanwings Flight 9525, even after repeated warnings, in an attempt to get his/her own way on wording in the article made meaningful discussion impossible. This user seems to have a history of this problem and action is warranted. - Ahunt (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment I am fairly new to editing Wikipedia... Never done so before. And it amazes me to see that some people seemingly try to push their own agenda when editing it, as if they were Wikipedia's owners. Several other articles name the thing

murder-suicide, because a handful of editors keep changing it back to "Deliberate flight into terrain" lol! and then they bring this discussion to here... Sounds like censorship to me, sorry to say, guys! 179.153.241.50 (talk

) 12:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

and by the way... Maybe he wasn't too civil with his comment, but I'm also kind of mad at the way the editing is taking place. Why are some editors reverting every single change when it comes to

murder-suicide) show no respect to the victims. I'm truly disappointed with Wikipedia. 179.153.241.50 (talk

) 12:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Now look at this "It may also be worth mentioning the interesting history of the IP editor '179.153.241.50' " You must be joking if you are trying to imply we are the same people. I have edited the article because I'm disgusted at the way some are trying to conceal the fact it was murder-suicide. I'm from Brazil, and as far as I can tell the guy who complained about the punishment of some other editor is from the UK... Don't come up with false accusations, it only proves the fact that you are being censors here rather than contributors. 179.153.241.50 (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I was not trying to imply anything and I am quite happy to assume your edits are sincere and of

good faith. However it also appeared to me that other editors might find them relevant to the discussion - or they may not. It is always unfortunate when new editors get caught up in things like this, for that I am happy to offer my apologies. Although in my humble opinion, criticizing the block of another user wasn't perhaps the best way to make your first edit. --wintonian ^talk

20:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

(ec) There is an ongoing investigation into this crash. Wikipedia can't contain

original research on what the situation looks like but reports what reliable sources can document. Coverage of recent events usually changes and deepens as time passes and more details emerge from official investigations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!}

12:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello! :) That's why I proposed the article to name it "suspected

murder-suicide by the mentally weak co-pilot, and the guy planned it in advance, so he clearly had the intention of killing himself and everybody else inside the ill-fated plane. I really hope that someone with a more neutral stand than those editors above take over and prevent them from edit-warring and reverting every single part of the article that does not comply with their personal info. since they accused me of being those two other guys... Let me accuse them as well: I think they are working for Lufthansa and are trying to conceal the fact that the company neglected that one of their pilots had a history of suicidal thoughts!!! lol -179.153.241.50 (talk

) 12:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

As

WP:CIVIL Flat Out let's discuss it

12:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

We also do not come to this page to resolve content disputes, which is what you're talking about. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I THINK the same is true for those other editors involved. They should start by reading the five pillars of Wikipedia. Instead of pointing their fingers at someone, they should look at themselves first, because the way the are acting is no less offending than RTC's - -179.153.241.50 (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This is completely the wrong venue for debating content changes to the article, that should be discussed on the talk page. This discussion is about one editor's abusive behaviour and whether action needs to be taken on that. - Ahunt (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sorry. Well, my opinion is that he shouldn't be punished. If he's to be punished, then let's punish all other editors involved as well. He may have sounded harsh, but that was probably a reaction out of his frustration, which was caused in the first place because of the way those editors are pushing their own agendas in that article, as if they were owners of Wikipedia or something. -179.153.241.50 (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

There was only one editor using profanity and being uncivil.

WP:CIVIL is a requirement and you should not be making excuses for his/her bad behaviour and blaming it on other editors who were trying to have a polite debate. - Ahunt (talk

) 14:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

179.153.241.50, if you think that there has been misconduct by editors that violates Wikipedia standards, you need to provide evidence (diffs) that support your claim. Otherwise, your words, if directed at specific editors, could be seen as personal attacks. If you need help creating diffs, see Help:Diff for guidance but you might consider opening up a new case rather than adding more information on to this one. Also know that if you post a new discussion thread at AN/I (or really any noticeboard), your own behavior might be examined at the same time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and your reply. I don't know how all of that works, and I have little energy to waste arguing with them... That's why I didn't even bother using an account to post here. This environment looks way too hostile to newcomers, and sadly I have no interest in joining it, because those arguments are extremely frustrating, and so is the way those people behave. -179.153.241.50 (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This is an obvious attempt to get me blocked merely because I am arguing against the outlandish views of a small group of editors that attempt to censor from the article the fact that the case is highly suspected to be murder-suicide, enforcing the

• "A European official government official with detailed knowledge of the investigation said that Lubitz's actions amount to 'premeditated murder.'" CNN
• "The pilot is suspected of intentionally flying a Germanwings plane into the French Alps in an apparent murder-suicide."telegraph
• "this appears to be a case of murder-suicide"BBC
• "Murder-suicide by plane: What drove Lubitz to do it?"Washington Post
• "Andreas Lubitz: Co-pilot of Germanwings flight 9525 'wanted to destroy plane in suicide and mass murder mission'"independent
• "murder-suicide pilot Andreas Lubitz"mirror
• "The Germanwings Mass Murder–Suicide Shows the Importance of Depression Intervention"new republic
• "German murder-suicide pilot Andreas Lubitz" NY Post

(There are many more.)

However, the group of editors claim that the fact that an overwhelming number of reliable sources highly suspect this to be a case of murder-suicide is insignificant, because of supposedly "WP:RS are not entirely reliable" (19:23, 2 April 2015) and "It does not matter if multiple sources have confirmed it as suicide, because no one cares about that", with

I don't think this is an attempt at censorship. The fact you are asserting might be shown to be accurate. What editors are saying is that currently, this matter is the subject of an official investigation and until their results are published, any comments about issues like the motivation of the copilot are speculation, even if these speculation from anonymous officials appears in sources that are viewed as reliable (though I would question the reliability of the NY Post about anything). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not speculation to state the simple fact that this is highly suspected to be murder-suicide in an ongoing investigation. And the suspicion is obviously not speculation either, since this is an evidence-based investigation. Both flight recorders, personell records, medical records, the contents of the co-pilots search history, a video apparently filmed by one of the passenger all very clearly point towards this conclusion, so it is obviously a completely reasonable suspicion and I do not see why Wikipedia should not mention that it exists, despite the abundance of reliable sources. And, even assuming you were right, I cannot see how using the phrase "Deliberate flight into terrain" defended by the other editors, for which no source exists, could possibly be any less problematic in this respect. And btw, "murder-suicide" has nothing whatsoever to do with "motivation". In fact, a deliberate flight into terrain by itself already IS murder-suicide. It is the well-sourced term of murder-suicide disguisded in an unsourced phrase. --rtc (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rtc: I like how you keep claiming I "fell silent" as if that supports your case.

1. I don't live on Wikipedia. I have other stuff I need to do with my time, such as go to class and study, as well as go outside (especially on the first nice day of the year where I live).
2. You demonstrated from the beginning of the discussion that you had no interest in even reading anyone else's opinion. Several times you pretended to think we wanted completely different changes than our arguments indicated in order to provide a source confirming something we already acknowledged. Why should I waste my time in a content discussion with you? ― Padenton|✉   17:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how your life could possibly be relevant here, let alone support your case. And of course I have read, and replied to, all significant opinions that were voiced. --rtc (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The only clear personal attack I found was bullshitty editors like you, but

WP:CIVIL is about more than personal attacks. Have you read any of it? Do you claim that you have not violated it? Or do you claim an exemption because you're right as to the content? If the latter, can you point to that exemption in the policy? If not, exactly what leg do you have to stand on in this case? Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for guidance on resolving content disputes. ―Mandruss ☎

17:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm sympathetic to the view of 179.153.241.50 but will say it's normal in Wikipedia to use understated phrasing and be very conservative about using charged terms like "murder-suicide". The best argument for using that description in the article would be a solid source that uses the exact same phrase. The reference[14] whose removal Rtc objected to[15] doesn't use that term, and in fact I don't think it even calls the incident a suicide. Someone who reads German could check, but I think it only says the co-pilot was found to have looked for information about suicide with a search engine.

  "Deliberate flight into terrain" does appear to be a neologism, but it's based on the standard aviation term controlled flight into terrain (CFIT), which normally means a pilot flew an airworthy plane into a mountain by accident (typically a combination of poor visibility and navigation mistakes, as opposed to something like mechanical failure). "Deliberate" just emphasizes that in this case it happened on purpose so I'm ok with that phrasing. An alternative might be something like "intentional CFIT" if that works better for you.

  Anyway my suggestion re the content dispute is for 179.153.241.50 and Rtc to temporarily accept the DFIT phrasing as imperfect but usable; if "murder-suicide" is better then sourcing using it should appear within a few weeks. Our saying is there is no deadline (given that this is just a quibble over phrasing rather than about a factual error). If no such sourcing appears then DFIT is ok after all. I'd advise 179.153.241.50 to relax, using sedate language is in the Wikipedia style and it's fairly typical (unfortunately) for the processes to be a bit bureaucratic. You'll get used to it after a while (welcome to Wikipedia by the way).

  I'd urge Rtc to dial back the hostility which I think has gone past what most of us would consider to be collegial. I won't support administrative intervention at the moment since I think it's best to first just ask the person to take the advice on board, which is what I'm doing now. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

  You are falling for the spin of the other editors. Those editors do not dispute that the exact term "murder-suicide" is used by many solid sources. They claim "WP:RS are not entirely reliable" and "It does not matter if multiple sources have confirmed it as suicide, because no one cares about that". They justify this opinion with their own "knowledge" which I have clearly shown to be false. See above. No, I will not "temporarily accept the DFIT phrasing as imperfect but usable". That I am even asked for this proves my point that this is not about an alleged WP:CIVIL violation, but about trying to block an editor because he disagrees with the "consensus". --rtc (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

You were not brought here for disagreeing with consensus, you were brought here for flagrant incivility. If you would stop defecting, just apologize and promise to stop all the profanity that might be sufficient to close this case. - Ahunt (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure I was brought here for disagreeing with consensus. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. You are inventing WP:CIVIL violations as a pretext to get me blocked because my arguments are convincingly refuting the "consensus" opinion. It does not violate WP:CIVIL to disagree with the "consensus". In fact, WP:CIVIL warns that "editors may seem oversensitive when their views are challenged" --rtc (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I raised the issue here as I thought; 1, the language (mainly in the beginning) was unnecessary and was almost a foul mouthed wall of abuse containing little constructive value. 2, What appeared to me to be a generally hostile and combative attitude. 3, An apparent unwillingness to see things from the point of view of others, unless the change you were demanding was implemented. -- I think the advice above given by

WP:3RR has not been broken, so this remains a difference of opinion) and in any case this isn't the correct noticeboard in order to do so. --wintonian ^talk

22:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

"An apparent unwillingness to see things from the point of view of others" proves that the rest of your allegations is only pretext and that the true reason for trying to get me blocked is that you want me to agree with the "consensus", to change my point of view to be in line with the "consensus" view. It does not violate WP:CIVIL to have a point of view different from the "consensus". --rtc (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

1, I have nor mentioned or even suggested anything with regards to a block. If I have then please provide diffs, I'm sorry to say but you do come across as a little paranoid on this point. 2, You are of course perfectly entailed to your point of view as are other people, the caveat is that when doing so editors must express them in a civilised manner that is in the spirit of collaboration. --wintonian ^talk 22:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This page is for requesting blocks against users, and whether you do that explicitely or not, your opening comment will be understood and acted upon as such a request against me. This is not a page for general discussion. I think you know that pretty clearly. And I do not believe you for a second when you say "I was not trying to imply anything" after you pointed so intensely at the "interesting history of the IP editor '179.153.241.50'". If you did not want to imply anything, why did you even mention it? If you do not want me to get blocked, why are you posting here? --rtc (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

No one is saying that you can't disagree with the consensus view. Consensus doesn't mean 100% agreement among all editors. But the consensus has more influence over shaping the wording and tone of an article than a minority point of view. See

WP:TE for guidance on how consensus is handled on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!}

23:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean with "But the consensus has more influence over shaping the wording and tone of an article than a minority point of view"? Nobody has to agree to some specific percentage or at all with the "consensus". --rtc (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course, no single editor has to agree with the consensus point of view. But if there is a difference of opinion on issues like sources or weight of points of view, the issues are decided by the consensus of editors working on the article in talk page discussions. Please read

WP:TE and can be a blockable offense. That, along with PA and civility, is the basis of the case brought against you here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!}

23:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming again and again that the true purpose of this is to get me blocked because I disagree with the consensus. No, it's not a blockable offense. You are taking essays like

WP:TE too serious, which try to advance exactly this collectivist point of view that one has a duty to conform to the consensus. You should try to be more critical about them. --rtc (talk

) 23:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)The blurb at the top of this page says;This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors. Where does it say that this noticeboard can only be used to request user blocks? I have already offered my apologies to 179.153.241.50 for involving them here, but I genuinely wasn't sure if their involvement would be of interest (or not) [16], something I am happy to reiterate here. However I do consider it relevant (and supportive your to you) to mention that you did have the support of another editor, even if it would be better done in a different context. --wintonian ^talk 23:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Right, user block requests are not the only requests that require intervention of administrators, others occasions might be requests to delete something form history, to delete an article, or block or semi-block a page. However, since you are bringing up me as an user, your request is automatically interpreted as a user blocking request, for there is no other way in which it could be understood as "requiring the intervention of administrators". If you do not want to request a user block against me, this is definitely the wrong page and you should take back your request. --rtc (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

break 1

(

NAC: Panewithholder indeffed by Nakon after another round of trolling. BMK (talk) 04:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved from Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard § User:Panewithholder

 – Nothing requiring bureaucrat action, only general admin action. ansh666 21:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

In the just closed RfA of this user, who self-nommed 2 days after creating his account, I made a comment about not knowing whether the intent of the nomination was trolling or not -- now I believe that it was. In this edit to the Teahouse, the editor replaces an IP sig with his own sig, explaining that he made the previous edit while logged out. This establishes that IP --

WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. I suggest a block is in order. BMK (talk

) 06:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@

open channel

) 06:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:BURO BMK (talk

) 14:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree:

Join WP Japan

! 16:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd also point anyone looking into this at User talk:Panewithholder#Administrator and Bureaucrat userboxes - completely inappropriate. ansh666 21:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Indef block - I !voted against this editor in their recent Rfa and feel a responsibility to speak out here. Claiming they are an admin and 'crat on their user page is the last straw. It's an open-and-shut case of disruptive editing. Let's pull the plug and move on. Jusdafax 21:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This suggests that they're

not here. At the RfA they admitted to being a control-freak, and because they cannot have adminship, they seem to be trying to claim illegitimate authority. Joseph2302 (talk

) 21:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete my account; I wikiquit! Panewithholder (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Updates to their userpage here and here suggest they're going to quit Wikipedia. Although I'd still support a block for their actions. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Especially given this and this, after their post above. --bonadea contributions talk 22:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• We have more than enough for an immediate indef now, in my view. Jusdafax 22:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly support, this user is
  WP:NOTHERE. Joseph2302 (talk
  ) 22:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• User has been blocked for 31 hours, if anyone wishes to extend this, please feel free to do so without contacting me. Nakon 22:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

My guess is that either the user has not read

talk

) 23:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• I hereby must continue to respectfully request an indef block for this series of incidents. 31 hours is likely not enough. Otherwise, this disruptive editor will most likely be back, wasting our time. Jusdafax 00:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Well he did say he quit, so maybe we can just count on not coming back? Kharkiv07^Talk 01:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Panewithholder came to me upset over an edit he reverted on his second day, and I thought he was just a very inexperienced new wikipedian, and attempted to provide some gentle guidance. I'm beginning to suspect that may be in vain. Simonm223 (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Painwithholder is not here to build an encyclopedia. I think an indef IP autoblock is in order. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 10:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I apologize everybody for my little "edit rage" as it appears. My co-worker borrowed my computer at my office a few days ago and well... he was a wiki troll. I am here to build an encyclopedia. I'm sorry for the disruption in the community Panewithholder (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.