Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
←Blanked the page
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}}
{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}} __NEWSECTIONLINK__{{Template:Active editnotice}}<!--
template:User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 700K
|counter = 255
|minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(2d)
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d -->{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|archiveprefix=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive
|format=%%i
|age=48
|index=no
|numberstart=255
|minkeepthreads= 4
|maxarchsize= 700000
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive<#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}<!--
----------------------------------------------------------
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
----------------------------------------------------------


--></noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure}}

== [[WP:PUF]] backlog ==
{{atop|1=Thanks for the notification, interested admins will see it and [[WP:ALLBACKLOGS|the backlog will be worked on eventually]]. <span style="13px Sylfaen;color:white;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">☺&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User:Salvidrim!|<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;"><span style="color:white">Salvidrim!</span></span>]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:Salvidrim!|<span style="color:white">&#9993;</span>]]</span> 21:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)}}
Just a notice that there is an immense 3 month backlog over at [[WP:PUF]]. [[User:Ramaksoud2000|Ramaksoud2000]] <sup>('''[[User talk:Ramaksoud2000|Talk to me]]''')</sup> 07:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
: Now only two and a half months.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 11:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== [[Sea Shepherd Conservation Society]] ==

{{la|Sea Shepherd Conservation Society}}

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has a long history of reverts and edit warring with three full protections in the last three months. The last 100 revisions are mostly users edit warring over content (as opposed to obvious vandalism). Given the amount of disruption caused by edit warring on the page I propose that the article be placed on a [[WP:1RR|one revert restriction]] which applies to both unregistered and registered users with the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#3RR exemptions|standard exceptions]] for at least 6 months. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 01:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
:Most of the disruption to this article in recent months has been by ''one'' unregistered editor who obviously has several IPs available to him. Initially his edits added new content to the lead, contrary to [[WP:LEAD]], which quite clearly states "''significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article''".[https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society&diff=577496908&oldid=576500661] Those edits also added a non-NPOV slant to the lead, instead of simply summarising the significant points in the article in a neutral format. After that he started adding non-NPOV content to the article, which was removed by another editor.[https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society&diff=577674816&oldid=577666543] At the same time he started adding the article to categories while it was already in a subcat of these.[https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society&diff=577665043&oldid=577662961] Ultimately, community opinion was against him. At two TfDs two contentious categories were deleted and opinion was that the article not be included in the categories that the IP was adding.[https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_25#Category:Organizations_accused_of_piracy][https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_28#Category:Organizations_accused_of_eco-terrorism] Most recently the disruption by the same editor was as a result of him again ignoring WP:LEAD, replacing content that summarised what was already in the article, with excessively detailed information that was not discussed elsewhere in the article.[https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society&diff=586100163&oldid=585506878] WP:LEAD quite clearly says this shouldn't be done but the IP won't acknowledge this. In fact, he won't acknowledge or discuss any policy or guideline that he is referred to. His personal motto seems to be [[WP:IDHT|"I don't hear that"]]. Instead of following [[WP:BRD]] and [[WP:STATUSQUO]] he has his own guideline: BRAREFDIS - BOLD, revert, announce on the talk page why he's going to restore the content, restore the contentious content, edit-war until he's warned, force the article to be protected, finally start discussing, ignore any mention of policies or guidelines so he doesn't have to justify his edits, disappear and start again in a few weeks. I don't see that 1RR is going to be effective in combating this type of disruption. Because of the willingness of this editor to edit-war with multiple editors, it's just going to result in contentious edits being protected from removal. Most of the contentious edits to this article don't warrant protection at all and we shouldn't be protecting disruptive editors like this when they are clearly editing on the wrong side of the Wikipedia community opinion. --[[User:AussieLegend|'''<span style="color:green;">Aussie</span><span style="color:gold;">Legend</span>''']] ([[User talk:AussieLegend#top|<big>✉</big>]]) 04:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
::Looking at the article history, I get a clear sense of "one versus many". When the "one" is using lots of IP addresses, the best approach is semiprotection. Only if the "many" are enforcing something that's at variance with our policies do we need to have outside intervention, and even if that's the case (I've not checked the content in question with enough care to offer an opinion about that here), the editwarring and its consequent instability are definitely not helpful; it would be better off semiprotected while administrative intervention is being sought. And if it's not at variance with project policies, the "one" obviously is going against some consensus and needs to stop or be stopped. In my mind, we'd do better to semiprotect. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 04:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
:::In fact, that's exactly what I asked for,[https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=589181746] not once, but back in October as well.[https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=577813260] --[[User:AussieLegend|'''<span style="color:green;">Aussie</span><span style="color:gold;">Legend</span>''']] ([[User talk:AussieLegend#top|<big>✉</big>]]) 04:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

== Indef blocked [[User:Trongphu]] still socking ==

It's bad enough that indef blocked [[User:Trongphu]] used IP socks in order to ask for a nonsensical unblock, which was rightfully closed (see [http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#user:trongphu this thread] just above), but now he's posted to [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken&diff=589261932&oldid=589258446 my talk page], and that of [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nil_Einne&diff=prev&oldid=589263164 Nil Einne], whining about the (predictable) result. Would an admin please block the IPs this indef-blocked editor is using:

*67.4.216.151
*75.168.162.171 (already blocked by Sandstein)
*97.116.161.109

"Blocked" means '''''<u>blocked</u>''''', something this editor seems not to to understand. That they claim to be a sysop on vi.wiki gives me great concern, but there's nothing we can do about that. [[User:Beyond My Ken|BMK, Grouchy Realist]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 09:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
:Actually, looking at [http://toolserver.org/~quentinv57/sulinfo/Trongphu Trongphu's SUL info], it appears he's only a rollbacker and autopatrolled on vi.wiki, so his claim that he's a sysop appears to be [http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Trongphu a lie]. [[User:Beyond My Ken|BMK, Grouchy Realist]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 09:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
::To be fair, what he claimed was that he is a sysop on vi wiktionary, and that is true. [[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] ([[User talk:JohnCD|talk]]) 13:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
:::Ah, I miseaad that, thanks for the correction. [[User:Beyond My Ken|BMK, Grouchy Realist]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 20:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

:I deny that the outcome of Trongphu's block request was predictable. Asking for an unblock after 2 years was perfectly OK. Keeping the user blocked on the English Wikipedia serves no apparent purpose other than perhaps satisfying certain ill-tempered editors' need to humiliate others. I left some further comments at [[User talk:Trongphu]] before I noticed this new thread.
:The following edit comment by Beyond My Comment was way out of order and is what first made me interested in this case: "You're a total, loser, pure and simple, and you've sullied my clean and empty talk page. I pity vi.wiki if you are one of those in charge. I think I'll have to reconsider Eric Corbett's position about shutting down the lesser Wikipedias." [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken&diff=prev&oldid=589264201] This edit comment turned out to be BMK's pathetic response to Trongphu's pathetic response to BMK's mobbing action in the original thread. Trongphu should not have reacted in this way, but that's no reason to keep them blocked after two years when they don't even want to edit here. Trongphu has argued that editors in other projects are drawing incorrect conclusions from the fact that Trongphu can't get unblocked here, and that's perfectly plausible.
:<s>By the way, Beyond My Ken: Your old account doesn't seem to exist anymore, so I can't check your old block log. I read somewhere that you had several blocks for incivility. I wonder if one of them was indefinite. If so, then for obvious reasons (given my obsession with hypocrisy) I would be very curious whether you provided the kind of guarantee that you would reform your behaviour that your are now requiring of Trongphu. [[User talk:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] 13:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)</s>
::{{ping|Hans Adler}} it's [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ABefore%20My%20Ken here] and [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ABetween%20My%20Ken here]. [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius#top|talk]]) 17:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
:::Ah, thanks. So it was only one incivility block, for only 3 hours, and by Sarek of all people. Striking my comment accordingly. [[User talk:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] 18:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
::::Sorry that my block log disappointed you, Hans Adler, but then, you're often wrong about many things, so I'm sure you're used to it by now. [[User:Beyond My Ken|BMK, Grouchy Realist]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 20:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
:::::So I take it I was wrong when I mentioned "certain ill-tempered editors' need to humiliate others"? Any alternative explanations available for what happened? [[User talk:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] 14:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
::::::Gee, Hans, I suppose it could be exactly what it appears to be, an editor amazed and appalled at a weird, unnecessary and nonsensical unblock request. No, I guess not, because that would mean that someone you disagreed with wasn't an awful human being, and we '''''know''''' that can't be the case. [[User:Beyond My Ken|BMK, Grouchy Realist]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 22:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
:::::::I see. So your excuse is a total lack of empathy or intercultural competence. In retrospect that's even plausible. Sorry to hear about that problem. [[User talk:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] 15:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

* Why can't we just close this thread and let the unblock ticket request system handle this case? The response to a personal attack should not be another personal attack, especially about other wikis, because that clearly doesn't lead to any good constructive discussions. [[User:TeleComNasSprVen|TeleComNasSprVen]] ([[User talk:TeleComNasSprVen|talk]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/TeleComNasSprVen|contribs]]) 23:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I have blanked the sock template on the userpage, which in the context of a former editor trying to disengage, is seriously counterproductive. I would have done the same on the talkpage, but did not want to disturb the message there. Has any administrator actually evaluated the original unblock request, i.e. whether the original infraction warrants a block of more than two years, and whether a less restrictive alternative is available? [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 15:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I've changed their block to reinstate talk page access. At least they will have the ability to dialog and possibly post another {{tl|unblock}} message. Two years is more than enough, and they've not been socking over the last two years in any meaningful way (IP edits today notwithstanding). At least give them right to reply ''from'' their talk page - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family: comic sans ms">'''A<font color= "#FF7C0A">l<font color= "#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 07:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

== [[Ancient Egyptian race controversy]], [[DNA history of Egypt]], [[Black Egyptian Hypothesis]], [[Population history of Egypt]]-5 to 6 years of editor proliferation of articles, WP:Ownership and POV pushing ==
{{collapse top|How many venues is this going to be reported in? This is essentially a content issue: just because you disagree with the position of the other editors involved doesn't turn it into a behavioral issue that admins would deal with. In any case, if it '''''was''''' a behavioral issue, these noticeboards are not well disposed to deal with the long-term behavior of multiple editors. If the OP '''''really''''' feels this is a behavioral problem, then an ArbCom case would seem to be the way to go - but he or she should be prepared to be told that it's a content issue. Collapsing. [[User:Beyond My Ken|BMK, Grouchy Realist]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 01:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)}}

'''All DRNs have been withdrawn or deleted, ANI was deleted due to DRNs. This is a major conduct and not a content issue and I would like to have my voice heard and the voice of other editors who have been intimidated, drowned out and outmaneuvered by this small cadre of editors and their friends over the past 5-6 years. Possible options are user bans, topic bans and other suggestions brought up by countless of editors in AN, ANI and DRNs of these same exact editors over 5-6 years as the evidence below shows. This is the evidence so far but I am compiling more. I just want to be heard by the administrators. If I become one of the many other editors who are driven out of Wikipedia as the evidence below shows because of this so be it. Let this stand as a record.'''

Over the past 5-6 years a small cadre of editors have become "brothers of faith" to proliferate multiple articles about nearly identical topics, assert WP:Ownership over these pages and POV push and drive away editors who do not affirm their point of view. This has gone largely unchecked, although the complaints by less experienced editors facing these roadblocks to editors are legion. Their creation of these many articles on the same topic has allowed them to exhaust the time and patience of any editor attempting to include any viewpoint in these articles that they do not agree with. In contrast, miscited or misrepresented content that does support their POV remains unchecked and unaddressed and remains stable in the articles for years, one example of this is: [[Talk:DNA history of Egypt#How could everyone miss this for so long?]] which was left intact by this small cadre of editors while constructive edits were thwarted. The talk page of one of these editors, wdford, in fact lays out the tactics used by this small cadre of editors quite explicitly and quite well by these "brothers of the faith."

Who: Editors involved, some in the small cadre of "brothers of faith,"and others who have attempted to oppose it-Dougweller, Aua, wdford,, yalens, dbachmann, eyetruth, ( some who've attempted to oppose:drlewisphd, Dailey78)

What: A small cadre of editors have pushed their POV over the past 5-6 years thwarting any attempts to include material that dimishes their point of view, helped by their proliferation of multiple articles on almost exactly the same topics to exhaust the time and patience of editors, especially inexperienced ones, forced to discuss on four separate talk pages any inclusions of information in these four articles that offends their POV

When:Over the past 5-6 years, from 2008

Where: [[Ancient Egyptian race controversy]]/[[Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy]], [[Black Egyptian Hypothesis]]/[[Talk:Black Egyptian Hypothesis]], [[DNA history of Egypt]]/[[Talk:DNA history of Egypt]], [[Population history of Egypt]]/[[Talk:Population history of Egypt]], and probably many more related articles regarding race of ancient Egyptians, but these are the ones I have been active on and am actually aware of

Why: Pushing their POV, confusing and confounding any editors attempting to make changes that offend their point of view, creating ownership of the topic, supporting their "brothers of the faith."

How:As this is done systematically over 5-6 years, many editors who lack the time and patience to deal with multiple talk pages over many years and many many editors are confounded in their attempts to include information that offends their POV. Intimidation tactics for any editors who attempt, like that experienced by me, are legion and do not violate the letter although they violate the spirit of Wikipedia as a collaborative forum.


===Evidence from Article Revision Histories and Article Talk Pages===
{{Collapse top|title=Collapsed for readability (of AN); click to view the collection of evidence.}}
---------'''Ancient Egyptian race controversy''': [[Ancient Egyptian race controversy]]
*'''Created''': 15 August 2008 by '''Moreschi''' ("Created page with ''''Controversy surrounding the race of ancient Egyptians''' have been a persistent meme in [[Afrocentrism|A...'") Diff: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy&diff=589270673&oldid=232143867

------------'''DNA history of Egypt''':[[DNA history of Egypt]]
*'''Created''': 4 February 2013 by '''Wdford''' ("created a new article from material in DNA history of Ancient Egypt" Diff: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=DNA_history_of_Egypt&diff=589290149&oldid=536543540

-----------'''Population history of Egypt''':[[Population history of Egypt]]
*'''Created''': 15 June 2009 by '''Dbachmann''' ("import from Ancient Egyptian race controversy"): Diff:https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Population_history_of_Egypt&diff=589290764&oldid=296502182

-------------'''Black Egyptian Hypothesis''':[[Black Egyptian Hypothesis]]
*'''Created''': 17 October 2012 by '''Wdford''' ("created new artcle as a spin-off from Ancient Egyptian race controversy") Diff:https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Black_Egyptian_Hypothesis&diff=589287690&oldid=518274123

-------------'''[DELETED AND REDIRECTED TO DNA HISTORY OF EGYPT on 4 February 2013:'''DNA History of Ancient Egypt''':[[DNA history of Ancient Egypt-https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=DNA_history_of_Ancient_Egypt&redirect=no]
*'''Created''': 18 January 2013 by '''Wdford''' ("created a new article to collect and rationalize material on this topic in various other articles." Diff:https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=DNA_history_of_Ancient_Egypt&diff=539005592&oldid=533667717
{{Collapse bottom}}

===Evidence from Dispute Notice Board/Administrator Notice Boards===
{{Collapse top|title=Collapsed for readability (of AN); click to view the collection of evidence.}}
----*'''Aua'''
-----*'''Dbachmann'''
'''JUNE 2009 FILED BY WAPONDAPONDA (SUBSEQUENTLY BLOCKED AS SOCKPUPPET) AGAINST DBACHMANN, also involving WDFORD, and ADMINISTRATORS-Ancient Egyptian race controversy'''

'''Link''':http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive548

'''Selected Comments''':
*'''The administrator User:Hiberniantears has reverted and protected the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy. This in my opinion appears to be a violation of WP:PREFER.'''The administrator has reverted to a version that is four months old. Regular editors to the article had worked to build a consensus over the last four months, and within one day it has been reverted. A thread was posted on the fringe theories notice board Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy. But user who posted this thread, '''Dbachmann,''' didn't make any notification on the Talk:Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy. So to our surprise, all of a sudden we have users reverting to a four month old version without even discussing on the talk page. [1]. I believe that such type of editing is inflammatory. We have not had edit warring on this article for two months '''and it has been resurrected by users who are not willing to reach a compromise and gain consensus.''' Wapondaponda (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
*"'''I want to assume good faith, but it is not helpful if an administrator reverts and protects an article.''' It just does not leave a good impression at all when there is a content dispute. There is no reason to believe that Moreschi's version is as good as any other version, he is an editor like the rest of us, and I will argue that we have proved him wrong. We have worked on this article for the last four months, we have not had edit warring, and the last time the article was protected was four months ago. '''Within one day Dbachmann makes some unilateral edits and the everything falls apart. I think it is pretty obvious who is causing trouble here.''' Wapondaponda (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)"
*"If you had Assumed Good Faith yourself, and actually read the latest version (i.e. excluding '''Dbachmann's''' damage) you would have noted that there is no unbalance in the content, the mainstream opinion is clearly stated in all sections, all content is closely referenced, and all content closely links to the title. Why did you instead revert the article to an arbitrary, seriously-incomplete and useless version, without engaging the many editors who actually worked on this article? Please unblock this article, re-instate the months of work that have built this article up since this deliberately-useless version, and instead block Dbachmann from making unilateral edits to this article without first achieving consensus. '''Wdford''' (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)"
*"'''This appears to be one of those things where there's a request for comment which does not get anything solved which is followed by a request for comment after another month or so which results in several users being banned from editing anything involving ancient Egypt.''' Is there a way we can cut out the middlemen here and simply allow the community to dole these things out, thereby preserving the content of Ancient Egyptian race controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | views) from point of view editors?—'''Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:44, 18 June 2009'''(UTC)"
*"Try again. '''I'm suggesting that we put topic bans in place for everyone who can't agree to disagree.'''—'''Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:14, 20 June 2009''' (UTC)"
*"It seems that whichever way we turn there stands some admin with an array of WP:WHATEVER-THE-HELL to block that avenue, all seemingly aimed at preventing the substance of the debate from being aired. Scientology has an article that dicusses in detail the substance of the viewpoint, as does Timewave Zero and many others. Why should this particular controversy be so ruthlessly suppressed? '''Wdford''' (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC"

*Resolved: User:Wapondaponda has been indef blocked by an amazing admin.

*'''User:Wapondaponda is a sock of User:Muntuwandi and a checkuser should easily corroborate this.''' I had high hopes that s/he could edit productively but clearly that is not the case. '''A number of the redlinked editors involved here are most probably socks of this user or other banned users. '''Good luck. Feel free to send me an email if you need more more corroboration of primary claim above.PelleSmith (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)"
*"Interesting to watch the process unfold. While you are dotting things etc, please review the Policy - using various user names is actually allowed (although I can't understand why) as long as the various accounts are not used in concert for destructive purposes. '''Per Dominic's CheckUser review, seemingly Wapondaponda has not broken the rules on this article - even assuming they are indeed all the same person.''' "Similar editing habits" doesn't automatically make them the same person - for instance we have a few admins on this very article who are showing very similar preferences in suppressing material - is that allowed, or should we block them too? Per the CU policy you need to follow a fair amount of red tape before doing a CU review - were those rules all followed, or do those rules not count when the subject of the review has been pointing out errors committed by admins? '''Wdford (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2009'''
*"Are you stating that I cannot work amicably with other users. I've been editing for the last 8 months and nobody seems to have a problem. '''In fact there is a group of us editors who are in general agreement,''' and we have amicably agreed to disagree on content related to the Ancient Egyptian race controversy. This is somewhat of a sideshow, and it unnecessarily distracts from the main controversy. As '''Wdford''' has pointed out, I have not broken any rules in this particular article. It seems that User:PelleSmith has an unhealthy obsession with Muntuwandi, to the point of wikihounding [6], [7].He or she has even sent harassing emails to me about Muntuwandi. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
-----*'''Dougweller'''
-----'''DECEMBER 2013 FILED BY NUBIA123 AGAINST DOUGWELLER ET. Al. Alleging Conspiracy'''
*User:Til Eulenspiegel reported by User:Nubia123 (Result: No violation)[edit]
PageKingdom of Kush (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)User being reportedTil Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Previous version reverted toDiffs of the user's reverts1.14:07, 3 December 2013‎‎ (UTC)
2.14:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
3.14:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
4.21:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
5.04:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
'''A group of users have been consistently and collaboratively undoing user edits and contributions to the article in favor of the material they seem to have authored. These undo (or reversion) activities are conducted by the group in a spam-style manner. As soon as I make a contribution, the material gets reverted back within only a few minutes. I tried to contribute a number of times, but in vain. One user of the group placed a 3RR warning on my Talk page today, while another reported me on the Administrators' noticeboard for nothing other than attempting to contribute.'''

'''Also, the material imposed by this group, who basically have no tolerance for other user contributions, is essentially irrelevant to the subject of the article. Their material is concerned with Egyptian history with very little, or no connection, to the history of the Kushite kingdom.'''

'''I find the activities of this group to be strongly abusive to the collaborative and intellectually free nature of Wikipedia.'''

'''This group of users include Dougweller, Flyer22, AnomieBOT, and Til Eulenspiegel.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nubia123 (talk • contribs)'''

-----------'''SEPTEMBER 2013- User:Dailey78 reported by User:Dougweller Black Egyptian Hypothesis, AUA also involved'''

'''Link:'''https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive222

'''Selected comments''':
"Well, he already got his way with the article, so no need for him to do any more edits. This is really frustrating and he should self-revert should he want to avoid sanctions. All I'm asking him is to discuss before making a bold edit to the lead of an article on ArbCom probation.Cheers, '''Λuα (Operibus anteire) 18:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)'''

*"'''The other editors will not allow any changes to the article and aren't discussing their reasoning on the Talk page. We ALL have to follow the rules.'''When I sign four tildes, you get "Rod." My username is "dailey78." It always has been and always will be the same account. What is your point with the "here's the kicker" comment?Rod (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)Also, I count only two reverts and my other edits are various changes to the article. The changes are not all the same. The changes address different sentences. '''All of my changes were undone by Aua without any discussion on the Talk page during the same time period in question. Why is there no edit warring notice for Aua, as well?''' '''Rod (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2013''' (UTC)" "
*"And I reminded Aua about 3RR, but the difference is you went to 4, he didn't. Your other changes undid other editor's work. The fact that you haven't carefully read warnings you were given or that you gave to other people really isn't a good excuse. '''Dougweller''' (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)"

----------'''FILED BY DOUGWELLER AGAINST SIRSHAWN, INVOLVING WDFORD JUNE 2012 Ancient Egyptian race controversy'''
'''Link:'''https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_33#Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy
Editors involved: Wdford & Dougweller versus SirShawn & GreenUniverse
'''Decision:''' Unclear, closed
'''Selected Quotes:"."'''

*"'''We have a new editor, SirShawn,''' who doesn't appear willing to acknowledge this and is not only adding material that is not about the history of the debate, but is arguing the debate in a pov way. I and another editor have tried to discuss this on the talk page but have gotten nowhere. '''Three editors have reverted him, Wdford then replacing some material of his that is relevant to the article. '''SirShawn's latest comments have included insults and the statement "Your attempts to revert the edits from back to what they were is nothing more than biased censorship and blatant lies (in the case of the non existent 90% commonality between ancient and modern claim). If you wish to play a game in which you get as many biased people to unwarrantably undo my positive and up to date contributions to this article in an attempt to start an edit war than please believe that I will get twice as many people to support my actions!""
"How do you think we can help?

'''Explain to SirShawn the importance of gaining consensus and presenting material in an NPOV manner.'''

'''Dougweller''' (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
"
*"Edit warring, and accusing other editors of partisan editing, particularly when they're relying on reliable sources, are disruptive and not conducive to the editing process. Calm down, read review articles and field reviews of the topic, and if you're convinced that the article's topic needs to change from reporting the scholarly controversy, to taking the position of one side in the controversy (as a result of that side's position being accepted in multiple current field reviews), ''then discuss this with other editors on the Talk: page of the article before editing.''' Fifelfoo (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)"
*"

*One poster ('''WDford''') attempted to say that somehow argue that including these sources were a POV because they were cited "Afrocentric" scholars. '''When I pretty much debunked that assertion (see the talk page), he nor anyone else responded.'''

'''As evident by the talk page these users aren't trying to be logical in their decisions. They are emotionally attached to certain ideas, and are simply trying to bully their views into place with a so called "consensus" to be unreasonable.'''

'''SirShawn (talk)''' 10:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)"
*"

*@ Doug, Well from my POV on attitude is irrelevant as I have another POV. '''I've attempted to logically discuss this issue of my contributions with you two on the talk page, but in every instance both of you state your opinions and ignore my response.''' '''From there with your lack of a response continued to revert my edits using bullying tactics with claims of a 2 to 1 consensus.''' That shows in unwillingness on you all's part to compromise.'''SirShawn (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)"'''
------*'''Eyetruth'''
-----*'''Wdford''''''

'''FILED AGAINST WDFORD BY ZARA1709 JULY 2009 Disruptive Editing by Wdford at Ancient Egyptian race controversy'''
'''Link:'''https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive554#Disruptive_editing_by_Wdford_at_Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy
'''Resolution:'''Article on probation (?)
'''Selected Comments''':
*"Many of you might be aware, recently there were several editors banned from the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy. One of these editors, Wdford, had his ban lifted today. Almost immediately, he started editing the article; '''As I looked at his edits roughly one hour ago, I objected to them; I was about to explain my objection with more detail on the article talk page, by Wdford has already reverted me''' and I fear that this is about to escalate into another edit war. It might turn out in the discussion that my objection is unjustified, but in any case, Wdford would have to allow the time for a discussion before he reverts again. Otherwise he is not trying to find a consensus, and I think it is justified to call that disruptive editing. '''Zara1709 (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)'''"
*"'''Zara along with other editors on the article talk page are currently trying to work out some sort direction for this article before proceeding with adding content(which is a wise idea),this is a very contentious and highly controversial subject ,i would suggest a full and indefinate article protect''' until consensus can be met and before full blown edit wars break out,the article is on probation--'''Wikiscribe (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)'''
*"What I've seen is Wdford adding material that does not relate so much to the history of the controversy, which is what the article was meant to be about and even at least some of the still-banned editors seemed to agree on that, but to the controversy itself. This is not promising. '''Dougweller''' (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)"
*"
Regardless of anything else, the edits by Wdford were very large. Doing such large edits to an article with such a fraught history, without any prior talk page discussion, ought to be grounds for reimposing the article ban. '''If editors won't make any effort to work cooperatively, they must be kept away from articles like this.''' '''Looie496 (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2009''' (UTC)"
*"First, this is a content dispute and thus not within the remit of ANI. Second, I have a great idea: delete the freaking article and invite all the SPAs who are DEFENDING THE TRUTH! to enjoy the wide Internet beyond Wikipedia. '''This stupid article has been the subject of approximately one AN/I post per week for ages, and it's beyond tiresome at this point.''' '''Alternatively, perhaps an admin with some balls could simply topicban everyone who has edited the article more than once in the last 90 days, instantly ban any brand new accounts that show up to it, and generally remove the utterly stupid editwarring that has been going on here since Tutankhamun was a small child.''' '''Let some neutral people work on it without the intense POV-pushing of the regulars.''' Then again, that would probably be far too logical a response. I mean seriously; the kids can't play well together, so take away their damn toys already. → '''ROUX ₪ 19:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC) "'''
*"Agreed - it's a hideous mess of unsourced statements, maintenance tags, original resource and synthesis. The Liancourt Rocks method of stubbing it to clearly sourceable statements may work, '''but I'd have to say that Wikipedia wouldn't be any worse off if it didn't exist. At the moment, it's just a time sink for editors who've got better things to do.''' '''Black Kite 20:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC")'''
*"'''Ah, so people who continually abuse their editing privileges--note, for example, your topicban--and waste other peoples' time should... be allowed to continue abusing their editing privileges and wasting other peoples' time?''' I think not. '''So, two proposals. Draconian? Sure. Ends the disruptive bullshit once and for all?''' Absolutely, and necessary in a wide number of areas across Wikipedia. → '''ROUX ₪ 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)"'''
*"
(unindent) There seems to be some confusion amongst recently arrived editors to AErc about what the title of the article means. As '''Dougweller''' has already said, it is about the historically recorded debate about the "race" of the Ancient Egyptians and those who have taken part in it. It is not a forum for wikipedian editors to provide fresh material to debate. In addition, there are already plenty of articles on Ancient Egypt and egyptology: this is not one of them. Mathsci (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)"
*"
And I find just about everything you do disruptive. So your point is..? '''This sort of disruption does not end until either one side blinks (not going to happen), or the people pushing POVs are banned. They are unwilling to give any ground--see also the various nationalistic disputes, the recent ArbCom ruling regarding Scientology, etc. NPOV is a foundational issue and is non-negotiable.''' It's time to recognise that just because anyone can edit, it doesn't mean everyone should. → '''ROUX ₪ 21:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)'''"

*"It is an attempt to do something about these sorts of recurring and insolvable issues. Well, I say '''insolvable;''' what I actually mean is that nobody has the gumption to do anything about it because they cling to AGF in the face of all evidence to the contrary that '''people involved in highly-POV nonsense like this will ever back off, even the smallest amount.''' The thing is, for people involved in such disputes, the dispute is intensely personal. They are upholding TRUTH, and no amount of argument is going to sway them otherwise. So, treat them like the squalling teenagers that they are, and ground them for the duration. '''These disputes are a major problem for Wikipedia,''' and the general unwillingness to deal with them is a '''result of the AGF-as-suicide-pact mentioned above,''' the inevitable pileons that result when someone does anything to upset the status quo (and seriously, the status quo is broken; innovate or die), or fear of being subjected to the bizarre attitude of ArbCom as recently exemplified by its desysopping of FutPerf who made some intemperate remarks after ages of being one of the very few administrators with the interest and expertise to deal with a specific locus of nationalistic dispute, from which this AERC dispute is semantically indistinguishable. Believe it or not, this proposal--extreme though it may be--comes after much thought about how to handle such disputes. '''Whatever else you may think, it is apparent that our current method of handling these issues is laughably insufficient, and pretty much anything would be an improvement.''' What it boils down to is a simple question: '''are we attempting to build a relatively reliable encyclopedia here, or not? If the answer is yes, then the only logical action that follows is to terminate (amongst other things that assail the reliability of the project) POV-pushing nonsense with extreme prejudice'''. If the answer is no, '''then we're all just wanking anyway and we may as well just transwiki everything to Encyclopedia Dramatica and call it a day.''' → '''ROUX ₪ 23:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)"'''

-----------------'''FILED AGAINST WDFORD BY ZARA1709 AUGUST 2009:Edit warring at Ancient Egyptian race controversy continued'''
**'''Link:'''https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive557#Edit_warring_at_Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy_continued
**'''Outcome''':" Resolved: For now, at least. Full protection imposed on page. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 07:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)"
**'''Selected quotes:'''

*"Anyone remember Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive554#Disruptive editing by '''Wdford''' at Ancient Egyptian race controversy? That was a little more then a week ago. Yesterday I actually added my first new contribution to the article, the first sentence: "The Controversy surrounding the race of ancient Egyptians involved Eurocentric and Afrocentric considerations in the 19th and 20th Century." I have more than one reference for the term "Eurocentric"; this is provided at Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy#Towards an acceptable lead parapgraph (typo sic). However, '''Wdford,''' whom you might know from the preceding discussion, vehemently opposed this one sentence, but I still can't figure out what his editorial argument for his opposition is, actually. He is saying that this is an "inappropriate POV statement" diff, but actually all I did was to refer to one of the best non-partisan sources I could find. The statement was (in a slightly different form) previously present in the article and simply flagged with 'citation needed', before '''Wdford''' removed all flagged statements from the article. diff. I think that "Eurocentric considerations" need to be mentioned in the lead. Just look at the statement of the historian to whom I referred...'''In any case, I can't work at the article under these conditions. If this wasn't actually a notable topic, I would have already proposed the article for deletion, but the topic is notable and I could write an article - just not under these conditions. So could an admin please take a good look a the issue? ''''''Zara1709 (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)'''
*""This article is plagued by editors with fringe POV who start edit wars on purpose." '''I couldn't have put it better. That only leaves the question who the editor with the fringe POV is. And it is certainly not me because I don't even have an individual point-of-view.''' Really, I wouldn't know what that POV should be. All I did was look up what the reliable sources, which I had previously identified, have to say on "Eurocentric", and I came to the conclusion that is is an appropriate term to describe one side of the controversy in the lead paragraph. From what he has written on the talk page, '''I wouldn't even know that Wdford understands the difference between an editors POV and that, what reliable sources have to say, and I suspect that I could discuss this issue for about a month and Wdford still wouldn't understand.''' SO it is necessary to speed things up a little. '''Zara1709 (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)'''"
*"'''I suggest the top 10 contributors to the article and the talkpage be topicbanned for six months.''' Let non-SPAs do something about this article. Alternatively, delete and salt the nonsense. '''If nothing else, the name that keeps on coming up here as being non-constructive is Wdford,''' so a topicban there at the very least would reduce a lot of this ridiculous disruption. → '''ROUX ₪ 15:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)'''
*"This is from the December 1996 issue of the Journal of American History: (stable link). If the Organization of American Historians, or at least the board of editors of their journal, doesn't have a problem with describing one side of the controversy as "Eurocentric", why would Wikipedia? '''The only reason can be that some editors at Wikipedia disregard reliable sources and rather write articles based on their own POVs. Of course, you could simply ban all involved editors, but that wouldn't solve the problem, because sooner or later some more come along.''' Even deletion wouldn't solve the problem, sooner or later someone is going to recreate an article on the issue, because the topic is, as one historian would put it, the battlefield of a "culture war" in the United States. '''Zara1709 (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)'''"
"
*"'''Wdford has already been banned from this article before. His block was commuted here [11].''' Now, less than two weeks later, he's at it again. Is there any reason why he shouldn't be rebanned immediately? I'm rather inclined to ban Zara1709, also, since he/she seems to be pretty consistently edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
'''Though looking closer, it appears that at least Zara is trying to include sourced content, not unsourced like Wdford,''' so perhaps that should be a mitigating factor. '''Heimstern Läufer''' (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC) "
*" had retreated from the article roughly 6 months ago; I returned because I perceived an opportunity to fix the article; it appears that I was wrong with that. Previously I have broken 3rr in other controversies, but this was because in both cases statements from reliable sources that I had added were removed without justification from the respective articles. Wdford is trying to pull the same stunt here - removing the view of reliable sources from the article without going into a discussion based on these sources. I have mentioned 3 academic sources so far that describe one side involved in the controversy as "Eurocentric." However, even if I would throw another dozen sources at Wdford, he would still refuse to acknowledge the view of reliable sources. The topic of this article, Ancient Egyptian race controversy, extremely controversial. I actually have found two historians by know who describe it as culture war. I think I can honestly say that I am the only editor at Wikipedia I know who has an overview about this controversy, but there is no reason why I would have to work on the article. Unlike other editors I don't have a special point-of-view that I need to propagate through Wikipedia. I do think that having a good article on the topic would help the Americans find a truce in their cultural war, '''but that is not enough motivation for me to keep up with this.''' So unless I get an affirmation that articles on Wikipedia should be based in reliable sources (and not on individual editor's pov), '''I will simply retreat from the article. '''For already in the my first comment on my edit I made clear that this sentence was based on a reliable source, and Wdford can't possibly intent to write an article based on reliable sources when he argues against that sentence by calling it a "blatantly Afrocentric opening sentence". diff He should know that the historian I've quoted is not an Afrocentrist; he should at least have stopped to revert when I brought a quote from another historian, Stephen Howe, to whom he later himself referred. As far as reliable sources go, I don't need to put up with this, and I will not. '''Since it is rather unlikely that there will be another editor who could write a balanced article on the controversy (all you can expect from the other currently involved editors is material on skin color, skull shapes and Y-chromosomes),''' I would suggest that you propose that article for deletion. '''Zara1709 (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)'''"
-------'''NOVEMBER 2009 FILED AGAINST WDFORD BY ZARA1709 BY Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive575 (section Harassment by User:Wdford)'''

'''Link:'''https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive575 -- section Harassment by User:Wdford

'''Selected Quotes:''':
*Background (I): It is now almost three years since I've made the first of my altogether 5000+ edits at Wikipedia, and I've learned at lot during these 3 years. So, at the upcoming Friday, at 10 a.m. local time, I will be giving a 30 minute presentation on Wikipedia at my University, for about 20-30 undergraduate students who are studying to become grammar school teachers and are having a session on web 2.0 teaching materials. One part of my presentation will be concerned with editing experience at Wikipedia, any I will give an honest account of my experience. Currently I am considering telling the students this story:

Background (II): Some articles at Wikipedia are about highly controversial topics. One of them is the article "Ancient Egyptian race controversy". The controversy is about the question which skin colour the ancient Egyptians had. Why is this topic so controversial? In short: Because some white people think that every person of African heritage who is interested in the topic is promoting [a fringe pseudo-historic 'theory'] Because some black people think that everyone who denies that the ancient Egyptians had a darker skin then people from Europe is a white racist who tries to deny them their heritage. Probably not unsurprisingly, it is almost impossible to write an article on the topic at Wikipedia. After during one of these discussion quite a lot of material was removed from the article, I though: Why not recycle some material - and I added this to the article Great Sphinx of Giza.

"First Incident: Yes, there actually is a small debate about the question whether the the Sphinx depicts a black person or not, and why shouldn't this be discussed in the appropriate Wikipedia article? At least until somehow there is an acceptable general article on the topic. Of course, there was some discussion, but considering how controversial the topic is, everything went nicely.''' Until an editor called Wdford from South Africa joined the debate on the article. I won't bother with recalling the details, however, this resulted in me giving up on the article.'''"

"Second Incident: ''Wdford then did some work at the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy, which I have mentioned previously.''' As could be expected, they didn't actually managed to work it out in the discussion there, so at some point, '''Wdford''' and more then one other editor were banned from the article. I thought that this was my big chance. I previously had identified four good books on the topic, two by white authors and two by black authors, and I thought that I now had the opportunity to fix the issue. Initially, everything went well, and I was able to get the support of all other involved editors. '''And then, the ban, that kept Wdford away from the article, was lifted. Wdford almost immediately gave me an confrontation at the article, and after I had notified the adminstrator noticeboards two times and no one had intervened on my behalf, I gave up on that article, too'''"

"Third Incident: I mean, there are many other articles at Wikipedia that could use a good editor. Last month, for example, I noticed an article "colloidal silver".... well except from one unacceptable edit by whom? '''Wdford, who had not participated at all in the discussion. I asked myself, what he possible might want to to do there. Harass me?'''... But this ended, when Wdford decided that he wanted to rewrite the lead and to restructure the article. His edits were, honestly, bad. Again, I will not go into the details (you can read the discussion online at Talk:Medical uses of silver yourself, if you want), but there was no way I could agree to his edits. I tried to explain this to him, but after one day of discussion I noticed that it was still impossible to have a discussion with him.

The End? How does this story end? I don't know yet. But I think '''it wouldn't be fair if the first people I told this story to were some students who have never edited Wikipedia. So, I am giving the Wikipedia community, and especially its administrators, a chance to deal with the issue now.''' '''I am feeling harassed, as in "wp:harassment", by Wdford.''' Probably he is not actually trying to harass me, but he is trying to prove that he can write a better article than me, and honestly, he simply can't. He is lacking basic skills necessary for that, like the ability to evaluate sources. But he is also unable to accept criticism in any way, and every time I criticise him, he responds by accusing me of "acting like I own the article" or that like. Under these circumstances, there is no way I'll be able to recall the positive experiences I've had editing Wikipedia on Friday, so I decided to post this thread now, which at least gives this story a (small) chance of a good ending before then. '''Zara1709''' (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
*Sorry, I can't describe this issue with full diffs, it was already depressing enough to write it this way. And probably he is not actually trying to harass me, but the effect is the same. '''He is making it impossible for me to edit the article, and he is effectively driving me off Wikipedia.''' '''Why would I spent about 6-8 hours fixing the structure of a controversial article when he can come along and simply wreck it up again? And since this is already the third article where there is a problem, this is certainly not a contend issue, but a problem with the editor.''' '''An administrator could have fixed the issue a few months ago, if he simply had restored the topic ban against Wdford.''' '''An administrator, or any other motivated editor, needs to get down to it, read Wdfords comments and the discussions on the article I've mentioned, and then, if he comes to the same conclusions as I, needs to explain to Wdford that I mustn't continue what effectively is harassment.''' '''But if no one is willing to support me here, I am going to take a break from Wikipedia for 6 months, advise a group of 20-30 students not contribute to Wikipedia (writing articles is fun, but the discussions about them often aren't)''' and this article, medical uses of silver, will likely be again the topic of a few threads at the noticeboards, since Wdfords edit restored similar ambiguities and misquotations like the ones that made the article an ANI case in the first place. Zara1709 (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
*I did expect some difficulties at the article, and I was prepared to deal with these difficulties. But I did not expect THIS! '''Honestly, if some editor with whom you had previously difficulties shows up at another issue, on which you have already spent some time, wouldn't you suspect that he his harassing you?''' An the reason I am writing such great blocks of text is simply. '''Wdford is avoiding a discussion of the actual content issue, so I have to repeat and explain my view on that again and again.''' (Just like you have to continue to repeat the mainstream view when you are dealing with a fringe editor.) I received some support from another editor, so probably we can solve the issue at the article - but probably not. If you want to know what problem I have with Wdfords edits, just check out my last post on the article talk page. If Wdford isn't able to identify a fringe source when he sees it, then isn't a good editor, but that alone wouldn't be a problem. But if he is unable to admit that he made a mistake and takes the revert of his edits as a a reason to start a confrontation, (and not as a reason to discuss those edits) then someone needs to get involved and explain him that this attitude is unacceptable. '''Zara1709 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)'''
---------*'''Yalens'''
{{Collapse bottom}}

===Evidence from Editor User Talk Pages===
{{Collapse top|title=Collapsed for readability (of AN); click to view the collection of evidence.}}

----------*'''Aua'''-[[User talk:Aua]]
"Black Egyptian Hypothesis[edit]

I assume you know about WP:3RR. I've reported Daley for breaking it. '''Dougweller''' (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)"

"It's only been seven years[edit]

Hi Aua, I wonder who you think I was? At any rate, as I said in response, I took it as a compliment. '''Keep the faith,''' Drmies (talk) 04:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)"

"Queen of Sheba[edit]

Thank you, i will stop reverting his edits. 'I'm not sure if he is intentionally trying to distract others in talk pages '''by talking about agenda and conspiracies''' .. Yousef --يوسف حسين (talk) 06:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)"

"*Ah, am not particularly new to WP, even on this account (3 months and 1.2K of contributions), '''but yes I had 2 previous accounts where I lost the password :(. I did not seek them back, what's the point of doing so?'''Thanks for the note though (by the way, I have your name on my userpage).Λua∫Wise (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)How about now? Λua∫Wise (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)(https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Aua/Archive2)'
------*'''Dbachmann'''-[[User talk:Dbachmann]]
-------*'''Dougweller'''-[[User talk:Dougweller]]
--------*'''Eyetruth'''-[[User talk:Eyetruth]]
---------*'''Wdford'''-[[User talk:Wdford]]

*"talk page notes -originally removed by vandals wanting to hide racist tactics heing used[edit]

You insert your content, but they remove it. You remove [blank]-ist dogma, they put it back. You have no choice but to perform on them what is called a revert. When other editors continue to remove your content, and you stand tall against them, you are in a revert war.

There will certainly be many users of the opposite ideology. Worse still are the "neutrals" (crypto-[blank]-ists in fact, even if they don't know it!). These users have an ideology even more extreme and yet more sinister than your ideological opposites: adherence to that nonsense, WP:NPOV. Those spoil-sports can be a real nuisance, as they can be harder to bait and harder to discredit. On the plus side, they are unlikely to care as much, so doggedness may be all you need here.

But don't worry, if you follow a few simple rules, you can prevail in most revert wars and in most editorial conflict, and thus spread the faith to your heart's content."

*"4.Find '''brothers-of-the-faith.''' With proper use of email, instant messenger, talk pages and "project pages", you can overwhelm with numbers. After all, it's all a numbers game, and three brothers alone will can nullify one "expert" in a revert war without performing more than one revert. With the recent advent of blind anti-"edit-warring" ideology in the admin community, he has no chance. If he continues to try to enforce WP:NPOV (even if he is an admin!), you can bust his sorry ass into blockville. You can revert, he must edit-war. He can spend all his wiki-time pouring his little heart and brain into the talk pages, and, as long as you or one of your friends "responds" occassionally, you can watch and laugh knowing your article is safe!
5.If the above doesn't work, you can always create '''brothers-of-the-faith.''' This means creating sockpuppets, new usernames which you control. You can create, in theory, as many as you like. If you think this is wrong, then just remember it's merely a small wrong which you are using to overcome a greater wrong! Whenever you need a friend to add extra weight to a discussion, or just that one more revert, your new friend or friends will definitely be there for you. You can even close votes and create your own WP:Consensus from time to time, when the issue is important enough. The downside is that if you do this too often, you'll create suspicion which may lead to a checkuser discovering your holy misdemeanors. The upside on that is that if you are careful and use your new friends conservatively, it will take months, maybe even years, and a lot of work, to find you out. If you are careful enough, perhaps even never. And even if they do, you can start again from scratch!"
*DRN discussion[edit]

*Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. '''Dougweller''' (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

*"'''AE race controversy[edit]'''

Started a discussion at WP:NPOVN, '''quoted you there but I'll remove that if you wish.''' '''Dougweller''' (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
"

*Your edit summaries[edit]

Passing along this useful info from '''DougWeller.''' Please keep your edit summaries neutral - as they stand you are using them as commentary on editors, authors, etc. This isn't occasional, it seems to be your standard way of using edit summaries. WP:Edit summaries says "Avoid inappropriate summaries. Editors should explain their edits, but not be overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause tension or bad feelings, which makes collaboration more difficult. Explain what you changed, and cite the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but try not to target or to single out others in a way that may come across as an attack or an insult" and "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved."Rod (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)"

*"See Talk:Kingdom of Aksum[edit]

Same issues really. '''Dougweller''' (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
"

*"Black Egyptian Hypothesis[edit]

Without counting, you are close to or at 3RR. I've given the other editor the templated statement '''but I'm assuming you know the ins and outs of WP:3RR.''' '''Dougweller''' (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)"

*Thank you![edit]'''Your superior knowledge of the black Egyptian "controversy," as well as your articulation of several important points in the debate, is extraordinary! I have no bone to pick with either side of the debate, but I'm really irked by militant afrocentrism (or any other forms of ultra-nationalism for that matter). I'm humbled by your ability to call BS on many claims made on the talkpage that could've otherwise flown under the radar. Thanks buddy!''' '''Λuα (Operibus anteire)''' 02:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

*"DNA history of Egypt[edit]

'''These new edits bother me and I've moved them to the talk page,''' see Talk:DNA history of Egypt#Section on "Recent DNA Studies of Amarna and Ramesses III Lineages" moved here from article. '''Dougweller''' (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
"
---------*'''Yalens'''-[[User talk:Yalens]]
{{Collapse bottom}}

Regards, [[User:Andajara120000|Andajara120000]] ([[User talk:Andajara120000|talk]]) 23:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

== 1965 – Through the Looking Glass talk page deletion ==
{{atop|1=This undeletion request has already been placed at [[Wikipedia:REFUND#1965 – Through the Looking Glass|Requests for undeletion]] and will be processed there normally; there is no need to duplicate it on [[WP:AN]]. <span style="13px Sylfaen;color:white;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">☺&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User:Salvidrim!|<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;"><span style="color:white">Salvidrim!</span></span>]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:Salvidrim!|<span style="color:white">&#9993;</span>]]</span> 03:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)}}
I require the talk page for the deleted ''1965 – Through the Looking Glass'' (Request for undeletion initiated) to be undeleted. Unfortunately, the admin ({{ping|Explicit}}) who deleted the page has been inactive since 17 Feb 2013, so although I have left a request on their talk page I doubt it will be followed up on - nothing on that talk page in the last year has. The pages were deleted for non-notability reasons. I have addressed those, and require another admin to undelete them please. [[User:Sa cooke|Sa cooke]] ([[User talk:Sa cooke|talk]]) 03:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== album and book cover pictures with wrong licence ==
{{archive top|Editor given advice and images dealt with. [[User:Black Kite|Black Kite]] ([[User talk:Black Kite|talk]]) 06:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)}}
Please see [[https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Azarel63]] uploads, there are some cover pictures with wrong licence.--[[User:Musamies|Musamies]] ([[User talk:Musamies|talk]]) 04:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
* Dealt with, and explained to user what the problem is. It looks like the book covers are of their own books, so they believe they can upload them as self-made. Understandable for a new editor. [[User:Black Kite|Black Kite]] ([[User talk:Black Kite|talk]]) 06:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== Laura Hale topic ban ==

I would like to propose a topic ban for [[User:LauraHale]] from using any Spanish-language sources, since these are her most frequently used sources, but she doesn't understand them and frequently introduces completely incorrect "facts" into articles. This is always a problem, but certainly from someone with a semi-official function wrt Spanish articles.

From her user page: "I have been a Wikimedian in Residence for the Spanish Paralympic Committee since late June 2013."

She recently came back to my attention in the discussion [[Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 99#Laura Hale revisited]] from early December 2013, where she had an article lined up for the main page claiming that a Spanish Paralympian had competed at the 1996 Paralympics, which was completely false. Her defense there was:

"I admit that I made a mistake because of a bad Google translation. I have tried to be as diligent as possible to insure I make very few mistakes of this kind. Problems of potentially misunderstanding a source is why we have a review process though, to try to correct any unintentional insertions of non-factual information. It's also why DYK requires articles to be fully sourced."

Yesterday, she moved [[Rafael Botello Jimenez]] to the main namespace, but again, this article contains blatant misinformation which seems to be due to poorly (machine-)translated Spanish sources. In this case, the article claims that "In 2010, he competed in the New York City Marathon, finishing in a time of 1:47.39, making him the first Spanish wheelchair competitor to finish the race.[3]" This is rather awkwardly phrased, but stringly gives the impression that he was the first Spanish wheelchaor competitor ever to finish the NY marathon, which is clearly wrong, considering that e.g. in 2007 another Spanish competitor finished ahead of him[http://web2.nyrrc.org/cgi-bin/htmlos.cgi/8252.1.092502051718234068]. The article also claims that "He was the first Spanish wheelchair competitor to go sub 1:15 on in the marathon and sub 10:15 in the 5,000 meters.[1]", but the source makes it clear that he went sub 1 hour ''25'' (not ''15'') minutes on the marathon, and it would be nice if different notation was used for hour:minutes and minutes:seconds, not as it is done here.

Another example, also from yesterday: [[Aitor Oroza Flores]]: the article claims that he "works as a mechanic, cook and lecturer.[2]", which seems rather intriguing. In reality, his hobbies are "Aficiones: Lectura, mecánica y cocina.", so he doesn't ''work'' as a ''lecturer'' but ''likes reading''...

We shouldn't let an editor who has so much trouble understanding even the most basic Spanish texts work on BLPs of Spanish people, and even less so as a "Wikimedian in Residence" for such topics. Considering that the problems continue after even the rather blatant incident from last month, and seem to be widespread and serious (the [[Aitor Oroza Flores]] example above is a good illustration of this), protecting her, ourselves, and the people involved from further problems and a more massive cleanup operation than we probably already need to undertake, needs to be our priority. A topic ban seems to be the most efficient way to achieve this. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 17:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You'd need more evidence of consistent multiple errors in her articles than that Fram.♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 17:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
:Actually, Dr Blofeld, it seems reasonable to me that once we know someone doesn't adequately speak the language of the sources they're using, and therefore has been introducing errors into articles based on poor translation, we should ask them to stop trying to use sources in that language. Once or twice is enough for that. <p>However, what's not entirely clear to me from Fram's summary is whether someone has tried to have a conversation with Laura about this. I don't see one on her talk page, at least. Fram, have you or anyone else approached Laura and said, "Hey, it looks like your Spanish isn't really good enough to be doing this sort of sourcing; could you please avoid using Spanish-language sources"? Has she refused to do so? Or have we jumped right from "I recognize a problem in someone else" to "proposing topic ban" without attempting "asking them to stop"? [[User:Fluffernutter|A fluffernutter is a sandwich!]] ([[User talk:Fluffernutter|talk]]) 17:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
:: I believe such conversation is contained in the first reference provided by Fram. (Actually, I see a consensus for DYK topic ban there, does someone know why the topic ban was not implemented?)--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 17:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
:::The DYK talk thread appears to be about topic-banning Laura from DYK. It mentions the Spanish issues, but only in the context of "...and here's why she shouldn't be allowed to submit DYKs," and no one in that thread is really addressing whether Laura should stop using Spanish sources. I guess my point is that no one has presented Laura with "Your Spanish skills aren't up to the job, we need you to stop using Spanish sources for now, in any article," and it seems weird to escalate to a topic ban without seeing if she'll just, you know, stop. That said, however, I ''do'' think Laura needs to stop attempting to use Spanish sources, based on what I'm seeing. I'm just wondering whether a topic ban is necessary to have that happen (and maybe it is, but I'd like to see this involve a conversation with Laura about this particular issue, so we can determine that). Hopefully now that this thread is here, she'll be willing to weigh in and engage with the community's concerns. [[User:Fluffernutter|A fluffernutter is a sandwich!]] ([[User talk:Fluffernutter|talk]]) 18:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
::(ec)I have not contacted her on her talk page, no. I would think that someone who has her position, and has a problem like the one from the DYK discussion from last month, would recognise that she needs to take a lot more care with the sources she uses. Considering that with her position as Wikimedian in residence and her topics, she basically can't agree to not using Spanish sources, but seeing that on the other hand she doesn't seem capable to do so with sufficient accuracy at all, I thought that having an outside, binding discussion would be more logical and fruitful. Anyway, other articles and DYKs seem to have sufficient problems as well, looking at rejected recent DYKS like [[Template:Did you know nominations/María Carmen Rubio]] and [[Template:Did you know nominations/David Mouriz Dopico]]. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 18:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
::: I echo what [[User:Fluffernutter]] said. If someone (doesn't matter if it's Jimbo or an IP editor) heavily relies on Google Translate or other online translation service to translate an entire sentence, they probably [[WP:ACLUE|don't have a clue]] in that language to judge whether the translated sentence is factually correct. Now back to Laura. Fram provided evidence of three articles that contained wrong information as a result of improper translation. Others above have brought the previous DYK topic ban attempt into the discussion. From a chronological perspective, we see that only the first article made its way to DYK and the two subsequent articles did not. So I don't think we should tie this with the DYK topic ban. However, since this topic ban proposal is about "using any Spanish-language sources", I see the merit in it. But if it's enacted, how can we enforce it? Laura could have used other languages (e.g. Italian, Portuguese) to circumvent this topic ban and we will be back here very shortly. [[User:OhanaUnited|<b><font color="#0000FF">OhanaUnited</font></b>]][[User talk:OhanaUnited|<b><font color="green"><sup>Talk page</sup></font></b>]] 20:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
:::: My understanding is that she only speaks English, so topic-ban for using any machine translations seems in principle sensible to me.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 20:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
*Ban? When the obvious solution is to run it by a competent translator? We are still tying to help each other out, I think. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 20:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

* " I would think that someone who has her position..." Wait, what has her employment got to do with this? If she wasn't a Wikimedian in Residence, would you still be making this proposal? If so, why is it relevant? --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User_talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 21:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
**This is not someone making a one-off or limited series of articles based on Spanish sources, this is someone who does this in a semi-offocial position on a serial basis and can be expected to continue doing these articles. Her position is important background, also indicating that she is not some newbie. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 21:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the original mistake (which has been discussed before), you've given three examples here:

#The first is mildly badly written English ("In 2010 ... making him the first Spanish wheelchair competitor to finish the race" implies the 2010 race, not every year's race.) It's not a translation problem; the problem is merely the slightly ambiguous English.
#The second looks just as likely, in fact far more likely, to be a typo rather than anything to do with Google translate. (Does Google translate turn "25" into "15"?) The 1 and 2 keys are next to each other on most keyboards.
#The third is a bit more uncertain, but could just as well be a careless hurried manual translation (see [[false friend]]) rather than a Google translate problem.

Your evidence doesn't prove your thesis, in fact it doesn't even come close. --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User_talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 21:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
**The topic ban is not based on her using machine translations, human translations or baboon translations, the tpic ban is because she consistently uses bad translations. I really don't care where she get these, the "Google translation" comes from her own admission, not from some research on what produced these results. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 21:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

*I really do think that this should have been discussed with Laura before it was brought here, As a Wikimedian in Residence in Australia she did some excellent work. She is now living in Spain, and presumably learning Spanish. A quiet talk with her would probably result in getting a Spanish friend to check her translations. All this drama could have been avoided. --[[User:Bduke|<span style="color:#002147;">'''Bduke'''</span>]] [[User_talk:Bduke|<span style="color:#002147;">'''(Discussion)'''</span>]] 21:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
**She had a completely incorrect DYK due to a bad translation, which was discussed with her at WT:DYK, but which didn't change anything. Yes, all this drama could have been avoided if she had made some effort instead of continuing with more of the same... [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 21:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
**This is a very ill judged discussion. Lets just imagine that these mistakes had come from poorly misunderstood sources in English. They might be misunderstood facts, poorly written English or because it is unusual English. Would we ban that editor from using English sources? We are constantly having to make value judgements about sources and facts and we make mistakes. I'm pleased to see that someone spotted an error. They should fix it and move on. If there is a problem then it doesnt require us to vote on someones first guess at a solution to the problem. Other solutions exist ... and actually the problem is not going to cause the sky to fall. [[User:Victuallers|Victuallers]] ([[User talk:Victuallers|talk]]) 22:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
***Yes, what on earth is this doing on an Administrator noticeboard. Fram should have discussed this on Laura's user page. That would be much closer to our standard approaches with problematic user behaviour. As for Laura's English, no it's not perfect (nor is mine), but that's the easiest thing in the world for any of us to fix. And why a topic ban? She obviously has good knowledge of the area involved, and access to good sources. The aim here should be to simply fix the translation problem. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 22:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
****And how would you suggest we do this? How do you fix a translation problem? Victuallers as well says "other solutions exist", but offers none. This is not about making "value judgments", when you claim that someone '''works as a lecturer''' because you can't understand Spanish and the source says that someone has '''reading as a hobby''', then you just aren't fit to use Spanish sources (and no, the Spanish source was not written poorly or in unusual Spanish; a sports journalist writing solely about Spanish artists should know the word "[[aficionado]]", and here the word was "Aficiones", which is very basic Spanish anyay) and when someone has had serious problems in that regard recently, but continues to create dozens of articles based on nothing but Spanish and Catalan sources, then something needs to be done. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 05:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
*****Discuss it with her? Offer to help? [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 06:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
******Indeed. Serious lack of [[WP:AGF]] from the originators of this AN thread, from what I'm seeing. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 08:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
*****It just seems hard to believe we are bereft of knowledge of Spanish, and no one will help vet before publication here when she has a problem on BLP's. [https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Translators_available#Spanish-to-English] [https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category:User_es] For example, I have asked knowledgeable wikipedians to vet non-English sources, and they seem to be quite helpful people. Doesn't your proposal seem more than a little cruel for someone working in Spain?-- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 12:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
********Cruel? It's her choice to continue producing clearly deficient articles on BLPs by using completely incorrect translations (no matter how they are produced), even after the result of such actions have been pointed out. In the above linked DYK discussion from one month ago, she stated "'''My Spanish is good enough that I can pick up most facts, and know where there are issues. [...] I also hangout in #wikimedia-es and #wikinews-es a lot asking for clarification on Spanish I do not understand. I also have access to native speakers that assist me when I ask.'''" If all these assurances she gave are not sufficient, then what more can we ask? She is producing English language articles for the Spanish Paralympic Committee, who probably trust her work blindly (considering that she is the Wikimedian in Residence). Isn't it cruel towards the Committee to let her continue to produce such basic errors? We know there are problems, her assurances from a month ago seem to be worthless, so the next step is to force a change. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 13:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
**********But, no the first step and restriction is not a total ban. 'Hi Laura. I notice you are still having problems with BLP Spanish translations: ... . Especially because these are BLPs, we should have these articles and sources vetted by people more knowledgeable in Spanish before publication (See [https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Translators_available#Spanish-to-English][https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category:User_es]) What do you say?' The Committee probably believes we are helpful to each other and interested in their work that is notable, so it would be good to foster that belief, since we regularly say we produce this work in a "spirit of camaraderie and cooperation". -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 13:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
***********Considering the years of problems with this editor, as evidenced by the comments from others here as well, this is hardly "the first step". And I have no interest in playing games to hide the incompetence (or whatever reason applies) of some editor; yes, we are interested in their work and the notable athletes, and for that reason we feel that it is very problematic that the dedicated editor for these is making such a mess of it, and continues doing so after many earlier problems. That is the message the Committee should get, not some "spirit of camaraderie and cooperation". [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 14:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
************Games? Cooperation is not a game, here. What years of problems with Spanish translations? You appear to admit that some of the work is serviceable and you say below that there is virtually no one else who is interested in writing for Wikipedia about the Committee. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 14:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
*************Cooperation is a two-way street though. And it looks as if you prefer incorrect articles to no articles? I'ld rather not have an article in an encyclopedia, than an article with such blatantly incorrect information. And if I were the Committee, I certainly wouldn't want to have a Wikimedian in Residence who contributes such incorrect and poor articles. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]])
************** I am seriously concerned with the fact that we seem to have some real problems with Laura's editing, she is aware of the discussion, but has chosen not to respond. I have left another message at her talk page, inviting he either here or to any other place at her choice.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 14:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
****************What? You have not read what I wrote (I said approach with a vetting plan). If cooperation is a street, this board is telling the OP that they have not driven on it. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 15:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
***************** I do not understand what you are talking about. What cooperation? What board? Anyway she has responded, hopefully we can resolve the issue at least temporarily.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 15:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
*******************I assumed you wrote, "cooperation is a two way street", (is that someone else's unsigned comment?) so that is the cooperation I am talking about. As for board, I meant this comment notice board, AN. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 15:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
******************** No, I did not write that, but anyway, thanks, I now understand what you mean. My communication with Laura is in the meanwhile going nowhere. If someone feels they can help I would welcome any help there.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 15:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
********************* My apologies, my signature was missing there, I have now added it. Sorry for the confusion. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 15:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

*It's rather poor form to start a thread here without a serious attempt to discuss the matter with Laura privately: it's not like she's difficult to contact. I've always found her to be receptive to comments, including in relation to errors in her DYK nominations. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 08:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
*Agreed with Nick and others - a topic ban should be the last stage of a process that has involved failed previous attempts to resolve any perceived problems and serial offending. I'm not seeing any evidence of any previous attempts at all - there's been a race on to find the biggest hammer to crack the nut, which is an abuse of the process being engaged. If you have a problem, talk to the editor about it. And the basis is weak too - many new articles on Wikipedia, even by experienced editors, are weak, contain misunderstandings of sources etc... then the Wikipedia community fixes them up. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 08:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
*I see her Australian colleagues are rushing to her defence. No, Laura Hale has consistently demonstrated a cavalier attitude to the use of sources; that is why she's been effectively chased out of Australian paralympic topics, where like a rapid bulldozer she created hundreds of article stubs that were marked by the poor use of sources and consequent factual errors—not to mention the display of a talent for appallingly bad prose. Something more substantive needs to be done to stop damage to the project. There are so many examples, but [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Carol_Cooke&diff=521021408&oldid=517338364 here is one] where the BLP subject came along and corrected bloopers herself. You wonder whether Hale actually ''reads'' the sources she quotes.<p>"what's not entirely clear to me from Fram's summary is whether someone has tried to have a conversation with Laura about this"—The problem is that anyone who approaches Hale concerning her substandard editorial practices is likely to be slapped in the face. That's what happened to me. So my advice is: don't dare to. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk) </font >]] 09:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
**Firstly, I'm not a "colleague", nor are most here - I write on political and geographic topics, as a cursory inspection of my edits would quickly demonstrate. And I think it's a little misleading to not note your own mile-wide conflict of interest with regard to Laura - it'd be fair to say you don't like her very much for reasons that have nothing to do with WP and everything to do with the internal politics of a national chapter neither of you are part of any more. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 15:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The more I look into this, the less I believe that a topic ban from using Spanish sources is really sufficient. Looking at random articles she created the past few months, I stumbled upon [[Cesar Neira Perez]]. It contains the sentence "'''He was the number one cyclists to finish in the Road Trial race.'''" What is intended is that he won the gold medal at the [[Individual time trial]], i.e. at the [[Cycling at the 2008 Summer Paralympics – Men's road time trial]], where he is still a redlink BTW (the article she created should be at [[Cesar Neira]]). "Contrarreloj en Carretera" can literally be translated as "Trial in Road" or "Road Trial", but certainly in a cycling, sporting context, it is the road time trial that is intended. And "the number one cyclists to finish"? Well, that sentence seems to be a stock phrase, looking at [[Juan José Méndez Fernández]]: "He was the number three cyclists to finish in the Road Trial LC4 race." "He was the number two cyclists to finish in the Road Trial LC4 race. He was the number three cyclists to finish in the Individual Pursuit track LC4 race." But there are equally incorrect variations, like in [[Roberto Alcaide García]]: "He was the first racer to finish in the Individual Pursuit track LC2 race." "He was the second racer to finish in the Individual Pursuit track LC2 race. He was the third racer to finish in the Road Trial LC2 race." Perhaps he really was the third racer to finish, but that is totally unimportant. If he finished third though, and won a bronze medal, then perhaps that should be written a bit more clearly? I don't know whether LauraHale doesn't understand sports or doesn't copyedit her articles, but really, this kind of crap should not be created by someone with her credentials.

Two days ago, she added "[...]he was a participant in the awarding of the Medals of Asturias component, [...]". What meant is that he was awarded a Medal of Asturias. In the same series of edits[https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Manuel_Gonz%C3%A1lez&diff=589263787&oldid=523700198], she incorrectly removed the 1992 participation and medals this athlete won. Editors which are supposed to be knowledgeable in the field, but start ''removing'' correct and fundamental information (Paralympics participation and medals are quite essential info for a Paralympic athlete), make Wikipedia worse, not better, with little chance of being swiftly being corrected as they are implicitly trusted, and working in a field with very few editors. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 14:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Not understanding Spanish, or sports, or both? [[Juan Emilio Gutiérrez Berenguel]]: "He also participated in road events, finishing one event in eleventh place in a thirteen deep with a time of 1:42.51.[4][11]" This rather vague sentence refers to the [[Cycling at the 2012 Summer Paralympics – Men's road race C1–3]], where he finished 11th in the time given (note that he still is a redlink in that article). So where does the "thirteen deep" come from. Well the actual field had 40 cyclists, of which 26 finished, but the source LauraHale used, [http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/1581223/0/paralimpicos-londres/michelle-alonso/oro-natacion/], states "En la clase C3, Juan Emilio Gutiérrez fue undécimo (1:42.51), seguido de Juan José Méndez (1:43.32) y Maurice Eckard (1:43.32)." Logically, if you finish in 11th place, and there are two people behind you, then the field was 13 deep, no? Well, no, not if the source really means "followed by two other Spaniards (given) among a number of riders from other countries (not interesting to our readers, so not given)".

Her articles are filled with these errors, uninformative sentences, oft-repeated phrases, misconceptions, and so on, and I don't know what the best solution is to deal with it. [[Wikipedia:Competence is required]] comes to mind. With an editor with hundreds of DYKs and so on, it is not as if they are still learning the requirements. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 14:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
:::If what you say is true you'd need to provide sufficient evidence of mass errors in everything she creates. She's created a staggering number of articles on Spanish paralympians and I'd need to see examples of multiple serious errors in articles to warrant a ban. At the end of the day she's a volunteer here and doesn't have to bother. I'm curious Fram, do you suspect she's being paid to do this? This really doesn't seem to be the right place to make such a proposal and as you can see most of the editors who've turned up are Australian who know Laura and it's hardly going to attract a neutral investigation.♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 15:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
::::Of course she doesn't have to bother, that's hardly the point. I have no idea if she is paid or not, that's not really essential (although I would consider it a waste of money if she was); I notice loads of problems (probably not in every article, but in way too many), and no signs of improvement or even recognition of the problems. She has now responded on her talk page concerning this[https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LauraHale&diff=prev&oldid=589608944], claiming e.g. that "The three examples Fram provided were not about translation errors. One was a typographical error. One was contorting the English language to avoid close paraphrasing from a translation. The third was a misunderstanding of a topic, not an issue of translation." The third she refers to is putting "works as a lecturer" instead of "hobby is reading"; I fail to see how this "misundestanding of a topic" can be anything but an issue of translation, but feel free to provide an explanation that is not less charitable than "translation issue" (I don't think she doesn't know the difference between work and hobbies, and I also don't believe that she was deliberately including false information here, so which explanations remain possible?). [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 15:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
:So, is it your proposal now that Laura Hale be banned from Wikipedia for incompetence? Since your first proposal is failing, is it wise to go long? [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 14:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
::No, I am further researching her contributions, and encounter further major issues, some directly related to the original post, some more tangential but not less problematic. Any thoughts on how to resolve this are welcome, but I no longer think that simply restricting her use of Spanish source will be sufficient (nor the help of editors who have a better knowledge of Spanish and are willing to help). It seems to be a more general problem with her editing, as seen in the above examples and in the comments of people who noticed the same when she was working on articles for Australian athletes. Mentoring may be a possibility. Requiring her to go through AfC, which was recently imposed on another long-term contributor, is also possible. Letting her continue as before is also a possibility, but I fail to see why nyone would support that. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 14:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
:::Has there been an RFC/U? [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 15:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
::::Has there been any somewhat successful RfC/U on any well-established editor in the last few years? [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 15:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
:::::That probably depends on what one means by success: 1)Identifying the problems? 2) having a good discussion about it? 3) leading to mutual understanding? 4)leading to resolution? or 5) leading to a basis for further action? Some have probably had some success in some of those areas but not in others. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 15:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

== Undelete pages added by [[User:Ιερός]] ==
{{archivetop|1=Undeleted as requested. ([[WP:NAC|NAC]]) '''<span style="color:orange;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:yellow;">[[User talk:Erpert|WHAT DO YOU WANT???]]</span></sup></small> 08:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)}}
Pleasa undelete [[Holy Monastery of Venerable Father David]] and [[St. David of Euboea Monastery]] created by [[User:Ιερός]]. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by OTRS volunteers, under ticket number 2014010410004961.--[[User:MARKELLOS|MARKELLOS]]<sup>[[User talk:MARKELLOS|Leave me a message]]</sup> 22:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
:Done. FYI, this kind of thing can also be posted at [[WP:REFUND]], and you might get a faster response there. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 23:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
{{archivebottom}}

== Pot kettle black ==

Hi. I am [[User:Hijiri88|this user]]. I have made no attempt to hide this, and have openly admitted it several times.[https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=587593853&oldid=587592806][https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACuchullain&diff=588636632&oldid=588625556][http://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E5%88%A9%E7%94%A8%E8%80%85%E2%80%90%E4%BC%9A%E8%A9%B1%3AJuzumaru&diff=50204398&oldid=50200663] The reason I am making log ged-out edits is that my home internet con nection is acting up, and I'm currently only able to edit from my phone. I ''can'' make l ogged-in edits from my phone, but every fe w minutes the session automatically ends and I occasionally lose edits I was working on. This is actually, I believe, the same reason my IP keeps shifting. [[WP:SOCK#Editin g while logged out]] clearly states that what I am doing is not "sockpuppetry" under these circumstances, and both [[User:Cuchullain]] and [[User:Ross Hill]] have already note d this and not reproached me for it.

There is, however, another editor who is clearly making logged-out edits in order to hound me and get away with it. The user clearly has an account, as his/her impeccable timing in reverting me [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Donald_Keene&diff=584175545&oldid=584140989]
[https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Takamura_Monogatari&diff=586478687&oldid=586475844][https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Yamanoue_no_Okura&diff=587113515&oldid=586965927] indicates that he/s he has a [[WP:WATCHLIST]] and is maliciou sly watching the pages that I already edited while logged in. (The fact that I'm on a shifting IP means he/she can't be following my contributions, and I can't think of any other way he/she could know to revert me in the space of a few hours.) Cuchullain and my self both once believed that this was [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoshuSaso ri/Archive|a specific user]], but external factors that I don't want to discuss on-wiki (please [[Special:EmailUser/Hijiri88|e-mail m y account]] if you want details) have convinced me that they must be different people. However, the user is clearly either evading a block, or logging out of an active account in order to revert me anonymously.

I have been putting up with it for a while n ow, but being kettle to his/her pot as I am [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AYamanoue_no_Okura&diff=589522063&oldid=589443064 accused] (wrongly) of logging out to make "problematic edits" (check the [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Yamanoue_no_Okura&action=history history] and the [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 162#Youtube source|now-archived RSN thread]]: all I'm doing is maintaining a limited number of r eliable, ''relevant'' English-language source s, while he/she is grasping at bogus "NOYT " straws, and making straw-man argument s about the "validity" of a barely-relevant Japanese-language source, clearly as an excuse to revert me wholesale). The most recen t string has also seen him/her
[https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Yamanoue_no_Okura&diff=589520711&oldid=589440659 revert] my removal of problematic OR that I am trying to discuss on the talk page: he/she has provided no explanation of why the removal is being reverted.

I don't know how to properly deal with this , but can someone please ask him to disclose the name of his/her account or something?

[[Special:Contributions/182.249.240.17|182.249.240.17]] ([[User talk:182.249.240.17|talk]]) 09:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
:If you can get a clean connection on your mobile device, why can't you log in to edit? [[User:Beyond My Ken|BMK, Grouchy Realist]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 09:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

::It would appear that the cookies, needed to stay logged in, are lost. The edit page, including the token needed to save the edit, aren't. The statement made in the first paragraph is technically quite possible. [[User:Od Mishehu|עוד&nbsp;מישהו]] [[User talk:Od Mishehu|Od&nbsp;Mishehu]] 11:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

::I know that on some browsers there are settings that automatically deletes cookies whenever a session is ended or whenever a browser tab or window is closed. I have done this on my phone hence why I never edit on my phone. If there is a connection issue that causes sessions to end automatically, then this is entirely reasonable/ [[User:Blackmane|Blackmane]] ([[User talk:Blackmane|talk]]) 14:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

== Are next userpage promotional ==

I'm not sure but are next userpage [[User:Azarel63]] promotional, if yes, please delete.--[[User:Musamies|Musamies]] ([[User talk:Musamies|talk]]) 11:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


:: Sure looks like it. Per his [[User_talk:Azarel63 | talk page ]] he's had an issue with the images he's using (not properly licensed ) and the page itself has been nominated for speedy deletion as an advertisement. I'll drop a note on his page, as it doesn't look like he was notified. <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:0.50x;">[[User:KoshVorlon|<font style="color:blue;background:white">&nbsp;'''K'''osh'''V'''orlon]].<font style="color:white;background:blue;">&nbsp;'''W'''e '''a'''re '''a'''ll '''K'''osh &nbsp;</font></span> 11:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

== Update links in a couple blocks ==

The blocks on [[Special:BlockList/198.38.10.1|198.38.10.1]] and [[Special:BlockList/80.239.242.0/23|80.239.242.0/23]] currently point the user to [[WP:ACC]]'s old URL on the Toolserver. The tool was recently moved to Wikimedia Labs, so I was wondering if an admin could change the block reasons to use the Tool's new URL at [https://accounts.wmflabs.org/ https://accounts.wmflabs.org/]? [[User:FunPika|<span style="color:blue"><b>Fun</b></span>]][[User_Talk:FunPika|<span style="color:green"><b>Pika</b></span>]] 11:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
:I've done the block by [[User:MuZemike]] because he is no longer an admin. But please ask (or check with) [[User:King of Hearts]] to change his block. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 12:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

== Request for page move ==

I have performed a non-admin closure of a multi-move request at [[Talk:Happiness? (Roger Taylor album)]], and have carried out three of the four moves, but the final one is blocking because the proposed title is on the blacklist. Presumably this is due to the three exclamation marks, but this is the way the move has been requested and is also consistent with the current title of the article.

The move in question is:

* {{noredirect|Happiness!!!}} → {{noredirect|Happiness!!! (Kaela Kimura song)}}

Please could an admin carry this out for me? Thanks &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 16:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
: {{done}}--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 16:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:10, 7 January 2014

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=589625524"