Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Is a long-term block for 218.186.8.224/27 appropriate?

Over the pase several months, we've had several edits by 218.186.8.224/27(218.186.8.224-218.186.8.255) placing problematic content on their own talk pages (admins can see an example of it here). Should we make a long-term block on the entire range, with editing one's own talk page disabled? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If it's just a problem with the talk pages, we could consider semi protection of intermediate length. Airplaneman ✈ 18:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

We're talking about 32 talk pages, and it's likely that if we protect them, this anon will stat to do this at other places. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

How much collateral damage? If most of the edits from that range are problematic, just rangeblock it. —fetch·comms 20:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, if it's that many talk pages, then I think a rangeblock would be the best option. Airplaneman ✈ 01:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I support the long-term anonymous rangeblock of 218.186.8.224/27 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Since there are some good-faith edits from that range, I suggest including in the block notice, "Please see WP:ACC for account creation." EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Help needed in cleanup

Darius Dhlomo CCI case:

• Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo
• Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo/Created articles list
• Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo/How to help
• Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo/Notice
• Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo/Task explanation
• Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo 1
• Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo 10
• Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo 11
• Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo 12
• Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo 13
• Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo 14
• Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo 15
• Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo 16
• Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo 17
• Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo 18
• Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo 19
• Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo 2
• Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo 20
• Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo 21
• Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo 22
• Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo 23
• Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo 24
• Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo 3
• Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo 4
• Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo 5
• Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo 6
• Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo 7
• Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo 8
• Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo 9

Your help in the above cleanup effort would be appreciated. This is not a task that four people can take on alone. It's an order of magnitude larger than the largest of the other currently open CCI listings. Uncle G (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

discuss this

Here are more:

Airplaneman ✈ 17:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, it's not even half again as big as the next largest (see the 14 subpages of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Aiman abmajid which are quite a bit larger on average), but additional help either with CCIs directly or with the day-to-day copyright cleanup needed at WP:CP freeing up time for the WP:COPYCLEAN regulars to work on CCIs would be greatly appreciated. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Mass blanking of ten thousand articles by a 'bot

It has been proposed that we mass blank articles using a 'bot. For details, see the discussion. Uncle G (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

discuss this

Help closing a straw poll

I've noticed that editors are unsure how to determine a result at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll. Perhaps it would be helpful if an uninvolved administrator would take a look at it. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin? I don't think there is such a thing :P Even if there was an uninvolved admin familiar with the arguments about PC and how it works, we'd need a panel of admins, not just one. I personally feel that a (roughly) 2:1 ration of keep:remove is no consensus, and thus it should be removed as no consensus to continue a trial defaults to removing the feature. —fetch·comms 03:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Every time a PC alert pops up on my watchlist, I handle the edit and then unprotect or protect the article as appropriate. I just don't understand how a two-month trial turned into an indefinitely long trial with an interminable discussion at the two-month point.—Kww(talk) 05:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I just thought I should ask. Thanks. Not my intention to start a second discussion here. Discussion is moving along at the straw poll talk, and it looks like that's what should happen next. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Rejecting something the community supports by a majority of 2 to 1 or approx 66 percent support is a mockery of users positions. The trial should clearly continue in some form and that is clearly reflected in the support. A third of the users that commented don't like it, that is not a rejection at all. it is community support . Off2riorob (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a mockery at all. The trial as begun has no consensus to continue. It needs to stop, and now. When you have a consensus to start a new trial, start that one. Saying "it's a two-month trial" and then refusing to stop the trial when the trial period is complete is deceitful trickery.—Kww(talk) 19:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The trial is an ongoing issue which is not making any wheel s drop off. You user:Kww are a strong opposer of the tool and in a minority, you should not reject as if valueless the vast majority of users that support the tool. Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me repeat, nice and slow: Not my intention to start a second discussion here. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh well. AN has the tendency to fork off discussions :P —fetch·comms 19:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• - Over four hundred users have commented in good faith that they want this trial and the tool to continue and opponents of the tool in a minority should not be allowed to reject that consensus support. Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Over two hundred users have opposed the continuation of this current trial until issues with it have been resolved. By your definition of minority, then 400 keep and 399 remove would mean the trial could continue. Not even 2/3 of the voters supported keeping it. That's no consensus for such a large decision. —fetch·comms 00:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • What on Earth are you talking about? Please point me to wherever you learned that we need unanimity or anything close to it for major policy decisions. Jimbo first called for the turning on of flagged revisions with about 3/5 support, why would 2/3 support be so different from that? Please back off and allow, say, Jimbo Wales (hey, failure of our governance system!) to close this discussion. NW (Talk) 02:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I'd rather the community decided the future of this than God. Resolute 02:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

SQUISH! A Whale of BLP Violation since June 2005!

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

The BLP has been dealt with, there isn't anything else for us to do. Keeping this open just highlights the BLP and the discussion. It encourages anybody with any knowledge about Wikipedia to find out what the BLP was. As mentioned by User:Rodhullandemu, the proper manner to handle this would have been to find it, fix it, and move on. Let alone highlighting the BLP on both this and wp:BLP. There is nothing the admins can do at this point, so closing it.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

---

On 14 June 2005 this Statment was added to the Fred Phelps Bio a high visibility article:

<redacted>

This failed to have a source when inserted and the sources its had for over a year now has failed to even remotely back up the claim. Note: this Failed to be addressed during its tenure as a WP:FA or even after its Demotion Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've redacted the statement because WP:BLP applies even here. The offending text is available in the history to those who need to see it. However, that BLP violations can persist in articles such as this is no surprise to me; the statement should not have survived even cursory scrutiny, let alone a FA review. In my view, any remaining visibility of this content should be expunged and arguably oversighted as a BLP violation. Rodhullandemu 23:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If your going to expunge - It was also posted to the BLPN (complete with the big whale) and I archived it to here. Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

A mess. This sort of thing, when detected, should be deleted ASAP, maybe quietly, and reported to WP:OVERSIGHT. I have no axe to grind for the Phelps family, but that doesn't matter. WP:BLP would even apply to Hitler if he were still alive. All of this should be expunged, sine it does us no credit as an objective source of information. Rodhullandemu 23:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agreed, thats more why I felt the need to reported it somewhere. Oversighting 5 years of edits? Can that be done?Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither FAC nor FAR were what they are today in 2005/06. I've toned down what remains a bit more. I agree, the thing to do when you discover something like this is deal with it quietly.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not the time, it's the number of edits. If it exceeds some threshold (the value of which I forget), the Wikimedia developers need to be involved, and in my experience they don't, because they are too busy doing other stuff. Personally, I don't feel so strongly about it that I'm going to go through this article and WP:REVDEL offending versions, but neither am I confident that Fred Phelps would dare to sue WMF. It would be too risky (in my view as a lawyer) to have their activities scrutinised in a court of law, which I note they have consistently failed to do. That doesn't necessarily get us off the hook, but "fair comment" is always a defence to matters of public importance, as is the doctrine of laches to failing to take up appropriate legal remedies. We could mitigate our liability by removing this stuff, but legally, we aren't liable for it anyway. Rodhullandemu 00:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It has less than 5,000 revisions, so it could be deleted and selectively restored if someone felt it necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Or if someone had the time to click all the buttons. It's been there for five years; there's not much worth in hiding it now once it's been removed from the current revision. I don't say "BLP overkill" much, but deleting all those revisions seems like overkill to me in this case. —fetch·comms 03:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, WP:BLP would even apply to Hitler if he were still alive, huh. Anyway, let's not be mindless robot ants here: Having a WP:BLP policy above and beyond normal WP:V etc is for two reasons: 1) protect us from lawsuit or bad publicity and 2) protect the subject from harm of any kind - material harm, hurt feelings, anything. In this particular case, the chance that we could sued or get bad publicity for saying something false and bad about Fred Phelps, whatever it was, is mathematically zero. The chance that anything in Wikipedia can cause any distress whatsoever in any way to Fred Phelps is mathematically zero. Fred Phelps is way, way beyond caring about stuff like that. It's a fuckup, but I wouldn't worry about it too much. Herostratus (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In case you aren't familiar, Phelps is the founder of the Westboro Baptist Church, which is a family full of lawyers. I'm sure they'd love the chance to sue, since that's the main reason they protest: to goad people into saying or doing something that'll bring a lawsuit. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think they'd bother. I mean, they sort of bring these sort of comments upon themselves (not that I endorse BLP violations, but...), and any case would end up on a greater examination of their own actions. —fetch·comms 19:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Redacting the comment here is inexplicable. How are we to know what the comment was (or was like) in order to provide some response? Protonk (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Duh. WP:BLP applies anywhere on Wikipedia, including here. If there is a libel, gratuitous repetition isn't going to reduce any damages, rather the opposite. As far as I know, the contentious content is still available in the article history, although there's at least an arguable case for its oversighting per WP:BLP. Meanwhile, if you can't see it, I am not going to even email it to anyone because I would then become a publisher, and liable. Some things need to be taken on trust. Rodhullandemu 00:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That's the letter of the policy, of course and I'm aware that normally AN (or AN/I) is a multiplier for scurrilous revisions when posted by a well meaning petitioner. But Phelps is a reasonably high traffic article and the revision stuck for 5 years. What good does it do to say "how on earth did *redacted* get left on a page"? A regular editor couldn't respond cogently, nor could an admin respond without difficulty. And the legal paranoia doesn't add to the discussion. Protonk (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out above, the Phelps family is full of lawyers; that they haven't sued is perhaps that they are directed elsewhere, but that does not mean they at some point they won't. Estoppel aside, I think it's about time that we take a pragmatic legal position which would at least mitigate any damages that might arise, and that's assuming that the longstanding BLP violation is untrue or is defensible as fair comment on a matter of public importance. Meanwhile, a cautious lawyer would say that undue repetition is more likely to aggravate, rather than mitigate, and damages that might arise. And that's my position here. Rodhullandemu 00:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit war brewing at WP:EL

Just a head's up. There is some heated discussion regarding links to other wikis. Two reverts have already been made while discussion is ongoing. Please keep an eye on it. — Edokter • Talk • 03:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible COI

Actually, the COI might be mine and I thought I'd get some opinions here. I'd like to write a bio on a well-known and regarded sales motivational speaker. I believe he meets the requirements and I can provide a bunch of online references. Problem is, he's a member of my family. I've written about subjects I've had some involvement with before, but with all the tightening of the rules regarding bios, I thought I'd run this by a the community first. I'm not even sure if this is the place to start, but hey, I figured I'd get some opinions from other admins first. Needless to say, it will be properly referenced per WP:BLP and totally NPOV. Thanks, all. I'll be offline for another day or two until I replace my blown-out computer. Regards, PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend writing about him on a subpage of yours, and then asking if that article can be moved into the mainspace. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Other venues may be the Article Incubator or Articles for Creation. Mjroots (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Write it in a subpage, poke one or two other users to take a look and then have one of them move it out if they think it's fine. The {{move draft}} method is deprecated in favor of AfC, which is backlogged and not accustomed to dealing with these situations. The article incubator is also understaffed and ineffective for this sort of job. —fetch·comms 19:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

And a {{coi}} tag can only be helpful here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette question

What is the wikiquette in raising a RFC/U against an editor who has raised a RFC/U against oneself? As you are aware, MickMacNee has raised this RFC against me. For some reason, it is not appearing in the templated notice at the top of this page, although MickMacNee and another editor have certified the RFC.

Should I allow this RFC to run its course first? Would my raising an RFC against MickMacNee be seen as being in bad faith? Mjroots (talk) 08:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• It was not displaying because the certifiers did not list it. I've listed it now (without prejudice to either party and as an uninvolved user) so that others can comment. You probably should let it run - if you do file an RfC, how it will be seen will depend on what you present and why you're moving the dispute there. You should be mindful that the RfC is going in a direction of compromise at the moment and rather than having to be in the same dispute with the same user for god knows how long, both of you may want to consider coming to an agreement of some sort and bringing the dispute to a conclusion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Ncm. I did try to engage with the certifier to see if we could find some middle ground, but this approach was rejected. I'm happy to let the RFC run for now and will see what the outcome is. Mjroots (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• It's probably best not to do it at all. Points about MickMacNee's own behaviour are already being raised in the RFC that MickMacNee brought. The desired outcome here, surely, is for you to accept what people said about AFD intentionally being a discussion, and for MickMacNee to listen to and to accept what people are starting to say about xyr approach of impugning other editor's motives (alongside you and Wikireader4 impugning MickMacNee's motives, ironically).

  In light of these edits it seems time to re-state Wikipedia's answer to Godwin's Law:

  The only times that people use "deletionist" and "inclusionist" is to call other editors names. Their use has never improved a discussion. Any editor who resorts to such name calling is indicating that xe has run out of proper, valid, arguments to make.

  And — Lo! — the ensuing discussion at WT:AV#UPS Airlines Flight 6 proved that law yet again.

  I recommend not raising another RFC that will also end up proving it. Uncle G (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

  • UncleG, we're already halfway there. I do accept that consensus is that arguments may be challenged at XfD. The problem I have is in the manner that some editors make that challenge. I felt that in the case of MickMacNee it was becoming disruptive. The normal way of dealing with editors who have problems editing in certain areas is either to restrict them, or to block them. Hence the thread I started at ANI having consulted with a 'crat as to the best venue for the discussion.

    Re the question at WT:AV about Mikemoral's nominations, the use of "deletionist" should be seen in context. The question was asked as to whether or not there was a pattern of nominations that merited further investigation, or whether the editor was a deletionist. I am of the opinion that Mikemoral's nomination of articles are being made in good faith, and therefore no further investigation into his editing is justified. I accept that sometimes Wikipedia can be improved by deleting material. I identify as an inclusionist and think that generally Wikipedia can be improved by the addition of material, subject to the usual rules of V, RS, NPOV, no OR etc. Mjroots (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

    • Nonetheless the order of events was:
      1. Editors A and B called editor C an "-ista".
      2. The discussion went downhill from that point onwards.
    • This is what invariably happens. Discussions never improve by this. Uncle G (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• I'm also fairly sure Mikemoral is not really a deletionist, but monitors recent NOTNEWS stories due to his heavy involvement and awareness of the stories on Wikinews (shameless plug: everyone involved in arguing about NOTNEWS AfDs should just go write for Wikinews). Otherwise, I don't think calling people deletionist or labeling users as any -ist is acceptable if they don't self-identify as that "type", because it shows a lack of good faith about the reasoning behind their actions. Now, if someone really is trying to get valid articles deleted and consensus is continually against that user's views, then something should be done. —fetch·comms 19:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Miami-Dade County article- incomplete operation

In early July, Miami-Dade County, Florida was moved to Miami-Wade County, Florida, but it was a botched up page move. Donald Albury (talk · contribs) moved the version with the old history back to the old name, but the version with the botched history (but a couple of edits) was moved to Miami-Dade County, Florida (bad) and indef protected. He hasn't been active since. Could another admin please clean this situation up? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 15:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I finished the histmerge, but I'd like someone else to look over it. I also removed all protection (including PC) as there has been little trouble with it since mid-July. —fetch·comms 19:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that a (bad) article was created is hinting to me that more than a histmerge is needed here. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what more is needed. I think he moved a copy at "Dade" to (old), then "to clear way for restoring version of article with full history", he moved the "Wade" copy back to "Dade" and forgot about the copy at (old). If you can figure out something else that's currently wrong, I'll fix it right away, but I can't find any missing/deleted revisions or anything, and it's at the right title now. —fetch·comms 20:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

BLPs

I just finished an analysis of all articles that where tagged as unreferenced BLPs, I removed/had deleted multiple articles that had issues. But in the process I discovered ~1400 articles that have either ref tags or a citation template. The full list is at User:Δ/Sandbox 2 feel free to address the issues as needed and once they are addressed remove them from the list. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 21:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Please help: I was just threatened with an indef block by DMacks?

• Sadi Carnot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ==
• Wavesmikey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ==
• Libb Thims (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have just been threatened with an indef block here by admin User:DMacks for (a) bringing up the fact that admin Kww has been on a three-year assault on me for writing about human chemistry, to the point that in 2007 he was angrily throwing the word “kill” around:

All this hate?

“Delete. Salt. Block the author from further creation” Kww (7 Oct 2007) “Such a massive piece of fraud cannot be perpetrated in good faith. One outcome of this discussion should be an indefinite block” Kww (9 Oct 2007) "Just remember to put an indefinite block on Sadi Carnot while you are at it. Deleting the article is of small importance compared to deleting the author." Kww (10 Oct 2007) "Human chemistry is deleted, but not quite resolved. Sadi Carnot did not receive the indefinite block he deserves for it." Kww (11 Oct 2007) Delete and salt and ban author: Another in the web of "human chemistry' garbage perpetrated by Sadi Carnot. No real notability, an involvement with a fringe pseudoscience that is so far on the fringe that it nearly seems to be an analogy, no good third-party sources, and the only Wikipedia editor that has taken any interest in him writes dishonest self-promoting articles as a hobby. Kill the article, ban the author." Kww (12 Oct 2007) "Problematic is such a polite word. I'm surprised that no one that wields a few of the magic admin buttons has blocked him, and I'm curious ... what is the proper venue for getting him banned?" Kww (14 Oct 2007) "Glad to see that I didn't have to wait for the heat death of the universe to get someone to agree that he is deserving of a ban. I'll ask again ... what is the proper forum to discuss banning him?" Kww (15 Oct 2007) "He is a dangerous editor. If I trust my instincts, I lean towards an elaborate hoax. I heartily recommend a lifetime ban on the editor." Kww (20 Oct 2007) "The one I wish I had handled better was Sadi Carnot. I allowed myself to get goaded into anger. I learned from that. I may still get angry at times, but you'd have a hard time seeing it from the words I write." Kww (06 Jun 2009) "I lobbied for an indefinite ban on Sadi Carnot on the basis of that group of articles. It didn't happen, so we can't act as if it did." Kww (10 Jun 2010)

and (b) for pointing out that Kww, having an obvious bias against the topic of the article, has improperly speeded my attempt at a re-write in June and stated this month that he will do it again using his “magic admin button”. I do not take likely to both the word "kill" directed at me and an indef block directed at me. All I am looking to do is write an article on “human molecules” (and not having it speeded by Kww). I have been persecuted for writing on this topic (human molecules) since my very first edit at Wikipedia in 2005, an edit based the 1952 book by C.G. Darwin on the thermodynamics of human molecules. I have politely asked Kww that if thinks that the human molecule topic should be deleted that he should follow procedure and formerly initiate an afd, after the article is written. He has declined this and stated that he will delete the article again as soon as it shows up in mainspace. Please help. --Libb Thims (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Dmacks and Kww have been notified about this thread. Exxolon (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope we find some resolution. My only intention here is to write a simple article on the subject of the "human molecule". For the record, I do not have a personal issue with Kww, but with his June improper speedy of my attempt at re-write. If an editor writes an article, but then requests deletion of his own article per G7, so as to possibly come back at a latter time to write a better version, he or she should not have to subjected to G4 speedy and noticeboard posting as though I had done some type of criminal act. --Libb Thims (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I find it difficult to see how someone could misinterpret Kww's statements in the same manner that LibbThims has. Protonk (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That's easy for you to say, especially when the words aren't being directed at you. I have been jumping through hoops now for Kww for the last few weeks trying to work his issue out. Try also spending some time reading through Kww's 100+ pages of talk to have be "lifetime-banned" for writing a simple article on "human chemistry: the study of attractions of human molecules (Henry Adams, 1885). --Libb Thims (talk) 01:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, unbelievable, almost. Could you please provide some diffs for all the supposed quotes above so that we may a) see them in context and b) know whether the emphasis (bold, large text, and wikilinks) were in the originals? Thanks —DoRD (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Point of Clarification as I was confused for a few minutes. Libb Thims=Sadi Carnot. Not sure if anyone else was confused, but I know I was. Basket of Puppies 01:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes thank you. You can read about my Wikipedia username here. --Libb Thims (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Libb Thims=Sadi Carnot and he has just said that he takes "kill the article, ban the author" to mean "kill the author". I have asked him to retract this at once. --121.220.98.146 (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC) My login dropped out. This was Bduke (Discussion)
• It's hard to see if there is something inappropriate going on here when you confuse the matter by making it look like "kill the article" and "heat death of the universe" are some sort of personal threats. My advice is think this through and stick with why you think the block threats are not reasonable.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• The edits DMacks threatened to block over were eventually removed here, but the claim that "kill the article, ban the author" means "kill the author" still remains on the page, so no actual retraction has occurred. —DoRD (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have retracted the comment, but I do not take the use of the word "kill" by and admin to be civil. --Libb Thims (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring your comments to leave out the personal attacks is not the same as retracting them. Your comments about Kww, including the heading seen here are what the block was threatened over. —DoRD (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Let me state my gripe concisely: an admin who has admittedly “angrily” used the word “kill” directed at me, and has stated more than a dozen times his wish to permanently ban me has improperly speeded my attempt at re-write. This fact gets brought up during discussion on the WikiProject Chemistry talk page, and I get threatened with indef ban? Is pointing someone’s uncivil behavior, grounds for indef ban? --Libb Thims (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I guess I should be more clear. It looks like you are deliberately misunderstanding the phrases. You can't stitch together "kill the article" and "heat death of the universe" and get a death threat against an author without some willful contortion. Protonk (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• However I originally stated my case, when a representative of a public encyclopedia has publicly stated that they have been “angry” with you for three years, expresses the view “kill the article”, and says “I may still get angry at times, but you'd have a hard time seeing it from the words I write", one is forced to read between the lines, especially when the word kill is involved. Last time I checked, during afds, the three votes are “Keep”, “Delete”, or “Rewrite”. I do not remember a vote of "Kill", as being one of the choices of votes? --Libb Thims (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• It looks to me like there is consensus (per the AfDs) that the articles should not exist. If you don't bother trying to recreate the articles, then he won't need to threaten you with a block. Now, I'm not saying that Kww has been nice the whole time, but neither have you, and there's obviously a reason behind what he is saying. Of course, none of that is certain without diffs. —fetch·comms 02:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• To point one, an afd for the article "human chemistry", is not grounds to umbrella speedy deleted every connected topic I might write on this subject, at a later date. To point two, the assertion that I haven't been nice to Kww, I haven't even been here for the last three years and since my return, I have been jumping through hoops for Kww (being at incubator on his suggestion for almost two weeks now) and have been very courteous to him, up until today when I found him using the word "kill". My only concern here is that Kww not speedy this article when it comes out of incubator, but that if he thinks the topic is not allowable in Wikipedia that he send it to afd and explain why it should be deleted. --Libb Thims (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• In its current condition, it is eligible for G4 the moment it is in article space. Unless you fix that, you shouldn't move it out of article space. None of your changes have addressed the reason that article was deleted in the first place. It was a massive WP:OR violation when originally deleted, and it remains one today.—Kww(talk) 02:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

So, let's see: comments from 3 years ago (well before I was an admin), an expression of regret on my part about the tone from a year ago, and a statement that there is no indefinite ban in place against the editor. That certainly doesn't sound like much of an attack on me. This is basically a reaction to a deletion review where my deletion of Human Chemistry under G4 was upheld, my pointing out that he was lying about what I had said during that review, and the universally negative response to his attempt to recreate the article in the incubator. And yes, if he moves that article out of the incubator into the mainspace in its current condition, it's eligible for G4 deletion again. That's not a threat, that simply an observation of fact. Here's a quote that isn't taken out of context: It appears to me that there are a lot of completely different philosophic and scientific ideas, allegories, technobabble and completely unrelated stuff mixed together under one umbrella, the connection only being the two syntactic words "human" and "atom" (or "molecule"). The result is at best a work of art, but not a coherent article. from another reviewer. That pretty much echoes the original AFD.—Kww(talk) 02:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Kww, if I had attempted a rewrite of the "human chemistry" article and you speeded it per G4, although I would have been irritated, this would have been within guidelines, being that human chemistry has had a deletion discussion (2007). The human molecule has never been to afd:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human molecule

• Therefore you have improperly used G4. All I am looking for here is a chance to write up an overview of the subject. The current version has 100+ references (40 of which discussing the term "human molecule" in the various branches of knowledge). The 2007 two-month, smear tactics campaign to discredit me, has resulted to prejudice the topic. I certainly did not go back in time 220 years ago and make up this term and I don't see why it should be banned from Wikipedia or me blocked for writing on it? If someone has issues here with the topic (not the author) then it should be taken to afd. Does anyone have objections to this? My only purpose here is education. --Libb Thims (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It was specifically listed in the nomination statement in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human chemistry. G4 applies, and a G4 speedy survived DRV. Like it or not, you have to accept that the speedy deletion was proper.—Kww(talk) 03:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

LT doesn't contribute anything useful. Pity that he used the name of a great thermodynamicist SC YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have already been placed in the same rank with Sadi Carnot by other thermodynamicists in published scientific magazines. Save the derogation. --Libb Thims (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOAP. Jehochman ^Talk 03:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. This editor "for an extensive period of time engaged in knowingly misrepresenting sources in order to promote his original research on Wikipedia", and was banned for a year. If the pattern has resumed, they need to be blocked indefinitely. Jehochman ^Talk 03:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, the statement "knowingly misrepresenting sources" is an allegation. In the current article, do you see me anywhere misrepresenting sources? --Libb Thims (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "promote his original research on Wikipedia", there is none of this in the current article. I specifically state this on the talk page: Self-referential material. You are aiming to penalize me now for past behavior, from three years ago, for which I have already been punished. --Libb Thims (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No, you are absolutely, positively wrong. That content is a direct quotation from a finding of fact in an arbitration case against you. It is a settled matter of fact that you falsified references and added original research to Wikipedia. I see that you have resumed your prior pattern of highly disruptive behavior, recreating an article that was deemed either as original research. See [1], and [2] (article deleted in 2007 and 2010, sorry, only admins can see this link.) We are not going to relitigate that case on this noticeboard. Please file an appeal with the arbitration committee if you think Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot was in error. Until then, you must not continue adding original research to Wikipedia, or else you will be blocked indefinitely. Jehochman ^Talk 03:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Either show me where, since my return, I have "continued to add original research to Wikipedia", or retract your accusation. --Libb Thims (talk) 03:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

He is referring to the article you are working on, I believe. Airplaneman ✈ 03:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This article appears to be original research and/or synthesis: Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Human molecule. It was formerly deleted twice at Human molecule. Here is a list of your contributions: [3] to that article. Given your reputation, the burden is on you to show that you aren't doing what you did before. Since you claim that the arbitration case was merely unfounded accusations, you obviously do not accept the result. It is quite reasonable to understand that you are carrying forward your former campaign to use Wikipedia as a platform to publish original research. This is not allowed. Please stop. As I suggested, you can appeal the decisions if you do not like it. Don't do an end run, because that will just result in your account being blocked again. Jehochman ^Talk 03:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• There is no WP:OR or WP:SYN in the current article. The article is a referenced article on the forty plus different people throughout history to use the construct "human molecule", in their respective field (chemistry, thermodynamics, sociology, economics, history, literature, psychology, law, etc.). You are penalizing me and making accusations about my edits from three years ago for a trial that I was never even present at to defend myself. Your accusation that I “misrepresent sources”, for example, is based mainly on one reference to a National Geographic article “Love the Chemical Reaction”, on the neurochemistry of love, where I stated something to the effect that scientists are beginning to view love as chemical reaction. The article was based on the neuroimaging research of Helen Fisher. Therefore, because of this one edit, from three years ago, the 100 references in the current article are all misrepresented? Regarding “burden is on you to show that you aren't doing what you did before”, why do you think that I am working on this article in the incubator over the next month; taking feedback on the talk page; asking for help and feedback in the various WikiProject Science talk pages; etc. Do please come to the incubator talk page and help me with this. This is now a textbook subject. If an editor made of few mistakes in the past (e.g. referencing his own book, not using enough of a neutral point of view, etc.) is the editor never to be given the chance to improve? --Libb Thims (talk) 04:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)