Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive403

350

360

370

380

390

←

400

401

402

403

404

405

→

410

420

430

440

450

460

This ANI archive was last edited on 2025-09-24 15:19:48 (or you can check the first revision).

Section size for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive403 (48 sections)

Section name	Byte count		Prose size (words)
	Header	Total	Header	Total
(Top)	44	44	0	0
WP:HARASS and WP:PRIVACY violations by User:Babakexorramdin	7,479	7,479	292	292
Wholly inappropiate?	2,212	2,212	53	53
Personal attack by an administrator, redux from above	4,645	4,645	133	133
User:ZionistLionist	3,164	3,164	45	45
Bstone vs IZAK	23,288	30,330	537	1,295
RfC proposed verdicts ignored	7,042	7,042	758	758
User:One Night In Hackney	7,107	7,107	315	315
Subject requests deletion	1,798	1,798	83	83
Rollback removal	8,314	8,314	104	104
Protection of WP:RFA	7,354	7,354	161	161
Take a look	537	537	38	38
Quick Question	4,741	4,741	66	66
unable to edit	6,130	6,130	132	132
Legal threats by User:209.244.43.12	1,824	1,824	121	121
Edit history etc	1,023	1,023	31	31
Premature Archiving of ANI Discussion	8,372	9,055	56	166
So lets keep talking about this	683	683	110	110
user removing poll results	12,758	12,758	499	499
Edito*Magica at It Again	5,440	5,440	481	481
Speedy delete tags on my user page	10,590	10,590	195	195
Racial slurs by User:90.193.39.251/User:90.193.39.91	1,203	1,203	71	71
User:Tankred	12,581	12,581	630	630
Self-harm	336	336	12	12
Disruptive editing by Quack Guru, OrangeMarlin and Eubulides at Chiropractic	4,719	4,719	461	461
:Content dispute. I would suggest deleting this from this page and taking it to the article's Talk page. Corvus cornixtalk 22:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Plus, the username indicates a possible conflict of interest, and the content looks like original research. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC) I was about to say the same thing. This is a content dispute. If discussion on the talk page has stalled, might I suggest a content RFC? Either way, it might be helpful to delete this. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC) I have presented a case of disruptive editing by OrangeMarlin, QuackGuru and Eubulides. I would appreciate if comments were directed towards that. CorticoSpinal (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC) You might want to consider a User conduct RFC. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC) this is content dispute, there is nothing here that a) requires admin intervention and b) would warrant admin intervention. As suggested, this is a matter for RFC. --87.114.7.178 (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Gwen are you suggesting that the evidence presented above is not sufficient for this noticeboard? It's my first time bringing something like this up so guidance would be appreciated. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Yes. So far as I can tell, this is a content dispute over a controversial topic. There seem to be disagreements all the way down to what sources meet WP:RS along with WP:WEIGHT. While there are signs of edit warring, which is in itself disruptive, this is something for dispute resolution, not ANI. Truth be told, if discussion has truly bogged down, I think one might start with a content RFC, which could gather some helpful outside input. This also could be a fit task for the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Absolutely a content dispute as presented, however, if this doesn't get resolved somehow, this is going to keep coming back, because it involves a deliberate blanking of NPOV material. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Swatjester is succintly described the argument I was trying to make. It was too wordy, but I felt I had to provide context and diffs. Gwen, I tried to use RfC and I'm having a hard time figuring it out. I would like it to be known that the disputed source is a World Health Organization (basic training and safety of chiropractic). I feel that there are a few editors at Chiropractic (listed above) who are being disruptive by objecting to trivial little things and resort to reversions rather than talking about it first. It's not in good taste, it's its being done by experienced editors who know better and are gaming the system here. CorticoSpinal (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC) I was the protecting admin, and am keeping an eye on things. I've gained two observations: 1) These guys have larger than average egos, and 2) They are debating content productively, though in fits and starts, occasionally tripping over observation 1. I feel they will resolve the issue by themselves in time, maybe up to a week. —EncMstr (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC) I'm going to look the other way at point #1 :) #2)one editor is holding up something that 4 agree on. (QG does not count, he's always on the 'nay' side no matter what). CorticoSpinal (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC) User:CorticoSpinal = User:EBDCM, an indefinitely blocked edit warrior. I'm not sure why he was unblocked, but I guess I don't care. Just realize this editor has a COI as someone who has a continued interest in promoting the chiropractic POV. Otherwise, this posting isn't worthy of too much response. Orange'Marlin' Talk• Contributions 23:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Red Herring, it doesn't address why you reverted and blanked the scope of section page citing NPOV. Also, you've already suggested that you don't need to talk things through, as per your discussion with DigitalC. Admin Swatjester has the same concern, you don't have to answer me since you're so glib on labelling me, amongst other things "anti-scientific" "POV warrior" "edit warrior". What's next, the Ultimate Warrior? Sheeeesh! CorticoSpinal (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC) markup removed; cannot link (help)||style="text-align:right;background:#F8C2C2;color:#000;"|5,473||style="text-align:right;background:#F8CDCD;color:#000;font-weight:bold;"|5,473||style="text-align:right;background:#E7F8E7;color:#000;"|58||style="text-align:right;background:#EFF8EF;color:#000;font-weight:bold;"|58
Threat	10,042	10,042	52	52
User:Steiner Redlich	1,212	1,212	97	97
69.253.242.57]] ([[User talk:69.253.242.57|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/69.253.242.57|contribs]]) and legal threats|[[User:69.253.242.57|69.253.242.57]] ([[User talk:69.253.242.57|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/69.253.242.57|contribs]]) and legal threats	6,749	6,749	189	189
IP spamming external link	1,360	1,360	86	86
River Usk	1,359	1,359	27	27
userpage as advert, with warnings.	1,545	1,545	52	52
User 69.124.42.44	2,404	2,404	41	41
Vandalized image	1,343	1,343	72	72
Discussion refactoring on Talk:Philip K. Dick	12,180	12,180	632	632
User:KolevTome	890	890	39	39
Persistent vandalism from IP range	801	801	0	0
Personal attack edit summaries	5,241	5,241	15	15
Proabivouac]] ([[User talk:Proabivouac|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/Proabivouac|contribs]] · [[Special:Log/Proabivouac|logs]])|[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] ([[User talk:Proabivouac|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/Proabivouac|contribs]] · [[Special:Log/Proabivouac|logs]])	24,426	24,426	510	510
Scotland page	757	757	26	26
User talk:DiamondPress	555	555	34	34
User:NRen2k5	1,246	1,246	61	61
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology	4,483	4,483	58	58
Persistent addition of nonsense to Inishbofin, Donegal	1,489	1,489	179	179
Another Grawp Vandal	4,278	4,278	24	24
Please help - personal information revealed	1,086	1,086	36	36
Block review (William M. Connolley of Travb)	21,250	21,250	210	210
REQUEST: WATCH TTN	906	906	99	99
Total	254,459	254,459	7,981	7,981