Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive403

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
350360370380390400401402403404405410420430440450460
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