Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

IP socks of banned User:Mariam83 on rampage

Despite being banned months ago, Mariam83 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected) has been on a rampage tonight. Using four different IP addresses (see below), this disgruntled editor made around 70 reverts to various articles. Initially most of the edits were reverting Mariam83's favourite articles back to their preferred versions, however after C.Fred (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) semi-protected those articles, Mariam83 started reverting random edits made by those editors who had reverted, reported, or blocked the various socks. The socks used tonight include the following (all four were blocked by different admins for 3 to 31 hours):

• 64.219.76.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 68.89.175.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 68.91.120.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.156.123.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

When dealing with Mariam83 socks, I normally just roll my eyes and go crazy on the 'undo' button. However, this time Mariam83 uncharacteristically left the following message [1] on a talk page: "You cant block me, I'm unstoppable. You just try! I will make your wikipedian life a living hell BUDDY! he he he :-)" Unfortunately I fear that Mariam83 is correct about being unstoppable. To date there are approximately 106 suspected socks of this user. (See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mariam83 for the entire list.) The amount of time editors have spent reverting and blocking these 106 socks is probably quite breathtaking.

Is there anything we can do to stop or at least slow down this banned editor? --Kralizec! (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

In the time it took me to research and write the above, Mariam83 has another 29 52 reverts via 68.90.62.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). --Kralizec! (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Another 21 reverts in sock attack number six from 68.89.189.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This has been a long night ... I think it is time for me to go to bed. --Kralizec! (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It is getting quite out of control. The user has been IP-hopping all night, causing a large backup of reverts and protections to unravel. Jmlk17 09:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Do we know what service provider the user is using? I wonder if it would be appropriate to do a single 5, maybe 10-minute range block across all those IP addresses (just to make the point that no address on that system will work)? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes... I've already sent them a request to stop the abuse months ago but received no response. Instead, i only receive her harassing emails frequently under different email accounts. She could even create a gmail account w/ my full name. The easiest way to deal w/ this case is WP:RBI. Range block would not work since the IPs she uses cover different areas in Houston, TX. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you must have really pissed her off FayssalF; she even vandalized your comment here at AN/I [2]. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I stopped her from harming Wikipedia and its users. Threats of violence remain common including threats of 'visiting me in the near future' and 'sending someone to beat me' (threats via email). She just doesn't listen. Again → WP:RBI. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Her persistence is quite apparent. In her latest attack on the project, I count 167 vandalism edits spread across seven different Houston-area IP addresses. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Finding a more proactive solution than WP:RBI for our Mariam83 vandalism issue may not be as insurmountable as I initially thought. After doing research with some of my employer's reverse DNS lookup tools, I was able to determine that even though the seven IP addresses used in her latest attack appeared to be spread across multiple Class-A and B networks, all seven IPs resolve to the ADSL address pool used by Southwestern Bell for Houston, Texas. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If this becomes a big problem or if for whatever reason things go crazy (e.g., cats and dogs start living together, etc), I went ahead and generated CIDR ranges for an {{anonblock}} should the need arise:

SockIP	ARIN allocation	CIDR
68.91.120.217	68.91.120.0 - 68.91.123.255	68.91.120.0/22 (4 class Cs)
64.219.76.51	64.219.76.0 - 64.219.79.255	64.219.76.0/22 (4 class Cs)
68.89.175.189	68.89.174.0 - 68.89.175.255	68.89.174.0/23 (2 class Cs)
71.156.123.200	71.156.120.0 - 71.156.123.255	71.156.120.0/22 (4 class Cs)
68.89.189.234	68.89.188.0 - 68.89.191.255	68.89.188.0/22 (4 class Cs)
68.90.62.202	68.90.62.0 - 68.90.63.255	68.90.62.0/23 (2 class Cs)

... for a total of 5 6 blocks which cover a total of 18 20 class Cs (around 4500 5100 ips). It would be a good idea to first find someone with checkuser to make sure there won't be collateral damage. --slakr^\ talk / 09:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I missed one. Updated. --slakr^\ talk / 10:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm ... this may be more complicated than I expected, as these ranges cover less than half of the IP socks listed at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mariam83. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty complicated and that was why i suggested WP:RBI. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Also note that the SWB Houston node is also often used by constant IP sock vandal Mmbabies, but that vandalism is unrelated to Mariam83. MMB has picked up his vandalism lately over the last few days so this should be a good side effect to help that problem. Nate · (chatter) 22:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring over removal of fair use images

Over the last several days, there's been a slow edit war happening at List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. A discussion has taken place at Talk:List_of_characters_in_Grand_Theft_Auto:_San_Andreas#Removal_of_fair_use_images_from_this_article. The use of fair use images on lists such as this to depict individual characters has been deprecated. This sort of usage became deprecated subsequent to Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, which generated considerable debate on first implementation (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use). Other highly similar article types have seen this action of fair use removal (such as discographies and "list of characters in..." type articles). See WP:NFCC on minimal use, and first sentence of WP:NFC#Unacceptable_images for further guidance. This sort of removal has become routine. Nevertheless, and despite my best efforts to educate the people on this particular article, these users are insisting that a consensus must form in order to remove the fair use images from this article, regardless of policy and prior consensus on articles of the same type. I need one or more admins to step in and put a halt to the efforts of these users to continue to force fair use images back onto this article in ignorance of policy. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well, the article has now been protected but the dispute rages on. It's quite apparent from discussion at Talk:List_of_characters_in_Grand_Theft_Auto:_San_Andreas#Removal_of_fair_use_images_from_this_article that as soon as the protection is removed, the images will be re-inserted. I'm now accused of edit warring as well. One of the contributors to the discussion is also now trying to make the argument that this "List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" isn't a "List of characters" page, and thus the policy doesn't apply, since the article should be renamed "Characters of ..." The pro-image group is trying very hard to come up with a legalese way of getting around our policies and Foundation dictums. Help, beyond page protection, is needed. Please. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• And now I am being accused of vandalism and selective targetting. [3]. Some help please? Please? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This has extended now to List of recurring characters from The Simpsons, where User:Ctjf83 is forcing 25 fair use images onto this character list. Some help please???????????? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC) ::A somewhat barren argument, since the Foundation, as I understand it, has said that Fair Use will cease at the end of March 2008, and so from 1st of April readers must expect to see denuded and boring pages; they will therefore go and find a more lively and entertaining encyclopedia. I suspect many editors here will follow, if not lead, this exodus. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 19:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Where can I read about this plan for the end of March 2008, assuming this isn't an April Fools joke in advance? --Yamla (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

JFI, I misread the policy. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 17:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You understand wrong on every count. Firstly, if these were your images and were worth a considerable sum of money, you wouldn't want them decorating articles, userpages and wherever else people want to put them, you would want their use to be as limited as possible. Fox or whoever owns the copyright to these images are no different. If we're not prepared to restrict their use dramatically, the copyright holders will go to court and make the decisions for us. Secondly, we're trying to create a project where the content is as free as possible, users downstream having to justify fair use just because we think it makes the project less boring is grossly inappropriate and unfair.

I find it exceptionally unfair and completely against our ethos when pages cannot be edited because of fair use edit warring. I'm going to make this abundantly clear, I'm prepared to block anybody that edit wars images into (and out of) pages against the consensus on talk page and such when these pages are unprotected. Nick (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you read my comment? Have I misquoted Foundation policy? Is my interpretation of its effect outrageously unreasonable? Where am I disagreeing with you on the principle? --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 19:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

we have reduced the number of images, so problem solved Ctjf83 ^talk 19:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• No, it isn't solved. The use there is still against policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

i dont believe the policy says we can't have any images...why don't u construct to wiki in a more beneficial way...images enhance encyclopedias. Ctjf83 ^talk 19:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You need to use encyclopedic images, and you need to discuss these images in the text of the article. I assume you are doing this... Nick (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

i dont know for sure what you mean by "encyclopedic images", but yes, they are pictures of characters, and are therefore discussed in the text Ctjf83 ^talk 19:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Be aware; I've just requested the protection to be removed from this article. I give up. The fair use inclusionists have come up a contortionist argument that this article is somehow unique, and it's not a list of characters at all. I'm gobsmacked. But, be aware the fair use inclusionists that don't like our mission are about to push a large number of fair use images onto the article. Good day, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the sarcasm. I was willing to partake in a productive discussion and achieve consensus, but instead it turned into a brawl. I specifically said that I only wanted a few images for the main characters, at least the main antagonists as I agreed that there were far too many images in the article. My beef was not about the images, but why you removed them under the claim that 'images simply cannot be on lists whatsoever' which you did not justify. Also, just because Wikipedia's mission is to create a free encyclopedia does not mean Fair Use content is not permitted at all. Judging by your userspace, I think your stance on fair use is bordering on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As I said, I was willing to discuss it in a productive and civil manner. Now the whole thing has become disruptive which is why I have put in a Request for Comment. .:Alex:. 16:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• My fair use stance is based on the Foundation's stance, and I'm sorry you don't like it. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You've just missed the entire point. .:Alex:. 20:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well we have a conundrum them, since I think you have missed the point. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Foundation policy is not that there cannot be any Fair Use images in any Wikimedia project, but that their use is not allowed if the project does not have a fair use policy. If this were not the case, we wouldn't be enjoying such entertainment on WP:AN/I as the regular BetaCommandBot indef block flamefest, arguments over Fair Use justifications, complaints about Fair Use images appearing on user pages, ad nauseam. A Fair Use picture for identification purposes is permitted by Foundation policy if & only if it includes the proper rationale (that conforms to whatever the rules are this week) -- although it won't appear on Wikipedia's Main Page if the article achieves FA status. The question of how many images is enough/too many should be discussed on the article Talk page. -- llywrch (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but the notion that identification alone is sufficient is wrong. Please see WP:NFC#Acceptable_images. This was hammered out over months long debate this year. Fair use law in particular dictates that pure identification alone might not be enough depending on the circumstance; there has to be something transformative about the work. Just because we have a fair use policy doesn't mean we get to use fair use images all over the place. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at your link, & the wording there is what I meant by my words, "permitted by Foundation policy if & only if it includes the proper rationale". You may not like the presence of Fair Use images in Wikipedia, but if a convincing argument can be made for their inclusion in an article, they are permitted. -- llywrch (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Absolutely, and I never meant to say they are not permitted. However, the means under which they are permitted is where we seem to disagree. You seem to feel that purposes of depiction alone is sufficient. This is clearly not the case. For example, with fair use images of living people we most emphatically do not permit fair use images for depiction only. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

But that is because a free alternative could reasonably be obtained (one can argue about this in the cases of e.g. Ingrid Betancourt, but I'm digressing). Fair use images are permitted though to illustrate the subject of an article where no free alternative can be obtained (mostly works of art), and if the FU image can't commercially harm the rights holder (low resolution and so on). I'm simplifying, but that's about the essential part of it. Fram (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• That isn't accurate. Are fair use images permitted? Yes. But, that's not a blanket statement. Fair use images have to jump through a huge number of hurdles before they are considered acceptable. As I cited before, have a look at Wikipedia:NFC#Acceptable_images. Within that section there's eight detailed circumstances. Only two of those allow for identification only. "Film and television screen shots" is not one of them. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should rehash the non-free use debates here at AN/I Those debates are bad enough at the policy page WP:NFCC where they belong. I didn't agree at the time with the proposal to ban image galleries or think the foundation resolution required that, but that proposal gained consensus so it's the policy now, and if we're going to have a policy on a subject we should enforce it. The relevance here is that Hammersoft's attempts to enforce that policy are meeting with resistance and edit warring. Enforcing image policy is often contentious and causes people on all sides to become disgruntled, bitter, accusatory, etc. 95% of the image galleries on Wikipedia were deleted en masse in the late spring to summer of this year. Every once in a while we get a new one, or someone restores an old one, or someone discovers one they missed. So there are bumps on the way to ridding Wikipedia of image galleries, and occasional new issues. We can and should debate whether the policy is right and how to enforce it, but not here. When that spills over and becomes a behavior problem that needs administrative intervention, and when the administrators who happen to be over there on the NFCC policy page aren't able to handle it or need wider input, I think that's when to change forums and come here. Is there something truly getting out of hand, and if so, what administrative action is necessary now? Wikidemo (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Nicely put Wikidemo and you're very correct in defining a difference in appropriate forums for this. Getting back to the issue of where an admin should step in or not; Protection was put on the article to stop the edit war. A contentious debate erupted on the talk page. Subsequent to the protection being removed, and without consensus to do so, images were put back onto the article List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. There are now 15 fair use images on the article. If policy is to be upheld, despite the objections of the people who insist on having this overuse of fair use images on the article, then the images need to be removed and a stern warning by an administrator needs to be made to the effect that continuing to edit war the images back into the article will result in blocks. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Incivility, Personal Attacks by Agha Nader

I am reporting a pattern of POV editing, uncivil behavior and personal attacks by User:Agha_Nader in at least two article discussion pages ‘’300’’ and Talk:Persian Gulf. While he has been uncivil to many others (evidenced by the DiffTimes below), he has also pointedly accused me of racism (1 [User_talk:Agha_Nader#Accusation_of_racism 2]) as well as filing a stale and petty Wikiquette alert based on an ‘’unfiled’’ RfC sitting as a subpage for the user ‘’for over 6 months’’.

I have held off on this complaint as long as I can, after having sought to resolve the matter with the user himself and using an intermediary to resolve the problem (User:FayssalF, an admin) without substantive result (the subpage was deleted but not the wikiquette complaint that was copied word for word from the page), though I believe that FayssalF did make solid attempts to resolve the situation. Granted, I ‘’insisted’’ it be removed within 12 hours, so as to decrease the damage an active accusation of racism can have on an editor. Two days later, Agha Nader has chosen to take no action. These personal attacks on myself, coupled with the incivility and personal attacks leveled at other editors, and general POV-pushing need addressing, and he isn’t going to cease without someone with a larger toolbox taking a hand in matters. As another editor put it in the ‘’300’’ discussion: "…either everyone who disagrees with Nader is a racist, or he's artificially trying to prolong a dead conversation".

Incivility/Personal Attacks:
in ‘’300’’ (arguing that ‘Iranian’ needs to replace Persian in the Lead, rewriting history):

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6

in Persian Gulf (accusing others of POV-editing, sock-puppetry and single-purpose accounts):

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 14:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have issued Agha Nader a warning regarding his conduct (diff). Please update this section if the behavior continues, or alert me on my talk page. Thank you. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to Arcayne's ill-considered accusation here [4]. He accuses me of "POV-pushing" and nationalism. Are these not serious accusations? I have never pushed any POV. I am a very neutral editor. I edit many Iran (Persian) related articles. A glance at my talk page or contributions will show the keen observer the backlash I get from my neutrality--from Iranian editors to Arcayne. Also, you should take a look at [5], where Arcayne tried to intimidate me. Finally, I think you should take a look at the wikiquette alert, for it sheds light on Arcayne's behavior [6].--Agha Nader (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i would dare say the wikiquette alert it sheds light on edits from over six months ago, and revealed, in context, Agha Nader's uncivil behavior and pattern of personal attacks back then as well. Neutrality is not one of the hallmarks of this user, as judged from strong POV edits to articles where Iran-based issues come into play.

And what he terms as "intimidation" was my attempt to involve an admin to encourage him to withdraw his accusation of racism before it led to this very report. I gave him every opportunity to withdraw his accusation, and he responded by highlighting the 'examples' of my racism and subsequently blanked my responses to them. I am certainly not the only editor who has been subjected to Agha Nader's incivility. I am just the one filing most recently. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like an admin already weighed in, well before Agha Nader responded. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I had explicitely suggested the following:

• Agha Nader: To delete subpages which refer to Arcayne and to withdraw the Wikiquette alert as a sign of assuming good faith. Again, Agha, please withdraw it. I had asked you to do it but you asked me the same question again. It is a "yes, please. Have the courtesy to withraw it."
• Arcayne: To not set ultimatums as they produce negative effects in any mediation or conflict resolution process.
• To both contributors... Could you please give some distance to each other if you believe it is hard for you to remain calm when you are dealing with each other?

Can we achieve that? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I am happy to oblige. I only set a time limit bc accusations of racism can snowball if left unattended. His singular lack of response led to this filing. As for editing elsewhere, so long as he is polite with myself and other users, the two points of contact we have should go smoothly with me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully and regretfully, I can state that I fully support this action by user User:Arcayne and agree with his observations of user User:Agha Nader. I have been the target of Agha Nader's suggestion that I am involved in sock-puppetry and have been labeled as a single-purpose account also included in his discussion page. I would ask and hope that these accusations are retracted by Agha Nader as they are baseless and damaging to my reputation. I would like to thank the involved administrators here and sincerely hope that as a result of this oversight, many positives are experienced by all involved. With appreciation ObserverToSee (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not accuse Observer of being a SPA, I said it. He is a SPA, because he has only edited the Persian Gulf. I do not see how that is an accusation. I have retracted my wikiquette complaint. I do this in deferring to the wisdom of Fayssal.--Agha Nader (talk) 05:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's called AGF for a reason, Agha Nader. Asking if people are sock puppets and noting your belief that they are SPA delegitimizes their opinion and contributions. Part of this process is not to punish you but to help you become a better member of the community. If you cannot learn, this will be but one of many times you will experience this process. I guess its too much to expect you to apologize for calling me a racist, is it? I mean, it's what prompted the report. As well, deferring to FayssalF's request means you remove the wikiquette alert, not just tag it. Why does it feel we have to drag you along this process kicking and screaming every inch? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with AGF. Observer is a SPA. Single user accounts "can be perfectly innocent, or it can represent a user pushing an agenda, so such accounts may warrant a bit of gentle scrutiny." I did not even scrutinize him. I merely called him what he is: a single purpose account. By the way, you have called me a POV pushers. There is no evidence of that. Also you have called me and others nationalists. I have not done any of those things. I expect apologies for both ill-considered accusations. I will not give you ultimatums or threaten you and intimidate you into apologizing (which you did to me), but I would appreciate it. I retracted the wikiquette alert. If you want to erase it, go ahead. I do not see what that serves, since it will still be in the edit history. It will be archived soon enough.--Agha Nader (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm very saddened and discouraged to read this response from Agha Nader. He asked me if I was a sock-puppet before labeling me as an SPA. In addition, prior to labeling me as an SPA, he claimed to have "exposed" me on his talk page [7] (in edit summary). This is clearly contradictory to AGF where he still maintains that it has nothing to do with AGF. I'm being attacked and labeled because I disagree with points Agha Nader has proposed and I have remained civil throughout. Unfortunately this civility has not been reciprocated as we speak as evident by this latest response. ObserverToSee (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is time now to get some distance to each other guys. Please avoid being in the same situation in the future. SPA can edit freely as long as they abide by the rules. If you'd be editing the same articles again, please avoid any usage of inappropriate language or mutual accusations. Any other comments before you move forward? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Agha Nader said that he removed the Wikiquette alert, which he was asked to do by no fewer than two different admins. He hasn't, and his non-apology at the end of the wikiquette alert not only doesn't serve to relent on his stale accusations there, but rather reinforces the user's beliefs that he is right and all of us are wrong. He has not retracted or apologized for accusing me of racism. In short - and for the fifth time - YES. I WOULD LIKE HIM TO ERASE THEM, PLEASE. I find it insufferably infuriating that he takes no action unless an admin orders him to do so, and sometimes not even then.

Asking if someone is a sock-puppet or single-purpose account is not polite, civil or pleasant, and serves - as ObserverToSee pointed out - is dismiss that person's edits. I am not sure that Agha Nader has actually learned anything from this process, which leads me to the conclusion that this won't be the last time he sees himself the subject of an AN/I. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to kindly remind Arcayne that he should not shout at me. Using all capital letters ("YES. I WOULD LIKE HIM TO ERASE THEM, PLEASE.") is shouting and uncivil.

I implore the helpful administrator to look at [8]. Where Arcyane repeatedly alters my post by adding an extra indent and moving my post further down the page. I shall not speculate as to his motives or if his actions are against policy. Furthermore, the keen administrator will note that Arcayne followed me to the Persian Gulf discussion and engaged me. Again, I will not speculate if this was stalking or not, or if it was harassment. However, it ought to be noted that I started the discussion and he had not edited the article before. He only entered the discussion after our dispute over the 300 film article. What I have stated is neutral and factual. I will leave it up to you to decide on your own if his behavior is acceptable or not. I only wish to distance myself from Arcyane, but how is this possible if engages me?--Agha Nader (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry you felt hurt by my use of cap letters; it might be that I felt them necessary, as you failed to do what was asked of you, and then lied about having done what was asked. You were reported her for failing t be civil. you were advised how to correct the situation, and yet you refuse to accomplish those measures if civility.

I have been watching the persian Gulf page for many months. it was only when your civility warranted comment did I contribute, to suggest you stop. if you wish to consider this stalking, also consider that your following my edits around are a tad closer to the actual definition of stalking.

This will be my last comment on the matter, as per FayssalF's above comment. I will not engage Agha Nader again, even though he has refused to comply with the requests of the admins here and removing the wikiquette alert and apologizing (and striking through, as it has been commented on) for the accusation of racism. his obstinancy in this matter will not remove all my AGF for him, but it certainly will color my opinion of anything he contributes. His refusal to concede that he was even wrong has cost him some of my faith in him. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not followed you to a single article. WP:CIV : "Calling someone a liar"..... Arcayne: "you failed to do what was asked of you, and then lied about having done what was asked." --Agha Nader (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

User:SarekOfVulcan

User SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be Wikistalking IrishLass. While viewing my watchlist a number of articles popped up in a quick fashion. I originally questioned if SarekOfVulcan was wikistalking me, but it turns out, every single one of his edits is a page last edited by IrishLass. It is disconcerting that a user can stalk someone in such a way using AutoWikiBrowser. It's disconcerting and out right scary. CelticGreen (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have anymore information on this? Like diffs that would justify this accusation? Maybe the articles are all in the same category. John Reaves 22:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I just viewed his contributes because a bunch of my watchlist stuff came up but if you go to the contributes IrishLass has contributed to every one of the last 20+ (sorry, exact number not known) articles that he's using AWB to "clean up." I've reverted some of the changes to the articles I had on my watch list but only on my watch list, none of hers. SarekOfVulcan made comments on Village Pump (Policy) during a heated discussion that some of us have had to walk away from. It was shortly after the last comment from IrishLass that his stalking started. As I said on an admins page, this is really creepy. CelticGreen (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Some info: since this [9] all but 8 of his edits, out of 30 have been previously edited by IrishLass and he states he's using AWB to find the articles. The last 17 were consecutively edited by him and were previously edited by her. Maybe I don't understand the stalking policy, but this is creepy. CelticGreen (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment that diff seems from a discussion at VP(Policy) that might well need some comment here. DGG (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

DGG, Could you please clarify your question/comment? I don't understand. It seems you are saying it's okay for him to stalk someone because they had a difference of opinion that's already been dealt with ad nauseum. (i.e. talked to death to the point I won't try not to even open the page at this point). But that doesn't seem exactly like what you're saying. I'm sorry, I'm just confused by your comment. CelticGreen (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll clarify--that was not my meaning--I was only suggesting that the issue on the VP page would perhaps be appropriate for a (separate) discussion here, if others agreed with me. It seems a situation where an out of control user might need stopping. As for the stalking, I was not yet discussing it. Of course stalking is wrong regardless of topic. But most of the edits seem innocuous fixing of typos and removal of obsolete tags on uncontroversial topics. DGG (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. The issue on VP is definitely inflamed. Many are upset. I'll give you that but I think most involved sort of agreed that none of us would "tattle" on anyone over the feelings that happened. But that is, of course, the decision of those with powers I don't have.

As to the stalking, while the edits are apparently innocuous, the need for the edits was found using AWB and a users name. SarekOfVulcan was called on the carpet for correcting IrishLass, by IrishLass, and within hours he's editing pages previously edited by her and only pages edited by her. There's no variety. Every page for 17 consecutive edits were edited previously by IrishLass. I don't mean to make a mountain out of a mole hill and I try to avoid reporting things short of vandalism but this kind of creeped me out to see a user editing only pages by a single other user that they previously had no contact with. I have a temper, I piss people off, I would hate for this to happen to me. It's just scary. CelticGreen (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I took a look, and I really can't find any good explanation for the fact that so many of SarekOfVulcan's recent edits are to pages IrishLass had just recently edited. That said, the edits look like perfectly reasonable ordinary cleanup using AWB. Not sure what we should do -- other opinions? Mangojuice^talk 05:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm more than a little disturbed. While innocuous in appearance, they are all articles I've had an edit on. This made me laugh though [10]. By trying to "correct" articles I've worked on he messed up an article (this was found on his talk page). Women in this world have to worry enough about stalkers, but to have to worry about them on Wikipedia because I suggested people be nice and don't come into things just to say "you're wrong" (the only contact I've had with SarekOfVulcan) is freaky. I see MangoJuice has already gently spoken to him, but I'm still freaked out. I expect certain things, like this stuff happening on message boards, but here is not a place I would expect this to happen. I would like to see something done, although I don't know what. Using an automated device to track someone like you track a UPS package is freaky. IrishLass (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Were the edits wrong, or is the concern just about how he got there

I've notified SarekOfVulcan about this thread. I have no opinion on the stalking part, but I am confused by some of the edits that CelticGreen decided to undo. Regardless of how he ended up on the articles, why would you revert something like this? What point does that undo serve? Or this one? So called clean-up? It's proper formatting to place them in a bulleted list. It seems like most of the edits were cleaning up overlinked names and default sorting the categories. Do you think the majority of the edits SoV was making were wrong, or are you just concerned about why he was targeting those specific articles? It looks like you needlessly went back and reverted most of the edits that were made. --Onorem♠Dil 13:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't revert anything, I'm the stalkee and just found out about this this morning. I do know that on occasion when pictures have _ in them, they have a problem if the _ is removed. I would have put the _s back too. But that's just because in my experience, I've seen images go away without an exact file name to the original. He did remove project tags, like the soap opera stub tag on an article that is tagged stub for a reason. If he's never worked on an article or a project he doesn't know if an article should or shouldn't be tagged as a stub. I'll be even further honest. I would have gone and edited every article he touched because this whole issue has got me pretty freaked out. My email account that I have here has personal information. He's bragged about his computer experience, what if he goes further than stalking me around Wikipedia. I know you're now thing "over react much?" But if you have ever been stalked in real life or even read the news about people getting stalked or made to believe they have a cyber boyfriend, you know it can be a real and scary thing. And he did mess up the Barrow, Alaska article just because I had edited a few words. Regardless, the use of automated technology to find someone is just....well there are no words that won't get me in trouble. I know the edits seem harmless, but the process is freaky!! IrishLass (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I think what's suspicious is, after SarekOfVulcan and IrishLass had a less than pleasant exchange on the village pump, SarekOfVulcan edited a good number of pages, every one of which IrishLass had recently edited. Nothing in those edits suggests anything other than attempting to improve the articles, though. Mangojuice^talk 13:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to you IrishLass. The diff's I provided show CelticGreen making reverts. Removing the '_' shouldn't mess anything up, and if you look at the article after he made that change, it's obvious that it didn't mess anything up in that case. There is nothing proving he used any sort of "automated technology" to find your edits. The 'User contributions' link is probably the best bet on how he found articles you had edited. I'll ignore the strawman portion of your comment as it's completely unrelated to what I was saying. --Onorem♠Dil 14:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

His edit summaries say he used AWB to find the pages. That's automated softward, isn't it. Some of those pages it's been quite some time since I've edited. Here's the part of the policy that disturbs me as it is true The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. Distress is an understatement. Nothing I said was false, I am distressed by the behaviour. Why must people discount other's feelings especially in a matter like this and essentially outright call them a liar (at least that's how I interpret "strawman". Everything I have said is relevant to what SoV did. Everything. IrishLass (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

His edit summaries say he used AWB to edit the pages, not to find them. (I've never used AWB though...can it only edit pages that have been found through some sort of search?) I'm not calling you a liar. I'm saying the real-life stress you may be feeling has absolutely nothing to do with my point which was, Why were some of SoV's perfectly reasonable edits being reverted. --Onorem♠Dil 14:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

As was explained to me, you give AWB a search criteria and it finds the page, then you make edits and tell it okay. So the search criteria can be, and appears to be, ME. I'm sorry, you may have not meant it, but by directing me to a page listed as "fallacies" I immediately assumed you were calling me a liar. If that was not your intention, then sorry for the misunderstanding. IrishLass (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough on the AWB criteria. I will point out that CG above stated that 21 out of SoV's last 30 edits had been previously edited by you. Hitting on only 70% would make me believe that you weren't the subject of the search. --Onorem♠Dil 14:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe she also pointed out that 17 consecutive edits, the last 17 were all previously edited by me. Doesn't mean he didn't start and then get distracted, and start up again. 17 in a row and the last of his day yesterday. Seems suspicious if you just look at the last 17. IrishLass (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's now said he used your contribution list...so there's no need to try to figure that out anymore. Again, where he was editing and how he got there wasn't the real point of my joining the discussion. It seemed to me that CG undid a bunch of edits simply because SoV made them (after she'd determined that he'd found the articles by what she considered unusual methods). Some of the reverts were unnecessary. Some were just plain wrong. --Onorem♠Dil 15:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That's neither here nor there at this point. The actions are being brushed under the rug. Who cares why the edits were reverted. As I said the level of which I was freaked out I would have reverted all his edits too as, regardless of what he claims, his actions came off as stalking. Get past the reverts and back on track. Do you nit pick every revert made by everyone else or just those showing concern over a stalking issue. And seems like you should take the issue to her talk page or do you feel that based on what has been seen here because of her concern she should be suspended for her actions, misguided or not, they were in good faith.IrishLass (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) This is a separate topic related to the same situation. I'm not trying to brush SoV's actions under any rug. That's why I created a subsection for my comments. It's related, but a different topic. Great, so you'd have reverted all of his edits too. That just means that you would've made bad edits too. Her edits may have been made in good faith, but only after she'd assumed bad faith. And there's that strawman to ignore again... --Onorem♠Dil 15:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have done anything and everything to get his name off my watchlist, that's for sure. I'd probably just find something else to edit on my pages, most of the Days characters can use clean up, but I certainly wouldn't want to see his name if I thought he was stalking me. Most of the time stalking edits are not "in good faith". I would invite you to stop using that strawman "you're a liar" reference, as it does imply someone is lying, even if you don't think of it that way. I don't think it's assuming bad faith when SoV admitted to using a contributes list to make edits. That's still a "what did you do that I can undo" issue. I don't see it as assuming bad faith given the evidence of 17 edits in a row to articles previously edited by me AFTER we had issues yesterday. IrishLass (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe strawman is wrong, but there's definitely a logical fallacy that fits here. (Appeal to emotion maybe?) I'm sorry that you felt stressed out by this, but statements like "or just those showing concern over a stalking issue" distract from the separate issue that many of the edits didn't need to be reverted, and unfairly question my motivation. I'm not trying to imply that you are lying. I'm saying that you are, intentionally or not, twisting my concerns into a tangentially related topic to avoid the discussion about my concerns. --Onorem♠Dil 15:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that I should have brought this up on CG's talk page, but when situations are brought to AN/I, all sides should generally be looked at. I'll leave a note saying that I've been discussing her edits here now. --Onorem♠Dil 15:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I just logged in and found this thread. I did indeed use IrishLass and CelticGreen's contribution list to pick that list of articles, but there was no wikistalking intended: it was just a convenient place to start a cleanup run. I've done it occasionally with my own contribution list, or with others I've run across. I'm sorry that you took it the way you did: it wasn't intended to be stalking. (Indeed, if I had been able to find the article I intended to start with, which had the title repeated as a heading in the article, I would have run through that editor's contributions instead.)--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 14:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Say I believe you, knowing I do not, how about we agree to stay as far away from each others' core articles and move on. Seriously, sorry, but I don't believe this wasn't stalking. IrishLass (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith, please.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 15:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to put "on record" that removing stub tags on rated articles of a project shouldn't be done by editors who aren't members of a project as was done on Kate Roberts. While the length is wrong, the information is sporadically right. That's why it's a stub. It needs expanding by those that know what's completely made up and what is fact. If I removed all the made up stuff, it would be less than a stub, I just haven't gotten around to it. So I think it is a safe request to ask that SoV does not remove project tags as those help project members correct and expand articles. As to assuming...you know what they say about that. Your explanation and lack of apology or willingness to agree to any compromise make that impossible. The assume policy also notes: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. The evidence in this case is 17 edits in a row and using an editors contribute list to find fault after they've addressed you as to coming in to a thread simply to "find fault."IrishLass (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec x 2)Why is this at ANI? If there was a problem, did anybody try asking Sarekofvulcan to explain? He's provided a simple, polite explanation. A lot of drama could have been avoided by assuming good faith and using his talk page. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. from WP:Wikistalking, so you can see where assuming good faith is negated at this point, or at the very least, not required based on the afore mentioned "out clause." IrishLass (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)I've brought this up on the AWB User Approval discussion page in case they agree with you that I misused the tool.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 15:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

So you admit [11] that after we had a dispute, that's why you did it. Hence falling into Wikistalking refers to the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption. A dispute and a disruption are practically equal since the dispute was about you telling me I was wrong. How is this not a relevant issue for this board? IrishLass (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Using a contributors list to clean up

Maybe I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that was not allowed and definitely fell into stalking, regardless of past incidents or not. Picking an editor and reviewing all their articles is at the least odd at the most, stalking, In My Opinion. I have been told that only with vandals can you use a contributors list to edit all their past articles, not editors in good standing. IrishLass (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That is, in my opinion, a slightly selective reading of WP:STALK. The section actually says that the important part of wikistalking is disruption. "Wikistalking refers to the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption." Further on, it says this: "Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason. In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles" and, tellingly, "The important part is the disruption — disruption is considered harmful. If 'following another user around' is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter." In this case, there has been no supported allegation of tendentiousness, personal attacks or any form of disruption. All that has been shown is "Reading another user's contribution log" and that, as the guideline says, "is not in itself harassment". Do you have evidence that SoV was being disruptive in any of those edits? I appreciate the fact that recent events may have encouraged you to view everything through a lens of suspicion. Nevertheless, an editor is not violating any guideline or policy by editing articles on your watchlist. — Dave (Talk) 15:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Reading, the passage you posted says reading, not using it to edit all their articles. It is, in my experience, disruptive and creepy to have someone you've recently been in an disagreement with follow you to all your articles, is it not? Disruption was, and is, that 17 edits in a row were all articles I had worked on and it caused much distress to me since he used automated software to do it, as he admitted, and did it because we had a dispute. Not because he found me randomly, but because we had a dispute.IrishLass (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not inherently. A creepy person may decide to follow your contribs around, but someone going over your contribs and fixing them is not automatically creepy. It really comes down to motives and methods. I am not familiar with this case, but one editor can review and correct another contributions without stalking. I am not sure what the case is here. 1 != 2 16:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:STALK does not grant you any kind of ownership over the articles you recently edited. None of those edits were creepy or intended to cause any distress - they were proper clean up edits using a tool specifically designed for that purpose. Your assumption of bad faith here is staggering and is generating more heat than light. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't do that, put words in my mouth. I never said I owned the articles. I said I would additionally edit them, they need it, to get his name off my watchlist. I just don't want to be reminded of the someone doing what he did, whatever you call it. IrishLass (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

But the passage doesn't stop just there. Rather, it goes on to say that "proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to)[emphasis added] fixing errors ... on multiple articles". How in the world could anyone use a contribs list to fix errors or correct things (expressly permitted activities) if only reading the list, but not editing from it, were permitted? I truly do sympathise with your feeling "creeped out" but, again, you really need to show evidence of stalking that goes beyond editing articles on your watchlist. An examination of the edits in question clearly shows that they were not disruptive in any way. Unfortunately, although you might wish it to be otherwise, good faith edits to articles on your watchlist do not meet the definition give at WP:HARASS. — Dave (Talk) 16:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine, you all think what you want. I'll think what I want. I find it creepy and stalkerish to follow someone here or in the real world. If I had not had a confrontation with him, I could accept the behaviour but as I did, I can't. You GUYS (emphasis because it does matter) don't understand the reaction. I know, I have a brother. Girls react very differently to being followed regardless of the location. Sorry someone brought this up. I'll just resolve to toughen up. (emotional exit). Yes, this is personal to me and I'm sorry anyone brought it up, but it wasn't even me that started it, I just replied with my reaction to the behaviour. IrishLass (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

To me the issue is the "intent to cause distress" part of the definition. Sarek seems to have done this not knowing it would be a problem; now we should tell him to stop doing it, and if he doesn't intend to cause distress, he will stop. Sarek -- Maybe you don't realize how uncomfortable that can make someone, but it really does, as you can see here, so stop. Knowing that, I'm sure you will discontinue this practice unless you really do have the intent to cause distress to others. Mangojuice^talk 18:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You'll notice I haven't touched any of those articles since Irish and Celtic raised their objections. I won't promise never to touch them again, especially since I used to watch Days back in the is-it-Roman-or-is-it-Memorex period, but I'm definitely done for the near future.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Mangojuice is not saying you should avoid ever editing an article that CG and IL also edit, but rather to stop tracking their actions like you did.--Atlan (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I do notice that. But my real point is, don't do this to anyone. If you're looking for articles to fix up there are great ways to do that that can result in very systematic fixing, for instance, going through categories and subcategories. Choosing articles via a user's contribution history is a poor way to search for places to help out, and can cause interpersonal badness like this. Mangojuice^talk 20:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. In the future, I'll restrict user-contribution sweeps to systematic mis-editing, which was definitely not the case here.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 17:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Chronic fatigue syndrome

Users Orangemarlin and Sciencewatcher keep mutulating the article Chronic fatigue syndrome. It was protected for a week, but they resumed their activity the moment the protection expired. For Sciencewatcher, this is not the first time, but now that he has found a pal all efforts to persuade him to stop this have proven futile.

Orangemarlin is involved in many editwars. It seems his only contribution to Wikipedia at this time. He refuses to discuss content.

Sciencewatcher has been a disruptive factor on the CFS talkpage since he joined. It is his only activity on Wikipedia. The talkpage is for 3/4 filled with his 'drivel' as another user put it, making it quite impossible for other users to have a normal discussion. He has yet to make his first constructive contribution.

I kindly request appropriate action to ensure that we can improve and discuss this article without constant hindrance by obstructive elements. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Full protection restored. Discussions about the disputed content must continue on the article's talk page until an agreement is found. Or, an WP:RFC could be requested if you still can't come to one. Húsönd 00:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that several editors have now found that discussions on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome tend to go round in circles, and that progress is only achieved by being WP:BOLD at times. That is, unless these edits immediately get reverted by editors who prefer the status quo.

OrangeMarlin happens to be working on a featured article. I don't call that edit warring; I suggest accusations are withdrawn. Sciencewatcher is fully entitled to participate in discussions, and your characterisations of his comments are not helpful here. In future, consider requesting protection on WP:RFPP without the personal comments. JFW | T@lk 00:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting for arguments. Reverts to the status quo is what is prescribed in their absence. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a misrepresentation of Sciencewatcher's edits. He clarified on the talkpage what was wrong with the material he edited. Instead of reverting, one ought to have reviewed the new version on its merits and make changes where necessary. JFW | T@lk 01:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

His clarification was refuted, all other users that participated in the discussion spoke in favour of keeping the section after the text was improved and reviewed on its merits, and then he deleted the improved text regardless. Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sciencewatcher is continuing his spamming of the CFS talk page in a very insultive manner, so I am repeating my request. I have put him on ignore, and I don't expect him to ever lose that status. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I urge impartial editors to please review the above editor's behaviour on the talkpage in question. While Sciencewatcher may be assuming bad faith with regards to Guido, I dispute that he is "spamming" and "very insultive". Sciencewatcher questions the reliability of particular references; that is hardly spamming.

The behaviour (exhibited by Guido) of putting other editors on "ignore" (whatever that means) is not constructive at all, and will certainly not lead to consensus or WikiLove. JFW | T@lk 21:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This user is on my ignore list since 20071213. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Er... if one particular editor is especially problematic, then shunning may be appropriate. However, if you decide to ignore every editor with whom you disagree, you're essentially stalling and obstructing consensus. The page is currently fully protected. How do you expect to make any progress if you ignore all of the other editors of the page? Also, if you have actually decided to ignore someone, consider not mentioning the fact after every one of their posts. That's hardly ignoring them, now, is it? MastCell ^Talk 22:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Disagreement is not the issue. I have taken this measure to protect myself from continuous insults, open hatred and unending idiocy. Regarding the page: I do not expect any significant progress as long as these users have access, no matter what effort I make, only the most urgent damage control. A continued protection may well prove the lesser evil. That is Wikipedia's weakness: any user with enough free time can stop progress, and worse. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that last sentiment, but would apply it in a way you might not like. So just to be clear: you prefer that the page remain protected indefinitely rather than engage with Jfdwolff, one of our most productive and longstanding editors and admins? Who, again, is obstructing any possiblity of progress here? MastCell ^Talk 22:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I would prefer a topic ban for SW and JFW. That would finally give a number of constructive users the opportunity to improve the article, without the need to first wade through the mud, which costs more energy than I have to begin with. If that doesn't happen, the next best thing (but not a good thing) is page protection, so that at least we can work on other articles instead of constantly repairing new damage to this one. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Guido, may I suggest you keep saying the things you do. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out that I did have a discussion with Guido regarding the acupuncture trial. I discussed various serious objections to the trial, and although Guido argued with me for a while, in the end he just gave up. Orangemarlin, JFW and I all agreed that the acpuncture trial should go. Guido, Jagra and JayEffage disagreed but didn't give any reasons in response to my objections. Instead Guido and JayEffage have personally attacked me (see Guido's drivel comment above) and Guido has falsely accused me of vandalism and he is now ignoring both JFW and me. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This user is on my ignore list since 20071213. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I should also point out that there haven't been any "insults, open hatred and unending idiocy" directed at Guido by either me or any other editor that I am aware of. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This user is on my ignore list since 20071213. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you stop personally disregarding what others have to say, Guido; the end result is going to end up detrimental to you, especially when they inform you of something important such as an AfD debate or a RfC involving you. I do not tune out editors on the other side of disputes I'm in (particularly the Mudkip meme debate); you should behave no differently. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am coming in as an uninvolved user in this debate, and I am quite close to just shutting this stupid thing; nothing here requires administrator attention. This is what I see: users who can't stop hitting the revert button, right after a page is unprotected, who drag their conversations and cross-post all over this encyclopedia (e.g., User talk:Husond, and, of course, here), and who don't know how to stop arguing Every. Single. Point. Guido is the most prolific in this, with his recent 3RR violatiosn and incessant incivility for which, were I an administrator, he would be blocked right now (constantly placing "this user is on my ignore list" shows that Guido has no desire to contribute, only to enflame - I suggest an administrator do so ASAP). At this point, given the length of this edit war, I am convinced that only handing out some blocks to some users is going to get the point across. Is this edit war so stupid that you guys can't agree to a middle ground, and you have to take this to arbcom, and all be banned from the article? The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I had somehow missed that Guido reverted 5 times in less than 6 hours, against multiple editors, citing "consensus" (!) - then ran to User Talk:Husond to request protection of a specific version - then vociferously "ignored" the other users he was reverting. That the page was protected, rather than Guido blocked for 5RR, was a suboptimal administrative call. Guido's approach smacks of bad faith, and I don't think we should allow the system to be gamed in such a manner. MastCell ^Talk 00:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

As I have explained elsewhere, you now have this thing backwards, a direct result of not detecting what went before because that is hidden under pages and pages of SW's monotalk. Anyhow, a better decision would have been not to lift the previous page protection in the first place, since users had already announced to delete the section regardless of the prevailing concensus between all attending constructive users, considering this the middle ground, i.e. the version by WLU. Instead, you forced me to do your job, to which unfortunately I have insufficient means to do it properly. Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What you have explained elsewhere is that, in so many words, 3RR doesn't apply to you because your version is better, that your incivility is completely acceptable [12], and that everyone is mistaken but you. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not my version. Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The history of the relevant text is at follows:

1. I detected a section in the article on alternative medicine that, while potentially relevant, did not meet Wikipedia standards.
2. I set out to improve the section, changed pov wording into npov wording while attempting to preserve the essence, corrected language, and added two sources.
3. The section was discussed. I found a second, quality source to support the text on acupuncture. We did not find a better source for other alternative medicine; the one I had found was rather poor.
4. WLU changed the text to reflect our findings and removed the poor source on other alternative medicine.
5. With the exception of Sciencewatcher, who simply did not want a section on alternative medicine, period, we agreed that until better sources were found WLU's text was a good compromise. Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

While we are talking, SW has already switched to someone else to bother (Bricker, who for the moment seems to have some energy), so my decision to put him on ignore was a good one. It helps me and does not hinder him. Now all I need is a talk page for this article where a remark does not disappear from sight within the hour. Guido den Broeder (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Though I agree my edit was an improvement over what was there, it's only because what was there before was absolute shit, and by no means a final version. It obviously wasn't a good compromise, because many editors were not satisfied. To portray it as a 'good' compromise is flatly wrong. Given the circling on the talk page, I don't know why a WP:RFC hasn't been sought yet. Obviously people don't agree, and refuse to agree, so ask for a RFC and let people move on. AN/I seems the wrong place for this issue, RFM, 3RR, RFC, or the RS noticeboard maybe, not AN/I. WLU (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

re 3RR and disruption: 5 reverts within 24hrs is awful enough, but added is repeated disruption of talk page discussion and indeed this AN/I with "This user is on my ignore list...". Wikipedia is a collaborative process and failure to collaborate is therefore disruptive and incompatable with the project. I've blocked Guido den Broeder for 31hrs. David Ruben ^Talk 04:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to what Guido says, I didn't actually remove the alternative medicine section - I simply removed the shoddy references and put in a statement saying that there was no evidence that it works. And nobody (including Guido) had any specific objections to my arguments about why the studies were highly unsound. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking

Can I get someone to give this editor a boot up the bum for this edit, quite inappropriate for the article's talk page? --Pete (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

How precisely is this Wikistalking? Metros (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

See WP:Wikistalking. It's now become the subject of an edit war, with the original editor insisting on his right to publish personal information. --Pete (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Has he followed you around? if not this doesn't really fit WP:STALK, the comment was rather uncivil but he only pointed past sockpuppetry on your behalf. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I still don't follow. What personal info. was revealed here? Metros (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe he means past sockpuppetry but that information is public and can be seen in the user's block log. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well according to a thread 2 below this and based on this edit, the concern appears to focus on a public figure...that's what I don't get. Metros (talk) 04:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, we have an editor who is 1. posting information not related to the article in a talkpage, 2. fails to assume good faith on behalf of the other editor and 3. has posted information that attempts to draw links between a user (presumably Skying ie "Pete") and a public figure. Last time I looked, Skyring has only mentioned his first name and hasn't mentioned his surname. So why is editor Brendan (who I believe has also inadvertantly outed himself as well with his post) allowed to make this personal attack, fail to assume good faith, attempt to out another editor (see here) and also bypass WP:TALK all in one go? Shot info (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Your skill at telling one skewed side of the story is admirable, Shot info. My comments were in response to Skyring's one-man jury using the talkpage to attacking User:Lester's credibility and supposedly "poor behaviour" -- which in your rush to convict me, I notice you steadfastly ignore. It's fine to have double standards like that, so long as you're prepared to be held to scrutiny for them. I simply pointed out that Skyring should not be preachy when he has committed far graver infractions in the past, and pointed out my interest in not jokes and silliness but facts, of which I gave an example. You seem to be asserting some link between my example and the identity of another editor, a link which I did not directly make and the substance of which I am entirely unaware, so how I could be outing someone that I don't know is quite beyond me. I don't know how you think that also means I've outed myself, or what relevance that holds? One wonders what your keen personal interest is in all of this, that you felt it necessary to launch an ANI offensive against me for unremarkable uncontroversial talkpage comments. --Brendan [ contribs ] 04:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are inappropriate per WP:TALK. You are attempting to out another user, this is blockable (even if the information is incorrect) per WP:BLOCK. Please consider refactoring your edits in the light of WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:TALK. Shot info (talk) 04:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

As an admin, I personally won't be blocking here. I don't think any other admin will either. Brendan has stated that he is aware of no connection between his comment and any user here. So, in keeping in lines with AGF, shouldn't you also assume what he says is true? Metros (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course the Leader of a political party "Peter", an newsgroup writer "Peter", another writer "Brendan" (who stalked the before mentioned "Peter") and now editors "Pete" and "Brendan" and one of the "Brendan" making reference to "facts". While there is no reason for one Pete to be the other (and the other Brendan). Hmmmmm, well I guess sometimes 2+2 can be stopped before the equals sign at times? Thank you for continuing Wikipedia's practise of not protecting editor's personal information (however incorrect) per Durova. Shot info (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you trying to say? Please make some sense. Please also retract your false allegation that I have wikistalked anyone. Correction: you appear to be talking about "another writer Brendan" in that particular comment about stalking, who you appear to be saying may or may not be me, although who "another writer Brendan" is that you're talking about, or where you got this "other writer Brendan" from, remains a baffling (albeit irrelevant to this discussion) mystery. --Brendan [ contribs ] 05:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless you are Brendan Jones, I have no need to retract anything. And if you are Brendan Jones, then I still have no need to retract anything. What the problem is, you have attempted to out (ie/ publish personal information....however "right or wrong") of another user. And as typical, ANi have failed to back up WP:BLOCK in this fashion. Not the first time but sometimes you need to see which side of the "personal information fence" admins fall on. Shot info (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The actual problem is that you believe your one-eyed opinions and misconceptions to be fact. As they say, Join The Conspiracy. --Brendan [ contribs ] 05:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice, and here at ANi too. I wonder if our friends the admins will have a look at WP:NPA as well? Or if they will put it into the too hard basket (like publishing personal information)? Shot info (talk) 05:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I simply made critical observations about your imbalanced treatment of editors (in respect of your complaint of WP:NPA and WP:AGF breaches against me plus allusions to WP:STALK by falsely alluding that I am someone called 'Brendan Jones'; all the while ignoring the kangaroo court being conducted by User:Skyring against User:Lester on the Talk:John Howard page). If you want to be treated with good faith, then start acting in good faith yourself, and start being consistent in your objections. --Brendan [ contribs ] 06:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Skyring and User:Lester can pay for their own crimes, as was pointed out in this very ANi when PJ was blocked for a month. You should read for comprehension rather than falsely stating that am I alluding that you are anybody - of course your shrill defence and writing style is very similar to somebody...but I'm not going to out you. You failed to note that I pretty much stayed out of Skyring and Lester's discussion until you waded in with your personal attacks and attempted outing of another user. And the fact that you think that I should join your POV in order to be "consistant", well that's telling enough. Now, there's more info about for our friends the admins to once again mull over, and probably ignore, like what they often do when it gets too hard. Which I expected to be honest (reality is sometimes hard to accept in WP :-). Admins and the ANi have been broken for a while now - as the Durova incident has proven. Shot info (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:OUTING is of particular note for admins to refer to. Shot info (talk) 06:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The posting of those links had no other conceivable purpose than to suggest an outing of a fellow editor's real-life identity. Brendan's "but I didn't really say it" games now don't cut it. Blocked for 48h. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Support this block. There is fighting the arguments/behaviour and there is fighting the man - and there is a clear policy about personal information which was implemented for good reasons. It just should not be done by anyone in this kind of a dispute, ever - and that's considering I actually do agree with Brendan's point regarding the treatment of Lester. Orderinchaos 18:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Brendan Jones isn't a Wikipedia editor, SFAIK, and in any case has always behaved in a gentlemanly fashion. May I ask that this Brendan's repeated edits revealing personal information be deleted? That is, the diffs removed from the database, as occurred a couple of years back when another editor posted my name and address. --Pete (talk) 11:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If someone really has been a public figure, putting their personal photograph on their personal Wiki userspace, along with links to various blogs and links to activities which have been covered in the media, it is inevitable that someone else will recognise that person. If the complainant was really concerned that someone would recognise him, he would take down the photos and wotnot from his Wikispace, or it will only provide bait for other users to say "I know you".Lester 12:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a big difference between me revealing what I want others to know about myself, and someone publishing personal details - which may or may not be correct. After a more responsible editor removed Brendan's allegations, Brendan repeatedly reinserted them. I also note that Brendan's comments were completely irrelevant to the article on whose talk page it appeared and seemed to be more designed to antagonise me than anything to do with editing an encyclopaedia. Such personal attacks have no place in Wikipedia. --Pete (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

---

It looks like we have yet another instance of the fundamental conflict between having a policy against "outing" and having a policy against conflicts of interest. —Random832 14:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment from 'Random832' about Conflict of Interest. Wikipedia has recently got itself into much media controversy after public figures edit articles about themselves, articles about their organisation, or articles about other organisations involved in the same arena as themselves. A quick check of history logs reveals Skyring(Pete) has been actively editing articles about the organisation he was allegedly involved in. Further more, Skyring(Pete) has previously linked from his personal Wikispace (containing a real photo of himself that he posted), through to other blogs and articles that contain both his real name and his Wikipedia alias, as well as links to organisations that he's been involved in. At the very least, it encourages other wikipedians to click through and then start discussing the subject matter that Skyring(Pete) has linked to himself via external sites. // On a separate matter, Skyring(Pete) has been displaying tremendous incivility towards myself since the blocking of User:Prester John, disrupting discussion about article content, and turning article talk pages into a place to insult me. He has just started calling for sanctions against me on the Talk:John Howard page (do a text search for the word "sanctions" and you'll find it).Lester 20:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me so much of when editor I'clast was hounding me over at Stephen Barrett because he thought I was somebody...nay...he was convinced. He too had to go off to the starchamber, only because he didn't have the evidence to back up his assertions at COIN. Let's face it, we have procedures and policy to follow. How about it is followed? Or it's just all just assuming some bad faith here. Shot info (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion

The block against user:Brendan should immediately be removed. User:Skyring (Pete) has made a false claim on this ANi thread, accusing User:Brendan of "revealing personal information". Skyring (Pete) has recently changed his external blog sites. However, there is enough evidence remaining to prove that Skyring (Pete) previously outed his own identity. I can send an administrator links if I receive a guarantee that I won't be blocked for doing so, as following Skyring's previously posted links reveals his identity. If Skyring (Pete) has previously outed himself, then there is no case against User:Brendan. There is no doubt this is a disingenuous claim on the part of Skyring (Pete). I call upon Skyring (Pete) to come clean now, and admit to everyone that he previously posted links to reveal his identity. Thanks,Lester 21:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you cannot see the actual problem with outing users has me shaking my head. Shot info (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Brendan's behavior was less than exemplarly but I think there is some valid concern here about Skyring editing when he has a serious COI. I don't have the time to deal with this but it would be good if someone would take a detailed look at this matter. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no COI. It looks like users Lester and Brendan are busily cyberstalking me. Again I note that there is a big difference between what I freely choose to reveal about myself here and someone using that as a starting point to hunt down third party material on the web, and then gleefully posting links on-wiki for the purpose of harrassment, and now offering to share the fruits of their malicious research behind the scenes. Perhaps these two chaps would be happier on Wikipedia Review, where their skills would be greatly appreciated. --Pete (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Pete "outed" himself. A 48-hour block is punitive, and blocks are not intended to be punitive, but preventative. I strongly oppose this block. Mr Which^??? 00:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Just checked my user page and neither it nor the two links I provide mention my surname nor any of the stuff Brendan alleges. --Pete (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There also must be some responsibility on a user to protect his own information. The external link on User:Skyring's wikipage went straight to a forum website where Skyring publicly displayed his identity and real name. The site has recently changed. I'd like to post a link to a cached version of this website, where Skyring (Pete) made his personal revelations. It is on the site Skyring linked to, which contradicts his claim (2 posts above this) that people "hunted down 3rd party information". I think it's highly relevant, considering User:Brendan is 'doing time' for revealing what Skyring had already revealed to everyone.Lester 00:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You do realise that your "help" is making Brendan's cries of "I didn't know that these links were really Skyring" seem even more hollow than it initially appeared. Lester, you really need to read what the purpose of Wikipedia is. It isn't about scoring about who people are. In case you have forgotten, Wikipedia is not a battleground. WP:OUTING and WP:NPA are very clear. Shot info (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I am not in favour of Lester posting personal information about me. Or anyone else. --Pete (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Skyring, please stop changing the title of this section. It's totally inappropriate to do that. Metros (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Given the nature of the discussion, with no evidence (evidence of what, I wonder?)provided, but a distinct campaign directed against me, my version is entirely appropriate. However, I've changed it to something neutral. --Pete (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You're no martyr. You "outed" yourself, as pointed out by Lester, on your own page. That you've sinced removed the evidence of your own "outing" of yourself does not mitigate the fact that you did it. That Brendan is now punitively (and completely inappropriately, in my view) blocked for "outing" your identity, when you had already done so on your own userpage just makes your cries of martyrdom ring all the more hollow. Mr Which^??? 01:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't have any notion of what Lester is talking about. I haven't posted my full name on either site, nor have I recently removed any such evidence. --Pete (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Skyring, why would you be worried if I post a cached version of the website you linked to yourself on your Wikipage? This is information about yourself and your activities that many users will have already read. However, I will not post anything until I get advice from an Administrator, and can do it privately if asked. It is highly relevant information that the blocking Administrator did not have access to at the time.Lester 01:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't post the personal information of other editors here (or anywhere else), Lester. Regardless of whether you personally think it is right and proper, it ain't. --Pete (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to establish that the website that you linked to (from your wikipage) contained your full name alongside your wikiname in public view. I won't post anything unless an administrator advises to, and further evidence won't be necessary if you acknowledge this content exists on site you linked to.Lester 01:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't provided my full name on either of the websites you mention. I freely discuss episodes in my life in my blog and on BookCrossing.com, but I don't reveal my full name, nor those of my immediate family. Please desist. --Pete (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Good grief! A simple google-search for "skyring" reveals your full name at a dot net blog. You post a full picture, alongside a cab that reveals where you live. If you're truly interested in privacy, perhaps you should edit your userpage a bit, and potentially change your username. But, if you're interested in simply "punishing" your adversary, then by all means, proceed as you are currently. Mr Which^??? 02:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A "simple google search", right? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Skyring Only if you put in my name as one of the search terms, hmmm? If you just put in Skyring, you get a huge number of people, very few of whom are me. Who is Alana Skyring, anyway? --Pete (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made it clear that I should have mentioned that the google search is for your first name (which you also post here) and Skyring. You've "outed" yourself. That is my only point. Mr Which^??? 03:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This is incredible, here we have a user MrWhich actively engaging in futher outing Skyring while trying to defend Brenden. What the hell is going on with the Admin intervention in this noticeboard! Shot info (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop. You're misrepresenting my intentions up and down this board. It is not appreciated. Mr Which^??? 03:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Lester, regardless if an editor did "out" himself in the past, ArbCom decisions (for example BvR and decisions regarding User:Fyslee) are clear that if an editor doesn't wish for personal details to be on WP, they don't appear on WP and continuing to out an editor is a personal attack which can result in a indef block. This is really serious stuff that you should need to ask yourself, is going through all of this really worth it? Shot info (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about a direct link between Skyring's Wiki userpage to the websites with information posted by him that he apparently now wants to protect. Skyring (Pete) should remove his userpage links, as they are like a flytrap for unwary editors who follow them down to where the unmentionable personal information resides. Until recently, the link to the "BookCrossing" site revealed his full name alongside the wikiname. The other link to a blog site contains details of Skyring's daily thoughts and activities, also listed under the same username. A reasonable person could consider that Skyring wanted these publicly divulged details about himself and his activities to be known. I assumed it was public knowledge, posted to boost sales of a book he is selling on that same website. Skyring (Pete), if you don't want it to be known, take the links down rather than try to get an editor blocked. And please stop denying you attached your name to that information, because that part is easy to prove. Lester 03:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"a flytrap for unwary editors"? Sounds to me like these two links, neither of which contain my full name, are a flytrap for malicious stalkers, who then go on to assemble dossiers and conduct searches. If you enter my full name and address into Google, you'll get a hit. Just like the phone directory. I suppose you'll then claim that you were following a chain of links and you are just an earnest seeker after knowledge. I don't provide my full name and address here on Wikipedia, and regardless of whether one can stalk me down by diligent sleuthing, it is no business of yours to provide instructions on how to do so, nor to distribute my personal information here, on talk pages, in wiki-emails, or anywhere else. Kindly desist. --Pete (talk) 04:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you categorically deny that the links you have posted on your webpage clearly stated your real name at an earlier time? Because, if they did, you have no protection under outing (and Brendan should not be blocked for doing so), per the quote I cite below from WP:OUTING. Mr Which^??? 04:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If you folks are going to bicker back and forth about this, take it somewhere else. You can't be blocked for outing someone who outed themselves, but if a user has decided to retract personally identifying information and has asked that it not be revealed then that should be respected and no one should make it a point to reveal that information later on - or use it as a bat in a content dispute, which is what this appears to be based on. If you have a dispute between you, follow the process for dispute resolution - this board is for notices to administrators of incidents that may require their intervention. Avruch^Talk 05:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in any content dispute with anyone involved. I simply stumbled upon this thread, and strongly objected to the block for "outing", when this user had already "outed" himself, has posted both a picture of himself, his given legal first name, and a link that another user claims recently had his FULL name on it. That Brendan remains blocked for "outing" in this case is my only concern. Well, that, and the fact that Skyring has edited one of my comments, resorted to name-calling, and other such things in the hours since I weighed in against the block. Mr Which??? 06:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Note from the blocking admin: It doesn't really matter. Many Wikipedians have given out private information on Wiki at some time or other, for instance by contributing under their real name, and then had second thoughts, for whatever reason. Our policy is that their wish for privacy must be respected as much as possible. Unless there is some compelling need for talking about Skyring's real-life identity, for instance if somebody needed to discuss a COI problem with his editing, all this info is off-topic, whether it is publically available or not. And of course, if you need to do it it needs to be done in a polite, respectful way. I cannot see any such motivation in Brendan's post; I don't think anybody was accusing Skyring of a COI in editing John Howard, right? It was nothing but a cheap, gratuitous ad personam shot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The complainant's real name still exists alongside his Wiki name, on a Wikipedia discussion thread from lomg ago, where the complainant accuses another editor (also a nemesis) of outing him with similar information. I also note that the organisation the complainant is accused of being associated with is mentioned in the content of the John Howard article, where the current argument ensued. Up until a few days ago, the complainant had been selling a book on the website linked from his Wiki userpage. On the linked site,aAdvertising for the book was posted using a name that included his wiki & real name as one word. It seems a bit odd that in the past 48 hours the complainant wants this information hidden. I hope he doesn't post this information again (or link to it) in future, or ask Wikipedians to go to it.Lester 21:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You ought to buy a copy. It's a great read. Seriously, a lot of BookCrossing.com's content is dynamic and changes minute to minute. Just go to a random page, hit refresh a few times and you'll see what I mean. It's the programming, not some conspiracy to puzzle the punters. --Pete (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that at the time user:Brendan was blocked for 'outing' Skyring (Pete), that 1. Skyring's linked page was then displaying his full name, (it was not some time in the distant past), and that 2. the information of Skyring's full name was also on Wikipedia space on old discussions, and 3. that Skyring's assertions throughout this thread that his linked website did not display the full name at the time of the block are also incorrect. Skyring's page in the previous post is a new version of his book page that does not contain the full name.Lester 00:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is true, this punitive block becomes even more awful. Mr Which??? 07:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I can recall that Skyring (Pete) has had this same argument with other editors and admins in the past, about his personal details being revealed on an external site he linked to. Skyring (Pete)'s full name will be still mentioned in Wikispace on those older discussions, which he probably should get erased if he is serious about being private.Lester 09:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Disturbing violent imagery in school-related edit

I'm the sort of person that's typically rather dismissive of media-driven anxiety, but I'm not sure if something should be done about this diff, a graphic poem written on a school's wiki entry. [13] (scroll down). Anon IP deleted the text shortly after writing it. A different anon vandal deleted the text. Just thought I'd get your opinion. Orphic (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that this is the lyrics of Kill Everybody By Stone Sour. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

An IP who replaces vandalism with correct information is "[a] different anon vandal"? 86.42.83.73 (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then, nothing to see here I would say. Thanks for taking a look. Orphic (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh gee. Indeed, song lyrics. But there has been substantial precedent on these things, including one where Jimbo intervened. Might be worth notifying the foundation or User:Mike Godwin (general counsel) via e-mail. This is tricky. We don't want to over-react but I know for a fact this kind of thing has to be (rightly so) given perhaps more than the usual reaction to vandalism. Pedro :  Chat  16:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like ordinary vandalism. 1 != 2 16:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Better to be safe than sorry. I think Wartburg should at least be notified about it straightaway. Mr Which^??? 16:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Mike Godwin should probably be notified, the IP (216.159.169.124) resolves to Wartburg College. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And yet nobody has approached the user on their Talk page and asked for an explanation? Corvus cornix_talk 18:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's most probably a shared computer, and the edit was at 5AM UTC. -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Big problem caused by "61.5.*.*/61.94.*.*" IP user

For almost a month or so, the same user who goes under numerous IP addresses that either start from "61.5" or "61.94" have been vandalizing various and sometimes even random articles by adding very misleading and obviously wrong info. So far, here is the list of articles that I have seen that he has vandalized. This list may be long (and I can't believe I dug deep just to show you this), but it shows how rampant this problem has become:

• DYCB-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sanrio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rosa Salvaje (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Unico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Banahaw Broadcasting Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Filipino Channel‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wataru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of DIC Entertainment productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Barbie in the 12 Dancing Princesses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Davis Motomiya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Takuya Kanbara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Joe Kido (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Carrusel‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Marimar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ringing Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Digimon Frontier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tú o nadie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch Pure‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Cody Hida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• T. K. Takaishi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Glass Mask (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Puss 'n Boots (anime) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Marcus Damon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sora Takenouchi‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• ABS-CBN News Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Muchacha italiana viene a casarse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Usagi Yojimbo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• My Melody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Keroppi Hasunoue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dogtanian and the Three Muskehounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Futari wa Pretty Cure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Badtz-Maru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pochacco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There may be more articles that he may have vandalized without anyone knowing it. Let's just say that he has vandalized articles on various anime, telenovelas, Sanrio works, etc. I only discovered this problem when the Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch article (which is in my watchlist) was vandalized. I'm not sure that he may be of one person or many, but the users of the IP addresses appear to have the same modus operandi.

I know we can't do anything against this anon (or anons) right now because of his IP-hopping nature (and I know it's ridiculous and, for sure, pointless to block all 61.5.*.* and 61.94.*.* strings), but can't something be done at least to either make him stop or control/stem this problem? I know most of these articles I've listed aren't worthy enough to be protected.

Sorry if this is sort of a lengthy report. But this needs your attention. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

From a quick look it seems that User: Nanami Kamimura is right about this. These are the IPs involved:

• 61.94.40.27 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 61.5.71.82 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 61.5.68.81 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 61.5.69.227 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 61.5.68.243 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 61.94.48.145 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 61.94.40.105 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 61.5.68.43 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 61.5.68.200 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 61.5.68.243 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 61.94.40.139 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 61.5.68.189 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 61.5.68.60 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 61.5.68.127 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 61.5.0.26 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 61.5.71.28 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 61.94.40.100 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 61.94.40.186 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 61.5.0.125 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 61.5.71.69 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 61.94.40.253 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 61.5.68.130 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 61.94.48.118 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 61.94.40.236 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 61.5.69.51 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 61.5.68.253 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 61.94.40.178 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 61.5.68.166 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 61.5.68.43 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Some of these accounts already been warned for vandalism. User:61.5.0.125 was given a 24 hour block. I can also confirm that they do overlap on the same articles and same topic areas. I'd call it a single user, in line with WP:DUCK, same topics, same pages, same practices, same person. A TOR or dynamic check should be used to confirm this. This situation may need admin attention, it looks like multiple IP abuse. But before going any further, User:Nanami Kamimura, it would be really helpful if you could provide diffs showing vandalism by specific accounts please. I assume you are talking about edits like this by User:61.94.48.145. But more evidence might be necessary. Cases like this are complex, so you need to detail the vandalism for those of us who don't know anything about the articles being edited--Cailil ^talk 18:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The ranges are 61.5.0.0/17 and 61.94.32.0/19. 68.193.198.41 (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Though we might be able to get away with 61.5.0.0/24, 61.5.64.0/21 and 61.94.40.0/20 by the looks of that list. BLACKKITE 19:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Both sets of IPs belong to ISPs based on Jakarta. I'm not sure if a block is necessary, but it's obviously someone in Jakarta who does not know any better.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

To the admins: I've moved my reply to the bottom of this page (under the new section title "Re: Big problem caused by "61.5.*.*/61.94.*.*" IP user"), listing the diffs and vandalism on the titles listed above, as well as four new ones. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 00:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

User:TStolper1W

This is a single-purpose account devoted entirely to promoting the ideas and person of the pseudoscientist Randell Mills. It is being run by Thomas Stolper, Mills' biographer, who refuses to accept WP:COI as a reason for not editing the Randell Mills article. The account has been blocked once before for WP:3RR violations, and every edit it has made violates to articles violates WP:NPOV. Recently, in a post to Talk:Randell Mills, Stolper also violated WP:ADVERT by promoting his biography of Mills. On User talk:TStolper1W, Stolper has demonstrated complete unwillingness to reform his conduct, and also made statements about Mills that suggest he takes all of Mills' claims without question. While the latter may have been said without thinking, I consider it to be merely an example of the overlying problem of Stolper's conflict-of-interest and very strong point-of-view pushing.

Ordinarily, Stolper's COI would not be reason for a block. However, given his unwillingness to reform his conduct, I do not see any way to prevent further disruption. I also have off-wiki communications from two independent sources, both of whom have dealt with Stolper in the course of debunking Mills. They were both of the opinion that Stolper will never voluntarily stop his disruptive editing.

I find I have lost my patience with Mr. Stolper. I therefore exclude myself from further discussion with him, and request Admin review of his editing. Michaelbusch (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I would favor restricting TStolper1W (talk · contribs) from editing the article page, and limiting him to the talk page. Thus he could propose improvements to the article, and in theory his understanding of the subject could be put to positive use. He would also be required to attempt to gain consensus for his proposed changes rather than editing disruptively or edit-warring. Thoughts on this approach? MastCell ^Talk 21:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this is two-fold: Stolper has demonstrated an un-willingness to seek consensus, and I'm not sure how we'd enforce restriction. Michaelbusch (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the second part is easy - after a suitable notification, I or another admin would block him, for increasing lengths of time, if he edits the article page (exceptions for reverting clear and obvious vandalism, etc). The first part will follow: if he is unable to directly edit the page, then the only way to see the content changes he would like is to engage on the talk page and generate consensus for them. Before imposing this, I'd like to hear from some others. MastCell ^Talk 21:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I had noted on User talk:TStolper1W that MastCell had voted for restricting Stolper from editing Randell Mills. Stolper has not complied. Michaelbusch (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:PHG

User:PHG was blocked for "Attempting to harass other users: Posting an RfA canvass on an irrelevant talk page". Bearian (talk · contribs), the blocking admin, welcomed (on WP:BN) another admin to unblock if he or she so pleased and, although I would like to unblock PHG, I don't think I should at this moment (may seem like a conflict of interest in a couple ways). So, I shall state my case here:

Judging by the discussion at Wikipedia:BN#Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship.2FElonka_3, the final straw that led to PHG's block was the fact that he posted a comment on Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance noting Elonka's ongoing RfA. PHG has been in a dispute with Elonka for quite some time now regarding the Franco-Mongol alliance article and, naturally, has been a strong opponent to Elonka gaining adminship. PHG's statement on the article's talk page was interpreted as canvassing and "attempted harassment", hence the block. However, although I don't believe PHG should have commented on the article's talk page, I can't characterize PHG's statement as canvassing toward his position and definitely can't characterize PHG's statement as "attempted harassment". His statement --

For those interested, please note that Elonka is currently running for Adminship here.

-- is worded in a rather matter-of-fact, neutral manner. It does not state PHG's position (although many, I'm sure, know what it is) and it does not encourage people to vote against her. That's not harassment. PHG has made multiple comments on Elonka's RfA, but none have been particularly worthy of a block without warning (especially in comparison to a couple other editors).

Further supporting the idea that PHG's comment is not tailoring to one side is the fact that PHG does not have an overwhelming number of supporters on that talk page. If anything, Elonka has more supporters stemming from that article. Bearian, in his edit summary, also said PHG's post was on an "irrelevant talk page". Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance is not irrelevant. Again, I don't think PHG should have commented on the talk page of the article, but it's not irrelevant; Elonka has been involved on that article for quite some time now.

So, in summary, PHG should be unblocked. Input from others is welcome. -- tariqabjotu 23:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I support such neutral "notices" to WikiProjects. But I'm not sure that this falls under that. - jc37 23:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that PHG also left this comment on the same talkpage. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 23:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I did see that, but I'm still not swayed. It's not as if we are prohibited from mentioning the fact that someone is running for adminship. At the very least, even with that piece in mind, it does not amount to a block for harassment without warning. -- tariqabjotu 23:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This was not a "neutral notice" in any way. It was posted to an article talk page from which several solid opposes could be expected to be culled. However, I don't support a block, as blocks are preventative, not punative. If PHG promises to refrain from bad-faith canvassing, he should be unblocked. I understand the sentiment of the block, but I don't agree with the rationale. Regards, Mr Which^??? 23:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"It was posted to an article talk page from which several solid opposes could be expected to be culled." Oh really? There are few editors other than Elonka and PHG involved in the article and the dispute surrounding it. In fact, I'm not particularly sure who exactly PHG was expecting to read the message. A quick glance at the previous month of talk page messages shows just about no one commenting on that page. Before then, it was mostly Elonka and PHG and various other people who have already commented on the RfA (some in support). -- tariqabjotu 23:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with some of what Tariqabjotu has said. This is a generally under frequented talkpage (indeed Elonka has expressed frustration about the lack of outside opinion on the dispute there) and most of the recent traffic is probably from the RfA. That said, as a crat I don't want RfA to turn into a referendum on the stance of an editor about a given article. This is clearly an illegitemate form of canvassing. However, I'm not sure PHG would have appreciated the problems with his post and given the lack of warning a block may have been harsh. WjBscribe 23:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's standard canvassing which is disruptive. If an editor knows that there are a number of editors that may oppose the given editor because of editing related conflicts that is decidedly unhelpful. A comment designed to skew an RfA or similar is unacceptable. You may say that people may support or oppose based on the notice, but the fact is opposes have more impact on the outcome than supports in RfA. You may be right that there weren't many more people to notify, but that doesn't make it acceptible behavior. All that said, I also am not sure it warrants a block for one instance. What would clearly warrant a block would be repeating it after a warning. So basically I agree with WJBscribe, his comment edit conflicted with mine. - Taxman ^Talk 23:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. Canvassing is a sensitive topic here, although policy makes it clear (although its not that obvious and noticeable) that if the audience is 'partisan' (dispute related) then it may be considered canvassing. However, we should AGF here as I'm sure PHG did not canvass intentionally (assuming he did). The block of PHG was overbearing and unnecessary so I agree, a warning was ok but not a block, especially for an editor who has contributed a lot. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think an unblock is prudent here. This is a grey area in terms of canvassing, and I don't know yet exactly what to think about it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked him, per Bearian's invitation, and per the consensus here. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we take it that someone will monitor his edits and reblock if he continues to seek to canvass oppose votes? If, so I endorse the unblock. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it was just on one talk page, right? The intention (read charitably) appears to have been to inform, rather than canvass. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If a collection of editors to that article suddenly turn up to oppose, the closing crat can take that into account (this has happened before). 86.148.111.110 (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(to Carl) If he hadn't piped the link while in a dispute with Elonka, perhaps I could read his intentions "charitably." With the weight of his piping of the link to the RfA, all my charity dries up regarding his intentions. Mr Which^??? 00:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A charitable reading of the link is that he was correcting his previous statement once he realized she was actually running. I don't know if this is the first time PHG has run into the canvassing guideline. I agree that practice doesn't support adding RFA notices on article talk pages. Notices on talk pages would be problematic for several reasons. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

PHG's edits will be watched until the RFA ends, and that improper canvassing will not be allowed. Therefore, the block was superfluous, which is why I removed it. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fine then and I endorse the unblock. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I am fine with the unblock. I truly believe that blocks should be used to prevent further damage to WP, not to vent, and certainly not to punish. That was my intent, and thus my invite. Thank you for the discussion, as it has helped me, too, be a better admin. Bearian (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Mixing licenses on self-made images

While editing an article, I was looking over the license information for Image:Latte.jpg and noticed that the author, User:Fir0002, had tagged it as GFDL but added on an addition which reads in part:

If you are a (commercial) publisher and you want me to write you an email or paper mail giving you permission to use my works in your products or a license with the terms of your choice, please email me to negotiate terms.

As I understand the GFDL, this seems to be an incompatible request — commercial use is allowed, albeit with some restrictions. More importantly, though, is the image use policy here at Wikipedia:Image use policy, which reads:

Images which are listed as for non-commercial use only, by permission, or which restrict derivatives are unsuitable for Wikipedia...

Several of Fir0002's images have been marked with this tag, but to me, it seems like he needs to either remove his request to grant permission or remove the images. I hope it would be the former, as he's contributed some excellent images here and I'd hate to lose them (one solution may be to upload lower resolution versions of his images - around 800x600 - which would still be useful here but less so for commercial purposes). But before dropping by his talk page to talk things over, I wanted to solicit the input of other admins and editors to make sure I've interpreted the policy correctly, and AN/I tends to get more traffic than WP:CP. So... opinions? Keep in mind that this is not the place to debate whether or not you agree with the policy (this is), but whether this is the correct interpretation of it. Tijuana Brass (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If he owns the copyright on an image, he can licence it under any licence, or combination of licences, he wishes - it's okay so long as it's either GFDL or a licence that's less restrictive. Someone can pick GFDL or any of the other licences he choses to offer. It's a "pick one" arrangement, not a "GFDL with further conditions". Commercial use is indeed allowed by GFDL, and the text he's added doesn't make it a "non-commercial only" licence. He's simply offering others a different licence option (and remember that many commercial users won't want to use a GFDL image, as that means they have to reproduce the entire licence too). So there's no problem. Tijuana Brass: please explain why you haven't discussed this matter with Fir0002 first, as strongly recommended at the top of this page, and please explain why you've not told him about this discussion. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I must state, that I completely disagree with this line of reasoning. Commons has deleted images under similar circumstances (see Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads of Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff). He most certainly did not say, "choose your license". He said you couldn't do it. Either the images should be deleted as violations of CSD-I3 or they should have the text removed. Conctacting this user for which one he means might be the right course of action. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I already did. From above: "But before dropping by his talk page to talk things over, I wanted to solicit the input of other admins and editors to make sure I've interpreted the policy correctly."

The GFDL doesn't require the author to grant permission (or others to solicit it) for commercial use, so the additions are somewhere between unnecessary and misleading. Choosing multiple licenses isn't a good reason, either, unless they're 100% compatible with each other (in which case they'd be the same). So I disagree, there's still a problem to be resolved here. Tijuana Brass (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't this mean "if you want something even less restrictive than the GFDL"? Shell ^babelfish 01:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds unlikely - if one wanted a less restrictive license, then why not just list it as that? But I can't speak for Fir, so it sounds like it's time to call him over. I'll leave a note on his talk page. Tijuana Brass (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Finlay: you can use the uploaded images in accordance with the GFDL OR you can contact him, hand over an appropriate amount of cash and be able to use the full resolution version (~10 MP) with the terms of your choice. This is not similar to the case on commons, where the copyright holder explicitly specified no-derivs. MER-C 01:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If that's the author's desire - which is completely understandable, as I've personally held off submitting pictures here which I would prefer to keep available for sale - then it needs to be worded more clearly. As it reads now, it implies commercial use requires his agreement. As an aside, I'm wary of including things like this in license information, as it reads like an advertisement. Tijuana Brass (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Finlay and MER-C. The author's intention is clear. You can use under GFDL as is provided on Wiki, or contact the author for a higher res or differently licensed version. I see no problem with his wording or having it in the licensing. And how would you rather he let people (often unfamiliar with these issues) know that they can get an alternative version? At least he doesn't watermark or otherwise degrade the image itself, or put links or author attributions in the image captions on the Wikipedia pages, which I have seen other photographers do. --jjron (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Finlay, MER-C and Jjron have the correct perspective on this. Many publishers (even before I put that note on) contact me seeking less restrictive licensing so that the images can be published commercially. Additionally I provide higher resolution versions of the image. The text is fairly straight forward, and in a strange way I'm quite proud that so many commons users have adopted a similar piece of text after I added that to my licensing. This discussion periodically crops up when people (I hate to discriminate but it's usually "text people") misunderstand it and image licensing in general. I must say I think it's pretty poor etiquette to have done all this behind my back for so long. --Fir0002 06:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with this. Someone can, under the GFDL, use your images commercially as long as they comply with the GFDL and release their resulting work under the same license, or, if they want to use it in something that isn't GFDL, they can contact you and you will talk. That sounds reasonable to me. --B (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. One of the most frustrating things about Wikipedia to me is how people tend to take things so personally. I don't know how I could've made it more clear that my interest was only in making sure the licensing issue was correct and that it wasn't done with any sort of ulterior motive. This isn't evasive, "behind your back", poor etiquette, or anything of the sort. If people could talk about issues here in good faith without suggesting that there's a bad motive behind each and every question, we'd get a whole lot more done. And for the record, I've spent plenty of time with copyright licensing issues - as part of and away from Wikipedia - so save the unnecessary stereotype.

At any rate, my suggestion to reword it still stands, but since nobody's brought up anything much towards a precedent of only one license, then I'm fine letting it stand. Thanks for those who have assumed good faith in my question. Tijuana Brass (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The GFDL is complex, and many misunderstand it in good faith. Even many lawyers. In a nutshell: you cannot license a work under the GFDL, and at the same time restrict commercial reuse. But you can offer commercial reusers the additional option to use your work under a separate license, for a fee. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

User:TheDoctorIsIn

TheDoctorIsIn (talk · contribs) is actually keeping count in his edit summaries as to how many times he's reverted Quackwatch for the day. He's studiously avoiding 3RR, but repeated reverts are disruptive, anyway. Corvus cornix_talk 00:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have placed a warning and message of peace on his/her talk page. That had seemed to curb his/her behavior. There were several other editors participating in the edit war, including ScienceApologist (talk · contribs). I placed the exact same warning on his/her talk page and again, that seemed to curb the behavior. Judging by the discussion on Talk:Quackwatch and the edit summaries during the "war", it seems both of them were well aware of how many reverts they were on. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)This is the first time this has happened. However, this user has other civility problems ([14] [15] [16] [17] [18]) for which he richly deserves a short block, in combination with the edit warring (I don't see any other users on that article with similar NPA issues who seem to deserve this block, though Ronz needs to be warned). Protecting the article will probably do nothing; the edit warring will just start right back up again as it did last time. That's my take. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No one "deserves" a block. Blocks are placed to prevent disruption, not to punish bad behavior. The block policy outlines this very clearly. Mr Which^??? 01:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Deterring the continuation of disruptive behavior by making it more difficult to edit. Dunno about you, but continuation of disruptive behavior "deserves" a block. Shot info (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I "dunno" about you, but after a 3RR warning is placed, perhaps one should wait to see if the "disruptive behavior" continues before saying anyone "deserves" a block. Mr Which^??? 02:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR is a limit, not an entitlement. Understand this does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day. Three revert is not to be construed as a defense against action taken to enforce the Disruptive editing policy. --Hu12 (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

People should expect to be blocked for edit warring like this. I've warned a couple of users who were each just doing one revert a day on each other with an article for weeks. The point is to get discussion not people just reverting each other. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes they should. its tendentious editing, where it continued in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time. blockable per WP:DISRUPT--Hu12 (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Gaming the system is bad. The spirit of 3RR isn't in the "3". EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

All this over me? Sorry. . . I get the rule now. . . And it will not happen again. . . Has ScienceApologist been warn of the same since that guy committed the same infraction?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Good question. For example, ScienceApologist adds text to change the meaning of a line, instead of reverting it, apparently to evade 3RR (since they are additions, not reverts, and 3RR while general in some ways is specific and definite about reverts). I have to get that diff into my notes regarding the ANI he brought against Levine2112. Pete St.John (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this a personal attack

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.

Keep it at one, polite thread not five bickering ones Viridae^Talk 07:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Hi, I'm after some admin advice. Does this edit [19] constitute a personal attack against a fellow wikipedian editor. I'm just curious if we can make assertions about other editors, but if we don't name them [20], that's ok? Shot info (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? It's a simple statement of fact. Nothing more, nothing less. The user was not only banned by Jimbo for a year, but also evaded the ban multiple times by using dozens of sock accounts. This is the same user who managed to get another user blocked-48 for "outing" him, when he outed himself by both his username (a simple search for "skyring" on google reveals who he is) and links on his own userpage. Mr Which^??? 02:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you agree with editors being outed, but the community (and admins it appears) fails to agree with you. You are failing to understand that Wikipedia is not a battleground, we don't import off wiki problems and we definately don't out editors who wish to remain anoymous. The Community and ArbCom are quite clear on this matter. Hence why I'm asking the question. Shot info (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll thank you to not misrepresent my position. I don't "agree with editors being outed" and have never, not once, made a statement indicating this. Please retract your above statement. What I don't agree with is problem editors like Skyring getting other editors blocked for 2 days for "outing" them, when the editor didn't actual "out" them at all. You can not "out" someone who has "outed" themselves. That's my position. Stop misrepresenting it. Mr Which^??? 02:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Please disengage since it is clear you only wish to make a fight of this. I will wait for an admin to answer. Shot info (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You insult me, misrepresent my position, and then ask me to disengage? That's chutzpah, if nothing else. Mr Which^??? 02:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

May I repeat that I haven't provided my full name on either of the two websites to which I link from my user page. Lester is going way beyond what is acceptable with his campaign of harrassment. --Pete (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(Copied from above) A simple google-search for "skyring" reveals your full name at a dot net blog. You post a full picture, alongside a cab that reveals where you live. If you're truly interested in privacy, perhaps you should edit your userpage a bit, and potentially change your username. But, if you're interested in simply "punishing" your adversary, then by all means, proceed as you are currently.Mr Which^??? 02:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the "simple search": http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Skyring so people can see for themselves. --Pete (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A clarification: you have to enter both his first name (here on WP) and his username into the search. Mr Which^??? 03:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I see. So you weren't being entirely honest to start with and we have to nail you down. But that's not the point, is it? I don't reveal my full name here on WP, and I wonder why you are trying to do so. --Pete (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I was simply mistaken, not untruthful. As for trying to out you, I am not. I don't give a tinker's dam who you are. What I'm trying to demonstrate is that you've "outed" yourself, and that Brendan being blocked for supposedly doing what you did yourself is not good. Mr Which^??? 03:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no personal attack here but will wait for a few more admin comments. This is a clear statement of fact and not a personal attack. Metros (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Metros, we comment on the edits not the editor, it cannot be simplier. Shot info (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

But commenting on editors does not always equal a personal attack. Metros (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I notice that other admins have made different actions than yourself with regards to this and the Brendan matter. Obviously commenting on the editor rather than the edits is inappropriate per...so much policy I'm not going to bother if you cannot see the trees for the words. Shot info (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the first time Timeshift9 (talk · contribs) has used his user or talk page to make a less than favorable "statement" about another editor he has a political disagreement with. Whether it is an attack or not is not really the point. What is the point, is what possible constructive reason is there for documenting the flaws of other editors in your user space (other than for political and/or antagonistic reasons)? I have asked him to remove the content, per WP:USER, and bring it up in the appropriate forum where it can e dealt with constructively. Rockpocket 02:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Timeshift9 has very kindly reworded to make his wider point without reference to any specific editor. We are done here, I think. Rockpocket 02:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, if only he refactored as first suggested. Many Thanks for your advice and input. Shot info (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Heavens, into how many threads has this been split now? Stop the bickering, everybody. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Skyring editing other's comments here at AN/I

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.

Keep it at one, polite thread not five bickering ones Viridae^Talk 07:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Please see this diff for Skyring's attempt to make it look like I was trying to "out" him by editing my comments. Is this acceptable? Mr Which^??? 03:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

MrWhich is engaging in classic outing behavour. Can I recommend that he cease and desists per WP:OUTING. Shot info (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm engaged in contesting a bad block, based on faulty information about a supposed "outing" of an editor who has "outed" himself. Mr Which^??? 03:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I don't care who Skyring is. I care that he used his supposed "outing" to get another editor blocked. Mr Which^??? 03:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

And he's now giving instructions on "Outing 101" here in this very noticeboard. Shot info (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm simply demonstrating how Skyring has effectively "outed" himself, making the block of Brendan for supposedly "outing" him a ludicrous one. Are you now trying to get me blocked for "outing" this user as well?Mr Which^??? 03:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

MrWhich, have you actually read WP:OUTING. Please read it. When you have read it, you will understand why it is unacceptable to gather the info that you are tyring to gather. Regardless if Skyring is a real person, we are ALL real people, you are actively gathering and seeking information....not in Wikipedia (but in the "real world") and making the assumption that one person is the other, regardless of policy. This is not what we do in WP. It is what Brenden did, and it is what you are doing right now - if that results in a block, you only have yourself to blame as policy is clear on this matter. Stop, just stop, you are NOT improving the project at all. Shot info (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I quote: "unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself." He has posted his legal given name ("Peter"), his location ("Canberra"), and links to his personal blogs, which a user above asserts at one point revealed his full legal name as well, claiming to have cache pages to prove it. This user has "outed" himself. I have "gathered" nothing on him. He's posted it all himself. Mr Which^??? 03:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that such tenuous links or even outside (non-Wiki) online identification do not give an exception to the policy on revealing personal information. This has been covered before in previous cases. Orderinchaos 07:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I just try to catch the eye of a responsible admin before this galoot posts links to personal information? What's going on here? --Pete (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

So now you're going with name-calling? That should really win over a neutral admin. I am neither a "galoot", nor looking to "post links to personal information." You've done that yourself, which is all I am trying to show, in attempting to demonstrate that Brendan should not be blocked. Mr Which^??? 03:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Third party opinion - firstly a disclosure, Skyring and I work on WP:AUSPOL but rarely agree on anything within our project, although I think it would be fair to say we respect each other as good faith editors with very different opinions (his broadly speaking on the right, mine on the left). I have had cause to disagree with some of his past behaviour. However, the thing being ignored here is that this policy is non-negotiable - it comes from the Foundation, it is wrong, there is plenty of precedent for blocking for it, and Brendan has previously been blocked for improper behaviour on Wikipedia and certainly is both intelligent and competent enough to know what he's doing and that he shouldn't be. Arguing over the details only serves to promote confusion about policy. Orderinchaos 07:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Roderick E defamatory posts

I am not in the habit of responding to personal attacks here or even defending myself, but I want to point out that User:Roderick E just made several allegations regarding me claiming that I am involved in criminal activities and lawsuits.[21] This goes beyond simple disagreements or even personal attacks and I appealing that someone can resolve this, perhaps on a permanent basis? This user has a history of stalking me both on and off Wikipedia and his only reason for logging back here since March was to post defamatory information about me (which is largely not even true). Many thanks.--Virgil Vaduva (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Also User:Gump is now repeating the same defamatory and untrue allegations in Talk:Rob_Bell. There is already an incident request filed for [22] by someone else because of his attacks on other users. All this stuff is way out of hand in my opinion, and I think I have some pretty thick skin.--Virgil Vaduva (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: User:Gump is now harassing me as anon from 72.86.6.114. --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

¿Sockpuppetry?  /* abadafa */ +C0 03:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No sockpuppetry, but definitely a meat puppet. --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

My comments are NOT "personal attack" (an obviously often repeated catch phrase of Virgil Vaduva -- just read his many interactions on wikipedia where he constantly accuses everyone else of "personal attack" -- Perhaps a person should consider that when they cause conflict everywhere they go, the problem might not be with other people, but they themselves???) I logged back on because I heard Vaduva was up to his tricks again, trying to defame others while painting himself as the innocent one. Again, I gave verifiable links to all the "allegations" (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gump#Outside_view) -- He DID threaten to sue wikipedia in the past by falsely claiming he owned a trademark on a public domain theological term. He DID run vampire scripts against other websites & has even admitted it to one of his closest friends. The only "defamation" going on here is his defamation of rational thinking people. My point for posting here recently was to make sure the admins consider "outside view" evidence AND directly relevant evidence to the present complaint Vaduva has lodged against User:Gump. That is all. Roderick E (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather odd behaviour

While the targeted party has certainly been no angel over the past 24-48 hours, and that may need to be addressed separately, Timeshift9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have become the focus of attention bordering on harassment from a user Duggy 1138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The matter seems to have started with an attempt to censor an election talk page in late November, which ended with Duggy being blocked for 3RR[23]. Today, Duggy has nearly proceeded to 3RR on Timeshift9's talk page, has posted numerous comments on other user talk pages titled with his nick, and has created a section on his talk page for "STUFF DELETED FROM TIMESHIFT'S TALK PAGE". Can someone not involved please look at the contributions? Orderinchaos 07:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been discussing this with Duggy and he seems to have desisted from edit warring over it. Clearly he is frustrated having been blocked when, in his opinion, Timeshift9 was as guilty as he was over the original incident. I don't think there is a lot of be gained by taking further action. Regarding the section on his page. He did start that discussion and was a major contributor to it. If Timeshift chooses to remove it from his talk page citing his prerogative to manage his own page, then Duggy has every right to move the conversation to his own talk page and maintain it there. I think we have seen the end of the disruption (for now), but I'll keep an eye on Duggy and try and guide him in the right direction. Rockpocket 09:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Anon vandal begging for a range block

Some anon vandal that I and admin EVula have dealt with is IP hopping and asking (literally) for a range block (see this). IPs have included 70.251.65.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 70.251.79.168‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log), 70.251.125.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 70.251.130.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This seems like a huge range to block... Thoughts? -- Flyguy649 ^talk 07:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Whois for this vandal. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 07:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done - I basically figure 70.251.112.0/20 is safe enough to anonblock for 12 hours as it's localized and affects, at max, 4,096 ip addresses (and it's local to the vandal). If anyone comes across any problems, feel free to unblock. --slakr^\ talk / 07:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Flyguy649 ^talk 07:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppetry

I removed a story about MLB baseball as insignificant from Portal:Current events. WikiTony posts an angry rant in response on my talkpage.[24] When I remove it an anonymous user immediately blanks my talkpage, replacing it with "You are a dumbfuck - your mom gives good head.70.251.126.92 (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)". Since this was an obvious event to hide incivility and disruption, per WP:RFCU, I ask for a block here. [25] Jose João (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Major League Baseball features players from around the world, this "scandal" could (and potentially does) include players from Europe, the Americas (not just North), Asia, Europe, Africa and probably Australia (although I don't know of any Australian players at all). It has more consequences than simply to United Statesian players and potentially is of interest to persons around the world. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

For more information on the international aspects of the MLB, see [26] and [27]. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Though the language is rude, Wikitony is an established editor and his comment is fundamentally correct--this is a major news story. Google News lists several thousand articles, including outside the US. DGG (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC). I think the blanking, though inexcusable, is not likely to be from him. DGG (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, this was in the same range as 70.251.112.0/20, which I blocked directly above for ip hopping vandalism. --slakr^\ talk / 15:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Incivility on talk page

See this warning I left on User talk:Enigmaman on December 11th and his edit of my warning today. I don't really care per se if he removes the warning but intentionally editing it to make it like I said something I didn't, seems to me to be un-acceptable per WP:CIVIL, WP:EQ and WP:TALK. -- ALLSTARecho 07:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it would have been best to approach Enigmaman (or ask someone to approach him) on his talk page, rather than to bring the dispute to this public forum. I've left a note advising him to somehow indicate that the current message is not your own. --Iamunknown 08:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Enigmaman removed the edited warning. --Iamunknown 08:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

And then he comes and attacks me on my own talk page afterwards, which is why I avoided the interaction with him and brought it here in the first place. -- ALLSTARecho 10:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like an "attack", it seems like a disagreement over whether or not the warning was appropriate. --Iamunknown 18:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The warning was clearly not appropriate and I don't appreciate people leaving threats on my talk page for no good reason. Good day now. Enigmaman (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It was very appropriate since you were told over and over and over and over to stop adding and reverting the information by several editors, not just me, until the information was fact. At the time you kept putting the content back, it was not official that the man was hired as the new coach, therefore since you failed to respond to the initial 3RR warning you got and since you continued adding the content that was not fact, content that was not true via any reliable and verifiable 3rd party source, you got a warning for adding factual errors. No matter how you want to look at it or call it, the warnings were appropriate and you violated the accompanying policies. Then to go and edit one of the warnings on your talk page to make it say something that I didn't post, and still leaving my signature on it, was nothing more than you being childish, uncivil and mad. Good day now indeed! -- ALLSTARecho 05:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please refactor your second-to-last sentence, Allstarecho. I fear that it may have the unfortunate consequence of escalating this dispute. --Iamunknown 07:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternate account?

I have seen a rather odd and unsettling few edit summaries on Jeeny's talk page, which at first looked like simple vandalism. After looking into it further, I am wondering if User talk:Humain-comme is an alternate account I didn't know about. If so, I would be both surprised and disappointed, as Jeeny is my mentee. I have messaged Picaroon about this, but as he seems to be offline I thought I would bring it up here. Thanks, Jeffpw (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This is most probably a WR troll. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeeny just emailed me, saying that she did indeed make the edits in question. I have reverted myself on her pages, and will let administrators take whatever further action they deem necessary. To say that I am disappointed at this turn of events would be a massive understatement. Jeffpw (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/220.238.60.197

This user has added spamlinks to a myspace page on about ten or twelve articles. I have reverted all the edits and warned him.

Please add this fellow's favorite website to the "spam blacklist" so that he can't bother us again. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 09:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

/ This IP vandalized the article on sean paul

this user vandalized the article on Sean Paul

here's what he did:

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.26.221.140 (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this. This is a University of Hertfordshire IP, and the vandal most probably left already though, therefore I didn't block. Next time, you'll get a faster response by reporting it directly to the WP:AIV noticeboard. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Angela Beesley

ResolvedIoeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

---

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Angela Beesley is ready for close. Don't forget {{closing}}. Disclosure: The discussion had been closed, but reverted due to the closers prior speedy closes. Regards, Mercury 12:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Look out! They is wheel-warrin'![32]--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not wheel warring because sysop tools are not being used. Hopefully the user who is closing this prematurely will get the message. For clarity, Doc glasgow is a former arbitrator. He knows what he's doing. If the close was correct, somebody uninvolved will come along and close it the same way, so just relax please. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a former arbiter. But let's all just wait for a totally uninvolved party to close this. I'm willing to accept the result of any such close.--Doc^g 13:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Jenchoman, I am relaxed. But more so, I am amused (perhaps a tad disappointed) by you and your colleagues' antics. There may not be technological (sysop tools) restrictions about who gets to close a contentious deletion review, but only admins are allowed to do it. So since you're reverting each other's administrative decisions, that's a wheel war, in my book.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope perhaps I can clarify, there is an edit war, not a wheel war. Now if it was delete/restore/delete/restore then we are talking about wheeling. Last time I checked Delpro, nonadmins could close discussions not requiring tools. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Best regards, Mercury 13:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Look at Wikipedia:DRV#Closing_reviews. "After five days, an administrator will determine if a consensus exists." It's and administrative action and amounts to the same thing as a wheel war (thanks Nick, for jumping into the mêlée, instead of contributing to the discussion). But whatever you call it.... it reflects poorly on the community.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally I am stunned by this. I wholly contest anyone saying that I am, or have ever been not neutral in this.

So now what? A DRV of DRV? Having a DRV closure reverted is amazing enough, but when it happens by two people who both have shown that they are not neutral to the discussion is just "odd", to me. That said, as I've noted elsewhere, I don't intend to restore my closure. Someone else can, if they wish, I suppose, but whatever happens, I'd really like to see this not become any more disruptive than it seems to continue to be. - jc37 13:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

See also User talk:Doc glasgow, User talk:Durova, and User talk:Mercury. - jc37 13:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Shell came along and closed it. She's uninvolved and highly respected, and no, I did not correspond with her offline, nor did anybody else that I am aware of. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Shell is not uninvolved. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted Shell, since s/he was a participant in the discussion. However, I do not intend to revert again. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. Let's have somebody uninvolved close it. What was Shell thinking? - Jehochman ^Talk 13:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably the same as everyone else. . .first one wins. R. Baley (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I support Nick's action here. This DRV will only conclude if a totally neutral party makes the call. Then we can all get back to work. If anyoen neutral is reading this, please close it (either way)--Doc^g 13:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm prepared to close, if needed, as I have taken no part at any stage. Pedro :  Chat  13:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC) in progress now. Pedro :  Chat  13:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's all pledge to support the first uninvolved party who closes this, regardless of their decision. "Uninvolved" in my mind means somebody who's signature is not on the project page, nor the talk page. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Good luck to Pedro, of course this DRV has had a lot of emotion coming from it, and we should respect any decision here as it really isn't clear which way the consensus is. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I spent more than 30 minutes looking through the DRV before closing so I missed this circus. I made a brief colorless comment on the issue, but apparently touching a debate now renders the closer a target for incredible lapses in faith. What was I thinking? I was thinking, gee, this is a difficult and highly charged debate, I wonder if I can see a way through it -- I spent a good deal of time on it and waded through the morass of nastiness coming from both sides.

I guess we've become a nation of process wonks here. Please excuse my attempt to help diffuse the situation, but next time you're going to malign my neutrality and judgment, please do it to my face. Shell ^babelfish 14:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify since I realize I wasn't very clear, I'm rather miffed that noone bothered to drop by my talk page to say they'd reverted or mention I was being discussed here -- if someone else needs to close the DRV, I think its a bit silly on the process side, but that's not what my above comment was in reference to. Shell ^babelfish 14:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I had the same feeling: "I was thinking, gee, this is a difficult and highly charged debate, I wonder if I can see a way through it -- I spent a good deal of time on it and waded through the morass of nastiness coming from both sides."

But apparently one can only "help" if those involved will "let" you. - jc37 14:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not compare my single comment on the DRV to your involvement and opinionated commentary. If you believe those are equal, you have more issues than just your conflict closing the DRV. Shell ^babelfish 14:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"Opinionated commentary"? Wow. For me, it was and is attempting to be a "helpful Wikipedian". Hence why I agreed with your comment. I've seen cases where it was appropriate to close a discussion that you've commented on, I've seen others do so, and have done so myself. So please pardon me for actually attempting to WP:AGF of a fellow Wikipedian. But then I have to admit being stunned by these events at the moment. - jc37 14:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I pour more tea? There's no need to assign blame. Everyone was acting on what they thought was right. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The only fair way to close this is, sadly, by headcount, as both sides of the debate (overturn/keep deleted) have what they believe to be valid arguments based in policy. See Shells (thankfully) abortive closure for evidence of how not to close a deletion review (repeat the arguments and then delete it anyway using the same loopy misreading of WP:BLP that brought it to DRV in the first place). Neıl ☎ 14:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Shell rightly read policy IMO. However, fortunately neither you nor I make the call - it is for a neutral closer to say. If he agrees with you, I will respect that. If he doesn't I hope you can too.--Doc^g 14:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That suggests to me you already know how it will be closed. Note it's 55 "overturns" and 36 "endorse deletions" by my very quick count. I foresee more Drama if this is closed as "endorse deletion" ignoring some very rigorous community scrutiny and consensus, particularly if basing this on an interpretation of BLP that the majority of the 90 or so contributors said ought not apply. Neıl ☎ 14:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it really process now to count "votes" even if the rationale is deficient? Can I come by and say "Endorse - I like Bozo the Clown and WP:V shouldn't be so strict"? If we really blindly count votes at DRV now, something has gone seriously wrong with that process. Shell ^babelfish 15:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion that the rationale is deficient is just that - your opinion. Mine is that the rationale is correct, and my opinion is no more or no less right than yours. Of course this is not always the case, as your example illustrates,, but in this case, whoever gets to be the closing admin should not simply impose their view on the closure - doing so negates the whole DRV discussion in the first place. There are some very wise heads on both sides of the argument (and I deliberately use that word rather than discussion), making sound arguments; if both sets of arguments are of equal validity (rare, but it happens and it's happened here) then the majority decision of the community, not of one admin, needs to be applied. Neıl ☎ 15:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to propose a new policy of making the numbers binding on the admin's close in contentious cases. But it would be an innovation.Doc^g 15:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If I thought it had a chance of being accepted, I would do so; I'd imagine anything that took deletion judgements out of an admin's hands and into the hands of the community (what do they know?) would be shouted down in short order. Neıl ☎ 15:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I was just a bit concerned about your comment that its 55 to 36 as if that implied the debate must be closed in a certain manner. In the time I took reading the arguments, I found many, many comments that had no basis in current policy or lumped Mercury's deletion and AfD close into one action as if one negated the other. I personally don't find Mercury's mistake to be a compelling reason to toss out the baby with the bathwater, however, YMMV. Shell ^babelfish 15:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(Your Mileage May Vary) Agreed, there were many comments on both sides that didn't have a solid basis in policy. The wrangling here and how pernickety the judgement is going to have to be is the reason "no consensus" usually means "don't delete" - that's tossing the baby out with the bathwater, too. Neıl ☎ 15:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a note that my stricken comment looked misleading. User:Ioeth is closing this - By the time I'd hopped over to add that tag he'd beaten me to it, hence my striking of my offer and my "in progress" commentPedro :  Chat  14:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Old AfDs

Resolved

 – I think. Hiding T 19:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Would an admin be willing to go through the short list of AfDs listed here, clean up the redirects, and rename thme in actual chronological order in case someone AfDs this again later? There should only be 7 AfDs listed. Lawrence Cohen 16:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Wakkawa

This is a vandalism only (to date) account adding a nonsense image (Image:CABBAGE.JPG) to random articles. S/he seems to have stopped for now but may need keeping an eye on. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 13:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hu12 abusing his power??

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'm not sure if it is the right place to report admin problems.

Anyway here you go.

Please check and comment on our behaviours in this issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_one-click_hosters&oldid=177856023
Hu12 comment: rmv trolling & Disruptive editing

The following comments are censored and edited out by the admin:
WP:NOTABILITY only applies when a webhost wants to create an article on its own, NOT a reference/mentioning in a comparison page

WP:NOTABILITY is set here as absolute rules for entries being added in this comparison page (of course I argue that it is applying the wrong principle in the wrong situations - messing up the article itself and a tiny entry of the whole page).

After all, read carefully. It is just a guideline: “ NOTABILITY is merely a guideline on Wikipedia. It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. ”

Read the last sentence. Use common sense.

Hu12 says Wikipedia is NOT an internet guide or directory page but... “ "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference." ”

This is an comparison page. A reference here is to contribute to the comparison table. These entries are highly relevant. What is the point of having a comparison table if nearly no entry can be added into it?

Another case where a so-called rule or guideline is rigidly applied without some common senses. ;) Odd Master (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_one-click_hosters&oldid=177857754
Hu12 comment: remove blatent vandalism/insertion of my post

I realise I made a mistake here. I forgot to sign this message (because I'm talking too much in this discussion). But it is clearly not an intention of a blatant vandalism/insertion of his post. Otherwise it will be done more sneakily. Why adding a block of statements which can be realised easily? Instead of accusing me as a blatant vandal, he may simply fix it by adding my signauture back. But he chose to censor my comments again.

The message censored by the admin:

Sorry I am talking about you guys removing the reference of Megaupload in the comparison page (NOT its article or whatever). Don't mess up between "creating an article for them" VS "mentioning/referencing them in the comparison page". Read again.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_one-click_hosters&oldid=177859356
Hu12 comment: rmv unauthorised refactoring of my comment, another attempt by Odd Master editing of other users' comments to substantially change their meaning

He actually edited his own comment. I haven't edit anyone's comments to substantially change their meaning. A complete frame-up!

---

He banned me after the incident.

I registered as Odd_Master2 and reported this incident.

After all, please comment about the appropriateness of the following:

1. He is one of the editors in this page. He has a conflict of interest. Is it appropriate for him to carry out the administrative work on this page too?
2. He censored my comments (Reasons: rmv trolling & Disruptive editing). I don't know why a comment (even if it is critical or may be harsh) can be censored. No comments should be censored even if you don't agree with it? Is he right to censor anyone comments?
3. He made false claims, eg "another attempt by Odd Master editing of other users' comments". What words did I edit? Feel free to point it out.
4. He is the one who argued me in the discussion. He has a conflict of interest. But it is him to execute the ban. Is it appropriate for him to do so?

Thank you.

PS: Sorry that the report may look ugly. I found it hard to discuss here. Wikipedia should install a proper forum software to prevent this kinds of problems in future. But I believe it won't be realised in any forseeable future.

Wikipedia doesn't use forum software - see MediaWiki. And could you provide diffs rather than past versions? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Reading the history, my polygraph's going nuts. From this diff all I see is Mudkipz Syndrome (i.e. assuming bad faith towards the people defending the article) on your part, and your block log says you're out for 24 hours. Further, you did alter Hu12's comment. Barring some very good explanation, I am going to reset the 24 hour block. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Yay. Yet another Persian gulf question

A question has come up in Talk:Persian Gulf regarding the controversial usage of the alternative (and controversial) name the 'Arabian Gulf' in the Lead. A great many there feel that the addition of the controversial alternative name is an undue weight violation. I am not as sure of this, as the naming controversy of the alternate name usage appears within the article, there is an actual dispute about the name, there are cited references to the usage of the name (both historically and contemporarily) and that a sizable percentage of people in the area refer to it as such. the debate seems to be a perennial issue of debate, and it would be nice to specifically address this so as to resolve the usage question.
I've suggested that the matter be rfC'd or even ArbCom'd but the first led nowhere and the second seems like more of a nuclear option, as an AN/I on one of the more uncivil users has served to leaven out the incivility that was brewing there. ArbCom is usually to resolve issues of user condict, not content disputes. The only reason why i still think it might eventually be valid/needed is that it does seem like a policy interpretation dispute.
The matter is insoluble to both sides. My own observations of the discussion are that, while it might seem unfair to characterize it as such, this is another cultural-type dispute, similar to the ArbCom Persian Naming Dispute thing from this past summer. Some input and/or direction would be extremely helpful. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You're looking for WP:MEDCAB perhaps, or at any rate an RfC might be appropriate. I don't think administrator intervention is necessarily called for in a civil content dispute. Avruch^Talk 21:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've filed the MedCab request. My inquiry here wasn't so much to point out incivility, but to get the benefit of some experience from admin s who've seen loggerheaded disputes like this. Maybe if a few brought the benefit of their experience (and not the Big Bad Admin bat) to the page to weigh in, it might prove useful? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy

More revert warring, can't intervene myself since I'm an active editor of that article. I warned the two editors involved but would appreciate uninvolved eyes. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Urgent: Template:African American topics

Seems to be an edit war over putting a photo of an animal on this template... my god look at the history, can someone please help? Thanks! futurebird (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's back AGAIN. [33] futurebird (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, man, so damn annoying. I was one second off blocking the editor adding this thing indef when I found I'd been beaten to the block. Bah! Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} —Preceding comment was added at 17:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's edit warring - there's a particular vandal with a that MO. I think User:Mike Rosoft keeps an eye on him and might have more information. Natalie (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's our old friend who started this type of vandalism on Mumia Abu-Jamal and Portal:African American/Intro and later spread it to other pages like Martin Luther King, Sr., Alberta Williams King, Ron Dellums, etc. Given his modus operandi, I believe he probably has some sort of dislike of African-Americans. TML (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the racist vanda being referred to the banned User:Zog?—/* abadafa */ +C0 03:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Peter morrell, et al.

Can we do anything about him? He's an extreme anti-science, pro-alternative medicine POV pusher, who delights in attacking me whenever we're in the same thread together. He's been warned countless times, and, frankly, with User:Whig now unbanned for procedural reasons, and User:Aburesz now comparing all of us to Hitler for suggesting that maybe 300 articles on Theosophy is a bit much, and they should be deleted and/or merged into a managable number, Wikipedia is getting awfully stressful

These are, of course, my personal opinions, and should not be acted on without appropriate investigation. I am not a neutral observer. However, it would be nice if we could cull a few of the low-grade trolls and pov-pushers, particularly as the three I've mentioned have all started acting as a group. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we add User:Anthon01 and User:TheDoctorIsIn to that list? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• You might want to add me to the "list"; I had never thought of myself as anti-science, but I'm having a bitching^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdifficult time with ScienceApologist at Quackwatch, which I only visited after an appeal for help dealing with a condentious edit war. There seem to be more than just two sides to a fuzzy debate with indirect ramifications, and some appear predetermined to make no concession on any point at any time. Pete St.John (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no problem with you. The people I listed have been problematic at multiple articles. Sorry! Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I also have no problem with PeterStJohn, but he seems to have one with me. Why, I can only surmise. I'll ask him at his talkpage. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Among other things SA asked me to clarify "appeal for help"; it was an RFC, the tag is at this article at the QW talk page. Pete St.John (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112

Levine2112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is refactored from above (which is a separate issue):

• While we are at it, the restrictions set by ScienceApologist's ArbCom may be topical right now:

ScienceApologist is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, they may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Currently, ScienceApologist is engaged in many examples of incivility, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith including accusations of sockpuppetry [34] [35] [36], harassment [37] [38], edit warring [39] [40] [41] [42], and assumptions of bad faith [43] [44] [45] [46]. We were very close to a consensus with a long-running issue at Quackwatch, a consensus which ScienceApologist has ignored and trampled. Can something be done as he/she is making Wikipedia a very unpleasant experience for many? Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Those are all outlandish characterizations of my actions: fairly close to a tendentious personal attack. I think Levine is fast learning how to become a disruptive editor. He already fulfills the definitional criteria outlined. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the whole with Levine's assessment of ScienceApologist. SA has also accused me of tendentious editting (and I him). Interestingly, and I think relevantly, Levine and I are on opposite sides of the article-subject-matter fence; Levine seeks to protect a postive representation of alternative medicine, and I seek to protect a postive representation of science (these preferences are not necessarily mutually exclusive). However, we agree about editorial philosophy, at least on working towards consensus. By pitting himself against "both sides" (by refusing any compromise whatsoever, on principle), SA has made himself difficult. (Again, as per above in the other ANI made by SA, re Peter Morrell, I consider myself a disputant, not an objective outsider, now.) Pete St.John (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I retract "SA has also accused me of tendentious editting". I overgeneralized, on account of my sense of his aggregrate comments, but in consideration of what might be considered the terms of his parole, I concede that he did not use those words (directly about me specifically). Pete St.John (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are those criteria and the appropriate links:

A disruptive editor is an editor who:

• Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors

  Levine is notorious pro-alt med POV-pusher. I won't even bother adding links because his entire contribution history lives up to this.

evidently not his entire history. In the few days (since Dec 11?) I've been involved with the debate at Quackwatch, I've found him responsive and responsible. So perhaps recent specific examples would be in order anyway; and as I've mentioned before, if they are omnipresent it should be easy to find specific examples. Pete St.John (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.

  Currently we are engaged in a dispute at Talk:Quackwatch where Levine along with another contingent of editors are consistently misrepresenting a source claiming that it is criticizing Quackwatch for not using peer-review when in fact it is offering a recommendation that Quackwatch implement more an "academic counterpoint" to augment their resource of which the author gives a positive review. While there are others involved, Levine tends to act as the main instigator and ring-leader with many of the other alt-med POV-pushers simply parroting his responses back. I became extremely suspicious of this earlier as it looked to me like a case of meatpuppetry on a scale I have not witnessed before at Wikipedia.

Specificaly false. SA seems to interpret "a review says that QW would be improved by instituting peer-review" as an attack on QW. Be that as it may, he misquoted the context of the citation to reverse the meaning; I refuted that by quoting the exact wording (see link below, or the talk:quackwatch). My theory is that he is blind to this, from fixating on the idea of "an attack on QW" instead of the simple "recommendation made by a reviewer". Anyway that thread is extracted, with some rebuttal from SA, at my page where I pasted together some of the pieces. Pete St.John (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.

  This edit is particularly telling. Levine is upset that he is not getting his way, and now wants to reject community compromise as a punitive action.

What? Have you read that diff yourself, SA? Maybe you pointed to the wrong item by mistake? And btw, that's another place where you didn't answer a specific question (read up to the grey above the green). You make sweeping generalities, specific questions are asked, and you ignore them. Pete St.John (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition, such editors may:

• Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility,Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

  If that's not what the above is, I don't know what it's supposed to be.

I submit, therefore, that Levine is a disruptive editor and ask that he be banned from the pages devoted to alternative medicine. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• He's not exactly the only editor at that page who meets the criteria of a disruptive editor. A broader restriction on a number of the usual suspects involved in the nonsense at Quackwatch, Chiropractic, Stephen Barrett, et. al. might not be a bad thing to consider. There are editors on both sides of the dispute that are doing more harm than good to the project as a whole.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• As in the Peter Morrell item above, also introduced by SA, please consider me a disputant as well. SA has been persistently using wiki-legalism and veiled rhetoric while spamming the consensus building process with digressions, minutiae, reverts, additions, accustations, etc. (at Quackwatch) Hope for concilliation seems, to me, dashed by this pair of ANI. Pete St.John (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Um, actually, I brought that up. Don't tell me there's still problems at Quackwatch. Want me to go in and yell at people? Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    • There are always problems at Quackwatch...--Isotope23 ^talk 19:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• ScienceApologist has asked me to come here to defend myself against his accusations: [47]. I don't think that is necessary when clearly this is just another example of ScienceApologist's uncivil behavior, harassment, and assumption of bad faith in others. I urge Admins to consider the restrictions set by ScienceApologist's ArbCom. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to Levine's accusations

Levine made a nice little list of problems he had with me. Unfortunately, these "problems" more-or-less do not correspond to the labels he has associated with them:

Sockpuppetry allegations

Currently, ScienceApologist is engaged in many examples of incivility, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith including accusations of sockpuppetry [48] [49] [50],

I really do believe that MaxPont and TheDoctorIsIn may be sockpuppets of each other. I asked them politely on their talkpages if they were and expressed my concerns on the relevant talkpage of the article that they were reverting in tandem. It was documented that TheDoctorIsIn was keeping track of his reverts and as soon as he reached the threshhold MaxPont came in and reverted back to TheDoctorIsIn's version. More than this, both MaxPont and TheDoctorIsIn have referred to I DONT LIKE IT as criticisms of people with whom they disagree. Now this similarity could be due to the fact that they both edit in similar places and both picked up on this (actually incorrect because WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a reference to a deletion debate protocol) argument by reading the same comments at some point, but I don't think I was out-of-bounds to supsect untoward behavior. I made my suspicions known as civilly as possible. I am very much aware that they may turn out to be incorrect. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done a quick comparison of their contributions and conclude that they overlap closely enough that "a suspicion of possible sockpuppetry is not unreasonable." It would take a little more digging to say anything more specific one way or the other, or to provide basis for a checkuser request. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Harassment

harassment [51]

In this diff: "I would appreciate a straightforward answer to my straightforward question. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)" How is this possibly harassment? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[52]

In this diff, I warned MaxPont about what I perceived to be some very shoddy explanations for his revert and what I considered to be borderline disruptive editing. I do not consider this harassment, but I do consider this to be a warning that the behavior associated with fly-by-night reverts associated with seeming POV-pushing is not tolerated at Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit waring

edit warring [53] [54] [55] [56]

Here we have examples of me removing a problematic passage which I explained on talk. When that was reverted, I tried to compromise and I rewrote the passage to conform to Wikipedia standards. When that was reverted without a rather nasty edit summary by User:TheDoctorIsIn, I reverted back asking him to assume good faith. When later that was reverted by TheDoctorIsIn again without so much as a comment on the talkpage while I had created an entire section to discuss the rationale for including at least an expanded version of the summary of the review, I reverted back. Maybe the last revert was not the best thing to do (there was, in fact, another round of reverts between other users over this passage), but I hardly see this as cut-and-dry as Levine seems to think. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• You guys are way too fast for me. I've begun putting together notes explicating my complaints concerning ScienceApologist at Quackwatch. QW Talk is huge, with many subsections on the same topics (mainly because sections get too large to edit conveniently). In particular, my own main single complaint against ScienceApologist is that he misquoted the context of a citation, to reverse the meaning of the quote iteself. Since he was accusing others of misconstruing the context, I considered this particularly egregious, exacerbated by his not having acknowleged (much less rebutted) the error since. My notes so far are at this section in my user space. It's a gloss of a very very spammy debate at Talk:quackwatch. Pete St.John (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

  I have responded directly at that location. It looks to me like this is a misunderstanding that I hope we can work out elsewhere. I wasn't aware of misquoting (in fact, I wasn't quoting, but rather paraphrasing) and I made what I believe to be a good justification for this characterization of the source. While you may disagree with this characterization, I hope you will understand that I wasn't intending to lie or certainly not "reverse the meaning of the quote". ScienceApologist (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Assumptions of bad faith

and assumptions of bad faith [57] This is simply me asking to add Anthon01 to the list of problematic editors that have been at different articles causing problems. How is this assuming bad faith exactly? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[58] This is the same as above except for User:TheDoctorIsIn. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Your attacks against me were unfounded. . . warnings, insults and false accusations. . . how much more bad faith can one assume in another?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[59] This is me asking PeterStJohn where he heard about the Quackwatch controversy. How is this an assumption of bad faith? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[60] This is me commenting on my suspicions of meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry, in particular I'm explaining why I have the suspicions. How is this an assumption of bad faith? I had evidence for why I had my suspicions. I was not assuming bad faith because I had evidence to the contrary. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? Because you present no evidence here. . . just an assumption of bad faith. . . and you have yet to present me with anything the shape of evidence. . . all I got was a warning and antagonistic message from you.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus conclusion

We were very close to a consensus with a long-running issue at Quackwatch, a consensus which ScienceApologist has ignored and trampled.

I don't think that we were close to a "consensus" at all. In fact, most of the people who aren't active alt-med POV-pushers hadn't commented at the time that Levine declared consensus to exist. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think ScienceApologist's characterization of the consensus claim is accurate here. Certainly, less than a day is not enough time to claim consensus if disputants haven't weighed in yet. Antelan ^talk 21:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

How can one speak of civility but then go on to blindly brand editors as "alt-med POV-pushers"? Also please note that Levine said we were close to a consensus which. . . thanks to editors like Levine. . . we were. He did not "declare" it as ScienceApologist is characterizing. . . to my knowledge Levine was the one the most helpful and instrumental editors in trying to acheive consenus. . . and where ScienceApologist was the most detrimental. I don't know but I have had a bad taste in my mouth for ScienceApologist ever since this guy editting my userpage and labeled me "a true believer in chiropractic". I don't like him. . . I think he is trouble. . . and I now I find out that he is calling me a sockpuppet. . . This is simply not true. . . Where does this guy get off?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not speaking of civility. I'm speaking of consensus. You're addressing a different issue. Antelan ^talk 02:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipeda is unpleasant

Can something be done as he/she is making Wikipedia a very unpleasant experience for many? Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish that Wikipedia could be an enjoyable place: but I don't like to see people with obvious agendas push their fringe beliefs into articles in order to advance a POV. That is contrary to what I believe to be one of the major aims of Wikipedia. I believe we are here to write an encyclopedia. Is it possible that sometimes people who have other agendas may find that aim unpleasant? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In the specific example familiar to me, citing a (evidently qualified) reviewer stating (in an evidently reputable professional journal) that he believed (at that time, 8 years ago) that QW would be improved by insitituting peer-review for it's own publication, does not constitute pushing a fringe belief. In fact, I consider the utility of peer-review to be conventional science; QW also advocates peer-review. It may not be applicable to QW's web site itself, but it's a legitimate critique which by no means implies that QW is itself unscientific or fraudulent. Witness that QW openly answers questions about it. I'm sure some of us have fringe beliefs; for example, the belief that Science is Holy and Above Criticism would be a fringe (but not unheard of) belief. For all I know, Levine did terrible editting on many pages. But in the 3 days (or so) since the RFC (on the 11th), he has been cooperative about seeking a compromise, and you, ScienceApologist, have not been (as per here, in progress). So in terms of my responding to an RFC, this ANI is premature and, IMO, disruptive to the consensus building process. Pete St.John (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Harassment Notice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bowser%2C_King_of_the_Koopas#Other_alts

This guy is harassing me by making the false notion that I am his alt.V-Dash (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected his talk to his userpage and protected it. Just out of interest, how did you find this edit? He's been blocked since December 2006 and had very few edits. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone posted a link on another site.V-Dash (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Large number of Vandal edits on Dingle CBS

I was doing some recent page patrolling and I came across the article Dingle CBS which had a large number of vandal edits from the IP range 87.33.182.X dating back to October of 2007. I have reverted the page to this last vandal-free edit, however I am wondering if an admin can look into this? Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You did the right thing. It looks like that IP range is a school one, so it looks like schoolchildren playing jokes. --Haemo (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Anon IP block request

Hi! I am having trouble with an IP (212.219.189.5), who keeps reading inappropriate content onto the RGSAO Wiki page. It will take to long to explain the background (involving schools merging), so I will spare you.

I have given warnings, reverting many times.

Could you please block this user. They have also been a problem to others (see their talk page).

Many thanks, Dewarw (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If the user is vandalizing after reated warnings, it's better to notify the admins at WP:AIV first, they will get to any sort of block a lot quicker there. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute, to me. [61] It seems you two disagree over whether pupils from the merged school are considered alumni of the new school. I do notice that this IP has not decided to discuss, though — so, if it happens again, please report them to WP:AIV with a short explanation. --Haemo (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, have done so. It is a dispute in a way, but I am right, and have given reasons to the anon ip why. The alumini of RGSW school is on the RGSW page. There are no Alumini for the new school. The IP also randomly, without any discussion/reason blanked the RGSW page and redirected it to RGSAO. For no reason!

The first few times, I thought that it was eg. ignorance. However, the anon IP just reverts with no reason. Thanks for your time,Dewarw (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is just a content dispute. Warning the user for vandalism isn't going to help the situation. The edits by that IP suggest that they think the school should only have one page, not two pages (one for the old and one for the new). --- RockMFR 20:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

216.229.196.86

Please block Special:Contributions/216.229.196.86. His/her whole work is vandalism. Here is just one of many: [62].

Thank you. 19:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If the user continues to vandalize after repeated warnings, it's better to contact the admins at WP:AIV instead. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion campaign directed against Theosophy & Ascended Master Teachings articles

I am a homeopathic physician with 27 years clinical experience. One week ago on 6 December I saw that the tone of the Homeopathy article was so POV that it was as if it was a non-encyclopedia article that would be better titled "Criticism of Homeopathy". I wrote a number of comments and suggestions on how the the article could be improved to NPOV standards. I was personally attacked by the "skeptics" that had attached themselves to the article.

Then the tactic in the last several days changed. Several of the anti-homeopathy POV editors went to my user page and checked out my "user contributions". The harrassment started as they started messing with those esoteric/Theosophy/Ascended Master Teachings articles I had worked on - with derision and mockery, and eliminating 3 of them by "redirects" to another not identical article (which I reverted) with no discussion or consensus. Each of these 2 editors had essentially made those articles unavailable.

You can see the derision and mockery directed at new religions that developed in the 20th century that were based on Theosophy at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Walled_gardens_of_woo

I've written some comments there. However the tone became increasingly nasty when User:Fireplace tried to discredit me by dredging up 2 false asccusations that I was a sock puppet.

They have been going to the articles in the "Ascended Master Teachings" category and attempting to get rid of them. See: "Category:Ascended_Master_Teachings"

User:Adam_Cuerden has repeatedly deleted an entire large section of the article on Saint Germain at: Count_of_St_Germain Arion (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the 2 individuals who have been "redirecting" and deleting (all without discussion or consensus) a number of Theosophy/Ascended Master Teachings articles over the last several days.

Examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guy_Ballard&diff=prev&oldid=177296689

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Master_Hilarion&diff=prev&oldid=177174228

The Great White Brotherhood article was deleted by User:Adam_Cuerden without discussion nor consensus on 12 December 2007. Arion (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The Great White Brotherhood article was an almost exact duplicate, as of when I deleted it, of parts of Advanced Masters Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It was not a duplicate of Ascended Masters as anyone can see if you compare the text of the two. However - - if it had been a duplicate, your action of deleting it unilaterally with NO discussion or consensus was contrary to accepted Wikipedia policy. Arion (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Copying text from one article to another with no attribution is problematic for copyright reasons and does not add useful information to the encyclopaedia. Adam would be entirely justified in deleting any material that is a straight duplication of another page. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Remember, this is not a content dispute. An editor who was interested in improving a particular article would discuss and cooperatively work together with the other editors of that article to improve it to the highest level of academic excellence. The problem in this situation is that Adam Cuerden ignored Wikipedia protocal and simply deleted the entire article - without discussion nor consensus - thus throwing out the many hours of volunteer writing, referencing, and refining by many editors over the last several years. The article was treated as if it were trash, and just thrown out. This was not a show of respect for the other editors. Arion (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

user:209.254.252.186

209.254.252.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

From the talkpage: "How can I block our students from vandalizing wikipedia from this shared IP? As you can see from all of the warnings above, our students have not been editing angels. --209.254.252.186 (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)." That says it all I suppose. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't generally block on request. I'm certainly reluctant to block this considering it's only had one 24 hour block. Whois checks out that it is an education establishment however. I'd say no block just yet, but I'll defer judgement to another admin. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The last time I saw a request like this, I posted a note asking them to identify the school using the SharedIPEDU template, and then subscribe to the RSS feed linked from that template. That would notify them of vandalism, so that they could take appropriate measures internally, and it would also show that the school's administration monitored the page - notifying students who might think twice before vandalising. It would also permit logged in users to edit. It's not a great fix, nor does it sound like it's what they want, but it's the best we can do in the absence of blocking. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am a teacher at this school. I have reverted some edits by our students. If I didn't we would probably see more blocks. Editing Wikipedia is not something that teachers would assign, so I would prefer to see a long term block. --209.254.252.186 (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The only constructive edits in the contributions from this IP address are mine. The rest are nonconstructive edits from students. I really don't want to continue to use my time to revert edits from our students. I just looked at the conditions of the schoolblock template. They look fine to me, so please consider using it for us. --209.254.252.186 (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to note, that although I (and I think other editors aswell, but I am speaking only for myself) very much appreciate your effort to keep vandalism at bay, but that from the Wikipedia point of view, it is not your personal responsibility to revert vandalism made from your students. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Since its basically impossible to establish this users identify definitively, it should be recommended that he/she contact WMF or ArbCom and disclose his/her identity and signify authority to make a request on behalf of this institution. Otherwise, who says it isn't one more example of unconstructive editing on the part of a student? Avruch^Talk 21:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats related to the block request. SharedIPEDU is a fine alternative. Avruch^Talk 21:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am the same teacher from before. I am at home now, so I have created an account. I realize that you can't confirm my identity as a teacher, but please be practical here. Realistically, the template that is on our IP address now is not going to be effective. Students won't see it. A block of one hour or one day will have no effect when the next student comes along and decides to make unconstructive edits. Please consider a long term block. --EtonTeacher (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this over and over and I've decided to block the address for 6 months as a school block. If students wish to edit, they can still create an account at home and edit in school with their account. I think it's best to respect the wishes of a school, especially when they are making efforts to combat the vandalism coming from their addresses. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your attention to this request, Ryan. The six month block will carry us through to the end of the school year. I highly doubt anyone will complain, except for the thwarted student vandals.  :-) --EtonTeacher (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Golden Compass controversies

Resolved

 – Two outside opinions given, IrishTraveller warned Will ^(talk) 22:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This issue is in regards to IrishTraveller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This individual has been adding information to the Coca-Cola and Burger King advertising articles about a controversy that does not exist as far as I can tell. He claims that Catholics are protesting these companies because of their association with The Golden Compass (film). The only two sources he quoted are primary sources of dubious qualifications that are heavily biased, and in those sources BK and Coke are only mentioned in passing as partners with Warner Brothers.

Four or five separate editors have removed his contributions, and he just reverted them. One editor warned him with a NPOV level 1 warning and I warned him with a level 2 NPOV warning. I have explained why the additions are suspect and need better sources to justify this inclusion. I explained then just outright told him what he needs to do to make this contribution acceptable for inclusion in regards to issues of article tone, proper secondary sources, reliable sources, and WP:NPOV (his entry reads poorly in this regards). In an attempt to find a source that validates his entry, I did several searches on Google, the New York Times and USA Today and could not find any reference to Burger King or Coca-Cola as being at the center of any controversy in regards to their association with the film.

My searches:

• NY Times
• USA Today
• Google

I am thoroughly exasperated with his hardheadedness and am afraid I am no longer partial in the matter. Could some one take a look at this issue and maybe deal with the issue on an administrator level before exasperates someone else?

- Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

I am not uninvolved with IrishTraveller (though I am uninvolved in the content dispute), but I would advise administrators looking at this report that this is a content dispute, that IrishTraveller is a bit hot-headed but otherwise fairly reasonable, and that prior steps of dispute resolution have not been tried. I mention the last bit, because I think that if prior steps were tried and consensus formed via a third opinion or a request for comment, that this post might be unnecessary as IrishTraveller might concede that consensus is against his or her position. --Iamunknown 20:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am just looking for a truly uninvolved party to look at the issue as a matter of course, this is an attempt to get a third opinion, that is all. As I said to you, I am not looking to get a newb screwed over here. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

Obvious trolling/POV pushing. Looking at the sources, they say nothing about CC/BK being criticised, just that CC/BK are sponsoring the film. Will ^(talk) 21:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• I've removed the text and commented on the talkpage; it clearly violates policy as the sources don't actually support the text in any way. I've also cautioned IrishTraveller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) about signing with another username as I see that as a rather deceptive practice.--Isotope23 ^talk 21:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"A rather deceptive practice"? Um, Isotope, as of IrishTraveller's last contribution, his username was "Blohme". It was renamed less than an hour after his last contribution --Iamunknown 21:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm this; I clerk at CHU and saw the request. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• (ec) Ah, I'd missed the fact that he'd been renamed as Blohme (talk · contribs) shows as unregistered. I've stricken my warning.--Isotope23 ^talk 21:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Alexbot

Alexbot is a bot, that is currently seeking approval. It was approved for trial, 50 edits. However, it has done well over 2000, and in addition to what it was approved for, running unapproved scripts. See this and this for more info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxred93 (talk • contribs) 14 December 2007

It stopped editing about 8 hours ago. I don't think a block is necessary here. Mr.Z-man 21:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Craig Wolff

Resolved

 – Journalists don't fling accusations of harassment on Wikipedia - that's the realm of journalist fodder. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Some time ago, a user named Victimofwolff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continually added claims of harassment to the Craig Wolff article. The user was eventually indef blocked. We now have a new user and IP (User:59.101.21.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), NYUjournalism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) doing it again. Can we stamp this one out earlier than usual? -- Mark Chovain 21:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocking NYU based on TP warnings and edits. The IP has no edits, deleted or otherwise. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The IP does have edits, the link above is just messed up: 59.101.21.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --barneca (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The IP above does not have any edits to the Craig Wolff article, unless the edits have since been oversighted. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

118.68.94.96 does. There may have been an error in the original report. IrishGuy ^talk 23:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There was: That wasn't the first IP stated. However, he's stopped after that one edit to the article. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Date warrior

Carnun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back to his same routine following his latest block. [63] --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, before his edit, there were two different formats in use in the article. He standardized them, at least. Horologium (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at that too quickly. However, he still hasn't responded to any comments at his talk page about this or sockpuppetry. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Category: neofascism or Neo-fascism?

There seems to be a battle of the bots (and one assumes some editors) over whether the category should be named Neofascism or Neo-fascism. Both are used by scholars, while Neofascism seems to be the preference of many recent scholars (as is antisemitism, but that's another battle}. I think an admin needs to figure out what is going on, and see if there can be a sensible discussion someplace. Thanks.--Cberlet (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Neofascism was listed for speedy renaming as Category:Neo-fascism. Removed here, added to the CFD working page here and then the bots do their stuff. Being pedantic, it should have languished for another 3 hours or so being ignored at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy, but that's a fairly trivial detail. Anyway, this says we should only have Category:Fascism, doesn't it? Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Nazis?

Wikipedia:FTN#Walled_gardens_of_woo

On questioning whether pages on obscure aspects of Victorian cults (Theosophy, Ascended Master are notable:

“ The free interchange of information is how advancement in science and humanity in general occurs. Censorship has never led to progress. Just look at the "dark age" of Europe when the "all-powerful" church decided that it would control what people said or thought, all in the name of superstitions that it proclaimed to be the whole "truth" and all that it disapproved of to be "heresy".

Look at what censorship did in Nazi Germany where mass murder of Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals occurred and no one even knew until much later how extensive it had been. Look at Iran today where homosexuals are being widely executed and the government censorship merely parrots the line that "there are no homosexuals in Iran"!

Today that same mentality would smother access to subjects that it deems "fringe" and "pseudoscience". You have no right to make that value judgement when dealing with sourced and referenced articles, no matter what the subject matter. Using that tactic is simply not the way to build Wikipedia into the academic and NPOV encyclopedia that it is intended to be.

After the "thought police" go after the new religious movements of the last 150 years, what will be next? Excising all the "irrational beliefs" and superstitions in Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. etc. etc.? However about removing all articles based on various world mythologies and the individual figures in those mythologies? Where will the censorship end? Arion (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Amen. —Whig (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

”

Just to note, "Arion" is actually User:Aburesz - I've asked him to please change his signature to one that isn't a completely different user.

Then it happens again here:

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Master_Hilarion#Master_Hilarion.2C_et_al

“ Your badgering of my position seems both hostile and intolerant in pursuit of your desire to destroy these articles. You note above your surprise at being compared with the Nazis. They espoused a ruthless, modern and scientific view of the world which led them to burn the books of which they disapproved. The WP:FANATIC essay encourages us to take a more relaxed view of our work here and it seems quite pertinent. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC) ”

I realise that people get a bit obsessed about religion, but can someone appeal for calm, and/or throw out some warnings? One doesn't really like being told one is a Nazi simply for attempting to follow Wikipedia notability policy. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Are four threads on this necessary? east.718 at 23:30, December 14, 2007

Um, sorry, have you posted in the right place? Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of banned user

Resolved

 – Account blocked indefinately

Officer Coon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Another one, seems to be a sockpuppet of User:Hayden5650. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, somebody else can slap the sock tags or whatever on his page. east.718 at 00:50, December 15, 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 00:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Already done. Thanks East. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Big problem caused by "61.5.*.*/61.94.*.*" IP user

This is a reply I made earlier to the said above section ("Big problem caused by '61.5.*.*/61.94.*.*' IP user"), but I decided to move it to the bottom so it would be read by admins and because the said section was swamped with later reports making any reply to that section unnoticeable.

---

Well, let me outline the ones that I recognized. You will recognize the diffs even if I label them differently. "N edits", which I will use in this list, actually show the end result after the number of edits mentioned. Starting with the red flags that alerted me about it in my watchlist:

• In Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch, the user added Digimon info. The two anime are never related. The diffs are as follows:
  • Five edits by 61.94.40.105 (talk · contribs)
  • Irrelevant spam by 61.5.68.43 (talk · contribs)
  • An edit by 61.5.0.16 (talk · contribs), supplanted by edits by 61.5.68.60 (talk · contribs). L337p4wn (talk · contribs) reverted one edit, but was reinstated by 61.5.68.60 (talk · contribs). That was further supplanted by this by 61.5.68.126 (talk · contribs) before it was reverted back to the last clean edit by a good faith IP user.
  • Four edits by 61.5.0.125 (talk · contribs). It was reverted, but same user did this before he was blocked and the article protected.
  • Roughly five days after protection expired, ten edits by 61.5.68.130 (talk · contribs) reinstated the Digimon info, only to spotted and reverted by Circeus (talk · contribs).
• User 61.94.40.139 (talk · contribs) did the same thing on Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch Pure. The said TV show is basically the second season of Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch, and like the parent program, it is not related to Digimon.
• Several users try to tie the above title to Digimon Frontier. First are three edits by 61.5.68.60 (talk · contribs) before I reverted them. Then 61.5.68.189 (talk · contribs) did five edits. The next IP editor never recognized the vandalism, but I did and I reverted the article.
• Several Digimon character articles were also vandalized, either connectin to Mermaid Melody or Pier 69 jokes, inserting random titles, or having them "killed":
  • Davis Motomiya: this edit by 61.5.0.125, this edit by 61.94.40.139 (talk · contribs), and this by 61.94.40.100 (talk · contribs)
  • Takuya Kanbara: these two edits by 61.94.40.105 (talk · contribs), and another two edits by 61.94.40.100 (talk · contribs)
  • Joe Kido: this by 61.94.40.100
  • Cody Hida: this and this by 61.5.0.125, and this by 61.94.48.171 (talk · contribs)
  • T. K. Takaishi: this by 61.5.0.125, this by 61.94.48.171, this by 61.94.48.145 (talk · contribs), and these two by 61.5.68.243 (talk · contribs)
  • Sora Takenouchi: this by 61.94.40.105 (talk · contribs)
  • Marcus Damon: this by 61.94.40.105.
  • 61.5.71.82 (talk · contribs) also vandalized Veemon ([64]), Armadillomon‎ ([65]), and Hawkmon ([66]).
• The Filipino Channel is a channel shown outside the Philippines for overseas Filipinos established in the 1990s. Several editors changed the year of establishment to make it look like it was shown since the 1960s in the Philippines, even added slogans and affiliates. But he never posted references to back up the claim. The diffs are:
  • Four edits by 61.94.48.203 (talk · contribs) before being reverted by Howard the Duck (talk · contribs).
  • Two edits by 61.94.40.69 (talk · contribs). The second edit was reverted.
  • Two edits by 61.5.69.227 (talk · contribs), supplanted by three edits by 61.94.40.236 (talk · contribs), then three edits by 61.94.48.118 (talk · contribs) and five edits by 61.5.68.130 (talk · contribs) before everything was reverted to Aspect's edit.
• What happened to The Filipino Channel article was also done with the ABS-CBN News Channel, which was established in 1996. User 61.94.48.145 (talk · contribs) did these two edits.
• ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation‎ and Banahaw Broadcasting Corporation are two different companies and are not related to each other. But vandal edits insist that they are, again without confirmed info.
  • An edit by 61.94.48.203 (talk · contribs) on Banahaw Broadcasting Corporation started this.
  • On ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, 61.94.48.203 (talk · contribs) did these two edits. 61.94.40.69 (talk · contribs) did these three misleading edits. A week later, 61.94.40.236 (talk · contribs) did this.
  • DYCB-TV was also casualty because 61.94.40.236 did this, and there's no Filipino Channel Cebu (The Filipino Channel is a channel aired outside the Philippines, as I already mentioned).
• Five editors removed information about the Brazilian version of Carrusel without any reason and replaced it with a remakes section featuring totally unrelated anime titles. The Brazilian version currently needs a citation, though.
  • 61.5.68.200 (talk · contribs) did this, implicating Ringing Bell.
  • 61.5.68.43 (talk · contribs) did this, implicating Nutcracker Fantasy.
  • 61.94.40.186 (talk · contribs) did these two edits, implicating Unico.
  • 61.94.40.100 (talk · contribs) did these two edits, again implicating Ringing Bell. It was reverted, but 61.94.40.100 did this again, but this time it was Unico.
  • The last time was this, by 61.94.40.253 (talk · contribs), again implicating Nutcracker Fantasy.
• Rosa Salvaje and Marimar suffered the same fate as Carrusel.
  • In Rosa Salvaje's case:
    • 61.5.68.166 (talk · contribs) did this and implicated Unico. 61.5.68.43 (talk · contribs) supplanted this, with Fantasy Knights being added. Finally 61.5.0.125 did this, replacing Fantasy Knights with The Sea Prince and the Fire Child, which interestingly was not touched.
    • 61.94.40.236 (talk · contribs) did five edits; this time, it is back to Unico.
  • In Marimar's case, the section about the the Philippine remake was replaced with another unrelated remakes section.
    • 61.5.0.125 did these two edits, implicating Ringing Bell and A Journey Through Fairyland.
    • 61.5.68.127 (talk · contribs) did this, this time it is Nutcracker Fantasy.
• Muchacha italiana viene a casarse is unrelated to Rosa Salvaje, but 61.5.69.227 (talk · contribs) did these two edits without citing proof.
• Unico, Nutcracker Fantasy, Ringing Bell, and A Journey Through Fairyland, as well as Puss in Boots and Glass Mask were not spared, connecting them to telenovelas without verification and proof.
  • Puss 'n Boots: this edit by 61.5.68.81 (talk · contribs), five edits by 61.5.68.200 (talk · contribs), and three edits by 61.5.68.43 (talk · contribs)
  • Glass Mask: this by 61.5.68.200 (talk · contribs)
  • Ringing Bell: this by 61.5.0.26 (talk · contribs), these two by 61.5.71.28 (talk · contribs) which are supplanted by these two by 61.5.68.81 (talk · contribs), this by 61.5.0.125, this by 61.94.40.186, and this by 61.5.68.127 (talk · contribs).
  • Unico: 61.5.0.76 (talk · contribs) did eight edits, 61.94.40.131 (talk · contribs) did ten edits, this one by 61.94.40.178 (talk · contribs), five edits plus this one by 61.5.69.51 (talk · contribs), this by 61.94.40.186 (talk · contribs), this by 61.94.40.236 (talk · contribs), and the latest one is this by 61.5.68.188 (talk · contribs)
  • Nutcracker Fantasy: three edits by 61.5.0.76, and two edits by 61.5.68.188.
  • A Journey Through Fairyland: two edits by 61.5.0.76
• Wataru has been vandalized twice. It was ridiculously linked with Strawberry Shortcake through this edit and then these two by 61.94.40.253. 61.5.68.130 (talk · contribs) compounded this through five edits. In connection, 61.94.40.253 also did these two edits on List of DIC Entertainment productions.
• Sanrio is also vandalized multiple times, adding Televisa without thinking if Televisa really did the titles listed in the Sanrio article (Sanrio and Televisa are not business partners). Cases in point:
  • Three edits by 61.94.48.159 (talk · contribs)
  • This one by 61.5.0.76 (talk · contribs)
  • Five edits by 61.94.40.27 (talk · contribs)
  • This one by 61.5.69.227 (talk · contribs)
  • This one by 61.94.40.236
  • This one by 61.5.68.188
• Several Sanrio characters have their articles vandalized, once again presented as being "remade" into telenovelas or connecting it to Televisa without proof:
  • Usagi Yojimbo: three edits by 61.94.40.27 (talk · contribs)
  • My Melody: this by 61.94.40.27
  • Keroppi Hasunoue: [67] this by 61.94.40.27, and then this by 61.5.68.81 (talk · contribs)
  • Badtz-Maru: two edits by 61.94.40.27; then this edit undid the previous two, but it also removed the "description" without reason.
  • Pochacco: Three edits by 61.94.40.27; Pocchaco and Kaiketsu Zorro are absolutely unrelated.
• Dogtanian and the Three Muskehounds and Barbie in the 12 Dancing Princesses are two unrelated shows, but 61.5.68.81 (talk · contribs) did this. Furthermore, Barbie in the 12 Dancing Princesses was again ridiculously connected to a Doraemon movie: 61.5.71.69 (talk · contribs) did these two edits while 61.94.40.100 (talk · contribs) did these two. List of Doraemon media was concurrently vandalized as well in relation to this: 61.5.71.69 did two edits, while 61.5.68.89 (talk · contribs) did four edits.
• I've also discovered Metamorphoses (film) (which was not listed above) was not spared by adding unrelated telenovelas: this by 61.94.40.27 and this by 61.5.68.89.
• Futari wa Pretty Cure was also vandalized twice: three edits and four edits by 61.5.71.82 (talk · contribs); and then two edits by 61.5.68.81 (talk · contribs)

61.5.68.188 has also vandalized these just today:

• Magic Knight Rayearth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (three edits, by connecting them without reason Grand Theft Auto)
• Slayers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (two edits, for the same reason as Magic Knight Rayearth)
• Caridad Bravo Adams‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (three edits, how would a telenovela writer create stories for Hello Kitty?)
• List of ADV releases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (this edit, TV Azteca and Televisa never produced Hello Kitty's Animation Theatre as far as I know.)

Whew! That's as comprehensive as I can get. But I hope this very long list will help because his (or whoever these users are) edits have become a chronic problem. Not to mention, some are not even aware that this is going on. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

---

(Reposted by 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 00:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC))

I've blocked the following five ranges as being the smallest and covering the whole issue here.

• 61.94.40.0/24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 61.94.48.0/24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 61.5.0.0/24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 61.5.68.0/23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 61.5.71.0/24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Should this individual return beyond these five blocks, I will look into it and try to elucidate as small a range as to prevent collateral damage.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. But when this same guy vandalizes again, even if it involves another related article, be assured that I'll report it here. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 06:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Just send me a talk page message. It's easier.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to state, i'm impressed by the thoroughness of Nanami Kamimura's report. ThuranX (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Film article vandalism?

There were a string of OTRS complaints about obscene images on film articles about 1 hour ago.

Was there some sort of sneak vandalism of an included template?

I checked the history on Template:Infobox Film and didn't see anything. Can people look around and see if something else was done?

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Followup- it was four articles people reported seeing stuff on, Trust the Man, Disturbia, The Simpsons Movie, and Casino Royale (2006 film). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have responded on the mailing list. Cbrown1023 talk 01:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

User:BKLisenbee William S. Burroughs

This user has been editing a lot and as an example of his edits vs. his stated edits see

[68]

This is pretty drastic POV editing covered by a pretense of civility. His stated edits are "corrected spellings of Tangiers to the accepted Tangier for consistency,"

opiumjones 23 (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a fairly old edit that has since been rectified. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Steve Ignorant and Schwarzeneggar

I don't know if this is the correct place to post this, but on article Steve Ignorant states that Ignorant's birth name is Steve Williams, however on Schwarzeneggar the article says "Steve Ignorant {born Oscar Thompson}". I would like to know whats going on, plus a source/sources to back up the right one. —/* abadafa */ +C0 03:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Kitia by User:BrownHairedGirl

See User talk:Kitia. BrownHairedGirl has apparently been in a wide variety of disputes with Kitia lately, and today blocked her for 24 hours for a copyright violation. Specifically, see History of Warsaw, which was forked out (seemingly legitimately per WP:SUMMARY) from Warsaw). It's not clear to me that Kitia understands what went wrong. Also, I wonder a bit about that copyright violation but I haven't looked into it. Was that text actually copied from the website wholesale at some point, or is it possible that the copying went in the other direction?

I'm posting this here because BHG said that she would raise the issue on WP:ANI herself but it's been about 5 hours and she hasn't done so despite making other edits, probably an innocent oversight. Mangojuice^talk 03:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on these edits from September 2005, it appears that the Wikipedia version is probably the original. DCEdwards1966 (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Note Kitia is a boy. Neal (talk) 08:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC).

Thanks very much to Mangojuice for kindly filing this report, since I didn't get time before I went to bed. I'm afraid that I ran out of time after doing the checks on the history of the two versions, which confirm that the copvio was actually the other way round (I have posted the full details at Talk:Warsaw#History_of_Warsaw_copyvio)

The first thing is that I am aware that the block might have been seen as inappropriate, because I had indeed been involved in a variety of disputes with Kitia, but I nonetheless thought that an immediate block was justified because material identified removed from Warsaw#History was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warsaw&diff=177968576&oldid=177967334 reinstated by Kitia], after previous discussions about the copyvio when Kitia had twice forked the content to a standalone article (see User_talk:Kitia#History_of_Warsaw, User_talk:Kitia#History_of Warsaw_copyright_problems, User_talk:Kitia#History_of_Warsaw_again and User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Re:History_of_Warsaw)

It is only in retrospect that I have pieced together the entire history:

1. At 23:42, 8 December 2007 Kitia copied the text of Warsaw#History to History of Warsaw, intending to split per WP:SUMMARY, but without any edit summary to explain that it was a split. History of Warsaw was tagged 1 minute later by CorenBot as a copyvio of http://www.luketravels.com/warsaw/history.htm, and Kitia then performed 3 rapid edits, presumably in the hope that a few tweaks would resolve the copyvio, and removed the {{csb-pageincludes}} tag, all without a note in the edit summary. The {{csb-pageincludes}} tag was restored by Guroadrunner, and removed 10 minutes later by Kitia, again without comment.
2. I spotted the the problem two days later on Kitia's talk page, saw that the copvio tag had been removed, and the article remained substantially a copyvio, so I atgged History of Warsaw for {{db-copyvio}} and left an {{sd-copyvio}} note for Kitia[69]. I had no reply at all from Kitia, and at this point I was unaware that there was a fork involved.
3. On Dec 14, I spotted a further note to Kitia from Corenbot (see User talk:Kitia#History_of_Warsaw), so I speedy deleted the History of Warsaw and left a note for Kitia deploring the recreation of deleted content.
4. Kitia's reply was then to explain that the material was a copy of the history section of Warsaw, and asking that it be undeleted. I relied pointing out that a content fork was not appropriate anyway, and then went off to check Warsaw#History ... where I found that it was indeed nearly identical to http://www.luketravels.com/warsaw/history.htm, so promptly edited that section to remove the copied material, and left a note at Talk:Warsaw#History_of_Warsaw_copyvio.
5. Kitia commented again on my talk page, accusing me of being horrible and nasty etc[70], asking me again to recreate the History of Warsaw article, and threatening to involve other admins, to which I responded that a report would be fine[71].
6. I then discovered that Kitia had reverted the removal of apparent copyvio material from Warsaw#History, so I restored he removal and blocked Kitia for 24 hours.[72]

So despite the fact that the coyvio eventually turns out to have been a false alarm, a copy from wikipedia (rather than the other way round as it appeared until the early hours of this morning), I still think that the block was justified. Rather than take any of many opportunities to discuss the apparent covyio (or to ask why a few textual edits don't make a coyvio OK), Kitia chose to edit war. It was only through the research of others that the exact nature of the copyvio became apparent.

As can be seen on Kitia's talk page, this editor has a long history of disruptive editing, which had already led me to warn that an ANI report might be necessary. Most of the problems relate to Kitia's habit of reverting (usually without comment) anything (s)he dislikes, and refusing to discuss the problem. So far as I am aware, Kitia is very young (about 15, I think, from one comment somewhere), and could probably benefit from a mentor to guide him/her through wiki procedures.

The content forking which took place here is one example of this. The guidance at WP:SUMMARY says that when an article gets too big and a section is split out, it should be replaced by a summary, but instead Kitia just created a content fork. A mentor could perhaps explain to Kitia how to do this sort of thing properly, but I don't see much evidence that Kitia would listen, although I hope I am wrong.

In the meantime, what to do about the block? It seems to me that although Kitia was acting in more good faith than was apparent until the last minute, it was justified for the edit-warring ... but I will not oppose its lifting if anyone thinks that's appropriate. However, I think that the real issue here is the need for mentorship of a young editor who doesn't understand wikipedia processes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sock harassment

This sockmaster has moved from edit warring on pages (now protected) to pasting his edit into the talk page and demanding people place it in the article. Make them go away. Kluokli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See the vast list of socks on the user page. This sockmaster apparently made dozens of socks months ago specifically to avoid semi-pp. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Edit warring on several pages

• ZRX222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 3RR Warning
  
• Kabul-Shahan2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 3RR Warning

See their contributions. They keep reverting eachother on several different, but related pages. They've both received a 3RR warning from myself, but they continue. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Any particular articles I should be looking at? east.718 at 05:35, December 15, 2007

Never mind, I just blocked them both. east.718 at 05:40, December 15, 2007

Threats to continue Disruption on OpenEdge Advanced Business Language

A previous situation with Ninjadude9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was reported, see → Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive339#Disruptive_editing_on_OpenEdge_Advanced_Business_Language. This tendentious editor continued POV pushing on this article in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from multiple editors. It appears Ninjadude9 now has gravitated to personal attacks and threats to continue Disruptive editing. ...'I'll play in and out with him until the end of time" ^[73]. I've tried attempts to communicate the problem in the edit summaries as have other editors (Emergeo and BLACKKITE), this user has also been warned on his talk. Perhaps another aproach to Ninjadude9 is needed? thanks--Hu12 (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the attack and threats of disruption.--Hu12 (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

User not getting the point about copyrights, still lying

User:Rtr10 has continually lied about the copyright status of images. He (ludicrously) claimed that Image:Huckabee with flag crop.png‎ was his own image (the picture has been part of Mike Huckabee's facebook application for a while now, and it's obvious he didn't take it anyway. This user has been warned countless times since I told him I would report him to be blocked for lying anymore: [74]. Someone please block this user. I'm sick and tired of us giving 18 warnings to people who outright lie about copyrights. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, but we can't prevent anything if we don't use them. Sorry if I'm being snappy, but I've too often watched people lie. Over. And. Over. And. Over. after many warnings, and then I'm told, again, to warn the person. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user indefinitely. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Despres

Resolved

 – User blocked, and all concerned MfDs closed. GlassCobra 08:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I am quite concerned with User:Despres. S/He is personally attacking editors on his/her talk page, and threatens to delete the user pages of other users, see this diff. On his/her talk page, I noticed s/he was recently blocked on I believe December 14, 2007 for making death threats. H/she nominated GlassCobra's talk page for deletion (diff) and the user who blocked him/her, Jusjih, received the same treatment (diff). In addition, his/her user contributions suggests a history of attacking and threatening editors. I believe, myself, that this user should be blocked, as s/he apparently didn't learn from his/her first block. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 08:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Noticed same treatment to User:Master of Puppets, see diff. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 08:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked him for a month for his personal attacks, and disruption. I was just on my way here to get feedback on it, when I saw the thread. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 08:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible malware

User:Nspect58 uploaded a Windows executable as the (now-deleted) file Special:Undelete/Image:VietNavyDO.gif. My antivirus isn't saying anything about it, but I don't have a spyware scanner, and I'm not about to try running it on a Windows machine to find out what it does. --Carnildo (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Problematic employee POV pushing on Employers article

I had a problem with a user Tamec making pov-pushing edits such as removing the controversy section on an article about a sparkling wine called Armand De Brignac which is a brand that is owned by Sovereign Brands LLC. This is the article in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armand_de_Brignac

Tamec is Scott D. Cohen, the marketing director for Sovereign Brands, the company who owns the Armand de Brignac brand. He stated on the talk page that he didn't not work for Sovereign Brands, I outed him with proof after this on the talk page and he edited my comments out of the talk page. I am wondering what to do? I have more evidence that Tamec is Scott D. Cohen below.

Tamec does seem to be the person you claim he is, principal author of the WP article about the product sold by the firm for which he is marketing director. He just does not seem to have been very good at covering his tracks, despite his denials. [75], old homepage [76],[77] (There are more like this, just in case any should mysteriously disappear.) Mathsci (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

So, what to do? Other than broadcasting that the editor is likely to have a conflict of interest and suggesting he is spectacularly inept at hiding his true identity it seems that he is not violating policy in attempting to keep his RL name out of Wikipedia. Is the editing of the concerned article(s) so disruptive as to require warning the editor, or even executing sanctions? Have they removed sourced material with no explanation? Have they edit warred? If the answer to the last questions is yes, then they should be warned appropriately and be dealt with by the usual processes. Has anyone mentioned this to the editor, or that this discussion is happening here? I shall check. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Upon review of the three recent edits by Tamec I doubt that they are that controversial. Yes, there has been some allegations regarding the companies products that have been removed, but the allegations were unreferenced. Unless the comments can be sourced they should stay removed. Unless there are other concerns regarding this editor I think this is pretty much cleared up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a clear-cut conflict of interest. Tamec is using WP as a billboard to advertise their product and remove any adverse criticism. This must have happened before. But he is also denying any involvement with the product; his bluster and obstructiveness on the talk page is therefore disrupting the project. Mathsci (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

As commented, the criticism had no sources. If sources are provided then the allegations can be returned. Further, WP:COI does not disallow parties editing - it requires them to be especially scrupulous in their contributions. From my review it certainly doesn't appear that the article needs tagging as an advert, there are many edits from a variety of viewpoints - which also negates any question of notability. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand somebody (not me!) could put the article onto AFD, explaining that it reads like an advertisement, was created by a spammer and let the community decide. Mathsci (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that's an option. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think AfD is a viable option. While the article certainly needs a thorough scrubbing, it is nonetheless about a notable subject and AfD is not meant to be substitution for clean up. I posted a note about the issue at the Wine Project to see if there are any takers in helping with the clean up. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 14:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Harassment by User: MrWhich

This began as an exchange about one of my ArbCom votes, which escalated to a point where I asked MrWhich not to post to my talk page again. He's continued to do so. His conduct is highly improper and tantamout to harassment. When another user, User: Jeffpw intervened independently and asked MrWhich to stop posting to my page, the guy then started posting to Jeff's talk page. I don't know what this guy's problem is, and I don't much care. Would someone please intervene and get him to stop harassing other editors? Thanks. Rather than providing diffs, the simplest thing to do is to ask that an admin check the talk page edit histories of the parties involved: User talk: deeceevoice, User talk: Jeffpwand User talk: MrWhich. Thanks. deeceevoice (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The user had a similar pattern of disruption and refusal to disengage under his old account. I do not know why his older contributions did not get transferred to his current account. Jeffpw (talk) 10:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

So now we're outing a vanished user as a result of a bit of fun? Wow. Mr Which??? 10:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Nothing "escalated." Deeceevoice forbid me to post at her talkpage, saying she would delete without reading the post. I found this pretentious and funny, and posted perhaps two or three messages in that spirit. Nothing angry, threatening, or in any way harassing. I attempted to engage User:Jeffpw on the matter, as he was accusing me of harassing her, but he simply deleted my questions and pointed me to WP:HARASS, which I had already read before. I read it again, and did not find that I violated any portion of it in my dealings with Deeceevoice. In fact, in my last post to her page (and also in the edit summary, since she claimed to not be reading my posts), I made it clear that was my last post to her page. Still she brought it here. I apologize to whichever admin looks this over for wasting their time. Mr Which??? 10:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It is generally accepted as harassment to poke people "for fun" when they have clearly indicated that they wish to be left alone. Heck, some people might even call that trolling. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That's policy somewhere? And if you can honestly look at what I wrote, the tone I wrote it in, and the fact that my last note at her page made it clear that I was finished posting to her page, and you think I somehow deserve a block, I guess that's your call. As for Jeff outing a vanished user above, what of that? Mr Which??? 10:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Common sense and decency should not have to be made policy. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said, look at the actual messages. And then check out this diff, where--after I've made it clear that they've outed a vanished user--DCV leaves a note saying she considers the matter closed, with a winky after it. How is this acceptable? Especially given that BEFORE she opened this thread, I made it clear I was not going to post at her talk page again? Mr Which??? 10:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CIVILITY#Examples. Taunting someone who clearly indicated that they wished to be left alone. I have no opinion on what Jeff wrote nor did I say that you should be blocked. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Not taunting, but even if I concede that, how would the relatively minor "infraction" merit both an AN/I post, after I had pledged to not post to her page anymore (a pledge I have been keeping, though they continue to discuss me there) and outing me as the vanished user in Jeff's diff? Mr Which??? 10:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Which has already left a note on DCV's talk page that he would not be editing his/her talk page again. Why then, are we having this discussion? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question, Nick. And now that I've been outed, I'm uncertain how to procede. Is there any way to simply delete this nonsense, and oversight it, or at least make it so that only admins could read it? I had some serious RL concerns that caused the need to vanish. I decided to use this account (a previously approved, but seldom-used, legit sock of my former account) to vanish into. I must have forgotten to have them oversight those diffs that Jeff dug up to out me. Can we take care of this problem? Mr Which??? 10:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If you had actually invoked right to vanish, you should not have put that tag on your userpage. Tagging your page seems to invalidate the concerns that right to vanish address. I do apologize for making you uncomfortable, but how was I to know you were a vanished user when the tag was on your page and you had tagged it yourself? Jeffpw (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

As it appears that there were at least a couple of admins who took the DCV complaint seriously, I have compiled a list of all the diffs since DCV forbade me to post at her page. It's much easier to see how frivolous the complaint is when viewed in this way than when simply pointed at talkpage histories.

At Deeceevoice’s page

Diff 1

Diff 2

Diff 3, in which I let her know I won't be posting on her page anymore.

At Jeffpw’s page

Diff 1, in which I explain that I was simply joking around.

Diff 2, in which I try to get to the bottom of what he feels I did wrong. Both were simply deleted. He never tried to engage me on what part of WP:HARASS he felt I was violating, but simply reverted my posts on sight. Mr Which??? 11:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Could an admin please deal with this underlying frivolity, so that we can oversight, delete, whatever, the link that outed me as a vanished user? Mr Which??? 14:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Between that tag on your new userpage, my salting of your old user talk page, a secret checkuser being run on you and this thread, it's already too much of an open secret. Get in touch with me if you need to vanish again. east.718 at 15:02, December 15, 2007

User:Neptunes2007

User:Neptunes2007 continues to upload copyrighted content, after several explicit warnings, including a last warning. I ask that someone please block this user. The Evil Spartan (talk) 11:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe an admin should talk to him first. He might listen to an admin. If he doesn't, then yeah, block--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 11:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Per Neptunes2007's userpage, "her". Her latest apparent copyvio, Kleicha, was tagged by CorenSearchBot and appears to me to have been subsequently reworded sufficiently from its source to no longer qualify as copyvio (though I may be wrong). Anyone else have a view? Tonywalton ^Talk 12:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That's still a CV then. east.718 at 14:54, December 15, 2007

Trolling by User:Timeshift9 on User talk:Brendan

In disregard of WP:TALK, User:Timeshift9 recently used my talkpage to personally taunt & troll (here & here) over a recent 48hr block against me as well as revert my talkpage to reinstate other unsolicited, unwelcome, unconstructive commentary (his original insertion of which looks to have been expunged from the visible edit history of my talkpage). Successive requests, via edit summaries on my reverts, for him to refrain from such behaviour went apparently unheeded. --Brendan [ contribs ] 14:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no comment on the situation, and will leave consideration of action to neutral admins, but anyone watching AN/I will have seen the back and forth amongst this group of users in the past two days. I'm starting to think WP:DR is required, although I'm not entirely sure on what issue/s they are divided. While I do not defend Timeshift's actions in any way it should be noted the "revert my talkpage" link in the above is almost 2 months old, although all the others are current. Orderinchaos 14:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Orderinchaos regarding third item being non-notable at this date. the first two are clear jerk behaviors, though. I'd say that Timeshift9 is fully aware of what he's doing, as he's been around a while. Might be a case of goose and gander? ThuranX (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin comments The first two instances are un-necessary and uncivil, and I will leave a comment at Timeshift's talkpage. I note that the claim of Timeshift reinstating some comments onto your talkpage, although true, is some eight weeks late. A bit late for finger wagging. I guess there is little point in asking you guys to dial it down? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Amalgamut00

User:Amalgamut00 only seems to exist to spam wikipedia with links and reviews from a non-professional/non-reliable site. The only intention here seems to be self-promotion. --Neon white (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Attempted "outing" of User:Brendan by User:Shot info

During an earlier ANI thread, in which User:Shot info successfully sought sanction against me for alleged "outing" User:Skyring (despite it since being shown by others that said information was accessible by links from Skyring's userpage), Shot info attempted to "out" me as 'Brendan Jones' -- a person apparently known to Skyring (as indicated by his subsequent comments on the aforementioned ANI thread) and possibly also to Shot info (given his sudden and unexplained mention of that name). As I was blocked for 48hrs, enforcement consistency, in the form of equivalent sanction against User:Shot info, is requested. --Brendan [ contribs ] 15:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)