Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive340

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Shlomo Aviner 2 User:Twsx 3 User:216.113.168.136 4 User:Angry Sun 5 Legal threat from Sahajhist 6 Further legal threats from User:Johncons 7 Obvious sock puppet of banned User:Fiet Nam 8 Mitchell Report semi-protection onslaught? 9 Notorious IP deleting content out of articles 10 I'm not sure if this is the right place to report this... 11 RAmesbury offering to pay (or being offered to pay) to edit tendentiously 12 Outside admin review requested: Strider12 (talk · contribs) 13 Soapboxing? 14 Failing to WP:AGF, engaging in WP:NPA and not abiding by WP:TALK 15 User:Darin Fidika and User:Exiled Ambition 16 Mitchell Report full protect - HELP! 17 Please monitor 82.0.200.193 closely 18 User:216.113.168.136 19 Innapropriate comments, phone numbers, and threat of serious harm on Talk:Bigfoot 20 User:Jlhess - SPA/COI editing and threats of violence 21 Talk:Matt Sanchez 22 Anon user vandalizing Waytha Moorthy Ponnusamy page 23 high volume of vandalism from 90.203.127.93 24 Incivil IP editor on Talk:Waterboarding 25 Repeated vandalism on Endowment (Latter Day Saints) 26 User: Charles T. Le : Smarandache editing his own BLP? 27 Edit warring over removal of fair use images 28 User:SarekOfVulcan 28.1 Were the edits wrong, or is the concern just about how he got there 28.2 Using a contributors list to clean up 29 Chronic fatigue syndrome 30 Disturbing violent imagery in school-related edit 31 Block of User:PHG 32 Is this a personal attack 33 User:Skyring editing other's comments here at AN/I 34 Anon vandal begging for a range block 35 Obvious sockpuppetry 36 Alternate account? 37 Special:Contributions/220.238.60.197 38 / This IP vandalized the article on sean paul 39 Wikipedia:Deletion review/Angela Beesley 40 User:Wakkawa 41 Homeopathy 42 IP socks of banned User:Mariam83 on rampage 43 Wikistalking 43.1 Further discussion 44 Big problem caused by "61.5.*.*/61.94.*.*" IP user 45 User:TStolper1W 46 Mixing licenses on self-made images 47 User:TheDoctorIsIn 48 User:Roderick E defamatory posts 49 Rather odd behaviour 50 Incivility on talk page 51 Old AfDs 52 Hu12 abusing his power?? 53 Yay. Yet another Persian gulf question 54 Urgent: Template:African American topics 55 User:Peter morrell, et al. 56 Harassment Notice 57 Large number of Vandal edits on Dingle CBS

[edit] Shlomo Aviner

I posted to the BLP noticeboard twice, but nobody responded. A few extreme right/kahanist editors are repeatedly adding information sourced to a Hebrew language attack blog which accuses the subject of sexual crimes, and adding material to the article that makes such insinuations. There are POV problems too, but that is beside the point. My attempts to convince the editors to be reasonable have failed, and one of the editors involved has taken to comparing me to Der Sturmer, here. Can somebody please NPOV the article and lock it. Not that it matters, but these claims are entirely without merit and have never been printed in the press, they are merely far right smears to discredit a man they view as a defector. Lobojo (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed the text (he "became controversial" is way too vague from a website that is admittedly against him, especially with serious WP:BLP concerns) and posted on the talk page, reminding them that the burden is on them to prove the allegation, not on everyone else to prove that hit website is lying. Don't know about the talk comment, so someone else should look into that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a blog, it's a website, and for those who read Hebrew, it has documented information of public statements from Rabbis Yosef Sholom Eliashiv, Yaakov Yosef, Yosef Kapach, Avraham Shapira, Nissim Karelitz, Mordechai Eliyahu, Shlomo Fisher and The Jerusalem Beth Din. And I didn't name you explicitly in my comment re Der Sturmer, I drew a comparison to an earlier comparison drawn by Izak with editors who edit in a certain POV way. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it's a website. Still not reliable enough for me. Find some news sources about the matter. If they are just documenting public statements, it shouldn't be that hard. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, for starters, [here] is a newspaper article about Aviner's sexual harassment. (It's highly odd that he makes a point of posting such things in a certain other article, but here he persists in insisting that such articles be removed.) Also, Rabbi Dov Lior is quoted on the site. The Rabbinic rulings are here. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 09:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

For those who don't read Hebrew: there may be sources, but these don't seem very strong:

• newspaper article: a human interest story about two women with sexual harassment complaints against Aviner and the difficulties they had getting anyone to act on them: הרב שלמה אבינר ניהל במשך שנים קשרים קרובים עם שתי נשים, שהיו בהם לכאורה מעשי הטרדה מינית * מרבית הרבנים אליהם פנו סירבו לעזור להן * כמה מבכירי הרבנים של הצינות הדתית ידעו, אבל שתקו - trans: Rabbi Shlomo Aviner had sexual relations with two women over the course of two years, which as it appears was sexual harrassment * a majority of the rabbis to which they turned refused to help them * some of the religious Zionist rabbis knew, but kept silent.
• rabbinic rulings: this site's selection of sources may be polemical. Its header is translated "The whole truth about Rabbi Aviner" and does not appear to make an attempt to research both sides of the story. Be that as it may, the sources themselves should be judged on their own merit. However, with one exception (the Jerusalem bet din) these are opinion statements from a number of rabbis - they are not the results of a trial with evidence either in a secular or religious court. As for the Jerusalem Bet Din link, it merely says that Aviner refused to discuss this matter before the bet din (religious court). Though the rabbis whose opinions are listed are called "geonim" by the site (a title of great respect), it should be kept in mind that this is a title used primarily by the Haredi community (a.k.a. Ultra-orthodox) to identify those it esteems and is not necessarily reflective of the opinion of the wider Jewish community (most of which is not Haredi). Egfrank (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing personal, but everything you say is either incorrect or "not the whole truth": I don't see why the source is not strong re sexual harassment. BTW, a correction on your Hebrew: the translation of קשרים קרובים is not sexual relations, no one's claiming that. As I understand, the claim is that he spoke to them in an intimate way. As for the site's "selection of sources," no one is saying that the site doesn't have an agenda. We're saying that its sources are legit. As for seeing both sides, the site asserts many times that various rabbinical figures involved attempted to approach Aviner and were rebuffed. And the site does describe in detail here an actual rabbinic trial with evidence brought, where Aviner was not present, which is halachically acceptable, at his own written request. Also, it should be emphasised that in Jewish law refusing to attend a court summons is a grievous sin for which one can be put in siruv. Also, rabbis not generally regarded as "Haredi" such as R' Dov Lior, R' Avraham Shapira, and R' Mordechai Eliyahu are quoted. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Twsx

User has continually edit warred on pages Amon Amarth, Dissection and possibly others. User has been warned a few times already (see Amon Amarth's talk page) and is breaking WP:CON and seems to have an agenda with these pages. I know there's a also a rule somewhere that states people should not be overprotective of pages. Any help would be appreciated thank you. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• WP:OWN, you are referring to? - Mailer Diablo 19:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• It's pretty difficult to come up with evidence of WP:OWN. Would you care to provide diffs for evidence? Scarian^Talk 19:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I realize it's difficult to find evidence for that, it doesn't change the fact the user keeps edit warring on those pages. Also, I would like to ask for a more non-biased/ impartial view then Scarian's. No offense, but User:Scarian and I are not on the best of terms and we have had many disagreements in the past, and he always seems to be somewhat following my edits ready to pounce on any edit of mine he deems "bad". Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if anything I have written on this page seems impartial but it appears to me as though I have written nothing that could be construed as impartial. In actual reality I've been strictly neutral and even attempted to correct your errors. Scarian^Talk 19:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The root issue here is a disagreement over the formatting of Infoboxes. As this is currently under some heavy discussion where no consensus has been reached, it's a bit hard to say that either side is breaching WP:CON. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arakunem (talk • contribs) 20:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Since there is no consensus at the moment it means that no one is breaking WP:CON. Scarian^Talk 20:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, precisely my point. Arakunem^Talk 21:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, I get what you are saying, but the user is still edit warring! I was blocked before for doing the same thing on the same issue!!! Scarian knows this. I was doing the same thing on the Iron Maiden page and I got blocked for edit warring. Well, Twsx is doing the same thing, and consensus or not on the genre delimiter issue, the user keeps reverting and showing an agenda for this and that has to be worth something!...otherwise I could start going to pages changing ALL the genre delimiters and reverting everyone and simply say "theres no consensus on the subject, so I won't stop and you can't stop me". Now I want justice! Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention a few users, including myself, keep having to revert him, as he is the only person making those pages have comma breaks and that is breaking WP:CON, and even if not, see what I said above. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have had to respond to this too many times already. To not write things i have already said again and again, I have created a page listing my arguments. Thanks. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 11:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see a breach of WP:CON here, since the overarching discussion linked above is still ongoing. There may be more people involved with one particular article who prefer it one way, but I think the community discussion trumps that in terms of consensus. (I mean, you could get a group of editors who decide to create an article that doesn't follow the MOS... you would have consensus among those editors, but the community consensus would still trump that...). As far as edit warring goes, it takes 2 to war... Twsx could just as easily come here accusing you of edit warring each time you reverted his edits. My advice would be to step back from warring over these articles and focus your discussions in the template talk page to achieve a proper community consensus on this issue. Arakunem^Talk 15:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:216.113.168.136

This user has been warned for incorrect edits and edit warring. On the page Paradise Lost the user has continually broken WP:CON and WP:POV in making an incorrect edit. The user refuses to even speak about it and just continually misedits the page. I think the user is a small vandal and that something shoul be done about it. A warning will not suffice in this situation, I believe, and I humbly ask for a block as the user has shown no regard for talking about anything but continually edits. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• It looks like he is removing some links from the references section that don't, per general consensus, meet WP:RS (e.g. myspace). You need to provide diffs/evidence of consensus if you're saying that he is going against it, btw. Scarian^Talk 19:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not the links I care about!!! That's not what he got warned for! He keeps changing the genres he thinks Pardise Lost is. Therfore, that breaks WP:POV and WP:CON. Also, I'd like someone else to review this, please.Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are sources which say Paradise Lost are a doom metal band (Which is what the IP was adding to the infobox). AMG, for example. [1] Funeral 19:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

First AMG has been shown to be unreliable for genres at times. Second I didnt say they weren't doom. It's already covered and been talked about. Paradise Lost was death/doom and eventually changed to gothic metal. The genre box says death/doom so theres no reason to put doom metal. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Genres should be general, and not over specific. Trust me: 98.9% of wiki users could not tell the difference between doom / dark / goth / death / whatever metal. Wait a few years for the neologisms to settle, then decide. There's no rush; it doesn't have to be 'right, right now'. Dan Beale-Cocks 11:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Angry Sun

The user Angry Sun (talk · contribs) has a habit of reverting large amounts of edits to make small changes. This is especially apparent in Godzilla: Unleashed, where the user recently removed several days worth of contributions to alter the position of a singular item on a list. Just64helpin (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like this and the next edit to Godzilla: Unleashed is bothering Just64helpin, who reverted those two edits. I think these two users can sort out the issue themselves, without admin intervention. It probably was not a good idea for Angry Sun to make such a massive change in a single edit, but there's no evidence of bad faith on either side. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried to explain to Angry Sun what he was doing here and here, and he continued to make the same types of edits. Am I supposed to just undo every time he saves an older revision of an article? These edits are disruptive. Just64helpin (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal threat from Sahajhist

Sahajhist (talk · contribs) posted a legal threat in reaction to an article being temporarily protected. "Looks like legal action against Wikipedia will be needed."[2] I posted a {uw-legal} tamplate and asked him to revert the edit.[3] In reply he wrote, "you can block me if you like Mark, but other meditation practitioners will take my place. If pages are going to be permanently edit protected then legal action is very definately an option, and any bullying by yourself would be duly noted, most probably under your real name."[4] Does anyone think that a block is called for? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I've blocked them. 68.193.198.41 (talk) 06:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Though it hasn't done much to slow the threats.[5][6] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk page is now blocked. Are there articles in particular that need to watched? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you please, that would be very helpful:

• Nirmala Srivastava (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Sahaja Yoga (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• International Sahaja Public School‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (currently protected)

A team of editors working on these articles have pushed the boundaries too hard. Sahajhist was recently found to have been using sock puppets. Try-the-vibe (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely for repeated harassment of Simon D M (talk · contribs), a new editor with an opposing POV. Sfacets (talk · contribs), the main editor, has been blocked six times in six weeks, the latest for ten days. Sfacets is one of the most persistent POV warriors I've seen, relying heavily on sophistry and the revert button. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further legal threats from User:Johncons

Permanently banned user User:Johncons continues to make implied legal threats on his talk page [7]. It is my opinion that he's only ever been here to provoke people and responding directly would be the wrong thing to do. Perhaps this talk page should be protected? Ros0709 (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Already requested at WP:RPP Mayalld (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already protected and redacted the threat. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 08:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I also took the liberty of redacting a pretty damn near-unambiguous legal threat. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 08:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obvious sock puppet of banned User:Fiet Nam

User:Chinese has a V is a blatantly obvious sock puppet of User:Fiet Nam, who was banned for messing around with articles on linguistics. The "new" user hasn't made the slightest attempt to disguise his identity and is back to his usual pattern of cranky editing and wrecking content. --Folantin (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've found a decent amount of other sockpuppet accounts:

• Tipa Topa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Dutch Users (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

All are now indefinitely blocked per behavioral evidence, and I am now cleaning up their contributions to the userspace.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 09:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Should he come back (again) contact me on my talk page, and I'll investigate as to whether or not the behavioral evidence matches as it did with Tipa Topa and Dutch Users that I found through the similar contributions of Fiet Nam and Chinese has a V.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mitchell Report semi-protection onslaught?

The Mitchell Report is about to be released at 2:00pm EST, and is expected to detail about 60+ famous baseball players' use of steroids. It's my guess that a few dozen articles will need to be semi-protected. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-12-13 16:29Z

Someone will probably want to keep an eye on the names listed and make sure that references are cited. But I don't think protecting names of players who were named are nessecary unless vandalism occurs on the articles; just because their named is really meaningless for protection. — Save_Us_229 17:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That is what I meant. I wasn't implying pre-emptive semiprotect. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-12-13 17:44Z

Help! List of Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report is being spammed with names of players with no connection to their incrimination or source. Very libelous. The article is already semi-protected. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-12-13 19:37Z

[edit] Notorious IP deleting content out of articles

I'm getting fed up with the attitudes of User:200.27.31.129. This IP, registered in Chile [8], is active about once a month and keeps deleting great chunks out of articles related to the deceased dictator Augusto Pinochet. In most cases the user deletes information concerning Pinochet's human rights abuses [9] [10] [11] [12]. Note espescially this edit where the user labels Pinochet's victims "terrorists"! It's difficult to deal with him/her because the user is only rarely active and keeps insulting other users. What's even worse, some of his/her deletions have escaped scrutiny for long because nobody can control articles 24 hours/7 days.84.167.140.140 (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm not sure if this is the right place to report this...

...but someone's threatening suicide if his page is deleted. I have no idea what to do. --Dawn bard (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the right place to report. I have blocked the IP address for making threats. I have also notified the WFM Office so they can take whatever further steps may be needed. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Always a hazy, uncomfortable issue. WP:SUICIDE does a good job of explaining matters, IMO. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 00:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I consider this particular one as far below the horizon for action. DGG (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I always take suicide seriously. It was a good idea to block (I were going to suggest a block). Should we create rationale on WP:BLOCK to block users for suicide threats? It would be a good idea, as it would discourage suicide threats. -- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd count that as WP:BEANS. The procedure is already stated here anyway. Tonywalton ^Talk 19:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree, WP:SUICIDE covers this so nothing else is needed. KnightLago (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RAmesbury offering to pay (or being offered to pay) to edit tendentiously

A long, well-written but tendentious series of passages was added to History of special relativity by User:RAmesbury. The writing was distinctive enough that a Google search for it turned up only one alternative source - Anti-relativity.com. The source website alone causes prima facie concern, but once you read the post itself, it's even more concerning (emphases mine):

“

Anti-Relativity Scholars: There are at least eight Wiki articles about Relativity Theory, all of them written by relativists with a pro-relativity bias. I submit that the public would be better informed if these articles were more balanced and included a section on criticisms of RT. To this end I drafted the following few paragraphs with citations to authority. However, not being of the computer generation as many of you are, the actual Wiki editing process with its markup language, etc, was too complicated for me. So I refer this task to one of you young scholars who has an interest in science, information technology and enlightening the public. A college student who accepts this task will be eligible for financial assistance.

”

The name of the poster is "Raleigh Amesbury," rather similar to this user's name (RAmesbury). Below the portion of the post that I quoted above is the material that was added to the History of special relativity article. Now, RAmesbury has been temporarily blocked for gross incivility, but I think there is enough evidence here to be concerned about a far larger disruption of the project. Antelan ^talk 18:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an upper limit on the disruption would be the eight articles s/he mentions. They could always be protected if they get out of hand. If it's a case where he legitimately wants to add reliably sourced material but has too much of a hot head to survive in this community, I vote to see what his students comes up with. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, there aren't any reliable sources, or acceptable sources per WP:ARB/PS, for "anti-relativity", which is essentially a rather non-notable pseudoscience. It's highly unlikely that any legitimate physics student would accept such an offer. RAmesbury himself, however, is doing quite a bit of damage: most of his science article edits have been reverted, but he's changing a number of 'clairvoyance' articles to have a definite positive bias, and is admitting to doing so on talk pages. We might also want to look into whether this editor is related to KraMuc. --Philosophus ^T 22:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

his claim to be unable to deal with wiki markup seems not be borne out by the technically competent edits and correct formatting of his references--although almost all of them are, not surprisingly, totally unreliable sourcesDGG (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It seems to me that his talk page "request" was more of an appeal for meatpuppets to sway consensus toward his pseudo-science than for actual help with entering reliably sourced info into articles. Mr Which^??? 02:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

*boogle* Time to keep an eye out for people complaining about pro-quantum physics bias? -- llywrch (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

someone with more knowledge of the topic might want to look over User:RAmesbury's recently created Criticisms of Einstein's Theory of Relativity & also look at whether this this is heading further into disruptive pov pushing. must say the refs don't look too good...  ⇒ bsnowball  09:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The first look gives me the idea that the article is OK. It should be in perspective though. It is basicly a list of people who have disagreed with either special relativity or general relativity (which are similar on a very fundamental level, but really different in their implications and workings). Most quotes are from when relativity was still very young. Teslas commentry was from a time Tesla himself had gone a little wonky (another quote from this period of his life, about his "death ray": "[The nozzle would] send concentrated beams of particles through the free air, of such tremendous energy that they will bring down a fleet of 10,000 enemy airplanes at a distance of 200 miles from a defending nation's border and will cause armies to drop dead in their tracks." Later theories are really fringe theories. Concluding, this article is currently not about criticism of Special Relativity and General Relativity, it is a list of people who criticisesd general and special relativity. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's ok? it uses wikipedia for references and a few of the other sites leap out as crank sites - I'll see if the physics wiki project will jump it for clean-up work. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That article Criticisms of Einstein's Theory of Relativity is just a copy of his essay on the anti-relativty forum. I don't think that essays belong in an enclopedia.

He just re-inserted the essay on the 4 pages [13], [14], [15], [16]. He also removed the block notification on his talk page and the notification of the creation of this section. This looks like an open invitation to get permanently blocked.

I will remove his message from the four articles again. DVdm (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

With the latest block, I restored the earlier block notice with a warning that, if he removes either of them, we will protect the page. I take a very dim view of removing block notices unless there is consensus that the block was in error. Daniel Case (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I do believe that criticism on relativity is notable. I also think there could be some room for notable opposers relativity. This copy-and-paste list though is not really the way to go. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have inserted a delete tag to the new article. DVdm (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a note: he was reported to AIV and I blocked him for 31 hours for disruptive editing, since he had been blocked days earlier for similar behavior. Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside admin review requested: Strider12 (talk · contribs)

Hello. I'd like an uninvolved admin to look at Strider12 (talk · contribs), a single-purpose account pursuing a fairly specific agenda related to post-abortion syndrome and one of its leading proponents, David Reardon. I've been working with this editor for about a month and have reached what feels like a brick wall.

Specific issues from the tendentious-editor checklist include:

• Repeated accusations of "purging", "censorship", "thought policing", and "Stalinism" on the part of other editors ([17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29])

• Edit-warring and frequently going right up to 3 reverts/day despite universal opposition to his edits on the talk page. Typically this is accompanied with the statement that Strider12 is reverting to a "better" version that we may add material to the article, but may not remove anything he has added: [30]

• Retitling article talk-page threads ([31], [32])

• Calling edits with which one disagrees "vandalism": [33]

• Accusing others (who are, per Strider12, engaged in a campaign of "purging") of failing to assume good faith: [34]

• Dismisses a review article in Annals of Internal Medicine as the work of "an aging abortionist trying to encourage other doctors to join the club."

• Opens a content RfC thus: "Numerous editors on this article have openly advocated a viligent purging of materials from David Reardon and the Elliot Institute. We need non-partisan input." Surprisingly, no uninvolved input was forthcoming.

• Responds to requests for constructive engagement by insisting we use his version as a starting point: [35], [36], [37]

• Repeating the same arguments endlessly without convincing anyone: [38]

• Canvassing potentially like-minded editors to "jump in and help him out" in a "revert war": [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]. Even after being directed to WP:CANVASS by a friendly editor ([45]), and a more direct warning from me ([46]), Strider12 continues to maintain that the above posts do not violate WP:CANVASS, as he issued only seven "limited invites" ([47]).

Basically, this is a tendentious single-purpose agenda-driven account editing actively and disruptively with disregard for the consensus-building process. I've tried to be patient, but after several weeks of this I'm exhausted. Personally I think there's more than enough to warrant a topic ban, but obviously I'm involved. I'm just asking an uninvolved admin or three to look over the above, take whatever action they deem appropriate, and watch the articles for a few weeks. It's difficult to give a full impression of the problems here, but hopefully the above diffs start the process. MastCell ^Talk 22:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you think a topic ban would work? John Reaves 22:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would give him a chance to demonstrate that he can contribute constructively to the encyclopedia in other areas. Of course, in this case it may be functionally equivalent to an indefinite block since there appear to be no other on-wiki interests. MastCell ^Talk 22:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I forgot to mention that Strider12 views the consensus against his edits as de facto evidence of sockpuppetry: [48]. MastCell ^Talk 23:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A topic ban would seem to be warranted, but so would a short block for incivility. DGG (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's excessively lenient. Shape up or ship out, I say. Not everybody has the ability to edit dispasionately and to comply with Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia is not for everyone. This looks like one of the people for whom Wikipedia is not, as it were. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

But a short ban has not even been tried yet--it should have been applied some time ago. if it does not work, then a longer ban or a topic ban would be appropriate. The demonstration that people here in general think the conduct wrong can have an effect. It's not a matter of being lenient, it's of hoping for correction.DGG (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with whatever, so long as some uninvolved admins are monitoring the situation. I could be happy with anything beyond the current status quo of refractory tendentiousness. I will say that, after extensive discussion of and reference to WP:3RR by several other editors, Strider12's understanding of it is that he "has a right to edit this article -- up to three times a day if I have the stamina for it." MastCell ^Talk 05:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I warned this user a while back that he was about to get blocked: User_talk:Strider12#Block, and he responded by shaping up a little, but not seeing the problem. I suggest a 1-2 week topic ban, enforced or not, to get the point across. Keep in mind I am on his side on many points here. Some users just don't seem to get the idea of community, POV warring, etc. (I honestly wonder how much if it has to do with poor internet skills; I've noticed older people on here are occasionally oblivious). The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soapboxing?

Could someone please look at this? User:Benjamin Gatti introduced it to Illegitamacy after it became clear that the content is likely to be deleted as the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judge Regan Miller. This content has been deleted also as Benjamin Gatti/Judge Regan Miller. He also added part of the content to [my talk page, complete with external link to radio station. I can't be objective, but I think this is soapboxing and unconstructive. Someone objective needs to take a look. Thanks, Dlohcierekim 23:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The content has since been removed from Illegitimacy by Gp75motorsports (talk · contribs) and JzG (talk · contribs). Not much activity from Benjamin Gatti, since then. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I put it in illigitamacy where it more properly belongs. There is clearly a growing movement to pin societies problems on persons of untraditional heritage. I'm curious why documenting this verifiable trend should be censored? If a judge believes that a certain class of people, denoted by circumstances of birth, are less likely to be innocent, and more likely to be serial killers - it's pretty important. Personally I think it compared to the Bell-Shaped curve in that it marginalizes a broad class of persons. I would have thought Wikipedia was open to cataloging these trends, that in a sense, the beauty of Wikipedia is that it doesn't protect the powerful by censoring their outrageous bigotry. - but hey - have it your way. Benjamin Gatti (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It is appropriate that this was raised here to ensure some outside scrutiny of the article. That done, the actual issue can now be dealt with as a content dispute at Talk:Illegitimacy. Euryalus (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failing to WP:AGF, engaging in WP:NPA and not abiding by WP:TALK

Hi all, User:Brendan persists in engaging in non-Wikipedian conduct by attempting to "out" another editor [49]. Firstly this behavour is completely at odds with dealing with other editors, and it has no place in the talk page of John Howard. Would an admin please review and make some recommendations? Many Thanks Shot info (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Already being discussed 2 threads up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikistalking. Metros (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Ta. Didn't see that. Shot info (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You, on the other hand, have just violated WP:WOTTA :-) Nimman (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

w00t! Now I just need to beat Darth Vader to truely become a Wikipedian LOL! :-) Shot info (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Darin Fidika and User:Exiled Ambition

Convenience links —Random832 20:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Darin Fidika (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Tathagata Buddha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Exiled Ambition (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• deleted history of User:Nihonjoe/Samurai

This user was indefinitely blocked some time ago for plaigiarism and copyright issues, particularly a large spate of (over 700) articles they copied from the Samurai Archives with minimal modification; see User:Nihonjoe/Samurai's deleted history for the work Nihonjoe and I put in cleaning up this enormous mess. Fidika came back under the user name User:Tathagata Buddha and made quite a number of edits before the new account before it was noticed, but seemed not to be violating copyright this time around. After a discussion, (see User talk:Nihonjoe/Archive 21#Fidika) we thought maybe it would be okay to allow Fidika to edit so long as the link between the accounts was clear. Tanagatha Buddha got blocked for a username violation, though. Now he's back again as User:Exiled Ambition. (It's quite obvious these are him, he identifies himself on his user page.) Again I haven't seen a copyright violation. Due to the scale of the violation before, though, I wanted to open up the discussion to the admin community at large. Complicating matters further is that User:Kuuzo, who is one of the owners of the Samurai Archive (now the Samurai Wiki), knows all about Fidika's large-scale plagiarism and has complained about it vocally. I'm really not sure how best to proceed here: on the one hand, Fidika clearly did something very wrong, and was unresponsive to communicated concerns at the time. On the other hand, Fidika is extremely prolific and if he has learned how to appropriately research these topics he would be a strong asset to the project. Mangojuice^talk 18:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Alexpappas01 (talk · contribs) asserts that he has "proven" that Exiled Ambition's recent contributions are also copyright violations, I've asked for specific information. Note that User:Kuuzo has also claimed that Fidika is under a topic ban; is this the case? —Random832 20:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. There really isn't any sort of actual agreement with Fidika; he never responded. See the Nihonjoe archive talk page; that's really the whole discussion. I think there was a thread here with no responses. Mangojuice^talk 20:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Was there ever an understanding by anyone other than User:Kuuzo that Fidika was to be banned from creating samurai-related articles, or from referencing (not copying text from, but using as a source at all) the samurai wiki? —Random832 21:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's the right basis to use for a decision. No, that isn't my understanding, I can't speak for anyone else. The point is, should Fidika be banned from these things? Was it right for us to reverse Fidika's block in the first place, which he used a sockpuppet to evade? Can we trust that he is dealing with copyright issues properly when he evades blocks? Mangojuice^talk 21:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mitchell Report full protect - HELP!

Help! List of Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report is being spammed with names of players with no connection to their incrimination or source. Very libelous. The article is already semi-protected. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-12-13 19:37Z

• Well, I'm at my revert limit I believe. This article needs to be full protected and I would do it but I'm involved. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-12-13 19:41Z
  • This looks like a content dispute, and one with at least one established user. Are players not named at all being added, or are you objecting to something about the structure of the article? (in the latter case, WP:SOFIXIT (by adding context, not deleting names))—Random832 19:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    • People are sticking players into one big list, without reference to their implications (criminal or otherwise). Players who did break the law (and baseball policy) are being stuck next to players who may not have. That is where the potential for libel is. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-12-13 19:58Z

I see two lists. And anyway, see User:Equazcion's edit summary, "we're doing what the news services are doing. they listed these names the same way. they won't be sued and we won't be sued." - can you clarify what your issue is (I clicked the link and did NOT see "one big list".) You also pre-emptively semi-protected it, which violates the protection policy. Anyway, I don't see that the article as it is right now contains "one big list"—Random832 20:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please read the article talk page. If you can't see the defammatory nature of a list o' names lacking any context whatsoever, you have not looked very hard. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-12-13 20:28Z
  • Have you looked at the article? It's divided into three lists, each for different reasons they were mentioned. Your description of it as "one big list" is flat-out factually incorrect. —Random832 20:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    • At the time of the initial request for help (about an 1.5 hours ago) the article was one big list. Now it's three lists. Why is it that the people who are concerned about the implications of contentious material and adhering to policy are treated like a bunch of babies? --Elliskev 21:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
      • At the time of your comment above "People are sticking players into one big list", the article was two lists, and I had already said so here. (you'd still have done well to pay attention when I _did_ say it, since it was before your comment "Please read the article talk page"). Even when it was one big list, dividing it into sections yourself would have been more productive than deleting all the names. And you did semi-protect preemptively. —Random832 21:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
        • It wasn't me that posted originally. I'm just chiming in in defense. --Elliskev 00:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please monitor 82.0.200.193 closely

This IP, tracing to a IP block for Hampshire England, has edits consisting entirely of variations on the phrase 'you don't understand', written in all caps - posted first to understanding and later to my talk page. While this may not be anything other than simple vandalism, I'd like the IP to be watched, closely. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If I've done my maths right (probably not) that block has over 2 million IP addresses in it. NTL (now Virgin Media, headquartered in Hampshire) is a major UK cable operator and ISP. Keeping an eye on that IP address, though. Tonywalton ^Talk 20:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:216.113.168.136

I have taken this here just yesterday. In spite of warning, the user continues to vandalize the Paradise Lost (band) page. They have not said one word even when asked as to they are making their edits. A block or ban seems to me the best solution as this person has shown they refuse to work with anyone and refuse to follow wikipedia rules. Utter defiance even when warned to stop editing the Paradice Lost page in the same fashion. Me and other users keep reverting the edits, but it's getting annoying. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have investigated and blocked for 24 hours for clearly disruptive editing. Daniel Case (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Innapropriate comments, phone numbers, and threat of serious harm on Talk:Bigfoot

Hi. Can someone look into this? Usually when someone lists a phone number, it should be removed. When someone makes a threat, it should be removed. So, I'm reporting this. Also, the person who edited the comment might not actually be the person who added the original comment, or maybe it is the same person but logged off. Can someone look into this and take appropriate action if nessecary? I wouldn't be surprised if the IP had a history of unconstructive edits and warnings. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 21:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted it as a general threat, and for the number, and so on, per IAR and BOLD. Admins may need to oversight it, as there's no way to authenticate the number as belonging to the IP. ThuranX (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

IP talk page also was warned. ThuranX (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh? "Admins may need to oversight it"? Aren't oversights the only ones who can do this? Or are admins able to oversight in a way that only admins and up can see it? Also, if I see that again, should I revert it? What about the threat of being found and gutted like a fish? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 21:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Admins can delete an entire page and then restore only selected revisions, but from what I hear it's a much more complicated process than oversight and means that the deleted revisions are still visible to the large number of admins, rather than the select few oversights. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 21:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

For clarification. Deleted edits, wether they be all or part of a page history, are available for admins and above to view. Oversighted edits are only visible to other oversighters and developers. 99/100 times a simple deletion will do. In rare cases one can e-mail via WP:RFO if the edits should not be visible to editors who also happen to have admin rights. Pedro :  Chat  22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, sorry I even responded here. ALl I meant was taht sort of personal data shgould probably be removed from teh edit history; my understanding was that oversight was the means to effect that. Forget it. ThuranX (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jlhess - SPA/COI editing and threats of violence

This user has been editing an article presumably about himself (see Jon Hess). He has edited nothing else and appears to be a single purpose account. Furthermore, he has been threatening other users with violence (an empty threat, but a threat nonetheless). See Talk:Jon_Hess and User talk:Jlhess, for example. I'm not sure how interested the user is in contributing positively, but his contributions as of yet seem to be disruptive, and with a clear point - editing the article of which he is the subject and doing so with an undue amount of hostility. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Matt Sanchez

This needs some administrator attention, please. COI and BLP concerns. Durova^Charge! 23:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Charles Wilson is banned User:Pwok, who runs an attack site specifically geared at defaming Sanchez. I am not participating in editing that article any longer, but Wilson needs to be blocked again, and I'd suggest semi-protecting the talk page to prevent his unhinged screaming. (Please check the history of his talk page for support of that statement, which ordinarily would qualify as a personal attack; in this case, I believe such an accusation is warranted.) Horologium (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Oversight might be appropriate, but under the circumstances I'm just not sure what to do. This needs broader attention. Durova^Charge! 00:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the account as a self-admitted sock of User:Pwok, and removed the posts from the talk page. I'll leave it up to others as to whether they require oversight - I'm not familiar with the background here. MastCell ^Talk 00:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anon user vandalizing Waytha Moorthy Ponnusamy page

I would like to bring to your attention of an anon user 60.54.25.247 who has vandalized this page here. Thank you. Wiki Raja (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing worth fretting over yet, and no admin input required. Standard vandalism, but being watched. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] high volume of vandalism from 90.203.127.93

User:90.203.127.93 is committing vandalism at a high rate, incidents ongoing. Quale (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Reported at WP:AIV, reverting. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I blocked them for 31 hours and mass rollbacked their vandalism. bibliomaniac15 23:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incivil IP editor on Talk:Waterboarding

Just an FYI, 72.244.113.169 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) has left a couple of long, long comments attacking me on the talk page. I asked him to be nice after after the first time, and just got more back on the second pass.

• "DAMN Larry, you are full of crap."
• "The fact is that neither you nor your minions"
• "And if you can't do all that, then have the intellectual decency and humility to admit that you and your enablers have overreached"
• "And thank YOU for the passive-aggression Larry"

Would someone mind having a quick word with him? Lawrence Cohen 00:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

And just a bit more of general unhelpfulness on the third pass. Lawrence Cohen 00:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted his most recent edit, as it's an attack rather than any serious attempt to improve the article. I also added a level three warning to his talk page. Please let me or another admin know if he continues. Tijuana Brass (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

He just came back and is doing it again. Someone please block. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours after another revert. Tijuana Brass (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated vandalism on Endowment (Latter Day Saints)

The LDS have a tradition of silence about certain of their traditions. This has led to trouble on a few articles, notably Endowment (Latter Day Saints) and Temple garments, where LDS editors will attempt to strike large sections of text and images on religious grounds. Usually, they give up after a few patient explanations that we don't censor Wikipedia to match any religious groups tastes. One particularly persistent anonymous editor showed up on Nov. 13, 2007, alternately using IP address 12.159.66.24 and 68.4.107.116 (its a home and a work account for the same user, as stated on the talk page. This editor claims that it is "excessively detailed", but the section he strikes is exactly the same section stricken as "too sacred" by previous LDS members. I've explained it to him. I've enlisted the help of User:Storm Rider, a long term LDS member. He has explained it to him, and recognised, as I did, that the issue was the "sacredness" of the material, not the detail. Ultimately, Endowment (Latter Day Saints) was semi-protected to put a stop to it. After that, User:Brock Soaring pops up, a single purpose account that makes that edit, and only that edit, repeatedly. The tone and style of his comments make it clear he is the same anonymous editor. Protecting the article doesn't seem to be the answer: blocking Brock Soaring probably is.Kww (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least this user is contributing with the same account now ;). In any case, you're right, this is a single purpose account, and he has been chided by other users, including LDS members, to no avail, and continues to edit war. Will an administrator give this user a short block for edit warring and incivility? The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a level four warning to his talk page, but since this has been added to the AN/I, he has not edited. I'll watch the article (which I did in the past for months); if he chooses to ignore the latest round of advice, it will likely result in a block. Tijuana Brass (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

He only shows up every few days ... one of the behaviour patterns he shares with the anonymous IPs that were making the same edits before. I could take care of it for a long time without hitting 3RR, but I don't want to risk looking like I'm in a slow edit war.Kww (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User: Charles T. Le : Smarandache editing his own BLP?

Large sections in Florentin Smarandache have been blanked by this user; he has also nominated the journal created by Smarandache Progress in Physics for deletion. Charles T. Le is the user name of a former sockpuppet of Florentin Smarandache on wikipedia in 2004 2003 [50]. Details were provided by User:Tim Starling on the wikipedia mailing lists here [51] (see also [52]). Tim Starling determined that Charles T. Le was an invented character of Smarandache used by him to validate some of his earlier dubious publications. Please could an administrator check where the new Charles T. Le is editing from and determine whether this is a repetition of past behaviour? I assume the AfD [53] will be disqualified in this case. Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. [54]. 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)

[edit] User:SarekOfVulcan

User SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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 [55] 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 [56]. 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)

[edit] 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 [57] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [58], 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)

[edit] 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. [59] (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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Is this a personal attack

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

[edit] 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 • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log), 70.251.79.168‎ (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log), 70.251.125.12 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) and 70.251.130.154 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • 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)

Y 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)

[edit] 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.[62] 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. [63] 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 [64] and [65]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] / This IP vandalized the article on sean paul

this user vandalized the article on Sean Paul

here's what he did:

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69] —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)

[edit] Wikipedia:Deletion review/Angela Beesley

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 · checkuser · socks ^confirmed_suspected) 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 • protects • deletions • moves • rights) 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 • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
• 68.89.175.189 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
• 68.91.120.217 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
• 71.156.123.200 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • 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 [71] 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 Cat: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 • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • 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 • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • 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 [72]. --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 Cat: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] 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)

[edit] 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)

Please stop misrepresenting the facts. I don't reveal my surname on Wikipedia or on either of the two sites I link to from my user page. I am aware that my friends may have innocently revealed some of my private details and that if you hunt long and hard enough you might find them. I don't want my personal details revealed on Wikipedia, I don't want you stalking around digging up stuff and passing it around via emails, and I don't you telling half-truths and fabrications to further some malicious personal agenda. I thought that I had made this repeatedly clear. --Pete (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 ([73] [74] [75] [76] [77]) 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)

[edit] 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.[78] 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 [79] 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)

[edit] 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 · 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 · 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[80]. 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)

Thanks for looking into that - appreciated. :) Orderinchaos 16:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

If you want to continue to be immature about it, Allstarecho, there's nothing I can do about it. But I was not in the wrong and this was clearly shown by your actions. Your continued name-calling reflects your immature behavior throughout this dispute. Enigmaman (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Trolling, trolling, trolling, rawwwhiiddeeee. The end. -- ALLSTARecho 05:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old AfDs

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)

[edit] Hu12 abusing his power??

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. [81] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)