Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 1,528: Line 1,528:


The last comment on [[Talk:Animal testing]] suggests that these editors may have worked out the content dispute. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 02:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The last comment on [[Talk:Animal testing]] suggests that these editors may have worked out the content dispute. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 02:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
:Well, I hope that the 3RR warning wasn't a tactic used by one of the involved editors to try to "win" the dispute. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 02:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:15, 17 December 2007

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    IP socks of banned User:Mariam83 on rampage

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

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

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

    In the time it took me to research and write the above, Mariam83 has another 29 52 reverts via 68.90.62.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). --Kralizec! (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Another 21 reverts in sock attack number six from 68.89.189.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This has been a long night ... I think it is time for me to go to bed. --Kralizec! (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Wow, you must have really pissed her off FayssalF; she even vandalized your comment here at AN/I [2]. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]


    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)[reply]

    Oops, I missed one. Updated. --slakr\ talk / 10:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm ... this may be more complicated than I expected, as these ranges cover less than half of the IP socks listed at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mariam83. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's pretty complicated and that was why i suggested WP:RBI. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Incivility, Personal Attacks by Agha Nader

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

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

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

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

    I have issued Agha Nader a warning regarding his conduct (diff). Please update this section if the behavior continues, or alert me on my talk page. Thank you. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 14:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have responded to Arcayne's ill-considered accusation here [3]. He accuses me of "POV-pushing" and nationalism. Are these not serious accusations? I have never pushed any POV. I am a very neutral editor. I edit many Iran (Persian) related articles. A glance at my talk page or contributions will show the keen observer the backlash I get from my neutrality--from Iranian editors to Arcayne. Also, you should take a look at [4], where Arcayne tried to intimidate me. Finally, I think you should take a look at the wikiquette alert, for it sheds light on Arcayne's behavior [5].--Agha Nader (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, i would dare say the wikiquette alert it sheds light on edits from over six months ago, and revealed, in context, Agha Nader's uncivil behavior and pattern of personal attacks back then as well. Neutrality is not one of the hallmarks of this user, as judged from strong POV edits to articles where Iran-based issues come into play.
    And what he terms as "intimidation" was my attempt to involve an admin to encourage him to withdraw his accusation of racism before it led to this very report. I gave him every opportunity to withdraw his accusation, and he responded by highlighting the 'examples' of my racism and subsequently blanked my responses to them. I am certainly not the only editor who has been subjected to Agha Nader's incivility. I am just the one filing most recently. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops, looks like an admin already weighed in, well before Agha Nader responded. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I had explicitely suggested the following:
    • Agha Nader: To delete subpages which refer to Arcayne and to withdraw the Wikiquette alert as a sign of assuming good faith. Again, Agha, please withdraw it. I had asked you to do it but you asked me the same question again. It is a "yes, please. Have the courtesy to withraw it."
    • Arcayne: To not set ultimatums as they produce negative effects in any mediation or conflict resolution process.
    • To both contributors... Could you please give some distance to each other if you believe it is hard for you to remain calm when you are dealing with each other?
    Can we achieve that? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I am happy to oblige. I only set a time limit bc accusations of racism can snowball if left unattended. His singular lack of response led to this filing. As for editing elsewhere, so long as he is polite with myself and other users, the two points of contact we have should go smoothly with me. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully and regretfully, I can state that I fully support this action by user User:Arcayne and agree with his observations of user User:Agha Nader. I have been the target of Agha Nader's suggestion that I am involved in sock-puppetry and have been labeled as a single-purpose account also included in his discussion page. I would ask and hope that these accusations are retracted by Agha Nader as they are baseless and damaging to my reputation. I would like to thank the involved administrators here and sincerely hope that as a result of this oversight, many positives are experienced by all involved. With appreciation ObserverToSee (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not accuse Observer of being a SPA, I said it. He is a SPA, because he has only edited the Persian Gulf. I do not see how that is an accusation. I have retracted my wikiquette complaint. I do this in deferring to the wisdom of Fayssal.--Agha Nader (talk) 05:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's called AGF for a reason, Agha Nader. Asking if people are sock puppets and noting your belief that they are SPA delegitimizes their opinion and contributions. Part of this process is not to punish you but to help you become a better member of the community. If you cannot learn, this will be but one of many times you will experience this process. I guess its too much to expect you to apologize for calling me a racist, is it? I mean, it's what prompted the report. As well, deferring to FayssalF's request means you remove the wikiquette alert, not just tag it. Why does it feel we have to drag you along this process kicking and screaming every inch? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This has nothing to do with AGF. Observer is a SPA. Single user accounts "can be perfectly innocent, or it can represent a user pushing an agenda, so such accounts may warrant a bit of gentle scrutiny." I did not even scrutinize him. I merely called him what he is: a single purpose account. By the way, you have called me a POV pushers. There is no evidence of that. Also you have called me and others nationalists. I have not done any of those things. I expect apologies for both ill-considered accusations. I will not give you ultimatums or threaten you and intimidate you into apologizing (which you did to me), but I would appreciate it. I retracted the wikiquette alert. If you want to erase it, go ahead. I do not see what that serves, since it will still be in the edit history. It will be archived soon enough.--Agha Nader (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm very saddened and discouraged to read this response from Agha Nader. He asked me if I was a sock-puppet before labeling me as an SPA. In addition, prior to labeling me as an SPA, he claimed to have "exposed" me on his talk page [6] (in edit summary). This is clearly contradictory to AGF where he still maintains that it has nothing to do with AGF. I'm being attacked and labeled because I disagree with points Agha Nader has proposed and I have remained civil throughout. Unfortunately this civility has not been reciprocated as we speak as evident by this latest response. ObserverToSee (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it is time now to get some distance to each other guys. Please avoid being in the same situation in the future. SPA can edit freely as long as they abide by the rules. If you'd be editing the same articles again, please avoid any usage of inappropriate language or mutual accusations. Any other comments before you move forward? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. Agha Nader said that he removed the Wikiquette alert, which he was asked to do by no fewer than two different admins. He hasn't, and his non-apology at the end of the wikiquette alert not only doesn't serve to relent on his stale accusations there, but rather reinforces the user's beliefs that he is right and all of us are wrong. He has not retracted or apologized for accusing me of racism. In short - and for the fifth time - YES. I WOULD LIKE HIM TO ERASE THEM, PLEASE. I find it insufferably infuriating that he takes no action unless an admin orders him to do so, and sometimes not even then.
    Asking if someone is a sock-puppet or single-purpose account is not polite, civil or pleasant, and serves - as ObserverToSee pointed out - is dismiss that person's edits. I am not sure that Agha Nader has actually learned anything from this process, which leads me to the conclusion that this won't be the last time he sees himself the subject of an AN/I. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to kindly remind Arcayne that he should not shout at me. Using all capital letters ("YES. I WOULD LIKE HIM TO ERASE THEM, PLEASE.") is shouting and uncivil.
    I implore the helpful administrator to look at [7]. Where Arcyane repeatedly alters my post by adding an extra indent and moving my post further down the page. I shall not speculate as to his motives or if his actions are against policy. Furthermore, the keen administrator will note that Arcayne followed me to the Persian Gulf discussion and engaged me. Again, I will not speculate if this was stalking or not, or if it was harassment. However, it ought to be noted that I started the discussion and he had not edited the article before. He only entered the discussion after our dispute over the 300 film article. What I have stated is neutral and factual. I will leave it up to you to decide on your own if his behavior is acceptable or not. I only wish to distance myself from Arcyane, but how is this possible if engages me?--Agha Nader (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry you felt hurt by my use of cap letters; it might be that I felt them necessary, as you failed to do what was asked of you, and then lied about having done what was asked. You were reported her for failing t be civil. you were advised how to correct the situation, and yet you refuse to accomplish those measures if civility.
    I have been watching the persian Gulf page for many months. it was only when your civility warranted comment did I contribute, to suggest you stop. if you wish to consider this stalking, also consider that your following my edits around are a tad closer to the actual definition of stalking.
    This will be my last comment on the matter, as per FayssalF's above comment. I will not engage Agha Nader again, even though he has refused to comply with the requests of the admins here and removing the wikiquette alert and apologizing (and striking through, as it has been commented on) for the accusation of racism. his obstinancy in this matter will not remove all my AGF for him, but it certainly will color my opinion of anything he contributes. His refusal to concede that he was even wrong has cost him some of my faith in him. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not followed you to a single article. WP:CIV : "Calling someone a liar"..... Arcayne: "you failed to do what was asked of you, and then lied about having done what was asked." --Agha Nader (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    How precisely is this Wikistalking? Metros (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I still don't follow. What personal info. was revealed here? Metros (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Skyring, please stop changing the title of this section. It's totally inappropriate to do that. Metros (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Stop. You're misrepresenting my intentions up and down this board. It is not appreciated. Mr Which??? 03:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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. AvruchTalk 05:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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:

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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 cornixtalk 00:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    (ec)This is the first time this has happened. However, this user has other civility problems ([8] [9] [10] [11] [12]) 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Gaming the system is bad. The spirit of 3RR isn't in the "3". EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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.[13] 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)[reply]

    Also User:Gump is now repeating the same defamatory and untrue allegations in Talk:Rob_Bell. There is already an incident request filed for [14] 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)[reply]
    Update: User:Gump is now harassing me as anon from 72.86.6.114. --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Rather odd behaviour

    Resolved

    While the targeted party has certainly been no angel over the past 24-48 hours, and that may need to be addressed separately, Timeshift9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have become the focus of attention bordering on harassment from a user Duggy 1138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The matter seems to have started with an attempt to censor an election talk page in late November, which ended with Duggy being blocked for 3RR[15]. 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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Enigmaman removed the edited warning. --Iamunknown 08:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Trolling, trolling, trolling, rawwwhiiddeeee. The end. -- ALLSTARecho 05:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Old AfDs

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

    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)[reply]

    Hu12 abusing his power??

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

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

    Anyway here you go.

    Please check and comment on our behaviours in this issue.

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

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

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

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

    Read the last sentence. Use common sense.

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

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

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

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

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

    The message censored by the admin:

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

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

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

    He banned me after the incident.

    I registered as Odd_Master2 and reported this incident.

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

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

    Thank you.

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

    Wikipedia doesn't use forum software - see MediaWiki. And could you provide diffs rather than past versions? -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 21:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading the history, my polygraph's going nuts. From this diff all I see is Mudkipz Syndrome (i.e. assuming bad faith towards the people defending the article) on your part, and your block log says you're out for 24 hours. Further, you did alter Hu12's comment. Barring some very good explanation, I am going to reset the 24 hour block. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 21:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Yay. Yet another Persian gulf question

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

    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. AvruchTalk 21:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    It's back AGAIN. [16] futurebird (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

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

    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Levine2112

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

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

    ScienceApologist is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, they may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
    Currently, ScienceApologist is engaged in many examples of incivility, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith including accusations of sockpuppetry [17] [18] [19], harassment [20] [21], edit warring [22] [23] [24] [25], and assumptions of bad faith [26] [27] [28] [29]. We were very close to a consensus with a long-running issue at Quackwatch, a consensus which ScienceApologist has ignored and trampled. Can something be done as he/she is making Wikipedia a very unpleasant experience for many? Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are all outlandish characterizations of my actions: fairly close to a tendentious personal attack. I think Levine is fast learning how to become a disruptive editor. He already fulfills the definitional criteria outlined. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree on the whole with Levine's assessment of ScienceApologist. SA has also accused me of tendentious editting (and I him). Interestingly, and I think relevantly, Levine and I are on opposite sides of the article-subject-matter fence; Levine seeks to protect a postive representation of alternative medicine, and I seek to protect a postive representation of science (these preferences are not necessarily mutually exclusive). However, we agree about editorial philosophy, at least on working towards consensus. By pitting himself against "both sides" (by refusing any compromise whatsoever, on principle), SA has made himself difficult. (Again, as per above in the other ANI made by SA, re Peter Morrell, I consider myself a disputant, not an objective outsider, now.) Pete St.John (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I retract "SA has also accused me of tendentious editting". I overgeneralized, on account of my sense of his aggregrate comments, but in consideration of what might be considered the terms of his parole, I concede that he did not use those words (directly about me specifically). Pete St.John (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are those criteria and the appropriate links:

    A disruptive editor is an editor who:

    • Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors
      Levine is notorious pro-alt med POV-pusher. I won't even bother adding links because his entire contribution history lives up to this.
    evidently not his entire history. In the few days (since Dec 11?) I've been involved with the debate at Quackwatch, I've found him responsive and responsible. So perhaps recent specific examples would be in order anyway; and as I've mentioned before, if they are omnipresent it should be easy to find specific examples. Pete St.John (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
      Currently we are engaged in a dispute at Talk:Quackwatch where Levine along with another contingent of editors are consistently misrepresenting a source claiming that it is criticizing Quackwatch for not using peer-review when in fact it is offering a recommendation that Quackwatch implement more an "academic counterpoint" to augment their resource of which the author gives a positive review. While there are others involved, Levine tends to act as the main instigator and ring-leader with many of the other alt-med POV-pushers simply parroting his responses back. I became extremely suspicious of this earlier as it looked to me like a case of meatpuppetry on a scale I have not witnessed before at Wikipedia.
    Specificaly false. SA seems to interpret "a review says that QW would be improved by instituting peer-review" as an attack on QW. Be that as it may, he misquoted the context of the citation to reverse the meaning; I refuted that by quoting the exact wording (see link below, or the talk:quackwatch). My theory is that he is blind to this, from fixating on the idea of "an attack on QW" instead of the simple "recommendation made by a reviewer". Anyway that thread is extracted, with some rebuttal from SA, at my page where I pasted together some of the pieces. Pete St.John (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.
      This edit is particularly telling. Levine is upset that he is not getting his way, and now wants to reject community compromise as a punitive action.
    What? Have you read that diff yourself, SA? Maybe you pointed to the wrong item by mistake? And btw, that's another place where you didn't answer a specific question (read up to the grey above the green). You make sweeping generalities, specific questions are asked, and you ignore them. Pete St.John (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition, such editors may:

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

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

    • He's not exactly the only editor at that page who meets the criteria of a disruptive editor. A broader restriction on a number of the usual suspects involved in the nonsense at Quackwatch, Chiropractic, Stephen Barrett, et. al. might not be a bad thing to consider. There are editors on both sides of the dispute that are doing more harm than good to the project as a whole.--Isotope23 talk 19:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As in the Peter Morrell item above, also introduced by SA, please consider me a disputant as well. SA has been persistently using wiki-legalism and veiled rhetoric while spamming the consensus building process with digressions, minutiae, reverts, additions, accustations, etc. (at Quackwatch) Hope for concilliation seems, to me, dashed by this pair of ANI. Pete St.John (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um, actually, I brought that up. Don't tell me there's still problems at Quackwatch. Want me to go in and yell at people? Adam Cuerden talk 19:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are always problems at Quackwatch...--Isotope23 talk 19:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ScienceApologist has asked me to come here to defend myself against his accusations: [30]. I don't think that is necessary when clearly this is just another example of ScienceApologist's uncivil behavior, harassment, and assumption of bad faith in others. I urge Admins to consider the restrictions set by ScienceApologist's ArbCom. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Response to Levine's accusations

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

    Sockpuppetry allegations

    Currently, ScienceApologist is engaged in many examples of incivility, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith including accusations of sockpuppetry [31] [32] [33],

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

    I've done a quick comparison of their contributions and conclude that they overlap closely enough that "a suspicion of possible sockpuppetry is not unreasonable." It would take a little more digging to say anything more specific one way or the other, or to provide basis for a checkuser request. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is ridiculous. I have an edit history going back to Aug2006 with 100s of edits. Why would TheDoctorsin nurture another persona for all that time in order to make three sockpuppet edits? Since July I have visitied a few WP pages on and off. Sometimes I made short comments in ongoing discussions. But I am appalled by the disruptive and uncivil editing environment created by editors such as ScienceApologist and a few other editors and don't really enjoy the consant bullying and harassment. Take a look at how ScienceApologist welcomed me entering the discussion with two comments on the Talk pages and one edit. [34] He obviously assumed bad faith immediately. I am not surprised that there is an ArbCom ruling against him. MaxPont (talk) 08:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment

    harassment [35]

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

    Look at my answer above. MaxPont (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    [36]

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

    Edit waring

    edit warring [37] [38] [39] [40]

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

    • You guys are way too fast for me. I've begun putting together notes explicating my complaints concerning ScienceApologist at Quackwatch. QW Talk is huge, with many subsections on the same topics (mainly because sections get too large to edit conveniently). In particular, my own main single complaint against ScienceApologist is that he misquoted the context of a citation, to reverse the meaning of the quote iteself. Since he was accusing others of misconstruing the context, I considered this particularly egregious, exacerbated by his not having acknowleged (much less rebutted) the error since. My notes so far are at this section in my user space. It's a gloss of a very very spammy debate at Talk:quackwatch. Pete St.John (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I have responded directly at that location. It looks to me like this is a misunderstanding that I hope we can work out elsewhere. I wasn't aware of misquoting (in fact, I wasn't quoting, but rather paraphrasing) and I made what I believe to be a good justification for this characterization of the source. While you may disagree with this characterization, I hope you will understand that I wasn't intending to lie or certainly not "reverse the meaning of the quote". ScienceApologist (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Assumptions of bad faith

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

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

    Your attacks against me were unfounded. . . warnings, insults and false accusations. . . how much more bad faith can one assume in another?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I presented the evidence above. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    It should be viewed as positive when new editors enter a heated and deadlocked controversy. By the way, ScienceApologist only asks insinuating questions when editors that don't push the pro-Quackwacth agenda enters the discusion. Why is that? MaxPont (talk) 08:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Really? Because you present no evidence here. . . just an assumption of bad faith. . . and you have yet to present me with anything the shape of evidence. . . all I got was a warning and antagonistic message from you.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I presented the evidence above. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Consensus conclusion

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

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

    I think ScienceApologist's characterization of the consensus claim is accurate here. Certainly, less than a day is not enough time to claim consensus if disputants haven't weighed in yet. Antelan talk 21:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How can one speak of civility but then go on to blindly brand editors as "alt-med POV-pushers"? Also please note that Levine said we were close to a consensus which. . . thanks to editors like Levine. . . we were. He did not "declare" it as ScienceApologist is characterizing. . . to my knowledge Levine was the one the most helpful and instrumental editors in trying to acheive consenus. . . and where ScienceApologist was the most detrimental. I don't know but I have had a bad taste in my mouth for ScienceApologist ever since this guy editting my userpage and labeled me "a true believer in chiropractic". I don't like him. . . I think he is trouble. . . and I now I find out that he is calling me a sockpuppet. . . This is simply not true. . . Where does this guy get off?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not speaking of civility. I'm speaking of consensus. You're addressing a different issue. Antelan talk 02:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipeda is unpleasant

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

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

    In the specific example familiar to me, citing a (evidently qualified) reviewer stating (in an evidently reputable professional journal) that he believed (at that time, 8 years ago) that QW would be improved by insitituting peer-review for it's own publication, does not constitute pushing a fringe belief. In fact, I consider the utility of peer-review to be conventional science; QW also advocates peer-review. It may not be applicable to QW's web site itself, but it's a legitimate critique which by no means implies that QW is itself unscientific or fraudulent. Witness that QW openly answers questions about it. I'm sure some of us have fringe beliefs; for example, the belief that Science is Holy and Above Criticism would be a fringe (but not unheard of) belief. For all I know, Levine did terrible editting on many pages. But in the 3 days (or so) since the RFC (on the 11th), he has been cooperative about seeking a compromise, and you, ScienceApologist, have not been (as per here, in progress). So in terms of my responding to an RFC, this ANI is premature and, IMO, disruptive to the consensus building process. Pete St.John (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am getting a little uncomfortable with some of the characterizations that you are making which seem to be bordering closer and closer on personal attacks of myself. You are certainly entitled to your opinions on the matter, but I don't think that your advocacy is exactly helping in this situation, especially considering that this incident report isn't about you. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I posted this "An Idea" yesterday. Antelan posted this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quackwatch&curid=2664234&diff=178173716&oldid=178171890#An_idea "Crohnie you've got a great point." Then deleted the section. I think IMHO that this section is not notable nor necessary in the article. I seem though to be getting a lot of comments about my idea. I am one of the regular editors who left this article do to arguements like this. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Anon IP block request

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

    I have given warnings, reverting many times.

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

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

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

    This looks like a content dispute, to me. [45] It seems you two disagree over whether pupils from the merged school are considered alumni of the new school. I do notice that this IP has not decided to discuss, though — so, if it happens again, please report them to WP:AIV with a short explanation. --Haemo (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    216.229.196.86

    Please block Special:Contributions/216.229.196.86. His/her whole work is vandalism. Here is just one of many: [46].

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

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

    Deletion campaign directed against Theosophy & Ascended Master Teachings articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Examples:

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

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

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

    The Great White Brotherhood article was an almost exact duplicate, as of when I deleted it, of parts of Advanced Masters Adam Cuerden talk 20:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was not a duplicate of Ascended Masters as anyone can see if you compare the text of the two. However - - if it had been a duplicate, your action of deleting it unilaterally with NO discussion or consensus was contrary to accepted Wikipedia policy. Arion (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    There were factual inaccuracies placed in the "I AM" Activity article by User:Fireplace as of result of his relying on an error-riddled article from Los Angeles Magazine. I just made edits that corrected a number of factual inaccuracies in this Wikipedia article, and gave specific citations to actual source documents to verify those edits. Within one half hour these corrective edits were reverted by Adam Cuerden (a Wikipedia administrator). What kind of explanation can possibly justify such action - again made without discussion nor consensus? Arion (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    user:209.254.252.186

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

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

    We don't generally block on request. I'm certainly reluctant to block this considering it's only had one 24 hour block. Whois checks out that it is an education establishment however. I'd say no block just yet, but I'll defer judgement to another admin. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The last time I saw a request like this, I posted a note asking them to identify the school using the SharedIPEDU template, and then subscribe to the RSS feed linked from that template. That would notify them of vandalism, so that they could take appropriate measures internally, and it would also show that the school's administration monitored the page - notifying students who might think twice before vandalising. It would also permit logged in users to edit. It's not a great fix, nor does it sound like it's what they want, but it's the best we can do in the absence of blocking. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a teacher at this school. I have reverted some edits by our students. If I didn't we would probably see more blocks. Editing Wikipedia is not something that teachers would assign, so I would prefer to see a long term block. --209.254.252.186 (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The only constructive edits in the contributions from this IP address are mine. The rest are nonconstructive edits from students. I really don't want to continue to use my time to revert edits from our students. I just looked at the conditions of the schoolblock template. They look fine to me, so please consider using it for us. --209.254.252.186 (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to note, that although I (and I think other editors aswell, but I am speaking only for myself) very much appreciate your effort to keep vandalism at bay, but that from the Wikipedia point of view, it is not your personal responsibility to revert vandalism made from your students. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Thats related to the block request. SharedIPEDU is a fine alternative. AvruchTalk 21:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am the same teacher from before. I am at home now, so I have created an account. I realize that you can't confirm my identity as a teacher, but please be practical here. Realistically, the template that is on our IP address now is not going to be effective. Students won't see it. A block of one hour or one day will have no effect when the next student comes along and decides to make unconstructive edits. Please consider a long term block. --EtonTeacher (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been thinking about this over and over and I've decided to block the address for 6 months as a school block. If students wish to edit, they can still create an account at home and edit in school with their account. I think it's best to respect the wishes of a school, especially when they are making efforts to combat the vandalism coming from their addresses. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for your attention to this request, Ryan. The six month block will carry us through to the end of the school year. I highly doubt anyone will complain, except for the thwarted student vandals.  :-) --EtonTeacher (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Golden Compass controversies

    Resolved
     – Two outside opinions given, IrishTraveller warned Will (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    My searches:

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

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

    I am not uninvolved with IrishTraveller (though I am uninvolved in the content dispute), but I would advise administrators looking at this report that this is a content dispute, that IrishTraveller is a bit hot-headed but otherwise fairly reasonable, and that prior steps of dispute resolution have not been tried. I mention the last bit, because I think that if prior steps were tried and consensus formed via a third opinion or a request for comment, that this post might be unnecessary as IrishTraveller might concede that consensus is against his or her position. --Iamunknown 20:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am just looking for a truly uninvolved party to look at the issue as a matter of course, this is an attempt to get a third opinion, that is all. As I said to you, I am not looking to get a newb screwed over here. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    Obvious trolling/POV pushing. Looking at the sources, they say nothing about CC/BK being criticised, just that CC/BK are sponsoring the film. Will (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "A rather deceptive practice"? Um, Isotope, as of IrishTraveller's last contribution, his username was "Blohme". It was renamed less than an hour after his last contribution --Iamunknown 21:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I can confirm this; I clerk at CHU and saw the request. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 21:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) Ah, I'd missed the fact that he'd been renamed as Blohme (talk · contribs) shows as unregistered. I've stricken my warning.--Isotope23 talk 21:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alexbot

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

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

    Craig Wolff

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

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

    Blocking NYU based on TP warnings and edits. The IP has no edits, deleted or otherwise. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 22:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP does have edits, the link above is just messed up: 59.101.21.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --barneca (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP above does not have any edits to the Craig Wolff article, unless the edits have since been oversighted. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 23:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    118.68.94.96 does. There may have been an error in the original report. IrishGuy talk 23:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There was: That wasn't the first IP stated. However, he's stopped after that one edit to the article. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 02:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Date warrior

    Carnun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back to his same routine following his latest block. [47] --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, before his edit, there were two different formats in use in the article. He standardized them, at least. Horologium (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I looked at that too quickly. However, he still hasn't responded to any comments at his talk page about this or sockpuppetry. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Category: neofascism or Neo-fascism?

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

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

    Nazis?

    Wikipedia:FTN#Walled_gardens_of_woo

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


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

    Then it happens again here:

    Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Master_Hilarion#Master_Hilarion.2C_et_al


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

    Are four threads on this necessary? east.718 at 23:30, December 14, 2007
    Um, sorry, have you posted in the right place? Adam Cuerden talk 23:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppet of banned user

    Resolved
     – Account blocked indefinately

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

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

    Blocked, somebody else can slap the sock tags or whatever on his page. east.718 at 00:50, December 15, 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 00:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Already done. Thanks East. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    61.5.68.188 has also vandalized these just today:

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

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

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

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

    Thanks. But when this same guy vandalizes again, even if it involves another related article, be assured that I'll report it here. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 06:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just send me a talk page message. It's easier.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to state, i'm impressed by the thoroughness of Nanami Kamimura's report. ThuranX (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Film article vandalism?

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

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

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

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

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

    I have responded on the mailing list. Cbrown1023 talk 01:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it, thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That template calls on a whole bunch of other templates, some of which may not be protected. Likely one of those has been vandalized, which means the vandalism is more widespread than we know yet. I've been adapting tons of templates to Wikinfo, and have been finding a few that really should be protected, but aren't. I've been reporting them to RPP as I find them. - Crockspot (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BKLisenbee William S. Burroughs

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

    [52]

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

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

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

    Steve Ignorant and Schwartzeneggar

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

    Block of User:Kitia by User:BrownHairedGirl

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

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

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

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

    Thanks very much to Mangojuice for kindly filing this report, since I didn't get time before I went to bed. I'm afraid that I ran out of time after doing the checks on the history of the two versions, which confirm that the copvio was actually the other way round (I have posted the full details at Talk:Warsaw#History_of_Warsaw_copyvio)
    The first thing is that I am aware that the block might have been seen as inappropriate, because I had indeed been involved in a variety of disputes with Kitia, but I nonetheless thought that an immediate block was justified because material identified removed from Warsaw#History was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warsaw&diff=177968576&oldid=177967334 reinstated by Kitia], after previous discussions about the copyvio when Kitia had twice forked the content to a standalone article (see User_talk:Kitia#History_of_Warsaw, User_talk:Kitia#History_of Warsaw_copyright_problems, User_talk:Kitia#History_of_Warsaw_again and User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Re:History_of_Warsaw)
    It is only in retrospect that I have pieced together the entire history:
    1. At 23:42, 8 December 2007 Kitia copied the text of Warsaw#History to History of Warsaw, intending to split per WP:SUMMARY, but without any edit summary to explain that it was a split. History of Warsaw was tagged 1 minute later by CorenBot as a copyvio of http://www.luketravels.com/warsaw/history.htm, and Kitia then performed 3 rapid edits, presumably in the hope that a few tweaks would resolve the copyvio, and removed the {{csb-pageincludes}} tag, all without a note in the edit summary. The {{csb-pageincludes}} tag was restored by Guroadrunner, and removed 10 minutes later by Kitia, again without comment.
    2. I spotted the the problem two days later on Kitia's talk page, saw that the copvio tag had been removed, and the article remained substantially a copyvio, so I atgged History of Warsaw for {{db-copyvio}} and left an {{sd-copyvio}} note for Kitia[53]. I had no reply at all from Kitia, and at this point I was unaware that there was a fork involved.
    3. On Dec 14, I spotted a further note to Kitia from Corenbot (see User talk:Kitia#History_of_Warsaw), so I speedy deleted the History of Warsaw and left a note for Kitia deploring the recreation of deleted content.
    4. Kitia's reply was then to explain that the material was a copy of the history section of Warsaw, and asking that it be undeleted. I relied pointing out that a content fork was not appropriate anyway, and then went off to check Warsaw#History ... where I found that it was indeed nearly identical to http://www.luketravels.com/warsaw/history.htm, so promptly edited that section to remove the copied material, and left a note at Talk:Warsaw#History_of_Warsaw_copyvio.
    5. Kitia commented again on my talk page, accusing me of being horrible and nasty etc[54], asking me again to recreate the History of Warsaw article, and threatening to involve other admins, to which I responded that a report would be fine[55].
    6. I then discovered that Kitia had reverted the removal of apparent copyvio material from Warsaw#History, so I restored he removal and blocked Kitia for 24 hours.[56]
    So despite the fact that the coyvio eventually turns out to have been a false alarm, a copy from wikipedia (rather than the other way round as it appeared until the early hours of this morning), I still think that the block was justified. Rather than take any of many opportunities to discuss the apparent covyio (or to ask why a few textual edits don't make a coyvio OK), Kitia chose to edit war. It was only through the research of others that the exact nature of the copyvio became apparent.
    As can be seen on Kitia's talk page, this editor has a long history of disruptive editing, which had already led me to warn that an ANI report might be necessary. Most of the problems relate to Kitia's habit of reverting (usually without comment) anything (s)he dislikes, and refusing to discuss the problem. So far as I am aware, Kitia is very young (about 15, I think, from one comment somewhere), and could probably benefit from a mentor to guide him/her through wiki procedures.
    The content forking which took place here is one example of this. The guidance at WP:SUMMARY says that when an article gets too big and a section is split out, it should be replaced by a summary, but instead Kitia just created a content fork. A mentor could perhaps explain to Kitia how to do this sort of thing properly, but I don't see much evidence that Kitia would listen, although I hope I am wrong.
    In the meantime, what to do about the block? It seems to me that although Kitia was acting in more good faith than was apparent until the last minute, it was justified for the edit-warring ... but I will not oppose its lifting if anyone thinks that's appropriate. However, I think that the real issue here is the need for mentorship of a young editor who doesn't understand wikipedia processes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock harassment

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

    Edit warring on several pages

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

    Any particular articles I should be looking at? east.718 at 05:35, December 15, 2007
    Never mind, I just blocked them both. east.718 at 05:40, December 15, 2007

    Threats to continue Disruption on OpenEdge Advanced Business Language

    A previous situation with Ninjadude9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was reported, see → Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive339#Disruptive_editing_on_OpenEdge_Advanced_Business_Language. This tendentious editor continued POV pushing on this article in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from multiple editors. It appears Ninjadude9 now has gravitated to personal attacks and threats to continue Disruptive editing. ...'I'll play in and out with him until the end of time" [57]. I've tried attempts to communicate the problem in the edit summaries as have other editors (Emergeo and BLACKKITE), this user has also been warned on his talk. Perhaps another aproach to Ninjadude9 is needed? thanks--Hu12 (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User not getting the point about copyrights, still lying

    User:Rtr10 has continually lied about the copyright status of images. He (ludicrously) claimed that Image:Huckabee with flag crop.png‎ was his own image (the picture has been part of Mike Huckabee's facebook application for a while now, and it's obvious he didn't take it anyway. This user has been warned countless times since I told him I would report him to be blocked for lying anymore: [58]. Someone please block this user. I'm sick and tired of us giving 18 warnings to people who outright lie about copyrights. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, but we can't prevent anything if we don't use them. Sorry if I'm being snappy, but I've too often watched people lie. Over. And. Over. And. Over. after many warnings, and then I'm told, again, to warn the person. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked user indefinitely. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Despres

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

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

    Noticed same treatment to User:Master of Puppets, see diff. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 08:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just blocked him for a month for his personal attacks, and disruption. I was just on my way here to get feedback on it, when I saw the thread. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 08:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible malware

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

    Blocked, suspect a virus or other malware. GDonato (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Problematic employee POV pushing on Employers article

    Resolved

    LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Tamec does seem to be the person you claim he is, principal author of the WP article about the product sold by the firm for which he is marketing director. He just does not seem to have been very good at covering his tracks, despite his denials. [59], old homepage [60],[61] (There are more like this, just in case any should mysteriously disappear.) Mathsci (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So, what to do? Other than broadcasting that the editor is likely to have a conflict of interest and suggesting he is spectacularly inept at hiding his true identity it seems that he is not violating policy in attempting to keep his RL name out of Wikipedia. Is the editing of the concerned article(s) so disruptive as to require warning the editor, or even executing sanctions? Have they removed sourced material with no explanation? Have they edit warred? If the answer to the last questions is yes, then they should be warned appropriately and be dealt with by the usual processes. Has anyone mentioned this to the editor, or that this discussion is happening here? I shall check. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon review of the three recent edits by Tamec I doubt that they are that controversial. Yes, there has been some allegations regarding the companies products that have been removed, but the allegations were unreferenced. Unless the comments can be sourced they should stay removed. Unless there are other concerns regarding this editor I think this is pretty much cleared up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a clear-cut conflict of interest. Tamec is using WP as a billboard to advertise their product and remove any adverse criticism. This must have happened before. But he is also denying any involvement with the product; his bluster and obstructiveness on the talk page is therefore disrupting the project. Mathsci (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As commented, the criticism had no sources. If sources are provided then the allegations can be returned. Further, WP:COI does not disallow parties editing - it requires them to be especially scrupulous in their contributions. From my review it certainly doesn't appear that the article needs tagging as an advert, there are many edits from a variety of viewpoints - which also negates any question of notability. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand somebody (not me!) could put the article onto AFD, explaining that it reads like an advertisement, was created by a spammer and let the community decide. Mathsci (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, that's an option. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think AfD is a viable option. While the article certainly needs a thorough scrubbing, it is nonetheless about a notable subject and AfD is not meant to be substitution for clean up. I posted a note about the issue at the Wine Project to see if there are any takers in helping with the clean up. AgneCheese/Wine 14:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I think that is the most appropriate avenue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I should have clarified more about what I considered POV pushing, I suspect that Tamec was editing under this IP address which resolves to New York city, where his business is located: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.23.245.171

    The only thing that really bothered me is when he removed the controversy section, then removed it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tall Midget (talk • contribs) 23:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment by User: MrWhich

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

    The user had a similar pattern of disruption and refusal to disengage under his old account. I do not know why his older contributions did not get transferred to his current account. Jeffpw (talk) 10:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So now we're outing a vanished user as a result of a bit of fun? Wow. Mr Which??? 10:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, please do. Nothing "escalated." Deeceevoice forbid me to post at her talkpage, saying she would delete without reading the post. I found this pretentious and funny, and posted perhaps two or three messages in that spirit. Nothing angry, threatening, or in any way harassing. I attempted to engage User:Jeffpw on the matter, as he was accusing me of harassing her, but he simply deleted my questions and pointed me to WP:HARASS, which I had already read before. I read it again, and did not find that I violated any portion of it in my dealings with Deeceevoice. In fact, in my last post to her page (and also in the edit summary, since she claimed to not be reading my posts), I made it clear that was my last post to her page. Still she brought it here. I apologize to whichever admin looks this over for wasting their time. Mr Which??? 10:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is generally accepted as harassment to poke people "for fun" when they have clearly indicated that they wish to be left alone. Heck, some people might even call that trolling. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's policy somewhere? And if you can honestly look at what I wrote, the tone I wrote it in, and the fact that my last note at her page made it clear that I was finished posting to her page, and you think I somehow deserve a block, I guess that's your call. As for Jeff outing a vanished user above, what of that? Mr Which??? 10:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Common sense and decency should not have to be made policy. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, look at the actual messages. And then check out this diff, where--after I've made it clear that they've outed a vanished user--DCV leaves a note saying she considers the matter closed, with a winky after it. How is this acceptable? Especially given that BEFORE she opened this thread, I made it clear I was not going to post at her talk page again? Mr Which??? 10:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:CIVILITY#Examples. Taunting someone who clearly indicated that they wished to be left alone. I have no opinion on what Jeff wrote nor did I say that you should be blocked. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not taunting, but even if I concede that, how would the relatively minor "infraction" merit both an AN/I post, after I had pledged to not post to her page anymore (a pledge I have been keeping, though they continue to discuss me there) and outing me as the vanished user in Jeff's diff? Mr Which??? 10:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    That's a good question, Nick. And now that I've been outed, I'm uncertain how to procede. Is there any way to simply delete this nonsense, and oversight it, or at least make it so that only admins could read it? I had some serious RL concerns that caused the need to vanish. I decided to use this account (a previously approved, but seldom-used, legit sock of my former account) to vanish into. I must have forgotten to have them oversight those diffs that Jeff dug up to out me. Can we take care of this problem? Mr Which??? 10:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you had actually invoked right to vanish, you should not have put that tag on your userpage. Tagging your page seems to invalidate the concerns that right to vanish address. I do apologize for making you uncomfortable, but how was I to know you were a vanished user when the tag was on your page and you had tagged it yourself? Jeffpw (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    At Deeceevoice’s page

    Diff 1

    Diff 2

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

    At Jeffpw’s page

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

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

    • Could an admin please deal with this underlying frivolity, so that we can oversight, delete, whatever, the link that outed me as a vanished user? Mr Which??? 14:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Between that tag on your new userpage, my salting of your old user talk page, a secret checkuser being run on you and this thread, it's already too much of an open secret. Get in touch with me if you need to vanish again. east.718 at 15:02, December 15, 2007
        • I just noticed that you said a "secret checkuser" had been run on me. When did this happen, and who requested it? Mr Which??? 15:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was no secret who MrWhich was, as his behavior has not changed. The first thing I did when dealing with his questionable behavior related to the Mercury (talk · contribs) recall was check the history of his userpage, and sure enough, the sock tag was there. MrWhich, you weren't "outed". - auburnpilot talk 17:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. So this is just accepted? AP, an admin, can make this statement with impugnity? As for the secret checkuser by an arb during the Durova thing, there is a definite irony to that. For the record, AP, if a user wishes to vanish, even if you (or anyone else) thinks it's "no secret", what Jeff did (uninentional or not) constitutes "outing." Period. Mr Which??? 18:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your own user page states who you are. That is a fact, not just what I think. If a user wishes to vanish, he/she shouldn't immediately start using an account that is so blatantly attributed to the previous account. As for the secret checkuser, per policy there is no requirement for the check to be revealed on-site. - auburnpilot talk 18:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop it. Now. I've made it clear that the tag is a remnant (in an old version of my page) from before I vanished that somehow as not oversighted. That you continue to post it is blatant bad faith, and must stop immediately. Mr Which??? 19:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Neptunes2007

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

    Well, maybe an admin should talk to him first. He might listen to an admin. If he doesn't, then yeah, block--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 11:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Neptunes2007's userpage, "her". Her latest apparent copyvio, Kleicha, was tagged by CorenSearchBot and appears to me to have been subsequently reworded sufficiently from its source to no longer qualify as copyvio (though I may be wrong). Anyone else have a view? Tonywalton Talk 12:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's still a CV then. east.718 at 14:54, December 15, 2007

    Comments by User:Timeshift9 on User talk:Brendan

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

    I have no comment on the situation, and will leave consideration of action to neutral admins, but anyone watching AN/I will have seen the back and forth amongst this group of users in the past two days. I'm starting to think WP:DR is required, although I'm not entirely sure on what issue/s they are divided. While I do not defend Timeshift's actions in any way it should be noted the "revert my talkpage" link in the above is almost 2 months old, although all the others are current. Orderinchaos 14:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Orderinchaos regarding third item being non-notable at this date. the first two are clear jerk behaviors, though. I'd say that Timeshift9 is fully aware of what he's doing, as he's been around a while. Might be a case of goose and gander? ThuranX (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (sorry this got lost after edit conflicts)If Brendan has asked timeshift to leave him alone then he needs to leave him alone and gloating about a block is really unacceptable and provocative. But Brendan slipping in a nearly two month old diff into that list without pointing out that it is old looks kinda manipulative. You lot need to stop using ANI like it's an over-protective mother. We aren't going to fight your (collective your) battles for you and we aren't going to be manipulated into taking sides. I think it would be good if you lot focused 100% on article content and left out any and all personal commentary, including allegations about people's backgrounds, personal motivations and so on. Sarah 15:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Uninvolved admin comments The first two instances are un-necessary and uncivil, and I will leave a comment at Timeshift's talkpage. I note that the claim of Timeshift reinstating some comments onto your talkpage, although true, is some eight weeks late. A bit late for finger wagging. I guess there is little point in asking you guys to dial it down? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The reason I cite the earlier occasion is to evidence that I previously requested Timeshift desist from such behaviour and that he has since ignored that request. If you check his userpage, above where I left the ANI-notice template, he has also been spoken to for similar edits to other talkpages. This is a pattern of trolling behaviour. An admin warning would be adequate. --Brendan [ contribs ] 15:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that his comments to you during your block were trolling and provocative. But Brendan, this needs to stop and it needs to stop all round. I'm not just saying this to you, I'm saying this to the whole lot of you. If you people can't find a way to edit Wikipedia together in a collaborative and cooperative manner then you lot have no business editing Wikipedia at all. You need to work this out together, go through dispute resolution or a community enforced mediation, perhaps, (if that is still running) or we need to take all of you to arbitration and get some sanctions. There's been too much disruption and too much personalising of disputes. Sarah 15:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarah, while you direct your comments at an undefined wider audience ("you people"), this ANI thread is about me and Timeshift. This means your comments will foremost be (seen to be) directed at me and Timeshift. Speaking for myself, I don't know what mediation/sanction/resolution process you have in mind, in terms of which specific issues you consider apropos to those processes. What I do know is that Timeshift's taunting and personalising of disputes do indeed need to stop. That's not something I can effect and I see no role for me to play in any mediation process to that effect. I have simply come to this forum seeking that an errant user be cautioned for repeated incivility on my talkpage, a pattern of behaviour that, at a cursory glance, is not exclusive to my talkpage. --Brendan [ contribs ] 15:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The Duggy issue is entirely unrelated to the above situation, for the record - and I've already reported that here earlier, and accepted the advice of neutral admins on the matter. The fact is that every few hours we're seeing you, Timeshift, Lester, Shot info and others posting here asking Wikipedia to do something. If we acted on every report that's being submitted, you guys would all be blocked for weeks. The WikiProject talk page has become something of a bad joke, there's stuff spinning out of control at at least two article talk pages and several user talk pages, in addition to the reports here, and this HAS to stop. I agree in totality with Sarah's comments regarding how to move forward - forget allegations, forget misbehaviour, just edit constructively, perhaps write some new articles on areas Wikipedia is yet to cover (there's plenty in the Aus politics and law areas). Orderinchaos 15:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Judging me by the actions of others is not reasonable. I am not responsible for the actions of others. My contrib history shows it is not fact that you're "seeing me" here "every few hours" lodging incident reports. Tonight I've reported two incidents that I felt warranted attention, consistent with policy and other enforcement decisions lately made, but have not otherwise lodged an ANI report in some time. Being told to just "forget" how I was blocked for something that the third-party complainant (Shot info) probably won't be blocked for (ANI topic below) and to "forget" the ensuing talkpage taunting by a twittering article emperor (Timeshift9) does not motivate constructivity, article writing and so on. Moving forward, for my part, will happen when these incongruities are resolved. --Brendan [ contribs ] 16:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Brendan is just bitter and is hoping I can get banned so he can feel a bit better... well I haven't communicated with Brendan since then and don't particularly plan to. I have nothing further to say. Timeshift (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If uncivil behaviour (nyah-nyahing, oneupmanship and hostility towards those who express a different views on style/content issues) were to be avoided in the first place, editors would not find themselves engaging in undignified glass-jawed deflections of legitimate concerns about that uncivil behaviour. I note, because it has been falsely imputed otherwise above, that I did not seek a ban/block (per my above comment that "An admin warning would be adequate") nor did I expect a block to occur because that would clearly be punitive and unreasonable. Moreover, such a block would not have brought me any joy whatsoever. He may not believe it, but I think Timeshift9 does genuinely great work when he focuses on content and collaboration. I admire and respect the contribution he makes to Wikipedia (particularly the image content) but wish he could be a little less sensitive --Brendan [ contribs ] 02:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I find this odd because, as frequent contributors to Australian politics articles, they're usually on the same "side" when it comes to additions and reversion of POV - it's usually these editors up against a couple of other editors with differing views of how these articles are being run. Kind of weird, really, that this would happen. I do think Timeshift was slightly out of line here, although I've been known to make a comment or two that bordered on the uncivil. We should all drop this and focus on the articles. DEVS EX MACINA pray 12:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Amalgamut00

    Resolved

    User:Amalgamut00 only seems to exist to spam wikipedia with links and reviews from a non-professional/non-reliable site. The only intention here seems to be self-promotion. See contributions [62] --Neon white (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've block the editor for 24 hours and warned him about spamming, also cautioned that a repeat of spamming for reviewbusters.net may result in it being blacklisted. Gnangarra 15:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Weren't you the one who posted the link to the name "Brendan Jones"? Also, I think we all know you aren't "Brendan Jones". This is easily verified by anyone. This report seems rather pointy and the latest in a long line of recent attempts to use ANI as a battlefield and to manipulate admins into acting on editorial adversaries. I don't blame you for this, by the way, because you're just doing what the others have been doing for too long but this needs to stop immediately and if it doesn't we are going to take the lot of you to arbitration. Sarah 15:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I endorse what Sarah says; it wasn't an attempt to out, but another example of disruptive editing which all parties seem prone to - as is this attempt at having sanctions bought against a member of the other camp. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is seriously getting tedious - we are getting a report about once every 3 hours on this page asking admins to take a side in the intra-project fighting within Australian politics. As I said in another response, DR is probably going to be necessary if these editors cannot learn to get on with each other. Orderinchaos 15:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Where are you drawing the line between disruption and "outing"? This is not clear and the result is inconsistent. The name "Brendan Jones" was entirely unfamiliar to me until Shot info mentioned it. My comments in the prior ANI thread clearly reflect that. That name had not been mentioned in any circumstance prior to Shot info mentioning it. Unlike Skyring's talkpage (which apparently linked to the same/similar information that I purportedly had "outed" him with), it was not linked or attached to me in any way. Nor was I aware of the presence of that name in any links that I posted. More pertinently though, WP:OUTING states "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment [...]." Shot info's mentioning of the name "Brendan Jones", juxtaposed with comments by me, sought to "out" me as "Brendan Jones" (which falls under "posting another person's legal name [...] regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct"). Treating this action with less seriousness brings us to a perverse inconsistency: it is not OK for me to reference webpages which may indicate facts about Skyring that were already published by him (according to previous links on his own talkpage), but it is OK for Shot info to juxtapose me with similar such information from those same webpages. --Brendan [ contribs ] 16:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly don't think that you are understanding the matter from admins' perspective (i.e. my colleagues who read this page). All people are seeing here is an endless stream of reports. Nothing is going to get sorted out this way, we're going to end up with a "boy who cried wolf" situation. Furthermore, anyone with any history on the AUSPOL project knows that you are not Brendan Jones, so the issues are a tiny bit different. Orderinchaos 16:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly don't think you are understanding this from a selectively sanctioned ordinary editor's perspective. Different application of the same rules/guidelines/precedents for different editors is unreasonable. Either WP:OUTING matters or it doesn't. If it does matter, then editors should be treated consistently and accordingly. If it doesn't matter, then my 48hr block was unreasonable (to which effect, I notice that decision generated some critical feedback in my absence). For the purposes of WP:OUTING, it is irrelevant what "anyone with history on the AUSPOL project" knows or does not know. That was not a determining factor in whether or not I deserved a block for allegedly "outing" Skyring, nor was the apparent previous presence on his talkpage of links to the semantically same information I was alleged to have "outed" him with; it should not be a determining factor in whether or not Shot info warrants sanction for its attempted outing of me. --Brendan [ contribs ] 16:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In the diff you linked to, in response to your request that he retract his earlier statement that you stalked Skyring, he wrote, referring to a link you posted yourself, "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." Is this what you are suggesting is an outing? Look, this focus on who people are in real life needs to stop. All edits to these political articles need to be scrutinised and considered carefully entirely on the merits of the edits themselves and not on who made them. If you all started doing this with all edits, regardless of whether they were made by your editorial allies or editorial foes, most of the AusPol interpersonal issues would evaporate and no one would care who each of you were in real life. Your posts about Peter were wrong but I know you're just one person in a group who are all in some sort of factionalised editorial war that prefers ANI as it's home battlefield. Very quickly something is going to have to give in this war or you (collectively) are going to see community sanctions requested or arbitration and I don't think anyone involved is going to come out of either process unscathed. From my perspective, you lot are politically minded people who are using Wikipedia politically and engaging in politically-styled dirty tricks and manipulation. I'd like to be proved wrong on that and I'd like to see you all agree to sort sort of mediation as a last chance before arbitration and go into it with full intentions of finding a way to work together and end this crap. But the more and more you all run to ANI at every opportunity like naughty kids to dob on each other doesn't leave me feeling encouraged. Sarah 17:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like we need to send these people to a self-imposed ArbCom over this, or to the real thing. --Haemo (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarah, again you refer to a collective who are not necessarily audience to this complaint and whom I have no responsibility for, influence over, or direct association with (other than coincident encounters on here). Again, my wish here is for consistency in administrative sanctions. Shot info was vigorously pointy in its pursuit of me over the so-called "outing" of Skyring/Peter (vis-à-vis links identifying the former One Nation (Canberra) Branch President 1999) resulting in a 48hr sanction for an weightless guideline breach. That being the umpire's questionable decision, namely that construed intent is the basis for sanction in these instances without due regard to materiality, I simply ask for procedural fairness in dealing with that Shot info's own concomitant infraction. How else can Shot info's spontaneous reference to an apparent real world identity "Brendan Jones" in juxtaposition with own comments be explained? The only conceivable purpose of that was to "out" me (however falsely, which is immaterial per WP:OUTING). Regarding your comment "you lot are politically minded people who are using Wikipedia politically and engaging in politically-styled dirty tricks and manipulation", I can only comment for myself in saying that I respond to behaviour directed at me and others who I see as being poorly treated. I do wish it didn't have to be so. But otherwise, I'm quite comfortable that the content edits I make are neither "politically minded" nor "politically-styled dirty tricks and manipulation". Copyedits, grammar, style and article structure predominate my article edits and interests. Perhaps those political machinations you describe are present, but I suggest more likely on the part of (former) political players around here, of which I am not one. --Brendan [ contribs ] 01:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Out of interest, here is what I put on Brenden's talk back, which he then reverted calling it "trolling" which I note is exactly the same arguement that he uses on Timeshift9 (above). I get the distinct feeling that there is much "Help, Help, I'm being repressed here" which as the CABAL tells us When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you.

    [63] My explaination of what I was saying. User:Brendan is refering to this "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." of mine. Note I was not saying he was or wasn't, instead I was responding to his demand "Please also retract your false allegation that I have wikistalked anyone." which he made in response to my "an newsgroup writer "Peter", another writer "Brendan" (who stalked the before mentioned "Peter")".
    Hence the sequence of events are, I mention a "Brendan [Jones]" who has stalked (not Wikistalked) Peter McKay (sp) in Aus.Politics. Editor User:Brendan then believes this is a reference to him. Which I then clarify to make it clear it wasn't...and irrelevant in any case. At no time do I call him Brendan Jones as it is obvious that he cannot wikistalk anybody (ie/ Brendan Jones not being an editor). Brendan did strike out his comment out after I make my reply so I can only assume that he too recognised this - but choose to game on anyway. Now for the record, I don't care who our User:Brendan is in real life. I only wished him to remove his outing efforts. If an admin believes my comments are inappropriate at ANi or here, I am willing to refactor them to avoid any potential confusion. Editors should be judged on their edits here in Wikipedia, not who they are in real life. Shot info (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    So I reiterate. If an admin thinks I have made a mistake, I will gladly refactor my comments. I note that Brendan was asked to refactor, didn't and was blocked over it. While he may be guilty of an innocent mistake, the 1000's of words and now the various vendetta's against myself and Timeshift once he is unblocked suggests that Brendan has a real problem with the purposes of Wikipedia. Which we all now, is not pointscoring against other editors (like what Brendan was doing against Skyring). But if the Community feels that pointscoring is acceptable to the project, then I will accept that as well. Shot info (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You yourself seem to have just "outed" Skyring" above, even after he requested that no-one post personal information about him ("I'd like to note that I am not in favour of [Lester or anyone else] posting personal information about me"). Yet again we see different standards for different editors. Your skewed hypocritical representation of events undermines your credibility. Your "distinct feelings" and extrapolation from unrelated events are irrelevant to the substance of this ANI matter. Your comments on my talkpage were removed because they were unwelcome and there was already a more appropriate forum, the original ANI topic, whereat you should, could and did express your views. Your explanation of your "outing" of me as "Brendan Jones" makes no sense in light of your earlier comment "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?". Trying to downplay your own comments ("I was not saying he was or wasn't") is disingenuous. To borrow User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's phrasing when he gave reasons for my block, "posting of [the name "Brendan Jones"] had no other conceivable purpose than to suggest an outing of a fellow editor's real-life identity. [Shot info's] "but I didn't really say it" games now don't cut it". Or perhaps this is more fitting: yours was "nothing but a cheap, gratuitous ad personam shot". Given your evangelism about the WP:OUTING guideline, you ought to adhere to it, not traduce it while lecturing another user for the same. Finally, importantly, sanctions ought to be consistently enforced. What I have a problem with is occasions where this does not happen. --Brendan [ contribs ] 06:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your logic is amazingly tortured and all it seems to constitute is defending your efforts to out other users. Many admins have spoken to you on this matter, you continue to ignore them, defending your right to out users and engage in unWikipedian conduct. When are you going to realise that your behavour is inappropriate? Rather than arguing, just accept that you were incorrect, made a mistake and have moved on. But by all means, keep raging against the machine, continue to make off topic attacks, continue to edit disruptively, you are the one who will exhaust the Community's patience after all - and probably suffer for it. Shot info (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dc76 and User:Edokter

    Please advise on what should be done for the following users:

    User Dc76 repeatedly edits against the reached consensus on the Balti talk page[64], repeatedly engages in edit wars, repeatedly personally attacks and simply insults me.

    Here are examples of personal attacks of User Dc76:

    On the other hand, adding Russian names to city districts in a country where Russian is not official, is, IMHO, nationalism. It has no historical basis, these districts were never Russian. They were built by the inhabitants of Moldova, and everyone has got a share in work. The appreciation goes to people not to ethnic groups. German cars are good because German engineers are good, not because they speak German.

    - for your information, not only the locality Balti received the city status under Russian Empire, but also most of the existing districts in the city were built during the Soviet Union time in a city where Russian population was predominant.Moldopodo (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

    You see, I also could blame you to be Vladimir Zhirinovski, and ask you to prove you are not... I think you should re-read the dictionaries in all the languages you know for "good faith".

    Moldopodo, You say "Secondly this is an open lie, as I have given enough sources that Balti is a largely Russian speaking city" - Well, that is an open lie. You personally largely use Russian. Don't generalize. You say "the inhabitants who have Moldovan as native language (those who came from villages recently)" - This is ethnic hatred. They were born in the city, they did no come from anywhere. You are promoting Soviet-style city vs. village hatred, but don't worry, we, the city natives will cut short your elan of hate.

    - for your information: if this is not racism from the side of User Dc76, then I guess there is a problem on Wikipedia and somebody should really take care of it.Moldopodo (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

    You, dear, might be coming from God knows were, where you were a burden. (Otherwise you wouldn't ever say about inhabitants of the city "came recently". That - frustration- is the only logical explanation that comes now to my mind.) I, like 100,000 more people, was born in this city, and live in it. I can scan my id card and email it to a sysop for proof! Suggesting to look for the translation of the word Bălţi in a Russian dictionary is ludicrous. It is like looking for the translation of New York in Chinese, justifying that there is a Chine Town in it. :Dc76\talk 14:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

    - for your information, the word 'balta' (in Romanian) and 'boloto' (in Russian) have the same etymological roots, however, not only contesting the translation to swamp (please see Balti talk page with plenty of references to online dictionaries), moreover, UserDc76 inserts a link to a dictionary simply in Romanian (explicative and not translation), and deletes the links to translation dictionaries and to Russian explicative dictionary as wellMoldopodo (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

    - User Dc76 actively deletes reference to Balti steppe (Beltsy steppe) as well, obviously not knowing much about the city of Balti. It is an easily available information on internet, Encyclopedia Britannica including. Nevertheless, User Dc76 dletes this information as well. Also User Dc76 edited respectively the article on Geography of Moldova on English Wikipedia to make sure that her/his imaginary theory is proven at least somewhere.Moldopodo (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

    I am afraid that Moldopodo does not know well enouth the Romanian language and therefore makes his confusion Moldopodo, this is ridiculous. Do you know Romanian? Tell honestly! If you don't know the language of your own country even at a very-very simple level, proved by the fact that even with a dictionary you make mistakes in a word that means the name of the city you live in, then please... give us a brake with your super-knowledge of the language you don't bother learn even at an elementary level. Alternatively, go to the library, pick up a dictionary, and make a small effort to learn a few words in the official language of your own country. It is a very simple language to learn, it is not Chinese or Hungarian to have to learn from zero. Foreigners come to Moldova and in 1 year speak the language. You live there for 20+ years and don't bother. Instead you blame people of nationalism. And what is your lack of knowledge of Romanian, not nationalism? Noone asks you to write literature, but 1,000-2,000 words anyone can learn

    • User:Edokter, when I asked to check the legality (according to Wikipedia rules) of User Dc76' actions, and namely whether there was a personal attack (from the side of User Dc76), said that she/he cannot even examine my request whether there was a personal attack from User Dc76 at all, and this goes without even mentioning any applicable sanctions to User Dc76. At the same time, User Edokter promptly and expediently fulfills requests of User Dc76 in my regard. Namely deleting references to vandalism on my talk page by User Moldorubo clearly related to User Dc76.
    • By the way, User Dc76 even in recent developments, uses again exactly the same aggressive language (User Dc76 calls my editing "hatred", "racism" while User Dc 76 deletes (or reverts) Russiain district names and leaves Romanian ones, etc...) as banned User Moldorubo.Moldopodo (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
      • My only action was to remove an unsubstantiated accusation. User pages are not meant to spew grievences on other users ot to be used as a soap box. That is the only reason I've removed it. — Edokter • Talk • 15:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Otolemur crassicaudatus and User:Ezhava

    User:Ezhava deliberately manipulating information in Anti-Christian violence in India. On that article, he adding Sister Abhaya murder case on the mallice that it is Christian-on-Christian violence. But it was a simple rape and homicide case, not Religious violence. He ignored 3RR, despite my repeated warning he disrupting the article with POV-pushing. I need emergency help. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    We don't solve content disputes. If the other user is edit-warring, you can report them at WP:AN3. east.718 at 16:19, December 15, 2007
    He is deliberately manipulating information. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please help me immediately. Otherwise the article will remain manipilated. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You need to select something from the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution menu. This noticeboard is for situations that require administrator intervention. We don't resolve content disputes here. - Jehochman Talk 17:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)As East.718 says, this is a content dispute. If the other editor is violating the 3 Revert Rule please report it at WP:AN3. Otherwise please continue to discuss the changes with the other editor on the article's talk page. Tonywalton Talk 17:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Both are edit-warring, I've blocked both for 31 hours for violation of WP:3RR, and both should try the suggestions at dispute resolution for future content disputes. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aranherunar

    There is a misinterperted Japanese reference at this article Ayumi Hamasaki. Information was provided on the talk page under the heading "sales" to show it was wrong, but this user continued to revert the article anyway, and responded to me with this racial slur "You can learn what you little pumpkin Japanese called "etiquette". Go drink a cup of tea" which I am very offended with. I also find his comment on my talk page insulting, particularly this sentence "In fact, please don't live in a world I assume you should not live in" 220.253.16.5 (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I call for the rejection and ignoring of this completely premature content dispute. There is apparently a misunderstanding here, with this user believing me to have added the "misinterpreted Japanese reference". The Japanese reference and the corresponding comment had nothing to do with me- What I did, along with another user [65], was to revert [66] the edits in which the user removed [67] massive amounts of well-cited information, claiming "copyrights" which obviously does not apply and original research. The user also happened to have made several attacks on my person, but I will let that go as he is apparently a new user and has little experience. End of case. Aran|heru|nar 18:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Aranherunar, I can understand that it can sometimes be frustrating to deal with confused new users, but why on earth did you have to use the term "you little pumpkin Japanese"?? What is the excuse for such incivility? AecisBrievenbus 19:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have self-reverted the comment after consideration, but I must insist that Japanese do look like pumpkins - if you are willing to go to the articles and make the comparison. This, I believe, is not a misleading description. I understand that unnecessary descriptions only add to the stress (or, in this case, possibly a tingle of shame) to other editors - however, as the editor has been making a lot of descriptions himself, some on me [68][69] (In fact, I did not even recognize the IP user at the beginning of this discussion - only now do I realize that I have had a few previous encounters with him, which probably explains why he accused me, wrongly, of "wiki stalking") and many on others [70] [71], I can' help but show the user that we, like others, can make descriptions. Thank you. Aran|heru|nar 19:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the user added them back himself. If I do not misinterpret, being called pumpkins is actually an entertainment in Japan. Aran|heru|nar 19:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    In the meantime, I have protected the article for 2 weeks (at the wrong version, naturally), though obviously the protection should be lifted earlier if the edit war is over (however it ends). There was a subsequent flurry on my talk page, and I have told the two editors to go off and talk to each other and try to resolve their dispute. Both have conducted themselves poorly, and when I see one editor making a racial slur which is then wisely self-reverted and the offended editor reinstating it, I'm inclined to think that both parties need a cold shower. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It was reinstaded due to this complaint, it appeared the user was trying to pretend they didn't write it. 220.253.16.5 (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The information was removed because it is incorrect. It is also stated on the companies website (and the reference) that it may not be used without permission. The reference itself is misread, I even provided a reference from the same website, which mentions the first Japanese musician to sell more than 100 million records. This user claimed to speak Japanese, so I find it interesting they ignore both these points. I also provided an English reference to a news publication about the death of a famous Japanese female singer, who has achieved considerbly more than the singer in question. They are the only parts which were removed from the article. This user ignored them, and instead made a racial slur, and again insisted upon it!! I am very insulted by it. 220.253.16.5 (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I claimed to read Japanese, not speak Japanese. Suntzu says, "知己知彼， 百战百胜"; Confucius says, "溫故而知新，可以為師矣"; Laotzu says, "知人者智，自知者明". By the way, somebody should learn to read Chinese! Ha. Ha. Ha. Not funny.
    Your words are very wise, BrownHairedGirl. In fact, I haven't had a shower for two days. I'm definitely going for one now. So long, my friends, especially the one resembling a radish head. Aran|heru|nar 19:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Aranherunar, coming to ANI and making further offensive personal attacks is not clever. I will now block you for 24 hours.
    220.253.16.5, if you are offended by a comment, then reinstating it is simply disruptive: it remains in the page history, so there is no problem in determining who write it. Continuing this personal dispute at ANI is also disruptive, so you too will now be blocked for 24 hours. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Now both blocked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ... and one talk page protected due to further attacks. – Steel 19:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There's more to this than meets the eye; after some strange edits this week, I spent some time looking through Aranherunar's talk page and edits, and found a pattern of warnings removed from his talk page with edits similar to those I saw. Since his/her user talk page isn't archived, I had to step through the diffs to see how frequently these issues are occurring, and found one instance of a claim of someone else using his/her computer. The issue I saw was at ¿Por qué no te callas?, where Aranherunar made a series of edits that appeared semi-legitimate, but removed a good deal of cited text that enjoys consensus. Red flags went up at one piece of strange original research, uncited prankish text inserted into the middle of the seemingly legit edits: [72] It looks like cleverly disguised vandalism, to insert vandalistic text among semi-legit edits. It's not clear to me if this is ongoing vandalism, pranks, someone else using the computer, or what, but I hope someone will take a closer look at the long term pattern of this user. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In this edit, most of our Hong Kong English article has been deleted (without any allegation that the assertions removed were either untrue or erroneous). May I restore them? Alice✉ 20:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

    I see that text isn't fully cited. In the case of ¿Por qué no te callas?, Aranherunar twice deleted fully cited long-standing text, and replaced it with uncited original research prankish text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted it. There may be some merit to the suggestion it needs review, but mass culls without discussion are probably unlikely to result in such an outcome. Orderinchaos 22:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have prepared a version with seven references hereAlice✉ 23:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

    I've extended his block to 48 hours after this completely unacceptable post on his talk page after the block. Orderinchaos 22:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There does seem to be a common theme here. In this edit, ostensibly referenced material is removed. Alice✉ 23:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    That ridiculous request for unblock deserves an indefinite block, imo. AecisBrievenbus 23:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No rush. If the user needs an indefinite block, they will prove it time and again. The diff provided by Orderinchaos is the sort of thing that leads me to conclude that this accounts purpose is disruption, not encyclopedia editing. - Jehochman Talk 23:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am disappointed by the way this complaint has been handled, especially BrownHairedGirl's administratorship. Anyway, unless that user wants to disrupt the article again, or make further asinine racial remarks, this issue has been resolved. Thanks 220.253.144.187 (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    False accusation of vandalism on Mr. Children

    Excuse me but I also have a complaint in this matter in regards to 220.253.16.5. They have been editing out content in many Japanese articles in regards to sales record, and have been using only one English article to prove they are right (which only talks about one artist). They have given no other verifiable fact or resources, and pretty much have come to the conclusion that they are 100% right and the referenced source in the article is wrong. For example in the Mr. Children article, I reverted their deletion of Mr.Children's sales based on the fact that the Japanese equivalant of Billboard USA, called Oricon, said Mr.Children was the second highest selling artist. They even made a table in the article listing the top 5 artists. (and the statement was even referenced) This ip user then reverts my edit and then says this in the Mr.Children history edit page: "See talk page. You will be reported if you vandalise this page again,)". The Mr.Children article was NEVER vandalised, and this comment is totally uncalled for. They are threatening me for NO reason at all. I do not appreciate that. They even wrote this in my talk page: "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox." I've been editing here for a while now and again this is totally uncalled for. I am not vandalising anything. These statements made were referenced with a verifiable source. I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to comment on this, but since it's connected to this dispute in a way I figured it was okay. And now I'm afraid to edit the Mr.Children article since they said they're going to report me. - Hedatari (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No problems with raising it here. I've put a subheading on it to distinguish it from the rest. Orderinchaos 01:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave you a level 2 vandal warning because you continued to add misleading and false information into articles. The reference you are talking about is not an article about the 5 highest selling Japanese musicians. It also clearly states that the article may not be used on any website, blog, cell phone, ect, without permission from the company. This can cause copyright problems for the Wikipedia. This is from that same company [73], which I'm linking here to resolve this problem. It is the artist page for Michiya Mihashi, who in 1983 became the first Japanese musician to sell more than 100 million albums. There is an English version at this website[74]. It appears it is your personal opinion that the band B'z is the highest selling Japanese musician, with around 75 million records as of 2007 (according to that same company) Edit: I'm not going to search for record sales of other Japanese musicians who have sold more than 75 million records, such as YMO. It is a rare thing for a record company to publish such information. Although an English news release about the death of Hibari Misora has already been provided on that talk page, and it details the amount of records she had sold at the time (which was 20 years ago) Please do not add information into articles, which is not true. This is the type of thing that mkes the English Wikipedia a poor website for learning. 220.253.144.187 (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly I NEVER added that original B'z sales statement to begin with. Someone else added that. I only reverted the part where you deleted it. Don't accuse me of stuff without thoroughly reviewing the article's edit history first. Secondly, like I said I did not add false information. Also the article can be used for encyclodic purposes as it is NOT stealing the information from the article. If it was copying and/or reproducing directly what Oricon had written in their article, then yes it could be considered a copyright violation, but instead it's linking (in addition to crediting) readers to the original source, in addtion to taking no direct quotes from the article to be in violation. Tons of Japanese artist articles here reference Oricon as that is their main source of verifable and factual information. Having some verifiable source to back up statements is better than having none at all. It seems this is something you are very passionate, and unfortunately, angry about but instead of trying to be helpful and work with your fellow wikipedia editors to improve these articles, you are bullying them and threatening to report them as vandals. - Hedatari (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk page conflict at John Lennon

    Statement by virtually uninvolved R. Baley: Could an admin look over this section (link) at the John Lennon talk page. The editor, Mister ricochet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), appears to have been treated with kid gloves for a while now, but continues to post (latest? example/diff) in a most uncivil and insulting fashion towards several editors (not me --I have yet to interact with him). I recommend a topic ban (on Lennon related articles, including talk pages) for a couple of months under penalty of increasing blocks starting with a week. Thanks for your attention, R. Baley (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC) Striking due to Tvoz sock evidence below. R. Baley (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Parties notified at the relevant talk page (diff). R. Baley (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    party notified at his talk p., & expressed understanding & I assume willingness to reform on mine. If not, certainly blockable, but I think our final warning was appropriate first. DGG (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks DGG, I'm all for another (or final) warning if it will work. In retrospect, coming from an uninvolved admin, it just might carry the appropriate weight. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC) Too lenient. R. Baley (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If these problems persist, I am willing to block/page protect/topic ban. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Well, I for one am not content to accept this editor's "willingness to reform". I think it's pretty clear that he's another sock of Sixstring1965 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who also had many moments of constructive editing, amid a lot of unacceptable behavior, and the unacceptable behavior led to his indef block. Subsequently he appears to have created numerous socks which have been blocked, and it looks to me like Mister ricochet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is another one, based on his similarly styled, unacceptable behavior.
    The evidence is convincing that Mister ricochet is another abusive sock, and I don't think his "reform" coming so rapidly after his last bout of unacceptable behavior should be tolerated. Do we have some reason to believe that he has changed, just hours after his shenanigans on Lennon? Tvoz |talk 06:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Convincing, and have to agree. I would also recommend an admin go through the user log containing image uploads and delete forthwith. If you compare the images uploaded (with that of Sixstring), I'm sure you'll find some of the same images with false licenses attached (e.g. Lennon 1980). R. Baley (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (←dent) As I am the one who filed two other SSP reports on SixString1965's socks (here and here), I am thoroughly convinced not only that blocking Mister ricochet will be ineffective in stopping the puppetmaster from creating a new account, but would submit that such has already happened. Apparently, puppetmasters also have a learning curve for tricks. Is there a way to block the range, or is there a method by which to identify the issuing machine id?- Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Should I be discouraged, then, from trying to help reform people until we have proven whether or not they are sockpuppets? DGG (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so, given the information presented at the time, you hit on a right course of action. I didn't get to "poking around" until Tvoz presented some evidence, at that point it looked like a clear case of socking. R. Baley (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, David - I think that it's generally a noble venture, and I've certainly seen successful turnarounds of people who just go a bit too far, and can be reformed. And as far as I can see you didn't have any reason to know that this editor was not just someone who needed some counseling or direction - so I'm not saying you should have waited. In fact your intervention on a related matter with this editor was very helpful, and seemed to work, as far as his userpage is concerned. But I commented here when I took a closer look, and realized that his style and direction was very helpful. Sixstring was sometimes constructive as I said, but he also was contentious and a problem, and his indef block was appropriate. If he returned to Wikipedia under a new name and was just constructive, I know I wouldn't be looking for any action against him, even though, technically, blocked editors aren't supposed to edit in evasion of a block. He could easily become a positive member of the community, and for all I know he has accounts that are just that - but this one was not, and I don't think we should tolerate it. I for one would never have noticed this new name if he had just behaved in a responsible way - even if he worked on David Spindel etc - and I wouldn't be looking under every rock to see if he's lurking there - I have better things to do here. But when he gets in my face, and disrupts the pages I work on in the way he did, I'm prompted to look deeper - and this is what I found. So.... I admire your willingness to attempt reform - I truly do - and I encourage you in your attempts. But this fellow's pattern suggests to me that real reform isn't likely to work, and I hate to see any more time wasted over a disrupter. Tvoz |talk 18:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the support from my colleagues. Yes, on the basis of the evidence now present, I agree Tvov is correct about the likelihood of reform DGG (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Checkuser results

    Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mister ricochet has proven this user is a sock puppet of banned user Sixstring1965 (talk · contribs). It seems that additional socks have been turned up. Please check the list and make sure all the socks are indefinitely blocked and tagged.- Jehochman Talk 18:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I tagged a couple, but they all appear to be blocked. -- Flyguy649 talk 18:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much! - Jehochman Talk 19:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock-puppet attacking me and Wikistalking

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

    • Although created in March 2006, this account's edit history begins one month ago today, with a request ([[75]) to erase the history of former "several accounts".
    • Around 25 November, Ceedjee came to disagree with me on the content of Ilan Pappé, a controversial ex-Israeli historian. ([76])
    • Around 6 December, he also came to disagree with me on the content of Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, a Palestinian leader who, in the 1940s, sought Nazi German assistance for his cause. He seemed to be very upset with me, to the point of personal attacks ([77] (later withdrawn), [78], [79]).
    • On 9 December, in the midst of this disagreement, he showed up on NATO bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade to revert one of my edits. ([80]) This was his first edit to that page, and in fact his first edit to any article not pertaining to Jews or Israel.
    • On 14 December, he again became involved in a dispute with me, this time on 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandate Palestine. He started by reverting one of my edits with the summary, "you will edit this article when you will have read 1 book on the matter. I know this topic" ([81]), then showed up on my talk page ([82]) to assert that I "don't know anything about this topic".
    • Minutes later, he showed up on Serb propaganda, a fairly new and obscure article, to revert my placement of cleanup tags ([83]). He had never edited this article before, and it was his second ever edit to any page not pertaining to Jews or Israel. His revert was particularly questionable, given that the recent AfD discussion had closed "no consensus" with virtually all voters agreeing cleanup was needed. In other words, he appeared to be disrupting Wikipedia in order to pursue a personal grudge.
    • That day I asked Ceedjee to cease his wikistalking and spiteful undoing of my edits ([84]), and instead of responding, he blanked his talk page. ([85]).

    Could an admin please make it clear that neither personal attacks nor wikistalking are acceptable, and that Ceedjee needs to take these warnings seriously lest he be blocked?

    In addition, Ceedjee should be investigated to determine whether, under his old names, he was blocked or otherwise sanctioned for disruption. I'm not calling for some "sleuthing" expedition, but if his pattern of contributions matches a known troll, we really shouldn't have to deal with him continuing under a new sock account. <eleland/talkedits> 21:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ceedjee appears not to be an Native English speaker, in fact, his primary involvement with WP appears to be in another language. Are some of his comments inappropriate? Yes, and he was warned about them. Are many of your comments inappropriate? Yes---in reviewing the history of the discussions, I found your attitude towards the conversation much more belligerent than Cee's or anybody else's. In all honesty, while he may have checked out a few of the pages you edit, (based on what I saw) I think he could make a stronger case against you. Balloonman (talk) 07:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi,
    It is true that my English is not excellent but it is also true that my own attitude towards Eleland has not always been appropriate.
    The articles related (even losely) to the arab-israeli conflict are "hot".
    From my point of view, Eleland doesn't assume good faith in his comments and cannot prevent him from being "belligerent" and adding "flames" in them when he edits a talk page or an article related to this topic.
    Step by step, this had the "bad" effect to upset me and produced some inappropriated reactions from my side.
    I will refrain myself from going on with this. That would be nice if Eleland would understand his own attitude is not appropriate and that he "throws oil on the fire" ((fr) "jette de l'huile sur le feu")
    Nb: I am not a sockpuppet. I only edit with this account. I have edited before with another account but I registered recently under the same name as my account on the french:wikipedia for "clarity".
    Rgds, Ceedjee (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Balloonman, could you be more specific about what I have done wrong? I admit to expressing frustration in colourful terms, however, I certainly did not take to paging through their contributions and vindictively reverting them, or trying to drive them off the project with claims that they are know-nothings. <eleland/talkedits> 19:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your colorful terms can be very inflamitory. In several places you criticize Ceedjee and others for not speaking in clear English or being understandable (Eg attacking the messenger rather than the message.) For the most part, as a person unfamiliar with the subjects at hand, Ceed's edits looked appropriate to me... but more than that, when I read the discussion on the various talk pages (not just your highlights) I found Ceed trying to be rational, where as your comments appeared to be adding fuel to the fire. As for his "wikistalking" you... I'm personally not that worried about the few incidents you found. It is not uncommon for people to check out other edits when they are having problems with one editor. They'll do it to see if they might find common ground or if others are having the same issues with a given editor. WP:STALK includes the line, If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter. I didn't see him following you to make personal attacks or to create distention elsewhere. The handful of edits, IMHO, on the other pages were good faith edits.Balloonman (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    IP editing on Cliff Hangers

    An anonymous IP continually makes unhelpful "clarifications" to the image caption on Cliff Hangers. Their first addition was to change the description to read "Drew Carey explaining Cliff Hangers to a black contestant" [86][87][88]. When I left a note on their talk page telling them that it wasn't really helpful, and that three different people had reverted them, the IP began to clarify the contestant's gender instead, reading "Drew Carey explaining Cliff Hangers to a male contestant" [89] and most recently, the number of contestants ("Drew Carey explaining Cliff Hangers to one contestant") [90][91]. Yes, this is a minor thing. The fact that they aren't responding to talk page comments and have been changing the subject they're "clarifying" whenever I leave a message, however, leads me to believe that they are not trying to improve the encyclopedia, but are instead simply trying to be irritating.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like silly vandalism, if it continues go to WP:RFPP. --Coredesat 02:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nod vandalism, over several days, not really enough to warrant a page protection right now and as there are multiple IP's blocking won't work.Balloonman (talk) 08:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Clique Smasher

    Resolved
     – User blocked indef for vandalism

    I was just looking thru the account creation log, and see User:Clique Smasher welcoming a bunch of new users, but this person is using a template which welcomes them and points them to Wikipedia:Communist_Party_of_Wikipedia. I can't really explain very well, see Special:Contributions/Clique_Smasher, and see the actual welcome message (one example at User talk:Caddawyk). Something about this has my eyebrows arching. Yngvarr 01:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There can be a fine line between disruptiveness and silly nonsense; I can't quite decide if User:Clique Smasher person has crossed it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The CPW is just silly nonsense. Spamming it on new users is rubbing it even further. 哦，是吗？(review O) 01:42, 16 December 2007 (GMT)
    User has been blocked indefinitely for vandalism. 哦，是吗？(review O) 01:44, 16 December 2007 (GMT)
    Someone's fast. Next thing I see user is blocked; then I try see if I can put proper welcomes on those pages, but it's already done /sigh Yngvarr 01:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    For future reference, compare Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Karmafist: "Editors who welcome new users are likely to be seen as representatives of Wikipedia. Their welcomes should thus be friendly, helpful, and reflect the priorities of the encyclopedia. Welcome messages are also an exception to the community's general dislike of internal 'spamming'. Since new users are as yet unfamiliar with Wikipedia's functioning, such welcomes should not be used as a vehicle for advocacy of any kind." Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparent uproar over cancellation

    There's apparently been a cancellation of a podcast which has resulted in repeated vandalism of Paul Myers (record producer) and posting of material that I have a question about on Danny Baker.

    • It might be worthwhile to protect Paul Myers (record producer) for a day or two until feeling dies down.
    • An open letter to listeners by the canceled personality (from the personality's website) has been posted on Danny Baker. I don't feel experienced enough to make the call on whether it is appropriate for Wikipedia.

    Thanks. Jackollie (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Looks borderline to me as well. Don't know anything about the subject, so can't offer any arguments to the contrary. Jackollie (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks borderline, but if he was awarded a platinum disc for his producing an album, would that qualify under wp:MUSIC? I know it's a little bit of a stretch, because the criteria was written for the artist themselves, not the producers, but that might be enough to keep---and enough that I didn't pose it for AfD myself.Balloonman (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Countmein1990 a possible sockpuppet of User:Clockworkgirl21

    It looks to me like User:Countmein1990 is a likely sockpuppet for User:Clockworkgirl21. The user continuously reverts the birthdates on three articles: Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna of Russia , Grand Duchess Tatiana Nikolaevna of Russia and Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna of Russia. When User:Alex Bakharev posted a warning on the page of User:Clockworkgirl21 and explained the consensus opinion on leaving the birth dates as they were, User:Countmein1990 appeared within two days and began making the same edits as User:Clockworkgirl21. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is an obvious case. Next time you see obvious sockpuppets, report them to WP:SSP. Maser (Talk!) 03:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked the sock indefinitely and the master for 72h Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Destroyerofthewiki

    Resolved
     – Blocked. east.718 at 07:33, December 16, 2007

    Destroyerofthewiki (talk · contribs) is a new user account. As well as the provocative name, the account has made a series of POV edits seemingly on the grounds of race. This includes Sukarno, Geoff Clark, Marcus Einfeld and Jeff Fenech. It may need keeping an eye on. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I suspect this account is a sock of the above Pimpbrutha (talk · contribs). Same articles, same edits. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:hopiakuta

    See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/User:hopiakuta —Random832 22:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Planoclear! halfready

    I blocked Planoclear! halfready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with email disabled after receiving over a hundred emails from this user, with one of two messages, both meaningless. Guy (Help!) 08:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, that's something new. No edits, not even deleted edits, but crazy emails. Odd. No opinion, Guy (probably a support), just a musing really. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    According to my server logs he's still doing it (presumably from another account) - I put some keyword blocks in my inbound filter rules and it's rejecting mail at a pretty steady rate. Guy (Help!) 12:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, good block I say, but can't we find the other account(s)?--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 14:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes we can. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Planoclear! halfready. - Jehochman Talk 17:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Difficult sockpuppetry and privacy situation

    A few weeks ago, I asked for my username to be changed from Davnel03 to D.M.N., see here. My reason behind this move was so that people outside of Wikipedia would be unable to identify my as the Davnel03 account no longer existed. However, yesterday, a "new" user created an account under the username Davnel03, and went on a vandalism rampage, see Davnel03's contributions. Most of his edits were disruptive and vandalism to World Wrestling Entertainment roster.

    Because of this, I was quickly alerted on my userpage about this. The account was indefinitely blocked as a compromised account. As I stated in my Changing Username statement, see here, I wanted to change my account name, so that no one outside of Wikipedia could find my account. However, the userpage of Davnel03 now contains a link to my new account, enabling others to get and see my account, which I clearly have stated in the past that I don't want to happen.

    I also believe Davnel03, is in fact not a compromised account, but a sock of Cowboycaleb1, who was idnefinitely blocked several months back, after I presented this sockpuppet case on him. My reasons are:

    Can someone either:

    • Remove the tags currently on Davnel03's userpage and replace it with {{sockpuppetconfirmed|Cowboycaleb1}}

    OR

    Per this and this, I'm also left to believe that IP's in the range 63.3.10.1 > 63.3.10.2 are also being used by Cowboycaleb1, and suggest that they are blocked for up to a year. Please consider edits like this as evidence. Please also look at 63.3.10.1's block log to back up my claim.

    Cheers, Davnel03 09:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed your new user name from the template at Davnel03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) page. This should help with the immediate problem. The account is already blocked indef. -JodyB talk 10:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I went ahead and deleted them before I saw this. I don't really see a reason to restore them, especially since it's not a compromised account. John Reaves 10:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you go ahead and salt User:Davnel03 along with User talk:Davnel03? Cheers, Davnel03 10:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just seen that you've salted it John. Cheers, Davnel03 10:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused--does this mean whenever an editor changes his/her user name, the old name immediately becomes available for new accounts to use. If so, I'm surprised this sort of thing doesn't happen more often.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's right, and the possibility is pointed out on WP:CHU. It should possibly be raised a dev issue, or perhaps crats should block old usernames that have had significant edit histories upon rename. BLACKKITE 00:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Larry Lurkington and User:Betacommand

    Subsequent confusion over the relocation archived below.

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

    Well, that's one way of hindering a debate you don't want to have! It would be helpful to have more clear edit summaries in future for such moves (eg. indicating the section title of the moved material). DuncanHill (talk)

    • It was a compromise between clogging up ANI with a thread that had moved towards "Yes it is/no it isn't" territory, and merely archiving it. You are of course free to continue the conversation on the subpage if you beleive it would be constructive. BLACKKITE
      • There should not be a compromise between something and "merely archiving it", because archiving an active discussion should not even be under consideration. -Amarkov moo!
        • It wasn't archived, just moved elsewhere. Does this need to be moved into another sub-page? —Wknight94 (talk)
          • I admit that moving it to a subpage is better than just slapping on the archive tags, but neither of them should have happened. There was no cause.
            • The discussion no longer belonged on the main ANI page as it had mainly moved towards a discussion of WP:SPA and WP:SOCK, and no admin action is currently required. BLACKKITE
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Dealing with unresponsive IPs

    Lately, I've run across an anonymous editor on my watchlist who adds extra roads to the intersections of articles. This is fine, but sometimes he also checks if there's a shield for the route, and does so over a number of edits, clogging up the page history and making it difficult to see what the IP actually did. I suggested using the page preview on their talk page, but there's been no response nor has he changed his editing style since. Assuming this is the same user that drew the mall warnings atop this page, I'd say the user has a track record for not responding to queries from the community.

    I personally find the multiple edits on each article (a recent example: one to add a shield and a route, another to fix the spelling in both, and a third to remove the non-existent shield) distracting and wasteful (in terms of efficiency), and apparently others do as well if {{preview}} exists. However, as far I know, not using page preview to find mistakes isn't a blockable offense. What, if anything can be done in this issue? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 17:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's an actual example: [96]. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing much more than telling the user really. That would be a horrible reason to block someone. Frankly, there are plenty of more users who are like this but in much larger articles; it is just a fact of life that some people won't use the preview option at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Some people forget to use the preview button...and it's not disruptive since the history gives you all those convenient methods of looking at diffs. The only times I've ever really boggled at this sort of behavior is when I see people making literally hundreds of tiny edits to one article in one day. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall deleted, now on DRV

    Just posting a notification here of the DRV, as this is directly relevant to admins. Lawrence Cohen 17:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    now Overturned by a SNOW closing of the DRV. DGG (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent vandalism from 76.179.156.162

    76.179.156.162 has been warned about vandalising the Brian Kenny (sportscaster) page but still continues to do so. The only edits this Ip address has made is vandalism to that page harlock_jds (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The general standard is four of the appropriate warnings (after four respective vandalisms), and report to WP:AIV if he vandalizes after the final warning. He's only received one warning so far, and there's nothing about his vandalism that would require unusual attention, so nothing an admin needs to do right now. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    user name used without permission

    the user name snideology was signed to a post without authorization. [[97]] the post did not show up on my (snideology's) contribs, and i am unsure how someone could use my name without it being recorded. post's IP addy is 69.156.179.180. how can one prevent their name from being used without authorization? thank you--Snideology (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • You can't, unfortunately; all we can do is warn, revert and block anyone trying this trick, which is what happened to the IP in this case. BLACKKITE 18:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's done by hand typing the sig vice using the tilde's, just as one can hand type a fake email, header and all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlevse (talk • contribs) 20:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24.61.9.215 POV and 3RR violations

    The IP 24.61.9.215 is being disruptive in his editing of the three Blood+ articles: Blood+, List of Blood+ characters and List of Blood+ episodes. He appears to believe that one of the character's names should be spelled Hagi instead of Haji. On December 15, 21:29, he changed the spelling on the Blood+ article[98]. I reverted and noted in the edit summary that we were using the official English anime spelling[99]. He went on to the episode list, and over a series of 3 edits changed the spelling there along with some other NPOV issues, so they were reverted as having too many inaccuracies[100]. He changed the spelling again on the episode list[101] and I again reverting, asking him to stop and noting which spelling we were using in the edit summary.[102].

    The IP continued changing the spelling on both the episode and main page repeatedly, and as he continued to ignore the edit summaries and left no edit summaries of his own, I started considering his actions vandalism. He also began doing the same on the List of characters pages. I left ascending levels of warnings on his page, first for failing NPOV, and finally for pure vandalism. In an attempt to deal with the issue, I started a conversation on the talk page (Talk:Blood+#Haji/Hagi) so editors could come to a consensus, since both spellings are valid though the articles have consistently been using Haji. He ignored the talk page topic and continued to just change and change without remark. I finally reported to ARV and an admin left him a 3RR warning. A second editor pointed him to the conversation. His response was to just continue to change.

    He has now changed the 3 articles 15 times[103], despite the warnings, requests, reverts, etc. He refuses to dialog or even acknowledge others at all. At first I presumed good faith because during his November appearance, he made good faith, though NPOV violating, edits. However, at this point he seems to just intend to just keep changing the spelling no matter what anyone else says, and it is getting very disruptive. Collectonian (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wildfirejmj

    Wildfirejmj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been on a little spree, making three inaccurate or pov edits to evolution[104] [105] [106] then, despite warnings, going on to Charles Darwin and inserting the same creationist claim into the lead three times, even though it is fully refuted in the body of the article.[107] [108] [109] To finish off for now, Wildfirejmj claimed on an editors page to be "simply trying to balance the secular and liberal bias from Wikipedia".[110] Looks blockable to me. .. dave souza, talk 21:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I saw it at AIV and removed the report since the only edit since the final warning was to OrangeMarlin's talkpage (per above). As blocks are preventative I acted on the basis that the disruption had stopped. If anyone else thinks it actionable then go ahead. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Post-credits scene

    I have a problem with an IP editor continually adding a indiscriminate list over and over to Post-credits scene, which a third opinion agreed was inappropriate on the talk page. As I have noted in the mediation case, this user does not respond to talk page warnings, blocks, edit summaries, hidden comments (he just blanks them), or any other form of communication. The only edit summaries he uses are repeating the title, and as suggested on the mediation case there's simply no way to get this guy to stop short of indefinite semi-protection or blocking. The former, of course, would be quite unnecessary to deal with a single user. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing at Global warming

    User Wedjj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaged in a campaign of disruptive editing at global warming. It's not quite vandalism, and it may not quite be 3RR (though I need to go back and count), but it's highly disruptive. Someone please have a look and act or not, as you see fit. Thanks. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wedjj (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 8 hours by William M. Connolley. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, could an uninvolved admin please review this block? Connolley is heavily involved with the group that owns that article. Cla68 (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose I am reasonably uninvolved (although I do occasionally discuss things on the Global warming talk page), and I think the block was entirely appropriate. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User_talk:130.22.190.5

    This IP address is used by the United States Military to add propaganda to Wikipedia and remove factual information that is embarrassing to the US government. I believe it should be permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia. You can see my comments here. Further information is located at [111]. --Afed (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is just typical vandalism from a widely shared IP addrss. I see a lot of good edits from this address, and no sufficiently persistent disruption to justify a permanent block. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon looking into this further, the entire media coverage of this appears to be over just three edits made in a short time span that removed detainee ID numbers [112] [113] [114]. And for some bizarre reason, the wikileaks people decided to jump on a completely random incidence of self-reverted vandalism from almost two years ago. I reiterate that there's nothing here warranting a block at the moment. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A group of vandals?

    I've come across a group of users who seem to be vandalising the same pages together. Much of it is fake biographies of living persons, all of which have remained unchallenged for the past month, because the edits looked like plausible information (all either unsourced or with fake sources.)

    They are User:Aryluiz User:Rich1208 User:200.253.226.97 User:200.253.226.103 User:200.253.226.114 and User:200.253.151.119. I note the similarity in the IP addresses.

    User:Rich1208 is particularly destructive as he creates fictitious WP:BLPs and edits exiting WP:BLPs with a mix of factual and completely fabricated information. The biography of Tamara Davies for example was mostly fabricated (I have deleted the whole article bar one sentence.) Several of these editors completely destroyed the biography of Ann Maria Rousey DeMars until it was rescued by User:220.240.130.134. They also vandalised Anne Archer's biography to make up fictitious information that she competed in judo tournaments and jiu-jitsu tournaments against DeMars, and others. Also the bio of Gella Vandecaveye.

    User:200.253.251.119 sometimes vandalises articles, and other times fixes the vandalism caused by the others in the above list.

    I spent a lot of time reverting Rich1208, and posting warnings on his talk page, but I have not gone through all of the above accounts to check for revision, etc.

    I originally thought there was something sinister about all the similar IP address (perhaps a group editing together at some institution), but on reflection, perhaps it's just one user with two account names, and other instances of logging in anonymously - having a non-fixed IP address. --David Broadfoot (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Grado11 and vandalism/personal attacks

    I've been having a dispute for a while with several sock/meatpuppets (not sure which, but probably the former) who have been repeatedly vandalizing dive bomber and my user page. By "dispute", I mean that the puppets have been vandalizing and I have been reverting their vandalism. I listed a report at WP:SSP and the accounts and IP in question were blocked and tagged as socks. Now, another account has sprung up doing the same thing, and so I am filing a report here.

    Thanks. PaievDiscuss! 00:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You could replace that entire long explanation with "obvious sock of Paiew (talk · contribs)." I'm making a report at WP:AIV since this is so blindingly obvious and trivial. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just wondering if there was anything to be done besides simply blocking the user, as blocks don't seem to have much of an effect. PaievDiscuss! 01:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You are going to want to remove the indef block on 128.119.23.89 it is registered to an educational faculty per whois Rgoodermote  01:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP was never blocked indef, just for a week. I have changed the template on the userpage to remove this false bit of information. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought I saw it on the block log, might have been looking at another one. Rgoodermote  01:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    3RR allegations at Animal testing

    TimVickers has just been accused of a 3RR violation in the Animal testing article on his talk page by an admin involved in a content dispute with him in the same article. The admin also warned him that "he would be reported" if he continued. [116]. Looking at the revision history, it doesn't appear that Tim, as good faith an editor as I've ever seen in the project, has violated the 3RR policy. I'm requesting that a neutral admin review the article's revision history [117] to see if the 3RR warning was appropriate, and, if so, to confirm the warning for Tim, and, if not, to take appropriate action with the admin that issued the warning and the "you will be reported" threat. Cla68 (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't mind being reminded about policies on my talk page, however I must admit that I was a little puzzled about this. The talk page of the article gives some background about the discussions. Anyway, I'm off home to cook dinner and feed my cats. This isn't any kind of emergency. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To make a review easier, here are the diffs of Tim's "offending" edits: [118], [119], and [120]. In each case he appears to make a good faith effort to add additional references to back up his edits, which are then reverted by two other involved editors/admins. Cla68 (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see this as 3RR. He was even providing sources when requested, and still reverted. This looks like an editorial dispute rather than breach of policy. the_undertow talk 01:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for taking the time to review it. Do you mind placing your opinion on the talk page of the editor who issued the 3RR warning? Cla68 (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Normally a 3RR vio requires a 4th revert, where is it? (Please remember that the 3RR applies to reverts after the third within a 24 hour period (not calendar day);) — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Actually, SlimVirgin is correct, she said if he does it again.... — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The only other edit by Tim within the 24 hour period is this one: [121] and it isn't a revert, but the addition of more info. Cla68 (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing three reverts, Rlevse. Am I overlooking something? the_undertow talk 01:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The last comment on Talk:Animal testing suggests that these editors may have worked out the content dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I hope that the 3RR warning wasn't a tactic used by one of the involved editors to try to "win" the dispute. Cla68 (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=178422152"