Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Muntuwandi (talk | contribs) at 22:40, 17 December 2007 (→‎Evolutionary theories on the origin of religion, article name). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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

    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 [1]. 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 [2], 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 [3].--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 [4] (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 [5]. 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]

    Arcayne has followed me to Persian Gulf and harassed me there. He has now stalked me to Iranian folklore and is harassing me there [6]. --Agha Nader (talk) 03:47, 17 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 [7] [8] [9], harassment [10] [11], edit warring [12] [13] [14] [15], and assumptions of bad faith [16] [17] [18] [19]. 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: [20]. 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 [21] [22] [23],

    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. [24] 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 [25]

    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]

    [26]

    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 [27] [28] [29] [30]

    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 [31] 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]

    [32] 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]

    [33] 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]

    [34] 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 "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]
    Pete, the major problem here is one of context. Levine and his friends have been trying since forever to insert "QW is not peer reviewed" in order to undermine its credibility. This is just the latest salvo in a long-running battle. A comment that it might be improved by peer-review is a comment that applies to just about every activist website that exists; I am on the editorial board of a website that has a process of informal peer review and even there we feel that more rigour would be helpful. It's not really a valid criticism of QW as QW, it's a criticism of most if not all activist websites. The fact remains that QW is widely cited and considered at least reasonably reliable by as lot of people. Levine and his friends don't like that, because very often it's their pet topics that QW debunks. We can't really fix the fact that they like fringe subjects and QW doesn't, nor should we allow the views of True Believers to distort what we say about those who debunk fringe and pseudo science. It is also likely that these editors are deliberately trying to wind ScienceApologist up in the hope of getting him into trouble. They are very inclined to spit in his soup. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I find this remark from Guy to be extremely hostile and untrue. It violates WP:AGF and WP:NPA and I don't think it is befitting behavior of an admin. For the record, I am NOT trying to undermine Quackwatch's credibility, but rather get the article right by including information which is completely verified by reliable sources. It seems rock-solid for inclusion, but, as in the past, the more solid the ground for inclusions stands upon becomes, the more the arguments against inclusion shift into the form of personal attack and assumptions of bad faith. Essentially, it plays out like this: 1) I want to include some material. 2) Someone tells me I can't because it isn't sourced. 3) I find a source. 4) Someone tells me that the source isn't reliable. 5) I find a reliable source. 6) Someone tells me that I am misrepresenting what the source says. 7) I offer to quote the source word-for-word. 8) Someone tells me that I have a pro-Quackery agenda and that I am being disruptive. 9) I deny it and say that isn't a valid reason to exclude the reliably sourced information. 10) And here we are. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:18, 17 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)

    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.

    [35] 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]
    I am simply seeking for you to be held accountable to the same standard of conduct, which presently you are not. My logic is tortured? Who are you trying to fool? It's the very "logic" you and the blocking admin used against me, in your very own words no less. And funny you should mention "realising when behaviour is inappropriate". Your utter barefaced brazen hypocrisy is mindblowing. A cursory glance at your talkpage history (here, here and here) shows that you have been repeatedly warned before about "outing" other editors -- yet on that occasion you only received a slap on the wrist. And now you get away with doing it again? Astounding. Consistency of sanctions enforcement? Pfft. Not when it comes to your repeated infractions. --Brendan [ contribs ] 06:02, 17 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 [36], was to revert [37] the edits in which the user removed [38] 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 [39][40] (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 [41] [42], 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: [43] 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 [44], 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[45]. 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]

    This has nothing to do with my complaint. I'm not being helpful and working with fellow Wikipedia editors to improve articles? I removed false information, and gave a polite explanation on the talk page, only to be met with racism from one editor and your ignorant and rude response. (below)

    "It is NOT false information and can even be confirmed by the reference link that was listed. If you have a problem with the way Oricon calculates sales, I suggest you write to them and complain. By deleting information like you just did, you are placing your own personal opinion, and are failing to see that, while you may disagree, the information is verifiable and correct according to Oricon. Wikipedia is for posting verifiable facts. Not inputing personal opinion on whether or not we believe something to be true or false. I'm sorry you feel like the article is making false statements, but it is not. Unless you can find another official list (from RIAJ for example) of the highest selling artists in Japan, I'm afraid we have to stay with the current official list which was released by Oricon, of which places Mr.Children as the second highest selling act."

    Thats speaks for itself, I shouldn't need to explain it. If you want to revert articles back to contain false and misleading information, especially after giving the above statement, then you will be given a friendly warning. Furthermore, according to Oricon, you may not use any information from their website without permission. This could explain why the Japanese Wikipedia appears not to have references to that website. If the English Wikipedia wants to take that chance, thats their problem. I was just pointing it out, especially since Japanese companies tend to protect their rights and take action. 220.253.144.187 (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Um, no. If a site is publicly available on the internet, then it can be used as a reference if it is deemed reliable. What they are actually stating is that the page itself may not be copied without permission (which is standard for copyrighted text). That's the most common statement I've seen on a wide variety of Japanese and English sites out there. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well in the context, Oricon states you may not use their ranking data. I only mentioned it, because a magazine once used their data (quoting Oricon, which is as good as referencing) and were sued. Anyway, this problem is solved too. Thanks 220.253.109.122 (talk) 08:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That's just a standard copyright notice. --Saintjust (talk) 18:25, 17 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 ([[46]) 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. ([47])
    • 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 ([48] (later withdrawn), [49], [50]).
    • 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. ([51]) 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" ([52]), then showed up on my talk page ([53]) 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 ([54]). 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 ([55]), and instead of responding, he blanked his talk page. ([56]).

    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]

    User:hopiakuta

    See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/User:hopiakuta —Random832

    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 try. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Planoclear! halfready. - Jehochman Talk 17:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC) (try added at 03:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    No we can't. :) We need a few names of accounts to go on, as related there. JzG please share a few usernames with us there, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 03:19, 17 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]
    I got around it by re-registering my old username (Orderinchaos78) and making user: and user talk: redirects. Orderinchaos 09:21, 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: [61]. --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. [[62]] 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[63]. I reverted and noted in the edit summary that we were using the official English anime spelling[64]. 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[65]. He changed the spelling again on the episode list[66] and I again reverting, asking him to stop and noting which spelling we were using in the edit summary.[67].

    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[68], 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) 15:45, 17 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[69] [70] [71] 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.[72] [73] [74] To finish off for now, Wildfirejmj claimed on an editors page to be "simply trying to balance the secular and liberal bias from Wikipedia".[75] 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

    Resolved
     – Blocked; checkuser shows sockpuppet of indef blocked user. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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]
    Now moot. Indef blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Scibaby per checkuser. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, up to a point. Connelly is an expert in the field, and does indeed spend a lot of time defending the article for POV-pushing, but I think it's rather unfair to accuse him of WP:OWNing it. Guy (Help!) 10:02, 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 [76]. --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 [77] [78] [79]. 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. [81]. 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 [82] 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: [83], [84], and [85]. 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: [86] 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]
    Yes, the three links above, they don't have to be letter-for-letter reverts/matches each time. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The first seems a simple addition, not a reversion. the_undertow talk 02:53, 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]
    Although SlimVirgin and I have quite robust discussions, like Talk:Animal_testing#Editing, we tend to work quite productively together. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope that I can learn to be as calm and patient as you are. Cla68 (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Its impossible to get angry when you have a kitten sitting, purring on your lap. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    3RR warnings are frequently given when soeone has made a third revert. That said, if he was making edits and further sources were being requested, it certainly strays into not 3RR territory, something kind of moot because it appears that Tim does not intend to continue editing that section. ViridaeTalk 04:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll certainly edit that section in the future, but since the material is now incorporated in a way everybody seems happy with, with three independent reliable sources, I think we can all relax a little. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, sorry. Not forever. In the 24 hour period. Good to see it resolved amicably. ViridaeTalk 05:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been pointed out to me by e-mail that I had better respond on the record to the accusations by SlimVirgin that I am "stalking" her eg diff. To be honest I have always just ignored the rare personal attacks, diff and implied threats diff that arise in these discussions and waited for everybody to calm down, before re-engaging in discussion of the issues. I am not particularly concerned by this, since in an emotive subject and I suppose it is normal for tempers to get a bit frayed. However, if people are curious about these allegations I suggest you compare SV and my contributions to assess the overlap, and see if the contributions on the rare pages where our interests we do overlap are good-faith attempts to improve the text or not. Anyway, its probably best to note this in an open way so that the community can review the matter. People with any questions or comments are welcome to discuss this on my talk page, but I'm going to be catching a plane in a few hours so I'll probably get back to you after the jet-lag wears off. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Andy Pettitte entry

    Hello, I typed in "Andy Pettite" instead of "Andy Pettitte" and was redirected to the correct entry, but with a graphic picture of a woman's private parts (to use polite terms) superimposed over the page. Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Pettite

    When I searched again with the proper spelling, the picture was gone. I figured someone would want to know about this. Thanks--hope you can fix it soon. It's pretty offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirky (talk • contribs) 02:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Appears to have been fixed. Useight (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I'm sorry I didn't sign my comments above. It's not there on internet explorer, but shows up in Firefox. Very strange--I'm not sure what to make of it. Thanks for looking into this, though.Sirky (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war and more on Internet Infidels

    A schism in the Internet Infidels bulletin board has spilled over into factional fighting on the Internet Infidels article here on Wikipedia. I have semi-protected for a week.

    I am going to go back through the recent edit history and leave a bunch of warnings, but the article will probably need higher attention for a bit, even with sprotect on. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    NPOV POV edits by User:Pimpbrutha

    Destroyerofthewiki (talk · contribs), blocked indefinitely on account of their username (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Destroyerofthewiki) has reappeared as Pimpbrutha (talk · contribs), editing the same articles and inserting the same NPOV POV material. He also seems inordinately focused on Marcus Einfeld's Jewishness and continues to want to insert NPOV POV material into Aboriginal politician Geoff Clark's article. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh that's good, if he's putting in NPOV edits. It's the POV edits we don't care for. ;) Maser (Talk!) 05:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops! I need to read what I am writing! Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 12:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    May I recommend an IP check? Maser (Talk!) 05:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They're both blocked for disruption and bad behaviour anyway. No need. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wanted: User:DavidYork71-familiar admins for more on this. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible problem user

    During my regular Watchlist scan today, I found that User:Professor Boris had made this edit to Talk:Liviu Librescu. After reverting and checking his talk page, where I found a number of warnings for posting "slander" on article talkpages, I left this warning message on it, and hoped that the issue would be resolved.

    When I checked my watchlist again tonight, I found this lovely reply to my warning. Due to the incivility of his response, I checked his contribs in more detail, finding that all of his edits have been either posting antisemitic conspiracy-theory rants to article talkpages, or uncivil replies to warnings posted on his page.

    I'm not sure any action is warranted at this time, but I thought I should bring it to the admins' attention for a second opinion and/or monitoring. Thoughts? Rdfox 76 (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    LukeHoC creating autoforwards to dates

    User:LukeHoC has been creating dozens of new article redirects from individual dates (i.e., 23 February 2008 to February 23) for many, many dates today; is this something that should be condoned, or is it an issue that should be addressed? I'm reluctant to suggest otherwise, not knowing current WP policy in this regard... --Mhking (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I, personally, would delete all of the pages he created like this. It is absolutely an unreasonable thing to do (creating redirect pages for every day of every year). - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally unnecessary... That's going to take some time to clean up. — Edokter • Talk • 16:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've put a note on his talk page asking him to stop, and alerting him to this conversation. Hopefully, he'll come on over to discuss this and how best to clean it up. --Mhking (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please stop and think before criticising other user's contributions. I am doing this because at the moment the way the date formats work in Wikipedia is U.S. centric, in breach of the long standing policy that all variants of English have equality in Wikipedia. The redirects will allow people to use British English dates in auto-generated footnotes without creating red links. If you check you will note that such red links exist for most days in 2007, and for some dates in other years. They will proliferate in the future. I have asked the user who has made a false and hurtful attack on me for this constructive contribution to Wikipedia to make an unreserved apology to me. LukeHoC (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If these links are deleted, that will be a deliberate restoration of hundreds of red links. In my opinion, that would be premeditated vandalism. LukeHoC (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What red links are you talking about? The date formats work so that any correctly linked date, e.g. 23 February 2010, should show up in the format set in user preferences. There shouldn't be any links to individual dates such as 23 February 2010. JPD (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But the fact is that there are hundreds of these red links. Just click on almost any of the redirects I have created for dates in 2007. LukeHoC (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem seems to be that {{cite web}} requires ISO date formatting (which is not that commnon in the U.S.!) to work optimally. If the date is entered in ISO format, then it will appear like this: 2010-02-23. If it is entered in some other format, it will give a link to a particular day, which in general will be a redlink even if it is U.S. format. It would be good to make the template easier to use, but in the meantime fixing the formats would be better than creating redirects. The user date preferences will do the rest. JPD (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    2010-02-23 is what you want it to show? Can you not see that that is a completely unsatisfactory format. If the last number was 12 of less, no-one would know whether the day or month was appearing first. (In the real world, where people have never heard of ISO format that is). LukeHoC (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Luke, Your actions are completely pointless; Mediawiki's automatic date formatting already takes care of what you are trying to accomplish... ie, dates formatted like [[2006-09-25]] (citing format) result in 2006-09-25, depending on how you set your dating preference in Special:Preferences. Notice the year is linked seperately, as it should. You redirects do not accomplish anything, except loose the link to the year. — Edokter • Talk • 18:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (adding additional portion of conversation)

    I'm sorry, but I cannot apologize. I don't see this as constructive in any way, shape or form, despite the North American-centricity of many WP articles. Those that have a more worldly-focus cite internationally formatted dates. This appears to me to be a complete waste of resources and counter to the standards previously established for Wikipedia. --Mhking (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is obvious that you just don't understand the issue. There should not be any restriction on use of British date formats on British articles, but American users have created a systemic bias in the way the standard citation notes work. The so called use of resources issue is a complete red herring, as the resources required are minimal (and a great deal less than my own contribution the fund raising drive, which will not be repeated, if you drive me away). I am appalled by the horrible way you are treating me. LukeHoC (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it a waste of resources to clear red links that have been created by a great variety of users? How many red links have you cleared today? This is good tidy editing work, pure and simple. On the other hand, deleting the redirects would be premeditated vandalism. LukeHoC (talk)
    I am a bit of a BrEn zealot in the appropriate places and I believe I understand the issue here. I have to concur that LukeHoC is misguided; the links are completely unneccesary and will be a maintenance nightmare. If a fix is needed, this isn't the way to do it. Ros0709 (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree, and think it is unnecessary. It would be ideal for you to add {{db-userreq}} to each of the pages, as that will make things easier. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this just creates a bulk of unnecessary redirects. I appreciate the thought behind the action, but it is misguided.--Atlan (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? It is a fact that I have cleared hundreds of red links. Please explain why wikipedia was better when they were still in place. LukeHoC (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is also important to mention that the users reasoning behind all of this (changing redlinks to blue) is unfounded. I've checked several pages that he's created and nothing links to them, except his own talk page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is absolutely false. There are hundreds of red links. Look again. LukeHoC (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You miss the point. What he means is, that most redirects are orphaned. No articles link to them (to be expected, really).--Atlan (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems to be a bit unnecessary, and the user shows no sign of letting up, as the edits are going on at this moment. Perhaps this should be brought to WP:RFD for discussion, and as a show of good faith, LukeHoC would cease to create new redirects until the matter is discussed there? Tarc (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Nobody here is in favor of keeping these. Why take to RfD? IMO, they qualify for speedy deletion per WP:SNOW. And if the user continues to be disruptive, perhaps a block is in order. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did find one with a link, and fixed that. Note also that {{citeweb}} does already allow for entering dates for the access date in either "British" or U.S. format without links using the accessmonthday/accessdaymonth and accessyear parameters. (I think there shouldn't even need to be separate DM and MD parameters, really - the template doesn't treat them differently.) These efforts are simply misguided. JPD (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Solution?

    It is been established that these redirects are a problem, and should probably be deleted. Now, I ask, what would be the best venue? RfD or just delete them per SNOW? - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Why are they a problem? Are they somehow doing harm? Redirects are extremely cheap and ones like these can have some use. east.718 at 18:51, December 17, 2007
    They are clutter, and prone to abuse because no one has these on their watchlists. — Edokter • Talk • 18:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that as long as something isn't "doing harm", the are acceptable under our inclusion guidelines? - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The standards of inclusion for redirects are different than articles. We've also got some tens of thousands of unwatched pages, but don't delete those just because they are at risk of vandalism. east.718 at 21:16, December 17, 2007
    Delete per CSD R3. — Edokter • Talk • 18:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thought so. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    David D. is stalking me

    David D. (Talk) has been continuously stalking WP:STALKING the articles I contribute to for more then one year, I have made several requests to him not to stalk me on wikipedia and make his contributions randomly but he keeps it up (check my talk page archive 5), now its been more then a year since he has been stalking me, his behavior has started to cause considerable stress now and I loose my motivation to contribute to wikipedia, I think an Administrator should look into it and advise him not to track and stalk me. Completely unacceptable behavior. Atulsnischal (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record i posted the comment above from Atulsnischal, it was originally posted on my talk page and at Talk:Genetic pollution. Since this has been an ongoing complaint from this user there is clearly a need for an outside opinion. David D. (Talk) 05:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Is the problem with the removal of this piece of text after Atulsnischal pasted it into animal husbandry, food security, agricultural biodiversity‎, genetic erosion, genetic pollution, green revolution and others? Tim Vickers (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It was my removal of that from a few articles, but not close to all instances of it, that initiated the stalking response (for the record others include High-yielding_variety, Hybrid, Biodiversity, Agriculture, Genetically_modified_food and Genetically modified organism). I used google to find that text in many different articles. It's basically activist spam. David D. (Talk) 05:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I note I was too hurried writing above, I was referring to the text that I placed and commented on at Talk:Genetic_pollution#Soapboxing_removed. David D. (Talk) 13:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Our initial interaction occurred over a year ago when I began trying to sort out several articles he had started (Some include Asiatic_Lion_Reintroduction_Project, Kuno_Wildlife_Sanctuary, Asiatic_Lion and Gir Forest National Park). There were redundancy problems, copy and pasted text again, as well as massive external links sections that I tried to prune down, as well as massive "See also" sections and no references. He was not happy that I removed many of the external links despite the fact that many of them I returned as cites in the text between <ref></ref> tags. In my opinion all my edits were constructive and i tried to mentor him to added citations in a format that were more user friendly. Still he ignores this advice. This is pretty much in line with his attitude of ignoring anyone who critiques his work regardless of whether it is constructive criticism or not. This refusal to discuss changes with myself and other editors is a massive problem. In short, Atulsnischal has ownership problems, POV problems and does not conform to wikipedia style. David D. (Talk) 05:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Leaving aside the question of whether it's "activist spam," it's a copyvio. See here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I just realised that TimVickers example is not the specific one I had a problem with. The activist spam bit I had a problem with is seen on the genetic pollution talk page at Talk:Genetic_pollution#Soapboxing_removed. It is very normal for Atulsnischal to copy and paste several paragraphs into many different articles. This is a problem since the context of the paragraphs is rarely relevant to the articles and is rarely an improvement. If Atulsnischal was serious about imporving the articles he would rewrite the points for each article so they are coherent and relate to the article he's adding the material to. Now it seems his stuff is copy and pasted from others. These lazy contributions to wikipedia, copy vio, no context, bad formatting etc. waste a significant amount of time for editors that have to clean up after him. David D. (Talk) 06:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean the example I found wasn't the only one of these boilerplate POV additions? Dealing with a systemic copyright violations like this necessarily involves tracking a problem user's contributions. I think you did exactly the right thing here. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I can assure you most of my attempts to help his articles over the past year have barely been touching the surface of the problem. I was hoping he would become more familiar with what is acceptable at wikipedia with some gentle prodding. As my prods became harder his response was to cry WP:STALKING and spam our conversations to many article talk pages, some not even involved in the dispute. For one example, see Talk:Asiatic Cheetah, note that none of the comments that appear to be my edits are my original edits, as is the norm, he copy and pasted the whole conversation from other talk pages. David D. (Talk) 14:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A warning for copyright violation is simplest, and unarguable, then, if he does it again report him at AIV. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This might work for some of his problematic content but he has a strong need to use the term genetic pollution for invasive species. As far as I am aware this is not correct usage. So, for example, all the links to genetic pollution he adds to articles related to invasive species are not copyright issues they are just wrong. Except this is a complex issue since the term has been misused in the past by journalists, but NOT by scientists. He quotes the minority articles as proof that his usage is correct despite its practical absence from the scientific literature. The term appears to be used heavily by conservationists as a political haymaker. I think the easiest solution is to make the genetic pollution article a truly NPOV article that explains the political usage as well as the biological usage. But Atulsnischal continually edit wars to maintain his vision of the article, one that focuses on political drama and invasive species. It is a very misleading view and unscientific, IMO.David D. (Talk) 15:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    By the way, this has drifted away from the stalking issue to the content dispute. Should I just move this discussion to the genetic pollution page? This might be more relevant there. David D. (Talk) 15:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That would probably be best, as there doesn't appear to be any substance to the "stalking" charge and no clear need for urgent administrative action. MastCell Talk 16:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello who are the guys sitting here making decisions, I am saying this user is consistently stalking the articles I edit for over a year and is a regular bother to me, is more then ONE YEAR!!! of harassment not enough for you guys. Atulsnischal (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Format for clarity" indeed. David's actions appear to fall under the portion of WP:STALK which states that: "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." MastCell Talk 20:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, no interest in the case, but you appear to have accidentally removed comments here, that I put back here. Lawrence Cohen 20:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please someone who knows his responsibility as a admin tell above mentioned user to stop WP:STALKING me, this has been going on for more then one year now. Atulsnischal (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Plagiarism

    And regarding this article [87] what copyright issues are you talking about, I wrote this particular article my self and have mentioned the sources. Atulsnischal (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Above Tim Vickers was citing your addition to mutliple articles of the following text related to genetic erosion. Below is your text and the bold text is verbatum from the pdf cited by Raymond Arritt above:
    "Genetic erosion in agricultural biodiversity is the loss of genetic diversity, including the loss of individual genes, and the loss of particular combinants of genes (or gene complexes) such as those manifested in locally adapted landraces of domesticated animals or plants adapted to the natural environment in which they originated. The term genetic erosion is sometimes used in a narrow sense, such as for the loss of alleles or genes, as well as more broadly, referring to the loss of varieties or even species."
    You don't think the wording is similar? David D. (Talk) 20:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrote the article from the cited sources I have mentioned, never seen source mentioned above. Though if others feel above source is credible, then this may be cited too when improving the original article, I am too tired to assist with Genetic pollution article now and taking brick bats personally for modern science, others will hopefully assist in time, currently it lies severely vandalized (Start from here for refrence [88]). Atulsnischal (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So why is your text almost identical? You must have plagiarised someone else who had already plagiarised this article then? Seriously, what are the chances that your original text is almost indentical to the pdf? David D. (Talk)

    Genetic pollution is a regular "scientific term"

    Hi there. These large scale edits you are making to promote the activist term "genetic pollution' are a serious NPOV problem. Can we resolve this through discussion? Tim Vickers (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Tim, Genetic pollution is a regular "Scientific term", find out....., start from here this version of the article [89], edits from here on just desecrate the article and are nothing but vandalism, mass slashing of article to 2 or 3 lines and wanting to erase it completely by merging it with Introgression etc.
    Improve the article if you can in time, thanks. Examples of usage of term "Genetic pollution":
    • “Although wolves and dogs have always lived in close contact in Italy and have presumably mated in the past, the newly worrisome element, in Dr. Boitani's opinion, is the increasing disparity in numbers, which suggests that interbreeding will become fairly common. As a result, genetic pollution of the wolf gene pool might reach irreversible levels, he warned. By hybridization, dogs can easily absorb the wolf genes and destroy the wolf, as it is, he said. The wolf might survive as a more doglike animal, better adapted to living close to people, he said, but it would not be what we today call a wolf.” from Italy's Wild Dog Winning Darwinian Battle, By Philip M. Boffey, Published: December 13, 1983, THE NEW YORK TIMES. Accessed 16 December 2007
    • Butler D. (1994). Bid to protect wolves from genetic pollution. Nature 370: 497
    Atulsnischal (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Atulsnischal you are straying off topic here, this is content dispute not stalking related. However, i have rebutted these points before, as you conveniently refuse to discuss. Again see: 1983_aticle_in_NEW_YORK_TIMES..... and Definition_of_genetic_pollution on the talk page of genetic pollution. David D. (Talk) 20:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Johnbod

    First, I'd like to point out that I took this to Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Johnbod without any response at all. Now to the dispute: During what is otherwise a perfectly normal dispute over content on Domestic sheep, Johnbod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been especially snide and abusive. He has made unhelpful comments such as "Perhaps someone who actually knows about sheep will happen on the article." and called me an idiot. So far the argument has cooled, mostly due to other editors joining in. I would simply like someone from outside the discussion to make it clear to him that name calling and such is not acceptable. Immediately before calling me an idiot, I reminded him to please not be rude. Any help would be appreciated, VanTucky talk 05:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If VanTucky makes a habit of reverting and rereverting changes en masse without, as subsequent discussion has revealed, making even the most cursory checks on whether link corrections are valid etc, then for him I expect it is "a perfectly normal content dispute". Personally I can't remember when I last encountered a ruder WP:OWNER, but I am not going to continue in view of his attitude. Anyone with the patience to read the "discussion" will be able to make their own judgement on the matter. Johnbod (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To say that I have ownership problems with the article is patently absurd if you look at the history. More than four other editors have made multiple edits in the past week to the article without any objections from me, and one (LaraLove) was even at my invitation. VanTucky talk 07:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Creation of a single-purpose account

    from request at WP:3RR, moved here by - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps
    Financialmodel appears to be an editor who has an abiding interest in proving the Eurofighter Typhoon is better than the F-22 Raptor as all of his edits seem to revolve around introducting contentious or controversial data regarding the capabilities of the two aircraft types. Can admins please look at the two articles and determine whether this is a case of fandom or something more of a sock issue. FWIW, he has already been involved in a 3R issue. Bzuk (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    I have to agree with BZUK. Financialmodel also refuses to abide by the consensus of the group. In fact his newer additions are even less relevant than his original entry that got reverted some time ago.Downtrip (talk)
    After quickly looking into it, it seems to be a content dispute, where Financialmodel can't await the outcome of the discussion and repeatedly inserts the disputed paragraph, whereas Downtrip removes this every time. Both users have reverted 5 times in the last 24 hours if I count correctly. From the facts provided I see neither a violation of WP:SOCK here (sock of whom?) nor an abusive use of a single purpose account. Many people with expertise in a specific area quite reasonably make contributions within that area alone, please AGF. My proposal is:
    • request a comment as the discussion is ongoing for some time without a result
    • protect the article if necessary to allow the discussion
    --Oxymoron83 10:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments and I will follow up with a request. The reason for the query to an admin board was that the pattern of discussion resembles that of a former banned editor, (Wikizilla) who has appeared on the talk page and article previously with sock/meat puppets. How can that possibility be determined/eliminated? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    Pgillman and spamming for Call Reassurance

    Resolved

    This user has been repeatedly warned on spamming articles and links by several different users for Call Reassurance. User has previously created an article at Call Reassurance, which was speedy deleted under CSD G11 along with a handful of other articles relating to the company producing the product, Database Systems Corp.. User has recreated this deleted material at Care (Call Reassurance) despite these warnings. User has also uploaded an image which they released under PD-self, though it is doubtful they own the rights. All material ought to be deleted under CSD G11 and some action taken to prevent the user from recreating it. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • User's edit history reflects a single purpose account dedicated to promoting the company Database Systems Corp. and their related products. User ought to be blocked under that criteria. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have compiled a summary of domains spammed (5), deleted articles/redirects/images (28, some more than once), warnings (6 + block) at User talk:Pgillman#Spam-tracking data. When I get the time, I'll add the domains to the spam blacklist. --A. B. (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Reporting intimidation and assumption of bad faith by admin

    The subject of this complaint is Arthur Rubin, an administrator.

    Currently, there is a lot of activity and dispute on some emotionally charged articles related to child sexual abuse, primarily Recovered memory therapy. I left a message on the talk page (diff) of Abuse truth, an editor involved in the disputes, expressing interest in having an off-wiki discussion. This entire thread is here. Arthur Rubin responded (diff), even though I was not addressing him, with a threatening / intimidating message, accusing me of bad intentions and threatening that he can consider me a meatpuppet (what a horrible name) and violating 3RR. Perhaps he missed that I never reverted anything on the page he was edit warring with Abuse truth on. Either way, I responded(diff), challenging his intimidation and presumptions and he persisted his argument (diff).

    I find this behavior unbecoming of an admin and would like for somebody else to examine this and have a word with him about abusing his admin status for the purpose of intimidating other editors who may not share the same point of view with him, thereby causing harm to the Wikipedia process. If it is the opinion of the 3rd party investigator that If I have erred in any of this, I would certainly like to know that as well.

    Thank you, Daniel Santos (talk) 07:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reviewed the diffs you have provided, and to be honest, I might have assumed the same thing as Arthur Rubin, as your comments is phrased in such a way that it would look like what Arthur Rubin has stated, a "plan" to push you POV, in other words, meatpuppetry. Well, that's my 2₵. nat.utoronto 08:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Arthur's original message, to which you reacted very aggressively, was civil, accurate and appropriate: he was trying to help you avoid being accused of meatpuppetry. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not an administrator and I am still learning the ins and outs of wikipedia. This is a particularly difficult article because Wikipedia articles do get read widely and both editors are writing out of both personal and professional experience as well as a human concern that readers not be hurt by what they find in wikipedia. However, as a human being, it seems to me that both Arthur and Daniel have been a bit out of line and need to take a step back.
    • Daniel responded to Arthur rudely. Daniel clearly felt that a personal boundary had been crossed (who I befriend/talk to/work with). Violating a boundary is bad, but there are kinder, calmer and more diplomatic ways for Daniel to have firmly told Arthur that he felt a personal boundary had been crossed. And I think it is also important for Daniel to have considered the possibility that at least part of the motivation behind the warning was a well-intentioned attempt to keep Daniel from doing something he might later regret. Finally, on the article talk page, Daniel is making POV accusations rather than focusing on the sources.
    • Arthur along with Daniel is allowing himself to get caught up in POV pushing arguments - which are rarely effective or valuable in improving wikipedia. The only thing it produces is fights and shouting matches. Wikipedia is not a voting engine. He who has the best sources and the clearest lines of argument supporting their quality and relevance will eventually get heard. All the collusion in the world will not help people with lousy sources turn them into good ones. Furthermore when someone involved in an argument begins warning his opponent that mere cooperation (even for NPOV purposes) is tantamount to disruptive editing and meat puppetry, it gives the appearance of trying to suppress the improvement of the article's representation of a particular point of view and hence interference in creating NPOV (all notable points of view documented and duly weighted). If the warning had been limited to specific behaviors that were actually disruptive or triggered by statements that showed intent to disrupt (e.g. a threat I'll revert you till the cows come home), then and only then would such a strongly worded warning have been appropriate.
    A way forward might be for both of you to acknowledge to each other that both have wikipedia's best interests at heart but are struggling for a common vision of how to best protect the interests of Wikipedia (well written reliably sourced articles) and its readers (helpful, not hurtful information on psychology and therapeutic options). Use your clearly common and strong interpersonal skills to come up with an acceptable solution - going to third parties (RfC, Mediation, etc) as is warrented. Egfrank (talk) 10:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You should roam around some controversial issues here before elevating something like this. To me, this seems like nothing. JMO. Tparameter (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    White supremacist

    I don't know if this is the place for this, but I think someone should know about it besides me. A new account, Pieter L White (talk contribs) has just used his first two edits to place a rant on Ten Lost Tribes all about how the ten lost tribes of Israel have become the "white nations of the world." He's only two edits into his Wikipedia career, but I figure it's best to have an admin start watching him asap. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a special place in my heart for racist editors. I'll try to keep up, but ping my Talk if things get out of hand. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Curious Blue

    I have blocked Curious Blue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); CheckUser indicates that this is IPSOS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is in turn Ekajati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Curious Blue has been trolling user:Orangemarlin. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Help request: Copyvio check User99.248.77.71

    Resolved

    If anyone has some spare cycles, can I get some assistance reviewing all the contributions by 99.248.77.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ? They edited a bunch of chemistry articles, in one case ( Paal-Knorr synthesis ) inserting a whole other web page as copyright violation. I haven't IDed such in the other edits but I'm too tired to be confident that I've looked hard enough and I have to go sleep now. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I went through this IP's edits, and found one more page with copyvio info, which I removed. Od Mishehu עוד מישהו 10:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Help request: User:Suchwings1

    User:Suchwings1 disregards consensus reached on the Balti talk page, namely on the absence of decision on usage of diacritics in the spelling of Balti in English language. No official decision was taken by administrator in favour or against the usage of dicritics in the name of the city Balti. However, uncontested evidence was presented on the right spelling of the name, including Britannica Encyclopedia, of the city of Balti without diacritics in English language, as an established geographic name for Balti city in Moldova. Suchwings1 has not left one single message of explication for its edits on the Balti talk page. Moldopodo (talk) 10:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

    I would like to make a complaint. A COMPLAINT!

    My name is Christine and i was recently classed as a sockpuppet of that imandrewrice bloke. Im not him! IM NOT! really. Yo fiddle stix Ricestormdramadesk (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's nice when the sockpuppets take the time to announce themselves as soon as they register, isn't it? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And another one. Spurious, some offensive, barnstars reverted. Tonywalton Talk 14:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Somebody please file a request for checkuser and state reason 'F'. For evidence, grab a few diffs, and also link to this thread. State that we need a checkuser to block the underlying IP(s) and identify any sleeper sock puppet accounts. It is better to resolve this problem systematically than to play whack-a-mole. - Jehochman Talk 14:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Doing that now (but that RFCU page is making my eyes bleed) Tonywalton Talk 14:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done (I hope - could someone who's actually done one of those before, unlike me, do a quick checkcheckuser? Tonywalton Talk 14:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn, that guy is persistent. Jehochman that has been tried, as Morven says he keeps changing his IP. I thought he had given up by now though. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that the school address is softblocked and the other editing occurs on changeable DHCP ranges Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your all jews! with juice! catch ya later crocodile! Turkeyhazel (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Another turkey goes into the pot. Time for WP:AGF has long run out. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 18:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Another turkey comes out, to play, with you, and your children. And shut up, you never assumed good faith in the first place. That is why I am doing this. Because I am sick of being falsely accused even though my intentions were good! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazeltheturkeyfarmface (talk • contribs) 18:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Muntuwandi and the Origin of Religion

    In editing content about the "origin of religion" User:Muntuwandi refuses to abide by WP:Consensus and thumbs his nose at the outcomes of processes like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, Wikipedia:Deletion review, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. While I can imagine specific content disputes being dealt with through mediation (even if it quite literally is Muntuwandi against the world), I would like to know if something can be done regarding this user's disruptive editing behavior. Here is a relevant outline of activity.

    1. Muntuwandi adds information about the prehistoric origin of religion to the entry Religion. In the resulting discussion it is suggested that Development of religion is a much more appropriate forum for his information, but also that his presentation of the information is problematic.
    2. Without engaging Development of religion Muntuwandi returns to add the same information to Religion once again. This time he creates a parent entry called Origin of religion prior to doing so and links to this parent entry. In the resulting discussion it is also suggested that Prehistoric religion is the appropriate entry for some of Muntuwandi’s information, which in its present form still suffers from presentation issues and various inaccuracies.
    3. In the meantime another editor nominates Origin of religion for deletion, the result of which is delete. The closing admin deleted the entry as a content fork of Development of religion and during the discussion several editors suggest merging the usable portions of Muntuwandi’s content with that entry.
    4. Muntuwandi then asks for a deletion review which endorses the deletion.
    5. Before the review finishes Muntuwandi appeals to the Mediation Cabal who remain unresponsive to his request.
    6. Muntuwandi then appeals to the Incident Noticeboard where it is suggested that he stop forum shopping for a favorable answer.
    7. After this Muntuwandi simply recreates the deleted entry by changing the singular “origin” to the plural “origins.” The resulting discussion can be seen here.
    8. When Origins of religion is redirected to Development of religion Muntuwandi creates Evolutionary theories on the origins of religion which is speedy deleted.
    9. A month later Muntuwandi once again recreates the entry, this time making a plural into a singular to end up with Evolutionary theories on the origin of religion. He then returns to Religion to link to his new entry.
    10. Currently Muntuwandi is fighting tooth and nail to 1) keep the deleted entry under its current title 2) to have all the other entries he once created redirect to it and 3) to keep relevant information out of entries like Development of religion so his entry can't be accused of being a content fork.

    All the while Muntuwandi has refused to take the suggestions of engaging Development of religion and Prehistoric religion seriously, while ignoring the outcome of the AfD and DRV and/or the advice of the Incident Noticeboard. While I understand that content issues should be dealt with through mediation I don’t believe what I have outlined is a content issue, but a behavioral issue. This editor simply refuses to believe that all the other editors who have commented on his entry through several processes are right, but he is, and he is willing to continue a disruptive pattern of editing in order to come out victorious. Is there anything that can be done about this? Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Muntuwandi's latest content forks have now been deleted (under WP:CSD#G4) as recreations of the deleted Origin of religion. I have suggested that considering he's been warned a number of times already, that continuing to act against consensus, edit war, ignore AFD discussions and continue to try and create content forks he will face various sanctions which may include blocking. Given the warnings he's had, you could consider this a "final warning". Neıl ☎ 15:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTE TO ADMINS: Muntuwandi has recreated the entry Evolutionary theories on the origin of religion about 4 hours after it was deleted. I can't see any administrative justification for doing so which causes me to assume he's simply taken it upon himself again to say what's what.PelleSmith (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted comments on the Anthropology project pagewhere I received positive feedback regarding this article. Muntuwandi (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is done in bad faith. I have even requested for mediation to which the editors refused to get involved. See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-17 Origin of religion. Muntuwandi (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see point #5 above which links to and refers to said request for mediation.PelleSmith (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have posted the content to my talk page. User talk:Muntuwandi/The evolutionary theories on the origin of religion for review on the accuracy of the information. I have requested Neil the admin who deleted the article for retrieval of the talk page discussions because there were some important and valid arguments that have been deleted. I think this should be treated as a content dispute, rather than a procedural dispute. I am and have always been willing to go for mediation. At present this dispute centers around three editors, myself, PelleSmith and Dbachmann. I have no problem with going through any independent dispute resolution process. Draconian measures such as deleting, protecting or threats of blocks will work in the short term. In the long term, the origin of religion is arguably one of the most important aspects of religion. As long as these underlying issues remain, the dispute will not be resolved. This dispute should not be played out on the notice board because this is mainly for administrator attention of procedural issues. We will not get any academic input from the notice board because the administrators are not necessarily academics. I therefore recommend to go for dispute resolution, if anybody is willing so that we can end this problem once and for all. Muntuwandi (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ok, now we slowly seem to be getting over this paleolithic / out of Africa business, how should we arrange this article, and what should be its scope? At present, the article addresses three topics:

    • 1. origin of religion in human evolution (origin of religion)
    • 2. the development of new religions in human culture (history of religion)
    • 3. the teleological view (revelation)

    the three topics are all valid, and all related to notions of "development of religion", but I am not sure they should be discussed on the same page. perhaps we should move this whole thing to origin of religion and refactor it so that the historical part is a summary per WP:SS, and delegate the teleological part to a separate article? thoughts?. Muntuwandi (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC) The notion that I am unilaterally considering this article is not valid.[reply]

    • Dbachmann in his own words expressed validity for this article.
    • Bruceanthro also expressed the same concerns and support for the article. Anthropology project page.
    • The administrator who closed the deletion review said there was nothing wrong procedurally but he admitted that there were a lot of merits to the argument.
    • when the article was first created, editors dismissed it as being complete nonsense. However these were just initial impressions due to a lack of understanding of the content. Even PelleSmith, my adversary in this dispute, now admits that the content is accurate and valid. Our dispute is mainly about which article this content should be placed.
    • PelleSmith has been deliberately trying to undermine my efforts on other articles. For example he tried to get this article I created on Steven Mithen deleted simply because I created it. See Talk:Steven_Mithen and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Mithen. Editors deemed the nomination for deletion to be in bad faith.
    • AFD decisions are not permanent. They just reflect the consensus at the time. The AFD took place 3 months ago. This article has to be reviewed on its specific merits again because it has undergone significant changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muntuwandi (talk • contribs) 19:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I therefore believe the articles deletion is premature and not justified. I have changed the name of the article from "origin of religion" to "Evolutionary theories on the origin of religion" so that iit is specifically referring to evolution. I understood that one of the problems is that evolution is not accepted by everyone, therefore having an article titled "origin of religion" that reflects mainly evolutionary science, may only be giving one perspective. Hence the controversy. By specifically naming the article "evolutionary theories on the origin of religion" narrows down the focus, so that those editors who believe in creation will not find a reason to dispute the content. It is for these reasons that I have outlined above that I will proceed to recreate the article. Feel free to post your comments there. Muntuwandi (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Lastly, allegations of disruptive behavior are without merit. This is my third year editing on wikipedia,[90]I have enough experience to know when content is valid, and I am always willing to work with other editors. Unfortunately it is other editors who are not willing to work with me, despite many invitations from my self. Muntuwandi (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all nothing you have written here is to the point. This is not a noticeboard for content disputes. Any content disputes withstanding what I asked for was some action on your behavior which is disruptive and tiresome. Also, to clarify, I did not nominate Steve Mithen for deletion at all. In fact I clearly stated that I was only bothered by the circumstances of its creation but had no expertise to judge its merits and did not vote in its AfD. I have also never opposed all of the content in your original entry. I have been clear about this all along as well. There has been no 180 here since I, and others, have always stated that aspects of what you have been writing are worthy of inclusion in Development of religion and Prehistoric religion. It is the manner in which you synthesize information, and sometimes also misrepresent information, that is problematic and that lead to the downfall of the disputed entry. Yet I should repeat that this is not the forum for content disputes. This is a forum in which I've asked if there is a way to make you respect the results of the forums in which content issues were discussed by many editors (not just you, Dab and I). The fact that you haven't even waited for a single response from any administrator before taking it upon yourself to recreate this entry I think just about says it all. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I redeleted The evolutionary theories on the origin of religion. It also has been copied in user space at User talk:Muntuwandi/The evolutionary theories on the origin of religion, if that matters. Pastordavid (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Evolutionary theories on the origin of religion, article name

    These are the primary sources that have been used in the article User talk:Muntuwandi/The evolutionary theories on the origin of religion. A few editors have suggested that the content should be placed in the articles Development of religion or Prehistoric religion. I don't know the basis for their suggestion. I included the content under the title "origin of religion" and "evolutionary theories on the origin of religion" because the major sources cited used the term "origin of religion" not "development of religion" or "prehistoric religion".

    I would therefore like a good explanation why, other than the consensus of two or three editors, the content should be placed under the title "development of religion" or "prehistoric religion". I would like to know where these editors got the idea that this content should be in the articles "Development of religion" or "Prehistoric religion". Without an answer, I cannot be satisfied with these assertions. The articles may be deleted, I may get blocked, but I will not be satisfied.I will be under the impression that it is just a personal opinion that is not scientifically substantiated or verified. I have provided proof from external sources for my reasoning and you can verify for yourselves. Muntuwandi (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible spam by Timjowers

    I have to head out right now, so I can't take any action/investigate this further, but could some admins take a look at Timjowers (talk · contribs)? His last edits are all adding a link into about 2 dozen articles. Thanks, Metros (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note also that many of the links are inappropriately added in "See also" sections. Maralia (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked for now, feel free to unblock if the user shows that he won't carry on. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't a warning have been in order instead of a block 2 1/2 hours after their last edit? --Onorem♠Dil 19:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No-one asked this user about his edits. No-one told him about WP:SPAM. No-one told him about this discussion. No-one warned him. All his previous edits show good faith, don't have anything to do with the supposed "spam" links, or any other external links. Both of the links he added appear to be to ad-free non-profit pages with information appropriate to the articles in question, and quite within the ambit of WP:EL. While posting the same link to several articles may be spam, there's no evidence it was in this case. JzG: please explain why you did not warn this user, or ask him about the links? Please explain why a block was necessary despite the user being inactive for several hours? Please explain why you blocked an account with other, quite acceptable, edits indefinately? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    External links to votesmart.org are in my opinion reasonably appropriate. It might be a good non-partisan source for data on candidates. guono.com also just might be a useful non-partisan external source with a matrix of public perceptions of positions for the presidential candidates, though it isnt a scientific survey. JzG has been removing both, but I am not sure that is justified. and a block in the situation seem wholly inappropriate. With any additional support, I am willing to unblock & they should be discussed first before further action is taken DGG (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please unblock him. The vote-smart link is a valid link. I haven't looked at the other one, but a warning should have been issued first. Horologium (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:216.68.49.2

    Resolved
     – as below

    The account seems to be a vandalism only account and I ask for blocking or permanent banning. Their edits are here. They have been warned numerous times on their talk page. The most recent edit was this. Your help is appreciated, thanks. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 17:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Copied to WP:AIV for speedy action. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 18:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate the warning, but I don't think that will stop the user in the least. They've made it clear they don't give a crap about people warning them. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 18:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    They've only made one edit in the last few days. Why do you fear a vandal spree? David D. (Talk) 19:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They may make edits only every few days, but the user will be back and will repeat the same actions. The user doesn't care abot warnings as you can see from their talk page. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Twsx

    This user has for the last few months waged a constant edit war on at least two pages (Dissection (band) and Amon Amarth). He has been warned many times before about this. I reported him before but no action was taken as this was the first time he was reported. However, User:Scarian had a conversation with him telling everyone if they continued to edit war they would get reported and blocked. Well, Twsx refused to listen, obviously, because he's right back at edit warring. I ask for a block. As you can see from these history pages: 1 and 2, the user has waged a long running war and has an agenda that no one wants (users such as myself and other keep having to revert him). Thank you. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 18:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified editor of this thread. Pastordavid (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the notification, Pastordavid. As I have had to respond to this very issue (with this very user) too many times before, I have created a small page listing my arguments on the matter. It can be found here. Thank you. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 18:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That page Twsx would have you look at is ridiculous and biased against me. It also brings up many old issues and edits that I have done in the past. For one it brings up that I have been blocked twice for edit warring on two different pages. I agreed to stop a long time ago and I would like to point out that Twsx is now doing the same thing I was blocked for and that is not acceptable. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:149.254.192.195

    Take a look at that. Amazing. Another vandalism only account on steroids. I'm gonna ask for a permanent ban. Look through the user's contributions and almost all their edits have been reverted by other users (I rv one edit that the user did today). I realize you guys usually go for a warning first, but in this case (per the numerous numerous warnings and blovks on the user's talk page) a warning won't do anything as the user clearly doesn't care what others do or say. After all it's vandalism only account. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 18:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A number of people (incl administrators) have also noted that the account may be a sockpuppet account

    "In my opinion, after reviewing the recent contributions of this IP, this IP is at this time being used only by User:Homoman11. For that reason, it should remain blocked in order to prevent further vandalism."

    It seems in fact, that the only reason this account has not been permanently banned is because it's a roaming IP address so it might only be one user using that IP address doing the vandalism. However, if you look at the talk page it seems the account is being used only for vandalism by one user who keeps getting away with it by claiming it was another user per the account being a roaming IP address. It should be banned, though, and I think wikipedia should have a policy against all roaming IP addresses as this only creates a problem with vandals it seems. If someone wants to edit wikipedia that bad, they can make an account or not use a roaming IP address. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 18:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of ISPs use dynamic IPs, and that adds up to millions of IP addresses which potentially lock out millions of users. There are alternative strategies to deal with dynamic IP vandals: Semi-protection of their targeted pages, autoblocks, and as a last resort, range-blocks. Long-term disruption can be dealt with reports to the ISP, see WP:LTA. x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a wildly dynamic/shared IP assigned to T-Mobile's users. east.718 at 18:52, December 17, 2007

    So you suggest we do nothing? Is that your solution? Look at the user's talk page. A list of warnings and they've been blocked before. So we should do nothing let them continue? They show no signs of letting up, so let them continue, right? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense... Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, that is nowhere near the worst I have ever seen of talk page warnings for an IP. There are two goals that conflict here: (a) being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and (b) protecting the encyclopedia from vandalism. The current way of dealing with IPs - especially dynamic IPs - seeks to balance those two goals. See [Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses]] for more info. Add to that that blocks are not punishment, they are prevention. So yes, if you see more vandal-edits from this account, report it at AIV. Pastordavid (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Magnonimous/24.36.201.161

    Article
    Magnonimous has changed signatures for 24.36.201.161 to his own [91], so I'm assuming these are the same person. He's a WP:SPA that's been edit-warring in Coral calcium from his earliest edits. While his edits probably qualify for WP:AN/3RR, I thought it would be better to report here since the situation is complicated and involves WP:OWN and WP:FRINGE issues.
    I'm an involved editor here. Once it became clear Magnonimous/24.36.201.161 was going to edit-war no matter what I said on the talk page, I've tried to restrict my edits to the talk page other than to tag problems and properly main tags. (Yes, some of the edit-warring is over tags). --Ronz (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Rebuttal Re
    Magnonimous
    User Ronz has overstepped WP:FANATIC guidelines 2-6 on repeated occasions. I believe Ronz may have used sockpuppetry to disguise some outright deletions of my contributions to the article. My contributions have been undermined repeatedly by outright deletions with questionable reasons. The fact that Ronz keeps coming up with new and creative ways to justify these deletions, leads me to believe that he is more concerned with blocking content that he disagrees with, than maintaining the integrity of the article. I believe I have acted in an overly defensive manner at times. In my defense, I do not currently subscribe to ownership of articles, but I do believe that complete deletion of contributions is not constructive to articles, and I may react accordingly. Magnonimous (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "I believe Ronz may have used sockpuppetry to disguise some outright deletions of my contributions to the article." Please provide evidence for such, or remove the accusation. I've made no other edits to Coral calcium or Talk:Coral calcium, through another account, an ip, etc, nor have I asked anyone to do so. --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to forgoe some diffs here unless asked for, as Magnonimous's tiny contribution history (he only appeared just recently to push his content changes to Coral Calcium), as well as having all his edits confined to the article in question and its talk page, makes it very easy to see what he's been doing. Magnonimous is attempting to add content to Coral calcium on purported health benefits. The primary issue at the moment, in my opinion, is that these studies don't mention coral calcium. Rather, they are about calcium supplements in general. I've explained to him that making his claims about coral calcium constitutes content forking and original synthesis, but he has comitted to push his edits anyway, and doesn't see a problem [92]. He has also professed to be driven by a somewhat unusual conflict of interest [93]. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wanted: User:DavidYork71-familiar admins

    There have been a series of new editors popping up at Rape making some quite controversial edits to the article that, at first, were changing it to suggest the victims of rape were more at fault than the attackers, and now have moved on to some less emphatic adjustments suggesting that rape is a valid sociobiological selection method. Needless to say, there's a bit of a fuss over these edits.

    Several of these accounts have been identified by Checkuser as being related, and associated to User:DavidYork71; however, one, User:MannaOfTheMessiah, was found to be unlikely by this checkuser. This confuses the issue somewhat, and I think we'll have to fall back on the duck test more than checkuser data.

    Which brings me to User:Unwhitewasher, the current campaigner there. This editor is using the same MO as previously identified editors - major edits marked minor, passive-aggressive combative style, etc., and even a 3RR report on another editor. I'm not familiar enough to make a specific call saying "yes, this is a sock," and couldn't do anything about it if I was, so I'd ask anyone with knowledge of this editor to please drop by and take a look. This disruption has been running for more than two weeks now on that article, so some added watchlisting would be greatly appreciated. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Quack. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I recall, David was operating from an Australian government IP. I wonder if Alison's finding of "Unlikely" WRT MannaOfTheMessiah encompassed other Aussie IPs (i.e. home, internet cafes, etc). Thatcher131 19:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Lemme just re-run the checkuser again here and go into some more detail. It was a while back .... I'll also check the latest incarnation - Alison ❤ 20:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear.  Confirmed for Unwhitewasher (talk · contribs) = DavidYork71 (talk · contribs) - can someone please file a quick RFCU to track this as there are a billion other socks under here. BTW, Destroyerofthewiki (talk · contribs) and Pimpbrutha (talk · contribs) + incarnations are also York socks. Also, to re-iterate, MannaOfTheMessiah (talk · contribs) is not a DavidYork71 sock - Alison ❤ 21:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the recheck - I'll bang up a quick report on RFCU for you to work with and refer back to here. (Still surprised Manna isn't the same guy, but there you go. Maybe he's found a friend...) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    DrKiernan (talk · contribs) is familiar with DavidYork; if you still need help, you might contact him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This also exists and could probably be tidied up by those that know how - Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MostPimpBruthr. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    edit warring at kwanzaa

    Don't know where to bring this as he is a very powerful user here at wiki, User:jpgordon has been edit-warring at kwanzaa over the past couple of years and has escalated things in the past week or so. He's reverted multiple times in the past day or so with very dishonest edit summaries like "yawn, that's just vandalism"[94] when the edit was clearly NOT vandalism and calling contributions "rants". Just now he told me he'd block me if I edited the article. Seems like bad behavior from an arbitrator. Maybe another admin could speak to him about it.

    Thanks Justforasecond (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to agree that it's not vandalism, and appears to be a good faith attempt to add to the article. However, a point that is not mentioned is the fact that it's not sourced. You quote a Washington Post interview, but do you have a citation for it? Issue number, publication date, etc? I'm still reading through the article, but claims about living persons fall under WP:BLP, which may be what is triggering the revert.
    Also, If you agreed at one point to stay away from the article, as jpgordon indicates that you did [95], perhaps it would be better to post your additions (with citations) to the talk page for discussion? If it's well-cited, someone else will certainly add the material. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is, it is not being reverted as BLP, its being reverted as vandalism. It is easily verified in frontpage mag, which I think covers the BLP question, but other editors have also looked through washington post microfiche and verified it is there too. Anyway it seems like improper behavior to me, jpgordon knows wiki inside and out and is calling things vandalism which are not at all vandalism. He's reverted at least three separate editors in the past couple of days, which seems to be disregarding consensus. Gordon's policing for true vandalism, like the time an IP called kwanzaa "pagan" is appreciated, but calling good-faith edits vandalism is not. Justforasecond (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User Check

    User I.P. Check request for: User:Dc76, User:Suchwings1, User:Constantzeanu, User: TSO1D, User:Moldorubo, User:Nergaal. Thank you --Moldopodo (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

    I think you want Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser... — Scientizzle 21:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of these are already confirmed DavidYork71 (talk · contribs) socks - Alison ❤ 22:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Beh-nam reported by White Cat

    I do believe Beh-nam (talk · contribs) is being somewhat honest by making himself more identifiable. Given he is blocked indefinitely, I see a problem. A range block may be necesary. -- Cat chi? 22:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

    Continued vandalism on Digital_rights_management

    On 12th Dec 2007 a number of edits were made to the DRM page, all centered around the assertion that:

    However, many sources do not make any distinction between copyright protection for software and for creative works and DRM can often be seen as an umbrella term that covers any implementation of copy protection.

    The purpose of this insertion was made in connection to this post on an external forum, and whose purpose was to deliberately falsify sources, rather than to inform the larger public.

    As a result, I am firm in the belief that the posts and their subsequent "citation" are in fact, merely a mechanism of deliberately asserting false statements. The "citations" are inconclusive at best, and their purpose is to decieve, rather than to inform. As per the two-revert policy, I have reverted this post twice, and have now forwarded the complaint here.

    This is already discussed on the Talk Page of the article, and I have already a warning on the user page of iamacreditcard. This was promptly removed by iamacreditcard.

    Unedit (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't the place to report vandalism typically. You'd get faster results by posting this on the vandalism board. -- Cat chi? 22:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=178594623"