Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive340

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

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

It's not a blog, it's a website, and for those who read Hebrew, it has documented information of public statements from Rabbis

Yosef Kapach, Avraham Shapira, Nissim Karelitz, Mordechai Eliyahu, Shlomo Fisher and The Jerusalem Beth Din. And I didn't name you explicitly in my comment re Der Sturmer, I drew a comparison to an earlier comparison drawn by Izak with editors who edit in a certain POV way. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk

) 07:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

User has continually edit warred on pages

• It's pretty difficult to come up with evidence of
  Scarian^Talk
  19:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if anything I have written on this page seems impartial but it appears to me as though I have written nothing that could be construed as impartial. In actual reality I've been strictly neutral and even attempted to correct your errors.

Scarian^Talk

19:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Since there is no consensus at the moment it means that no one is breaking

Scarian^Talk

20:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Not to mention a few users, including myself, keep having to revert him, as he is the only person making those pages have comma breaks and that is breaking

WP:CON, and even if not, see what I said above. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$

23:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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

I don't really see a breach of WP:CON here, since the overarching discussion linked above is still ongoing. There may be more people involved with one particular article who prefer it one way, but I think the community discussion trumps that in terms of consensus. (I mean, you could get a group of editors who decide to create an article that doesn't follow the

MOS... you would have consensus among those editors, but the community consensus would still trump that...). As far as edit warring goes, it takes 2 to war... Twsx could just as easily come here accusing you of edit warring each time you reverted his edits. My advice would be to step back from warring over these articles and focus your discussions in the template talk page to achieve a proper community consensus on this issue. Arakunem^Talk

15:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This user has been warned for incorrect edits and edit warring. On the page

• It looks like he is removing some links from the references section that don't, per general consensus, meet
  Scarian^Talk
  19:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Actually, there are sources which say Paradise Lost are a doom metal band (Which is what the IP was adding to the infobox). AMG, for example. [1]

Funeral

19:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The user

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

I tried to explain to Angry Sun what he was doing here and here, and he continued to make the same types of edits. Am I supposed to just undo every time he saves an older revision of an article? These edits are disruptive.

talk

) 17:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A team of editors working on these articles have pushed the boundaries too hard. Sahajhist was recently found to have been using sock puppets.

sophistry and the revert button. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

10:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Page locked, implied threat stricken from the page. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 08:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Permanently banned user

Already requested at

WP:RPP Mayalld (talk

) 08:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers. --

Folantin (talk

) 09:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The

Someone will probably want to keep an eye on the names listed and make sure that

229

17:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

...but

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

Always a hazy, uncomfortable issue.

WP:SUICIDE does a good job of explaining matters, IMO. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R

00:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

I always take suicide seriously. It was a good idea to block (I were going to suggest a block). Should we create rationale on

I'd count that as

here anyway. Tonywalton ^Talk

19:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

To the best of my knowledge, there aren't any reliable sources, or acceptable sources per

WP:ARB/PS, for "anti-relativity", which is essentially a rather non-notable pseudoscience. It's highly unlikely that any legitimate physics student would accept such an offer. RAmesbury himself, however, is doing quite a bit of damage: most of his science article edits have been reverted, but he's changing a number of 'clairvoyance' articles to have a definite positive bias, and is admitting to doing so on talk pages. We might also want to look into whether this editor is related to KraMuc. --Philosophus ^T

22:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

someone with more knowledge of the topic might want to look over

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello. I'd like an uninvolved admin to look at

Specific issues from the tendentious-editor checklist include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Canvassing potentially like-minded editors to "jump in and help him out" in a "revert war": [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]. Even after being directed to
  WP:CANVASS, as he issued only seven "limited invites" ([47]
  ).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm fine with whatever, so long as some uninvolved admins are monitoring the situation. I could be happy with anything beyond the current status quo of refractory tendentiousness. I will say that, after extensive discussion of and reference to

WP:3RR by several other editors, Strider12's understanding of it is that he "has a right to edit this article -- up to three times a day if I have the stamina for it." MastCell ^Talk

05:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Could someone please look at this?

The content has since been removed from

talk · contribs) and JzG (talk · contribs). Not much activity from Benjamin Gatti, since then. – Luna Santin (talk

) 02:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Hi all,

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

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

You, on the other hand, have just violated

WP:WOTTA :-) Nimman (talk

) 17:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolved

 – Blocked for 24 hours

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

I have investigated and blocked for 24 hours for clearly

disruptive editing. Daniel Case (talk

) 21:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

U

) 21:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

For clarification. Deleted edits, wether they be all or part of a page history, are available for admins and above to view. Oversighted edits are only visible to other oversighters and developers. 99/100 times a simple deletion will do. In rare cases one can e-mail via

WP:RFO if the edits should not be visible to editors who also happen to have admin rights. Pedro :  Chat 

22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

This user has been editing an article presumably about himself (see

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

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

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

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

Resolved

 – All quiet on the western front

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

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

Resolved

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

Reported at

WP:AIV, reverting. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs

) 23:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The LDS have a tradition of silence about certain of their traditions. This has led to trouble on a few articles, notably

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

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

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

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

Over the last several days, there's been a slow edit war happening at

• Well, the article has now been protected but the dispute rages on. It's quite apparent from discussion at
  Talk:List_of_characters_in_Grand_Theft_Auto:_San_Andreas#Removal_of_fair_use_images_from_this_article that as soon as the protection is removed, the images will be re-inserted. I'm now accused of edit warring as well. One of the contributors to the discussion is also now trying to make the argument that this "List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" isn't a "List of characters" page, and thus the policy doesn't apply, since the article should be renamed "Characters of ..." The pro-image group is trying very hard to come up with a legalese way of getting around our policies and Foundation dictums. Help, beyond page protection, is needed. Please. --Hammersoft (talk
  ) 18:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• And now I am being accused of vandalism and selective targetting. [54]. Some help please? Please? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This has extended now to

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

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

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

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

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

we have reduced the number of images, so problem solved

^talk

19:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

i dont believe the policy says we can't have any images...why don't u construct to wiki in a more beneficial way...images enhance encyclopedias.

^talk

19:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

i dont know for sure what you mean by "encyclopedic images", but yes, they are pictures of characters, and are therefore discussed in the text

^talk

19:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Please stop the sarcasm. I was willing to partake in a productive discussion and achieve consensus, but instead it turned into a brawl. I specifically said that I only wanted a few images for the main characters, at least the main antagonists as I agreed that there were far too many images in the article. My beef was not about the images, but why you removed them under the claim that 'images simply cannot be on lists whatsoever' which you did not justify. Also, just because Wikipedia's mission is to create a free encyclopedia does not mean Fair Use content is not permitted at all. Judging by your userspace, I think your stance on fair use is bordering on

Request for Comment. .:Alex:.

16:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that is because a free alternative could reasonably be obtained (one can argue about this in the cases of e.g.

Fram (talk

) 12:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

I don't think we should rehash the non-free use debates here at AN/I Those debates are bad enough at the policy page

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

) 14:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

User SarekOfVulcan (

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

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

talk

) 22:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Some info: since this [55] all but 8 of his edits, out of 30 have been previously edited by IrishLass and he states he's using AWB to find the articles. The last 17 were consecutively edited by him and were previously edited by her. Maybe I don't understand the stalking policy, but this is creepy.

talk

) 23:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

talk

) 23:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

talk

) 00:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Well, I'm more than a little disturbed. While innocuous in appearance, they are all articles I've had an edit on. This made me laugh though [56]. By trying to "correct" articles I've worked on he messed up an article (this was found on his talk page). Women in this world have to worry enough about stalkers, but to have to worry about them on Wikipedia because I suggested people be nice and don't come into things just to say "you're wrong" (the only contact I've had with SarekOfVulcan) is freaky. I see MangoJuice has already gently spoken to him, but I'm still freaked out. I expect certain things, like this stuff happening on message boards, but here is not a place I would expect this to happen. I would like to see something done, although I don't know what. Using an automated device to track someone like you track a UPS package is freaky.

IrishLass (talk

) 13:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't revert anything, I'm the stalkee and just found out about this this morning. I do know that on occasion when pictures have _ in them, they have a problem if the _ is removed. I would have put the _s back too. But that's just because in my experience, I've seen images go away without an exact file name to the original. He did remove project tags, like the soap opera stub tag on an article that is tagged stub for a reason. If he's never worked on an article or a project he doesn't know if an article should or shouldn't be tagged as a stub. I'll be even further honest. I would have gone and edited every article he touched because this whole issue has got me pretty freaked out. My email account that I have here has personal information. He's bragged about his computer experience, what if he goes further than stalking me around Wikipedia. I know you're now thing "over react much?" But if you have ever been stalked in real life or even read the news about people getting stalked or made to believe they have a cyber boyfriend, you know it can be a real and scary thing. And he did mess up the

IrishLass (talk

) 13:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

I wasn't referring to you

strawman portion of your comment as it's completely unrelated to what I was saying. --Onorem♠Dil

14:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

IrishLass (talk

) 14:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

IrishLass (talk

) 14:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

IrishLass (talk

) 14:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

IrishLass (talk

) 15:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

IrishLass (talk

) 15:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Say I believe you, knowing I do not, how about we agree to stay as far away from each others' core articles and move on. Seriously, sorry, but I don't believe this wasn't stalking.

IrishLass (talk

) 15:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

I would like to put "on record" that removing stub tags on rated articles of a project shouldn't be done by editors who aren't members of a project as was done on

IrishLass (talk

) 15:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec x 2)Why is this at ANI? If there was a problem, did anybody try asking Sarekofvulcan to explain? He's provided a simple, polite explanation. A lot of drama could have been avoided by

talk page. - Jehochman ^Talk

15:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. from

IrishLass (talk

) 15:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

So you admit [57] that after we had a dispute, that's why you did it. Hence falling into Wikistalking refers to the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption. A dispute and a disruption are practically equal since the dispute was about you telling me I was wrong. How is this not a relevant issue for this board?

IrishLass (talk

) 15:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

IrishLass (talk

) 16:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

talk

) 16:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

IrishLass (talk

) 16:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

WP:HARASS. — Dave (Talk

) 16:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

IrishLass (talk

) 16:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Users Orangemarlin and Sciencewatcher keep mutulating the article

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

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

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

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

I think that several editors have now found that discussions on

OrangeMarlin happens to be working on a featured article. I don't call that edit warring; I suggest accusations are withdrawn. Sciencewatcher is fully entitled to participate in discussions, and your characterisations of his comments are not helpful here. In future, consider requesting protection on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Er... if one particular editor is especially problematic, then

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

22:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What you have explained elsewhere is that, in so many words, 3RR doesn't apply to you because your version is better, that your incivility is completely acceptable [58], and that everyone is mistaken but you. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The history of the relevant text is at follows:

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

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

Though I agree my edit was an improvement over what was there, it's only because what was there before was absolute shit, and by no means a final version. It obviously wasn't a good compromise, because many editors were not satisfied. To portray it as a 'good' compromise is flatly wrong. Given the circling on the talk page, I don't know why a

WP:RFC hasn't been sought yet. Obviously people don't agree, and refuse to agree, so ask for a RFC and let people move on. AN/I seems the wrong place for this issue, RFM, 3RR, RFC, or the RS noticeboard maybe, not AN/I. WLU (talk

) 02:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I'm the sort of person that's typically rather dismissive of media-driven anxiety, but I'm not sure if something should be done about this diff, a graphic poem written on a school's wiki entry. [59] (scroll down). Anon IP deleted the text shortly after writing it. A different anon vandal deleted the text. Just thought I'd get your opinion. Orphic (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Oh gee. Indeed, song lyrics. But there has been substantial precedent on these things, including one where Jimbo intervened. Might be worth notifying the foundation or

reaction to vandalism. Pedro :  Chat 

16:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like ordinary vandalism.

1 != 2

16:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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