Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive218

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Kl4Uz (talk · contribs) 2 Webmaster (talk · contribs) 3 Disruption, sterile revert warring, POV pushing, refusal to discuss changes at Red Army 4 Personal Attacks and Uncivil Behavior 5 William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and The Great Global Warming Swindle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 6 Important real world claims on user pages should be sourced or deleted 7 How do I deal with User:Alx 91? 8 Personal attacks and abuse 9 Caches and Page Histories 10 user:Eupator automatically reverting, edit varring, acting in bad faith 11 69.223.89.43 12 Compromised account? 13 user MarshallBagramyan placing back (reverting) POV information/links 14 Personal attacks by User:Faranbazu 15 65.161.23.179 Vandalism 16 Lisa Daniels on NBC News 17 65.197.241.225 18 Nick Palumbo and his shills 19 Range block on 72.150.x.x 20 User:Burnsvillemike and the socks 21 190.10.0.121 22 Z.E.R.O. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and bad-faith 23 Could use some help 24 Swdavis67 25 Pejman47 26 Help Please 27 Possibly compromised account 28 Limbo(ot) 29 Assault11 et al 30 Dispute involving categorization of articles by Category:Kurdistan and its subcats 31 Personal attacks by Thorneycroft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 32 Emergency: Betacommand deletion at bot speeds - please review impending block 32.1 Betacommand's bot gone stray! 32.2 Betacommand bot approval withdrawn 33 User:1523 attacking me as psychotic that should be excluded from Wikipedia and others 34 Spammed by User:Bhadani 35 user Fadix removes verifiable sources and quotes 36 Death Threat? 37 User:Jeffpw Attacking in Edit Summaries on his Talk Page and Making Threats 38 Possible bad-faith action 39 163.167.129.124 40 Please block Marlon.sahetapy socks 41 ETOM and User:Cfaurer 42 AfD: is canvassing allowed? 43 James Buchanan 44 Cyberstalking by ZayZayEM 45 "Spam Link" page? 46 User talk:Epbr123 blanking 47 Betacommand AGAIN - this time, ext. link removals 47.1 Proposal 47.2 It's not about the bot 48 hoax by user:JJonathan: death of Lynsey Bartilson 49 Incivility by User:Petri Krohn 50 Community ban library 51 134.117.185.189 52 Personal Attack by Suriel1981 53 Troublesome AfD and personal information issues 53.1 Semi protection 54 William Bradford (professor) 55 User:Gene_Poole 56 User:Rbj 57 Richard Bridgeman, 7th Earl of Bradford 58 Spambot targets 59 User:141.151.88.130 60 207.74.196.20 61 Confirmed sock awaiting block 62 Bot editing while not logged in 63 Solar System 64 Another Stirling Newberry impersonator 65 Sock of indefinite blocked user The Right Honourable Bonney Eberndu 66 Needing a hand at the Dead Bean "article" 67 users Eupator and Fedayee violate the 1RR injunction 68 User's questionable retirement announcement 69 A troubling CSD issue 70 User:Jason Gastrich requesting unbanning 71 Update on User:Homeopathic / George Vithoulkas incidents 72 Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Marlon.sahetapy 73 User:Accountready 74 annoymous user Special:Contributions/86.138.232.97 75 User:Fadix Personal Attacks 76 List of attacks by the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia 77 Toolsrocks (talk · contribs) 78 User:Jack0343 79 To User:Quarl 80 User:JohnHistory

[edit] Kl4Uz (talk · contribs)

This is user is probably a sockpuppet ana undoubtely a single-use account (see his contributions: he created the account in 2005 and made some 15 edits, then nothing until some days ago and the only thing he does is to cast his vote in Talk:South Tyrol). I can live with this but not with his offences: he called me Italo-fascist and Mr. Mussolini. What can I do about it? --Checco 15:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Webmaster (talk · contribs)

I recommend a {{Usernameblock}}, user is not a wikimedia webmaster (I don't believe the title belongs to anyone) -- Cat ^chi? 15:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The name doesn't violate User-name policy, I think, but if you really want to find out if others agree with you, take it to WP:RFCN. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

User has edited (albeit sporadically) for more than two years, there is no WP title of "webmaster"—I say let it go, but Mel is right that if you want to pursue it, WP:RFCN is the vehicle. Newyorkbrad 16:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't "Webmaster" be like User:Administrator? -- Cat ^chi? 16:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have initiated the discussion nevertheless -- Cat ^chi? 16:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, because the latter would be impersonating an administrator, while the former isn't impersonating anybody, as there's no Webmaster to impersonate. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It gives the wrong message. User:Person in charge of wikipedia would be blocked even though such a title doesn't really exist. -- Cat ^chi? 16:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's not a title, it's a description. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption, sterile revert warring, POV pushing, refusal to discuss changes at Red Army

One or two Ukrainian editors have been engaged in an ongoing edit war with others at the Red Army article over the past months. The problem seemed to die down for a while and go away, but today Ukrained (talk · contribs) has resumed his edit war, deleting informational templates without discussion and without trying to reach consensus at the talk page. This is disruptive behavior. He has been blocked repeatedly for 3RR, incivility, and personal attacks. The grand sum of his argument is that the templates are "POV" and "wrong". Yet, he will not explain why they are wrong, will not contribute in discussions on how to improve them, and continues to delete them from the article. The undiscussed deletions fly in the face of consensus, as a number of people have continuously reverted this deletion and implored this person to find a diplomatic solution to his grievance. Instead, he deletes the table, claims IT is "POV" [1], and won't discuss.

This editor is constantly trying to push a Ukrainian nationalist agenda at the expense of verifiable information and hard facts. He accuses an admin of making "unsolicited POV changes" and reverts again [2]. He acknowledges his participation in the edit war [3].

I told him that I would report him here if he did not contribute to a rational discussion of the templates and he did not respond [4].

This nonsense is ongoing. If Ukrained has an issue with content, he should discuss and reach consensus on the talk page, which he has not done. Something should be done about this editors constant use of edit warring to push his agendas. TheQuandry 16:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks and Uncivil Behavior

Burgz33 (talk · contribs) has made and continues to make attacks/act uncivily towards and against other editors, even after final warnings have been issued. Here are links to the most recent violations:

• 1)From Talk:Jordin Tootoo[5][6][7]
• 2)From Talk:Juggalo[8]
• 3)From User talk:Yankees76[9]
• 3)From Talk:LimeWire[10]
• 4)From User talk:Kubigula[11]
• 5)From User talk:82.141.61.54[12]
• 6)From Talk:La Coka Nostra[13]

There are numerous other older instances. Thanks Yankees76 17:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked 24h for personal attacks.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and The Great Global Warming Swindle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

If this were just an editor being disruptive, I wouldn't raise it at AN/I, but this is an administrator.

I never edited a climate-change article before yesterday, and I probably won't ever again. I came to this article because of an RFC over the question of whether a documentary should be called a documentary. After responding to the RFC, I read the article, noted some severe problems with WP:SYN that resulted in a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, and tagged the article and provided a lengthy explanation for the tags; when it appeared that people were misunderstanding my use of the {{or}} tag, I created a {syn} tag to describe WP:SYN problems. Some editors edit-warred to remove the tags, and two editors stepped in to restore the tags, including one editor who initially disagreed with my placement of the tags and then changed his mind after discussing WP:SYN with some administrators.

The problems were being discussed civilly on the talk page, when William M. Connelly swooped in, deleted all of my tags, announced that he did so because there wasn't a consensus to keep the tags. Worse, he responded to the "documentary" vs. "polemic" issue by replacing the adjective "documentary" with "propaganda." And after that all heck broke loose and now there are personal attacks on the talk page.

1. Now, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of Wikipedia tagging is that a tag reflects a lack of consensus, and the consensus question comes to bear when the decision is made to remove a tag. It certainly doesn't get removed when multiple editors are discussing the validity of the tag. Shouldn't an administrator be aware of this?
2. The edit and talk page comments show a distinct disregard for WP:NPOV and other Wikipedia editing policies.
3. Isn't it a bit disruptive for an administrator to participate in edit-warring, simultaneously remove an NPOV tag while adding POV on an issue being discussed in an RFC?

WMC is obviously very knowledgeable about this subject, on which he has written about widely, including one blog post that he added to the Swindle article. (I don't object to this; notwithstanding the WP:COI issue, his contribution was a notable POV and satisfied RS.) I do object to the ownership attitude exhibited by an administrator, however, especially when I was once threatened with a permanent ban if I ever slipped from NPOV in editing an article about legal topics.

A personal attack from Skyemoor has successfully convinced me that I don't want to get involved in improving this category of articles, and I'll withdraw from this one. But I think administrators should be trying to cool disputes and reach consensus rather than fanning flames. -- TedFrank 20:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There are some areas were mob rule on wikipedia is a bad thing. Connolley appears to be besieged by anti-global warming fanatics from time to time, and for the record, he has written a great deal more about the subject than a few blog posts.--MONGO 20:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mongo's assessment. Raul654 20:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't. There's a reason why Global warming doesn't have more than 4 words noting the controversy behind it, and it's the same reason that we've had to deal with edits where a documentary film is changed to "propaganda film" by an adminstrator who should know better. NPOV applies even to people who work in the field. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If anyone on wikipedia were to wish global warming were false, it would be me. I tended to be a skeptic myself, mainly because I didn't want to believe it. The only controversy that it isn't true would be the one being fostered by special interests groups who have actively campaigned using millions of petro dollars to spread misrepresentations about the issue. This is the same kind on nonsense I see all the time dealing with conspiracy theories regarding 9/11.--MONGO 20:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. This isn't the same as a bunch of loons coming to provoke, him, though. Hell, I couldn't even tell you the global warming position of any of the other editors, save myself and Ed. However, when an administrator, of all people, adds a link to his own blog and then makes massive POV edits to an article simply because he believes the subject and its agenda to be false, there's a problem no matter which way you want to look at it, whether you're Al Gore or an Oil Exec. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to be clear that I don't think there is a WP:COI problem; the blog is notable, and the link belongs in the article--I would add it myself if WMC asked me to. There is, however, a WP:OWN and WP:NPOV problem. -- TedFrank 20:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Connolley would be less besieged if he assumed good faith and wasn't so provocative towards editors who didn't toe his line--again, a WP:OWN problem. I'm being attacked even though I agree that there is anthropogenic global warming, simply because I asked for WP:SYN and WP:NPOV to be applied. -- TedFrank 20:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Mongo's assessment and know that Connolley goes to great lengths to be civil and patient with disruptive newbies, but expects them to eventually learn and understand WP policies and guidelines. Others abuse the policies by leveraging them in a skillful manner to push POV. I encourage you to examine Ted Frank's "lengthy explanation for the tags" to see if he really does provide specific supporting rationale, or whether it's vebose fluff. And note that he is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a 'think tank' which has received at least $1,625,000 from Exxon alone, and is virulently anti-global-warming in their stance. Perhaps Ted really does believe that humans are causing global warming, but I have a hard time believing that on 'good faith' alone. Is this a personal attack, Ted? Skyemoor 21:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It is a personal attack. Comment on edits, not editors. AEI doesn't have a global warming stance. As for my previous public position on global warming, I don't think it's relevant, but here's a blog comment where I support a carbon tax. I also drive a Toyota Prius. -- TedFrank 21:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How can you say with a straight face that "AEI doesn't have a global warming stance"? At one point I thought that you really were trying to enforce WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and so on -- a little overzealous maybe, but well intended. Your affiliation with AEI, your statement regarding their stance on global warming, along with your solicitation of other editors to game 3RR, have led me to conclude otherwise. Raymond Arritt 21:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

We're way off topic here, but I can say AEI doesn't have a global warming stance, because AEI doesn't have a global warming stance; the Guardian article is simply wrong, bordering on libelous. I did not come close to violating 3RR by asking that improperly-removed tags be restored (and I note that I was the one who asked for page protection), but if you feel otherwise, feel free to open an RFC. -- TedFrank 21:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views" does fit the bill, I had always thought it referred to nasty language, racism, etc. $17/ton of Carbon is only about $4/ton of CO2, but that's a discussion for another time and place. The Prius was a good choice, though. Skyemoor 21:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just an aside to MONGO - "mob rule"? WP:CONSENSUS is one of the founding principles of Wikipedia - consensus can rely on expert opinion, however this does not make an expert in a field more able to judge things like neutrality or give them the right to engage in an edit war when things don't go their way. If you read the talk page of the article in question you'll see there is no "mob" - just a group of editors who disagree on some basic terms in the article. QmunkE 20:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is a mob of anti-GW editors -- they regularly canvass one another, have maintained on- and off-Wiki attack pages against those they disagree with, use sockpuppets to stack AfD votes, and so on. A small sample is available at [14]. Raymond Arritt 21:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, I am disappointed you continue to use that as an implication for allowing William Connolley's disruptive edits. It's irresponsible of you, and shows little more than a fallacious argument on your part. I've asked the creator of that report to point to specific edits pertaining to the global climate related articles. He could not. Let the record show Raul654's claims are unfounded and Raymond Arritt's presuppositions are wrong. ~ UBeR 00:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't sprain an ankle leaping to an unjustified conclusion. Re-read what I wrote: I was pointing out that there is indeed a mob, not defending WMC. Raymond Arritt 00:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have a complaint about his actions, in my opinion, you should open a request for comment. I don't see that there's really any action for us to take here. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree with KS here. I don't see any abuse of administrative privileges (unless I've missed something), so this amounts to an editing dispute (which isn't really actionable here). WP:DR is the best course to take, of which RFC is the first step. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable dealing with this issue without support from administrators: this is a content dispute with an administrator who has announced that he is above Wikipedia policy, plainly has passionate feelings about the articles he's editing, and who has apparently blocked other users he has had content disputes with. That seems a quixotic waste of my time, though I'll participate in an RFC if someone else opens one. Apologies if I've used the wrong page. -- TedFrank 22:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And the comments by MONGO and Raul above are curious, since of all people they should be familiar with past ArbCom decisions, such as this one from 2005, in which this was decided: "Due to a long history of reverting, often without giving adequate explanation for the reverts, William M. Connolley is hereby prohibited for six months from reverting any article relating to climate change more than once per 24 hour period (vandalism excepted)". - Merzbow 22:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I will assume good faith in that you cited that decision without being aware of this. Newyorkbrad 22:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I was not. Interesting. - Merzbow 01:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's like this: TedFrank is a disruptive influence. I have an email from Jimbo saying he would be perfectly happy to see him simply shown the door. William Connelly is both well-informed and more than qualified to assess the neutrality of climate change articles. The fact that he views anthropogenic climate change as an established fact is not a problem, because that's how the scientific community views it as well. Astroturfing by the petrochemical companies is about the sum total of dissent these days. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating. If I had made an edit like this on a subject I had personally written on that ignores a pending RFC and every editor's input, I would've been kicked off of Wikipedia summarily as a disruptive influence. But if a left-wing administrator does it, it's okay by Guy--unless he makes his point simply to attack me without bothering to look at the merits. I apologize: I wasn't aware that the "N" in NPOV stood for "William Connolley's preferred position" and that the "N" in NOR stood for "William Connelley's views." I've made hundreds of edits cleaning up after vandals, created templates to fill tag gaps, have never had an article I created deleted or even nominated by a third party for deletion, but I'm a disruptive influence because I responded to an RFC on an article I had never seen before and noted a violation of WP:SYN that several other editors, having the policy pointed out, agree is a problem.

And not once has an editor who objected to my pointing out the NOR violation responded by defending the text under Wikipedia policy, instead simply responding "It's okay because it's true," an exception that I have not seen in the WP:NOR policy. This double-standard is a real problem throughout Wikipedia: only one side gets to invoke Wikipedia rules. -- TedFrank 00:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Applying a 'left-wing'/'right-wing' dichotomy to users in an ostensibly scientific discussion on a matter of global climate strikes me as anti-scientific and counterproductive, to say nothing of blatantly political. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The edits in question were political edits: is it NPOV to call a controversial documentary "propaganda" in the first sentence of the article? Is it OR to synthesize original research in opposition to the position taken by the film? Is it appropriate to tag controversial sentences for discussion and to remove tags unilaterally because "there isn't a consensus to keep the tags"? Not once did I challenge the science. -- TedFrank 01:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that you assume those who accept the scientific view of AGW are "left wing." (I've never asked WMC his political views, but myself am a living counterexample of that generalization.) This says far more about TedFrank than it does about WMC. Much is becoming clearer. Raymond Arritt 01:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something, or is this very long "incident" entirely devoted to a normal editing dispute, without any suggestion whatsoever that any admin action is needed or has happened? Jkelly 01:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I felt intimidated by an administrator's unilateral anti-consensus actions. (And now I'm being threatened again by Guy.) I apologize if I misunderstood the scope of AN/I: it says above If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here. -- TedFrank 01:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

They do get raised here, and it is true that this sometimes does achieve getting more experienced editors involved in a problematic article, but it is both the "procedure" and typically more useful to ask for a Wikipedia:Third opinion or to open an article request for comments. There's no real reason to be intimidated by an administrator. We make bad edits sometimes, just like everyone else, and there's no way to guarantee that we won't again in the future. this response written before comment above was edited Jkelly 01:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: I prematurely archived this discussion because I felt it was unproductive and in the wrong venue, and that further discussion would just lead to acrimony. Please direct further comments to the users in question, or if you have a more serious dispute, please utilize the dispute resolution process. Or, feel free to let me know if you disagree with my actions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Important real world claims on user pages should be sourced or deleted

See User:Asucena which says "I am an official of the Palestinian authority and a member of Hamas' political public relations division". WAS 4.250 05:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Real world user names are prohibited without evidence the person is the same as a real world user name (eg User:Samantha Fox). WAS 4.250 05:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, most people are allowed to edit under their real names without having to show ID ;). For a high profile organization like the PA though, maybe it's best if someone from the WP office contacted the PA press office to verify that Asucena really does represent the PA. 64.160.39.153 05:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation has made it clear that they lack funds to do verification of user page claims. WAS 4.250 06:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to be clear that:

1. My idea for sourcing real world claims originated with the issue of Essjay.
2. My knowledge of this particular user came from reading Wikipedia Review.WAS 4.250 06:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So? You could have gotten it by reading this very page. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

While there has been discussion on this matter, I don't think people are currently required to prove the claims made about themselves on their talk pages. I suggest you ignore the claim and hold the person to the same standards of verifiability we do everyone else. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, good, because I am the EMPEROR of THE WORLD. (But it is strictly and honorary title.) --BenBurch 13:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I am only King of a small magical forest. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Claims of credentials do not matter, IMO, unless they are used in a dispute, as with Essjay. We don't have to confirm everything that everyone says unless there is a reason that it really matters. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 15:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

In this case, it does matter. She has already made edits based upon her expertise, knowledge, position, whatever, and has been challenged to source those claims. Crockspot 21:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's easy enough to remove claims that fail WP:A regardless of who put them there. -- TedFrank 21:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How do I deal with User:Alx 91?

This user's behavior is rather bizzare. He does valuable work on copyright templates, especially fair use templates. However, he uploads photos like Image:Mickey Mouse Publicity Photo.jpg and Image:Sylvester Publicity Photo.jpg, which I recently deleted because they were so poor quality that I speedied them for having completely invalid {{Promotional}} tags. He also uploads many photos that are replaceable fair use photos or has disallowed licenses. See his upload log. Jesse Viviano 08:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• I can second confusion about a lot of Alx 91's contributions. Related information can be found at WT:ICT and TFD. I do not think that Alx 91 is making contributions in bad faith, i.e. with the intent to hurt the encyclopedia. His/her contributions, however, are making a lot of trouble for a lot a few people. You will see numerous image deletion notifications on his/her talk page. Some seem so silly, like creating Category:Images not licensed under GFDL and adding it to Template:Copyright by Wikimedia. (That particular category is silly because every single image not within Category:GFDL images is not licensed under the GFDL.) I have asked Alx 91 legitimate questions three times on his or her talk page ([15] [16] [17]), in English and in (mangled) Spanish (Alx 91 is, according to his or her user page, en-2 and es-N) and have received no reply. (You can view his or her User talk namespace contributions for evidence.) I know that this is not a legitimate dispute and I'm not sure how to continue, but it is certainly time consuming. At any rate, I can second that any suggestions would be appreciated. --Iamunknown 00:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks and abuse

Hello, I have been subjected to personal attacks and abuse as can be seen on my talk page. Thanks. 144.132.217.29 11:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have warned both editors - that's pretty offensive stuff. – Riana ^ঋ 11:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this anonymous user has a history of vandalism, abuse and sockpuppetry. See these pages for details. -- Chuq 12:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And is that a good reason to allow vicious personal attacks on his/her talk page to stand, Chuq? I notice you restored the comments that Riana deleted. I think Riana was correct in removing them, and I wish you had not reversed him/her. Jeffpw 12:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing; I've again removed the comments. No provocation excuses those comments. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Her, Jeff :) and while I can appreciate how frustrating this editor's behaviour has been, I don't believe 'do us all a favour and die' should be allowed to stand. – Riana ^ঋ 13:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding, i didn't mean to imply that I supported the comments, however due to the history of this user, I totally understand how Dibo & Tancred would be driven to make them. Removing the comments completely removes all evidence that there was a problem - yes, people can check the history, but most people wouldn't. Anyway, the point is moot now, as the IP has been blocked by another admin. -- Chuq 21:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caches and Page Histories

Someone really needs to track down this bug, because it has too great a possibility of creating some serious damage, with pages randomly reverting to much older versions--VectorPotential^Talk 11:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Are the scripts and the AWB version you used when this occured up-to-date? You should probably be careful and check any edits you make that way to see if you can track down under what circumstances it occurs. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's happened to more than one user, at least one of whom had a blank monobook.js (if I remember correctly; it was a while ago so I might be wrong). People report this problem on WP:VPT occasionally. --ais523 12:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It happened again just now: [18]. I wonder if it's the diff engine that's borked, or the page itself that's having the problem; it seems to be the page in this case, but earlier something happened to me involving the diff engine (which I mentioned here; the particular diff that borked for me then seems to be working for me now). --ais523 16:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Based on the way that this is happening to different people with different setups, User:bbatsell and I suspect it's a server bug. --ais523 17:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
        • More weirdness; this diff diffed against the 10th rather than the previous edit for some reason last I checked it but it worked again when I checked it again a bit later. --ais523 18:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC) (edit --ais523 18:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC))
          • Had some very bizarre stuff happen with an edit last night. Thought it was just a one-time glitch, but apparently not. Raymond Arritt 21:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] user:Eupator automatically reverting, edit varring, acting in bad faith

user:Eupator has been edit warring, incessantly reverting, using disruptive editing and removing fully sourced, authoritative, academic, verifiable evidence (such as from Encyclopedia Iranica, etc.), from the articles on Tigranes the Great, Orontid Dynasty, Artaxiad Dynasty, and Koryun. Despite this going on for months, nothing was done to user Eupator for reverting pages, often with no or little explanation, for DOZENS of times. At times, he would also meatpuppet, by gaming the system, and asking a large possy of his followers to do the reverting for him.

I have posted this at [19] also since we are both part of the Armenia-Azerbaijan ArbCom and there is a temporary injunction[20]. I did not know which page is best for reporting. --adil 18:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Consider the page Tigranes the Great [21]

• Revision 08:48, March 22, 2007

[22]

• Revision as of 00:02, March 2, 2007

[23]

• Revision as of 16:14, February 20, 2007

[24]

• Revision as of 14:20, February 20, 2007

[25]

• Revision as of 12:38, February 20, 2007

[26]

• Revision as of 14:14, January 27, 2007

[27]

• Revision as of 13:49, January 27, 2007

[28]

• Revision as of 17:23, June 10, 2006

[29]

• Revision as of 08:52, June 10, 2006

[30]

• Revision as of 23:31, June 9, 2006

[31]

• Revision as of 18:43, June 9, 2006

[32]

• Revision as of 07:39, June 9, 2006

[33]

• Revision as of 13:50, June 8, 2006

[34]

• Revision as of 08:13, June 8, 2006

[35]

• Revision as of 07:46, June 7, 2006

[36]

• Revision as of 08:22, June 1, 2006

[37]

Consider the page Koryun [38]

• Current revision (08:49, March 22, 2007)

[39]

• Revision as of 08:23, June 1, 2006

[40]

• Revision as of 07:48, June 7, 2006

[41]

• Revision as of 08:17, June 8, 2006

[42]

• Revision as of 13:51, June 8, 2006

[43]

• Revision as of 07:40, June 9, 2006

[44]

• Revision as of 18:42, June 9, 2006

[45]

• Revision as of 23:35, June 9, 2006

[46]

• Revision as of 08:51, June 10, 2006

[47]

• Revision as of 17:23, June 10, 2006

[48]

Consider the page Orontid Dynasty [49]

• Current revision (08:48, March 22, 2007)

[50]

• Revision as of 16:38, March 1, 2007

[51]

Consider the page Artaxiad Dynasty [52]

• Current revision (08:48, March 22, 2007)

[53]

• Revision as of 13:49, January 27, 2007

[54]

• Revision as of 14:13, January 27, 2007

[55]

You should be blocked for your bad faith assumptions none of which you have provided are legitimate sources, they barely explain or describe his origins, Eupator is justified into reverting your revision of Armenian history, sadly Armenian history is long and it will stay that way your suppression of Armenian kings, dynasties and empires is absurd refrain from your POV edits. Artaxiad 19:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

One can easily look at the talk pages for all the articles and clearly see that I showed plenty of good faith initially even though it was obvious that user AdilBaguirov was merely disrupting the articles with pov intepretations of various literature. All of his pov pushing has been rebuffed on each of the talk pages of the articles not only by myself and user TigrantheGreat but also by third party editors such as user Aldux and Ali among others. Read the talk pages and make your own judgement. Good faith was thrown out of the window after a month or two of discussions. Notice that not even Adil's allies have supported him in these attempts of disruption. Since registration this user has made no positive contibutions to wikipedia. None whatsoever. Created no articles. Reverted no vandalism. Helped no users. He has concentrated all his efforts to one goal, that is the disruption of various unrelated Armenian historical articles. After almost a year, nothing has changed. I could have easily turned each of those articles into an FA article like I did with Tiridates I of Armenia from scratch had Adil ceased his disruption. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Admins do not judge or approve content. This dispute is in arbitration, you should add evidence there if you believe Eupator has edited disruptively. Unless there is a recent violation of the 1RR injunction, no action can be taken here. Thatcher131 19:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we just block all the editors involved in that arbitration case? ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 69.223.89.43

Replace two user talk page comments with some stupid OWNED (and which on for maybe 5 more) and then a lot of WWWs. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 20:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromised account?

Not sure what to make of this response to this request. Does anybody have any thoughts? Cheers TigerShark 21:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A lot of people probably have family members that use their Wikipedia-editing PC. So long as he takes control of it and it doesn't continue, I don't know if any action needs to be taken. Edit: Shenme's comment below. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The lesson here is to uncheck "remember me" if your computer is accessible to other people. I do whenever my younger brother comes to visit - can't trust him. Natalie 21:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

But it is all of one piece. First complaint about mistaken application of 'skins' to user talk. 20:11 Then vandalized Red and Beer at 20:22 and 20:23. Another note on a user talk page at 20:26. Then the page blank noted above, at 20:37. Another plea for help. Another bad edit at 20:41, then most strangely this at 20:46:

You reverted my blatant trolling of the Beer page. Let me explain why I trolled it! I really need some help in reverting my skin back to the default one.'

And it's all one continuous session, from 20:11 through 00:29, and including good edits!

I don't believe TigerShark was too far off with "not sure what to make of ..." It seems to me the user panicked and started hitting "all the buttons". No younger brother here - he is the younger brother. A bit of guidance is in order. Shenme 21:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] user MarshallBagramyan placing back (reverting) POV information/links

Despite the removal of clearly POV sources that are unacceptable in those pages and have been deemed as such, and agreed to, by admin FrancisTyers here[56], user:MarshallBagramyan has been engaging in revert varring and disruptions, by putting those references back, such as on Sumgait Pogrom [57], Battle of Kelbajar [58] and Capture of Shusha [59]. --adil 22:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh brother, talk about the teapot calling the kettle...--MarshallBagramyan 22:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean? You clearly violated both the ArbCom's 1RR injunction [60] and the outlined above reverts/placing back of Armenian POV URLs. This is unacceptable, you are being extremely disruptive. --adil 22:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks by User:Faranbazu

User:Faranbazu has been warned regarding personal attacks several times. Here [61], he calls other editors fascists and accuses them of racism (or more specifically glorification of the Aryan race), and calls their comments preposterous. Here [62] he calls me a pipsqueak (which he has done many times before), accuses me of setting up a gang (needless to say that is a false accusation), adding Plague on your houses (In the latter case he doesn't sign his comment but makes his identity unmistakably clear by referring to his previous posts). There are several other examples of personal attacks by this user directed at me and other editors. Can anybody please look into this matter? Thanks!Shervink 22:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

[edit] 65.161.23.179 Vandalism

User 65.161.23.179 may require another timeout. As far as I can tell based on a quick glance at the user(s)' contribution page, nothing but vandalism and nonsense comes from that particular IP. It isn't too bad and may not require attention but I guess reporting it can't really hurt. --Seed 2.0 23:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please report to WP:AIV in future. Viridae^Talk 23:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for your help. I appreciate it. --Seed 2.0 23:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lisa Daniels on NBC News

This page was featured on the NBC Nightly news 15 minutes back and is already seeing extensive vandalism. It has also been moved to POS News Reporters (I don't even know what that stands for. Can some admins move it back, semi-protect it and place it on their watchlists ? Abecedare 23:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

All of that is already done. :) Prodego ^talk 23:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Great ! Even though this quick response is unlikely to receive news coverage :-) Abecedare 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, Donwano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) already has an autoconfirmed flag, so sprotection isn't going to stop him--VectorPotential^Talk 23:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

In which case, he should perhaps be blocked for vandalism; full protecting such a high visibility page would be a pity. Note: I am not an admin and don't claim to one either. Abecedare 23:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, 'POS' equals 'piece of shit'. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. One lives and learns :-) Abecedare 23:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 65.197.241.225

This IP has done nothing but vandilize Wikipedia his Talk Page has nothing but vandilize warnings he has been blocked mutiple times please block him infidentally. DBZROCKS 00:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• You want this page. Plus IPs are not normally blocked indefinitely. JuJube 00:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Palumbo and his shills

Originally the article was clearly written by either Nick himself or someone who works for him. It came off as a really, really bad publicity piece. I posted about it here earlier and some other editors managed to try to get it to BLP standards. User:S noone, the starter of the article, is constantly reverting it back to his original page. User:Foregeorgewinss and User:204.62.68.23 are also constantly reverting other's edits.--CyberGhostface 01:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Range block on 72.150.x.x

Could somebody set up a range block on this guy? Lots of threats and harrassment from this range (see history of Majin Buu). --Wafulz 21:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems 70.153.120.84 (talk · contribs) is in on it too. --Wafulz 21:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the range is actually 70.15x.x.x with most of them stopping by on this page. --Wafulz 21:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And 65.6.54.11 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log). That's two ranges belonging to BellSouth. I have the feeling that range blocks would result in too much collateral damage. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk)

Yes, that looks like too much to block. A list of all the IPs would determine that better though. Prodego ^talk 23:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he's actually using different IPs. I think he's just box-hopping in a library/at home. --Wafulz 04:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh? They are different IPs... All it requires is a DHCP release and renew, and voila! New IP address! -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 65.6.0.0/16, 70.153.0.0/16, 72.150.0.0/16 for 31 hours. Bell South Knoxville ADSL. See also #Could use some help below. —Centrx→talk • 04:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Burnsvillemike and the socks

The story starts here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike_Satter where three (identical) deleted articles on Mike Satter were recreated. This disclosed a web of socks - see the text. The theme has been the injection of Satter into a wide range of law enforcement articles, replacement of images with ones of Satter, creation and recreation of copyright images (some of which have been hanging around on C:CSD for a long time awaiting deletion). Burnsvillemike (talk · contribs) has been blocked for a week here and most of the socks on that page were banned indefinitely. User:Seraphimblade is doing a great job. However, as you will see from User talk:Seraphimblade#User:Burnsvillemike the socks are multiplying faster than I can track them down. I think that some decisive action is needed on the IP(s} being used. Bridgeplayer 02:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that these have been blocked with autoblock enabled, there is either a dynamic IP or an open proxy involved. Requests for Checkuser might be the best place to go. Natalie 02:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and these are the images awaiting deletion:

1. Image:Oak Park Prison.jpg
2. Image:Pawlenty at N.I.C. mn 1 1.jpg
3. Image:Pawlenty at N.I.C. mn.jpg Bridgeplayer 02:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Have entered the fray incidentally upon finding the content of several articles I was monitoring being hit with throwaway accounts intent on making the same vanity-page type insertions regarding content about an officer named Michael Satter. Did do a traceroute upon the one numerical address, and it seemed to end in a police server farm in Minnesota. Perhaps the easiest way to resolve this is to do a complete Checkuser analysis, and simply call up the guy's supervisor. Looks like either Michael Satter, or perhaps his significant other, is intent on promoting Mr. Satter through vandalizing Wikipedia. Yaf 02:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have entered a request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Burnsvillemike (I should welcome an experienced user checking that I have done this correctly!} Bridgeplayer 02:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 190.10.0.121

• This anonymous user is making changes to anime-related articles that, among other things, use fansub names. I left him vandalism warnings, which was probably a mistake; I removed them and added a request to discuss these things on the talk page. But so far I am being ignored. What should I do? JuJube 03:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Z.E.R.O. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and bad-faith

Z.E.R.O. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has to be stopped. He's been going around and making bad-faith edits recently, like warning admins using TW and a template to warn vandals after reverting them. (See: [63], [64], [65], etc) Also, this edit which he tells the person they "will be blocked" for sockpuppeting when it's obvious the account he refers to is an attack account. And a similar edit to Qxz's page. Also, tagging this IP as a sock when it's only made one edit.

He recently also impersonated me on wikia, mediawiki and meta-wiki, and was warned by Angela for it, so one can't help but think this (tagging socks and asking others about impersonation accounts) was related.

– Chacor 03:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his user talk page, it seems that Z.E.R.O. has quite a history of misbehavior, including impersonating Chacor on Wikia and Meta, and he's been extensively warned for his actions. A block may be needed, but I'm not sure for how long, as he seems to have some useful contributions. --Coredesat 03:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could use some help

I'm off to bed, but I could use some help dealing with a persistent, multiple IP vandal. It began as 65.6.62.67 (talk · contribs), who was duly warned and ultimately blocked. It continued with the following IPs:

• 72.150.235.144 (talk · contribs)
• 65.6.54.94 (talk · contribs)
• 70.153.114.79 (talk · contribs)

I normally would just let this go and revert the edits tomorrow, but some of them have been rather racist. The user merely gets a new IP each time I block, though the pattern of edits is consistent enough to easily determine who the next one is when they edit. Anyway, I'm about to block the last one on that list, but I'm certain the vandal will continue. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 65.6.0.0/16, 70.153.0.0/16, 72.150.0.0/16 for 31 hours. Bell South Knoxville ADSL. See also #Range block on 72.150.x.x above. —Centrx→talk • 04:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you've sprotected African American, Jersyko, I'm going to follow your lead and sprotect white people, which is where that vandal moved to. I see Centrx just did a rangeblock, but from what I understand those aren't supposed to be very long. If the vandalism stops after the range block, someone please lift the protection. I would watch it myself but I'm also going to bed. Natalie 04:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

He's been doing this for about 6 or 7 hours. Pages, my talk page, other users' talk pages, the intervention against vandalism page... HalfShadow 04:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swdavis67

Moved from AIV. Daniel Bryant 05:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Swdavis67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has reverted TechCrunch#criticism 17 times despite warnings to his userpage and this entire Mediation which he refused to participate in. This user's entire contribution to the encyclopedia is to revert TechCrunch#Criticism. We have tried everything and he continues to violate the mediation cabal agreement. Please, somebody ban him. This has gone on since January 23. Respectfully, Jonathan Stokes 05:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pejman47

user:Pejman47 is removing properly cited, verifiable evidence at the Ganja page [66] Specifically removes the reference to Timurids Timurid Dynasty. (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved March 16, 2007, and to one of the theories on the name of the city Ganca Media Center. --adil 06:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help Please

A newer editor has been trying for a couple days to get this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biloxi High School to work. He finally got the above article together but did not get posted correctly on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 22,[67] It is interesting to note that while the article is not showing up were it should be {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evms consulting group}} {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Biloxi_High_School}} {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Edwin Davis}} it has managed to capture 4 delete votes. But that aside, I have assisted the user on the page Talk:Biloxi High School as much as I am able I do not feel it would be appropriate to do more then I have so far. This message will be posted on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 22 and Talk:Biloxi High School Hoping someone can help out. Singed Jeepday 03:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've got the AfD itself sorted out but I can't solve the mystery of how those editors knew where to go to !vote, except for the !vote that was copied from the article's Talk page. I'm sure the closing admin will note the nature of their arguments and their other contributions (or lack thereof). Like many high school articles, this one's been a handful and I've largely given up trying to keep it neat - it's a thankless, uphill battle against high students with more time and energy than this one editor. --ElKevbo 04:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ElKevbo :) the task is not completely thankless even if some grumps jump in. Signed Jeepday 13:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly compromised account

I was RC-patrolling, when I noticed the contributions of Doctor Nigel Lewis (talk • contribs • count), creating w/index.php type pages. Yet, the edit summaries seemed to indicate account hijacking. Can someone please block this account for me, since I can't do it myself?? --sunstar net^talk 09:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The account's been blocked by User:Daniel.Bryant. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[ec] Blocked, see block log and user talk. Daniel Bryant 09:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Limbo(ot)

I would like to ask special attention for Special:Contributions/Limboot and [68] (amongst others). I'm a sysop at wikipedia nl, and we have just blocked Gebruiker:Limbo for POV pushing on articles like Ramadan. He had been blocked for 3 days before, and is now blocked for a week, and apparently he's come here during that block. So please keep an eye on his edits and take necessary actions. I hope this was the right place to mention this, if not let me know for the future. Venullian 10:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assault11 et al

Per admin Nlu's suggestion at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Assault11, and per WP:RCU's guidelines for trashaway accounts, I'd like to report the following users for consideration of ban.

• DefenderofGaogouli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• DongBeiDefender (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• ChinesePower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Datouerzi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Keteshe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• KoreaisGreatestCountry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• GreatChinaPatriot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Most of these users were listed at the sock puppet case for Assault11, however a few more were suggested by Cydevil at my talk page. (Wikimachine 11:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Dispute involving categorization of articles by Category:Kurdistan and its subcats

• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-03 Category:Kurdistan

On 3 February 2007 I have initiated a mediation case in concerning the random categorization (not based on any kind of sources) of articles by Category:Kurdistan or its subcats. As of today, aside from me none of the involved parties have bothered to comment there. Other parties are reverting me while avoiding any kind of discussion and not observing this diagram. I was wondering what the recommended action is. -- Cat ^chi? 11:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks by Thorneycroft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Could someone take a look at the talk page contributions of Thorneycroft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? I don't really remember how I came across him (probably when I saw a repost after the deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coburg Amateur Football Club), but he started a pattern of malicious talk page edits withthis edit to User talk:Punkmorten. When I gave him this warning, he responded with this personal attack on my user talk page and another personal attack to User talk:Punkmorten. He also wrote this personal attack to someone who expressed a notability concern about one of "his" articles.

I don't know thing one about Australian amateur football, but I do know that we have a clear policy against personal attacks. I don't know if yet another warning would help the cause. (And I suppose I could take his advice and stick to stuff I know about, like historic structures in Hastings, Minnesota, but the personal attacks still need to stop.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 13:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emergency: Betacommand deletion at bot speeds - please review impending block

Betacommand (talk · contribs) is deleting hundreds of links to usenet posts and Google groups every minute, without reviewing content, and without discussion at his user talk page despite strong objections by multiple people. He's apparently an administrator, and from his block log has had this issue before. I really, really don't want to block an administrator, but don't see another way around this. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It is actually averageing 28 edits a minute (at least over the last 500 edits), all of which happened in less than 20 minutes. The edits are out of control, removing links from anywhere and everywhere, even cite web templates that is leaving them broken. I think it stopped for now but there is a reason there is a bot approval process. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand in response merely said "he missed some" here. - Denny 17:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

AN discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Betacommand's bot gone stray!. Probably should have been in ANI in the first place. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it made bad edits to the RSX-11 article. Please somebody stop it? Please hit a ROLLBACK on it. Thanks! --BenBurch 17:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That was [69] -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Correct. Would somebody please look at those links and tell me please if they actually do violate policy in some way? If so, I will correct them. I think having a bot enforcing policy in this very heavy-handed fashion is counterproductive and only breeds ill-will here. --BenBurch 21:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

He's stopped after I threatened him with an impending block. However, I would still like several other admins to review that my threats were appropriate, and whether there was another action I could have taken here; I have never come this close to blocking another admin before, and it's a really, really, really bad precedent. I'm not happy. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your threat was appropriate. No, the unapproved bot action was not appropriate. But all that aside, please don't blindly rollback the edits - I have looked at a number of them and everything I have seen except for the one mentioned above was correct - random yahoo groups need to be removed from articles when they are found - but not with an unapproved bot. --BigDT 18:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I really, really don't want to block an administrator - why not? Andy Mabbett 18:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocking any established user is something to be avoided. --BigDT 18:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Even in the middle of such a rampage? Besides, the comment wasn't "I really, really don't want to block an established user"; it specifically referred to "an administrator". Why? Andy Mabbett 18:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I was about to block him too but wanted a second opinion before doing such. For all I knew, he was running an unauthorized bot, even though the task may have been useful in some situations, it was still running as a bot. There is a reason there is a bot approval process. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a block would have been the correct thing to do if he hadn't stopped. He shouldn't be making that many edits at once without a bot flag. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone should have blocked him sooner, even if it was just for 15 minutes to force him to stop his actions immediately. I looked through a random selection and many of his removals were relevant external links that happened to be usenet posts, not cited as sources. Betacommand is routinely overzealous in enforcing his interpretation of policy. He opposed my rfa because I wouldn't agree with his block first, ignore their begging later policy towards usernames he considered inappropriate. PS, holy crap, I got three edit conflicts while adding this. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

O Lord, deliver us from do-gooders who know better than us. -- llywrch 18:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The rampage has stopped however blocking while it was happening was definitely called for. The necessary cleanup is now larger because of the hesitation. It also looks to me like the user has a problem with over-mechanistic application of policy in addition to civility lapses [70] [71] [72]. I left a note about overenthusiastic policy enforcement but further monitoring and (if necessary) intervention may be in order. I do think this user's intentions are good, but he is showing recurring poor judgement. The basic advice I would give him is SLOW DOWN, and be willing to write detailed explanations both in response to questions and in edit summaries. 64.160.39.153 22:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It was removing external links, I dont think this one was doing admin actions. If I remeber correctly, this is not the first time we have had issue with him running a "Bot" or automous "script" that performs controversial actions. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this gonna be cause for another request for comment? Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's grounds for one. He's done a lot of inappropriate actions but it's not like there's an ongoing occurrence of any one thing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Didn't read the second half of Chris's post. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

They're not. There's no CAPTCHA for routine actions so you can only block them once they start making hundreds of edits a minute. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It may be cause for an WP:RFAR, but I'm not in any state to bring it just now. Thanks for vetting my actions, folks. I gather I'm not going to be desysopped any time soon, and it's got attention from other admins; I hope someone else will carry it further now. I'm going to take a break, because if I keep this up I'm going to do or say things I will certainly regret.--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, for the record, I mentioned earlier I thought he had been involved in similar bot problems before. His block log] shows 2 previous blocks for innapropriate bot action. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Third time's a charm! Can Wikipedia afford an administrator/bot operator who goes on unauthorized bot rampages where he deletes useful and policy-conformant information every month or two? Αργυριου (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What I find the most offending about this case is that he didn't stop after getting several complaints on his user talk in a very short time frame, until he was finally directly threatened by another administrator. Until then, even where complaints argued that the links did not conflict with the policy, his responses were limited to claiming that the links undeniably conflict with the policy, and didn't even consider the objection.

I do not think a person with this kind of infallible attitude makes a good administrator, not to mention violating or ignoring several points of the WP:BOT policy — I would expect the bot operator of User:BetacommandBot to be at least aware of it. -- intgr 09:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like he has reverted all or many of his edits automatedly. I hear there are still problems, but at least he is trying to fix the damage. Thanks, Betacommand, it's appreciated. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Betacommand's bot gone stray!

this section was moved from the main admins noticeboard

Hello admins, please block the bot Betacommand (talk · contribs), as it has several concerns listed on its talk page today, and is making unreviewed edits at an insane rate. -- intgr 17:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for misreporting this user as a bot due to misunderstandings. -- intgr 18:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont know if he has a bot flag, and i am not trying to point fingers, but edits are being made at more than 30 edits a minute. That is pretty quick for manual work. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Betacommand is responding at User talk:Betacommand, so there doesn't seem to be any real concern about a runaway or "unreviewed" bot. The concerns "listed on" User talk:Betacommand are about things like removing links to groups.google, so it isn't obvious that anything other than inappropriate link cleanup is happening. Jkelly 17:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It is unreviewed innapropriate link cleanup. If he were manually removing the links, I would have no issue with it. There is a reason there is a bot approval process, an average edit rate of 28 edits per minute for the last 500 edits is insane. Plus, it is just blindly removing them, from citeweb templates and other stuff. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Betacommand has a bot account called User:BetacommandBot. Has the user logged the bot into the wrong account by mistake? Adambro 17:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't part of that bot's approved scope, IIRC. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. While many or most of these should be removed, taking them out blindly (some exceptions might be reasonable) and cutting templates in half isn't good. He may be using a script to do this rather than a bot, but if he doesn't check the edits it has the same effect. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess, what draws the line? In 1bout 15 minutes, over 500 links were removed, and as far as I know, none of them were reviewed. While some may have been valid removals, others have been demonstrated as breaking things or the links may have been valid. What draws the line between a Bot and a script, especialyl when they can both do the same amount of damage? What prevents somebody from just writing a script and not worrying about the bot process? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would have much of a problem with Betacommand removing links to google/yahoo groups per WP:EL when appropriate, but this user removes all links with a bot-like speed. This not only includes perfeclty relevant links, but also the removal of references. The latter edit also breaks the cite newsgroup template. --Conti|✉ 17:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL makes no mention whatsoever of Google Groups or Yahoo Groups. So what's this "per WP:EL"? And even things in the "normally to be avoided" category should not be deleted en masse. Gene Nygaard 18:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo/Google groups are probably more likely to fall under the points of "Links normally to be avoided" than your average link, I think that's what is meant. But I agree it's not a guaranteed thing and should be done by a careful human, not an indiscriminating bot. --W.marsh 18:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In many cases, google groups was being used to provide a convenience link for a usenet post, thus, he was removing very useful external links. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! And this is especially problematic in articles about usenet and usenet groups. --BenBurch 04:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

He apparently stopped after I was clear that I was going to block him if he didnt. [73] I really didn't like to do that, but didn't see another way. See also WP:ANI#Emergency: Betacommand deletion at bot speeds - please review impending block. Please go there to review whether my block threats were appropriate or not. Whew. I need to go take some deep breaths. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, his last link removal was at 17:34 UTC. You message came at 17:45 UTC. – Steel 18:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped the bot at the same minute as AnonEMouse's comment here, which wasn't a threat of a block, but was a strong warning to stop. --W.marsh 18:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, didn't notice that one. – Steel 18:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Something similar happened not long ago with automated edits by James McStub (talk · contribs). Admins should be a lot less reluctant to block accounts making automated edits, if other editors are complaining on the talk page and the edits are not stopping. From WP:B: Sysops should block bots, without hesitation, if they are unapproved, doing something the operator did not say they would do, messing up articles, editing too rapidly, or running anonymously. and Unflagged bots (including bots in trial periods) should limit edits to no more than 2 per minute. A BAG member should know this. Gimmetrow 18:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, had I known that, and had I caught it in action (I.E. had he not stopped it), I would have blocked it. The average 30 edits per minute is well over the 2 listed in the policy. Thank you for clarifying that! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Betacommand bot approval withdrawn

Just FYI.

[74] --BenBurch

Good work. This kind of out of control admin behaviour is just why some people are leaving wikipedia (if you read the en. mailinglist you understand). This is just power misuse. YES, there is a lot of cleanup to do, but cleanup does not and has never meant automatic deletion. Bot work should be supervised at all times, and in this case it was clearly a case of run a query and dump them all in the bot. VERY VERY VERY BAD. If this was a company, said person was fired. And that has nothing to do with if I like the user or not. In general I have been very happy with the work of Betacommand, but this is just not acceptable. The Council was very unhappy as well because a lot of assessment categories got deleted for instance. I went trough the deletion list of betacommand, and in my opinion the whole thing should just be reverted and someone else who does review all the categories listings can try again. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 04:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorsed. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, the only people talking about leaving Wikipedia on the en mailing list are some trolls that re-post an "I'm leaving" speech and some other nonsense every now and then. —Centrx→talk • 05:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I have yet to see anyone leave the project over a bot running amok :) dab (𒁳) 18:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I was looking through BetacommandBot's contribs for a post at BN requesting its deflagging, to see if it had any approved tasks left. It was approved for two tasks which seem to have been one-offs and now discontinued (the contribs check was to see if it was still doing them); but the bot seems to have been used for tasks it wasn't approved for (such as substing templates) as well as the task for which approval has just been withdrawn. Aren't bots only supposed to be used for the task for which they were approved (for instance, I use my ais523 account to (manually) post the output generated by User:Bot523 when it's decategorising AfDs; I've needed to help my bot out manually on occasion but always make sure I say it's me in the edit summary)? --ais523 09:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:1523 attacking me as psychotic that should be excluded from Wikipedia and others

User:1523 (Japanese Wikipedia username Arpeggio, Japanese Userpage) has been in a content dispute with me and (primarily) User:08albatross (More known online as Norton, Japanese Wikipedia username Ntn, Japanese Userpage) on a claim 1523 made on Case Closed-- this dispute has been one spilled from the Japanese Wikipedia, and hence most arguments (Mainly in Talk:Case Closed#Vandalism? and User Talk:1523) are in Japanese-- there isn't much I can participate in their arguments even I have to admit I am a party in the dispute, siding with 08albatross.

Yesterday 1523 left a message on his talk page[75]. I smelt trouble since I was mentioned in the article and he specifically mentioned my having some form of autism (I have been diagnosed of Asperger's Syndrome.) I was surprised that several people that I asked to translate this message has claimed 1523 called me a "psychotic" and should be banned from Wikipedia, and I saw translators were in more a rage than me. (The English translation can be read at User:Samuel Curtis/Translation of 1523's Message.) I am sure the language also attacked 08albatross, calling us human trash that has no use in the society (社会的に無用なゴミ人間), among others. Also, I'm sure he attacked Wikipedia as a whole, also.

Hence, I request admins to inquire. --Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 11:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not an admin but I can suggest that you investigate this user who is attacking you's contributions and see if you can see any other attacks made by him/her. It would also help greatly to get a second hand opinion on this or ask an administrator or another editor who can translate to confirm what the user is saying or add a reference on to the page of where you found the translation then if it confirms that it was an attack against you then I would suggest leaving {{attack}} or he may be blocked if he has made other personal attacks. If you need any more help, leave me a note on my talk page. Cheers! Tellyaddict 16:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he has commented on any of my messages in particular; you can read my messages in this issues in the talk threads. As for the claim that I have autism, appreantly he searched my name on the web. The translated message was from [76]. It was originally locked for my fiancee and the translator (summonillusion), who is a Japanese who resides in the US.--Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 16:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I edit User:1523 and paste Translation of 1523's message(translated by summonillusion) yet. I can't write English well,so I can't increase this discussion enough.But,1523's behavior is not only made personal attacks,but he wrote false infomation intentionally in Detective_Picasso,Yoshihiko Funazaki,Case Closed,and Gosho Aoyama.--08albatross 15:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spammed by User:Bhadani

I received the following email:

Hi.
At the outset, I would request you to please don’t treat this mail as an intrusion in the privacy of your mailbox. I convey my greetings to you. I found your user name at Business & Economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_talk:Business_and_economics), and thought to share information with you. Like you, I am also a wikipedian and my user name is Bhadani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bhadani).
Recently, A Wiki Camp was held in Chennai on 25th February, 2007, and Jimmy Wales spent a whole day with more than 300 participants. Participants discussed many issues related to use of wikis and building communities around wikis. The event was widely reported in Indian print and electronic media:
http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=RVRDSC8yMDA3LzAzLzA4I0FyMDMwMDA=&Mode=Gif&Locale=english-skin-custom
http://www.hindu.com/2007/02/26/stories/2007022607290400.htm
We all are aware that wikipedia is a live example of creating a repository of knowledge by eliciting support of people like you and me. The Wikipedia Community is very vibrant. I feel that in order to understand emergence of such vibrant communities, I have been trying for last several weeks to contributing to Wikia as indicated on my wikipedia user page. You may be aware of for-profit project named Wikia and I have been contributing to three of such Wikias (http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Wikia) (out of several 100s), namely, Finance (http://finance.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page) and DIY (http://diy.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page), and World (http://world.wikia.com/wiki/World_Wikia). By the way, I am also administrators in all these Wikias.
I solicit your wikipedia experience to contribute a little to Finance Wikia or any other Wikia of your choice.
Let us watch and participate in this way in a live experiment to build wiki communities around Finance / other wikias. I am sure that it will be an interesting thing to experience.
Please respond by registering and contributing. Even a little bit shall be of great help.
With regards,
Bhadani

This email sounds like a scam, since the wording, tone, etc., sound like a solicitation from African scam artists. Instead, it's a request to work on a commercial site, which I don't want to do, and as far as I'm aware is a violation of Wikipedia's rules.

I'm also concerned that I'm not the only one who has received a letter of this type in my email.

Hires an editor 01:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I also got this message in my inbox. If you are not sure, then just don't register on the for profit Wikia. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This letter looks sincere to me. Granted perhaps it wasn't the most appropriate thing to do but has any harm been done? (→Netscott) 01:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well... apart from the fact that an administrator is spamming an unknown but potentially very large number of users (thousands?) through Wikipedia, no. But that seems to me extremely inappropriate, especially for someone with such privileges – Qxz 01:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say it is sincere and spam. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody should use Wikipedia userpage email links for spamming. Doesn't the software have some checks against that? It shouldn't allow emailing more than 5 addresses an hour or so through those links. I'd suggest recipients leave the sender a talkpage message saying to cut it out. If it happens again, take more serious measures. 64.160.39.153 02:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you know it's thousands guys? For all you know it may have been only 10, 50 or a hundred, and assuming bad faith with a 1,000 is leaving a bitter taste in my mouth considering we're accusing an admin of this. It doesn't take adminship to click the "E-mail this user" function and I don't see the abuse of power. If you don't want the e-mail, simply delete it. Get over it. — Moe 02:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Even 10, 50, or a hundred might be too much. I don't like the thought of using the email feature for mass-spammings of any sort, including for another wiki. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

10 too much? Absurd. How do you know this was a "mass-spammings"? He choose to e-mail people who were on Portal talk:Business and economics, which last time I checked was about 11 threads long, which isn't a whole lot of people, maybe 20 (I haven't counted). Even if it was 20, isn't the e-mail function to contact other Wikipedians about their work on Wikipedia and improving this site (or that's what it's supposed to be used for) and having other wiki-related discussions privately? If Bhadani has his goal set on improving a Wikia, I don't think we should fault him for doing so. It wasn't the best way of sending the message, but would you have rather him send 20-30 messages to individuals by e-mail or by sending the messages on-wiki? I still don't see the point in bringing this topic up here and there is no admin intervention needed. — Moe 02:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Why should he have done either? Advertising other ventures by using the Wikipedia strikes me as verging on WP:NOT territory. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in that email that is private. It's a form letter. If it was really something private, it should have been written specifically to the user about something the user had specifically said, and shouldn't have been a sales pitch unless the user had somehow indicated interest. If it wasn't something private, and was legitimately Wikipedia-related, it should have been done on-wiki, either through the portal talk page or user talk pages. However, it's non-private and non-Wikipedia-related, which is to say it's spam. 64.160.39.153 02:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It was around 75. That's 75 too many, as far as I'm concerned – Qxz 03:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something? I don't see anything wrong with soliciting help on other projects from potentially knowledgeable contributors. And Moe is right--no admin intervention needed. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Like Antandrus, I see no harm in asking for help from good contributors, and considering it's Bhadani, not somebody who doesn't know what they're doing, I'm not seeing the problem. (I got 2 of these, just for disclosure). – Riana ^ঋ 02:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read my response above and the happy IP's. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In case, the mails have caused consternation, I do apologize for the same though I am afraid we do not have set rules for use of Wikipedia mails. Nevertheless commonsense implies that the feature should be used in connection with matters relating to wikipedia, and wikipedia being the biggest wiki in the world, wikipedians should allow the use of the feature for seeking assistance for development of other wikis. The goodwill and credit shall flow directly or indirectly to wikipedia and the community of wikipedians. I have posted my replies to the messages received on my user page: [77] and a similar reply here. I didn't exactly count the mails though I marked copies to me for the sake of records - and it is around 75 users. I also received responses from around six or seven users and expect to receive more. In this connection, one should also think that the entire WikiCamp in India (which was also featured on the Signpost), a one day event in which Jimmy spent a whole days was to create awareness about wikipedia and wikis, and use of wiki in other fields. Wikipedia has shown the way, and requesting our editors to to do a little edits to other wikis may sound a little strange, but attempting to understand the emergence of online community by requesting editors to participate in other wikis is not so bad as it may look. I am not defending my action - I am trying to clear the doubts and intentions about my action. You see my talk page - some one invited me and three or four other users to do edit [78] for another wiki (not-for-profit). Would you ban that user for doing this? I think that I have clarified the points raised. In case, you require further explanations and comments, please feel free to do so. regards. --Bhadani 03:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The email this user feature should be used for matter dirrectly relateing to wikipedia and other wikimedia projects. 3rd party wikis are not our concern.Geni 03:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The post to your userpage was very focused and specific, and it wasn't a form letter sent to 75 users... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Perhaps I committed some sort of over-activity which I should not have done. --Bhadani 03:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, he admitted that he was over-active with the e-mail's, now will you get off of it now? Like I said, nothing can be done about it here and bringing it here wasn't the place to do it to begin with. — Moe 03:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Bhadani, yes, I don't think you had bad intentions, but Geni is right, Wikipedia email shouldn't be used for this. Please don't do it again. 64.160.39.153 04:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have posted some relevant comments on my talk page: I understand the matter better now. I regret having wasted valuable time of so many fellow wikipedians. I will be more circumspect in such matters in future as suggested. Thanks. --Bhadani 16:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] user Fadix removes verifiable sources and quotes

user:Fadix is removing properly sourced, verifiable evidence on March Days article en masse: [79] --adil 02:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your point is? he is asking you for a reliable source in the talk page please reply accordingly. Artaxiad 03:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

hm? What is your point? How more reliable does it get than what he has removed from Khoikhoi's version: "which some sources classified as a "genocide" (Peter Hopkirk, "Like hidden fire. The Plot to bring down the British Empire", Kodansha Globe, New York, 1994, p. 281. ISBN-10: 1-56836-127-0) and (Decree of President of Republic of Azerbaijan about genocide of Azerbaijani people, March 1998). --adil 03:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi is a administrator there not supposed to get in conflicts, that was not his version. He fixed the word "alleged". It's nonsense. Artaxiad 04:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Adil knows why I have removed it(and I advice the administrators to verify in the talkpage), he distorted an authors words. The source he provided does not say what the article claims it say(check the summary of my removal, it is quite implicit), we've been there already. Adil provided the quote and I asked him where on that quote he said it, he repeated that it was on that quote, I requested then, two times, where. No answers. It won't be the first time he misrepresented sources. Khoikhoi did not oppose my revert, actually Khoikhoi edited their edits with wordings questioning the Armenian genocide. Tat was mostly the subject of Khoikhoi edit. He worked on the main to neutralise that part, but did not support Adil addition. There remained one quote from Azerbaijan's president. It will go on the lead, when the Iranian president words go on the lead of an article like the Holocaust. Azerbaijan president beliefs is not called "some sources", it does not fit as a reliable source. The only time the author called genocide an event in that book was when he covered the murder of Talaat in which he accuses Talaat of being responsable of the Armenian genocide. The only time in the entire work in which the author claims genocide happened it was in connection to the Armenians. In the talk also, Adil is yet again manipulating the sources, he volontarly removed a very important section of a sentence and replaced it with (...), I requested him to be humble enough to add it, made that request on various occasions but Adil refrained from doing so. If I were to report each of Adil unjustified edits, I will load this page. But again, I am not suprised that Adil is abusing the Administrators' noticeboard. Not a bit. Fad (ix) 15:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death Threat?

OK, so I have User talk:NawlinWiki on my watchlist, because of previous conversations with him. Saw something weird, went to look at it and saw a comment that says: stop deleting our stuff, we have to do it for a school project about how many students use wikipeida. we will stop changing things within a few weeks when we are done with our study. peace out nig! -ky from User:KPY18.

Out of curiousity, I went to his/her/its user page and saw this comment: Hey Kevin, hows it going? This is PBG. If you were the guy that said the thing about killing the guy from N-orleans, we probably shouldn't put it in talk. He could read it and freak out. which was placed there by User:PBGuardsman.

It's probably nothing, but wanted to be sure that someone saw it. Philippe Beaudette 04:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[80]… I don’t care whether they’re serious; this is an egregious breach of etiquette by an entirely unproductive account versus a regular contributor. Indefblock User:KPY18 until he or she provides an explanation, please. —xyzzy_n 05:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Love to,but I'm not an admin. :-) We need one of them to do that. THanks for that diff, that sure drives it home, doesn't it? Philippe Beaudette 05:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I just sent this case to CheckUser. Please send all death threats in the future to CheckUser because most jurisdictions consider issuing death threats as a type of assault, and therefore the police should be notified of this crime. However, only people with CheckUser access can collect the evidence needed for filing a complaint with the appropriate law enforcement agency. Jesse Viviano 14:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What the devil? That is not a credible threat of harm, it's just a few schoolkids mouthing off. Why are we talking about legal action via checkuser? Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 14:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure checkusers have nothing better to do than sniff out IPs to help in expensive assault charges against strangers that will never be filed. Milto LOL pia 14:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are we talking about taking legal action via Checkuser at all? IIRC, only the Foundation is allowed to disclose checkuser results for law enforcement without a court request, per the privacy policy. -Amarkov moo! 15:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is not quite true. It would be quite permissible for them to notify the appropriate authorities in an emergency situation, such as a serious and credible threat to cause bodily harm. Newyorkbrad 15:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This was neither, NYBrad. Not an emergency, just adolescent testosterone. I've removed the request from RFCU as, well, an unjustified waste of time. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with your first two sentences. I meant a "serious and credible threat" as distinguished from a comment like this one. However, it is not permissible for a user to delete a checkuser request. Please revert that deletion and leave whether to grant or deny the request for the checkusers to decide. Newyorkbrad 15:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If Amarkov is even half-right, then I plead IAR. Would it be a legal possibility for the checkusers to checkuser under these circumstances? Looking at the meta privacy policy, at any rate, it would be Wikimedia policy not to checkuser and release the result. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I see someone else has restored the request. Let's leave things there for the checkusers to deal with. Regarding the broader privacy issue, there is enough wriggle room in the policy to allow genuine emergencies to be addressed. Newyorkbrad 15:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• It is my understanding that for a posting on the internet to be considered a credible and actionable threat, it must be unequivocal, immediate, and be directed at a specific identifiable person. For example: I'm coming over right now to kill you, Jimbo Wales is a threat. If you do that again, User:Wikinony, I will dedicate my life to tracking down who you are, and beating the crap out of you is against Wiki policy, but not necessarily a credible threat as far as law enforcement is concerned. (equivocal "if, then", anonymous target, non-immediate threat). I could be completely wrong, but that is how I have always seen it handled in the www world. - Crockspot 15:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter, nothing will come of it, and it's a waste of time even theorizing over a checkuser spending the kind of resources involved in tracking down this random person. I'm tempted to say "I'm going to kill myself" and gauge the reaction :-) Milto LOL pia 15:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jeffpw Attacking in Edit Summaries on his Talk Page and Making Threats

User:Jeffpw is attacking me in the edit summaries on his talk page, and making threats as well. I made one attempt to address the fact that he and another editor were discussing me on the page, and was summarily accused of stalking him. When I politely responded that I reviewed the page on stalking/harassment, and responding on someone's talk page didn't qualify, he proceeded to blank my response, and left a message telling me to "f-ck off" his talk page. It was this edit in which he left the vulgar edit summary. Here is the link to the diffs on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeffpw&curid=1929953&diff=117246051&oldid=117245895 (I apologize for not formatting that link better. I'm still pretty new at this.) I would appreciate someone with some authority warning him about such behavior, as he's made it clear that he'll simply delete any polite warnings left by me regarding personal attacks, threats, etc.K. Scott Bailey 13:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I told you once politely to stop bothering me on my talk page, and you then left two more messages; so I left a message you would be sure to grasp. Further, I never said you were stalking me, I said I was feeling stalked. Stop manipulating my words. your edit warring and wikilawyering on the Buchanan article and talk page are bad enough. I won't tolerate you annoying me on my talk page every day. Jeffpw 14:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I was simply responding to the fact that you and and another user were discussing me on your talk page. I have every right to do that. You do NOT have the right to attack people, call them names, and threaten bodily harm. Additionally, saying you "feel stalked" when there's no basis for that (at that time, I believe I'd left one message on your talk page), is a nice semantical way around actually ACCUSING someone of that without merit, I guess. One way or the other, calling someone a "useless dickhead" and saying that they deserve to be "thrown off a bridge" is a clear violation of WP:CIV. I would have left a warning about personal attacks on your page, but you had made it pretty clear you would have simply deleted it, therefore I took it to the ANI.K. Scott Bailey 14:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You're still way out of line there, Jeffpw, and that could definitely be considered a personal attack. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither side seems blameless in this little spat. Jeffpw you should know better than to use such language and suggest people should be killed, whatever the provocation. And K. Scott Bailey, if someone makes it clear that they don't appreciate you posting on their talkpage- stop posting on their talkpage. WjBscribe 14:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I was polite and direct in my communications with Jeffpw. Those communications came in response to his discussing me with another user. I was well within my rights to post to his talk page. I hardly think the two are in ANY way equivalent, as implied by the statement "neither side seems blameless in this little spat." What did I do that even comes CLOSE to meriting having F-bombs dropped on me, and being called vulgar names and threatened?K. Scott Bailey 14:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link to the initiation of my comments on his talk page. He and another user were BOTH engaging in personal attacks on me, and I simply asked them to stop. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeffpw&diff=next&oldid=117198813 I am WELL within my rights to post on his talk page in such a case, and such posting should not be considered in any way a "provocation" given the fact that I was not rude in any way, but simply asked them to stop.K. Scott Bailey 14:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that the James Buchanan page could use some admin attention. I no longer watch the page because it's too frustrating. The issues are over rumors and speculation that Buchanan was gay. Both sides of this issue have come to consensus about 90% of the issues to craft a paragraph they agree with, but there remains a contentious issue over a reference/source. Meanwhile, the page remains protected and other editors have attempted to make substantive changes unrelated to the controversy. Since we are all adults, I proposed that the page get unprotected, and the agreed-upon information be put in the article with the source debated on the Talk page; however, this suggestion fell flat. It's bad when pages remain protected for so long; it in fact defeats the purpose of Wiki. Especially when there is so much agreement. The page is off my watch list, but it could stand to have an admin or two who are impartial to step in and tie things up - it's gone on long enough, and the arguments are just regurgitations. Thanks. --David Shankbone 16:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree and posted to that effect above here. Jeffpw 16:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible bad-faith action

Jumanji123 (talk · contribs) nominated Menachem Z. Rosensaft for deletion and also tagged it as a CSD, even though it appears to be a well sourced article about a notable individual. User's only edits have been in relation to this page. Can an administrator get on to this if it needs to be speedy-kept? QmunkE 14:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• If the article has no chance of getting deleted, maybe just commenting in passing and leaving it to stew is the best course. If he's trolling or making trouble, the best way to deal with it is to just bock him off and ignore him IMO. Milto LOL pia 14:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• The speedy tag has already been deleted and I have watchlisted the AfD to keep an eye on things. Newyorkbrad 14:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 163.167.129.124

This user has vandalized many times, removed warnings from his talk page ([81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], and [90] among others), and even impersonated another user. He needs to be stopped. mrholybrain's talk 16:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This teenager from America is harassing me and making false accusations. I have asked him to check his facts, but he has ignored me! 163.167.129.124 16:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

My facts are you are blanking your talk page against policy and impersonating User:Guinnog. I have provided diffs, you provide yours. mrholybrain's talk 16:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Where does policy say a user can't remove warnings from their page? I do agree that the impersonation is something worth talking about. --Onorem 16:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not impersonated anybody. Administrators can confirm this with User:Guinnog. I am already looking forward to User:mrholybrain's apology! 163.167.129.124 16:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In this edit, you pretended to be Guinnog by faking his signature. That's a clear-cut case of impersonation. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see User:Wangi's talk page if you do not believe me. I have not impersonated anybody! 163.167.129.124 16:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's still really bad to copy-paste someone else's comment without indicating in some way that they didn't add that comment there themselves, such as an HTML comment or an edit summary. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

After looking into Guinnog's posting history for the date time stamp on the comment that the anon posted with Guinnog's signature, it appears he was only copy/pasting from one of two posts that Guinnog actually did leave on other users pages regarding their continued replacing of warnings to the anon's page. *Diff 1 & Diff 2. --Onorem 16:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Those messages do not relate to me in any case, this is not my own computer. Will user:mrholybrain now apologise for wasting my afternoon! 163.167.129.124 16:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Cutting and pasting another editor's comments (with sig) from one page to another is a rather bad idea and I'd suggest our IP friend not do that again (if the future, just do a diff to the comment you want to reference). That said, I don't think it was done maliciously and the point stands that editors, IP editors included, are free to remove messages from their talkpage. No further action or discussion is really necessary at this point.--Isotope23 16:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please block Marlon.sahetapy socks

Please block socks of Marlon.sahetapy. Vandalism, 3RR evasion, edit warring, incivility. I would have blocked already if I weren't marginally involved. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-22 06:02Z

Can someone please look over this case? It's incredibly irritating as an editor who has to deal with this user on a daily basis. Please note the following diff [91], when looking at the case page. aLii 21:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ETOM and User:Cfaurer

There is a series of page creations, added external links and internal links that all seem to be covert spam that I noticed centering on the page ETOM. This is totally outside of my area of knowledge so I have no way to assess this potential problem. Could someone with expertise check this out? Thnx --killing sparrows 20:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• The first I checked, NGOSS, was a copyvio which I've now deleted. Will look into this further. --W.marsh 21:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD: is canvassing allowed?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet troll squads is plagued by canvassing of the worst sort. A group of people who penned this original research apparently send bunches of e-mails to potential supporters of their point of view, asking them to vote. Indeed, some of the voters have not been active in Wikipedia for more than a year and turned up specifically to check this page. I would like the situation to be investigated, as cases like this one turn our deletion process into a zoo, ensuring the survival of unsubstantiated POV essays and damaging Wikipedia's reputation for impartiality and verifiability. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No, canvassing is not allowed. This AFD should probably be restarted. --Coredesat 07:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably solved, one of our evil rouge admins has killed the article despite the mass voices protesting against it. And it's about time. --tjstrf talk 07:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A similar canvassing campaign was also conducted in this afd. Effective canvassing to sympathetic parties by a user resulted in a deadlocked AFD. --Ragib 07:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What. A. Joke. No need to rerun this one; I'd've speedied it on the spot had I been aware of it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That was quick! We have no right to slander current political leaders. Wikipedia is not intended for promoting such agenda. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the deleted article - definitely the right decision. --Coredesat 07:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, on Wikipedia, it's libel, not slander. ;D - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

When I nominated that article for deletion, it was written as a response to accusing other editors of being KGB agents. The whole thing should just be deleted under BLP IMHO. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 14:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• I remain of the opinion that we should block canvassers for such time as the relevant debate (in this case, the AFD) remains open. >Radiant< 15:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This article did not include any personal attacks against any Wikipedia editors as anyone could see until the article has been deleted. The AfD nominator actually claimed that article was a "personal attack against Vladimir Putin", which is also not true. The decision to delete this article was unjust, because it was obviously not WP:OR; there is a similar article in Russian Wikipedia, and there was no agreement about deletion among editors regardless to any canvassing. See my arguments here: User_talk:A_Man_In_Black#Deletion_of_Internet_squads_article. Can anyone take a look again at this article and tell his/her opinion?Biophys 18:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, I think your article has become a victim of the kind of friends you don't want to have despite their having common with you POV. You should thank user:Ukrained who spoiled the vote and discussion by behind the scenes canvassing that rendered the AfD page a fraud. You can request any admin to restore the content of your article in your userspace and once you rework it under the acceptable title and references, you can try to repost it if this is what you want. I word of friendly advise, the original title was not helpful. --Irpen 18:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Irpen on that. The article can be salvaged, but the name was clearly inappopriate (although I don't understand why this was solved via WP:AFD instead of WP:RM). And the controversy over possible 'canvassing' was not helpful, nor the use (or attempt to use, or attempt to portray the article as being used) the article as a tool to attack some editors is only good for ensuring people will want to salt the earth on the article as quickly as possible.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, canvassing should be irrelevant, because closes should be based on policies and guidelines. The debate should be about providing evidence whether or not the article meets them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Buchanan

There is currently a heated dispute on this page, regarding the sexuality of America's 15th president. I know content disputes don't belong here, but the issue has become one of WP:V|verifiability. A few editors are demanding that only peer reviewed, academic sources be used as references (diff provided is only one of many on this topic).

Search though I have, I cannot find any policy that demands exclusive use of such lofty references. Rklawton has been very active in this discussion, and his sarcasm has not helped. Presumably, however, his administrative status lends more credence to his arguments, though he has not been able to quote any actual policy for this stance. I would appreciate it if others could weigh in on whether only academic, peer reviewed sources may be used on Wikipedia. Jeffpw 09:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Only? That is quite the misrepresentation. I stumbled on this one via RfC (I thinkIvoShandor 21:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)), I simply asserted that academic, peer reviewed sources are much better in a case when the article represents a historical topic and involves information which is controversial and thus, likely to be challenged. That, at least, is my position. I think biographies and the like are unreliable in an instance such as this (and in history overall, though that has little bearing on this discussion - though I have brought it up, I tend to tangent at times). IvoShandor 21:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this even really belongs here, it's seems more of a content dispute. : )IvoShandor 00:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cyberstalking by ZayZayEM

User ZayZayEM has been stalking me. Around a week ago, I created several new pages and began entering new materials at Jewish opposition to evolution and Jewish reactions to intelligent design. In the process, I was also making some edits to Natan Slifkin.

Every time I made a change, User:ZayZayEM would be there, often just a few minutes later, trying to modify it. If I wrote a caption for a picture, he would want to re-write it. If I put a picture on the left side, he would want it on the right side. I would write a paragraph, and immediately he would want to rearrange it, or put it somewhere else. He followed me from the first page page that I was working on to another, to yet another. I consider this is cyberstalking.

This user is not here to contribute. He wants somebody to squabble with. He constantly quotes Wikipedia policies and procedures, which he knows upside down. It's impossible that he knows them so well, with his limited record of edits. I suspect he has other identities, and has been kicked off the site before.

The edits he wants do not improve the page. These are pages on somewhat abstruse subjects, about which he has no knowledge, such as philosophy and theology.

Suddenly I found myslef forced to spend all of my time trying to answer ZayZayEM. We had edit conflicts (where I would try to save the page, and it would turn out I couldn't because he had just saved the page in the time since I had done it). He clearly wanted to draw me into some kind of edit war or procedure war.

I kept asking him to just leave, and come back later, if he felt that he had to edit my work. But somehow, ZayZayEM felt that that was not acceptable. He had to be there in real time editing and changing what I was doing while I was doing it. I suggest that if he had a problem, both of us could leave the page for a few days or a week, and allow people who actually are capable and know the material to see it. I asked numerous users who are acquainted with Jewish philosophy and thoelogy, and who could judge the material on its own merits, to come and have a look. Some did. I don't think many of them saw the forest through the trees.

This was not an edit conflict. The real problem was that ZayZayEM was not there to improve wikipedia. He was there simply to create contention and harrass me as I worked on the page. I tried to go there at odd hours when I wouldn't encounter him. He would rearrange materials right as I was working, ignoring my pleas for him to leave.

I feel personally threatened and scared. This was an obtrusive and unwanted relationship. This user had no interest in and no knowledge of Jewish theology or philosophy. He was there purely to harrass me. --216.89.203.226 22:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: editor has no article edits to said pages, see [92]. Is likely "--User:12.31.54.34, The user formerly known as M_E_T_Z_E_N_B_E_R_G"

That's correct. Both IPs are me. They are alternate ports in a company firewall, which has several hundred computer users behind it. I can log in VPN, or at my office. I feel better about using my own user name now, rather than an IP address. I'd like to address this stalking incident instead as an incident of disruptive editing, although I do feel that there have been elements of stalking in it, and those elements have made me very uncomfortable. Certainly, it was a scary and unwanted personal intrusion to have him showing up and making changes everywhere I went, often within minutes of my arrival. I am going to file a formal request for arbitration now. --Metzenberg 01:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

In any case the user has shown a distinct lack of civility.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Spam Link" page?

Shkëmbi 22:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Dear sir, Last night, I could not find my article "Tsyam" in the Wikipedia Website. I do not know the reason why it had already been removed. However, I proceeded to edit and enter a few sources on the "edit this page" in the original version of the article under my name. After I was done and clicked on "Save", a "spam link" page showed and all my editing and sources I had entered, were deleted. Since I do not know how to deal with this situation and the reason behind it, I am writing to you for advice, guidance and a solution to the issue. All the best —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eeemte (talk • contribs) 22:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The article seams to be here now: Tsyam, I think by the spam link, you mean an edit conflict, this is where someone has editid the page since you started editing it. Simply scroll to the bottom of the page and you will find the version of text that you edited, you can then simply copy it, and readd it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; edit conflicts are not uncommon. I encounter at least one edit conflict a day. They're annoying, but not destructive. Acalamari 00:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think he may have inadvertently added a blacklisted link. There's a list at meta:Spam blacklist of links that cannot be added to articles, and if they are, the page cannot be saved. The solution is to remove the link and then save the page. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Epbr123 blanking

The talk page of User:Epbr123, User talk:Epbr123 and been repeatedly blanked by owner, without archiving. Furthermore, he was being rude to fellow contributors (including calling one with "mind your own business,nutjob"). As not only does it violated talk page policy, his account is actually being accused as WP:SOCK. We may have to go to 3RR due to this. As of now, he has not been warned. George Leung 22:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• A band of users belonging to project:wikiporn have been harassing me because I nominated a few un-notable porn stars for deletion. Epbr123 23:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, it appears that you created an article that was deleted. Since then, you have gone on a WP:POINT AfD spree. You even retracted one of your own AfD nominations because it was far from non-notable. IrishGuy ^talk 23:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Which article was that? Check the dates before you throw around accusations. Epbr123 23:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
      • This one. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
        • No, I mean which one of my articles was deleted and caused me to go on an AfD spree. The fact that I withdrew a nomination after finding out more of the facts shows that I was acting in good faith. Epbr123 23:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
          • 07:13, 16 March 2007, Sharday gets deleted. You then nominated Maria Swan, Liz Stewart, Stacey Owen, Yulia Nova, and Alicia Rhodes (the second nomination) within a day. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
            • I edit conflicted with you trying to say that :p Anyway, Talk:Sharday is still there, and I've added {{hangon}} to it for the purposes of this discussion. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
              • I'll say it again: check the dates. Epbr123 00:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
                • What about the dates? Every porn star you put up for AfD was after your article was deleted. IrishGuy ^talk 00:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
                • the deletion log in question —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
                  • And when were Ashley Juggs and Maria Swan nominated for deletion? Epbr123 00:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

(deindent)

• OK, you get that one. The rest of the point still stands, however. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 00:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • You had nominated a couple of porn star articles for deletion before the speedy deletion of the Sharday article on 16 March, but almost immediately following the speedy of that article, you began a deluge of AfDs for any porn star of even VAGUELY questionable notability, making arguments directly to the contrary of arguments you had made in favor of keeping very similar articles prior to the speedy of the Sharday article. It would take me awhile, but I could come up with a very nice list of diffs based on your user contributions to that effect. Or do you mean to tell me that you were planning on doing this all along? If so, why did you bother, on 14 March, to categorize just about every article you subsequently nominated for deletion? Why didn't you just do it then instead of waste your efforts? LaMenta3 00:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I've already won this debate. I'm not going to talk any further. Epbr123 00:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • This isn't a debate, it is a discussion. There are no winners or losers. You still haven't explained how your edits aren't WP:POINT violations even though they clearly look like it. IrishGuy ^talk 00:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
        • That's six more articles nominated in the past two hours. How many does he have to nominate to violate WP:POINT? What's the POINT of WP:POINT if you can't enforce it? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I investigated WP:POINT, and discovered that it's merely a restatement of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, which says: "A disruptive editor is an editor who: ... violate[s] other policies and guidelines ... 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." I'm fairly certain that the current series of deletions fits that definition. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Since when does WP:3RR apply to User talk pages that don't have sock warnings? -- TedFrank 23:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't, but not everyone knows that. Natalie 00:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

His talk page still had an effective sock warning on it. LaMenta3 02:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Folks, please, stop the fighting just a bit. There's no need for this. We're all here to make the encyclopedia better, and the primary way we do that is by writing good articles. Infighting helps no one. Say that half of you get banned out of this (which is apparently what people are going for), in what way is that going to make more good articles? Let me wave around what credentials I have here. I've been here for a year, I've been made an admin, I'm a somewhat prominent member of WP:P*, I've written articles, deleted articles, saved articles from deletion, nominated articles for deletion, got one article on the subject to WP:FA, helped make the notability criteria a guideline, blocked accounts, and unblocked accounts. Please, folks, if any of that means anything to you, trust me: fighting other well meaning contributors is not the way to make the encyclopedia better.

Epbr123 is, in a way, trying to help. So he's a m:deletionist; it takes all kinds. A reasonable number of the articles he's nominated for deletion are deserving of deletion, so some of what he is doing is actually useful. And the fact that he isn't just doing it at random, and can be reasonable, is shown by the fact he can change his mind and withdraw his nominations at times. (See here and here, for example.) So please, assume good faith here, and don't harass him, try to work with him, rather than against him. Some of the comments made to him on AfDs, on his talk page, and here aren't the most polite. If he nominates an article, don't try to get him banned, try to address his points by improving the article. This is an excellent example -it may or may not be sufficient, but is certainly an order of magnitude better than the article was before. That will not only be more effective, it will help the encyclopedia - and that is what we are all here for, isn't it?

Epbr123, however, is not blameless either. Many of his nominations are insufficiently researched. The fact that half or so of them are kept, and that he himself changed his mind about several shows that too. Ebbp123, while technically it is the responsibility of the article's writers to defend the article, if you are making a whole Wikipedia career out of cleaning up poorly written porn star articles, it is at least a good idea to see if you can improve the articles yourself instead of nominating them for deletion. In the end, it will take less effort from everyone concerned, will hurt less feelings, will get you "good press" instead of the attacks you're getting here, and we'll have a better encyclopedia. Isn't making a better encyclopedia your real goal? Might even earn you a few Barnstars - I've gotten more of those from saving articles than I ever had from deleting articles or blocking users. Try it, it's fun! Since you've had your own articles on the subject attacked or deleted, you must know how painful that is. Please don't spread that pain to others unnecessarily.

Epbr123 is also unquestionably rude in deleting comments on his user talk page, especially in those deletion summaries. Ebbp123, while you may technically have that right (and that is disputable), it certainly isn't the best way to get along with people. Many of those criticisms are quite constructive, and if you want people to assume good faith about your actions, you really should assume good faith about theirs. By the way, Ebbp123, one of the reasons I, and presumably others, are writing this here, so publically, where hundreds of people will read it, instead of on your talk page which only the people really involved are watching is that you delete things from it all the time. Think about that. If you really don't want your dirty laundry hung out in public, you're not achieving your goal. AN/I is read by a lot more people, many of them carrying mops. Because people can't write on your talk page and be sure their comments will stay up for any length of time, you are getting a bad reputation, not just among the few people interested in porn star articles, but among people interested in the way admin work is done; there are a lot more of those, and they are a lot more influential. Also Ebbp123, consider how many people there are opposing your current actions to at least some degree. In the end, things at Wikipedia are done by consensus, getting the people involved to agree. So far, you are mostly getting people to agree that, while some of your goals may be well intentioned, you're being disruptive in the way you're getting them.

By the way, so there isn't any uncertainty about whether or not I'm making veiled threats here. I really don't like blocking people, and will try really hard to avoid it. I still think this can be settled peacefully. This looked like a really good start - before it was deleted, the fight came here to AN/I, and half a dozen other article nominations were made! Instead, this is now escalating fairly fast from both sides, and if it keeps getting more rude and more disruptive, and I have no other way out, I absolutely will block half the people involved. And this is, of course, only if someone else doesn't do it first! There are a lot (up to a thousand!) other admins reading this board, and if I know them, many will now follow the contributions history of people involved here for at least the next few days. Many of those admins have shorter fuses than I do, and more than a few bear at least the unstated opinion that the encyclopedia would be better off without any pornography articles at all, or people working on them, so will happily block people who not only work on them, but are disruptive doing it. And frankly, at this rate, that looks like it includes people from both sides. So please, folks, try to settle this without the use of admin tools: if you get that, it probably won't be what you want. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• I will personally calm down. Let's for the sake of discussion, only include North American models; on that note, he also tried to delete Candy Manson (which I personally have not heard of), and Kelly Madison is profilic enough. Then, there's also the AFD on the Yulia Nova, in which he assume that a caucasian model must be famous in Europe or North America in order to be notable.

I do guess that, when we discussed too much, he will begin to feel the pressure. On the other hand, I would like him to calm down, especially on cultures that he have know absolutely nothing about, such as the Japanese culture; I already seen applying the American-centric standards on RX-78 Gundam, which is one of the longest but yet most ridiculous AFD I ever saw.

However, I will have to say that, there ARE quite a few models out there that perhaps do not deserve their own pages. So I propose the following truce:

• Accept that Epbr123 is an extreme deletionist. We cannot change his mind. While I believe he have WP:POINT on most deletions, there are quite a few that certainly does not deserve their pages.
• Try not to eliminate models that are famous in only or mostly in Japan. Wikipedia is American-centric enough already. Also, remember that Japanese's way of doing things are completely different from us, and thus, while both may seems notable, they may see notability standard differently. HOWEVER, I would suggest that putting up prod would be acceptible.
• Work with the WP:P* people.
• Let his talk page off. There's a warning from AnonEMouse, and the message here is public enough and long enough.
• Try to think clearly on his AFD, and try to think clearly on pages to be created.
• Don't go doing WP:POINT ourself. Trust me, all it does is ambarassing yourself (As I did to A-wing)

Lastly: Don't forget that pages can die and reborn. That's some of the philosophy of deletionist: They know it's notable, but if it got start completely anew, people will actually think and write clearly instead of depending upon past poor writings. Regards, George Leung 01:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• However, i would like Epbr123 to stop keep changing nomination reasons significantly. By keep changing, this means he actually did not have a valid reason. George Leung 03:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Betacommand AGAIN - this time, ext. link removals

Sorry for yet another thread on Betacommand. He's going around articles and (rightfully) removing links that don't meet RS, or EL, or WP:SPAM. However, this removal of a USAID link to a government website (which meets all three requirements) suggests that he's running some sort of bot or script on his account, which isn't approved (if he wasn't, and was doing it manually, I highly doubt he'd remove a valid link to USAID [he claims they're "85% spam", although checking the actual link manually is not difficult]). There are already complaints on his talk page about his link removals. – Chacor 16:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am manually removing them. this] shows domains versus amount of spam per domain. I left links on what I thought were part of the group but removed the others. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

While i understand Betacommand actions when removing spams, i just can't understand many removals such as this one. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You have hit the nail on the head about my general grievance with this - if Betacommand is indeed manually removing the links, why doesn't he take that extra 15 seconds to check if they're valid links and not just dismiss them ALL as "spam"? This is vandalistic, as was pointed out on his talk page. – Chacor 16:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

(EC*2) USAID's spam count was more than likely because people were spamming blogs with Katrina-related, Iraq-related, or similar chain mails. That doesn't mean all links to it are spam. I can't understand how you're considering them to be such despite removing the links 'manually'. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

All .gov domains are the USA government. usaid.gov is listed because it is an universal redirector. Here is an explanation: [93]. --Mihai cartoaje 17:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled why Betacommand is still making controversial link removals given the lenthy discussion both here on ANI, his talk page, Wikipedia talk:Bots/Approvals group#Betacommand and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Another bot deflagging. – Steel 16:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Another example is this ongoinging dispute over touregypt.net. Several different established Wikipedians have argued that this is not a spamsite -- which I believe has been proof enough in the past to reverse matters -- but he has treated our pleas with contempt. I admit I'm not impartial here, but it appears to be part of a pattern with him: an inflexible belief in his own correctness, an attitude that varies between brusque dismissal to abusive language, & a failure to learn from his own mistakes. -- llywrch 19:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The good news is that it's not quite at bot speeds any more, no more than a few a minute (!). That's not negligible, given that he has shown he is quite capable at doing it at 15 times that speed. However, I do think that even more care should be taken here. Many of the link removals are quite debatable. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not the first time Betacommand's actions have been questioned, and this is not the first time he's been not-very-responsive to the concerns addressed to him. Would some kind of community sanction be appropriate? He needs to stop with the disputed actions but seems unwilling to do this on his own. Friday (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest adding all this to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Betacommand? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Betacommand is removing all links to USAID, even in articles where they are relevant. Cf. [94], [95], [96] and [97]. Gandoman 16:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The USAID was identified my several third parties as spam, Seeing this I removed most of the links, I thought I left links that were directly related to the page. The Global Development Alliance removal was a mistake and I have reverted that, But I feel the links on Private sector development and others were unneeded and thus removed Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity... Who are you listening to that would have identified USAID as a spam link??? Georgewilliamherbert 04:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh lord. He removed a link to the official biography of the head of USAID from our article on him. [98]. Some of the removals are debatable, but this is just silly. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Has the damage done in the previous string of actions been sufficiently reverted? He should not be making any new edits if he has not fixed the damage done from the hundreds of edits that started this whole thing. Just asking the question, I don't know the answer. -- RM 16:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, if you actually open the page and think about why it's being regarded as spam, it makes sense (chain mail and spam campaigns regarding Iraq, Katrina, etc.). That doesn't mean that most links to it here on the Wikipedia are spam, though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If betacommand is acting in bad faith and/or vandalizing and not ceasing when requested, block him. I won't do so because of my current conflict of interest with being a BAG member, but someone else could if it was needed. What I mean to say is that current discussions and actions dealing with betacommand should not be considered to be any sort of sanction on his current activity. The discussion we have been having about BAG regards membership in BAG and rights to run bots. This issue is outside our jurisdiction. -- RM 16:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I know somebody mentioned above that he was not quite working at bot speeds. [99] a series of edits he made today with edits between 12 and 15 make it seem hard to believe that each was done manually. That would be removing 1 link ever 4 seconds or so with time to load the page and go to new pages. Just an observation though. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

One every 15 seconds isn't that terribly hard to do, especially if you are not adequately checking the links. The problem here is not the speed but the lack of proper link verification. -- RM 17:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not clearly state it above. It was 15 edits per minute, not 1 edit per 15 seconds. I can regularly make 5 or 6 edits a minute, maybye a few more. 15+ a minute is 4 seconds per edit which seems a bit sketchy. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

He keeps removing Yahoo Groups links from small IALs such as Folkspraak and Ceqli; not a problem with larger languages such as Ido and Esperanto but with the first two those groups are the only place one can find any activity in the language. (hope I don't have to be an administrator to post a comment here) Mithridates 17:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

I think we need to do something here. This is getting to be quite a bad pattern. I propose that

1. Betacommand agree to revert the removal of the USAID links, all of them. In individual cases they can be debated one by one on the article talk page, but the overwhelming majority of which have so far been shown to be appropriate.
2. I'd appreciate if Betacommand revert the Michael E. Grost links. I think he's shown as a "recognized authority", since he's treated as that by a large number of sources, including those as respected as PBS and UC Berkeley. (on Betacommand's talk page.) That can be debatable, but given the circumstances of repeated mass removals without sufficient consideration, I think they should be debated before being removed, not after.
3. Any AFP/Agence France Presse links removed (didn't see any, but there's a complaint on his talk page about them as well, and I didn't look through his whole spree) should also be restored, and individually discussed. They're a highly respected source.
4. Most of the Yahoo Group link removals seem to be appropriate per WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #10, "discussion forums", so can generally stay; individual cases where the links were appropriate can be restored on that specific article. But that seems to be a rare appropriate exception to this spree.
5. Most importantly, Betacommand needs to agree not to go on undiscussed mass information deletion sprees, bot-assisted or not, again. Ever. No deletion without prior discussion on that article's talk page. If he really feels the urge to go on a deletion spree, and simply can't resist, he needs to discuss with another highly experienced user, and that user needs to essentially take the responsibility for this, publically (such as at the Administrators' or Community noticeboard).

Otherwise, much to my regret, since he's clearly a well meaning editor, not a vandal ... I'd support the community sanction. Removal of adminship wouldn't affect this, neither would removal of bot rights, so this is all we'll have left. Even though he is well meaning, the amount of damage that can be done in just a few minutes of edits here is impressive. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Approvals_group#Betacommand. Perhaps proposals could be in one place, although I appreciate this is a more specific issue. If you prefer I have no objection to "our" thread moving here. --kingboyk 17:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The AN/I is a great place to discuss a possible community ban of Betacommand. There is no reason to put the proposals on one page, as they are all in their correct jurisdiction right now. -- RM 17:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, a troll calling for a site ban - usually an indication that you are doing something right :-) Guy (Help!) 17:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Um ... JzG, which user in this thread are you calling a troll? I think you may have made a mistake here. Newyorkbrad 17:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

HarryHasAnEgo (talk · contribs). Aecis^Brievenbus 17:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wawsan 300 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), actually, from earlier, whom I reverted. – Chacor 17:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay, no problem. I knew he wasn't referring to anyone whose edits were still here. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 18:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The best way for community sanctions is our new and shiny Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard, by the way. :) --Conti|✉ 17:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, so many venues. --kingboyk 17:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. I'm hoping Betacommand will agree, and we won't have to take it that far. This isn't a proposal for community sanction, this is a proposal to avoid community sanction. Bc is well meaning, and clearly a whiz at coding bots, so I don't want to lose him, but he's now caused a lot of disruption in just a few days. I really don't want it to happen again, and hope this way we can avoid it, and keep him. Since he is well meaning, I will take his word for it. But he has to give that word. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, if folks could comment on the BAG proposals please. Sad though I am to say it, some action needs to be taken and I'd prefer to see some consensus before taking it. I think my proposals are a little too harsh for me to implement unilaterally. --kingboyk 17:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you quite sure it's another Bot thing this time? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

this is not a bot thing see the code for my tool here:[100] I know its crude code and please forgive me for not documenting it more but it requires user input and shows a diff also. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I have reverted my self on the usaid site and the other that AnonEMouse pointed out. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you. (Actually you did not get them all, and there are almost certainly even more.) However, I must request point 5, there, that you make a firm promise not to do it again. That's probably the most important thing. See, I thought you understood that yesterday, when you reverted, but apparently it does need to be spelled out. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys, banning is not a cool game to play w/. This is an established editor and his intention is not to vandalize or to push his POV so loudly. The guy thought he may be enhancing wikipedia. True that after all the mess he's done, he is actually self-reverting at this exact moment. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No one (except for a troll) actually proposed any kind of ban. --Conti|✉ 17:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's not true. I proposed a temporary ban if it is determined that Betacommand has been performing controversial edits after being asked to stop. Actually he was asked to stop a day or two ago (depending on timezones and all) and started it up today. But I meant if he did it again starting now. -- RM 17:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if you (or JzG) think I'm a troll, but I'm quite serious. This is twice that he's gone on a huge spree in two days - I'm not sure you understand just how many articles got hit each time, just how many editors complained, or just how many forums are now devoted to discuss these two days of work. I thought he understood after he self-reverted yesterday, but after he started again today, I'm going to have to insist he specifies he won't do it again, or I will support community sanction. That's an extreme measure, but if it's not a bot project, as he specifies above, then just removing bot privileges isn't going to help. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC) (AnonETroll ... hmm ... something to consider...)

I will not hesitate to issue a long block if it happens again but i think he self-reverted himself this time and apologized. Let's hope it will never happen. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

See, that's exactly what I thought the day before yesterday, almost word for word - threat of block (well, I hesitated), self-reverted, I was sure it wouldn't happen again. I even thanked him for self-reverting earlier today! The incident is still up on this page, #Emergency: Betacommand deletion at bot speeds - please review impending block. I didn't see him apologising, but assumed the apology. Apparently not. Apparently "I understand and promise never to do it again" needs to be spelled out. If he does, I will again Wikipedia:assume good faith, but this is now twice in three days. It has happened again! --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with AnonEMouse here, this is the 2nd time in a week. Last time, he stopped and reverted himself too. a few days later does the exact same thing (just slows the edits down from 30+ a minutes to a max of 15 per minute) but still the same edits. He apparently did not learn anything from the previous incursion. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I was reviewing all of my edits please take a look at the tool that I am using, I was manually checking each edit. if you don't believe me run the tool your self. As per the nature of the work there will be mistakes made. In regard to usaid that was an error on my part. the issue with the 15+ rate was a fluke when clearing a site. External link quality is an issue that needs to be addressed and taken care of. I can stop if you wish, I will still gather data and compile things that need fixed. If people want I can create list of pages that need fixed and others can clean the backlog that will be generated. but the issue of spam and crap links needs to be addressed. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont think anybody is arguing that spam and crap links need to be addressed. I think what the problem appears to be is your interpretion of spam or crap. A site that is 85% spam, is a crap site to you from what I have read. 85% does not justify removing every single link to the site. I have no problem with external link removal, and i doubt many of us do. I think what the issue is blind removal of links that may hold verifibale, reliable, external sources. Again, this is not a black and white situation where you either have to delete them all or you dont do anything at all. Take a minute, review the link, make sure it is spam before deleting it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I will second that. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 19:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Same. I don't think Beta is acting in bad faith, it's more an issue of disagreement as to whether each link should be checked or not. I think especially with a .gov domain, or when it's been contested by other good faith editors, it shouldn't proceed on a general basis but on case-by-case instead. Orderinchaos78 02:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits such as this one give the impression that you weren't reviewing the script generated suggested edits very carefully. The first time you ran this script fragments of phrases were left behind when links were embedded into sentences. Cleaning up external links is useful, but I would suggest that you stick to removing them without any scripts or automated aids for a while. It's far too easy to get into a pattern of taking a very cursory glance and then hitting 'D' with your tool, which makes it prone to introduce errors. - Ehheh 19:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said before im currently developing that tool and trying to debug it. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I gather you don't intend to promise never to do this again? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The live debugging (on real articles) of the tool is strictly prohibited at this point, and it better not be used again without explicit permission. Debugging or not, it does not have community support and must be suspended. Let me amend that by saying that *all* deleting of spam links should be suspended for the time being. It is clearly controversial and should be discussed before doing anything more, even if it is justified. Enough damage has been done already. -- RM 20:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse RM above; Betacommand should absolutely stop removing any links of any kind for the time being, manually or automatically, unless he first gets consensus for removal of each specific link in question, either on the talk page of the affected article or at someplace like WP:WPSPAM. I know about WP:BOLD but it assumes at least a minimal level of judicious editorial consideration per edit, which Betacommand is clearly not exercising, so the principle should not apply to him. Could he please explain here why the heck he is doing this stuff? Is WP:POINT at issue? 64.160.39.153 21:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I hate jumping on the bandwagon, but I respectfully request that you stop using this tool permanently. This tool has made literally thousands of edits. I've studied the last 1000 edits by this bot and a good 5%+ of the edits are in error. The tool creates empty sections, the tool creates broken lists (two examples of the twenty so I fixed: [101] [102]) and in two cases that I could see the tool deleted whole sections ([103] [104]). You also kept running the tool after the initial March 21st incident after it was obvious that the tool was broken in many cases recreating the exact same collateral damage that was fixed two days later (today). ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's not about the bot

And this has maybe gotten outside the scope of ANI. It may be time for someone to open an RFC. At issue is Betacommand's refusal to recognize that Wikipedia editing policies are not algorithms and can neither be programmed into computers nor carried out by people acting like computers. They are the distilled results of applying Wikipedia principles to 1000's of editing debates. However, they can only be applied with the principles in mind, not blindly, whether using a bot or by hand. In particular, uncontroversial, non-COI content that normally wouldn't provoke debate doesn't weigh much into policymaking, and therefore really has to evaluated by principle rather than by algorithm, and policy interpretation should be a bit loose with such content. As an extreme example mentioned above, following policy strictly would demand deleting Hessian matrix, which is completely unsourced, and which like a lot of our other math articles is loaded with WP:SYN---but it is a good article.

So if ~a (above) found 50 of Betacommand's bot's edits that actually broke something, there are certainly 100's more that are bad edits from a content point of view and should be reverted. All link removal decisions of that type have should have been made on a case by case basis with some care, not reflexively or mechanically. At most, any reflexive edit (that means any edit made without careful examination of what it does for the article in terms of Wikipedia principles) should have an edit summary saying the edit is a maintenance action and the article's regular editors should feel free to revert it. 64.160.39.153 04:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse to address your concerns I shall get consensus for link removal. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Note User:AnonEMouse is not me. I'm a non-logged-in user. 64.160.39.153 05:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I know just making a comment at the bottom of the section Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 05:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope Betacommand would voluntarily agree not to make any automated or semi-automated edits unless approved on a very narrow basis, until further notice. I hope it won't have to denigrate into a community sanction or RFAR. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-25 01:57Z

[edit] hoax by user:JJonathan: death of Lynsey Bartilson

JJonathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) had inserted the death of actress Lynsey Bartilson: [105]. This type of hoax edit is exactly what brings bad press to wikipedia (remember Sinbad [106]).

He has also blanked his user talk page, so that the warnings he did receive before could not be noticed immediately. And they are numerous.

What to do:

1. block the user
2. have all his edits [107] checked for hoaxes by someone who edits in the entertainment/pop music field. (I have Lynsey Bartilson on my watch list for a different reason)

Btw, I also wonder whether Jonathan89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is the same person. --Tilman 18:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

They are. [108] and [109] I've reverted the most obvious hoax edits by Jonathan89 and warned him. IrishGuy ^talk 19:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not funny! He got many warnings indeed. Blocked for a week. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Check out User:Jonathannew7. Almost certainly the same user. --Kurt Shaped Box 19:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I had previously reported this user on AN/I for an (unrelated) string of disruptive edits.diff1diff2. Note the three anonymous IPs also being used. Thanks. --Plek 22:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it shouldn't be a general policy to delete those edits from the histories, to avoid reverts and such? and to avoid having it there for someone to point to as a problem? It's not like we're covering it up, a note can be left on the talk athat a problematic edit was deleted as a BLP vio, and that's that... ThuranX 04:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No don't. Just revert edits like that unless there's actually bad stuff in the them from a BLP point of view (i.e. damaging allegations or privacy vios), not silly vandalism. Use edit summaries explaining that it's reversion of false rumors/vandalism. 64.160.39.153 05:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incivility by User:Petri Krohn

Regarding a recent dispute on the Treaty of Kars article, User:Petri Krohn accused me of "Ethnic POV pushing / vandalism." [110] Additionally, while editing the article, he stated that he was reverting "some more crap" and then brusquely demanded that I "read the fucking document". [111] While he appeared to stop after this, the same user also sent a message to User:AdilBaguirov who has caused many other problems especially in regards to Armenian-Azerbaijani relations here on Wikipedia. He noted that his going along with removing a reference from a POV source (in this case "Journal of the Turkish Weekly", a very anti-Armenian publication) was "purely tactical to force the pro-Armenian side into discussion, and to bring out their true objections." [112] He also noted that "in previous edits they have deleted content and replaced it with blatant lies." [113] This user has effectively violated Wikipedia:Civility. I told him to apologize for his rude remarks but he has not yet done so. -- Aivazovsky 03:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you're working things out with him, which is good. 64.160.39.153 07:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Community ban library

I have started a page in my userspace devoted to a succinct listing of community-banned users with dates and links to community discussion. The page is at User:Physicq210/Community ban discussions. Feel free to add more entries and/or otherwise improve the page as necessary. Any advice appreciated. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:List of banned users#Banned by the Wikipedia_community — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 04:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that it is now unneeded. I have deleted my page. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 134.117.185.189

Repeated vandalism, dispite warnings. Several other IPs. Had username User:Gluestick22; blocked. Other possible IPs are 69.158.127.184. I am ashamed I acted in such a fashion to him, as you'll see. But he keeps on attacking my page, with vile images and a nasty comment. --Meaneager 04:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attack by Suriel1981

After my first ever edit changing some spelling errors, I get THIS??!! (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Proudformykids&diff=117427924&oldid=117425907) Is this how new users are supposed to be treated??? It was mean.

Your first edits ever were to a project page and then a user_talk page, your "spelling correction" is a traditionally divisive change (WP:ENGVAR), and then you know where ANI is and how to post diffs to it? Ehhh. 64.160.39.153 05:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "traditionally divisive"? I havent seen it spelled like that and changed it to how I have seen it speeled. The edit was totally mean on his/her part. It's not that hard to find this page, either.

Hold on a second, I'm responding to both users... Georgewilliamherbert 05:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

A combination of WP:BITE and unreasonably fast new user complaint time to ANI. Two wrongs make no right. BITer asked not to, "new" user warned not to abusively sock and asked to review the language spelling policy. Georgewilliamherbert 05:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"unreasonably fast new user complaint time" is totally false. There were FOUR HOURS between which I made my first edit and I made the edit to this page. Part of the reason for the duration is because i was looking for a place to report this incident. I eventually found that place at ANI.

Four hours is still pretty fast. I think it took me about a month before I found my way here... Natalie

[edit] Troublesome AfD and personal information issues

A disturbing situation is reflected in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gordon James Klingenschmitt. Mr. Klingenschmitt, who by policy can probably be considered a notable person although not overwhelmingly so, is requesting the deletion of the article about himself. His request is based largely on the ground that it is being used as a vehicle through which opponents are harassing him, including through the posting of personal identifying information such as credit card numbers. Two issues are raised: first, the perennial topic of when, if ever, the views of a BLP's subject are relevant in making a keep/delete decision, and second, the need for many of us to watchlist or consider protecting this article to address the harassment. I will add that the AfD also contains a legal threat; under the circumstances, I thought it sufficient simply to advise the subject of our policies in this area. Further input both here and in the AfD will be appreciated. Newyorkbrad 22:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The user claims that his Visa card numbers have been added but I can't see them in the history, does anyone know if its been oversighted? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it, according to the page log. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah cheers, should hav checked Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should proceed with caution, we're not sure if this guy is who he says he is, however, publishing of personal details, especially visa card numbers is a very serious concern, think as a first step Brad's suggestion is good, we can take it from there if the problem persists Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also propose moving the protection upto full protection for the time being, the Afd hasn't been nominated for notability issues so making the article notable by further editing isn't going to be a concern Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Has the IP of the poster of the information been blocked? Regardless of their intentions, they are not honorable and are a misuse of Wikipedia. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 22:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have extended an existing semiprotection of the article, that was going to expire, and also semi'd the talkpage. In doing so, I found an extremely vicious personal attack on the article subject (currently the last item on the talkpage), which I would simply have reverted, except that in reviewing the contributions of User:Commanderstephanus, who clearly hates Rev. Klingenschmitt, it appears that Commanderstephanus is one of the major contributors, if not the major contributor, to the article. It looks like we are caught in the middle of a major real-world feud here and the situation is ugly indeed. Newyorkbrad 22:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

To Fyslee, I think it is fair to assume that when an oversight editor removed the credit card number, the poster would have been blocked. Unfortunately, almost invariably that sort of thing comes in through an open proxy or other untraceable source. Newyorkbrad 22:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Another good argument for giving only registered users editing privileges. Right now editing isn't treated as a privilege, but as a license to do all kinds of things, including dishonorable ones. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 22:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with that at all—I, for one, wouldn't be here if I hadn't first edited as an anon and been drawn into the fun—but this isn't the place for that perennial discussion. Newyorkbrad 22:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

One perennial discussion at a time, please. —Centrx→talk • 22:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 22:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, how about uping to full protection and contacting User:Klingeng by email to ascertain his exact issues with the article in its current state, obviously we'd have to allow for conflict of interest, but I don't think we can let the supposed subject of the article decide whether or not it meets our criteria for inclusion - having said that, I'd be interested in his response Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Or... semi-protect for now, remove everything not reliably sourced (90+% of the article, at a glance - www.persuade.tv notwithstanding), stern warning for User:Commanderstephanus with a block if he continues to violate Godwin's Law ([114], [115]), stern warnings to be followed by blocks for further misuse of the talk page, WP:BLP violations, and disruption by the other involved editors, etc... Wow, maybe it would be easier to just delete it. MastCell ^Talk 22:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A stern warning for User:Commanderstephanus? No, a summary and non-negotiable indefinite block is in order for this user whose only interest on Wikipedia is to attack Mr. Klingenschmitt from behind the anonymity we've granted him. This episode is a total and unqualified disgrace.

It is also worth asking if User:MiddleLinebacker and User:CommanderQ aren't a sockpuppets/meatpuppets of Commanderstephanus, and if all three aren't be the same individual as User:USMC Padre.Proabivouac 01:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not philosophically opposed to what you suggest, but an indef-block without any kind of shape-up-or-else warning leaves a bad taste in the mouth. In any case, I've already warned him. Regarding your other point, I think the likelihood of sock/meatpuppetry is high there, and if you'd like you could submit a request for checkuser, as the accounts seem to have been used for tag-team harassment. MastCell ^Talk 02:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocking someone's username isn't nearly as bad as publishing potentially libelous information about their person, is it? Your comment is appreciated in the spirit it was made, but is still misguided. Was Mr. Klingenschmitt given a "shape-up-or-else warning" before we allowed pseuds to slander him? Why extend to transparent single-issue attack-only sockpuppets/meatpuppets considerations we won't extend to real live people (who may not even edit Wikipedia)?

This is a project-level issue. The phrase "don't be evil" comes to mind. We are so far here from the right way that even relatively responsible statements such as yours miss the mark.Proabivouac 08:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi protection

Still not semi'd, could someone get it for the BLP/financial info that was posted till AFD is done? - Denny 07:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Bradford (professor)

An IP user came on to that article and heavily edited it placing a speedy deletion tag on it. [116] I removed the speedy deletion tag because it was an invalid reason for speedy deletion (the IP claimed it was "an attack page". I then looked on the talk page and saw the following comment from the IP who edited that article. He claims to be the William Bradford and requests that his article be deleted:

Please delete and preclude any future such articles about me. I am the subject of this grossly inaccurate and harmful page, and on behalf of myself, my wife, and my family, I would like to see it removed permanently.

Why? For the following reasons. My CV is and has always been accurate and has never, save for in the context of this article, been questioned in any way. The article claims that I made claims about my military service, specifically that I "claimed [I] served in the infantry and military intelligence during Desert Storm and Bosnia conflicts, that [I] eventually became a major in Special Forces, and was awarded the prestigious Silver Star." It claims that I "frequently wore a Silver Star lapel pin around campus and had a major's gold-leaf insignia plate on his vehicle." Although I did in fact serve in military intelligence, the particulars of my service and of my honorable discharge in October 2001 were and remain classified, and I have never discussed them, nor can I now discuss them, with persons who lack the requisite clearance and need-to-know. Although various media sources have reported various things about my military service, and have attributed to me various statements or claims, I have not been the source of any such claims, nor have I been accurately named as the source. As to the wearing of a "Silver Star lapel pin around campus," this is also false. The only lapel pins I have worn in the last ten years are the American flag and a rape survivors pin in honor of my wife. As to a "major's gold-leaf insignia plate" on my vehicle, that too is false. I have a Hoosier Veteran plate and a VFW plate, and nothing more.

At to the visiting professorship in New Zealand in the spring of 2006, I did indeed have conversations with Victoria University, but never finalized an arrangement. Again, the article is written in such a manner as if to suggest that I fabricated this also. Nothing could be more inaccurate.

Finally, the article states that my intent--as if anyone other than me could know my intent with certainty--is to serve as "manager of [my] tribe's up-and-coming casino." This is news to me, as my tribe does not have a casino, nor land upon which to build it. The viciousness and vitriol is unrelenting.

Most or all of these unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable alleged claims are the product, I believe, of those who opposed my quest for tenure two years ago and demonized me for having refused to sign a petition in support of Ward Churchill, the former University of Colorado professor who likened the victims of September 11th to Nazis. Although I was a somewhat prolific legal scholar, I never sought, nor did I achieve, the status of public figure, nor did I wish to become either the champion of the academic right or the whipping boy of the academic left. While I wanted to be treated fairly and granted tenure at Indiana University, I ultimately concluded that I could not and thus elected in September 2005 to resign, effective January 1 2006. It is tragic to think that all it takes for one's character, reputation, and professional life to be destroyed is for opponents to deliberately release misinformation, attribute blame for the misinformation to the subject, and then post articles far and wide across cyberspace condemning the subject and impugning his character. Yet that is precisely, and tragically, what has happened.

I can't help but believe that the article on Wikipedia and secondary citations to the article are injurious to me in my professional life, and I know quite certainly that they are terribly upsetting to my wife. Last summer I wrote to the author of the article, Joshua Claybourne, requesting that he remove it. It was his wish that the article be removed. However, other persons prevailed in preserving it in its terribly inaccurate and deeply hurtful form. I believe that reasonable persons, in examining the article, would reach two conclusions: 1) it has been shaped by those who intend solely to cause me harm, and 2) although I had some success in legal academia, I am not sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. At best, I was a footnote to the Churchill story.

I am now an MBA student hoping to develop skills that will benefit my tribe, and I ask that you remove this article so that my family and I can be relieved of the anxiety and stress this very inaccurate and hurtful writing imposes upon us. Simply viewing the article and writing to you know is tremendously stressful and damaging to my health, and I have been advised against even thinking about it by my physician. I write only because I wish to regain my privacy and to be able to work for the benefit of my family and tribe unfettered by ongoing attacks such as this. I would also ask that you take whatever measures are possible administratively to prevent my attackers from simply reposting another article about me.

Recent articles in the Wall Street Journal and in other mainstream media outlets have identified a general decline in civil discourse, particularly given the anonymity of cyberspace, and attacking the reputation and character of people through this new medium has become almost a sport. I know that the founder of Wikipedia has pledged his interest in protecting the integrity of his company by being very careful in regards to biographies of living persons in order to prevent the sort of harm that is being inflicted upon me now. I believe that if he were to read my request of you that he would be inclined to grant it. I hope you are of the same view.[117]

I thought I might as well post this incident up here to see what other administrators think.--Jersey Devil 05:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

not an admin, but I just removed anything negative or controversial that is unsourced. - Denny 06:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• This was the article when Bradford (the subject) began editing. This is what the subject, myself, and Clay cleaned it up to... - Denny 06:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The pre-cleanup version had some criticism sourced to a credible, signed article from the Inside Higher Ed website, 12/05/2006 [118] that describes the controversy over Prof. Bradford's military credentials. This was removed along with the cite. I didn't track down the reason for removal, which was not mentioned on the talk page. While maybe someone could contest the citation based on parsing WP:RS, Inside Higher Ed seems to be a serious academic site and that Prof. Bradford didn't address the article is cause for concern, to the point that I think I would have to reserve AGF while checking out the claims. A few other cites to the same publication are still in the article. It also seems to me that the current version of the article is excessively SPOV (sympathetic point of view) and I'm concerned that it's misleading. I'll be away for the next few days but may try to spend a little time on this next week. 64.160.39.153 09:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gene_Poole

Gene_Poole (talk · contribs), another personal attack to me here,from long term problematic editor that has engaged a war against everyone that tries to change the content of Ambient music, New Age music and Space music, beside accusing me to be involved in a sort of German conspiracy against .... (against whom????) here --Doktor Who 09:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rbj

Rbj (talk · contribs) called other editors "liars" at Talk:Intelligent design [119] 2 days ago. In response to his actions, I reminded him of the WP:NPA policy, and explained to him that accusing another editor of lying constituted a personal attack, since it attacks the motivation of the other editor[120]. In response to my warning, Rbj responded by re-affirming his accusation of lying[121]. For this, he was blocked by JoshuaZ, the 11th time he was blocked[122]. (I can't actually speak for JZ's motivation, I'm just guessing). Coming off his block, he demanded of JZ an explanation of why he was blocked.[123] I explained to him why he was blocked.[124] In response to this, he re-iterated his claim of lying ("what behavior? dissent? identifying a lie for what it is?")[125]

My feeling is that if someone comes off a block for personal attacks and continues with the same sort of behaviour, they should be re-blocked. I don't think that I should be the person to do it though, because he is already prone to yelling about persecution. I think that if I were to block him, his behaviour would probably escalate. At the same time, I think that he should be blocked, since he came off a block and returned to the same behaviour that caused the block in the first place. Guettarda 07:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This user has been blocked several times before. I had to block him one time for 48 hours because of a revert war he had on Marriage where he reverted 8 times within the time span of 24 hours. We might be talking about a community ban soon if he continues in this manner.--Jersey Devil 07:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I left him another warning. It may help if a few others do as well. Georgewilliamherbert 08:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should just let the matter drop this time, In fact I don't think he should have been blocked over this in the first place. People should grow slightly thicker skins. Blocks for personal attacks should be limited to serious attacks only. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

In general, I'd agree with you, and I do get tired of seeing a post here every time (it seems anyway) that someone says something slightly uncivil. However, Rbj has quite a history of making personal attacks, cursing and taunting other editors, restoring the edits of a banned user, and the like. At some point, isn't it time to say enough is enough? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely support Jersey Devil's excellent solution. :-) Jeffpw 09:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree with Theresa that blocks aren't generally appropriate for personal attacks. The issue here is that having been blocked for PAs, he comes off the block with more of the same. Guettarda 15:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

As one of his more common PA targets, I have to say I'd prefer if he'd knock off all the disruption, and if it takes a longer block to help him get the message, I'd support it. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not babysit those who chronically resort to trolling when they become frustrated that their opinions fail to gain consensus. And it appears he's just about exhausted the community's patience at that article. FeloniousMonk 16:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'll admit to being a bit snarky at times (usually when I'm ticked off), but rbj goes way beyond being snarky, he/she is visciously nasty. Rbj is also prone to making accusations that have no basis in fact: the other day, he accused Raul of Admin Abuse, stating "lessee... WP:ANOT: "[When you are an administrator you don't just block and unblock who you want, you don't delete and undelete what you want, you just don't go around editing protected pages when you want, and you can't just go protecting and unprotecting what you want." it's no coincidence that you reverted it to the version that matches your own POV and then you protected it. Admin Abuse. r b-j 06:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)". The fact was that Kenosis had made the last edit, and Raul locked the page as he found it. I challenged rbj on his accusation, and he has yet to even apologise to Raul. •Jim62sch• 17:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Bridgeman, 7th Earl of Bradford

Some days ago User:TruthComesOut was blocked indefinitly for his edits on the article above (see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive217#User:TruthComesOut). His contributions were deleted by User:Nick, since they contradicted WP:BIO. Now User:HelsOuted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), a sockpuppet of User:TruthComesOut, what he himself verifies by this edit [126], adds the same material again (see [127], [128], [129]). ~~ Phoe _talk 10:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC) ~~

• I have protected the article and blocked the sock. I have a sneaking suspicion that this is related in some way to Bridgeman's rather good website, which lifts the lid on sellers of fake peerages, but it could of course be any one of a number of other people he has pissed off. Guy (Help!) 12:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks Guy. I've been in correspondence with Bridgeman about another matter (the recent vandalism/sockpuppets at Knights Templar). He says that his own Wikipedia account is Helper2007 (talk · contribs), and that he believes that the recent vandalism on his bio is from his ex-wife, who lives in Bangalore. I'd say the "ex-wife" theory is pretty plausible, judging by the kinds of edits that have been going into the article. I recommend that we reduce the protection to semi for now. --Elonka 17:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spambot targets

• George W. Bush (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Someone with bigger cajones than me can fully protect this article, but I don't think it should be done, for various reasons.
• Obesity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Spambot? Seems like good old 'Jane is FAT' vandalism to me, but I'll be happy to be told otherwise.
• Hilary Duff (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Again... not seeing anything terribly incriminating.
• Penis enlargement (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • The last edit to this article was 13 days ago.
• Jodie Marsh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Again, just run-of-the-mill stuff.

You may need to fully protect these, because spambots with autoconfirmed accounts seem to be attacking these. Just a hint. Hopefully you'll lock these for a bit. --Matt 3!!! XL 10:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide some diffs? Note that anything like this can be reported straight to WP:AIV and taken to checkuser to make sure they won't return in a long time. MER-C 12:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Points below the article names are from me... like MER-C I would appreciate some diffs. – Riana ^ঋ 13:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the the point here? I don't see any spambots on these articles. --W.marsh 17:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:141.151.88.130

I'm posting this here instead of WP:AIV as this is a low frequency, but long-term, vandal. 141.151.88.130 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) has been repeatedly warned and blocked for edits to a few articles. The last block was one week. Can a longer block be made now please? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 207.74.196.20

Please stop this user: I've already reported him here because he vandalizes several pages on Wikipedia by blanking articles without any reasons. R@y 18:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like they should have been blocked a long time ago. Less controversial blocks can be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. J Milburn 18:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confirmed sock awaiting block

User:Francis_Escort has been identified as a likely sock of serial sockpuppeteer User:Panairjdde. Checkuser evidence was established three days ago. Could someone enforce the block? Apologies if this request is malformed. Dppowell 18:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 19:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bot editing while not logged in

It was reccomended to me on the IRC channel that I bring this up here. 172.146.36.39 (talk · contribs) appears to be a bot that is editing while not logged in. Although I think it is reasonably obvious which bot it is, I wouldn't like to point the finger. J Milburn 18:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for 24 hours for anon edits only. If you know which bot it is then please tell the owner what happened so he can fix the problem with the bot running while not logged in. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I presumed it was obvious that it was SmackBot, but I am not big on bots. I have contacted Rich Farmbrough about the matter. J Milburn 18:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Rich says that it wasn't SmackBot, and he says he thinks it was a manual user. Certianly didn't look like that to me... J Milburn 20:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely looks manual to me from the contribs. I guess it could be a really slow unapproved bot with an owner watching and editing user talk pages (with incorrect information) regarding the articles it was editing. No edit summaries means it definitely wasn't an approved bot that got logged out, and the slow speed of the edits suggests it was done manually. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solar System

Solar System is being repeatedly vandalised by a user named Turok who evades blocks by creating new accounts. I would ask that either some method be found for permanently banned or for Solar System to be semi-protected. Serendipodous 19:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I sprotected it. El_C 20:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another Stirling Newberry impersonator

See User:Calton Newberry Lopez; please block.Proabivouac 22:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Any actual signs of immitation or is it an assumption? --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 23:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That image is of User:Stirling Newberry, and has been used various sockpuppet impersonators in recent months. Its juxtaposition with hobbies such as "cruising for sex" and "gloryholes," is plainly libelous. Only contribs have been to revert SN's edits, referring to him in edit summaries, and to troll his talk page.Proabivouac 23:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, whether it's an impersonator or just a nuisance doesn't much matter. A username couldn't be more transparent trolling, even leaving aside the userpage. (Note that the troll has been indef blocked.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

He has returned as User:Eric Lopez.Proabivouac 00:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sock of indefinite blocked user The Right Honourable Bonney Eberndu

The Rt Honourable Bonney Eberndu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)is probably another sock of the indef blocked The Right Hon. Bonney Eberndu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - similar name and same picture substitution vandalism to Gordon Brown. -Mr Stephen 23:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needing a hand at the Dead Bean "article"

A group of vandals have created this doubious article and countiniously vandalize it (including the removal of speedy deletion templates and adding additional patent nonsense). An helping administrative hand would be greatly appreciated. CharonX/talk 00:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition it might be a good idea to check the contributions of User:SaebaRyo who, in addtion to serval IP useres participated in the entire monkey-business. CharonX/talk 00:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Dealt with. Not sure about SaebaRyo, though.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks mate. CharonX/talk 00:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] users Eupator and Fedayee violate the 1RR injunction

Both user:Eupator and user:Fedayee are part of this Arbitration case but despite the 1RR injunction that mandates leaving Talk page comments for all reverts and changes, have reverted and modified Ramil Safarov page without leaving edit summary and more importantly, any comments on the Talk page [130] for their March 23 and March 24 edits[131].

The appropriate diffs are:

• Revision as of 14:08, March 23, 2007 [132]
• Revision as of 14:24, March 23, 2007 [133]
• Revision as of 17:44, March 24, 2007 [134] adil 00:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdilBaguirov (talk • contribs)

Arbcom enforcement is right this way, this probably belongs there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User's questionable retirement announcement

I hate to see the departure of a long-time contributor, even one with rough edges, but is the statement currently found on User talk:Malber an acceptable form of retirement announcement? Newyorkbrad 20:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say no due to NPA. Saying there is "admin abuse" is one thing, but targeting the admins in question is unacceptable. I have removed it. — Moe 20:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism is not a personal attack. However without diffs or other further explanation, such complaints don't seem very useful. I wouldn't call this a personal attack but perhaps removing it was the right thing to do. Friday (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's about them accusing him of sockpuppetry, then he's on real thin ice making that criticism. Mackensen (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

For background: Malber was engaged in sockpuppeting. I posted relevant evidence on his talkpage in the form of a combined contribution log of the accounts in question, and Netsnipe commented on that data. In his comments Netsnipe mentioned WHOIS findings regarding Malber's IP, which Malber had disclosed during an earlier auto-unblock request. Malber was upset because he saw that as a violation of his privacy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know why we don't just show auto-blocked users the numerical block code rather than the IP, incidentally? Kirill Lokshin 00:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess its so they can request unblock of their IP if their a legit user - not everyone knows there IP if they're autoblocked (well I wouldn't!) Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Kirill's point is that an admin could lift the block by block number instead of IP number. It's a good idea from the privacy point of view, although might be a technical challenge; this sounds like a question for VP:T or a developer at this point. Newyorkbrad 00:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

True (as you can tell I haven't branched into unblocking autublocks yet!), but it also allows admins to identify similar IP vandalisms compared to the autoblocked user Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess in a perfect world it would be set so that the admin could check the number. Except that violates the privacy policy ... but privacy is breached when the autoblocked editor has to post the IP anyway.... Complicated! Newyorkbrad 01:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It could also be because no one thought about it. Unblocking users via ipb_id isn't that difficult from the technical point of view; we already do so for autoblocked users. Exposing ipb_id for registered users just requires the developers to change the code slightly, and for one parameter to be added to either MediaWiki:Blocklistline or MediaWiki:Blocklogentry. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Argh, I'm afraid that black box is going to start haunting my dreams. Too many of the departed use it. :( --Iamunknown 05:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's the evil twin of the wonderful orange "You have new messages" box ;-) The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 05:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

(LOL!) I monobook.css'd that out of my skin. *shudder* My heart starts racing everytime I see it. --Iamunknown 05:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A troubling CSD issue

I hate to break the bad news, but it looks like CAT:CSD has been over 500 elements for at least the past 24 hours. God only knows how many have managed to slip through the cracks in that time. So, consider this a call for help to get that backlog severely reduced. We have 1,000 administrators (theoretically) — we can handle this. --Cyde Weys 03:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

(Zapping images) Wow, is this some sort of record? What's the most backlogged it's ever been? Grandmasterka 06:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

(trying to zap images) If we had more admins there instead of here, we wouldn't have a backlog at all... – Riana ^ঋ 10:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been over 800 at some times ... so 500 isn't the worst. Of course, it's still terribly bad. --Cyde Weys 20:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's manageable now. However, everyone needs to look at User:Ganeshbot/Not created, follow those instructions and clean that out as well. Grandmasterka 04:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jason Gastrich requesting unbanning

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) - if an admin could investigate that would be appreciated. $$'s and sense (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has tagged himself as a Gastrich sockpuppet, which is why I've reported the issue here. Should I mention this at Requests for arbitration enforcement?? Advice is appreciated, thanks! --sunstar net^talk 13:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked that account. Jason is under an ArbCom ban and a community ban (see: [135]). I appreciate that he immediately self-identified but I don't think he's helping himself by using a sockpuppet to request the bans be dropped. Sarah 13:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: there were about four dozen socks/trolls on that fellow's IP address. All are now blocked. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, it says that he is banned for one year starting March 21 2006. So, has the ban expired then? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No, because he's been community banned and indeflbocked in the meantime for block evasion. So the ban only expires if and when the community decides to un-community-ban him. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I don't suppose that will happen. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The original ArbCom ban hasn't expired anyway because the timer kept being reset when he kept being caught using sockpuppets to evade the block. The Log_of_blocks_and_bans shows sock activity up until September. But as Moreschi noted above, he was also community banned for exhausting the community's patience with his sockpuppets. Sarah 15:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think this person claiming to be Gastrich is actually Gastrich? Just askin'. 64.160.39.153 16:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I actually have no opinion regarding whether that person was actually Jason or not. From my point-of-view, it makes no difference if it was him or if it was a troll pretending to be him because the appropriate action is the same. Sarah 06:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update on User:Homeopathic / George Vithoulkas incidents

Homeopathic seems to have calmed down, and, thanks to a few good editors stepping up to the plate, the George Vithoulkas article is beginning to look reasonable and balanced (Good thing it looks set to survive AfD). On the whole, I'd say the situation is turning out splendidly. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden, the thing that outraged me was the fact you edited Vithoulkas' page, entering FALSE information about his views. And just remember how you questioned the RightLivelihood Αward video... I am not familiar with WP rules, and seeing the truth being twisted so badly, led to my old comments. The current views in his WP page do not trully reflect his views and still have to be changed.Homeopathic 06:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Marlon.sahetapy

I have blocked socks of Marlon.sahetapy. As one of the socks reverted one of my edits, I had hoped somebody else would look into it to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest, but nobody responded to a previous AN/I post, and they are continuing disruption, therefore I have gone ahead and blocked. Please raise any issues and feel free to unblock. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-25 01:28Z

Quack, quack. Support Quarl's reasoning and the blocks, pretty obvious socks. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Quarl, I am Revivo formerly known as Brasileiro. I am asking you to unblock my Brasileiro1969 account as I am not associated with those other users as you think or like to believe.

You seem to have acted on "complaint" from aLii on your page about me. Alii's comment reads a bit like a footballer who is begging the ref for a red card after one of his fellow players (stubacca) claims to have been fouled.

The comment I removed from you (with explanation) on that SP allegation page, looked like you were necessarily trying to inflict damage to my position, with just saying sonmething along the lines of 'I agree as per above and he deleted one of my edits as well'. That does not strike me as very constructive towards a proper decision by a neutral party. Why am I not allowed to delete one of your entries? Where is the vandalism and disruption in that? Where was the warning from you if you really felt that strongly about the comment you added?

I merely had a content dispute with Stubacca and a discussion with aLii on his wholesale changes to an article without debating first. In my discussion with aLii, though pointed at times, I have done nothing wrong and he tried to leverage the false allegation Stubacca made and discredit me (an allegation which Stuba made as he could not further an edit based on his POV only, which also happens to be your POV on the matter I have read)

And with you as admin involved in this case, you should not be the one who is the accuser and judge rolled into one. An unfair principle, don't you think?

More reasons for you to reconsider what you have done, in my view. I am waiting for your response, which I expect to be balanced, open, honest and with a degree of self-reflection.

I ask you or a truly neutral admin to unblock me and let me be and feel free to keep following me in my tracks as I am not a SP.

[edit] User:Accountready

I need to draw attention to this, if only to stop me from excessive language in edit summaries. A helpful and forceful warning from another party would help. Perhaps more.

Accountready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is deleting information about and links to established news outlets, and sometimes (always?) replacing with links to news.yahoo.com pages. I've only looked at the latest six edits:

Agence_France-Presse [136]

Associated_Press [137]

Reuters [138]

1 July 2006 Sadr City bombing [139]

Wikipedia:News sources/Collections [140]

The last one I reverted with edit summary

rv and restore links deleted by Accountready - you removed NYTimes, International Herald Tribune, Guardian, Der Spiegel, Al Jazeera in favor of yahoo links??)

which was much more polite than I felt. Editor has characterized edits as "update", "broken link", and "replaced and updated links". Links were not broken, text was deleted, etc. I'm going to "not look" for awhile..., and calm down.

BTW: All of this is today, with no prior edits, changes to monobook.js (umm, previous experiences here?), all edits look Iranian or news-related - is this anyone y'all know? Shenme 03:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Warn the user with {{subst:uw-spam?|article}}. Replace the ? with a number, dependant upon past warnings. If he changes the links, after you warned him, report him to WP:AIV with a link to this discussion. --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 03:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This user's behavior is definitely less than acceptable. S/he CfD'ed a category, and then started removing that category from articles while the CfD was still open (although it does look like the category will be deleted). Natalie 04:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Also violations of WP:NPA according to his edit summaries. Edited from a open proxy, which makes me suspect a previously indef. blocked user. --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 04:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hiya! This is somebody back from the wastes. I've finished going through everything, and I don't know what additional warning to put on the talk page. In fact, I'm not sure they shouldn't just be blocked. Please review, especially these last edits, which were their first.

User talk:82.148.97.69 "fixed typo" [141]

User talk:82.148.97.69/press "Revert to revision 98824629 dated 2007-01-06 06:36:47 by Theeacc using popups" [142]

Don´t lie Jimmy you loser! Theeacc 06:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Theeacc

Not all bad, everybody is agreeing with their nomination on the CfD. Seriously, though, I'm not gonna touch this anymore. Seems too obvious... Shenme 04:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That's true, although everyone's agreeing with the CfD nom for completely different reasons than the original nomination. Even so, I don't think it's ok to delete categories from pages before the discussion is closed. People might wander over there and think it should be speedied as a de-popped category. If it is a blocked user someone else will have to fill me in, because it doesn't look familiar at all. Natalie 04:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

User has blanked his talk page and warnings. User is reverting the reverts and is continuing... whatever. Hello, deleting Der Spiegel from Wikipedia:News sources/Collections is rather blatent don't you think? My warnings and Natalie's warnings haven't impressed. Would someone please impress this editor? Shenme 06:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Appears to have the sock User:Wbwbr in addition to all of the above. Nardman1 06:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the user 24 hours, the length of the autoblock from blocking Wbwbr. But I have the impression that this editor is not here to do anything constructive. Grandmasterka 07:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've finished cleaning up. I even checked some links he insisted were broken as the reason to delete an article section (4 out of 27 links broken) and asked an interested editor to check better than I can. Accountready has something against Reuters, alertnet, and other news outlets, and _for_ news.yahoo.com (even though the latter were most of the broken links :-P )   Goodnight... Shenme 07:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] annoymous user Special:Contributions/86.138.232.97

Following advise to do so from another user I am bringing this to the attention of admins. The details of my 'problem' with the above user is laid out here on my talk page User_talk:Erolz in the section "Some guidance on what to do please" Erolz 09:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• It would apear this 'user' has been active again recently vandalising a whole series of pages from 8.52 on 25th March 07 onwards as per all his edite listed here Special:Contributions/86.138.232.97 and example of one of these acts of vandalism is here [[143]]. Others are less 'extreme' but every change he has made that I have checked so far contains some form of the same spam. As I point out in my original post and the link there I strongly suspect this users is a sockpuppet of the currently banned user GreekWarrior.Erolz 09:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Fadix Personal Attacks

Apart from evidence presented at [144], [145] and [146], User:Fadix continued his personal attack upon myself today [147]:

• Your psychosis have no place in this article.

Can someone advise this user to cease his personal attacks? Thanks. Atabek 10:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding brutal, why do you guys even bother with these continuous reports here, at this stage? We've seen at least four or five of them from various participants of the Azerbaijan-Armenian wars over the last few days alone. You're at Arbcom. In all likelihood, you'll all be banned in only a couple of days time. Why do you waste your precious last days on Wikipedia bothering with these conflicts? Just go and write some nice little uncontroversial article, so you'll have something nice to remember during the year you'll be away. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you think he even care, I have a contribution of over 2 years here, have had minor problems, have been thanked for my contributions on various occasions with barnastars. They come in, disturb, dusturb and disturb and now I am proposed for a ban. I don't know if it makes any differences to note that the "psychosis" refer to his constant allusions on every given occasion on unrelated articles about how the Armenian genocide is a fake, how it is the product of professional forgers. An event in which both of my grandfathers have lost their parents, brothers and systers. I agree, perhaps I should go write uncontroversial articles, that was my intention, why should I bother being threatned for a ban like this when I have been contributing here for over 2 damn years and have never been blocked for edit warring, kept 2RR as policy for myself, discussed more than enough every of my insignificant changes and I am thrown in the same bag as those who have done absolutly nothing other than edit warring, sock puppeting. Atabek will be back during ban, with a new sock. I won't. The evidences presented here does in no way represent my contributions on Wikipedia, the evidences presented against Atabek does, as he was a new user who came here specifically to creat problems. I do not say I should not be banned, probably I've gone a little to far with my personal attacks. But 1 year is long, very long when you've been here for a long time, 3 months would have been more than enough. He should be more than happy to get veterans banned with him, he did more than enough with this. Sorry for the ranting. Just to throw me in the same bag as Adil, Atabek, Artaxiad and Dacy, is more than I could handle. Fad (ix) 14:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Future Perfect: in a very short space of time all of this will hopefully become irrelevant. Why not try to go out in a productive blaze of glory, for a change? Like write something for DYK? I mean, really...Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

In that arbitration case, users who merely revert warred are proposed to be placed on revert parole, while users who have edit warred and engaged in personal attacks are proposed to be banned. This distinction is important, as personal attacks degrade the editing experience for everyone. Thatcher131 16:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Thatcher131 for some attention to fairness. Regarding FuturePerfect's comment, so what you're essentially saying that it's OK to commit a violation against a party in ArbCom case? Can you please, point me to a Wikipedia rule that says the user in ArbCom case, even in the last hour of editing permission, somehow has less rights than ordinary editor? I assumed Wikipedia is not a dictatorial environment for "summary executions". After all, I reported a disruption, which is irrelevant of the fact whether the disruptor is in ArbCom or not. Atabek 11:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't put words in anyone else's mouth, but my take is as follows. You're about to be banned by the ArbCom for a year for a history of edit warring, personal attacks, and sockpuppeting. You've absorbed a tremendous amount of the community's time, resources, and goodwill already. I have three thoughts.

First, your newfound respect and appreciation for our policies is heartening, but looks suspiciously like you're trying to use our rules to fight the same old battles. Please pardon my cynicism. Second, we don't generally like to block parties to an in-progress Arbitration, except for conduct that becomes harmful and disruptive beyond the bounds of the Arbitration. It tends to complicate and lengthen what is already a slow process. Seek a temporary injunction in the Arbitration: a short-leash personal attack parole for some or all of the involved parties.

Third, you seem to have confused Wikipedia with a court of law or a democratically-run judicial system. While occasionally our actions may seem to reflect a desire to assume innocence until proven guilty, to punish people who violate our rules, or to treat every editor as equal under Wikipedia policy, this is a coincidence. Our first, foremost – and indeed only – goal here is to build an encyclopedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of attacks by the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia

There are a number of people removing all the external sites on the basis on "I don't like it" [148]

What is the recommended action? Please assist. -- Cat ^chi? 17:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a content dispute, have you tried WP:DR? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Content dispute" is generally for articles actual content. This is mere external links. I could go for mediation though I feel this is rather too trivial. I don't like the idea of "I don't like it" censorship though. -- Cat ^chi? 17:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This looks like forum shopping. There was clear consensus at the deletion debate that the article could be kept but the links to extremist sites had to go [149]. The same consensus appears on the talk page, with only Cool Cat arguing to retain them and trying to get rid of any warning notice about their content too. The sites linked appear to be self-published attack sites of no scholarly value. Note: I am neither Armenian or Turkish nor do I hold any brief for long-defunct Marxist-Leninist "guerrilla" groups. I was alerted to this page during its AfD and I noticed that the primary concern of some of its editors seemed to be soapboxing rather than providing accurate, encyclopaedic information. My suspicions were further aroused when I tried to ensure the information provided was more accurate and I was accused of "vandalism" and "disruption". Come on, this is the kind of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name. None of those links do anything to improve our reputation so they should go. --Folantin 18:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the links are inline with Wikipedia:External links - which doesn't prohibit "racist" or biassed sites (your argument, I have no opinion). They are mere external links and not sources. External links are supposed to be comprehensive. Disclaimers are bad taste. -- Cat ^chi? 18:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Whereas links to hate blogs with banner headlines screaming about the "Falsified genocide" are the height of sophistication, I suppose. --Folantin 18:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not think genocide has anything to do with this. The information on the 5 sites are about ASALA's attacks. Weather rest of the site suits your point of view or it doesn't is irrelevant. I do not believe all 5 of those sites are mere blogs. -- Cat ^chi? 20:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, stop inserting more content here and take this whole issue back to the talk page as requested. --Folantin 20:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, this definitely sounds like a content dispute, I don't see any need for admin attention to this. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this can go back to the talk page now that Cool Cat has got sufficient attention here. --Folantin 18:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like your tone Folantin. -- Cat ^chi? 20:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. I dare say many people don't like yours. Nobody is breaking any rules here, so back we all go to the usual procedures for resolving content disputes. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toolsrocks (talk · contribs)

• Based on the contribs, it looks like another sock of SummerThunder (talk · contribs). JuJube 08:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Report it at WP:AIV, if it is a simple vandal or sock. --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 08:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I just told the person to take it here since it didn't look that simple. I'll look into it instead of passing the buck again. -- Merope 08:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jack0343

Yesterday, User:Jack0343 added 25+ articles on individual episodes of Home Improvement with text copy-and-pasted from another website (www.tbs.com/stories) without permission. Myself, User:Tainter and User:Jonomacdrones repeatedly warned him whilst he was doing this and deleted the copyvio text from the articles, leaving just stubs with episode titles & cast lists. However, he is ignoring this and appears to be both reposting the offending text and creating new copyvio articles today - as I don't want to get into an edit war by repeatedly deleting his material, could I ask that the offending articles (not listed here for reasons of space, but constituting this user's entire edit history) be watched and if necessary the offending user be blocked. I (and the other two editors watching this) am reluctant to CSD the articles as copyvios as the remaining stubs would be very useful to anyone planning to recreate them legitimately. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To User:Quarl

Hi Quarl, I am Revivo formerly known as Brasileiro. I am asking you to unblock my Brasileiro1969 account as I am not associated with those other users as you think or like to believe.

You seem to have acted on "complaint" from aLii on your page about me. Alii's comment reads a bit like a footballer who is begging the ref for a red card after one of his fellow players (stubacca) claims to have been fouled.

The comment I removed from you (with explanation) on that SP allegation page, looked like you were necessarily trying to inflict damage to my position, with just saying sonmething along the lines of 'I agree as per above and he deleted one of my edits as well'. That does not strike me as very constructive towards a proper decision by a neutral party. Why am I not allowed to delete one of your entries? Where is the vandalism and disruption in that? Where was the warning from you if you really felt that strongly about the comment you added?

I merely had a content dispute with Stubacca and a discussion with aLii on his wholesale changes to an article without debating first. In my discussion with aLii, though pointed at times, I have done nothing wrong and he tried to leverage the false allegation Stubacca made and discredit me (an allegation which Stuba made as he could not further an edit based on his POV only, which also happens to be your POV on the matter I have read)

And with you as admin involved in this case, you should not be the one who is the accuser and judge rolled into one. An unfair principle, don't you think?

More reasons for you to reconsider what you have done, in my view. I am waiting for your response, which I expect to be balanced, open, honest and with a degree of self-reflection.

I ask you to unblock me and let me be and feel free to keep following me in my tracks as I am not a SP.

[edit] User:JohnHistory

A recently registered user, JohnHistory is resorting to personal attacks on Talk:Manfred von Richthofen, [150]. I have warned the user about his behaviour, to which he responded on his talk page and mine. The user has previously been blocked for 24 hours for continued disruption, after posting this comment and heavily canvassing against user:Clawson's RfA. I have seriously tried to come to terms with him, but it seems like he is not willing to conform to policy. I'm emphasising this because I regard AN/I as a (preliminary) last resort and have not reported here before, but this user has finally managed to exhaust my patience.

Let me carefully add that a mild anti-Semitic bias also seems to come into play, considering [151], [152], [153], [154], and [155]. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I would personally endorse an indef ban here, the user seams to be here to cause disruption and I find it very difficult to find a legitimate edit, with my original 24 hour block, I was trying to assume good faith that the user might calm down after it, but obviously not, and after great advice from Kncyu38 which he has disregarded, he has continued his disruption Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

An anon who had (before some personal attacks directed against JH) made several clearly good-faithed edits to the article and talk page made this edit. JohnHistory reacted with this and this. After I asked him to explain his edits on the talk page instead, he replied to me like this. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)