Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:Homeopathic

Homeopathic (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is almost certainly George Vithoulkas, or someone closely related to him. For instance, When a photo Homeopathic uploaded was deleted, the copyright status on the webpage was changed.

He has been making extreme POV-pushing edits to George Vithoulkas, and any attempts to lessen the POV have led to him complaining. I realise that content issues aren't germaine here, but this is beyond content issues to him trying to remove all negative content.:

• Advertising a product of Vithoulkas' (last in a series)
• ...and restoring the advertising again
• Objecting to the use of anything negative in the article - This one shows up funny, I'll quote:

The critique article you've used as reference is by someone who does not believe in Homeopathy, nevermind the general 'neutral' tone and titles. The author, Anthony Campbell, in his book concludes that Homeopathy is not proven and suggests the effects are due to placebo

Book summary. This critique is against Classical Homeopathy, not Vithoulkas himself, who is simply expressing Hahnemann's Homeopathic point of view for health and disease, nowdays accepted by most Homeopaths (the critique is dated 1978). Besides there was a newer edition of Vithoulkas' Science of Homeopathy printed on 1980, with very possitive comments by the Homeopathic community ::Amazon.com. At the time of print of the very first edition of Science of Homeopathy, at the Royal Hospital, only Homeopathic Polypharmacy (combinations of homeopathic remedies) were being used, and that only for minor health issues. Campbell and the establishment felt threatened, and hence this negative critique. Science of Homeopathy is a standard book used in almost all homeopathic schools around the world - the fact that it has been translated in 20 languages is a proof of its acceptance. And please do something about Adam Cuerden, he is clearly biased, dismissing all information about Vithoulkas as POV (please compare the edited versions) ::Homeopathic 16:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The quote in question is here, and is from the British Homeopathic Journal.

I don't know what to do with him. If I had my druthers, I'd block him, but... Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE

He's now making legal threats: [1] (this makes it easier to read) I've changed two things he objected to on my talk page to an exact quote, and a more exact paraphrase of his argument since this, but I somehow doubt it'll placate him. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I would like to provide more detail about User:Homeopathic's legal threats. Here [2] and here [3] he uses edit summaries to threaten legal action over the George Vithoulkas article. I warned him [4] about WP:NPA and WP:NLT, after which he continues to make legal threats: [5] and [6]. I am becoming very concerned about this situation, and I would appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could intervene. Thanks! Skinwalker 16:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm a hawk when it comes to fighting legal threats but to me it seems like he's skirting just outside the realm of what warrants an instant ban. Let us know here if he crosses the line solidly. I'll drop a note to stop even alluding to a possible lawsuit. --Golbez 16:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the article on the wrong version, let's work this out shall we. --Golbez 16:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Are there actually any sources for this article which are not in some way connected with advocacy of homeopathy? Guy (Help!) 16:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Not really. Frankly, the subject seems largely invisible outside of pro-Homeopathy sites, and that weird Right Livelihood Award. (Have you ever poked around the R. L. Award website? They criticise the Nobel prize for not awarding enough science prizes to the "south". Big freaking surprise, given there's only two not-particularly populous first-world nations in the southern hemisphere.) Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry to be a bit slow, have just noticed this [7] "Dave, i'm just letting you know Adam inserts FALSE information on Vithoulkas' WP page, obviously intentionally. Just a friendly note, WP and Adam himself can be sued for this. Hope you resolve the situation.Homeopathic 16:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)" which is perhaps superseded by later events. One thing Adam's not picked out from the interview which was the source of the contested views, it indicates that Vithoulkas has fallen out with "his students from the UK in the 1980s", which may explain a bizarre comment by an anon supporter of Vithoulkas on my talk page at 13:08, 19 March 2007: "it seems that you have sided with the wrong guys". There appear to be rival factions in the homeopathy world. .. dave souza, talk 20:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate: if there are no independent sources on this guy, should we really have an article about him? MastCell ^Talk 23:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It seemed pretty borderline to me. Critical review of The Science of Homeopathy from the British Homoeopathic Journal looks pretty independent. User:Homeopathic recently added other articles from the same source which are very uncritical, reading rather like advertising magazines. His books do seem to have made it onto Amazon.com, though Amazon.co.uk didn't seem to be selling them themselves, essentially referring buyers to second-hand dealers. .. dave souza, talk 00:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There was an AfD, but it got overrun by meatpuppets (See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive216#Meatpuppetry_and_Attacks) and then, after I early closed due to copyvio, it got promptly reconstructed. (And Vithoulkas changed his copyright terms to release his CV under a free licence - NOT that we should use it!)

He's very extreme and anti-conventional medicine, and that seems to have made him a darling of extreme homeopaths and altmed types. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well then, I don't say this to make a point, but maybe another AfD sans meatpuppets and copyright issues would make sense? The article is still extremely thin on independent sources establishing notability, and likely fails WP:BIO and/or WP:PROF. Given the hullaballoo surrounding the page of late, it would seem there has been plenty of time to produce such sources, so their lack is telling. But as it's protected currently I'm not sure whether it can or should be re-listed. MastCell ^Talk 15:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, we could, but I'd suggest you be the one that does it: I think he hates me enough already. That said, he has made himself notable enough among homeopaths to get a few awards, now, whether they're really notable - a medal awarded to him by Hungary to kick off a homeopathic conference in Budapest, for instance - is another thing, but it is evidence he's notable for a modern homeopath. Whether "notable for a homeopath" is really notable in reality, I dunno. I wouldn't mind keeping the article if we can get him to allow an objective statement of Vithoulkas' views, as it might be a useful study in how far out there homeopathic thought can get. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with the above, so have boldly initiated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Vithoulkas (Second nomination) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JzG (talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, if it does succeed, we'd best salt it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with salting it is that it's possible that actual reliable, independent secondary sources will appear at some point in the future, putting him over the WP:BIO bar and making it possible to write a decent article about him. If the decision is to delete it, better just to watch it - obviously, its immediate recreation would be quite WP:POINTY. MastCell ^Talk 22:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Point. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible severe Conflict of Interest AfD?

Can another admin please take a look at this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian political violence/ 2nd nomination

The nominator is a self-professed employee of the Palestinian National Authority, and to me this seems a sever conflict of interest. The user was previosuly informed of WP:COI. I am of the belief that this should be Speedily Kept as both a violation of WP:COI and a seemingly bad faith nomination to boot ("that the violence may be legitimate.") -- Avi 16:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm. If we barred everybody who is a civil servant or otherwise employee of a state agency from contributing on political issues regarding their country, where would that lead us? - That said, I now see he actually claims not only to be an employee but an authorised representative of the PNA. That makes some difference. I guess it would constitute COI for articles relating directly to the PNA as an institution, but still not to all articles relating to Palestinian politics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, contributing is different from nominating an article that paints this person's employer in a less than positive light. And are not gov't officials ostensibly working for the people in a "democratic" society? Secondly, COI exists, and in its context I am asking for confirmation that the AfD is improper. Your concern is more properly raised on WT:COI. -- Avi 16:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when you're dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it will be hard to find anyone resident in either Israel or the Palestinian territories without a strong opinion. It's not like a standard political issue where most of the populace doesn't pay attention to the issue and can be considered unbiased. So we either exclude the entire population of a country or two, or we just have to live with a bit of editing by interested parties. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)\

There is a tremendous difference between having a strong opinion about something and being a paid public relations member of a government. I think it is actually somewhat ludicrous that you would even compare the two. I don't know how you could come to the conclusion that blocking her could be anything even remotely like the exclusion of an entire population of a country.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder whether you guys would be so keen on blocking her if she stated she was a member of Likud. WP:COI is about the stupidest policy we have, and trying to apply it here is ridiculous, given that your effort is so clearly politically motivated. My view: we should concern ourselves with the edits, not the editor. If she edits within the bounds of policy, there's no big problem. Grace Note 22:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Grace, assuming good faith is also one of our policies. Perhaps looking atsome of the conversation before accusations are levied would help. Thank you. -- Avi 02:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" does not mean "bend over", Avi. The diff mostly seems to be a long lecture on your part. It's a bit like the thief giving the court his version of the law on robbery so far as I'm concerned, I'm afraid. As I noted, so long as this user edits within the bounds of policy, there is no problem; if she does not, there are the usual remedies. You could though try negotiation instead of antagonism. Anyway, Avi, my money is on this being a clever piece of trolling. The intention is to get your faction to do something intemperate, allowing those who believe that Wikipedia is biased towards a particular point of view more fuel for their fire. Grace Note 07:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If it helps quell any doubts to say this, my impartiality has earned enough respect that I recently got solicited here and here and here regarding sensitive issues that relate to Middle East politics. The latter example led to this conversation where my analysis of policy and precedent led to a fairly sympathetic stand toward the more conservative Muslim side of the debate. I was the editor who imposed a block on this account and let's assume good faith toward the intentions of all who have been involved. We're here to create an encyclopedia, not to wage the world's disputes. Durova^Charge! 01:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As I noted above, "assume good faith" does not mean "pretend that no one has a bias round here". I don't have a problem with editors' having a bias, of course. Anyway, it's pretty clear that this user, whoever they are, will be run out on a rail pretty shortly. ProPalestinian editors have to be very careful to stay within the guidelines, as you have demonstrated. Grace Note 07:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

With the preconcieved notions and an inability to try to engage in dialogue that you seem to be representing, that may be an unfortunate truth. Thankfully, I have had dialogue with other Muslim and Palestinian editors and supporters who are more amenable to discourse than you seem to indicate. -- Avi 14:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Grace Note, please refrain from the implication that the editor's political beliefs have any bearing whatsoever on my handling of this matter. The fact that this editor claims to be a representative of a well known organization did have some bearing. I would, however, have handled this the same in response to equivalent actions from someone who said they represented General Motors or the World Bank. Durova^Charge! 14:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are as aware as I am that if the user in question was posing as a member of Likud, you would not have blocked them, fearing a wheel war. This is not particularly a reflection on you personally. Grace Note 06:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Editor says she is a Hamas representative

An issue has arisen with a new editor, Asucena (talk · contribs). She says on her user page: "I am an official of the Palestinian authority and a member of Hamas' political public relations division; I am an official representative of the authority in the online field." And on her talk page: "I am an official of the Palestinian Authority. I am authorised to answer your questions about Palestine."

If true, there's a clear conflict of interest regarding any edits to do with Palestinian affairs or issues of relevance to the Palestinian authority or to Hamas. The question is how should we handle it? I seem to recall that the IPs of offices believed to belong to American congressmen were being blocked at one point to stop edits that might benefit them, but the Foundation wanted to be told because it was a government issue. This is also in a way a government issue. Do we block the user; ask her to stop making that claim until she proves it; revert her edits; simply keep an eye on them? Some of her editing has been controversial; for example, she nominated Palestinian political violence for deletion, which is absurd in itself, and a clear COI violation coming from her, if what she says is correct.

I'm posting this here and not on the COI noticeboard because she's saying there's a government authority involved. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

How is she "going to prove it"? If for real, you'd think she would have much better things to be doing that tooling around here. Anyways, --Tom 17:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Notify the foundation, request confirmation via OTRS, and revert any COI edits on sight? ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

See duplicate thread two headings up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Could this and this (in that order) be related here? (→Netscott) 17:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As long as all edits are in keeping with our guidelines and policies, there shouldn't be a problem surely? I'm a member of the University of Oxford, and have associations with a number of Colleges, but no-one has ever suggested that I should steer clear of relevant articles. Given that this editor is perfectly open and honest about her affiliation, we shouldn't have any problem monitoring what she does.

Whether she's actually who she says she is — that's another issue. Unless she tries to use it as a justification for edits, instead of giving verifiable sources, then I don't see that it matters. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You're not paid to represent Oxford University online, that's the difference. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's a difference, but why is it significant here? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Because she says she's an official rep — "I am an official representative of the authority in the online field." And on her talk page: "I am an official of the Palestinian Authority. I am authorised to answer your questions about Palestine."

Being on Wikipedia is part of her job description. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a really big difference between just working for a college (which although needs to be seen as elite and exclusive does not need to be concerned with the public perceptions of of the organization near as much as a small government striving for recognition does) and being a paid public relations representative of a government. This is a textbook conflict of interest, if we ignore this situation we might as well abolish the entire policy since we are not going to find a better example of a violation. If someone was simply a member of a government in an unspecified position you might be able to make an argument against it being a COI, however this person is self-admitedly a public relations representative, their entire job is to protect the image of their employer. They will attempt to spin every detail to their advantage just as assuredly as those idiots on crossfire. Furthermore this user has not made a single edit that contradicts anything I have said.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore the editor has stated that she is acting in an official capacity, [8], and that she isn't just editing wikipedia as a hobby.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Role account anybody? Prodego ^talk 20:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore is anyone else troubled by the fact that she refers to herself as "one of [the] Palestine's National Authority representatives here on Wikipedia" and goes to refer to her "duties", [9]. If this editor is being truthful about her affiliations the aforementioned statement seems to have at least two serious implications- First, that she is but one person that has been delegated to represent a particular government on wikipedia. Secondly, that the job actually carries specific duties. Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but this seem very disconcerting to me.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I definitely don't agree with the proposition that some seem to be advancing - that we should be banning or reverting an editor's contributions based on who they are. That way lies a very nasty slippery slope. It's also totally at odds with our mission statement ("the encyclopedia that anyone can edit"). As long as the editor's professional affiliations are properly disclosed - and in this case they seem to have been - I don't think there will be a problem. As for the fact that this editor will most likely be a partisan, I have to point out that the Arab-Israeli conflict articles are already a cesspit of aggressive partisan editing, disregard for NPOV, original research, reliance on fringe sources and unverified information, coordinated tag-team edit warring, overt POV-pushing, ownership of articles and pervasive systematic bias. The addition of one professional partisan isn't going to make much difference to an area of Wikipedia which is already infested with numerous amateur partisans (and it wouldn't surprise me if some of them were professionals, too, as Moshe suggests). -- ChrisO 21:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Chris, banning ANYONE violates the idea of "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". And I think working for a militant organization which has engaged in combat against Israel makes someone more partisan than someone who, for instance, works in a Tel-Aviv delicatessen. Sure, the guy in the delicatessen might not like the Palestinians much, but his job isn't to do PR for the people who blow them up. I'd have the same objections to someone who works for Likud or IDF editing Israel/Palestine related articles as well. Philwelch 22:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What next? Banning anyone who votes the wrong way? Most editors here do not state their affiliations. Should we be rewarding them for being smarter and punishing this one for being honester? Grace Note 22:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's true that it's a bit of a paradox that when people disclose, we tell them they can't edit in certain areas, but it's not clear how else to handle it. For example, we don't want professional PR people for certain companies editing those companies' articles, and if they do, they have to be extra cautious; that is the point of the WP:COI guideline. Given Asucena's edits, she's not being cautious at all; quite the reverse. So the question remains how best to deal with it. Of course, we don't yet know that she really is a PR person for the Palestinian Authority. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that we only block people for their (mis)conduct, not their professional affiliations, or have I missed something in WP:BLOCK? Actually, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for people directly involved in the conflict to edit related articles. Several of our editors do serve with the IDF (Ynhockey comes to mind), which can hardly be avoided given Israel's conscription policy. I'm sure we have Likud activists editing too - I'd be surprised if we didn't. There's nothing wrong per se in them editing, as long as they disclose any COI issues in advance. I'd call it a positive step that people are willing to engage with each other on Wikipedia rather than just blowing each other up... -- ChrisO 22:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If you edit with a consistently pro-foo bias, you should be banned for being a pro-foo partisan hack. Admitting to be employed by the Party for Foo and Blowing Up Bar is evidence of bias, which, in combination with a biased editing record and no indication of future improvement, is cause for ban. If you happen to be employed by the Party for Foo and Blowing Up Bar, but never say anything, edit anything having to do with foo or bar, or if you do edit those things, edit them neutrally, no one will care. Philwelch 00:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem who someone represents, Slim. It's much more of a problem how they edit. As I noted on the user's talkpage, I think the paradox you note is important; some strongly biased editors who do not say why they hold that bias are not challenged, while this one is challenged primarily because of a presumptive bias. But I don't see that it's something we have to "handle". So what if User:X is the Queen of Sheba. If she edits articles on Sheba using sources and within the bounds of our policies, what's the problem? Edits, not people, count. Given that this editor did not stick to the bounds, she was punished (intemperately in my view, given how egregiously others have performed and not been punished, but still, if we are blocking her, that is the best reason for it). Grace Note 06:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A very brief look through the user's contribution history and talk page shows that she has been making edits based upon her expertise or authority, and has been challenged for sources. I think she should be made aware of the rules and policies, and watched. If she can make encyclopedic contributions that are NPOV and reliably sourced, great. If she can't handle the rules, or won't, then hammer her through existing process and policy. Same goes for her fellow employees, if they really exist, and assuming she is what she says she is. If she's not, she shouldn't be allowed to claim it. Crockspot 23:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, and to test people's intuitions, if the press officer for the Animal Liberation Front arrived at Wikipedia, announced who she was, and proceeded to edit animal rights articles from a very strong AR POV, and nominated for deletion an article that suggested the Animal Liberation Front was violent, what would we do? My sense is that person would be blocked by now. Am I wrong? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting comparison, SV. There are one to two self identified activists for various liberation groups editing currently. Since the "Front" has no official organisation, we are told that anyone who self identifies as such, and works within their remit, is a representative. I don't believe any of them have been blocked despite editing the ALF and related articles from an obviously pro-AR perspective. Why not? Because they are judged on their contributions, not who they claim to represent. I keep a close eye on those I'm aware of, however none of the have grossly violated our policies. I would suggest doing the same for this editor. Rockpocket 02:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I do think you're wrong, and I think in any case the proper comparison is with a pro-Israeli editor, several of whom do edit in that manner. I think care needs to be taken not to deal with factionalists with the ban hammer, lest you are seen to be acting out of political animus rather than concern for the policies of the encyclopaedia. Grace Note 07:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've blocked the account for 24 hours and written what I hope is an appropriate and sufficient explanation at this user's talk page. Durova^Charge! 00:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Some explanation of role accounts may be necessary in light of the "one of" comments brought above. -- Avi 00:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add to my explanation. My main concern is to slow things down before this becomes another media feeding frenzy. We understand that new users often get off to a rocky start, but the press can be merciless and the recent Microsoft to-do may incline them to very little leniency toward this editor. I'm confident they'd check the bona fides before running any story. Yet from our perspective we're dealing with a bull-in-a-china-shop situation and the bull doesn't appear to notice the cameras strolling past the sidewalk outside the plate glass window. Let's lead the bull carefully so the good vases don't get broken. I suppose I'll take some criticism for this decision. I also think it was the right thing to do. Durova^Charge! 01:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You'll get no criticism from me and I am generally a Palestinian Sympathizer. It is fine for her to be their representative, but when she edits those articles she (more than anybody else) needs to refer ONLY to published sources and maintain a neutral POV. There are other venues for her to push her POV. --BenBurch 02:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a significant problem with letting editors pose as representatives of real world organizations with no proof of it. Such persons may wish to bring harm to the organizations they are posing as reps of. Or may wish to deny they are reps after they srew up and do damage to the reputations of whoever they are representing. Important real world claims by users should be sourced or deleted. WAS 4.250 06:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is about the first sensible thing I've seen said on this subject. What better way to troll the pro-Likudist faction here than to pose as a representative of Hamas and make contentious edits? Grace Note 07:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you must have no sense then.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No? Well, it's worked a treat, wouldn't you say because here you are, leaping up and down. Grace Note 06:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Grace and Moshe, comments such as the ones above, besides being violations WP:NPA in spirit, if not in letter, will go nowhere in helping minimize the issues that the two of you are so valiantly championing. If y'all truly desire some form of détente between various groups of editors with different political backgrounds, I would think that the proper approach would be to engage people in meaningful dialogue, as opposed to "one-off" shots and one-liners. Maybe Asucena is a troll; if so, when we find that out, we whip out ye olde bannehammer and apply liberally and with gusto. Until such point, she gets the same good faith that you, I, or anyone deserves, and is treated in accordance with policy and guidelines, of which the applicable one here is WP:COI. -- Avi 14:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's all take a breath and calm down

I've written to the Foundation, summarized the situation with relevant links, and asked for directions on how to proceed. Let's avoid inflammatory speculations of all types. I'm confident they'll check this person's bona fides and reach a sensible solution. Durova^Charge! 15:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not think the Foundation should be asked to make decrees. It's bad enough that we have a constitutional monarch who makes decrees that cause more trouble than they solve without asking to have a further layer of nobility do the same. Grace Note 06:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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 [10] -- 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 [11] [12] [13]. 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)

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. [14] 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)

Betacommand bot approval withdrawn

Just FYI.

[15] --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 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)

George Vithoulkas

Can someone review my deletion of George Vithoulkas a while back (made before Vithoulkas changed his page to release use) and see if I was wrong to delete it as a copyvio? It does seem awfully close to the page linked, and gets more and more so as you go back in the history, and the inserted paragraphs and sentences disappear, becoming the hastily-reworked copyvio ones (there's an edit labelled "remove copyvio" - I don't believe it was completely successful.

I ask this because LeeHunter (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) refuses to stop attacking me about it, not that I see how he'd know, and if I was, in fact, wrong, I'd like to know so I can apologise, but don't really think I was, due to order of facts and a lot of sentences which just had their first word or two replaced with a synonym, though, admittedly, there were parts that probably weren't copyvio.

And if I am justified, can you please tell him I am? Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

N.B. A similar page to the one I thought it was copyvio of, [16], was made copyright free by Vithoulkas after the deletion. This, of course, doesn't affect things at time of deletion, but is worth noting. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in a position to comment on the timing, but the Copying and Linking policy page now reads "The material on this site is copyrighted by Prof. George Vithoulkas. Note: Prof Vithoulkas' biography information and photograph can be freely used, without prior notice." then goes on to list restrictions on use of the other information. It's an interesting question whether the statement "can be freely used, without prior notice" meets Wikipedia requirements for licencing, but contrary to LeeHunter's statements it appears that the bio is still copyright. .. dave souza, talk 20:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe it happened at the time of this edit. Also, if it doesn't meet licensing requirements, the photographs of Vithoulkas need deleted. (or at least fair use rationale'd) Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

LeeHunter (talk · contribs) is taking an AfD on a subject he cares deeply about very personally. Happens every day. The decision was reasonable and supported by the header at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. The article was re-created; otherwise, he could have gone to deletion review. If this and this are to be believed, it may be a moot point anyway. MastCell ^Talk 03:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This request for deletion has been raised on the article talk page by Maria Chorianopoulou, PhD, Assistant to Professor George Vithoulkas, maria@vithoulkas.com 213.5.45.122 19:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC). The IP number whois appears to be a Greek network with an Athens address. Any ideas of what action is appropriate? .. dave souza, talk 20:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ignore it, unless they can give good reasons why it needs removed? I believe that's Wikipedia policy. They're just reacting against an inability to fill the article with advertising, IMO. Which may be why it's so hard to find reliable sources on Vithoulkas. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly they view the discussion about whether this chap is notable/a crank insulting, and are presumably taking the line that "No article, no insulting discussion". Per WP:BLP, we should do no harm, and this chap is hardly notable, if at all: then again, Daniel Brandt is still around, as we all know. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. She's been pointed to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). .. dave souza, talk 22:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Curious Gregor/Mad kemist

I opened a SSP case against Curious Gregor, here, the user responded with a WP:POINT counter case against me here ("Pete Hurd had accused me of being a SockPuppet. I thought in the manner of corporate law I would bring a countersuit. I have no reason to really believe he is a sockpuppet, but then neither am I"). The accused sock, Mad kemist has twice removed the user page template diff1, diff2 and added a warning that future vandalism will "result in action to the offending editor" diff3. I feel the templace should be restored until the case has been resolved. Pete.Hurd 22:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I put a note on his talk page. IrishGuy ^talk 22:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think his response violates WP:NPA. Pete.Hurd 14:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Socks?

Swgg (talk · contribs) & Orel Secs (talk · contribs) (currently under username block) look like socks of SparklingWiggle (talk · contribs) and/or Malber (talk · contribs). Swgg redirected (in 1st two edits) to two user subpages to two SparklingWiggle subpages.[17][18] These four accounts voted in quick succession on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Last Tomorrow, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YTV Japan, & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ADERANT. It just looks fishy, but I've no familiarity with any any of these users, nor of the weird clique that appears to hang out at User talk:Miltopia, so I bring it here for advice... -- Scientizzle 21:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well geez...looks like I might have been right. Malber was autoblocked for using the same IP as Orel Secs, as was SparklingWiggle... Guess I'll pass this on to ever-backlogged Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. -- Scientizzle 15:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I've no need to bring this to SSP...If anyone cares to know, Swgg (talk · contribs) & Orel Secs (talk · contribs) have been indef blocked as socks of SparklingWiggle (talk · contribs), who's under a 1 month block for the puppetry. Malber (talk · contribs) was eventually unblocked, but it's worth reading the unblock request, questions & evidence on Malber's talk page. -- Scientizzle 17:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

family dispute? How to do this?

Ok, so User_talk:JohnnyAlbert10 is a fine upstanding editor. However, his brother User:512theking, and sockpuppets thereof, is vandalizing all over, and threatening violence over it. Apparently, 512theking, who is older than JohnnyAlbert has threatened and engaged in violence against JohnnyAlbert10. 512theking is now vandalizing my talk page as well, etc, no signs of stopping.

Honestly, what is there to do about this? I'm sort of at a loss. They're both minors, and the IP is AOL, so its easy for 512 to evade. Any IP blocks inevitably end up catching JohnnyAlbert in them, which means time and inconvenience for him while we figure it out and unblock him. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to do an IP block with an exception? In other words, whitelist a user so that the IP blocking won't effect them? (If not, it should be.) --tjstrf talk 01:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You could block an IP and have it not effect users. You could combine that with an account creation block as well. But I am not sure I completely understand the situation, it seems more complex then that, and with AOL involved... Prodego ^talk 02:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If you block 512 by name can't JohnnyA use the secure servers? Thatcher131 02:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If I understand the situation correctly, 512 is blocked. He keeps creating abusive sockpuppets. IrishGuy ^talk 03:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it also sounds like JohnnyA is getting caught be autoblocks. The autoblock is the only way to stop 512 from making more socks since he's on AOL; but then again, if he's on AOL then the autoblock will only work until he gets a new IP, so not really an effective sock blocker. I guess just block the socks with autoblock turned off and be resigned to the fact that you'll have to keep it up until he gets tired. If there's no static IP that's the only real answer anyway. Thatcher131 03:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with how AOL works, does it ever begin recycling IP's? i.e. can we block enough of them for whatever particular node that 512 is on, that when his IP cycles again it goes back to a blocked one? ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a bored troll playing with sockpuppets. They edit the same articles, and one of them always logs out the minute the other one logs off. A big brother isn't going to threaten his sibling with violence on wikipedia, and then let that brother log on to his own account and make a drama queen response to this (and then again return right after said brother logs off). Just ignore it. - Bobet 10:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A non-admin comment: "one of them always logs out the minute the other one logs off" doesn't really demonstrate that there is only one person involved. Rather, there might be people in the world who don't have a PC each, and might share a communal one... Notinasnaid 11:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the rest of it? Would you threaten violence upon someone on the Internet one minute, and then log off and let that same person log on to reply to your comment? Come on. - Bobet 13:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the younger brother, they already got into a fight over it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 15:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixing Betacommand's bot destruction...

I went to go start fixing the damage, and my god there is a lot of it. There is a Rollback function isn't there? Can it PLEASE be used in this case? Thanks. --BenBurch 03:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ummm.... what damage? I've missed something? Can you explain the situation please? --Deskana (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

See above. Betacommand's bot went on a rampage of removing perfectly proper external links, mostly to archived usenet posting on Google. The bot was shut down, and the bot's approval was yanked, and Betacommand did manually revert some of the damage, but there are HUNDREDS of such links that were removed from articles. And I simply do not find that the vast majority of these were anything other than important links that supported the article. And in removing the links in this fashion he leaves broken sentences and similar. Basically ALL of these edits were destructive. And they lacked the bot flag too. Look at everthing before around 1734 March 21st on here; [19] -- It is a HUGE mess. --BenBurch 04:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The rollback function rolls back individual edits. It's going to take another bot to undo what Betacommand's bot did without a lot of manual reverting. Note that Betacommand's bot seems to have done some bulk edits on several occasions before today. Could Betacommand please give some indication that he understands not to do this any more? Always look for consensus before launching any large scale edits of this type, whether automated or manual. 64.160.39.153 04:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A lot of categories were also deleted. Among them many Assessment categories. I side with BenBurch. Just too much incorrect deletions. Total revert, and then someone else can try again if he/she wants. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 04:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If somebody HAS such a bot, unleash it. There are four thousand plus damaged articles by my estimation. --BenBurch 04:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

How about asking Betacommand to code one up--and have someone else run it. Betacommand should please please please stay away from bot operation for a while. 64.160.39.153 05:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to revert all edits between fixed starting and ending times? I can search starting at particular times - any way to do mass reverts with those same times?

• about 1800 from 16:10 to 17:34 2007/03/21 ~ 21/minute start here

  some rejiggering from 15:16 to 16:09 subtract 7 entries

  about 350 from 14:14 to 15:16 2007/03/21 say 5.5/minute ? start here

  about 450 from 22:25 to 04:35 2007/03/20-21 start here (note the relative slowness - sometimes only one every 2 - 5 minutes, sometimes 4 per minute)

I didn't go back farther than that, except to see this scary research (kudos to Betacommand for this, at least), chilling in all respects, how ever you feel about external links

"website *.angelfire.com has 3364 links on wikipedia"

Umm, it doesn't look as bad as thousands and thousands, just "a few thousand", but that might depend on how long this has been going on? Shenme 05:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

that is a data scipt that I was testing for BetacommandBot as a purely statistical function. if you look under WP:WPSPAM subpages you can see more stats. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Section above describing problem Emergency: Betacommand deletion at bot speeds - please review impending block. Shenme 04:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Also please see the latter half of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Betacommand#Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute, concerning a large number of users told to change their usernames and given username blocks with account creation blocked so that in fact they could not register new usernames. I said then (on 1 March 2007): "I would like to know that any remaining old account creation blocks are revisited and fixed where appropriate".... but in fact I've never heard that anything was ever done about it. Would somebody please consider aiming a bot in that general direction, too? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 04:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't make much difference now, the blocking of account creation is only effective for 24 hours after the person accesses the account—and generally people don't continue to use accounts that have been blocked. —Centrx→talk • 05:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems you guys want a mass rollback, I have the code in my monobook.js if anyone wants to find it or I can run a mass rollback. (this will loose a lot of good spam link removals though) Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand as BAG

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Approvals_group#Betacommand

I just discovered the new round concern over Betacommand engaging in problematic automated behaviors (at least the third time). I would like to express my opinion that Betacommand should not be a member of the Bot Approvals Group. I have no faith in his ability to handle bot related actions responsibly. Dragons flight 05:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

PS. As there is no real process (or any history) of removing someone from BAG, I figure this is as good a place to start the discussion as any. Dragons flight 05:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Dragonsflight in questioning Betacommand's judgment. Betacommand does good work that we don't always see, but every time he's mentioned on AN/I it's because of yet another outrageous action. These issues were brought up at the RFA before they happened... —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-22 05:47Z

I opposed Betacommand's RfA because of communication issues. I see the same issues coming up again and again on this noticeboard. Make no mistake about it, I think Beta has the best intent of the encyclopedia in mind, but I too am starting to question his bot-related judgment, particularly in the operation of scripts from his admin account. alphachimp 06:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand has made some pretty awful process errors and has some trouble with communication, but as far as I can tell he is good with technical stuff. BAG members can't actually set bot flags, and it's not so clear what kind of harm they can actually do, so BAG still seems like a place where Betacommand can contribute. BAG process actually looks a bit bizarre and maybe needs to be adjusted somewhat (i.e. to require a bit more consensus within BAG before approving bots) and that too can help correct any errors.

Mainly I think someone needs to get into a discussion with Betacommand about some of these issues and Betacommand needs to be responsive to it. Betacommand's intentions are good, but he needs to develop better understanding of how the editing process works. I see from his RFA that he had very few mainspace edits at that time. Perhaps he would benefit from concentrating on that area for a while (I mean on actual content writing and editing) before going back to doing maintenance stuff. That would present another side of the encyclopedia to him--exciting in its own right--and also the added editing experience would help prevent further misjudgements from the technical side. 64.160.39.153 06:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This looks like you don't really have any objections with Betacommand actions with respect to BAG, but have objections to his own use of bots/scripts. Is that correct? —dgies^t_c 06:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, correct, I think these current problems basically reflect poor editorial judgement on his part (i.e. the problem wasn't bot operation per se, but rather that he programmed his bots to make a huge number of edits that shouldn't have been made on content grounds). I'd prefer that he stay away from that kind of mass editing for a while until he has a better understanding of article-editing culture, rather than just following policy mechanistically.

I confess to not understanding BAG myself that well, but if Betacommand's technical knowledge means he can contribute there without creating a concrete threat of harm from misjudgement, then maybe it's ok. Basically I wouldn't kick someone off BAG as a punitive measure in this situation--I'd only do it if I thought leaving them on was likely to harm the project or unlikely to help it. (I have to call it a pretty bad faux pas even on pure technical grounds though, that the recent rampage totally ignored the 2 edit/minute limit for unapproved bots). 64.160.39.153 09:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If you feel he has poor editorial judgment, then how can you feel he can be trusted to decide when a bot should be allowed to make mass edits? If he has trouble figuring out when editting by bot is a good idea for his own account, then I don't see why it makes sense for him to judge whether proposals for bot actions by others are also good. It is not punitive, it is preventative. BAG is about deciding when the use of a bot makes sense, and I feel Betacommand has demonstrated poor judgment in exactly that skill. Dragons flight 12:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a lot easier to be objective in your judgement about other people's edits than it is to be objective about your own. If there were evidence that Betacommand had displayed poor judgement in assessing the editing proposals of others, removing him from BAG might be a good idea, but as things are they seem like two different things. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've posted one possible case of conflict of interest, but have not looked into it more deeply to see if there is any other evidence. See Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Approvals_group#Betacommand. -- RM 13:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion that would be most appropriate elsewhere. Please continue this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Approvals_group and add any thoughts there instead. Thanks. -- RM 13:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand has made the wise (and mature - though difficult) decision to withdraw from BAG. I think that's a smart choice, and one he is to be commended for. It goes a long way toward rebuilding some trust, I think. It's a really good first step, and I wanted to publicly commend him for it. Philippe Beaudette 01:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to make a note here I have not withdrawn I have stepped aside and become inactive as a BAG member until a future date. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Please block Marlon.sahetapy socks

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Marlon.sahetapy

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

Bizarre vandal on Hans Reiser

I'd like to ask for some more help and eyes on the articles Hans Reiser and Reiser4.

For those not already aware, Hans Reiser is a bio article about a computer scientist who invented a rather well known Linux filesystem (Reiser4), but is better known for having been arrested for allegedly having killed his wife a few months ago.

Today, we had an IP user show up on the articles and start repeatedly adding a very long original research filesystem performance section to both the filesystem article and his biography; in addition to uncited OR, it's also completely inappropriate for the biography article. First IP address got a bunch of nice requests to stop and then warnings, and eventually got himself blocked along with a couple of socks by two other admins.

IPs from the same block (219.88.0.0/16) are now hopping in to the article talk page (Talk:Hans Reiser) and twice have inserted the content repeatedly along with claims that "The Jews" keep removing the info ([20] for example).

User:Slowking Man sprotected the article for a couple of days, but my earlier interpretation that we have a clueless newbie is yielding to fears that we have a serious troll here. The problem is that they're operating from a wide IP range (so far, 219.88.155.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 219.88.77.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 219.88.81.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 219.88.88.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 219.88.80.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 219.88.158.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and 219.88.165.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ). These are apparently all in New Zealand, a very large set of possibly affected netblocks worth.

Are there known New Zealand trolls who might be doing something like this?

Other suggestions?

Disclaimer: I knew Hans in college, though I haven't been in contact since. This, combined with the random apparently antisemetic bent of the anon editor, is making my neutrality rather bent on this matter. I blocked one of the IPs for antisemetic comments but I really don't want to be the one with the hammer here.

Any help appreciated. Georgewilliamherbert 07:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added both articles to my watchlist and will rollback edits on sight and block as necessary. I'm in NZ, use Reiser3 and have read the specs for Reiser4, so I'm reasonably well placed both in terms of timezone and technical understanding to deal with this.-gadfium 08:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I hear that it is a great filesystem, but installation is murder. --BenBurch 17:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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 ([21] [22] [23]), 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)

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)

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[24]. 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 [25]. 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)

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: [26]. 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)

PookieYum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

PookieYum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is one of the more problematic editors around. Although some of his edits appear legitimate, he persists in vandalising. Even though he received a final warning on Tuesday, he moved Winnie-the-Pooh to Winnie Poo on Wednesday and made some unwanted edits (to put it mildly) to 555 95472 and Peppermint Patty. It doesn't look like he is responsive to warnings, so I'm not sure another warning would be effective. I think this warrants the (continuing) attention of an admin. Errabee 14:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

realitybabble.com

I've been following a user who has been persistently linking to realitybabble.com, and reverting the additions as spamming, and requesting that the user discuss the link in the talk pages. So far they have not done so, and have persisted in adding the link. The user was blocked once for their behavior, but seems to use multiple IPs, so blocks aren't too effective. The most recent case is somewhat different,[27] as they seem to have added some content to accompany the link. The content smacks somewhat of trivia, and the section to which it is being added (well, the article in general) is in serious need of some cleanup already, but in an attempt to assume good faith, and not unduly harass a prospective "member", I haven't reverted it, as I am inclined to. I'm basically posting here to get some prompt input on how to proceed. Dancter 15:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Close an RFA candidate wishes to withdraw from

Resolved

Can somebody who knos the proper templates close Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kermanshahi as the candidate has expressed they would like to withdraw? (I also wouldent mind a quick link to where I can find those templates as well). Thanks -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

They're {{rfaf}} (top, for a failed RfA; a passing RfA is {{rfap}}) and {{rfab}}. However, there are other housekeeping jobs needed as well as just the closebox. --ais523 15:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Category:Archival templates has all these sorts of templates listed. WjBscribe 15:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hullaballoo at AfD

User:Matrix17 has put up Paris Hilton, Jade Goody and Organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks up for deletion using some pretty dodgy nomination criteria. Because of WP:AGF I won't say this is trolling but these are pretty obvious snowball keeps and the sooner they're closed, the less chance of this developing into a Wiki-drama there'll be. --Folantin 15:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Seems like several admins speedy closed all the nominations and the user was approached on his talk page.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 15:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Can we delete Jade Goody? Not the article, the "slebrity". Guy (Help!) 18:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What a User Profile...

Anybody just have a look at recent changes and catch sight of this? How much does AGF apply here? Not sure if you can block on sight for something like that but it certainly doesn't indicate much good.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 15:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If this guy carries on like his last 2 edits, I don't think he'll be here much longer, anyway... – Riana ^ঋ 15:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems he already has racked up a couple vandal edits according to this: Special:Contributions/Bluesclues666.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 15:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

We are not required to add truthful material. Only verifiable material as it says in WP:V. So that user is actually making a staement in line with policy. Its a weird Wiki world aint it? 8-)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.8.166 (talk • contribs)

I'm leaving a note on his talkpage. Newyorkbrad 15:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What? to tell him he cant quote policy or the fact that hes not the 'awsome est' person ever?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.8.166 (talk • contribs)

At the same time those who add hoax material are warned and eventually blocked if they continue. Hoax information is drastically different than using verifiable information.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 15:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree hoax material should not be added. But lets not go down the road of blocking people because we are offended by what they say (esp when there is some truth in he statement)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.8.166 (talk • contribs)

I don't believe anyone suggested blocking them for the statement on their userpage. --Onorem 16:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats where this road leads, believe me. I ve been down it enough times to know 8-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.8.166 (talk • contribs)

Logical fallacy? The user announced their intent to vandalize, then vandalized. You don't think that's worth commenting on to them? --Onorem 17:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Its worth commenting that they should not vandalise, yes. But really its not worth commenting on the contents of their user page which is going to harm no one. This sort of comment may lead to escalation. Best to ignore comments like this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.8.166 (talk • contribs)

Care to explain what you did to A Man In Black's page hmmmm?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This looks like some variant of a troll - I wouldn't be surprised if the anon is connected to the named account somehow. - David Oberst 17:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've nuked the userpage, in any event. This kind of user page is the sort of shit up with which we do not put. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The style of the anon's comments seems very similar to that of banned user Light current. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

series of bad-faith AFD nominations

by user User:Matrix17. I first noticed it when he/she was one of the two users pushing for delete on Black people and the DRV for that. After checking out AFD for a bit, I've found a long history of bad faith nominations. Jade Goody, Michelle Bass, Organizers of the September 11 2001 attacks(with the rationale that "there's no proof al qaeda did it"), Paris Hilton???...A quick trip through his edit sums shows accusations of racism everywhere, and no grasp of notability policy whatsoever. Also is wont to add conspiracy theory external links (on the marilyn monroe article: "the file found points out that marilyns death wasnt suicied but murder... and the presedent was involved.. hot news" "# FBI HAS FOUND FILES ON THAT POINTS OUT JOHN KENNEDYS INVOLVEMENT IN THE SUICIED/MURDER OF MARILYN..ADDING EXTERNAL, ")...

It's interesting that a user that's added probably 50 beauty pageant contestants has no grasp of notability guidelines, either for inclusion or for deletion.

Anyway, I feel I have a conflict of interest with this user based on mutual involvement with the AFDs, so I'd appreciate someone else taking action. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 15:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

After looking over the contributions and the two posts on this page, I gave the user a 48 hour block for the following reasons: bad faith afd nominations, incivility, and possible point violations.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 15:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

My auto AFD tool is broken, but it would be a good idea for someone to go through his contribs and mass nominate all the pageant contestants and song contest contestants he's created, nearly none of them have any notability whatsoever, and a handful don't even try to assert notability. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 15:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that the same user has been blocked on several occasions[28] on the Swedish Wikipedia for similar behavior, the last is a month long block. Something he also complained about by calling it censorship[29]. He has also been found creating sock puppets [30][31]. --Strangnet 16:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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" [32], 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 [33]. He acknowledges his participation in the edit war [34].

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 [35].

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)

Personal Attacks and Uncivil Behavior

Resolved

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[36][37][38]
• 2)From Talk:Juggalo[39]
• 3)From User talk:Yankees76[40]
• 3)From Talk:LimeWire[41]
• 4)From User talk:Kubigula[42]
• 5)From User talk:82.141.61.54[43]
• 6)From Talk:La Coka Nostra[44]

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)

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 [45] also since we are both part of the Armenia-Azerbaijan ArbCom and there is a temporary injunction[46]. I did not know which page is best for reporting. --adil 18:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Consider the page Tigranes the Great [47]

• Revision 08:48, March 22, 2007

[48]

• Revision as of 00:02, March 2, 2007

[49]

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

[50]

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

[51]

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

[52]

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

[53]

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

[54]

• Revision as of 17:23, June 10, 2006

[55]

• Revision as of 08:52, June 10, 2006

[56]

• Revision as of 23:31, June 9, 2006

[57]

• Revision as of 18:43, June 9, 2006

[58]

• Revision as of 07:39, June 9, 2006

[59]

• Revision as of 13:50, June 8, 2006

[60]

• Revision as of 08:13, June 8, 2006

[61]

• Revision as of 07:46, June 7, 2006

[62]

• Revision as of 08:22, June 1, 2006

[63]

Consider the page Koryun [64]

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

[65]

• Revision as of 08:23, June 1, 2006

[66]

• Revision as of 07:48, June 7, 2006

[67]

• Revision as of 08:17, June 8, 2006

[68]

• Revision as of 13:51, June 8, 2006

[69]

• Revision as of 07:40, June 9, 2006

[70]

• Revision as of 18:42, June 9, 2006

[71]

• Revision as of 23:35, June 9, 2006

[72]

• Revision as of 08:51, June 10, 2006

[73]

• Revision as of 17:23, June 10, 2006

[74]

Consider the page Orontid Dynasty [75]

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

[76]

• Revision as of 16:38, March 1, 2007

[77]

Consider the page Artaxiad Dynasty [78]

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

[79]

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

[80]

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

[81]

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)

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)

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 · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · 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)

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)

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[82], user:MarshallBagramyan has been engaging in revert varring and disruptions, by putting those references back, such as on Sumgait Pogrom [83], Battle of Kelbajar [84] and Capture of Shusha [85]. --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 [86] 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)

Personal attacks by User:Faranbazu

User:Faranbazu has been warned regarding personal attacks several times. Here [87], he calls other editors fascists and accuses them of racism (or more specifically glorification of the Aryan race), and calls their comments preposterous. Here [88] 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

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)

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)

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 · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · 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)

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)

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)

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: [89] 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 [90] 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)

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)

user Fadix removes verifiable sources and quotes

user:Fadix is removing properly sourced, verifiable evidence on March Days article en masse: [91] --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)

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)

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

Z.E.R.O. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · 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: [92], [93], [94], 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)

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,[95] 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)

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)

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)

[96]… 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)

Swdavis67

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

Swdavis67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · 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)

Pejman47

user:Pejman47 is removing properly cited, verifiable evidence at the Ganja page [97] 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)

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)

Possibly compromised account

Resolved

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)

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)

Limbo(ot)

I would like to ask special attention for Special:Contributions/Limboot and [98] (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)

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))

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)

Milk

Repeated addition of the same, off-topic and, I believe, trolling question to Talk:Milk. Andy Mabbett 12:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and will notify the user. Even if the question is real, it is off-topic. Wikipedia is not a help desk. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

163.167.129.124

Resolved

This user has vandalized many times, removed warnings from his talk page ([99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], and [108] 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)

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)

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)

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. [109], [110], [111] and [112]. 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)

Oh lord. He removed a link to the official biography of the head of USAID from our article on him. [113]. 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. [114] 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)

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)

• Betacommand has caused trouble over on the Japanese Wikipedia (under another username), and on the Finnish Wikipedia (as well, under another name). --HarryHasAnEgo 17:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)