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

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

[6] --BenBurch

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

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

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

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

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used for tasks it wasn't approved for (such as substing templates) as well as the task for which approval has just been withdrawn.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

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

Can someone please look over this case? It's incredibly irritating as an editor who has to deal with this user on a daily basis. Please note the following diff [7], when looking at the case page. aLii 21:45, 23 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[8]. 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 [9]. 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)

User talk:Epbr123 blanking

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

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

(deindent)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: [10] 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 [11] 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 Fadix removes verifiable sources and quotes

user:Fadix is removing properly sourced, verifiable evidence on March Days article en masse: [12] --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)

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)

[13]… 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)

AfD: is canvassing allowed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James Buchanan

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

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

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

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

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 ([14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], and [23] 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)

All .gov domains are the USA government. usaid.gov is listed because it is an universal redirector. Here is an explanation: [24]. --Mihai cartoaje 17:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

It appears that Betacommand is removing all links to USAID, even in articles where they are relevant. Cf. [25], [26], [27] and [28]. Gandoman 16:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Oh lord. He removed a link to the official biography of the head of USAID from our article on him. [29]. 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. [30] a series of edits he made today with edits between 12 and 15 make it seem hard to believe that each was done manually. That would be removing 1 link ever 4 seconds or so with time to load the page and go to new pages. Just an observation though. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

this is not a bot thing see the code for my tool here:[31] I know its crude code and please forgive me for not documenting it more but it requires user input and shows a diff also. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hate jumping on the bandwagon, but I respectfully request that you stop using this tool permanently. This tool has made literally thousands of edits. I've studied the last 1000 edits by this bot and a good 5%+ of the edits are in error. The tool creates empty sections, the tool creates broken lists (two examples of the twenty so I fixed: [32] [33]) and in two cases that I could see the tool deleted whole sections ([34] [35]). You also kept running the tool after the initial March 21st incident after it was obvious that the tool was broken in many cases recreating the exact same collateral damage that was fixed two days later (today). ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not about the bot

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

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

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

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

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

hoax by user:JJonathan: death of Lynsey Bartilson

JJonathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had inserted the death of actress Lynsey Bartilson: [36]. This type of hoax edit is exactly what brings bad press to wikipedia (remember Sinbad [37]).

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

What to do:

1. block the user
2. have all his edits [38] checked for hoaxes by someone who edits in the entertainment/pop music field. (I have Lynsey Bartilson on my watch list for a different reason)

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

They are. [39] and [40] I've reverted the most obvious hoax edits by Jonathan89 and warned him. IrishGuy ^talk 19:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

User:Punk Boi 8

Because I have been mentoring this user and he recently posted an RfC about me I am requesting a block rather than blocking him myself.

1. User:Punk Boi 8 is under a mentoring agreement with me
2. After I was on a short break, I left Punk Boi a message reiterating that he was to focus on articles, specifically instructing him not to create any new WikiProjects
3. He came back the next day, and on his second edit he created a new WikiProject and requested comments on Template:Announcements & on the Village Pump
4. He created a template for the WikiProject which he added to another WikiProject (removed with request for discussion)
5. He only edited the article space 1 time

In itself this wouldn't be such a big deal, but this user has a history of doing this exact thing. Creating a bunch of stuff that other people have to clean up and trying to screw around with Wikipedia process (whether in ignorance or for his enjoyment).

In my opinion he should be blocked for at least a month for violating the terms of his voluntary probation for at least the 3rd time. I will also be deleting the new WikiProject and template here unless consensus urges otherwise.

Background for those unfamiliar: my original block and discussion on the noticeboard, accepting probation and mentoring, details of original mentor program, previous instruction to focus on articles, RfC filed by Punk Boi about me (deleted - admin access only), User:Punk Boi 8/Mentoring (current status of mentoring), and Special:Contributions/Punk Boi 8 (Note this is only a summary of prior events and is not exhaustive of the inappropriate behavior).--Trödel 19:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I had been thinking of offering to take over the mentoring duties, but some of the user's comments (e.g., "the mentor's been sacked") are highly inappropriate. Support any reasonable measures Trödel suggests. Newyorkbrad 20:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I support a block. It's obvious that mentoring is failing (or has already failed). The whole RfC thing was way out of line. -- Gogo Dodo 21:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would go further and impose a year-long block. Many users, Trödel especially, have made commendable efforts to counsel the user, but to no avail. I think we need to realise there is only so much we can do; to keep cleaning up after Nathan is not helping the encyclopædia.--cj | talk 01:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked him for a month but I would support some sort of long term community sanction. He has had numerous chances, made promises and broken them all repeatedly. He has proven himself unable or unwilling to follow the mentorship program and I think we've reached the point where enough is enough. I don't think his very limited positive contributions are worth this constant disruption. Maybe when he's older he'll be able to contribute more productively. Sarah 02:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify my comment, I support Cj's proposal for a one year block and I endorse the comments made below by Riana, Chacor and Danny. Sarah 03:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I endorse Sarah's block, all the above comments, however I wouldn't object to extending the block to one year or more. Daniel Bryant 02:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Same as Daniel, wouldn't object to a year-long block. Maybe when he's older, he'll be able to integrate himself into the community better. I hate this sort of ageism, honestly, but we're just not getting across to him. – Riana ^ঋ 02:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Strongly endorse. I'm sorry, but we've given him far too many chances, and he hasn't taken any of them. – Chacor 02:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse per all of the above. We've given him so many chances and he's blown them all. It's not necessarily his fault but he just doesn't have what it takes to contribute to Wikipedia in a trouble-free, productive manner. Moment anyone takes his eyes off him he does stuff requiring reversion or intervention. :/ His RfC against Trödel, who has done a fantastic job IMO, was the final straw for me - we can't just let him keep going on abusing process and wasting the time of busy people. Orderinchaos78 10:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse lengthy block (say, a year) for long-term abuser of due process who seems absolutely unable to contribute here without stirring up whopping great wikidrama. It wasn't so long ago we were here and now we're back again with yet more farce more suited to the commedia dell'arte than a serious encyclopedia. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm extending to one year, and making it a community ban for that length of time, per the consensus here. Daniel Bryant 14:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sarah's done the one year already, but there's no doubt this is a community ban per the consensus here. Tagged appropriately. Daniel Bryant 14:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, community sanctions go to WP:CN for the most part, these days. Just so people know. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 14:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

User's questionable retirement announcement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ETOM and User:Cfaurer

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

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

Cyberstalking by ZayZayEM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: editor has no article edits to said pages, see [41]. Is likely "--User:12.31.54.34, The user formerly known as M_E_T_Z_E_N_B_E_R_G"

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

Troublesome AfD and personal information issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or... semi-protect for now, remove everything not reliably sourced (90+% of the article, at a glance - www.persuade.tv notwithstanding), stern warning for User:Commanderstephanus with a block if he continues to violate Godwin's Law ([42], [43]), stern warnings to be followed by blocks for further misuse of the talk page, WP:BLP violations, and disruption by the other involved editors, etc... Wow, maybe it would be easier to just delete it. MastCell ^Talk 22:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Semi protection

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

"Spam Link" page?

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

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

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

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

Incivility by User:Petri Krohn

Regarding a recent dispute on the Treaty of Kars article, User:Petri Krohn accused me of "Ethnic POV pushing / vandalism." [44] Additionally, while editing the article, he stated that he was reverting "some more crap" and then brusquely demanded that I "read the fucking document". [45] While he appeared to stop after this, the same user also sent a message to User:AdilBaguirov who has caused many other problems especially in regards to Armenian-Azerbaijani relations here on Wikipedia. He noted that his going along with removing a reference from a POV source (in this case "Journal of the Turkish Weekly", a very anti-Armenian publication) was "purely tactical to force the pro-Armenian side into discussion, and to bring out their true objections." [46] He also noted that "in previous edits they have deleted content and replaced it with blatant lies." [47] This user has effectively violated Wikipedia:Civility. I told him to apologize for his rude remarks but he has not yet done so. -- Aivazovsky 03:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

A troubling CSD issue

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

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

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

Community ban library

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

See also: Wikipedia:List of banned users § Banned by the Wikipedia_community

— PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 04:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

134.117.185.189

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

Personal Attack by Suriel1981

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

William Bradford (professor)

An IP user came on to that article and heavily edited it placing a speedy deletion tag on it. [48] I removed the speedy deletion tag because it was an invalid reason for speedy deletion (the IP claimed it was "an attack page". I then looked on the talk page and saw the following comment from the IP who edited that article. He claims to be the William Bradford and requests that his article be deleted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent articles in the Wall Street Journal and in other mainstream media outlets have identified a general decline in civil discourse, particularly given the anonymity of cyberspace, and attacking the reputation and character of people through this new medium has become almost a sport. I know that the founder of Wikipedia has pledged his interest in protecting the integrity of his company by being very careful in regards to biographies of living persons in order to prevent the sort of harm that is being inflicted upon me now. I believe that if he were to read my request of you that he would be inclined to grant it. I hope you are of the same view.[49]

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

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

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

The pre-cleanup version had some criticism sourced to a credible, signed article from the Inside Higher Ed website, 12/05/2006 [50] that describes the controversy over Prof. Bradford's military credentials. This was removed along with the cite. I didn't track down the reason for removal, which was not mentioned on the talk page. While maybe someone could contest the citation based on parsing WP:RS, Inside Higher Ed seems to be a serious academic site and that Prof. Bradford didn't address the article is cause for concern, to the point that I think I would have to reserve AGF while checking out the claims. A few other cites to the same publication are still in the article. It also seems to me that the current version of the article is excessively SPOV (sympathetic point of view) and I'm concerned that it's misleading. I'll be away for the next few days but may try to spend a little time on this next week. 64.160.39.153 09:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Incident of qustionable content on User:Jeffpw user page.

User:Jeffpw is endorsing a presidential candidate on his user page [51]. Unfortunately, this is not particularly helpful in an encyclopedia WP:NOT#SOAP. Wikipedia is not the right place for his political efforts[52]. --Masterpedia 06:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've had my issues with Jeffpw, but isn't this "complaint" a bit ludicrous? People can endorse whatever they want--as long as it's not attacking other users--on their userpage. It's not like he started an "Edwards in '08" article. It's his OWN userpage, so what does it matter?K. Scott Bailey 06:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia co-founder has stated; "libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea." --Masterpedia 06:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Many things are bad ideas. Some of them are forbidden; others are not. The difference between "good idea / bad idea" and "permitted / forbidden" is necessary to give people space to breathe. --FOo 07:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I think it is more of a full disclosure of an admitted persuasion so that other editors will be more aware of Jeff's stance in a relevant discussion. It is quite similar to have a LGBT banner on talk page or an example of another user page which has boxes saying they support the Republican party and is a moderate conservative. I'm not quite sure what is the point of rehashing essentially the same issue from the Hillary picture. This seems a little like forum/problem fishing. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I completely concur with your take on it.K. Scott Bailey 06:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • There are some who take a more absolutist view of things, some of which came out in the userbox deletion wars, but Jeffpw is among many many others who harmlessly have this type of thing on their user pages right now. Live and let live. Georgewilliamherbert 06:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This, on the other hand… —xyzzy_n 06:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

xyzzy_n are you comparing the two incidents to each other? --Masterpedia 06:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think what people are saying is why do you care so much what Jeffpw has on his page? As GWH said, "Live and let live."K. Scott Bailey 06:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not care personally what one has on there user page. However; I felt this was a violation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. --Masterpedia 06:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What incidents? This is ANI, but this particular thread seems devoid of them. My point is that a sufficiently large page will usually contain something that’s mildly controversial but not actually worth investing any effort, much less using admin tools. Just ignore it unless there’s a real problem. —xyzzy_n 06:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

He was correct in bringing this to AN/I, we encourage peaceful community discussion to resolve issues not discourage it. Furthermore, please do not make assumptions on behalf of viewing administrators on what should be considered an "incident". The reporting user felt that the user page may violate policy/guideline, namely WP:UP and WP:NOT. People may disagree with this, but there appears to be no malice in it and hence he was correct in bringing what he felt was a possible violation of userpage guidelines to the attention of administrators. With that said, please do not extend these kinds of comments below this. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 07:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, how is this libel? (As in Masterpedia's second post. )The user supports some possible presidential candidates. I cannot, in any stretching pose of my imagination, figure out how that could be construed as libel. Natalie 07:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• In his quite commendable zeal to become a good Wikipedian, Knowpedia (Masterpedia's actual name, under which he was blocked for homophobic attacks on various articles and members, including me) failed to look further at my page, in which an earlier instance of this same situation was brought to ANI by an admin. It was decided at that time (and quite decisively, I must say) that members could have virtually anything on their userpage, as long as it was not attacking other users. It's good to have you back, Knowpedia, and I hope you used your block productively to study the policies and protocols of Wikipedia. Jeffpw 08:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone reported Jeffpw to AIV for this edit summary, claiming it was a death threat. While I don't consider that edit summary a death threat, it certainly reeks of Dev920-like incivility. I'll let the admins decide what warnings or sanctions he should receive.

Conflict of interest disclaimer (lest others assume bad faith, bite me, or worse, accuse me of personal attacks): I have AIV watchlisted, and when I saw him listed at AIV (I know him as a friend of Dev920, destructor of the community and leader of the gay cabal), I curiously clicked the diff link, and decided to report it here (since I have seen personal attacks reported here in the past, and PAIN has been closed). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't report Jeffpw's conduct as a death threat, I reported it as a personal attack (which it certainly was), in which he threatened bodily harm (which he did, even if only in a hyperbolic way). Additionally, his conduct in that case has no bearing on this case, which is frivolous.K. Scott Bailey 16:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? I regard describing an editor on Wikipedia as "destructor of the community" one of the more devisive personal attacks that could be made in this context. Please withdraw your attack immediately. WjBscribe 14:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, that is not a credible threat of harm, just irritation - the phrase "death threat" is now worthless around here, sad to say - and quit with the personal attacks on Dev920, Hildanknight. I know you don't like each other, but badmouthing her behind her back at ANI is very bad form, particularly when said badmouthing comes in the form of personal attacks, which is blockable bad form. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hildaknight, I applaud you for doing your bit to make Wikipedia a better place for everyone! Some might quibble that it is a bit over the top to report something that is already sitting on ANI, and has been dealt with by admins, but I am sure you have the purest of motives. You and Knowpedia both should run for administrator. With your keen sense of priority, you'll have this place organized and humming on no time! Jeffpw 14:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

These types of threads are ridiculous. Very time editors have attempted to "police" userpage content it has ended it stalemate and a waste of everybody's time and effort. Unless there is something highly inappropriate on someone's userpage its best to least it alone. Oh, and if people do notice something they think may be problematic on a userpage, it should be discussed with the user on their talkpage before being brought here. The first they should hear of the issue is not, a post telling them a thread has been started at WP:ANI as it appears to have been in this case [53]. WjBscribe 14:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Scribe, worry less about what's on a User page and more about what's on a Wikipedia article. Don't we have enough to do already? Only the most egregious examples of violation of Wikipedia pages, in my opinion, merits discussion. --David Shankbone 15:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll say this one more time I am not personally worried about what jeffpw has on his user page. However; I felt this was a violation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. More specifically WP:NOT#SOAP and Wikipedia:User_page. --Masterpedia 15:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this the same editor who was campaigning on his user page before? I recall him being asked to remove it, and I thought he did. Now it's back. Yep, it's him- he's even got a story on his user page about the first incident. Hmm, pictures of himself, row upon row of userboxes. Jeffpw, myspace is that way. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, nope. Your memory of what actually happened is faulty. The size of the image was reduced, and the consensus was abundantly clear that it was considered acceptable. It was never removed. Jeffpw has been a consistently fantastic contributor to the, you know, encyclopedia, and accusing him of using it as Myspace is fucking beyond ridiculous. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 15:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure we all appreciate the good work he does on the encyclopedia. But, his user page is inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a free web host. Friday (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do people care so much about what's on Jeffpw's userpage? Anyone who knows how he's treated me in the past knows there's no love lost between the two of us, but this is just TRIVIAL. His support for Sen. Clinton in '08 hurts no one, and does not damage the project.K. Scott Bailey 15:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Friday, I'd give you a quid pro quo about your userpage, but I don't have time and I have decided (after a steep learning curve yesterday) that civility is best. Allow me to say though, that I have both a FA and GA article to my credit, I actively edit articles, revert vandalism, and the pictures of myself on my page are actually used in a serious article about same-sex marriage here on Wikipedia. I feel as if you want me to both apologize for making myself comfortable and enjoying myself here, as well as censoring my userpage until it meets your criteria for appropriateness. Sorry, but that ain't gonna happen. I dfon't get paid for the work I do here, and if you (and by extension the rest of the community) have to put up with a silly--but entirely innocent-- userpage of my creation in the process, so be it. Now I am off to work. I realize saving lives and stopping pain is not as important as putting my nose to the grindstone here, but I do have a mortgage to pay. Jeffpw 16:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You realize that I was not against you in this discussion, right? I think that folks should be able to have anything they want on their userpage, so long as it isn't libelous, and isn't attacking another Wikipedian. Contrary to what you may think of me, I'm a genuinely reasonale person. Your userpage is your business, is basically my position on this whole non-issue.K. Scott Bailey 16:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedians, how is all this bickering an "incident"? It is not Jeffwp's fault that we have no clear policy on what is permissible on user pages. We have many, many political statements scattered over many, many userpages. If you want to get rid of them, look for consensus on Wikipedia:User page. I would support a general "no political campaigning on userpages", but this would have to apply for everybody and will have to be phrased very carefully. This will not happen overnight, there is no point in picking on Jeffwp in particular, if you care about the topic, look for a clearly outlined wiki-wide solution. dab (𒁳) 16:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree about this case, though I don't agree with you on not allowing political campaigning on userpages. I just don't see how it hurts anyone if Jeffpw supports Clinton and I support Obama, McCain, Edwards, or whoever. It's not like the content of a userpage has any effect on the content of articles.K. Scott Bailey 16:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

sure. We need a sane balance between Wikipedians' wish to give a brief account of themselves and their views, and blatant abuse of Wikipedia as a webhost. Jeffpw little "Clinton/Obama" box clearly falls in the former category. My point is that we do need such guidelines, so that we can clamp down on abuse in concert and not according to the personal taste of the person doing the clamping-down. And yes, I do think Jeffwp is overdoing it with the userboxes. I am not interested in Jeffwp's ancestry, IQ, sex life, viral infections, preferred drink or quilting activities any more than in his political alignments. His userboxes may be used as a deterring example in a userbox discussion, but we cannot take away his userboxes before there is a wiki-wide consensus to do away with this sort of nonsense. dab (𒁳) 16:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree with you more. If you don't want to know about his ancestry, IQ, sex life, et al, don't go to his page. I find userpages fascinating and enlightening, and don't think that their content (unless it attacks others) should be a major concern to anyone. Again, if you don't care about the intricacies of that person, don't visit the page. Why should WP pass more guidelines for something that doesn't hurt anyone?K. Scott Bailey 17:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This incident would be unmistakable if there was a company endorsement on a user page. I support Macy's therefore; any macy's info (doesn't hurt anyone) on my user page would be acceptable according to K. Scott. That is elementary rationale. --Masterpedia 18:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Rbj

Rbj (talk · contribs) called other editors "liars" at Talk:Intelligent design [54] 2 days ago. In response to his actions, I reminded him of the WP:NPA policy, and explained to him that accusing another editor of lying constituted a personal attack, since it attacks the motivation of the other editor[55]. In response to my warning, Rbj responded by re-affirming his accusation of lying[56]. For this, he was blocked by JoshuaZ, the 11th time he was blocked[57]. (I can't actually speak for JZ's motivation, I'm just guessing). Coming off his block, he demanded of JZ an explanation of why he was blocked.[58] I explained to him why he was blocked.[59] In response to this, he re-iterated his claim of lying ("what behavior? dissent? identifying a lie for what it is?")[60]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look, I'll admit to being a bit snarky at times (usually when I'm ticked off), but rbj goes way beyond being snarky, he/she is visciously nasty. Rbj is also prone to making accusations that have no basis in fact: the other day, he accused Raul of Admin Abuse, stating "lessee... WP:ANOT: "[When you are an administrator you don't just block and unblock who you want, you don't delete and undelete what you want, you just don't go around editing protected pages when you want, and you can't just go protecting and unprotecting what you want." it's no coincidence that you reverted it to the version that matches your own POV and then you protected it. Admin Abuse. r b-j 06:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)". The fact was that Kenosis had made the last edit, and Raul locked the page as he found it. I challenged rbj on his accusation, and he has yet to even apologise to Raul. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

annoymous user Special:Contributions/86.138.232.97

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

User:Gene_Poole

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

Richard Bridgeman, 7th Earl of Bradford

Some days ago User:TruthComesOut was blocked indefinitly for his edits on the article above (see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive217#User:TruthComesOut). His contributions were deleted by User:Nick, since they contradicted WP:BIO. Now User:HelsOuted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a sockpuppet of User:TruthComesOut, what he himself verifies by this edit [61], adds the same material again (see [62], [63], [64]). ~~ Phoe _talk 10:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC) ~~

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

User:JohnHistory

A recently registered user, JohnHistory is resorting to personal attacks on Talk:Manfred von Richthofen, [65]. I have warned the user about his behaviour, to which he responded on his talk page and mine. The user has previously been blocked for 24 hours for continued disruption, after posting this comment and heavily canvassing against user:Clawson's RfA. I have seriously tried to come to terms with him, but it seems like he is not willing to conform to policy. I'm emphasising this because I regard AN/I as a (preliminary) last resort and have not reported here before, but this user has finally managed to exhaust my patience.

Let me carefully add that a mild anti-Semitic bias also seems to come into play, considering [66], [67], [68], [69], and [70]. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Fadix Personal Attacks

Apart from evidence presented at [71], [72] and [73], User:Fadix continued his personal attack upon myself today [74]:

• Your psychosis have no place in this article.

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, but I am proposed for banning not on the basis of edit warring, I am not accused of edit warring. Many administators have seen my overal contributions, El_C, Francis, Golbez, Tony, Khoikhoi etc. they have seen all the facets of my contributions. Where have I degraded the experience? For hell sake, it is an encyclopedia, which one single contribution I made on the namespace of articles which were disruption? Which single contribution I made closed articles? Where have I ever edit warred? I didn't even want to engage in the Armenian-Azerbaijan articles... they've pushed me on the articles involving Armenia and Azerbaijan conflict. Here is an example in which I have blanked my page from a request from a member. [75] read my summary. I had refused to add myself on the wikiproject Armenia. I found myself there extensivally after Adil screwed it. None of my attacks never made matters worst. While administrators were closing their eyes and were doing nothing, I tried in vain trying to bring people in the talkpage and leave the mainspace alone, and my request were totally ignored. The only tool I had was attacking, while others were closing their eyes I was atually doing something about it. One example provided for personal attack refers to the last block by InShaneee, yeh, the one I reported myself, I believed this 100%, the user to whom it was directed at was harming Wikipedia, he had harrassed me the DAY he came on Wikipedia, abusive words in Turkish, and has not ONCE contribute on any single positive way. He copared Wikipedia with a mad house in his user page, a circus, etc. Yes, I harassed, yes, I personally attacked, but have never done that with bad attentions. First contribution here on Wikipedia, there was the author of tallarmeniantale to deal with, then there was Tabib, then I decided to contribute on other articles, decided to edit Chinmoy article, totally unrelated to any of those, and have faced the discipiles of Chinmoy injecting their Guru's POV. Then it was Sedat Laciner, then it was Adil Baguirov, then his associate with whom he maintain webpages. Everywhere I go, there is someone part of the real life conflict pushing their POV(since all those members are part of the real life conflict) while I come here with good intentions. This is simple punishment, as I don't see how I have harmed Wikipedia. Yes, I lost control, I tried remaining calm as it was humanly possible, but there are limits. Check Paytakaran mediation right now, see AGAIN the neutral user agree with me. I have tried, tried all over again I have failed. But if by banning me the Arbcom ban Adil in the process, so be it. I find it unjust, but I think getting rid of Adil largely compense the loss of me. Fad (ix) 18:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Spambot targets

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

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

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

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

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

User:Jason Gastrich requesting unbanning

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

I've blocked that account. Jason is under an ArbCom ban and a community ban (see: [76]). I appreciate that he immediately self-identified but I don't think he's helping himself by using a sockpuppet to request the bans be dropped. Sarah 13:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update on User:Homeopathic / George Vithoulkas incidents

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

repeated unwarranted warnings being left on my talk page

Please could someone have a word with the user who keeps adding warnings to my talk page. recent example here. She insists on accusing me of removing content, despite my having explained to her repeatedly that this is not the case. I have already raised this on the ettiquette page for comments from other editors, and asked her to stop editing my talk page and explained why the warnings are not warranted but she seems to be ignoring me. Many thanks, --Rebroad 16:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it looks to me like she's right. You're converting stubs to redirects, repeatedly. And her thinking on the need for stubs is also strong. I suggest that instead of jsut making redirects, you start to expand the stub. A scientific discipline is far more notable than the 771st pokemon or some such. If you think the article needs attention because it hasn't been edited in a long time, add to it. ThuranX 16:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I did a quick google, and found a site which I placed on the talk, and which led me to find a couple more articles here at WP to add tothe stub. it's still a stub, but we can probably get some progress by a little effort. ThuranX 16:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NOT#PAPER for why we can have plenty of stubs. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have tried so hard to assume good faith. I've tried to assume good faith when I've gone out of my way to on edits other users thought were simple vandalism only to receive a comment in return telling me my edits looked "fraudulent". I've continued to assume good faith while Rebroad brought my edits to ANI and while Rebroad argued over factual items that I cited, and when not having something to argue about would go onto something else. But now, every time I leave the computer for a minute, there's an additional attack, and enough is enough.

After Rebroad's bizarre renaming of Person, I looked through his edits. This is generally what I do when I come across vandalism or other odd editing. Looking at someone's edit history helps me figure out what's going on, and while the edits were very troubling, they all appeared to be in good faith. So I left Rebroad a long and detailed warning where I explained the various problems with his recent moves. I felt that a template warning wouldn't have helped him, and that hopefully this would.

At first Rebroad responded well to my comments (or at least not hostilly)--he left a comment on my talk page, and responded point by point to the comments I had left him.

However the Nephology article has for some reason been a sticking point with Rebroad. Rebroad set up an elaborate moving plan which didn't work, and needed an administrator User:Arthur Rubin to undo the leftovers. After this, Rebroad continued to push for Nephology to be a redirect--after I had listed it at Wikipedia:Requests for expansion and so I left him this warning which addressed the specific problems with his edits.

At this point, Rebroad turned hostile, leaving me a warning on my talk page that I was "impersonating someone of authority," and calling me "a Jimbo Wales sockpuppet" etc.

After I replied, Rebroad said that he hadn't read my comment, but that he was giving me a "second warning for stating your opinions as fact. Further continuation of this may result in you getting blocked from editing wikipedia" (somehow without having read my comments, he knew).

He has since left two unsigned template warnings on my talk page for vandalism and not assuming good faith.

He has also edited my comments on his talk page, because he thought they were factually inaccurate, and removed two template warnings I left him: uw3-delete and uw4-delete.

References

• User talk:Miss Mondegreen#reply to your comments - my talk page
• User talk:Rebroad - Rebroad's talk page--edited was highly edited--now also archived
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_expansion#March -- where Rebroad encouraged users not to expand Nephology
• Rebroad's posting about me on Wikiquette alerts
• [77] Rebroad's previous complaint about me on ANI and My comment on Rebroad's talk page about that

I would very much appreciate some intervention at this point. I don't know how much help I can provide an editor who needs to see Wiki policy to prove that disambig page descriptions are based on articles and that articles are not based on disambig page discriptions, or how I can possibly communicate with someone who was/ie under the impression (I didn't even get this until the end) that every statement I made that was not preceded by an "I believe" or an "I think", was my trying to say that that was wiki policy. The communication gulf here was large to begin with, larger than I knew, and now that this user has turned hostile and abusive, there's little I think I can do. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   17:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. In response to User:Night Gyr, I was going by the Wikipedia:Article_size#A_rule_of_thumb policy, which said that if the article is <1K for more than a few months then to merge it into a related article, which is what I was doing. I think the problem here may be that wikipedia is starting to get too many policies which conflict with each other - a bit like statue law in many ways! Which is the overriding policy? --Rebroad 17:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually the guideline says,

If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, why not fix it by adding more info? See Wikipedia:Stub. If it's an important article that's just too short, put it under Article Creation and Improvement Drive, a project to improve stubs or nonexistent articles.

Now, this isn't a candidate for Article Creation and improvement, but you could have listed it at Wikipedia:Requests for expansion or worked on it, especially as no information was added to the Cloud article. You didn't go to WikiProject Meteorology either.

And you didn't cite this or just "consider" merging it--you rammed it down people's thoats. When the whole moving shabang was undone and this article was listed at Wikipeida:Requests for expansion, you commented there saying that it wasn't appropriate to be expanded and then went and redirected it again (never properly I might add). The steps were being taken to expand the article at this point and you were actively preventing them. WP:Article Size doesn't say anything about that. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   17:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what else to say. Miss Montegreen's comments above seems to prove my point earlier regarding assumpion of bad faith as she now accuses me of being hostile and abusive, which is totally untrue. She is also misquoting me in several places above, which you will all be able to determine for yourselves if you have the time to check my recent contributions regarding these recent events. There does seem to be a communications problem here also, and Miss Montegreen's comments often seem to be those of someone in charge and dictating policy but upon further exploration it appears that they are just her opinions, but for some reason she is reluctant to distinguish between her opinion and policy, so this further compounds the communication problem. I have stated my grounds for my actions above and on the various talk pages that discussion has taken place. If there are any further questions, please feel free to ask and I will do my best to answer them when I am next on-line. Many thanks, --Rebroad 17:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's Miss Mondegreen, not Montegreen. And secondly, when you come to my talk page and tell me I have a superiority complex, or excuse me, that that's one possible scenario that could explain my edits--I don't need to assume anything. Those are bad faith edits on your part. You're edits can be called hostile, vandalism, talk page abuse--whatever you want, but I'm talking about the same thing. If it's an issue with the adjective's I'm using, that's fine, choose another, but those edits are still problematic.

In re my reluctance to distinguish between opinion and policy--I have never been relectant. I already write enough--I'm not going to preface each statment with an explanation or disclaimer. When it's policy it's policy. When it isn't, it isn't. When I say that something won't happen with the cloud article--that is a statement based on my beliefs, not policy. I have no idea how you cloud have thought that that statement was policy, but I can't colour code my writing for you. I wiki link policy in most places anyway so that should be a tipoff. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   18:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also add that I will try to avoid responding to Miss Mondegreen directory from now on, as each time I do I end up with several pages of text to read each time, which rarely appear to address the underlying issue. If someone else other than Miss Montegreen could provide some feedback instead, this would be much appreciated. Many thanks, --Rebroad 17:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

(ECx3)The 'rule of thumb' is a guideline, not a policy. WP:NOT#PAPER is a specific philosophy. Given that the redirect met with opposition, making it 'controversial', Not Paper trumps RoT. leave it there. I've already added a little content, and talk apge'd a springboard for further research. The article CAN be expanded. ThuranX 17:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

(ECx3)Archiving relevant linked coments on your talk page in the middle of an AN/I you started is a bad practice. Please leave the info in place until the issue is settled in the future. Thank you. ThuranX 17:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding the specific issue of having unwanted discourse added to user talk pages by this user, here is also another comment by a user also asking Miss Mondegreen to please cease and disist, and also referring to her actions as "borderline trolling", which I had also felt was an appropriate analysis, but refrained from saying it thus far. I do think that this user is going out of their to the point of stalking people, despite the justifications she has so far given. --Rebroad 18:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

User:141.151.88.130

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

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

List of attacks by the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia

There are a number of people removing all the external sites on the basis on "I don't like it" [78]

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

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

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

This looks like forum shopping. There was clear consensus at the deletion debate that the article could be kept but the links to extremist sites had to go [79]. The same consensus appears on the talk page, with only Cool Cat arguing to retain them and trying to get rid of any warning notice about their content too. The sites linked appear to be self-published attack sites of no scholarly value. Note: I am neither Armenian or Turkish nor do I hold any brief for long-defunct Marxist-Leninist "guerrilla" groups. I was alerted to this page during its AfD and I noticed that the primary concern of some of its editors seemed to be soapboxing rather than providing accurate, encyclopaedic information. My suspicions were further aroused when I tried to ensure the information provided was more accurate and I was accused of "vandalism" and "disruption". Come on, this is the kind of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name. None of those links do anything to improve our reputation so they should go. --Folantin 18:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Confirmed sock awaiting block

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

Bot editing while not logged in

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

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

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