Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive218

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Kl4Uz (talk · contribs)[edit]

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

Webmaster (talk · contribs)[edit]

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

The name doesn't violate User-name policy, I think, but if you really want to find out if others agree with you, take it to WP:RFCN. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
User has edited (albeit sporadically) for more than two years, there is no WP title of "webmaster"—I say let it go, but Mel is right that if you want to pursue it, WP:RFCN is the vehicle. Newyorkbrad 16:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't "Webmaster" be like User:Administrator? -- Cat chi? 16:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I have initiated the discussion nevertheless -- Cat chi? 16:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

It gives the wrong message. User:Person in charge of wikipedia would be blocked even though such a title doesn't really exist. -- Cat chi? 16:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's not a title, it's a description. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Personal Attacks and Uncivil Behavior[edit]

Resolved

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are some areas were mob rule on wikipedia is a bad thing. Connolley appears to be besieged by anti-global warming fanatics from time to time, and for the record, he has written a great deal more about the subject than a few blog posts.--MONGO 20:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Mongo's assessment. Raul654 20:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't. There's a reason why Global warming doesn't have more than 4 words noting the controversy behind it, and it's the same reason that we've had to deal with edits where a documentary film is changed to "propaganda film" by an adminstrator who should know better. NPOV applies even to people who work in the field. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
If anyone on wikipedia were to wish global warming were false, it would be me. I tended to be a skeptic myself, mainly because I didn't want to believe it. The only controversy that it isn't true would be the one being fostered by special interests groups who have actively campaigned using millions of petro dollars to spread misrepresentations about the issue. This is the same kind on nonsense I see all the time dealing with conspiracy theories regarding 9/11.--MONGO 20:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Certainly. This isn't the same as a bunch of loons coming to provoke, him, though. Hell, I couldn't even tell you the global warming position of any of the other editors, save myself and Ed. However, when an administrator, of all people, adds a link to his own blog and then makes massive POV edits to an article simply because he believes the subject and its agenda to be false, there's a problem no matter which way you want to look at it, whether you're Al Gore or an Oil Exec. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I want to be clear that I don't think there is a WP:COI problem; the blog is notable, and the link belongs in the article--I would add it myself if WMC asked me to. There is, however, a WP:OWN and WP:NPOV problem. -- TedFrank 20:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Connolley would be less besieged if he assumed good faith and wasn't so provocative towards editors who didn't toe his line--again, a WP:OWN problem. I'm being attacked even though I agree that there is anthropogenic global warming, simply because I asked for WP:SYN and WP:NPOV to be applied. -- TedFrank 20:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with Mongo's assessment and know that Connolley goes to great lengths to be civil and patient with disruptive newbies, but expects them to eventually learn and understand WP policies and guidelines. Others abuse the policies by leveraging them in a skillful manner to push POV. I encourage you to examine Ted Frank's "lengthy explanation for the tags" to see if he really does provide specific supporting rationale, or whether it's vebose fluff. And note that he is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a 'think tank' which has received at least $1,625,000 from Exxon alone, and is virulently anti-global-warming in their stance. Perhaps Ted really does believe that humans are causing global warming, but I have a hard time believing that on 'good faith' alone. Is this a personal attack, Ted? Skyemoor 21:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. It is a personal attack. Comment on edits, not editors. AEI doesn't have a global warming stance. As for my previous public position on global warming, I don't think it's relevant, but here's a blog comment where I support a carbon tax. I also drive a Toyota Prius. -- TedFrank 21:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
How can you say with a straight face that "AEI doesn't have a global warming stance"? At one point I thought that you really were trying to enforce WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and so on -- a little overzealous maybe, but well intended. Your affiliation with AEI, your statement regarding their stance on global warming, along with your solicitation of other editors to game 3RR, have led me to conclude otherwise. Raymond Arritt 21:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
We're way off topic here, but I can say AEI doesn't have a global warming stance, because AEI doesn't have a global warming stance; the Guardian article is simply wrong, bordering on libelous. I did not come close to violating 3RR by asking that improperly-removed tags be restored (and I note that I was the one who asked for page protection), but if you feel otherwise, feel free to open an RFC. -- TedFrank 21:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views" does fit the bill, I had always thought it referred to nasty language, racism, etc. $17/ton of Carbon is only about $4/ton of CO2, but that's a discussion for another time and place. The Prius was a good choice, though. Skyemoor 21:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Just an aside to MONGO - "mob rule"? WP:CONSENSUS is one of the founding principles of Wikipedia - consensus can rely on expert opinion, however this does not make an expert in a field more able to judge things like neutrality or give them the right to engage in an edit war when things don't go their way. If you read the talk page of the article in question you'll see there is no "mob" - just a group of editors who disagree on some basic terms in the article. QmunkE 20:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually there is a mob of anti-GW editors -- they regularly canvass one another, have maintained on- and off-Wiki attack pages against those they disagree with, use sockpuppets to stack AfD votes, and so on. A small sample is available at [14]. Raymond Arritt 21:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Raymond, I am disappointed you continue to use that as an implication for allowing William Connolley's disruptive edits. It's irresponsible of you, and shows little more than a fallacious argument on your part. I've asked the creator of that report to point to specific edits pertaining to the global climate related articles. He could not. Let the record show Raul654's claims are unfounded and Raymond Arritt's presuppositions are wrong. ~ UBeR 00:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't sprain an ankle leaping to an unjustified conclusion. Re-read what I wrote: I was pointing out that there is indeed a mob, not defending WMC. Raymond Arritt 00:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Have to agree with KS here. I don't see any abuse of administrative privileges (unless I've missed something), so this amounts to an editing dispute (which isn't really actionable here). WP:DR is the best course to take, of which RFC is the first step. —bbatsell ¿? 21:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't feel comfortable dealing with this issue without support from administrators: this is a content dispute with an administrator who has announced that he is above Wikipedia policy, plainly has passionate feelings about the articles he's editing, and who has apparently blocked other users he has had content disputes with. That seems a quixotic waste of my time, though I'll participate in an RFC if someone else opens one. Apologies if I've used the wrong page. -- TedFrank 22:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
And the comments by MONGO and Raul above are curious, since of all people they should be familiar with past ArbCom decisions, such as this one from 2005, in which this was decided: "Due to a long history of reverting, often without giving adequate explanation for the reverts, William M. Connolley is hereby prohibited for six months from reverting any article relating to climate change more than once per 24 hour period (vandalism excepted)". - Merzbow 22:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I will assume good faith in that you cited that decision without being aware of this. Newyorkbrad 22:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I was not. Interesting. - Merzbow 01:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
It's like this: TedFrank is a disruptive influence. I have an email from Jimbo saying he would be perfectly happy to see him simply shown the door. William Connelly is both well-informed and more than qualified to assess the neutrality of climate change articles. The fact that he views anthropogenic climate change as an established fact is not a problem, because that's how the scientific community views it as well. Astroturfing by the petrochemical companies is about the sum total of dissent these days. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Fascinating. If I had made an edit like this on a subject I had personally written on that ignores a pending RFC and every editor's input, I would've been kicked off of Wikipedia summarily as a disruptive influence. But if a left-wing administrator does it, it's okay by Guy--unless he makes his point simply to attack me without bothering to look at the merits. I apologize: I wasn't aware that the "N" in NPOV stood for "William Connolley's preferred position" and that the "N" in NOR stood for "William Connelley's views." I've made hundreds of edits cleaning up after vandals, created templates to fill tag gaps, have never had an article I created deleted or even nominated by a third party for deletion, but I'm a disruptive influence because I responded to an RFC on an article I had never seen before and noted a violation of WP:SYN that several other editors, having the policy pointed out, agree is a problem.
And not once has an editor who objected to my pointing out the NOR violation responded by defending the text under Wikipedia policy, instead simply responding "It's okay because it's true," an exception that I have not seen in the WP:NOR policy. This double-standard is a real problem throughout Wikipedia: only one side gets to invoke Wikipedia rules. -- TedFrank 00:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Applying a 'left-wing'/'right-wing' dichotomy to users in an ostensibly scientific discussion on a matter of global climate strikes me as anti-scientific and counterproductive, to say nothing of blatantly political. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The edits in question were political edits: is it NPOV to call a controversial documentary "propaganda" in the first sentence of the article? Is it OR to synthesize original research in opposition to the position taken by the film? Is it appropriate to tag controversial sentences for discussion and to remove tags unilaterally because "there isn't a consensus to keep the tags"? Not once did I challenge the science. -- TedFrank 01:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
It's interesting that you assume those who accept the scientific view of AGW are "left wing." (I've never asked WMC his political views, but myself am a living counterexample of that generalization.) This says far more about TedFrank than it does about WMC. Much is becoming clearer. Raymond Arritt 01:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Am I missing something, or is this very long "incident" entirely devoted to a normal editing dispute, without any suggestion whatsoever that any admin action is needed or has happened? Jkelly 01:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I felt intimidated by an administrator's unilateral anti-consensus actions. (And now I'm being threatened again by Guy.) I apologize if I misunderstood the scope of AN/I: it says above If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here. -- TedFrank 01:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
They do get raised here, and it is true that this sometimes does achieve getting more experienced editors involved in a problematic article, but it is both the "procedure" and typically more useful to ask for a Wikipedia:Third opinion or to open an article request for comments. There's no real reason to be intimidated by an administrator. We make bad edits sometimes, just like everyone else, and there's no way to guarantee that we won't again in the future. this response written before comment above was edited Jkelly 01:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Well, most people are allowed to edit under their real names without having to show ID ;). For a high profile organization like the PA though, maybe it's best if someone from the WP office contacted the PA press office to verify that Asucena really does represent the PA. 64.160.39.153 05:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation has made it clear that they lack funds to do verification of user page claims. WAS 4.250 06:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to be clear that:

  1. My idea for sourcing real world claims originated with the issue of Essjay.
  2. My knowledge of this particular user came from reading Wikipedia Review.WAS 4.250 06:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
So? You could have gotten it by reading this very page. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
While there has been discussion on this matter, I don't think people are currently required to prove the claims made about themselves on their talk pages. I suggest you ignore the claim and hold the person to the same standards of verifiability we do everyone else. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, good, because I am the EMPEROR of THE WORLD. (But it is strictly and honorary title.) --BenBurch 13:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I am only King of a small magical forest. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Claims of credentials do not matter, IMO, unless they are used in a dispute, as with Essjay. We don't have to confirm everything that everyone says unless there is a reason that it really matters. —Dark•Shikari[T] 15:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
In this case, it does matter. She has already made edits based upon her expertise, knowledge, position, whatever, and has been challenged to source those claims. Crockspot 21:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It's easy enough to remove claims that fail WP:A regardless of who put them there. -- TedFrank 21:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Personal attacks and abuse[edit]

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

I have warned both editors - that's pretty offensive stuff. – Riana 11:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Please note that this anonymous user has a history of vandalism, abuse and sockpuppetry. See these pages for details. -- Chuq 12:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
And is that a good reason to allow vicious personal attacks on his/her talk page to stand, Chuq? I notice you restored the comments that Riana deleted. I think Riana was correct in removing them, and I wish you had not reversed him/her. Jeffpw 12:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Her, Jeff :) and while I can appreciate how frustrating this editor's behaviour has been, I don't believe 'do us all a favour and die' should be allowed to stand. – Riana 13:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the misunderstanding, i didn't mean to imply that I supported the comments, however due to the history of this user, I totally understand how Dibo & Tancred would be driven to make them. Removing the comments completely removes all evidence that there was a problem - yes, people can check the history, but most people wouldn't. Anyway, the point is moot now, as the IP has been blocked by another admin. -- Chuq 21:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Caches and Page Histories[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Consider the page Tigranes the Great [21]

  • Revision 08:48, March 22, 2007

[22]

  • Revision as of 00:02, March 2, 2007

[23]

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

[24]

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

[25]

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

[26]

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

[27]

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

[28]

  • Revision as of 17:23, June 10, 2006

[29]

  • Revision as of 08:52, June 10, 2006

[30]

  • Revision as of 23:31, June 9, 2006

[31]

  • Revision as of 18:43, June 9, 2006

[32]

  • Revision as of 07:39, June 9, 2006

[33]

  • Revision as of 13:50, June 8, 2006

[34]

  • Revision as of 08:13, June 8, 2006

[35]

  • Revision as of 07:46, June 7, 2006

[36]

  • Revision as of 08:22, June 1, 2006

[37]


Consider the page Koryun [38]

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

[39]

  • Revision as of 08:23, June 1, 2006

[40]

  • Revision as of 07:48, June 7, 2006

[41]

  • Revision as of 08:17, June 8, 2006

[42]

  • Revision as of 13:51, June 8, 2006

[43]

  • Revision as of 07:40, June 9, 2006

[44]

  • Revision as of 18:42, June 9, 2006

[45]

  • Revision as of 23:35, June 9, 2006

[46]

  • Revision as of 08:51, June 10, 2006

[47]

  • Revision as of 17:23, June 10, 2006

[48]


Consider the page Orontid Dynasty [49]

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

[50]

  • Revision as of 16:38, March 1, 2007

[51]


Consider the page Artaxiad Dynasty [52]

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

[53]

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

[54]

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

[55]

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

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

Admins do not judge or approve content. This dispute is in arbitration, you should add evidence there if you believe Eupator has edited disruptively. Unless there is a recent violation of the 1RR injunction, no action can be taken here. Thatcher131 19:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Why can't we just block all the editors involved in that arbitration case? SWATJester On Belay! 19:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

69.223.89.43[edit]

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

Compromised account?[edit]

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

A lot of people probably have family members that use their Wikipedia-editing PC. So long as he takes control of it and it doesn't continue, I don't know if any action needs to be taken. Edit: Shenme's comment below. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The lesson here is to uncheck "remember me" if your computer is accessible to other people. I do whenever my younger brother comes to visit - can't trust him. Natalie 21:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
But it is all of one piece. First complaint about mistaken application of 'skins' to user talk. 20:11 Then vandalized Red and Beer at 20:22 and 20:23. Another note on a user talk page at 20:26. Then the page blank noted above, at 20:37. Another plea for help. Another bad edit at 20:41, then most strangely this at 20:46:
You reverted my blatant trolling of the Beer page. Let me explain why I trolled it! I really need some help in reverting my skin back to the default one.'
And it's all one continuous session, from 20:11 through 00:29, and including good edits!
I don't believe TigerShark was too far off with "not sure what to make of ..." It seems to me the user panicked and started hitting "all the buttons". No younger brother here - he is the younger brother. A bit of guidance is in order. Shenme 21:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Oh brother, talk about the teapot calling the kettle...--MarshallBagramyan 22:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
What's that supposed to mean? You clearly violated both the ArbCom's 1RR injunction [60] and the outlined above reverts/placing back of Armenian POV URLs. This is unacceptable, you are being extremely disruptive. --adil 22:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Faranbazu[edit]

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

65.161.23.179 Vandalism[edit]

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

Please report to WP:AIV in future. ViridaeTalk 23:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Alright. Thanks for your help. I appreciate it. --Seed 2.0 23:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Lisa Daniels on NBC News[edit]

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

All of that is already done. :) Prodego talk 23:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Great ! Even though this quick response is unlikely to receive news coverage :-) Abecedare 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of which, Donwano (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) already has an autoconfirmed flag, so sprotection isn't going to stop him--VectorPotentialTalk 23:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
In which case, he should perhaps be blocked for vandalism; full protecting such a high visibility page would be a pity. Note: I am not an admin and don't claim to one either. Abecedare 23:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
For the record, 'POS' equals 'piece of shit'. Veinor (talk to me) 23:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. One lives and learns :-) Abecedare 23:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

65.197.241.225[edit]

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

Nick Palumbo and his shills[edit]

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

Range block on 72.150.x.x[edit]

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

Seems 70.153.120.84 (talk · contribs) is in on it too. --Wafulz 21:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It looks like the range is actually 70.15x.x.x with most of them stopping by on this page. --Wafulz 21:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
And 65.6.54.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). That's two ranges belonging to BellSouth. I have the feeling that range blocks would result in too much collateral damage. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk)

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

I don't think he's actually using different IPs. I think he's just box-hopping in a library/at home. --Wafulz 04:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Eh? They are different IPs... All it requires is a DHCP release and renew, and voila! New IP address! -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Burnsvillemike and the socks[edit]

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

Given that these have been blocked with autoblock enabled, there is either a dynamic IP or an open proxy involved. Requests for Checkuser might be the best place to go. Natalie 02:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and these are the images awaiting deletion:
  1. Image:Oak Park Prison.jpg
  2. Image:Pawlenty at N.I.C. mn 1 1.jpg
  3. Image:Pawlenty at N.I.C. mn.jpg Bridgeplayer 02:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Have entered the fray incidentally upon finding the content of several articles I was monitoring being hit with throwaway accounts intent on making the same vanity-page type insertions regarding content about an officer named Michael Satter. Did do a traceroute upon the one numerical address, and it seemed to end in a police server farm in Minnesota. Perhaps the easiest way to resolve this is to do a complete Checkuser analysis, and simply call up the guy's supervisor. Looks like either Michael Satter, or perhaps his significant other, is intent on promoting Mr. Satter through vandalizing Wikipedia. Yaf 02:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I have entered a request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Burnsvillemike (I should welcome an experienced user checking that I have done this correctly!} Bridgeplayer 02:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

190.10.0.121[edit]

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

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

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

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

Chacor 03:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Could use some help[edit]

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

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

Blocked 65.6.0.0/16, 70.153.0.0/16, 72.150.0.0/16 for 31 hours. Bell South Knoxville ADSL. See also #Range block on 72.150.x.x above. —Centrxtalk • 04:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Since you've sprotected African American, Jersyko, I'm going to follow your lead and sprotect white people, which is where that vandal moved to. I see Centrx just did a rangeblock, but from what I understand those aren't supposed to be very long. If the vandalism stops after the range block, someone please lift the protection. I would watch it myself but I'm also going to bed. Natalie 04:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
He's been doing this for about 6 or 7 hours. Pages, my talk page, other users' talk pages, the intervention against vandalism page... HalfShadow 04:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Swdavis67[edit]

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

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

Pejman47[edit]

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

Help Please[edit]

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

I've got the AfD itself sorted out but I can't solve the mystery of how those editors knew where to go to !vote, except for the !vote that was copied from the article's Talk page. I'm sure the closing admin will note the nature of their arguments and their other contributions (or lack thereof). Like many high school articles, this one's been a handful and I've largely given up trying to keep it neat - it's a thankless, uphill battle against high students with more time and energy than this one editor. --ElKevbo 04:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks ElKevbo :) the task is not completely thankless even if some grumps jump in. Signed Jeepday 13:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly compromised account[edit]

Resolved

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

The account's been blocked by User:Daniel.Bryant. — Knowledge Seeker 09:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[ec] Blocked, see block log and user talk. Daniel Bryant 09:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Limbo(ot)[edit]

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

Assault11 et al[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

It is actually averageing 28 edits a minute (at least over the last 500 edits), all of which happened in less than 20 minutes. The edits are out of control, removing links from anywhere and everywhere, even cite web templates that is leaving them broken. I think it stopped for now but there is a reason there is a bot approval process. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Betacommand in response merely said "he missed some" here. - Denny 17:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
AN discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Betacommand's bot gone stray!. Probably should have been in ANI in the first place. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it made bad edits to the RSX-11 article. Please somebody stop it? Please hit a ROLLBACK on it. Thanks! --BenBurch 17:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
That was [69] -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Correct. Would somebody please look at those links and tell me please if they actually do violate policy in some way? If so, I will correct them. I think having a bot enforcing policy in this very heavy-handed fashion is counterproductive and only breeds ill-will here. --BenBurch 21:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
He's stopped after I threatened him with an impending block. However, I would still like several other admins to review that my threats were appropriate, and whether there was another action I could have taken here; I have never come this close to blocking another admin before, and it's a really, really, really bad precedent. I'm not happy. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, your threat was appropriate. No, the unapproved bot action was not appropriate. But all that aside, please don't blindly rollback the edits - I have looked at a number of them and everything I have seen except for the one mentioned above was correct - random yahoo groups need to be removed from articles when they are found - but not with an unapproved bot. --BigDT 18:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I really, really don't want to block an administrator - why not? Andy Mabbett 18:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Blocking any established user is something to be avoided. --BigDT 18:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Even in the middle of such a rampage? Besides, the comment wasn't "I really, really don't want to block an established user"; it specifically referred to "an administrator". Why? Andy Mabbett 18:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I was about to block him too but wanted a second opinion before doing such. For all I knew, he was running an unauthorized bot, even though the task may have been useful in some situations, it was still running as a bot. There is a reason there is a bot approval process. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I think a block would have been the correct thing to do if he hadn't stopped. He shouldn't be making that many edits at once without a bot flag. Majorly (o rly?) 18:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone should have blocked him sooner, even if it was just for 15 minutes to force him to stop his actions immediately. I looked through a random selection and many of his removals were relevant external links that happened to be usenet posts, not cited as sources. Betacommand is routinely overzealous in enforcing his interpretation of policy. He opposed my rfa because I wouldn't agree with his block first, ignore their begging later policy towards usernames he considered inappropriate. PS, holy crap, I got three edit conflicts while adding this. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
O Lord, deliver us from do-gooders who know better than us. -- llywrch 18:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The rampage has stopped however blocking while it was happening was definitely called for. The necessary cleanup is now larger because of the hesitation. It also looks to me like the user has a problem with over-mechanistic application of policy in addition to civility lapses [70] [71] [72]. I left a note about overenthusiastic policy enforcement but further monitoring and (if necessary) intervention may be in order. I do think this user's intentions are good, but he is showing recurring poor judgement. The basic advice I would give him is SLOW DOWN, and be willing to write detailed explanations both in response to questions and in edit summaries. 64.160.39.153 22:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It was removing external links, I dont think this one was doing admin actions. If I remeber correctly, this is not the first time we have had issue with him running a "Bot" or automous "script" that performs controversial actions. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Is this gonna be cause for another request for comment? Majorly (o rly?) 18:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there's grounds for one. He's done a lot of inappropriate actions but it's not like there's an ongoing occurrence of any one thing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Didn't read the second half of Chris's post. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
They're not. There's no CAPTCHA for routine actions so you can only block them once they start making hundreds of edits a minute. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Well, for the record, I mentioned earlier I thought he had been involved in similar bot problems before. His block log] shows 2 previous blocks for innapropriate bot action. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Third time's a charm! Can Wikipedia afford an administrator/bot operator who goes on unauthorized bot rampages where he deletes useful and policy-conformant information every month or two? Αργυριου (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
What I find the most offending about this case is that he didn't stop after getting several complaints on his user talk in a very short time frame, until he was finally directly threatened by another administrator. Until then, even where complaints argued that the links did not conflict with the policy, his responses were limited to claiming that the links undeniably conflict with the policy, and didn't even consider the objection.
I do not think a person with this kind of infallible attitude makes a good administrator, not to mention violating or ignoring several points of the WP:BOT policy — I would expect the bot operator of User:BetacommandBot to be at least aware of it. -- intgr 09:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Betacommand's bot gone stray![edit]

this section was moved from the main admins noticeboard

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

Apologies for misreporting this user as a bot due to misunderstandings. -- intgr 18:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I dont know if he has a bot flag, and i am not trying to point fingers, but edits are being made at more than 30 edits a minute. That is pretty quick for manual work. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Betacommand is responding at User talk:Betacommand, so there doesn't seem to be any real concern about a runaway or "unreviewed" bot. The concerns "listed on" User talk:Betacommand are about things like removing links to groups.google, so it isn't obvious that anything other than inappropriate link cleanup is happening. Jkelly 17:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It is unreviewed innapropriate link cleanup. If he were manually removing the links, I would have no issue with it. There is a reason there is a bot approval process, an average edit rate of 28 edits per minute for the last 500 edits is insane. Plus, it is just blindly removing them, from citeweb templates and other stuff. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Betacommand has a bot account called User:BetacommandBot. Has the user logged the bot into the wrong account by mistake? Adambro 17:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
This isn't part of that bot's approved scope, IIRC. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. While many or most of these should be removed, taking them out blindly (some exceptions might be reasonable) and cutting templates in half isn't good. He may be using a script to do this rather than a bot, but if he doesn't check the edits it has the same effect. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess, what draws the line? In 1bout 15 minutes, over 500 links were removed, and as far as I know, none of them were reviewed. While some may have been valid removals, others have been demonstrated as breaking things or the links may have been valid. What draws the line between a Bot and a script, especialyl when they can both do the same amount of damage? What prevents somebody from just writing a script and not worrying about the bot process? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone would have much of a problem with Betacommand removing links to google/yahoo groups per WP:EL when appropriate, but this user removes all links with a bot-like speed. This not only includes perfeclty relevant links, but also the removal of references. The latter edit also breaks the cite newsgroup template. --Conti| 17:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:EL makes no mention whatsoever of Google Groups or Yahoo Groups. So what's this "per WP:EL"? And even things in the "normally to be avoided" category should not be deleted en masse. Gene Nygaard 18:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yahoo/Google groups are probably more likely to fall under the points of "Links normally to be avoided" than your average link, I think that's what is meant. But I agree it's not a guaranteed thing and should be done by a careful human, not an indiscriminating bot. --W.marsh 18:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
In many cases, google groups was being used to provide a convenience link for a usenet post, thus, he was removing very useful external links. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly! And this is especially problematic in articles about usenet and usenet groups. --BenBurch 04:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Actually, his last link removal was at 17:34 UTC. You message came at 17:45 UTC. – Steel 18:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
He seems to have stopped the bot at the same minute as AnonEMouse's comment here, which wasn't a threat of a block, but was a strong warning to stop. --W.marsh 18:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, didn't notice that one. – Steel 18:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Something similar happened not long ago with automated edits by James McStub (talk · contribs). Admins should be a lot less reluctant to block accounts making automated edits, if other editors are complaining on the talk page and the edits are not stopping. From WP:B: Sysops should block bots, without hesitation, if they are unapproved, doing something the operator did not say they would do, messing up articles, editing too rapidly, or running anonymously. and Unflagged bots (including bots in trial periods) should limit edits to no more than 2 per minute. A BAG member should know this. Gimmetrow 18:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, had I known that, and had I caught it in action (I.E. had he not stopped it), I would have blocked it. The average 30 edits per minute is well over the 2 listed in the policy. Thank you for clarifying that! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand bot approval withdrawn[edit]

Just FYI.

[74] --BenBurch

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

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

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

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

Hence, I request admins to inquire. --Samuel CurtisShinichian-Hirokian-- TALK·CONTRIBS 11:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not an admin but I can suggest that you investigate this user who is attacking you's contributions and see if you can see any other attacks made by him/her. It would also help greatly to get a second hand opinion on this or ask an administrator or another editor who can translate to confirm what the user is saying or add a reference on to the page of where you found the translation then if it confirms that it was an attack against you then I would suggest leaving {{attack}} or he may be blocked if he has made other personal attacks. If you need any more help, leave me a note on my talk page. Cheers! Tellyaddict 16:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think he has commented on any of my messages in particular; you can read my messages in this issues in the talk threads. As for the claim that I have autism, appreantly he searched my name on the web. The translated message was from [76]. It was originally locked for my fiancee and the translator (summonillusion), who is a Japanese who resides in the US.--Samuel CurtisShinichian-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)

Spammed by User:Bhadani[edit]

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. HighInBC(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 02:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Please read my response above and the happy IP's. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The email this user feature should be used for matter dirrectly relateing to wikipedia and other wikimedia projects. 3rd party wikis are not our concern.Geni 03:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The post to your userpage was very focused and specific, and it wasn't a form letter sent to 75 users... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Fine. Perhaps I committed some sort of over-activity which I should not have done. --Bhadani 03:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, he admitted that he was over-active with the e-mail's, now will you get off of it now? Like I said, nothing can be done about it here and bringing it here wasn't the place to do it to begin with. — Moe 03:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

user Fadix removes verifiable sources and quotes[edit]

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

Your point is? he is asking you for a reliable source in the talk page please reply accordingly. Artaxiad 03:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
hm? What is your point? How more reliable does it get than what he has removed from Khoikhoi's version: "which some sources classified as a "genocide" (Peter Hopkirk, "Like hidden fire. The Plot to bring down the British Empire", Kodansha Globe, New York, 1994, p. 281. ISBN-10: 1-56836-127-0) and (Decree of President of Republic of Azerbaijan about genocide of Azerbaijani people, March 1998). --adil 03:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Khoikhoi is a administrator there not supposed to get in conflicts, that was not his version. He fixed the word "alleged". It's nonsense. Artaxiad 04:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Death Threat?[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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.