Natalie Erin (talk | contribs) →[[User:Accountready]]: comment |
→repeated unwarranted warnings being left on my talk page: Miss Mondegreen gets a Purple Star Award for her behavior here. |
||
Line 500: | Line 500: | ||
::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. '''[[User:Miss Mondegreen|Miss Mondegreen]] | [[User talk:Miss Mondegreen|Talk]] 17:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)''' |
::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. '''[[User:Miss Mondegreen|Miss Mondegreen]] | [[User talk:Miss Mondegreen|Talk]] 17:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)''' |
||
::: [[User:Miss Mondegreen|Miss Mondegreen]], you have exercised extraordinary restraint and have stretched the limits of AGF beyond all reason. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Your patience is remarkable. I think you deserve a Purple Star Award [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Personal_user_awards] for enduring this abuse, and I'm going to give you one now! -- <i><b><font color="004000">[[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]]</font></b></i> (<b><font color="990099" size="1">[[User talk:Fyslee/First law|collaborate]]</font></b>) 05:11, 25 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? --[[User:Rebroad|Rebroad]] 17:34, 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? --[[User:Rebroad|Rebroad]] 17:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:11, 25 March 2007
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. 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) |
|
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)
- I'll say it again: check the dates. Epbr123 00:02, 23 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)
- 07:13, 16 March 2007, Sharday gets deleted. You then nominated
- 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)
- This one. Veinor (talk to me) 23:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Which article was that? Check the dates before you throw around accusations. Epbr123 23:33, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I've already won this debate. I'm not going to talk any further. Epbr123 00:33, 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)
- 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)
- It doesn't, but not everyone knows that. Natalie 00:50, 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)
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: [1]. --Mihai cartoaje 17:41, 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)
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. [2], [3], [4] and [5]. 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. [6]. 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)
- 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)
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. [7] 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)
- 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)
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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). AecisBrievenbus 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)
- 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)
- HarryHasAnEgo (talk · contribs). AecisBrievenbus 17:36, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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:[8] 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)
- Are you quite sure it's another Bot thing this time? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:45, 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)
- 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 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)
- 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...)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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: [9] [10]) and in two cases that I could see the tool deleted whole sections ([11] [12]). 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)
- 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 hope Betacommand would voluntarily agree not to make any automated or semi-automated edits unless approved on a very narrow basis, until further notice. I hope it won't have to denigrate into a community sanction or RFAR. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-25 01:57Z
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: [13]. This type of hoax edit is exactly what brings bad press to wikipedia (remember Sinbad [14]).
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:
- block the user
- have all his edits [15] 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. [16] and [17] 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 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)
- 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)
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.
- User:Punk Boi 8 is under a mentoring agreement with me
- 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
- 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
- He created a template for the WikiProject which he added to another WikiProject (removed with request for discussion)
- 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, andmaking 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)
- I'm
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- They don't have to, though. I disagree with the existance of that noticeboard, but that's another fight for another day, I guess... Daniel Bryant 01:58, 25 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- Looks like it, according to the page log. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:29, 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)
- One perennial discussion at a time, please. —Centrx→talk • 22:47, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 ([18], [19]), 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)
- 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)
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)
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." [20] Additionally, while editing the article, he stated that he was reverting "some more crap" and then brusquely demanded that I "read the fucking document". [21] 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." [22] He also noted that "in previous edits they have deleted content and replaced it with blatant lies." [23] 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)
It's been over 800 at some times ... so 500 isn't the worst. Of course, it's still terribly bad. --Cyde Weys 20:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's manageable now. However, everyone needs to look at User:Ganeshbot/Not created, follow those instructions and clean that out as well. Grandmasterka 04:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
— PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 04:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
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
An IP user came on to that article and heavily edited it placing a speedy deletion tag on it. [24] 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.[25]
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 [26] 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 questionable content on User:Jeffpw user page.
User:Jeffpw is endorsing a presidential candidate on his user page [27]. Unfortunately, this is not particularly helpful in an encyclopedia WP:NOT#SOAP. Wikipedia is not the right place for his political efforts[28]. --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)
- 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)
- 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. AgneCheese/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… —xyzzyn 06:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I completely concur with your take on it.K. Scott Bailey 06:23, 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. —xyzzyn 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 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)
- xyzzy_n are you comparing the two incidents to each other? --Masterpedia 06:36, 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)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)If you still consider WP:EA "the community", Hildanknight, you have learned nothing. Also, why on Earth do I keep cropping up in incidents involving my friends that have nothing to do with me? I was attacked on Evrik's RfC as well because two of my friends commented on it. Am I taking collective crap for the gay cabal, or are people too afraid to take me on directly anymore? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)- After reading the responses to my complaint, I have decided to withdraw it. I tried removing it, but Seicer reverted me; an IRC-mate advised me to strike everything out instead. Simply stating that I "knew Jeffpw as a friend of Dev920" would be confusing unless I explained how I knew Dev920. Now that I have withdrawn my complaint, let's pretend nothing happened. I should have been a good Singaporean and stayed out of controversial areas, minding my own business. I'm going to drop this and focus on finding reliable references for a new article I am going to write. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:16, 25 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 [29]. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- I would encourage you to worry more about the good of the project (the articles) and less about the political preferences of users you happen to not like, disagree with. Making known one's political preference on a PERSONAL userpage (not in an article) is not the same as advertising a company. Additionally, I believe an argument could be made that the ban on advertising applies more to the creation of pages for non-notable companies run by the creator than the hypothetical you described above. One way or the other, you're wasting everyone's time with this frivolous complaint. I am unwatching this page.K. Scott Bailey 19:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- fwiiw, Scott, you are right, I was exaggerating a little bit to make a point. I do not make a habit of being annoyed at people's userboxes :) dab (𒁳) 19:39, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Dbachmann obviously has the sense of this. Jkelly 19:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- K. Scott Bailey I can see you’re on the mend with Jeffpw right now [30] [31]. You should probably recuse yourself from the discussion, your viewpoint could be biased. --Masterpedia 19:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- And you're not biased, Knowpedia? This is the first communication I have had from you since I had you blocked for vandalising my userpage, along with several other users' pages. I don't think you can call yourself the most objective person on Wikipedia. Jeffpw 19:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's tremendous. Because I'm now on decent terms with Jeffpw, I should recuse myself? That's REALLY funny. I mean in the actual "I laughed out loud when I read it" kind of funny. I guess only people who are fighting with him should be able to comment, is that it? I guess I should expect my userpage to be called into question next. After all, I identify myself as both a moderate-liberal and a Democrat, and I also publicize the fact that I'm a Christian (according to your standards, this could be considered "advertising my faith" I supposed). I encourage you to let it go, sir. You're not accomplishing anything with this thread, except to expose your own apparent agenda. (BTW, the page is rewatched.)K. Scott Bailey 20:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Do not call me sir. I take umbrage to that. --Masterpedia 04:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Rbj (talk · contribs) called other editors "liars" at Talk:Intelligent design [32] 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[33]. In response to my warning, Rbj responded by re-affirming his accusation of lying[34]. For this, he was blocked by JoshuaZ, the 11th time he was blocked[35]. (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.[36] I explained to him why he was blocked.[37] In response to this, he re-iterated his claim of lying ("what behavior? dissent? identifying a lie for what it is?")[38]
My feeling is that if someone comes off a block for personal attacks and continues with the same sort of behaviour, they should be re-blocked. I don't think that I should be the person to do it though, because he is already prone to yelling about persecution. I think that if I were to block him, his behaviour would probably escalate. At the same time, I think that he should be blocked, since he came off a block and returned to the same behaviour that caused the block in the first place. Guettarda 07:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- This user has been blocked several times before. I had to block him one time for 48 hours because of a revert war he had on Marriage where he reverted 8 times within the time span of 24 hours. We might be talking about a community ban soon if he continues in this manner.--Jersey Devil 07:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I left him another warning. It may help if a few others do as well. Georgewilliamherbert 08:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we should just let the matter drop this time, In fact I don't think he should have been blocked over this in the first place. People should grow slightly thicker skins. Blocks for personal attacks should be limited to serious attacks only. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- In general, I'd agree with you, and I do get tired of seeing a post here every time (it seems anyway) that someone says something slightly uncivil. However, Rbj has quite a history of making personal attacks, cursing and taunting other editors, restoring the edits of a banned user, and the like. At some point, isn't it time to say enough is enough? Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would definitely support Jersey Devil's excellent solution. :-) Jeffpw 09:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC).
- I agree with Theresa that blocks aren't generally appropriate for personal attacks. The issue here is that having been blocked for PAs, he comes off the block with more of the same. Guettarda 15:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- As one of his more common PA targets, I have to say I'd prefer if he'd knock off all the disruption, and if it takes a longer block to help him get the message, I'd support it. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not babysit those who chronically resort to trolling when they become frustrated that their opinions fail to gain consensus. And it appears he's just about exhausted the community's patience at that article. FeloniousMonk 16:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Look, I'll admit to being a bit snarky at times (usually when I'm ticked off), but rbj goes way beyond being snarky, he/she is visciously nasty. Rbj is also prone to making accusations that have no basis in fact: the other day, he accused Raul of Admin Abuse, stating "lessee... WP:ANOT: "[When you are an administrator you don't just block and unblock who you want, you don't delete and undelete what you want, you just don't go around editing protected pages when you want, and you can't just go protecting and unprotecting what you want." it's no coincidence that you reverted it to the version that matches your own POV and then you protected it. Admin Abuse. r b-j 06:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)". The fact was that Kenosis had made the last edit, and Raul locked the page as he found it. I challenged rbj on his accusation, and he has yet to even apologise to Raul. •Jim62sch• 17:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 [39], adds the same material again (see [40], [41], [42]). ~~ 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)
A recently registered user, JohnHistory is resorting to personal attacks on Talk:Manfred von Richthofen, [43]. 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 [44], [45], [46], [47], and [48]. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would personally endorse an indef ban here, the user seams to be here to cause disruption and I find it very difficult to find a legitimate edit, with my original 24 hour block, I was trying to assume good faith that the user might calm down after it, but obviously not, and after great advice from Kncyu38 which he has disregarded, he has continued his disruption Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Fadix Personal Attacks
Apart from evidence presented at [49], [50] and [51], User:Fadix continued his personal attack upon myself today [52]:
- 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)
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)
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 nettalk 13:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've blocked that account. Jason is under an ArbCom ban and a community ban (see: [53]). 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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--editedwas 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
- [54] Rebroad's previous complaint about me on ANI and My comment on Rebroad's talk page about that
- References
- 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)
- Miss Mondegreen, you have exercised extraordinary restraint and have stretched the limits of AGF beyond all reason. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Your patience is remarkable. I think you deserve a Purple Star Award [55] for enduring this abuse, and I'm going to give you one now! -- Fyslee (collaborate) 05:11, 25 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 Wikipedia: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)
- Regardless of Miss Mondegreen's behavior, your behavior in this has not been above reproach. It's generally understood that you can be bold, on Wikipedia, until someone complains - but if someone complains, then talk. You seem, frankly, to have trouble dealing with criticism or disagreement with your actions.
- Renaming is a frequently contentious thing to be doing on Wikipedia, as you should have been aware. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure the various unpleasant things you said to me on my talk page were unwanted. As were the unsigned (did you think I wouldn't know? that they would be more credible) and bizarre warnings.
- At the very least, you could stop now. I understand that you didn't like being warned or criticized, but you had and have always had and could still now stop. You could stop assuming bad faith since that always escalates things, you could stop making the kind of comments you've been leaving on my talk page. You've taken this issue here and continued to escalate--I defend myself on one score and suddenly I'm being attacked for something else. This is a lot like trying to discuss wiki policy with you--I respond in terms of one issue and you move on to something else.
- And, now that you can see comments other users have left for me, don't you appreciate the fact that I didn't delete comments that reflected badly on me--whether or not the person was right? Miss Mondegreen | Talk 18:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Rebroad has put up on his User Page that he's taking a wikibreak. I suggest that the time he's gone be used to expand the article, and leave this section to scroll out. It can be referenced fron the archives if we need it in a few days to deal with further conflicts. IN the meantime, make the article better, and no one can complain. I notice that I'm the only one who has tried to expand it, whiel you two have kept back and forth'ing. ThuranX 19:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually ThuranX--I haven't been doing much editing/writing at all. Between this and other Wiki things that required immediate attention, I've been spending my limited time here on those. In fact, it's very hard to be productive when every time I log on I find the work I've just done, undone, and that I have to go around to a half-dozen pages and leave a warning or ask an admin to revert a move or whatnot. Rebroad's probably gotten me to log more wiki hours since I came back from no internet access :). Miss Mondegreen | Talk 20:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- i have had problems in the past with this and think only a high level admin. should be allowed to place any form of warning or warning template against any user. This will prevent users using templates in personal attacks and stop user adding them to user simply because they don't like what the user is saying.--Lucy-marie 20:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
This is not the first time we've had problems with Rebroad. Miss Mondegreen has previously made a number of good comments spread throughout the discussion here:
They highlight the problematic nature of User:Rebroad's unilateral name changing of articles. User:Rebroad has been on my radar in the past because of very obtrusive and stubborn failure to listen to other editor's reasoning. He tried to revive an old and obsolete article and deleted a redirect, which was a serious action and created a lot of wasted time for many editors:
Rebroad is a particularly disruptive type of editor, since the types of changes he often makes have far reaching consequences and are an exercise of bad faith towards the hard work of many other editors who have used the consensus process to bring articles to the point at which Rebroad brashes onto the scene and destroys things. IMO Rebroad needs to be reigned in. Maybe a block on any and all types of editing other than correcting overlinking?....;-) -- Fyslee (collaborate) 23:22, 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)
There are a number of people removing all the external sites on the basis on "I don't like it" [56]
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? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:36, 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 [57]. The same consensus appears on the talk page, with only Cool Cat arguing to retain them and trying to get rid of any warning notice about their content too. The sites linked appear to be self-published attack sites of no scholarly value. Note: I am neither Armenian or Turkish nor do I hold any brief for long-defunct Marxist-Leninist "guerrilla" groups. I was alerted to this page during its AfD and I noticed that the primary concern of some of its editors seemed to be soapboxing rather than providing accurate, encyclopaedic information. My suspicions were further aroused when I tried to ensure the information provided was more accurate and I was accused of "vandalism" and "disruption". Come on, this is the kind of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name. None of those links do anything to improve our reputation so they should go. --Folantin 18:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I believe the links are inline with Wikipedia:External links - which doesn't prohibit "racist" or biassed sites (your argument, I have no opinion). They are mere external links and not sources. External links are supposed to be comprehensive. Disclaimers are bad taste. -- Cat chi? 18:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Whereas links to hate blogs with banner headlines screaming about the "Falsified genocide" are the height of sophistication, I suppose. --Folantin 18:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I do not think genocide has anything to do with this. The information on the 5 sites are about ASALA's attacks. Weather rest of the site suits your point of view or it doesn't is irrelevant. I do not believe all 5 of those sites are mere blogs. -- Cat chi? 20:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Look, stop inserting more content here and take this whole issue back to the talk page as requested. --Folantin 20:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I do not think genocide has anything to do with this. The information on the 5 sites are about ASALA's attacks. Weather rest of the site suits your point of view or it doesn't is irrelevant. I do not believe all 5 of those sites are mere blogs. -- Cat chi? 20:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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. HighInBC(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)
- Done. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 19:57, 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. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I presumed it was obvious that it was SmackBot, but I am not big on bots. I have contacted Rich Farmbrough about the matter. J Milburn 18:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Rich says that it wasn't SmackBot, and he says he thinks it was a manual user. Certianly didn't look like that to me... J Milburn 20:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- Definitely looks manual to me from the contribs. I guess it could be a really slow unapproved bot with an owner watching and editing user talk pages (with incorrect information) regarding the articles it was editing. No edit summaries means it definitely wasn't an approved bot that got logged out, and the slow speed of the edits suggests it was done manually. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Please stop this user: I've already reported him here because he vandalizes several pages on Wikipedia by blanking articles without any reasons. R@y 18:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Looks to me like they should have been blocked a long time ago. Less controversial blocks can be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. J Milburn 18:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Solar System
Solar System is being repeatedly vandalised by a user named Turok who evades blocks by creating new accounts. I would ask that either some method be found for permanently banned or for Solar System to be semi-protected. Serendipodous 19:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I sprotected it. El_C 20:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
141.157.161.15
I request blocking for IP 141.157.161.15 because of vandalism at:
- my user page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASergey_Romanov&diff=117579941&oldid=117567031
- discussion page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASergey_Romanov&diff=117571121&oldid=117540483
- numerous wiki articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/141.157.161.15
+ attempted harrassment at the talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASergey_Romanov&diff=117580745&oldid=117579718
--Sergey Romanov 19:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Do we have any copyrighted stuff in any of our articles? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Legal threats, counterfeit websites, oh my!
Is there anyone who has dealt with any of
- Sergey Romanov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 141.157.161.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- links to the websites www.death-camps.org or www.deathcamps.org
previously, and who can nail down what's going on here?
There appear to be at least two editors who have some sort of dispute over which site is authentic or the legitimate copyright owner of the material that appears on both sites.
I've blocked 141.157 for fifteen minutes to get his attention and encourage him to join the discussion here. (He's been leaving a trail of inflammatory edit summaries and legal threats.) I will also notify Sergey, and User:Brian0918 (who seems to have encountered this issue before). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Do we need to be in this fight? Why not delete all links to either site from wikipedia. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- At least some of the links appear to be in footnote references for articles. I wouldn't want to blanket delete them without careful review. Of course, I don't know anything about the quality or accuracy of the site(s), or the history of how the links were added to Wikipedia in the first place. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see why the links in general should be deleted, they contain quite a lot of usefufl information.
- As for 141.whatever, this is the same person who vandalized my user page previously. To quote from my user page:
Some hard wiki-evidence about the above case
If you look at my history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sergey_Romanov&action=history
you can see that there is some person (guess who) who tried to vandalize my user page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASergey_Romanov&diff=105571739&oldid=89670383
Notice the change in the URL. You can check out this person's URL, but beware - it is NOT safe for work!
Now click on his IP to see his contributions, and judge for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.160.31.156
(Hint: also compare with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ARC-deathcamps.org)
- As you can see by the fake "blog" he created, he is a rather sick person. --Sergey Romanov 20:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) That's kind of personal attack right there. Make sure not to insult the anon when you are defending yourself. --Iamunknown 20:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry. It's just things like that fake blog go far beyond simple "uncivility". But note taken.--Sergey Romanov 20:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just remember to stay cool; I know, however, that sometimes it is really difficult. --Iamunknown 04:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would support putting both on the blacklist. We apparantly don't know anything about editorial control on either site, where their information is coming from, and there seems to be some sort of external dispute that is creating a headache for editors here. Jkelly 20:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- It may be useful to know the difference between the two first — unless it's limited to personalities clash (of respective site owners). El_C 20:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- The most significant difference is the absence of faked materials at death-camps.org and their presence at deathcamps.org (see my user page).--Sergey Romanov 20:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Can this be verified or do we have to take your word for it? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- The account on your userpage is lenghty and complicated. Please be brief: "fake" how? El_C 20:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Briefly: the break-up was because of these fakes, supplied by the current owner of deathcamps.org
- They're still there (Muenzberger "statement" and Rum "statement"):
- The most significant difference is the absence of faked materials at death-camps.org and their presence at deathcamps.org (see my user page).--Sergey Romanov 20:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- It may be useful to know the difference between the two first — unless it's limited to personalities clash (of respective site owners). El_C 20:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would support putting both on the blacklist. We apparantly don't know anything about editorial control on either site, where their information is coming from, and there seems to be some sort of external dispute that is creating a headache for editors here. Jkelly 20:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- They're fake because there never was any provenance for them, and because the details contradict known evidence (e.g. the wrong number of gas chambers is mentioned). These materials are not to be found on death-camps.org --Sergey Romanov 20:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I'm having difficulties parsing that. El_C 20:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- What is not clear? I will explain.--Sergey Romanov 20:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- What is the difference; how is it appreciable? Please cite brief contrasting sentences as examples. El_C 20:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- What is not clear? I will explain.--Sergey Romanov 20:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I'm having difficulties parsing that. El_C 20:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you mean the diff. between the sites:
- 1. death-camps.org simply lacks the page analogous [58] (because the whole page is a forgery).
- If you need more evidence as to why those are forgeries, it is explained (with sources) at [61] , but briefly - the information in the statements (which have no provenance) doesn't mesh with info from other established sources, such as Treblinka trial judgement and Yitzhak Arad's book.--Sergey Romanov 20:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I want specific instances of items being forged; the above example is not clear. I don't have the time to review the material to such an extent, so you'll have to do better than that. Aim at clarity & concision. El_C 20:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid proving forgeries briefly is not easy. OK, one specific example:
- 1. The Muenzberger "statement" (http://deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/trebmuenzberger.html) and the Rum "statement" (fully available at http://static.flickr.com/118/283883256_60f4582b6e_o.jpg - sorry for quality, but that's how it was distributed inside ARC) claim 10 GCs in Treblinka:
- "In the corridor the Jews were driven into the chambers by some Ukrainians. There were five chambers on either side." (M.)
- "On both sides of the corridor were 5 gas chambers" (Rum)
- The verdict of the Duesseldorf Treblinka trial, however, stated:
- "Darüber welche Masse wirklich zutreffen, hat die Beweisaufnahme ebensowenig eine eindeutige Klärung ergeben wie über die wirkliche Anzahl der neuen Kammern, die von den Angeklagten übereinstimmend und von Anfang an mit 6, von den jüdischen Zeugen jedoch durchweg mit 10 angegeben werden."
- Which means, in English, that the German defendants testified about six gas chambers, not ten, and only Jewish witnesses testified about ten gas chambers. (The verdict is from JuNSV collection, and was available at http://www.idgr.de/texte/dokumente/justiz/treblinka-urteil.php until that site closed; this can be confirmed at http://www.shoa.de/content/view/581/203/ ; I can send the verdict if requested).--Sergey Romanov 21:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm unable to verify that claim at this time. Perhaps a lawsuit would be best. El_C 21:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I want specific instances of items being forged; the above example is not clear. I don't have the time to review the material to such an extent, so you'll have to do better than that. Aim at clarity & concision. El_C 20:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you need more evidence as to why those are forgeries, it is explained (with sources) at [61] , but briefly - the information in the statements (which have no provenance) doesn't mesh with info from other established sources, such as Treblinka trial judgement and Yitzhak Arad's book.--Sergey Romanov 20:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Turok 18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is also involved. -- No Guru 20:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, it's not. That's the Solar System vandal seeking attention. El_C 20:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
ARC Team The Genuine www.deathcamps.org
Admins:
Rather than deal in the "ANECDOTAL" Statements and blog posting by Sergey Romanov lets deal in verifiable facts. Do we all agree that ICANN and WHOIS.net are valid authorities in web site registraion? Also the US & EU laws that govern websites and enclosed materials??
Ok good. Now please Check WHOIS.net for www.deathcamps.org then do the same for www.death-camps.org
Note the dates, 2002 for deathcamps.org and 2006 for the fake death-camps.org
Then go back and look at all the original links here on wiki, all the deathcamps.org links, go back to the very first versions, were they deathcamps.org or the counterfeit death-camps org??
Now, this is all facts validated by legitimate authorities and including wiki's own history.
Against these facts you have wacky blog accusations, hearsay, anecdotal statements, some downright lies, and a blatant smear campaign by Sergey Romanov.
Sergey Romanov can attempt to rebut this all he wishes.
But as admins of what is an ENCYCLOPEDIA should be excercising better judgement.
The Genuine ARC Team
- Maybe you should settle this through legal channels and come back to our wiki once the outstanding issues have been resolved. At this point, we are inclined to remove both sites until you (site owners) sort this out. We are not a court. El_C 20:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- The pseudo-"Genuine ARC Team" is trying to pull a fast one: once again, copyrights are not established by WHOIS. As for removing both sites, I don't see why the legitimate site should be removed along with the unreliable one. But that's probably "GAT"'s purpose. --Sergey Romanov 20:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
No you are not a court but Wiki does have a charter and regulations. We are not asking Wiki to take our word for it. There is verifiable evidence on http://www.whois.net/whois_new.cgi?d=deathcamps&tld=org or ICANN.
This is as straightforward and as simple as it gets.
Copyrights are backed up by valid dates of registration. www.deathcamps.org and all the material contained within are legimately registred copyrights in both the US and the EU.
Sorry Sergey Romanov be we've legally registerd the site, all and all the material we've created there in both geographical regions. Any questions on that please contact the US Copyright office, and the EU registrar.
-The Genuine ARC Team
- We are not obliged to feature either website in our entries nor to become involved in this dispute. Any efforts to that effect are strictly voluntary and may be withdrawn at any time. El_C 20:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
EL. Agreed, Wiki has that right. However if you look back to the very first Wiki links for www.deathcamps.org they predate the inception of the fake hyphenated version that appeared in October 2006. Some of them have been here for years without issue. This upstart comes in and begins changing all of our links and now the real website has to suffer for it?
Is there any justice in that??
- As explained on my user page, most links have been changed back in the autumn of 2006, because the deathcamps.org site has been down. And, to repeat, deathcamps.org owner is _not_ a copyright holder. Some anonymous' remarks don't change this fact. --Sergey Romanov 20:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm getting a bit tired of seeing these links flood the #wikipedia-en-spam IRC channel. Can we agree on which site to remove? Personally, I think they should both be removed, they don't seem to contribute that much useful information. Shadow1 (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- At least one user who's trying to introduce www.deathcamps.org into the site is vandalizing the Michael Richards article as well. (→Netscott) 20:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how death-camps.org doesn't "seem to contribute that much useful information".It is chockful of useful information on the Holocaust. And is obviously legit. Otherwise, what is your definition of "legit"? --Sergey Romanov 20:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Shadow1 I understand your concern. I would ask that the legitimate www.deathcamps.org links be allowed to remain as they have been here for years. These counterfiet links pointing to www.death-camps.org have only started in October of 2006. We are only seeking to retain our status quo as a legitimate website.
The Genuine ARC team
- My concern is that the links aren't entirely relevant to the articles, in my opinion. Wikipedia's external links and reliable sources guidelines seem to agree, if I'm reading them right. Shadow1 (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- And since we do not know who owns the true version of the website, we should try to be fair and remove both links instead of featuring one over the other. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- One who owns the true site doesn't need to make false statements, like current deathcamps.org owner does (I've given examples on my user page). Also, someone representing the true pages doesn't need to make fake blogs like the one here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASergey_Romanov&diff=105571739&oldid=89670383 (you can see that this is the same person who writes here as "Genuine ARC Team" by observing the changes he made to wiki articles).--Sergey Romanov 21:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- And since we do not know who owns the true version of the website, we should try to be fair and remove both links instead of featuring one over the other. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- My concern is that the links aren't entirely relevant to the articles, in my opinion. Wikipedia's external links and reliable sources guidelines seem to agree, if I'm reading them right. Shadow1 (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Netscott no one from the ARC team had anything to do with Michael Richards page... We are only interested in keeping our links point to our site that we started in 2002 and have had links here on Wiki for many years. We have been under constant vandal attacks and link reversion since Oct 2006... why are we being made to suffer with the vandals?
Shadow1 any link that isn't relevant to the article should be removed on any page where it isn't relevant. When we at the www.deathcamps.org began posting and contributing to articles over the years we posted links in good faith.
We only seek to have the promotion of this counterfeit website stopped.
- There's no "accrediation" for either site. Deathcamps.org is registered to someone with a yahoo.co.uk e-mail address? That doesn't sound legit to me. (→Netscott) 20:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, what is happening here is a simple case of WP:SPAM, just covered up in legal issues. All these users are doing is changing one site for the other, and I simply don't see the benefit to wikipedia in fighting over what? A link!!!. Leave things the way they were, and engage in discussion before doing any drastic action. (changing one link for the other). Put simply this is getting silly, from all the link swapping I'm seeing on IRC. Talk first, then take action, once there is a consensus on what to do. I will ask, where is the evidence that the other site is not legal? Please discuss rather then remove and swap out links. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
70.153.120.187
I request the ban of this IP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.153.120.187 --Sergey Romanov 20:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Sergey Romanov you are the one promoting the counterfeit Links, we request the ban of Sergey Romanov
- We do not ban users without the consensus of the community. However, you both may be looking at temporary blocks for disruption, unless you can contribute civilly and without any name-calling. Shadow1 (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk first, then take action. Both of you may get blocked for spamming if you don't quit this sillyness.. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Have we ever even banned an IP? I mean, we block many IPs per day, but ban? --Iamunknown 21:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
ARC just wants to exist in peace
Shadow we apologize for any statements made out of frustation. ARC it's website www.deathcamps.org would simply like to exist free of link vandalism, our links have been here for years, pointing to our website www.deathcamps.org (check wiki history) they have been suffering edit attacks since October 2006 we are asking why we have to suffer these attacks?
- Due to "professional differences" they both should be removed. (→Netscott) 20:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- The likely reason that they existed in articles for so long is because no one paid any attention to them until this happened. Shadow1 (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
ARC Legality
Eagle
ARC was created in 2002. We registered our website in September of 2002. We have maintained our website since that time. We have also registered for formal copyrights in the USA and EU both back in October when the counterfeit website www.death-camps.org first appeared. Both registrations are in process, but the registration process can be verified with the US copy right office and EU registrar.
The fake website is an identical copy of www.deathcamps.org their site was registered in October 2006 the ICANN and WHOIS validate this.
www.death-camps.org is counterfeit and in violation of the geniune ARC www.deathcamps.org copyright.
-The Genuine ARC team
- Resolve the legal issues off of wikipedia. Any more link swapping will result in blocks for spamming. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
EAGLE, that's fine with us, all links should remain what they were www.deathcamps.org any swapping from that to www.death-camps.org would be in violation correct?
- JFYI, you're not talking to an ARC member. This person, who hides behind anonymity, has left the group at least two years ago. IOW, he cannot represent a (now non-existent) group.--Sergey Romanov 21:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Eagle, what you have stated is in agreement with the ARC team. The links will remain what they FIRST were. Any swapping away from that would be considered spamming? Am I understanding that correctly?
- And the opposite. What I'm saying goes both ways. This linkswapping is solely to promote a website, and it needs to stop. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Eagle, how about a deletion of the links to an unreliable resource? Will this be according to wiki policy?--Sergey Romanov 21:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- You can do that, just in this situation please trend lightly till this dies down. Make sure before removing any of these links that they can't be used as a source. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Eagle, how about a deletion of the links to an unreliable resource? Will this be according to wiki policy?--Sergey Romanov 21:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- And the opposite. What I'm saying goes both ways. This linkswapping is solely to promote a website, and it needs to stop. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Eagle, that works for us. So the orignal date the Link was first posted will be the valid link? That works for us. We will not post any new links nor make any attempt to promote www.deathcamps.org
We simply ask that all of our links be allowed to remain unvandalised.
Many thanks Eagle.
-The Genuine ARC Team
- Just as a kinda related comment, any copyright registration for the title either has already been rejected or will be. Two words are unquestionably not copyrightable. -Amarkov moo! 21:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Let me clarify, whatever they are now, leave them be, you need to discuss this on an article by article basis, if you have legal issues with the other website, it needs to be dealt with off wiki. Put simply no more linkswapping either way. Now I'm not saying that we can't possibly remove the links, or disscuss links on a case by case basis, but this mass linkswapping needs to stop. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Amarkov
The Website domain is copyrighted. The material contained therein is also copyrighted.
Eagle. We have a lot of links pointing to Deathcamps.org are you saying they can be swapped by this Sergey Romanov to point to a counterfeit website?
Enough Enough Enough. Shut up and go away! I'm going to delete all links to either site. Problem solved. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn21:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, I told him that if any could be removed he can do so, but needs to be done on a case by case basis. any linkswapping that I see between these two sites I'm going to treat as spam, and deal with accordingly, unless there has been discussion on the article's talk page or elsewhere to another effect. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I completely disagree. We need to remove them all, and now. (I am in the process of doing so. Please help if you can)Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. I'm going to be away for the next 40 minutes or so, but there are others watching the IRC feeds on links added. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Good call Theresa Knott, and perhaps add them to spam blacklist for the time being as well. (→Netscott) 21:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- The spam blacklist will not be used, unless there is evidence of spamming past this moment. I don't know if I agree with the link removals, and I think this needs to be done with care, rather then blanket removal. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Good call Theresa Knott, and perhaps add them to spam blacklist for the time being as well. (→Netscott) 21:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Nescott and Theresa. We are all dialoguing here in a professional manner, Eagle has been handling this situation well. Why all the negative comment. The ARC team are not spammers. Nor are we posting negative links to blogs etc. We are simply trying to prevent our website from being vandalized. How or why you find that to be in bad taste is not clear to us? The Genuine ARC Team
- please SIGN your posts. --Fredrick day 21:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Until this legal nonsense is sorted off-wiki both sites need removing. It is disruptive that "professional differences" are being expressed here on Wikipedia. This is why I support Theresa Knotts' removal of both. (→Netscott) 21:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just wanted to remind everybody that currently there is no such thing as "ARC Team". --Sergey Romanov 21:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Until this legal nonsense is sorted off-wiki both sites need removing. It is disruptive that "professional differences" are being expressed here on Wikipedia. This is why I support Theresa Knotts' removal of both. (→Netscott) 21:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- please SIGN your posts. --Fredrick day 21:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Not dealing with Legal Issues, dealing with Link Vandalizing of www.deathcamps.org
Ok Nescott how about we ignore the legal issue of www.death-camps.org being a counterfeit. Lets just deal with the Wiki History of the links.
If they were www.deathcamps.org and someone vandalized them to www.death-camps.org that's a Wiki matter correct? The Genuine ARC Team ARC www.deathcamps.org
- You should be blocked right now for starting section after section alone. Stop that now. Sort your legal differences and come back to Wikipedia afterwords. (→Netscott) 21:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
No it's not vandalism because as far as anyone knows they are acting in good faith adding those links, all we care about about is WP:ATT - your ownership problems are ENTIRELY non-wiki. and signing is NOT writting your name, you use ~~~~ to do it. --Fredrick day 21:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
We www.deathcamps.org are the ones who added the links they pointed to our website, we are not the ones changing them to www.death-camps.org. We are only changing the vandalized links back.
If someone changes our links to another URL how is that acting in good faith?
We apologise for the multiple sections. The Genuine ARC Team
- Your URL has zero related content. The other one has more than zero related content. It is very possible that someone will, in good faith, change to the site with related content. -Amarkov moo! 21:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- At this point, the question is not whether they should be changed, but rather why they're included in articles and why we're making such a big fuss over them. Shadow1 (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
ARC is willing to abide by EAGLE101's ruling. He seems to be the most "leveled headed person in this debate"
- of course you are. That's because you think he is saying that the link you want must stay on the article. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- As I stated before, and I will state again, leave the links the way they are, any more mass swapping of links will result in blocks, unless the swap was discussed on the article's talk page. As for removing them, I have no opinion on that. —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Eagle 101. That's probably the best way to solve the edit wars... --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 22:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't know whether or not I agree, but I certainly removed quite a few links from articles. I thought, like Theresa Knott, that it might calm the ensuing havoc. You can revert me if you like, all my edit summaries said "remove link to disputed site, please do not add back in." --Iamunknown 22:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually I have a feeling that will cause more "havoc", but that's only my opinion. Just keep it your way, and hopefully, the thing will sort itself out . --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 22:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I hope not. --Iamunknown 22:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- So do I. The thing is - we don't need the links. Hasving then certainly causes trouble. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I hope not. --Iamunknown 22:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
User pages
Has anyone noticed, or is it just me. Both user pages for User:ARC-deathcamps.org and User:Sergey Romanov seem to violate WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, WP:NOT#WEBSPACE and WP:USER. Would anyone support wholesale deletion of both party's userspaces unless each party changes his or hers page? --Iamunknown 21:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC) ... (clarification:) That is, would anyone support an mfd for said user spaces? --Iamunknown 21:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- The userpage of User:ARC-deathcamp.org is removed. And I see no violation on the current userpage for Sergey Romanov. --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 22:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, now it's okay...it certainly was not earlier. --Iamunknown 22:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Links all removed
I've removed all the links from both sites from every article. That doesn't include images or talk pages or Wikipedia-space pages, and they may be put back in, but all the current links are removed. Hopefully that will bring calm. --Iamunknown 22:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Guy, thats becuase you feel the in-justice involved in how this matter was handled. A black mark on Wikipedia for this one.. ARC
- There's a further issue that hasn't been raised: "ARC" has placed at least one (and likely many) hidden messages in various article, user, and associated talk pages. See below. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I just noticed one of these links was removed from the Porajmos article, and after reading this whole discussion I now understand why the removal happened, and agree with the action. I was wondering, however, if the decision could be summarized somewhere so others like me who edit the many pages linking to these websites can easily understand what has happened. The websites were pretty good sources of information, so it's no small blow to have them removed (though, again, I understand why it was done, and agree with the removal). Thanks. - TheMightyQuill 02:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I wish I had thought of that and added the link to my edit summaries. Perhaps, when this discussion is archived (in the next few days), I can make another run and also go back to all of the talk pages and post a brief note directing editors to this discussion and asking that they not post links to either domain. It's unfortunate but the situation is too tricky and should not be dealt with on-wiki. --Iamunknown 03:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
It’s not just links, unfortunately
Well, it looks like I’m being drug into this mess by the anon styling himself as The Genuine ARC team, and I have three particular complaints: 1) editing a post not by him on my talk page, 2) adding hidden-text spam to same, and 3) making not-so-veiled threats should I not cease and desist – from behavior I have not participated in!
My participation in this is very indirect. I responded to a post by another user on jpgordon’s talk page back in January. That user, Rrburke had noted serial changes of links to the dash site to the non-dash to the article Einsatzgruppen and several others. Since I am knowledgeable about the subject of the death camps, I took it upon myself to do what jpgordon had stated he hadn’t the time to do – examine what the difference between the two sites were and to try to figure out what was going on. What I learned and confirmed to Rrburke was that it was indeed as he surmised, inside baseball.
I’d forgotten about it until the ARC guy (as 71.243.84.163) apparently went trolling on 17 March for dash links, found one on my talk page ([[User talk:Askari Mark#deathcamps.org vs. death-camps.org in Einsatzgruppen ]]) – the last exchange Rrburke and I had on the subject, and deleted the dash in the latter link name (making it nonsensical). I reverted it, rebuked the anon, and let Rrburke know this in case he was still following the issue. He had forgotten about it too, and asked me to remind him what it was about.
At this point ARC (now as 141.157.161.15) began chiming, accusing me of promoting fraudulent websites, and also returned to the January posting (the one he’d originally vandalized) and added the following hidden text: [62] which vandalism I also reverted. Ignoring my point-by-point rebuttal of his accusations in the March 17 post, he started a new thread, Promotion of Counterfeit ARC website, which has descended into threats (which Theresa Knott rebuked him on today).
To date I’ve not edited dashes in or out of links to either of these websites in any article. As best I can tell, this anon’s edits are only to redirect links to his website and push his monomania on any editor he comes across to accuse them (in Wikipedia’s name) of promoting copyright violations. I haven’t gone through all his sockpuppets’ contributions, but it looks to me like he has made no other constructive edits. Inasmuch as he seems intent on stirring up more controversy than he’s worth, I wouldn’t mind seeing him banned just so he doesn’t continue to inflict himself on other editors; however, considering how monomaniacal this anon is about his personal issue, I do expect him to continue vandalizing under other IPs as they become available to him (fortunately, his MO is easy to discern). I would also recommend that some admins explore his other edits to remove the hidden text he placed on my talk page, which I suspect he has placed elsewhere. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
G2bambino wikistalking
Before going to the meat of the wikistalking accusation, let's put his behavior into context.
|
---|
The following is a long long long listing of evidence by an IP address to accuse G2bambino of wikistalking. It has been shrunken for your viewing pleasure. |
(A) G2bambino has proved to be disruptive in his historical behavior. As noted below, I easily found 25 incidents of WP:NPOV, WP:CIV, WP:AGF, WP:3RR, vandalism, edit war and sockpuppetry violations involving 18 different Wiki users.
(B) G2bambino hates the 2 Wiki users Magonaritus and Jonawiki. There is a concern that G2bambino is engaging in wikistalking and his accusation of sockpuppetry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive217#Jonawiki_and_sockpuppetry) is just another way to game the system in order to intimidate his victims.
(C) The 2 users Jonawiki and Magonaritus were making edits to Star Wars Galaxies. G2bambino unequivocally engaged in an act of wikistalking (his edits can be viewed at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars_Galaxies&limit=500&action=history) as a retaliatory act against Jonawiki and Magonaritus.
|
The preceeding has been a long diatribe by an IP. We return you to your regularly scheduled thread, already in progress. |
- Long diatribe from an IP that has made zero edits which are not posting said diatribe. Does anyone care to actually read through this to verify that it's stupid? -Amarkov moo! 21:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- For an admin hopeful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_administrator_hopefuls), you're very rude and flip.
- He did research it well though....for someone who isn't involved in this, according to contribs, though that is highly doubtful. --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 21:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- It was indeed researched well.
Too bad that the research doesn't show much, including such things as a polite request made two years ago. -Amarkov moo! 21:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC) - Okay, so, to be fair, most of the evidence isn't like that. However, there is no evidence of Wikistalking. Following people's contributions, if just intended to keep bad ones out of Wikipedia, is allowed, even if it shouldn't be. -Amarkov moo! 21:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- It was indeed researched well.
- He did research it well though....for someone who isn't involved in this, according to contribs, though that is highly doubtful. --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 21:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- FOR THE RECORD: I do not want my discussions with G2bambino used in any way to support this claim.K. Scott Bailey 21:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- This IP is currently on a mission to discredit G2bambino in any way possible. This is most likely due to the following sock puppet report Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Jonawiki and is very likely the user being reported. If anyone can spare a little time and help, feel free to head on over to that report, lay your thoughts in, and see how the user in question is going about this in a pretty uncivil way. Roguegeek (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Another Stirling Newberry impersonator
See User:Calton Newberry Lopez; please block.Proabivouac 22:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Any actual signs of immitation or is it an assumption? --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 23:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- That image is of User:Stirling Newberry, and has been used various sockpuppet impersonators in recent months. Its juxtaposition with hobbies such as "cruising for sex" and "gloryholes," is plainly libelous. Only contribs have been to revert SN's edits, referring to him in edit summaries, and to troll his talk page.Proabivouac 23:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Honestly, whether it's an impersonator or just a nuisance doesn't much matter. A username couldn't be more transparent trolling, even leaving aside the userpage. (Note that the troll has been indef blocked.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- He has returned as User:Eric Lopez.Proabivouac 00:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Honestly, whether it's an impersonator or just a nuisance doesn't much matter. A username couldn't be more transparent trolling, even leaving aside the userpage. (Note that the troll has been indef blocked.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Sock of indefinite blocked user The Right Honourable Bonney Eberndu
The Rt Honourable Bonney Eberndu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)is probably another sock of the indef blocked The Right Hon. Bonney Eberndu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - similar name and same picture substitution vandalism to Gordon Brown. -Mr Stephen 23:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Blocked Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Tag warring at Hippie
Three editors including myself have called attention to the dire need for improvement of the article Hippie at Talk:Hippie on account of its US-centrism in discussing what was and is a phenomenon in many other countries including Europe and Australasia. Unfortunately, all three of us have been "overruled" by a single proprietary editor who insists that because he can't see what the fuss is about, therefore it does not exist -- and for many days now he has been unilaterally removing the <<globalize>> tag as soon as any of us add it, or the <<NPOV>> tag. He or she does not seem to be aware of the policy for disputes, he thinks he alone is authorized to dismiss the other 3 editors' objections out of hand. A 5th editor, Apostle, has tried to find a compromise by agreeing with us that globalization is needed, but siding with the other editor on the need for a tag to that effect. However the purpose of the tag is not as the other editor says, to "push a pov", butactually only to invite more editors to fix the problem that he denies exists, at least in the meantime until the problem IS fixed. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm. This isn't a very rounded view of that discussion.
- We have a classic Wikipedia dispute here: the article is slanted to US-centrism because that's the slant of the available sources. Codex and a couple others want to add more about hippies elsewhere in the world, but the sources for their claims aren't terribly good, and so Viriditas is removing the poorly cited material. Add in some accusations of "vandalism" on both sides, a little bit of edit warring, and some gratuitous bold text on the talk page, and you have a mess.
- This seems like an excellent candidate for mediation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Shadowbot
The bot called "Shadowbot" seems to be doing the same thing as the bot called "Betacommand". It's going around blindly removing all references to imageshack and photbucket and a number of other innocuous external links. Is it supposed to be doing this?--172.167.245.115 00:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I know, it is. And Betacommand is not a bot. He's a user.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK lets make a note here shadowbot just reverts users when they add a link. imageshack and photobucket probably should me listed at m:Spam. there is no need to ever link to those sites. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 01:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted the above IP user is a new user who edits under the username Ceoparis (talk · contribs) and who tried to display an externally hosted image on Lee Humphrey. When Shadowbot reverted, the user logged out and reverted Shadowbot before Shadowbot correctly reverted the edit once again. The image was later uploaded to Wikipedia, under Fair Use, but as it's a clear copyright violation claiming the source to be Imageshack, I've deleted it. -- Nick t 01:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Needing a hand at the Dead Bean "article"
A group of vandals have created this doubious article and countiniously vandalize it (including the removal of speedy deletion templates and adding additional patent nonsense). An helping administrative hand would be greatly appreciated. CharonX/talk 00:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- In addition it might be a good idea to check the contributions of User:SaebaRyo who, in addtion to serval IP useres participated in the entire monkey-business. CharonX/talk 00:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
users Eupator and Fedayee violate the 1RR injunction
Both user:Eupator and user:Fedayee are part of this Arbitration case but despite the 1RR injunction that mandates leaving Talk page comments for all reverts and changes, have reverted and modified Ramil Safarov page without leaving edit summary and more importantly, any comments on the Talk page [63] for their March 23 and March 24 edits[64].
The appropriate diffs are:
- Revision as of 14:08, March 23, 2007 [65]
- Revision as of 14:24, March 23, 2007 [66]
- Revision as of 17:44, March 24, 2007 [67] adil 00:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdilBaguirov (talk • contribs)
- Arbcom enforcement is right this way, this probably belongs there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked socks of Marlon.sahetapy. As one of the socks reverted one of my edits, I had hoped somebody else would look into it to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest, but nobody responded to a previous AN/I post, and they are continuing disruption, therefore I have gone ahead and blocked. Please raise any issues and feel free to unblock. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-25 01:28Z
- Quack, quack. Support Quarl's reasoning and the blocks, pretty obvious socks. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I need to draw attention to this, if only to stop me from excessive language in edit summaries. A helpful and forceful warning from another party would help. Perhaps more.
Accountready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is deleting information about and links to established news outlets, and sometimes (always?) replacing with links to news.yahoo.com pages. I've only looked at the latest six edits:
- Agence_France-Presse [68]
- Associated_Press [69]
- Reuters [70]
- 1 July 2006 Sadr City bombing [71]
- Wikipedia:News sources/Collections [72]
The last one I reverted with edit summary
- rv and restore links deleted by Accountready - you removed NYTimes, International Herald Tribune, Guardian, Der Spiegel, Al Jazeera in favor of yahoo links??)
which was much more polite than I felt. Editor has characterized edits as "update", "broken link", and "replaced and updated links". Links were not broken, text was deleted, etc. I'm going to "not look" for awhile..., and calm down.
BTW: All of this is today, with no prior edits, changes to monobook.js (umm, previous experiences here?), all edits look Iranian or news-related - is this anyone y'all know? Shenme 03:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Warn the user with {{subst:uw-spam?|article}}. Replace the ? with a number, dependant upon past warnings. If he changes the links, after you warned him, report him to WP:AIV with a link to this discussion. --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 03:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- This user's behavior is definitely less than acceptable. S/he CfD'ed a category, and then started removing that category from articles while the CfD was still open (although it does look like the category will be deleted). Natalie 04:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hiya! This is somebody back from the wastes. I've finished going through everything, and I don't know what additional warning to put on the talk page. In fact, I'm not sure they shouldn't just be blocked. Please review, especially these last edits, which were their first.
- User talk:82.148.97.69 "fixed typo" [73]
- User talk:82.148.97.69/press "Revert to revision 98824629 dated 2007-01-06 06:36:47 by Theeacc using popups" [74]
- Don´t lie Jimmy you loser! Theeacc 06:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Special:Contributions/Theeacc
- Not all bad, everybody is agreeing with their nomination on the CfD. Seriously, though, I'm not gonna touch this anymore. Seems too obvious... Shenme 04:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's true, although everyone's agreeing with the CfD nom for completely different reasons than the original nomination. Even so, I don't think it's ok to delete categories from pages before the discussion is closed. People might wander over there and think it should be speedied as a de-popped category. If it is a blocked user someone else will have to fill me in, because it doesn't look familiar at all. Natalie 04:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)