Misplaced Pages

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

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

69.223.89.43

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

Range block on 72.150.x.x

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compromised account?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

user MarshallBagramyan placing back (reverting) POV information/links

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

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

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

Personal attacks by User:Faranbazu

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

User talk:Epbr123 blanking

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

• A band of users belonging to project:wikiporn have been harassing me because I nominated a few un-notable porn stars for deletion. Epbr123 23:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, it appears that you created an article that was deleted. Since then, you have gone on a WP:POINT AfD spree. You even retracted one of your own AfD nominations because it was far from non-notable. IrishGuy 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 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 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 (/_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 00:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
                • the deletion log in question —Disavian (/_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)

• OK, you get that one. The rest of the point still stands, however. Veinor 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 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 (/_contribs) 03:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I investigated WP:POINT, and discovered that it's merely a restatement of Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing, which says: "A disruptive editor is an editor who: ... violate 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 (/_contribs) 03:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Epbr123, however, is not blameless either. Many of his nominations are insufficiently researched. The fact that half or so of them are kept, and that he himself changed his mind about several shows that too. Ebbp123, while technically it is the responsibility of the article's writers to defend the article, if you are making a whole Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 14:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

65.161.23.179 Vandalism

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

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

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

Lisa Daniels on NBC News

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

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

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

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

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

For the record, 'POS' equals 'piece of shit'. Veinor 23:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

65.197.241.225

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

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

Nick Palumbo and his shills

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

Spammed by User:Bhadani

I received the following email:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would say it is sincere and spam. _InBC 01:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Burnsvillemike and the socks

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

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

Oh, and these are the images awaiting deletion:

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

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

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

user Fadix removes verifiable sources and quotes

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

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

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

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

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

190.10.0.121

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

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

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

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

– Chacor 03:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Help Please

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

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

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

Could use some help

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

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

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

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

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

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

Death Threat?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Swdavis67

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

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

Pejman47

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

AfD: is canvassing allowed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possibly compromised account

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

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

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

James Buchanan

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

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

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

Limbo(ot)

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

Assault11 et al

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

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

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

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

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

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

Milk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible bad-faith action

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

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

163.167.129.124

This user has vandalized many times, removed warnings from his talk page (, , , , , , , , , and among others), and even impersonated another user. He needs to be stopped. mrholybrain's talk 16:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Betacommand AGAIN - this time, ext. link removals

Sorry for yet another thread on Betacommand. He's going around articles and (rightfully) removing links that don't meet RS, or EL, or WP:SPAM. However, this removal of a USAID link to a government website (which meets all three requirements) suggests that he's running some sort of bot or script on his account, which isn't approved (if he wasn't, and was doing it manually, I highly doubt he'd remove a valid link to USAID ). 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 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 - 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: . --Mihai cartoaje 17:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled why Betacommand is still making controversial link removals given the lenthy discussion both here on ANI, his talk page, Misplaced Pages talk:Bots/Approvals group#Betacommand and Misplaced Pages: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 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 Misplaced Pages: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. , , and . 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 16:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh lord. He removed a link to the official biography of the head of USAID from our article on him. . Some of the removals are debatable, but this is just silly. --AnonEMouse 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 Misplaced Pages are spam, though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The best way for community sanctions is our new and shiny Misplaced Pages: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 17:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

this is not a bot thing see the code for my tool here: 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 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 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 18:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys, banning is not a cool game to play w/. This is an established editor and his intention is not to vandalize or to push his POV so loudly. The guy thought he may be enhancing wikipedia. True that after all the mess he's done, he is actually self-reverting at this exact moment. -- FayssalF - 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 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 - 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 Misplaced Pages:assume good faith, but this is now twice in three days. It has happened again! --AnonEMouse 18:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

I was reviewing all of my edits please take a look at the tool that I am using, I was manually checking each edit. if you don't believe me run the tool your self. As per the nature of the work there will be mistakes made. In regard to usaid that was an error on my part. the issue with the 15+ rate was a fluke when clearing a site. External link quality is an issue that needs to be addressed and taken care of. I can stop if you wish, I will still gather data and compile things that need fixed. If people want I can create list of pages that need fixed and others can clean the backlog that will be generated. but the issue of spam and crap links needs to be addressed. Betacommand 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 19:31, 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 19:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I gather you don't intend to promise never to do this again? --AnonEMouse 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)

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: . This type of hoax edit is exactly what brings bad press to wikipedia (remember Sinbad ).

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

What to do:

1. block the user
2. have all his edits 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. and I've reverted the most obvious hoax edits by Jonathan89 and warned him. IrishGuy 19:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not funny! He got many warnings indeed. Blocked for a week. -- FayssalF - 18:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

User:Punk Boi 8

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

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

In itself this wouldn't be such a big deal, but this user has a history of doing this exact thing. Creating a bunch of stuff that other people have to clean up and trying to screw around with Misplaced Pages 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 concensus 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User's questionable retirement announcement

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

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

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

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

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

ETOM and User:Cfaurer

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

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

Cyberstalking by ZayZayEM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Troublesome AfD and personal information issues

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

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

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

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

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

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