Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive217

Watex has spammed Club Penguin with the same link to a wordpress blog and alters existing links to link to that blog in the same manner and with the same link as the follow blocked users:
Peelers (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Peele (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Squids'and'Chips 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked. Guy (Help!) 07:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No he isn't. IrishGuy ^talk 07:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Now he is.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Odd. No idea what happened there. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=116422077&oldid=116421910

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&curid=9875104&diff=116424025&oldid=116423815

I added info to the article and I am being accused of "disruptive" and I'm being told I have to "persuade" others before I edit. I already took it to the talk before I edited. I fixed the wikiboxes, added more detail, and added more sentences along with references. This is a very serious matter. Removal of info back up by sold references without justification or validity could be preceived as vandalism too. I want administrative assistance into this matter. Is this behaviour by other editors allowable? :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the article's talk page speaks volumes on this issue. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Quack, I explained on your talk page to please take it slow. there are 7-10 different editors all RVing you heavily with all the aggressive changes... it's not a race. your suggestion was posted on Talk under 70 minutes before you put it in. Be BOLD... but given the article history, and the desire of so many to stablize it, you need to work with them too. - Denny 02:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... you kinda missed the point of taking it to the talk page. The point is to discuss, not simply state things on the talk page as if they are established fact and then say "but I did go to the talk page!" And even then, you have to wait for people to comment. The time span being a day, not an hour. -Amarkov moo! 02:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

note that

02:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Amerkov I should wait a day before editng the article after discussing on the talk. FYI, most edits are made without any prior discussion. I seriously like to know if any other people agree with Amerkov. Also, is there any policy you have to talk before editing. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 05:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Amarkov. As for policy, please see WP:CONSENSUS

^{On Belay!}

08:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been noted at the RFA page, but thought I should mention it here. Comments like this have been going around by User:JohnHistory in attempt to garner opposition to User:Clawson's RFA. In fact, he's canvassed nearly 50 users regarding it.

It's not even a good opposition, he's just bringing up some content dispute they had over whether the red baron was jewish or not.

09:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this issue has been resolved on his talk page. John Reaves (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think JohnHistory knew it was the wrong thing to do, since he's now brought it up on the RfA talk page after I asked him to. – Riana ^ঋ 09:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Possibly, but "Maybe you will support the opposition too??? JohnHistory 09:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory" has me wondering if he actually got the concept of not canvassing.

^{On Belay!}

09:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that kinda made me bang my head against the keyboard a little bit. Just a little. – Riana ^ঋ 09:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Given the disruption caused by canvassing, I remain of the opinion that people who do so should be blocked until the relevant discussion (RFA in this case) has ended. Despite possible ignorance of our guideline pages, I find it hard to believe that anyone who canvasses is not aware that this is deliberate distortion of the process. >Radiant< 10:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• I would also note that as an anon (yes, he's obviously the same person) this user disrupted the talk page of Tuskegee Airmen. He's a winner, through and through. That he's somehow garnering support makes me sick to my stomach. I'd support a block. Mackensen (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support block, at least throughout the duration of the RfA. I feel bad that Clawton is not being given a fair go because of this user's disruption. – Riana ^ঋ 10:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Fully agree with the above 3 statements - he's still going for it on the Rfa talk page, this has biased the whole Rfa, support block Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 11:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The user's canvassing is disruptive. If he continues to canvas, a block is a no-brainer. If he's stopped canvassing, it seems to me that a block would be punitive, as it cannot dampen the impact of the canvassing already done. If checkuser show he's otherwise disruptive as an anon, he should be blocked for that. I'd also strongly support admin roll-back of as much of the canvassing as possible, to prevent more users from seeing it. --Dweller 11:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• The point is, he's still disrupting it on the Rfa page, seams he has more of a personal vendetta against the candidate Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 11:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have posted to the user's talk page, asking him to stop. --Dweller 11:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

He's gone to bed for the night, ([1]) possibly before seeing my message. Can I request rollback on the canvassing? --Dweller 11:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd support roll back, and I'm more than happy to it is there is support to do so Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 11:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thirded. >Radiant< 11:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • And done. Wow, that was even more canvassing than I expected. Since he seems unrepentant I would endorse a temporary block to prevent further disruption during the RFA. >Radiant< 11:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah thanks, I'm actually more concerned that he created an account yesterday and almost all his 150 edits have been to go against Clawson and try and bias his Rfa, there's minor disruption, but this seams like a disruption only account so far Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 11:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note, I have blocked User:JohnHistory for disruption for 24 hours, after many warnings he preceeded with this, if anyone feels I was wrong to block, I am more than happy to review it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 12:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Good call. – Riana ^ঋ 12:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone help with the sneaky vandalism from 76.20.34.20[2]? There doesn't seem to be a place to report and I haven't time to clean it all up. I've done Gulf War but there could be other pages - some edits look good, some aren't (example changing the start and end dates of the Gulf War which didn't get picked up for one month[3]). - Ctbolt 12:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a policy for dealing with edits such as this [4] - personally I rather resent it - I spent a great deal of time an deffort on that page - do we remove it - or are we forced to look at it for ever. I don't think it is the time or place to start a thread on the subject there.

13:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Such as what? Please provide the diff of the edit that concerns you. Sandstein 13:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Very good point Sandstein, I forgot to include it I ammended now.

Giano

13:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

seems a very sensible suggestion to be me - I'd fail any student who used wikipedia as a source - it's a good starting point but that's it. --Fredrick day 13:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

See cite .. dave souza, talk 13:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that the comment in question is violative of Wikipedia policy, and so should be allowed to remain (perhaps marked with a {{unsigned}} tag). --Nlu (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with the comment that Giano links to: of course Wikipedia is not a reliable source and should not be cited in a scientific paper. Jimbo said as much also, I think. That's not a slight on Giano's editorial abilities, but simply a reflection of what we are - a general encyclopedia. And of course we don't delete comments in a discussion; that would be vandalism. Giano, if you disagree, just make a polite reply. Sandstein 17:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, not by our standards, nor the standard of most academic groups. This is not a bad thing, we are an encyclopedia and thus should only be the starting point for research. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem, and considering the poster is a sixth grader, it's good advice; it is an accurate statement of fact, and most teachers don't accept Wiki as a source. We don't accept ourselves as a source :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The particular article may be very good (for sure!). All Giano-heavily-worked-over articles may be very good (right?). Other individual articles may be very good (of course). But it's still much too early in the day for teachers to treat Wikipedia as a reliable reference work, as opposed to a useful research aid/starting point. The quality is much too variable for that. Metamagician3000 05:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• "Wikipedia is extremely unreliable" It is the "extremely" I object to, even in light of recent events, I do not think the project is that unreliable.
  Giano
  09:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Just another case of people whose imaginations and understandings extend from A to B, I'd say. No, Wikipedia is not extremely unreliable. In fact, it's extremely reliable. It is not totally reliable, of course. As the Science editorial review showed, Wikipedia can be the best source of information available to a student. Professors who allow no citations to Wikipedia are morons or think their students are. Those who allow Wikipedia to serve as proof of anything are as bad. Wikipedia is an invitation to research more, but it is research. It can never be the last word, but not allowing it at all is foolish. The "extremely unreliable" edit is vandalism, Giano. It should be treated as vandalism. It would be no more to the point than someone going in to the Pol Pot article and inserting, "a very evil man." He may have been a very evil man, but we're NPOV, even about ourselves, in article space. Geogre 12:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are just plain wrong - there is no other way to describe it. In no way, shape or form is that comment Vandalism. --Fredrick day 12:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A comment on a talk opining that Wikipedia is not a reliable source cannot possibly be construed as vandalism, seeing as vandalism is defined, narrowly, as a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Personally I wouldn't cite WP any more than any other encyclopedia, but that doesn't diminish my appreciation for it. Mackensen (talk) 12:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No it is not vandalism in the traditional sense, but it is certainly undermining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If the whole project is "extremely unreliable" because it is the encyclopedia anyone can edit - what are we all doing here? - What is the point? Why bother with text at all - why not just print a catalogue of suitable published references under each title and leave it at that. Of course there will always be mistakes - that is a risk everywhere in anything - but if we think and believe the project is extremely unreliable - then that is very concerning indeed.

Giano

13:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's adding it that looks like vandalism. There are already pages that say that Wikipedia is not 100% reliable. We already put that in footers. To then go in and add "extremely unreliable" looks like an opinion being inserted, not a modification of a policy page. I'd read that as an insult to my article, if I were writing it, myself, and a bit of spray paint that I'd have to scrape off the walls. Imagine you were writing something on Goobers, and someone comes along and adds, "Really, really, really, really speculative" to a statement that said, "The origin of the word is speculative." Maybe it's a clueless edit, but I can see it being highly unwelcome and insulting (hence vandalizing). Utgard Loki 15:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A clearly well intentioned comment is not vandalism, even if it hurts your pride. Wikipedia:Vandalism says almost exactly that: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." A slightly thicker skin, or stiffer upper lip, is advised. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think AnonEMouse - you are rather missing the point. It is not question of putting up and shutting up - it is a question of - is there any point at all writing a page, if the second it is finished complete with references etc, someone can come along and say on the talk page this is "extremely unreliable" - if it happened anywhere lese the editor would be asked what specifically is unreliable? If we the people writing this are happy to be branded "extremely unreliable" then there is little hope for the project.

Giano

17:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, I looked for "Giano is extremely unreliable" in that edit, and couldn't find it. I merely found "Wikipedia is extremely unreliable". Taking a look at the number of articles which have been edited to consist of the equivalent of "Eric is gay" in any given 24 hours, I'd have to say that's pretty much correct. Despite that, most of us still, somehow, find the will to live, and soldier on. Sigh. It is a hard and lonely road we walk, we few, no more than a million or so of us, Wikipedia editors. So defamed. So troubled. So misunderstood. On that last point, being misunderstood, I didn't mean to write anything about shutting up (and, in fact, can't see where I did - but heck, that's two things I can't see. I must need a new prescription. Do you know a good optometrist for mice?). If you wish to rebut on the talk page, and mention the Science study, or a dozen other good things about Wikipedia, go right ahead, and you'll find lots of supporters. That's why they call it an Article Talk page. Just don't call people who disagree with you in good faith vandals. At most, visigoths, please.--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oh well, you're probably quite right. Wikipedia is for the most part completely unreliable.
  Giano
  21:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's just say it's a work in progress. I'm going to go and check our article on the Visigoths, now. They were a very interesting Germanic tribe. Metamagician3000 01:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is pretty reliable because of people going around trying to make sure that it doesn't tell the world that Eric is gay. Therefore, having that insertion is an insult to the vandal hunters, the deletion hunters, the information adders, the editors, and the writers. An

Vandal saying that he's a barbarian. Utgard Loki

17:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, sorry: wikipedia is not a reliable source.--

Vidkun

17:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the contributions of

08:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• If the images are non-free, they're clearly violating image copyright policy. But they claim to have permission from the organization. We should have them follow up with OTRS. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Apparently
  User:Himalayan Academy Publications already did so and gave permission to the user in question. All we need now is a response from the wikimedians tending that address that confirms this notice is indeed true. - Mgm|^(talk)
  10:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Looks like a role account, though. I left a note. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • the problem is, even if the permission is genuine, the images are basically advertisement for this publisher and devoid of encyclopedic value. They should all go on Ifd as UE, but I cannot be bothered to Ifd them individually as long as they keep getting uploaded.
    dab (𒁳)
    11:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree. The images appear to be clear and often of high quality. Whether the subjects are promotional I could not say, not having much experience of Indian religious art. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think they're all unencyclopedic. Take for example Image:CowHA.jpg which is being perfectly useful on Sacred cow. The fact most of them haven't been added to an article, doesn't make them spam. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • true, some may be useful as illustrations, provided we can cite the artist. Random illustrations of random concepts are not encyclopedic in themselves, but I agree such images can be at home on commons.
    dab (𒁳)
    15:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an on going dispute and general mess. A, very, short version is that a new editor

were banned for 3RR violations, DrParkes was then re-banned for attempting to bypass the block. After reaching my 3rd revert on the BJJ page, I decided to look into the other articles edited by DrParkes, and I added citation requests & removed some POV comments, these edits were reverted again without discussion, then when sources were added my attempts to format were reverted, can't be sure of the exact order but DrParkes 3RR ban came into force and the same patten was followed by an IP [[80.34.17.209]. At this point other editor involved in the 11:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Not intending to state the obvious but users with a long history of constructive edits are having their work targeted which is affecting a number of well developed articles. This is becoming a real problem.Peter Rehse 11:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• First up, the AfD has been open long enough, I will close that - without the locus of the dispute the problem may diminish. I have also blocked Jamesthorburn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Kbenton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as blatant socks. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you time, hope it calms down now--Nate 13:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

A sockpuppeteer who has recently been recieved a community ban (

11:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:479240555_l.jpg "Back of Verdict" pretty much settles it: Oakster Oakster is clearly a sockpuppet. He admits to it. Not very opaque, is this fellow? Looks like someone already did the banning, though. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've just noticed a fellow Wikipedian has reported him for banning as well. Thanks anyway and I apoligise for any inconvenience. -- Oakster  Talk  12:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

All blocked. – Riana ^ঋ 12:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

With approximately 80 known sockpuppets and many more waiting in the wings, I've started fully protecting articles this banned user targets. If he is threatening you, I advise that you simply delete the threat. If he emails you, don't respond. He starts with minor intimidation, moves up to threats of physical violence, then eventually he'll express a desire that you die or maybe even threaten to kill you himself. He was also caught violating privacy (an action for which oversight was required). He will also likely claim that you are stalking him but note that WP:STALK does not apply if you are following submissions of a banned user so you can undo them. --Yamla 16:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There are different proxy IPs from India blanking out cited material from

14:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. – Riana ^ঋ 14:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Just like the note above, I'm not sure where the appropriate place to report this is, so I'm putting it here. Denny Seiwell (talk · contribs) is either knowledgeable about a suspiciously wide variety of topic, finding lots of little errors and correcting them; or he is making nothing but sneaky vandalous edits. I can't figure out how to determine which, other than to ask experienced editors such as the admins here to take a look. Thanks. Deli nk 14:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sneaky vandalism. Some are hard to tell without specialized knowledge, but this edit is clearly minor vandalism, this edit is highly unlikely, and this edit is directly contradicted by this official source. However, just as a stopped clock is apparently right twice per day, this edit seems to actually have the correct information (It was one of the earlier ones I decided to research, so I was conflicted at first - I think preponderance is vandalism after all). I see

talk · contribs) has already reverted all of DS's contributions and warned him. I'll second the warning, but will ask about the University of Yazd bit. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak)

16:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually Denny Seiwell is a semi-famous musician, so there are probably Wikipedia:Username policy issues as well. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, other than the

WP:U#Blocking "inappropriate or borderline inappropriate usernames that are coupled with vandalism". --AnonEMouse ^(squeak)

16:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Since admins rarely get enough thanks: Thanks everyone for looking into it! Deli nk 17:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

14:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Does

CSD

? If so, it should definitely be deleted.

Although not an admin, I've removed the notice about sock-puppetry from your page. The other part, though, I've left - I think it should be responded to, not removed. Od Mishehu 14:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll move his rant to my talk page, but it's a bit too laughable to merit a detailed response. Pete.Hurd 14:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely needs to be blocked for a while, for repeated vandalism. anonymous6494 14:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You will probably get a faster response at

WP:AIV. MastCell ^Talk

16:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been taken care of. Thanks though. anonymous6494 17:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

A death threat was left on User talk:216.23.242.78. As such, I have blocked this IP address indefinitely and forwarded the information along to the high school in question. Once this matter has been dealt with by the high school, we should unblock the IP address. It is currently blocked anon-only, though, so it should not affect users who are signed in. This address was previously blocked by another admin for six months. --Yamla 16:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you've done the right thing; I've seen some pretty nasty messages, but never one like that. I've seen IPs where they've threatened to have my account deleted, but death threats...how common are they? Acalamari 16:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

From schoolchildren? Probably not that uncommon. Genuine death threat? I hardly think so. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much - some of our less mature vandals will make death threats the minute they are blocked, but real threats are (thankfully) few and far between. Natalie 16:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably not genuine, but we should treat all such threats seriously, regardless of their likeliness to manifest. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

JINXTENGU has given himself away again with this edit to Persian Poet Gal's talk page. Acalamari 16:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Cute. Blocked. Natalie 16:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; that's the third one I've reported here in less than five days. Acalamari 17:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just blocked

17:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine. I'm sure Wikipedia will cope without him/her. –

Steel

17:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me.

Veinor ^{(talk to me)}

18:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The block seems to improve Wikipedia, so I support it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. IrishGuy ^talk 18:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me...the only thing I might suggest is apply a {{welcome}} tag with any lower-level warning, to give the user a better chance to figure out what/why/how they were doing wrong and perhaps get them to become useful contributors. -- Scientizzle 18:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen this at least twice by 2 different users, and I've only been checking at random. See for example: [16]. I've added all the domains to the spam blacklist that don't currently have external links in other articles. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-13 13:48Z

Signing post so that this will be archived (it's been here over a week), since Brian uses a non-standard timestamp. Ral315 » 13:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies to those who contributed to the new shadowbot thread: this edit by Irishguy for some reason deleted eight days of threads. --

18:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What the...? I have no idea how that happened. My apologies. IrishGuy ^talk 19:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Not your fault... It happens a lot lately. My theory is that the code that catches edit conflicts occasionally lets one through. --Edokter (Talk) 20:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it's a glitch from trying to edit at the same time a bot is archiving? --

TedFrank

10:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

A bot is just a user. When someone hits the Edit button, he gets a copy of the current revision. When someone else hits Edit at the same time, he gets the same. The problem occurs when both editors try to save their revision; the database gets two different versions based on the current revision. The first is accepted, the second editor gets a warning that there is an edit conflict. Now... Databases can be slow. That means it takes time for an edit to be fully entered into the database. If the software sees a second edit being presented, while the first is not yet completly saved, it might not see the edit conflict and try to save that revision as well; overwriting the first edit. --Edokter (Talk) 00:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that's the problem, at least not the database's fault (but maybe a bug in MediaWiki). The main function of databases is guaranteeing this kind of thing doesn't happen. See also

Isolation (computer science), ACID. —Quarl ^(talk

) 2007-03-21 07:23Z

Hi, I'm having problems with this user. Recently, I closed an AfD which he started as keep. He didn't like that, and left me a rather rude message saying "Just letting you know that you failed your duty as a wikipedia administrator today. Not only did you not care to acquire an overview of the debate, which would have lead to no consensus, you also failed to really read it." I didn't particularly like being told I "failed", since I didn't, and no admin can "fail" since we're all volunteers. I told him this, but despite that he continued telling me I "failed", even though I explained my reasoning he wouldn't have it. This discussion is located here. I told him to take it to deletion review if he was unhappy with the result. I thought that would be the last of it.

I then came across this page. I saw this AfD closing had been logged, and I had been labelled as "incompetent" (here's the original adding of it). I removed the word incompetent, then told him I had done so on his talk page. He replied informing me yet again I had failed greatly (even though we'd discussed I hadn't failed), then he altered the wording to say "Incompetent decision to keep was made by User:Majorly" - which I still count as an attack on my judgement. I again removed the incompetent part, but then the wording was changed again, this time saying the decision was incredibly competent, but was against policy... since it was following policy I removed it, only to be reverted by popups. I asked him to remove it on his talk page, twice and responded neither time, so I removed it one last time, only this time I was reverted "as vandalsm"! He left a message on my talk page asking me to stop vandalising the subpage. All I've done is removed the attacks on my judgement, and throughout he's been really unhelpful and uncooperative. I'd like an opinion of what to do about this. Thanks a lot. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Unacceptable. Either put it up for deletion review or drop it. Sniping at other editors because you didn't get your way is uncivil. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 15:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear, the above comment is addressed to Twsx (talk · contribs).

I did drop it after trying to convince him to at least explain his decision for. I have lost my temper in the first message and acted uncivil to a certain extend. This is unforgiveable and i apologized for it 5 minutes later and once again yesterday. All of this happened within a timespan of 3 hours [17], after that, for my part, the topic was done. I "log" my actions and participations on a subpage for later use (comes in hand with a couple of things, such as re-created speedy'd newpages as example). I understand that as with every other page, personal attacks are not welcome, so with some reluctance, i removed them. As it is now, the "log" reflects pure fact without any personal attack, which is why Majorly's last edit definitely constitutes as inproper. I would also like to note that Majorly did not behave perfectly innocent himself, such as calling me a whiner (which is relatively irrelevant, as i never made any move to have his decision evaluated or similar) and saying i was "making ad hominem attacks" while the only person pushing the topic was he himself.
In conclusion; Majorly made his decision, i accepted it right away, but told him my opinion about it anyway, which lead to a discussion that kept going on for 3 hours. Eversince i was fine with what happened. The person keeping the discussion up, is Majorly. I will give my comments to whatever may come up in this discussion here, but for now, this is everything i have to say. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 17:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Twsx should definitely try to be more civil from now on but we should also let bygones by bygones. However, in the future, I would suggest before you post your opinion of other people's actions, I would seriously recommend you consider whether it is constructive or not... Sasquatch t|c 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem of his

deletion review. As above, it is not acceptable to take the course you have taken, namely: insulting the closing administrator on their talk page and denigrating their closure in your userspace. If you continue to refuse to have the deletion reviewed, you must stop immediately. I think we all know why you won't do it — you'll find out that it was an acceptable closure and an accurate reading of consensus — so you continue to snipe from afar. It's uncivil and incredibly inappropriate. —bbatsell ¿? ✍

18:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

To be entirely fair here, the vast majority of 'keep' arguments were specifically based on criteria which were listed as "dubious" notability criteria at the time, and which are now explicitly listed as outright "invalid". The remainder of the 'keep' arguments weren't backed up by anything other than personal assertions, or the desire for journalists to treat porn more seriously.

In short, no actual valid arguments for 'keep' were really made.

Consensus isn't supposed to be counting the numbers (10 keep, 7 delete, in this case); it's supposed to put significant weight on the strength of the arguments themselves.

I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with the decision anyways. I'm mostly an inclusionist that thinks that the policy is too strict. However, it's pretty hard to deny that notability was not proven in that afd, as defined by the policy at the time, and that it definitely wouldn't pass the test if it were based on today's current notability criteria.

Nobody is obligated to take it to deletion review unless they wish to reverse the action taken in the afd. But a person is more than entitled to say that it was a wrong decision. Wikipedia doesn't support the level of censorship that you're proposing.

The 'incompetant' arguments were uncalled for. I think even twsx admits that now, right? However, he certainly seems to genuinely believe that the decision was contrary to policy, and, objectively, I tend to agree. I'm allowed to say that: It was against wikipedia policy. Big deal.

The 'incompetant' (and 'competant') problem: that was a serious problem. But arguing about whether or not a person is allowed to say they think a decision actually followed policy? That's just silly. Bladestorm 19:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The relevant notability guideline is WP:PORNBIO, which allows for more subjectivity in determining notability than I am normally used to because of the genre's general lack of coverage by normally reliable sources, and the keep votes were in line with that guideline, unless I'm misreading something. At any rate, this isn't deletion review, so this isn't the place to debate that. Saying, "I don't believe the result was an accurate reading of consensus" is different than "KEPT AGAINST POLICY" (especially since notability guidelines are just guidelines) and saying that the administrator is incompetent (which, until earlier today when he removed it due to this thread, his Log page stated clearly). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to make sure it's clear: All accusations of 'incompetance' were entirely inexcusable. Not arguing about that part; only whether or not a person is allowed to believe that something was 'against policy' or not. (basically, the extent to which wikipedia should be censored)

As far as the guidelines are concerned, the primary arguments were based on the number of google hits, the number of films, and the nomination for an award related to her chest.

The google hits and # of films are explicitly declared "invalid" criteria for notability in the current draft of the guideline, and they were labelled as "dubious" at the time of the afd. The award that was cited in the "keep"s wasn't even notable in and of itself, so even if she'd won, it wouldn't really have mattered. But, in this case, she didn't even win. She was merely considered for a non-notable award. Bladestorm 20:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

About that edit i made after this entry here has been made: [18]. I didnt mean to cloak anything, all i wanted to do is remove whatever insult there was left, as i do agree and regret that i did make inappropriate namecalling. Bladestorm found good words for the case; my behavior was under the belt. However, while i believe it is my right to express my opinion about an administrators decision, this topic seems to be about my logpage, which does represents a short personal memo about my opinion without any attack, and nothign more. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 20:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

For those interested, there is some interesting, at least tangentially related discussion of whether it constitutes a personal attack to call an administrator's decision something like "incompetent" (as opposed to calling the admin himself or herself that) in the workshop of the InShaneee arbitration case. Newyorkbrad 23:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD close = valid; I would have done the same. Even if it ended up as no consensus, I would have kept the article by default. The personal attacks by Twsx were uncalled for. The user is allowed to comment on admin actions, but it really shouldn't resort to namecalling and such. In the future, I advise Twsx to be more careful with his words, and to politely discuss a situation with a user. Nishkid64 00:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Can an admin take a look at what User:Jiaur Rahman has been up to? Things like moving his user and user talk page to article namespace, etc. I'm getting confused just trying to follow what he's done. --Minderbinder 17:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

He created his user page, then moved it to

(not Proto ►)

17:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've db-empty tagged Jiaur Rahman (talk · contribs)'s creations JIAUR RAHMAN & -- Scientizzle 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind about deleteing Template:Ph:Diff, I guess it's used at Help:Diff... -- Scientizzle 18:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Check out his false copyright tagging of a copyrighted picture tagged as "wikipedia screenshot".

21:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

About: Wikipedia:Association of International Wikipedians:

This appears to be an unapproved WikiProject of sorts. As placement in Wikipedia namespace would appear to misleadingly imply official Wikipedia status, I was tempted to speedy delete it, but I'd like input on this.

Also, the page was created by AINW (talk · contribs), whose only two edits were to the page. Based on its claim of use of items created by Wikimachine (talk · contribs), I am suspecting AINW to be a sockpuppet of Wikimachine. Opinions wanted on this as well: is this block-worthy on AINW? (I don't think that Wikimachine should be blocked, but he should be warned for doing this, I think.) --Nlu (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something obvious here, but, as far as I know:

1. WikiProjects don't have to be "approved".
2. Using sockpuppets ("alternate accounts") non-abusively is generally permitted.

(The group is a rather bad idea, of course—it's entirely redundant to the regular translation projects—so I have nothing against deleting it. But it ought to be done for a legitimate reason.) Kirill Lokshin 18:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It probably belongs in meta, see m:Category: Wikipedian associations. That is, in any case, where my association is, the m:Association_of_Incremento-eventuo-darwikian-delusionist_Wikipedians Bucketsofg 18:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, "approval" may be the wrong word, but it bypassed Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. --Nlu (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Creating it here instead of on Meta is a newbie mistake. I don't think it's block-worthy. Even if it were a WikiProject that wasn't "officially" proposed at WikiProject Council it wouldn't be a blockable offense. I would just transwiki or MFD it. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-21 06:57Z

Hi, I noticed a user recently moved an article into a user's namespace recently as a way to avoid needing to suggest the article was a candidate for deletion (See here). Is this an acceptable practice? --Rebroad 18:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

While very much good faith move, I dont know about it. I think it opens the doors for alot of possible bad faith. If it needs to be deleted, it needs to be deleted. There have been many proposals for expiremental deletion but i think the way ti stands, regular deletion is the current acceptable practice. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not acceptable. 'Userfying' an article is only permitted once a page is about to be deleted once it has followed proper procedures, usually for the purpose for improving the article. Moving it for the purpose of (speedy) deleting, bypassing

WP:DRV is simply not done. I would revert the move and speedy-tag it. --Edokter (Talk

) 20:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oh please. This article would stand less than no chance of surviving an AfD, userfying and leaving a message on User talk:Walljordan it was just someone trying not to bite the newbie. I would simply have changed it to a redirect to person, probably, but Miss Mondegreen went to more trouble. Why would we discourage that? Guy (Help!) 21:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

User TruthComesOut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has vandalised the article Richard Bridgeman, 7th Earl of Bradford with offending and unsourced material at different times (see [19], [20], [21], [22] and [23]), which contradicts

]).

It is only speculation, however I think, he could be a sockpuppet of User Ghost rider1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and User Oracleatdelphi1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who have shown similar behaviour on this article. ~~ Phoe _talk 20:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC) ~~

I've deleted the talk page as it clearly breaches BLP policy. If anyone thinks he should be blocked, feel free to press the button. -- Nick ^t 20:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, having spent time going through all of the edits, they're exceptionally controversial (some also included edit summaries which could be considered libelous in their own right) so I've deleted all of them. I've indefinitely blocked the user until we can decide on a suitable length of block or whether a community ban would be more suitable. -- Nick ^t 21:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• No further action required, I'd say - the username is a dead giveaway.
  WP:RBI. Guy (Help!
  ) 21:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Joel Leyden (who used to edit as User:Israelbeach and numerous other sockpuppets) appears to be canvassing off-wiki support for a concerted push to "send Arab propaganda anti-Israel news groups and blogs to AFD", apparently in revenge for the deletion of the Wikipedia article about his own website. He's using his Yahoo group to coordinate this push with "several Israeli and Jewish groups." It would be worth keeping an eye on AfD for a week or two to see if this amounts to anything much. I'm not going to dignify his rants by linking to them, but look on a certain kooks' forum (which I think we all know!) for "Arab Propaganda Sites to be Deleted - AFD's, Israelis To Create AFD for all Arab propaganda sites". -- ChrisO 20:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be too hard to recognize suspicious AfDs that might pop up...--Isotope23 20:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• This may be related to the recent spam blacklisting of his site. Leyden is not above petty spite, I think. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I had posted an in-good-faith message to User:FeloniousMonk/Talk. An anonymous IP 151.151.73.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) user removed this message and in the edit summary claimed I was a troll and "chronic" history of PA. Well, the "Attacks" he's referring to probably include those that FM accused me of making earlier this week, or the ones Guettarda accused me of over a week ago -- both of which were misunderstandings and through which my posting was attempting to resolve:

I feel this would let me recover lost faith, and of course, bolster my arguments that my other pages were done in good faith. (me)

Since this IP user has several warnings on his page (one of which is from me, but that was made after his above removal, before I noticed it. It was a warning to another removal of his, but one that I cannot complain about here.) and since this move was blatanly vandalism and required experienced use, I propose he blocked for at least 48 hours. --Otheus 20:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure blocking would be the correct thing to do, but I don't think the IP's actions are suitable either. Even if someone has made a personal attack in the past that is not a reason to revert every talk page edit from that editor afterward, unless they are personal attacks. What might be relevant to one edit is not always relevant to another.

Yuser31415

20:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of full disclosure, is this what you're talking about, when you refer to his first infraction for which you warned him? Because this really seemed unnecessary, and I can certainly see someone watching everything you say afterwards far more carefully.

Ultimately, I did regret posting that; I should have and ultimately emailed my condolences privately. --Otheus 22:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't to say that he was right to remove your comment from FeloniousMonk's talk page, but it certainly suggests that he is not a simple vandal. I'm not entirely sure what you think a block will accomplish here. There's no (supplied) proof of a desire to disrupt wikipedia... so... what's the point? Bladestorm 21:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. I was careless in not noticing the correct sequence of events here. I only noticed that the removal from FM's talk page came before my warning on his talk page, so I assumed the removal from FM's talk page occurred before the removal from Guettarda's talk page. I was careless. I apologize to all. Furhter, my repost to FeloniousMonk's page still stands, so I guess no real harm done. --Otheus 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Read all of Geuttarda's comments to Otheus' talk page over the last few weeks. He's been trying to get Otheus to stop making personal attacks. Then when Geuttarda leaves in disgust Otheus removed the redirect of his talk page to his user page Guettarda made and left an oblique personal attack in which he gloats at his leaving: [26] Guettarda was one of the few admins who's bothered to stand up to Otheus' chronic subtle trolling and abuse of the system, so it's not surprising I suppose. I stand by removing it and the "comment" from FM's page in which he trolls FM, again gloating over another perceived victory over someone who has stood up to him and won. Otheus has been one of the least honest editors I've come across, as his bogus framing of the issue above demonstrated. 151.151.73.169 22:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently this is the same user. Many of his criticisms above are factualy incorrect, and at best, assume very bad faith:

• The only attack Guettarda complained to me about was one he mistakenly thought I made toward him and nonetheless apologized for. (There is a caveat to that; FM AfD'd several user pages I created, which I intended for evidence pages in an ongoing dispute, "attack page"; Guettarda repeated FM's claim these were attack pages, a claim I fully contend is invalid. The pages have since been deleted per his nomination.)
• Second, I did *not* remove the redirect of Guettarda's talk page. It was still there and intact and functioning.
• Third, there was no chronic trolling! I don't know where this user gets this idea, and frankly, that's very offensive. I'm not even sure what he means by trolling here; the WP policy page on trolling certainly does not apply to me.
• Fourth, there is no abuse of the system. Wow, that's pattently offensive!
• Fifth, how can I gloat over someone who (paraphr) "stood up to me and won"?
• Sixth: "as his bogus framing of the issue above demonstrated [his being one of the least honest editors]". An anonymous IP user removes two messages I had left on User_Talk pages, and I had just been on the scalding receiving end of something similar. Removing one page was offensive, but doing it twice to different users is a pattern.

--Otheus 22:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, just to reiterate, I drop the dispute request. I agree with Bladestorm's response. --Otheus 23:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Also in the interests of disclosure, User:FeloniousMonk has filed a checkuser request on me. CHECKUSER#Otheus Thus, if the user above also believes it to be the case that I am the IP users in the checkuser case, his descriptions (trolling, disruptive, dishonest, etc) would be rational. (I know checkuser will come back negative, but of course, what good is my word?) --Otheus 00:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it odd that the user creation log is flooding recent changes? Or is this a fluke of some kind?--VectorPotential

23:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, nevermind, it was just a database crash, for some reason the only thing that still worked was the user creation function, thus the appearance of a username creation flood--VectorPotential
  Talk
  23:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Have user creations and image uploads always showed in recent changes? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, all the logs do. They just aren't noticeable usually. Prodego ^talk 23:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I hate to sound like an idoiot here but has it always been that way? I have done RC patrol for several months and dont remeber it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yep, it's been like that for quite some time (Well, I think you can change what you see in Recent changes if you want to). Logical2u_{Review me!} 23:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Only since around 2004 or 2005, I forget the exact date, there didn't always used to be a visible log for user creations, which is why some older accounts don't show up on the user creation log at all, take for instance Jimbo Wales, no entry in the creation log--VectorPotential
  Talk
  23:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• That must explain why I dident see it. I have a custom link to RC on my tool bar that shows only anons and the such. Thanks! I know there were user creation logs but I did not think it shwoed on recent changes. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

A new editor, Oh not again has appeared with the stated intention of harassing me [27] [28]. He has already made a bad faith AfD on Tobias Bamberg claiming it is unreferenced, even though the article has a reference section. These actions mirror an editor who has used multiple abusive sockpuppets against me, User:Stopthepowermad34. His sockpuppets can be seen here. IrishGuy ^talk 00:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I was watching it unfold. Obvious sockpuppet/troll/harassment account; it's now blocked. Antandrus (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I wanted another admin's opinion rather than simply blocking him myself. As I said above, I'm 100% positive it was another sock of Stopthepowermad34. IrishGuy ^talk 00:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Reporting negative COI, WP:VAND, WP:CIV - WP:EQ, WP:NPA - WP:ATTACK, User Calton. History of WP:POINT, WP:CREEP, WP:BITE. COI, with users and re: article Jeanne Marie Spicuzza. From edit notes, (cur) (last) 15:57, 19 March 2007 Calton (Talk | contribs) (Nope. Obnoxious boxes? Obnoxious article.) Thanks. Telogen 20:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• That's quite an alphabet soup... can you tell us what did he actually do wrong? Doesn't look like personal attacks or true edit warring. --W.marsh 20:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Diffs... Everyone loves diffs. Natalie 21:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

He's talking about this. I had a dispute with Calton in the past about pushing tags onto an article repeatedly, but seriously... Let's just AfD the damn thing. It's probably notable enough. Everyone should just try fixing the article rather than putting a million tags on it. It's not really worthy of attention here.

masterka

21:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

See this report as well. Having a hard time assuming good faith here. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. I found Calton's forcing tags and comments, especially "obnoxious article," to be pushing various letters of the WP alphabet a bit too far. Admins decide, I just report. As for as User Antaeus Feldspar, you find what you need in the User's talk and history. I think the admin response was good on that. Thanks. Telogen 23:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User Calton has had a history of antisocial behavior, dating to atleast October 2006. See this AFD: [29] where he verges on personal attacks against me and against User:VivianDarkbloom and comments left at my talk page: [30] on the same subject. Regarding these attacks, an NPA warning was left on his talk page, which he deleted see: [31] While these are from a long time ago, they may show a long-term inability to play well with others. Also, on February 16-17 2007, he reverted more NPA warnings on his talkpage. See dif: [32] (get a pattern?) Not sure if any of this is relevent, but take it as you wish. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron32. Very helpful. I'm witnessing the same pattern. User Calton has since taken charge to revert the edits, and override decisions, of admins, see Jeanne Marie Spicuzza history. Reverted tags removed by admins. Added article to his personal AfD list, which was around for years, before I even arrived. I'm sensing COI all right, from User Calton. Other Users experienced this problem (see history) and have left it, probably out of sheer frustration. So, a bunch of editors get deterred from fixing an article and then the article gets dumped because it can't be fixed. Not much you can do if you're getting blocked and accused of this or that because you simply disagree, on principle. Call on admins for assistance. I've done all I can. Thanks. Telogen 05:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Admins dont' really have any additional say in what goes in articles, however, his continued re-insertion of hideous tags to game the system and avoid the trouble of an AFD is troubling, especially when coupled with a lack of response to discussion efforts on the talk page and rude edit summaries. Milto LOL pia 23:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I protected the page. This seems like the best solution for this. See my protection summary for details. I think it's fully deserving of an entry on

masterka

01:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, attempts were made to improve the article and justify tag removal, but to no avail. Perhaps I called in the Spanish Inquisition too quickly, my apologies- I'm pretty new at this. Anyone here wanting to help with another edit dispute, see Ralph Nader history and talk, esp. Atlantic Monthly. Various users have attempted discussion and compromise. The reverts have gotten out of hand. Thanks. Telogen 02:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

User is again making unilateral moves that are very

22:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=prev&oldid=116620563 An administrator redirected it. I did not. I removed the the links to the redirect. I believed the talk was indistcriminate information to speedy delete. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 22:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And you solicited him for that... after being checked by a couple of other users. His status as an admin as Conti told you on your talk page gives him no special rights/authority for content... so you instead asked him to delete the history... to cover tracks? All your edits have been repeatedly checked by others and stopped for over a week, because you are being hyper-aggressive. Why are you unwilling to compromise to the community wishes/concensus? - Denny 22:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Silly dispute, really, since that article contains nothing which is not inherently obvious from Wikipedia plus community. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• User:QuackGuru has been rather tendentious on the Essjay controversy article (see this related MfD) but I don't see where admin intervention is needed here. Sure QuackGuru's acting a bit improperly but if I'm not mistaken he was the creator of the Wikipedia community article and in that sense it is a bit understandable. (→Netscott) 22:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Everything QuackGuru is involved in is a silly dispute, but that doesn't make it any less obnoxious of him. He has no understanding of consensus, his idea of a discussion is to go and declare things as if they were royal edicts, and he claims we're "locking him out of" articles if we revert him. I can't even figure out what his motives are any more, beyond just wanting things to be his way. --
  talk
  22:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I came into this because I came across the article. Regardless of how silly he is, it's a pretty mediocre article and deserved to be redirected, which is why I did it. There's nothing on the article that isn't already in the main one and the AfD was only no consensus because a handful of people wanted to give it a chance. It's not looking any better so I redirected. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

He didn't solicit me, I was the one who put the merge tag on the article in the first place. He removed and then readded it, then mentioned that he realized none of it was worth merging, which I agreed with. No one posted on either talk page to disagree. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I mean he solicited you to use your admin powers to "erase the history" to discourage people from recreating the article, in that cited diff, or he wanted to use your admin powers to aide him in a content dispute. attempted admin abuse by proxy, I suppose... - Denny 01:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

See [33] and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AZJustice for full the backstory. Basically, Don Murphy or someone acting on his behalf harassing User:Philip Gronowski and me and asking people who frequent his message board to attempt to identify me. Any suggestions? --BigDT 00:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In view of the implied threat of real-life harassment from what appears to be an identified, publicly known individual, this situation should be brought to the attention of the

WP:OFFICE

immediately. The conduct promoted in the blog thread you have quoted is completely unacceptable.

However, I will add that although in no way should Mr. Murphy (or the person misusing his name) derive any advantage from his reprehensible threats,

undue weight issues. Newyorkbrad

02:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Continuos Vandalism After Many Warnings

Resolved

 – blocked

User 203.21.25.110 is vandalising wikipedia severely, after being given '7' warnings, and has not yet stopped. I request he should be blocked. Wikipedian64 01:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been done. See his talk page. Next time use

WP:AIV for this. Daniel Case

02:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeated reversion of removal of unencyclopedic, nonfunctional xlinks

Resolved

 – blocked

Wegmans

supermarket chains to the respective articles (even if they were relevant to the article, they all redirect to the main MSN Live search page, making them useless for their intended purpose).

He has not responded to any of several users' (myself included) efforts to discuss this on

02:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to protect the articles when only one editor is causing the same problem on both. If he doesn't get the point now, he can be blocked at any time for disruption. He's been warned. - Taxman ^Talk 02:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. I only made the protection request because I didn't feel like having to explain a 3RR violation and felt that was a better solution. Could some sort of clear warning, cease-and-desist or be blocked, be made on his talk page by an admin? There isn't any such warning now. Daniel Case 03:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If he is being disruptive, he can be blocked, regardless of whatever 3RR. —Centrx→talk • 03:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. —Centrx→talk • 03:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Will keep you posted if he returns afterwards. Daniel Case 03:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Checking the creation log, I watched the following get created one after the other: WikiHistoryReader, WikiHistoryReview, and WikiHistoryReviewer. Three names that similar doesn't bode well. IrishGuy ^talk 02:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

D'ye suppose, as with calculating the area under a curve, he's trying to reach just the right username by a process of progressive approximation? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 04:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This could also just be someone with a similar name setting up

doppelganger accounts to prevent impersonation. Worth watching, but may not be anything nefarious. If it is a doppelganger, of course, they should add the appropriate template. --TheOtherBob

04:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it may very well be benign. The thing is...most doppelganger accounts I have seen made were created by the original account. These were all created anonymously within about 15 minutes. Hopefully, it is nothing. I just figured if one causes a problem, now other admins will know which other two will most likely be immediately activated when one is blocked. IrishGuy ^talk 07:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This guy's a blast. He made 21 un-deleted contributions, plus the creation of one particularly... tasteful page. From sodomy, to sedated pedophilia, to sacrificing humans, to necrozoophilia, to sexy puppies, to sadomasochism, to hermaphrodites, to wikifying, he's got it all. It makes me sick, frankly. And the funny thing is—he was warned once. I was hoping that

1. An admin could block him for maintaining a vandal-only account. Blocking policy states that vandalism will lead to blocking, and this is clearly the case. Let's think preventatively here.
2. Also, a suggestion that people should warn vandals, especially bad ones. If you notice that someone isn't warning vandals repeatedly, please use {{subst:uw-warn}}. Of course, don't do this to bots :)

That's all.

§ 03:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You should have reported him to

WP:AIV and made clear it was a vandalism-only account. That would merit an indefinite block.

As it is I think his username is inappropriate and will report him on those grounds. Daniel Case

03:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked as vandal only. Daniel's right that

WP:AIV is generally faster. Natalie

03:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Psst... I'm pretty sure the reason Gracenotes posted here was for item #2 on the list (plus the general observation itself). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's right :) "The Parable of the Unwarned Vandal"

Gracenotes^T

§ 04:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The banned user Ararat arev (talk · contribs) has managed to get the Armenia page semi-protected today, although this hasn't really worked, since he's now using very old accounts to bypass the protection. Does anyone think it's time for full protection? He doesn't seem to be giving up. Khoikhoi 05:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Enough is enough, I've fully protected the page. Khoikhoi 05:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not sinply block the old accounts as abusive socks? Eventually he would run out of accounts. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been blocking all of them, but he seems to have an endless number of socks. I'm not sure how he got them as well, some of them appear to have been registered in 2005, but he hasn't been here that long. Khoikhoi 05:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

perhaps he has but we didn't know. Seems like semiprotection is a good way of drawing them out. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Tuben seems intent on disrupting this article as much as possible, as there are two Robert Coulters one of which is his boss which he states here.

His Robert Coulter was speedy deleted as NN on 11 February, after being moved from Robert Coulter to Robert I. Coulter.

Since then he's blanked the page of the other Robert Coulter, and on two occasions changed the article to his Robert Coulter.

He's then decided that his Robert Coulter should be at Robert Coulter and moved the other article accordingly, but hasn't created an article for his Robert Coulter yet.

User:Weggie has since moved the article to Robert Coulter (politician) creating a double redirect.

I'm tempted just to move Robert Coulter (politician) back to Robert Coulter to put an end to this ridiculous saga, but I can only imagine there will be more problems. so could someone with a mop please move it back and delete the redundant redirects, and possibly move protect it please? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• I did just that. The organ builder is described as promising or up-and-coming or some such weasellery - we can wait until he's up and come, I reckon. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have received the following message from User:The pink panther. Could anybody make any sense of it? - Mike Rosoft 10:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Potential targets for vandalism

please keep an eye put on these pages:they have been named as users in a steroid scandal and edit wars and vandalism seem likely.

the list:

MLB

• Gary Matthews Jr.
• Jose Canseco
• John Rocker
• Jerry Hairston Jr.
• David Bell

Boxing

• Evander Holyfield

NFL

• Richard Rydze (no article yet)

Bodybuilding

• Victor Martinez

Pro wrestling

• Kurt Angle
• Randy Orton
• Adam Copeland
• Gregory Helms
• Rey Mysterio
• Eddie Guerrero

A quick google news search for steroids brings up this ABC article as one of the results. Linked articles above. MER-C 10:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I found THIS. Anchoress 10:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Watchtower Sentinel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) See latest edits of Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath. This is a new user who has thrown himself into a dispute that involves me. He is very likely to be a sockpuppet of a user who was blocked indefinitely by ArbCom and has evaded this block numerous times. RFCU has not proceeded because it has been more than 30 days since his last post as the previous sockpuppet, however if you compare the similarity in these edits, you can come to your own conclusions: [34], see post by NoToFrauds, [35], see see edit summary, see edit summary. --Hamsacharya dan 08:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  Hmm... this may be better suited for

  WP:AN/I. Just my take. – Luna Santin (talk

  ) 08:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  I'd second that. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This User made the following comment on Backstreet Boys discography "Note2:Hi: I want speak with you I don't think black and blue sale just 15 million and this not with mind seven years just sale 15 million and they best boyband in the world, And your digit not true ever . take care before I wiping you from Wikipedia and I ravage your computer because you nuisance just here This user is also appears to be using multiple names Micheal-Nicks, Batguy, Richard Jone, Kmnmo, and has been extremely disruptive over the past two months (daily). All attempts to warm him of his/her errors and repeated removal of edits has not worked. Can someone please look into this and please take action. 59.124.99.83 16:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User is referring to [36] -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I Want it that way (talk · contribs), Batguy (talk · contribs), Micheal-Nick (talk · contribs), Richard Jone (talk · contribs) & Kmnmo (talk · contribs) do all have a very similar editing pattern... -- Scientizzle 16:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a npa4 warning at User talk:I Want it that way, the account that made the attack statement. -- Scientizzle 16:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The person who registered the

16:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: User:Jonawiki is now causing issue at

make a point. --G2bambino

18:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am now looking into this — One of these has contacted me concerning wiki-stalking with regards to the complainant. Will post my findings. WormwoodJagger 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I don't mean to sound suspicious here, but User:WormwoodJagger is not listed as an administrator. Nor am I sure how anyone has contacted him about possible wiki-stalking, as I see no evidence of such, unless the intervener has contacts with the user(s) in question outside of Wikipedia. --G2bambino 22:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I was contacted inside Wikipedia concerning wikistalking. I can't say anything more until I've completed my invesitgations. If you have any further questions, please follow procedure and post on my talk page 74.110.212.198 22:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No - I am not comfortable with your investigating anything. Your anon IP's edit history points towards you being aligned with the user(s) I have identified as disruptive and possibly sockpuppets. An actual administrator should handle this case. --G2bambino 23:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry -- you are not qualified to make that decision. I have been called in; it is too late. Your edits on Star Wars Galaxy have implicated you in a wiki-stalking invesitagtion that far exceeds only your minor contributions. Your assertion that I am aligned with others has been noted, and put on the record. Again, if you would like to discuss this further, please do not compromise this investigation any further, and follow protocol by contacting me on my web page. All best, WormwoodJagger 00:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

WormwoodJagger, under what authority are you making these claims? You can't be claiming this authority as a member of Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates. That page clearly states that "Advocacy is not mandatory" and "Advocacy is NOT an official Wikipedia procedure." You state "I have been called in..." could you please inform as to who called you in. You also state "...please do not compromise this investigation any further, and follow protocol by contacting me on my web page." Could you provide details of what investigation, who set it up and under who's authority and where the protocol is posted on Wikipeda. I also find it very odd that you do not edit from September 2006, ignoring Magonaritus comments, until the 16 March. Just out of curiosity, do you deny that 74.110.212.198 is your IP? If I was G2bambino I would view your comments as a possible attempt at intimidation. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Not qualified? Anyone can ask for help from an admin. It is very inappropriate for you to try and disuade G2bambino from seeking assistance under the guise of authority you don't have. IrishGuy ^talk 01:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is quite odd. Is it usual for an 'investigator' to have only 73 mainspace edits to just 13 articles, including edits to the article in dispute? I have noticed some sockpuppetry at Upper Canada College, but this is something else. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 00:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess I violated a whole lot of policies... I thought I was following correct protocol... I'll recuse myself. Good luck! WormwoodJagger 16:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought I would clear the air —— I honestly thought I was an admin. I was notified about this affair by Blunders (phone). Neither Jonawiki, Magonaritus nor G2bambino contacted me. You can see here I have protected a page while I was advocating on August 25 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neurofunk&diff=prev&oldid=71784370). I guess I'm not anymore, given that I was afk for a few months.

Nonetheless: I'm obviously recusing myself. I thought, however, that, for whoever takes my place, I would offer the findings from my investigation:

There are several indications that place non-trivial doubt on the assertion that Jonawiki and Magonaritus are sockpuppets.

(1) G2bambino placed a request for checkuser on Magonaritus as a suspected sockpuppet. His request was declined on March 10, 2007: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser&diff=114171374&oldid=114171183

(2) G2bambino asserts that Magonaritus and Jonawiki "always supports the opinions... of the other" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:G2bambino/temp). However, this assertion is untrue. They have disagreed 4 times:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies#Emulators: Jonawiki wanted to keep emulators in the Controversy section despite objections from Antman. Magonaritus agreed with Antman and moved it to a new Developments to Watch section.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies#Freeman_.22Controversy.22 Jonawiki wanted to keep the description of a controversy involving Jeff Freeman. Magonaritus disagreed and argued that it should be deleted from the article.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies#Freeman_.22Controversy.22 Jonawiki argued that the Bioware rumor should stay in the article. Magonaritus disagreed and argued that it should be deleted from the article.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Upper_Canada_College#G2bambino:_Stop_Hiding_UCC.27s_Dirty_Laundry Magonaritus lightly chastises Jonawiki's demeanor with "no comment".

(3) Previous to the articles on Upper Canada College and Star Wars Galaxies, both Magonaritus and Jonawiki have a long list of different non-intersecting editing interests:

• Magonaritus edited O Rly?, Elephant, List of Internet slang phrases, Dragon, Harvard University, AOL, ICQ, Edgar Allen Poe, Urban Dictionary
• Jonawiki has edited Harvard College, Old Ones (Buffyverse), Roma people, Green tea, Auction, Monomyth, Teras Kasi, Carl Jung, Monarchy in Canada

(4) Per the "100 edit rule" as one possible test for sockpuppets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:sockpuppet#When_questions_arise), the results do not really indicate that they are sockpuppets:

• Magonaritus has about 70 edits on pages other than Upper Canada College and Star Wars Galaxies
• Jonawiki has about 97 edits on pages other than Upper Canada College and Star Wars Galaxies

(5) On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:G2bambino/temp, G2bambino makes a decent case that 66.208.54.226 is Jonawiki. There's no crime in a user forgetting to log in every once in a while. Then he tries to show that Jonawiki and Magonaritus are the same user because they both made edits to articles about Harvard, however this link is pretty weak.

• Jonawiki edited Harvard College to create a new section list of famous alumni. Magonaritus never touched this article. 66.208.54.226 never touched this article.
• Magonaritus edited the Harvard UNIVERSITY article to add a pop culture reference. Jonawiki never touched this article. 66.208.54.226 never touched this article.

On the other hand, G2bambino has displayed what seems to me to be disruptive behaviour, and proprietary interest in the UCC article, given his several hundred edits on the article.

(1) G2bambino has been accused of lacking

:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monarchy_in_Canada#Rouleau....again
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monarchy_in_Canada#Gbambino_and_POV

(2) G2bambino has been accused of violating

:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:G2bambino#Your_edit_summary_in_Image:Queen_of_canada.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:G2bambino#Civility
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monarchy_in_Canada#More_on_the_meaning_of_.27Crown.27
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monarchy_in_Canada#gbambino
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_Buchanan#Buchanan.27s_sexual_orientation

(3) G2bambino has been accused of vandalism and 3RR:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:G2bambino#Canadian_Royal_Symbols
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:G2bambino#Kingston_Community_Classifieds
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:G2bambino#UCC_Revert_War

Re: Wikistalking

(1) G2bambino has been warned by an admin of violating 3RR in an edit war against Magonaritus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:G2bambino#UCC_Revert_War).

(2) Per

, G2bambino did not have the "courtesy... [to]... inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting, or if their actions are being discussed." A check on the discussion pages of both Jonawiki and Magonaritus will demonstrate that G2bambino is attempting to get them blocked with as little notice as possible.

(3) Reviewing several thousand contributions from G2bambino, there were no contributions to any articles on gaming or Star Wars previous to his most recent contributions to the article on the Star Wars Galaxies game. The vast majority deal with monarchy, Canadiana and sexuality.

(4) His contributions displayed no knowledge of the Star Wars Galaxies game, just very generic edits.

(5) It seems his sole interest in the Star Wars Galaxies article was because of the presence of Jonawiki and Magonaritus. He even admits as much at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BaronJuJu#SWG_edits: "I was merely drawn to the issue as I've had to deal with Jonawiki (talk • contribs) and Magonaritus (talk • contribs) inserting POV and highly baised edits at Upper Canada College, and noted "they"'re doing the same at SWG."

This seems a possible case of wikistalking per

, his behavior fits wikistalking.

I am no longer interested in this matter. Good luck! WormwoodJagger 21:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You put {{protect}} on an article. You didn't actually protect it. You aren't and never were an admin. You must go through

WP:RFA to become an admin. IrishGuy ^talk

21:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I find this whole thing very disturbing. WormwoodJagger, you say that User:Blunders contacted you, but they don't exist. Of course there is User:Blunder (created 24 October 2005) but they have no edits. You provide a link to where the RFCU was removed as declined but forget to show Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Magonaritus where the reason is given. Interesting too that several of your links don't quite match what you are saying and how easily you found all these when you are not active for months. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, I'll note that WormwoodJagger (talk · contribs) stated originally that he was contacted within Wikipedia; he has since contradicted that claim by stating he was contacted by another user via telephone. It should also be pointed out that the user who contacted him, Blunders of the third kind (talk · contribs), was previously party to the debates at Talk:Upper Canada College involving the accused sock puppeteer, myself, and WormwoodJagger.

Now, for Wormwood's investigation:

1) My request for a CheckUser was not declined, it was deemed unnecessary as I'd already done sufficient work.

2) Having your socks disagree with each other once in a while is a

.

3) & 5) Magonaritus', Jonawikis' and 66.208.54.226's edit histories cross paths more often than they diverge. If I make a good case that 66.208.54.226 is Jonawiki, I also make a good case that 66.208.54.226 is Magonaritus; ergo, Magonaritus and Jonawiki could well be the same person.

Disruptive behaviour:

1)

• I was accused of NPOV by a user who was attempting to edit based on his own POV and not factual evidence. I was supported by other users, and the accusing editor eventually resigned.
• Accusation of NPOV by the same above-mentioned editor.

2)

• Confronted because I called a tag "silly"; no accusation of breach of WP:CIV
• Supposedly offended user stated he never said my actions were uncivil; no breach of WP:CIV
• Debate with same user under 1) above; no accusation of breach of WP:CIV
• Debate with same user under 1) above; no accusation of breach of WP:CIV
• Accused of violating
  WP:AGF
  by same user who stated he never said my actions were uncivil; no accusation of breach of WP:CIV

3)

• Automated bot reverted legitimate change; no accusation of WP:3RR
• I removed linkspam; no accusation of WP:3RR
• Legitimate warning of WP:3RR against myself in an edit war with Magonaritus.

Wikistalking:

1) Same warning already mentioned above, does not constitute Wikistalking.

2) Agreed - did not perform the courtesy of notifying Jonawiki or Magonaritus. It does not excuse this omission, however 1) I didn't read the introduction carefully enough to take note of this, 2) I didn't want either user to stop their editing pattern and begin again under new user names. This does not constitute Wikistalking.

3) Jonawiki and Magonaritus were indeed causing disruption at Star Wars Galaxies; I intervened to aid those who wanted to maintain balance, order and NPOV. I am free to edit whatever articles I please. This does not constitute Wikistalking.

4) Agreed.

5) Agreed.

All together, this is a pretty poor collection of "evidence" - a look beyond the mere surface shows that 95% of it is groundless. The other 5% I have, or will, accept responsibility for. My motives are to see nothing but the end of disruption and strife caused by a particular user; it is not up to me to decide how that is done, hence I have notified administrators of the issue and leave it to them to deal with.

It should be drawn to the attention of those involved here that Roguegeek (talk · contribs) has filed a proper suspected sock puppet report. --G2bambino 23:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the aspersions being cast on my name -- it's a little ad homine(o?)m. As for 'conveninence': as I said, I was conducting an investiagtion. As for withink wiki -- within wiki community. Now leave me alone -- please! I made an honest mistake and am really feeling beat up on (sniff).... Have some faith! Good luck! WormwoodJagger 23:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You called G2bambino a wikistalker and attempted to intimidate him with authority you don't have. You probably shouldn't be complaining about aspersions as you have tossed the mud yourself. IrishGuy ^talk 23:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

G2bambino IS a wikistalker (see above). I never attempted to intimidate ANYONE -- I SIMPLY ASKED HIM TO TALK TO ME USING MY, UM, TALK PAGE. Clear? WormwoodJagger 02:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No. You specifically pretended to have authority you don't have and told him what he could or couldn't do. Saying things like "I have been called in; it is too late" is most assuredly attempting to intimidate. IrishGuy ^talk 02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No IrishGuy ^talk . I WAS called in & I SIMPLY ASKED HIM TO TALK TO ME USING MY, UM, TALK PAGE. THIS IS HARDLY CONTROVERSIAL. And G2bambino HAS ADMITTED TO WIKISTALKING JONAWIKI TO BUILD A CASE AGAINST HIM. WormwoodJagger 02:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WormwoodJagger, you did not ask G2bambino to contact you on your talk page. You invented some non-existant protocol and procedure and then told him that was where he was to contact you and implying that he was not to post here any more. As to your remark about G2bambino wikistalking Jonawiki. Well to ID sockpuppets you have to look at the edits they are making. Frankly, I too think that your purpose was to try and intimidate G2bambino. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm finding this very upsetting -- I'm not sure why CambridgeBayWeather and IrishGuy are even piling on me, here. If you go through my edits, you can see I thought I was an admin, when clearly I'm not, and I thought I was following correct procedure by having G2bambino's questions about my legitimacy moved to my talk page (you're wrong to assert that I did anything but ask him to follow protocol and not plug up the Jonawicki sock puppet discussion with anything else). I was asked to look at him in terms of wikistalking and, as you yourself note, without knowing his intentions, nor without having completed my invesitagtion, it certainly seemed as though he was wikistalking. He's had you explain his position very clearly now, and I am no longer suspicious, though I must say you two seem to work as a team, in my experience, as this reminds me very much of Upper Canada College last March. Furthermore, I don't care what you think my purpose was, anymore. Please stop wikistalking my posts here, and let the people who *can* resolve the matter of sockpuppetry do so. I will not be logging into this account nor checking anything for the next ten days, becuase, frankly, I feel like I'm being wikistalked and harassed when all I want to do is explain myself. I may even start a new account and close this one. Good day sir! I said good day! (imagine a Fez accent :). WormwoodJagger 13:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making silly accusations. This is an ongoing thread. If CambridgeBayWeather and I (or anyone else, for that matter) chose to reply to comments, that isn't "wikistalking". While you claim that you were asking him to follow protocol...it was a protocol completely made up by you. I'm also not sure how you could assume you were an admin. Who confered these admin powers on you? IrishGuy ^talk 19:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't think you are going to get much of an answer. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Just wait for the next person to pop up in this dispute and claim to have authority, and also to be an administrator. Then you can ask for an answer :)

Daniel Bryant

09:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you checked WormwoodJagger's Page? To me, this seems all to co-incidental. An editor comes around, claiming to be an admin, and after a discussion is immature enough to place My final act is to suggest that G2bambino and CambridgeBayWeather are meatpuppets on his page before changing names? My personal thought on the matter is that wormwood is a person contributing nothing more than negative impacts on Wikipedia. First of all, someone claiming to be an admin would not simply change names because (1) or (2) people have a dispute with them ... they would contact other admin's (and I am referring to true admin here, not someone who wants to feel important with a cool title) to help settle the case. Secondly, there are many levels (and I am talking the difference between a simple house and the eiffel tower) between the maturity of admin and wormwood; I do not believe admin material includes behavior we have seen here. Assuming oneself to be admin would note you worthy of it ... Wormwood, here, resembles one of those autistic puppetteers, such as the famous MascotGuy; however, it is my belief that MascotGuy is even a load more mature than Wormwood. In conclusion, I suggest removing this "final claim" from Wormwood's page. It is my belief that this would quickly surface the IP/handle that wormwood has chosen to use. Secondly, has anyone looked into the fact that wormwood is a third puppet of the other (2) names? D-Hell-pers 16:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Since my last edit (1) of the (3) IP addresses that wormwood has used to edit his page in the past several days, has cleared it, leaving it blank. You can look through his history to see the step process he used to edit his good-bye message, before finally deleting it after my previous posting. At least now we know several IPs wormwood's new "persona" will be using.

Of particular interest is IP 74.110.212.198. Reviewing it's log of edits, this IP address was used to vandalize the Upper Canada College article, before turning around and making "positive" contributions (I use this lightly, as positive may not be the best of choices to use). It was then used to add wormwood's "goodbye" mentioned above, followed by (2) other address that followed with edits. In conclusion, I suggest that wormwood be a sockpuppet jonawiki and magonaritus, or vise versa (who knows who came first). D-Hell-pers 18:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt, who is banned, posted again on Talk:Daniel Brandt. I am just curious--why does this user get to post/interact when banned when other banned users with articles (such as Barbara Schwartz) are routinely RM/RV'd out if they post. my understanding was posts by banned users were typically removed for being banned, and the usernames (if logged in) blocked as socks, and the IPs if not logged in blocked for a duration. - Denny 20:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't. Revert. Block. Ignore. --

talk

20:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Others have let the edit stand... and during the previous hooha (DRV/AfD/DRV) I believe Doc Glasgow (an admin) had actually threatened to ban anyone who RV'd out Brandt's edit at one point. I am not an admin so I can't block myself. - Denny 20:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Relevant diff from before...

I've quit for now. But is any process pillock removes the above as the post of a banned users, I will rise from the grave and block them for 1,000 years.--

Doc

^g 18:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So... is policy we endorse this, or is anyone free to RV banned users on sight? - Denny 20:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits says "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion.". So users are free to rv banned users edits on sight, any block for such behavior would be innapropriate. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me}

) 20:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

to be clear, do you mean if I RV a banned user, anyone blocking/reprimanding me is out of line... or that RVing a banned user is fine, but reblocking them/their IP is not alright? - Denny 20:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I mean any action taking against a person reverting a banned user would not be appropriate as the action of reverting a banned user is explicitly allowed in the banning policy. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Denny, nobody is stopping you but nor can you force other editors to remove said material. Personally I think this is a case where his non-main space edits should be allowed but that is just my POV. At least he isnt hiding who he is,

SqueakBox

20:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind if an editor in good standing also wishes the addition of the material the banned user is adding, then regular editorial debate should take place. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe Doc stepped in because Brandt was correcting potentially libelous/false information about a living person–himself. If that's all he's doing I'd let it stand. Mackensen (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say that

WP:BLP trumps anything else, if it is unsourced material about a living person being removed then it needs to stay removed. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me}

) 20:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

BLP notwithstanding my concern is that if we do this for this banned user, the next person banned with an article can point to this and say, "Did it for Brandt". then, if we don't do this for all banned users with articles (the number will surely grow in time), it would be hypocritical to only give Brandt that luxury. - Denny 20:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If there is a BLP violation then we are not doing it for Brandt, but because of our policy. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WTF??? I really can't believe this rules-wonking! Three weeks ago Brandt posted some fairly level-headed observations on his own bio page. At the time, I issued a warning that they should not be removed because I suspected that some small-minded person would be more concerned with the 'rules' or with dissing Brandt than actually looking to see how we could improve out content with fairness to the subject. Here, three weeks later, someone drags this up and wikilawyers exactly as I'd feared. We are not in the business of warring with Brandt or any other 'banned user'. If they may useful posts, all good and well. This is not a battleground and we don't do vendettas. Article quality is always our overarching priority. Try creating www.wiki-soap if you need a MUD where you can battle foul fiends and other monsters endlessly.--

^g 22:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not the right message to be sending. The message is not "If you arre banned you are our enemy forever." If someone, anyone, any banned user comes back and reasonably explains some problems with an article on a talk page, they are welcome to do so with thanks (at least from me). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't ban users in a punitive manner. If users are actively contributing to the project, there is no reason not to allow them to do so. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 22:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly disagree with either of you in that if the edit has merit, it shouldn't be reverted, but

WP:BAN is abundantly clear that that belief is not policy (no "wikilawyering" necessary, sorry Doc); perhaps a change is in order to bring it closer to the blocking policy so that it states that edits by banned users may be reverted rather than the present language. —bbatsell ¿? ✍

22:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Doc, Brandt is banned for very good reason, and any edit he makes should indeed be reverted. He has stalked me for many months, stalking that has included contacting what he thinks are old boyfriends of mine from 20 years ago. He has posted seriously libellous material then refused to publish a correction that was sent to him, which shows he is not the honest researcher he claims to be. He tried to hound another woman either out of her job or out of Wikipedia, and succeeded in doing the latter. He has posted photographs of people without their consent, some of which were very intrusive and clearly intended to be hurtful and possibly damaging to their lives. The only person I know of who has more seriously invaded Wikipedians' lives was Amorrow, whose edits are reverted on sight so that he gets the message that he isn't welcome here, no matter how useful his contributions might otherwise be. If we don't afford that minimum courtesy to editors — that we're not going to be asked to edit alongside people who are stalking us — then we'll lose everyone that Brandt and others like him decide to target.

It's common sense to allow corrections to his BLP to be made if he draws attention to them, but if that's his only interest, as opposed to grandstanding, he can do it by e-mail. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we encourage Brandt's general participation. But as long as we have a publicly listed article on him - and an open discussion about it on a talk page - we should not prevent his public participation in that. Removing edits that are otherwise constructive is churlish, and serves no useful purpose. Denying him a right to comment publicly on his own bio will not prevent the behaviour you indicate, indeed it is only likely to escalate things further.--

Doc

^g 00:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that constructive edits by banned users shouldn't be removed just for the hell of it or to spite them. But the key word here is "constructive". You can hardly call deriding Wikipedians and claiming we have "no sense of social responsibility" constructive in any way. If he wants to fix his article, he can either learn to keep a civil tongue in his head first, or do as SlimVirgin suggests and conduct his business by e-mail. The substantive content of that linked post could have been quite easily said in a civil, policy abiding manner as "Mentioning my draft card burning without also mentioning the amnesty is non-neutral/libelous/mean, please fix it." I find it quite humourous that a man who claims to fear for his reputation because of us mentioning his student activism, which was apparently mentioned in the New York Times and already quite publically available to anyone who cared, doesn't think that his habitually throwing about insults online is potentially just as damaging to him. If I were an employer I'd care a lot more about my applicant's present attitude when dealing with people they don't like than what their political views were during Vietnam. --

talk

00:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

But this is precisely the problem. Commenting on Brandt's ethics, inconsistencies and contradictions is not really not something we should have any need to do. What you think of Brandt is neither here nor there.--

Doc

^g 02:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we do have a need to do it, because of people who revert those who have removed Brandt's posts. If editors would avoid helping banned editors to evade their block, we wouldn't need this discussion. Musical Linguist 03:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

why not change policy then to reflect what you say is practice...? If this is true and supported shouldn't the policy on banning be changed to reflect this? - Denny 02:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did you dig up a three week-old dead issue on an archived talk page and resurrect it here as a dramatic 'incident' needing admin attention?? It looks like you're just out for drama, and point scoring. This isn't a game.--

Doc

^g 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not out for drama or points... he posted again today to the article talk page, and I was about to RV him out as a banned user... per the written policy, but then I remembered your comment, and didn't want to get tagged by someone for a block... his post today is here. - Denny 02:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be an abuse of blocking powers to block someone for removing a post from a banned user. Musical Linguist 03:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Also isn't that edit another legal threat? "The draft-card burning is libelous unless counterbalanced by details of Jimmy Carter's draft amnesty in 1977. That's my position. I expressed this in writing via a fax to Danny Wool on September 9, 2006. If he doesn't do something about this, the Foundation will be held accountable"- Denny 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed his legal threat as I understand my reading of the written policy pages. No legal threats, and no editing by banned users (the policy doesn't have any exceptions for their own pages that I saw), so I removed it albeit late... from the page here. - Denny 03:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Banned editors can stop the behaviour that got them banned, and can e-mail an appeal to Jimbo or the ArbCom. If Brandt is sorry for the harm he has brought into individual editors' lives, he can take down his website, stop posting people's personal details to other websites, send an e-mail to Jimbo expressing his contrition, and ask to be unbanned. If the only issue is BLP issues with his biography, he can e-mail his concerns to any administrator. Regardless of our opinion of him, his article is subject to as strict an interpretation of BLP as any other article. But SlimVirgin is right: it is an insult to stalking victims to expect them to have to edit alongside their stalkers. Musical Linguist 03:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are we debating Daniel Brandt's block? It would be completely against common sense to block people for reverting edits of an individual blocked by arbcom. Also even if Daniel Brandt corrects info about himself, he still has to cite sources. -- Cat ^chi? 12:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse he has to cite sources. But his posts have been reverted also when he provides good, sourced information: [37]. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• No, there is a difference between a block and a ban. Brandt is banned. He is banned for trolling, disruption, conflict of interest, outing Wikipedians who prefer to remain anonymous, and pretty much stalking, per the above. If Brandt wants a corrction to his article, he should send mail to OTRS. We should not subject editors to the risk of being inadvertently sucked in to his mind games by engaging in dialogue, because we know what happens when you don't give him what he wants. As William Pietri so neatly put it in another context, we feel about Brandt the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection. We put up all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem. If, after reverting, someone wants to check the comment and perhaps correct a verifiable inaccuracy then fine, but we absolutely should not get into any kind of dialog with this man. If you want proof, check his hive mind page. Just talking about him will get you on there, for all the Internet to see. We should not subject unwitting editors to that kind of treatment. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Posted again

Would someone be willing to block Brandt's IP per policy? He's still posting, but is still banned. Link to contribs. - Denny 03:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked by Musical Linguist. Guy (Help!) 16:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am requesting a block of

A clear consensus against Lordknowle's actions has been achieved on the talkpage (see

).

In addition to the on-wiki actions, Lordknowle has also been sending me a series of harassing emails, with a large quantity of venom and personal attacks (I can forward these along if anyone would like to verify this).

In summary: Lordknowle's website of http://www.templars.org/uk appears to have just launched a new version on March 10th,[69] so the recent activity on Wikipedia seems clearly designed to try and drive traffic to the site. My recommendation, after discussing it with others, is that Lordknowle be blocked from Wikipedia for a "cooling off period" of a few days or weeks, and then if he genuinely wants to return to Wikipedia after that and work in a cooperative and collegial fashion, he would be welcome.

Administrator assistance is requested to address this issue, before it further escalates and completely derails the FA process. Thanks, Elonka 19:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support (as nominator) Given the clear desire of Lordknowle to promote his website, and the quantity of
  WP:NPA violations, a block of 2-4 weeks seems appropriate. --Elonka
  19:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse block as blatant spammer.
  Yuser31415
  19:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment How do you know that the site is his? And does the knights templar have an official website? --Minderbinder 20:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • He confirms the website connection at his userpage: User:Lordknowle.[70] And no, the Knights Templar were a medieval order that was dissolved in the early 1300s. They have no official website. --Elonka 20:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see any outright personal attacks. Is Lordknowle un-civil? Yes. Then again, I think Elonka going out of her way to use the phrase "claim" in reference to LK's PhD (and drawing a parallel to him and Essjay) is fairly un-civil too as the obvious intent is to call LK a liar without actually saying it. IrishGuy ^talk 20:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The "obvious intent" is to point out that pseudonymous contributors can and do invent fake academic credentials, and that it is a mistake for other contributors to trust them without question. Please assume good faith. Philwelch 22:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • And it is good faith for Elonka to constantly refer to LK's "claims" of having a PhD (as she even did for this thread)? IrishGuy ^talk 22:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Skepticism about unsubstantiated claims of one's own expertise is not bad faith. Philwelch 22:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
        • It most assuredly isn't assuming good faith, is it? IrishGuy ^talk 22:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There are limits to assuming good faith. Accepting unsubstantiated claims of academic credentials is one, for reasons Elonka has pointed out and that we are all very familiar with. Elonka is not even assuming *bad* faith, merely suspending judgment, in the true spirit of skepticism. Philwelch 22:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. It is worthwhile noting that Elonka's comment "All edits are required to be sourced, regardless of who adds them" is slightly incorrect; spelling corrections do not have to be sourced, ANI reports do not have to be sourced, et cetera, et cetera.
  Yuser31415
  20:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I fail to see how a 2-4 week block would resolve this content dispute. It may allow for enough time to get the article promoted to FA, but then what? There are more appropriate venues in place to handle such disputes:
  WP:RFAR, etc. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩
  21:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The constant personal attacks and harassment are what concern me. The content disruption is pretty weak sauce for a block (although this sort of thing has led to bans in the past), but the harassment deserves a fairly stiff block, particularly if Elonka can forward or post some of the emails she's received. Philwelch 22:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Characterizing the cited diffs as personal attacks is going a bit overboard, IMHO. Of course I am not aware of the actual content of any of the e-mails mentioned by Elonka, but they are off-wiki. Looking at the situation from a neutral stance, I see no reason to endorse either vendetta. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is it okay, during a content dispute about the Knights Templar, to go on laborious tangents about Elonka's character? Philwelch 22:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I never said it was. I don't think that a temporary block will diminish Lordknowle's animosity because Wikipedia makes for a poor vehicle for any sort of effective behavioral modification. Lets focus on helping them resolve the content dispute. The personality clash and ensuing bad faith accusations are unfortunate, but that is a personal matter between these editors. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Two of the three diffs may count as incivil. But I believe that this diff constitutes a personal attack, in the sentence "Maybe I should write a self-promoting entry page on my life, career and publications, but there again, I don't think that I could be so vain or conceited.:-)" The "self-promoting entry page on my life, career and publications" obviously refers to Elonka's user page. By saying "I don't think that I could be so vain or conceited", he's automatically saying that Elonka is vain and conceited. I call that a personal attack. Aecis^Brievenbus 10:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse per above. — Deckiller 22:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose this is a content dispute. Elonka has filed this complaint as well as a 3RR. I think she is simply forum shopping to find an admin who will block this user for her personal recommended week or two. IrishGuy ^talk 22:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If someone violates 3RR as well as harassing other contributors, I don't really see what's wrong with reporting both incidents to the most appropriate place for each. Philwelch 22:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Firstly, I object to being called a meatpuppet. Although new, I have been trying to pour oil on water on here in relation to your squabble with LK. The term meatpuppet (which I have now looked up) is not very welcoming to someone who has tried to resolve the issue. It also seems very hypocritical for you, Elonka, to be nicey-nicey in your welcome statement and then use this sort of language. It seems that Elonka really does have some real issues here. But to start bringing people like me in, when I'm trying to pacify the two of you seems more like desperation with no logical argument. I would disagree with your often used expression of 'concensus'. On the Talk page of the article in question, Elonka has been supported by three people (some names also appear here) who have personally contributed to her own Wikipedia article. That is not the basis for impartial concensus and should be considered in that prejudicial light. As to LK's academic qualifications, I know what he holds, as we have visited his library to research rolls and other archives. He is most definitely the holder of a doctrine and to accuse without knowing the fats is plainly rude and unnecessary. This now just seems to be academic jealously and I am frankly shocked at this attitude. As to breaches of policy, Elonka has equally labelled LK with the SPA tag when it is obvious that he is not. He has not been party to any vandalism at all. As to private emails, that is a matter for email providers to sort out, not Wikipedia, even if such emails exist. I am astounded at the manner in which this complaint has been raised considering the Talk messages that Elonka has sent on my introduction to Wikipedia. I am not happy at all. HexTokis 22:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not really all for "voting" on blocks, but the personal attacks, uncivil tone, and "shut up and let the expert do it" attitude are a cause for concern. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'd strongly support investigation of HexTokis to determine if he is a sockpuppet of Lordknowle. I don't think any action should be taken until that matter has been looked at. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Distinctly possible. Based on their edit histories, they are never logged in at the same time. HexTokis first edits were to the Knights Templar talk page to defend LK. IrishGuy ^talk 23:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Blakescottage (talk · contribs) looks questionable too, also a first-time editor who turned up to defend Lordknowle. Tearlach 12:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • It looks strongly possible, and it will hang over this whole affair (not to mention HexTokis' account) until it ceases to be an open question. Regards, cDeacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Elonka's report for 3RR was denied by me. There were only 3 reverts, and she showed 4 reverts when she included a consecutive revert as two separate reverts. It does appear that Lordknowle has been quite incivil, but I don't think such blocking action is warranted in this case. Nishkid64 00:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've full protected the article. Durova^Charge! 02:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Objection, per forum shopping. Page protection is a good solution, getting your opponent in an edit war blocked is not.
  WP:KETTLE may be relevant. >Radiant<
  09:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Note that with respect to forum shopping, this has also already been reported on the COI noticeboard. >Radiant< 10:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, something exceedingly unpleasant is going on at User talk:Lordknowle. I think I am going to have to block Lordknowle for either trolling or a potentially compromised account. Newyorkbrad 12:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. See that talk for more details. I think this moots the prior discussion above, at least pending further explanation or if there is sock activity to be dealt with. Newyorkbrad 12:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• I concur that there's something strange going on. Intuitively I'd say it's a compromised account. >Radiant< 12:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Per the indef block on this account I've changed the protection level at Knights Templar to semi and also implemented a weeklong semiprotection on History of the Knights Templar. That should give the regular editors an opportunity to continue improving this GA into an FA while keeping any socks from tiptoeing out of the drawer. Durova^Charge! 14:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone posessed of either saintly patience or an evil rogue streak please visit

) 11:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Given his recent track record [73] [74] [75] [76] and block log [77], there is no need for saintly patience here. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like time for a community ban discussion. User's block history already shows an indef block that was lifted with a final warning. Hasn't gotten the message. Guy, you've got more history than I. Would you like to do the honors? Be sure to throw in

WP:SOCK with you. Durova^Charge!

13:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Looking further, I've imposed an indefinite block for impersonation of administrative powers.[78] Am composing a proposal for a community siteban. I informed the user of the proposal, which will be posted shortly to WP:CN. If the user wishes to make a defense he or she may post to the user talkpage. Durova^Charge! 14:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_of_1B6 Durova^Charge!

14:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• A fine job of work, probably more effort than this troll deserved in fact. Time to give him directions to the exit, I feel. Guy (Help!) 14:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I, HOTR, would like to start anew. No more sockpuppeting, etc. This will be my new account. I will cease editing Israeli apartheid articles etc. You have my word. --Homey 13:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Take it to ArbCom, I for one am not unblocking you. Guy (Help!) 14:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• I second JzG's motion. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This message was left by

Thatcher131

16:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Probably, but I don't care enough to do more than block the troll and move on, which is what I did :o) 16:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a returning indef user, his previous account Ararat arev now he is heavily edit warring here, please block him, [79] Artaxiad 17:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I got that one, but it's likely that he's just going to create another. I don't suppose anyone has tried CU to see if a range-block wouldn't be too damaging? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

He has a number of ways to retrieve IP addresses so I wouldn't suggest blocking the ips since there not even his, other peoples. He has been range blocked before but it did not help him. Also he came back, [80] the only solution now is reverting or protecting the article for now. Or we can reach a comprise by dealing with a sock puppeter not sure. Artaxiad 17:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the difference between a BOT and an Automated script? The

18:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Bots are automated scripts. –

Steel

18:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The defining characteristic of a bot is a program that makes edits in an automated fashion, without human intervention on each one, and they're all basically automated scripts of varying levels of sophistication. Betacommand violated the bot policy, plain and simple. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked for a week in November for the same thing Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

He has actually had 2 blocks for bot related action, each time he was unblocked by another administrator. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If a script gets human confirmation then it is not a bot, if it acts without human confirmation then it is a bot. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:B has a section on "assisted bots", which don't necessarily need bot approval, but must make it clear that software is being used, and says to make sure there is consensus *before* any large series of edits. Gimmetrow

18:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The need for clearer policy on this was mentioned, but not resolved, during the Marudubshinki arbitration case. Newyorkbrad 18:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have left a message at Village Pump / Policy [[81]] but maybe it fits here better. It's about the (troubled) relation between National Libraries and Wikipedia. Please let me know what's best. Thank you for your time, Fleurstigter 18:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• WP:NOT#IINFO. Canuck01 did not like this and reverted several times. I suspect (but am not positive) that this disagreement led to this edit
  on my Talk Page.
• Shortly thereafter, the same reverts were being made by User talk:76.98.64.105 and User talk:68.45.87.86. I have left warnings and attempts to communicate on the Talk Pages of all three editors.
• Coincidentally, all three accounts edit the same exact articles.
• Coincidentally, all three accounts edit each others' User Pages.
• Canuck01 has questionable material on his User Page. Looks more like a regularly-updated collection of information that does not have anything to do with Wikipedia.
• Additionally, 68.45.87.86 has now replaced all of the communication I left on his Talk Page with the very chart trajectory that I removed from Some Hearts. I'm pretty sure this isn't allowed either.

If I'm overstepping here or if this behavior is acceptable then so be it, but as far as I can see, this could possibly be sockpuppetry and that stuff on the User Pages seems very questionable. My apologies if I've put this report in the wrong section of Wikipedia - if this is the case please let me know. Thanks in advance. - eo 18:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have also encountered Canuck01 in the past, and found him an extremely unresponsive and confrontational editor then; as well, he edited through the IP 68.44.16.135 (talk · contribs) and his username when edit-warring, almost always refusing to join discussions with other editors on talk pages. Has a history of personal attacks, too: after I removed the trajectory from the Some Hearts page, he called me "one of the worst editors in th (sic) encyclopedia", after which I warned him again not to use personal attacks. Look at the diff link to eo's talk page above, and you'll see he's chosen to ignore it. Not a shock really - see also [82] and [83]. I strongly recommend for an uninvolved admin to leave him a word on his talk page. Extraordinary Machine 19:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeated libelous abuse inserted in to biographical entry by IP: 80.194.68.162. User repeatedly returns to the page on entry Chris Hunt to inseret variations on "he is also a gay witeboy".

Gave it a warning -- if they insert that line or anything like it again, let me know and I'll block. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

(the same description in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darwinek too!)

user:Darwinek was in revert war with user:mt7

• revert Nr. 1 [84]
• revert Nr. 2 [85]
• revert Nr.3 [86]
• revert Nr. 4 [87]

4 reverts in only 23 min and user:Darwinek is admin!

user:Darwinek personal attack against user:mt7

• personal attack Nr. 1 [88]
• personal attack Nr. 2 [89]

• user:Darwinek blocked user:mt7 with him who was in personal editwar

[90]

but Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#When_blocking_may_not_be_used say:

Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited.

That is a very serious violation of admin rights, and after revert of another page and revert of Tamás Priskin and blocking of user:mt7 only tree minutes - a very hard working and very cautios admin.

--S.novak 07:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved from

WP:AN/I. Nishkid64

22:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

good news, personal attack now [91] --Mt7 09:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I must say this behaviour is indeed troubling. Darwinek was revert-warring on the Koloman Gögh article, breaking 3RR himself two days ago, then (just minutes after his own 4th revert) blocking his opponent for 3RR. Admittedly a valid 3RR offense on a different article, on which Darwinek wasn't himself involved, but about a similar topic and as such part of the same overall dispute situation. Adding a rather taunting comment on the blocked opponent's talk page ([92]). Then continuing the same revert-war until today, calling his opponent "schizophrenic" ([93]). The dispute is one of those silly nationalistic POV-pushing matches where people have to be "claimed" for this or that nationality; both sides are equally at fault there. When S.novak added the report to Darwinek's old RfC (true, a stale RfC from last year about a totally different issue), Darwinek simply reverted it without any comment. This isn't looking good. That said, someone deserves a slap with the wikitrout for combining this report with an uncalled-for personal attack ("dishonorable"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Not the first time I hear of Darwinek's bad mouth. Blocking someone you're in a revert with is even worse. I propose a proper long block for repeated incivility and abuse of sysop tools. He knows it has no place here, but he also knows that he will typically get away with it as before.--

Konstable

11:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes it happenes to everybody, because everybody has blood too hot sometimes . They were edit warring both, I welcome them both to the calm discussion on the talk page of that article with a cup of tea. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but a cup of tea is a wholly inadequate response. This either needs a new RFC of straight to Arbcom, unless—at a minimum—Darwinek apologizes here and to mt7 and takes a voluntary 24 hour break for his 3RR violation.

Thatcher131

12:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody please translate "personal attack number 2"? Also, "personal attack 1" is a diff to another revert, not a personal attack. PTO 12:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Mt7, or whoever he is, is a nice example of user who doesn't know what is he doing. I started mentioned article, he later properly added mentioned person is Hungarian. But after recent dirty war on HU Wiki he started whitewashing articles about Hungarians from Slovakia on EN Wiki. I reverted his edits, and will do so until I will be user here. Point is I am not Hungarian but he is Slovak. Bashing Hungarians is a strong element in Slovak society, now transformed also to Wiki. He claims he used three sources, saying all prove Gögh is Slovak. Bullshit. I can speak Slovak and no of these three "sources" say anything about his nationality. No source also says he is Hungarian but it is most probable, he is. He played for Czechoslovakia national team because he was a citizen of that country but that doesn't mean he was Czech or Slovak. Mt7 edits are thus strong campaign against national and ethnic minorities and will be always reverted. He has even deleted cat "Hungarians in Slovakia" from Hungarian people who were born in Slovakia, lived there and later represented Hungary. This is vandalism. Only reason why we are here is he is whining and trying to camouflage his vandalism as content dispute. Period. - Darwinek 12:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

First: Good faith edits are never vandalism. Second,

WP:3RR applies even if you're right. You're an admin; you're expected to act like one. PTO

12:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Darwinek is the one reverting the vandalism, so 3RR doesn't apply.--MONGO 13:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

How is changing the ethnic characterization of a person vandalism as opposed to a content dispute? Otherewise, let's pick a side in the Armenian-Azerbaijani edit wars, call all its edits vandalism, and block the editors. No need for a messy arbitration case.

Thatcher131

13:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This is completely other case. You don't understand it because you don't live in Central Europe. When some IP will remove claim that Siegmund Freud was Jewish, info that Denzel Washington is African American or info that Al Pacino is Italian American, I will revert all, warn IP and if continued, block him. I am doing it all the time, this case is special only in the factor, we have a registered user instead of anonymous IP. But vandal is still vandal. Or how else would you call blanking whole "Hungarians in Slovakia" category several days ago ... - Darwinek 13:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that Slovak Wikipedia article started also by Mt7 says he is Ethnic Hungarian. So this user also knows the truth but suddenly changes his mood and start reverting like a crazy. No comment. This whole campaign probably aims at provoking my actions and destroy my respected person. - Darwinek 13:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I see that you are utterly unrepentant and unwilling to address the real issue, ie. that you abused your admin powers in what very very definitely was a genuine content dispute. If this goes on, I hate to say it but I see desysopping on the horizon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's not make threats such as that anymore, especially since there has been zero effort at dispute resolution yet.--MONGO 13:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I stand by that. It's not that I would want to press for desysopping this moment. Dispute resolution is exactly what we are doing right now. But for me the fact of admin abuse seems very clear at this point, and I maintain, if Darwinek doesn't come round and admit he was wrong, then I see no other option. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I see...that sounds like a very severe penalty for matters that might not be readily understood by persons who are not from the region Darwinek is from. He claims it is vandalism, so until someone can prove to me it isn't, then I can't see how suggesting a desysopping (for which neither of us have the power to do anyway) is helpful...all it does is add fuel to the fire.--MONGO 14:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, if one person says Gogh is a Hungarian, and another person says he is a Slovak living in Hungary, and neither side has any sources, that is a content dispute, not vandalism.

Thatcher131

14:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131, common knowledge to Darwinek may equate with he being correct that he is dealing with a vandalism issue. If indeed what we have here is an edit war, then why did you reduce the block on Mt7 instead of unblocking him...or block Darwinek too if he is in an edit war and has violated 3RR??--MONGO 14:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I reduced Mt7's block for the reason I gave. I did not block Darwinek at the same time because I though I saw 4 reverts by Mt7 and 3 by Darwinek. I am certainly prepared to block Darwinek if he keeps this up, but I also have to go to work now and, being neither omniscient nor omnipresent, will have to leave that to the judgement of others for the time being. Looking at Darwinek's contributions, including this, I'm not enthusiastic about adopting his version of "common knowledge" as a yardstick for identifying vandalism. I'd rather have verifiable sources in the article.

Thatcher131

14:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Reverting vandalism is not a content dispute. - Darwinek 13:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If a dispute over the ethnicity of a person is vandalism (i.e. you are right and a differing opinion is vandalism) then we can easliy solve the Armenia-Azerbaijani dispute currently at Arbitration by declaring one side right and the other side vandals. (By the way, this is the same problem with former admin PMA, see

Thatcher131

14:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Check the history [94] when I spot edit war I proposed the discussion and offered compromise. Mt7 was that one who refused. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 13:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This may well be true and your compromise may well be very reasonable, but it's still the case that the claim that this guy was an ethnic Hungarian remains unsourced (Darwinek added something he called a source but which wasn't). Mt7's removing the nationality claim under these circumstances may be seen as POV-pushy, perhaps, but it was quite definitely not "simple vandalism". Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I see, discussion is the way that should be taken. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 13:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Darwinek seems to have, at the very least, a blind spot concerning this area of Wikipedia, which make him unable to distinguish between vandalism and edits that go against his view. His blocking of an editor with whom he as in dispute is also very worrying. That Mt7 refused discussion & compromise might say something about him, but it is of no relevance to this issue: the blatant misuse of admin tools. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Time to move this away from the noticeboard, into an RfC? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, compounding edit warring with insults is bad behavior for an editor, but threatening to block crosses the line. Some sort of acknowledgment of error would go a long way though,

WP:VAND makes it very clear this is a disagreement, not vandalism. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me}

) 14:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Darwinek is a respectable sysop, perhaps he made a mistake, slap him with the wikitrout but why RfC ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 14:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Because misuse of rollback, blocking editors you are feuding with, and misunderstanding content disputes as vandalism are serious failings in an admin, and undermine the trust that users must have that all admins will use their special buttons responsibly. An RFC will demonstrate to Darwinek that many other admins view his actions as a serious problem, and might force him to recognize this for himself. His current lack of awareness that there is even a problem to discuss makes me doubt the eventual value of an RFC, however.

Thatcher131

14:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've now filed an RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darwinek 2. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

Even though this dispute is only a few hours old, I feel Darwinek's responses, both on the RFC page and on the talk page, demonstrate that he lacks the judgement needed to be an administrator, at least regarding topics related to Czech nationalism and ethnicity. I have filed a

20:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

At

01:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• When your arguments are rejected, I recommend you bring better arguments. Regardless, you want
  dispute resolution, second on the left down the hallway. Guy (Help!
  ) 14:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of Wikipedia policy is that it is customary to discuss the reasoning behind one's edits, especially the controversial ones, rather than just initiating an edit war and saying "I reject your arguments." --NathanDW 16:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The issues on the talk page have been raised by supporters of Lyndon LaRouche, usually with no heed to the policies, and sometimes in violation of ArbCom rulings. These editors stuck the NPOV tag on it months ago, and feel it should stay until their demands are met, but the tags aren't there to enable editors to hold pages hostage. If there are genuine NPOV complaints, please describe them succinctly on the talk page (no rhetoric, no personal attacks, please) and make suggestions for improvement that are actionable within our policies. That means you have to be familiar with the policies first. If you do that, your concerns will be addressed, but if all we see are attacks, long-winded grandstanding, and suggestions that amount to policy violations, no one is going to respond. That's not a SlimVirgin/CBerlet conspiracy; it's just human nature. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have succinctly described my NPOV complaints at

Talk:Political_views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche#NPOV_dispute, as the NPOV dispute policy requires. As far as I have seen, none of the issues I raise have been formally raised on that talk page before, except in a more general way by User:Don't lose that number one week prior. BTW, you are mistaken when you say that the tag was added by "supporters of Lyndon LaRouche." It was added by Cberlet in this edit [95] last September, and it remained until you removed it earlier this month. --HonourableSchoolboy

21:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The UPN Vandal

172.132.195.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• I reported this in
  WP:AIV, but this was declined as there was no vandalism. However, he is a known sockpuppet of User:The UPN Vandal, as demonstrated by this diff. Proof of socking is at this diff, which references the same issue. --Sigma 7
  02:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  Please take this to

  WP:SSP; you'll likely get a better response there. Cheers, ~Crazytales (talk)

  00:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Although this does appear to be a sock of that UPN chap, the IP is likely dynamic and there's not a whole lot of point blocking it. –

Steel

01:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Bulk copyvios of our content on a blog

I found THIS BLOG containing uncredited content from WP while searching for copyvios on the

10:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to contact the blogger and let him/her know that Wikipedia needs to be attributed according to the GFDL. If the blogger doesn't respond, contact the Foundation. There really isn't anything here that can be solved with admin action, since it's outside Wikipedia. --

desat

11:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

For the recod, a review of his profile [96] reveals over a dozen such blogs, all pumping out copyvio Wikiarticles. ThuranX 11:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ummm guys, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." - The content on WIkipedia is free for anyone to share. Sfacets 11:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Per

WP:COPY#Reusers' rights and obligations. They can't just copy it and not attribute it or release it under the GFDL themselves. --Onorem

11:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I've reported it via the google blog TOS, so we'll see. There's a thread on the topic on google groups if anyone wants to post. Anchoress 18:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: Copyvio wikipediaarticles may be a sign of

splogs. ~Crazytales (talk)

01:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Need calm Admin voice and comments

On the

18:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Calm? That's me out, then. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've full protected the page. Recommend mediation. BTW that certainly is a single purpose account. Durova^Charge! 23:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to bring this IP address to everyone's attention. This IP has twice claimed to be administrator The Anome (diffs removed by Persian Poet Gal) but these claims seem to be false and possibly malicious. There is reason to believe they are malicious because obviously The Anome has been editing quite fine under his own account at this moment and the IP has been requesting help in obtaining a password to access that account.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that Anome should be notified (as I see he has been), and once he confirms he's not an IP, that IP should be confronted and warned about the impersonation, and possibly blocked if he doesn't cease and desist. Also, at Anome's discretion I'd consider removing those diffs above from the history of those pages, since they contain his personal information (full name and email address) that he might not want broadcast like that (for spam, if no other reason). --Maelwys 19:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This is nuts. An experienced user like The Anome knows how to deal with password problems and that is not the way. Delete the diffs and block the IP immediately when something like this happens. 64.160.39.153 22:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The diffs are a slight concern. You may want to delete them now and restore them if Anome wishes.

Yuser31415

19:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I see what you both mean, I have removed them as of this minute.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What's a "Second Wave Wikipedian"? Corvus cornix 21:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can confirm that they're an impostor. I can't see any full name given in the diffs previously given above (unless it was there, and has been vanished using the Oversight process), and the one E-mail address that I have seen given (an exchange.uta.edu address) is definitely completely bogus. I've blocked that IP for a week, as I cannot possibly see any good-faith reason for password trolling. -- The Anome 22:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It is still there. OldID:116823159. Should be enough for you to find it, but not someone completely new. Prodego ^talk 22:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi - I was wondering if an uninvolved admin or kind soul could have a word with

20:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a WQA item for the same user that hasn't been responded to as well [101]. --

Ronz

23:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(Restored from archive [102] so it's not overlooked.) --

Ronz

19:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please intervene in the Betacommand situation. I don't care whether what he's using is technically a bot or not. The issue is that a lot of the edits he's doing are bad. Wikipedia is a human edited encyclopedia and Betacommand is using some (manual or automated) process that fails to apply human judgement to these edits. Numerous users are asking him to stop and he's not slowing down. I can't tell if he's just being rude or actually engaging in

20:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that this might be a troll. I am doing what I can.

talk • contribs • Bot

) 20:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

*cough* 64.160.39.153

21:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, he has been nothing but friendly here. He has reverted mistakes he made, he has undeleted a speedy article and afd'd it. I think you need to drop your gripe against this editor. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

He has stopped his controversial edits for now. ——

Need help?

20:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I somehow saw a contribs page in which it looked as if the edits were still in progress. I'm not sure how that happened but it was undoubtedly my error. (I think I must have mistaken one of the older pages of Betacommand's contribs list for the most recent page). I'm glad the mess is being cleaned up. Thanks. 64.160.39.153 20:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

page, including falsely claiming that consensus is on his side. (It's really, really not.) Can anyone take a gander?

I admit that I invoked

20:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A guy with spelling and grammar (or, a dirth of grammer skils, as he'd say) errors as commonplace as he has really shouldn't be causing this big a fight over Title Case VS. Sentence case. It's a Pot Kettle black situation. ThuranX 22:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Various

WP:NPA warnings issued, which is what this editor really needs most at the moment. Next stop, longer block, I'd say. Sandstein

22:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Broly The LSS

Please block this guy. He has been messing with Dragonball pages all day and refuses to stop a quick look at his contributes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Broly_The_LSS shows that he has been done nothing but vandilise wikipedia. Please just block him. DBZROCKS 20:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. Next time try
  WP:AIV for accounts that are obviously vandalizing.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk)
  21:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok thank you. DBZROCKS 21:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This user self-identifies as a 15 year old boy on his user page. It's been hit by unusually high levels of IP vandalism, probably from his classmates.

21:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Half a dozen edits in a day or two is not a big deal. If he wants it, he can take it to RFPP himself. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll let them know on the talk page. Consider this closed.

Nardman1

21:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This user's talk page displays many block threats and the user has begun vandalising again at Al Gore. Please block them. Doo-dle-doo 22:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef by Tregoweth. IrishGuy ^talk 22:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Poifect. Thanks. Doo-dle-doo 23:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked

23:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now I don't want to

is obviously not acting in good faith, I don't think he'll ever be a decent contributor if he doesn't know that Wikipedia is serious about its policy, and his behaviour leads me to believe he's not a newcomer anyways, but I'll get to that later anyways. Anyways, my concerns are:

• The user self-identifies as a troll, and his userpage flagrantly violates
  WP:CIVIL with its attacks on Americans, such as an upside down flag, references to using the flag as a cum-rag, and comments belittling 911.[103]
  Now I know this may cause a knee-jerk reaction "Oh no we shouldn't stifle political speech", but I hope everyone will see the difference between political speech and deliberate antagonism, which harms the civil atmosphere Wikipedia needs for good editing. Everything seems to indicate he's mostly just here to cause trouble.

• His edits indicate he has little regard for Wikipedia's goal of encyclopedic content [104] (reverting to the previous edit's nonsense after it was removed, describing its removal as "vandalism"), and his standards are strongly at odds with Wikipedia's [105], even though he seems to have some knowledge of Wikipedia's policies (more on that below).

• I'm inclined to believe that the user is a sockpuppet created for venting antagonism at Wikipedia, or at least someone with extreme hostility to Wikipedia as well as familiarity with it.

• His first edit was removing a faux-"New messages" line on a user's talk page [106], a current hot-button issue on Wikipedia. At the least, this indicates he's been on WP for long enough to be looking at people's talk pages, and he knows Wikipedia code reasonably well.

• His second act was listing a page for deletion [107].

• Among his first edits were adorning his userpage with userboxes (just check out the histories for User:Evergreens78 and User:Evergreens78/Boxes, indicating familiarity with the WP community. Among these was evidently a parody of WP's editcountitis, with a userbox first indicating 20,000 edits (outrageously high)[108] then 20 edits (possibly parodying counting every edit)[109].

• He uses terms such as NN, not notable, vandalism,[110] and speedy delete. (just check out his contributions to AFDs).

• He successfully created a new image[111] with valid inclusion criteria, something newbies often bungle, indicating knowledge of Wikipedia's image policies.

So, basically, I strongly suspect this is either sockpuppet created by a user for trolling, or an IP who's been on WP long enough that he should know the policies. In any case, his flagrant violations of Wikipedia's policies on content and civility deserve some kind of official action, or else I doubt he'll ever be a useful contributor, if that's even possible. --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 04:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone has opened a case on him/her. Cla68 06:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that and wasn't surprised that someone else thought he (I'm pretty sure he, given User:Evergreens78's userpage) might be a sockpuppet. I didn't find that case particularly convincing tho. Given how long SSP's sometime take I think Evergreens78 at least needs a sanction or a block to help avert any more harmful editing even if SSP cases are pending. --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 07:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Contributions on AFD include "This is bullshit".

^{On Belay!}

06:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment,but knowledge of terms such as NN,speedy delete,etc. from a newbie don't automatically mean a sockpuppet.I hung round Wikipedia just watching and getting to know what the place was about for a couple of weeks before actually getting an account and editing.It's quite possible to become familiar with the terms without having made an edit. Lemon martini 16:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

While trying to track down sources for John Backus, I came across the ACM's Turing Award page here. It's pretty clear that either one biography was derived from the other, or they are derived from the same original source. Of course, I initially thought the Wikipedia article had plagiarized ACM, but looking through the edit history it seemed like our article was written by several editors in the incremental wiki-way. I then found striking similarities between Wikipedia articles and ACM biographies on other Turing laureates:

• Butler Lampson and [112]
• Niklaus Wirth and [113]
• Alan Perlis and [114]
• C.A.R. Hoare and [115]
• John McCarthy and [116] (notice the last sentence of the ACM biography and the penultimate one of this revision [117])

Something is not right here... I'm leaning toward thinking the Wikipedia articles are legit, but would like other opinions and ideas on what to do. -SpuriousQ (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget Donald Knuth and [118] - came across this one the other day. It's pretty obvious which direction the copying is taking place in.

The best thing to do would presumably simply be to remind ACM of their obligations per the GFDL. Chris Cunningham 15:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see Knuth had some {{copypaste}} warnings on it, I've gone ahead and removed those.

I sent a quick e-mail to the ACM Web Editor (contact info here) pointing out Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content and Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free_Documentation License, making clear I wasn't an official rep of Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation. If anyone is interested, I can forward you the e-mail I sent. -SpuriousQ (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hbrady (talk · contribs) / Helenbrady (talk · contribs) is Helen Brady, production assistant at WGBH [119]. Looking at the contribs, you'll see a lot of edits to Exernal Links, pairs of links to the site (four pairs is the most I've seen in a single article thus far). I'm chipping away at it but it's a slow job. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

So what? She's hardly spamming, she's creating links to freely available material hosted on the Web site of a respected American public television station. I think you're doing a grave disservice by blindly reverting every single link added. Many of them appear at first glance to be useful and informative.

FCYTravis

22:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, she's creating hundreds of links, two to an article, to material freely available on the website which employs her. Which is behaviour we usually call spamming. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, the Web site in question is advertising-free, operated by a non-profit organization and provides free access to primary source interview video clips. The links could be better-formatted, but that's what the "Edit page" button is for. Assume good faith. Especially of educational institutions. Perhaps they need to be pruned and edited - but they certainly shouldn't be blanket-reverted.

FCYTravis

23:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing more of the links, some of them appear to be perhaps not perfectly relevant, but the vast majority are external links of the highest caliber - links to freely-viewable primary source video of interviews of the article subjects, hosted and made available by the copyright owner. That's exactly the sort of external link we should be encouraging and supporting because it's relevant material that we can't publish ourselves, but is legally available for free at an external source.

FCYTravis

23:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

She should at most propose the links on the articles' talk pages. If these are links to where she works, they are COI edits, so someone else should make them instead. I agree with JzG that anyone inserting hundreds of links to their work site is spamming. 64.160.39.153 01:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

FCYTravis

02:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. That sums it up. IrishGuy ^talk 02:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Knee-jerk and inflexible application of guidelines is not necessarily in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Again, before calling this person's good-faith contributions "spam," please examine the content to which they've linked and note the fact that there is no advertising (and thus no profit motive) involved. The Web site in question is that of a major-market

FCYTravis

02:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't claim an evil plot and I don't see a disjunction between good faith and spam (Wikipedia is full of good-faith spamming). And there is no requirement that spam be commercial. These links all have to be evaluated according to the criteria of

Gratis versus Libre for the distinction. They are streaming videos (no obvious way for the user to download a permanent copy) that are PBS copyrighted and they don't appear licensed to permit re-use. If there is free (libre) video available about these topics we should upload it to Commons and not need extlinks. While this no-charge stuff is certainly preferable to typical commercial stuff, it's only partway toward what we're trying to develop. 64.160.39.153

03:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct, but at this point we don't have the capability to develop such content and, as far as I know, nobody's even really trying. Until there's a quality "Wikivideo" project which can provide GFDLed, professionally-produced video clips of journalistic interviews with noted figures in world history, a PBS source is preferable to any other, and certainly better than nothing. Nowhere did I say that all the links should be kept - certainly we should review them and there's overkill in a couple places. But neither should we, as the topic heading suggests, simply blanket-revert them.

FCYTravis

05:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm not persuaded that having PBS links all over the place is better than having nothing. We're writing a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit and re-use, not an online PBS catalog. Our

WP:EL strategy is quite explicit: if we don't have something, then we should get by without it until we do have it, rather than linking to it externally from an article, unless it represents a unique resource beyond what we would supply in a hypothetical feature-quality expansion of the article. Maybe some of these PBS videos meet that standard. I'd favor a mass reversion followed by possible careful selection.

I also don't have any respect for the concept that "professional" video is better than what we can make ourselves. A main point of wiki philosophy is that by working together and continually improving our materials, we can write an encyclopedia that's as good as--make that better than--the ones that professionals write, and also there should be no distinction between those reading the encyclopedia and those creating it (they are the same people). However, I'd agree that shooting video interviews with news figures is more in the mission of wikinews than the encylopedia part of the wiki project. I have a camcorder; maybe I'll look through some of the videos on that list and see if any of the interview subjects live near me and will let me interview them. Alternatively, perhaps we can approach PBS and ask if they'll license some of their videos compatibly with the GFDL so we can use them directly. If they won't do that, it shows that PBS's philosophy is different from ours and we shouldn't be linking to their stuff indiscriminately. 64.160.39.153

07:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Redneck16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Con-61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Republicanpolitics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. Glfootball92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. 69.246.150.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

All seem to be the same person, and seem, for some reason, to be defending

00:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

They're also harassing User:Gilliam... -- Scientizzle 00:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Issued final warnings to Con-61 and Redneck16. THe other three had edits to the now deleted article, but nothing as severe as the first two. I'd push for an indef block as vandal only accounts upon next infraction. -- Merope 00:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If any blocking happens, don't forget Kumarpatel (talk · contribs) - created by Con-61 a little while ago, although that account hasn't made any edits yet. Natalie 02:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I came back from Wikibreak to find what appears to be a personal attack, [120] can someone comment? Dreadlocke ☥ 01:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ignore it and the editor who left it unless it happens again. Cla68 03:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Dreadlocke ☥ 03:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Editor Ali doostzadeh [121] is stalking rv'ing to prevent clean-up of derrogatory and libelous statements in violation of [122] ([123], [124]) Barefact 03:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I am just r.v.'ing to the original author of the article. Further comments needs to be discussed in the talk page. --alidoostzadeh 03:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The response of [User:Ali_doostzadeh] also demonstrates the extent of the stalking. Barefact 03:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin Dbachmann packed an article about biography of a living schiolar with derrogatory and libelous POVs, in violation of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons, and ignoring calls for a balanced and respectable views ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._S._Amanzholov ). Barefact 03:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no obvious problems with this article. This is a content dispute that does not belong here. Please discuss it on

civil. Sandstein

06:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack

IP address (24.187.112.28) used aggression, vulgar, and belittling comments towards another individual (SWF Senior Trainer). Please refer to user 24.187.112.28 Talk Page. I believe proper warnings should be issued! 72.189.144.249 03:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You can issue warnings, see

WP:UTM Viridae^Talk

03:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that I protected the page that 24.187.112.28 and another user are arguing over. --Deskana (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

At 10:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC), I requested semi-protection for page

04:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's still vandalism. That it's being done by the article's subject is irrelevant. Report the IP at

WP:AIV if it continues past warnings. —bbatsell ¿? ✍

04:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverted some nonsense that managed to survive on that page for several hours -- a bit disappointing to see that, but I'll try to keep an eye on it for now. Would sprotection be a good idea, here? If the staff (or whoever this is) keep coming back, it may be called for, I'm thinking. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh... I see this has been going on for awhile. I'll see if I can sort it out a bit better, later. For now, I'm giving it semi. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Felt a bit psycho reloading my watchlist so often to see if it had been vandalised yet again...

Seo75

09:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please have a look at This? It is highly suspected that there is merit to the possible sockpuppetry of some users here, and it might be good to have an RFCU. Can anybody offer help or advice on this? Thanks! Shervink 09:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

If you think checkuser would be beneficial, you can certainly request one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I requested a CU [126]. Shervink 10:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

I'm not sure if this situation warrants a request for checkuser or not. I think it probably does, but figured I could just ask here. Over the last 2 weeks, multiple users, or usernames at least, have been attempting to insert information about a police officer who may or may not exist in Minnesota. 9 articles have been deleted. Several others have had information removed. It seems like every time an article or mention is deleted, a new username appears to recreate or reinsert with misleading edit summaries like 'miss spell', 'word order', or 'wording'. So far, the following is what I've been able to put together.

Users (creation date)

• BARKLEY J (talk · contribs) (3-22-07)
• Garagehh (talk · contribs) (3-21-07)
• NickOwnes (talk · contribs) (3-21-07)
• Burnsvillemike (talk · contribs) (3-8-07)
• DeaninDetroit (talk · contribs) (3-18-07)
• Joeinalabama (talk · contribs) (3-20-07)
• Billrusslen (talk · contribs) (3-18-07)
• Parkermax (talk · contribs) (3-8-07)
• NateinFlorida (talk · contribs) (3-18-07)
• Gregwolen (talk · contribs) (3-18-07)
• Seaninwashington (talk · contribs) (3-20-07)
• Carlostexas (talk · contribs) (3-21-07)
• Gregsteres (talk · contribs) (3-18-07)
• Timwiller (talk · contribs) (3-21-07)
• Glenwolling (talk · contribs) (3-21-07)
• Dr.Shartell (talk · contribs) (3-21-07)
• JamesinNevada (talk · contribs) (3-18-07)
• 66.41.155.45 (talk · contribs)

Pages created

• Michael Satter - deleted 6 times since March 8.
• Mike Satter - 1 time
• Michael (Mike) Satter - 1 time
• Michael Satter Minnesota Law Enforcement - Probation - 1 time

Other articles information or pictures has been added to

• National Institute of Corrections
• Police training officer
• United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
• Police
• Lords of the Underground - I guess he wanted to be a rapper on the 11th...
• Bulletproof vest
• Prison
• Norm Coleman

I guess I'm just confused about whether a checkuser would be declined because it's too obvious, but I'd like to root out any other socks that have already been created and think that might be considered a fishing trip. Either way, none of the above have been blocked yet, and I'm pretty sure that they've done enough collective damage to justify a block at least. Sorry for the excessive section length. Thanks ahead of time for any advice or help. --Onorem 10:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to waste a checkuser's time with this, these quack about as loud as it gets. The obvious socks have been blocked indefinitely and the puppetmaster for a week. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I thought it might be obvious enough to keep checkuser out of it. I'll keep my eye out for others that appear with a high quack ratio and report them straight to

WP:AIV. --Onorem

11:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Reuploader of CP images

DoctorJimmy has been uploading images previously deleted for not having a license and others that are obviously copyrighted. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I opened a SSP case against

22:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

I think his response violates

WP:NPA. Pete.Hurd

14:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Socks?

21:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Looks like I've no need to bring this to SSP...If anyone cares to know,

talk · contribs) was eventually unblocked, but it's worth reading the unblock request, questions & evidence on Malber's talk page. -- Scientizzle

17:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

family dispute? How to do this?

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

Honestly, what is there to do about this? I'm sort of at a loss. They're both minors, and the IP is AOL, so its easy for 512 to evade. Any IP blocks inevitably end up catching JohnnyAlbert in them, which means time and inconvenience for him while we figure it out and unblock him.

01:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to do an IP block with an exception? In other words, whitelist a user so that the IP blocking won't effect them? (If not, it should be.) --

talk

01:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

If you block 512 by name can't JohnnyA use the secure servers?

Thatcher131

02:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Thatcher131

03:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with how AOL works, does it ever begin recycling IP's? i.e. can we block enough of them for whatever particular node that 512 is on, that when his IP cycles again it goes back to a blocked one?

^{On Belay!}

04:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

According to the younger brother, they already got into a fight over it.

^{On Belay!}

15:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

See above. Betacommand's bot went on a rampage of removing perfectly proper external links, mostly to archived usenet posting on Google. The bot was shut down, and the bot's approval was yanked, and Betacommand did manually revert some of the damage, but there are HUNDREDS of such links that were removed from articles. And I simply do not find that the vast majority of these were anything other than important links that supported the article. And in removing the links in this fashion he leaves broken sentences and similar. Basically ALL of these edits were destructive. And they lacked the bot flag too. Look at everthing before around 1734 March 21st on here; [129] -- It is a HUGE mess. --BenBurch 04:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

A lot of categories were also deleted. Among them many Assessment categories. I side with BenBurch. Just too much incorrect deletions. Total revert, and then someone else can try again if he/she wants. --

WikiProject Television

) 04:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I didn't go back farther than that, except to see this scary research (kudos to

Betacommand

for this, at least), chilling in all respects, how ever you feel about external links

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

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

that is a data scipt that I was testing for BetacommandBot as a purely statistical function. if you look under

talk • contribs • Bot

) 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

It seems you guys want a mass rollback, I have the code in my monobook.js if anyone wants to find it or I can run a mass rollback. (this will loose a lot of good spam link removals though)

talk • contribs • Bot

) 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

IPs from the same block (219.88.0.0/16) are now hopping in to the article talk page (Talk:Hans Reiser) and twice have inserted the content repeatedly along with claims that "The Jews" keep removing the info ([130] for example).

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

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

Other suggestions?

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

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

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

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

14:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been following a user who has been persistently linking to realitybabble.com, and reverting the additions as spamming, and requesting that the user discuss the link in the talk pages. So far they have not done so, and have persisted in adding the link. The user was

15:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

15:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Anybody just have a look at recent changes and catch sight of

15:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

We are not required to add truthful material. Only verifiable material as it says in

WP:V. So that user is actually making a staement in line with policy. Its a weird Wiki world aint it? 8-)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.8.166 (talk • contribs

)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway, I feel I have a conflict of interest with this user based on mutual involvement with the AFDs, so I'd appreciate someone else taking action.

15:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

After looking over the contributions and the two posts on this page, I gave the user a 48 hour block for the following reasons: bad faith afd nominations, incivility, and possible

point violations.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk)

15:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

My auto AFD tool is broken, but it would be a good idea for someone to go through his contribs and mass nominate all the pageant contestants and song contest contestants he's created, nearly none of them have any notability whatsoever, and a handful don't even try to assert notability.

^{On Belay!}

15:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that the same user has been blocked on several occasions[132] on the Swedish Wikipedia for similar behavior, the last is a month long block. Something he also complained about by calling it censorship[133]. He has also been found creating sock puppets [134][135]. --Strangnet 16:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

N.B. A similar page to the one I thought it was copyvio of, [136], was made copyright free by Vithoulkas after the deletion. This, of course, doesn't affect things at time of deletion, but is worth noting. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

deletion review. If this and this are to be believed, it may be a moot point anyway. MastCell ^Talk

03:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Possibly they view the discussion about whether this chap is notable/a crank insulting, and are presumably taking the line that "No article, no insulting discussion". Per

WP:BLP, we should do no harm, and this chap is hardly notable, if at all: then again, Daniel Brandt is still around, as we all know. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?}

20:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. She's been pointed to

Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). .. dave souza, talk

22:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand as BAG

Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Approvals_group#Betacommand

I just discovered the new round concern over

05:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've posted one possible case of conflict of interest, but have not looked into it more deeply to see if there is any other evidence. See

Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Approvals_group#Betacommand. -- RM

13:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion that would be most appropriate elsewhere. Please continue this discussion at

13:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

I have to make a note here I have not withdrawn I have stepped aside and become inactive as a BAG member until a future date.

talk • contribs • Bot

) 01:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE

He's now making legal threats: [137] (this makes it easier to read) I've changed two things he objected to on my talk page to an exact quote, and a more exact paraphrase of his argument since this, but I somehow doubt it'll placate him. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I would like to provide more detail about
  WP:NLT, after which he continues to make legal threats: [141] and [142]. I am becoming very concerned about this situation, and I would appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could intervene. Thanks! Skinwalker
  16:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm a hawk when it comes to fighting legal threats but to me it seems like he's skirting just outside the realm of what warrants an instant ban. Let us know here if he crosses the line solidly. I'll drop a note to stop even alluding to a possible lawsuit. --Golbez 16:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

• Sorry to be a bit slow, have just noticed this [143] "Dave, i'm just letting you know Adam inserts FALSE information on Vithoulkas' WP page, obviously intentionally. Just a friendly note, WP and Adam himself can be sued for this. Hope you resolve the situation.Homeopathic 16:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)" which is perhaps superseded by later events. One thing Adam's not picked out from the interview which was the source of the contested views, it indicates that Vithoulkas has fallen out with "his students from the UK in the 1980s", which may explain a bizarre comment by an anon supporter of Vithoulkas on my talk page at 13:08, 19 March 2007: "it seems that you have sided with the wrong guys". There appear to be rival factions in the homeopathy world. .. dave souza, talk 20:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate: if there are no

have an article about him? MastCell ^Talk

23:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Well then, I don't say this to

WP:PROF. Given the hullaballoo surrounding the page of late, it would seem there has been plenty of time to produce such sources, so their lack is telling. But as it's protected currently I'm not sure whether it can or should be re-listed. MastCell ^Talk

15:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

• I agree with the above, so have boldly initiated
  unsigned comment was added by JzG (talk • contribs
  ) 16:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

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

The problem with salting it is that it's possible that actual

22:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

(Nonsense comment deleted)

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

The nominator is a self-professed employee of the

16:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

WT:COI. -- Avi

16:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Grace,

assuming good faith is also one of our policies. Perhaps looking atsome of the conversation before accusations are levied would help. Thank you. -- Avi

02:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

If it helps quell any doubts to say this, my impartiality has earned enough respect that I recently got solicited

assume good faith toward the intentions of all who have been involved. We're here to create an encyclopedia, not to wage the world's disputes. Durova^Charge!

01:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Editor says she is a Hamas representative

An issue has arisen with a new editor,

). She says on her user page: "I am an official of the Palestinian authority and a member of Hamas' political public relations division; I am an official representative of the authority in the online field." And on her talk page: "I am an official of the Palestinian Authority. I am authorised to answer your questions about Palestine."

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

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

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

Notify the foundation, request confirmation via OTRS, and revert any COI edits on sight?

^{On Belay!}

17:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Furthermore the editor has stated that she is acting in an official capacity, [144], and that she isn't just editing wikipedia as a hobby.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Furthermore is anyone else troubled by the fact that she refers to herself as "one of [the] Palestine's National Authority representatives here on Wikipedia" and goes to refer to her "duties", [145]. If this editor is being truthful about her affiliations the aforementioned statement seems to have at least two serious implications- First, that she is but one person that has been delegated to represent a particular government on wikipedia. Secondly, that the job actually carries specific duties. Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but this seem very disconcerting to me.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

It's true that it's a bit of a paradox that when people disclose, we tell them they can't edit in certain areas, but it's not clear how else to handle it. For example, we don't want professional PR people for certain companies editing those companies' articles, and if they do, they have to be extra cautious; that is the point of the

WP:COI guideline. Given Asucena's edits, she's not being cautious at all; quite the reverse. So the question remains how best to deal with it. Of course, we don't yet know that she really is a PR person for the Palestinian Authority. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

23:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that we only block people for their (mis)conduct, not their professional affiliations, or have I missed something in

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

22:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grace and Moshe, comments such as the ones above, besides being violations

WP:COI. -- Avi

14:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's all take a breath and calm down

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

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