Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

• If you cannot edit this page, it may be protected. Please leave a message here instead.

Justanother checkuser case

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Justanother.

The above checkuser case has just confirmed that Alfadog (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Justanother (talk · contribs).

Two weeks ago this editor used the Alfadog account to evade a weeklong block on Justanother. Arguably, he may also have been using the Alfadog account to tread the margins of an arbitration remedy. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS placed all Scientology-related articles on parole. In rejecting his unblock request, a reviewing administrator cited his use of IP addresses as possibly gaming the arbitration ruling.

I have had conflicts with Justanother before and was recently warned to tread lightly. So I ask for an uninvolved administrator to review this situation and determine whether additional remedies are appropriate at this time. It is my desire to adhere strictly to site standards, so please inform me if anything I've done here is questionable. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the result was "Confirmed - Hulk is Alfadog. Justanother hasn't edited at all recently, but if those IPs are known Justanother IP ranges, then yyes. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 04:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)"

Granted it's still very likely, I wouldn't say it was confirmed. -- Ned Scott 05:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

JustaHulk is an admitted sock of Justanother. This is an alternate account of User:Justanother. --Justanother 21:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC). Cirt (talk) 05:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Alfadog blocked indef. Viridae^Talk 05:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Community ban proposal

I recommend banning Justallofthem. Justanother has caused more than their fair share of trouble around this wiki, and I think this socking shows that our good faith has been gamed. Jehochman ^Talk 11:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Justanother posted 5 separate unblock requests for the block that he evaded on the Alfadog account.[1][2][3][4][5] In some of those diffs you'll see he's calling administrators idiots. That is in keeping with his general conduct. Here's a condescending post he made during the same block, where he explains the fine points of a crude insult he had posted in January: Durova dear, you are misintepreting (again). I called WikiNews a crack whore, not Cirt. Surely that should be clear from the title of the post "WikiNews is a crack whore". How you twist that around to me comparing Cirt to a crack whore is beyond me.[6] Well, maybe I had been persuaded by another of Justanother's IPs where he made the connection Are you on drugs, Cirt?[7] I consider this conduct to be highly disruptive and wasteful of good volunteers' time. Cirt is one of the site's most productive content contributors; he's one of only two editors who have earned the Alexander the Great edition triple crown (15 DYKs, 15GAs, 15 pieces of featured content). Justanother's positive contributions have been minimal. I hear that he was helpful at a mediation about a year ago. He has contributed no DYKs, no GAs, no featured content, was one of the principal reasons why Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS couldn't be resolved at the community level and had to go to arbitration, and appears to have abandoned his main account in favor of sockpuppets. I tried to help mentor him for a DYK recently and he just didn't follow through with it. His main account user space claims to be on Wikibreak for personal reasons, but clearly that is not true. He's actively using the undisclosed Alfadog account plus IP addresses.[8][9] 9 IPs were listed at the checkuser; it is unknown how many others he may also have used. I'll recuse myself from any opinion about a ban, but suggest at minimum that he be restricted to one account. It's cumbersome to track so many socks, and the checkuser makes it definite that he has not been acting in good faith. Durova^Charge! 17:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping you would provide the backstory, Durova. Justanother has been bothering Cirt for a long time. We should put a firm stop to this behavior. Now that socks have been used, there is no point in further attempts at mentorship. Jehochman ^Talk 19:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I was the admin who threw that weeklong block on Justanother (my first major admin act, I think). Looking at that Checkuser, it's time to end this foolishness. Past time, actually. Endorsing Jehochman's proposal. Blueboy96 20:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have received a request from Justanother asking that his message be posted here. An uninvolved admin can decide what to do. Jehochman ^Talk 20:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi JH

If you and Durova insist on continuing with this community ban silliness 
that will only lead to my filing an arb case and everyone wasting more time, 
would you at least please have the common courtesy to unblock my Alfadog 
account so that I can try to save all of us the bother by addressing this 
now at AN.

Barring that, then please post this request at AN in the thread.

Thanks
JA

• Endorse the above Community ban proposal per Jehochman (talk · contribs). I am relieved that this harassment and disruptive behavior is being addressed. Cirt (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Clarification regarding Justanother's statement: I have not requested or endorsed a community ban on Justanother; I have recused myself from that aspect of the discussion. All I have asked is that he be restricted to one account. His main account has not been blocked and he offers no rationale for declining to use it, other than the false rationale that he's on break. Durova^Charge! 20:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Response from Justanother

First, I am not evading a block. Justanother is not blocked and I have the right to create an account and to edit. I am going to keep this short. For the TL;DR version please see User talk:Alfadog#Unblock. My User:Alfadog account is a legitimate account in accordance with WP:SOCK. There was no breach of policy (other than a minor issue of (4) innocuous edits three weeks ago that played no part in the checkuser request) and the checkuser should have been declined. Once the connection was made no sanction was warranted other than perhaps a warning about the incident three weeks ago. End of story. If you want more data please look at the talk page thread I link to above. If someone wants to community ban me (without providing one diff or evidence of previous WP:DR, I see) then we can have a more extensive discussion. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's time for a community uprising regarding sockpuppets. Wikipedia is not a role playing game. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps. But that is not what the WP:SOCK policy says. And, in fact, it would seem to be encouraging a certain amount of role-playing. And isn't that what so many of us do here anyway, with our common anonymity and clever usernames - ex. Durova as the heroine of some Russian war or other, etc. etc. And let's not forget that fellow with the fake degrees - forgot his name. All playing roles. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • As I said, it's time for a community uprising. Pick a username and stick to it; one should be enough for the vast majority of users. You want to campaign against pseudonymity, I'd be the first to stand behind you. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Wikinews

This 'user' turned up on Wikinews quite some time ago and was highly disruptive. I am glad I have been pointed at his comment here, describing our project as a 'crack whore', I will know what is appropriate action to take should he resurface on Wikinews again.

His contributions on Wikinews amounted to being disruptive, and the most charitable thing that could be said is "he was as productive as a hamster on a treadmill". He collectively and individually insulted almost every editor on the project - including some who have written hundreds of articles. --Brian McNeil /^talk 11:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Justa<Whatever>'s contributions on Wikinews started with this [10], characterising Cirt as a prolific POV pusher. He went on to place notice of this message on the talk pages of myself and Cirt (at that time operating under the username Wilhelm - subsequently renamed for cross-wiki consistency).

In this edit he responds to another administrator, Skenmy, by implying that Cirt's work to take articles here on Wikipedia to featured status is questionable, and that a second news article covering Scientology related issues was "abuse".

My own edits following contact with someone from the Church of Scientology were described as lacking journalistic integrity in the edit summary here. JustaHulk went on to undo the revert of his edits to this when he did not have all the emails I had received from this source at his disposal. In this situation the article was delayed for over a week while I - very politely - tried to get an official statement from CoS. None was forthcoming, and in the entire email exchange that I based the article upon I continually stressed that I was a journalist. Only a fool would have responded in such arrogant terms that "Anonymous will be stopped" to someone representing themselves as a journalist and not expect to see it in print. It is also an out-and-out lie to specify that it was repeatedly stated that as a source the woman in question was inappropriate. It was stated once. There was no point to further communication when she tried to backpedal faster than a hamster on a treadmill.

JustaHulk has completely lost any shelter that could normally be claimed under WN:AGF due to his utter lack of constructive contributions and the apparent war against someone who has closely studied project rules and guidelines, then made an effort to stick within them. The only points in his favour are that he has not created sockpuppets on Wikinews, or edited from CoS IP addresses (Per CheckUser). However, he has repeatedly questioned the integrity of the project and its contributors as well as making use of Jimmy Wales' page on Wikipedia to seriously insult the project.

Were he in the position I suspect he is and have close ties with the CoS he could have productively contributed to Wikinews by arranging contacts who were qualified and sanctioned to give statements to the press. He has made no effort towards this and simply provoked the ire of contributors and administrators by being disruptive and attempting to interfere with the freedom of the press. He began using the term "cyberterrorism" very early on in his war against Wikinews' coverage, at a time when none of the mainstream media had touched on this and it was solely the POV of the church. I have no faith in him being able to reform, and when his current block on Wikinews expires it will be replaced with a permanent block if he continues harassment and interference with the news reporting process. --Brian McNeil /^talk 11:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Brian, while I am sure that everyone here is very interested in this topic and would love to read thousands of words on it, I really do not think this (Wikipedia) is the forum to further discuss my opinion of Wikinews and of yours and Dragonfire1024's "journalistic integrity". I have already tried that route and while it did get Jimbo's attention and his request for y'all to try to do a bit better, I think I have that played one out. However, all this renewed interest in me has has woken me up to a degree and I will present my thoughts in a more appropriate forum this evening. Until then, have a nice day. For those here that are interested, I will post the link to my remarks later. Thank you all. --Justallofthem (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It will be most entertaining to see how you can justify referring to an entire Wikimedia Foundation project as a "crack whore". Nobody cares if you're going to make more generalised accusations against respected contributors. That counts for nothing and is just furtherance of the disruption that got you listed here in the first place and blocked on Wikinews. You owe myself, a number of other Wikinews editors, and Jimmy Wales, an apology. Your default response to criticism wherein you question the motives of contributors and critics is getting a little long in the tooth. You are the one who is on probation, required to list your sockpuppets, and owes apologies all round. The people you are disparaging are respected within the community. --Brian McNeil /^talk 12:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not think you would find it "most entertaining" at all and, based on your performance here, you seem to quite hold it against me. You do not think I can make the case? I already did that. What did Jimbo tell you in his email to you, I would be curious to know. But this latest piece of work I see over there just reinforces my case. I hold all of you, as a community, responsible for what you publish and if you trample journalistic integrity and professionalism to indulge your sophomoric interest in the latest meme - bashing Scientology - then you can expect at least one person to call you on that. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Restrictions placed

As an uninvolved administrator in this matter, I have placed Justanother/Justallofthem/whatever, under the following restrictions:

1. Identify all accounts you have operated or continue to operate
2. Choose one of those accounts to edit from
3. All other accounts are to be indefinitely blocked
4. If other cases of sockpuppetry are found, that account is indefinitely blocked, and the primary account is to be blocked for a finite period of time
5. Three strikes, you're banned

—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This wasn't the issue. Find a better solution to the behavior.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine for now, I will stick with this one for the little editing I do. I reserve the right to pursue WP:DR based on the fact that there is no evidence of significant wrongdoing presented here that warrants such restriction, simply the statements of a few that have an ax to grind. --Justallofthem (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds simple enough to me, I definitely support this given the evidence. Wizardman 04:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I kinda miss the "evidence" but OK as I state above. --Justallofthem (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

More than fair, I Endorse MBisanz ^talk 04:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 04:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• I support this user being tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail. In the meantime the above restrictions will do. I have zero faith in his ability to stick to them and stop stalking Cirt. --Brian McNeil /^talk 11:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Meh. I already stopped being concerned about Cirt and his "misson" some time ago and so stated on my user page. Any recent activity between between Cirt and I that might be called "stalking" has been quite the other way round, this case being a prime example. But that is an argument for another place and time. --Justallofthem (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• So Justallofthem is the one account you've chosen to keep? Please list the others, pursuant to Ryulong's requirements, or link to where you've provided a list if you've already done so. Durova^Charge! 17:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse these solutions provided he provides the required list of all alternate accounts and only edits from one. Also, it should be noted that complying with these requirements would not preclude a block for another reason, such as edit warring or disruption or some such... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Well, my accounts are already known; Justanother, Justahulk, Alfadog, and now Justallofthem. The first two have been disabled for some time and the other is blocked, leaving me only this one. So I will use it for the time being. Again, there is not evidence of misuse of a sock with Alfadog or with any of my accounts for that matter and they are all legit accounts under WP:SOCK and I intend to seek to overturn this. But if this is what the consensus is at this place and time - in disregard of the facts of the case and without the offering or review of evidence then I will not waste more of my time or yours here. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • For reference, compare his assertion above Again, there is not evidence of misuse of a sock with Alfadog or with any of my accounts for that matter and they are all legit accounts under WP:SOCK to my explanation to him one day ago of precisely how he violated WP:SOCK, WP:BLOCK and an arbitration decision.[11] I have done my utmost to extend good faith, but this editor's continued refusal to even acknowledge checkuser-confirmed policy violations is disheartening. I hope Justallofthem complies with the current restrictions. In case he does not, I will no longer seek leniency on his behalf. He neither acknowledges nor appreciates the effort. Durova^Charge! 19:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • "this editor's continued refusal to even acknowledge" - Don't be silly, Durova; I have on multiple occasions acknowledged, and to you specifically, that I was guilty of the, IMO, misdemeanor of making four (4) minor WP:RCP maintenance edits with the Alfadog account - certainly no crime against the project. And that was three weeks ago. "neither acknowledges nor appreciates the effort" - I never asked for your "help" Durova, which as far as I can see, consists mainly of misinterpreting and defaming me on behalf of your "client", Cirt. And I mean going back quite awhile, not just this incident. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Cross-project wikistalking

Justanother/Justahulk/Alfadog/Justallofthem's response to Ryulong's sanction has been to follow Cirt to another Wikiproject. This diff demonstrates Justa(whatever) went over to Wikinews where Cirt is a respected contributor and disrupted an article Cirt was editing. As Brianmc notes above (he's an admin a bureaucrat minor correction --Brian McNeil /^talk 15:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC) on Wikinews), this has been a problem on Wikinews before. As the revision history shows, Cirt scrupulously avoided further edits to that article where he had been active. This is in direct contradiction to Justallofthem's claim at this thread Meh. I already stopped being concerned about Cirt and his "misson" some time ago and so stated on my user page.[12] Durova^Charge! 00:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Also (I just saw this), Justallofthem's statement directly above I never asked for your "help" Durova, which as far as I can see, consists mainly of misinterpreting and defaming me on behalf of your "client", Cirt. is highly uncivil. I have never defamed Justallofthem, and Cirt is by no means any "client" of mine. When a siteban was already on the table at this thread, I sought a lighter remedy than Ryulong actually applied. Justallofthem, please retract the insult. Durova^Charge! 00:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

How is that an insult? You are pleading his case again and misrepresenting and defaming me again right here. I made good faith edits there with nice edit summaries (though I was a bit sharp on a user talk page with an editor/admin that continually reinserted unsourced and incorrect speculation and has a history of putting POV stuff in articles) - not my problem that they have little interest in corrections that do not come from "approved" (read "critic of Scientology") editors. What are you going to do, Durova? Follow me around and miscast all my edits? Who is doing the stalking now? --Justallofthem (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If Justallofthem refuses to acknowledge the derogatory nature of his statements, then I am at a loss for how resolve this without administrative intervention. His Wikinews account has been blocked for 31 hours by Ral315 for Incivility, harassment.[13] Since this is cross-Wiki harassment in the immediate aftermath of a Wikipedia sanction, it is reasonable to mention it here. His own explicit declaration here that the harassment has ended practically demands that contravening evidence be presented, since he generates the evidence on the heels of the avowal. Durova^Charge! 02:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Justanother (talk · contribs)'s very first post on January 23, 2008 to Wikinews was to harass me: Prolific POV-pusher moving from Wikipedia to WikiNews. Multiple editors on Wikinews backed up my contributions as appropriate with comments such as: basically you are the only one who is objecting to one users very good article contributions, there have been no other complaints and our readership is going up because of it so basically i see no problem at all with these contributions, "JustaHulk" on Wikinews continued to harass me and even go so far as to make unfounded "Comment on cyberterrorism". Finally, Bawolff (talk · contribs) had to step in and comment: This thread is going nowhere. To me it looks like no one is agreeing with JustaHulk except for himself, and Bawolff then followed up with: Ignore him. no good comes from feeding the trolls. Cirt (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Laff. I actually looked at the Scientology article (or a related one) and saw the Wikinews insert there and followed it to see this newest "news flash", n:Church of Scientology's 'Operating Thetan' documents leaked online. I made a few good faith corrections of blatant wrongnesses and misinterpretations in the article in the interest of helping out over there and got blocked for my efforts. There is little interest in the truth on that side as I have mentioned in the past. They are not even true to common sense or their own sources. (ex - saying that Hubbard smuggled OT 8 off the ship in 1991 (see the source, page 523) when he died in 1986: "Despite that, Hubbard himself claims to have smuggled out his own 'OT8' instructions for the "elite" Scientologists." Or insisting that this material is brand new when the very Wikileak source page says it was previously available on bittorrent and I d/l'ed on January 23 (it is actually a Freezone mashup and much older than that). But the sentiment there is apparently "don't confuse us with the obvious truth". More fool me for even caring about whether they get it right or no. And more fool me for rising to bait. --Justallofthem (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

But nobody baited you at Wikinews; you went over there and got yourself blocked all on your own. Cirt completely avoided the article once you showed up and started disrupting it. Durova^Charge! 02:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, I went over there all on my own. Not following Cirt. And if you can find the blockable offenses over there other than a minor incivility on a user talk page then I would be happy to see them. I made a few good faith edits, that's about it. The more fool me is my rising to your interminable misrepresentation of my every edit. Do you intend to stop any time soon? --Justallofthem (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You wouldn't know "good faith" if it was strapped to the front of an eighteen wheel semi and used to repeatedly run you over. You live in your own little bizarre Scientology world where you apply the Church's doctrine of deriding and attacking anyone and anything that dares criticise or disagree with you. I've read confidential Red Cross reports on the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, were you there? The RC roundly condemned CoS involvement characterising their involvement as more of a hindrance than a help. Where people needed blankets and clean drinking water they were given leaflets and "touch assists". --Brian McNeil Comment struck. --Brian McNeil /^talk 10:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

/^talk 15:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Wow, Brianmc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), that is quite a nice little bigoted rant. Good to know that, as a Wikinews 'crat, you are upholding the neutrality and professionalism of that project and representing here. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Brian, although I thank you for coming to my defense, suggest you refactor? At issue is Justanother's onsite conduct, not his whole religion. Editors can judge for themselves whether his conduct sheds a favorable light on the faith. Durova^Charge! 04:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Per your remark, I struck my above comment as it was an ill-judged rant. It is easy to forget that Wikipedia tries to be "more gentle" than Wikinews and people will be mediated to death instead of taken behind the chemical sheds and shot. JustaHulk is due to have his block on Wikinews expire shortly and I have posted my considered thoughts on WN:AAA (see here). I am concerned that here on Wikipedia he continues to deny any policy violation and questions the integrity of those granted the Checkuser privilege. This latter point is a grave allegation and should be taken to the Ombudsman. --Brian McNeil /^talk 12:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, both for the strikethrough and for your help. Durova^Charge! 18:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Justmyluck

Sigh. Jehochman ^Talk 02:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

How so? Hey, I accepted Ryulong's solution even though I felt it was unjustified. If Durova can climb off her horse for a bit we could all move on. --Justallofthem (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

List of JustaHulk's sockpuppets

This section has been created for Justa<whatever> to list his sock puppets. I would like to propose that if such a list is not forthcoming within a couple of days he be permanently banned for refusing to cooperate. List should include userpage, talk, block, and contribution links. --Brian McNeil /^talk 15:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Screw those restrictions. Find another solution. I see now that sockpuppetry wasn't the heart of the issue and my restrictions probably would not have done well. I am removing myself from this nonsense, but if you people want to still keep him restricted to a single account, so be it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ryulong, that was quite an admirable step on your part to realize and acknowledge that there was no abusive sockpuppetry going on. I don't often see people here so readily step back. --Justallofthem (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Can we just ban him already? Stalking, harassing, sockpuppeting, violating ArbCom remedies, avoiding blocks ...? Are his contributions so useful that we should tolerate this? -- Naerii 10:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, we might want to start with some evidence and not simply the statements of Durova and Cirt, and to a lessor degree Jehochman, and then we can go from there. Because if we look fairly at recent evidence we might see that Cirt and Durova have been stalking and harassing me - not the other way round. So I welcome diffs and discussion of diff as opposed to unsupported and generalized condemnations. --Justallofthem (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• I should further mention that I also welcome simply undoing the block on Alfadog and all of us moving on. The checkuser on that account should have been declined and the account should not have been blocked based on the evidence to hand at the time. A violation was uncovered during the course of this proceeding and I acknowledge that and apologized for my error. That violation had nothing to do with arb sanctions or much of anything - simply that I performed four (4) minor WP:RCP housekeeping edits within a few hours of receiving a one-week block. I really do not recall why, prolly just wanting to see if the account still worked. So if we want to just move on then fine, I really am not interested in going after Cirt and Durova, I am very semi-retired and just want to make the few edits I care to make with as little drama as possible. --Justallofthem (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• We don't need any of this. Gone. Blueboy96 12:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much. The noise to signal ratio was excessive. There is no reason to tolerate endless low-level provocation and harassment. Jehochman ^Talk 14:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Adding my thanks as well in wholehearted agreement. — Athaenara ✉ 16:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you. I've tried; I really have. Life is too short for this. Support. Durova^Charge! 18:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

ROARR!

(With thanks from Bishonen to Bishzilla for providing the header, and the admin work.) OK, this is where the "semi" in semi-retired bites me on the ass, I suppose; I can't just watch this trainwreck, however good the intentions it comes out of. It reminds me too much of the recent User:Little Stupid debacle, where a harmless sock made one harmless edit — actually a helpful edit, IMO, though YMMV — and was in consequence taken to ANI by an angry opponent and so thickly covered in vague accusations of "disruptiveness" that "uninvolved admins" briskly indefblocked him and deleted his pages, without checking for themselves; I suppose on the "no smoke without fire" or "I see the word 'disruptive' in there" principle. The Justanother case is different to the extent that it tells a longer and more complicated story — very off-putting to busy uninvolved admins, that —but it's equally full of cheaply-bought accusations of disruptiveness, and has, even to the most cursory reader, two prominent poison words sticking out: "checkuser" and "scientology", oh, my.

Full disclosure *I'm* not an uninvolved admin here. (I'm not indeed an admin at all, though I've got an admin on a leash — down, Bishzilla!) I've been following Justanother's fates on wikipedia, and I defended him to a certain extent in the RFAR/COFS case. I'm also sure I've had to do with Cirt — that familiar voice! — in some previous incarnations.There are no uninvolved admins here, certainly not Durova or Jehochman. There's a reason there aren't: it's not the kind of thread that the uninvolved can face reading. All respect to Durova and Jehochman, but especially Durova is a notable and noted Civility Hawk. Her posts above make much of certain losses of temper on the part of Justanother — I wouldn't call those uncivil, but then I'm a noted dove — and show a certain resentment at his lack of interest in Durova's own favorite projects. He was condescending — which is highly disruptive — he doesn't care about my triple crowns — he didn't follow through when I tried to mentor him for DYK. Cirt, by contrast, is exemplary in his/her attention to these matters, and is the recipient of Durova's Alexander the Great edition triple crown. The conclusion must be that "Justanother's positive contributions have been minimal." (I disagree. JA is a good contributor – we can't all live for DYKs, GAs, and Triple Crowns — people are free to focus on those aspects of contribution that interest them.) I fully respect Durova, and don't for a moment suppose that her final dying fall, "I hear that he was helpful at a mediation about a year ago", was intended as the rhetorical ploy called "damning with faint phrase", but, well, it does rather come over as the last nail in the Justanother's coffin. And yet, what kinds of things are these to base a community ban on? Durova doesn't recomment banning, either — she merely wants Justanother confined to a single account — as do I — but her post seems nevertheless to serve as the basis for the "enough is enough" outrage from others in this thread. Jehochman, the actual proposer of the community ban, refers entirely to Durova's "background", without a single fact or diff of his own: "I was hoping you would provide the backstory, Durova.[14] And when Athaenara posted her agreement with the proposed community ban, she might preferably have disclosed the old bad blood between herself and Justanother and the rather (for her) embarrassing facts over which he opposed her RFA.[15]

Altogether, the slice of the community that I see agreeing with this ban is both specialized — old adversaries, with the exception of the new admin Blueboy96, who seems to be cutting his spurs on this case, plus User:Naerii, who has swallowed Cirt's misleading hints about JA's stalking, harassing, and violating ArbCom remedies, none of which has actually happened— and extremely thin. Durova, Jehochman, Athaenara, Cirt (the original plaintiff and stout anti-scientologist), and Naerii have opined that JA needs a community ban, and on the strength of their opinions, Blueboy96 has blocked him indefinitely. The truth is that, for someone who has been here as long as JA has and edits as controversial a field as he does, JA has very few enemies. To me this suggests that he's by no means a rude fellow who aggravates people all over the place or "games our good faith" (shame on you, Jehochman, to make such a deep-dyed accusation without offering a hint of proof or example).

Blueboy96 himself expresses what looks like some pride in having gotten out his elephant shooter for his "first major admin act" on 2 March and "thrown that weeklong block on Justanother" for "using an IP to edit-war on Shawn Lonsdale and harass another user"[16]. Note that JA was removing BLP attacks by Cirt from Shawn Lonsdale, which has since been deleted in toto because of BLP concerns. In other words, if JA had been an admin performing those same actions, instead of an anonymous regular user, he would have been thanked, not blocked. (What the harassment part of the block reason was, I haven't been able to figure out: if you don't mind a word of an advice from an experienced user, Blueboy96, block reasons which supply diffs are a lot more useful to people trying to evaluate a block). On March 28, after the flimsy proceedings above, Blueboy96 followed up with indef blocks of all JA's known accounts Justanother [17], JustaHulk[18], Justallofthem[19] (I hope it's obvious that these account names are no more intended to deceive than is my own Bishonen-Bishzilla-Bishapod posse). The reasons given by Blueboy96 were "User continued disruptive behavior after block expired, including an escalation to cross-wiki stalking and harassment", "Master account has engaged in serious on- and off-wiki disruption", and "Cross-wiki stalking, harassment, sockpuppetry--enough is enough". As for the cross-wiki harassment — JA has according to Brian MacNeil above "repeatedly questioned the integrity of Wikinews and its contributors" — OK, I know nothing about Wikinews, but I do believe that it's permissible and not to be defined as harassment, to question the integrity of a project, provided one offers reasons, as JA does. The diffs offered by Brian of JA's harassment at Wikinews are [20] [21] — good heavens! Has anybody clicked on it besides me? Harassment? That? The rest of Brian's post is extremely angry but extremely vague, and those two diffs are the only basis I see for his bloodthirsty support of "this user being tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail". It's clear that there is a serious conflict underneath, but it's by no means clear to me who has the better arguments in it (please read the dialogue between JA and Brian above and see if it's clear to you. Neither of them, frankly, gives the uninformed reader much of a chance to know what they're talking about, but JA is a little more concrete.) If anybody's still reading, this recent thread on Wikinews' admin noticeboard is of interest in the context. Note Durova's input, and especially SVT Cobra's.

What has Justanother done, then, that does not dissolve, when you shine a light on it, into matters of abandoning his "DYK mentoring", or being a scientologist (this seems to be the main trouble over at Wikinews, as far as I understand Brian's posts) or having a sharp tongue and a bit of a temper (IMO often sorely tried)? Well, he has done one thing that is quite serious: he used the alfadog sock to edit while his main account was under a weeklong block. He seems to think this is nothing much, since the edits were minor and constructive —"Oh, and I made four (4) minor RCP (recent change patrol) edits the first day of my Justanother one-week block. Innocuous edits that were contributory. I don't recall why I did that under block - my bad, sorry"[22] — but he's quite wrong. Using a sock to evade a block is a big deal, not a "misdemeanour", no matter how harmless the edits are in themselves. Blocks are not supposed to be evaded under any excuse, and if we accept this instance of it just because the week-long block wasn't very well-reasoned, we're going down the slippery slope fast. Because he did this, and in order to make him see the seriousness of it, I propose that Justanother be blocked for 48 hours, including time served (which has of course already been served), and, perhaps more importantly for the community and not merely punitively, I propose that he be strictly confined to using one account only. [/me tugs, a little embarrassed, on leash of admin sock Bishzilla.] Justanother, please let me know what account, pre-existent or new, you wish to edit under from now on, and I will unblock it. Er .... I will ask Bishzilla to unblock it, I mean. [/me blushes]. Somebody will have to help her with the wretched broken autoblock tool, no doubt. And thirdly: JA has already undertaken to have as little interchange as possible with Cirt, which is proper, and I'm going to hold him to it. It does not, however, seem to me reasonable to require JA to stay away from everything Cirt edits, given the fact that Cirt is extremely productive, that anti-scientology is one of his/her big editing interests, and that JA is a scientologist. There is a natural content conflict between the two users, which I hope they will be able to resolve civilly on article talkpages.

All right. With an apology for the length of this post, I find the basis of this community ban of JA insufficient. For one thing, too few users have opined about it; for another, they're predominantly old adversaries of JA. This is not how community banning is supposed to work. I will wait an hour or so for more community input, and then, unless a real community consensus for banning forms, request Bishzilla to unblock and unban Justanother. Bishonen | talk 19:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

I disagree. This was a consensus. And you overturned that. No one admin has any right to overturn any consensus. The proof has been shown, evidence provided. I see your unban of him as borderline abuse of admin powers. DragonFire1024 (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(EC with Jehochman) I have argued carefully why I don't consider it a consensus." Looking at the timestamps, I find it hard to believe that you've taken the time to read my argument; you certainly don't reply to it. That's tantamount to offering a bald vote, with no reasoning. That's no good, you know. It doesn't inspire me to be very moved by whether you consider my actions abuse or not. Use arguments and logic and make me care, please. Bishonen | talk 19:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

I am not going to argue about your statement because I did not read it. Simple: he was banned because of what was decided here. The evidence shows and such and you overruled what was agreed upon here, a consensus. Arrangements were made that Justa(whatever) violated without any thought or care. He was banned based on those actions. He did this to himself. But you come along and say to hell with what everyone else thinks. DragonFire1024 (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Poppycock. Bishonen, like any admin, has the right to prevent a ban from taking effect. Jehochman ^Talk 19:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

While you were away, Justanother has behaved poorly. Perhaps if you keep a close eye on them, things will be better. I am glad you taking an active role again. If you want to unblock and mentor, that if fine with me. Jehochman ^Talk 19:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I incredibly doubt it. His actions show he doesn't care and that he will not change. His cross Wiki attacks prove that. Again, this is a community consensus and the unban was unjust and uncalled for. This was consensus. If he wants unbanned, then gain consensus to do so. Until then this unban was done as a result, IMHO, of favoritism. DragonFire1024 (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, in light of Bishonen's statement, I certainly won't object to the unblock. Blueboy96 20:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you little blueboy. Appreciate! 'Zilla now unblocking accounts. JustaHulk, please make sure use ONE account only and state clearly here what name use. Somebody check scary autoblocker please? bishzilla _ROARR!! 20:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

Yeah right...like this is not some kind of favoritism? Give me a break. The lot of you are totally blind. DragonFire1024 (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Bishonen normally keeps Justanother from misbehaving. While she was away, things got out of hand, but now that she has returned, I am hopeful for an improvement. Jehochman ^Talk 23:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Vote tampering and canvassing

Can somebody take an appropriate action against User:Harjk. He called for a vote to remove the "Background" section on article Religious violence in India and then canvassed other users to influence the voting (see [23][24]).

Once voting started, he modified a comment against the vote into a vote for removal of the Background section (see [25]).

Now he claims that he has a consensus when the fact is that 2 users have opposed the voting process itself and 1 user wants the entire article to be deleted. Please see Talk:Religious_violence_in_India#Voting_commenced_.28Background_section.29. This is a new user who has indulged in such activities continuously.

Additionally User:Harjk has also used fowl language against other editors (see [26])

Thanks Desione (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This is User:Harjk. It is all baseless allegations and disrupting. The issue has been already discussed at the talk page of the article. It all started when User:Desione is pushing pov forks and inappropriate stuff to the article with no reason given. Please check the history also (near to 3RR vio), he is acting against consensus and disrupting others. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 10:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, it is true that I'd informed others who had actively edited the main article. It doesn't mean that I'm canvassing them. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 10:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see there is anything wrong in this. Harjk did not change the comment of the other editor, he only changed the format which he described in his edit summary "added comment list-wise". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It was my comment. It was not a "vote" "for" the straw poll. Calling it a change is format is just plain lying. It was border line vandalism and it was when I decided the user is a troll.

I am busy these days, so I cannot provide all the diffs right now, nor arrange them nicely. I have tried to list the important ones here.

But there is no doubt that vote canvassing and trolling is all that is being done by User:Harjk. Here are some relevant ones:

1. Here is the discussion that I wanted to have. [27] Please note that I started the discussion and my edit is 13th of March, 22:50 pm - already almost 14th of March. Also note the amount of "discussion" in that section. I think one can say that it is null. Also note that "Background" section was added on 15th of march by User:Desione.
2. When I return on 17th of march, a straw poll has been started by Harjk.[28] at 6:47 am of 17th of March.
3. Then Harjk goes on to recruit favorable votes.[29][30][31] But as the guy who started the discussion, no message is given to me. The canvassing is removed later, but the message has been sent.
4. When I object to voting process, and add a comment against "vote for deletion of text by User:Ubardak because he didn't like the way it was written",[32] and strongly highlighting of that fact that voting is not a way for resolving content dipute per WP:VOTE and WP:PSD, I am reverted with summary "vandalism".[33]
5. When I give a warning (please note that I use warning templates - just to avoid being harassed over choice of words),[34] I am told that I am a "sneaky vandal",[35] and that voting is still ok and necessary, per (behold!) WP:VOTE and WP:PSD. To me, it looks like a petty attempt to mock me.
6. Then I am given the reason for poll: violation of 3RR. (I haven't even touched the article until then!) [36]
7. While "formatting", my comment is "formatted" into a vote for deletion. [37] I didn't notice it until I was notified by User:Desione.(See User_talk:Anupamsr - history was deleted so only administrators can see it).
8. I have clearly, repeatedly and from the very 1st day stated that I reject this poll because Wikipedia is not a democracy, and that a discussion is the way to resolve conflict.[38] In reply I am warned for disrupting the voting process.[39] Notice how from the guy who started the section for discussion, I am now repeatedly being accused of "causing disruption" and "vandalism". The whole scenario is enough to tell you that neither User:Otolemur_crassicaudatus nor User:Harjk want to discuss anything. They just want to rule over the article for their POV pushing.
9. Oh, and the meat-puppetry: [40][41]

After I got to know that my comment was changed into a vote "for", I arrive at the conclusion that the user is just a troll - it has all the classic signs: 1) no attempt to discuss (beside calling it a "POV fork". Please some one tell me what does it mean. What is a "POV fork"?) 2) random "formatting" for misrepresentation/outright lying 3) name calling brainlessasshole 4) trying to entice retroactive name-calling by baseless allegations of vandalism/disruption/accusing "established editors" againbad faith (I don't know how to deal with this) I simply don't have time for this!

At the end, the voting is conveniently closed without discussion, with my vote added as "for deletion", [42] even though I have clearly stated before that "it is a rejection of poll". The only discussion that happened in the whole procedure was 'whether polling should happen or not', and the guy with most comments wins.

Addition: After starting of the report here, the correction is done:[43]. Unfortunately, Wikipedia keeps history.--talk 21:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think you advocates missed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious harmony in India. Additionally, a request that you advocates refrain from WP:BF. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 06:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have no idea what this complaint is about. This isn't canvassing, and this is neither foul nor fowl language. Relata refero (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You should have told me when I switched to this alternate universe where calling asshole is not a foul language.--talk 16:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. You hadn't formed the diff properly. Well, that's certainly unacceptable language. User:Harjk, please read WP:CIVIL, and note that we take it really seriously. User:AnumpamSR, perhaps WP:WQA would be a more appropriate venue if the problem recurs. Relata refero (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that you are finally able to see that, do you see that you are almost a week late in telling him this? He was abusing on your talk page for god's sake.--talk 20:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, you're quite right. I didn't even notice. I can only suppose that my personal environment is so filled with swearing that it didn't even strike me at the time... Relata refero (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Listen, first of all, I did not personally call anyone asshole. What I meant was there are some assholes edited the article by pushing biased pov fork. I know that there are plenty of assholes editing Wikipedia. I personally try to avoid being an asshole and try to avoid getting into fights with assholes. But if I really think that some crufts to be removed, notwithstanding I will fight with my nail and teeth. What I can do now, if my phrase of asshole was stumbled/distressed someone? --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 04:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologise for the distress caused, and suggest everyone focuses on content. Which is what I suggest to all concerned. Relata refero (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Much ado about nothing, I think. I think it is better to assume good faith that Harjk's formatting change was not with devious intentions and, if User:Anupamsr feels that their vote was improperly counted as Against, they can quite easily change that vote. There may have been some amount of Canvassing but User:Harjk seems to have figured that out anyway [44] (again assume good faith). I'm no admin, but I suggest that the users go back to the talk page of the article and try and figure out what should or should not be included in the article itself. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Vote change is not the problem! It's the ad-hoc polling, and then ad-hominem attacks for taking opposite position. All with a clear pattern of misrepresentation. This is just not acceptable. When out of the blue someone starts calling you a vandal, accuses you of disruption, and discusses you with all the swear words on talk pages, and then pretends that he is a innocent in assuming I have voted for it - either he is playing politics or playing it very well. Then comes back with wiki-policies for discrediting you. I must have misread but WP:AGF doesn't state to act like a total jackass.

To begin with, I generally don't mind name-calling - it is sign of immaturity and with time people learn not to use it. That's why I didn't start this report. And I am not complaining about that.

The user is not a new-user who needs a how-to. He knows how the system works, how it can be manipulated and how he will get away with clear violation of it in the end. The repeated choice of words ("I am an established editor, you are disrupting an established editor") and tactics (using policies which don't even suggest what he wants to say etc.) to look like a guy making a point without actually making one, will show any experienced user that he is a disruptive troll who just cannot be let loose. E.g., his reply here is provocative and here he has started playing victim of "bad faith". Or, while he is calling me names on Relato's talk page, he goes on to have this "politely correct" reply on article's talk page. This isn't a child's play, and pretensions don't work. Unfortunately, I am just a vandal and disrupting asshole who he is not going to listen to.

And now that he has got an article deleted in which I contributed, all the reasons of revert warring have changed to "fork of deleted article". There is no need to assume any kind of faith here - the fact is in front of you - It is a clear way to demonstrate that you can forget about good-faith, reasoning, or anything related to actually discussing anything... and just play politics and use the magic words "POV fork" to alienate untrained reader to your side.

Or you know what, may be both of them are right. That is the way things are done. I should learn how to be aggressive and start using magic words every now and then. Did you learn that, you POV pusher vandalising disrupting sockpuppet of $*%$#&# :)--talk 20:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• It is very clear and in front of everyone that who is disrupting whom with all magical words and WP:ABF. It is all about regarding the deleted article nominated by me that you have edited. It was against WP:RS and WP:CRUFT. If you had known the policy of Jimmy Wales that “Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information, you wouldn’t contrib this kind of crufts. Again my advice to you is take off some time and read WP:AGF and WP:5P. Hope it helps. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 04:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have asked the deleting admin to comment on your understanding.[45] Either you are right or wrong. If you are right, I will back off. I must say that the way I read it, it was because the article's title was POV (something that can be corrected) and the content looked like opinion commentary (something that can be corrected). Let him speak and clear this mess once and for all.--talk 07:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As arguments progresses, more opinions would be formed & clear consensus will also be shaped. Sometimes, the nominator has his own reasons to delete and others have their own reasons to delete. Check my reason for nomination & others comments (including the closing admin). --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 08:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Administrators?

Hello! Some one needs to decide about Harjk - if he is trolling he needs to be warned - if he is not trolling then he needs to be told that a discussion is needed before the article in question gets unprotected and edit warring ensues.

I am clearly stating here that if no reason is given for the removal, I will add the section. I do not consider it "POV fork" or whatever. I will revert those who undo it without reason.--talk 12:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Also note that deleting admin has gone into hibernation and I have no idea when he will reply. But the question[46] is not that hard - anyone who is not me and who is an administrator and who has basic comprehension skills in English language can answer it.--talk 12:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Harjk has multiple issues which have been pointed out above. As far as I can see some sort of ban is needed. Ignoring such activities by continuing to assume good will only provide encouragement. Desione (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This clearly shows that the above two users are only interested in edit warring in the article and I’m sure that it is incivility and personally targeted behavior because of a prior AfD. They are just waiting for the article to be unblocked. I am sure that it probably leads to another edit warring. They are neither interested in the discussion nor editing against consensus. I think that User:RegentPark’s suggestion at the talk page can also be considered. But these guys are not interested in that too as they want their pov to be pushed again. I think it is better to extend the protection or warn them that not to engage in edit warring. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 08:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Request review of pagemove

Hi. I just moved the page Novak Djokovic, because it was listed in the backlog at WP:RM. As you can see at Talk:Novak Djokovic, this was a controversial move proposal, and an editor has requested that I get review on this decision from other admins. I can comment on my reasons for closing as I did, but in order not to prejudice the review, I'll hold off on that. I'll be back in 4 hours. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Support move, clearly the MOS dictates that names used are the most common one in the English speaking world. Viridae^Talk 11:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not a matter of choosing a common name, but how to spell the most common name. Húsönd 13:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter of formatting a name in the same way that the vast majority of reliable English-language sources format it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Find me one English-language source that uses Slobodan Milošević or Zoran Đinđić and not Slobodan Milosevic and Zoran Djindjic. I think you'll find that Milošević was much more well-known than Đoković and yet, there are double standards on Wikipedia. The Serbian language accepts both Cyrillic and Latin scripts and the name of the tennis player is Novak Đoković. Why can't people accept that, why is it such a big deal to single out Đoković? --GOD OF JUSTICE 21:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who you think I'm singling out. I was working on the backlog at WP:RM, and the request was sitting there. I don't know Novak Đoković from Adam, but I know how the community has decided time and time again regarding article naming. Now, I don't know why our Slobodan Milošević article is titled at variance with our naming conventions (there's never been a move request for that page), and maybe that should change, but the presence of certain inconsistencies isn't an argument in support of making more. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I don't know if my comments are welcome here, but (FWIW) I think this was a highly inappropriate move. There was plainly no consensus for the move, nor did it seem to me that there was a clear superiority of argumentation of one side over the other. If there was anything approaching a consensus on anything, it was that WP policy was inconsistent and could be cited in support of either side.

I am disquieted at the way in which evidence in favour of the move tends to be referred to as "established practice" (or some equivalent phrase), while evidence the other way is standardly denigrated under the heading of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I am also disquieted at the way some users seem to be making a crusade of this – Franjo Tuđman, for example, was cited as contrary evidence to the pro-move agenda, so – guess what? – one of those arguing for the Đoković move has now proposed the same for the Tuđman article. Piecemeal picking-off of inconvenient counterexamples is frankly a pretty crappy way to proceed. Vilĉjo (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not you're an admin, your comments are welcome here. I disagree with your characterization of my rationale as "piecemeal picking-off of inconvenient counterexamples". That's not what I did. I saw the counter-examples that were cited there, and none of them have had their titles discussed by the community. When the community actually talks about article names, they're remarkably consistent in deferring to sources. I'm still working up a list of examples, as that was requested by one of the editors at Novak Djokovic, but I've never seen a case where Wikipedians decide to go with "correctness" over what is reflected in the preponderance of sources.

I'm not even sure what you mean by "evidence against the move". People were simply pointing out that the guideline WP:COMMONNAME is not consistently applied. However, in those examples, there was no actual community decision; the articles are just where they happened to be created. If there are actual examples of groups of Wikipedians choosing to title articles at variance with our naming conventions, then I'd like to see those. My experience in requested moves tells me otherwise. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've expressed my view before, but I think Đoković, being the guy's actual name, is where the article should reside, with a redirect from Djokovic. It is pretty consistent with practice all over en.wikipedia, so it's not exactly breaking new ground. Orderinchaos 22:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Recent Examples

The following represent examples were an article was moved based on what English usage was shown to be. Notice that the "orginal" languages come from around the world (Polish, German, Hawaiian, Sanskrit, Arabic, etc). The changes are both minor and more extensive. Throughout, the idea that "demonstrated English usage is critical" has been upheld. This idea is a compromise between those radically opposed to "nonstandard" letters and spelling, and those radically in favor of "nonstandard" letters and spelling. It is a principle based in verifiability and has grown from years of extensive discussions and consensus building.

• Devanagari (not Devanāgarī)
• Grossglockner (not Großglockner)
• Michael Gross (not Michael Groß)
• Namdaemun (not Sungnyemun)
• Egyptian pound (not Egyptian gineih)
• Marie Curie (not Marie Skłodowska-Curie)
• Franz Josef Strauss (not Franz Josef Strauß)
• Hisarlik (not Hisarlık)
• Waikiki (not Waikīkī)
• Vicente Fernandez (not Vicente Fernández)
• Duchy of Oels (not Duchy of Oleśnica)

Respectfully, Erudy (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-free image outside main space

Could someone look into the use of this Image on the discussion page here, which has been readded twice after being I had changed iit to a link [47] [48], thanks Fasach Nua (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see what the other editor thinks s/he means here: the tags on the image say it's a screenshot of Wikipedia, and we allow ourselves to use screenshots of Wikipedia (almost) anywhere on Wikipedia. However, virtually no Wikipedia is visible, so in fact I'd say this is actually a screenshot of Internet Explorer 6 and thus only for use in the mainspace and only where relevant under the NFC policy. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 13:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud... Fasach is back and continuing what he does best; stalking me, and only me. Too bad. After a period of rest I was this close to closing this RFC. I will change the image, but one more incident like this will result in a ban request. — Edokter • Talk • 14:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the problem with this image. It bears no Wikipedia logo, and the IE6 interface is not visible either. I'd say this is protected by GFDL and therefore free. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It sure looks like a perfectly reasonable GFDL tag. It's a screen shot of a bit of Wikipedia body text, along with a couple of scrollbars at the edge of the window. (The title bar and the remainder of the window are not visible.) At best, I would say that this is an overzealous interpretation of the fair use policy; at worst – if Edoktor's reference to a past dispute is accurate – it is an example of a timewasting and vexatious complaint that may warrant censure. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see—the original image included the whole IE window. Still, a bloody wrongheaded attempt to manipulate the fair-use policy in such a way as to annoy and harrass another editor. The screenshot was being used as part of a reasonable effort to troubleshoot a problem with the way that Wikipedia pages rendered in IE. Deciding that it needed to be immediately removed from the talk page because it contained portions of the IE interface demonstrated either abominably bad judgement or bad faith. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• cough* Not on my part, I hasten to point out. I assumed good faith on behalf of the original poster (and Edoktor, for that matter) and had no reason to know there was any history between them. I am many things, but omnipotent isn't one of them. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 21:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You meant omnivorous whoops omniscient, right? — Athaenara ✉ 06:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There is very little history between myself and Edokter, just because he is paranoid doent mean I am out to get him, if you look through the RFC where he has given evidence I am targetting him only 3 of the 19 examples have anything to with him, and you only have to scroll a few threads up this page to see an identical issue raised with anothher non-free image. Just because Edokter has a vendetta against me doent mean I take undue interest in him. Paranoia should not give this user carte blance to run roughshod over fair use policy, and raising a breach of policy for independent review should not be grounds for censure Fasach Nua (talk) 08:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And since when is the way to contest a usage of a potentially non-free image to make a report here? If you can't resolve it on the user's talk page (did you even try that first?), WP:PUI would be the place to go. Mr.Z-man 16:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The image was clearly unfree, the user had tagged it as such, but used it on a talk page, and there seemed little point raising the issue at WP:PUI. There is a useful little tool Special:Contributions/Edokter which allows you to see what edits any user has made, but to save you looking it up, the only attempt Edokter made to resove this (prior to me raising the issue here) was this edit comment [here] Fasach Nua (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed User:Cream unblocking

Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) earlier today blocked User:Cream as a sockpuppet of User:EpicFlame. EpicFlame was banned for harassment last November, and has returned since then under one or two sockpuppets, each time "flying off the handle" when reblocked. This sort of behaviour is, I believe, well observed. An otherwise good faith contributor is blocked on the basis of an incident in their past, and gets understandably angry, does stupid stuff and ultimately extends their ban. Myself and several others have been in conversation with the user on IRC over the past few days, and the impression that I've certainly got is that he wants to make a fresh start. He seems quite determined not to be blocked and to be able to get on under a clean record. I don't think he expects to be made an admin at any time in the future or anything, but just wants to be able to repair some of the damage of past months, and contribute constructively.

I would propose an unblock for Cream on the basis of offering a fresh start, and hopefully putting the past behind our collective selves. He would of course be on strict civility parole given his history, and in the event of violations of this parole should be issued blocks of escalating lengths. I'm happy to take it upon myself to keep something of an eye on him, though it would be a help if other (non?)admins could assist.

Just to sum up - keeping a user who wants to be here banned and repeatedly blocking them only causes drama and hurt feelings. We need to get over ourselves and give people fair chances - where they're not hiding from the admins or fleeing the vision of a checkuser. Thanks, Martinp23 01:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. John Reaves 01:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Returned with 2 sockpuppets? Have you seen Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of EpicFlame and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of EpicFlame? There's certainly more than 2 there. With User:Party, his last sock, he was caught vandalising his own userpage with his IP. Sorry - this guy is not a mature enough person to act responsibly here. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, I was heavily involved with Molag Bal when he was active. When I actively banned every sock I found, he'd come back and cause problems. Now that we've collectively stopped hunting him out - ie stopped having a vendetta - we've stopped having problems with him and I don't doubt he's contributing constructively somewhere - he certainly is over on Wikia. It just doesn't work, and I'd have expected you to be able to recognise that by now. Martinp23 01:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

So his account from 5 weeks ago (User:KickTheJew) was how he is supposed to be acting constructively? Vandalising with his IP on 23 February? This is showing us all how he's reformed? Not a chance. This is obviously an immature guy who probably has far more band hand accounts under his belt. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

So he's angry when some blocks him for editing constructively? Seems reasonable. John Reaves 01:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

These were whilst he was editing constructively with his Party account actually. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Was there a checkuser to determine a link between the accounts? If indeed he does have bad hand accounts now, then they shouldn't cause a problem unless his primary, good account is blocked. If they do, a routine checkuser or IP block could be very revealing. I don't see a good reason not to unblock in your arguments. Martinp23 01:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And if he is capable of editing constructively, as you yourself has just said and as we've seen with the Cream account, then surely it's worth the effort. Martinp23 01:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

We gave worse vandals more chances to redeem theirselves. I believe he seriously means to start all over again. I'm in favour of such proposal, and I may help keeping an eye on him if it's needed. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd go along with such a proposal - I kinda think we were a bit too quick to block and ban EpicFlame before, there are certainly other users who have had a lot more warnings, "handling" and blocks before being locked out of the site. Nick (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Just how many chances does someone need exactly? We are far too lenient here on Wikipedia. An example is warning vandals - we currently have an initial 4-levels of warnings before a vandal is dealt with properly. Sometimes, the vandal stops before a final warning, starts again in a few days and we've to start the warning process again. This is a similar issue. He has been given chances in the past to make a fresh start, and has been reluctant to do so. I am therefore against giving him yet another chance. Anyone can say what others would like to hear, and it's really difficult to tell if someone is lying or not just over the internet. No, keep him blocked, Ryan Postlethwaite did us all a favour I think. Lradrama 10:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Where has he directly been given a chance, with civility parole, and through the "proper" routes (ie an AN thread)? As for people lying over the internet... undeniably it happens, but there's no way to know for sure if he's lying without giving him an open, clean, proper chance. Martinp23 13:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like for Cream to be given a clean slate, he is a very friendly and nice person to talk to on Wikipedia, and I can't immagine that he would violate anything serious again.  Sunderland06  17:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been in contact with EpicFlame almost constantly since his blocking as Party, my adoptee, and I am convinced that he will make good use of another chance. I've discussed the ramifications of his actions with him at length, and am satisfied that he knows what will happen if he violates our rules again. I will be happy to re-take him as my adoptee and mentor him as well. GlassCobra 17:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he hasn't actually had a "formal" second chance yet. If we know who he is and he knows we're watching him, it'll be the best test of whether or not he can be a constructive member of the community. John Reaves 20:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've talked to him on IRC quite a few times (including fending off his past spam attacks in #wikipedia :p), and I think I too would be willing to give him a second chance to be a productive member of the community - I think it's clear he wants to contribute to the project, but has just given into the temptation to vandalize a bit too often. I think an unblock with a caveat to remain constructive and civil, along with a community-imposed restriction to one account, would not hurt - if he blows this chance, we can block him again in a snap, but if he proves he can stay civil and constructive, that's one more useful editor in our ranks. :) krimpet✽ 00:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Per the feeling here, I am about to unblock and leave a message on his talk page. Thanks, Martinp23 01:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

OK then, proceed at your own risk... Lradrama 08:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

EpicFlame is most assuredly not the sort of person we want editing Wikipedia. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 14:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

From the "not evil" department

There is little doubt that Jon Awbrey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is not much missed, given the hundreds of sockpuppets he's subsequently used to vandalise various articles, but on the other hand it does seem a tad harsh that of all the numerous sites which document his odd behaviour, Wikipedia is the first hit and the most extensively negative. I made an offer which he chose to rebuff, but I think we should do this anyway: I suggest we attribute the many sockpuppets (and rename the categories) as something like "Peirce vandal", and simply leave a discreet link to it in his user space somewhere. I would propose renaming the account, but I am told that some of his edits were good, and it is pretty obvious that he is most insistent on being credited by name for those edits. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - good idea, Guy, and very classy too. Is this something a bot can do? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Almost certainly, but I don't know which one would be best.Guy (Help!) 20:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

We're talking 620 pages (not counting bot created archives). AWB is usually used for this sort of thing, as there is no bot specifically approved for it. But I'm sure any bot op could code it up quick. MBisanz ^talk 20:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec):Either he exercises his RTV with a rename, losing both the negative publicity of his activities and his name associated with allegedly good edits or he does not exercise his RTV, keeps his current name, with all the various google results. I think this would set a negative precedent of encouraging future actors to do it and know they can have their cake and eat it. And considering he rebuffed Guy's very generous offer, I'm not inclined to go out of my (our) way to be helpful. MBisanz ^talk 20:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that many of the criticisms of Wikipedia are surrounding its capacity to do damage to the reputation of living people, anything we can do to prevent such damage at no cost to Wikipedia is a good thing. Also, I wasn't around for Awbrey's time here, but I gather that he was primarily a good faith contributor, which means that he put his real name out there with the intend of being recognized for his contributions to the encyclopaedia, not having it dragged through the mud as a disruptive editor (even if he was a disruptive editor, which I'm not disputing). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem renaming and replacing living people named accounts of banned users. I just don't like the idea of only concealing the bad things associated with them. MBisanz ^talk 22:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What's to be gained from leaving their real names associated with the bad stuff? What's the harm in dissociating banned users from the bad stuff? He's permanently banned, so it's not needed for community scrutiny. And we hardly owe it to potential employers to make it easy to dig up skeletons in prospective employees' closets. I'm not sure how much good this will do, since we're not changing the account name and the first Google hit for his name (in quotes) is his WP user page, but, like I said, anything helps. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking more about future problems. Like if in 3 years this fellow comes back wanting to edit and have the ban lifted. And its not immediate clear because we've obfuscated only the bad things. Even in the Lir instance, a lot of people didn't know the background to why he was blocked for so long, and were probably willing to extend more good faith than was needed. Also, if he were to start socking again, it would make it difficult, especially for non-admins, to compile a proper SSP. I'm really not seeing the harm in a rename to User:RTV101 with AWB edits to eliminate signatures. MBisanz ^talk 22:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I can think of two editors who have real-name accounts and a lot of negative material on wiki, Jon Awbrey and Jason Gastrich. Of the two Jon seems the more deserving of at least a little sympathy; he is clearly a very odd fellow and more than a little obsessive (check the other places where he's been in trouble for the kind of argufying that brought him so much unwelcome attention here). Gastrich was a straight-out POV pusher and vanity merchant, but even there I'd support something similar just because of the massively higher profile Wikipedia now has. Guy (Help!) 20:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd add User:John Gohde to the list of people with real-name accounts and negative on-wiki profiles - I assume that is his real name, and he holds the distinction of being banned thrice by ArbCom. For what it's worth, I think Guy's idea is a good one. Whether or not Guy's initial offer was rebuffed, we can still be the bigger entity and do the right thing. MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Jon created a lot of good content on Wikipedia; but is currently very very angry at Wikipedia. Let's do the right thing. If you are a doctor or a nurse, do you refuse to do the right thing if a patient bleeds all over you? WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'll point out that besides the 263 confirmed sockpuppets in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jon Awbrey, there are probably as many others that we just blocked and never bothered wasting the keystrokes to put {{SockpuppetCheckuser}} on their pages. Still, I'd support this with the understanding that if a single sock showed up ever again, we'd reverse the action. Anything to get rid of this utter nuisance. (I only know him as an abusive sockpuppeteer -- I've never looked at the events leading to his original ban.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This all looks like agreement in principle to me; how about if we usurp the unused user:JA and put everything, good and bad, there? Guy (Help!) 07:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

By "put everything", do you mean rename the account? Or just your original proposal? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Aye, I'll support a renaming/usurption. MBisanz ^talk 09:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• If Awbrey isn't interested in the offer, don't do it. Perhaps he takes pride in the activities of his socks? If he doesn't want the help, it isn't really help at all. Everyking (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• It's win-win anyway. If he wants to leave his name as a pride token of what he has done, we ignore the troll even more by renaming the account. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Awbrey has explicitly stated on an external site that he does not want this to be done. —Random832 (contribs) 14:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't care. It would be a very good application of WP:DENY. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Declaring a different name to be the "master account" is one thing, but forcibly renaming his account without his permission while he still has significant edits is a violation of the renaming policy and the GFDL and I will report whatever bureaucrat performs the rename to a steward. —Random832 (contribs) 18:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no GFDL problem - the edits are still attributed to the same user ID. I'm not sure what you hope to gain from reporting this to a steward, they would do precisely nothing as it certainly isn't within their remit. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I've had a couple of emails on this subject, requesting the renaming of accounts associated with real-world identities or activities of individuals who are banned from Wikipedia. Including those and Awbrey (where I am getting conflicting signals), plus the ones above, I propose:

• Thekohser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> W_GK1
• MyWikiBiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> W_GK2
• Jon Awbrey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> W_JA1
• John Gohde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> W_JG1
• Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -> W_JG2

• I don't mind doing AWB edits to support this, if people think it's worth doing. We should also talk to Rachel Marsden. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the other cases, but if Jon Awbrey has specifically stated he does not want to be renamed (cognizent that this will continue his negative google search), I really don't see why we should rename him. If he merely didn't care it might be a nice thing to do, but if he's opposed to it, I don't see why we should. MBisanz ^talk 03:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If Jon's main account is renamed against his will there seems to be a chance that he comes back to do something about it. I don't know if it's worth risking that. But making his user page less obvious sounds like an excellent idea to someone who had to clean up only a tiny part of what he left… I really think his intentions were good. --Hans Adler (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as my information goes, which is at second-hand through a couple of sources, Jon's principal objection was that the same courtesy was not to be extended to others. I think there is self-evident merit in extending such a courtesy to anyone who registers a Wikipedia account which can be tied to RWI, whether they remain, leave or are thrown out. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The only issue with John Gohde is that he's pledged to come back in January 2009 when his latest 1-year ban from ArbCom expires. He probably ought to be formally community-banned, but he's not at present, so I'm not sure we ought to rename his account without his consent if he intends to come back and use it. MastCell ^Talk 20:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like this JA character is still causing trouble by proxy (and Guy is just being nice, not knowingly used). We offer to be nice and rename him, and he insists we do it for all real life names. If we're going to do anyone other than him, we really should establish it as policy. I assume that if any of these users did care, and contacted the foundation, their name would be changed in an instance, so I'm not sure why we need to change all these names without a compelling reason. Also, why rename Thekohser and MyWikiBiz, the don't look like names of real life persons, maybe a corporation, but not a real person. MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I explicitly object to the inclusion of MyWikiBiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), given that 1) it's a business name; 2) still the source of the occasional spamming attempt. Obscuring its history doesn't strike me as help for future editors encountering new spam. --Calton | Talk 01:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Not that I disagree about spamming, but it is traceable to RWI. However, I'm not going to let the idea fall for want of inclusion of one disputed account. As a matter of principle, do we agree that people who have exited Wikipedia at the end of a boot should nonetheless be entitled to this courtesy? Guy (Help!) 13:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I do like the word "entitled". Saying users who are banned retain the right to vanish under a name change, is a good thing. Saying that we can force change names or that one banned user can proxy changes for other, inactive banned users, is another story. In this case, Awbrey has made it crystal clear he does not want to be changed unless the others on that list are changed. I don't see a compelling point for two of them, as I've said already, and I'd expect that we require the other listed users to acquicse through silence (ie we email them askig if they want to be renamed). So yes, good general idea Guy, but one that probably doesn't apply to what Awbrey wants us to do. MBisanz ^talk 16:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Review of User:WordBomb ban.

This discussion started at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland ban discussion/Part 2#User:WordBomb but really needs a wider audience.

WordBomb has said, off-site, that he would like a second chance and is willing to refrain from engaging in the sort of "IP harvesting", etc tactics that he was originally banned for. Is the community willing to give him a second chance? —Random832 (contribs) 21:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion, and would in that case be up for allowing a second chance. Caveat's: I'm less and less involved and paying attention to en.wikipedia, I'm not an olde tyme valued contributor/admin (so my opinion carries negative weight). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What are his stated reasons for wanting to return? My inclination would be to say that if anybody's earned an unreviewable ban, it's been him, but if we really believe this "preventative, not punitive" thing, we should at least take a look at it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Another question: as he ever before promised to refrain from such tactics, been taken up on it, and then betrayed the community's trust? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

to my limited knowledge, he's never so much as hinted that he'd be up for anything other than dancing on the graves of wikipedia's ruling cabal. Other than, or course his day one request of sv on how to properly raise his concerns about the coi of another editor. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• No chance. After what he put on antisocialmedia, plus all the socking, he wants us to let him back so he can continue to pursue his agenda? I am absolutely astounded that anybody in their right mind would even contemplate such a thing. He was banned for good cause, and his actions after he was banned proved beyond doubt that he is precisely the kind of person Wikipedia can do without. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban per Guy. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• As I said previously, I don't care for either party to the furore over Naked Short Selling to be contributing. I also am aware that WordBomb has said offsite that they hold certain information that could embarrass Wikipedia - which is not the sort of potential blackmail I feel the project needs if there were any problem with the editors contributions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC) ps. I agree with Guy as regards to socking - isn't it a shame that not all sockmasters are treated with such severity?
  • He's said a lot of things, and I think people have also said a fair number of things about him. Possibly he should be limited to article space for a long term, and as Random832 said, certainly he'd have to agree to discontinue any attempts to investigate editors' IPs, etc. For that matter, a 6 month or longer limitation to article space might be a fair chance to show his good faith if he likes. It would have to be a bit novel, but if it resolved the conflict it could be worth the effort. Mackan79 (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• While recognizing some potential problems involved, I support an unblock with editing restrictions similar as were applied in the Mantanmoreland arbitration. My first thought is to say he should be allowed to return only under a new account, but I think this raises the question of whether it's worthwhile to try to hide what is happening. On some consideration, I think the better option is probably to acknowledge that old disputes have to be resolved at some point. This wouldn't say that anything he's done has been right or wrong, but would start to treat him in a more normal fashion. One first step could be to unprotect his talk page and ask him to explain whether he's willing to contribute under editing restrictions, but if he is, then I think an unblock would be reasonable. Mackan79 (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• The way WordBomb has been demonized is beyond all reason. While it's questionable whether at this point he has any interest in participating in developing this encyclopedia, rather than simply trying to prove a point of some sort by getting unbanned, it's also unclear what purpose is served in maintaining the punitive ban. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The following is not a rhetorical question, so anyone who has an answer to it should please provide it: what harm could WordBomb do as an unblocked user that he can't do right now? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What, other than biasing content and pursuing his vendetta against SV and others you mean? Or are you suggesting that people who sockpuppet and engage in off-wiki attacks should be allowed back because they can't do much worse here? Guy (Help!) 07:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting nothing (hence my emphasis that it wasn't a rhetorical question); I'm trying to establish some context for my own benefit. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Evidence of reform would be good. A simple desire to come back should not be sufficient. How about letting him try to be productive on another Wikimedia project for a while? It is reasonable to have the length of a ban be related to total extent of disruption, and from what I have heard, that would justify a very long ban. Bans are not punitive but past disruption is our only predictor of future results, if there is no evidence of reform being entered here at all. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• The original block itself was made in bad faith. WordBomb, a new user unfamiliar with the rules, had agreed to abide by rules once they were pointed out to him [49] but, the block was given anyway [50] and then the blocking admin protected his uerspage so he couldn't ask about it [51]. He has promised to obey the rules and the original block was inappropriate. So, unblock. Cla68 (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• This ban has been upheld by the community for a period of months. I find your accusation of bad faith on the part of the admin who blocked here to be quite unwarranted, and uncivil, in fact. Dmcdevit·t 03:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's only recently been understood the extent WordBomb attempted to follow the site's processes, by requesting a mediation, agreeing not to post further, and contacting multiple admins and arbitrators all before doing anything that would have justified a ban. Unfortunately, all of the explanations since then have given an incomplete view of these events. This is largely what I think warrants another look, whether or not we think the initial block itself was justified. Mackan79 (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• (Note, I also find it funny that JzG is using the use of sockpuppets as a reason not to unblock. In case anyone doesn't know, JzG has admitted that he has several socks himself). Cla68 (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Have any of them been used disruptively as defined by WP:SOCK? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Not that I know of. Cla68 (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Okay. I'm undecided on whether or not I favour giving WordBomb another chance, but it seems a little silly to suggest that Guy lacks the authority to criticize the use of ban-evading socks. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn ban, there is potential there to have a good editor and should that not be the case there is nothing to stop the ban being reimposed. Viridae^Talk 03:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• No. Even if the message WordBomb was trying to get across was largely right, the extremely disruptive way he conducted himself in doing so suggests that the chance of him becoming a productive member of the community seems pretty much nil. krimpet✽ 03:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Sometimes you've got to be a bit disruptive to accomplish a desirable end in the face of entrenched opposition. Or maybe Rosa Parks should have gone meekly to the back of the bus. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • WordBomb == Rosa Parks has got to be one of the wilder analogies I've ever seen here. o_O Seriously though, some of the tactics he's used have been rather shockingly underhanded (tricking folks into hitting his site-trackers, etc.), and his slew of sockpuppets has caused as much disruption to the project as the sockpuppeteer he was trying to expose. I don't foresee letting him back on the project ending well at all, especially once he runs into his first content dispute. Please, let's just put the chapter of the dueling short-selling warriors behind us, and get back to business. krimpet✽ 08:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
      • We may like simply to leave WordBomb blocked and forget about it, but I think the way this dispute has gone on should show why this is misguided. As long as WordBomb is banned, we're making him an enemy of the project. He can still say, correctly, that he was blocked inappropriately by involved editors, and that he's been mistreated ever since. Of course we can respond that he did things since then that justify his block, but since we're doing our own thing rather than engaging with critics, it doesn't seem to work very well. What's the other option? Give him a chance and see if he's actually able to edit. If he's not, then no harm done, and in fact we can block him this time for a legitimate reason. If he does edit productively, then all the better, and Wikipedia has one more contributor and one less critic. It's one of many reasons why a presumption in favor of letting people edit makes sense, particularly in cases where Wikipedia has itself clearly dropped the ball. Mackan79 (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Um, no, I think the original block was perfectly valid actually. Piling straight in with reports against an external opponent? Very clear evidence of an external battle brought to Wikipedia, an unambiguous "no thanks". The chances of WordBomb causing anything other then massive disruption are pretty remote; his actions while blocked reveal a character fundamentally unsuited to any collaborative environment. He'd be fine on Usenet, though. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure how you and Tony continue to talk as if the battle was one sided. You're assuming he couldn't edit productively, but it's an assumption, based on an intense and obvious dislike (not that you'd deny it). I think we all know WordBomb may edit productively, or he may not. My point is that we shouldn't presume, after a year and a half. Or if there are other conditions for returning, we should state them. I think Wikipedia would look better than it does under the current approach. Mackan79 (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• I think the block and ban should be reviewed independently by people who were not in any way involved in the controversy. Perhaps it would be a good idea for Wordbomb to email the Arbitration Committee to request a review. It is rather odd that a user was banned after a single block; however, I do not know the content of the edits that had to be oversighted. Sock puppetry is not uncommon when an inexperienced editor gets blocked. That issue is a red herring in my opinion. The question is, were the oversighted edits so egregious that this editor cannot be allowed to return? Jehochman ^Talk 04:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think the case for continued banning rests less in the content of the oversighted edits - which I believe consisted of attempts to out Wikipedia users editing the affected articles, although I could be mistaken - and more in WordBombs despicable conduct since the ban, which included pseudonymously e-mailing various editors links to dummy websites that he controlled in an effort to mine their IPs. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I see. Perhaps Wordbomb was engaged in a misguided effort to gather evidence to prove that his content opponents were engaged in rampant COI editing, as now appears to have been the case. I think the situation requires a de novo review by impartial arbitrators. Our goal here is to clear the stink, not necessarily to ban or unban somebody. Jehochman ^Talk 04:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• There are users who have been banned for the wrong reasons. This is not one of them. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Per his talk page, User:Rlevse already emailed a request to Arbcom. Leave it to them. Given the amount of socking over the long period of time, and the need to oversight his comments, I'll trust the people who have probably are the most fully informed of the situation. If Arbcom rejects his application, then he can try here again, but we shouldn't encourage forum-shopping. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• You know, quite apart from the off-wiki attacks, if you look at the contributions of the WordBomb account it was obviously registered solely to further an off-wiki agenda. It is asserted above that this could be a good user. I disagree, and I certainly don't see any evidence to support the idea. This is an agenda-driven individual who is unscrupulous in how he pursues his agenda, including trying to blackmail an administrator, and deliberately violating the privacy of editors. I just don't see how any of WordBomb's observed behaviour, in any known venue, indicates someone who would be anything other than trouble. Guy (Help!) 07:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• No way in hell. After all the crap he's pulled, he's a poster-child for indefinite banning. Raul654 (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• I think WordBomb's initial block was unjust. His subsequent behavior violated the standards of the site, but it must be considered in light of the behavior of his rival, who was much more insidiously manipulating our content and decision-making processes. Furthermore, it must be conceded that, had WB not violated our standards in his pursuit of his rival, we would not have corrected the Mantanmoreland problem, at least not until the damage had gone on for significantly longer. We're in a difficult position: WB was right and he went about it the wrong way, but he was never even given a chance to do things the right way; furthermore, had he not taken this wrong course, Wikipedia would be likely be left with the wrong outcome. Let's take the blame collectively: as a project, we massively failed to handle this whole conflict in anything remotely approaching an intelligent or productive manner (until quite recently). Let WordBomb edit if he wants to edit; the logic that Mantanmoreland will unable to cause further disruption due to all the eyes that are watching him works just as well when applied to WordBomb. Everyking (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Actually I think that is the precise opposite of the real situation. WordBomb was so self-evidently abusive, and so obviously pursuing an external agenda in the most vicious and aggressive way possible, that his bringing the dispute here actively impeded any proper investigation of the other accounts. Had WordBomb never arrived, it is more than likely we'd have diagnosed and corrected any problem with other editors, and with massively less drama into the bargain. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• You know, Mantanmoreland's first edit was to Naked short selling, to revert an edit that he mislabeled as "vandalism." Perhaps it's possible to be surprised what someone will do if they're not permanently blocked on their first day editing. Mackan79 (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You mean this revert? The material removed was indeed unsuitable for Wikipedia, if not actual vandalism. "It is difficult to argue with a straight face that there are benefits for the market to be had by defrauding investors" is not suitable for Wikipedia and as that content had been added many times I think it's reasonable to describe it as vandalism. There purpose was to damage Wikipedia by inserting the most slanted propaganda. Mantanmoreland correctly removed it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • Right, and you can read the version of the lead at that time and tell me if it was any better than what the IP added ("However, the extent to which this practice takes place has been widely exaggerated, and allegations of naked short-selling have historically been used as a scapegoat by pump-and-dump scam operators wishing to shift blame for the inevitable decline in manipulated stocks."). The point in any case is that Mantanmoreland said he was reverting vandalism, which it wasn't, and even that is shortly before he brought in two additional accounts to support his actions. If you're going to talk about early agenda pushing in this context, I think it's something you have to acknowledge. Mackan79 (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I notice that you're not really addressing my point that your characterization of Mantanmoreland's first edit was far from accurate, but simply reiterating your claim. Mantanmoreland did not write the words you quote. However it's broadly in line with the SEC's own statements on the matter [52]. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 05:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think you've forgotten what I originally said, which you agreed was correct. If you want to disagree on substance, you'll have to say that Mantanmoreland did not push an agenda in his early days of editing, as for instance when he created the Tomstoner and Lastexit accounts. The question, anyway, is if someone who pushes an agenda in early edits is capable of becoming a reasonable editor, and unless we're playing games I think we all know this is the case. Mackan79 (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Regardless of circumstances of his initial block, WordBomb's later behaviour says it all. No hope for his rebirth. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 08:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• No. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 09:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• I'm torn here. I don't think either Mantanmoreland or WorldBomb should be editing. I don't see a relevant difference between the two accounts. But we clearly were unable as a community to reach consensus to show Mantanmoreland the door. I continue to believe that either both should be allowed to edit, or neither should be allowed to edit. I'd rather see neither editing than both. But the community won't go for the neither option, so I'm believing that we should allow both to edit under the same restrictions. GRBerry 14:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  I agree with GRBerry in what he says regarding Mantanmoreland. but I don't think we are likely to get any consensus here. George The Dragon (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• The circumstances around his initial ban are questionable enough that, if we ignored his subsequent behavior, a good case could be made for reviewing his ban. But his behavior since then has positioned him as an antagonist toward Wikipedia and its editors. He has chosen to war against those whom he deems to have done him (or his employer) wrong, turning Wikipedia and related sites into a battleground. A review of WordBomb's ban must take this into account. I don't think his ban should be reversed until he does a few things: publicly commit to taking a collaborative and not adversarial approach to editing here; voluntarily accept the same editing restrictions as those that Arbcom imposed on Mantanmoreland; publicly acknowledge and apologize for his specific actions since his ban that have disrupted Wikipedia; and publicly apologize to individual editors whom he has attacked or whose personal information he has sought to discover by deceptive means. He needs to persuade the community not that the original ban was unjust, but that a ban reversal will not lead to the same bad behavior as before. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Uhhh, no. Some bans are meant to stick, and when one uses socks to cause disruption after their ban, that is a good indication it is that type. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• In principle, forgiveness is a great virtue and bans & blocks are preventative, not punitive. But no case has been made to not expect further disruption of the kind already extensively engaged in. Until such a case is made, I'm unsure how one could justify this. WilyD 16:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• How could that case be made? I find it hard to see how someone would be expected to show their ability to edit productively when they were blocked in less than a day. At the same time, his early agreement to stop posting on the topic, his attempt to pursue mediation, and his efforts to contact other administrators when he felt he was being treated unfairly would suggest that he could be a productive editor if he'd been given the chance. Mackan79 (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no consensus that the original block and ban were at all unreasonable. Far from it. People who come to Wikipedia to defame others are not welcome. He did that and he admitted that doing so was his intent. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Well, I can't imagine anywhere else a non-editor pointing out that someone was editing their own bio would be treated as cause for a permanent ban. These kinds of things concern the public, and should be taken as our responsibility to address. Of course, they also concern real life rivals in prominent disputes that have already been brought on Wikipedia. The problem here was that someone was blocked for raising this, even after agreeing not to, and with several hours passing in between. We're saying he didn't show that he could learn, but in fact he did, and then was blocked anyway. That's the problem. People still don't want to acknowledge this, but at some point I think it would smart just to do so and thereby sever ties with the whole affair. Mackan79 (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • You know the facts. This fellow had come to Wikipedia to make wild claims and defame a journalist. The ban was absolutely spot on. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 05:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• There are a couple of issues raised here which are being conflated. First, WordBomb's claims about Mantanmoreland appear likely to have been correct. Second, many believe, quite reasonably, that Mantanmoreland should have drawn a harsher penalty in the ArbCom case. However, these issues have little bearing on the question of whether WordBomb should be un-banned. The sole criterion for making that decision is whether an unban is likely to help or harm the encyclopedia. I have yet to see an editor come to Wikipedia for the express purpose of importing an external dispute or agenda and turn into a net plus to the encyclopedia, while I've seen countless examples of the damage such editors cause. Our goal here is not to fairly adjudicate an imported dispute involving WordBomb and Mantanmoreland, but to build a useful encyclopedia. I don't see an unblock contributing to that goal. MastCell ^Talk 18:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Interestingly, several in the community decided to ban Mantanmoreland. A single (though there were more) dissenting editor was enough to determine "no consensus, ban overturned, no wheel war". I'd love to see the reaction that applying a similar principle in this case would get. Several comments above have said "the community has decided. consensus. enough.", but apparently not - at least not by the same principles as applied to Mantanmoreland. We wouldn't want differing standards, would we? Achromatic (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps because Mantanmoreland didn't abuse Wikipedia to pursue an external agenda, attack Wikipedia editors in good standing, try to blackmail an administrator, violate the privacy of others and so on. Just guessing here. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, actually he did some of those things. Relata refero (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• It's simply incorrect to say that "a single dissenting editor" would have been enough to anull the proposed ban of Mantanmoreland. Crucially, moreover, he has made many good edits and worked well with other editors for a period of some years now. If he's some kind of menace to Wikipedia, he's doing a good job of concealing it. WordBomb, on the other hand... --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 07:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think Mantanmoreland should be banned, but I'm not sure WP:OTHERSTUFFISUNBANNED is a good unban rationale for WordBomb. I think at this point I'm against an unban, although I reserve the right to change my mind if WordBomb actually explains why he wants to be unbanned and what useful work he expects to accomplish. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not...never, no way. He can always create another account anyway...anyone can. This is pointy nonsense sponsored yet again by the WR gangsters.--MONGO 05:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If people want to say he can return under another account, that's fine with me. I think we should be more specific, though, and say the new account should not edit any of the articles restricted to Mantanmoreland. If this kind of thing worked out over time (or didn't), then it's also something we could reexamine in the future. Mackan79 (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think GRBerry expressed my own opinion: either ban both WordBomb and Mantanmoreland, or none. And much as I dislike Wordbombs actions post blocking, let us take into account that A: He was possibly blocked unfairly (so much has been oversighted that it is really impossible to tell). B: he was blocked by an admin who, it has been claimed[53], had "massive COI". Also, I must say this in favour of WordBomb: he is now quite open about his sock-pupettering and other tactics. After reading the massive evidence in the Mantanmorland arb. com. case, I cannot say I feel I quite trust that Matanmorland has showed the same honesty. Regards, Huldra (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's indeed impossible to tell all of what happened, but here's what I've been able to find in terms of WordBomb's perspective of the early events: i.) He was blocked five hours after first agreeing not to post his claim further, and two hours after making the same concession again. No evidence has been presented that he went against this agreement. ii.) The two accounts who warned him before he was blocked were both operated by Mantanmoreland, as WordBomb was aware. iii.) He was blocked by an admin who'd been editing with Mantanmoreland on another article that day, and who said that his claim about Mantanmoreland was incorrect while protecting his talk page. iv.) WB next attempted to email two other admins (one arb) for assistance, telling them about another account he created to learn more about sockpuppetry protocol and presumably to pursue the mediation case he had started. v.) Only because those admins alerted SV and she blocked this new account did any communication with her continue. I agree, as I've said, that it's regrettable he then attempted to discern whether SV was reviewing the evidence that he sent her, but in context, I also don't think it is exactly surprising or supportive of the way some people have viewed his actions. Mackan79 (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Puzzling editor will not use Talk or edit summaries

I'd like some suggestions on how to reach an apparently "clueless" editor. That's not a personal attack, but perhaps a concise way of describing his behaviour. Specifically, David Krysakowski (talk · contribs) likes to work on a set of articles that intersect my watchlist, namely the set of lists in category:lists of Olympic medalists. Some of his edits are useful, updating links from disambiguation pages, for example, but many of his edits are destructive, requiring reversion or repair. All efforts to appeal to him to improve his editing behaviour seem to fall on deaf ears. He responds to messages (from anybody, not just me) by blanking his user talk page, he never uses edit summaries, he marks all edits as minor, and he habitually makes multiple edits in a row to a single page instead of using the preview button. All the while, he continues to edit the same set of articles over and over and over again — a quick look at his wannabe_kate edit count shows many of these lists have hundreds of his edits. What do we do? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth considering a 'conditional indef block'? The idea would be to explain the rationale on his Talk page when issuing the block, and require him to actually participate in a discussion there before the block would be lifted. The block could be lifted immediately if he were willing to make some undertakings about his future editing, including the use of edit summaries. A short block seems unlikely to change his approach, since two have already been tried, one for 3 hours and the other for 12. EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd try a 31 hour block first (that'll make sure that he notices) in case he doesn't think people are really serious. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Besides the two blocks, this editor has received dozens of warnings on his Talk page over the last 10 weeks, and he has removed all of them. After I notified him of this discussion, I saw that he had removed a previous message about the same AN thread. I think we'll have to talk very loud to get his attention. The puzzling Olympic edits plus the lack of communication go as far back as August 2006. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

After logging on today, his first (and third) edits were to blank his user talk page again, so he is reading these messages, yet declining to respond to them. About three hours later he started to work on List of Olympic medalists in rowing (men)‎, making eighty consecutive edits to that list! It's good work, adding the names to the teams that were missing that information, but the method of editing is certainly annoying. He absolutely refuses to use show preview, apparently, so the page history is clogged. But here's the question — is that disruptive? Enough to warrant a block? I'm inclined to wait until he does something that requires repair before issuing the "conditional indef block", which I think is a good idea as it forces him to start communicating via his talk page. But are his actions of today sufficient to justify that...? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(btw, thanks EdJohnston for renaming this thread. It was the right thing to do.)

I've blocked him until he chooses to address these troubling concerns. John Reaves 19:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

After you blocked him, he seems to have been replaced by a new "contributor" Kryskwsk. A coincidental similarity in the names? David Biddulph (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• David Krysakowski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kryskwsk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Clearly the same editor. — Athaenara ✉ 00:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Help on getting help with Hedvig Malina?

I received this request:

Could you do something about the article Hedvig Malina? Two editors hijacked it and claim obvious ownership: Hobartimus (talk · contribs) and Squash Racket (talk · contribs)? Thanks.--Svetovid (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

— User talk:Bearian

It's not my area of expertise, and I need help addressing this. This issue has been raised already on another board. Can somebody address this issue? Bearian (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Svetovid tries to delete eight reliable references, including some of the few English language ones. While he keeps doing that, he inserts a refimprove tag and argues to keep a blog as a reliable reference (see page history, talk page). He nominated the article for deletion earlier (result:8 keep, only himself for deletion), so I don't think he can see the issue from a NPOV. New information (with reliable references) may be inserted, problem is only deletion of facts and sources he doesn't seem to like. Anybody getting involved is welcome. Squash Racket (talk) 05:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Before I forget it: would someone ask that user to stop misusing the word vandal in his edit summaries[54], [55], [56], etc.? He received warnings [57] to stop that, but he doesn't seem to care. Squash Racket (talk) 05:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Notified User:Hobartimus in case he didn't know. Svetovid has to be more specific and if Squash is accurate, there isn't much for other admins to do. Besides, WP:AN is not for content dispute and so, I'd suggest dispute resolution instead. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I gave him a warning but Squash, you should just use the warning templates yourself. If he violates 3RR, just report him to AIV. If it continues and remains consistent, then you can consider mentioning it to AN. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) User:Hobartimus posted a comment on my user page so I'm trying to centralize. To summarize, Svetovid nominated the article for deletion in January, lost badly, began edit warring (including deleted numerous sources and later claiming they are unsourced statements that don't belong), blocked for it, continued warring, blocked again, edit warred again (revert to his preferred version again deleting sources) all of which seem to be marked as minor, and continuing onward. At this stage, I've told the other editors to start issuing edit warning and move to AIV, but I wonder if anyone else thinks this deserves a topic ban at this point? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Follow up. I blocked Svetovid for 48 hours. He has done nothing since being warned except call everyone else nationalists and simply ignored requests that he provide some specific obligations to the article. I would like some confirmation as it may seem like I am approaching a conflict with the user. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that you found it possible to take some action. Relatively short blocks for editing violations in this kind of a case seem justifiable. Another angle where admins traditionally can intervene is from the BLP point of view. The above mentions of AIV are hard for me to follow since we are now told that content disputes are never vandalism. The case for a topic ban can certainly be argued, though the full evidence for it would have to be shown. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Typical edit disputes aren't but a user repeatedly reverting to his prior version, deleting sources, and just plain uncivil comments are all warnable offenses. If you get ignored at AIV, then you'll see that another admin didn't see it the same way. Also, realize that I didn't block for his prior violations. See the blocking policy. I blocked because of his continuous uncivil comments, which were not productive at all. As I said, I am not interested in dealing with past violations; I warned him to stop, he didn't and so he deserved to be told to stop. I hope he comes back civil but we'll see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Admins editing fully protected pages

Could someone look into the matter of admins casually making routine changes (wikifying, grammar correction, adding fact tags) to fully-protected pages? Even if these are routine, non-controversial changes (except maybe the fact tag), admins making such changes unwittingly spread a perception that there are two classes of editors: the regular editors (who are stopped by full protection) and the admins (who can't be stopped by even full protection). One such case today was the editing of the Race and Intelligence article by User:The Anome. While I have no problems with the edits per se, I am concerned by the message it may convey. Comment would be appreciated.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• If it's an unambiguously valid change and helps clarify issues to be addressed on talk, I don't see why it would be a big deal, myself. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-admins can use the {{editprotected}} template to make uncontroversial changes on protected pages. I don't see why admins should be banned from taking a more convenient method for such changes. However, in the case where this is any potential controversy behind the change, I agree that admins should exercise restraint, just as any other editor must. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I would add that the readers of the encyclopedia, who may or may not stumble onto a "fully protected" page or even know what that means, would expect to find a clean article and would perhaps find it helpful/professional if things were spelled right, etc. Non-admins can make edit requests for routine fixes that are handled by admins rather proficiently and noncontroversially. So, if an admin notices a routine change first, that's just one less step. Nothing more. A model of efficiency! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Um no. You forget that admins are editors. If editors have to go through a certian process to get edits made so do admins. Apart from anything else it reduces the temptation for admins to put barriers in the way of editors.Geni 02:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Agree. I think sometimes we forget that there are readers out there, and if we can improve their experience, we should. But only for gnomish corrections. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't do any major rewrites. But if you can fix an obvious grammatical error or make a spelling correction, do it, without a second thought. This is kind of a common sense issue, really: if you can improve the encyclopedia, do it. I expect anyone being challenged for making something simple like a spelling correction would find plenty of backup. I've done it many times and no one has ever complained. Antandrus (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just so. And I'd add to that something like a {{fact}} tag on something that requires citation, or other uncontroversial maintenance-type changes that will actively help debate on the talk page. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has been in this sitution, a few things need to be borne in mind. First off, if an admin is editing an article they protected, or were involved in the editing of it at the time it was protected, those "minor" changes might very well be what the dispute was over in the first place - particularly {{fact}} tags. There is a reason why pages are locked in the "wrong version" and should stay there until either protection expires or consensus is reached on the talk page. Admins can use the "editprotected" tag too, ensuring that a neutral third party is the one making the correction. At a minimum, any admin making even minor edits to a protected page should indicate on the talk page of the article what they have done and why. I'll point out that in some of our sister projects, including the German Wikipedia, editing a protected page for any reason other than "editprotected" requests will result in an automatic desysopping. I would like to think that is not necessary; having said that, in at least three cases where I was requesting edit protection on pages, admins edited through the protection to make substantive changes. Risker (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Risker. I would hope that more admins and editors can abide by the principle of "avoid even the appearance of impropriety." Remember that there is no deadline and it's much worse to harm trust between admins and editors than allow minor issues to remain in protected articles. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that it obviously does not apply in this case. The Anome last edited that article months ago, November 2007 I think, and has made only a handful of edits to it at all. Part of what needs to be done with that article is to clarify the areas which are in need of better sourcing, and to ruthlessly prune it of advocacy. I don't see any evidence to suggest that what The Anome did was anything other than precisely that. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyone has the "authority" to make non-controversial changes to a protected page, admins have the "ability". A user without admin tools can use {{editprotected}}, as can an admin who is too involved to use their tools. If an edit turns out to be controversial then it should be reversed on request, and if it appears that one intentionally made a controversial edit to a protected page then it should be treated as a serious issue. But I see no point in forbidding productive, non-controversial edits by those who have the ability to do so.

I do however agree that adding or removing {{fact}} tags is far to likely to be controversial to do when a page is protected without a check on the talk page first. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, heaven forbid someone fixes the grammar in an article or links a word! What's next, fixing spelling errors? Mr.Z-man 17:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You haven't been reading WP:LAME, have you? Spelling is one of the main themes there. Risker (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for raising this concern. Didn't want to start a lame war; just wanted to know if regular editors and admins were on equal footing in editing articles. I guess I got my answer. --Ramdrake (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This is why I have long been an advocate of splitting apart the admin tools so they can be distributed more widely. --Haemo (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that would fix anything; people who can edit fully-protected pages will still do so, regardless if they aren't "full admins", for lack of a better phrase. This whole thread is dealing about very particular and isolated incidents in a very broad fashion, which is almost always a Bad Thing.
Personally, I've edited fully-protected pages in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. Just because there's a dispute about content doesn't mean I shouldn't fix a typo when i find it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. "Any modification to a fully-protected page should be discussed on its talk page or another appropriate forum". Any. You got that? Remember admin and editing functions are seperate and when you are editing you must act like an editor and that means not useing your admin powers. Want an edit made to a protected page? Use {{edit protected}}. Think that is to much of a burden? Try and get admins to protect fewer pages.Geni 02:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still see that as a horrible amount of bureaucracy. Typos need to be approved by committee? Sorry, no, not a fan of that idea. This whole argument is centered around administrators making controversial edits to fully-protected pages; that is something that we're in agreement about being a bad thing, and isn't what I'm suggesting/mentioning. I see absolutely no reason why I shouldn't edit a fully-protected page if there's something mundane to be done, such as my typo example above, or something more pressing, a link going to the wrong page (to use an example I've seen recently, a link to "batman" going to Batman instead of Batman (military)).
Protection should be used only to prevent vandalism or disruptive edits, not to prevent valid, constructive contributions; the fact that only administrators can edit the page is strictly a technical distinction, and there's no valid reason (in my mind) to eschew constructive edits because of an unrelated matter. If an admin is making protected edits inappropriately, take it up with the admin making the edits, don't hold it against everyone else. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Reality check: No admin worthy of the mop should make contentious edits to a protected page. That's one of the reasons they were trusted with the tools in the first place. To require permission to correct mis-spellings and barbarous language for trusted members of the community is disingenuous and unworthy. If it gets beyond that, fine. Otherwise... --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If you find asking for permission to be unacceptable there are about 2.3 million articles you can edit without doing so. When editing same rules must apply to admins as everyone else.Geni 02:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct. I find it absolutely astonishing that this is considered controversial, and that so very many admins believe that they have some special privilege when it comes to editing -- controversial changes or not. If 'editprotected' is so convenient, why on earth shouldn't an admin use it the same as anybody else? Frankly, we ought to take the 'mop' cliche more to heart and rename RFAdminship to RFJanitorship. Might serve as a more visceral reminder of what the sysop bit is about. If this special editing privilege is the new consensus, that should be made very clear over at RFA. I've seen plenty of people voted in with essentially zero article writing, and plenty of oppose votes for edits primarily in article-space instead of wiki-space. Unit56 (talk) 08:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Argh. I've just noticed this discussion: "unwitting" is exactly right, I'm afraid I didn't even notice the page was protected at the time. Although I believe my edits were harmless and uncontroversial in themselves, I agree with the posters above that admins shouldn't in general edit protected pages, on the principle of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety; I've now reverted my edits back to the previous version. -- The Anome (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If the principle holds that when it comes to editing, all editors should have fairly equal rights, would it be worthwhile to suggest to the developpers adding a message that pops up when an admin is about to edit a fully-protected page, something like this page is currently protected; are you sure you want to edit it? so that they have an occasion to consider if the edit is really needed? Just a thought here.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, something like an extra click-through step would be a good idea. Even though there is currently a red warning message above the edit box for fully-protected pages, it's too easy to miss it occasionally. -- The Anome (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The current message is MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning. Perhaps its meaning would be more obvious if it were visually similar to Template:pp-protected. Maybe:

Bovlb (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Eww. No. There's nothing wrong with the current message. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Gooddays, part 2

Continuing from the earlier thread about Tone, Shoessss, Seraphim Whipp, et al, I think we need to have a look at his behaviour. Basically, these are the concerns:

• Lack of civility and prone to accusations of admin abuse, and:
• The editors contribs appear suspect. Antandarus alerted me to this problem. Looking at the mainspace contributions, they are solely to Slovenian topics, and adding an ambox template on his fifth contribution looks a bit suspect. I agree with Antandarus that this is part of a "nationalist pissing war", and I've got a feeling that it's an incarnation of a banned user. Thoughts? Sceptre ^(talk) 00:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but I've just found out (I've only interacted with Seraphim before, I don't know Tone or Shoesss) that Tone is Slovenian, which pretty much confirms this is ethnic based. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the motivation may turn out, the routine way of increasing length blocks will deal with this particular account. Since after my 2 hr block the same pattern resumed, I've blocked for 24 hours, and will increase as necessary. The pattern is distinctive enough that if it occurs on another account, the duck test will deal with it. DGG (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above and also find some things suspect. One example was the fact that s/he moved their talk page to a misleading title and then requested to have it deleted, as if they knew it wouldn't have been done otherwise. A real newbie would have slapped a db-userreq tag on their talk page; that's if they even know what a db-userreq was or where to find it. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 01:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As expected... have a look at User:Star Rising. An obvious sockpuppet of Goddays. I request a block. --Tone 08:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is not a new user. Goodays knowledge of Wikipedia policy concerning WP:Civility, WP:ANI and WP:Blocking is to far advanced for anyone with only a few days with the project. However, what concerned me the most about Gooddays behavior was not necessarily the tagging of the articles. If you followed his tagging program, though it was all Slovenian issues, it was alphabetical and once he tagged an article they just followed the blue links within the article to the next piece. But, rather their response to other users when their behavior was pointed out. It almost seemed that the tagging was done to generate a response from other users. Gooddays was than able to respond and coached his remarks in such a way with WP:Civility though Lawyering , to inflame the issue rather than help. To me, personally, it seemed that their objective was to see how they could force the blocking issue and the tagging was just a means to the end. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 11:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Like DGG said, the duck test would take care of any sock puppets and Tone has pointed out an obvious sock puppet account, which I have blocked indef. I hope my action was correct. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 11:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the procedure when a blocked user uses a sockpuppet to edit? Leave the edits or revert them all? About incarnations of a previously banned user as pointed out before in this discussion, I don't remember any user doing anything similar before on such scale. And I would surely notice since I monitor several Slovenia-related articles. I remember an anon tagged some articles once but those were small cases, not 100+ edits per day. In fact, the reason I got involved in this is that User:Andrejj asked me to have a look at curious edits. I'll ask him, maybe he's encountered anyone before. --Tone 12:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Found the guy. It's here. But you can see how this discussion was civilized and a multi-party talk that eventually led to a well-referenced article. And not limited only to Slovenia. --Tone 13:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have just found and indef blocked another sockpuppet, User:Yellowlax. I would kindly ask someone to second check my action and eventually revert all the disruptive edits, I don't have time at the moment. --Tone 07:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have already entered a report about User:Yellowlax here Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Gooddays_(2nd). -- AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

A serious question

Resolved

 – Thanks for the thoughtful comments, especially William Guy (Help!) 12:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Some people appear to be offended by the use of the word "trolling" to describe the posting by an account, as that account's first action, of a non-actionable report of some trivial nonsense in userspace, on the administrators' incident noticeboard. I don't think there's much informed dissent form the view that no genuinely new editor makes such an edit as their very first action on Wikipedia ever - that really would require weapons-grade naivety - but some people seem to think that to call this trolling is in some way rude or disrespectful of the individual who chooses to register an account just to come and report that some people are making jokes about cabals in their userspace.

So, what on earth is the term one is supposed to use for such behaviour? Or is "trolling" acceptable in the case of people who register new accounts just to make apparently vexatious reports on the admin boards? It's clear that the community is keen to improve standars of civility, so what is the politically correct term for this? Or is this a case for WP:SPADE and forget it? Guy (Help!) 00:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG2. Kelly ^hi! 01:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Is no one going to comment on how totally redonkulous Kelly's comment above is? JzG asks for help on how to deal with the use of the word trolling, and Kelly points him at a page that requesting that he ask people for assistance in his civility? Is this a joke? Archfailure (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Reminds me of those guides on what to do in cases of road rage, i.e. just keep as calm as possible. The word itself has a negative connotation so its use will in most cases be seen as inflammatory, and, in the case of some, incite further difficult behaviour. Why not give it no name at all and just revert or ignore or use robot-like neutral language and watch the angst drain down a plughole of emotional neutrality? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Guy, I honestly think the problem is not so much with the term in and of itself, but with the speed with which it is applied. Was EtM trolling? Perhaps--it depends upon the definition of "trolling" that you use. Was your action a rush to judgment? As I said, I don't know that your block was a "bad block," but I don't think I'd have done things quite the same way.

As someone who has gone through an unsuccessful RfA, I may not be the best person to be commenting on this issue, but is it possible that you jumped the gun? As an admin on another forum (and as a vandal-fighter here who has jumped the gun--more than once), I have to admit that there have been times when I've seen so many vandals it's easy to simply assume that I'm looking at another one.

As an admin you're in a position of trust, and you've repeatedly shown that said trust was not misplaced. Note, however, that I said "repeatedly shown," not "perfectly shown." Is it possible that this was a mistake, or do you still feel that you made the right call? Justin Eiler (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? Well, WP:TROLL is an essay and WP:AGF is a guideline, taken from one of the WP:5 Pillars; The spirit, conventions and practice of this place says that we allow anyone to edit the place until they prove that they are intent in disrupting Wikipedia. I can't say that I would ever be certain what the intent of a contributor is based on two edits to one high traffic but specialised page; it isn't enough to act upon a suspicion or hunch. At nearly every level of content dispute resolution or contributor sanction requests we require diffs (that is, evidence) of the purported behaviour before the community - or that small bit of it that decides it is acting on behalf of some, most, or all of it - reaches a decision about what actions to take. For one individual to declare that a contributor is a troll on the basis of a couple of edits, no matter where to, makes all those who are AGF'ing and responding per the edicts of the community look like a bunch of idiots. Here we are debating whether creating "cabals" is an acceptable practice, only to find the originator of the question has been banished from our midst - not able to contribute further.

Seriously, if you think someone is a troll based on just two edits then WP:IGNORE them and let the rest of the AGF'ing community come to their own conclusions. If your right, then the majority is going to come to the same conclusion anyway and if you are wrong (you'll notice I linked that term, just in case you need to refresh your mind regarding its meaning ;~) ) then the encyclopedia gets themselves some fresh input.

Oh, and when you do act WP:BOLDly and act upon your suspicions, then at least follow the proper procedure in notifying the blockee and giving them the option of appealing the sanction. Compounding the suspension of AGF with lack of application of another guideline gets some of us policy wonks even more wound up.

In conclusion - yeah, acting unilaterally on ones suspicions and pleading Troll! regarding a single figure edit account block is not appropriate sysop activity. IMO, of course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

After our recent exchange I am surprised to hear that from you. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought we had agreed that certain actions are only appropriate in context, but fundamentally disagreed whether my application was appropriate in the specific context. Mind you, this is exactly what I meant by the discussion - although not leading to an agreement - having an effect incrementally. Learning from what someone else perceives as your mistake is as valid as agreeing that a mistake was made... Cheers, anyhow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, in the case on the AN/I page, I thought blocking was appropriate and would have written as the reason single-purpose account aimed at disruption. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think "aimed at disruption" is essentially the same kind of bad-faith interpretation as "trolling". This might have been a serious attempt at changing something the use felt was a problem. The one thing that can hardly be doubted is that it was a throw-away sockpuppet and that continued discussion would have been disruptive, regardless of intent. I think that would have been enough, and it would have been less likely to hurt the user in case he did act in good faith. But I really think this is a very minor matter here. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It can also be perfectly legitimate, to separate one account from controversy on another - see WP:SOCK#Segregation and security. Kelly ^hi! 02:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. In this hypothetical case, as it was clearly a throw-away SPA [58], the block itself would not have done any real harm. But of course a faulty justification would have had a chance of hurting the user and might have led to some kind of seemingly unmotivated retaliation from the user's main account. That's why it's so important to AGF as much as possible. ;-) --Hans Adler (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

See also related thread here. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

How about (now here is a novel idea on WP) the substance of the claims made are addressed, not the suspicions of the users impropriety. Calling someone a trolls helps nothing, achieves nothing and given the potential for misplaced name calling only serves to irritate a potentially good faith user. Deal with the substance of the claims (in this case point ut that they were not speedyable but could be MfD'd if they so wished) - raises no ire, causes no problems, creates no drama and everything runs smoothly. The second you start throwing around offensive labels blood preussures are going to be raised and even the most mundane conversation goes off the rails. In a nutshell - you don't have to call them anything - especially in this case. IN other cases with accounts more than slightly questionable single figure edits - donty call them aything. If you need to describe the problem do so in unemotive language that describes the edits they made without resorting to offensive labels. Viridae^Talk 07:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Guy. I haven't looked at whatever incident motivates this, but if there's more context worth looking at, let me know. I think often you use salty language to excellent effect. Although on Wikipedia my writing pushes the soporific end of things, in other contexts I'm perfectly comfortable with, and in fact delight in, egregious language. With possible trolling, though, I'm not sure the strong term helps. If they are trolling, then they're after drama. Accusing them of something you suspect but can't prove seems like giving them an opportunity to create more drama. And certainly, for some spectators the word is a red flag, adding another helping of drama. Instead, I think you'd be better off finding the fastest route to the end of the discussion. E.g., "Thanks for your concern, but that's not something that worries us. Once you've spent more time here, you'll see why." So basically, I'm saying you should let your desire for zero drama win out over your desire to call a personally deployable spatulate earth-moving implement a spade. William Pietri (talk) 07:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have answered the question yet. Last night, a "brand new user" registered and, as their first edit, asked for admin action against a few humorous pages in userspace as "Wikipedia is not a social network". I consider that to be trolling, under the absolutely standard definition of the term, but some people seem to think I should call it something else. What, exactly? It's a deliberately provocative act, taken by someone who is plainly not new to Wikipedia, using a single purpose account when they have clearly been contributing under some other identity else they would not know where to go and what to call, and done in a way that seems deliberately calculated to impede any investigation of the basis of the complaint (such as, perhaps, a rebuffed assertion that "the cabal" is in some way resisting some problematic edit - this is mere conjecture of course). I think that's trolling, but some people don't like that word. So, what term would people prefer? This is not, in my view, the act of a "potentially good-faith user" - if there is a good faith user, it's under some other identity, so what temr should one use to describe the act of registering a new account just to stir up drama? Guy (Help!) 09:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there really a need to call it anything? What's the harm in just not dignifying it with a response? If they ask for a silly admin action, and a few people say, "sorry, but that makes no sense, why not get a little more acquainted with the place? thanks anyway", what are they going to do? When nobody rises to the bait, they get bored and go away. That's what we want. What they want is for us to play cops to their robbers, but we don't really have to label them at all. I don't know, am I missing something? -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats what I said :(. My i point out though that I dont't necessarily consider that a deliberately provocative act. Assume good faith - maybe it is someone who doesn't want drama like that associated with theiir main account when they are a normally productive user -e ither way, address the comment not the commenter, which was paticuarly easu to do in that case. Viridae^Talk 09:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't call it anything Guy, just block it as a Single Purpose account out to cause disruption, mark the thread as resolved, and calmly walk away. Calling a spade a spade here (i.e troll) adds absolutely nothing except to make some others angrier Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Block, yawn, have a scotch. Repeat. No drama created, you get a scotch, everyone's pleased. :) Seriously, though: I endorse the whole notion, especially in cases like this, of WP:DENY. Trolls just ACHE for drama. They LOVE it when we stomp and fuss and call them by their names. (It helps if you imagine, as you read this, an actual troll--foofy hair, unfortunate fashion choices, squeaky voice, the works--stomping up and down and laughing gleefully, as in fairy-tales.) The madder you get (or the madder they PERCEIVE you to be getting), the more they've accomplished their end. Don't give them the satisfaction.Gladys J Cortez 13:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Guy, I think this example is a good one to discuss because it's concrete, but at the same time so minor that most people don't feel strongly about it. In fact, I can't see anything wrong at all with the block itself or how you originally justified it. But then the block was questioned (my guess is: mainly because everybody is very attentive to your actions right now), so you had to explain it in more detail and added one unnecessary detail that was an example of the little bad-faith assumptions that we (all of us, I believe) are guilty of almost continuously. I don't think it was him, for various reasons, but I believe this kind of action would have been in character for Zenwhat, for example. While there can be no doubt about "provocative act" (given the original title of the thread), if I knew it was Zenwhat I would doubt "deliberately calculated to impede any investigation".

Or it could have been a relatively new user who felt a bit too strongly about this matter; who thought that others would probably agree but wasn't sure. Maybe, after reading WP:SOCK#Segregation and security and interpreting it too broadly, this user thought it would be a good idea to create a new account to separate these potentially unpopular actions from their main account. Perhaps this user has aspirations to become an admin. Such a user would have learned an important lesson once they were blocked: That it was generally considered disruptive and that it wasn't an accepted activity for a sock. But such a user would feel that the "troll" label doesn't apply at all, and this would detract from the lesson and in the worst case even make us lose an excellent who just lacks experience and a sense of humour. (No, I am not talking about myself. I am not keen to become an admin.)

Calling someone a troll or a spammer (or just calling their actions trolling or spamming) is a way of dehumanising them to push them out of our society. I do this with telemarketers [59], but I try to avoid it in Wikipedia if there is the slightest chance that everything can ultimately be explained by good intentions and miscommunication. And I have had some good results in the past with telling people with troll-like behaviour that I take them seriously and accept them as they are, but that they have no chance of achieving their goals. (Guy, I will send you an example by email.)

As a general reference in this context, I suggest reading about the fundamental attribution error. I think it's the basis for most Wikipedia conflicts. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I felt I had answered the specific point; if you believe it to be a troll then it is up to you to WP:IGNORE it (so in fact you don't call it anything, just maintain a dignified silence) and let the AGF inclined editors respond as they see fit. The main point I tried to make is that it is not your remit to be judge, jury and executioner - as it is not anyone individual's remit. That is what is so contentious about you, or anyone, declaring an account a troll on the basis of a few edits - the presumption then leads to knee jerk sanctions. I presume you are aware of the "Mexican Blood Feud" scenario? This is the same, and just as potentially destructive. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Like the others, I'd say don't call it anything. Just say, "Thanks for joining Wikipedia. After you've spent some time editing, you'll see why we think that's not a big worry." That communicates all your big points (that the account is very new, that you you see their complaint as without merit, that you think we should move on) without satisfying any hunger for drama. And if you're worried about others taking what you see as troll bait, then marking it resolved seems like a fine step as well. William Pietri (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps simply saying, "account named Blah violated policy blah and is clearly being disruptive, so blocked," and done with it? Why apply any sort of label at all? It helps nothing, and only serves to inflame some people, and is seen by many to be just used to allow users to slag others by skirting around our civility and NPA policies. Theres simply no need for it, in that context. If someone is trolling it'll be obvious, and we don't need to point at him say, "Look at the troll! Look at the troll!" 24.22.189.191 (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Avigdor Lieberman

I've protected this article, because of an edit war. The version I've protected possibly contains BLP violations, so if another admin wants to undo my actions, that would be perfectly ok. Also, I removed a quote that wasn't sourced, on BLP grounds, which is possibly a questionable decision. Again, if there is a better way to handle this situation, then please be bold and undo my actions. PhilKnight (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The current version is fine. All the controversial stuff (allegations of racism) is referenced to clearly reliable sources, i.e. The Economist, The Independent, Haaretz, The Jerusalem Post and Ynetnews. The quote you removed was from this source - it was in older versions, but must have got lost at some point. I'm not sure if it is from a reliable source, so it may be best to leave it out - I don't think it adds anything to the article. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 02:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is misuse of source material for taking quotes out of their proper context and make a living person appear far worse than his statements actually were. A more in depth, sampled description can be found here: Talk:Avigdor_Lieberman#WP:BLP_violations. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Community sanction or ban for Jack Merridew (talk · contribs)

I'm looking for either some sanctions against Jack Merridew, or perhaps a community ban/topic ban. My main concerns are that checkuser indicates a fairly strong correlation between Jack and a banned user, Davebelle, but can give no confirmation that they are the same person. There is, however, serious behavioural concerns between Jack and White Cat (talk · contribs), a long time contributor to the project, and looking at various toolserver tools to compare editing patterns, there is a strong correlation between the editing patterns of Jack Merridew and White Cat, and it looks like there may be some element of harassment and on-wiki stalking going on, with Jack reverting White Cat on a number of occasions, and making unusually large numbers of edits that seem to be directly opposite to those of White Cat. I'm firstly looking for some confirmation that I'm not seriously mistaken, and if not, I'd like to propose some type of a topic ban on Jack Merridew editing Oh My Goddess articles and related topics, or perhaps a more general topic ban which prevents Jack Merridew from reverting White Cat, or making edits that whilst not reverting White Cat directly, have the effect of effectively reverting the edits made by White Cat. I also notice an alarming tendency for Jack Merridew to edit war, and I'd like to place Jack on some form of revert parole of 1 revert per article per day.

If Jack continues to edit against White Cat, then I propose blocks slowly escalating towards a final block of 1 year, with any user found to be baiting Jack also liable for the same punishment. I would appreciate thoughts on the issue.

Also of interest to this case are This tool which shows overlap of edits, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Davenbelle and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Davenbelle.

Thanks for your time folks. Nick (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• I need to check some diffs, but if it is true that Jack's first edits to each new article he joins are in opposition to White Cat--that is to say, he decides what to edit by looking at White Cat's contribs and taking the opposite view, then indef ban as a sock of Davenbelle. Too much coincidence, and White Cat has been through too much with this user. We should treat our good faith contributors better than to give their stalkers second, third and sixth chances. Thatcher 03:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• If this user ends up being indef banned as a sock, could someone please make a note of it on the ANI where Jack accused me of being disruptive yesterday? If this is the case, the anime and television episode people are going to have some serious work ahead of them cleaning up his previous edits. Thanks though! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• In my experience Jack has a very uncivil and aggressive approach that he uses to advance his controversial interpretations of policy. I didn't realize he was also suspected of being a sockpuppet of a banned user. It looks like a ban, or at least some sort of editing restriction, is in order here. Everyking (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• I would support a revert parole; and also a revert ban for Merridew on White Cat's edits but only if the reverse applies as well - otherwise it leaves carte blanche for White Cat to go round reverting "good" Merridew edits, knowing that there can be no response. Black Kite 10:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• When this first came up, a similar editing pattern didn't seem to be that big of a deal - it could happen. Then, Jack just happens to share the same metropolitan area and that starts to look a bit odd. Now, from what I can see, Jack has followed WhiteCat around a number of places and is exhibiting behavior similar to the original stalking -- I'm sorry, but three strikes and you're out. There are far too many odd little coincidences piling up here and there is absolutely no reason WhiteCat needs to go through this yet again. If Jack cannot voluntarily avoid WhiteCat like the plague, I would support banning this account as a reincarnation. Shell ^babelfish 10:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• The overlap in their edits are in tv episode/character articles. Perhaps I assume the good in people too much, but going on the editor alone, I can't believe that this is someone abusive. I see the disagreement between them as being more about one being inclusionist minded and the another more deletionist. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 12:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• I have worked with Jack a considerable amount through WikiProject D&D where we have both worked to remove/redirect/merge/whatever many of the articles on minor elements of the D&D universe- this has met opposition, as you would expect, but Jack has always acted inside policy. I have also found him to be civil, even in the face of opposition, sometime opposition based on nothing. I have no opinion on him being a sock of a banned user or of stalking White Cat, I have not looked into the evidence. All I can say is that I would be very sad to see Jack banned from the project, and I know he would be missed at WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons. J Milburn (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I can't really speak to the other items being discussed here, but I would tend to disagree that he would be missed much at WikiProject D&D. I would also disagree regarding his civility towards RPG editors who challenge him as well. See Talk:Paladine (Dragonlance) for the latest of many examples of such. BOZ (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I also have to chime in here and say that Jack wouldn't be missed much at WikiProject D&D. He hasn't been the most constructive editor (mostly just adding tags and voting for AFDs, and I've never once seen him vote anything other than delete, with many of them being the same cut'n'paste reason for deletion given on multiple AFDs). A lot of people on the project have had friction with him on an ongoing basis, especially the more productive editors who have added sources, cleaned up and added content, etc, and he's been rather uncivil at times towards those with a different editing perspective than him.Shemeska (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Jack and I worked together nicely here, for which I applaud his friendliness and efforts, but to be balanced, I cannot think of any reasonable or valid "delete" arguments made in AfDs or elsewhere that benefit the project. On the contrary, I have see many unproductive delete "votes" that do not help reference articles, welcome new users, etc., i.e. things that help the project accomplish its objectives of being a comprehensive encyclopedia that anyone can edit. So, maybe an AfD ban would be acceptable, because there is where his weakness lies, and then we could use him as an article expander, where he could develop his strengths, which would allow him to contribute to the project more constructively. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That comes off a lot like you don't agree with him being more deletionist minded and want to ban him because you personally don't agree with him. Just because you can't see the value in his afd comments, doesn't mean they aren't valuable. In fact, I've just been through his most recent afds and the vote he cast was the result the debate ended with; this would indicate that his vote has consensus. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 16:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily. Just because a half dozen or so out of thousands of editors in one week (when say any given article may have been worked on by far more editors and over months or years) felt an article should be deleted does not necessarily reflect true consensus. Much of his controversy seems to be about just wanting to delete stuff. In the example I link to above, I found him friendly to work with in regards to trying to help him expand an article he created. Thus, if he channeled his energy to the kind of work that brought about cooperation and zero controvsery as in his and my work on that article, I think it would be a compromise of sorts. AfDs will go on fine without any one other editor and if they really are consensus deletes, then another delete voice is not necessary. This way he would definitely be contributing the project and would greatly reduce the likelihood of running into the same problems. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

input and insights

I suppose I should not be surprised to see this accusation again. If someone repeats something enough times, people start to believe. This is the underlying principle of advertising.

Firstly, I am not a sockpuppet, as White Cat has repeatedly alleged. He has asserted this many, many times and, quite frankly, I'm now viewing it as harassment. This current thread appears to have been initiated by this plea; Sanity please and its removal from ani four minutes later by User:Nick, whom I don't believe I've ever encountered before. This thread also would appear to be related to Kyaa's attempt to resurrect three redirected articles yesterday; see here.

Secondly, the editing of common articles is primarily centered on the Oh My Goddess episode and character articles; most of the other pages are user talk pages and the two sets of arbcom case pages. The episodes were redirected, by me, after discussions initiated by User:TTN - which is how I became aware of them and where I first encountered White Cat. I documented this all in the first TV E&C case. After that unpleasant experience, it was suggested, by User:Tone, that there were too many character articles and I proposed merging the character articles into a list of characters, which, amazingly, didn't exist at the time; I created said list and proposed the merge, which after several discussion threads, TTN performed.

All of these 'articles' failed to in any way establish notability. White Cat is a fan of this show and and hates me for my part in their being redirected. So, yes, I've edited some common pages. I have not 'targeted' pages because of White Cat's interest in them. I look for articles that are non-notable and have found many TV episode and character 'articles' that don't measure up, but have also found many D&D articles, and recently 'Honorverse' articles. I'm sure, if I were to look into other domains, I would find more. It is amazing what people view as appropriate for an encyclopedia.

I have not taken any position on any issues merely in order to oppose White Cat. Indeed there are issues we have agreed on and I have pointed this out a few times. We agreed on some proposals in the E&C 2 workshop and about it being inappropriate to promote Wikia. At heart, however, we hold different views on the include/delete question, so we are bound to disagree often. I have reverted White Cat on a number of occasions; the ones that most stand out in my mind are the time he reverted all my merge suggestions to OMG chars and the time I reverted his redirection of the OMG List of episodes. He was out of line in both cases.

I do not consider myself to be an uncivil editor. I may express myself strongly, but I don't attack people. You will be hard-pressed to find a diff where I cross the line.

As to edit warring, I have probably undone better than a thousand edits of other users. However, the vast majority of these are the likes of User:Grawp. I have been frequently supported in these efforts by a wide variety of other editors, and I don't believe I have even received any cautions about it.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I've got one small question, can you give us a few details on how you noticed the thread at WP:ANI that I removed - the thread was only there for 4 minutes. Cheers. Nick (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You left a note on my talk page directing me here and I wondered who? So I looked at your user page, talk page, and contribs and there it was not far down; immediately before the creation of this thread. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems a rather fair explanation, actually. Anthøny 13:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't unusual to check someones userpage to have a sense on who this user is. However it is certainly unusual (at least for me) for someone to go through individual edits of the said user - particularly those edits to notice boards. But of course the rational explanation presented is one possibility. What that fails to explain is...

• How Jack Merridew would explain edits like this. How did Jack noticed my edit to an image page? Mind that the difference in time stamps is 30-34 minutes. I was removing a fair-use image from a gallery at Depiction of Jesus which is not related to fiction. There probably are millions of free alternatives to "Depiction of Jesus" so I still do not see why we need a fair use image in that gallery.
• How Jack Merridew noticed this edit to Jimbo's talk page. The time stamp of my edit is 14:39, 15 March 2008. Jacks edit is 09:49, 16 March 2008. Jack loaded every diff presented on the diff I presented to Jimbo. There is a 19 hour gap between the two edits which is more than enough to make such an analysis. What's more interesting is on 09:36, 16 March 2008 Jack posted a comment at User talk:Pixelface. Between his edit to User talk:Pixelface and arbitration case is 13 minutes. In other words he analyzed a really long thread from 2005 which he discovered from my post to arbcom in just 13 minutes.
• How Jack Merridew noticed this edit which links to my edit/discussion with Tony Sidaway between 15:15-19:34, 21 March 2008. Given Tony removed/archived my edit on 18:36, 22 March 2008, I wonder how Jack Merridew noticed a removed edit that is only available in user history as his edit came on 12:12, 23 March 2008. By the time he linked to the discussion the page in question was blanked/archived by Tony. While compiling this evidence I had to review a few diffs even though I knew exactly what I was looking for.
• Why was Jack Merridew involved with this thread on ANI? Is his behaviour there consistent with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick#Moby Dick banned from certain articles? Alas that remedy there does not sanction someone from editing talk pages. But I feel Jack Merridew's contribution to the discussion was less than constructive.

Another interesting question is weather or not Jack Merridew really is a new user. The question about weather or not he is the sockpuppet of Davenbelle/Moby Dick/Diyarbakir trio aside his first few edits to Wikipedia were quite professional.

• First edit of Jack Merridew (back then 'User:Senang Hati' meaning happy hearts in Indonesian or so Jack Merridew claims) was rather professional with wiki-linking, bolding of the first sentence, sectioning external links, categorization ([60])... He even picked the right stub template. He made other 3 professional edits to the same page. All this happened between 8-9 UTC on 11 April 2007. Page was nominated for speedy deletion at 12:45 UTC. It was speedy deleted at 14:39 same day. Jack complained (complaint itself is professional, he knew about the {{hangon}} template and etc without actually seeing it (see his complaint)) and got the article restored. Jack placed a {{hangon}} template the same day after it was restored. He requested a username change 2 days after his first edit (his 17th edit) over COI concerns ([61]).
• All this happened in the same week as the Moby Dick block discussion that got Moby Dick and his sockpuppet Diyarbakir blocked indefinitely. Original IP of Moby Dick/Diyarbakir is still blocked.

-- Cat ^chi? 14:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose any kind of anti-stalking sanction. Such sanctions had proved to be ineffective such as in the case of Davenbelle and in Moby Dick and I would dislike to go through the same nonsense again. While the "goodness" of his other edits maybe disputed (%26.77 of edits by Jack Merridew are to pages that TTN also edited in a "tag team revert war" manner), presence of other "good edits" cannot be used an excuse to continue "bad behaviour" elsewhere. -- Cat ^chi? 15:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

But we haven't established if this is Davenbelle. If you take into consideration that this is a different editor, this technique might work fine. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 15:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Moby Dick was never a confirmed sockpuppet of Davenbelle. He was treated like a new user. I do not see how it will be different for this "third" person from Bali, Indonesia. All I am saying is that the suggestion in question had proved to be ineffective against two "seperate" people from Bali, Indonesia. Fun thing is I had this kind of a discussion roughly 1 year ago. Talk about dejavu. -- Cat ^chi? 15:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a very complex issue, and one that has been long-running: White Cat has been filing complaints against Jack for some time now, and Nick's raising of this issue is going to finally allow us to get to the bottom of it. I'd like to address the problem of the root of the issue, and what that root is. With regards to that, we have two options: whether the problem is about Jack's status as a sock puppet, or whether the problem is his conduct as an editor and a contributor to this project.

I would tentatively suggest that the problem here is the latter: his conduct as an editor. Indeed, there is evidence supporting the accusations that Jack's account is a sock puppet. Conversely, however, there is also evidence on the counter: the checkuser conclusion was not particularly strong (I recall it being a "possible, erring on likely"—such a finding is not conclusive by anybody's standards); the editing habits are worrying, but then again, a lot of accounts have taken a worrying interest in White Cat's contributions, and by no means have all been sock puppets; and the creation of each account could very easily be circumstantial. Forgive me for acting as a devil's advocate here, but I am simply making the point that the possibility of the root issue being that of Jack's status as a sock puppet is somewhat moot.

That leaves the issue of Jack's conduct. I think it is pretty clear that it is somewhat unacceptable—I will leave the justification of that, to the above comments (e.g., Nick's comment), which somewhat sums my thoughts up. Rather than rambling, I'm going to cut straight to the point: something needs to be done. Nick's suggestion of a ban is one possibility; probation or a restriction (remember, it's not only the AC that can install editing restrictions!) I do, however, support some disruption-limiting remedy in this matter, and I would like to hear suggestions as to what can be done. Regards, Anthøny 14:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I can give you stalking WhiteCat and similar article interests with that explanation, but when you add that they live in the same area? At some point, you have to look and go "gee, isn't that odd" -- for the third time. Possible erring towards likely is actually a rather strong statement when you consider the labyrinth that is interpreting checkuser. Maybe we should first ask if Jack would be willing to stop any and all contact with WhiteCat? Shell ^babelfish 15:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• First user from Bali, Indonesia (Davenbelle) was asked to stop after the arbitration case. He for the most part had stopped stalking me to excess. Instead he started nominating templates on my user space for deletion, putting my wiki-stress meter on his userpage, posting a "Cool Cat" image on his userpage, nagging my mentors and so on...
• Second user from Bali, Indonesia (Moby Dick/Diyarbakir) he completely stopped editing before the arbcom case was closed in August (he did stalk and run). He did not edit for months only to return with this edit. Then he continued harassing me on Wikimedia Commons for a little while. He then continued the harassment with his account Diyarbakir with lots of edit gaps preventing any kind of ANI action. After all he could always argue he learned his lesson at any of the gaps.
• So I am not so hot with such a possible sanction to this third user from Bali, Indonesia. Maybe I have a thing for people in Bali, Indonesia... ^ ^;

-- Cat ^chi? 16:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• It would actually be very difficult for Merridew to stalk White Cat at the moment. That's because White Cat has only made 53 mainspace contributions this year; practically all of his other 1,200 edits have been pursuing his attempts to get Merridew blocked. You have to ask - who is making more contribution to the encyclopedia at this point? Black Kite 16:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  Yes. You see I am not allowed to edit wikipedia. If I were to edit article namespace someone (generally from Bali, Indonesia) contradicts whatever I am doing. I used to edit Turkey related real world topics. Because Davenbelle/Moby Dick/Diyarbakir stalked me on such topics I started editing Anime related articles. See where we are now? Had I had peace and quiet in a colaborative enviorment and not have to deal with these three "different" users from Bali, Indonesia for the past 3 years, I am sure I would have more time on the article namespace. I also want to point out that I edit over 300 wikis in various degrees - mostly ones where people from Bali, Indonesia do not interfere with my work. My bot User:Computer has made over 8,000 edits alone in English Wikipedia just this month. Not that I care too much about the "number of edits" but thats more than Jack Merridew's entire contribution since he registered. People are so quick to disregard my hard work. I know no good deed goes unpunished but this is ridiculous. -- Cat ^chi? 16:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  Also despite having so few edits in the article namespace I was still stalked to a degree. I do not edit Wikipedia for the sake of getting stalked. -- Cat ^chi? 16:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

edit point alpha

• Full disclosure: Jack asked me for input here; before editors get bent out of shape & bandy around the empty rodomontade of canvassing, he did so because he & I have crossed paths for a long time now and I can attest, as I have done so before, that his actions have always struck me as in good faith and positive for the project. It is possible that I am prejudiced by the fact White Cat has proven to be such a highly disagreeable editor over his long history here. Frankly, in this instance the credibility of the messenger counts, and the source of these accusations, high-pitched, insistent and repeated as they have now become, is near zero. I don't know who Nick is, but I am disappointed that he has chosen to sanction these scabrous insinuations; I would naturally oppose any course of action that even approximates those called for above as completely inappropriate, bordering on hysterical overreaction. Jack's contributions have been consistently solid and this seems sadly to be another battle in the episode war fought by other means. Eusebeus (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• I'm siding with Merridew myself. What contact I did have with him on Dungeons & Dragons articles has been good (I won't say exemplary because he has a tendency to report sockpuppets of *someone* to me). However, I will disclose that I have only really had contact with Merridew, and the little contact I had with White Cat was at the declined RfArb (where I pointed out that her ArbCom request looked to be on the wrong side of spiteful), ergo I will not comment on that. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 17:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• I too am against sanctions against Merridew at this point. First, I'll be blunt: From what I've seen, Merridew is a better contributor than White Cat. Even if he is a Davenbelle reincarnation, and even if he has been stalking, if I have to choose between Merridew and Cat, I'll choose Merridew. The Arbcom ruling back from 2005 was never a very good ruling in the first place. – Apart from that, White Cat in this section above gives four examples of evidence of alleged stalking by Merridew. Three of them are from the last few days. Now, this is plainly absurd and shows to what lengths Cat's obsession with this issue has gone. Cat has made it his full-time business for the last several week to get Merridew banned. So now Merridew is stalking Cat? Well, of course he is, now. Who wouldn't? If I knew another user was manically out to get me like this, of course I would check every step of theirs on a daily basis. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  I was asked to provide recent examples. Old ones are available in the linked pages. I did not file either one of the E&C cases. I filed the RFAR because an arbitrator recommended me to do so because it wasn't entirely in the scope of E&C2 arbitration case. I filed to RFCU and SSP because arbitrators declined to look into the arbitration case citing a lack of prior steps (RFCU & SSP).

  Unlike people who are the source of disruption by constant revert waring, I stopped editing completely. Regardless of the validity of the reverts, I believe consensus should be reached prior to such edits. I made a very serious effort to reach a consensus on the E&C matter. I do not believe anyone can deny this. Perhaps you simply unhappy because I do not share your opinions on Episode and Character related articles?

  I did a quick check and I am quite unimpressed. Coincidences... :) This is why I hate what Moby Dick was doing. If you are stalked non-stop you start developing a level of paranoia. It becomes harder and harder to assume good faith. Which is why stalking (harassment) is a prohibited behaviour.

  -- Cat ^chi? 19:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  Outside comment by passing editor. Quality of edits do not excuse or lessen violations of policy (if that is what has happened here - like I said, I was just passing by). Rather an honest drudge contributing than a stylish miscreant. I think policy is with me on this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, one of the problems with this debate is it resurrects old battlelines from the trench warfare at AfD, with those of a like mind on much popular culture material having a similar view on Jack's edits as either a net positive or negative on the 'pedia, hence the opinion of Black Kite, Eusebeus, Future Perfect at Sunrise and Kww among others on one side, and some others (me included) on the other. Having had some more positive interactions with Jack recently, my view is one of an expatriate living in Bali who has an issue with systemic bias on wikipedia who became very unhappy after some early Indonesian material they input into the project was deleted, the Senang Hati Foundation being one which was saved, while Allison Sudradjat was not. It is feasible to me that he then has attempted to address systemic bias by setting about to remove material he deems unencyclopedic rather than focus improving some non-western articles. I suppose I am saying I can see a ready explanation for his behaviour as a massive POINT for these early reversions rather than necessarily a sock. However, I have not reviewed the old material so can offer no comment but I did note the timing of all accounts as intriguing.

There are times he has pushed the limits of definitions to push for deletion, and the rate of mowing though RPG material was rapid, and I will not forgive him for making me rummage around in my garage finding dusty old magazines at 35C and 80% humidity in a sticky Sydney summer to find references. I'd be happy if the behaviour could be diverted into more positive endeavours, at least some of the time. Jack is very good at layout and formatting articles properly and there's a heckuva lot which need wikifying. I have found that once away from AfDs (as with some other folks, probably me included), interactions become alot more positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• I won't deny that I, personally, have little sympathy for those editors who wish to infect what is an encyclopedic project with the mindless, fan-driven, obsessive in-universe detail of so many of the fiction, RPG & vidgame articles that we have here. But White Cat's behaviour goes well beyond whatever trivial animus I might have on that particular issue; to suggest I would rise to Jack's defense because of the blinders I wear over that issue is simply incorrect. In one of White Cat's many failed RfAs, I can recall an editor stating to the effect when White Cat gets adminship is when he leaves the project: I basically concur with that sentiment. This is a highly, highly problematic editor whose has created enormous trouble for a very long time. This is simply the latest example of the obsessive disruption that he has made his specialty. Frankly, Wikipedia would probably be better off without him. It would certainly be worse off without Jack. Eusebeus (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thankyou for your measured, thoughtful and sober response. :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you always this hostile Eusebeus? And I am already an admin btw. -- Cat ^chi? 20:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't show that you are an admin... your rights sir. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh not here on en.wikipedia but on wikimedia.commons. Commons by far is the most sensitive of all wikimedia projects. A deletion of a single image there can easily affect every wiki. I am happy to say the fears of people threatening to leave on my adminship are unwarranted. -- Cat ^chi? 23:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've looked further into this. Here's one thing I wonder about: timing. Jack Merridew began getting involved in episode notability conflicts first with an edit at WP:ANI [62] on 6 June 2007, and then with a series of reverts in support of User:TTN a month later [63]. Throughout July and August, he was heavily involved with episode issues, apparently taking his cues mainly from TTN. This seems to have been at a time well before White Cat became involved with this field. All through June and July of 2007, White Cat was busy with other conflicts (Turkish/Kurdish ones and personal issues). The first instance that I can find where Cat got involved with episode notability conflicts during that period was 20 August 2007, when TTN chanced to hit upon the List of Oh My Goddess episodes [64] (to which White Cat had previously contributed [65]).

If Jack had chosen that field of controversy in a premeditated plan to stalk White Cat, he must have been a genius of strategic thinking ahead. Am I missing something? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Jack Merridew originaly edited articles related to non-profit organizations in Bali, Indonesia. He only started editing against fiction related topics as a reaction to people deleting his non-fiction related article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Sudradjat ([66]). Giant WP:POINT if you ask me. He was a very inactive user till the end of June [67], and only started editing fiction related articles as of 7 July 2007. I do not think it was planned at all. Had a bunch of deletionists did not pursue his article to deletion, Jack Merridew would probably be still writing about Bali, Indonesia. He tag teamed with TTN there on. His first contact with me was on 27 July 2007 (20 days after he started editing fiction related topics) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Admiral (Star Trek) which is a part of the Starfleet ranks and insignia series at which I have 456 edits on that specific article alone. An interesting thing to note is the time stamp of my first edit to the afd was 06:21, 26 July 2007 and Jack Merridews was 11:28, 27 July 2007 which puts a 29 hour 7 minute time gap between each other [68]. Davenbelle also was quick to suggest deletion of Star Trek ranks Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparative Ranks and Insignia of Star Trek [69]. After that I started encountering this person more and more. I am sure it is possible to argue that these earlier contacts were mere coincidences and it is not like someone will be sanctioned for his or her edits from January over 6 months later. The key problem is the dosage of the salking has been increasing since. If Jack Merridew is Davenbelle, he is merely returning to his old edit pattern in such a way that he can game around WP:HA. Oh and I personally would not call Jack Merridew a genius. -- Cat ^chi? 23:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Resurrection of removed/redirectified episodes and characters

More importantly, it seems that members of the community are now using the Episodes and Characters RFAR to resurrect articles that fail policy. See, for example, [[70]] and the "conversation" currently taking place at Talk:List of characters in Oh My Goddess!. Black Kite 11:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. A discussion related to the consensus of the particular redirects and the justification stated by a wikipedian in poor standing of such is normal for wikipedia. Its far more troubling to see an administrator leap to the defense of a probable sock puppet of an indef banned troublemaker. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you refrain from accusations like that. Regardless of Merridew's status as a sock (or not), many of his actual edits do have policy-based merit. Black Kite 11:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The merit or lack thereof of his edits is a tangent. Banned users have no good edits. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with that generalization. The proper statement would be that all edits by banned editors are assumed harmful until consensus deems otherwise. --erachima formerly tjstrf 12:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Black Kite here. So are editors no longer allowed to defend Jack now? Has it been settled that Jack is a reincarnated banned user? Not yet. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 12:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're allowed to defend Jack. You're allowed to stand in front of the ocean and hold back the tide. You can even dress up as Spiderman as you do so. But it is certainly far more important to discover whether a duck is a duck or not than the commonplace occurance of a discussion on a talk page. Someone has an amazing skill at redirecting discussion onto tangents rather than focusing at the problem at hand. I give him kudos for his skill. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If I find that a banned user's edits are being repeatedly undone, and I believe that those edits are constructive, I am welcome to re-do those edits. Indeed, it would be remiss of me not to. I hope that such a situation will not arise. Black Kite 12:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Except in the case of a small number of editors, we do not automatically revert a banned user's edits unless they are obviously bad-faith. More to the point, you certainly do not revert a banned user's edits until it is decided that they *are* a banned user. Black Kite 12:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I revert any banned users edits that I encounter, and believe that I am correct in doing so. However, Jack is not known to be a reincarnated banned user. If he is found to be one, then someone will have to undo and redo his edits, because clearly, banned user or not, he is one of the more sensible editors we have.Kww (talk) 12:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is process wonkery at it's very worst. I was under the impression that we were here to build an encyclopedia, and that all our policies were supposedly in support of this. Now, assuming he is indeed a sock of a banned user, we have to go blindly undoing his almost 8000 edits, more than 4000 of which are mainspace, simply because a small portion of which (small enough that the account in question has gone this long without being blocked) might have been as disruptive as whatever the banned editor was banned for in the first place, then assume that the large quantity of which are, as admitted by all involved, perfectly legitimate will be found and redone? And this is supposed to be helpful, necessary even? I find this utterly incomprehensible. The disruption of such mass reversion will be far greater than whatever he could have accomplished in his tenure here on his own.--Dycedarg ж 13:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

A far far more important point

This isn't the median for this. Please feel free to start a seperate thread. This general issue is unrelated to this thread. -- Cat ^chi? 15:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Black Kite 16:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you. -- Cat ^chi? 16:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, guys

Be careful. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Which is why I reverted the article above to its pre-RFAR state. Black Kite 13:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, BK. I've just had a look at the overlap myself. The only non-fiction mainspace overlap (and most of the fiction overlaps are OMG articles) I can find is on Jesse McCartney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), here, and that's not White Cat stalking at all. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I am more concerned that certain users may feel that they can use the Merridew situation as a smokescreen to evade the RFARs (somewhat unhelpful IMHO) outcome. You only need to look at the conversation I've just had at Talk:List of characters in Oh My Goddess! to see that a number of editors continue, despite the RFAR, to insist that "a bunch of involved people agreeing on something" is equivalent to consensus, and that it trumps policy. Which it doesn't. Black Kite 14:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you were involved in the dispute/case, wouldn't it make sense for you to ask someone uninvolved to handle things like reverting? If this is a problem, put together a report for AE. And since the Arbs decided what TNN did wasn't necessarily in good faith, questioning his actions seems a rather natural outcome - hopefully you can all reach an agreeable outcome. Shell ^babelfish 14:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I was reverting to the pre-RFAR version, I don't see a problem. If I had actually been altering the article to a version that was different, you would be correct. Remember also that it was TTNs edit-warring and lack of discussion that the Arbs cautioned him against, not the actual content of his original edits, many of which were perfectly per policy. Incidentally, my involvement in the case was peripheral - I was originally included in a fit of pique by a user after I reverted a whole set of his reversions because I saw them as edit-stalking. Black Kite 14:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's always fun. Thanks for clarifying :) Shell ^babelfish 14:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom does not usually comment on content of edits if they can possibly avoid it--in this case the behavior was quite sufficient for their purpose. I know that some of us hoped that in this case they would give guidance ne way or another about the guidelines for this sort of article, and they did not--in either direction. so I don;t think you can say they endorsed the merges and redirects merely because they did not condemn them. They left the guideline to us, presumably hoping that the general experience from the case will aid in this being done is a civilized way. BlackKite, by the pre-RFAR state you mean the state after TTN's edits. As the edits were major removals of content without discussion, they in my opinion fall into the category of edits by banned editors which should indeed be reverted. But you, like I, are so much involved in the question of the merits of the articles that neither of us should be doing related reversions. I have refrained, and it is appropriate for you to do similarly.DGG (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• I understand your point, and I have suggested on the talkpage a means whereby if the article can be improved then it can be restored without the edit-warring that was taking place. I do not think that TTN's mass-redirecting was the best way to proceed; however, community consensus suggests, and policy says (regardless of TTN, the RFAR or anything else) that such articles which do not show independent notability should be redirected to a "List of..." article, which is the default position to which I have restored. However, given the rather woolly result of the RFAR, if the pre-RFAR position had been that the article was un-redirected, I would have restored to that state. Black Kite 15:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This isn't the place to discuss this. -- Cat ^chi? 15:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• The issue about "Jesse McCartney" had been addressed weeks ago. I myself stated that to be a coincidence on 15:43, 17 February 2008. Users may coincidentally edit different articles particularly if they show a common interest on a topic. Jack's interest goes beyond that. -- Cat ^chi? 15:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• And the article has been restored again, with an edit summary that suggests the RFAR supports this - which it of course doesn't. I'm not going to redirect it again - I have asked the reverting editor to improve it to meet the sourcing and notability concerns, and if it doesn't improve, I'll send it to AfD. Black Kite 19:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  You cannot delete articles that have been merged. That would violate the GFDL license. The edit history would be gone. -- Cat ^chi? 19:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Interesting concept - by merging an article into a "List of..." article, and then undoing the redirect, you create an article that can't be deleted? I think not. You can do a histmerge before delete, but in this case it wasn't merged anyway - someone just wrote a summary on the target page. Or the redirect can be restored, of course.Black Kite 19:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• I'm sure that we can find something to do with the history to preserve it... let's see. How about redirecting it, and protecting the redirect so that people can't resurrect it? That will work, and would prevent the recreation of a truly terrible article while retaining its history.

I truly hope that the outcome of one of the worst Arbcom decisions in history isn't people successfuly attempting to wikilawyer bad articles into immortality. I have to admit the idea that undoing a merge provides permanent immunity against deletion is creative, though.Kww (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You are hoping against hope, I fear. The only surprise is that this hasn't happened sooner. Black Kite 19:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• What White Cat means is you can't delete the edit history. You can delete the title while moving the edit history to a different location or the correct location. Even then, though, redirects are cheap. Everyone who edits Wikipedia should learn the distinction between "article", "title", "topic" and "edit history". Jargon enculturation is what new editors need! (And some older ones as well, but that's another story). Also (though probably not in this case), currently non-notable topics can become notable later, and merges can be undone in those cases. See Lazare Ponticelli for an example of this (the article was merged, but a spate of newspaper article when he died made him notable enough to be demerged). Carcharoth (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• The problem is that effectively that makes the article untouchable, since every time it's redirected, someone undoes the redirect. Black Kite 20:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Aggressively seeking deletion on a non-problematic article (articles that do not have an urgent problem with then such as WP:BLP or copyright related issues) is disruptive and would hurt your case. For example I am not prone at all to compromise an inch to such aggressive measures. That is why I would strongly discourage against AFDing which may lead to Votestacking and disruption regardless of your intentions. To put it in few words, please avoid threats of afds and please avoid any aggressive measures. Let's chill.
• I would recommend letting the articles in question to develop for a while. You are clearly uninterested in this specific article but instead on the general problem of poorly developed fiction related articles. Am I incorrect? I believe there is a strong agreement that there is a problem on poorly developed fiction related articles. I also believe there is a strong disagreement on how this problem should be addressed. I think it is safe to say this. The default in a non-consensus is a keep allowing the articles in question to develop. Currently there is a lack of consensus. Even arbcom was not sure which way to go which is why they did not pass a judgement on this problem. It will be a while until we reach an agreement on this general problem which actually is not unique to fiction related articles. Keep in mind that your (anybody reading this) interpretation of the policy and guidelines are not the only one. There had been controversial alterations to WP:FICT and its validity is currently disputed for that very reason. WP:EPISODE lacks any real consensus behind it at the moment.
• Controversial edits without consensus behind them can be reverted. Non-consensus mass removal of fiction related articles was disruptive and that is why TTN was sanctioned. If the redirectification has consensus behind it, no one would undo that action. Redirectification itself was done in a controversial and perhaps even disruptive manner. The articles in question were among the mass bulk removals. Such mass removals hurt the case of deletionists as people developed a general unofficial inclusionist front.
• I also feel that reverting TTN's edits without improving the articles in question actually hurts the inclusionsits case. I would ask them not to continue this. We all have seen how slow and useless Arbcom can be in resolving this particular dispute. Perhaps due to the obvious reasons arbcom wants to get involved as little as possible. Provoking an E&C3 will not help what inclusionsits are seeking to rescue.
• As a compromise, I would also recommend an article improvement drive on the main characters of Oh My Goddess! starting with the article Belldandy. All involved parties should try to improve this article. At worst case scenario we would have tried our best to improve an article. We can then repeat the process on other similar articles. I think this would be more constructive and more pleasant than arguing about it for days. I am tired of arguing. So you in?

-- Cat ^chi? 20:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• It would be worth, since it's already caused a mini-revert war, to start with Skuld. At least we could ascertain whether it's worth keeping as a separate article. Black Kite 20:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Because that article and others had been subject to a mini-revert war I chose Belldandy as a neutral ground. I really think it would be a better article. We would need to invite Japanese speakers for this initiative. Do you have any users you have in mind? -- Cat ^chi? 21:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

僕は日本語が分かります。そして、「ああっ女神さまっ」が好きです。でも、「ヴェルザンディ」の記事が必要じゃないと思います。「ああっ女神さまっ」だけがあるのいいと思います。Kww (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

And now that I've gotten that out of my system, I would just like to remind you that the Japanese wikipedia hasn't got an article on Belldandy.Kww (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

なにがそれ？　Japanese wikipedia does not have an article on 1,828,000 different topics unlike en.wikipedia. They have a lot to catch up to. ;) Kww you probably lack access to offline Japanese texts, am I correct? Can you see what you can pull on the web? We would need assistance from someone in Japan. Probably contacting a universities pop culture related department may be a good start. -- Cat ^chi? 00:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that from what I understand they're correct that if a substantial content of an article has been merged into another one, it can't be deleted due to the GFDL; edit histories and attribution must remain intact. Typically, from what I understand, a decision to "delete" such an article results in a fully protected redirect with the history intact; thus the articles are no more "untouchable" than any other, they just get redirected as opposed to deleted.--Dycedarg ж 21:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. As others have indicated, any article that is merged must be redirected without bein deleted. Deletion is a last resort for copy vios, personal attacks, and hoaxes. Usually, there is somewhere an article can be merged and redirected to. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You're both missing the point, though. Taking such an article to AfD would result in "AfD isn't the place for this; if you think it should be redirected, be WP:BOLD...etc. Black Kite

Right. And at worse case page would be protected until a consensus is reached. :) -- Cat ^chi? 12:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And I expect that none of the people who have been taking a strong position in the discussions of these articles will be doing the protection or closing AfDs or doing deletions or any other administrative action in connection with these articles. DGG (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

To avoid a Conflict of interest, WP:RFPP (Wikipedia:Requests for page protection) should be used. Unless people are interested in conflict, this should be common sense. Can we drop this matter and focus on improving the article Belldandy? Pretty please? :) -- Cat ^chi? 17:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

User :90.196.3.244 User talk:90.196.3.244

This user is prone to disruptive edits and vandalism. He is reverting reliable sourced material(Terming them pov) in various articles, and avoids discussion on the subject.

Examples

• [71]
• [72]

• He abused a group of people as 'DUMb' and as having 'DUMB HINDU SENSE'[73]

He has recieved a lot of warnings in pastAjjay (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

User has been warned, if his behaviour continues, a block may ensue. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement

Hi, there is a long time backlog at the arbitration enforcement page and MiszaBot II started to archive unresolved cases [74]. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 09:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

User Dbachmann‎

Resolved

 – Or seems to be?

Hello, I have worked relly hard on an article i was working on its called Mahamada and I actually went to my local Library and picked up an Holy Book that is related to my artcile and added information that contains material meant for the article. and that user:Dbachmann keeps reverting my edits and redirecting it to another Holy Book that also contains information about Mahamada. The article was created to post views from all Holy Books and user:Dbachmann seems to be annoyed with information i am providing. whats a user to do? --DWhiskaZ (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Note --> This is my review [75] and that user:dbachmann keeps reverting my edits and redirecting it to another Holy Book that also contains information about Mahamada.(see [76]) to Bhavishya Purana an article that is another holy book that contains information about Mahamad. --DWhiskaZ (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

See also WP:FTN#Mahāmada. Perhaps WP:DRAMA is a more suitable location for this week's instalment of The Chastisement of Dieter? Relata refero (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this translates to the statement that DWhiskaZ refuses the offer to submit to the project's core principles (NOR) and would like to leave Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 12:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Note User:Dbachmann is perhaps using Sockpuppets perhaps? and has no right to take out my comments from other notice boards. this will be relisted and put up at [77] for further dicussion and next time inform me. --DWhiskaZ (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• To use a sockpuppet is a pretty strong accusation and you shouldn't do it without presenting some evidence alongside. Regarding the appropriateness of the article, there is a discussion at fringe theories noticeboard so this is not something to be discussed here. --Tone 18:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I am undone! (face melts) -- Abecedare has just publicly admitted to being my sock! dab (𒁳) 19:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

But seriously ... can some admin block these confirmed socks Abecedare (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Appears every currently listed sock is blocked. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians against Wikipedia

Resolved

 – Page at MfD currently, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:LatinoMuslim/WikipediaBoycott

what are we supposed to do with this sort of thing? In my book, "Wikipedians" who openly state that they oppose Wikipedia on principle aren't Wikipedians at all, and have no business editing it: all we can expect from such editors is trouble and fruitless disputes. We should remember that editing here implicitly presupposes the acceptance of Wikipedia policy. dab (𒁳) 14:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

ah, I see this has already gone through afd and is more than stale (December 2005). It appears to concern User:LatinoMuslim and User:T. Anthony exclusively. Never mind. I am leaving this section in place for the benefit of others who have missed this, but I do not suppose any action should be taken. dab (𒁳) 14:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

MFD'd. Totally useless userbox. And humor doesn't transfer well over the series of tubes. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's humour. I like wikihumour and, aw, I don't want to be guilty of the deletion of a page intended humorously because I was too thick to spot the irony... --dab (𒁳) 16:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Tagging this as resolved, for the time being. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Cradel

I want to complain on user Cradel. He is reverting my contributions on Template:Municipalities of the Republic of Kosovo without any reason. I have started discusion on tallk peage, and I said why I think this is pov template. He didn't said nothing on tallk peage, and reverted template on first version. Reason was: "discuss it first". When I said that I have wrote on tallk peage, he has reverted my contribution again. I'am asking some admin for help, and I want to someone say him that he should stop reverting. For more details see history of Template:Municipalities of the Republic of Kosovo --Jovanvb (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, at the moment we have the article Kosovo and municipalities are the same regardles of what country they are in. What I miss is that there are two templates and none of them is bilingual at the moment. I will let a note to Cradel but for discussion, I suggest you raise it at the Kosovo article, it is the most read article on the topic. --Tone 17:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that two templates aren't nessesary. Template:Municipalities of the Kosovo is inaf, but on many articles is Template:Municipalities of the Republic of Kosovo so I woudn't wanted to change all of them. --Jovanvb (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well Jovanvb you've got a problem. You have no consensus for your changes to the template and Cradel has disputed them. You need to build consensus for your changes since they are disputed. Open an Request for Comment for wider input--Cailil ^talk 01:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Zimzilabim odd behavior

Resolved

 – Checkuser blocked sockpuppet

I'm not sure where to take this since it's not strictly vandalism (or maybe it is?), so here goes.

Zimzilabim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making a bunch of edits today that just change whitespace. Two times he's been asked what's going on, to which he responds by blanking the page and filling it with nonsense. It looks like he's still making these edits, and they all appear to have been today. It's not particularly disruptive, but I find the behavior odd, and I'm not sure what to do. -FrankTobia (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

They've just been blocked for disruption. I support this. Either they should explain why they are clogging recent changes with non-edits (or padding their edit count in preparation for who knows what), or else they should remain blocked. Also notice that the username may be an attempt to impersonate administrator User:ZimZalaBim. Jehochman ^Talk 17:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone gearing up for a heavy round of sockpuppetry... Aryaman (☼) 17:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Worrying Advert

In today's Toronto Star there is a worrying advert that I think you should all be given a heads up on as it could have repercussions on the project. I shall give the text in full.

TEMPORARY advisor req'd with experience editing and posting articles on Wikipedia. Person must be Wikipedia "Administrator".

Contact:info@ifbbpro.com

It could be a serious advert for research purposes, or it could be that the IFBB is going to try and do some kind of advertising and promotional campaign on Wikipedia and wants an administrator to help them out. I don't know which, but if the later I hope no administrator here would consider getting involved. Canterbury Tail talk 18:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should e-mail them and point them in the direction of WP:ADVERT and WP:COI. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Iiiii think I'm gonna go watchlist their articles, just in case, but I'd hope no admins would get involved in something like this. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, someone might want to send a quick email to the newspaper informing them that that ad is quite against our "Terms of Service" (to use language that they'll understand). Mr.Z-man 18:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Maybe they want to release all their old material to PD and they need someone to help them with the techical issues. Anyway, a mail will be the best to do at the moment, tell us about the answer. --Tone 18:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've sent them a mail just to enquire about the "opportunity". It could well be above board, but it may also not be. If I hear back from them I'll let you know, but I wanted to give other admins a heads up on this. Canterbury Tail talk 18:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Do they mean us?

Do they mean us? They surely do. Made me think, anyway. Guy (Help!) 19:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

... Never - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think he's referring to Internet arguments in general. Isn't the author of xkcd a supporter/fan of Wikipedia, anyway? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Go on, be honest - how often have you felt that you 'must correct someone on the Terrible Wrong Thing they just edited in? Guy (Help!) 21:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

In case anybody else likes such things, Mark Liberman from Language Log analysed the word order here. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I do, yes, but I also tend to get the feeling "they're wrong!' when arguing with someone over the Internet on message boards, chat rooms and the like - it's not just limited to Wikipedia editing. I think that general feeling is what Mr. Munroe is referring to, it's not targeting any web site in particular. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

At least he seems to know Wikipedia fairly well. In case somebody still doesn't know it: Citation needed. Be sure to move your mouse over the image: The best thing is the tooltip. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I love that one. JoshuaZ and I were hammering away at each other over the Daniel Brandt DRV till all hours one day and I don't think I stopped till he linked that strip in his edit summary. Relata refero (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this phenomenon is definitely one of the engines that powers Wikipedia. The "somebody is wrong" cartoon definitely helped me kick my mailing list habit. :-) And yes, Randall Munroe is definitely a Wikipedia fan. [78] [79] [80] William Pietri (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget [81] and [82]. — Edokter • Talk • 22:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Saying "Put up or shut up" is a blockable offense?

Resolved

 – Unblocked, satirical potential exhausted.

Maybe it is. But man, we need to have a clearer idea of what WP:CIVIL means then: [83][84] --Filll (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

SA is on a civility parole - what may be permissible for others in certain contexts is not for SA in this. It looks like he violated the terms. Nothing to see here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

He violated the terms of what? "Piss the fuck off" might, might be uncivil, "Put up or shutup" isn't. Unless we're on the road to becoming the wiki-obsequious-toadying-pedia. And if we're on that road, i need to take a new road,. Ever heard academics argue? Seriously, have you? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• No, that was not in any way uncivil. John254 is mounting a spirited defence of the legitimacy of Eric Lerner's views, but doing so from a position of at least partial ignorance, as he acknowledges he has not read the sources (which SA has). In this context, "put up or shut up" simply means that John should stop stonewalling and provide actual sources, or walk away - and I agree. The article would benefit immensely from more secondary sources, but unfortunately Lerner's view is so fringe that very few reliable secondary sources exist. This has already been established through the debate associated with an arbitration case. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

C I V I L I T Y P A R O L E . There has been very many long discussions, ArbComs, RfC's regarding (in part) Scientist Apologist behaviour with regards to Homeopathy and related subjects. I am pretty grateful I have never been involved in any, but I am familiar with it as in anyone who has spent time on these and related pages. I'm sure you can find it in SA's logs, if you look. I actually agree with SA's contempt for "non-science" masquerading as if it were, but I do not think he is correct in the manner in which he converses with the adherents of alternative medicine and the like. His often confrontational, and repeatedly so, approach is not condusive to communal editing. Other people have decided, to reduce disruption but retain the editing skills and knowledge that SA possesses, that he is under stricter standards than most in both the type and manner of his interaction with other editors. Obviously, he has breached that standard.

You will have noticed that I commenced this response with an incivility. I may or may not be warned or commented about it - but I am under no restriction presently. SA is, and would be more severely sanctioned, and that is the difference.

(To Guy) It wouldn't be considered uncivil on the part of most editors - but SA has been warned about the manner of his interactions, and the consequences of continuing. Had he said, "Please provide the references for your claims before posting in this article" instead of the confrontational phrase he did then the block wouldn't have been enacted. SA knows this, and chose the latter style. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason it would not be considered uncivil for most editors is that it isn't. The arbitration case is being interpreted as requiring SA to be made of stone. I don't think it was intended as being a vehicle for making it impossible for him to interact with disputatious editors, since if it were we might as well just let the fringe nutters have their way on the dozen or more aritcles SA has defended in recent times. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a case for WP:Chaperone? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's rude, but I don't think it's doing enough harm to the project to be worth a block. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No ruder than being terse or brusque. Civility parole allows for quick blocks for incivility — it does not reduce the line for incivility to pointlessness. --Haemo (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that comment inspires a better way to put this (in my mind): Civility parole allows for blocks for incivility; it does not change what actually is incivility. If it's not uncivil for someone else to say it, it isn't when SA says it. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't see how that was interpreted as uncivil. If he just said "shut up" - different story - but that means something entirely different, doesn't it? If you are not certain, ask. Jd2718 (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Haemo. "Put up or shut up" clearly expresses frustration, annoyance, and impatience, but it isn't quite incivility. Admins tell non-admins that all the time. Blackworm (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no reasonable interpretation of "civility parole" that changes the definition of civility. Harsher punishments for incivility - sure, i guess. But "civility parole" does not justify a block for something which was not incivility at all. —Random832 (contribs) 00:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Guy, the context of what SA was replying to has to be looked at. John254 is basically being tendentious. SA needs to be unblocked--Cailil ^talk 01:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

SA was unblocked at 20:12, one minute after this thread started [85]. DuncanHill (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalking?

Resolved

 – Not mmm-mm-mmm-mmming, apparently. Hard to disagree. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I recently created a personal sandbox 1 to work on a refactoring of an existing page 2 that I was having difficulty updating because of another user whom get reverting my edit. The sandbox page isn't linked to from anywhere and isn't in any categories. I also didn't mention it to anybody on Wiki. However a couple of hours after I put it up the editor who kept reverting the original page listed my sandbox for MFD on inaccurate grounds. I believe that this user has been watching my edit history in order to act on my edits as I didn't even link to this page from my own Userpage let alone from a page that the user would have browsed to in the normal course of editing.

I twice gave gave testemony this User in arbcoms 1 2 on because of what I believed to be poor conduct and now believe that they may be wikistalking my edits. Could an administrator please investigate this matter if only to put my mind at rest. - perfectblue (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist seems to be blocked, currently (see also #Saying "Put up or shut up" is a blockable offense? above). This seems a bit odd, but one odd incident does not equal a pattern of stalking all by itself. Has this sort of thing happened, before? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

SA was unblocked at 20:12 according to his block log. DuncanHill (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm, since contributions of every user are available with just a click to everyone, I would not neccessarily call this stalking. About arbitrations, have you changed your username since I don't see your edits in any of the two cases? I think you two have a misunderstanding. An easy suggestion is to ask SA to wait until you finish your sandbox article (maybe just move it to /sanbox to avoid confusion) and then you both can have a look at what to correct and how. This is a faster way to get to an article you both agree on. I let a note on MFD as well. --Tone 22:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I know Perfectblue of old. He is another advocate of fringe views. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone remember the episode of All in the Family where Edith was telling a story, and Archie got so tired of hearing her saying "cling peaches" that he put a ban on her using the words for the rest of the story, and so wherever "cling peaches" figured into the story she'd just mumble "mmmm MM-mmms"? That's how I'm beginning to feel about seeing the word "wikistalking" in print. For freakin' serious, people. Someone editing the same articles: NOT mmm-mm-mmm-mmming. Someone reverting your edits in >1 article within a day? NOT mmm-mm-mmm-mmming. Someone looking (horrors!) at your contributions list--NOT mmm-mm-mmm-mmming. There are very clear examples of TRUE mmm-mm-mmm-mmming--but these are totally, abjectly, utterly NOT IT. (/borderline incivility-temperfit.) Jeez. Gladys J Cortez 22:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Perfectblue97/shadow1 as a speedy keep. Sandbox page was created at 14:03, 29 March 2008 and nominated deletion roughly 5 hours later at 18:46, 29 March 2008. -- Cat ^chi? 16:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on Megalithic geometry

→ See also: Articles for deletion/Megalithic geometry and Articles for deletion/Megalithic geometry (2nd nomination).

History. It is up to 5RR if the IP counts as a sock. Seems to be yet another fringe theory article in need of some admin attention. - Neparis (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 29#Megalithic geometry. It's a one-man kook theory with no mainstream support, and the article is almost entirely written from primary sources by someone who thinks we should have an article because "the numbers all add up" - ie WP:TRUTH rather than WP:V. I cannot find a single mainstream source that even dignifies this with a debunking. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Opinions on suspected hoax

Resolved

 – Enquiry settled. Anthøny 14:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Matthew Johnston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Zsd1791 (talk · contribs)
• Emptyaccount (talk · contribs)

• 72.130.17.18 (talk · contribs)
• 72.255.20.46 (talk · contribs)
• 67.49.125.134 (talk · contribs)
• 209.79.72.99 (talk · contribs)

• OTRS 2008033010001181

• My recent reverts

This appears to be an elaborate hoax. A series of IP's have altered surrounding articles to create a walled garden; most notably, my revert to the list of governers page, which restored it to a version which corresponds directly with all the sources.

This was brought to my attention via an OTRS complaint. I'd like a couple more eyes to sanity-check my conclusions, by considering all the above information, before I speedy delete this and block the account and IP's involved. My apologies that I can't write more - I'm in a hurry - but I'll be happy to clarify my thoughts and extend on them when I get the chance.

Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

He was never a governor of Bermuda, according to the official website of the Government of Bermuda. Apparently the term he was alleged to have served (anything between the Battle of Delhi and the Battle of Crown Point; 1775-1803) was served by many different governors: George James Bruere, Thomas Jones, William Browne, Henry Hamilton, James Crawford, Henry Tucker, William Campbell, George Beckwith [86] —Dark ^talk 06:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"..beheaded by Indian warlord Sonam Patel.." Right. A Patel was a "warlord" in 1803. The Scindias' perfectly disciplined army, commanded by Napoleonic officers, had "warlords" in it. "Sonam" can be both male and female, but is usually female among Gujaratis, such as Patels. To make it worse, Battle of Delhi had the following passage: "Due to his incompetency, assistant commander Rick Meyers was killed after retreating from a small group of Indian soldiers led by Sonam Patel, a liberal misandricist commonly known to drink the blood of her decapitated victims. While in Indian captivity he was tortured continually for several weeks until his severed head was sent to Maddie (The Mad Butcher) Suchard at British colonial headquarters in Mumbai. But the battle was won by the swift actions of the 45th Batman cavalry lead by David X. Q. Miles 5th and 1/2 Earl Gerribles, until his death at the hands of the incompetent canon fire of the 3rd Dausian battery lead by Zacharias Daus, an early socialist known for his associations with the beginnings of the Croation communist party." Delete it all, now. Relata refero (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Majorly (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The author is blocked pending explanations. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 08:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all. Daniel (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Tagged as resolved, on the understanding that Daniel's original enquiry as been settled. Anthøny 14:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:SSP

Can anyone assist in clearing it? Cheers, Enigma ^message 06:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking to get through a few within the next hour, after lunch. Regards, Anthøny 14:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Still a severe backlog. Enigma ^message 00:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Just helped clear a bunch, but 28 cases are still listed as open. That's after closing something like a dozen. :) Enigma ^message 02:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Anon IP got my religion wrong

... among other interesting issues: [87] But this is probably not actionable, since it is a Dynamic IP using multiple IP addresses. Cannot be prevented. Network Engineer.. /endsarcasm Antelan^talk 08:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Slapped it with one-week block. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 08:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was getting a bit tired of reverting him after the first 2 dozen times. --erachima formerly tjstrf 08:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both. As promised by the original offending IP, this continues under a new IP. Antelan^talk 08:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Max blocked that one. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Should this be tagged as resolved, or are there outstanding issues? Anthøny 14:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the frothing "YOO IS JEW" ips have returned! For context, please see this archived discussion. SoLando (Talk) 18:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You should note that earlier edits from this IP include "it (Kristallnicht) was a great day in history", "die you fucking kike", "NIGGER JEW NIGGER JEW NIGGER JEW", "FUCKING KIKE GET OFF WIKIPEDIA WE DON'T WANT JEWS HERE" and much other racist abuse. IP has already been blocked twice previously this month, and I don't think that a one week ban is remotely long ennough. Can we not block any anonymous edits from this IP, and insist that anyone editing from there establish an ID? RolandR (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree and have upped it to three months. They may come back on another IP, but the message needs to be loud and clear that this is intolerable.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

WT:IWNB - Straw Poll - Could an administrators please close it?

Hello,

Could an admin close the straw poll at Wikipedia_talk:Irish_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Straw_poll_and_additional_discussion?

This would bring a sense of closure to the straw poll, of which the discussion has been ongoing since March 17th and the straw poll has been ongoing for one week today.

I would prefer if an administrator closed the straw poll as its been divisive at times and needs some form of finality?

Regards,

David. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djegan (talk • contribs) 13:54, 30 Mar 2008

I think any uninvolved user could do that, you don't need an admin, as they aren't listed at WP:RM and you're moving over a redirect. Relata refero (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but with an uninvolved admin their is a certain err of authority and finality for people to move on. Its a near 50/50 vote an thats a battleground for either side if they think they have been outdone. Djegan (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the WP:RM comment would that require a formal move request? Djegan (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it appears that none of the other pages have a history so a formal move request is unnecessary. If you run into trouble moving it, then the normal procedure is to list at WP:RM and then wait five days. Frequently this has the additional plus of bringing new, uninvolved eyes to bear on the question, and the presence of users familiar with naming conventions. Relata refero (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Max Mosley BLP

Please help keep an eye on possible WP:BLP violations in the article Max Mosley. Mosley is the subject of a sensationalist tabloid article, making the article a vandal magnet. Aecis^Brievenbus 14:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Heck, I hope nobody includes the comment "most powerful person in F1" without it being referenced - I don't think Bernie Ecclestone would appreciate it... LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I'm engaging in a coverup. Anyone else think that tabloids are not reliable sources? This could be a serious BLP issue, and now it's evidently been linked from 4chan. Not so good. Antandrus (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it mostly from a single user (User:Logicaldisaster), but he does point out there is now a video clip on YouTube repeating the allegation. Is that now worth a mention or should it be kept off? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm reading BLP too literally, but I don't think YouTube is a reliable source either, and a "Nazi sex orgies" section on the biography of a living person really needs to be sourced to something reliable and mainstream. The way I understand it, this is exactly the kind of case for which BLP was written. Thanks for your help, Antandrus (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

They have evidence of the Loch Ness Monster on YouTube, too... LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• F1 is huge, if it's real then it will be in the Telegraph by next Saturday (motoring section) if not before. We can wait for a better source than the news of the Screws. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It was covered in The Times today. online link. I think it has moved on from being tabloid speculation now, yet I don't know how we could integrate it into the article without considering the BLP implications. Woody (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Bratislava Castle

Hi there. I would like to put out NPOV-dispute templates to the Bratislava Castle article, but anonymous users removes them regularly. Could I ask for a semi-protection of the article? Nmate (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 16:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be probably be a good idea to start up a section on talk page first; simply slapping a NPOV template on top isn't particularly helpful. Besides, it looks like it was just User:Svetovid (who I blocked for an unrelated matter) and User:78.99.32.229, which I can just guess is avoiding the block. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The template which you put out again did not stay there for a long time.The Bratislava Castle is the Slovak nationalist's guarded area. Could I ask for a cascade-protection of the article with a totally disputed template? Nmate (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 17:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You can request it if you'd like. However, again, start on the talk page and then post the template. There is no mention of any POV concerns there, so what are people supposed to do if there isn't something to talk about? Continuing to post it again and again doesn't do anything. Also, don't insult other editors as well. If you have a specific editor in mind, point out their edit warring or incivility or other issues, but do not attack the motives of other people. AGF works both ways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Putting a NPOV tag on an article without putting something on the talk page explaining what the POV problems are is not constructive. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers.I would like to consult Hungarian editors before i do anything.Nmate (talk • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.52.196.154 (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy backlog

CAT:CSD is backing up rather - over 110 pages and 60 images. JohnCD (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look. At least at some. --Tone 21:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

AIV comment templates now available

There is now a set of useful templates when reviewing AIV reports, per the link in the header, following this discussion at Talk:AIV. As ever, comments and improvements welcome. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice. I cannot tell many of the symbols apart, though due to similar colour-scheme/pattern; perhaps emphasize differences between a few. El_C 21:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I should note that this is a forked discussion from WP:AN/I, but I think that requires yet another "comment template" which I can't be bothered to find right now. — CharlotteWebb 21:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Serbian World Congress

I'm very confused. Serbian World Congress is a new page, which looked to me as if it might be copied from somewhere else. A Google search led me to http://www.swc.eurowiki.net/, which, as a Wiki, I wanted to see what their license was, so I went to the home page at http://www.swc.eurowiki.net/MainPage, which says, "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". But the history of the Serbian World Congress article doesn't show any such article as having existed before. Any ideas? Corvus cornix_talk 22:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would first ask the editor who created the article. Second, from looking at the history there, the entire thing was created in one edit by a editor Vize there. It looks like the editor dumped the text here, and then copied it there (including the "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" line on all our articles). Let me ask him. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism of own talk page

• 76.195.67.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Already blocked, but continues to revert talk page: [88], [89]. While still blocked for vandalism, can a user continually remove these notices (in their words, 'fucking garbage') from their talk page? JNW (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the "garbage" statement. The page could be locked until the block expires, but this seems likely to inflame the IP more. The IP has obviously read the messages. Any admin would check the block log and probably the talk page history if anything happens down the road. Gimmetrow 01:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Points well taken. Thank you, JNW (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

He reverted again. Page should be locked, inflamed or not, as this is clearly abuse. JuJube (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

SCV backlog

Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations has a major backlog, and I could really use some help clearing it out. Thanks all! GlassCobra 01:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Need help fixing my mistake

Hi all, technical question for you (sorry if this isn't the right place, but I think I need an admin to sort it out... I tried over at AN/I a few days back, but it got archived without anyone ever responding). A while back, when I was still (even more) inexperienced and all, I found that someone had changed information in the article Adam Russell from its current form of a redirect to Story of the Year, to information on a baseball player. Not wanting to just cut-and-paste move that information (especially assuming that those editors interested in the baseball player would be looking for it again), I did a page move to Adam W. Russell (which has since been moved to Adam Russell (baseball)). Anyway, long story short - I didn't realize that ALL of the page history went with the move. Since there used to be a fair amount of information on the original Adam Russell before his page was changed to a redirect to the band he's in, and I assume that someone *might* eventually want to put it back, I was wondering if there's any way to copy the page history (either all, or up to and including November 13, 2007) (or split it) back to Adam Russell from Adam Russell (baseball). If not, okay, but I just wanted to check. (My current "remedy" was to leave a note on the Talk page for the original Adam Russell mentioning where the history was, but...) Thanks, --Umrguy42 (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves. Mostly involves deleting the article, restoring the edits you want, moving the page and restoring the rest. I'd offer to help but I admittedly have no clue what to do either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Implementing "approved versions" for Evolution

This article has been under attack from a long-term vandal for many months now. The article was indefinitely semi-protected, but due to User:Tile join this seems no longer to be a viable option. Since I don't like the idea of simply indefinitely full-protecting the page and screening edits from the talkpage, I have created Talk:Evolution/draft article and would like people to watchlist this and transfer constructive edits to the main article. I realise this is a little unconventional, but I honestly think this is the best option at this stage. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm very interested to see how this works out, and how it's received - you're probably aware that it's a kind of implementation of 'stable revisions' which is almost ready to go - presumably consensus at the draft page would determine if a change 'stuck'? - Privatemusings (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this could be a good test case. It would be useful to see how well and how often constructive changes to the draft were implemented on the main article. Everyking (talk) 03:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, if these socks are an issue, why not checkuser the lot?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's been done multiple times. Hut 8.5 06:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons

This category is severely backlogged - any admins without anything to do, please take a few minutes to check and delete some of the images in the backlogged categories. Make sure to check against the criteria listed at WP:CSD#I8; the most common problem is that the Commons image isn't in a category anywhere. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

User:LisaTierny

User:LisaTierney has apparently conducted her own RFA, passed it, and is now putting protect and semi-protect tags on pages. After being blocked, she has apparently created a sockpuppet, User:BarbaraPoeTierny and uses the sockpuppet to vandalize, while Lisa goes back and cleans up the mess. This user needs to be investigated. Also seems to have found a way to make her user page invisible.

There seems to be a pattern that I have not noticed before. A number of past vandals to the article Ed, Edd n Eddy and related articles, have also edited Mormon Tabernacle Choir. All of them have eventually been banned. This needs investigation. -- Elaich ^talk 05:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Her userpage isn't invisible, you just spelled the name wrong (BarbaraPoeTierney (talk · contribs)). That, and she hasn't created a userpage yet. JuJube (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA deleted as unneeded. Viridae^Talk 06:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Has the reason you came to this conclusion been because of the use of Tierney in both usernames? It might be an impersonator, something that has happened to many users, which is why doppleganger accounts are created. It is also worth noting that I can only find one edit by BarbaraPoeTierney that LisaTierny has reverted. Lradrama 08:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Mind you though, this edit might be worth looking at. What do others think? Lradrama 08:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We should be clear on something - LisaTierney is not an admin, never was. JuJube (talk) 08:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not if you look at her very small set of contribs. But, regarding this particular case, if BarbaraPoeTierney is a sockpuppet, the sock and the creator would both need blocking, and all other account creation prevented too. Which means we would have to make a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets That is the conclusion we need to arrive at. Lradrama 09:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Checkuser  Confirmed; create and list a case at WP:RFCU as there are a lot more socks. Thatcher 11:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

CSD backlog

Yet again, would appreciate some help to clear it up. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 07:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Religious violence in India

The below is copy paste comment by User:Otolemur crassicaudatus in my talk page. This is regarding edit warring and disruptions by two editors in the article Religious violence in India.
The edits by the other users do not follow various guidelines and WP:CRUFT. The article in its present version has several problems. The "Background" section, if stays, it should include the causes and analysis on religious violence, there is no need to make two separate section "Background" and "Root causes". The root causes should be dealt in the background section. The section "Christian Militancy in North-East India" also has some problems i.e. it documents facts like "The South Asia Terrorism Portal reports that up to 90% of the NLFT cadres are Christian" which is not directly associated with violence. The "Ancient India" section should be rewritten. I named the section "History", but it was renamed to "Ancient India". The section does not deal with ancient India only, but also medieval and post-Independence history. The other users are now engaged in edit-warring and blind reverting. My involvement will not improve the situation. If I get involved in the article, they will revert my edits also. It is very much tough to deal with a pack of disruptive users. I will propose that you bring the matter in administrators noticeboard and a consensus is needed to solve the problems with the article. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

These two users (User:Desione & User:Anupamsr) are spoiling the enhancement and tone of the article because of a prior AfD nominated by me. Today, User: Desione was only involved in edit warring and blind reverting of this particular article. Pl see his contribs and another editor AnupamSR’s contribs. I request you to take immediate action to save the article. Please see the talk page of the article also that clearly shows that these users are editing against consensus & voting. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 08:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Admins, please wait & watch the activities going on in the article. Coz, I hope it should be alright since User:Relata refero has also supported my fight against CRUFT-pov-pushing. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 08:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for revision of Tone's and Seraphim Whipp's adminship

I have addressed my concerns about these administrators before, but they have unfortunately ended up being ignored. [90]

To sum it up, these two administrators constantly revert other editors doing good work (one of which was me, until recently), accusing them of being trolls and sockpuppets with no supporting evidence except for wild assumptions [91], and blocking them. At first, Seraphim Whipp used another administrator as a proxy to block me [92], and later on, Tone and Seraphim blocked other two editors directly [93] [94].

I don't care for my account anymore, as I have since given up contributing to Wikipedia because of all these events, which I personally consider rather hilarious. But I don't want to see other new editors going through the same piss of immature administrators as I have, and being blocked indefinitely just because these administrators have a hard life. Gooddays (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the relation between the SSP case and SW or Tone? Rudget. 12:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Your concerns weren't ignored, they were discussed at great length, and the arising consensus was that you were trolling. The last message on your talk page (placed after your second block) read "If you resume, expect increasing blocks until you finally decide to stop playing games with us" - and yet you're back with the same trolling less than 48 hours after coming off that block. Usually blanking of a talk page is prima facie evidence that a user has read and understood the notices and warnings being blanked - in this instance it would appear that they have been read, understood and resoundingly ignored.

You claim to have given up contributing to Wikipedia - clearly this is in all respects other than trolling. May I suggest you give that up too, before you find yourself on a substantially longer, and probably indefinite, block? _{The public face of GB}^T/C 12:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• The relation between the SSP case and SW or Tone is here [95]. The interesting part here is seeing other administrators following their silly rumors. Regards. Gooddays (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)