Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive135

Image sizes going haywire

Just an FYI to people, something has been changed site-wide, and a *lot* of images are now being treated as if they had no pixel size assigned to them. A discussion of the situation is going on at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Barnstars format, but I thought this would be a good thing to get the word out about. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been centralised at Wikipedia talk:ClickFix, so check there for details. Happy‑melon 20:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Jack Merridew

(Note: I do not think it would be helpful if the contributors to the episodes-and-characters conflicts chipped in to this discussion.)

I request a decision as to what to do with Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) and White Cat (talk · contribs): more specifically, as to whether community/administrative consensus exists to block Jack Merridew as a sockpuppet of Davenbelle (talk · contribs) aka (almost certainly) Moby Dick (talk · contribs) and other socks. Evidence to connect Jack Merridew to Davenbelle can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Davenbelle, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Davenbelle, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence.

Here are my thoughts on the matter, for what they are worth.

• The evidence connecting Davenbelle/Moby Dick to Jack Merridew is fairly strong and coherent. The chances there being 2 separate editors from Bali whose contributions fit so well together? Not high. Dmcdevit has described this one as being "the likely side of possible". Moby Dick is a banned user: ergo, Davenbelle is banned, ergo, any future sockpuppets should be blocked under policy.
• However, Davenbelle though he may be, Jack Merridew seems to have conducted himself in a restrained manner. He has not been blocked during his time here, has acted in good faith and civilly, and his interactions with White Cat have not been unrestrainedly hostile (and White Cat certainly can be infuriating, not to mention outright disruptive). If this is Davenbelle, it is a Davenbelle who has behaved far better than his previous incarnations. There may well be a case for saying "Ok, fine, you're Davenbelle, but if you keep behaving yourself we can handle you. Just to stick to this one account and we'll let bygones be bygones".
• This is a possible solution, but we may not wish to set a precedent whereby editing well with a sock, and so flouting policy, can get you unbanned. The Davenbelle of years ago was genuinely disruptive: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone and Davenbelle.

Thank you for your time. Moreschi (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Have we tried contacting the editor privately and inviting him to put his hands up and ask nicely? Guy (Help!) 21:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Sent him an email, and am waiting for a reply. Moreschi (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • He said a few days ago that he was going away for a week. Black Kite 21:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Fine, no rush. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

Resolved

 – Blocked. Spebi (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Catgnat is back again of User:Catgnat. Could be a coincidence. Guest9999 (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked as an obvious sockpuppet of Catgnat, the evidence linking the two would be the name (obviously) and the creation of Asshole Fish, which is now protected from creation. Cheers, Spebi (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Guest9999 (talk) 05:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the sockpuppet was actually Catgnat is back again. (talk · contribs), the difference being the period at the end of the username. Spebi (talk) 05:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Guest9999 (talk) 05:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :) Spebi (talk) 05:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Revision deletion required

A revision deletion is needed at Aqsa Parvez. I've also requested oversight, but it's taking a while. Andjam (talk) 06:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. John Reaves 06:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Phillipines radio stations - bad names, cut-and-paste, possible COI

User:Pinoybandwagon had created a series of articles on radio stations, using their brand names as article titles rather than the call letters. I moved some of these to the proper titles, explaining why both in the edit summary and in a note on the editor's talk page. Instead of responding to me in any way, PBW's simply blanked the articles under their proper names and done a cut-and-paste to the old names, with no explanation or justification under the edit summary. Example: Campus Radio General Santos alias DXCJ. It is possible that Bandwagon works for the owning company, as all of the stations involved seem to be part of the same network of station ownership. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Some other editors were helping with this, but Pinoybandwagon has not only started doing this again, but left an angry message on my talk page ordering me, "DO NOT move the Radio Station Info from its name to its callsign just like you did to the Radio Stations in General Santos because it is FINAL." --Orange Mike | Talk 12:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Single User Log-in

See also: Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Usurpations § Single User Login: thoughts?, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Single user log-in, and Wikipedia talk:SUL/Consultation on renames

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-24/Single User Login. Admins are the new guinea pigs! Discussion here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Eep, eep. Anyone got a dandelion leaf? Guy (Help!) 22:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• I feel so used... - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That... is... awesome. I can log into any wiki with this username! Woot! Viridae^Talk 22:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok jokes aside, from what I understand this will affect all MediaWiki projects, what will happen when a admin tries to create a global account but his user name is already taken in other Wikis? - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You can, depending on local policy, usurp your username on that wiki. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea, and was actually wondering the same thing. But overall I think this is pretty sweet! Tiptoety ^talk 22:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A pig just flew past my window. :) krimpet✽ 22:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, discussion at the village pump. Flying pigs stay here. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

And I just got a phone call from my buddies in Hell, they said it is very chilly down there. Anyways, in all seriousness, thanks devs. We been waiting for a long time. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I feel so at one with the universe now, well wiki-universe anyway...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC) I can log into languages whose alphabets I don't even recognise! Viridae^Talk 22:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(4xEC)We should keep any serious discussion at VPT. Facetious comments only in this thread, please :D Happy‑melon 22:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that I've got that edit through.... hehe... thanks devs, this is awesome! Own up then, who's forgotten passwords on obscure wikis? It took me five minutes to remember mine on http://test.wikipedia.org ("aaa" for future reference... :D) Happy‑melon 23:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

<sob> No-one is answering my question at the WP:VPT discussion. Everyone is making silly comments here. And I tried to find a (free) picture of hell freezing over and failed. Obscure passwords? Mine were all the same anyway, or I hadn't bothered to register other accounts. Hang on. Is that serious discussion? I meant to say THANK YOU DEVELOPERS! Carcharoth (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I found one. —Random832 (contribs) 02:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Satan is trapped in the frozen central zone in the Ninth Circle of Hell, Inferno, Canto 34.

Any idea when ordinary mortals get the SUL?--RegentsPark (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The Signpost story said: "It will be enabled for all users at a later date, but in order to work out any bugs in the system, and roll the system out slowly, developers decided to limit the number of users who have initial access to it.". Carcharoth (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Important note

Just a note, if you are merging accounts, they all need to have the same username. If you need to have an account renamed, do so before merging your accounts as it is currently not possible for bureaucrats to rename an account to a name reserved by a global account. Mr.Z-man 23:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a serious comment. I'm copying it to the place for serious discussion (though it is important enough to leave here as well). Carcharoth (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If you need accounts on other wikis usurped, you can ask a bureaucrat on that wiki, or make a request on m:Steward requests/Usurpation. Mr.Z-man 23:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that where the account has made edits, the stewards are only able to perform requests where the wiki has no local bureaucrats or local crats haven't responded to requests after a reasonable period of time. WjBscribe 23:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Could some kind person point me towards the usurption request pages at Commons and fr-Wikipedia and (if possible) a translation of the French Wikipedia one, if that exists? And do I need to attempt usurption on both Commons and fr or just Commons? (I have a differently named account on Commons, but no account on fr, and both Commons and fr have an account with the same name). Carcharoth (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but it looks like the French Wikipedia doesn't offer usurption. From the page on renaming: "Il n’est pas possible de prendre un nom de compte déjà utilisé," translation: "It isn't possible to take the name of an account that's already been used." No mention on any exceptions to this. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 03:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the user in question agreeing to usurption would help (I haven't tried to contact them yet - they have been inactive for over a year with the exception of a single upload on Commons in August this year), or maybe it is a legal thing to do with GFDL? I've had a reply on Commons, and it seems that request might go through (it seems it is the same person). What does this mean overall, though? Does it mean that my global account (when I create it) will work on all projects except fr-Wikipedia and Commons (unless the usurption requests are successful) or does it mean I can't get the full benefits of SUL? (the answer, from meta, is "You will be able to use the global account on all wikis except for the ones where the named account is not under your control.") And what if the fr-Wikipedia user resumes editing and they want to create a global account? Surely the only way they can do this would be to get renamed, because I will have taken the global account first? And what happens when an admin takes a global account that a non-admin user with many, many edits wants? Could be problems. Also, my French is not great. How am I meant to ask on fr-Wikipedia about the usurption process - are interpreters available? I would like to ask at the meta help page, and make sure the developers are aware of these threads, but don't have an account over there yet (I was waiting for SUL, surprisingly - I know, it is best to create the accounts anyway, to avoid cybersquatting, but still). Hmm. Questions, questions! Any answers? Carcharoth (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) By the way, I actually needed a link to the French usurption page, and when you don't know a language it is almost impossible to find this sort of thing. I've made a request for more interwikis and help here. Carcharoth (talk) 09:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't give a link as the page doesn't exist. The renaming page is here and requests are here, though. I assume that if the editor agreed to usurption, they could simply do a double name change (that's allowed on en, even if the editor in question has edits). It might be easiest to contact a bureaucrat on fr. I won't be able to help you much with communication, though. Roughly interpreting French into English is the extent of my ability. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• This doesn't affect usurping, does it? I need to usurp one created by a vandal on gaWP. Guy (Help!) 00:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think (but don't quote me on this) that ordinary usurping when you don't have any edits you want to claim, just involves renaming the other account to another name, taking the edits with them, and then you gaining that user name. I think that can happen after creating the global account. What can't happen is for you to have previously registered an account and want to rename that to a "global account name", and that can't be done (yet, and it may take a long time to happen), which is why renaming (to credit edits to your name) needs to take place before the global account is created. eg. I need to get my Commons:User:Carcharoth (Commons) edits renamed to Commons:User:Carcharoth, which involves a usurption request. Only then should I create the global account. But a straightforward usurption of the name, with no edits to rename to the name, is less of a problem. eg. I request fr:User:Carcharoth to be renamed after I create the global account, and then I can automatically login as Carcharoth on the French Wikipedia. I think. The Commons account is a problem for me, in that the passwords of en-Wikipedia Carcharoth will match the Commons one (I could change this to avoid confusing the system), but the usernames won't match, though a match for usernames will be found (but different passwords). Did that last bit make any sense? Carcharoth (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

SUL and renames

Wikipedia:SUL/Consultation on renames

The implementation of Unified Login may mean that bureaucrats should agree to perform renames in circumstances where our practice is currently to decline them. I have created the above page in an attempt to get a feel for community consensus on SUL and how far bureaucrats should go to accommodate SUL-based rename requests. Input from all welcome and appreciated. WjBscribe 01:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to be facetious, but there is a rather glaring typo in the page name. Will add a more useful comment at the page if I can get in there before someone jumps in and moves it. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

David Eppstein fixed the typo and I'm going around and fixing all of the links. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Signal it on your userpage

Of late, I've been more off Wikipedia than on it; so, I do not know how the community reacts to SUL. I personally feel that SUL is indeed a good system in non-controversial cases where there is no conflict of 2 users having the same username on different Wikimedia projects. I also believe that it is important that people who have gone for SUL signal that their username is unique on all Wikimedia projects - I created the template {{Unified login}} to signal that. Pl. feel free to use it/ improve it. --Gurubrahma (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Great idea :) I've made some changes to it, including a name change. It now sits at {{User unified login}}. Spebi (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Userbox equivalent at {{User SUL}}:

This user has created a global account.

Happy‑melon 13:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

New vandals

Resolved

developed conversation at ANI alreadyKeeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a steady stream of new users who are so called "wiki-mafians". Be on the look out, they have a tendency to mess with RFA, AFD, the mainspace and user talk pages. Rudget. 14:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I just posted some specifics in ANI, too. Tan | 39 15:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In an effort to keep conversation in one place, I'm "resolving" this thread and pointing people here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Unified log in

Hey, just as a reminder, this is now enabled for all admins. Go to Special:MergeAccount to do it. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 15:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

See the thread already running above. Happy‑melon 15:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

behavior of UKPhoenix79 in Great power article

UKPhoenix79 (talk · contribs) continually ignore/remove a source from "the Canadian Encyclopedia", that contradicts his POV and the very disputed list of current Great powers, please ...can someone stop him? thank you --80.104.56.158 (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Harassment and incivility

The user 213.97.51.67 is continuously attacking other users, myself as well as the Macedonian people. The user, who by his own admission is a Greek nationalist, repeatedly accuses anyone not sharing his view of being a troll and pushing for POV, [1], [2], [3] even going so far as to claim that those who doesn't share his view should be "indefinitely banned" from Wikipedia. [4] As can be seen already by a quick look at his edits, it's pretty clear the user is the one with a POV-agenda as he only acknowledges the Greek point of view [5], [6], [7]. A good deal of his anger is directed at me. For the record, I'm neither Macedonian nor Greek, not in any way involved in the dispute and have reverted edits by nationalists from both sides to uphold WP:MOSMAC. This is enough for the user to repeatedly call me a troll and to call for me to be blocked [8], [9]. He has been warned over his incivility, but has instead decided to go even further today, including claims that Macedonians "steal, usurp and kill everyone" [10] and continued attacks against myself [11], reinserted even after an admin removed them [12]. I consider his continuous attacks directed at me on multiple pages harasemment and slander. Obviously he takes no heed of requests for him to observe WP:CIVIL. JdeJ (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• WP:ARBMAC applies. However, it isn't clear to me if this is a stable IP or one with changing users. Can anyone tell? If stable, notify the editor for the case. GRBerry 20:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Appears to be stable and I've notified the editor of this report. JdeJ (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• • It's certainly been stable since 25 February, possibly even since last year, as this points to the same user (the IP is in Spain, so it's not just any random Greek). You can apply ARBMAC sanctions against the user currently behind it, and then if he resurfaces under other IPs they can automatically be applied to those too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • Ok, I've put the IP address on warning, using the good faith version because it might be a shared IP. Admins applying sanctions probably need to reevaluate stability at the time they prepare to act. GRBerry 20:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that seems insufficient to me. "This notice is not to be taken as implying any inappropriate behaviour on your part"? If you really meant that, then why did you give the warning in the first place? That the notice might at some point in the future be read by somebody uninvolved is an entirely different issue, but the point is, the person who is using that page now needs to be given a much much stronger signal.

The only other issue that remains is to work out whether the anon user behind 87.2*.*.* IPs (87.221.4.107, 87.221.5.113, 87.219.85.2, 87.219.85.248, 87.219.85.149, 87.221.5.81) should be treated as a sock- or meatpuppet and placed automatically under the same restrictions. He said here [13], [14] that they were a group of friends, apparently coordinated off-wiki. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I used the assuming good faith version of the ARBMAC warning because I think there is a high likelihood of the warning eventually being seen by someone other than the current editor. If the IP is a small business with more than just a modem/DSL connection, then there could well be other employees. If the IP is a modem/DSL connection, then it will likely be eventually reassigned to some other customer of the ISP. (The power outage scenario, for instance.) If you feel that stronger actions are needed for current behavior, feel free using the usual tools. The point of the notice is to make the full discretionary sanction toolkit available in the future. GRBerry 20:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment While I appreciate the ARBMAC, I wish to repeat that I consider his multiple attacks directed at me harassment, and that's a matter outside ARBMAC. JdeJ (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. His behaviour was so clearly disruptive that there's really not much need waiting with sanctions for another round of warnings. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I'm stupid. I totally forgot that I had warned him already myself, on 4 March [15].. So, definitely no reason not to apply sanctions at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Eratosthenes

Eratosthenes

I've been doing Recent Changes reversal for a few months now and this particular problem escaped my attention. I reverted edits that were very helpful. Perhaps helpful enough to improve the article's quality rating. Unfortunately, the poster was anonymous and edited my personal page in response...and I didn't see it until now. here's the diff: [16] from December 27.

Unfortunately, the edits that I reverted have now been built upon by other people. I think this is valuable information that should not be lost. How do you suggest we proceed? Jadeddissonance (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If you think the information is important enough, use the info from the diffs and weave it into the article. In the edit summary, cite the diff where you found the information. ^{I also think it's very admirable in the care you've shown by bringing this up here.}Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 23:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of rickross.com and religionnewsblog.com as external links/convenience links (has been moved to WP:RSN)

Discussion moved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A number of Wikipedia articles currently link to rickross.com and religionnewsblog.com. With respect to rickross.com, talk page consensus on Talk:Prem Rawat a few weeks ago was that the site appeared to be in breach of WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking: Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Our concern was based on the rickross.com's copyright disclaimer: rickross.com: "All META tags, page titles, keywords and other content descriptions used throughout this website are only intended to assist search engines for research and locating purposes. This in no way, shape or form is intended to mislead anyone by implying any official representation and/or relationship exists between this website and the owners of any trademarks, service marks and/or copyrights, which may contain the same keywords and/or titles." ... "Any publisher, Webmaster or news service (i.e., official and legal holder of copyright) that objects to their material being included in this archive may request that it be removed and/or that future material be excluded. An official written and signed request sent via fax or regular mail made by the copyright holder and/or their legal representative on company or legal letterhead will be honored." Some of the material hosted on rickross.com is for sale online by the legitimate owners. Religion News Blog has been mentioned as a similar case; in particular, this subpage was proposed on the Prem Rawat talk page as a suitable external link. Here too it seems that copyright owners' permission is not routinely sought: "Religion News Blog includes copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner." The Religion News Blog also carries a rather large amount of advertising. Please advise to what extent these two sites should be linked, or existing links to them removed. Jayen466 17:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Suggest taking to WP:RSN with disclosure that local consensus at Talk:Prem Rawat is the subject of scrutiny at an ongoing arbitration case. DurovaCharge! 17:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)  Done, any further comments please at WP:RSN#Use_of_rickross.com_and_religionnewsblog.com_as_external_links.2Fconvenience_links. Jayen466 17:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

08:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Two things

First of all, Image:Yellow_Sub.JPG isn't being used anywhere. This seems supicious.

Secondly, I found a really amusing comment in an article recently that isn't vandalism per se, but just a very very funny phrasing. Should I do anything about it? I really don't want to. 81.149.250.228 (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing suspicious about it. Correctly licensed at a glance, and we have thousands of unused images like this. This one is also unusable, so feel free to send it to WP:IfD for discussion if it bothers you.

If you don't want to do anything about the "funny phrasing", then don't. Editing or not editing is not compulsory. You could, however, provide a link and let others judge. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 08:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is Sulfur hexafluoride. See if you can find it! 81.149.250.228 (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like anyone's found it yet! 81.149.250.228 (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"like all gases other than oxygen, SF₆ is not oxygen." A bit of tautology there methinks ... Graham87 13:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It was added in this edit, apparently in good faith. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, funny no? 81.149.250.228 (talk) 08:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Long list of image sourcing, unspecified license, and disputed fair use rationale for user's uploads

Wiki-film-fan has a long stream of issues with his image uploads, which have all been tagged as delete because of their lack of licensing information, fair use rationale, sourcing, etc. I think this is the place to report this sort of thing. — scetoaux (T/C) 23:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Left a final warning. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection at Furry fandom

Recently someone at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection requested indefinite semi-prot at Furry fandom. It's been protected several times in response to vandalism, before, and doesn't seem likely to stop being a target. That said, I'm not sure if it regularly rises to the level of vandalism I usually associate with indefinite semi. Previously the page was indefinitely move-protected, and so I haven't applied any automated expiry to my current protection (such an expiry would also remove the move prot). Leaving the floor open for discussion of an appropriate expiry time on this current protection (if any). – Luna Santin (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As you can see from the history, there's a good deal of vandalism at the article for the past week. It's fairly common for the article to be the target of forums or just bored folks. That said, I'm not sure an indefinite is necessary, as the majority of the vandalism is caught rather soon and reverted. The occasional *chan attack will happen, but we can protect it when that does. I'd say a week at most is all we need right now. -- Kesh (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't like protecting articles. Unfortunately, the page is the number one hit for a popular target of ridicule, so they do keep coming back. While they can be reverted, doing so and checking over other editors' reverts wastes time (I'm sure I'm not the only one who has it watchlisted). For me, the main argument against it is that the article is still not at a standard where it is unlikely that anonymous edits could significantly improve it (if anyone wants to change this, there's a reward). It was indefinitely semi-protected for months before, and we had a couple of complaints about it during that time. I'm not sure which cost outweighs the other, though. GreenReaper (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that much of the vandalism is spotted right away. I know it doesn't appear that any recent IP contributer has made any appealing edits, but the fact that they are vandalism seems pretty obvious to RC Patrollers. I think we only need indefinate semi-protection when the IP editors cause sufficient problems to the article, and I don't really feel as if the article is under much threat, as the vandal-edits are quickly dealt with. If they weren't, and other, more recent edits masked them, meaning they stayed in the article, then it would be necessary. Lradrama 10:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Just briefly glancing at the history (and counting the number of times the word "revert" appears :D) I would support this protection, at least for now. Remember indef doesn't have to be infinite - just like blocks, protection is reviewed as the situation changes, and can certainly be reversed as and when necessary. Happy‑melon 10:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, FWIW. Yes, most of it was being reverted quickly, but it still clogs up the page history and wastes valuable contributor time. Indefinite semi is not the devil—as Happy said, indef != infinite. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection is now on and looks good to me. I'll watch it, too. Bearian (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. 3 months is probably more than enough. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the article will always be a vandal magnet, and there's probably not much that can be done to prevent it other than semi-protecting it permanently/indefinitely. For the most part I have not noticed the level of vandalism being that bad in recent weeks, although I see it got hit pretty hard for a couple of hours last night. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for redirect inversion on Swiss Italian

Would it be possible to invert the redirect Swiss Italian with the actual page Italian language in Switzerland, for consistency with Austrian German for example? Thanks!! 195.176.176.226 (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not keep in consistant with American English? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done since your edit last February reflects this change and nobody objected. Thanks! (note: edit conflict, I have no opinion either way). -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Image on main page not protected

Resolved

FYI. 65.213.184.1 (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

PipepBot

Can I suggest that an eye be kept on this bot? It sometimes seems to delete interlanguage links for no apparent reason, for example recently at Gmina Brzeg Dolny and Brzeg Dolny. I've left a note at the owner's Italian talk page (from where it appears that there have been similar problems in the past, involving blocks being placed).--Kotniski (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Update. Following brief discussion with the bot owner (he replied at my talk page, I at his), he claims this behaviour is intentional, i.e. the bot is apparetnly deleting interlanguage links which it finds on more than one page. I have serious doubts as to: (a) how a bot is supposed to be capable of deciding which of duplicate links is most correct, and (b) whether there is anything wrong with having such duplicate links anyway (in some cases they would seem to be highly desirable). --Kotniski (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the main problem I see with this is that it is often the desired behavior. There is not going to be a bijection between the topics in one Wikipedia and the topics in another. For instance our biography of Isaac Newton spans many pages, but it seems to me that they should all link to the (lone) Isaac Newton page existing in most other Wikipedias. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You make an excellent point. I don't think the bot, or rather, the bot "operating in manual mode" as Pipep described it, should be going around removing interwiki links in situations of the type you describe. - Neparis (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to answer the questions of Kotniski. (a) The bot is operating in manual mode, and I (the bot owner) am deciding, which of duplicate links is most correct, not the bot itself. (b) Accordingly to Help:Interlanguage links, "Interlanguage links are links from any page (most notably articles) in one Wikipedia language to the same subject in another Wikipedia language", and "interlanguage links are only put from an article to an article covering the same subject, not more and not less". --Pipep (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a stupid policy. It seems like it was placed specifically to make it "easy" for interwiki bots to operate. Well, this is an encyclopedia for humans, not for bots. —Random832 (contribs) 13:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. And the page Help:Interlanguage links cited by Pipep as if it were a policy, is only a help page, not a policy (not even a guideline). Could somebody correct me if I am wrong please? - Neparis (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. If other languages/projects do not yet have an article about Isaac Newton's later life, do we want to make it appear that they do? Hmm...

Well, actually, we could link to something like es:Últimos años de la vida de Isaac Newton, then follow the link and redirect it to the es:Isaac Newton#Últimos años de su vida section, then if all goes well we wouldn't need to change anything when such an article is created. But for that procedure to scale well, we would require smarter bots and better communication between projects. — CharlotteWebb 18:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Having the links implies there's an article where there is none - that doesn't seem like a good thing. It could potentailly cause users who want to translate articles for another language Wikipedia not to. Guest9999 (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Unprofessional

This section has been blanked as a courtesy.

This was only hurting the subject of the article, something we should avoid. Given the high-profile nature of this page (including its' archives) and its' search engine rank, we should give consideration to this fact and move any further discussion, if needed, to user talk pages. The previous contents of the thread, which could be considered "resolved", can be viewed here.

Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Stale DRV

Resolved

Someone please close the ignored and stale unclosed DRV here. I don't know what happens under these circumstances. Thanks! —Kurykh 00:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Closed. Nakon 00:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

I am concerned by the defamatory nature of this edit summary. Not only does it contravene WP:BLP but it could render us liable to action. I think it should be removed from the edit history. However, since I am heavily involved with editing this page I should welcome a review, and if judged appropriate, removal of this entry by an uninvolved admin. TerriersFan (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that you should email Mike Godwin, the General Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation, about his opinion on wikipedia's liability. Currently the policy is only to remove libelous information when either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the subject has specifically asked for the information to be expunged from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision. Jon513 (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I went to delete the article in order to remove that edit, but I got a message saying it's over 5,000 edits and therefore can't be admin deleted. I don't know what the procedure is for such pages, but that edit summary really ought to be removed. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake. Block the troll, and ignore. The WMF will not, and could not be sued over such nonsense. We've plenty of real libels in article space without worrying over silliness in an unsearchable edit summary. --Doc^g 00:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be surprised if we were liable for things in the edit history. I thought that hiding edit history was only done to remove personal information. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I checked the page history on this site, which says the article only has 3,761 edits. I understood that that site was normally accurate, so I wonder who is right. Doc and AG, it's not a question of liability; there's just no reason we should keep edit summaries like that. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 01:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks to be under 5000 edits [17]. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As a first step, I think that User:Sad Git should be blocked to avoid a repetition. I would prefer this done by an uninvolved editor. I suspect that this is a sock account anyway - newbies rarely start by using detailed edit summaries. TerriersFan (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Besides, we just had two high-profile libel cases in the UK over accusations that the McCann's did it... should definitely be oversighted. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oversighted is certainly overkill. There's no private information here, just idiotic vandalism. Yes, some journalists got sued in the UK, but I hardly think stuff in an edit summary by some kid messing on the internet is at all comparable. Goof grief, Wikipedia plays totally irresponsible on BLPs and then hyperventilates over this shit. Perspective people, perspective! There's nothing significant here.--Doc^g 01:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Sad Git

I am a little surprised that people are working on removing the edit summary when the user that made it is unblocked. I have just indef blocked this user for a "serious BLP violation". _(1 == 2)^Until 01:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Does that merit an indef block? I would have done it for a month or 3 ... but I can live with what you did. Bearian (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a really nasty thing that person said, and it was about a living person. The website in question is ran by the girl's parents, so that bit of context may be important. When I see a user do that who has no history of contributing positively, I block indef until they can convince me they will not be such a liability in the future. _(1 == 2)^Until 01:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the indef block; serious BLP problems, and towards people who have brought legal action against people who have said the same thing. I would also support removing the edit from the history. J Milburn (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it was a good call. There is an organised campaign here and their POV position can be seen below the line in posts by GoodForYou (bottom of the page). TerriersFan (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Indef block open and shut. Troll account, no need to stand on ceremony. If he wants to come back as a good contributor he can do so in 24 hours with a new account.--Doc^g 01:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I gave a little explanation of our policies, but I doubt he's more interested in anything more than being a jerk. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

While I am pretty sure his ignorance of what he did wrong was feigned, I agree that it helps appearances to give an explanation as you did. Thanks. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Request Rollback on Pseudopseudohypoparathyroidism

Resolved

 – Vandalism rolled back, and all is again right with the world.

I believe this page has been vandalized as part of a personal prank. The main text now reads "means that Halley sucks balls". I do not know how to roll it back myself and I do not think I have the privileges anyway.

I am sorry if this is not the right place to make this request but I have looked around for the last 10 minutes and this is the best I have found. The Wikipedia section on vandalism says that it is only for reporting chronic vandals for potential banning. I am genuinely trying to follow proper procedures.

In addition to rolling back Pseudopseudohypoparathyroidism to its proper entry, can someone check and make sure that when people type in vandalism and/or rollback in the search box they are directed to a clear place they should go to report vandalized pages that need to be rolled back.

--Michalchik (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. For future reference, you can do it yourself (even without the rollback tool). See here for an explanation of how. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User edit warring again after block

After user User:Res Gestæ Divi Augusti was blocked a few days ago for 3RR in Turkish operations in northern Iraq (2007–2008), he appears unwilling to talk and continues to revert multiple users' edits in [18] and [19]. Thanks, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-blocked (log) by Scarian. — Athaenara ✉ 16:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

COI issues

Resolved

 – Moving venue Rudget. 14:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This may not be the right venue, but does this have a conflict of interest. I started the article a few months back but I think the real person is clearly attempting to promote themselves in the most recent edits. Could this be a username block proposal? Rudget. 14:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:COIN would be a good place. Kelly ^hi! 14:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to think of the link.. Thank you. Rudget. 14:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

SA in trouble again? More evidence of WP:CIVIL out of control?

I completely disagree with a 72 hour block for this, or stating someone's arguments are boneheaded. I mean, come on, this is really pushing it. I am disgusted frankly. I will also note that SA apologized immediately after: [104].--Filll (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The block also mentions this other edit [105]. Also, wonder at his awesome block log [106], altough I have to say that on first sight he was never blocked before for WP:CIVIL, so maybe 24 or 48 hours would have been enough for first violation of civility --Enric Naval (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Enric, SA has been blocked for WP:CIVIL many times and is under an ArbCom restriction that specifcially prohibits incivility. Please see my link below. Ronnotel (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So this was all just an innocent mistake? As were the four previous violations of his Arbcom restriction? Ronnotel (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

While SA might be a bit sarcastic and testy sometimes, he is a valuable contributor. And frankly, I value productivity more than worshipping the god of WP:CIVIL.--Filll (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, civility versus productivity need not be an either-or choice. Civility can be viewed not as an end in itself, but rather as a way of keeping discussion productive. When you're overly rude, or make things personal when they need not be, it distracts other editors from more productive pursuits. Friday (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Friday. But as Raymond pointed out on SA's talk page, this was two days ago. Blocking for something that occurred 2 days ago (and for which SA apologised) appears to be unnecessarily punitive. We don't do punitive blocks. Guettarda (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That said, the project needs SA. Productivity isn't the issue - he deals with cesspools that most of us can't stomach cleaning up. Credibility of the project is what matters, far more than productivity. Guettarda (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, this dif is two days stale? Ok punitive blocks aren't good at all. I suggest an ublock, or at minimum, a drastic shortening of the block. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please explain the preview button to SA? It does wonders for my civility and I suspect could help him out if he committed to using it. But Fill is correct that long blocks for this don't seem to be helping the overall productivity of the encyclopedia. 72 hours seems excessive given how productive an editor SA is. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I would support an unblock if the user has already apologized. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

yes, unblock sounds reasonable based on time elapsed and the apology. Friday (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked SA given the relative staleness and the presence of an apology. I'va also asked him to reconsider the... combative nature of the current state of his talk page. — Coren ^(talk) 19:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the blocking admin have at least been made aware of this discussion before going ahead with an unblock? --Onorem♠Dil 19:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I was under the mistaken impression that this was already the case— I've apologized for that oversight on his talk page. Also see below. — Coren ^(talk) 19:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the time elapsed was due to a discussion at ArbCom enforcement. Ronnotel (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Coren, but this was really a poor decision. Without regarding the merits of the block or unblock, we have WP:AE for a reason, and the report was handled there in the usual manner for reports of Arbitration sanction violations. I would be more than happy to merge the entire board back into WP:AN or WP:ANI, but complaints really need to be handled in one place. Specifically,

1. Filll is forum-shopping, the enforcement request was made and acted on at WP:AE, as was explained on SA's talk page.
2. You have not checked with GRBerry, or reopened the WP:AE thread to offer your dissent.
3. Did you review GRBerry's explanation? SA is under Arbcom sanction for repeated instances of bad behavior.
4. If you feel blocks made at WP:AE are not made in a timely fashion, please consider patrolling there on a regular basis.
5. Please log the unblock, and your reasons for unblocking, on the Arbitration case page, and make a note on the closed WP:AE thread. Thatcher 19:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, how did me posting this note in one place (aside from a discussion on a subpage of Raymond Arritt's, which I was not aware was a venue for administrative action), without even asking for any action, or petitioning anyone for redress, but to express my displeasure, constitute forum shopping? Have I asked at AN/I for action? Did I petition arbcomm for action at AE? Have I asked ANYONE to unblock SA? Please, perhaps I have forgotten doing so. Please demonstrate to me HOW I am forum shopping. I would be glad to make amends and apologize for forum shopping if it can be demonstrated to me that I am. Thank you.--Filll (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I was made aware of the block too late to chime in at AE (I guess I should spend some time there, if only to give a hand). I did mistakenly presume GRBerry was aware of this thread - an error I've already expressed my regrets over to him.

As for the unblock, I want to make certain it is very clear that it's not a reversal of GRBerry's decision, with which I have no beef, but a post facto unblock because of mitigating factors. Frankly, SA has made giant strides if he can recognize that he was uncivil and apologize for it; and I wanted to make certain he would not perceive the block as punitive (which, judging by his talk page, was already the case) to reinforce that positive step forward. — Coren ^(talk) 19:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Did he actually recognize that he was uncivil though? "I apologize for any perceived incivility" is not the same as "I apologize for being uncivil." A step maybe, but it's no giant stride. --Onorem♠Dil 19:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And further, I believe GRBerry took the apology into account in his decision, disregarding it as a "non-apology apology". I concur with Thatcher's point above regarding forum shopping and the out-of-process actions. Ronnotel (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think that the unblock was unwise, but will not be acting further in this matter at this time because SA has clearly climbed the Reichstag since the block, and effective measures to get him down from it need to be taken by others. Overall, I think SA is making some progress towards reform, but like anyone with a longstanding behavior pattern that is attempting to modify their behavior, backsliding occurs along the way. For SA to remain as an editor in the long run, Filll and other editors who agree with SA's point of view need to help SA succeed at eliminating this behavior pattern of attacking other editors. Otherwise, I forsee a future arbitration case giving SA a long term vacation from editing. GRBerry 20:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)This is not a case of forum shopping at all. The discussion at WP:AE was inconclusive, and moreover closed directly after the block, thus preventing further discussion there. Bringing it here and to the attention of a larger group is entirely acceptable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a poor apology, but it's a significant improvement nonetheless. I've already gotten SA to tone down the rhetoric on his talk page, and with a bit of luck we'll have him down the Reighstag soon. Consider this an attempt on my part to mentor him for a while. I'll keep an eye on his behavior; I didn't intend to unblock and leave someone else to clean up after me.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 20:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Stephan is right - there one complaint, two people who say "don't block". GRB's decision to block is opposed by the discussion at AE, not supported by it. Trying to justify this block via AE is just perverse. Guettarda (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The way I read it at AE, John254 makes the initial complaint, John Vandenburg says "not worth a block", and Rocksanddirt disagrees with John Vandenburg (and thus presumably concurs with the complaint about civility). It does not appear to me that GRBerry was going against consensus, and everyone (John Vandenburg included) there seemed to think there was incivility at some level. alanyst ^/talk/ 20:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I misread Rocksanddirt, he's disagreeing which John Vandenberg. But he doesn't seem to be expressing a clear opinion on the complaint. I can't see his conclusion as support for the complaint either. 1:1 is still not consensus. Guettarda (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that 1:1 is not consensus, but the 1:1 disagreement was about whether a block was warranted, not about whether SA had been uncivil; where everyone involved seemed to think SA was uncivil to some degree, GRBerry's decision to block in accord with the civility parole does not suggest poor judgment to me. I don't think he needed a strong consensus for it because of the existing sanctions. alanyst ^/talk/ 21:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is the remedy as decided by ArbCom: "Should (SA) make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, (SA) may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." It doesn't seem to be calling for consensus, just the view of one admin. I don't see GRBerry as acting out of process. Ronnotel (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have really only had contact with SA over one entry, Anomalous phenomenon, where he has failed to remain civil but as some people seem to be objecting to the civility guidelines then that one article includes plenty of other interesting edits - if I am not mistaken he has not only violated WP:3RR [107] but, after being asked to take this to the talk page and discuss things he resorted to simple vandalism [108]. When I asked for more input (so we could reach an consensus, he removed my comments and accused me of inciting meatpuppetry [[109]]. And that is just one article over the space of a week or so - comments on his talk page would suggest this is only one small part of a bigger issue. (Emperor (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

The problem is his refusal to accept responsibility for his incivility, which will often take the form of non-apology apologies. He continues to insist that it is not his actions that are getting him in trouble, but others reactions to his actions - for instance, someone being 'offended' by what he wrote. SA could never offend me because I'm not offended by Wikipedia talk page comments, no matter how rude - but that doesn't mean it's impossible to be uncivil towards me, it just means I have a thick skin. But whether someone is offended or not, continued incivility does make collaborative editing problematic. Now he states on his talk page that he will no longer participate in talk page discussions. One must wonder how he hopes to reach consensus with those with whom he disagrees if he's not willing to talk to them. Dlabtot (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

At this point, no dispute because of no talk page usage would be an improvement. There is no requirement to discuss anything on talk pages, and as long as no edit warring is taking place, it's good enough for the time being. Let's see how this goes. — Coren ^(talk) 21:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hope springs eternal, I suppose. But I just don't see how Bold, Revert, Discuss minus Discuss can equal anything other than edit warring. Dlabtot (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, except under the most strict interpretations, there is a requirement to discuss things on talk pages. It's called WP:DICK. - Revolving Bugbear 18:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's WP:DR#Discussing_with_the_other_party. Dlabtot (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

ROARR

Civility culture-specific. Little UK users known to use use "WTF" as friendly endearment. "Boneheaded" not horrendous insult in any culture. Atomic deathray perfectly civil in monster culture. Admins not civility police. WP:NPA not remotely suggest blocking for testy edits. 'Zilla alarmed by trend of civility blocks. Alarmed 'Zillas with admin tools considerably more dangerous to project than testy edits HINT HINT. bishzilla _ROARR!! 23:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC).

I wholeheartedly endorse this product and/or service. This post earns the MessedRocker Seal of Approval, which means an appropriate licensing fee has been paid and there is no adult content. MessedRocker (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course civility is culture specific. But somehow the people at the UN manage to work together. I am glad to see recent arbcom decisions remind everyone that this is meant to be a collegial environment. We could do with a small bit more collegiality and a small bit less edit warring; we won't achieve that if we refuse to sanction editors who too often exceed our community norms. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Please try not sound so testy, little Carl. That not do tone of place any good. bishzilla _ROARR!! 00:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC).

Indeed, we can all use a reminder sometimes. If the overall tone of WP improved to where my testy comments stood out among the others, that would be a great improvement. But, unfortunately, things have devolved to a point where I would have to strain for most people to notice when I'm speaking strongly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

People get emotional, people gain a vested interest, people get into a shitty mood, and some people are just not good with people at all. It's up to the communicatee to be the bigger man/woman and not let what they perceive as incivility get to them. MessedRocker (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Messedrocker. And given that there are now about 1500 admins, and several thousand other users, from all over the world and from all sorts of societies and cultures, there is no single definition of "civility." Five different editors or admins can have five different interpretations of exactly the same words. The greater problem is that editors cannot predict which admin's personal standards they have to meet in order to remain within the bounds of civility. If they have only encountered admins or other editors who have a liberal interpretation of the policy, and suddenly encounter another admin who has a very strict interpretation that they have never been exposed to - is it the editor who is the problem, really? It is worrisome to see people penalized for using expressions that are perfectly acceptable in their own cultures because someone from another culture decides to interpret them as a great insult. Risker (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're worried about a different problem. Everyone has bad days - that's to be expected, and nobody is (I think) talking about blocking without warning for an isolated comment. The issue I'm thinking of is editors who have an established pattern of incivility despite attempts from others to encourage them to change. It's perfectly reasonable to expect editors to meet some community-established level of decorum if they wish to contribute here, and to remove from the community editors who aren't willing to do so. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've had a good idea

Since nothing stays on the web that long, how about writing a bot that will:

1. Webarchive[110] Sorry, mean webcitation [111] each reference on an article
2. Amend the link on each article to refelect that

Thoughts? 81.149.250.228 (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

a good idea! --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, i just tried that for one of my sub-pages, and that is stunning. Webcitation could very well be one of the most valuable tools we could get in terms of having to replace references. — Κaiba 12:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hold it for a moment. That would have a number of implications that need to be thought through.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a very good-looking tool, but probably not for having a bot do mass conversions (if nothing else, we're the 9th most popular site in the world and could thus easily swamp webcitation.org). But very worth suggesting its use by editors. Do that at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources to see if people want it written into the notes. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 13:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In simple words, if asking an external site on a large scale to archive a copy of material that we cite was compatible with our goals, we might also be doing ourselves, and it seems to be clear that we wouldn't keep copies of copyrighted material here. Moreover, their cites should in any case not replace current ones. As indicated above webcite seems to target individual authors. Actually, we have an article WebCite and dissison threads already at e.g.Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources/Archive_14#WebCite, Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources/Archive_19#Webcite An quite a few links already [112]. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

An archived copy is never a substitute for the real thing; however most citation templates support a parameter like |archiveurl=, and adding an archived copy is always useful. Happy‑melon 13:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This site is good for that at least. I dont support removing the whole reference and replacing it with a archive link, but certainly having the archiveurl parameter filled easier with webcite is always a benefit when URL's are moved, deleted or change drastically in content. — Κaiba 15:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't understand some of the above. What should I do? I've been doing a lot of Wikipedia reading recently (must be honest: some of it at Wikipedia Review, Encyclopedia Dramatica and Wikitruth) and think I have a good handle on what's going on. I think the idea is good. What next? Rather drunk at the moment as well 81.149.250.228 (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, interested in proper contributing as *well*, but the problem is I don't write well. Also have temptations to be rather profane. Better doing random improvements, if you get me 81.149.250.228 (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

help with ClickFix on template:Geobox_image

Can an admin make these changes, (and check them). Template_talk:Geobox_image#fix GameKeeper (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I've got it, assuming your request on Template_talk:Geobox_image#fix was correct. I tested it with Sancti Spíritus Province, the test case your provided, and it looks correct. Thanks for providing the code fix and the test case; that makes things easier. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. You said it didn't work, so I reverted that edit. Is there a chance that some of the other templates that transclude this template are doing something funny that needs to be corrected? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy help. Yes there is a chance that something odd is happening. I am really confused by Bratislava the image is still broken there. It was broken after the fix, which is what suggested to me that the fix did not work.... but when I recreated the infobox for testing here User:GameKeeper/sandbox it all looks OK. I am still trying to get to the bottom of this. GameKeeper (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I did some more experimentation in {{X9}} and hacked away at it until I got it to work. It looks like it's working OK at Bratislava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but it might take a little while for the background processing queue to work through every article that includes {{Geobox}}. I think using {{ifempty}} with {{px}} worked better than trying to use the #if formulation. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A quick look at that template network left me struggling for breath - as a general rule, any template which requires three categories to keep track of all its subcomponents is in need of a serious shakeup :D! It clearly works, but could also clearly work better and more efficiently with a bit of careful restructuring. Good luck finding where the one- or two-character error is in that mess. Happy‑melon 22:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship

Resolved

Hello, I'm Nothing444. I have been reffered here by a user that doesn't want me to mentor new users because I have been recently blocked. But I really want to mentor new users. I won't teach them bad things, or to vandalise or anything. If you want, check out more info on my block at user talk:Nothing444/Archive2. I really want to do this. Nothing444 22:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am the user in question. I told him that he was not qualified to adopt by virtue of the blocks in his block log (very recent). He's trying to have another adopter refer adoptees to him for "mentorship". My judgment in this is that the difference between adoption and mentorship is sufficiently small such as to disallow Nothing444 from both. I should say that I find his enthusiasm refreshing, if misguided. - Philippe | Talk 22:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we assume good faith here? Of course you can assume that I won't teach proteges bad things, but I know that I wont. Please see WP:ASG. Nothing444 22:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It is great to see that you want to try to help new users out however, you were just blocked on the 16th and received a second block on top of that one. May I recommend that you maybe take a little more time to "learn the ropes" or maybe have an editor review to discover the areas that you can improve upon. Give it around 2 months or so and then consider delving into mentoring new Wikipedia editors.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing, I don't think that you'd knowingly guide anyone wrong. I don't think you'd set out to teach them bad things. But I also am not sure that you've demonstrated an understanding of Wikipedia's core principles and beliefs. Get to know this community better, take several months (I think more than two, and the adopt-a-user program specifies at least six months from the date of your last block) and really get to make yourself familiar with what we do. Wikipedia isn't about adopting people, Wikipedia is about writing an encyclopedia. - Philippe | Talk 22:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm seems Philippe is right. The program's guidelines do state that if you have been blocked it is more acceptable to become one six months after a block.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(2xec)There's something you don't see every day - a new shortcut to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Makes me wonder just how many there are! Your enthusiasm is extremely encouraging, but I must echo what Persian Poet Gal has said - it's certainly not appropriate for you to be teaching new users the ropes when your block log seems to indicate that you don't know them perfectly yourself. Everyone makes mistakes, and we all believe in second chances, but I suggest you spend a bit more time settling in and learning the finer nuances of Wikipedia - what rules bend, which ones snap, and which ones bite back - before trying to teach a complete novice. No one can be more damaging than a bad teacher, and while my gut instinct is that you'll eventually make a good one, your logs suggest otherwise, and the logs never lie... they just go out of date :D. Happy‑melon 22:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be worth adding the user also appears to have less than 300 article edits. George The Dragon (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If you all think I need to know the rules better, how about I just write an essay on wikipedia? Nothing444 22:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

An essay doesn't seem like a good idea to solve this.--RyRy5 talk 22:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to stress yourself and write an essay to prove what you know. Just allow an ER to take place, rack up some productive edits here and there, and get to know the community first. It would also give adoptees more faith in you if you have taken the time to adequately learn most of the mechanics behind Wikipedia. Its always good to teach oneself first and then pursue teaching others ;).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I echo the above sentiments; the best teachers are those that have learned the skills they wish to pass on, and the best way to learn around here is a) participate in building the encyclopedia, and b)reading and understanding the rules. The fact that you were unaware of the time limit for previously blocked prospective adoptees indicates a basic lack of familiarity in investigating the areas in which you wish to participate. You are saying you wish to teach others to run when you yourself are still stumbling. You need much more experience, although there is no lack in enthusiasm. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease. I seriuosly cant wait that long. I cant take it. I just neeeeed to menotr users. Nothing444 00:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this last comment makes it seem that your're ready to do so. DGG (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That comment backs up everyones worries and reasons as to why they do not feel you are ready to adopt new users yet, I think it simply comes down to a lack of maturity, maturity which you can only gain over time. Tiptoety ^talk 02:43, 29 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 [113][114]).

Once voting started, he modified a comment against the vote into a vote for removal of the Background section (see [115]).

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 [116])

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. [117] 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.[118] at 6:47 am of 17th of March.
3. Then Harjk goes on to recruit favorable votes.[119][120][121] 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",[122] 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".[123]
5. When I give a warning (please note that I use warning templates - just to avoid being harassed over choice of words),[124] I am told that I am a "sneaky vandal",[125] 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!) [126]
7. While "formatting", my comment is "formatted" into a vote for deletion. [127] 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.[128] In reply I am warned for disrupting the voting process.[129] 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: [130][131]

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", [132] 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:[133]. 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 [134] (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.[135] 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[136] 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)

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)

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

• [137]
• [138]

• He abused a group of people as 'DUMb' and as having 'DUMB HINDU SENSE'[139]

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 [140]. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 09:47, 29 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)

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)

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 [141] and that user:dbachmann keeps reverting my edits and redirecting it to another Holy Book that also contains information about Mahamada.(see [142]) 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 [143] 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)

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:[email protected]

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)

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: [144][145] --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 [146]. DuncanHill (talk) 01:33, 30 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)

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[147], [148], [149], etc.? He received warnings [150] 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)

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 [151], 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 [152], 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)

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, [[153]] 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)

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 [154] —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)

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)

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)

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.[155][156][157][158][159] 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.[160] Well, maybe I had been persuaded by another of Justanother's IPs where he made the connection Are you on drugs, Cirt?[161] 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.[162][163] 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 [164], 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.[165] 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.[166] 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.[167] 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.[168] 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.[169]

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"[170]. 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 [171], JustaHulk[172], Justallofthem[173] (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 [174] [175] — 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"[176] — 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)