If you cannot edit this page, it may be protected. Please leave a message here instead.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You make an excellent point. I don't think the bot, or rather, the bot "operating in manual mode" as Piped would have it, should be going around removing interwiki links in situations of the type you describe. - Neparis (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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...
Despite the fact that this user appears to be an administrator [1], his act is very unprofessional. He keeps removing justified tags from the articles missing citations [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10], and from the articles needing expansion [11].
He's been following me around for the past few days, harassing me on my talk page, including reverting edits in my user space, calling me a troll [12], and assuming bad faith in general [13].
Someone who has the time should keep an eye on him so he doesn't do the same to any other contributing editor, since someone who is new might get easily discouraged to make further contributions by such tactics as User:Tone employs here. Gooddays (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A commment from my side: while this user's intents seem good at first glance, he is in fact using inappropriate tagging several times. Besides, he is reverting my edits without explanation, as can be seen from the evidences above. Any attempts to begin a constructive debate have failed so far and have been met either by blanking the comments of the talkpage (including in a really innovative way, check the history) or writing answers that I don't consider constructive (but this is in fact my opinion). Regarding stalking, I feel it is my duty as an admin to act in such cases. Since my attempts to have a civilised debate have failed (including asking a neutral user for opinion), it may really be the best way to clear things here. I can't WP:AGF here anymore. Thank you for your attention. --Tone15:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably mention that I am already the third user that Goddays reported here, instead of contacting them on talkpages in the first place. While I have no problems with the templates, this is clear exaggerating. --Tone15:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – In Tone’s defense – Tone had asked me to look at several of the articles in question, regarding tagging of the articles for Clean-up – Maintenance – Citations and other tags placed by Gooddays. Where some of the tags justified, yes. However, a good many were asking for inline citations on one-sentence stubs, where the articles were referenced. Others were placed on well-referenced pieces, where the tags were not necessary. I also reviewed Gooddays Talk Page and saw no incivility from Tone comments. On the other hand, I found Gooddays comments boarding on Lawyering. I believe Gooddays is a new – extremely eager editor, that may have just taking the job of tagging a bit overboard. Thanks. ShoesssSTalk15:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything that I'd call an attack from Tone, but I do disagree with the removal of most of the tags in the provided diffs. (one line stubs don't need an inline ref) Inline references might not be a "must", but they are certainly preferred, and I don't see any good reason for removing the tags when they're valid. --Onorem♠Dil15:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, footnotes are certainly preferred, when they make sense. In case of diffs mentioned above, the articles are mostly written on one to three sources and since there are no sentences that would need footnotes more than other, the user in question should probably tell where he wants to have them. Maybe an interesting thing to point out, all the users reported and almost all the articles tagged are connected to Slovenia. Just a curious remark. --Tone16:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the above first comment by User:Tone, I would suggest checking the links in my first post first. For example, I have never reverted anyone's edits, while he has done so to me, which is clearly evident from the links above, and other anonymous users several times [14][15][16][17][18], and even threatening them and calling them vandals [19].
As for my talk page, I have never removed a message from any administrator. I have only removed old messages when I have considered the matter closed. However, User:Tone obviously had other plans, first by preventing me to manage my own user space by reverting me yet again, and then starting a dispute after I have requested on MfD for the archive to be deleted. Gooddays (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The anonymous user that I warned as a vandal blanked a talkpage of a registered user (what qualifies as vandalism - unless this is the same user, not logged in - in that case he was also reverting my edits what is in direct opposition with the claim above). For every edit I reverted, I provided an edit summary explaining my actions. I don't think I went into any kind of dispute regarding the MFD. For further info, removing comments from the talkpage by means of deleting them is not preferred with exception of vandalism, which comments of User:Andrejj were not. --Tone16:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After I reminded him that he should not delete comments by other users, he archieved it and made a request to delete (that was granted here). What was there before were questions about his edits by other users (namely AndrejJ and Kaktus999) - with no answer. --Tone16:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the policy is on these things, but such attitude from the Wikipedia administrators shouldn't be taken so lightly. I wish you all a good day, especially to the rest of the Wikipedia contributors who have to put up with stuff like this, which seems to be normal around here. Gooddays (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have never interacted with Tone before and I explained to you politely on your talk page about the practice regarding talk pages. It should never have been deleted to begin with, however, the deleting admin would not have known not to delete it because the page was moved to a the title "old" and not "archive". Seraphim♥Whipp23:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I mark this resolved? 06:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
On the page Central Europe, some Romanian users are seeing to it that their preferred version of the page is the only one displayed. Their actions include removing fact tags without providing sources and removing any sources inserted by other users that they don't agree with. Based on one single source, a report by the NATO, they have monopolised the article to include Romania in Central Europe. While I don't dispute the source, it's completely opposite to many other sources. To take two relatively respected sources, the CIA Factbook and the United Nations, both place Romania in Eastern Europe. In other words, it's rather obvious we're dealing with conflicting sources. Instead of respecting that, the Romanian users repeatedly delete all allusions to other interpretations of Central Europe than their preferred one. Because of their activity, they can keep the page in the way they want and only today they have repeatedly deleted all fact tags and mentioning of the United Nations and build the page on this single source. Efforts to point out the existance of other sources on the talk page come to nothing. I'd prefer if someone would look into this, it's a pretty classic example of a Wikipedia fault - a small group of dedicated users can in fact hijack a page to edit out all other sources they don't agree with. JdeJ (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note, requests seem to be backing up at the Arbitration Enforcement queue. These often don't require actual arbitrators or clerks, they just require an "uninvolved admin" to examine the complaint and determine whether or not a breach of sanctions has occurred, and if so, implement the remedy as indicated. If any admins here have time, it would be helpful to address a complaint or two, since some of the normal admins monitoring that page seem to be on break. Thanks, Elonka19:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Racism and vandalism, no response from admins
Resolved
– User blocked for 1 week
Today has been the most bizarre day I've seen at Wikipedia, as some admins (notable ÐeadΣyeДrrow)) have come pretty close to giving a blanket excuse for extensive racism and vandalism. The user Marc KJH came off a block today and has been involved in multiple events. These include
Repeatedly making highly racist remarks, calling Romas "gypises", the rough European equivalent of calling Afro-Americans "niggers". The user even moved the article Roma people to "gypsies". [29]
Going to WP:AIV to delete a report on himself [30]
Changing other editor's comments on talk pages. [31]
Deleting tags placed by other users without providing any sources [32], [33]
These are just some of the actions of the user during one single day, the first after coming off a block. Other users have accused him of harassing them, I'm not the one to make that call. Many users have also drawn attention to all this on AIV and his actions don't surprise me all that much, actions like these are commonplace. What surprises me all the more is that admins such as ÐeadΣyeДrrow appear to be happy to view all this as just a common "content dispute". Would DeadEyeArrow or any other admin please explain how racist abuse, deleting reports and changing other editor's comments amount to "content dispute"? I will be direct and say that I find DeadEyeArrow highly unsuitable to be an administrator. I can't know if he didn't bother to check the actions of the user or if he seriously consider all of this a content dispute. Whichever the case, he should perhaps consider paying more attention to how he uses his administrator tools in the future. JdeJ (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The use of Gypsy is hardly considered a term on par with the n-word. Certainly a less preferred term, but not offensive as that. The correct American analogy is the use of the term "Indian" in place of "Native American"... Other than that, I don't see any massively eggregious violations here. Certainly some borderline disruption, such as the removing of the tags, and the page move itself is probably a bad idea. He may well deserve another block for being generally disruptive, but I see nothing that could be charactized as "racist abuse".--Jayron32.talk.contribs20:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree with Jayron32, Gypsy is used by the media and by encyclopedic sources, there are many music bands from this ethnic group calling themselves gypsies, e.g. "Gypsy Kings' .. the word gypsy is definettly not a racist word Rezistenta (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, he was definately rude in places(such as talking in all caps, and being confrontational in tone), but I don't see any real personal attacks. If you could provide specific diffs, we could judge for ourselves what he has done wrong. However, when I look at his last 20 or so contribs, they look to be in good faith and I don't see directly what the problem is. Again, a recent diff showing the specific problem would go a LONG way towards convincing admins that action is needed here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs20:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He is harassing User:Cordless Larry by calling him a vandal when he's actually the one vandalising. I gave him a only warning to stop because he was already on a final warning. He responded by leaving me this message on my talk page. I took this as a personal attack on my character. In any case, this will be my last word on the subject as im now going offline. Thank you TheProf | Talk21:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its blockable when you consider he was already on a final warning. And im not the only person he was doing it to. And he has been distruptive all day. Okay, now im going to watch the rest of Air Crash Investigation. Be back online later! TheProf | Talk21:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfullt disagree with the idea of Gypsy not being racist, or at least derogatory. Yes, it is sometimes used by the Romas themselves as in the case of Gypsy Kings, and there are many African-Americans rappers using the n-word. JdeJ (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would an ordinary English speaker know that the term "gypsy" is regarded this way? Is this view universal? If not, is blocking a user a good way to make a [[[WP:POINT|point]] about how language should be used? Similarly, it should be noted that most people today would prefer the term "African-American" rather than "Afro-American", but this doesn't make a person who uses the out-of-date term an automatic vandal. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The IP duplicated the sections on the page and then corrected itself. So, when you tried to revert, there was nothing to fix, and thus no revision would be saved. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)"
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. JehochmanTalk11:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Justanother posted 5 separate unblock requests for the block that he evaded on the Alfadog account.[34][35][36][37][38] 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.[39] Well, maybe I had been persuaded by another of Justanother's IPs where he made the connection Are you on drugs, Cirt?[40] 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.[41][42] 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. DurovaCharge!17:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. JehochmanTalk19:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. Blueboy9620:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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
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. DurovaCharge!20:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 /talk11:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restrictions placed
As an uninvolved administrator in this matter, I have placed Justanother/Justallofthem/whatever, under the following restrictions:
Identify all accounts you have operated or continue to operate
Choose one of those accounts to edit from
All other accounts are to be indefinitely blocked
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
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)[reply]
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 /talk11:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. DurovaCharge!17:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.contribs18:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[43] 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. DurovaCharge!19:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a wikilink to an article that is named in the singular form, place that word in brackets, and put the suffix after. For example, in this particular case, all that was needed was to change [[cannons]] to [[cannon]]s. Not sure I've explained this all that well; hopefully I made sense. GlassCobra06:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the rights and wrong of the edit war itself, those wanting removal have right on their side: Wikipedia:Non-free content - Policy section, point #9 Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace... As this is a template (not userspace, but not also not an article), I've removed the image. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 10:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The three revert rule does not apply to removing blatant copyright violations, which includes non free images outside the mainspace. J Milburn (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Going over three undos, especially with experienced users tends to result in unplesantness, I think it's better to have a neutral figure like REDVEЯS to make the edit from what can be seen on all sides as a place of objectivity Fasach Nua (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 [44][45]).
Once voting started, he modified a comment against the vote into a vote for removal of the Background section (see [46]).
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 aginst other editors (see [47])
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 Warriortomb10:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
Here is the discussion that I wanted to have. [48] 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.
When I return on 17th of march, a straw poll has been started by Harjk.[49] at 6:47 am of 17th of March.
Then Harjk goes on to recruit favorable votes.[50][51][52] 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.
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",[53] 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".[54]
When I give a warning (please note that I use warning templates - just to avoid being harassed over choice of words),[55] I am told that I am a "sneaky vandal",[56] 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.
Then I am given the reason for poll: violation of 3RR. (I haven't even touched the article until then!) [57]
While "formatting", my comment is "formatted" into a vote for deletion. [58] 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).
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.[59] In reply I am warned for disrupting the voting process.[60] 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.
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", [63] 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.
You should have told me when I switched to this alternate universe where calling asshole is not a foul language.--talk16:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.--talk20:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 [65] (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)[reply]
The problem is not a vote change! The problem is ad-hoc polling without discussion and adhominem attacks after that for taking opposite position. And a clear pattern of misrepresentation. This is clearly not acceptable. What good faith can be assumed when out of the blue someone starts calling you vandal, accuses you of disruption, and discusses you with all the swear words on talk pages? Then comes back with wiki-policies for discrediting you. Even for new users it must be taught that being aggressive is not a cure of your problems.
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 is why I didn't start this report. That is why I am not complaining about it.
But the user is not a new-user who needs a how-to about wikipedia! The user is someone who knows how the system works, how it can be manipulated and how he/she will get away with clear violation of it at the end. The clear choice of words (repeated use of "I am an established editor, you are disrupting an established user") and tactics (putting names of policies etc.) to look like a guy making some point without making one, will show any experienced user why he is a disruptive troll who just cannot be let loose. For example, his reply here:[66] is provocative and here[67] now he is playing victim of "bad faith". Another example is while he is calling me names on Relato's talk page, he goes on to have this "politely correct" reply:[68]. And now that he has got some random article deleted, all the reasons of revert warring has changed into "fork of deleted article". There is no need to assume any kind of faith here - 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. Just because I am on the opposite POV of the article (the article which is begging the question in itself), does not mean I can be neglected. Due to his disrupting trolling and immaturity of Desione, the article is banned now.
This is just not acceptable.
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 <insert banned username>--talk20:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged a couple of talkpages as G8 candidates and was surprised to see that such regular maintenance was taking so long to process. Then I discovered that the template was apparently not placing the tagged page into Category:Candidates for speedy deletion or any other speedy-delete category, which means that no administrator will ever be alerted.
Mmm, there's some weird syntax going on here... I have removed the delaying code for now, if someone has the time to look into it... -- lucasbfrtalk12:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that the parameter in question is supposed to be filled in by another template with subst... I've never heard of a delay applying to G8 though (I've seen various makeshift solutions around C1 templates). —Random832 (contribs) 14:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was introduced in the CSD-template overhaul; clearly it wasn't tested thoroughly enough. It's supposed to be an optional seven-day time delay - if the current timestamp is passed as the first unnamed parameter, it introduced a seven-day delay. If not, it should categorise immediately. As you say, it clearly wasn't working. Hmn..... Happy‑melon17:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 | Talk12:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 | Talk12:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have previously reported this user here for ongoing incivilty and disruption, particularly regarding anything having to do with Foo Fighters, Dave Grohl or any music article related to this band. IPs used (to my knowledge) are listed again below, and there may be more (the IP at the bottom of the list is the most recent). Something needs to be done here - a range block was placed on these IPs before which put a band-aid on the situation but the belligerent behavior started right back up again when the block expired. Myself and several other editors have been dealing with this person for months now, it would be nice to get a few more fresh pairs of eyes on this situation if possible. Please and thank you in advance.
There are many examples and diffs in my prior incident entry, but below are some of the newest examples of disruption (see both edit summaries and comments on article Talk Pages). - eo (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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:
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 subpagewas proposed on the Prem Rawat talk page as a suitable external link. Here too it seems that copyright owners' permission is not routinely sought:
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".
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)[reply]
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‑melon23:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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-man23:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. WjBscribe23:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. WjBscribe01:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yeah, I can see what the other editor thinks s/he means here: the tags on the image say it's a screenshot of Wikipedia, and we allow ourselves to use screenshots of Wikipedia (almost) anywhere on Wikipedia. However, virtually no Wikipedia is visible, so in fact I'd say this is actually a screenshot of Internet Explorer 6 and thus only for use in the mainspace and only where relevant under the NFC policy. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 13:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for crying out loud... Fasach is back and continuing what he does best; stalking me, and only me. Too bad. After a period of rest I was this close to closing this RFC. I will change the image, but one more incident like this will result in a ban request. — Edokter • Talk • 14:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see the problem with this image. It bears no Wikipedia logo, and the IE6 interface is not visible either. I'd say this is protected by GFDL and therefore free. -- lucasbfrtalk17:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It sure looks like a perfectly reasonable GFDL tag. It's a screen shot of a bit of Wikipedia body text, along with a couple of scrollbars at the edge of the window. (The title bar and the remainder of the window are not visible.) At best, I would say that this is an overzealous interpretation of the fair use policy; at worst – if Edoktor's reference to a past dispute is accurate – it is an example of a timewasting and vexatious complaint that may warrant censure. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see—the original image included the whole IE window. Still, a bloody wrongheaded attempt to manipulate the fair-use policy in such a way as to annoy and harrass another editor. The screenshot was being used as part of a reasonable effort to troubleshoot a problem with the way that Wikipedia pages rendered in IE. Deciding that it needed to be immediately removed from the talk page because it contained portions of the IE interface demonstrated either abominably bad judgement or bad faith. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: [78].--Filll (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The block also mentions this other edit [79]. Also, wonder at his awesome block log [80], 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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,
Filll is forum-shopping, the enforcement request was made and acted on at WP:AE, as was explained on SA's talk page.
You have not checked with GRBerry, or reopened the WP:AE thread to offer your dissent.
Did you review GRBerry's explanation? SA is under Arbcom sanction for repeated instances of bad behavior.
If you feel blocks made at WP:AE are not made in a timely fashion, please consider patrolling there on a regular basis.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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♠Dil19:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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. GRBerry20:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Harassment and incivility
The user 213.97.51.67 is continously 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, [81], [82], [83] even going so far as to claim that those who doesn't share his view should be "indefinitely banned" from Wikipedia. [84] 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 [85], [86], [87]. 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 [88], [89]. 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" [90] and continued attacks against myself [91], reinserted even after an admin removed them [92]. 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)[reply]
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. GRBerry20:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. GRBerry20:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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, [Special:Contributions/87.221.5.81|87.221.5.81]]) should be treated as a sock- or meatpuppet and placed automatically under the same restrictions. He said here [93], [94] that they were a group of friends, apparently coordinated off-wiki. Fut.Perf.☼20:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
