Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

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

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 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)

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)

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.[85][86][87][88][89] 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.[90] Well, maybe I had been persuaded by another of Justanother's IPs where he made the connection Are you on drugs, Cirt?[91] 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.[92][93] 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 [94], 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.[95] 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.[96] 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.[97] 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)

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 [98][99]).

Once voting started, he modified a comment against the vote into a vote for removal of the Background section (see [100]).

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 [101])

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. [102] 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.[103] at 6:47 am of 17th of March.
3. Then Harjk goes on to recruit favorable votes.[104][105][106] 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",[107] 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".[108]
5. When I give a warning (please note that I use warning templates - just to avoid being harassed over choice of words),[109] I am told that I am a "sneaky vandal",[110] 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!) [111]
7. While "formatting", my comment is "formatted" into a vote for deletion. [112] 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.[113] In reply I am warned for disrupting the voting process.[114] 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: [115][116]

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", [117] 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:[118]. 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 [119] (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.[120] 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[121] 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. People have been banned for much less. Someone was just recently banned for cracking a joke that an admin took personally. Desione (talk) 20:29, 28 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)

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)

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)

Non-free image outside main space

Could someone look into the use of this Image on the discussion page here, which has been readded twice after being I had changed iit to a link [122] [123], thanks Fasach Nua (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: [124].--Filll (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The block also mentions this other edit [125]. Also, wonder at his awesome block log [126], 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 [127] but, after being asked to take this to the talk page and discuss things he resorted to simple vandalism [128]. When I asked for more input (so we could reach an consensus, he removed my comments and accused me of inciting meatpuppetry [[129]]. 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)

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, [130], [131], [132] even going so far as to claim that those who doesn't share his view should be "indefinitely banned" from Wikipedia. [133] 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 [134], [135], [136]. 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 [137], [138]. 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" [139] and continued attacks against myself [140], reinserted even after an admin removed them [141]. 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 [142], [143] 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 [144].. So, definitely no reason not to apply sanctions at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:27, 26 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)

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: [145] 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)

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)

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)

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)

From the "not evil" department

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review of User:WordBomb ban.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Evidence of reform would be good. A simple desire to come back should not be sufficient. How about letting him try to be productive on another Wikimedia project for a while? It is reasonable to have the length of a ban be related to total extent of disruption, and from what I have heard, that would justify a very long ban. Bans are not punitive but past disruption is our only predictor of future results, if there is no evidence of reform being entered here at all. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• The original block itself was made in bad faith. WordBomb, a new user unfamiliar with the rules, had agreed to abide by rules once they were pointed out to him [146] but, the block was given anyway [147] and then the blocking admin protected his uerspage so he couldn't ask about it [148]. He has promised to obey the rules and the original block was inappropriate. So, unblock. Cla68 (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• You know, Mantanmoreland's first edit was to Naked short selling, to revert an edit that he mislabeled as "vandalism." Perhaps it's possible to be surprised what someone will do if they're not permanently blocked on their first day editing. Mackan79 (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

• How could that case be made? I find it hard to see how someone would be expected to show their ability to edit productively when they were blocked in less than a day. At the same time, his early agreement to stop posting on the topic, his attempt to pursue mediation, and his efforts to contact other administrators when he felt he was being treated unfairly would suggest that he could be a productive editor if he'd been given the chance. Mackan79 (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Puzzling editor will not use Talk or edit summaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 [149]. 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)

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)

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[150], [151], [152], etc.? He received warnings [153] 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)

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 [154] and [155]. Thanks, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-blocked (log) by Scarian. — Athaenara ✉ 16:26, 28 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[156] Sorry, mean webcitation [157] 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 [158]. --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)

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)

Admins editing fully protected pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)