Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive159

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Requesting 1) review of my block of Punk Boi 8 and 2) propose community ban[edit]

Punk Boi 8 has been harrassing User:Ral315, claiming that he is not able to work on Wikipedia:Signpost. However, he has a history of inappropriate behavior and improper use of dispute resolution and other Wikipedia processes.

additional examples of his use of the process inappropriately exist during the following timeline which is limited to the Signpost issues only (and the above list is not claimed to be comprehensive) --Trödel 18:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Which brings us to the arbitration filed recently

I have blocked this user for 1 month. I propose that he be indef banned by the community. Additionally the following pages should be deleted:

If there are no major objections - I will implement the above --Trödel 17:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with it all, I'm sick of this user. He doesn't seem to understand the main reason this encyclopedia exists, and as above keeps misusing the resolution process. He is desperate for some sort of power and I found this comment seems a little ridiculous – ArbCom? He must be kidding. I endorse a community ban, or at the very least I approve of blocking. We don't need harrassment here. --Majorly (Talk) 17:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Unless I missed it, Trödel overlooked two other arbitration cases that Punk Boi 8 filed a few weeks ago, which made no sense and I believe set the modern Olympic record for speedy rejection of an arbitration request. His nomination of Krispy Kreme for featured article status today while the article still has neutrality-disputed and cleanup tags on it also isn't going to impress anyone. On the other hand, the user never been blocked before and does have some (not a huge number of, to be sure) good faith edits, so a jump from zero to indefinite is pretty steep. A one-month block is already a long time and hopefully will send the intended message. Suggest a strong warning and monitoring when he comes off the block and the situation can be reconsidered then if he picks up where he left off. Newyorkbrad 18:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry - I got tired of documenting so stopped documenting stuff unrelated to the Signpost after 31 Oct. But there is more... --Trödel 18:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Newyorkbrad; an indef right now seems excessive. Give him a nice cool off block with a Talk page message pointing out that his apparent wish for power/control at Wikipedia is having the exact opposite effect and he is more likely to be banned for this type of behavior than to get sysop'd, etc. If he continues this behavior after his block expires, then an indef would be appropriate.--Isotope23 18:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I got edit conflicted (twice) and there's no point in submitting what I typed now, as Newyorkbrad has already said what I wanted to say. J Di talk 18:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Punk Boi 8 may be indef blocked without many regrets, but we'd better see how he behaves after the current block is over. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
<after edit conflicts>I endorse your block, however, I think a community ban may be too much at this point. I don't think Nathan has any malicious intent, he's just very young. Also, I think we should at least wait and see if this block has any impact on him. It is the first time he has ever been blocked and it is possible (though admittedly, unlikely) that it might make an impression on him and help him to understand that his behaviour is not appropriate. Sarah Ewart 18:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Nathan seems slightly naive, I am of the opinion that a community ban is slightly excessive, I do however endorse a cool down block. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
(Side note) - I believe 48 hours to be an acceptable cool down period and so I urge the blocking admin to reconsider the length, 1 month is pretty long and I can't imagine it will do much good. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I also thought a month was on the long side, but rather than reduce it now, I'd wait for a reasonable unblock request. If community sanctions are in effect, maybe for the rest of the month he could be requested to edit in mainspace rather than projectspace, or something along those lines. Newyorkbrad 18:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Sarah Ewart's assessment above: we're dealing with a little kid here. Maybe the month-long block will lead him to lose interest and find something better to do with his time. Another alternative worth looking at is assigning Nathan some sort of mentor, although admittedly, that's a solution that has had mixed results in the past. A Train take the 18:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I also agree that a 1 month block is quite sufficient. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 18:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have left Nathan a note on his talk page. I agree that a month is long even if I think it was warranted, but had I known he was very young I probably would have done something shorter. I have offered to help mentor him and started by giving him some advice on how to request an unblock. If this goes well, I would wager that he will be back editing with a week, maybe sooner. Thank you for your support and comments. --Trödel 19:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably the one who's had the most dealings with Nathanoblet, initially helping him out upon his entry to Wikipedia several months ago now. In the end he turned on me also, but that's a long boring story we don't need to go into here. I think what we've got here is a case of a very young editor who isn't afraid to try new things, and sometimes the boundaries aren't too clear. I endorse the 1 month block to give Nathanoblet some time to think about how he behaves when editing, but I don't endorse a permanent block just yet. Allow him a chance to show us some positive change. He is a little hungry for power, but perhaps with the right guidance he can become a useful editor. He sure is keen. -- Longhair\talk 21:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse the 1 month block. If he is a kid, maybe he will lose interest in that time. If not, then maybe the reasons for the imposed break will get through to him. If the behaviour returns with him after the block I would then support a year long blo0ck over an indefinate one, because if he is indeed a kid then there is not need to punish him forever for childish actions which he will hopefully gorow out of. ViridaeTalk 21:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully the suggestion of mentorship will help things work out well here. It should also be noted that if this is indeed a younger editor, there is also a WP:CHILD issue here as from a Google search it appears the username may be the editor's real-world name. I've mentioned this to User:Trödel who has offered to mentor, with the suggestion that he guide the user either to WP:CHU or suggest that he start a new account. Newyorkbrad 23:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Strongly support block. Not sure about allowing the user to "hide" his past under a new username, so to speak, so would prefer CHU. – Chacor 00:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a community-consented probation?[edit]

Just throwing some ideas does a probation about disrputive behaviour pertaining to the writing of the Signpost. I mean, something like:-

Punk Boi 8 is placed on disruption probation for one year regarding the operation of the Wikipedia Signpost and its' compilation; if he harasses Ral315 (the editor), other writers, or any general page related to this production, he may be blocked for up to one week at an uninvolved administrators' discretion, and up to one month after three such blocks, again at an uninvolved administrators' discretion. Any such action to be logged at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for discussion.

Although WP:PROB doesn't specify that a superconcensus of users can actually create probation terms, I believe that in the spirit of WP:IAR, and following the lead of WP:BAN (regarding community bans), it could be allowable. Thoughts? Daniel.Bryant T · C ] 00:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, but I really disliked seeing this happen on Wikipedia once before, an indefinite community ban on a user who had never been blocked before. I've said it before, so I know many of you have just moved on, but sometimes disruptive users get used to not being blocked when they display atrocious behaviour--and they become bolder and bolder, when just having blocked them earlier for their bad behaviour, blocked them repeatedly, and blocked them for a longer time, could have had a positive impact. I think potentially good editors can be made into bad and disruptive ones simply by being allowed to get away with too much. And, with probabtion, no one would have to doubt they had given the user every chance. Please consider probabtion first, you'll feel better when and if you eventually ban the user. And thanks for the info on the Krispy Kreme FAC--very hard to figure out what it was doing there. KP Botany 00:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Thats not an indefinate one though, it is a 1 year community imposed one. ViridaeTalk 04:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this was a good suggestion, so combining it with this editors offer to only edit Main and talk namespace, I have unblocked him, and placed him on a voluntary probation This is pending his review with me of his goals, and the proper way to resolve disputes. See his talk page for a framework for the mentoring of this young user. I anticipate that most of the communication will be by email. Thanks to Sarah Ewart and Longhair who have offered to help --Trödel 04:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Block note[edit]

I have indefinitely blocked Insertnamehere1 (talk · contribs). His contribs log should be a good indication why; it appears to be a SPA, and his last edit with nasty attacks in the summary was way out of line. If people think this is too harsh of me, comments are welcome. (Radiant) 17:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That edit summary alone justifies the block. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks like an incivil spam account to me, just posting links and mentions of a certain website, good call. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone should delete that edit to get the summary out of the history. Newyorkbrad 22:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
(Not admin) What about Wikipedia:Requests_for_oversight? Yuser31415 23:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Oversight (which only a dozen or so people in the whole project can access) would be overkill here. Just getting it off the main database should suffice, which any admin can do. Newyorkbrad 01:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible libellous entry on living person[edit]

See this diff that is libellous about the subject. It is unsourced and almost certainly false. I have reverted it, but should it be removed from the history? --Bduke 01:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's common practice to do that unless requested to by the subject of the article. I'm not 100% sure, so others more experianced should reply. ---J.S (T/C) 01:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Unsourced negative or controversial material in the biography of a living person should be removed from the article immediately per WP:LIVING. I do not know that the claim in this case is so scurrilous as to warrant removing the edit from the history, but it couldn't hurt. The statement that Somare's face is on the 50 kina note, however, is accurate and may be included. Newyorkbrad 01:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Appears to have been deleted. ViridaeTalk 03:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Glen S deleted the edit and the revert. Doesnt hurt to be safe, but I'd not want to be the one to clean up the libel from the history of an article like GW Bush. ---J.S (T/C) 04:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Socks of User:Sion glyn[edit]

User:Sion glyn has been using sockpuppets to make disruptive edits to Republic of Ireland and Isle of Man in an attempt to make a point regarding an ongoing content/naming dispute on Wales.

Confirmed socks are User:Englishpound and User:Aperfectmanisaenglishman.

Results of CheckUser investigation can be seen here: [1] Dppowell 05:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Protection hoaxing[edit]

Pshicine (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has just run a protection hoax on today's FA, complete with clever {{indefblock}} templates on his userpages (they are now true). Just something people should be aware of. Oh yeah, and now he's requesting to be unblocked.--Kchase T 05:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Well the protection template stuff could have been good faith (just uninformed) but the indef block template and the "admin abuse!" unblock request aren't good signs. The unblock request has been denied by Netsnipe, by the way. --W.marsh 05:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin plays detective...what next?[edit]

Ever want to sleuth down one of the long term vandals? Well a couple of people think I've succeeded. My summaries of the matter are at User_talk:Durova#Editor_X_.2F_Joan_of_Arc andTalk:Joan_of_Arc#Return_of_Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse.23Joan_of_Arc_vandal.3F, which I daresay make interesting reading especially if you put on a pair of dark sunglasses and play The Pink Panther theme. If my evidence holds up to scrutiny, this guy has been disrupting Wikipedia's Catholicism, homosexuality, and crossdressing articles for 26 months without getting caught (December 8 will be his anniversary).

Trouble is, because he's been so slippery, I probably can't get a checkuser on this sock drawer. Doc Tropics suggested an RfC. I'd like to find out whether I'm right and if I'm on the mark I'd like to seek a community ban. So all of you Sherlock Holmes types, come on over and bring your magnifying glass. This one might boggle your eyes. DurovaCharge! 15:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That took a while to read! You have amassed a bevy of suggestive evidence; statistically, Editor X could have won the lottery before being two people from the same town with the same in-depth knowledge and yet rather bizarre theories, unless of course, he has converts. In either case, the behavior is incredibly disruptive not just because of the behavior itself, but the subtly with which it undermines the article. The editor has already been almost completely unresponsive to discussion and attempts to reform their behavior including being dishonest when cornered - since it doesn't appear meaningful contact can be made, I'd support the idea of a community ban. Shell babelfish 16:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[ec] Blimey. That was a patient and thorough piece of work! I suspect that support for a ban based on this will be pretty much unanimous, but one could always take it to ArbCom in case of doubt. Gold star, either way. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I can try and help you get a checkuser through but if he's on AOL it won't do any good. If you assemble a list of accounts with recent edits (<1 month) and a brief statement, go ahead and file it. I expect once more people read this they will support a ban without technical confirmation (which can only go back a few weeks in any case). Thatcher131 16:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I've invited one of these accounts to agree to a checkuser. How exactly does the AOL wrinkle crease this seam - would they be limited to confirming whether or not this person hails from Reston, Virginia? That could be enough in light of the other evidence. I'm not the least bit averse to naming him at AOL's abuse department and requesting they revoke his service. That would take considerably less effort than I've already spent undoing his damage. DurovaCharge! 17:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
If he's using AOL then I'm not sure how you can even be sure of his geographic location, since I think all US AOL addresses show up as Reston VA. Unless this editor made a specific slip-up which I am reluctant to discuss publically, the only thing checkuser could reveal is that each of the suspected accounts has edited from AOL. Since thousands of editors use AOL, this would not provide any confirmation that the accounts were operated by the same person. A check may still be productive if this person was careless in a certain way, or he may be using multiple ISPs where it would be easier to track him. Thatcher131 17:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I see. To the best of my knowledge he's been a loyal AOL customer. They host his website - and as extraordinary as this is for an AOL homepage, of the 3 million-odd Google returns for a "Joan of Arc" search he's consistently numero uno. So regardless of his actual residence location I'm pretty sure AOL's abuse department could pinpoint him and I don't think he wants his service interrupted. What worries me more is his disruption on other topics, which appears to have been continuous - the homosexuality pages especially. I'm getting set to roll up my sleeves and dig into that evidence now that people take this matter seriously - he's clever but not too clever. DurovaCharge! 17:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The only thing checkuser can do then is, for any user name he has used in the last month or so, give you the IP address as of the time of its edits. This would probably not be released to you but could be forwarded to AOL's abuse department, so they could attempt to determine if the wikipedia vandal is the same person whose web site they host. I don't know what it would take to convince AOL to take action, though. Thatcher131 17:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Durova: All AOL users show up from Reston, Virginia. But the most important thing to keep in mind is that the IP address for AOL users is never linked to a specific account but instead is based on the page (URL) being viewed or edited -- see Wikipedia's information on this. It's very odd but that's how AOL IPs work for reasons known only to their engineers.
The upshot is that an IP check won't do any good and neither will reporting a set of IPs to AOL. They're likely to just ignore you because you won't be reporting a single and discrete user given that all users are on the same range of IPs. You will instead be telling them that some of the many millions of AOL subscribers happen to get those IPs while editing certain articles, which is not going to come as a surprise to them.
You can never be sure whether an AOL vandal is one person or a whole host of users who end up editing under the same IPs. Other websites such as BBs have the same problem. EReference 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the dissection of AOL's innards. Since I actually do have this vandal's real-life name, would AOL's abuse department take notice? DurovaCharge! 18:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, aren't you assuming that the IPs are linked to that real name? They wouldn't necessarily be linked to a given individual, or even a single individual. And since anyone can claim to be anyone else on here, a name is not proof of identity. AOL cannot suspend someone's paid account based merely on an allegation. This comes up repeatedly on many websites since there's no way to tell who anyone really is on the internet. EReference 19:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Durova, with all due respect for your detective work, I'm a tad uncomfortable with you referring to the guy as a "vandal" and "long-term abuser". Did he ever get blocked? He's not currently banned under any of his accounts, is he? From your description I take it that his main accounts were used subsequently, not in parallel for blatant illegitimate sockpuppetry, or were they? I mean, I have no doubt he may be a disruptive POV-pusher, but has he done anything actually "illegal" in Wikipedia terms besides POV-pushing? And what would we expect his ISP to do about that, at this stage? Let's ban him if he's as disruptive as you say, and then we'll see - any new reincarnations of his will probably be easy enough to spot, once people are alerted. Fut.Perf. 19:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
So far as I know he's flown underneath nearly every radar except mine. In his earliest months Fire Star tried to offer him some guidance. He was still trying to behave like a regular Wikipedian back then. One quick answer about sockpuppetry is User_talk:Durova/Archive_5#Wikistalking (with several instances of blanking vandalism thrown in). User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc demonstrates that he violates WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:VANITY, WP:RS, WP:OWN, and WP:POINT. Possibly WP:COI also. The damage he caused at Joan of Arc has been incredibly pervasive and subtle - not just garden variety POV pushing but degrading footnotes, inserting inaccurate statements into previously cited material, and fraudulent citations. He even vanity published and faked the appearance of a legitimate scholarly journal in order to bypass site standards and cite himself. Note that the author name on the pseudojournal is the same as the name he self-identified on the original account, and that the IP inserted it while coyly avoiding use of the author's name at Wikipedia. Due to the high profile of the Joan of Arc article I acutally had to dig through several thousand edits to undo the harm that he caused - expending weeks of my time. If you need more evidence than I've already supplied at User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc then say so and I'll dig up other examples and more diffs. The peculiar POV he pushes and the amount of scholarly background it reflects identify him as unique - how likely is it that two different people would strain the evidence to draw identical conclusions about a 1929 scholarly work available only in French? And describe their views with the same syntactical structure and leap into edit wars? I know how serious this allegation is and I wouldn't raise it unless I had researched this with extreme care. DurovaCharge! 19:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I remember looking at the constributions of Center-for-Medieval-Studies (talk · contribs) after he edited some pages on the Dukes of Burgundy. He was accused at the time of being identical AWilliamson (talk · contribs) (see diff of him removing those from his talk page). IMO, this falls under the "users who aggressively and repeatedly violate fundamental policies" portion of the blocking policy, WP:OR in particular. Faking up a vanity journal to insert your point of view is absolutely the sort of behavior for which you should be run out of Wikipedia on a rail — it's a direct attack on our credibility. I haven't been involved in any disputes with Center-for-Medieval-Studies, and haven't been involved in the Joan of Arc article, so I feel I qualify as an uninvolved endorser of a ban. Choess 22:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I've got to give a nod to Switisweti. During my first weeks as an editor he clued me in to some of this activity. That guy had an awful time because he'd been trying to watch Williamson for a year but lacked the academic expertise to challenge him in detail. Plus there was another disruptive editor at the article who pursued an entirely different agenda. Switi and I wound up holding conversations at my user talk page in German in order to dodge them (I didn't realize that was un-Wikipedian at the time). Switi finally quit the project a year ago and I can't say I blame him, but I hope he rejoins us someday. DurovaCharge! 03:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I would also support a ban.—WAvegetarian(talk) 17:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Durova has done an exceptional job of gathering and presenting evidence which, if accurate (and it appears to be), would certainly warrant a community ban for long-term systematic abuse. I had thought that ANI might not be able to respond to such a convoluted case, but between D's excellent summary, and the dedication of the editors who have posted here, I realize that I underestimated Wikipedians in general. Sometimes I'm actually quite happy to be wrong : ) Doc Tropics 18:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I would also support a community ban (disclaimer: I've been involved in a dispute with the editor in question). I'd be more comfortable if there were technical confirmation, but for the reasons explained above it seems unlikely that WP:RFCU will do any good--another reason to dislike AOL. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Cross posting the following from my user talk page: if any doubt remains, have a look at some diffs from Voln's talk page. This says "Archiving" in the edit note and an exceptionally small archive was created. The types of complaints and the topics covered bear an eerie similarity to AWilliamson, particularly The Bible and homosexuality and Homosexuality and Christianity; talk page blanking and misleading edit summaries are also trademark Williamson tactics.[2] He also performed a similar blanking that included the removal of a final block warning while marking the edit as minor.[3] DurovaCharge! 20:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, the evidence you have collected is damning. I also have no problem in supporting a community ban.--Aldux 21:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Burn at the stake - erm, I mean I would also support banning this disruptive and time-consuming user. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So far this is unanimous. Think the responses are enough to call a consensus? Much as I'd like to do the honors myself, since I am an involved editor it would be more appropriate for someone else to perform the ban. Then we could set up the suspected sockpuppets category. Who's got an itchy indef block finger today? DurovaCharge! 23:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Support permaban. Sneaky hoaxers are scrouge of Wikipedia. Still I fear that somebody would have to monitor the related articles and block the puppets. Alex Bakharev 01:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A check of some of the allegations turns up the following.

The most serious allegations are therefore clearly mistaken and some of the other allegations were based on an erroneous understanding of the manner in which AOL IPs are assigned. The rest were I believe mostly or entirely related to allegations of POV-pushing or suspected sockpuppetry, which are more subjective. If people want to vote for a ban anyway then that's the decision. EReference 06:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

501c3 tax status is fairly easy to get and doesn't amount to validation of the content; I daresay some of these people were acting in good faith. I traded e-mails with Virginia Frohlick some years ago and she seemed very friendly, although she was much too quick to give credence to my assertions. She is, however, an amateur enthusiast who maintains a website[] and the only Google Scholars entry for her is another publication from the same organization.[4] Likewise, the only Google Scholars return for Robert Wirth that does not appear to be incidental - there seems to be a medical doctor by the same name - is one of this organization's publications[5] (although this drew my interest briefly) For Margaret Walsh, the other claimed reviewer, there is a Margaret Walsh who is a professor of American economic and social history.[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Some of these names also turn up random returns in the hard sciences, dentistry, and medicine so I doubt these are the same person. It's been three months since I wrote the original summary and it doesn't particularly surprise me that this group has produced a hard copy edition of Williamson's study, but I see no reason to conclude that this nonprofit is anything other than the pet project of four people who have no formal expertise in their field. I could create a 501c3 organization with three friends, throw up a website, and print out a few copies of my pet theories - but that wouldn't make me an encyclopedic source. I'll post more on Williamson himself in a few moments. DurovaCharge! 14:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
For starters, here's Allen Williamson's Google Scholar result - you decide if he looks like a real historian.[11] On his original user page he claims to be a historian who specializes in Joan of Arc and her portion of the Hundred Years' War[12] and claims to be a historian in talk page posts[13] [14] [15] and at mediation[16] but, to my knowledge, never identified his academic qualifications or affiliations. At User:Center-for-Medieval-Studies the first question the talk page receives is from Adam Bishop to ask which Center for Medieval Studies this is. The question went unanswered and the account blanked similar questions from other editors without reply.[17] The account blanks other criticism without response[18] including a suspected sockpuppet template[19] and finally blanks all remaining material and redirects to both the user page and the talk page to a new account User:Center-for-Medieval-Studies.[20] [21] on 10 May 2006, one month after User:AWilliamson got blanked and redirected to User:AWilliamson..[22] [23] Assuming the anonymous AOL account is the same editor, here's a post where he manufactures a fraudulent citation and admits in the edit note that he chose the source because he thought I hadn't read it.[24] Well I had read that source and he thoroughly misrepresented it. There can't be room for good faith in this instance because I had objected to the relevant passage the previous day and transcribed a quotation coauthored by the same historian in a later publication that vigorously denied any such claim.[25] If other editors are curious about the subject details I'll go into those matters at my talk page - but to summarize this doesn't strike me as someone who's out of his depth but as someone whose every move is tainted by the need to advance his own peculiar opinions by any means necessary and who plays just as fast and loose with his sources as he does with Wikipedia's policies - so much so that I doubt he could pass peer review at any journal he didn't control. To be candid, I hold only a bachelor's degree in history from Columbia University (my graduate studies were in another field) and my interest in Joan of Arc is an amateur one (although serious enough that I have traveled France to follow her campaigns). Yet I know the standard reference works and I can recognize when someone cherry picks data and distorts information in bizarre ways. Challenge me for more evidence if you aren't convinced: this case is so complex that I've held back to conserve space. I welcome scrutiny because I want to know whether I'm right and I think I have enough facts to satisfy reasonable doubt. DurovaCharge! 23:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't have time right now to respond to all the topics you've raised, most of which are rather obscure. I'll post a reply later today or tomorrow. EReference 05:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
This "book" by Allen Williamson is a great example of self-published scholarship. It's available in two flavors, print and pdf. On Amazon, the "book" costs a whopping $5.00, which means it's probably a bound print-off of the pdf. The title page lists not only the editor, but the names of two peer reviewers. In legitimate scholarship, peer reviewers are not given credit for the work--there's a reason they call it "double blind". This work definitely fails WP:RS, but if anyone has any doubts, Amazon still has 2 copies in stock--order now, and it will be delivered before Christmas! --Akhilleus (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I might as well add that the diff I showed for the IP's misuse of sources contained two fraudulent citations. His reference to Henry V's will is another bizarre distortion. What's insidious is how the reader has to know this material as well as the perpetrator to even challenge it. DurovaCharge! 14:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I have more time now. I guess I might as well cover several items in the same message since they're all interrelated.
Yesterday Akhilleus alleged that a certain book by this organization is not valid because the peer reviewers are listed. I don't think that's justified since this type of disclosure has in fact become more common in recent years for a number of academic publications. For example see the following guidelines here (see point 5 specifically) for an academic publication which lists the peer reviewers and accepting editors who recommended each article (only reviewers who rejected the work remain anonymous under their method).
The low price is not too unusual for smaller books, especially at Amazon.
Durova has brought up a number of subjects, mostly dealing with old debates and issues which are hard to follow. Some deal with the organization which you dispute.
For starters, let's look up the organization's website. On one page it lists at least fifteen members in two categories without listing whatever others there may be aside from these "recent" ones. You had said the total was only four people. Googling the listed names finds that Stephen Richey authored at least one published book on Joan of Arc. François Janvier is evidently an official at the CAOA in the Department of the Meuse, France. François Thouvenin seems to be a translator with the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. Others could be Googled if I had time. The website also lists a publisher's ISBN prefix, which is definitely not cheap to buy. It lists an Employer Identification Number, a SAN, several ISSNs (which might take months to obtain from the Library of Congress) and a list of current or upcoming publications which include subjects such as military records, government docs, a "transcription of BNF fr 4488 ff 463-476" and a bunch of other stuff. This clearly extends beyond four people with one pdf file, I think. Remember that this ultimately comes back to the allegation that a dishonest editor had created or invented a bogus org so he could insert his own stuff into the article. A bit of searching indicates that this is wrong.
Your objections to the people themselves have been of two types. One was based on a search for their names at Google Scholar, which is likely to be unreliable for several reasons. It looks like you initially didn't find the organization's publications there either although at least some of them do show up if you use certain keywords. It's also the case that Google Scholar is hardly exhaustive. The other argument was based on the assumption that certain anonymous IPs or accounts here are disguises for one of the members (which would be hard to prove). You assume that certain edits by these anons were deliberately made in bad faith and therefore undermine the person's credibility as a historian. In one case this was because (if I understand correctly) you believe he misrepresented an author's position with regard to specific pieces of evidence. After looking over the links to the old edits you provided it looks to me like the two of you were arguing about rather different issues (an author's mention of a document versus an author's view of a theory related to that document) and therefore misunderstanding each other. Here's why I think that. Looking at the first link you provided, we see him adding citations for two books which quote or mention some historical documents he was using to back up one of his own theories. Now, his edit comment specifically says he's citing a book by Pernoud because Pernoud "mentions this document" (he doesn't say Pernoud supports it) which his text lower down specifies is a letter from "the University of Paris.. to John of Luxembourg" which was among several documents which he said supported his theory that "Charles or his faction" attempted to save Joan of Arc. The other link you provided leads to your rebuttal which you based on a quote from one of Pernoud's other books in which Pernoud casts doubt on this theory and questions the reliability of the "Morosini" records... but it seems that neither of those two issues were the point. He wasn't saying Pernoud's book supported his theory but rather that this book by Pernoud "mentions" the University of Paris letter. This is "original research" on the anon's part but not dishonesty. You state that these rather ambiguous matters would undermine a specific real person's scholarly credentials ... which would not be the case even assuming that he was genuinely the anon in the first place.
You also objected to a comment the anon made about Henry V's will in the same link. As far as I can see this refers to footnote 3 in that text in which he argues (I'm summarizing here) that the decision to keep Joan of Arc as a prisoner rather than letting her be "allowed ransom" was similar to previous cases in which important prisoners were also retained in this way. He gives as an example the case of Henry V retaining "the duke of Orléans" according to a statement given in Henry's will. You didn't say why you object to this, but I'll do my best to try to figure it out. Is it inaccurate to say that the duke of Orleans was retained as a prisoner by Henry V ? Or as with the other disputed Pernoud citation are you objecting to the reference to Pernoud because perhaps Pernoud may have disagreed with this theory as was the case with the other one? Since this reference to Pernoud's book occurs in the middle of the sentence right after the mention of Henry V's will but before any mention of the theory which compares the two cases, he doesn't seem to be attributing the theory itself to Pernoud but only the claim that Henry V's will ordered the duke of Orleans to be kept a prisoner. But I'm grasping at straws here to guess the specific objection since I don't think you stated the problem. At least not in your last note. EReference 06:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Despite the practice of the Digital Medievalist, it is not common to disclose peer reviewers in most academic publications. Nor is it common for an association to publish original material that's authored by one member of the association and "peer reviewed" by two of the other members. This is a self-publishing house that isn't following standard academic rules. That's not surprising, because its members/contributors aren't academics--Chris Snidow and Catherine Hénon are musicians and tour guides (or perhaps I should say pilgrims?); Kevin Hendryx is, according to his webpage, "an editor, is a freelance writer by night, and ... loves Tolkien, the Beatles, and Joan of Arc..."; and Bob Perler apparently enjoyed the 2004 pilgrimage guided by Snidow and Henon. I'm sure that all of these people have a strong and sincere interest in Joan, but they don't have the credentials we expect from people who are running a research institute or academic press. At the risk of publicizing too much personal information (even though it's accesible through brief searching on the web), I'll note that the organization is headquartered at the residence of one of the members of the "academy", which is another indication that this isn't an academic organization.

By the way, ISBNs are not cheap, but they're not astronomical, either; a person could get a few contributors together to cover the cost, apply for 501c3 status, and voila, you have an "academy" that issues publications and a journal. --Akhilleus (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The four people I listed were the four named in connection with this particular publication. As I stated before, some of them may have acted in good faith. My original summary was written three months ago, at which time the organization had no other members, and I wouldn't be surprised if they're trying to get something more serious off the ground. An author who self-publishes may have partners and a larger goal of building a real publishing firm.
My earlier post traces a history of unethical behavior by Williamson and his probable sockpuppets in which he consistently attempts to put himself forward as more authoritative than he actually is. To address the two specific instances of misused citations:
  • Henry V's will To explain why this is worse than garden variety OR requires background knowledge, a good deal of which I can demonstrate through the same book that Williamson cites. Henry V died seven years before Joan of Arc entered public life.(168, 266) That will did forbid any ransom of Charles I de Valois, Duke of Orléans but did not in any way extend that prohibition into some general rule against ransoming prisoners.(193) Ransoms were one of the principal ways of profiting at war and the English accepted other war ransoms for French prisoners.(172, 190) The duke of Orléans was a special case because at the time of Henry V's death this duke was second in line to inherit the throne of France according to the Valois claim. This duke's son would later become king of France when the older line died out.(196) Henry V claimed legal right to inherit the French crown and had solidified his claim through marriage and treaty,(3) so his prohibition against this particular ransom had everything to do with dynastic succession and nothing to do with Joan of Arc: Henry V wanted to bequeath rulership of France to his infant son. Furthermore - even if by some stretch of the imagination this will did apply to her - Williamson claims this document held legal force in Burgundy, which it didn't. The English alliance with Philip III, Duke of Burgundy was not even a very cordial one.(170)
  • Attempts to ransom Joan of Arc As my other diff demonstrates, there weren't any such attempts. Far from what Williamson tries to represent about Charles VII's actions, "cowardly abandonment" is the standard interpretation of his behavior while she was a prisoner.(167) Williamson's citation of a delegation from the University of Paris is completely misleading: Paris was not under control of the French king at this time and its university was solidly pro-English. The University of Paris endorsed the charges against Joan of Arc during her trial and many of her judges had some prior connection to that university.(125-126, 207-217) The delegation from the University of Paris that Williamson mentions is not any action on behalf of the French king - to make that implication in this context is absurd - and Morosini's rumor mill was unreliable: in August of the same year Morosini thought that Joan of Arc had escaped.(99)
To summarize, Williamson has been laying traps for the uninformed. This is someone who knows exactly what he's doing and who sets out to fool people. One of his own edit summaries admits that he selected citations because he believed they were out of my depth. Before I joined the project he had successfully disrupted one of Wikipedia's core biographies for a year because - I think I can use a strong term without exaggeration - his other crankery actually was beyond the depth of previous editors. He constructs sophisticated exercises in contextomy while giving them a veneer of plausibility and the above two examples are by no means the only offenses. The good faith assumptions of editors such as EReference account for much of why I waited so long to raise this matter: as absurd as Williamson's claims really are, Wikipedia has at most a handful of editors who know this material in sufficient depth to challenge it on its own terms. So I had to build my own reputation for editing, investigations, and integrity before my charge could be taken seriously. If Wikipedia were a university I would have referred him for formal academic discipline in November 2005. While this assault on Wikipedia's credibility is significant, my real concern is for the students who relied upon us while his edits stood. At best, those students' time was wasted. More likely their grades suffered. DurovaCharge! 15:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I see there's another round of allegations here to sift through and try to analyze. I would ask both of you to please read through the whole thing before thinking of replying. Maybe we can finally bring at least this one part of the matter to a close.
Akhilleus' post was first. I have to say that I've been confused by your statements here. I'm curious whether you also reject other publications which disclose peer reviewers? Remember that your original accusation held that this was an unethical practice, not merely that it was uncommon. Clearly some journals use that method (uncommon as it is) without being accused of an ethics violation, do they not?
You have now added the related allegation that this publication should be taken to task for using peer reviewers who belong to the same association. I may be mistaken, but doesn't (for instance) the Journal of the American Medical Association include articles in which both the author(s) and peer reviewers belong to the American Medical Association? My understanding is that they do, without being considered suspect. I think that's also the case with many small, narrowly focused organizations, isn't it? Your statement on this matter repeated the view that this is an "uncommon" practice, which is debatable but again it isn't the issue.
You objected to some of the members, for example by describing Chris Snidow as a musician and tour guide. It doesn't take much searching to find that Chris Snidow has a published book on Joan of Arc which was given the endorsement of a person who is a familiar name from one of Durova's links, Marie-Veronique Clin. Now, in Durova's link Marie-Veronique Clin was described as the co-author of a book which Durova was using as a source. Clin therefore would apparently be someone whose endorsement of Snidow's book would be significant, I would assume? Your characterization of Chris Snidow clearly is unfair I think. If I had time I could wade through these other accusations you've been making against quite a number of other people, but I think a clear pattern is emerging.
With all due respect, what I've been seeing here frankly seems to be a case in which arguments continually shift ground whenever one assumption is shown to be mistaken after closer examination. There has also been a great deal of speculation which assumes the very worst about all of the people connected with this organization without any verifiable evidence to substantiate that assumption. I'll assume you are acting in good faith but it's becoming more difficult to maintain that view when you repeatedly refuse to do likewise for the increasingly larger and larger circle of people you're trying to discredit.
Next is Durova's post, which sought to explain a few previous allegations.
You addressed the issue of the organization's membership. You said that when you had written the first allegation three months ago the org had no one except the four members who are listed in one of their pdf files. Their site mentions other members being brought in far earlier than that, such as Stephen Richey who came in more than a year ago. The rest of your comments consisted of speculation about their motives. You assume they are acting in bad faith (or worse) based mainly it seems on the following issues concerning the anon. I'll now look at those.
You first addressed the anon's handling of Henry V's will and the Duke of Orleans. You said the anon claimed that Henry's will held "legal force in Burgundy", therefore he was claiming that it directly affected Joan of Arc's circumstances. In the link you provided he never said anything like this. What he did say was the following. He said important prisoners were sometimes retained and he gave the case of the Duke of Orleans as one example which was rather similar to Joan of Arc's case. He never said that one case provided the legal basis for the other. It seems his point was that Joan of Arc was important enough that her enemies didn't want to allow her to obtain her freedom either. In your recent note you seemingly argued against this by saying that the Duke of Orleans was a "special case" who was retained only because he was so important, which makes it sound as if you're implying that Joan of Arc wasn't important enough to be retained like this Duke was. Didn't she have a significant effect on the war, much more than the relatively obscure Duke of Orleans in fact? Whatever their relative importance was, I can't find any statements from the anon saying what you thought he said. It's common in internet debates for misunderstandings to arise, and I think that's what happened in this case. Unless you feel he was dishonest for saying that Joan of Arc was likely considered too important to be allowed her freedom, I guess I don't understand why you charge him with dishonesty.
You then addressed the anon's handling of Charles VII's actions. You said (in summary) that the anon's citation of a letter from the University of Paris cannot be accepted as valid evidence of Charles VII's actions because this University was pro-English rather than pro-French and therefore could not have been acting on Charles VII's behalf. In the link you provided the anon never claimed this University was acting on Charles VII's behalf but rather that the University's letter mentions actions taken by Charles VII's government. The latter is not the same thing as the former. A letter can describe actions undertaken by an enemy ruler even though the letter's authors do not support him. I guess I don't understand how you're reading something different into this passage.
You then again charged him with dishonesty which you said was sufficient to undermine his credentials and credibility, which is a little hard to fathom. I'm sure you know that in order to make an allegation of this type against a real person by name you would need very substantial proof and there is no proof here. He clearly doesn't seem to be saying what you attribute to him, and it's an anonymous editor saying it.
You criticized me (and unnamed others) for our "good faith assumptions" about the anon and this organization but with all due respect I'm finding it increasingly difficult to see these allegations as anything other than a series of misunderstandings at best. We all tend to jump to conclusions in heated internet debates. Sometimes it's best to step back a bit.
A ban based on charges of sockpuppetry against whoever is behind the accounts might be justifiable, but all these other allegations against quite a sizable group of named individuals and their organization are frankly rather disturbing. If I had unlimited time and patience I could continue sifting through more of this type of thing, but since all the previous allegations have turned out quite clearly to be mistaken I would suggest it would be better to drop this portion of the matter. This has long since gone beyond a productive stage, especially since a siteban could be pursued by other means. EReference 08:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
EReference, you raise a lot of points, most of which I won't respond to. However, you're slightly misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say that disclosing peer reviewers was "unethical", I said that what the publication did--not only disclosing peer reviewers, but using "peer reviewers" who are members of the organization, is not typical academic practice and wouldn't be done in legitimate scholarship. There's two reasons: first, the publication seems to be giving them credit as co-authors, but more importantly, these "peer reviewers" are not independent of the publisher. If you want to use the AMA as an analogy, what the "academy" is doing is like the editor in chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association writing an article and submitting it to two members of the editorial board for "peer review". If that article were published, you'd have no confidence that an independent assessment of the article's quality had been performed. Similarly, we shouldn't have any confidence that Virginia Frohlick and Margaret Walsh performed an impartial assessment of this publication, since they are members of the association that published the book--this is elementary conflict-of-interest stuff.
Whether or not other publications disclose the names of peer reviewers is less important than the fact that Frohlick and Walsh are not independent peer reviewers. However, I note that the Digital Medievalist is not a historical journal, but a journal about the use of technology in studying history--its practice isn't directly relevant to how peer review is used in historical scholarship. It's more relevant to look at journals like the American Historical Review or the Journal of Medieval History, neither of which, I believe, disclose the names of referees. The Journal of the American Medical Association does disclose peer reviewers, but doesn't associate them with particular articles.
A more important issue than peer review is that none of the members of the Historical Academy (Association) for Joan of Arc Studies have the credentials we expect in a historical academy (association). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that even one of these members/contributors has an advanced degree in history or a related field, or a position at a college or university. We have seen evidence that they're amateur historians and devotees of Joan--this is fine, but the format of their publications is clearly designed to make readers think that they're getting the same kind of product they'd get from a university press, and that, I think, is misleading at best.
Chris Snidow's book is no evidence that this is a legitimate academic organization. Rather the opposite--the book is a print-on-demand work which you can order from This is self-publishing, which fails WP:RS. Snidow's book hardly gives me any confidence that the Historical Academy (Association) for Joan of Arc Studies is a reputable academic publisher, academy, or (association).
You wrote: "If I had time I could wade through these other accusations you've been making against quite a number of other people, but I think a clear pattern is emerging." I don't understand what you're implying. Could you spell it out, please? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
...sigh... I was hoping we wouldn't have a repeat of previous allegations without much substance to back them up, but that is seemingly what has happened again. And it's late. I'm hoping my fatigue will excuse any mistakes or apparent irritability.
Akhilleus, you have repeated many of your previous charges against these people without addressing my comments very much. To reduce tedious repetition to a minimum I'll just cover the following topics. You stated that you aren't making allegations of unethical behavior but then proceeded to do precisely that by claiming that this publication violates basic standards of scholarship. The "conflict of interest" allegation and hypothetical analogy given to illustrate it was insufficient for many reasons. Among these would be the fact that the author in this case did not also serve as the editor (as in your analogy) and more significantly you entirely sidestepped the point I had made about JAMA's similar practice of publishing articles in which the author and peer reviewers all belong to the AMA. In other words, if you applied your argument consistently you would need to also dismiss the Journal of the American Medical Association, one of the most respected publications in any field. Rather than addressing this you instead switched the topic to JAMA's disclosure of peer reviewers, which was not the issue. Worse yet, you alleged that the publication was listing peer reviewers as "co-authors" whereas on the contrary the publication states otherwise by clearly labeling them peer reviewers. If you want me to view this as a good faith discussion then you need to stop doing this. You also need to show that your objections can be applied consistently. Namely, if you're going to reject this publication because the author and peer reviewers are members of the same association then you also need to reject JAMA and many others for doing the same. Do you reject JAMA because their authors and peer reviewers often all belong to the AMA? I think this is probably an important point.
The allegations you have raised against the people are again based on unsupported speculation. You ignored the members I had already noted who clearly do possess more standard credentials or positions. You sidestepped the point I had raised about Chris Snidow's book having been endorsed by someone who apparently is (correct me if I'm mistaken) a respected author and perhaps recognized authority in the field since one of Durova's links to a previous discussion uses one of her books as an apparently authoritative work on the subject (please correct me if I've missed something here). The publishing method for Snidow's book would not appear to be relevant because the book's content and the expert endorsement it received would not be outweighed by this factor or other objections you have raised.
There may well be some problems with this group but this current discussion isn't accomplishing anything. Nor is it directly related to the siteban issue, so I think it's time to move on. EReference 09:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
EReference, I haven't addressed most of your comments because I don't believe they're germane. For instance, it doesn't matter whether Snidow's book has been endorsed by Clin--it's still self-published, it still fails WP:RS, and it in no way establishes that Snidow has an advanced degree in history or a position at a college or university. Similarly, nothing you've said about the other members of the Historical Association (Academy) for Joan of Arc Studies (HAJAS) has established that they have advanced degrees in history (or a related field) or positions at a college or university. The only member of the group that has a significant publication on Joan that's widely known among historians, Stephen Richey, is an independent scholar, not associated with a college or university. As far as I can tell, he doesn't have an advanced degree. To repeat myself, the members of this group don't have the credentials we'd expect from an academic association. They are, rather, enthusiasts and amateurs. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being an amateur, but the publications of such a group don't meet WP:RS.
Here's the byline on Primary Sources and Context Concerning Joan of Arc's Male Clothing: "Robert Wirth (editor), Virginia Frohlick (peer review), Margaret Walsh (peer review), Allen Williamson (authorial contribution and translation)". These credits imply collective authorship. Frohlick and Walsh are listed after an editor and before an author/translator; to me, this looks like they're getting equal credit for producing the work with Wirth and Williamson, i.e., they're basically co-authors. If I were to list this work in a bibliography, it would appear as "Wirth, Robert, ed., and Virginia Frohlick, Margaret Walsh, and Allen Williamson. 'Primary Sources...'", etc. If the intent is simply to acknowledge that Frohlick and Walsh were only peer reviewers and not authors, they should be listed in a separate line, or acknowledged in a footnote--most journal articles that I've read recently thank the anonymous referees in the first or last footnote of the article (and in all of those cases the referees remain anonymous, as in this article in the Journal of Hellenic Studies). An additional point that needs to be raised is that since neither Frohlick nor Walsh have formal expertise in this field, there's no indication that they're qualified to perform peer review--we have no way of knowing whether they're familiar with scholarship on Joan of Arc or historical method in general.
What you're saying about the AMA is ridiculous. It's obvious why it's ok for ordinary members of the AMA to author and referee articles that appear in JAMA--they're not directly connected with the editorial board of the journal or the administration of the AMA. In contrast, Walsh is the president of HAJAS, Frohlick is Secretary-Treasurer, and Williamson is "Founding Director". If the president or founding director of the AMA published an article in JAMA and it was refereed by the secretary-treasurer, I think most people would see a problem. Now imagine if none of them had an M.D., yet the article were about the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. I think you'd lose some faith in the editorial standards of JAMA at that point...
Failing to meet the standards of legitimate scholarship isn't necessarily unethical. As Durova stated, most of the members of HAJAS are probably acting in good faith; but since they aren't professional scholars, they're unaware of the standards that should be met. However, if someone is aware of the proper editorial processes in publishing professional work in history, including peer review, and still presents HAJAS is a legitimate academic publisher, then I'd say there's a potential ethical problem. That's just one of the things Editor X is accused of. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Since you won't let this drop I'm going to analyze the latest spate of accusations. If nothing else it should show why other editors really need to check allegations more closely from now on.
You again alleged that this organization is not scholarly because its members fail WP:RS. You justified this in part by stating that Stephen Richey's book fails this test because he's an amateur without a university position. This is puzzling since a search of Wikipedia finds that this book is cited as a source several times in the main Joan of Arc article and the Joan of Arc Bibliography article. The edit histories of both show that these articles have been repeatedly edited by you yourself. With all due respect, this puzzling pattern begs the question: Did you object to this book before or only after it became apparent that the author was associated with this organization you're trying to discredit? In the first of these articles that book is not only cited but also extensively quoted in the text itself (for example, see this part here. This fact could hardly have been overlooked since entire passages from the book are included so prominently in the text. Clicking on previous versions from the edit history shows that they've been there a very long time without being removed.
The WP:RS standard has nothing to do with the wider issue of scholarly merit since WP:RS is a purely internal regulation which governs WP inclusion but does not necessarily affect someone's legitimacy as a scholar. Snidow's book clearly has merit because it was endorsed by an expert. Richey's book appears to have received good reviews from De Re Militari for example. A scholarly organization can be composed of independent scholars without violating any rule and indeed many of these organizations contain quite a few independent scholars. Wikipedia's RS rule would only be germane if you want to remove any of their books from WP articles, in which case Stephen Richey's would appear to be the chief one which would require removal.
I think your other criticisms are also clearly irrelevant or unfair. In brief: the publication clearly states that the peer reviewers are peer reviewers. Listing them in a single line may be nonstandard but since they are labeled quite clearly to indicate their function your criticism on this point is petty. Your treatment of my AMA analogy was unfair, since your objections (the closeness of one group's members) would essentially boil down to the difference in size between the organizations. You need to assume good faith and remember that we're dealing with a very small and new organization which cannot be expected to have the same degree of distance between members that an old and large organization like the AMA would have. If you look at other small scholarly societies such as the Marie de France Society I suspect you could find the same objections to make. It's a small close-knit group, the founding members still have prominent positions and all the members obviously know each other pretty well since their website includes a jovial tongue-in-cheek group photo of them gathered together. Surely their peer reviewers must belong to the same small group unless there are lots of other Marie de France scholars out there somewhere who could provide meaningful critiques for this very obscure subject. The point I was making with the AMA example was that if the AMA also allows its own members to provide peer review (the procedure which you're complaining about) then the only point of objection comes down to how well the participants know each other. This seems a senseless objection when applied to a very small group which is just starting out.
If your criticisms have merit then you will need to remove the quotations and endnote references to Stephen Richey's book from the Joan of Arc article. I'll leave that up to you. I've been trying to bring this discussion in here to a close because I think it has gone beyond the productive stage and is turning into a classic Usenet debate. But ending it is also up to you since you are the one making public accusations which I've been trying to balance against some analysis. Some balance is clearly needed I think. EReference 09:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, where did I say Richey's book fails WP:RS? Apparently a feature of a "classic Usenet debate" is the failure to read carefully. At any rate, it seems that none of the members of HAJAS have advanced degrees or have a position at a college or university--it's a group of amateur historians. So I can't see how it can be described as a scholarly society, or how its publications can be regarded as reliable sources.
Regarding the byline: when "'Primary Sources and Context Concerning Joan of Arc's Male Clothing" was added to Joan of Arc bibliography by an IP user (presumably Editor X), the author was given as "Robert Wirth et al." (see this diff). The same credit was given to another work published by HAJAS. So, I'm not the only one who thinks that Wirth, Frohlick, and Walsh are being given credit as co-authors--Editor X does also. Or, perhaps he just doesn't understand how bibliographies should be formatted, in which case I hope he's not doing any copyediting at HAJAS.
Last (and least important): why do you assume that the peer reviewers of HAJAS must be members of HAJAS? Is it because no one else would pay attention to their work? Perhaps a quote from peer review is in order: "Typically referees are not selected from among the authors' close colleagues, students, or friends. Referees are supposed to inform the editor of any conflict of interests that might arise." HAJAS would be on better ground if it recruited peer reviewers who aren't members of the organization, and who are recognized experts--for instance, professors in history departments! This is the practice of most academic journals--they find referees who are experts in the subject that aren't members of the editorial board. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
You have said that these people lack degrees or university positions. A bit of digging would find that Margaret Walsh is/was a university professor. If I had time I could check others.
In your last post you denied having ever said that Stephen Richey's book fails WP:RS. In your post the day before that one, at 23:49 on 10 December 2006 you said the following: "Stephen Richey, is an independent scholar, not associated with a college or university. ....To repeat myself, the members of this group don't have the credentials we'd expect from an academic association... the publications of such a group don't meet WP:RS."
You quite clearly have said that Richey does not have the right credentials, by which I assume you would mean his book fails the standard you've been applying.
The rest of your comments probably require only brief observations. The method chosen by an anon at WP to list one of the group's books does not change the fact that this book quite clearly and explicitly does identify the peer reviewers as peer reviewers. Finally, I already cited examples of two other journals which also evidently use peer reviewers who belong to the same organization. Yet you do not criticize or dismiss these two for that practice.
I will ask again that you please allow this increasingly pointless discussion to finally drop. We both could be doing better things with our time. EReference 09:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That's pretty frickin' impressive, Durova. I definitely support both a community ban and your actions here. Good job. Let's take this misinformationist down once and for all. PMC 09:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Durova did a lot of hard work, but my analysis has indicated that much of it was probably honest misinterpretation or was in various degrees unsupportable, as happens with all of us in this type of endeavor. She should certainly be commended for her anti-vandalism efforts though. EReference 09:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line here is whether this editor and sockpuppets deserve a community ban. I think the final smoking gun is here.[26] For that account - which was created last August to impersonate me - almost the entire contribution list is blanking vandalism of old talk pages and talk archives pertaining to Allen Williamson's posts and favorite topics. I took the liberty of banning that account because I know for certain that it isn't me. With the exception of EReference (and regarding whom I'm on the verge of requesting a checkuser), support for a community ban has been unanimous. This discussion has continued for a week. Shall we proceed to the bans? DurovaCharge! 02:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me join the horus of 'awesome job'. It's not often that we manage to take down such a giant problem; unless some convincing evidence is raised that would suggest RfC or other form of DR, I agree with permbanning the problem.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm admittedly coming into this discussion late & perhaps after all is said & done (sorry, I've been busy with personal affairs), but I would endorse that Durova has more than adequately performed due dilligence on this matter: there is something questionable about the sources AWilliamson, et alia have been quoting. (I'm especially worried at AWilliam's sockpuppet's failure to provide bona fides to Adam Bishop (Adam's a real medieval scholar, & could easily verify any personal information.) This is one of the problems that I would assert every Wikipedian worries about: wonky information being slipped into Wikipedia. (Remember the NPA personality theory article?) Durova deserves our thanks for her hard work uncovering this.
As for EReference, I want to point out that any user who describes her/himself as "distinguished" more often than not does not deserve that title. Speaking from a few years of experience with Wikipedia, I'd say that there are a couple of dozen editors that this adjective could be applied to, but most of them have screwed up in one way or another in their time with Wikipedia. In short, one should never describe oneself or another Wikipedian as "distinguished" -- we have Barnstars that work just fine for that purpose. -- llywrch 00:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Per WP:RFCU#AWilliamson, EReference has been banned as a Williamson sock. I guess that about wraps things up for this thread although I consider it highly probable that Williamson will try other sockpuppets. He's been known to switch tactics before when the detectives are hot on his trail, so here's my best estimate based on the patterns I've noticed:
  • His underlying topics of interest will remain the same but he'll attempt to focus on pages where he estimates a good chance of avoiding scrutiny.
  • He'll probably disguise some characteristics, such as his past switches between registered accounts that bickered on talk pages and IPs that avoided talk pages and bickered via edit summaries.
  • POV pushing, deletion vandalism, and edit warring are likely to remain dominant characteristics. Also misleading edit summaries. Vague and evasive attempts to pose as an authoritative expert are also probable. His pet theories can be distinctive since they're bad OR, which makes him identifiable by comparison against past behavior.
DurovaCharge! 06:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


This guy's user page and contribs lead me to believe he probably is a sock of User:Zeosurfer, even though I hadn't previously heard of the latter. Anyway, he's clearly a vandal. --Masamage 05:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

 Confirmed as a sock. Essjay (Talk) 07:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Western Goals (UK)[edit]

Has disappeared. No AfD, nothing. Instead one is rerouted to the successor body, the Institute. Needs investigation. Chelsea Tory 12:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

User:JzG made a redirect ("Excessive duplication. One group, one article.") and protected it (per WP:VSCA) on 20:42, 14 December 2006. You should try talking to him first. Here is history page Shinhan 13:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The redirect is to Western Goals Institute, the all-but-identical successor body, and much of the content was similar. We also deleted the article for the even less significant Traditional Britain Group, who now hold the archives. There is only one group here, it's the same people, and they and their friends seem to be the ones who are editing the articles, one article should be sufficient. Guy (Help!) 15:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It would appear to me and doubtless others who care to investigate that User:JzG has some sort of axe to grind against these right-wing Conservative groups. He has already had one failed attempt to have the Western Goals Institute deleted, and I note he has also been active in fairly biased edits and deletions of other pages of right-wingers. People with such an obvious political bias should not be doing this. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Western Goals (UK) was a notable active group. JzG may not have been aware of them but so what? It seems to me that he has arbitrarily deleted a longstanding entire article (with all their activities prior to mid-1989) simply because he is having some sort of hate session with these groups. This really calls for the attention of other senior administrators. Chelsea Tory 16:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've reviewed Guy's last 500 edits and they reflect exactly what my impression of him has always been: a scrupulous Wikipedian with 9 barnstars and a tireless commitment to the nuts and bolts of this project. Chelsea Tory's user page is a very different matter: Seems some sort of Real Conservative policeman is required for Wikipedia. The edit history for this account matches the claim[27] and has contributed talk page comments that can be confrontational[28] and strongly POV[29] to assuming bad faith[30][31] and seems to consider the BBC an unsuitable encyclopedic source[32] and possible Wikistalking.[33] Disclaimer: my own family lost interest in British politics around the time of the Boston Tea Party, so my only real agenda in posting this is WP:NPOV. DurovaCharge! 17:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. But you have not addressed the issue. (I find it incomprehensible that you have read 500 edits when it took me an eternity to read a fraction of that number). I would just like to say that there are many of us who would like to contribute more to "this project" but when we see that the hours of work put in by others is deleted at a stroke by oher Users with some sort of axe to grind we are put off. This whole business seems to me simple. Is arbitrary removal of the work of others correct, or is it not? Chelsea Tory 20:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue you raised was already explained by another editor. I'm raising another and perhaps more important issue: administrators at this project periodically encounter users who devote a substantial portion of their time to POV advocacy. The specific POV varies by editor but the methods and techniques are remarkably similar - as are the trajectories these people follow. This project really isn't set up on an advocacy basis. In fact, as I express at User:Durova/Recusal, it's best to avoid personal hot button issues whatever they may be. A lot of editors catch onto the spirit of this site and become respected Wikipedians. The ones who persist in advocacy have trouble with conflicts and policies until some sort of administrative action is necessary.
Step back a moment and ask yourself, if an editor whose POV you agreed with cited MySpace or a blog, would you have the integrity to delete the citation? Or if you're busy at a page where no other Wikipedian is active and you know there's another notable POV that disagrees with you on that subject, would you chase down a good citation to represent it? We're here to document public debates, not to shape them. DurovaCharge! 22:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you raised different issues in an attempt to discredit me rather than address my complaint. Is there a proper procedure for the deletion of articles, or is there not. I would just add that I totally disagree that you're here to "document public debates". This is not the media. This appears to be Wikipedia's major flaw. It is supposed to be an encylcopaedia. I cannot think of any encyclopaedia anywhere which slants political and sensitive issues and groups in the very obvious left-wing way Wikipedia does. Locating the most extreme description of an organisation out of hundreds of less extreme comments and using the former as the only accurate "sourced" description is surely the most blatant piece of bias you'll find anywhere on the planet. You seem to agree with that. I do not. It seems you feel the only POV on Wikipedia is pushed by those you perceive on the Right who are raising valid points. That is your answer to them.

Please stick to the issue I first raised here. The arbitrary deletion of an article on a major Conservative pressure-group in the UK. Chelsea Tory 10:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that anyone who explains this issue as routine housekeeping becomes part of the putative conspiracy. DurovaCharge! 14:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Kruško Mortale[edit]

User:Kruško Mortale keeps removing all tags from the History of the Bosniak people article, despite warned at his talk page numerous time, as well as the article's talk page (which he keeps ignoring). The user keeps removing tags with absolutely no reason given (his explanation is because I reverted his vandalism of the tags - precisely). One of the tags is the "unsourced", and the article hasn't got a single source, so removal of such tags (especially when being unexplained) is completely nonsensical and should be considered vandalism as per WP:VAND (although they pointed me towards here). --PaxEquilibrium 12:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

From WP:AIV: "I want to report Mr. Pax for sneaky vandalism. He is the only person who keeps putting POV tags in Bosniak related articles. That is his a priori attitude. He was earlier known as HolyRomanEmperor, but he changed his nick name due to hide his block log. He is very controversial figure, and the only thing that he does, is to discuss about Serbian origins of famous Slavs, so he had many disputes with other users. Check his past. Kruško Mortale 12:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)". Just a thing I found while looking around... Shinhan 13:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
1. The only reason why Krusko Mortale reported me there is because I reported him previously on the same place; he's been conducting a WP:POINT campaign by following me around the Wikipedia and reverting my edits, like those on Stephen II of Bosnia, where he reverted to the version of, pardon my speech, a crazy anon (the ruler being called "Stjepan I" or "Stjepan I"?!?!) - clearly just campaigning against me (again, refer to WP:POINT). The very same is the reason why he followed me (wiki-stalking?) and posted a nearly identical report against me to the below.
Dear Mr. Pax, you are wrong. You asked me to show you your origin disputes which you said you did't have, and I showed it to you. You write from Belgrade, don't you, you push Serbian POV in any article including Bosnian-Herzegovinian articles, your block log is like a horror. You had many disputes, your past is disputable. Kruško Mortale 13:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
2. I am not the only person (KingIvan also supports my reversion of Krusko Mortale's removal); and I'm not the one who put the tags in the first place, but an administrator (User:Consumed Crustacean, to be precise); it wasn't supported by him alone. Krusko is the only one who keeps removing these tags (vandalizing?) - and the removal is, truly, ridiculous; removing "unsourced" tag from an article that lacks any source whatsoever "...because Pax is a controversial user". I mean, this really does not make any sense (and I don't see how could I be controversial).
Dear Mr. Pax. According to Mr. King Ivan's attitudes which he doesn't hide, he is Croat nationalist, very frustrated by Bosniaks. His main role here (as he said in his user page) is to fight against "Muslimani" (meaning Bosniaks and their history which he denies), because he doesn't even respect them as a nation, but behaves like a rasist.
3. I changed my nick a while ago, because I didn't like this one - so there's no hiding. Additionally, that's the block log of another user who took my username after the usernamechange and indeed I have explained this to Krusko on various talk pages for 5 times, but he keeps repeating this (again, lodging against me).
Dear Mr. Pax, too many excuses, too much disputable. Kruško Mortale 13:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Yes, do please check my past. :) Don't forget to check what Krusko is doing as well. Cheers, and I'm sorry that this turned out to be such a long controversy... I thought this wouldn't come out as such a problem. --PaxEquilibrium 17:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course. I ask the same. Check Mr. HolyRomanEmperor's block log (Pax's log) and his cotroversies. Yours. Kruško Mortale 13:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


I want to report Mr. Pax for sneaky vandalism. He is the only person who keeps putting POV tags in Bosnian-Herzegovinian related articles. That is his a priori attitude. He was earlier known as HolyRomanEmperor (check his past), but he changed his nick name due to hide his block log. He is very controversial figure, and the only thing that he does, is to discuss about Serbian origins of famous Slavs, so he had many disputes with other users. I explained him not to put POV tags in the History of the Bosniak people article, because he is the only one who does that, but that is not all, he wants to change the name of the article, denying the fact that Bosniaks have thair own history. I think he is dangerous, disputable, controversial Serb nationalist who knows how to use Wiki policy and rules, and hides behind that to do sneaky vandalism. Yours, Kruško Mortale 13:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Pax is not the only person who supports those tags on History of the Bosniak people. Pax, in fact, does not have a history of making POV edits; quite the contrary - he is actually oen of the few neutral editors of Balkan related articles. Also, he has responded on Kruško Mortale's talk page about his block log, and none of the blocks had anything to do with vandalism, disruption or anything related. - Flag of Australia.svg King Ivan Flag of Croatia.svg 13:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Ivan. You are also very disputable person, which anyone can check reading your user page. I think that you are nationalist becuse you don't even recognize Bosniaks as a nation, you call them "Muslimani", so your comment along with Mr. Pax is obvious example of nationalistic cooperation. Yours. Kruško Mortale 13:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thanks Ivan, but there's really no need to defend me - I think if admins overview the situation, everything will be clear alone. --PaxEquilibrium 18:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Removal of an {{unsourced}} or a {{fact}} tag without supplying sources is vandalism, and I suggest you desist. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


I had blocked Himalayanashoka (talk · contribs) for one week for vandalism & trolling on the India page. He was warned and blocked earlier too.

He keeps changing the sovereignty entries in the India infobox from Indian independence in 1947 to the Indus Valley Civilization, 5000 BCE. [34] When challenged to cite sources, he beats around the bush and does not quote any. See Talk:India#Formation of India Information. Was warned by Ragib, for making personal attacks on me there. Efforts to discuss the matter by a few wikipedians have hardly made an impression.

Now the user comes up with two sockpuppets MichaelWolfgang (talk · contribs) and Entourage_brune (talk · contribs) to carry out his agenda. I have blocked both.

Unfortunately I am very busy over the week to follow this up. So requesting further admin intervention.

Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at [35], [36] and [37] it is evident that it is the same user. I am extending Himalayanashoka's block to 2 weeks. Will keep an eye on the article for more socks. - Aksi_great (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Spider-Man 3 The Page is freaking out (software, not editors)[edit]

We need Admin/sysop help immediately over at Spiderman 3's talk. the page is doing wierd stuff when we post there, deleting one person's comments for anothers, or duplicating new sections, or both, and so on. All editors are working together on this, we have for a while, so it's not a 'conflict' situation, but software. Please follow up, Thank you! ThuranX 18:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This happens sometimes when the database server is struggling. I've seen it happen today in a number of places. You'll also see edits in your watchlist that aren't in the article history, and other weird stuff like that. The best idea is to go outside and play in the sunshine. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I temporarily protected it. There's nothing else that can be done, really. --Deskana talk 18:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not playing in the sun, (laundry and building a coffee table), but perhaps we can get an unlock 12 hours out from the lock to see if it's better? Or do you recommend something else? If so, let me know who to follow up with. ThuranX 20:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC) remote loading[edit]

Appears to be mirroring Wikipedia content in real time, and transcluding Wikipedia images. No mention of Wikipedia or GFDL except as happens to be contained in article text. Possibly intended as SEO spam. I've reported this at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Mno but I think a block may be in order per WP:MF#Remote loading. Could someone notify Wikitech as suggested there? 22:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Phajje ke Paye[edit]

OK. The article was initially nominated and I think deleted for being a non-notable resturaunt. However, I'm thinking it is notable, but the problem is with the way the name is transliterated(and the fact that there are multiple permutations of it) is that it is difficult to find material referring to it.. The user trying to protect the article from deletion cited these: and a small mention in a local(for Lahore, anyway) magazine,

I'm not sure if it's enough to prove notability, but it's enough to make it debatable.. I'm at least under the impression that the article should not have been db-spammed, as it doesn't really read like an advertisement.--Vercalos 09:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, so how is this handled anyway? Do I start a new discussion on the old discussion page or what? anyone care to give me some direction?--Vercalos 04:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
You can post it at Deletion review, be sure to provide links to your sources there. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Done.--Vercalos 05:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
What if no one responds?--Vercalos 06:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
If there is no consensus then the closure of the AfD is endorsed. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:02,
16 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it means anything, but an administrator removed the AfD notice from the page.--Vercalos 18:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Vercalos, that was me. The AfD notice at the top of the article linked to the old AfD page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phajje ke Paye from April. No new AfD was created (or needed to be), so I removed the AfD notice. It was correctly speedily deleted by HighInBC and can be undeleted if consensus is as such at DRV -- Samir धर्म 00:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Pornotube - feedback please[edit]

I'm quickly bringing this up here as a) the "victim" (and after reviewing the situation I too) have msged the admin involved with no reponse and b) I believe it to be so cut and dried that dragging it through the drawn out DRV process is not needed. Essentially, the Pornotube article has been created and deleted three times before, twice under A7 and once as an unchallenged {{prod}}. Today Kane5187 created it, and it was quickly speedy deleted by Zoe, with the deletion summary nn website. I happen to see the authors complaints on Zoe's page (Kane5187 was then told "Claims of notability were not cited with reliable sources." and that the article was a recreation of previously deleted material.

For a start, the previously articles were literally one line, specifically:

Pornotube is a video search engine which plays pornographic videos similar to Youtube.

Admins can view that here. Apart from being literally ten times the size of that version, Kane's article stated, and was referenced;

Little more than two months after its creation, PornoTube is already one of the most visited adult sites in the world [1].

Admins can view the article here, nonadmins I have recreated it in my userspace for your reference here. As I stated on Zoe's talk page:

"Sorry Zoe but I kindly request you revert your deletion of this; I dont believe in wheel warring but if you do not Im afraid I will. A 4 second search on the site found this and an Alexa rank of 205. You may not believe this to be notable, but regardless it is DEFINITELY not speediable. Also does not qualify as reposted material as it is a completely different version to that which was last deleted. Again, please restore immediately and take to AFD if you so desire"

A google news search found this article on its popularity, as well as many many other reliable sources. Can I have some feedback please.Glen 16:28, December 16, 2006 (UTC)

In addition, I think Kane's msg to Zoe explains his position quite well:
Excuse me, but what are you doing? You just re-speedied a PERFECTLY good, well-cited, not-even-conceivably-without-a-claim-to-notability non-"spam" (as you claimed in your edit summary) Wikipedia article. It was not recreation of deleted material, as I rewrote the entire thing myself -- and even if it had been, WP:CSD prohibits your speedying it under that pretense as all prior deletions were speedies and prods, which per G4 don't count towards the recreation speedy.
Look forward to your feedback Glen 16:34, December 16, 2006 (UTC)
A7 doesn't require a source for the assertion of notability anyway. Plus, any controversial assertion should go to AfD automatically. This is a chronic problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I dunno, at the risk of sounding like a process wonk, take it to DRV... you'll have my "vote" to undelete. It shouldn't have been speedy deleted. But there isn't such a pressing need for an article on this topic that I'm going to reverse Zoe's deletion. --W.marsh 17:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, if we were really a process wonk, then it would be clear to see that this was an out-of-process deletion that should be reversed (pending community consensus) :) I personally just think Zoe was a little quick on the trigger. I'll wait until she has responded before I take any action though. —bbatsell ¿? 19:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I just want to clarify something: I only created one version, the most recently deleted one. I first got involved when I ran across the PornoTube article created by someone else, made an edit or two, went away and came back to find it gone. I checked the log and didn't think that "nn website" qualified for deletion, so I voiced my concerns at Zoe's talk. Zoe responded with this, which I didn't feel justified a delete, as I indicated when I responded again, expressing my intent to recreate the article. At that point, I wanted to create an article that was without a shadow of a doubt a notable and verifiable article -- and I backed up a copy of it, pre-deletion, here. So, anyway, I just wanted to clarify that I only created one new article, but was involved in the dispute over two deletions. Dylan 18:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The cited 'source' for the sites notability is just saying it has an alexa rank of 300. Other than that it makes no other claims.. and mostly just sounds like a paid advertisement, it's also in a section of the site which appears to have many such paid advertisements. Alexa data is worse than useless.. anyone can easily fake out the publicly available alexa data and they don't make much of an effort to stop it. If the site is as notable as it's being claimed to be, we'd have more indicators than alexa.--Gmaxwell 20:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we do. --Kizor 20:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

A subject not being notable is not a reason for speedy deletion. You can only speedy delete if the article doesn't assert notability. This one clearly did, so it should be undeleted. Any discussion about the actual notability of this site should be done over at AfD. --Tango 20:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This article should not have been speedied. There are a good selection of notable sources which discuss the site such as those mentioned on the article before it was deleted and ones such as [38], [39] (It is a blog, but a very notable one - see their about page), [40] etc... I would suggest that the page be unsalted and undeleted. If the admin in question still feels it should be deleted, they should take it to WP:AFD. This shouldn't need to go through WP:DRV as process was not followed to delete it.-Localzuk(talk) 21:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I will undelete the article and put it up for AfD. We don't need to have it go through DRV to decide whether the deletion was improper, then an AfD. Let's just get this issue over with on AfD so we can move on. Grandmasterka 22:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Here you go. Enjoy. Grandmasterka 22:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been deleted by four admins. But I'm the one who gets the heat? Thanks for the discussion before the wheel war. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, one of the criteria for CSD G4 is that the content must be largely the same (and in fact, the administrator is instructed to "ensure that the material is substantially identical and not merely a new article on the same subject"). The previous speedy deletions were okay because those versions did not assert notability. The version you deleted did, and was a completely different article from the previous deletions. Not criticizing, I've certainly made similar mistakes where I didn't look close enough, just explaining why you're "getting heat". —bbatsell ¿? 05:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't sweat the heat, Zoe. We appreciate the work you do here. I'm sure Grandmasterka was acting with the best of intentions in undeleting the article for AfD, and that the reversal of your action was only after contemplation of the thread here -- Samir धर्म 07:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah - one minute we're told to go empty CAT:CSD, in the next we're catching shit for doing it. No pleasing some people :-) Guy (Help!) 18:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Heh... The first time I've ever undone another admin action on Wikipedia, ever, I do it to the user who specifically talks about Wikipedia:Wheel war on their user page. I suppose I should have waited for Zoe to at least read this and discuss it (I don't think you had read this, had you?) But I had to go somewhere else fairly soon after I read this and the consensus on this page seemed clear. Lame, I know. Grandmasterka 23:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I just closed the afd. There was a clear consensus that was unlikely to change by having it hanging around. If anyone objects, I would be happy to re-open it. ViridaeTalk 04:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:KPbIC (Again)[edit]

Before anyone goes anywhere Please see the archived discussion where I explained how a user has been repeatedly stalking on my edits and opening up disputes that are most silly at times (Maladzyechna). Well yesterday was no different and it looks like that the previous comments by the admin had no effect on him. The only thing that did change was that WP:STALK is now not the only policy that KPbIC is violating. Now he is using his open vigilantism (even though he is not an admin) to challenge the WP:NC(UE) policies for the English name of Kiev, and combining the two into one: [41], [42]. Like I said before, this user has his own understanding of what wikipedia is and with a silly alibi (it does make one chuckle reading his explanations on the archived topic, the refrences to the big and evil "russifiers") he is openly stalking and harassing me and other users and completely disregarding wikipedia guidelines. Like I said before, I do not wish to commence the suggested time-consuming WP:RFAr, hence why I once again ask that someone talk some sense into this disruptive user.--Kuban Cossack 14:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

One again, Kuban kazak, I'm asking you to leave your Russification spirit out of Wikipedia, and start to do something constructive. Dispite WP:REDIRECT#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken and WP:NCON#Dealing with self-identifying terms, you continue to devote yourself to the useless activity of substituting each and every instance of Kyiv to Kiev, as you did yesterday ([43], and [44]). Not challenging WP:NC(UE), which prescribes to use the most common English name for a title of the article, I'd like to remind you that Kyiv is also a (1) well-established, (2) official Ukrainian, and (3) self-identifying name of the city, which redirects to Kiev. There is no need to substitute each and every instance of Kyiv to Kiev, unless you want to be involved in trolling, harassment, disrespect of other contributors, or being uncivil. (The same applies to Odesa/Odessa). --KPbIC 23:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Well I'll just link to my response on the Russification charge (which has no basis) in the archive. However what you self-interpret as right and the vigilante stance you take is hardly acceptable to wikipedia. Once again I am telling you to back off, write articles and leave other users alone. Kiev is an ENGLISH spelling of the city that was decided upon by a lengthy consensus on the talk page, and hence, by wikipolicies that you have never read, it applies to the whole of en-wiki! So drop off the stalking, the harrassment and the vigilantism, as you are no admin to make such decisions, before I go through the WP:RFAr. So far not a single admin told me that what I am doing is wrong!, and I do not need an alibi such as insulted national pride to base my edits on. --Kuban Cossack 23:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
And here is today's Kuban kazak activity: [45], [46] --KPbIC 23:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Found undoubtedly by stalking on my edits... however at the same time forgetting that this activity included de-stubbing two articles, one that is ironically set in Ukraine...--Kuban Cossack 23:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Found by checking your edits... Please familiarize yourself with WP:STALK on what substitutes stacking before making groundless accusations. On the contrary, your edits like [47] or[48] do violate WP:REDIRECT#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken, and bring disruption to the project. Over the last year, you have been repeatedly asked by many contributors to abandon such activity. --KPbIC 00:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
This above is a classic example of his disregard for wikipedia, sigh, here we go WP:REDIRECT is a guideline, whilst WP:NC(UE) is a policy. Now quoting from WP:RULES:
  • A guideline is any page that is: (1) actionable and (2) authorized by consensus. Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Amendments to a guideline should be discussed on its talk page, not on a new page — although it's generally acceptable to edit a guideline to improve it. People are sometimes tempted to call a vote on a guideline, but this is a bad idea because it polarizes the issue (see Voting is evil for details). Instead, a guideline is made by listening to objections and resolving them.
  • A policy is similar to a guideline, only more official and less likely to have exceptions. As with guidelines, amendments should generally be discussed on their talk pages, but are sometimes forked out if large in scope. One should not generally edit policy without seeking consensus first.
Conclusion: In a policy vs guideline debate, the latter is defeated, particulary for naming convnentions, otherwise my argument on the viewpoint of Eastern Ukrainians would fully justify a crusade of changing Ukrainian names into Russian...however I, contrary to your misleading belief did come here to do something constructive, (which explains my barnstar count vs yours) and such details are not my priority. However, off the record, I do like to make a positive contribution to wikipedia by giving the correct name, by following the naming conventions policy;)--Kuban Cossack 00:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Department Store Article Vandal[edit]

A user who keeps switching between the two IPs (Talk) and (Talk) has been committing persistent sneaky vandalism on the Lord & Taylor article and to a lesser extent against other department store articles. From their edit histories, the two IPs appear to be static ones since the same edits keep coming from them. They've both gotten up to level 4 vandalism warnings in the past few days. The substance of the vandalism is difficult to detect if you, as I, are not familiar with the subject. If, however, you compare the citations that he/she has falsified to the actual citations in the article, you'll see that the information he/she is posting is incorrect. This person has never complained about our constant reverting of him/her either in edit summaries or the talk page, so I have no idea what his/her agenda might be. I've asked for semi-protection of the article and was denied. I posted on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and was again denied. So here I am, asking for help. Thank you very much.--Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 20:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Stand by, looking into it... Sandstein 20:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the history of Lord & Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), it's really quite clear-cut: two IPs regularly vandalising this article even after final warnings. I'd give the more recent IP a short block and temporarily semiprotect the article, but as some other admins have apparently declined to ... what do you others think? Sandstein 20:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it would be a good idea to semi-protect if there are only two IPs vandalising, I would just block the IPs for a day if they continue. Prodego talk 20:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd also block both IPs, starting with a 24 hour block. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'm blocking the recently active (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 24h, just message me if the vandalism continues. Sandstein 21:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I will.--Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 05:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Roman Dog Bird (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

Based on the recent edits from this account, User:Roman Dog Bird qualifies for blocking as a vandalism-only account. Despite the extensive vandalism from this account, and despite the fact that Kevin Federline is now fully protected primarily to prevent further vandalism by this particular account, Husond removed the report regarding this account from WP:AIV with the summary "rm Roman Dog Bird, inactive". However, since vandalism by this account isn't reported in a timely manner, it will never be blocked unless it is blocked when it is inactive. Furthermore, it seems far preferable to block the accounts responsible for vandalism than to fully protect articles, such as Kevin Federline, due to vandalism. John254 01:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not a vandal-only account, there are some valid contributions despite all the vandalism. Warnings are fair enough, and in fact the user hasn't vandalized since the last warning. --Húsönd 02:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course Roman Dog Bird hasn't vandalized since his last warning -- but only because he keeps receiving more and more warnings instead of being blocked. He received a test2 on the 15th [49], a bv on the 15th [50], at test3 on the on the 16 [51], and yet another test3 on the 17th [52]. Whatever constructive edits Roman Dog Bird has made, they are far outweighed by his extensive vandalism. Since his account is older than 4 days, Roman Dog Bird can vandalize semi-protected pages. It would be advisable to block Roman Dog Bird, to prevent him from engaging in even more vandalism. John254 02:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, sorry) I would agree with a block in this case. His edits are too far apart for any short term block to affect him in any way. Edits like this, this, this, this, this, and this far outweigh contributions like this.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The user is clearly causing more damage than benefit, I agree. But still, he abid by the last warning, that makes a block rather unfair and unnecessary atm. I think it's preferable to closely monitor him and block immediately if he vandalizes again.--Húsönd 02:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Roman Dog Bird might not be blocked immediately after his next act of vandalism. If an editor gives Roman Dog Bird yet another test3 after his next act of vandalism, and I request that Roman Dog Bird be blocked, say, sixteen hours later, we're going to be back here debating whether Roman Dog Bird should actually be blocked, because, after all, he did stop after his last warning, and the account is presently inactive. This sort of nonsense could continue for weeks, unless Roman Dog Bird is actually blocked, irrespective whether he presently appears to be active, and whether he has vandalized after his "last" warning. John254 03:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
If this user's misdemeanors are not detected in 16 hours then he probably isn't causing damage enough to have someone on RCP notice him. Once again, I reiterate that the user is respecting a last warning that was given to him and therefore a block is unnecessary at this time. Just keep an eye on him, watchlist his talk page and report swiftly further actions. --Húsönd 03:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Roman Dog Bird's edits are being noticed and reverted, long before 16 hours. The problem is that editors are simply issuing additional warnings each time he vandalizes, instead of immediately reporting him on WP:AIV. Roman Dog Bird has been slipping through the cracks for far too long, and should really be blocked indefinitely. John254 03:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I have put him on the RC channel's blacklist, just so we can see if he continues to edit maliciously. Any first sign, I will contact someone to block him indefinitely for persistant vandalism (if it is necessary).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed.--Húsönd 03:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block?[edit]

One anon user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) dropped an indefinite block message on another (apparently moderately useful) anon, (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as its second edit. Now it is just possible that this is an admin who forgot to log in (or block). But if not, it should be dealt with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

My guess would be no, not an admin. 1st edit vandalism [53] and 3rd edit a modification of the resulting vandalism warning [54].--Húsönd 02:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


I invite t'committee to scrutinise the following:


I am wondering if we have some socks here, but in any case it looks like the mediators have either left or been sidelined. I don't know what, if anything, to do about this. Guy (Help!) 19:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Committee? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It's faux-Yorkshire t' is an abbreviation for the; hence "t'committee has decided". Ah'm English, tha knows :-) Guy (Help!) 21:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
T'in't int' tin. Proto:: 10:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Srebrenica massacre sockpuppetry and edit warring[edit]

Two things here. CheckUser shows that KarlXII (talk · contribs) is the same as Osli73 (talk · contribs), who is already on Probation and revert parole from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo. This means he has been in violation of the revert parole multiple times, aside from and 3RR evasion or tag teaming with the sock. I'd like some admins to figure out the enforcement on this. Also, can we please get some eyes on the incessant edit warring at Srebrenica massacre? It looks like both sides are out of hand, so some admin attention would be useful. Dmcdevitt 09:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Already blocked by admin User:Srikeit. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 09:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I have indefinitely blocked the sockpuppet and blocked Osli73 for a week for direct violation of the arbcom ruling. I think a month's ban from editing the Srebrenica massacre would also be in order. Would like to hear what others think about that. --Srikeit 09:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
A week's ban, at least, for Osli is appropriate. Given the crapstorm going on at Srebenica massacre at the moment, I would suggest someone being prepared to protect it if they can't calm down, and come to some kind of consensus before unprotecting. Proto:: 10:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets indef blocked[edit]

Following the first incident and the RCU evidence i've blocked indef the 2 socks User:Aperfectmanisaenglishman and User:Englishpound. Those accounts were created to be used at Ireland/Northern Ireland/England topics. I've also given a 24h block for main account of the puppeteer User:Sion glyn. Please extend if you feel it is the right action. Please note that apart from sockpuppeting, Aperfectmanisaenglishman's userpage contained provocative comments against a few nationalities which i had removed earlier after discussing that w/ him. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 11:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso (talk · contribs) requests unblock[edit]

Hello. I have unblocked Amoruso yesertday in response to his request. However, Dmcdevit has convinced me that it would be proper to restore his block and solicit wider consensus. So I have reblocked him and taken the matter here.

Before you opine, see:

I have restored the original unblock request on Amoruso's talk page. Thank you. - crz crztalk 21:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • He's clearly revert-warring without reference to the talk page. That he's four minutes outside 24 hours is frankly beside the point. I would also support page protection. Mackensen (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse block - "which he didn't trip, making his 4th revert after 24 hours and four minutes" stinks of gaming the system, the purpose of WP:3RR is to prevent edit warring, not to permit provided specific rules are followed --pgk 21:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse as well. There's no reason we should encourage edit warring. Once people revert more than once you already have an issue. WP:IAR overrides such technicalities of four minutes. Cowman109Talk 21:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • My reasoning for the block was that for someone who has been blocked for 3RR before, 4 reverts in 24 hours and 4 minutes is simply gaming, and, compounded by the incivility, the block was valid and uncontroversial. 3RR is not an entitlement to edit war. Dmcdevitt 21:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
copied form user talk
I'm disappointed by the POV of some users concerned in their remarks. User:Patstuart's claims for "warrior and single purpose" for example are completely false. While I was blocked once for 3RR it was controversial since I saw that as a serious infringement of WP:BLP. At this time I was involved in the edit-war and accidentally reverted 4 times against someone working against consensus. There was no incivility and I believe you were right in cutting the ban to essentially 12 hours. 48 hours was inappropriate especially since I contacted user:Dmcdevit personally and also apologisied for reverting 4 times and agreed not to revert the article ever again - this even though I never violated WP:3RR. Amoruso 22:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Yet he removed my explanation (as blocking admin) as to why WP:BLP did not apply for that case, then proceeded to request an unblock as if such an explanation never existed, writing: "Not only is that ruling wrong, but it's also supposed to be max 8 hours per first offense. But really in an edit war like this, no block should have been made, perhaps page protection" El_C 23:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
He also got away recently without a block for persistent edit warring on Pisgat Ze'ev (cf page history), although another user was blocked for five days for a similar level of edit-warring on the same article. This user is a persistent problem. Palmiro | Talk 23:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Being the editor who reported Amoruso for 3RR (for which El_C blocked ), I disagree with Amorusos report of the events. First; if anybody worked "against consensus", it was in fact Amoruso. Only three editors worked on the article at the time; two of us were in agreement, and Amoruso disagreed with the two of us. Secondly; I found Amoruso extremely incivil, e.g saying I made "outright lie"s, etc., which I find very offensive. (And nobody reviewing the edits/block have agreed with Amoruso) Regards, Huldra 05:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC) (who is, btw, a "she", even if Amoruso insists on referring to me as "he".)
I wasn't talking about that 3RR Huldra, you read it wrongly. Amoruso 17:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse. In general, I believe once a block is reversed on an editor, it should not be reinstated. Assume good faith, prevent edit wars, make the administrators look more consistent. :) However, there are too many other issues with this particular editor and I believe a 48 hour block is justified. It's only two days, anyway. --Yamla 23:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Coincidentially, I'm just finishing up writing a few words on this user based on his edits from last week alone, which I intend to post tomorrow/when done. This user has been engaged in some heavy disruptive behaviour and edit warring for months, and I'm surprised he hasn't been blocked more than twice. I think some furter action is warranted. -- Steve Hart 23:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I respectfully disagree. I know this is not a popular opinion and although I do not support Amoruso's every edit (in this case, I wish he had waited and not called his opponent a vandal). Please let's keep in mind that we deal with the area of WP inundated with daily attacks of all kinds. In his defense, I'd like to point out that Amoruso usually does discuss his edits on the talk pages and is far from being the worst violator of WP policies. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Here is a recent example of a user with worse violations who made 5 RVs in 24hrs weaseled out of block. I find such discrepancy in applying penalties unacceptable. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Discrepencies mean that it should be better enforced, not that we should unblock them all (otherwise you are aguing for that unblock). Dmcdevitt 03:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I've edited on the same pages as Amoruso for quite awhile now. Like Humus, I don't endorse every edit he has ever made, but I completely disagree with Steve Hart and Palmiro that he should be singled out for censure and criticism. I would ask you Steve, when you make the list yo mention, to look at ALL parties concerned and their behavior as well as Amoruso's. It obviously takes more than one editor to make an edit war. Amoruso is interested in some very contentious pages. These pages are also plagued with frequent vandalism. The general contentiousness of his topics of interest, and the way MANY OF US deal with them, are at the root of the problem. Given the contentiousness of the topics, we would all do well to pay very close attention to WP policies about NPOV, civility and assuming good faith (note to self and others). Singling out one editor for severe censure is not as helpful to the project as learning to compromise, to state things neutrally, to allow more than one pov on a particular page. Elizmr 01:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Editors are judged on their own edits, the misbehaviour of other editors is not an excuse for violating the rules. I'm not going to include other editors as I'm not involved in the case, but do report them if you want. Your wise words about NPOV and civility is actually the root of the problem, since this user has a longtime history of not adhering to these policies. When a user such as Jmabel posts to the Notice board for Israel-related topics that, quote, "I'm not particularly interested in staring into Amoruso's soul. I'm interested in understanding the purported reason