Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive110

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

Noticeboard archives


User > Racial Slur[edit]

Resolved (talk · contribs) makes a racial slur here. ~ WikiDon 19:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a typical piece (although of extremely poor taste) of vandalism, I've given the user an only warning. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
We see this sort of thing every day, it's just people who are bored, I wouldn't worry about it. Qst 21:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
We-e-e-e-ell, I worry about it in a society point of view manner (although the spelling is the self referential model rather than the white supremacist term) but as far as WP... slap a warning on the talkpage and take it to AIV if it happens again. LessHeard vanU 22:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I strongly support instant blocking for any edits which use racial, sexual or any other slurs. Such vandalism doesn't deserver a second chance. (not advocating indefinite blocks, though, just warning blocks to make a point) Corvus cornix 22:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Shininycoal suspicion[edit]

(Not sure if this should go here or on the incidents noticeboard...)
User:Shininycoal, for a user whose editing history spans the last 12 hours (although the account was created October 22), has a short but quite odd string of edits. Maybe I'm just overly suspicious, but it seems odd for a new editor to move the archives of MediaWiki:Blockedtext [1][2][3], put an (apparently spurious) ArbcomArticle tag on Talk:Jeff V. Merkey [4], create a redirect to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey [5], and some edits to Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles and its talk page.

Is this a odd thing that might require some reversals, or should I turn down the sensitivity of my oddness detectors? Thanks. -- ArglebargleIV 20:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Hmmm. I blocked this as a probable SCOX troll. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I am reliably informed this is user:Amorrow, who is now unfortunately out of jail. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar closed[edit]

The above arbitration case has closed. "For showing consistently poor judgment in performing administrative actions", Alkivar is desysopped. He may apply to the committee to have his adminship reinstated, but may not apply at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Burntsauce is banned as a meat-puppet of banned user JB196. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 01:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Its amazing Burntsauce remained unblocked all this time, when he arrived here it was so obvious that he was just mimicking JB196 that it was a almost WP:DUCK case, the only thing that separated both users were different IP addresses. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I did give Burntsauce an indef back in April for that reason. Alkivar lifted it. DurovaCharge! 03:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It's a vivid demonstration of how successful the small crowd of banned abusers currently running Wikipedia Review have become in manipulating and exploiting our good faith. Guy (Help!) 07:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
"...Wikipedia Review..."? That would be a Certain Site, would it not? LessHeard vanU 21:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily so successful anymore. :) DurovaCharge! 17:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Help fixing a cut and paste move[edit]


Can a more experienced admin walk me through (or show me how to go about) fixing the cut and paste move of Iron distance triathlon to Full Distance Triathlon. A user named User:Pickywiki performed the move, and I saw it when it happened, but this was before I was an admin. Later, he came back and undid my fix. To complicate matters, it should probably be at Full distance triathlon, rather than Full Distance Triathlon. So, the history pages need to be merged and then moved to Full distance triathlon, but I'm not sure how to do it. Leebo T/C 17:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

First move Iron distance triathlon to Full Distance Triathlon. It will say that you have to delete the page before the page can be moved. Check the ok box, and delete away. Next, go to view deleted edits from the history tab of the Full Distance Triathlon page. Click the option to restore all edits. Wait up to 5 minutes for the database to catch up, and you should have a history that has been merged. Next, make sure that the current version of the article is accurate (it will most likely still have the redirect showing, so you'll have to edit an earlier version to get the latest version of the article). Finally, you can move that to the new name. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.-Andrew c [talk] 18:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I've moved it, and the log for the page says I restored the deleted revisions, so now I'm just waiting for it to actually show them in the history. Does it often take much longer than 5 minutes? Leebo T/C 18:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Excellent, it worked perfectly, and I think I've cleared up any double redirects and talk page issues. Fantastic! Thanks Andrew. Leebo T/C 18:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
One additional trick I tend to use when doing history merges is, before the move, I open an edit window on the latest version of the destination page. Thus, right after I do the move, I can flip back to the open edit window and do a save to restore to the latest version at once. I do this restore even before I go undelete the deleted revisions. By doing this, there's no need to wait for the history to catch up, because as soon as you restore the revisions, you are done, and can move on to other things and let the server catch up whenever it gets to it. :) - TexasAndroid 19:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

request a disambiguation?[edit]

How do I request a disambiguation? Specifically, there are two people with the name "Kent Larson" listed at:

Searching for "Kent Larson" list only the gay porn star. How can a search for "Kent Larson" return the MIT Media Lab faculty (or both names)?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kllmit (talkcontribs) 18:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 
If you moved Kent Larson to Kent Larson (porn star) and made Kent Larson a redirect to Kent Larson (disambiguation), I think you'd have the outcome you're looking for. Leebo T/C 19:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
No, you shouldn't redirect an article to a disambiguation page. If there is no article at Kent Larson, then the disambig page should be at Kent Larson, no Kent Larson (disambiguation). See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page naming conventions. Hut 8.5 20:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Right, but someone seems to have done this already, so my comment can be disregarded :P Leebo T/C 20:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
What on earth has happened here ? Now we have to pages with identical content and someone has crushed an article with a disambiguation page. Let me try to sort this out. Use the move function in the future please. Jackaranga 00:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Awaiting deletion of Kent Larson (porn star) to make way for move. Jackaranga 01:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Because of these copy paste moves, it now requires admin help and is much more complicated, can an admin please: delete Kent Larson (porn star), then move Kent Larson to Kent Larson (porn star), then delete Kent Larson, then move Kent Larson (disambiguation) to Kent Larson, then delete Kent Larson (disambiguation). Thanks. Jackaranga 01:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

For future reference all you needed to do was move Kent Larson, to Kent Larson (porn star), then create a disambiguation page at Kent Larson. This way you don't need admin help. Jackaranga 01:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. —bbatsell ¿? 01:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ryan Whitney.jpg[edit]

Could I get someone to speedy delete this? It's already been uploaded to commons as Image:Ryan Whitney2.jpg, and it's blocking another commons image. I know this may not exactly follow policy, but it seems to make sense in this instance. Thanks. 20:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that images have to wait five or seven days, before being deleted if they're correctly placed on Wikimedia Commons. Qst 20:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Or we could just stop waiting around and just do it. --Haemo 20:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Tasmin Jahan article[edit]

Resolved: Left an appropriate message on the poster's talk page Dppowell 02:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi I was wondering if a full length factual article could be entered on Wikipedia regarding the playwright Tasmin Jahan? Tasmin Jahan's details did appear under the TONBRIDGE article but now it is not appearing.

please let me. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Seeking WP:U add'l opinions[edit]

...on Flourishadmin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Reported by a bot at WP:UAA. This may technically be a vio for "admin," though I suspect the user may be the administrator of this mailing list. What I was going to do was e-mail the person specified on that site and ask them if this is their account, then suggest that they create a more personalized account name. I'm reluctant to just block and put up a template. Thoughts? Dppowell 01:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait and see what he or she does with his or her edits. If they look promotional, I'd block. In any case, doesn't this fail matches the name of a company or group or email addresses etc likely to be promotional username violations?Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
You're right--I was so focused on the word 'admin' that the other vio didn't even occur to me. However, because the user (if I'm right about the connection to that mailing list) may have many ties to the academic community, I'm inclined to assume good faith and IAR for the moment in the interest of informal community outreach. That said, if someone else thinks a block is in order, I won't object. Dppowell 04:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Dorftrottel (talk · contribs)[edit]

I'm sure that everyone is aware that Dorftrottel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for 24 hours a couple of days ago for incivility. This was increased soon after due to block evasion using an IP to post at the block review on AN/I. At the point that Dorftrottel was incivil, he was drunk. I suspect that Dorftrottel is now sober and probably is upset at his actions. Scars can be left from drunk actions, in this case he has that in his block log. I believe that the block is no longer protective and merely serves as a punitive measure due to Dorftrottel no longer being under the influence, and given that the original block would now have expired, I would like to suggest that he is unblocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd support, with the understanding that Dorf will hit the sack instead of committing an EUI the next time he's got a surplus of sheets to the wind. Dppowell 18:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I support the unblock. EVula // talk // // 19:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, a funny occurence. Support the unblock--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 19:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I support the unblocking. Everyone deserves a second chance. Qst 19:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Support unblock. Not the first editor to have been busted for EUI - Alison 19:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked him. If I've overstepped, I'm sure someone will let me know. :) Dppowell 19:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it was the right move, I was hoping to wait for comments from Picaroon and kwsn as they were responsible for the blocks, but I guess it doesn't really matter and we can re-evaluate if they are against the unblock. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
As I stated on IRC, no problems on my end. Kwsn (Ni!) 20:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
IRC? I-R-C!(?) Did we not ban the word? The insolence of that medium. Anyway, hopefully this will inspire more assumptions of good faith on his part. He was excessively playing the persecution complex card —which upsets me because that's my bit. El_C 22:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you all. You've been very patient with me. A fair warning though: Please stay away from Chilean red wine! Beer or moonshine never had that effect. Beer only gives me the typical 5-beer-homosexuality where I begin seeking more physical contact to other guys, while booze makes me hug the toilet. Maybe we should include some disclaimer on Chilean wine? And the hangover it gave me, you wouldn't believe. Even my usually helpful cocktail of Aspirin and strong coffee had no effect. — Dorftrottel 12:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The funny thing is that you could still type straight and make sense. Different people are affected in different ways. I've seen drunk people unable to complete sentences or click the right buttons, and even leave themselves logged in to public computers... Carcharoth 17:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah well, typing half-way straight and making some sense don't take too much effort for me. Not being anti-social does, so it's the first thing to go down the drain. — Dorftrottel 21:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Personally I can always think, talk and type coherently when drunk - it tends to be walking in a co-ordinated manner that takes an effort. :-) WaltonOne 11:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
But I've never had a hangover. (Hint: drink gin and tonic. Good stuff.) WaltonOne 11:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism from User:Rubber_cat[edit]


User:Rubber_cat has vandalized a number of pages today, though I have reverted all of them to this point. User should be warned and/or blocked for their edits. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds 06:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the user based on the nature of both his vandalism spree today and of his troublesome editing past, however next time such a report should be filed on WP:AIV where it will receive the attention its supposed to receive, this is not a board for reporting vandalism. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please can an admin delete this page of mine[edit]

Hi there,

thanks for your attention to this request.

I would like to post a note about an academic survey invitation to this noticeboard. This was recommended to me after substantial discussion involving several administrators about what was the appropriate way of my contacting administrators to inform them of this survey. As the survey is intended only for Wikipedia administrators, it was also suggested that I first ask for the survey invitation page to be deleted so that only admins can access it.

For full details of the previous discussion with admins as well as the page I would like deleted, please see this page:

If that looks okay, please can an admin delete that page, and then I will subsequently post the actual note to this noticeboard when I properly open the survey.

If there are any questions, please let me know. Thanks very much Zhan Zhanliusc 11:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're the only contributer to a page, you can just add {{db-author}} to the top. Someone will eventually take care of it for you. --OnoremDil 11:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay thanks. I've added the tag. Hopefully, it will be deleted soon. Zhanliusc 11:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted it for you. Woodym555 12:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!!! Zhanliusc 12:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User:TheNightmareMancontributions continues to unilaterally archive featured article of the day talk pages by moving them and leaving the message "This page has been archived." The user has been warned but seems not to respond to anything. 18:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  • "It has become apparent that your account is being used only for vandalism, so it has been blocked indefinitely. --Yamla 18:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)" Looks like this has already been resolved. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Images from bollywoodblog[edit]

This way folks. Sarvagnya 04:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: I moved the discussion from this archive to Riana's subpage as it was getting unwieldy here. Or so Riana felt. The discussion up until now can be seen in the collapsable box below. Sarvagnya 04:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

User THEunique[edit]

RE: User:THEunique

I just can't seem to get through to this guy. I add cleanup and Wikify tags, he just yanks them out. All entries to his talk page, User talk:THEunique, just get blanked. He/she has had several image notes added, but he/she just does nothing but blank them out. This is strange one: "14:12, 7 November 2007 Deskana (Talk | contribs) m (moved User talk:Ochahill to User talk:THEunique: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Ochahill" to "THEunique") (undo)"

If you can either get through to him, and tell him how to edit in Wikipedia, go for it. Otherwise, I would like the account blocked. This person might also be German, and that is part of the problem, English is a second language.

Thanks, ~ WikiDon 19:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As per WP:USER, editors may remove warnings and talk messages at will from their own talk pages. Do you have diffs that illustrate the editor's other issues? --Kralizec! (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The "strange one" you quoted above was a username change request as per Wikipedia:Changing username/Archive32#Ochahill → THEunique. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like this is the kind of thing WikiDon is referring to. THEunique has removed tags without addressing the problems listed in those tags. I agree with the above comments though that users are allowed to remove comments from their talk pages as they see fit. Username change requests are also not unusual. Also, I'm not really sure where the guess about the user being German is coming from, as the user identifies as a college student from Illinois whose first language is English. Leebo T/C 21:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
"editors may remove warnings and talk messages at will from their own talk pages" - I have gotten in trouble for doing that to my talk page in the past, the admin said that I was vandalizing. ~ WikiDon 02:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
They were mistaken. IMHO, it's very poor form to do it, and I think many (most?) would agree...but it is allowed. Dppowell 02:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
How long ago were you admonished? The official WP:VAN policy was clarified to explicitly state that editors could remove messages at will from their own talk pages 672 days ago [6]. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


Sterling Trucks:

Daimler Financial Services

Chrysler Financial Services

Fifth Third Bank

He signed up his account on an IP address that was (talk · contribs) that was being used abusively and blockeb by Admin: Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs)

If you check the history of his talk page, he received numorous COPYRIGHT IMAGE VIO Notices [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14], plus a Copy Vio for text lifted from Plus numorous other notices about image removal for lack of proper usage. He just doesn't seem to care. He just lets them get deleted, and then just uploads them again.

He makes no effort what so ever to fix the problem or communicate with other Wikipedians to make the articles better, just bulls ahead with his own personal agenda.

He is also sockpuppetting under at least (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs), just look at all the warning at that talk page. I think that this might be his work address.

~ WikiDon 03:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've notified THEunique of this discussion so that he can present his side if he wants. He may choose not to, but it's appropriate to at least let him know his conduct is being discussed. Leebo T/C 05:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
That is good, he has more than abused 3RR, and uses IPs-SPs to help to it. ~ WikiDon 18:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Just noticed this ... why did you give [15] the user both a level 3 and 4 vandalism warning at the same time? Applying escalating warnings non-sequentially is highly unusual. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Revert irreversible page move of Template:Soviet occupation[edit]

User:Dojarca recently irreversibly moved Template:Soviet occupation to Template:Soviet occupation zones [16] unilaterally without any WP:RM process to gauge concensus first. Please move this page back per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/AndriyK#Reversal_of_irreversible_page_moves. Thanks. Martintg 04:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Done, no comment on the merits of the move. east.718 at 04:19, 11/9/2007
Martintg, just formally do a requested move next time this happens and establish official consensus through the Wikipedia process. This move warring has to stop and as I've participated in the dispute once I'm not going to protect it from move. But if you go through proper channels, this won't happen again. Keegantalk 05:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, to modify that, you need to work things out with User:Dojarca in a forum other than the template talk space. I'm going to be bold and move protect the page after reading some more. Any admin may revert. Keegantalk 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I entirely agree, in controversial cases like this we should defer to community input, and this can best be done via WP:RM and User:Dojarca is free to initiate such a case if he so desires. Martintg 06:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
You guys are having move wars about names of templates??? Take a slap with a wet trout, everyone. Did it ever occur to any of you that a move war about a template is the most idiotically futile thing you could possibly do? The names of templates are invisible, they are never supposed to be displayed in an article! The template can be named just anything, it will never make any difference to the normal reader. I'm tempted to move the miserable thing to {{iopilkshfiziewrlkdjfdlauoer}}, just to drive home the point.
If you must edit-war, please go and edit-war about something more important. Fut.Perf. 13:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This seems like a pretty lame edit war to me... and I was involved in the Great Cow Tipping Edit Wars. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I recommend familiarizing yourself with the case before commenting. After his XfD failed, Dojarca moved, renamed and changed the template without any consensus (everybody but he was against it). No one could care less about the name of the template, it was the content change that was problematical. -- Sander Säde 13:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Generally I would absolutely agree with you. However since this discussion has been about the template's move rather than its content, I too feel that the people unilaterally moving pages need to find something better to edit war about. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
While User:Future Perfect at Sunrise makes a valid point, the issue here is behaviour. If we allow relative newbie User:Dojarca to get away with this, he may well imagine it is also okay to unilaterally move articles against consensus too, which would be much more disruptive in the long run. A stitch in time saves nine, and all that, for his sake as well as Wikipedia's. Martintg 20:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearing a copyvio notice[edit]


Hello. I'm not entirely sure that this page is appropriate but anyway. This article Brent Crude has been cited has being in copyvio. The fact is that the url linked cite wikipedia has it's source. Can some administrator "clean up" the copyvio notice ?—Esurnir 20:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Sandstein 21:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)



This user vandalized the article on Hopewell Valley CHS graduate and rapper "Keyz" by adding the following quotation: "Keyz is notable for his being awarded "punk-ass bitch" status by the Real Gangsta Association of America. This honor is bestowed only upon those who not only lack talent, but have built their reputation upon a completely fabricated biography of poverty and hardship."

Just giving you a heads-up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this; I've warned the user. Next time, please report vandalism to WP:AIV. That's the page designed especially for reporting vandalism and you'll likely get a faster response there. Raven4x4x 02:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversial merge straw poll needs closing[edit]

Talk:Imaginationland#Merge_poll <- Please can an uninvolved admin read the discussion and close accordingly. I must stress not to just simply vote count, but to leave a rationale on why you've closed the merge that way. This seems like the simplest and most painless way of resolving this squabble. Thanks, Will (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll stay away since I became tangentially involved when I protected Imaginationland, Imaginationland Episode II, Imaginationland Episode III, and Template:Infobox South Park season 11 episode list. It should be noted however that the straw poll is old, and there is an ongoing RfC here. east.718 at 08:27, 11/10/2007

UAA Backup[edit]

The WP:UAA board is backed up right now. Could an admin please take a hack at it? Thanks! Icestorm815 02:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for the note, it's been cleared now. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
For future reference, a backup at this page isn't really important enough to warrant a post here. Someone will eventually get to it. -- John Reaves 03:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee found that MichaelCPrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in sustained edit-warring and is subject to an editing restriction for one year, he is limited to one revert per page per week and must discuss any content changes on the article's talk page. Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 04:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Block/ban for further consideration[edit]

I've just blocked ForeignerFromTheEast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for a week for continued edit-warring, and I'd like some input on what to do with him further.

This is the same user as Mr. Neutron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (self-declared), FunkyFly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (pretty obvious from the editing profile), and likely also the earlier VMORO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), plus possibly another sock account too. Together, these accounts have a history of almost incessant edit-warring over Macedonia-related articles of well over two years. Even though Foreigner is now quite adept at gaming the 3RR system, staying continually just below the mark, I count a total of eleven separate blocks on these accounts spread over the course of 24 months.

Here's just a representative sample of what editing on these articles is like. Foreigner is obviously not the only edit-warrior in this domain, but I do see him as one of the principal instigators.

I'm open to all suggestions how to proceed further. Community-imposed topic ban? Revert parole? Handing the case off to Arbcom together with the whole rest of the Macedonian-Bulgarian fracas? (That one is going to become the next Armenia-Azerbaijan case, if you ask me.)

Note that I've also handed out shorter blocks just today to two other participants of the same set of disputes (Dzole (talk · contribs) and Jingiby (talk · contribs)). Also, for the sake of full disclosure, I ought to state here that I've myself been editing one or two of the articles listed above (I keep getting asked to intervene in these disputes by this or that side.)

Fut.Perf. 21:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, based on my admittedly limited knowledge of this ongoing Wikipedia disruption, I'd say it's time for the ArbCom. — madman bum and angel 21:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It may be useful to come up with some policy to handle contentious subject matter like this. That is, some way we can short-cut the whole arbitration committee and just go with 1RR or some such. I have no idea how such a policy could be worded and applied fairly, though, and I firmly believe it should take far more than just one single admin dictating that this is now in effect. Personally, I try to stay away from such conflicts though I am not always successful. --Yamla 21:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
There was a recent passed principle in an ArbCom case that when "reasonable efforts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed... seemingly draconian measures [may be adopted] as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia." Presumably, this doesn't extend to administrators; something like this should be considered though. east.718 at 04:26, 11/9/2007
Well, we've always had the authority to do community bans, and community-imposed restrictions such as revert paroles or topic bans are only a logical consequence of that, being simply a selective use of that same authority. The question is just, are we confident doing that in the case of this account, or can we hope for a more comprehensive solution comprising other potential troublemakers? I loathe the Arbcom process, but I must admit for a deeper investigation of the whole field Arbcom might be more suitable. Fut.Perf. 07:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Based on this discussion, I think it is time for those involved in the articles and outside editors and administrators to have the community sanction discussion. Whether that takes the form of general 1revert parole for everyone or something else the topic area seems to be disrupted by ongoing inappropriate editor behavior. --Rocksanddirt 17:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Survey of Wikipedia Administrators[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Administrators, if you are interested in being invited to take part in a brief (about 10 mins) academic survey, please take a look at the contents of the following deleted page :

Please note that this page was deliberately deleted to make sure that only Wikipedia administrators can see it. Please do not undelete the content.

This notice on WP:AN and the deleted page technique are being used on the recommendation of Wikipedia administrators in order to avoid spamming and to restrict the survey to admins. Please see the deleted page for links to relevant previous discussions with admins, and for further information about the survey (including links to my university site and full contact details).

(Note: I understand that the noticeboard may become busy and there is a possibility that this notice becomes archived quickly (I see this noticeboard page is already quite full). In that case, I may want to post a reminder if that's okay. I only imagine one reminder being needed, if it is at all, as the survey closes after a few days)

Thank you very much Zhan Li, University of Southern California email: zhanli at usc dot edu

Zhanliusc 16:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Zhan. I've seen that you have posted this same message at many admins' talk pages and believe that is sufficient. Could you please stop as posting the same message everywhere would be considered as spamming? Thanks for your consideration. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This is probably the best place for the "notice". (As opposed to canvassing...) - jc37 17:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree and that's why there has been no reason to revert this thread. However, Zhan can now stop using admins' talk pages i believe. I personally participated at the survey yesterday. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
He has stopped posting it to admins' talk pages, as far as I can tell from his contribs... Leebo T/C 17:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough :) -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you going to publish the results so the rest of us can see them? -- Kendrick7talk 17:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
That would be much appreciated. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Second, I'd like to see the results as well. ;) Mercury 18:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Thirded! --Masamage 18:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
He might not be able to publish the results here prior to acceptance for publication in a peer-reviewed journal as publication here might constitute "prior publication". Most journals have a policy to not publish previously published material (though things do slip through from time to time). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
He's doing this project for an intro-level class; I didn't assume that he was intending to publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
It is possible that the teacher of the course or an academic collaborator might wish to expand on the work and to include him as a co-author. I agree that he quite likely would not be the first author on such a publication. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Out of control admin[edit]

Hello, it is regretful that it's come to this but I feel I must complain about the recent actions of admin: Duja who in the past few months has moved a few controversial articles without consensus. First was the Myanmar article. Before the anti-government protests came into the Western news and sparked outrage from activists, the Myanmar article was named Myanmar for a very long time without any proposals to change it to the British imperialist name of "Burma". With anti-junta sentiment running high amongst Westerners, there was a proposal to move the article to "Burma". The debate was heated, but, as the archives show, clearly there was no consensus. Despite this, Duja moved the article to "Burma" (1). I requested a move back to Myanmar shortly after (2) but my poll was locked immediately under the premises established that second votes are not allowed until months after the article has been moved. I let it go and forgot about the Myanmar article. Then came the FC Dynamo Kyiv article. There was a vote to move it to FC Dynamo Kiev. There was no consensus so the proposal failed (3). A little over a month later a second vote was held, despite the precedent from the Myanmar article to NOT hold a second vote shortly afterwards, but get this... the second vote failed too (4), more editors voted against the proposal than voted in favor. Does this stop Duja, who also moved the Myanmar article? No. He has the arrogance to move the article to Dynamo Kiev even though two polls were against it, and the second poll should've never have even been held! There is a small, but vociferous movement to move all football (soccer) club articles to that of old, English names such as Sporting Clube de Portugal (Sporting CP for the short) to Sporting Lisbon (the old name) or FK Crvena Zvezda to Red Star Belgrade (old name). Yesterday, Duja, moved Crvena Zvezda to Red Star Belgrade (5), again without a consensus. WP is suffering at the hands of these iron fisted admins who ignore common sense and the wills of the editors. This needs to be stopped. At least revert Duja's disruptive edits. If this is the wrong place to post a complaint about an admin then I apologize. --Tocino 03:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment, doing a quick headcount due to that even the closing said both sides arguments were valid the decision to move the article to Burma from Myanmar at Talk:Burma/Archive 3 was 47-19 in favour of moving. I have no opinion on the matter but felt the numbers should be in play as there are arguments of no consensus. –– Lid(Talk) 04:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Straw polls are a poor way to gauge actual consensus and contribute to meaningful discussion. I agree though, the non-consensus claim seems rather suspect. ~ UBeR 04:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I will note a particular discrepancy between the users portrayal of two events - he noted that his poll to move the Burma article back to Myanmar was speedily closed while the Kiev article was not and continued stating the second move debte should not have happened. The second Kiev debate did take place rather "soon" after the first, a month or so, however the users poll to move Burma back was posted only 24 hours after the first decision. There is a clear case of misrepresentation here as the user has omitted that their attempt to move the article back was pretty much as soon as the last poll had closed. –– Lid(Talk) 04:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
IMO, there was enough opposition in order to nullify the consensus claim. Also, many of the people who supported the move were anons and editors who had political messages in their profiles such as "Save Burma" or "Free the monks" etc. When the vote closed and the protests died down, it seemed more and more editors came out in favor of keeping Myanmar. My case against Duja does not just circle around the Myanmar article though. --Tocino 04:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that we close this discussion. The close by Duja at Talk:Burma/Archive_3#Requested_move does not seem to be in any way questionable. The premise of the complaint is without foundation. --Tony Sidaway 04:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
To be fair to Tocino the move of the Kiev article is interesting as it was a roughly 4-1 result in favour of not moving the article that was overruled on the grounds of google results. –– Lid(Talk) 04:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The Kiev move should be reexamined. The consensus of the editors should be followed in this case. ~ UBeR 05:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
From the guideline: For geographic names in Ukraine, the Ukrainian National system is used., but I don't know Ukrainian at all, so I don't know how to convert the name of the town from Cyrillic to European using the "Ukrainian National system". Jackaranga 06:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
And for FK Crvena Zvezda, there was not a move request for the article except in 2005. This was just made out of the blue, with the comment of "this is the official club name in English." I think the article should be moved back to FK Crvena Zvezda, then a discussion should be made about it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it's one thing to be bold but it's another to be bold out of the blue on a subject that has precedent against you. This may be the English encyclopedia but it is not the Western encyclopedia. –– Lid(Talk) 08:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
That is true. hbdragon88 08:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, edit wars related to etymology largely to do with debates between British-English and American-English have a lot to do with the names of Eastern European clubs in an Eastern European organisation. (Use of organisation on purpose). –– Lid(Talk) 09:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

JAMAA Deletion Review[edit]

Could some additional adminsitrators step in on the deletion review for JAMAA? [17] We won't get anywhere with Metros and I, as we already have a past of disagreements and Metros is using his bias towards me to delete a legitimate page. Please review. Thank you. Rhythmnation2004 04:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Second request. In the last eight hours we have only had one additional administrator join the discussion. I would really appreciate the assistance of someone who has no affiliation with Metros. The way I have been treated by him is absolutely appauling, and despite the many requests for mediation, comment, and arbitration I have filed, and the proof that Metros is abusing his administrative powers by stalking my contributions and reverting them, regardless of their content, my complaints have completely been ignored. This is an absolute outrage, and I do not appreciate that a notable article was deleted within 5 minutes of its creation, due only in part to the fact that Metros has a bias towards me. Rhythmnation2004 12:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe that Admins are obligated or need to join into the discussion. An Admin will evaluate the discussion and close it (as with AFD), but anyone can contribute to the discussion - one need not have admins contribute for the discussion to have validity. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please comment, and I would like to speak to an admin privately[edit]

I have some opinions on Wikipedia administration policies. I've posted two topics on Village Pump, called "Administrative policies of banning and blocking editors" and "How to deal with users of questionable mental stability." I'd be pleased if both regular users and administrators could give their opinions. Please view the Village Pump (policy) page to read the postings. Also, I'd like to speak to an administrator(s) privately (possibly through email) about a certain issue. Any admin is free to contact me. - Cyborg Ninja 06:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Another self-admitted sock[edit]

CanIBeFrank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a self-admitted sockpuppet who has rekindled a page which was one of the ways banned POV-pusher Jon Awbrey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) sought to deflect criticism of his campaign of original research on Charles Peirce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Checkuser confirms this is probably not Awbrey, but I am still left with the question: what long-standing editor would have a reputation that would actually be damaged by proposing such a measure, to the extent of making a sockpuppet account permissible? Or is this just yet another rebuffed POV-pusher trying to reverse engineer a system that will give them the upper hand in a content dispute? It is extremly hard to take proposals like this at face value when we have no idea who is behind them, and such use of sockpuppets is, I think, corrosive, undermining those of us who are prepared to put our names to controversial debates. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there any point to this post? You have shown your displeasure about allowing sockpuppets for use when editing controversial subjects before, and this clearly isn't the place to garner support for a change in policy - take it to the relevant policy talk page... ViridaeTalk 11:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the point is to gain other people's input. WT:SOCK shows that I am far from being alone in my unhappiness over the increasing use of sockpuppets in this way. Guy (Help!) 12:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What to do when accused of "harassing" editors?[edit]

Dear admins, early today over here editor PaddyM wrote, "Your continued harassment of other editors is confusing at best and disruptive at worst." I am honestly confused and entirely baffled at what he means. PaddyM and I had been involved in a content dispute which almost erupted into an edit war, but I withdrew myself from any editing of the disputed content in order to prevent such a situation. I did leave a few templates but none of them were inappropriate. While PaddyM accused me of harassment, I am the one who now feels harassed. Tangentially, other editors have chimed in saying that the disputed content is not in the view of PaddyM, so to a certain extend I think he may just be feeling hurt and needing to lash out. Might an admin get involved to help informally mediate? Thank you. Bstone 18:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears as if both of you were clearly engaged in a content dispute to the point of edit warring. You yourself seemed to go a bit overboard with adding templates to the article and template warning established users. PaddyM also clearly was edit warring and not discussing things on talk. That said, the comments that were left at your talk page (that you removed) seem civil. Throwing out accusations of "harassment" doesn't help the situation, but I can understand how PaddyM can be offended by the templates. At this point, it seems like you just need to get a third opinion, or even file a content RfC to get more discussion going on at the talk page (so it isn't just you vs. PaddyM). In essence, this is still a content dispute, and I see no reason to come to the admins for anything. If the edit warring continues, the page should probably be protected. I think you should both just take a step back, relax, try to work together, and try to get more user input. -Andrew c [talk] 19:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Andrew c, as is entirely clear in the talk page for the article, I have worked very hard in attempting to discuss and work together with PaddyM. As you have indicated, he has not discussed the content of the article but rather has been entirely indignant that his version is the only legitimate one. As I stated on the talk page I will refrain from editing this section in order to prevent an edit war. Other editors are beginning to chime in and indicate that PaddyM's opinions are not supported by the facts. However, I am mostly concerned about PaddyM stating that I am harassing him and other editors. I believe this to be unfounded and rather a personal insult and incivility on the part of PaddyM. Thus, I ask that an admin chime in to help mediate. Bstone 20:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
"entirely indignant that his version is the only legitimate one" why is he angry his own version is the only legitimate one ? Jackaranga 20:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Not sure. He doesn't want to discuss the content and will simply revert and engage in an edit war. Thus, I have ceased editing. However his accusations of "harassment" are entirely unfounded and are simply uncivil. Thus, I ask an admin to please counsel him regarding this. Bstone 20:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I find it interesting, and telling, that Bstone initiated a discussion my edits on the AN without even involving me in the discussion. As anyone can see in the referenced discussion, Bstone simply reverted all edits by a third party, explaining that the history section is completely inappropriate for this article. I disagreed, found sources for all the statements, and they were still removed by Bstone. Additionally, another editor took issue with Bstone's version and he still insists that I am disrupting the process.
I don't disagree that we are embroiled in a content dispute, but for Bstone to say I'm "feeling hurt and needing to lash out" and come complain about me to the administrator's seems silly. As Andrew c pointed out, placing generic templates on my talk page instead of actually discussing his concerns and then simply deleting my responses makes it that much more difficult to discuss either one of our concerns.
Either way, it seems the admins have essentially agreed that this issue need not be brought to an admin, but discussed on the talk pages with other editors, which is exactly what is happening. Hopefully Bstone will be able to more appropriately contribute instead of just randomly adding as many templates as possible. Cheers, PaddyM 18:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
There are no clean hands in this episode, PaddyM. It would be lovely if in the future you can compromise instead of simply reverting with indignance. Like I said, I have ceased editing that section as you are willing to bring it into an edit war and level personal and uncivil attacks. I, however, am above that. Bstone 23:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian opened[edit]

An Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian, has been opened. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 21:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD needs attention[edit]

I am taking the unusual step of listing an open AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ezhavas. As you can see from my notes on the AfD, this situation is an utter mess, with quite a number of versions of this article having already been created (possibly more than I've found--please make a note at the AfD if you find any more). This needs to be dealt with once and for all, with the possible resolutions, as I see it, being:

  1. Restore one, merge the histories of the rest into that one, and protect all of those titles as redirects to that one.
  2. Make all protected redirects to Ezhava.
  3. Delete all and list at WP:PT. The advantage of this over redirecting is that it makes clearer to the editors who are creating these lists that they are not wanted, if that is indeed how the community feels.

I am listing this here because I think the reason that the AfD has not yet gotten any comment is that the extent and nature of the problem is not clear to those who can't see deleted edits and/or do not have experience reading logs. I'd appreciate any comments. I have no personal stake in how this is decided, but I do think it important that a final, clear decision is made, or else these problems will continue. Thanks. Chick Bowen 02:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The other reason was the AFD notice was missing plus I put a note at Talk:Ezhava (which has been fully protected for quite a while). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Many images tagged for deletion today[edit]

Hello, just informing you that we have tagged all the images licensed under {{MEP image (EP)}} for deletion today, as replaceable fair-use. Please note that even though the European Parliament allows reproduction as long as they are attributed, Wikipedia:Non-free content does not allow replaceable non-free images. As all the images using this template depict living persons they are not irreplaceable, and had no fair-use rationale anyway, they have all been tagged for deletion (around 250 of them). I also tagged about 50 images from Category:New Zealand Crown Copyright images for deletion for lacking fair-use rationale.

Commented at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:MEP image (EP). Quite glad you didn't report User:NoSoftwarePatents, that would have been a bit of a stretch. By the way, Image:Istvan Palfi (EP, 6th term).jpg, speedily deleted under the rationale that it was a depiction of a living person, was, in fact, a depiction of a dead person, so I undeleted it. Are you quite sure all 250 images you tagged this way are of living people? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 01:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Well it wasn't me who had tagged that one, but I have now, because it has no rationale. Jackaranga 02:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it did, you just didn't see it. Added a heading so it's more obvious. Again, are you quite sure about all 250 others? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 02:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
No. Don't know what is to be expected though, I mean User:NoSoftwarePatents has uploaded over 150 images in violation of policy. It took long enough to tag all those ones. I will go through and check them all (the ones I tagged), but I don't like the fact that other users should fix his policy violations 150 times over. Jackaranga 02:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
They were uploaded 2 and a half years ago, in April 2005, and clearly in good faith, since you will notice he quotes the EP permission in each upload. At the time, the permission template said nothing about the image being non-free, that was changed in 2006 [18]. You're getting upset at him for a rule interpretation that changed a year after his action, and is disputable even now. This isn't a vandal, this is a hard working contributor, who should be treated with respect. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 02:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Well in the around 130 I had tagged I did find one that is dead now, so I changed the tag. Also note I am not accusing him of being a vandal and it was he who created the template in the first place. He is not a bad faith editor, I apologise for that, I was getting more annoyed at you really, shouldn't have taken it out on his edits. Jackaranga 02:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My opinion, for what it's worth: While these images might not be entirely free in a technical sense, it strikes me that there is no real-world issue with their licensing status, and that pushing for these images to be deleted or replaced should be, among all the image-rights issues facing the project, a fairly low priority. Newyorkbrad 14:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Help on protected page[edit]

Hello. I would like to have Outriggr's assessment script (see here) installed on my monobook.js. It is protected. Could an administrator please add it? I would like to help WikiProject Military History. Thanks, Auroranorth 11:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

☑Y Done Gnangarra 11:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK update[edit]

The DYK update is over 9 hours too old. I have updated the next update (I've done it before). Would someone please promote it immediately from the next update? Royalbroil 16:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks! Royalbroil 16:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

AWB Checkpage[edit]

The Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage has some users waiting for confirmation over 24 hours and it says I should ask you guys on here. Cheers thanks alot! and-rewtalk 10:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone will probably come along shortly. Don't worry :) Qst (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 Done... Why on earth someone put that on the page... Reedy Boy 19:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

User Scipo[edit]


Scipo (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

Myself and twsx have filed a request for comment about Scipo because of his constant edit waring, however his edit list is getting stupid, and still nothing is done about him.

Can something Please be done about him

cheers PhilB ~ T/C 20:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The RFC, which he was notified of, has been running for three weeks and Scipo has not responded. Three editors have gone on record as saying they've tried to work this out with Scipo. I'm blocking him for a week for edit warring.RlevseTalk 21:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! XD PhilB ~ T/C 21:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


backlog at WP:UAA! need admins to start blocking@--( Mulligan's Wake)(t) 01:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleared, thanks for letting us know. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a pretty significant backlog at WP:RM as well. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is now pitching into Giovanni di Stefano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an incredibly complex debate, which is also a minefield (I have seen the OTRS tickets and discussed this one at length with Jimbo and Fred Bauder). This had gone quiet for a while, but Privatemusings seems to have reignited it (or at least played a part in that). Giovanni di Stefano is the lawyer of an individual whose article Privatemusings' main account edited. At what point does a "legitimate alternate account" become a controversy-evading "bad hand" sockpuppet, I wonder? It seems to me that WP:SOCK is being systematically gamed by a small number of people in order to create drama and ignite controversy. I remind people that the main account here is not a very long-standing contributor, is not traceable to real-world identity, so seems to me to have no credible reason to be using an alternate account to cause friction on one of our most problematic WP:BLP articles. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy, he's editing Talk:Giovanni di Stefano, not Giovanni di Stefano, and is editing on the talk page in a civil and collaborative manner, working with users including Fred Bauder. Describing it as "pitching in" is a little unfair - and I don't see any friction being caused. Is this "main account" actually still editing? I note PM says it is not (which would suggest it is no longer a "main" account). If not, WP:SOCK doesn't apply. Has PM's other account ever edited Giovanni di Stefano (not another aticle tangentially connected)? As an aside, why did you delete Privatemusing's enjoinder to try and resolve things between the two of you? ([19]) Neil  09:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I have no interest in resolving things "between the two of us", that is a complete red herring. However, this is probably better at WT:SOCK. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC):::
Guy, would you be willing to email me the name of PM's main account and the articles that you mention here? Or I will try and be on IRC from work but I'm rather busy. Thatcher131 12:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The sock puppetry rules no longer apply, unless you are implying that the original account has NOT stopped editing as claimed. I don't think you are the best person to deal with this, because he has made a good faith attempt to patch things up and you ignored that. ViridaeTalk 13:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
So you say. But that is falling for the abusers' frequent trick of claiming that anybody who comes along and shows an interest is "involved" and therefore can't offer an opinion. Actually the overlap between PM's editing and mine is extremely limited, plus (and this is the important bit) such interaction as we have had is the result of attempts to address his problematic behaviour. To say that further discussion of his problematic behaviour is now embargoed because I have started to look at his problematic behaviour is a line of reasoning that will soon leave us unable to deal with any problem at all. Guy (Help!) 17:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I also note that his last contribution to the talk page was more than 48 hours before Guy popped up to mention it. At least this time Guy isn't visibly a party to the specific dispute, which is about all that can be said in favor of this report. Time to bury the hatchet Guy. GRBerry 14:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
So far as I know, the claims that 'Privatemusings is using multiple accounts to edit the same topic' are based on a single brief comment about the subject of 'BADSITES' (prior to creation of the Privatemusings account) and perhaps a handful of other edits on pages within the vast spectrum of the whole controversy. Unless there is some other account that I do not know about or I am overlooking some connection, there has been no 'vote stacking', nothing which can reasonably be described as 'use of multiple accounts to give the appearance of more widespread support than a view has', et cetera. In short, nothing remotely actionable or notably wrong. That would make some of the statements which have been given about this 'abuse' grossly misleading at best... so maybe there IS some other account which has been involved. I dunno.
As to, "I have no interest in resolving things". Therein lies the problem Guy. You made no effort to resolve it before going directly to an indefinite block. You didn't change your position even after he agreed not to do the thing you ostensibly blocked him for. You "have no interest in resolving things". You aren't even trying to settle the matter peaceably. You just want to get rid of the guy you don't like. And that, rightly, has no part in our dispute resolution procedures. --CBD 15:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Addenda: Privatemusings' other account has edited the page of one of Giovanni di Stefano's clients (unrelated to the 'BADSITES' issue). However, that's a bit like saying that editing O. J. Simpson and Johnny Cochran with different accounts is 'abusive sockpuppetry'. I see no problem with either account's edits to either page in this case... nor any disruption or problem if they had all been made by one account or each edit individually made under a different name. --CBD 16:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
CBD, the way we "resolve" abusive sockpuppetry is with the banhammer, especially when concerns had previously been expressed and discussed about the account straying towards the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. Before doing anything I discussed the matter with a very small number of people I trust - necessarily small because to do so meant revealing the main account, which is not my normal practice at all. All of them expressed the opinion that this was unacceptable use of an alternate account. That group did include an active member of the Arbitration Committee. The fact that Wikipedia Review are now claiming to have played some part in this rather reinforces my impression that this is someone who is here for the drama, not the encyclopaedia. I am disappointed (actually disgusted, but there you go) that people are representing this as some kind of personal vendetta on my part, or a personal problem between me and this editor. Do you folks really think I have nothing better to do? Shame on you. This is someone who freely admitted that they had registered an alternate account to engage in a controversial debate (just about acceptable) but then stepped outside those bounds to engage in controversial actions in respect of content; I know their previous accounts, this is absolutely not a long-standing respected editor with a history of brilliant contributions who wants to keep that unsullied. All the accounts have a chequered history, all have edited controversial articles, all have edited controversially to some extent. To read the comments here you'd hardly credit that blocking this account was supported at the time and since by a goodly number of respected admins, or that Matthew Brown, FloNight, Thatcher and Lar to name but four have all opined that this behaviour was unacceptable. You'd think this was an editor with years of spotless history to protect, or a tangible link to real-world identity. Not so. The editor had no good reason to register an alternate account in the first place, and their behaviour since has strayed outside of the bounds he apparently set himself, and the bounds of what I consider acceptable from any alternate account. In case people hadn't realised, there is a concerted campaign under way to divide, manipulate and hopefully destroy the Wikipedia administrator community, in order to facilitate abuse by a group of banned editors. Looks like they are doing very well indeed. Guy (Help!) 17:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, having been told the two prior accounts he used, I really think we are paying this person far too much attention. I never knew the first account, but I thought the second account was a bit of a pest, so this isn't really a case of a good editor hiding his disruptive edits. It's a case of a low-level pest being a low-level pest on two accounts. His interests certainly coincide with those of a number of Wikipedia Review editors who would not be welcome here, and he has a tendency to want to prolong discussion of internal dramas with the argument, "if we don't discuss it, unnamed others will think we are covering it up." And the resolution (or lack thereof) is now compounded because we are kindly not discussing the prior account, which makes it easier for people who argue "don't ban without an ironclad case" to sway the discussion. And, to be honest, if we are going to start banning low-level pests, he would not be at the top of my list. I will be content as long as Privatemusings keeps his promise to abandon his old accounts and stick to Privatemusings--i.e., a voluntary restriction to one account rather than a restriction enforced by a block (at least until he does something overtly bannable). Thatcher131 17:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Right, exactly that. One account: fine, behaviour not bannable (and remember I said I'd quietly undo autoblocks). Two accounts? Thank you, but no. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
You actually indicated first that I should email you if I wanted the autoblocks undone, then you indicated that your enabling of the autoblocks had been a mistake on your part - just to clarify. Privatemusings 21:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Guy, you first indefinitely blocked in the context of the WP:BADSITES controversy, a controversy in which you are very clearly an involved party. Less than 48 hours after the ArbComm explicitly ruled that that was rejected and not policy, there you were with a very long screed asking them to overturn themselves and say that it was already policy. That is the context in which you are clearly in a dispute with this user. All of your references to Wikipedia Review make it clear to me that you are continuing to act as a party in that dispute, not as an uninvoled admin. Bringing up this particular claim more than 48 hours after the last related edit, refusing to attempt dispute resolution, and spinning the facts to make the situation look far worse than it really is is exactly the behaviour that we expect to see from users whose conduct is problematic in a dispute. It is very clear to me that Guy needs to bury the hatchet and step away. He doesn't even recognize that he is in a dispute and is himself part of the problem. Let Thatcher, or someone else who isn't a party to the WP:BADSITES controversy, deal with this. GRBerry 19:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I blocked him because having told me who he is and why he set the account up (to contribute to meta debate) he then stared making controversial content edits. Everybody who knows the other account, including three arbitrators and a couple of admins, has agreed this was an inappropriate use of an alternate account. I did not block the main account and offered to undo any autoblocks quietly to preserve the anonymity. The BADSITES debate and arbitration case is, after all, over. But do feel free to carry on pretending that I'm the problem if it helps you to relax. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't indicate to you that PM was intended to comment about 'meta debate' (a horribly vague notion) - I said "I decided when getting more involved in the external link issues ('badsites' etc.) to create a sock, Privatemusings, for the reasons stated on the PM user page". Please don't ascribe your misunderstandings to me, it's annoying. Privatemusings 21:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh well that is sorted. He has restricted himself to one account now - no more problems. ViridaeTalk 20:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The sock issue is one problem. Another problem, with this and some other accouts, comes when folks participate in Wikipedia only to engage in disputes. This isn't a debating society. When an editor doesn't make any productive edits and instead only participates in arguments it calls into question whether that account is really contributing. However that matter may need to be resolved another time. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
So Guy has a problem with PM editing an article which has connections with another article that has allegedly been edited by another account which is/was also PM, but is then advised that PM has been contributing to the talkpage of the article - which isn't editing the mainspace - so Will Beback now has a problem that PM doesn't edit articles, but only contributes in the discussions side of stuff (which isn't editing, which is what people are supposed to do - when not complaining about PrivateMusings...)? Have I got that straight? LessHeard vanU 21:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, no, not exactly - I had a problem with the fact that PM was using one account to engage in controversy and another for "clean" edits, except the other account also engaged in controversy and didn't have that many edits anyway, plus he'd already switched accounts once before, and that account didn't have many edits but also had a share of controversy. So I ran it past some people I trust, including members of the arbitration committee, and everyone I've spoken to who knows the identities of the accounts agrees that this was inappropriate use of multiple account, and that there was no credible reason for this particular editor to need an alternate account anyway, and the account was starting along what looked like a familiar path of controversial editing, so I stopped that account, advised him I'd quietly undo any autoblocks, so he could get quietly on with his Wikilife. But of course this person isn't here to get quietly on with his Wikilife. He's here for the drama. And he's probably by now getting advice from others on how best to get it. And the best way seems to be to imply that because PM was opposed to BADSITES, therefore all those who consider his behaviour problematic are in favour of BADSIIES, and BADSITES is bad, therefore those who consider PM's behaviour problematic are bad. Or something. I really don't understand the fuss, myself, because generally we block without hesitation when people register alternate accounts just for trolling. Thanks for taking an interest, though. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting a little confused here now, because you seem to be saying that at first there seemed to be a case of good hand, bad hand which appears to be a conflation of what WP:SOCK allows - the use of an alternative in areas which the original username does not want to have their prior existence/history involved - which then became somewhat muddied? So, which is wrong?. As far as I am aware, the actions that are forbidden in WP:SOCK is for both (or all) different accounts is to represent themselves as different individuals in order to subvert a discussion - especially where one of the other identities is also participating - by making it appear that a viewpoint has more adherents than is the case, or to circumvent 3RR on reverting, or the like. I do not see any suggestion that this has happened. Also, I am pretty certain that there is no WP policy in getting involved in controversial subjects/articles/discussions (see my essay) as being forbidden or even discouraged.
"He's probably getting advice how to get it" re drama; it appears that you are uncertain that this is indeed happening, so this is a subjective judgement, as indeed is the notion of drama. It is not good faith to assume any motivation other than a desire to improve the encyclopedia for any action, unless you have evidence to the contrary. As well as assuming AGF, WP:NPA makes it clear that any (supposed) affiliation is not grounds on which to judge an editors contributions. Which brings us to the thorny question of BADSITES and ArbCom; where it was recognised that (outside of two specific named sites) there was the possibility that discussion arising from WP critical sites informing discussion at WP was not grounds for such discussion to be disregarded - or those who may seem to reflect some views found in such places. I am aware that you vehemently opposed those findings, and have found reason (which I have remarked in other discussions) to continue to taint the actions or the purported views of WP editors with that of one of those sites. From that I might infer that you are continuing to troll for the suppression of reference to or acknowledgement of Wikipedia Review despite the ArbCom decision, except that AGF requires that I simply believe that your actions and comments are only guided by your belief in what is best for WP - which I of course do. Which brings us to "trolling", an adjective which appears to be the mirror of "sticking to ones principles"; one of which alludes to poor behavior and the other to an admirable personal trait - a subjective consideration, often reflecting a bias.
To return to my original comment, which was originally in response to Will Beback, do you not find it strange that one person should criticise an editor for making edits to an article while another criticises the same editor for not contributing to article space a few paragraphs later? Surely you both cannot be right? LessHeard vanU 23:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
LessHeard vanU misunderatands my concern. It isn't with participating in discussions - it's with participating in one dispute after another without making any contributions to the encyclopedia. While it may be fun to debate issues, that's not the point of this project. We're here to write a reference work. There are a bunch of accounts that seem more devoted to stoking Wiki-dramas then to getting work done. At the extreme, we've even had sock of banned users coming through and intentionally provoking disputes for the amusement of the WR crowd. In my opinion, we've been too patient with disruptive users who act politely and claim to have the best interests of the project at heart, but whose actions tell a different story. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
There are many ways in which to build an encyclopedia than the adding of content in article space, there is the constructing and testing of the systems and procedures by which the content is evaluated and comported. The tools for this is debate and discussion. Without application of new ideas and criticism there is the possibility of entropy eroding the structure of the encyclopedia. What provides the most danger to WP, the supposed ill-willed actions of vandals or a self satisfied oligarchy that permits nobody to note where there might be evidence of decay or shoddy practice? It is even possible that the claim to have the best interest of WP at heart is exactly that, no matter how different their conclusions as to what is best differs from yours (or mine). It just requires a bit of good faith, and the ability to conduct a reasoned discussion. LessHeard vanU 23:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Nobody ever wrote an encyclopedia solely by arguing over policies. Granted, a certain amount of policy-making is necessary. Disputes, both about content and about policy, are also inevitable. But disputes that aren't resolved are disruptive. There appear to be some editors who relish disputes, who maintain them, who even provoke them. These people do not help the project. Criticism for the sake of criticism isn't constructive. It is naive to ignore the fact that there is a website devoted to destroying Wikipedia whose members have been coming here to instigate disputes within the community. That type of activity should not be tolerated, whether as part of a concerted effort or just an individual initiative. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOCK cautiously allows the use of an alternate account, with some examples, where the editor has a really compelling reason not to want to get their main account embroiled in a particular controversy. One example I've been given which arbitrators consider appropriate is: an editor who was cleaning up problems with paedophilia advocacy and did not want his main account (traceable to RWI and hence professional reputation) to be associated with paedophilia articles. We might also allow this for, say, scientology articles, where there is a long history of real-world harassment. This user had no such reason. It was a low-activity account anyway, and had shown no previous reluctance to engage in controversy. The idea that the main account needed isolating form the controversy fails to stand up to any kind of inspection, as pretty much everyone who knows the full facts seems to agree. This was a blatant gaming of the wording of WP:SOCK to go absolutely against its spirit, and the Wikilawyering about it has been tiresome and vexatious. Will is on the money above: we are being manipulated by those whose aim is to destroy or undermine us, in order to either destroy Wikipedia altogether, or gain an advantage in their content disputes. I urge everyone to read the evidence and findings of the Alkivar arbitration. I do not think Alkivar is or was evil, he was very skilfully manipulated by people whose goals are utterly inimical to this project. Incidents like this give them endless joy, they see us arguing forever over the blocking of an abusively used sockpuppet account (and do remember that the main account was never blocked, this was an account, not an editor, which was blocked), and they love it. They want us gone, and sowing the seeds of division in the admin community by creating drama in hot topic areas, and by prodding people like Alkivar with known views they can manipulate to create division and strife, is precisely what they are after. I cannot imagine that a year ago we'd have wasted a moment on this block, because it was so self-evidently an inappropriate use of an alternate account that it would have been stomped pretty much on creation. Instead we now have people supporting the sockpuppeteer in order, it seems to me, to preserve what is mistakenly seen as the "right" to free speech or the ability to link to sites that exist purely to undermine and destroy us. Would we have tolerated a sockpuppet account created solely to defend the ability to advocate paedophilia, to use one previous contentious incident? It's pretty clear from past arbitrations on LaRouche that the arbitrators take a dim view of single-purpose accounts for controversial subjects, you need to have a good reason - and this individual never did have a good reason. We have been trolled good and proper. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) To answer both in turn; of course Encyclopedia's are partly built by arguing over policy, do you believe that Encyclopedia Brittanica simply evolved without discussion? Policies in presentation and content have obviously changed over the various volumes - it is just that the discussion was internal. Disputes that are not resolved are indeed disruptive, but resolution requires both parties to work toward a result. Also, I concede that there are those who prefer the arena of debate to the "drudgery" of adding and citing content - but this is not necessarily a bad thing, since it is best that the talents of contributors be used in their areas of ability and a better encyclopedia can be the ultimate result. As for off-Wiki sites reaction to unfolding events, ignore them. Unless you have proof that an individual (or group of individuals) is a anti-WP member of an off-wiki site (since not all of the membership may be) or is being coached by such a person, then the WP member that is being influenced by off-Wiki comment is you, not the Fifth Columnist or Red Under the Bed. In the matter of PrivateMusings, there was some debate at Wikipedia Review as to what allegiences he had when he first appeared, which indicates that he is not "controlled" from anyone there (and lets not get into guessing games of double bluff, which is simply another drama developer).
Your interpretation of WP:SOCK appears far more severe than my reading of it - I see no requirement for a compelling reason, simply a desire not involve the main or original account in a "hot" area with the express consideration that the two or more accounts are used separately. It cannot be argued that PM's contributing, or the areas edited, has not been considered "hot" simply by what we are reading here, and that having a previous history which may be considered controversial is what is stated as a legitimate reason for creating an alternative account. (It was not PM who bought up the matter of the original account, either.) Therefore it appears that PM was using this account fully in compliance with the wording. If the wording of the policy does not reflect the spirit (not just an interpretation of the spirit, either) then the wording needs amending. You cannot sanction editors for following what they believed to be the proper course per their understanding of policy.
I have already commented on the claim that PM is being directed by members of an off-wiki site, and that your referrals to Wikipedia Review in this forum indicated that it isn't PM that appears is being manipulated by them. Perhaps a year ago this case would have been stamped on, but that needn't make it right. Things evolve, people (hopefully) learn, individual leave and other individuals join, the ability to link or not to sites depends on appropriateness and verifiability (not BADSITES), and the dynamics change. It is foolish, if not to say dangerous, to sit outside the process and wish for "the good old days", you have to engage with the situation that exists now - because that is where the encyclopedia is.
Finally (and this really is the last I will write on this, since it appears that the original matter is concluded) both of you need to consider that firstly you may be wrong either wholly or in part, and that your own obsessions with certain off-wiki sites colours your perceptions of other peoples motives. I'm not saying that you are and they do, just that you should be aware of the potential. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 11:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

<remove previous post, might not have helped.> - on second thoughts - I'm sure all editors would likely agree that this amounts to a discussion about my continued editing on the wiki. We have clear dispute resolution policies - at this stage I think we need to engage them, not just pop up on various noticeboards and (in my opinion) canvas for a ban. Perhaps a fairly simple ArbCom case is in order? I'd be more than happy to engage there, because they way it's happening at the moment is upsetting, and stressful for me, and hardly seems fair.

Oh, and many thanks to CBD for having the courtesy to notify me of this discussion - it's very unpalatable to discover a conversation about oneself taking place, without the decency of the editor involved to notify you. Privatemusings 21:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I may have missed it in all that above, but just to be clear, you're down to exactly one account now, yes? By which I mean you are now only editing Wikipedia under the name Privatemusings and will stick to that in the future. Thanks, William Pietri 21:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I am only editing wikipedia from now on as PM, and I'm very angry about Guy's behavior. Thank you too, for your considered comment on the whole situation, William. Privatemusings 22:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Well hell, I'm angry about your behaviour - use of an alternate account that three arbitrators agree was inappropriate, coupled with endless whining and an edit history that contains very few uncontroversial edits on any of your three accounts. And most especially the fact that you continue to pretend that the problem is someone else. My involvement with Wikipedia spreads across every namespace, a couple of languages and more than one WMF project space. Yours, on the other hand, is largely restricted to agitation, querulousness and promoting drama. Let's see which of us gets banned first, shall we? Guy (Help!) 22:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Then let's go forward with dispute resolution, rather than sniping instigated by you at various noticeboards. Your comments seem to me to be a combination of personal attacks, appeals to authority, and outright needless escalation. I can say hand on heart that I haven't promoted or caused any of this recent drama - I don't believe the same of you. Let's take this calmly to Arb Com, mediation, or any sensible discussion forum. Privatemusings 22:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no dispute to resolve. You are on one account, and that's an end of it. Guy (Help!) 00:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
So the point of this upsetting, rather nasty thread was? I'm still very upset at the way you continue to treat me, and would like some sort of mediation or discussion about your behavior. My door's open, couldn't we start with