Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive162

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Huge lag?[edit]

Resolved: Shoulda' check around first, :P . lifebaka++ 19:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else having problems with some huge lag? Like, on the order of 6374 seconds? Is someone deleting the main page or something like that? Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 19:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see [1]. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 19:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Heh... I'd just gone over there and found it too. Silly me for not checking both boards before posting. At least I can see stuff from after 14:30 UTC now. It's headed down, so it'll be gone eventually. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage[edit]

Resolved

Could someone take care of this Thanks! — Navy  Blue  21:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hardly a huge backlog. If it gets over 24 hours, bring it here, but I will look at it now. --Rodhullandemu 22:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
They are all  Done Tiptoety talk 22:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Valentino movie spammer - heads up[edit]

Heads up! Please keep an eye on User talk:206.252.134.18. Pushing their company's product, as they say they have a movie coming out this year. I deleted their article Valentino Movie - "Valentino: The Last Emperor (2008) as G12-Copyright infringement, and then found this request on my page wich reads: "I am writing directly from the production company so that we may be able to establish this page on wikipedia". I also reverted their many very spammy edits to Valentino Garavani (an article about somebody I have never heard of before). I warned them accordingly and put them in my watchlist, but another set of eyes would be good since I don't think they are done yet. -- Alexf42 23:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that this is probably the same person as Valentinomovie (talk · contribs), which was blocked as a promotional username. - Icewedge (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Likely. WP:RFCU will be helpful. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Gene Poole is adding "sock warnings" to my user page[edit]

Resolved: If you feel this strongly about the roses, create a report at SSP. Otherwise, quit accusing other editors of sockpuppetry.

Three times, Gene Poole added {{sockpuppeteer}} to my user page [2] [3] [4], although he didn't give any explanation why he believes that I might be a sockpuppet. I asked Gene Poole to stop adding that template to my user page [5], but he continues to do so [6]. Adam233 (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Here Gene Poole asks other users to vandalize my user page. Could an administrator please remove the "sock warning" and protect my user page? Adam233 (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Queried the accuser here. I suppose I should also notify him of this thread ;-) Tan ǀ 39 01:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crown Dependency of Forvik for the reasoning of Adam233 being a sockpuppet. You might also want to check that account's edit history, too. Adam233 has created an account strictly for the prosecution of the Crown Dependency of Forvik article. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 01:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
So what? IP's can't create AfD's; it's not unreasonable that an IP editor saw an article he wanted to nominate for deletion, and created an account so he could do it. In any case, an SPA isn't the same as a sock puppet. If you can prove sockpuppetry, do it, but right now you're edit warring to keep the tag on his page, and in my opinion, you and Gene are flirting with 3RR. --barneca (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Gene has already breached 3RR and is assuming bad faith without proving that Adam233 is an sockpuppet. IMO if Gene thought that Adam233 is a sockpuppet then he should have taken it to WP:SSP then to tag. Bidgee (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
And this looks like gaming the system to me. --barneca (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep. We should probably wait until the accuser can speak his piece before we get the blowtorches out, tho... Tan ǀ 39 01:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Adam233 is an obvious single-purpose sock account, deliberately created to subvert the consensus process concerning Crown Dependency of Forvik. He has made no edits whatsoever beyond nominating this article for deletion. Multiple editors support the contention that the account is disruptive sock, and have asked for a permanent block to be applied. I suggest you do so as a matter of urgency, as the account's continued disruption of WP is both inappropriate and abusive. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
In what way has Adam233 been disruptive? Bidgee (talk) 01:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
You need evidence, diffs, some sort of cohesive report, Gene, if you are going to try to get this user blocked. Right now, this just looks bad on your part. Tan ǀ 39 01:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
More than sufficient evidence is in plain sight. I suggest you review it, rather than attacking those responsible for bringing the matter to notice. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
You're just making yourself bad ATM WP:BITE "# Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet". If a lot of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary. # Think hard before calling newcomers Single-purpose account" Bidgee (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
By multiple people, I assume you mean you and the other two people you canvassed? I've never understood the theory that a new account, created with the obvious purpose of nominating an article for AfD, is wrong; how else is an IP supposed to nominate an article for deletion? Or is it your position that an IP editor isn't supposed to be able to nominate an article for deletion? And an AfD, by definition, is not an attempt to circumvent consensus. I have absolutely no opinion on that article, and for all I know you have secret evidence that actually proves it is a sockpuppet of someone. But if all you've got is three fans of that article labelling opponents SPA's and socks because, well, the three of you all agree, then I don't buy it. --barneca (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
You may consider it gaming, but I would have acted the same even if Onecanadasquarebishopsgate and Gene Poole hadn't written any of that. They both knew that I was following the article and AfD and it's been blatantly obvious from the beginning where my support was. I originally thought that the guy who started the merge proposal was puppetmaster, but I'm thinking now that it may be someone else inspired by that failed proposal. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 02:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm willing to concede that it might not be a sock puppet account (although I do still feel it is). However it's quite obvious to be a single-purpose account with a disruptive agenda. (And I hope this doesn't take five or six attempts to post again, edit conflicts are lame.) --coldacid (talk|contrib) 02:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
See WP:BITE "Think hard before calling newcomers Single-purpose account" and assume good faith. Bidgee (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I did think hard. The facts line up, S.P.A. Had Adam233 also contributed in any meaningful way outside the AfD, I could assume good faith, even despite him not doing so with the AfD. I normally assume good faith, but watching the behaviour of others turns assumptions in different ways. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 02:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
For all we know is that Adam233 may have edited with an IP in the past and thought to get an account who may or may not make vauled contributions in the future. Bidgee (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
That's true, but without being an admin I'll never know because I don't get to see what IPs Adam233 is editing from. Which likewise makes it hard to gather evidence supporting or dismissing the sockpuppet theory, without reverting to nothing but circumstantial evidence. If Adam233 turns out to be contributing in a helpful way in the future, then my SPA opinion would hold no merit; but until that happens, I'm sticking to my opinion as so far all I've seen is the AfD, the accusations, and the arguments.
TBH, this whole thing is just disgusting me. But being tangled up in it now (and having a couple accusations fired my way for my troubles!) it's not like I can just pull out until the whole issue is resolved. And I just wanted to work on my own articles! --coldacid (talk|contrib) 03:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Adam is innocent until proven guilty. Bidgee (talk) 06:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The lesson here is that if you have evidence of sock puppetry, real evidence, file a suspected sock puppet report. If it's an obvious sock, somebody will come along and tag the account, and maybe block it too. There is no rush. Jehochman Talk 02:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The only "gaming" being perpetrated here is that of the sock account. And if by "canvassed" you mean "other editors - including several editors who have actually taken the oppposing view in the AfD discussion" - who all just happen to share the opinion that an account with the following characterustics is not editing in good faith: (a) appears at the conclusion of a spirited merge discussion, the consensus of which was not to merge, and immediately nominates the article in question for deletion. (b) makes no other edits to WP unrelated to that AfD, before or since. Then I'm afraid you need to wake up and smell the roses. --Gene_poole (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not how it works. Here is how it will go down: You will either file a suspected sock report and let the administrators do the work, or this will be closed down and you'll just have to live with it. Your poor attitude here at ANI and your relentless application of a disputed and non-discussed tag to a userpage is not a desirable trait.
The ball is in your court, but if you refuse to point out specific infractions, or refuse to file an SSP report, then there is not much that we can (or will) do. A single purpose account is not always necessarily bad, although I personally frown upon it; the user may have been editing from an IP address prior, but there is no way for us to determine it unless you do some of the legwork for us. seicer | talk | contribs 02:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Funchords_and_NebuAd[edit]

Does this violate WP:OUTING? Corvus cornixtalk 06:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, Funchords provides his full name on his userpage. This link comes up on the first page of search results when you search for his name. -- Ned Scott 07:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Corvus cornixtalk 07:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I get a second opinion?[edit]

Can I get a second opinion on this? (BHG is away at the moment so won't be in a position to comment). Legitimate request or start-of-a-spammer? – iridescent 20:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If it was completely unsolicited, as it appears at first glance, I would say this is most definitely spam. Tan ǀ 39 20:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
N.B. I've deliberately not notified Aignacio09 of this thread; if it's considered a legitimate request, there doesn't seem a need to WP:BITE a new account by the first thread on their talkpage being an {{ANI-notice}}; they can always be advised later if The Consensus thinks there's a concern. – iridescent 20:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Without any evidence of prior communication, this feels and reads like spam. No need to make a big deal about it if Aignacio09 doesn't edit again, though. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
It's spam. Likely a test. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wiktionary still broken ?[edit]

Hi. I raised an issue Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive158#Transwiki_to_Wiktionary_broken_.3F a couple of weeks ago about the automatic Wikipedia -> Wiktionary transwiki process being possibly broken - I can't see any change in the situation - is there anything that can be done, or is it all dependent on the bot's owner fixing it ? CultureDrone (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the talk message didn't work, I sent him an email. I'm sorry this is taking so long, but without the bot operator's help we can't get anywhere on this. Cheers. lifebaka++ 12:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
This one has been going nowhere for a long time. :) I've posted about it here and at village pump. I wrote Connel about it in May. On May 24th, he told me that CopyToWiktionaryBot had been disabled until a false positives situation with Special:Import could be fixed. He noted that Wiktionary sysops can manually import a couple of articles, if they seem important. At the time I noticed it, there were about 30 days worth of backlog. I rather imagine that's compounded dramatically by now, though I haven't looked. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there's nothing wrong with the bot - the problem seems to be with Special:Import - which fails in at least 2 out of 5 attempts..(see bug #9911 ) I ran the import process manually a few times to check if the problem still exists, and it does.. The bot can't run as long as Special:Import is flaky. I'll work on doing the imports manually (this requires +sysop on Wiktionary, which I have). --Versageek 13:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Am I going insane?[edit]

I was poking around the 2008 South Ossetia war article when I thought I'd look to see when it was semi-protected. But when I went to the logs, there was nothing there. Trying to edit reveals that it is at least semi-protected, but there's no record of who did it--even more surprising, going to the protection dialogue shows that not only is it semi-protected against editing, it's actually fully-protected against moves. But of course, there's no entry in the log to show who protected it when, and I couldn't find anything while browsing through the history.

I recently had a similar case like this on my talk page (a user tried to move an article but was told that the target was protected against creation even though there was nothing in the log; when I tried to do it with my non-sysop sock, it worked just fine). So in the interest of a sanity check/identifying any potential bugs, I thought I'd ask here in the hopes that someone knows something I don't. --jonny-mt 08:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Protection logs stay with the title that was protected[7] so you need to look for a record of page moves in the page history. The second situation was probably due to a temporary error in the title blacklist.[8] -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec) The article was moved a couple of times, and the protection log doesn't move with it. See [9]. That's probably a bug. If I knew how bugzilla worked I'd report it. Neıl 08:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that make a good deal of sense. I was doubly confused because I didn't see anything in the move log for the page, either. I also came to the conclusion that the MediaWiki blacklist was to blame for the second case, but I was wondering about two such cases happening in close proximity. I'll take a closer look later on and submit a bug report. Thanks! --jonny-mt 08:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Updating the protection/deletion logs with every page-move would cause more confusion than it would prevent. If this happened it would appear that (or at least be indistinguishable from a situation where) the title was protected from creation before anything was moved to it, and for deletion logs changing this behavior would make it harder to find any still-deleted edits. On the other hand a new type of "movedto" log entry would be much more helpful. Currently if A is moved to B, there is a move log entry associated with A saying "so-and-so moved A to B" but nothing in the log for B, so fixing this is probably the best approach. — CharlotteWebb 16:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sanjao sam san...[edit]

Resolved

I noticed that this article title was blacklisted. This is the title of Montenegrin singer Sako Polumenta newest album. AFAIK, the article for the album never existed. I request that this article be removed from the blacklist as I plan to add much about this album. Thank you. --Prevalis (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Any reason why this got blacklisted in the first place? If nothing controversial, I see no problem with removing. --Tone 22:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Sanjao sam san... is not salted. Go ahead and create the article, there is nothing to unprotect. EdJohnston (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, if you try to create it you get a Titleblacklist warning. I would guess it's the line ".*[^\p{L}\d ]{3}.* # Disallows three consecutive characters that are not letters (in any script), numbers, or (normal) spaces" catching the ... at the end of the title. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Likely the elipses was causing the problem. I've created a stub for you. ~ BigrTex 22:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Should it ("...") be changed to the Unicode character "…"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Caitlin202[edit]

A new user, Caitlin202 (talk · contribs), is making some seemingly uninformed moves and edits. None of it appears to be intentional vandalism, but the fact that she created an article with the {{advert}} template included in the initial revision is a bit weird. So far, the majority of her edits had to be cleaned up by others, and she doesn't appear very responsive. Not sure what should be done here, but I'd appreciate an admin taking a quick look over her contribs. user:Everyme 05:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Support Block unresponsive, uninformed moves and edits with poor edit summaries. --ENAIC (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a block is a little excessive here, as she hasn't been approached all that many times previously, and has changed her behaviour in response to most requests. I've just her a second time about the edit summaries. If someone can replace my suggestion with a better worded one, feel free - mine might be a little more caustic than what we're after. -- Mark Chovain 06:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't block just yet, as she seems to be a younger user who possibly hasn't had time yet to digest the messages on her talk page. Let's give her a few days to see what happens. This is nowhere near Kanabekobaton's refusal to communicate. KrakatoaKatie 07:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought at first there was a possibility that this was an experienced user putting up a front of cluelessness as a mask, but after looking into her edits more thoroughly, I doubt that now. I concur that this is most probably a inexperienced young editor needing some guidance. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 07:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Echo that. I believe she is genuinely inexperienced and probably of relatively young age, but she's well-intentioned throughout, and not uncivil or anything. But she clearly needs some guideance and we should keep an eye on her contribs and offer her feedback, at least for a little while. (I believe admins are generally more suited to the task of mentoring, maybe one of you guys could offer her mentorship, or rather: adoption?) user:Everyme 14:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you are familiar enough with RFA to know that admins aren't as a rule "better suited" for anything. — CharlotteWebb 16:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
True, but I personally hold them to higher standards nevertheless. user:Everyme 17:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Totally lost, need help[edit]

I know I may come off annoying, constantly asking for help, because it is not a pressing matter, it's just that I am new. Yes, I have read the basics of Wikipedia, I just need guidance. This is a big encyclopedia, much bigger than a paper-based one, since this is the internet and there are no bounds, so it will take quite a while to adjust to the vastness of it. Again, please forgive my pestering. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 09:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest the adopt a user scheme. You'll be 'adopted' by an experienced user where they'll teach you the ropes. Or you can insert the {{helpme}} tag followed by a question and someone will be along to respond :) ——RyanLupin(talk) 09:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
When you use {{helpme}}, make sure you place it on your talk page, otherwise you may not get a response. Cheers, caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 16:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikisports[edit]

Resolved: Usual Gawp crap. Links removed CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 01:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have come across a new wiki project wikisports, which currently has four pages, the main page, the community portal, my user page and a page I will nominate for deletion entitled "Dolphins". I did some work on Wikiversity but I am excited by the prospect of a new project. I am bringing this to the attention of the admins on wikipedia because I would like some help from people with experience to help me promote this project so more people will join and discuss a plan of action for getting it off the ground. I would appreciate any advice and assistance that people may offer. Signing off, Donek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.184.10.72 (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not a Wikimedia wiki. John Reaves 20:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Who owns it? Can we get a wikimedia one? 79.184.31.4 (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This is the administrator's noticeboard for the English Wikipedia. It's here to provide a place for discussions which may be of interest to the administrators of this project.
For Wikipedia's general sports project, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports.
For general information about what you can do to promote a website, you might try the reference desk. --OnoremDil 20:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

LessHeard Van U[edit]

Resolved: I don't see how this will generate any positive outcome. To Sandy and David: diverge on opposite paths and leave the matter of Jeff to others. This isn't helping anybody, and the resulting bickering is only causing bad ill on all sides here. seicer | talk | contribs 21:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
A catfight, for illustration

Why is it that I always end up with a Wikipedia Reviewer on my page? LessHeard is restoring a comment that was made post-archive after I removed it. The comment adds nothing to the discussion. When I removed the post-archived comment again, I end up with LessHeard on my Talk page threatening to block, so that he can restore the post-archive, non-substantive comment. --David Shankbone 19:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just drop it. Others added to the thread after it was archived. No-one is helped by this bickering. DuncanHill (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Nobody added after User:MZMcBride archived, and if anybody is keeping this alive at this point, it is LessHeard, who is warning to block me and encouraging the User to rejigger his post. That's not dropping it, which I had done. And I agree - nobody is enjoying this, and that includes me. --David Shankbone 19:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how my participating on Wikipedia Review has anything to do with the matter, unless it is a pre-emptive attempt to make my actions appear in a unfavourable light - or is simply a personal attack based on your own bias'. You do seem incapable of conducting yourself with any discernable degree of civility.
However, back to the matter regarding my warning; you removed a good faith edit (expressing some distaste toward your conduct) that was made a minute after MZMcBride archived the discussion - which the editor may not have been aware of. Moreover, you removed the edit with a tool (which one uses "popups"?) which is supposed to be only for vandalism. This is bad faith taken to extreme, so I reverted the inappropriate edit, warned you for the bad faith, and invited the other editor to remove or amend their edit. I notice that you have not had the manners to comment to the other editor regarding the matter, but then this seems to be habit with you since I have not yet received notice from you regarding this thread either.
Now, other than the fact I post on a board that has been frequented by you in the recent past, please advise me where I acted against policy or guidelines? Don't let your unfamiliarity with the detail hold you back. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I have been having a discussion with the other editor on his talk page. Regarding the Wikipedia Review reference, it is simply curious that every time there is an issue, one of you guys end up on my talk page. I mean, there's what, 1500 admins and how millions of Users, the vast majority of whom don't frequent that site? Never mind. As I told Tom, Sandy said some pretty horrible things about what was a heartfelt memorial of someone who had been a good friend, but with whom I had a falling out but expected to be friends with again. My ire with Sandy is more than justified, and yes, almost any interaction the two of us have will more than devolve. I have existed, and made friends, on this project for years, so regarding your personal attack that "You do seem incapable of conducting yourself with any discernable degree of civility", it's a bit difficult when the Wikipedia Review crowd is always on my talk page, nit-picking, most recently in defense of Gretab, the same user who spread pedophilia rumors on the Wikipedia Review about a Wikimedian, amongst other atrocities. Yes, it's difficult to be civil when we have admins defending people like that on my Talk page and on ANI, over nit-picky issues. --David Shankbone 20:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Your discussion with the other editor is after I initially contacted them about their edit - a little late in the day, and no comment about using an anti-vandalism tool to revert them. As regards civility, it seems that I have previously taken exception to your manner of interacting with editors; I once blocked you for a week (quickly enough lifted by a third party) for referring to an editor as a cunt. I really don't care for the way you decide when and if you are going to abide by the same rules as everyone else on the basis of with which you are friends. As for your continuing harping on about my presence on Wikipedia Review, if how you conduct yourself with some people is the basis on how you judge the suitability of other websites then WR is manifestly a better place to gain your approbation.
Again, as against your conduct today and (as exampled above) in the past, please can you show where I have abused my position as an admin as regards the rules, policies and guidelines. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, LessHeard, I think the animosity and group pile-on of the Wikipedia Review folks have been more than demonstrated in the past (Uh, SlimVirgin, JzG, Durova, JoshuaZ, etc. etc. etc.), and I take your words in that light, and I imagine most other people in the know do as well. Calling someone with Merkin in their user name a cunt hardly seems beyond the bounds of reason, but whatever. --David Shankbone 20:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I see Shankbone managed to work in again, on yet another thread, 1) my name, and 2) a link to his blog that reveals private correspondence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
You're so fascinated by yourself, it's the easiest way to get you to take notice. You're like Bloody Mary that way, except nobody has to turn off the lights, and they simply have to casually reference you. I'll be posting a link to my memorial on my Talk page, as well. --David Shankbone 20:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Is Shankbone exempt from WP:NPA? He's got quite a few on me alone in just a couple of days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Is Sandy exempt from personal attacks? She's made some pretty horrible ones in the past few days. --David Shankbone 21:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Can Sandy and David both stop please? You are both making yourselves look bad, and I am sure that you are upsetting and hurting a lot of other editors by your current choice of argument. DuncanHill (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
    • AGree with DH (shit, that's like twice today!). Get a room, you two. AN is not the venue for either of you. Tell each other to fuck off via email, eh? Maybe make a subpage that no one else knows about? You're both better than this. Keeper ǀ 76 21:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It seems clear to me that both Sandy and David need to move away from the issue of jeffpw, and move away from each other, or be forcibly pulled apart. WilyD 21:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • In a situation where Sandy has said she plans to contact a deceased person's sister to trash me, I don't know what anyone else expect. I loved Jeffpw, and we were very good friends for a long time, and had a ridiculously stupid falling out over something dumb like Santa Claus (I realize that never happens to anyone else on Wikipedia). But, if anyone really thinks that I'm not going to vehemently defend myself in reference to someone I admired and respected, who passed away, when I have someone who has only popped into my wiki life to talk about my "unnecessary photos", and that person is now going to write that deceased person's sister?! Sandy has offended me beyond belief, and I have Debbie's e-mail as well. It is Sandy who sparked this. --David Shankbone 21:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • To be perfectly frank, starting is not what is interesting. You're both escalating this conflict, and I would be loath to see either (or both) of you try to drag his sister into it.
  • Look, Sandy disagreed with your action, strongly, but it wasn't a Personal Attack by the standards we usually use - she did comment on the action, not the actor. I don't see why she was offended, but that's neither here nor there. And the two of you barking at each other won't do anything but hurt more feelings and escalate things more. Go do something that doesn't involve Sandy or Jeff. Sandy needs to do the same. You have offended Sandy. She has offended you. Nobody wants to sort the two of you out because neither of you it at your best.
  • No punishments is a principle we've all agreed to stick to. So guilt isn't the issue. Current behaviour is. If you drop this and Sandy doesn't, then something can be done. But now, there's nothing. WilyD 21:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, I'm closing my participation in this matter down - David Shankbone is as incapable of giving example of how I might have misinterpreted policy as he is admitting that he is wrong in any matter in which he has ignored or violated WP rules and guidelines. I feel that it paints a fairly wretched picture of a fairly wretched individual. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Right back at you, Wikipedia Review guy. --David Shankbone 21:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Everyone involved: Stop it. Can't be any more blunt. Honestly, the way this has degraded into mudslinging is rather silly. Wizardman 21:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Adding Jeffpw to Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians?[edit]

Resolved: Boldness is required here: declaring a two week break on this discussion. With respect for the late editor's friends and family, the best thing we can do is maintain a respectful decorum. Nothing in this matter demands our immediate attention. What the situation does demand is taste and sensitivity. DurovaCharge! 04:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This thread can still be viewed via the article history.

Let's try this again[edit]

My initial question (before everyone started to think I was running for AntiChrist by having the temerity to remove a banned user's comments from a memorial) was whether we can add Jeffpw to Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians, as he mets the criteria for inclusion. However, SandyGeorgia raised the concern about how the article lists the RW name of the contributor with their username in parentheses. I have watched the noticeboard drama about this, and wanted to get some feedback. Clearly, this wasn't really addressed before PeterSymonds and MzMcBride closed down the entire topic (the latter being the perennial conflict between SandyGeorgia and DavidShankbone).
So clearly, I have learned my lesson about mixing topics. How about we deal with this one (polite-like would be greatly appreciated). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this might be best discussed at Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians. –xeno (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, of that, I am sure. What I was seeking clarification on, however, was the point of using Jeff's real name (as are used in the articles). Someone who was following all the drama about that might be able to sum up policy on how it applies to my question here: when adding Jeff, do we add his real name, seeing as its commonly available? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I think part of the debate really (more heat than light, for sure) is just how "commonly available" his real name really is. I see no problem with adding him to WP:DIED, and without his real name, regardless of precedence. Keeper ǀ 76 20:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There are three separate and general issues here, and some of them verge into text at the WP:HARASSMENT page and under- or undeveloped Wiki policy in this area; it's not something we encounter every day.

1. Do we only add a name to that page when we have verifiable, referenced information about the editor's death? For example, what would we do in a future similar case if we didn't have credible checkuser evidence on Jeff's sister and if we didn't have any reliable proof?

2. In a borderline case like this, where Jeff did use his real name on Wiki less-than-a-handful of times in the past, but made it clear more recently that he didn't use his real name on Wiki, how do we decide whether to use a real name? In this case, we have every indication that Jeff's sister is Jeff's sister, so we could defer to her if/when we hear from her, and if she wants his name revealed we should do that IMO, but what would we do in another case, under different circumstances?

3. The separate matter that needs to be dealt with via our policy at WP:HARASSMENT is where we stand on private correspondence and information being revealed, on and off-Wiki, after a person is deceased. Since we haven't even fully developed that policy for living editors, it's hard to see how we can sort it for deceased editors. But at least living editors can speak for themselves, so perhaps we have more of an obligation to protect deceased editors.

In this case, I'm comfortable adding his full name to the page if his sister wants that and as long as there is no reference to the site that released Jeff's private correspondence; otherwise, we have too many other indications that it's not a cut-and-dried case. Jeff's name is "out there" widely now simply because Wikipedians released it, unfortunately. It is what it is; it should be up to his sister, in this case, but we should set a policy that covers all cases.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

  • "Jeff's name is "out there" widely now simply because Wikipedians released it, unfortunately." Sandy, that's not true. I don't know why Jeff would strike up a conversation about not using his name with you, but then use that of his deceased husband in a memorial page, but you certainly haven't provided any evidence of that. If you had, I don't think all the people on the LGBT project, where he was most active and well-known, would have used his real name. --David Shankbone 20:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, let's ask her if it's okay, presuming she is the next of kin. On a side note, BLP wouldn't matter here, right? The subject of the entry is dead. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if his sister or his mother is next of kin. And we don't seem to have our BLP policy that well fleshed out either, in terms of when BLP kicks off. In other words, I don't know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The opinions of Jeff's sister don't have anything to do with what Jeff would have wanted. Jeff used his real name as his email address to me, and far as I know, that was the email he used for everyone. He dropped all kinds of personal information into ordinary conversation, and the only reason he held anything back was so he couldn't be stalked again - now both he and Isaac are dead, it doesn't matter.
Please stop the fighting with each other and over IAR. It was that that kept driving Jeff away from Wikipedia. For one thing several of the people who think they know what Jeff thought of them are wrong, and I would rather they stop abusing an imagined relationship with him to push their point. Please don't duke it out over his grave - here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VST5W_PqXXM . Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 22:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully, Dev920, we aren't talking about that right now. That conversation was archived after a fiery onslaught of bitter recrimination erupted like an bloated, angry zit, and over very little, to boot.
This conversation is about how to post an entry in Deceased Wikipedians (ie, whether to use his name and, in parentheses, username). No one wants to take the wrong step, as some concern has been voiced that doing so would possibly out his identity. Your contributions would be helpful here, as many folk are saying that his identity was secret, while others are voicing with conviction that Jeff was courageous (and ballsy) enough that he didn't care who knew who he was. It has been posted here so as to determine whether his identity was public enough to warrant inclusion of his real name. I tend to think it was. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I know that this is not the specific place to ask people to stop fighting, but I don't want to go wandering all over the wiki wherever this issue crops up. The firey onslaught, as you put it, hasn't stopped, it has simply moved elsewhere and I very much wish it would stop. Checking one's watchlist in the middle of grieving and discovering that your friend's death has become just another pawn in the wikigame is very hard to bear. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 00:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, I suggest that someone neutral should approach his sister after a suitable amount of time has passed. Right now, the rush to add his name to a page is somewhat distasteful. Pedro seems to have established a good rapport with his sister and might be the right person to raise the subject. (Shankbone made some mistaken representations below about previous posts of mine and just to reassure: I never said nor do I have any intention of taking this to private e-mail with Jeff's sister, as 1) I believe in transparency and can say that all of my posts to Debbie are in the public eye, and 2) I think it would be distasteful to approach her about this so soon. Pedro would be a good candidate, based on what I've seen of his posts so far, or Alison.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Loss of a sibling is incredibly traumatic (I speak from personal experience here). Let them make the running. Wikipedia's just a website, in the end, and the real world doesn't actually give a toss what we as individuals think, so I jon here with the chorus of people urging that everybody just drop it. Guy (Help!) 00:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Newcomer[edit]

I was looking at some articles until I stumbled upon this one. Since I'm here and you folks are Wikipedia administrators, how come I have not been given the "welcome to Wikipedia" greeting? Don't newcomers get those greetings? Auto Racing Fan (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Not automatically, no. Only when someone notices new accounts editing. Have placed one there. Congratulations, I think you win the award for the least annoying post on AN all week! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Please disambig Nightline at Iran Air Flight 655[edit]

 Done

I just finished disambiguating 300+ links to Nightline, and this page has the last one that could be fixed. Would someone mind disambiguating it to Nightline (US news program)? Thanks! Auntof6 (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

In the future, you can use Template:Editprotected on the article's talk page.-Andrew c [talk] 05:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Admin Bot[edit]

I'm currently requesting approval for an admin bot. I have transcluded the brfa below --Chris 04:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe just link this, to avoid breaking the section apart? Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok - Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FA Template Protection Bot --Chris 04:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at the crat noticeboard? bibliomaniac15 04:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
It is sort of, but since this has to do with admins as well I thought i'd place a notice here --Chris 04:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
This seems to me like an appropriate place to notify as well. SQLQuery me! 06:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Indianapolis/On this day...[edit]

I am unable to create a new Portal:Indianapolis/On this day... such as Portal:Indianapolis/On this day.../August 14 or Portal:Indianapolis/On this day.../June 9. I'm sure the rest are the same but these two are the only ones I've tried to edit. Thanks for any help! HoosierStateTalk 03:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It's because of the '...' in the article name. I will create blank pages for you so that you can edit them. J Milburn (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct use of Wikipedia:Editing restrictions[edit]

I've started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions#Responsibility for "declaring" consensus and logging restrictions. Could admins and others interested comment over there? Carcharoth (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia landing page[edit]

 Done The wikipedia landing page still reflects 2.49 M articles although we hit 2.5 a couple days ago. Someone might want to take a look at the counter.--Kumioko (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Now updated. Thanks, The Helpful One (Review) 19:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Using admin powers to prevent vandalism on a page admin is involved in heavily?[edit]

As an admin, it is appropriate to add protection to an article that you are involved actively with in terms of normal editing as a measure to cut down on perceived vandalism within the article, or is it better to go through the proper process to achieve this? --MASEM 13:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If its obvious vandalism, rather than possible content dispute or good faith poor editing, then protecting the encyclopedia from disruption is paramount. If blocking the vandal is inappropriate, if the account is ip hopping or there are too many of them then protecting the article should be considered. After taking the action it should then be brought to an admin board for a sanity check. If it is a grey area regarding vandalism, just a third opinion might suffice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
If you're asking yourself seriously, then use the requests for page protection and hand off. This will do two important things aside from cleanse your conscience. 1. It will diffuse the "enemy" of the vandal. It won't be You vs. Him (or her) in a death roll. This is very good, because it prevents any rumor of being a fighter. 2. If the vandals are into user page defacement and such, they don't have such a clear target for their adolescent rage, if they don't have an enemy, but, instead, have the project to look to. ¶The down side is that it can be slow. However, I believe that more admins should be using it. It could certainly forestall some heated and inappropriate acts. ¶Finally, remember that protection should be used sparingly. Geogre (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
There are over a thousand active admins. It should always be possible to find someone uninvolved. DGG (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Can I ask which article? And no, I am not going there to vandalize it. Thank you. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 00:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Gadget-Twinkle.js[edit]

Hello, all. Just an administrative note: Users can be forcibly prohibited from running twinkle by the option in their preferences if they are added to the noAllow variable. The specifics can be found on MediaWiki:Gadget-Twinkle.js. Thanks, —Animum (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Much needed thing to be able to do - now we don't have to resort to blocking users who misuse twinkle, and since some people insisted on leaving it available as a gadget, this will be very useful. Excellent job, Animum! - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, excellent job Animum! I have found this to be a frustrating issue simply because if a user is abusing Twinkle there is (was) no way to revoke it from the user seeing as it was placed into gadgets. While I think this will do the the job just fine, I would support removing it from Gadgets all togehter. Tiptoety talk 19:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks like the implementation maybe a bit simple, adding the username "Bob" for instance would block anyone whose username started the same but wasn't longer, so users "B" or "Bo". --82.7.39.174 (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Or indeed contained within, so "MyNameIsBob" would stop user "Bob", or "NameIs" or "Name" or... --82.7.39.174 (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Aye, I was trying to work out a for() loop that would return true only if the username were contained within the pipes, but the array suggestion is superior. —Animum (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... would if(noAllow.indexOf("|" + wgUserName + "|") == -1) work out, then? This would include the delimiter in the search (though note we'd need to add delims at the start and end of the list). – Luna Santin (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
That's a better option, or move the check for IE to be the outer check (probably should be done anyway) and then assume firefox 1.5+ and use a proper array ["username","username","username"] and indexOf against the array. Fairly easy to bypass either way, since the code gets run on the user machine... --82.7.39.174 (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to work out how to use an actual array with this, so thanks! Face-smile.svg (I always forget that indexOf can be used with arrays... *head-desks*.) —Animum (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

As a follow-up, I'd like to ask if we make a centralized page (perhaps User:AzaToth/twinkleblacklist.js) that would contain the array and be usable on the regular Twinkle as well. What does everyone think? —Animum (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed adminbot policy[edit]

A new proposal from the adminbots RFC has been added to WP:BOT. --Chet B. LongTalk/ARK 00:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Advise please[edit]

Hi, I left a message for User:Naughtyned regarding his/her signature. It has a lot of images in it and they aren't allowed. I'm very sure the user will remove the images ASAP. Unfortunately he/she doesn't edit for days/weeks at a time. I know it's quite important to get these things altered asap because they can be tampered with I've heard. Wasn't sure of the best cause of action, is it best to just wait for a response, even if it's more than a week away? — Realist2 03:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are very sure they'll remove them, what's the issue? If the user returns and continues to use images in the signature, then it becomes a problem. Right now, there is no problem. how do you turn this on 03:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
From a statement made by someone else warning another user some time ago. for it can slow down the servers, distract users from the actual text of the conversation, and be an easy target for image-related vandalism among other things (imagine what would happen if someone were to replace that image with an inappropriate one and it were to suddenly appear on every talk page on which you had ever commented). Since he/she might not return for weeks... — Realist2 03:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this edit warring?[edit]

Is this edit warring? Did the page need protecting?--Father Goose (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not edit warring. Going by the talk page, there doesn't seem to be a consensus yet and Nishkid64 may have thought an edit war was about to break out? Gwen Gale (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editorial Council[edit]

Hey everyone, just dropping a note here to attempt to get a few more eyes on this proposal. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 06:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Advise please[edit]

Hi, I left a message for User:Naughtyned regarding his/her signature. It has a lot of images in it and they aren't allowed. I'm very sure the user will remove the images ASAP. Unfortunately he/she doesn't edit for days/weeks at a time. I know it's quite important to get these things altered asap because they can be tampered with I've heard. Wasn't sure of the best cause of action, is it best to just wait for a response, even if it's more than a week away? — Realist2 03:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are very sure they'll remove them, what's the issue? If the user returns and continues to use images in the signature, then it becomes a problem. Right now, there is no problem. how do you turn this on 03:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
From a statement made by someone else warning another user some time ago. for it can slow down the servers, distract users from the actual text of the conversation, and be an easy target for image-related vandalism among other things (imagine what would happen if someone were to replace that image with an inappropriate one and it were to suddenly appear on every talk page on which you had ever commented). Since he/she might not return for weeks... — Realist2 03:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this edit warring?[edit]

Is this edit warring? Did the page need protecting?--Father Goose (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not edit warring. Going by the talk page, there doesn't seem to be a consensus yet and Nishkid64 may have thought an edit war was about to break out? Gwen Gale (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editorial Council[edit]

Hey everyone, just dropping a note here to attempt to get a few more eyes on this proposal. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 06:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that crap again[edit]

Anyone wanna give me a hand with this Zodiac crap? I can't seem to find the compromised template. Tan ǀ 39 18:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Already fixed, it seems. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 18:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
FYI, it was Template:NATO. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 18:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
It is fixed, but it wasn't that template. That one was vandalized and fixed yesterday. Thanks to whoever did figure it out... Tan ǀ 39 18:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
There was just a spate of vandalism by an IP: Special:Contributions/122.213.250.14. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 19:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
The template vandal uses IPs that are open proxies. Please block the IP long-term and then list at WP:OP for verification. Thatcher 12:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Cedjje deleting Nudve citations from article Self-hating Jew[edit]

Those are not my citation, but ratherNudve's.

Help! --Shevashalosh (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That is not possible.
Please, see the history starting 10:35 (and sooner if you like).
I corrected a spelling mistake, I added a "/" that made the article not readable, and I added "by the political opponent".
He reverted in attacking me, and he added the "quote" at another place (again with spelling mistakes).
I left a message on his talk page.
Fed up. Ceedjee (talk) 12:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Self-hating Jew - cited history is being deleted[edit]

please help!

After decistion to merege, I've merged my self, and added the cited historical citation. Citation is by Nativ, and a supporter of the merge - has asked to so, only if content is added.

having Shabazz refusing to accpet the historical facts, he keeps deleting a RS by Nativ.

please Help!

--Shevashalosh (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

In order for an admin to look into the matter, we really need more information such as the article in question and some diffs of the edits. Thanks —Travistalk 23:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The article is Self-hating Jew and the material being added is WP:OR cited to a POV source. The phrase in question (Auto-Anti-Semitism) is a neologism with 21 Google hits (including 1 from Wikipedia and 2 from Wikirage). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Correction. Today it's up to 26 Google hits, with 2 from Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Pretty simple. I wrote an article of "Auto Anti Semitism". It was decided on talk page to merege it into "Self hating Jew". A supporter of this merege has asked to merge, only if the contant of "Auto Anti Semitism" is included, I've done the merging myself.
Shabaz disagrees to this decision, and he want's to eliminate what existed in "Auto Anti Semitism" for some reason, and he keeps deleting the merge i've done, as to keeping it "clean" from merge, only the way it was before "Auto Anti semitism" existed.
In addition - "Auto-Anti-Semitism" term, is cited with RS of Nativ - and he keeps deleting the citation of it as well, so you can't see that it is a relible source.
Someone responsible needs to get involved --Shevashalosh (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a misrepresentation of the merge discussion. One editor wrote "Merge by making the new article a redirect. No other changes necessary." Another wrote "S-h J is surely the better known term." A third wrote that "'Auto-Anti-Semitism' is hardly ever used in English", while stating that its contents should be retained. Nobody agreed with Shevashalosh's OR that Auto-Anti-Semitism is "the academic term" for the phenomenon of Jewish self-hatred, or her OR regarding its causes or history. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Someone take responsibilty on this guy's behavior and his deletion of the merge, history and RS by Nativ. Please. --Shevashalosh (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
It looks to me like Shabazz is in the correct; I don't see anything in that article to support that "'Auto-Anti-Semitism'" is even a commonly used academic term, let alone the predominant one. Celarnor Talk to me 00:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well the term known to jews is "Auto-Anti-Semitism", the term "Self hating Jew" does not existt in in use. In addtion, to support the obvious, I have added an RS by nativ.

A merge was decided upon, despite this fact. But you can not igonre the realty, as a supporter of this merge expressed on talk page, this is how it is being refered, not as "Self hating Jew". to say other wise is wikipedia basiclly lying. thank you, take responsibilty on Shabazz--Shevashalosh (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I protected the page for 24 hours because there was so much reverting in the last two days. Please try to come to an agreement on the talkpage. Regards, dvdrw 00:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
"Auto-Anti-Semitism" seems like a neologism, when one considers the current sources. It is only mentioned in a handful of Scholar-indexed journal articles, all of which seem to treat it as a hypothetical linguistic term rather than one that is actually in regular usage; by comparison, "self-hating jew" has astronomically more uses in academic literature; there really isn't anything to support your assertion that "Auto-Anti-Semitism" is the term used internally to the Jewish community. If you could uncover something, obviously it could be included. In any case, you're grossly in violation of 3RR, and its been protected anyway; this is an issue for consensus and the talk page. Celarnor Talk to me 00:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, Shevashalosh has un-redirected Auto-Anti-Semitism and started their own article there based off the single source they had been using on the other article. Celarnor Talk to me 01:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
There is a consensus to merge Auto-Anti-Semitism into Self-hating Jews.
Shevashalosh doesn't agree. Right, but he doens't give the reasons on the talk page but come here to complain when this is applied.
He has been here for 4 months, is considered highly disruptive by many editors and has already not respected 3RR rules 2 times.
It is up to you guys, but the "sysop community attitude" with Shevashalosh could be considered completely in disagreement with WP:CIVIL for other contributors who take care of content issues.
The more you wait, the stronger he feels, and the less he listens.
Personnaly, I have just received personnal attacks when I tried to discuss with him.
Ceedjee (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Speaking solely afrom experience, I had not heard of the Auto-Anti-Semitism term before this discussion--the term "Self-hating Jew" is the common term. -- Avi (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Erronous Title on a page - editing do not allow to correct[edit]

Page: Elizabeth Catherine Montour

Should be: Elisabeth Couc aka Madame Montour

I did some editing to fix errors and omissions in genealogical and familial information about this person and her family. This family is very well known in New France and Quebec history. Some of the corrections come the Biographical Dictionnary of Canada, while others come from official genealogical publications and ressources (records).

BUT, I cannot correct the title, which gives he name incorrectly, because who ever started it was not working with primary sources and probably did not had access to official records here in Quebec.

I there is someone with the necessary access to do the appropriate correction.

P.S.: Elisabeth (is French) and Elizabeth (is English), that person was born in the French colonies and baptised in a French catholic church. And though her baptism has not been found yet, her confirmation was found, as well as most of her siblings baptisms, her first marriage and baptism of at least 2 of her oldest children, all in French catholic churches. The fact that American historians changed her name in various old publications should not matter. But if it is possible to use the English spelling as an alternative for the search engine, that would probably be a good idea. She is also known as Isabelle Couc, Isabelle and Elisabeth being interchangeable in French.

Would probably be a good idea to make a French version for this page, but I am not familiar enough your website and the various functions to do it for the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petitefleur qc (talkcontribs) 04:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The title of the page should be the name that the subject is most well known by. The sources cited on the page suggest that the title in use is the most widespread, as does the google hits, which, while not absolute as a determining factor, are several times more numerous under the first name than the second. Redirects can be made for the others. As for making a french version of he page, you can do that at fr.wikipedia.org. Celarnor Talk to me 05:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I am copying this to the article's talk page. I note that the online English-language version of the Dictionary of Canadian Biography entry spells her name "Elizabeth" and says as its second sentence The given name of this woman is not definitely known. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Self-hating Jew - cited history is being deleted[edit]

please help!

After decistion to merege, I've merged my self, and added the cited historical citation. Citation is by Nativ, and a supporter of the merge - has asked to so, only if content is added.

having Shabazz refusing to accpet the historical facts, he keeps deleting a RS by Nativ.

please Help!

--Shevashalosh (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

In order for an admin to look into the matter, we really need more information such as the article in question and some diffs of the edits. Thanks —Travistalk 23:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The article is Self-hating Jew and the material being added is WP:OR cited to a POV source. The phrase in question (Auto-Anti-Semitism) is a neologism with 21 Google hits (including 1 from Wikipedia and 2 from Wikirage). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Correction. Today it's up to 26 Google hits, with 2 from Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Pretty simple. I wrote an article of "Auto Anti Semitism". It was decided on talk page to merege it into "Self hating Jew". A supporter of this merege has asked to merge, only if the contant of "Auto Anti Semitism" is included, I've done the merging myself.
Shabaz disagrees to this decision, and he want's to eliminate what existed in "Auto Anti Semitism" for some reason, and he keeps deleting the merge i've done, as to keeping it "clean" from merge, only the way it was before "Auto Anti semitism" existed.
In addition - "Auto-Anti-Semitism" term, is cited with RS of Nativ - and he keeps deleting the citation of it as well, so you can't see that it is a relible source.
Someone responsible needs to get involved --Shevashalosh (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a misrepresentation of the merge discussion. One editor wrote "Merge by making the new article a redirect. No other changes necessary." Another wrote "S-h J is surely the better known term." A third wrote that "'Auto-Anti-Semitism' is hardly ever used in English", while stating that its contents should be retained. Nobody agreed with Shevashalosh's OR that Auto-Anti-Semitism is "the academic term" for the phenomenon of Jewish self-hatred, or her OR regarding its causes or history. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Someone take responsibilty on this guy's behavior and his deletion of the merge, history and RS by Nativ. Please. --Shevashalosh (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
It looks to me like Shabazz is in the correct; I don't see anything in that article to support that "'Auto-Anti-Semitism'" is even a commonly used academic term, let alone the predominant one. Celarnor Talk to me 00:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well the term known to jews is "Auto-Anti-Semitism", the term "Self hating Jew" does not existt in in use. In addtion, to support the obvious, I have added an RS by nativ.

A merge was decided upon, despite this fact. But you can not igonre the realty, as a supporter of this merge expressed on talk page, this is how it is being refered, not as "Self hating Jew". to say other wise is wikipedia basiclly lying. thank you, take responsibilty on Shabazz--Shevashalosh (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I protected the page for 24 hours because there was so much reverting in the last two days. Please try to come to an agreement on the talkpage. Regards, dvdrw 00:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
"Auto-Anti-Semitism" seems like a neologism, when one considers the current sources. It is only mentioned in a handful of Scholar-indexed journal articles, all of which seem to treat it as a hypothetical linguistic term rather than one that is actually in regular usage; by comparison, "self-hating jew" has astronomically more uses in academic literature; there really isn't anything to support your assertion that "Auto-Anti-Semitism" is the term used internally to the Jewish community. If you could uncover something, obviously it could be included. In any case, you're grossly in violation of 3RR, and its been protected anyway; this is an issue for consensus and the talk page. Celarnor Talk to me 00:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, Shevashalosh has un-redirected Auto-Anti-Semitism and started their own article there based off the single source they had been using on the other article. Celarnor Talk to me 01:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
There is a consensus to merge Auto-Anti-Semitism into Self-hating Jews.
Shevashalosh doesn't agree. Right, but he doens't give the reasons on the talk page but come here to complain when this is applied.
He has been here for 4 months, is considered highly disruptive by many editors and has already not respected 3RR rules 2 times.
It is up to you guys, but the "sysop community attitude" with Shevashalosh could be considered completely in disagreement with WP:CIVIL for other contributors who take care of content issues.
The more you wait, the stronger he feels, and the less he listens.
Personnaly, I have just received personnal attacks when I tried to discuss with him.
Ceedjee (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Speaking solely afrom experience, I had not heard of the Auto-Anti-Semitism term before this discussion--the term "Self-hating Jew" is the common term. -- Avi (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Page hacked[edit]

The article Spock appears to have been hacked. I am using a separate account to prevent my regular account from being compromised--4gjk (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I don't see anything off about the article. Anyone more technically apt see anything? Blueboy96 21:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It's gone now. One of the templates was altered. It was the zodiac hacker again.--4gjk (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Not "hacked" was a vandalised template, reverted sometime back. Not sure how using a separate account would prevent being compromised (no danger anyway), since presumably you used your regular account when you found the problem? Closing door after the horse has bolted perhaps. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


Didn't realize it was a vandalized template and not an actual page hack. Thought the "hacker" would crack my password for revenge if I reported it.--4gjk (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Not likely. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
And cracking a password is about a million times more difficult than vandalizing a page using some fancy HTML. Mr.Z-man 21:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, the name is somewhat grander than the ability, could be any random 5 year old. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Google "wikipedia zodiac hacker" without quotes and you'll see this has happened frequently.--4gjk (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

And? Wikipedia leaves it's doors and windows open to encourage anyone to edit, including IP's like me. Breaking into a house with no locks, what skill that must require. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Like walking down still hallways looking for a few unlocked doors. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a house with all of the doors and windows open. You can run in and pull out a gun and you will still be invited to stay for dinner. Paragon12321 22:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Although you might find yourself in a "spirited discussion" over the model number of said gun, whether it is superior to another weapon, and indeed if the gun should be left upon the table or reholstered during dinner... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
And then asked for a citation as to the superiority of the model in question. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 11:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem are not the IP edits but the decision to allow (almost?) all CSS in Wiki markup. --Pjacobi (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There are an awful lot of targets for a vandal like this one. Wikipedia has about 3,000 unprotected templates with more than 500 transclusions. If you take a limit of 50 transclusions then that number rises to over 20,000. Hut 8.5 19:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Erronous Title on a page - editing do not allow to correct[edit]

Page: Elizabeth Catherine Montour

Should be: Elisabeth Couc aka Madame Montour

I did some editing to fix errors and omissions in genealogical and familial information about this person and her family. This family is very well known in New France and Quebec history. Some of the corrections come the Biographical Dictionnary of Canada, while others come from official genealogical publications and ressources (records).

BUT, I cannot correct the title, which gives he name incorrectly, because who ever started it was not working with primary sources and probably did not had access to official records here in Quebec.

I there is someone with the necessary access to do the appropriate correction.

P.S.: Elisabeth (is French) and Elizabeth (is English), that person was born in the French colonies and baptised in a French catholic church. And though her baptism has not been found yet, her confirmation was found, as well as most of her siblings baptisms, her first marriage and baptism of at least 2 of her oldest children, all in French catholic churches. The fact that American historians changed her name in various old publications should not matter. But if it is possible to use the English spelling as an alternative for the search engine, that would probably be a good idea. She is also known as Isabelle Couc, Isabelle and Elisabeth being interchangeable in French.

Would probably be a good idea to make a French version for this page, but I am not familiar enough your website and the various functions to do it for the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petitefleur qc (talkcontribs) 04:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The title of the page should be the name that the subject is most well known by. The sources cited on the page suggest that the title in use is the most widespread, as does the google hits, which, while not absolute as a determining factor, are several times more numerous under the first name than the second. Redirects can be made for the others. As for making a french version of he page, you can do that at fr.wikipedia.org. Celarnor Talk to me 05:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I am copying this to the article's talk page. I note that the online English-language version of the Dictionary of Canadian Biography entry spells her name "Elizabeth" and says as its second sentence The given name of this woman is not definitely known. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion never done.[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Terror_Titans ended a month ago; the article was never deleted. Please follow up? Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Why on Earth are you posting here? The closing admin's talk page is that way. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Check the log, it was deleted. It was later restored. Mr.Z-man 17:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Posting here because I didn't know where to take it, thanks for the attitude. ThuranX (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I've tagged it as a repost and added a notice on Emperor's talk page. He says in the logs that it is recreated pending a new comic series. Hopefully he is right and the article will be able to assert notability. Protonk (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Need help straightening out The Bugle[edit]

Resolved: Hopefully, anyway. Semi-protected for a while.

The page The Bugle, a page about a possibly notable comedy podcast, appears to be repeatedly vandalized by a fairly large number of anonymous IPs. I PROD'ded the page, myself, because it seemed to be mostly nonsense.

Ordinarily, I would just revert to a good version and protect the page. The problem is, given the nature of the subject, it may take knowledge I lack to figure out which is a good version. I am tempted to just stub it, but that may not be entirely constructive either.

Wherefore, I pray for counsel. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

  • That would be because in their last podcast, Oliver and Zaltzman absolutely encouraged their listeners to, literally, put up as much nonsense as possible on that page "...so it contains nothing but outright fibs." --Calton | Talk 21:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves[edit]

We are experiencing an increasing backlog again at WP:RM. Any help would be greatly appreciated. JPG-GR (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, User:PeterSymonds! JPG-GR (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Privatemusings restriction lifted and placed under mentorship[edit]

Per ruling of arbcom, User:Privatemusings' restriction is lifted. Solely for the matter of editing biographies of living persons, Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)' is placed under the mentorship of User:Lar, User:Jayvdb, and User:Durova. If no issues arise, the mentorship will expire after ninety days from acceptance of this motion. See full motion and remedies here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings. RlevseTalk 00:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User:SusanPolgar and WP:NLT violation[edit]

User:SusanPolgar Special:Contributions/SusanPolgar has sued User:Sam_Sloan and others, for defamation. User:Sam_Sloan himself was blocked on 10 November 2007 by User:Viridae for a similar lawsuit: [10]. It would only be fair that User:SusanPolgar be blocked for filing suit as well. Here is proof of the lawsuit: Polgar targets national chess group, associates in lawsuit. Here is proof that User:Sam_Sloan (the same user as Sam Sloan) is a defendent in User:SusanPolgar's lawsuit: Crime and Courts, Official Records. And here is a self-attestation that User:SusanPolgar is Susan Polgar: [11]. And here is the evidence that User:Sam_Sloan is the Sam Sloan which user:SusanPolgar just sued: [12] More information on this new suit by [user:SusanPolgar] may be found at Susan Polgar#Executive board member. Although User:SusanPolgar has not been recently active, she should nonetheless be blocked per WP:NLT due to her ongoing lawsuit involving another wikipedia editor. 98.204.199.179 (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Why would we bother blocking someone who has not edited in over a year? The rationale over WP:NLT is that blocking is a means of stopping anyone from making WP a party to an action by their editing. If they are not editing then there is no reason for WP to act. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Sounds like Sam Sloan is evading a block here. Nothing to see, move along please. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Nice try. Feel free to send me a PM for my cell# Guy and I will talk with you and confirm that I am not Sam Sloan.98.204.199.179 (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I didn't mean to snap back at you like that Guy. First, this crackpot claims I am a guy named "Greg Strong" [13] and now you're claiming I am Sam Sloan. It's enough to make a person Schizophrenic. 01:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.199.179 (talk)

If someone has already sued, they are obviously angry. Blocking them will make them more angry and may not be in the best interest of Wikipedia. This is an easy case because the person has not edited. Therefore, I would not recommend blocking at this point. Reading the policy carefully, it does not require blocking if a lawsuit is filed, only if a legal threat is made.

I would recommend discussion of the NLT policy if others disagree. Unlike other policies, the NLT policy should be subject to wikilawyering type debates. The policy must be precise. Would anyone care to re-write it? Spevw (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to see here: Susan Polgar is not editing, it doesn't matter. Mangojuicetalk 05:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The concern over Sloan was that his lawsuit specifically targeted statements and actions on Wikipedia, something that Polgar's lawsuit doesn't. Also, the fact that User:SusanPolgar hasn't edited Wikipedia for over a year indicates there is nothing for us to do here. [For full disclosure: I am a member of the United States Chess Federation, although only for the magazine subscription.] Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Multiple sockpuppetry results[edit]

I am posting this here to explain to the community, in case any one wonders. This post at Dbachmann's talk page led to me requesting checkuser for the accounts listed. In turn this unearthed two unrelated sockfarms, all of which have been disrupting pages relating to Afrocentrism. Thanks are due to the energy and devotion to duty of Lar (talk · contribs) :)

The first sockfarm consists of Omniposcent (talk · contribs), PhoneyRat (talk · contribs), and DiamondRat (talk · contribs). All of these were obviously disruptive accounts, so I have blocked them all - including the master, Omniposcent - indefinitely.

The second sockfarm was a good deal more complicated. The master account is Enriquecardova (talk · contribs). The full list of his socks will shortly be posted at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Enriquecardova: currently, most of them are in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Enriquecardova. Not all of the edits made by the socks are bad: he seems to have been operating a good-hand/bad-hand system, with some accounts being far worse than others. What is really unacceptable is the unethical conduct and sheer scale of deception involved: while other editors were coping with some socks at Africoid peoples, for instance, I myself (which I only realised half way through the investigation) was trying but failing to clean up the massive {{essay-entry}} Origin of the Nilotic peoples written by another sock of his: something made a good deal more difficult when you don't know it's just the same guy trolling these different - but linked - pages all the time. Accordingly I and Lar have blocked all the socks indef and the master, Enriquecardova (talk · contribs), for six months. Comments are welcome. Best, Moreschi (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a fair bit of following things where they led with this one, and Moreschi did a lot of researching contribs and tagging as we went... although I got to use the shiny new "block multiple accounts" CU functionality. The case has been updated with a list. I think we got them all, but I might be wrong. Please advise if you spot odd things. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 00:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Nice work guys, but I think we might've missed a few. Specifically, the following usernames: Outparcels/Forestgomp/Stuffla/Glidesclear
They're all refugees from the Africoid page. Note in particular the use of 'Reversed' in the edit summaries of Outparcels and the confirmed sockpuppet Cobracommanderp7. I'd be really surprised if it's not the same person. Soupforone (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Those were checked. Block on behaviour if you feel that's appropriate. However I did not announce a technical connection. I choose to say no more. ++Lar: t/c 01:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks again for your help. Best, Soupforone (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I've blocked Outparcels on behaviour pattern. He's stale, but so are Stuffla/Forestgomp/Glidesclear. If any of these start editing again, let me know and I'll block. Moreschi (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Protecting the main page[edit]

Someone undo this please; the article is on the main page. Gary King (talk) 03:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. My question to him though is why the heck did he reduce the move protection? Wizardman 03:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, assuming that he wasn't aware the article was on the main page, he probably also wondered why the article would require move protection? Gary King (talk) 03:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I've notified him of your unprotection at any rate, Wizardman. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Abusive User: Noclador, his impunity and the unacknowledgement of his actions[edit]

I have waited this long to raise this here because I was allowing the due process of the wrongful sockpuppetry accusations and WQA concerning myself to transpire. I have been left disappointed at the end of it (conclusion here) .

Noclador conducted a sockpuppetry investigation on behalf of Wikepidia and I was one of the accused. During the process I was subject to a myriad of personal attacks, flippant comments and manipulative character assassinations. This included the completely misrepresentative action of pulling together portions of statements from disparite locations to say something completely different to anything I was actually saying (or the context I was presenting). There selective use of “false/manipulated evidence” to incriminate me from a page that also had information that would contribute to prove my innocence. I have presened all the details at this link. This includes a summary of all the abuses and further links to all relevant pages.

Moreover I was initially not directed to the correct evidence pages nor was I notified of a later, related, ANI compliant. It was categorically shown that I was not a sock (at link & link), yet there was no apology, nor any acknowledgment for the mistake.

It now cannot be disputed that his evidence presented against me was poorly researched. It can also be speculated that there existed some kind of personal vendetta on the part of Noclador. At the evidence link I have detailed how several of my contributions were deleted by Noclador (some under the pretext of claimed vandalism), only to be undone by others. Even over the last few days he has deleted my cited contributions (from a couple of months ago) along with another editor’s recent addition (compare this and this [this; I have interjected with thisand this ) and claimed it to be non-consensus!! The aim appears to be to target the other editor’s content, but in light of Noclador’s behaviour towards me I see this as a convenient attempt to remove some of my citations. After all, he omits me (the main driver of the subsection, modified from an earlier attempt to include verifiable information) when he lists other editors as having made the consensus contributions.

Furthermore, others involved in the investigation were prepared to overlook the abuses by Noclador and impinge me for making personal attacks (plural). This is a baseless claim because the only thing I said was that Noclador was lying and manipulative (which can be (and has been - at the evidence link) demonstrated to be an understatement). I certainly do not claim perfection on my part, however, this is, quite frankly, a glaring double standard.

I asked for several things during the WQA discussion and as a sign of good faith modified the statement on my talk page to not include mention of the abuses that were carried out by my “accuser”. I received nothing. (See the two links, as mentioned above: here and here) So I see this as another one sided outcome. But I appreciate and respect the efforts of those who tried to mitigated the situation - they have been forthright.

Given that Noclador has been able to flout Wikipedia rules and guidelines with respect to his conduct, and has received no warning or sanction, then there is no reason for anyone else not to be allowed to do the same. After all, why should some of us have to follow the rules and live up to the Wikipedia ethos when others do not?

Romaioi (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please summarize. Very few people are going to read walls of text like that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Summary: User:Noclador accused user User:Romaioi of being a sock-puppet, in the course of which User:Noclador behaved uncivily towards User:Romaioi. When the sock-puppetry allegations turned out to be untrue, User:Romaioi asked for an apology and User:Noclador refused, when the whole thing could have been stopped in its tracks by a simple apology. The issue went to WP:WQA where it was not resolved. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 17:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Ed Fitzgerald comment is only a synopsis of Romaiois accusations and omits facts and lots of details. Fact is: During June a series of new users began to edit WWII topics with with a POV to proof that Italian forces were good fighters in WWII. As the editors in question were obviously part of a sock circus I started a report about them at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove 2nd. I added Romaioi on June 25 at 2:22pm because "just 100 edits but these are only in Italian WWII military topics (and at that: the usual ones: Tobruk, El Alamein,...) also he copies text that Generalmesse wrote directly into other articles" and informed Romaioi 4 minutes later about it: "You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page." [14] When he went online 4 days later he could not find the link to the socketpuppetry case as in the meantime the page name had been moved and a checkuser had been requested on the socks - as soon as he informed me about that [15] I left him a note explaining were he can find the case thus defend himself and what the purpose of a checkuser is [16].
  • Romaioi began to defend himself ignoring all Wikiquette rules: "I will be expecting an unreserved apology from you." "Do your homework." "Use some of that good faith that you mentioned."[17]; "Your moral and intuitive compass is upside down." [18]; "I will be contacting my Lawyer tomorrow concerning this matter. This is not a joke and its becoming very personal. Being that it should be a professional environment, there are liability issues involved." "So let me ask. Does noclador have some other agenda? I would like to know what it is."[19]; "How is the witch hunt going?"[20]; and that was just the first day! I therefore decided to not discuss with Romaioi, but to find more of the socks and more proof linking them together.
  • The next day Romaioi started were he had left off the night before: "noclador has lied in his very first accusation." "I only found the correct link: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove 2nd by chance. Given the narrow and manipulative nature of by noclador’s evidence against me included on the latter page over the past day (discussed below), I would like to question if this was deliberate to mis-direct me to a page that I could not edit and not allow me to see (nor reply to) the case being presented against me." (by chance???) "noclador has persisted with his twisting arguments." (I did not respond to him to wait for the checkuser outcome... I did not persist, just did not answer) "noclador attempting to tar and feather me" "It all sounds frivilous to me." ""[21]; at this point the checkuser results came back an showed that of 13 suspected socks 10 were confirmed socks, 2 users to old to check and Romaioi was proven to be unrelated.[22]. A attempt by user:Justin A Kuntz to explain him the ceckuser process and had no effect.[23]
  • Romaioi continued to insult: "that he was happy to lie just to see me implicated."[24]; and even to come to my talkpage to insult me ""[25]; as I had and have no interest to discuss with someone as him and I do not like to be bullied on my talkpage I removed his comment, which let him to reinsert it and hurl more insults at me: "stop being petty" "as you clearly have no idea" "as I do not think much of you in light of your inability to acknowledge your own mistake(s)"[26] - at this point I had enough and filed a report about his myriads of insults at WP:AN/I[27] but also decided to move on to more important work.
  • Today Ed Fitzgerald informed me that there is a WP:AN/I against me... Well, as it turns out Romaioi spent the last month continuing to smear me - and now he filed a complaint against me??? "Abusive User: Noclador, his impunity and the unacknowledgement of his actions" Abusive??? I went now to check his edits over the last month to get an idea, what he is talking about and found out, that he spent the last month dragging this story on and on: on User:EdJohnstons talkpage [28]; on his own talkpage with insults and presumptions: "evidence presented against User: Romaioi was manipulative and misrepresentative." "On 2 July 2008, it was categorically shown that User: Romaioi was not a sock puppet." (categorically was not even used once on the ceckuser page!) "anyone in future to be more thorough in their examination of the evidence before stepping over that line." "No acknowledgement of his error or apology (for either the mistakes or the personal attacks) has been made by User: noclador." "The extreme prejudice by User: noclador against User: Romaioi has continued after the sock puppetry case." "and typically making false accusations of Wikipedia:Vandalism as justification for removal." "Whilst the overall cause for which User: noclador was working for was good, his treatment of an innocent contributor has been reprehensible and devoid of good faith." "The message is to remain here as a permanent reminder of the and example of abuse of authority that remains largely unacknowledged.".[29]
  • and that was just on July 4th and on July 11th he continued with a brazen lie: Answering Justin talk, who pointed out that I did inform Romaioi at the very start that a checkuser is noting personal Romaioi answers: "noclador indicated nothing of the sort to me."[30]
  • On July 15th Jaysweet tried to explain Romaioi the checkuser process once more and suggested he move on, but on July 16th Romaioi goes on... "I can only speculate that he may have preconceived ideas concerning my character." "that there is a slight double standard in my being sanctioned when it seems plainly obvious that the injustice was done to me in several regards yet, the purveyor of it has received no sanction."[31]
  • and on July 19th, same story continues "No one has ever been able to say that I did anything more that claim that Noclador was lying and did not have a clue (and then summarize events and point out that I receieved no apology)." He wants an apology for him insulting me or what??? and he insinuates that I would be ready to harm his family "Further, to give you some background, where I live there have been incidences of people/families being been tracked down to their homes from IP addresses and being physically attacked, all over online disagreements. I know of 2 such cases. So given the disingenuous nature of the evidence being accrued against me and the talk of IP’s etc I had genuine concern that an attack on my family was becoming a real possibility."[32] WTF??? This is the worst insinuation he threw around! This is unacceptable!!! Is he thinking I will take a plane from Europe to Australia to go an club his child??? God, I haven't even thought about him for 3 weeks at this point!
  • and he goes on: claiming first "I am not trying to escalate the situation." and then smears me more "Removal of this would benefit noclador more than me because there would be no record of his behaviour." "I would like a statement inserted there by an administrator stating that Noclador’s statements are misleading and inappropriate. The statement should also declare that Nocaldor’s assertions should be ignored." and he "I would also like to see it stressed ( at link), that accusers are to be polite, courteous, respectful (whatever you want to call it), are prohibited from manipulating and misrepresenting evidence, and must not make personal attacks. There should be repercussions for uncivil behaviour." So, being polite and explaining to him everything was not good enough??? Has he looked at all his insults? "uncivil behaviour" does he have some diff-links to this behaviour he complains about??? [33]
  • But he is not yet finished! There is more "If he has behaved in this manner once, he can do it again. Noclador should be observed. Based on assessment of the circumstances, I do not believe this incident to be isolated. I may be the first person making the point as far as he is concerned." "Finally, I would like a statement inserted by someone with administrative authority here indicating that I am not guilty of incivility, but rather was more the victim of it." "And lets not forget how its started: from a wrongful accusation and bad manners directed at me." [34] I am speechless at the level of insinuation, twisting of facts, lying and smearing Romaioi has had the impudence to do behind my back!
  • and on July 21st yet another lie: "The fact that I was being incorrectly associated with fascists by my accuser, both on the evidence page and on my talk page, compounded my concerns of the possibility of an attack."[35] I did not link him to fascists - my statements read: "Your interest in topics regarding Italy and its military in WWII and Istrian exodus - both areas were User:Brunodam and the above socks have for a long time tried to manipulate the content (towards fascist glorification and revisionism)" and "It was written by the aforementioned socks with the stated intent to glorify the Italian Army in WWII. It's not neutral and it uses various fascist claims/statement as sources and that is unacceptable for an encyclopaedia." I spoke about the socks not him!!!
  • and on August 5th, he still doesn't want to move on and brings his continuing insulting behaviour to new lows: "Noclador has been able to move past it because no one has taken him to task on his abuses. He has been able to abuse his power and not be held accountable whatsoever. In fact, he was gven a pat on the back." (What pat on the back??) "Instead the victim of Noclador's abuses and insults has been taken to task for highlighting the abuse and was perversely accused of abuses he did not commit (the claim that I made personal abuses (plural) is rubbish)." (is the above all rubbish???) "You have an unethical abuser, in noclador, who now has carte blanche approval to do what he wants to whoever he wants."[36] An "unethical abuser"??? Sorry, but once more: WTF!? This is the worst collection of insults I have seen on wikipedia in over 2 years and I had the "joy" of having to deal with über-vandals like Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr more than once!
  • The recent events: On August 3rd User:ITALONY and on August 5th User:Bendiksen63 surfaced and it became quickly clear that both were new incarnations of the sock circus. After I talked with User:Kirrages[37] and User:Narson [38] we reached a consensus to mass revert/take the edits by socks down! (to which a IP immediately hurled a plethora of insults against me and Romaioi returned to continue his smear campaign with insults: "Your abusive friend Noclador tried his darndest to prove that I was one of GeneralMesse's sockpuppets and hurled a lot of insults my way. You must have sparked something in him.", lies: "In deleting your inclusions Noclador has vandalised some existing "concensus" information." (the consensus was to remove the addition by the socks!) insults: "Another example of him not doing his homework properly." & "I will undo Noclador's vandalism"... but he was not content with that and in a second instant went on to increase the level of his insults
  • and then he filed this WP:AN/I report - in his usual style: "During the process I was subject to a myriad of personal attacks, flippant comments and manipulative character assassinations." "It can also be speculated that there existed some kind of personal vendetta on the part of Noclador." "I have detailed how several of my contributions were deleted by Noclador (some under the pretext of claimed vandalism), only to be undone by others." (the insults on my talkpage I did revert! What else? Maybe he as a diff link to prove this???) "Even over the last few days he has deleted my cited contributions (from a couple of months ago) along with another editor’s recent addition", yet another lie: the revert of ITALONYs edits and not a single Romaioi edit in sight! and the revert of ITALONY & Bendiksen63s edits and in the last 500 edits there is not a single edit of Romaioi!!! So, which "cited contributions" of his did I delete??? I did revert the ITALONY & Bendiksen63 edits! none of Romaiois edits![39]
  • and then he increases the slander even more: "Given that Noclador has been able to flout Wikipedia rules and guidelines with respect to his conduct, and has received no warning or sanction, then there is no reason for anyone else not to be allowed to do the same. After all, why should some of us have to follow the rules and live up to the Wikipedia ethos when others do not?" Where have I flouted the rules???
  • Let me summarize: Romaioi doesn't do constructive work, only slander, malign and defame. He is lying, insulting and does show 0 good faith. While I have been doing 500 constructive edits in the last month alone, have contributed massively to wikipedia, have not insulted Romaioi, have not threatened him in any way and have moved on after he was proven to be not connected to the sock circus in question, he has continued for now 5 weeks a campaign to smear my spotless record on wikipeda (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Noclador). I make it now clear that I will not discuss this matter further and expect this report to be closed at once and that it will be made clear to Romaioi that any further actions of his will result in a indef ban as an "no good faith" editor. --noclador (talk) 10:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • User Noclador is undoubtedly fair and honest, his great contributions to Wikipedia surely speak for himself, and his behavior, as character of the Wikipedia community, has nothing common with these mendacious accusations against him. Flayer (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Ed Fitzgerald's comments are particularly unhelpful and really do not help to resolve the situation, nor do they reflect what actually happened. The fact is that noclador was not the only editor involved in dealing with Generalmesse's sockpuppet circus, I helped out in a small way. To be brutally honest, as I have been with Romaioi, had I spotted his contribution I would have added him to the sock puppet report myself; his edits fitted the pattern of the sock puppet master and he actually restored one of his contributions. noclador withdrew from contact with Romaioi after he responded by calling him a liar and it got unpleasant; if you check Romaioi's talk page here[40], you can see the explanation and response. I have no doubt that noclador would have apologised for the accusation were it not for the personal attack and Romaioi's aggressive demand for an apology. I tried to smooth things over myself here[41]. Now I have attempted to explain at length to Romaioi that noclador's actions were not aimed at him personally but he just doesn't seem to understand how this works. I issued a Wikiquette alert after Romaioi put up another summary attacking noclador in the hope that this could be defused.
Essentially the accusations against noclador are entirely unfounded, Romaioi's responses usually fit into the TLDR category and to be honest I'm somewhat non-plussed by his inability to see that he was not targeted personally and his pursuit of noclador, with accusations of lying and abuse of power as well as unnecessary personal attacks do seem to indicate he has taken things incredibly personally. I can understand him being somewhat upset at being caught up in the sock puppet case but he has really gone the wrong way around airing a grievance to the point that his single-minded pursuit of noclador has the hallmark of stalking. Justin talk 13:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody summarize the above material, i'm too busy eating lunch, tia, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been asked to comment by Noclador. I've never found him abusive of power or lying at all; he's a good wikipedian, in my view, doing useful work on national armies, among other things. While I have not examined all the facts of the case, Noclador doing such things seems to me to be extremely unlikely. Regards Buckshot06(prof) 17:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) User:Romaioi, do you wish to comment on