Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Requesting review of User:Moulton's block

Moulton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Having just had a detailed discussion with folk on the unblock channel in IRC, it was suggested that I come here for a(nother) out in the open, full 'n frank discussion of Moulton's situation. It's been explained to me that our policies dictate that consensus is required in order to maintain the block. My reading of existing discussions (linked to from here) is that there is no consensus for a block, and my understanding is that therefore the block should be lifted. As a wise chap said though, consensus is a fickle animal - hence this discussion is likely a better course of action than a simple unblock, or the maintenance of the status quo. Lets keep this concise if poss :-) - maybe a straw poll is the easiest thing, given the volume of previous discussion? Privatemusings (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Has Moulton expressed any interest in being unblocked? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

there are several requests for review on the talk page, and I believe a firm desire to be permitted to participate on wiki, specifically (though not necessarily limited to) discussions about him and his behaviour. In short, I'd say yup! Privatemusings (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not needed to retain a block. A block is retained until there is consensus to unblock, until someone who understands the situation being prepared to unblock, preferably after discussing the situation with the blocker, or unless arbcom unblocks. Until then, the block sticks. So, if you feel motivated to fix this, you're going to have to convince us of the need to unblock, and invite the blocking admin to the discussion. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

okey dokey... the 'consensus to unblock required' bit does seem to contradict advice I received elsewhere, so it'll be good to clear that up, at least, and very good point on the need to discuss with the blocking admin - apologies... Privatemusings (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)I'm happy to discuss the merits or otherwise of the block in more detail too, in due course....

1. Support unblock. Privatemusings (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Support unblock. Moulton tried to fix some biased Wikipedia articles. His actions were correct and explicitly protected by Wikipedia policy, "In a few cases, outside interests coincide with Wikipedia’s interests. An important example is that unsupported defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libelous postings. In this case it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution involved." Of course, a team of editors known as the ID Cabal owned those biased Wikipedia articles and had been working very hard to make sure that they were biased. Rather than welcome Moulton, as required by Wikiversity policy, the ID Cabal harassed Moulton and drove him out of Wikipedia. It has taken a year for other Wikipedians to begin to pry Rosalind Picard and other articles out of the grip of the ID Cabal. The damage done by the ID Cabal to Wikipedia's reputation among working scientist will take many years to repair. We should start that repair now, when ArbCom is ready to sanction one of the ID Cabal ring-leaders. --JWSurf (talk) 05:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be sadly misinformed – perhaps you've been reading Moulton's attack page at Wikiversity? You also seem to have missed the discussion above, now transferred to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kelly, memes, and cabals. Labelling editors as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views is a personal attack, and you should take care to respect the consensus achieved by the diverse group of editors who edited the Picard article. Your piped links to Freedom of speech are odd in that you seem to be supporting Moulton's campaign to censor information properly verified from a reliable source. May I suggest that WP:TIAC or WP:OWB (item 17) are more appropriate. . . dave souza, talk 10:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have been "sadly misinformed" by reading the disgraceful edit history of Rosalind Picard, its talk page and other Wikipedia pages that have been owned and given biased contents by <censored, I am not allowed to use the name that has been applied to this team of editors> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Wikipedia's interests. It is interesting to watch what happens when the bad behavior of Wikipedian editors is discussed. Such discussions are labeled as "attacks". Yawn. Please find a new way to game the system. An open and scholarly analysis of editing patterns by <censored name> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Wikipedia's interests is not an attack. It is holding up a mirror. It is helping people become aware of what has happened....I'm talking about all the people who do put Wikipedia's mission first but do not have time to slog through edit histories. Using the term that you censor from Wikipedia is just a convenience, like using any other name. It is fully correct to use a label with negative connotations to discuss violations of Wikipedia policy. I suppose the thought police would like me to call <censored> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Wikipedia's interests the "ID glee club" or something with a similar warm and fuzzy feeling. No thanks. I will not participate in thought control and censorship via new speak and double-talk. "dismissing or discrediting their views" <-- I did not mentioned the views of <censored> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Wikipedia's interests. I stated my view of their editing and on-wiki behavior. I am prepared to describe in detail how my view arose from reading the edit history. I encourage all Wikipedians to look at the edit history of Rosalind Picard. Look at the version of the article that was created and defended relentlessly by <censored> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Wikipedia's interests. Read the talk page and see how <censored> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Wikipedia's interests "justified" their relentless POV-pushing. Look at the current version of the page that has been built by the hard work of Wikiedians who continue to remove the bias that was created by <censored> the team of editors who have put their anti-ID crusade ahead of Wikipedia's interests. Then think about how Moulton was treated for trying to help Wikipedia fix that article. Then hold your head high as a proud Wikipedian. Yes, let's be proud to ban editors who try to correct biased BLPs. "you seem to be supporting Moulton's campaign to censor information properly verified from a reliable source" <-- Let's examine this claim in detail. Which source? How was that source used on Wikipedia? Describe the original research which generated the "information" you are talking about. --JWSurf (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thought control? Censorship? Please take your rantings elsewhere. This section is for discussing whether Moulton's block should be overturned, and your screed has no bearing on that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua: thanks for showing everyone that you are so open to having a discussion. When you do not want to have people discuss your actions do you always label their discussion as a "rant"? Which Wikipedia policy advises you to take that course of action? Which policy says that you can label my comments as a "rant", but I cannot use the term <censored>? "Administrators should also notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page" <-- can you provide a dif to the comment you left on Moulton's talk page when you blocked him? --JWSurf (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You are still off-topic. Raise issues you have about my actions elsewhere, but please do not hijack this thread for that purpose. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"still off-topic"..."do not hijack this thread" <-- Hypothesis: there was a bad block imposed on Moulton. This bad block inflamed a tender situation, leading ultimately to attempts to ban Moulton. I think it is entirely on-topic to explore this hypothesis. If there was a bad block, then that has important implications for deciding if Moulton should remained blocked. As far as I can tell, neither you or anyone else left a message on Moulton's user talk page giving the reason for the indefinite block that you imposed. Help me out here...is there an edit to Moulton's user page that I cannot see? --JWSurf (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

this one, 10 minutes after the block. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua blocked with the reason given as "Disruptive POV OR warrior with no interest in writing an encyclopedia. See Rfc." Then, 10 minutes later, MastCell made this edit which says "indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges." The text "abuse of editing privileges" linked to Wikipedia:Vandalism. So, the reason given for the block on Moulton's user talk page was "vandalism" and there was no notification given on Moulton's user page of the reason for the indefinite block that was given in the actual block-tool statement. Why did MastCell get involved? Why did MastCell post the wrong reason for the block? Why did MastCell fail to sign the post to Moulton's page that gave the false reason for a block? Why did KillerChihuahua never make sure that the reason for the block was posted to Moulton's user talk page? Moulton was left with an absurd reason for the block and nobody to contact about the block. Why did User:Yamla certify such an obviously bad block? --JWSurf (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You're an admin??? I shouldn't be still shocked when discovering those who attack others are admins, but I am. Of course that's why I vote in RFAs; I doubt I'm alone in that regard. Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I wish I was still shocked by Wikipedians who call it an "attack" when violations of BLP policy are described and discussed. No wonder it is so hard to get things fixed. "referring to other editors is not always a personal attack" --JWSurf (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Crusading", "cabalism" "relentless POV pushing" "damaging Wikipedia" are attacks, not simply "referring to other editors." Seriously, as an admin, you should know better. Your complaint about harrassment would go over better if if wasn't littered with such attacks. And I didn't even mention your failure of AGF. I would suggest you refactor, but I don't expect it, because such attacks without even a shred of evidence are somehow acceptable here, at least when it comes to those nonpersons in the "cabal". Your fellow admins will look away. And that is a shame. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been very careful to only use mild language to describe the nature of the editing that has taken place at Rosalind Picard and related articles. Describing a sickening part of the editing history of Wikipedia is not an attack, its an attempt to cure the sickness. "your failure of AGF" <-- describe in detail how I have failed to assume good faith. If you want to discuss the evidence then we can start with the evidence to support this claim: "Moulton's campaign to censor information properly verified from a reliable source," that was raised above by User:Dave souza. I asked for that reliable source. Let's start there as I requested above. I'm prepared to discuss in detail the edit history of Rosalind Picard and Talk:Rosalind Picard and explain why I characterize it as sickening. I tried to get you started on the page histories here. If you question the nature and reliability of my descriptions of the editing at Rosalind Picard then we should examine the history of that editing in detail. --JWSurf (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no excuse for attacking editors. Not because you think you were being "mild" because your targets deserve worse, or because it's what you consider to be true. Show me the exceptions to NPA in wikipolicy or I won't even bother with your complaints. You can't start a conversation with attacks and expect anything fruitful out of it. That's how attacks work; they mean I don't have to listen to you at all. Show me the link to NPA that allows your attitude. If you aren't, don't bother to respond, because I'm not interested.Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"referring to other editors is not always a personal attack" <-- I've stated my view of what led to Moulton being blocked. I've described the editing history a group of editors who came into conflict with Moulton. I'm prepared to have you fully examine the validity of my characterization. "address the issues of content" <-- I've asked you to join me in looking in detail at the content dispute that led to the block of Moulton. You refuse to examine and discuss the evidence. Does this mean you believe that Moulton should remain blocked without an examination of the editing conflict that led to his block? "NPA in wikipolicy" <-- If I understand you correctly, you are claiming that I made personal attacks. I agree that in an ordinary content dispute it is wise to "comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all". However, this thread is a discussion about an attempt to ban a participant from Wikipedia. We have to examine the actions of the person who was blocked (Moulton) and the team of editors that has worked together in an effort to ban him from participation at Wikipedia. I have given my description and account of Moulton and those who have worked so hard to ban him. I stand ready to defend my description and account in terms of the Wikipedia editing history. You refuse to examine the evidence and you keep talking about attacks, so please list the editors that you think I have attacked. --JWSurf (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

1. No thanks. You lost me at "in IRC". No thanks. Keeper ǀ 76 01:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   don't blame you, Keeper :-) - though your post is a bit ambiguous to me - it could be taken as a 'no comment'? (as in 'no thanks' to the very idea of this discussion, without prejudice etc.) but maybe you mean more 'no way!' to the unblock idea? Privatemusings (talk) 02:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   I'm quite sure Keeper is against the unblock based on that comment. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   Hersfold summarized my opinion correctly. Just one man's opinion though, tainted, perhsps, by the level of drama on-wiki recently. I'm going offline. Keeper ǀ 76 02:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Despite being the "wise chap", I still support the block remaining. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   I also looked into Moulton's work at Wikiversity, to see if perhaps my initial perceptions were wrong, and I find I cannot support an unblock of someone who actively uses one Wikimedia project as a launchpad to investigate another Wikimedia project, as Moulton appears to have done at v:Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikipedia/Case_Studies1#Case_5_.E2.80.94_IDCab_systematically_publishes_false_and_defamatory_content_in_BLPs. I do love Wikiversity in general, last week I helped move a class of 200 engineering students from FLorida to it from our userspaceMBisanz ^talk 12:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Do not support the unblock. Furthermore, discussions of this nature should be held in the open, not in IRC. seicer | talk | contribs 02:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
4. While I think that some of what Moulton did here has been mischaracterized by his more vehement opponents, I do not believe that he is currently capable (or indeed interested) in functioning here within the confines of current community norms. Whether this is a flaw in Moulton, in our community norms, or (most likely) some mixture of the two is a moot point. Oppose unblock. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose unblock. Moulton has started working on en.wv, and I think that is great. I usually support unblocks when someone really gets into another WMF project (with one recent spectacular failure), but I dont think Moulton has yet spent enough time on en.wv to have demonstrate he is good for the wiki community. If we look at his contribs there, the are primarily to user talk pages, and otherwise they are focused on a single learning project. He needs to diversify on en.wv, or start helping out on other projects. enwiki is not the only project. If someone only wants to work on enwiki, they are probably bad for enwiki. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute—that's a pretty striking claim. I have no interest in working on any of the other projects, but surely you're not suggesting I'm bad for this one? In fact, I'd assume most of our contributors are only interested in working on this project. Everyking (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Most users here, including renowned ones, have only significantly worked on Wikipedia, and have no desire to get involved, and invest their time, in what may be called lesser projects. Personally, I appreciate wiktionary, and meta-projects like meta-wiki and commons are useful, but I've never been convinced by wikinews, wikisource, wikiversity, etc. Cenarium ^Talk 18:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have serious concerns about the handling of the incident which led to his block in the first place. I will go into detail if desired, but it seems sufficient to say that the worst that will happen if he is unblocked is that he will be unable to color within the lines and will be re-blocked. Thatcher 02:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I should perhaps be explicit that I do not oppose an unblock. The handling of the situation that led to his block was unacceptable. If he is going to earn an indefinite ban, let him earn it on his own, and not with the assistance of, let's say, unfortunate circumstances. Thatcher 02:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Is "unfortunate circumstances" the new euphemism for the "ID cabal"? --NE2 02:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Thatcher. I don't believe he's ready or suited to be back editing here, and I think he will simply get reblocked very soon if unblocked. I don't see the point of it really. how do you turn this on 02:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Must comment I've seen that meme repeated here quite often...simply get reblocked...and every time I wonder if I've accidently left Wikipedia. Are we in the same place? Because I lurk these admin boards to follow the Big Picture, and from what I've seen there is nothing simple about a block. Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• He was unable to color within the lines last time. What purpose would be served in repeating the experiment? Oppose unblock until and unless there is some reason to believe that there would be benefit to the project. Let him edit his talk page if he wishes, that's fine. Let him participate in other projects such as Wikiversity, which have different participation mores and norms, that's fine. But not here. Entirely unsuited to edit here. 12.161.217.2 (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC) ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Very difficult for me to evaluate anonymous comments without knowing your history and biases. Thatcher 02:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That was me. I WAS signed in earlier today... sigh. The EC I had meant i was rushing to hit save. ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• IRC discussions should only be informative, not decision-making. I don't see a reason or benefit to unblock. Cenarium ^Talk 02:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock I don't think he will be readily amenable with our editing norms. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock for reasons stated by others above, particularly concerns about the editor's ability to edit here on EN in a constructive and non-disruptive way. Sarah 04:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• No. And anyone who disagrees should be sure to look at the attack project at Wikiversity. Why Wikimedia feels the need to allow a "sister" project to contain such a thing is beyond me. --B (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Attack project? o.O NonvocalScream (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, attack project. It is a forum for airing personal squabbles like this. Real reform doesn't happen when criticism takes the form of Moulton's hysteria and, I believe, one of the big reasons that the C68-SV-FM case is being dismissed with a yawn is that personal squabbles drowned out the legitimate complaints about abuse of the admin tools. --B (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets not label Wikiversity a BADSITE :-) It wont take you to long to understand why that project has been retained if you took the time to understand what Wikiversity is. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Wikiversity have epic failed this time but. Their equivalent of our "conflict of interest" policy should be a "professional detachment" policy. Hesperian 05:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} ? Ideas this way. ? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean, as has already begun at v:Wikiversity:Colloquium#Disturbed? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock I do not think he is capable of consistently editing in a collaobrative manner amenable to WP, from what I have seen. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Unceremoniously no. user:Everyme 05:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose. On principle, I reject the notion that any banned user may demand a review of their status without warning or schedule, as many times as they wish, and that the community must muster afresh ad infinitum to maintain the ban. Even if the proposal is made with the best of intentions (and I am willing to assume it is), it must be obvious that this is a highly gameable proposition: a small number of coordinated trolls could hamstring necessary business--simply by rotating their requests to return--until by exhausting the patience of the community in an entirely new manner they return by attrition. No, I won't do business that way. Request speedy closure of the discussion. Durova^Charge! 06:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Durova's comment that community blocks shouldn't be endlessly reviewed. However I note that this is the one year anniversary of the original block, so as a final review this is an appropriate time. I agree with B that the Wikiversity page is worrisome, and the fact that this appears to have been one of the Moulton's major Wikimedia contributions in the past year indicates to me that there's more interest in stirring the pot than in writing the encyclopedia. I have not followed Moulton's case and don't know most of the details. However I have seen the name appear again and again here and on other administrative pages. In the interest of getting on with the work and lessening time spent on discussing problem editors, I oppose unblock and oppose further reviews until the next anniversary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• My view on this is uncertain. As detailed before (at quite some length) on this page, I do not believe the original block was handled fairly. Moulton keeps seeming to "get in trouble" despite only being allowed to edit his talk page -- I think a lot of that is because editors assume bad faith when it comes to banned users. My experience from lengthy email discussions is that everything Moulton does is in complete good faith. He is sometimes spectacularly misguided, but never, I think, malicious. That said, I do not support an unblock unconditionally. If Moulton was forcibly kept away from the subject of intelligent design, I think he could edit productively. Unblocking is very unlikely to cause harm. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock – Lar and B present a fair and well-informed assessment, Moulton essentially wants a soapbox for ideas at odds with Wikipedia's principles. He can talk persuasively, but is a nightmare to try to edit with, and if unblocked would need a huge amount of attention in mentoring. . . dave souza, talk 09:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblock, enough time has passed. If he screws up the opportunity, we can just block him again. Everyking (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment seems to me that what disrupts wikipedia's work is not so much the damage problematic users do (which can be reverted in a few clicks) so much as the divisive and time-absorbing discussions their treatment generates. Durova is correct that "reviewing on demand" is not good. However, as this long discussion shows it is almost inevitable. And we will have the same debate next year, if not before. Pragmatically, it might be better to unblock any banned user after a year, providing we receive their parole (=promise of good behaviour) and with the strict policy that ANY breach is an immediate block/ban without discussion. That way, we either get the user back behaving (win) or we continue the ban with much less discussion (win). An automatic policy here, which allows both for redemption and no tolerance of future nonsense, might decrease the dispute and disruption all round. Let's face it, some of us are more lenient, some more intent on protecting the project, a policy like I outline would perhaps go some way to meeting both concerns.--Troikoalogo (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, for now. I've always had zero tolerance for outing other editors, which is why I threw the indef on him a few months back. However, I'd be willing to reconsider--albeit with very onerous restrictions--if he can prove himself on Wikiversity or another project. Blueboy96 12:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. Last indef was placed in June for "Personal attacks, outing other editors. Sorry, you're done here". This looks like another request originating at WR for the unblocking of one of their own, but the blocking issue is not addressed. Neither is the "POV OR warrior" issue. Any appeal belongs with the arbitration committee at this stage, as far as I'm concerned. The fact that one of the unblock supporters explicitly invokes the "ID cabal" puts the lid on it for me. I have had enough of that particular meme, and to suggest that bringing Moulton back to assist in the work of resisting NPOV-pushing is almost enough on its own to persuade me that it would be a really bad idea. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Guy, I just need to interject on two points of order here. A) You were the one who mentioned how labeling people and auto-assuming bad faith from a group of users isn't productive, over a recent discussion, and even the post above you mention it. And B) Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but there's quite a few people who post at WR (and you can count me in that group) who do not think an unblock would be a good thing right now, so close to the last time where he got given "one last chance" and went outside the lines. Rather more then those WR posters who do support it, if I don't miss my guess. I know with all the history behind it, it may be hard to avoid the knee-jerk reaction here, but I think that you're a bit mistaken here with regards to motives. SirFozzie (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with SirFozzie, Guy - so far a majority of those of us who are active on WR (Lar, SirFozzie, Viridae, LessHeard, DanT, me - MBisanz, Seicer, and B too, if you want to adopt a broad definition of "active") are opposing an unblock. Actually, the only WR users who appear to support at this point are Privatemusings and Everyking. Request that you strike or clarify that portion of your comment. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Third this request - Guy, please strike the WR assumption. Otherwise, I agree with Guy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

My problem here is with they hypocrisy of a group of people who collude on WR and then come here accusing Wikipedians of cabalism in resisting their blatant attempts to push a fringe POV. It's not about WR per se, it's about a web community whose aims are not our aims putting DefendEachOther above the values they should adopt when they come here. Colluding there and then accusing Wikipedians of cabalism for enforcing one of our fundamental policies is rank hypocrisy. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Except that here, people are pointing out there's not a group of people on WR colluding for this (this time). Just liking many were jumping on Kelly that there's not an IDCabal colluding on the Sarah Palin pages (this time). Whether groups at WR are colluding to push POVs on wiki is debatable on a situational basis, just like whether current or former members of the ID wikiproject do similar. And you're right that it's a bad mindset to be in to automatically go looking for this sort of conspiracy, not just for individuals but the project as a whole. But several folks are trying to point out to you, that you're doing the same thing right here, right now. And to someone like me, who's not involved with WR, ID, Sarah Palin, or any "cabals", it looks a bit hypocritical. And it pains me, because I feel you're on the right side here (I agree with the general assessment of Moulton's unsuitability to return at this time), just with all the wrong arguments. --InkSplotch (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• I personally don't think Moulton has the temperament to deal with enwp. Yes his original block was undoubtedly handled badly, and he has/had every right to feel wronged there, but his pursuit of justice has, I feel, gone far beyond a reasonable reaction from someone wronged on a website that is fairly minor in the scheme of things. It strikes me that Moulton's quest for that which is "right and just" is an admirable quality in the real world, but an unhelpful one when taken to extremes when there is the pursuit of a single common goal (ie writing a half decent reference work). In other words wikipedia should strive to treat everyone fairly, but wikipedia is not for everyone and some people get left by the wayside, forcibly or not. If however he demonstrates a willingness to adapt to the wiki culture in his work on other wiki's I would then consider supporting an unban, taking into acount enwp's more heated nature. Viridae^Talk 12:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It saddens me to see someone say that Wikipedia is not for everyone. Moulton is an unusual guy, but I've seen little to indicate that he is temperamentally incapable of contributing productively, as some people are suggesting. I've seen him talking a lot on WR, but I wouldn't try to predict how he would behave in this editing environment based on that. In any case, I feel that, unless a person has behaved in a totally abhorrent manner, they should necessarily be given another chance after some reasonable amount of time has passed. Furthermore, after a year of concentrating so heavily on WP during his ban, Moulton has surely learned a thing or two about how Wikipedia operates and how he might be able to avoid what happened to him last time. We ought to at least give him the opportunity to demonstrate that. Everyking (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
    • That opportunity has been given. " Moulton has surely learned a thing or two about how Wikipedia operates and how he might be able to avoid what happened to him last time." I see no evidence of that. I've had more discussions with him than some, and I just don't see any fundamental change in behaviour or approach, any acknowledgement that sometimes consensus is right or at least operative, and he is wrong, or at least out-consensed. I'm sorry to say this, but it is indeed true that Wikipedia is not for everyone. ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblock As I am aware, Moulton has been "suspended" at Wikipedia Review in respect of his difficulties in operating within the parameters of a website and, although I acknowledge and admire his intellect, I feel he does need to consistently demonstrate the ability to work within the guidelines before being given another chance... However, since Guy has determined this is a case of WR participants supporting their own I guess I have to default support. Twit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • No you don't. ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Echo the above... I can't go against my WR cabal buddies... that just wouldn't be right! No, seriously, JzG is being highly hypocritical to condemn the "memes" that label people as part of a sinister clique, when he does the same himself, sometimes in the same breath. As for unblocking Moulton, I think the original block/ban was unjust, but also agree with some of the comments to the effect that he's probably temperamentally unsuited for Wikipedia participation... I tried to give him some friendly advice while on a Not The Wikipedia Weekly show with him, to the effect that rather than him simply making demands that everybody else on Wikipedia change to suit him, he needs to do a little "give-and-take" himself and admit his own approach hasn't always been productive, and that he needs to make some attempt to follow policies and fit in the culture even if he disagrees with some of it. He wasn't interested in any of this, unfortunately. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, JzG is right about memes in general. No he's not right in applying the WR meme here. ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, oppose further reviews for a year, recommend closing this thread before it becomes yet another clash of factions. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• oppose unblock. Really, the fact that Lar, Dtobias, Guy and B, and Less Heard all agree that someone should stay blocked should make things clear. Lar and B in particular give very good rationales for keeping him blocked and I couldn't say it better myself. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, oppose further reviews for a year per Tom H. Strongly suggest that those who are (rather childishly, IMO) repeating the "support my WR Cabal buddies" might wish to review their position as a bit POINT-y. If you have a view on unblocking Moulton, well and good, we welcome your input - but if you wish to start a playground fight I suggest you go elsewhere and not waste others' time here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock if he promises to behave and is adopted. Bstone (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  I predict mentoring won't work. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I believe that Moulton cannot handle himself appropriate with certain people. He is more easily baited than I am, which says a lot. This does not say that he is a bad person. It just says that a situation with him can easily become very bad very fast. Old dogs do not learn new tricks, and some people are set in their ways. If there was a way that he could provide information and be isolated from the politics, or kept from being able to deal with them and instead let leveler heads deal with them, then maybe. I don't know. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Opppose unblock for at least 3 months. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose unblock - His time on Wikiversity appears to have been spent writing a pseudo-scholarly attack on everyone he disliked here [1] - And this is the evidence provided for his reform? If he wants back on Wikipedia, he shouldn't be endlessly trying to rerun the disputes that got him banned on another Wikimedia project, and particularly shouldn't then use his activity on that project to justify being unbanned here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. You have got to be kidding me. Does his situation need a review every two or three months? Every month? This is getting ridiculous. What has changed? Here is a short list of over 50 Wikipedians who have looked at the "Moulton unblock situation" in the last year in some detail and at least at some juncture, decided that unblocking Moulton was a bad idea (some of course might have subsequently changed their minds, but I would be highly doubtful that a substantial fraction of those on my list have changed their minds). My own position on the Moulton situation is described here for anyone interested. If you want to have a more in-depth discussion, please feel free to come visit the NTWW crew at Skype, or otherwise contact me through Skype and I will be glad to discuss my position on Moulton at length with any interested party. I am unique in having much more of the relevant background necessary for evaluating this situation than almost anyone else here, and having dealt with Moulton in greater depth and for longer than most others commenting here.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• oppose unblock Slrubenstein | Talk 01:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock --David Shankbone 01:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support unblock - the original block was bad, carried out by a disruptive group of editors. Kelly ^hi! 03:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  Please clarify. I am now "a disruptive group of editors" according to you? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock I don't believe Moulton has done anything worthy of an indef block. -- Ned Scott 06:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. Really, I think this has come up quite enough. At this point, it should go to Arbitration if the interested parties wish to continue this. There's nothing to indicate that he won't continue his disruptive practice of outing editors and personal attacks; until there is something of that nature, then there's no reason to keep doing this ad infinitum. Some people just can't work in a heterogenous environment with people who hold views contrary to their own, and I think his edit history demonstrates that he is one of those people; blocks are preventive, and this particular block prevents a number of problems. I don't think undoing it is going to be a net benefit to the project. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. There's a lot of merit in the argument that a low-effort, low-drama block/unblock/reblock cycle would be a good approach to long-term problematic editors, but in this case I don't think it fits. Moulton positively leapt at the chance to play the martyr during his RfC, and there is no sign of a break in the roleplaying, if his "all about ethics" Wikiversity collaboration with JWSchmidt/JWSurf is anything to go by. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Afraid not. From what I've seen of Moulton I'm actually surprised WR allows him to contribute. — CharlotteWebb 18:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Motion to close

What I see here is no consensus to unblock. I'll also note the marked absence of the thread started once the thread kicked off. Request permission to close this thread? NonvocalScream (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

if you meant 'thread starter' above, nonvoc, then /me waves :-) - this process has helped clarify a few things for me, and I think you've been rather conservative in describing 'no consensus to unblock' ! I would think that regular archive processes will deal with this thread in the usual way, and I think that's for the best. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Leave it open, discussion is ongoing. Kelly ^hi! 03:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Leave it open. -- Ned Scott 06:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose closure of section as I'm yet to oppose unblock. Voting is fun. Giggy (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There are approximately 30 oppositions, 2 supports, and 0 on topic conversation. Issue is essentially resolved.--Tznkai (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it is - but valuable insights might yet be had. Leave it to die on its own, don't force it (I'm looking at you NVS) Viridae^Talk 11:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok... that is why I asked permission to add the tags. I won't force a closure. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I count at least five editors who support an unblock. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

So? Not a vote, remember? There is clearly a lack of consensus to unblock.--Tznkai (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh I agree, you'd said there were but 2 supports, is all. I lean towards keeping the block for now btw. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support motion to close - I mean, it was only in July that he was inspiring this kind of anger by a long, long-time contributor to Wikinews. I do not see how mentoring is going to fix the fundamental flaws Moulton has shown in communicating to work well in the creation of WP:ENC. --David Shankbone 04:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oh wow, fresh life has been given to this thread. Since it is still open, it is worth pointing out that Moulton has been recently been issued a short block over on English Wikiversity. Now the ethics project there will have some local ethics to discuss rather than trying to fathom the complexity of English Wikipedia. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• And why am I not surprised? Is there any website on the internet where Moulton has not bee in trouble in the last 20 years, except his own? Not entirely unexpected, since this seems to happen over and over and over. Oh well.--Filll (talk | wpc) 06:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Extension of mentoring of Privatemusings

FYI: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings#Mentoring_notices. Durova^Charge! 12:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that necessary? This seems like a good faith attempt by Privatemusings to bring up an issue for discussion. The consensus was clear when it was brought up. But I at least wasn't aware of how strong this consensus would be until this discussion occurred. It isn't clear to me what PM did in this case that is problematic. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom: Solely for the matter of editing biographies of living persons, Privatemusings ... is placed under the mentorship of User:Lar, User:Jayvdb, and User:Durova.

How is this related to the editing of BLP? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 21:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I echo ed on this one. Viridae^Talk 22:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what? That seems very odd. The remedy states "Solely for the matter of editing biographies of living persons...", so I'm more than a little confused on how the above discussion is even remotely related, or how it could result in an extension of the mentorship. - auburnpilot talk 23:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad call I think. You can't extend the mentorship for this and cite the remedy - does not apply. This type of action also has a chilling effect. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

[Request for clarification - amendment Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Without commenting on the extension of the mentorship, perhaps one of the three mentors might be good enough to leave a message on Privatemusings's talk page, at minimum notifying him of the decision, and preferably explaining it as well. And perhaps the person opening the request for clarification might want to notify the individuals named in the request. Risker (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I did the notifications. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I forgot one. Fixed now, however, you could have fixed as well :) Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, a post that consists only of fyi plus a link does not deserve a subheading of its own. It tends to generate the appearance of controversy by assigning it a subheading after the fact when the original poster did not, and it borders on disruption to reassign the subheading a second time after the original poster removes it. Our goal in mentoring is to reduce drama rather than increase it; our action was agreed by unanimous consent of all parties, including Privatemusings. It was a reasonable interpretation of our terms of mentorship and--much more to the point--a reasonable step toward the ultimate goal of equipping an editor who already has considerable intelligence and goodwill with specific skills to volunteer productively without undue consumption of administrative time. As a result of the confusion at this thread we now have a formal RFAR motion (which I hope will soon be withdrawn), and it is taking some of my time away from an expansion DYK I hoped to complete tonight. Let's all return to article building rather than making sprang out of molehills. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 02:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to harp on it, but if you had said that: "FYI, by consent of all parties, including Privatemusings, etc etc..." there would have been no questions, no drama, no need for a subsection heading, etc. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 04:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you in this case, Durova. You changed the subject of the subsection, from moving to close the discussion about the Moulton unblock to reporting an extension of the mentorship of Privatemusings. As such, the break is useful to the readers. Your wish to keep the drama down is irrelevant in this case; if you wanted to do that, you could simply have posted to the log of blocks and bans on the relevant Arbitration Committee case and not said a word here; it happens all the time for similar Arbcom remedies. I am shocked, however, that this extension appears to have been discussed completely off-wiki, including the notification of Privatemusings.[2] This is not okay; such notification should always be on-wiki, to the user's talk page. Risker (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ed and Risker, Wikipedia's assume good faith policy may reasonably be applied to cover a situation where all mentors have signed an extension of mentorship. There is nothing shocking about omission of a minor formality, nor is there a policy or guideline anywhere that requires all mentorship to occur onsite (indeed, where drama reduction is the goal, discretion is often the better part of mentorship). Unless one is inclined to construe mischief this is a nonissue. Now I'll be returning to mainspace where I'm citing archaeological textile finds. Wikipedia has plenty of matters that require intervention. This isn't one of them. Durova^Charge! 04:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There was no failure to assume good faith here, Durova. It was the second time in 24 hours that I encountered discussions of editor sanctions that were being carried out off-wiki, the other not involving anyone in this thread, neither of which needed to be carried out away from the eyes of the community. It would have been reasonable to expect that you would be well aware of the drama potential for posting a non sequitur announcement that an additional sanction had been placed on the editor who started this thread. Let us not forget the potential chilling effect on other editors who might have otherwise been motivated to bring forth a potentially unpopular idea for discussion within the community. I do not construe mischief, simply a lack of foresight into the consequences of your actions. This is an extension of an Arbcom sanction. The place for this to have been documented was the Arbcom case log, and the user's page. It was not this thread. Risker (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

And let us not forget the potential chilling effect of this response to a simple unanimous agreement. Mentors are not responsible for anticipating and deflecting potential objections to one link by people who had shown no prior interest in the mentorship and who do not provide fair opportunity for clarification before reacting. Risker, I doubt it is your intention to discourage people from volunteering to be mentors, so please consider the unintended consequences of this aggressive stance. I am returning to article space (this is the third time posting to that effect here) and I will not be returning to this thread again this evening. The encyclopedia would be better off if we all did the same. Durova^Charge! 08:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I simply did not understand how the notice you placed jibed with the information that was publicly available at the ArbCom page your note directed people to. It looked, on its face, as if something was wrong, which is why I asked the question I did, and didn't make any kind of accusation. You placed the notice, and provided the link, and your accidental oversight in not mentioning that the extension was justified under another (private) agreement, or that the subject of it had concurred, pretty much set the ball rolling on this. But, since it seems to be resolved, I heartily agree that we can all get back to more constructive pursuits. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 05:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

In that case I apologize for any overreaction. It was quite a surprise to post a simple link, then return a few hours later to discover that a whole subthread and a formal arbitration motion had resulted. Durova^Charge! 05:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• I for one think this deserves a full thread of its own, because it raises several important questions: Who decided this? How valid is that decision? What exactly does "broadly construed" entail if the above leads to a reset of the mentoring timeline? How can it be challenged? Where is my pitchfork? user:Everyme 06:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Aha. Everyme 06:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

G'day all...I'll post something over here soon.. I'm just catching up with stuff... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Suddenly standing up for what you think is right is something to be sanctioned for, simply because it dare require us to question the logic behind this block?

Oh noes, we don't want to think about this, it hurts our brains! It might cause large amounts of discussion! Then people will call it drama! Wait, don't worry gies, this Privatemusings fellow got in trouble for something else under the broad definition of "drama", maybe we can use that to shut people up about this?

>:|

-- Ned Scott 03:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Script deletion

Someone has just deleted a widely user script. They have even "ranted" on the talk page as if proud of their actions. User:Outriggr/metadatatest.js & User talk:Outriggr/metadatatest.js. Is anyone here able to reinstate is. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to out-and-out restore it for you at this point without discussing with the original deleting administrator, but have you considered listing it at WP:DRV? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC).

I suggest we keep it deleted for the reasons outlined on the talk page. Giggy (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that too. It was a valid deletion as far as I'm concerned, albeit one that seemingly came without warning and which will affect a large group of editors. Community review and input wouldn't be a bad thing, but at the same time, it was Outriggr's script and I morally support his right to do with it as he pleases. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC).

Far fewer teeth will be gnashed. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The deleting administrator deleted the script on request from the person whose userspace it resided in, and it was the person who created the tool that posted the "rant" on the talkpage. The deleting admin was just following a G7/U1 CSD request. ~ Ameliorate! _{U T C} @ 13:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I like the script and willing to grab it back if the community thinks it's useful and it should be retained (to someone else's userspace so that a user doesn't need to have something in his userspace that he doesn't like). The part that puzzled me is me stating the "Article assessments SUCKS" part. Since all classes, including FA and GA are indeed article assessments, does that mean he's opposing to these classes too? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The text of the script is covered by the GFDL so any other user could expect a request for an undeleted copy in his/her own userspace to be granted, without need to consult the deleting admin. As for the rant, article assessment has always been a dubious business - at the wikiproject level it tends to be insultingly cursory - a problem that, seemingly to the chagrin of Outriggr, is exacerbated by his script. CIreland (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If the admin refuses to undelete, you can still ask him to send you a copy by email so you can use the script on a different wiki. Notice that GFDL does not force distributors to keep distributing the content after they stop finding it useful, if just forces to distribute it for free and with attribution. Removing GFDL content from your website is totally OK by the license. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• The way to decide on how to assess articles is in a general group discussion, not by the unilateral actions of one editor. I am unclear whether if it were placed in user space it would still function, without everyone who wished to use it changing the name. So the question really is undeleting it. I consider the use of the script by multiple parties the same as if it had been edited multiple times, and disqualifies it for a G7 userrequest. I'd have no hesitation in turning down user requests for deletion of something that appears to be useful to at least some people in the community. Nobody owns a contribution to wikipedia, and the GFDL is irrevocable. I note that I do not work in any of the article review processes, so I have no particular feeling on the underlying issue. DGG (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Good call by Ouriggr, talk page rationale is absolutely sound. These boxes are, as it says, very often added in drive-by manner on creation and never updated afterwards, bear no relation to the objective quality of the article, and are in sundry other ways actively counterproductive. Like Esperanza or AMA, an idea that was good in theory but turned out to be hopelessly flawed in execution. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Nice rant. :-) I tend to agree with it. Drive-by assessments are OK for quick-and-dirty overviews of what needs doing in a large field, but they are useless for determining the actual quality of an article. Just a word of caution: considered assessments, with comments added on the talk page, and work done to improve the article, is helpful. I'm wondering if the way to go is to let all the wikiproject assessments be "unofficial" (ie. meaningful only to the wikiprojects trying to organise their articles) and for the real assessment (call it the "Wikipedia assessment" or the "WP 1.0 assessment") to be one that needs a discussion, and that should only be added after a discussion. ie. the wikiproject assessments are just placemarkers, and the "official" assessment should link to a subpage where the assessment was discussed and consensus reached (as you see in the GA and FA and some wikiproject A-class processes)? Any changes to that official assessment would have to be discussed on that subpage (or on the talk page and a link added from the subpage). Carcharoth (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The last thing we need is more bureaucracy - if I improve a stub, there's no reason I should need to start a discussion and get consensus (more likely is that I'll wait and no one will reply) just to change the "official" assessment. The ratings may have their problems, but I have used them in the past to find and improve high-importance articles needing improvement. --NE2 09:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
    • There should, though, be a way to distinguish between assessments that are the opinion of a single editor (the vast majority) and those where there is agreement. Underlying a lot of this is the assumption that silence is agreement. People might assess the article and agree with the rating, but if they don't leave some record of this, no-one else knows they have done this. You only see what happens when people disagree. You also don't know whether the assessment is unchallenged merely because no-one else has bothered to read the article or look at the assessment. That is why assessments should be signed by everyone who agrees with it, not depersonalised and made into a passive voice conclusion. The passive voice bit I got from Geogre's views on this. I may have misrepresented what he said, so hopefully he will weigh in here (I've left a note on his talk page). Carcharoth (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't think it would be a good use of my time to go around signing a subpage if I agree with the assessment. Maybe I'm just spoiled by the fact that USRD does a decent job of assessing. --NE2 09:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Starting a discussion for each article? Please... we don't want 6,814,573 pages of discussion. One, as NE2 pointed out, time wasted on discussing the class of the article could be instead used on improving. Two, a lot of stub and start class articles aren't watchlisted by a large group of members so rarely someone noticed that something is up for discussion. What if no one responded the discussion for 1 month? Leave it unassessed (and hurt WP 1.0)? Or assess it (and risk being called POV-pushing and ignoring consensus)? Three, sometimes different projects may rate the identical article with different class because one may think it's comprehensive enough but other thinks it's still short on something. Under the current system, it's not necessary to have debates on this but if it's mandatory to have a discussion, it may add fuel to the fire. Discussion is good, giving POV-pushy people another opportunity and venue to argue over minor things is bad. Anyways, in a couple of days I will copy the deleted contents to my userspace, then let those users of the script know of the current situation and they can choose if they wish to continue using the script. While we're on this issue, we can ask someone to try merge Outriggr's script with Pyrospirit's script so that all article quality ratings are displayed AND people can continued to tag projects. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
          • "Starting a discussion for each article?" - that is called a talk page, yes? Theoretically, each article can have a talk page. There should be no problem with that. "time wasted on discussing the class of the article could be instead used on improving" - is it better to have an inaccurate, undiscussed rating, or an accurate, discussed rating? The answer is to carefully consider each case and get the balance right between discussion, assessment and article work, in each case. Some people clearly feel that too much work is being done on assessments that have little value without discussion and work to improve the article. How do you suggest that problem is tackled? Carcharoth (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
            • I do agree with you that one-size-fit-all assessment approach is not good. So I suggest that each project should develop its own guideline on what constitutes a B, C, etc. (like MILHIST's assessment is somewhat different from 1.0's criteria) to target articles within their scope. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• "The ratings may have their problems?" The ratings may not have a purpose. Axiomatically, no one has yet offered a rationale for why any of them should exist (like the passive?), much less that they should exist in this way, and far, far, far, far from that they should be performed (see the passive?) in such a reckless and insulting manner. "This script has been rated as deletion-worthy." How's that? Until assessment is not only performed by human beings, but signed by the humans who do the assessing and offer up an action rationale, then they are -- get this -- not edits. They are mechanical functions, when done by script, and they are vandalism, when done by a person who does not sign and does not rationalize and does not read. We have some bot around here that comes along to sign posts that people make without attribution, and yet it doesn't extend to these top-of-page banners? I support the deletion of the script, and I would even support deleting all assessments that are not performed by a person who not only can but actually does stand behind the judgment. Geogre (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It does have a purpose, see WP:1.0. It has been the goal of Wikipedia since 2004. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree that assessments are useful, but I also agree that people should openly sign their assessments. An assessment with no visible indication who has made the assessment is suspect. Before I accept any assessment, I want to know who has made the assessment. At the moment, people have to dig through the talk page history to find out. If all assessments were signed by those who agreed with it, then that would be fine. At the moment, there is no indication of the amount of care and effort that has gone into an assessment, and that is a problem. Carcharoth (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Charming how people are complaining about my deletion of User:Outriggr's userpage at his request, and yet nobody has notified either of us of this discussion. This was a straightforward user request deletion, and there's no expectation that the user "explain" himself when making such a request; I certainly didn't try to decipher the code before deleting. I am not inclined to undelete outside of the request of the user. Since I am not able to decipher the code (and thus cannot be certain of its appropriateness for use onwiki), I don't feel I can provide a copy to anyone else without (at minimum) the agreement of the author. Having said all that, and having now read the talk page and this thread, I agree with Outriggr's decision to have the code deleted; it's pretty clear he feels its use is not helpful for the encyclopedia, and I tend to share his concerns about drive-by article assessments. Risker (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • To be fair, as a user-deletion request, the deleting admin is really only enabling the user's request. The admin judgement as regards deletion and undeletion is minimal. It is fairly normal in such cases to not blame the deleting admin or to notify them. The issue people have, presumably, is with Outriggr requesting deletion of the script. Carcharoth (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, Carcharoth, although the thread does start off somewhat accusatorially, including a comment about ranting on the talk page; I am correcting this misperception, as I certainly didn't do any ranting and never posted on the talk page. As the usual practice is to ask the deleting admin to reinstate or to provide a copy of a deleted page, I am making it clear in advance how I will deal with any such requests. Risker (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Regardless of User:Outriggr's feelings, the code was released under the GFDL and anybody could rightfully obtain it legally if he or she so desires. --seav (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The script was being used for purposes (mass tagging and bagging) that Ourigger was uncomforable with, to the extent that he left the project. I think fuck the GFDL, pay respect to our users, and let it die. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear! Seraphim♥Whipp 22:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Which users? Outriggr or the many other users who feel that assessment does help Wikipedia become better? I respect Outriggr's decision and I see his point of view and that I would not join any move to have the script undeleted but if other people manage to get a hold of the script or build another one from scratch, then it is within their right to do so. Outriggr's view's about assessment may have quite a lot of merit since he has seen both sides of the issue, but I don't think he has the right to dictate that others also agree. Wikipedia is based on consensus and right now, the consensus is that assessment helps Wikipedia (though indirectly). --seav (talk) 06:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Which users? The users that write articles rather than thoes who run around placing value judjements on articles whiched they have not read or barely even glanced at, ably using an automated script (the workings of which they likely know little) hosted on one of Outriggr's subpages, and which script bears his name. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a reply on Geogre's talk page [3], and since I'd say essentially the same thing here, this is my statement. The action I took was quite rash by the nature of the problem. Anyone accusing me of abandonment or inappopriate behavior might stop to consider how much I want to delete my own work, something that I developed over months and answered many users' questions about, because I thought it might help Wikipedia. It didn't. You might wish to consider how, having worked both sides of this "assessment" business, I am in a particularly informed position to pass judgment on its merit -- this is far from a drive-by rant or a spur-of-the-moment sentiment. –Outriggr § 22:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I found it a really useful script and am sad to see it go, but it is Outriggrs decision stop promoting it in his user space. It would, however, have been helpful to have some warning/discussion as to if the script should be moved to another location. --Nate1481 08:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Geogre regarding the overall dubiousness of this rating system. Hell, I thought the ratings were pretty silly even before I learned that most of them were determined mechanically. I'm also worried about the nomination process. Apparently articles can "fail on importance only, if the article is of acceptable quality, but on a topic outside the scope of the latest release" which sounds like thinly disguised "notability"-wonking bullshit. Rating articles according to quality might not be an entirely bad idea, but I don't see how the current system of assigning half a dozen grade-letters to 2.5 million articles can produce usable data. Maybe an aggregate numerical score based on multiple independent human reviews would be meaningful, I really don't know, but in any case it would be better handled by a software extension rather than by adapting the talk-page banner cruft which most of the community has trained itself to ignore. — CharlotteWebb 19:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't and won't speak to how the rating/assessment process works throughout WP, but I will say that it works fairly well in the little corner of WP that mostly interests me - the Virginia WikiProject. Rating and assessment is not a perfect system, but it's a decent way of getting a handle on what articles are out there and what needs work. I have seen the assessment process many times lead directly to article improvement and useful discussion, and I have yet to see anyone claiming to have been insulted (though I can see how this might happen). This script helped with the tedious part of the process, so I'm sorry to see it go - though I respect Outriggr's position.--Kubigula (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

ADDENDUM to "Abusive User:Noclador, his impunity..." - EVENT HISTORY

Addendum pertaining to this complaint:

I made reference on my talk page, as discussed of the sockpuppetry. It will remain there as documentary defense material against further unreasonable and slanderous sockpuppetry accusations, deliberate false charges of fascism, and calls for my banning – which appear to be inevitable. I am continually subjected to it, and nothing is done about it, so I must. What follows below will show why I do not agree with statements that Noclador did nothing wrong, and it will also be referred to as documented evidence the next time I am accused. This is an issue about conducting investigations properly. If my accuser showed some good faith and behaved in similar manner as, say, User:AlasdairGreen27 has on the matter, then I certainly would not have piped up this much. The sockpuppetry material and detail of the slander I have received will remain on my talk page until I am satisfied that it will not happen again. Someone requested a summary (and now because it has become obvious that the full story is not known, particularly my accuser’s actions), here:

I was a new user (officially joined 27th May 2008) [4], who saw this passage under Italian Army (presumably added by Generalmesse) and believed that I could help constructively improve it, make it NPOV and add relevant citations, so I began working on it here. As I thought the content was inappropriate in the section I originally found it in so I moved it to Military history of Italy during World War II, where I believed it more apt, and created a new section (dif of newly created section). I stated what I was doing in the edit summary of the edit. I then continued working on it.

A justification for the content was later placed here, with the request that people work together on the issue rather than bicker.

Went to Brisbane between 23 and 27th June (which is no where near Sydney and not in NSW, which is a very populous place and one of the alleged centers of sock activity, according to Noclador) – I declared my activities with sincerity from the beginning of the farcical sock puppetry investigation. I came back and logged on to add another citation found:

1. The section initiated on June 1st 2008 was deleted [5] & I was accused (wrongfully) [6]) of being a sock puppet of Giovannigiove.

a) Directed to a page that made no reference to User:Romaioi (this one)

2. The entire content of my talk page (the welcome to Wikpedia I received, giving me pointers on navigation, editing and signatures etc, and previous conversations) had originally been completely wiped by Noclador with solely the sock puppetry accusation remaining [7]. i.e. judge, jury and execution before any reasoned investigation. Hello!

3. I undeleted the relevant historical section [8], pointing out in the edit summary that the content was most relevant there, if anywhere (it was still a work in progress). I stated to Noclador that I was doing so.

4. Noclador re-deleted the material [9], and claimed I was generelmesse [10].

a) This unconstructive deletion was the final straw in what ticked me off, and I stated Use some of that good faith that you mentioned. Open a discussion page. Help me improve it instead of “vandalizing” the contribution. I have more to add when I get the rest of my sources out of storage. I cannot vouch for the radio Berlin links. I did not inlcude them. However, if you have an issue with them, as I said, put it on a discussion page. [11]. This is where others feel that User:Romaioi over-reacted.

i) Note that Nocaldor has presented this statement in completely different context in his response to my ANI [12] – a standard theme.

b) It took Karriges’ assertion that the subsection had merit to stop further deletion [13].

5. I finally found the sock evidence page and discovered that:

a) Noclador presented false information about the pages I contributed to (no. of mainspace contribs. was wrong too) [14] rebutted here

i) He also was incorrect about the location of Brisbane [15] and timezone differences[16], and the meaning of the word romaioi[17]. These are too simple for an adult who shows due diligence get wrong - so I believe they are deliberate misrepresentations.

b) Misrepresentative/distorted quotations, patched together from disparate locations to present passages completely out of context with what I was saying. These passages were inclusive of statements that I never made. second sockpuppetry defense page, [18].

6. Discovered that Noclador was canvassing and presenting unsubstantiated speculation of guilty behavior.[19] [20] [21]

7. I wrote a defense detailing pattern, citation/source, NPOV of my contributions & characteristic differences (apparently almost one has read it). [22]

a) During the process to this point I was called:

i) FASCIST [23], [24], [25] – this originally only implied, as he referred to the socks as fascist and then stated that I was one and has only reinforced his position since. This is particularly absurd considering that his patch-worked edits to portray out of context montage of my statements have been extracted form sections that were markedly anti-fascist in nature. Now, however, he blatantly states it classic e.g. – claimed this to be damming proof.

- My sources (explained here & here) are by British, American and Swiss authors and their sources can be traced to British military accounts, such as Gen. Alexander. One of my main sources is Chester Wilmot, a WWII (&I) BBC war correspondent who was present on most campaigns. So this is fascist?

ii) FANATIC [26]

8. I was cleared of being a sock [27] and told I behaved inappropriately (by Justin [28]) for calling Noclador a liar.

a) Justin made the unsubstantiated assertion that the profile of my edits fitted the profile of socks [29]. One coincidental contribution of material on a similar topic does not justify a profile match. Particularly seeing that my contributions were clearly verifiable and NPOV.

9. Noclador instigated an AN/I against me, which I was not informed of [30]

10. I wrote a statement on my user page about wrongful accusation and abuse & manipulation and how thorough investigations are needed in future {final version here}

11. Justin Instigated WQA [31]. He believes I have no position because I called my attacker a liar, which he rates as a personal attack.

a) People involved with the WQA were satisfied my comments did no harm (but they felt it sounded spiteful – they are there as defensive measures against future sock puppetry accusations) e.g.

b) One user who understood where I was coming from (User:Ed Fitzgerald) was politely criticized [32]. In his defense I do not think he was taking my side, just presenting an observation.

c) I toned down my statement [33] as a sign of good faith. But WQA was unresolved.

12. I instigated ANI regarding the inappropriate treatment I received [34].

13. Noclador canvassed his buddies for support, the several of whom, stated they did not read any of the accusations but believed that "Nocaldor must be right" and "Romaioi must be lying" (paraphrasing) e.g. (two other examples have no dif in the edit history – one was by Buckshot06, the other by Polarlys. link)

a) Ed Fitzgerald made a minor summary and was criticized again.[35][36] [37]

14. Noclaodor accused me again of being a sock, now User:Brunodam [38], and vandalized my user page [39].

a) Noclador canvassed his mates, and Ed Fitzgerald, to win their support by spreading logistically impossible slanderous insinuations without merit. His canvassing revealed that he has no regard for the previous findings and maintains that I am a sock of Generalmesse & Brunodam [40] [41] [42] (this one was not certain) [43] [44]. refer here for explanation

b) No investigation was initiated – signifying the accusation was launched for the sake of misdirection, or for the purpose of character assassination (misinterpreted or not User:Bahamut0013 stated it smacks of character assassination)[45]. In trying to convince a skeptical user he gave the impression that checkuser had been conducted for this second accusation and stated that I was GeneralMesse (yet another lie!) [46].

c) Another example of slanderous insinuations (copy edited): ... was massively pushing Italian nationalistic-revisionist POV in articles about the Balkans……added fascist propaganda to various articles, insulted other editors and so on……Romaioi fits nicely in this behavior - especially as Romaioi… is the name with which the Roman settlers in the Balcans described themselves after the partition of the Roman empire... so... who is so much interested in these people??. More damming proof that Romaioi and Brunodam are related...[47] [48]. More lies! And of course, his definition of Romaioi is wrong.

d) Another user made another unsubstantiated comment: Some of those edits have a link to Romaioi [49] There are no such links. The statement is baseless and the mere suggestion invites more slander. The merit of such a statement becomes apparent when the same user cites the complaint of abuse as unfounded when in the same passage he admits that he did not read the evidence, presented in plain English, by User:Romaioi, claiming TLDR [50]. If you take it upon yourself to police, then you need to take the responsibility of considering ALL the information.

15. It was once again demonstrated that I am not a sock (this time checkuser was not instigated, although I repeatedly called for it – instead I conducted an IP check). Someone actually compared the styles that I have long stated were different [51]

16. Common theme’s pertaining to Noclador’s campaign:

a) His assertions are inconsistent, misrepresentative and take statements out of context; where I come from, an OECD country, this is considered slander.

b) His only proof is his “say so”, which is never backed up with anything substantive. The real proof (backed by real evidence) has always been to the contrary.

c) Repeatedly petitions and canvasses for my expulsion (continued after innocence proved).

d) He never bothered to investigate, but rather adopted an unfounded (illogical) opinion, and based on that, felt he had the right to slander and denigrate my character.

e) HE WAS THE FIRST TO BEHAVE BELLIGERENTLY – because of his inaccurate pre-conceived ideas. And he shows he still holds onto these ideas through his deliberate false claims of my fascism, racism and travels around the world to post fascist propaganda.

Note 1: To claim that I over-reacted and behaved a certain way is a moot point, as it has already been acknowledged. It was established early on that I did not know the procedures, being a new user, and was of the belief that I was being subjected to a "free for all" attack. As per above, Noclador clearly had a belligerent attitude towards myself before he received any return correspondence. I do not believe that those who feel that I behaved inappropriately were aware of this sequence of events.

Note 2: As can be seen from a little observation, my ability to contribute to such topics have been stymied by Noclador’s unconstructive deletions and his campaign. Irrespective, if you would like to believe the BS that I have not been contributing, it is suggested that you DYR and start to check it out here & here. You can see how thorough I can be, and you know I always cite. That signifies how much more I would have been able to contribute if I had not been attacked.

Note 3: Some said Noclador did nothing wrong. (e.g e.g). Supposedly, slander and insult while presenting false evidence is ok in some countries. Where I come from, the behaviour I was on the receiving end is classed as slander and it is seen as very wrong. So if you think there is nothing wrong, I must really question your objectivity on the matter. Belligerent behavior towards someone before an investigation to determine their guilt/innocence is also wrong.

- if the claim of noclador, that others believe me to be a guy who goes by generalmesse [52] is true, then it indicates that others have not bothered to investigate the facts or read the evidence presented as defense that Wikipedia gives me the right to present. If true, this is rather uninspiring and flies in the face of wikipedia ethos. However, whilst I have not found any evidence that others continue to believe me to be a sock (the statement appears to be another devised fabrication), it would explain why some believe that Noclador has done nothing wrong.

Note 4: Based on Noclador’s own POV comments pertaining to Italian military prowess it can be just as easily concluded, using his own model of reasoning, that Noclodor is as much a sock as the Generelmesse, Brunodam, Giovannigiove etc [53] – definitively more so than me. Especially when you consider that he is in fact, Italian, and I was born and raised Australian.

Note 5: Someone thinks I am being punitive? Ummm… what about the repeated calls by Noclador to have me banned irrespective of my innocence? Regardless, its not about that.

The accuser has failed to demonstrate the ability to competently assess sockpuppetry with a NPOV, but rather has used slander, abuse derogatory conjecture and falsified information to petition for my guilt and banning. All due to one coincidental contribution in on subsection where I attempted to constructively improve on an alleged sock’s edits – a contribution which Noclador is unlikely to have read closely at all. That is hardly constructive on Noclador’s part. You can continue to refuse to acknowledge to evidence but the facts are there.

I will quote two passages from Jimbo Wales’ user page:

• Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elite, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be implemented to protect the community against real vandals (and there are real vandals, who are already starting to affect us), should be implemented on the model of "strict scrutiny". Point 2 of the Statement of Principles

• Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity. Point 7 of the Statement of Principles

Neither has been extended towards me. Want to ban me? Go for it. I am sure there are higher authorities in the form of senior foundation members that would not mind knowing about how poorly some newcomers have been treated here and how those who attempt to do good deeds (i.e. turn a POV topic into NPOV, in this case) go punished. If that has to be my contribution to Wikipedia, then so be it. The issue is not about me its about the of abuse and lack of respect by editors who attempt to be policemen.

Romaioi (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want someone to actually read this, you may want to condense it into about a paragraph. Mr.Z-man 15:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

They got into an edit war, got accused of being a sock, edit-warred some more, was found innocent of being a sock, some other user was canvassing, got called names, had an ANI thread made about them, got accused again of being a sock, was again found innocent and is now here to complain about their treatment because it contradicts something Jimbo once said, with the usual threat of "I am sure X would like to hear about this". ~ Ameliorate! _{U T C} @ 15:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Z-Man, this is a step-by-step event history. I tried summarizing last time. It got messed up with people raising issues that required more explanation. So I did this for the sake of record and to avoid ambiguity. But Ameliorate has already introduced some. That's not what I call a threat - perhaps that point is going to be ambiguous to some. Oh well. Plus there was no initial edit war, I had barely started editing. Romaioi (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And the administrators who read this board should ... Mr.Z-man 16:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Its up to them. But it was pretty clear to me early on that nothing would be done. I'm putting it up for record with the hope that people remember what Wikipedia is supposed to be about, rather than resorting to the means that my accuser did. Plus I have something more structured to refer to next time, rather than having to spend time re-writing a whole bunch of evidence. Romaioi (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Ameliorate!'s summary just above. This is all well-known material to those who followed the Generalmesse sock business. So far as I can tell Noclador has not pursued his sock charges about Romaioi since 12 August, so I don't see any new issue here requiring our attention. I personally do not believe Romaioi is a sock. Romaioi is not about to be banned so far as I know, so all parties should just calm down. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

So no one is guilty of anything except arguing and writing excessively long AN threads containing too much drama? That sum it up? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That is pretty much the size of it... Orderinchaos 19:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

To summarise, a sockpuppeteer (Generalmesse) created multiple sock puppets to "correct the image of Italians as poor fighters in WWII", during the clear out of sock puppets, Romaioi restored one of the sock's edits leading to suspicion he was a sock puppet but he was cleared by check user. Later another sock puppeteer (Brunodam) implicated Romaioi in what I suspect was a deliberate act leading to a second check user. He's over-reacted consistently since despite the edits of several editors to smooth it over and explain it was nothing personal. His talk page is now largely an attack page and nominated for WP:MFD. Can be a good and productive editor when he isn't obsessing about this, from the history of his Talk Page, he has spent the last week preparing the latest diatribe. Nobody is looking to ban him and he had he let it go all would have been forgotten about by now. Justin talk 09:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#User talk:Romaioi includes a long list of the number of times this has been elevated to WP:AN over the last three months. Justin talk 09:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Justin is nominating that my talk page be deleted, hence attempting to remove my right to discuss on my own space. The long list of WP:AN's WQA's etc that Justin is referring to were predominantly instigated his camp, signifying the one-sided belligerency against me. I have only instigated one AN/I. The current page is a continuation of that. The material I have currently presented is to serve as structured documentary defense in the event of continued accusations. Its like these guys (metaphorical) want to have a free hand in accusing me when the see fit, yet get extremely critical when I present defense - just because I presented defense. Romaioi (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) if your talk page is anything like your AN threads, then I don't blame him for wanting to delete. I strongly suggest you learn how to be brief and to the point and most importantly, that you make absolutely sure your problem is imporptant enough to warrant attention before posting here again. You might find that trolling AN too much will only get you nanned from AN. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Banned 'Gay Pornography vandal' is back

You should all be warned that the banned “Gay Pornography vandal” (ban date: March 6, 2008) is back on Wikipedia on a different IP range. Although he still has access to his old IP range, he has begun using multiple IP ranges. Commons has been wrestling with the issue for awhile.

Aside from death threats and his usual boogedy-boogedy, he is also back to working on the porn articles, specifically, his vendetta with Michael Lucas, which spread to me. It also spurred the creation of new meta tools to deal with cyberstalking.

This is the range he is working in currently. Can someone please softprotect that article (Michael Lucas (director)) for a month. There is a long, voluminous, and threat-laden history to this page and its talk page. I suggest the longer soft-protect, the better.

As everyone remembers, this person's boundless anger quickly transfers to other people, and disrupts the incident board endlessly with complaints from multiple editors. I will cross-post this on a few former targets to give them a heads up. --David Shankbone 16:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No offense here, but this post sounds more than a little paranoid. J jackson (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but what do you know? --David Shankbone 18:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I know the hallmarks of paranoia, most are present above. Denial and lashing out are common. J jackson (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Paranoid? Heh - how about this? J jackson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) hasn't't edited since September 2006, and then all of a sudden you re-appear and you remove my content off the Chihuahua page, you lied that I was canvassing about an arbcom I was never part of, and you come on here saying I'm paranoid. Sounds like a Checkuser candidate to me. --David Shankbone 19:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• David Shankbone, kindly stop reverting my legitimate edits to the Lucas bio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.122.39 (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify for anyone who hasn't been following this: This is a clear and longstanding harrassment and stalking campaign against David, including real life incidents. Large sections of IP space have been blocked repeatedly, along with a number of accounts. This is serious and is being treated as such. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Could this be related to the sockfarm detailed in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive302#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Hamilton? This morning I blocked 76.167.91.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) after he edited that archive page, revealing him to be the previous user of that IP who had been blocked for 6 months for being part of the sockfarm. Last week, that IP requested unblocking claiming to be a new user unrelated to the previous abuse, so I unblocked but watched the edits and sure enough he started in on gay porn articles, and then the alleged murder of Nathan Hamilton, so I reblocked for 6 months as it is pretty clearly a static IP. I don't believe this is in any of the IP ranges mentioned but if you look at the edits from that IP in articles like Karen Dior it seems awfully similar. --MCB (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

MCB, I agree with your assessment that David's problem is real and quite serious. The archive incident you raise is superficially similar but unrelated (except for the interest in gay pornography). If anyone wants to find a new moniker that distinguishes the two more clearly, then by all means do. The sockmaster on the latter one is Robin Redford. Durova^Charge! 16:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And today I learned that the serial vandal has his own nickname: Gay Pornography Vandal. Can we start attributing awesome titles to others? seicer | talk | contribs 13:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Nasty long-term IP-hopping vandals need to be given some kind of a name for convenience in referring to them. I note that David Shankbone's user talk has been kept under permanent semi-protection since March, due to this vandal, and it is unquestionable that the threat justifies a very active response by admins. In my opinion restoring an indefinite semiprotection on Michael Lucas (director) is also justified, now that this IP is evading some of the previous blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

 Note: Semi-protected (indef) at 01:32, 16 September 2008 by User:NawlinWiki. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Serious ban request

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Community ban of Mikoyan and all socks, clear consensus

---

 — Rlevse • Talk •  22:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Miyokan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ilya1166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Berkunt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Miyokan, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Miyokan.

Miyokan is an immense nuisance. He's the very worst of the Russian nationalist crowd not currently banned. He's racked up far more blocks than he's worth in his various incarnations, and his POV-pushing on Russian politics articles is just silly. I have taken him to AN before, asking for revert parole - that never happened, as the thread got hijacked, but the warning shot across the bows totally failed. Recently he's been involved in attempted outing and harassment of User:Biophys, a decent bloke who doesn't deserve this. (admins, please see the deletedrevs of my talk page, and indeed my talk page currently). I am requesting a full community ban here, as he really has exhausted all his chances. Moreschi (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's not too hard a decision. support ban. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please also see my message with links to Tiptoety.Biophys (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• This user is indeed extremely hard to deal with, and makes wikipedia very unpleasant. He treats wikipedia as a battleground. As for trying to publish private information on users, apart from outing Biophys, he recently did it again with another user. He was warned by Alex Bakharev quite clearly after the attempt to out User:Biophys on his talk page [54] on the 30th of August. Ten days later he tried to out me (again) here: [55] which I did not enjoy because the reason why I have a new account (and which I also announced to administrators) is because my old one carried a real-life name. Grey Fox (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Miyokan is very disruptive, and he completely disregarded Alex Bakharev's warning about outing others. Ostap 23:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Too many last chances thrown away, we don't need editors like this. --Rodhullandemu 23:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Banned for what? There is no justification for such a ban. Not agreeing with my edits is not a reason for a ban, I have never been blocked or placed on restriction because of the content of my edits. It is highly inappropriate that an administrator throws around accusations like these ("He's the very worst of the Russian nationalist crowd not currently banned...his POV-pushing on Russian politics articles is just silly."), no one has blocked me or found me guilty or of such behaviour, as another user noted when you said this kind of stuff before, it is an appallingly undeserved attack on editor's character. Moreschi has been been antagonistic towards me since I've encountered him - see [56] this discussion (scroll down to "Ultra nationalist alert"), where even I was defended by another editor, and in the content conflict he is referring to, my position was supported by other editors including an administrator[57]. With regards to "racked up far more blocks than he's worth", they were for breaking the 3RR rule (ie technicalities), and I have not been blocked since May (and do not plan on breaking it in the future). With regards to my previous account, I announced to the whole community when I stopped using User:Ilya1166 and started using User:Miyokan [58].

The double standards come in here. When I walked away from User:Miyokan to User:Berkunt (which I fully admitted I was the same user as soon as asked, I never tried to deny that I was the same user), User:Moreschi "outed" me [59], saying "One should not be allowed to walk away from a previous block-filled history simply by getting a new account and not telling anyone about it". That is the reason why ("walking away from a previous block-filled history" as Moreschi said), I reported another editor, who changed accounts straght after his 6th block. With regards to "outing" Biophys, I have done no such thing since I did after he used multiple accounts to vote on an image deletion on Wikemedia Commons (which even everyone thought was allowable until User:Alex Bakharev said out that Wikipedia and Commons are two different projects and therefore you can't mention what happens on Commons in Wikipedia)), I specifically asked Biophys permission [60], he didn't give it, so I didn't say anything.--Miyokan (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This threat is clearly serious harassment, not asking his permission as you claim. How can you possibly justify that especially when Bakharev told you to "never do it again" while warning you that it could have serious consequences? Ostap 05:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

And after he replied allowing me to show my alleged proof (he said, "What proof?"), I STILL didn't take up his challenge and further asked "so you consent to me showing my proof?"[61]. Bakharev said it is appropriate if there is a convincing reason to do so. Of course I would not mention it for no reason, nor was I even the user that even brought it up there. Other users believed a user (Biophys) to be hiding a conflict of interest - an important note, I was not even the one who brought up Biophys' "Georgianness", nor even the second. User:DonaldDuck did [62], followed by User:Russavia [63].--Miyokan (talk) 05:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Being Georgian is not a COI that needs to be exposed. In that AFD, Biophys says Although this is hardly relevant, do you think I am a Georgian "ethnically" or I am a Georia citizen? He asked what you *think*; he didnt ask what you can *prove*.

Proving that someone is a certain ethnicity or nationality implies a threat of exposing their identity.

Someones ethnicity and nationality should not be repeated unless the user is disclosing that fact on their userpage, or are mentioning it in recent discussions. If someone complains about you mentioning their ethnicity or nationality, then you have mis-read the situation, and should apologise immediately. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed the deleted edits, and agree that this attempt at exposing the identity of another editor was extremely inappropriate, and a very serious matter. What is more, it was unnecessary. I recommend either a topic ban on all topics relating to Western Europe, a long block, or a shorter block if someone is willing to mentor this user (I might depending on how the user responds here). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment If Biophys did not sockpuppet on Commons, evidence which I stumbled across about a week ago completely out of chance, and given some crews absolute desire to claim that anything that promotes their anti-Russian views (such as the 2008 Red Square demonstration) is notable and deserves inclusion in WP, this situation would not have arisen. I believe it is highly inappropriate for User:Moreschi to make the comment he did above (very worst of the Russian nationalist crowd not currently banned) considering my own experience with Miyokan's edits is his own desire (and rightly so) to present Russian history on WP which contains the Russian POV (not entire Russian POV, but balanced POV), this seems to me to be nothing more than a gang-up to get rid of an "adversary". --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 10:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose ban unless the assumed identity of Biophys would be put by Miyokan on any public forum (on or offwiki). As far as I can tell the "outing of Biophys" was not intended as an action in WR or ED manner there the real life identity is used to create real life trouble for the user. The "outing" was partially caused by inappropriate using of multiple accounts by Biophys (although on another project). He also seems to bait Miyokan into this action by demanding the proof of his alleged ethnicity. I agree that Miyokan's action on public disclosure of assumed Biophys identity was a very bad idea. I hope we have limited the damage so far but if it repeated I would strongly suggest an indef ban. On the other hand I see no possible real life troubles for Biophys from mentioning his assumed ethnicity. I agree with John that it is not a COI worth mentioning but certainly not a bannable offence either. Needless to say that if found that he used his knowledge of RL identity of any wikiuser to hurt him in real life I would support an immediate block.

In general I have monitored activities of Miyokan for quite some time. He is certainly an opinionated editor partially inspired by the national pride. In the past he had problems with edit warring and licensing of images taken taken from Flikr. He seems to improve a great deal in the last few months (since May) showing his ability to learn. I think he is much more asset for the project than liability, although now and again may require some administrative attention. In many way everything I have said about Miyokan is true for Biophys (with exchange of the "national pride" to "criticism of Putin"). Anyway I would want to keep both of them for the project, they are good working as a team cancelling each other's bias Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I find this disingenuous. All Biophys did on commons was foolishly to use his real name. When he found that his affairs on en and commons began to interact he (quite understandably) talked about the en account in the 3rd person on commons and pretended it wasn't him. I find it hard to blame him for this. It is also disingenuous to paint Biophys as the POV-pushing counterpart to Miyokan: sure, Biophys has his biases, but they're much saner and much less far-out than some of Miyokan's egregious nuttery. Moreschi (talk) 11:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Niyazov was killed because of gas (Russia is paying market rates) and a belief in the claim that Putin is a paedohpile is not nuttery? I guess your definition of nuttery differs to mine, and hence what you just wrote is fact enough that this is nothing more than a gang up to get rid of someone who does not subscribe to their anti-Russian views. What Biophys did was not simply letting out his own name, he engaged in sockpuppetry on Commons. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 12:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you make the 'paedophile' claim right up. Anyway Miyokan was warned after this 'sockpuppetery' was known, so that's no reason to violate warnings from administrators. Grey Fox (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I made that up did I? Funny, because when Biophys said that claims that Putin is a paedophile is "probably true" he mentioned your alter-ego in the same breathe. Here's the evidence. And you guys are calling Miyokan a nutter? This is beyond ridiculous. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 12:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

So you didn't, just out of curiosity, how did you know of this comment without having been involved in any discussion on that article? As for the specific comment, I don't know in what way Biophys meant that, but such a claim doesn't come out of the blue and was a reply to Putin publically kissing a boys belly. What matters though is that this was on a talk, and it's edits that matter. Grey Fox (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Because I have followed certain discussions. We all know what Biophys meant, that he believes Putin is a paedophile. I have yet to see any diffs which show Miyokan's so-called nuttery. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 13:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to show that? Moreschi concluded this himself. Besides, what's the point? Miyokan and you yourself will simply violently defend any of the allegations, in the same style as you agressively defend anything related to Russia. I checked your userpage, and you don't seem much different. You even have a box up making fun of the murder of Alexander Litvinenko. There's several policies against that, such as WP:CIVILITY and WP:ETIQUETTE. Grey Fox (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I violently defend anything related to Russia? Hmmm, I'd like to know where I violently defend Russia in anything? Balance is what it is all about, and I will defend balance till I am blue in the face. As to userboxes, I also have a userbox which states I have a sense of humour, a point obviously lost on some. ;) --Tovarishch Komissar ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 14:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The ironic thing is that User:Miyokan put a lot of effort into preventing the unbanning of a good contributor who had civility problems not long ago.[64]. Alex Bakharaev (above) was the one who proposed the unban and what followed was a long list of archived uncivil comments and an appeal by Miyokan to prevent this from happening. The outing of users is not just in violation of policy, but extremely uncivil as well. And that's what Miyokan always is, very uncivil, which creates a constant atmosphere of passive agressiveness on the many eastern-europe articles he edits. What's more is that there are discretionary sanctions in place for East European topics[65] which apply here as well. Grey Fox (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Biophys outted himself on a Wikimedia project, Miyokan didn't out him, and has perhaps misinterpreted what Biophys said in the AfD, but as Miyokan himself noted, he has not outed him. So what are we here for, apart from getting rid of an adversary? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 13:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

So you pretty much deny everything? Miyokan did out Biophys, and was warned quite clearly because of it. All references to the outing were deleted and are only visible to administrators. A week later, he outed TWO users again. Grey Fox (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"What matters though is that this was on a talk, and it's edits that matter." - Moreschi was talking about our "biases", not our edits. So far you haven't provided any evidence of my so-called "nuttery" views, and you won't find any.--Miyokan (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"The ironic thing is that User:Miyokan put a lot of effort into preventing the unbanning of a good contributor who had civility problems not long ago". That doesn't have anything to do with this case. Unlike the user there, I didn't evade any permanent bans, nor did I say "fuck" non stop and call people "fucking idiots"[66] or "stupid vandal fucks"[67] like that user.--Miyokan (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No, but civility doesn't end there. You never assume good faith, often brand peoples edits as 'vandalism' when they're not, threaten them with "final warnings" and out them (aka harassment) without any respect for other users. Grey Fox (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

So you've resorted to posting general accusations that can be applied to anyone including yourself, when I haven't been blocked or found guilty of none of this, nor even warned by an administor.--Miyokan (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Bare facts to consider: on August 30, 2008, Miyokan (talk · contribs) harassed Biophys by publishing (what he thought was) the latter's real name and other personal details on User talk:Biophys and User talk:Moreschi (read both, if you are in doubt about his intentions). All the contributions have been deleted [68] and Miyokan has been warned [69] by Alex Bakharev. Now, after the warning, on September 12, Miyokan goes on threatening Biophys with disclosing his identity: [70]. In my opinion this is enough, yet he has caused much more troubles. He (Miyokan + Ilya1166 (talk · contribs) + Berkunt (talk · contribs)) has got eight blocks for edit-warring, during the last block in May attempted block evasion as Berkunt, who started editing a day before Miyokan's block expired, and has an impressive record of copyvio image uploads (as discussed at User talk:Moreschi/My Archive 10#Berkunt/Miyokan again and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Miyokan). This is the case regardless of Miyokan's POV-pushing. Colchicum (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The "Berkunt" cases have already been taken care of, and can't be considered in the context of this discussion. The image uploads have stopped. Basically all that is the problem here is a threat to out an already outted editor. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 14:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not just a threat, he actually did it[71]. Grey Fox (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Russavia, apparently you have had no chance to read the deleted contributions on Biophys and Moreschi's talk pages, so I don't see how this discussion can be useful. Basically he is a very problematic contributor, and he still is. Colchicum (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"Actually did" nothing, I didn't post any evidence, and 2 other users already said Biophys was Georgian before me [72] [73], I was not even the one who brought up Biophys' "Georgianness", nor even the second. Even after baiting me by demanding the proof of his alleged ethnicity, I STILL didn't take up his challenge and further asked his consent. As Alex Bakharev said, there was no intention to cause harm in real life nor any possible real life troubles for Biophys from mentioning his assumed ethnicity, and Biophys "baited" me by demanding the proof of his alleged ethnicity.--Miyokan (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice try. But the facts speak for themselves. Colchicum (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You confirmed it though, even though you were told explicitly not to do so. The fact that you don't admit your fault here proves again you never learn anything from your mistakes. Grey Fox (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

He did not do any outing on this occasion. He was somewhat baited by Biophys, but stopped short of doing it again. Again, you are all simply trying to get rid of an adversary, and that is plainly clear going by certain talk pages. And the message he left on Biophys talk page is in relation to messages which Biophys left on my talk page all but accusing me of supporting "nuclear terrorism", something I don't have to answer and removed, and which Biophys again posted. As I mentioned, there's another infobox on my talk page, and its a point which is clearly lost on many people. --Tovarishch Komissar ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 16:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

How much evidence do you need? Besides he also started outing me by publishing my personal info[74] (as well using uncivil language while doing it), after he was already warned never to out people in public. As for your userbox, I take it you find murder hilarious? Well some users don't, especially those who enjoyed reading the victims work. I'll assume good faith and assume it's indeed an attempt at humour but you should probably still remove it per WP:ETIQUETTE. Grey Fox (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

What's that evidence of exactly? He didn't out him. Two users (one of them being me) commented that he is Georgian. That was not Miyokan. As to yourself, you likely outted yourself, in much the same way that Berkunt outted himself. As to User:Moreschi and his comments. Like I've said previously, opinions are like arseholes; everyone has one. I'd like him to explain his comments in this discussion, because frankly, they in themselves are clearly uncivil. --Tovarishch Komissar ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The link I showed you shows that Miyokan also told that "he is Georgian", even though he was explicitly asked not to do so. As for my previous account, it carried a real life name which is not recommended[75], which was one of the reasons why I took up a new username (without secrecy towards admins). Miyokan then outed me, thinking I violated policy (I didn't) and was then asked to "stop the trolling" by an admin[76]. This was _before_ the warning from Bakharev. So after the warning from Bakharev (which specifically stated "Please avoid any statements that can be seen as outing of real identity of wikipedia editors especially those who maintain their anonymity unless there is a really convincing reason to do so.") he started outing me again as well as spreading around my real life name. Grey Fox (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

After consideration, I have removed these comments. The history is still there, but to be fair it is best they are removed. My apologies.--Miyokan (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse - Tiptoety ^talk 17:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

More about outing. To be fair, there are also other Russian users who acted like Miyokan. For example, User:ellol came earlier to my talk page with this message translated by Bobbani. He uses my real first name ("Hi Andrei" - not in the title of his message but below) and asks me to be more cooperative with regard to edits about Russian government. He basically tells: "I know who you are!" after making this coded threat on Russian semi-criminal slang. Well, I do not take this too seriously and edit articles like Alexander Litvinenko and Web brigades (the latter article is almost destroyed by a group of certain users), but this is still a reason to remain anonymous in WP. Perhaps for that reason I was too apprehensive here. Coded messages...Biophys (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

And more outing by Miyokan. Biophys (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. These users have ignored warnings given to them by admins, they need to be blocked. Ostap 00:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That was done by myself Biophys; before I was aware of any of this, so don't blame Miyokan for that, that has nothing to do with him, and you'll see I removed it almost straight away. Unlike your own WP:BLP accusations of Putin being a paedophile, which you have not addressed, and feel deserves an answer. --Tovarishch Komissar ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 03:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Serious ban request (section break)

• Alex Bakharev said: "Oppose ban unless the assumed identity of Biophys would be put by Miyokan on any public forum (on or offwiki)". According to this evidence, Miyokan indeed provided personal information about me off wiki to User:Russavia, apparently by email. Alex, would you now change your mind?Biophys (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • • I asked Alex at his talk page to answer.Biophys (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• That email was sent after Russavia's comment, see the time stamps.--Miyokan (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No, he did not Biophys. As stated I stumbled across entirely by chance the sockpuppetting on commons episode. The email which he sent to me was in relation to sources for an article we were considering writing. By the way, I see you are avoiding the Putin being a paedophile remarks made by yourself. Care to enlighten us all on that? --Tovarishch Komissar ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 03:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is for discussing a community ban of disruptive user Miyokan. Please stay on topic. Ostap 04:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Harrassing other users like this is most certainly grounds for a ban in my book. krimpet✽ 04:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Getting back to this. Can I ask a question of several editors here (they know who they are). Can you all honestly say that this is not an attempt to simply get rid of an adversary?

For I can recall that the editor who initiated this discussion called Miyokan on this very discussion the very worst of the Russian nationalist crowd and then proceeding to call him a nutter demonstrating he clearly has a problem with WP:CIVIL, and that should be looked at.

Then we also have Grey_Fox, who came to being immediately after his previous username was blocked for the umpteenth time, and yet nothing was done about that.

Yet here we are, after an editor (Biophys) was caught out redhand sockpuppeting on Commons and Miyokan threatened to out him. He was warned about outting him, which of course is ok, although this would never have occurred if said editor wasn't stupid enough to sockpuppet and get caught in the first place.

And then in the AfD in question, it was actually another editor who brought up "Georgianness" of an editor, which I then commented on, and Miyokan came into it at the back end, and stopped short of doing any outting. Then there is a message which was left on Biophys' userpage, done as a joke by all accounts in response to messages left on my talk page, and you want to ban Miyokan?

An editor who clearly has his own civility problems, an editor who has partaken in evasion in bans, and well, let this link] speak for itself. If not,

I wanted to post here so Mr. Bot would fuck off[83]

what the fuck[84]

Fuck you Wikipedia.[85]

Oh Osli, you one silly fucker, you can kiss myass[86]

Yes, note this. You can kiss my ass too. [87]

Blanked page and replaced with lol wikipedia[88]

Another Fuck you wikipedia [89]

God dammn. WHAT THE FUCK?[90]

The same editors who are calling for Miyokan to be banned for something he wasn't responsible for and didn't do, are the same editors who came to the undeserved defence of that foul-mouthed tirade.

It is clearly evident, and I hope that admins can clearly see, this is nothing more than a gang-up on Miyokan to get rid of an adversary.

Possible solution, and this will go to show the sincerity of all editors involved. If Miyokan was to apologise to Biophys, all sides stop this nonsense, we move ahead and put all this shit behind us for once and for all. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 05:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Incivilty of another user who was blocked by Alex Bakharev has nothing to do with Miyokan or me. Placing an irrelevant slander here is a disgrace. Can anyone of admins please remove or hide irrelevant segments of this discussion?Biophys (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I can assure that this is not "just an attempt to get rid of an adversary" yes. Miyokan's trolling creates a constant atmosphere of passive agressiveness, I've already seen users leaving or wanting to leave because of his behaviour. As for "nothing done about me" concerning my previous blocks, I was allowed to change to a new account, it's in the policies and I had informed administrators. I also didn't use a proxy or anything to disguise myself.

We've already been over the "sockpuppeting of biophys", that's no excuse to put someone's private info in public. Miyokan did out Biophys again, and concerning the message left on the userpage for Biophys which "was a joke all along", I don't believe you. I've never ever seen Miyokan make jokes and it looked pretty serious to me.

As for the "foul mouthed tirade", he was a great editor, and there were many admin's who wanted to unban him. The quotes you copied from Miyokan were from his old account for which he was banned in the first place. He had problems back then. What's a fact though is that this user had never been uncivil towards Miyokan and they hardly ever engaged in discussion, yet, when an unban request shows up Miyokan starts writing large amount of paragraphs, advocating a permaban, which to me seemed exactly like an attempt to "get rid of an adversary".

There won't be an apology. There has never been apologies from Miyokan, and if there ever will they will very likely be fake. I've personally had quite enough of this user, and let it be a lesson for everyone to not follow in his footsteps. Grey Fox (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Grey Fox, leave him alone. Let's not hijack the discussion. Colchicum (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright I'm sorry. Russavia if you have questions you can use my talk page. Grey Fox (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Miyokan has broken several very important rules and is still unrepentant. Whether some people here like him or not is not important. Don't follow his steps, by the way. This is very dangerous. Colchicum (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban, there is zero tolerance for this kind of thing, it is a breach of privacy, and in this case has some nasty racist overtones. Martintg (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I think several issues need to be looked at separately here. As far as his other accounts, there is a non-issue. He never edited from more than one account at a time and even publicly announced his old accounts. Would be easier for all of us if this matter is to rest because there are other by far more important issues.

If he indeed publicized private information about Biophys, there is zero tolerance for such stuff if that information was not in the plain view. What I mean by the plain view, sometimes the info is so obvious that by repeating it no new info is uncovered, just like when the new account displays all the typical behavior of an otherwise notorious user (Bonaparte or Kittybrewster reincarnations come to mind.) If, however, the private info requires a reasonable effort to uncover (just like certain WR individuals go after their high profile targets by thoroughly sifting through their contributions) its publication should be oversighted and result in an immediate ban. I do not see this being the case here (please correct me if I am wrong.)

Miyokan seems to be publicly pondering publishing such info. That's also unacceptable and he either has to rescind such threats or be blocked (with the talk page protected) until he does in an email to an admin.

There is absolutely no justification for a ban in his mainspace editing. He is biased but, unlike many POV pushers, he sources his edits and does not fall into sterile edit warring or copyvios for several months. So, Biophys' privacy should be the only issue we are discussing. --Irpen 17:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Again, this is just not the whole story. Miyokan has eight blocks for 3rr under two different accounts. To claim that he doesn't do sterile revert-warring is just wrong. AFAIK there have also been issues with copyvio. It is also wrong to claim that there is no issue with account usage here. Granted, when he left Ilya116 to Miyokan he made that public knowledge, but it was not public knowledge when he moved from Miyokan to Berkunt, and only once the case had been proved did he come clean: that was a clear-cut case of attempted evasion of scrutiny. And now he's engaging in outing. Neither was it public knowledge at all that X account on commons and Biophys were the same person: Miyokan deliberately dragged that fact into the open in order to make Biophys' real name public knowledge. Moreschi (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Moreschi, please get your facts straight and actually read my posts if you respond to them. --Irpen 18:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Russavia

• A question Does this constitute harassment along the same lines? Colchicum (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. It seems that User:Russavia joined the outing/harassment campaign initiated by Miyokan. I am going to ask editors in Biology/Chemistry section to check if this aricle about a biological database satisfy WP:NPOV, WP:Notability, and WP:Verifiability and make corrections if necessary. It is fine in my opinion, as it refers to numerous academic publications and includes "criticism" section.Biophys (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment on database article - I have examined this article and can verify that it is an accurate and neutral description of a biological database. These appear to me as politically-motivated accusations of a COI; such objections when a scientist provides Wikipedia with an accurate description of what they have published in the literature are particularly unhelpful in our efforts to get more experts to contribute to the encyclopedia. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Another question, Russavia you said before "As stated I stumbled across entirely by chance the sockpuppetting on commons episode." as a defense that you did not receive the personal information about Biophys from Miyokan. Then why did you later post this personal information about Biophys supposedly being Georgian? If you had seen the episode, you've also seen Bakharev's warning. You also personally warned Miyokan[77] so why did you do it anyway? Grey Fox (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with the original proposal to ban the outing, pov pushing, russiophiles. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I've blocked Russavia for 2 weeks for that one. And done a selective delete/restore on Biophys' talk page. Moreschi (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Good block. Also, I am seeing consensus for a ban here (of Miyokan). Tiptoety ^talk 23:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Miyokan to match this block. I think it is obvious that Miyokan and Russavia acted as a team here and the madness should be stopped Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Russavia, confirmed sock of Miyokan?

I warned him exactly a year ago... I should have followed-up and verified. Miyokan and Russavia Berkunt are confirmed socks (today's CU findings). fayssal / Wiki me up® 03:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

One more... user:Berkunt. fayssal / Wiki me up® 03:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• If Russiavia is the confirmed sock of Miyokan, should a more serious sanction be imposed than given by his compatriot Alex Bakharev? Martintg (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I have just indef blocked all three accounts (Russiavia, Miyokan, and Berkunt) Fayssal, do we know if Ilya1166 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is involved in anyway? Tiptoety ^talk 05:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Are we sure that they are sockpuppets? It seems likely. Ostap 05:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Not 'likely' otherwise I'd have not said 'confirmed'. Same IPs, same place plus, of course, the same traits and the bit sockpuppeting history. Ilya66 is the account I referred to when I warned him last year but that stopped editing just after the warning. fayssal / Wiki me up® 06:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Miyokan himself confirmed that he was Ilya1166, e.g. this edit [78]. --Folantin (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
          • It was that which prompted my warning as he used them both to edit Aeroflot and Russia. Now, I understand. He got 3 accounts and he may have got confused which explains these 3 successive edits of him using different accounts. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 09:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Wow. Sort of very hard to believe. I thought Russavia was a separate long-standing user from Australia (and he seemed pretty neutral before the 2008 South Ossetia war), and I am still not entirely convinced that he is linked to Miyokan. But you know better. Maybe he lent his account to Miyokan, though. Russavia's behavior indeed changed very dramatically about a month ago. Colchicum (talk) 07:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Russian aviation" and an anagram of Mikoyan (Soviet aircraft). There's your connection. --Folantin (talk) 08:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you both, Fayssal for the CU and Tiptoey for the ban. I should have spotted this before...do you do crosswords, Folantin? Nice catch, all :) The only issue now is we'll have both Miyokan and User:M.V.E.i. merrily socking away like there's no tomorrow...I wonder if in Miyokan's case a range block could shut him out with no collateral damage? I have already been told this is not possible for M.V.E.i., whom Alex B and I usually catch on behaviour anyway. Moreschi (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, a catch indeed. But on a more serious note, this needs to be cleared up. --Irpen 16:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Russavia unblocked/No sockpuppetry

fter 3 times rechecking, I've just unblocked Russavia. I surely must have confused some of your personal IPs starting with 121.X.X.X with Miyokan socks' IPs which are similar. The second time I was getting "timed out". It was until the third time that I could get it. Yes, you edit from different places. The account of Russavia is therefore being unblocked. Sorry for all the mess. Miyokan is kept blocked as well as his sock Berkunt. fayssal / Wiki me up® 10:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

However, the reason for which Moreschi blocked him for 2 weeeks (i.e. harassment of Biophys) remains. Shouldn't that shorter block be restored? Colchicum (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Reinstated Moreschi's original 2 week block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(EC) :Done by Future Perfect. Thanks for the note Colchicum. fayssal / Wiki me up® 10:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reblocked Miyokan to his original 14 day block Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Now, in conclusion (I hope this madness has stopped), shouldn't somebody warn another participant of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Red Square demonstration? I mean this diff specifically. Colchicum (talk) 11:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

However, too bad that Russavia is still unrepentant ([79]), so perhaps I am unreasonably optimistic. Colchicum (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

FayssalF, just for the sake of clarity, would you mind providing all the accounts that are confirmed and who their sockmasters are. I think we are still all left a bit confused here. Tiptoety ^talk 19:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have run a check.  Confirmed that Miyokan and Berkunt are one user. Very  Unlikely that either is related to Russavia. Ilya1166 is  Stale. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. So really these results are nothing new, Berkunt (talk · contribs) was known to be a sock of Miyokan (talk · contribs) for a while now and has not edited in quite a while so there really is no sockpuppetry here. Tiptoety ^talk 20:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What the hell happened here?

I said several times, both here and at the Miyokan's talk, that their treatment of Biophys is unacceptable and deserves a block. But the issue of socking allegation that led to indefinite blocks is too important in its own right to put it aside as we need to guarantee that such things do not happen anymore.

I noticed Miyokan's edits for several months (although there are very few articles where our editing overlapped) and noted Russavia in my periphery vision too, mostly in articles that I never edited. This very superficial familiarity was enough for me to have no doubt that these are completely different people. Nothing in common in their writing style, edit patterns and very little overlap in articles they edit.

What kind of "investigation" could have concluded otherwsie? Whose investigation was it and how was it conducted? And this is in addition to the fact that, as we now know, they live and edit from completely different parts of the world.

To preserve credibility of the future sockpuppetry investigations, this needs to be cleared up. --Irpen 15:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A similar recent incident with ellol

As a side note, there was also User:ellol who came recently to my talk page with this message translated by Bobbani. He uses my real first name (not in the title of his message but below) and asks me to be more cooperative with regard to edits about Russian government. He basically tells: "I know who you are!" after making this coded threat on Russian semi-criminal slang a few months earlier. But this is probably not related to Miyokan.Biophys (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Can we get back on topic? The issue here is Miyokan and his constant disruption. It looks like there is consensus for a community block. Ostap 20:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree, this thread is continually changing directions and most of them are not productive. I am seeing a pretty strong consensus here for a ban, but seeing as I am fairly involved here I am going to let another admin (or even a 'crat) make the final call. Tiptoety ^talk 20:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree, we are not going to witch-hunt. Colchicum (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

An attempt to summarize

Please everyone, familiarize yourself with issues on which you opine. We a discussing a community ban, no less, and this is a serious matter.

Let's first get the facts straight. On Ilya1166 and Berkunt being Miyokan's socks, the issue is stale. Facts are very clear. Ilya1166 account stopped editing and announced that s/he is going to edit as Miyokan. Several months later Miyokan attempted to covertly change a username, that is to start editing with a different username (Berkunt) while abandoning the Miyokan account. After a while several users, Moreschi included, recognized Miyokan's familiar editing style and after the discussion of which Miyokan was not made aware of, submitted checkuser request which was returned as confirmed. However, still no concurrent editing from two accounts was found to have occurred. Moreover, when Berkunt was at last made aware of the suspicion and his/her input was requested, s/he readily confirmed that s/he indeed started to edit under a new username.

There is still no consensus on whether the editors should be allowed to simply abandon the old account and start anew, or to be precise, how badly the person should behave to be denied a clean start. Moreschi felt that Miyokan's blog log was too important to miss and made a short block of Berkunt with a blocking summary pointing to a log under the name Miyokan. Miyokan decided to return to the account name s/he is best known. I hope this would finally clear up the air regarding a socking charge. This is by far not the worst socking that amounts to a ban.

As for harassment of Biophys that Miyokan undertook together with Russavia, this was clearly unacceptable. I was shocked too. It fully deserves a harsh penalty and they are now both blocked for 2 week with the offending statements being deleted from histories. (For the record, I said multiple times that I support those blocks.) If some say that 2 weeks is not enough, we can discuss whether their public pondering with outing an opponent deserve a harsher penalty than two weeks. But let's have this discussion not stray off-topic and bring in sockpuppetry. There is no blockworthy sockpuppetry involved whatsoever. --Irpen 21:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A minor or not so minor correction: Berkunt did evade a block: on May 15 Miyokan was still blocked and Berkunt was active, but it was discovered weeks later and he has never been blocked for this. Perhaps it is not blockworthy now, but it took place. Colchicum (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this has all been covered a few headings up, not to mention all the users that have support/opposed the ban. I think that consensus has been determined here and was done so before their was the accidental confirmation of sockpuppetry. Like I have been saying in the last few headings, it is time for someone (uninvolved) to closed this thread and determine consensus and please for the sake of god no more subheadings. Tiptoety ^talk 21:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Colchicum: Miyokan was blocked on May 6, 2008 for 10 days by Moreschi. he started to edit as Berkunt on May, 15. One day before the expiration of a 10 day block. Yes, technically a violation. But to be fair, he sat out 90% of his block time and this is really a non-issue now, 4 months from then.

Re Tiptoety: I started this subtopic simply for a greater clarity. Other than Miyokan's harassment of Biophys (totally inexcusable) for which he is now on the well-deserved 2 weeks block, I, personally, see no block-worthy behavior. There is no socking to speak about. Do you disagree? Or is your point that two weeks is just not enough for his behavior towards Biophys? I won't argue with that. The tariff for harassment should be steep. A month? Perhaps. Permaban? Personally I don't see a permaban is justified but, to be fair, I was not a victim of this, so it is hard for me to judge. I wonder what Biophys thinks.

Another option is to place Miyokan (and Russavia) on notice that once his current block expires, any activity that may hint to him pondering outing of his opponents would result in an immediate ban. I would not mind going one step further even and to prohibit him from ever speculating other user's ethnicities. This is a second time he calls an editor "a Georgian" and ethic talk of any kind does not help us build encyclopedia.

But a permaban right now? I don't see it whatever Moreschi says about me being a "blocking factor". --Irpen 23:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I am seeing behavior (the stalking and harassment) that in no way helps the project, and this thread is evidence of just that. Unlike most, I feel such users should not be welcomed to continue contributing to the project as often that leads to such users as Biophys to feel that their attacker has just gotten away with months of harassment. I have received a few emails to this extent, stating that because of Miyokan's behavior it has caused Biophys to question whether or not he will remain here. So I see it this way, either we loose a editor who has constructively contributed to the project because of harassment, or we loose the harasser. I really hope the community does not reward such behavior with a two week slap on the wrist, but if a permaban becomes no longer a option think some other form of ban would be in order (ie: Stay away from Biophys; do not make any form of comment that may seem as harassment/outing, and maybe even go as far as banning him from articles that relate to Russia).

In regards to Russivia, while I feel that he has been disruptive as well, he has not been to the extent that Miyokan has, and I am confident that he will no longer behave the way he did once his block expires. Tiptoety ^talk 00:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Irpen. Also, could someone review Russavia's block because from what I can see (and I don't have access to information that has been oversighted) the block doesn't seem right. He was trying to stop the "outing" here. My understanding is that he was blocked for posting a COI warning, however this is perfectly reasonable. His unblock request has been rejected but the admin dealing with his unblock request seems to be under the impression that Russavia was socking. Perhaps Russavia could send his evidence of a COI to an uninvolved admin and the admin could evaluated whether to unblock? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The block was performed because Russivia did the same thing Miyokan did, and was not done on the idea that he is/was abusing multiple accounts. If you look over his talk page history you will find that there have been many unblock requests that have been declined, and really he just needs to sit his two week block out (and it appears he is now willing to do so). Tiptoety ^talk 00:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The alleged conflict of interest allegation was not reasonable it was part of a creepy stalking/outing/harassment capmaign. Ostap 00:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Tiptoety, I only see one unblock request on Russavia's user talk page, however it appears that there are gaps in his user talk page history. Regardless, the admin dealing with the unblocking request says "Additionally, the evidence provided below is pretty convincing" (see the decline reason section here) in which he is referring to the sockpuppet allegations. I believe his unblock should be reviewed. Ostap, was there a possible COI or not? If there was not, then no one was outed. If there was, then Russavia was following the policy and should not have been blocked. It seems that he was blocked as it is believed the COI notice was made in bad faith. Given that he has no prior blocks I believe we should WP:AGF. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason you do not see the other unblock request is because they have been deleted. They were deleted during the course of removal of personal information (though the declined unblock requests are still available to admins). Tiptoety ^talk 02:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on the information that is available and hasn't been deleted, this looks like a bad block. There's no evidence that Miyokan and Russavia were working together in any way and Russavia looks like he tried to talk Miyokan out of what he was doing. Posting COI notices are within policy. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The relevant information is not publicly awailable anymore, so there is no point in discussing this. Doesn't it strike you as notable that all the admins here, including Alex Bakharev, though they may disagree about the sanctions, agree that it was an attempt of harassment? Hopefully, based on the information that hasn't been deleted it is impossible to understand what happened there now. Colchicum (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• I support a ban. The chronic 3RR violations, the socking, and the outing (or threat to) of other editors being the final straw. I don't understand why Alex Bakharev prematurely jumped in to issue a two week block on his compatriot, when consensus appears to be for a ban, while Irpen seems to be attempting to re-open and prolong the discussion. Martintg (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• I also support a ban. Note that users who are defending Miyokan here, such as Russavia, Irpen and Pocopocopocopoco are long-time comrades of Miyokan and share the same pro-russia editing style, so it's only natural they come here to his defense. I've seen Miyokan getting blocked before only to return as completely the same, and also experienced users who are quite fed up of him and wanting to leave wikipedia just because of that.

I've also counted a concensus of 8 admins for a ban, and 1 against. The one against is Alex Bakharev who (apart from being a good admin) is known for not advocating bans in general, and has given Miyokan a barnstar in the past. The 8 admins for a ban have made their opinion quite clear, and I believe I've only not heard Colchicum flat out say that he deserves a ban now.

Also note that months ago a similar thread like this had started, where Moreschi requested a community imposed 1 revert limit for Miyokan. The concensus back then was in favour of this sanction, but it didn't go through because the thread got hijacked/archived before it happened. Grey Fox (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

GF, you seem to think that I am an admin. Fortunately, I am not. I am reluctant to vote here, because I am emphatically not neutral w.r.t. Miyokan's POV, but you can easily guess what my vote would be. Colchicum (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Miyokan has been extremely disruptive in the past. He has numerous blocks for a variety of offenses and each time returns with no change in his behaviour. Now he has pretty much driven away productive editor Biophys (which was clearly what they intended to do by outing him). How much longer do we have to put up with this? Ostap 01:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Irpen asked me what I think. If that was my personal business, I would tell: "1RR restriction and civility parole". But this not my personal business. This is a collective project. Myiokan wasted too much time and nerves of many good people here. And he did very little content work in WP. So, I have no other choice but to agree with Moreschi about the ban. If he was making significant content contributions like this banned user, I would tell: yes, please, let him go. But he did not.Biophys (talk) 03:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Miyokan has long since spent his credit and should be shown the door. It's significant that Russavia got into trouble after he started imitating Miyokan's behaviour. If we tolerate Miyokan's antics then it only sends the wrong message out to other users who might be tempted to go down that route. We turned a blind eye to Miyokan's "Georgians-under-the-bed" paranoia for a long time because it merely seemed ridiculous. Now he's crossed the line into "outing" alleged Georgians we should put a stop to his activities. So I advocate a ban for Miyokan. The others should be warned by his example. --Folantin (talk) 08:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Irpen makes a very clear and concise summary. I agree the two week block of Miyokan is a very good start, and would support a topic ban, leading to a permaban to end the continued harassment. MBisanz ^talk 12:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I have to disagree with you here MBisanz. I think that a two week block is exactly what Miyokan, a slap on the wrist like he has gotten all the other times, and the go ahead to do it again. As for the idea of a topic ban, why waste the communities resources? We will only be right back here months later. Tiptoety ^talk 22:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

2 weeks is nothing really, especially not for a 9th block. Miyokan has been blocked for 2 weeks before and it didn't change anything. Grey Fox (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this is his 9th block (8 others for edit-warring) and the second attempt of harassment, and he was explicitely warned not to do so before. The 2w block would be a very good start if it had been a start. This is not a start, however, this is more like the end. Colchicum (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Could anybody (preferrably Alex) please explain to Russavia that under no circumstances such edits are appropriate. The information that the said editor is the said scholar is not freely available, and publishing it in the form of a COI warning or in any other form including the aforementioned diff constitutes outing. He doesn't seem to understand this. Colchicum (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I see consensus for a ban. What happens now? Ostap 17:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Community ban of Mikoyan and all socks. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Right to vanish and not vanished

Resolved

 – Le Grand Roi is retiring. If he changes his mind and comes back there will probably be a conduct RFC. Durova^Charge! 16:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

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

I am boldly archiving this discussion. I don't think anything fruitful will come of it lasting longer than it has. If and when the editor in question wants to come back, it is apparent that he is free to, so long as he respects the decision of the community that his old account history be attached to his new account. Should he attempt to return through some other means it is also clear that he will be discovered and blocked. Knowing these two eventualities is enough. We don't need to have this become the village stocks. Protonk (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I just asked this question on another board and then realized it might be more appropriate here. What, if anything, is to be done in a case when a user has invoked his/her "right to vanish" and seems to have reappeared almost immediately under a new username? (I think that I might have identified such a user through the style of argument given at AfD.) I ask because it's clearly stated that the 'The "right to vanish" is not a "right to a fresh start" under a new identity'. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well since anyone can create a sock account and edit using that, provided they are not using them in an abusive fashion, it isn't a problem, if they start editing in a different way/different areas/different emphasis it may be that no one is any the wiser. The way I would understand the WP:RTV is that it is as you say for the individual (not the account) to completely leave and be forgotten about. If the individual hasn't actually left, but just rematerialised under another account, then there right to vanish is moot (since they didn't) and should be no issue to reveal who they previously edited as. A different quesiton would be to what end you would want to reveal that information, would it be constructive (say was the previous account disruptive/subject to frequent sanctions etc. for which knowing that it is the same individual would be useful), or some other reason? --82.7.39.174 (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As an addition to that, although WP:RTV may not grant a universal "right" to a fresh start, the community is of course at liberty to let any editor do so if some circumstances dictate. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear here, we're talking about the way that Elisabeth Rogan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is using much the same arguments as the now-vanished Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RTV#What vanishing is not emphatically states that RtV is "not a "right to a fresh start" under a new identity," as Craw-daddy said above. I find these instances of invoking one's right to "vanish" only to come back under another account immediately to be highly disappointing, and insulting to users who truly have been forced to vanish; it seems that almost always, faux-vanishing is used simply to avoid scrutiny. krimpet✽ 15:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, her behaviour does look similar in many regards to his. Elisabeth Rogan is manifestly not a new user as she has gravitated very quickly to AFDs, been able to link to her log, and do several other things that new users just don't do. May as well wait for the response to Krimpet though. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, probably not a new user. Plus the elaborate edit summaries appear to be a strange form of performance art more than anything. If the only similarity is "voting keep more often than delete" it could be anyone. Of course I haven't looked closely because I frankly don't care if she is Grand Roi, as long as he doesn't resume using the old account (which would be hard not to notice as it's an md5 hash)... and as long as bondage photos are not involved. No, seriously I don't think it's him. — CharlotteWebb 18:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I was naturally familiar with Wikipedia before I decided to register an account. As I indicate on my userpage, I was somewhat hesitant to do that for the same reasons I do not have a MySpace page either. I did try to familiarize myself with this site by looking at the history of articles before editing. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Another new account that gravitated straight to AfDs is User:Testmasterflex. See [80], [81] etc, and User_talk:Testmasterflex#AFD. Doesn't that sound familiar? Also, see this comedy AfD where the brand new user calls LGRdC a deletionist! There's something wrong there. Black Kite 16:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

My opinion, for what it's worth: Testmasterflex is just an inclusionist who is parroting LGRdC's "Five Pillars" argument (s/he wouldn't be the first). Elisabeth Rogan, on the other hand, is clearly the same person as LGRdC—AfD participation aside, certain details of the user's edits are a dead giveaway. I was going to watch the account for a while before deciding whether to say anything, but now that it's been brought up, I think it's best to do as Stifle says and wait for a response to Krimpet's query. I must say, though, that ER's hamhanded attempts to pose as a naive newbie are somewhat insulting to anyone with half a brain. Deor (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have agreed with you, except that Testmasterflex found AfD and started commenting like that about 10 minutes after registering his username. Clearly a returning editor, though I agree it's not necessarily anyone named here. Black Kite 20:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if Testmasterflex is LGRdC, we have some cases of double voting in AfDs on our hands. I still doubt that LGRdC has the nerve to try to get away with that; though the behavior of Ms. Rogan is making me wonder. Deor (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't going to mention any names, but was curious what the usual policy is in these cases (if there is such a thing as "usual policy" for this situation). Names have been named now, but I will wait for a response to Krimpet's query. It wasn't my intention to somehow "get somebody in trouble" but was genuinely curious as to how this situation is handled. I welcome any comments on how I might have approached this or, indeed, if I should have raised my query here. Obviously I wasn't alone in my belief/suspicion. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• I guess we could just assume good faith until a greater pattern of behavior shows up. we also have to realize that we are all looking for a LGRDC account because he left so recently. We may be creating patterns where none really exist. Let's see what she says to Krimpet and then wait for a few weeks. Protonk (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, ER has responded to Krimpet, choosing to keep up the uncomprehending-newbie act. I find that response, along with edits like the top one here, so off-putting that I don't really want to say any more about this topic right now. Deor (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I came to this page due to a comment on my talk page. Anyway, as regards my comments at Articles for deletion, I came upon one while looking for information on Ulala, a strong female character who is featured in a tennis game I was playing for my Playstation 3. I noticed the discussion template and decided to comment. I followed the links to some other disucssions as well. I have a lot of interest and knowledge about video games and believe these are articles I can contribute to. I actually have lots of interests and you are likely to see me contribute to all sorts of articles over time. Some of the assumptions of bad faith and hostility posted here are astounding. Do all new accounts get suspicion against them? As I posted on my userpage I do have some hesitations about editing here and now I have to wonder how safe of a place this really is and to what degree those here are focused on writing articles. If you are really that curious, cannot you just check my IP and see if anyone else has used it or is that not technologically possible? --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, a request for checkuser would do that but I don't think the checkusers would accept that request. Stifle (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Then, what can be done to establish that I am indeed a new account and I am not using other accounts? Yes, I accidentally made an edit as an IP today, but as you can see from that IP, I only did that once. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• When I review AfD cases, I typically discount or ignore garbage comments that include, "Keep because of 5 pillars" or generic and patently false rationales. Like most of Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles and the ones cited in this thread. If they want to keep an article, fine. Give a decent rationale and don't go spewing the exact same tirade in every AfD. I've grown tired of the whole bullshit "inclusionist versus deletionist" crap because quite frankly, a lot of articles are junk and deserve to be deleted. And many are. And some are kept because they are noteworthy or notable, or have some promise of being reformed. In addition, Right to Vanish does not mean you can vanish due to criticisms of your actions, and then re-appear elsewhere. seicer | talk | contribs 18:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I am not sure what all of this about, but I do not consider myself as part of some "versus" deal. Are my arguments in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Camberford_Law, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos amador munoz, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Nevard really that bad? If so, please let me know how to make a stronger argument. I know my arguments there are somewhat repitious, but I am not sure what more I can see and I see others who make what look like more or less the same arguments to delete in multiple discussions as well. I just do not know what to think now. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I said that I was going to keep my mouth shut, but if this person continues to engage in editorial behavior that requires others to clean up after him and to waste people's time with questions that he knows well the answers to, I'm going to start pursuing the matter further. Trying to hide one's identity is one thing, but engaging in trollish behavior to do so is quite another. Deor (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Come again? I added cited information in the first case from a result of a Google News search, I asked a question as a new user, and Elisabeth is a FEMALE name. I do not know who you are or what you are about, but please do not mischaracterize my edits or insult me. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Without focusing on any specific editor, would abusing WP:RTV be considered a violation of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser part F: namely, evading a remedy issued by the community? Randomran (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Without focusing on any specific editor, if this nonspecific editor abused RTV by coming back with a different ISP (say an AOL account with dynamic IPs), I'm not sure that a CU could make the connection. I may be wrong though. Deor (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no other way to check a user's identity other than their IP, so I guess there's nothing we could do in that instance, correct? Randomran (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Alright. this is getting into silly season. It is possible this is Legrand. It is possible this is another returned editor. It is also possible that this is a new editor. If is is legrand then eventually that will become clear. If it is another editor then we may never know who it was. If this is a new editor then this whole thread is a little BITEy. I suggest that we archive this discussion and let this editor, whoever they may be, go on their way. In a couple of weeks we can check back and see if there is an apparent pattern. But other than that we should just assume they are telling the truth. Protonk (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. No accusations. WP:Assume good faith. Just trying to understand what we might do in the future. Randomran (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah, agreed for now. Just make sure we get back on it before the checkuser deadline. Stifle (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to feel sorry that I brought the whole thing up. I agree with Protonk and I think it's wise just to let things lie now. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Right to vanish is for a person, not for an account. We should put that in the sitenotice. Good grief. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Deor. This is either Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles doing a really poor job of pretending to be a new editor, or some random troll doing a masterful job of pretending to be Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles pretending to be a new editor. Suggest checkuser sooner rather than later. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with Andrew. And if this is LGRdC, then this is deceitful and disruptive behaviour designed to evade scrutiny and sanctions. Which is abusive sockpuppetry. A CU seems warranted to help clear the matter up. Guy (Help!) 21:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles is thataway. HiDrNick! 21:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Checkuser results came back as  Likely. And if that comes as a surprise to anyone, please contact me for information on exciting investment opportunities. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I have indef blocked the account, but still encourage a discussion about unblocking Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, giving him a second chance. With the agreement to only use that one account of course. Tiptoety ^talk 22:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Keep in mind this was not a harmless, cute l'il prank. A good number of helpful editors wasted a considerable amount of time answering "Miss" Rogan's fake questions and such. Given that Le Grand Roi was likely headed toward an eventual block/ban anyway, if anything this episode doesn't redeem him any. Indeed, quite the opposite. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, LGRdC isn't blocked (at least under that name, but then again that name has vanished). (My bad, didn't notice the ban on the old username.) LRRdC invoked his right to vanish and, apparently according to the CU is back. So not only did he waste time of editors who answered her his questions, he wasted the time and effort involved in the RTV procedure (how much effort that involves exactly, I don't know). Regardless if he had valid reasons for the RTV, it seems to be a clear abuse of the "right to vanish" and then reappear under a different account name (which RTV clearly states that's not the intent/purpose). --Craw-daddy | T | 22:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that we keep the indefinite block on LGRC's account. This is the second time he has been convicted of abusive sockpuppeting, which isn't something to be taken lightly. Add to that that he has been that worst case of editors: a polite, civil, disruptive single purpose account that no one could quite justify blocking. He left, good riddance, no reason to bring him back.Kww (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not quite right to think that polite comments that push the limits in terms of receptiveness are the worst kind of editor behavior. I can think of much worse, and we've seen quite a bit of it in the last week or so all over Wikipedia. Would that the fiction article afds and related matters were the most disruptive thing we had to deal with, rather than just a continuing annoyance. And there are a few editors about whom i would say good riddance if they decided to leave, but i wouldn't say it to any of them in public. DGG (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In Le Grand's defense, he has never been blocked for anything but abusive sockpuppetry. He has been warned several times in recent history, but it's possible he may be willing to cooperate. This isn't personal. This is about one editor's disruptive behavior. If he comes back and stops the bad behavior -- misrepresenting people's arguments in AFD, ignoring policies like WP:N or WP:PROVEIT, playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to warnings and consensus that he disagrees with -- then he should be welcomed back for his productive edits. We don't have to respect someone who lies about their health because they're trying to gain sympathy over frikkin *Wikipedia*, nor respect someone who threatens to quit because of their real health problems but lacks the willpower to take responsibility for their own well-being -- either of which would be more embarrassing than evil. But Wikipedia is about a person's edits, not a person's character. I know he technically violated policy and wasted some peoples' time, but Elizabeth Rogan was relatively well behaved compared to Le Grand. If he stops being disruptive, I see no reason to care if he comes back. Randomran (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The Elizabeth Rogan account was a day old. Evidently a new sock would have to be well-behaved initially in order to avoid immediate blocking. That its edits were solely on the kind on non-productive stuff Roi spent his last few months on (copyediting articles which were likely AfD candidates, and arguing to keep others on specious grounds) doesn't bode well. And precedent heavily favours the permanent exclusion of editors who have sneaked back on and (comparatively) behaved themselves since, as Roi knows full well from his pursuit of Fredrick Day. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think that only describes the last few months, Randomran, I beg to differ. That describes his behaviour over the past year.Kww (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And, since he's reading this, it is a damn shame he made us go through this. This little escapade wasted time and goodwill. This just makes it harder for anyone to show up new to AfD and be treated like a regular newbie. I figured that, on the outside chance it wasn't him, we should just let this lie for a few days, but it is pretty immature to not just fess up. So, gratz, LeGrand. Protonk (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the confirmation. As I noted previously, I discounted most of Le Grand's opposing comments because they were essentially copy-and-pastes with no real insight into the article itself. "5 pillars" and a generic "I like the article" doesn't cut it. Any new users who pop into AfD's and use the same criteria should be discounted as well. seicer | talk | contribs 00:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what the current name of the previous Le Grand Roi account is? I'm curious to see the other blocks that should appear under the name of the renamed account (which was previously le Grand Roi). Also, I don't think a permanent block is necessary in this case. Actually I think it should be set to expire at a fixed point, even if that point is just provisional until an appropriate length can be determined.

The reason I say that is this - if the user hasn't decided to respond yet, there is a good chance that he is (or will be) registering another username. Since I don't know that a block is necessarily warranted in this case (he was using one account at a time, and while he clearly misused RTV I'm not sure we really block for that) I don't want him to be banned for good through block evasion next. Users are allowed to abandon old accounts and start new ones, just not through RTV (i.e. page deletion, rename, etc.), and it doesn't look like there was a second account operating in tandem with Elisabeth Rogan. I find the lack of honesty on his part (or her part?) distasteful, but is it blockworthy? Avruch ^T 01:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Horace Horatius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kww (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

LGRdC was quite adamant that he did not want to abandon his old account and start a new one; he was begging for his account to be blocked and renamed and for his user pages to be blanked and protected. His administrator pals were happy to oblige, and I'm sure they informed him exactly what RTV entails. As far as I can see, he's in the position he's in of his own free will, and I oppose an unblock on the renamed LGRdC account. Deor (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It certainly seemed curious to me that this "stalker" forcing LGRdC to vanish conveniently surfaced right after questionable actions by LGRdC were brought to AN/I. Faux harassment claims like this are a slap in the face to people who have been harassed; it's also a serious breach of the community's trust. If the community decides to let him back, he needs to be under close scrutiny, and not be allowed to exploit the community's empathy any further. krimpet✽ 03:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• B988a4299d07c0f61fbc8378965438f0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

HiDrNick! 02:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't that account blocked from editing? I thought that was a standard part of the RTV process.Kww (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

News to me. That's not in WP:RTV. It is blocked now.--chaser - t 04:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• I count myself as one of his friends who happen to be administrators -- though I have never taken any administrative action in anything where he has been involved. There are several aspects of the Rogan account I do not like; 1/the pretence at being a new user. LGC knows very well how to do a proper search. Finding unlikely sources was a strength of his when he was willing to do it. 2/The "delete" on a clearly acceptable article, based on an unspecified but clearly low quality search. 3/the evasiveness in answering Krimpet 3/The evasiveness here. On the other hand, the actual editing is not disruptive. Minor useful contributions, some not wildly inappropriate afd comments. DGG (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• This comment pretty much puts the nail in the coffin. If that isn't him, I'll eat my shoe. Protonk (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I am disappointed in Le Grand Roi's conduct here. If he wanted to come back, that's good, but he should have done so openly (is it possible for him to get his old account back?), without pretending to be a newbie. That said, however, this RtV/new account business is merely annoying, not abusive, and he shouldn't be punished for it. I hope that it will still be possible for him to come back openly if he is willing to do so. RtV isn't a contract signed in blood, and we should welcome the possibility of his return. I am disturbed by Starblind's suggestion that he was headed for an indef block anyway; as far as I know he did not violate any policy prior to his departure. Everyking (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• He was headed, and will be should he return, for a community RfC on his behavior. I don't know where "indef block" is coming from, but people were generally displeased with his comportment when he left. Protonk (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Is that based on his opinions, argument style, or something else? He seemed to have a good record on civility. Everyking (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
    • It was mostly based on his "style of argument" but included the various AfD/DRV disruptions he was party to. It is explicitly not about his views. And as far as his record on civility, I contest that point. It has been my view for the past few months that he either acted as though deletionists were in some evil league or that we weren't worth his time. He was "civil" insofar as he didn't call people names, but he had no respect for people in AfD whatsoever. But I don't really want to turn this into a discussion about that behavior--if you have more questions feel free to ping my talk page. Protonk (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI. I re-created his old account to prevent impersonation after the name change. For some reason that's not showing up in it's log, but it is here [82]. I've also indefinitely blocked the B988a... account that LGC was renamed to.--chaser - t 04:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Well anyway, another admin did a username block.--chaser - t 05:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Le Grand Roi's decision to invoke the right to vanish may have been impetuous and poorly thought out, and it's possible that he regrets it now. I'd really like to see his original account made available to him in case he wants to go back to it. Everyking (talk) 06:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I still oppose unblocking; but if the consensus is to do so, I think that one condition should be the full restoration of his talk page and archives, along with the complete edit history now attached to the B988… name. It seems clear that the vanishing bit was, at least in part, an effort to detach himself from his past activities and others' comments about them, and I see no reason to indulge him in that if he's going to continue editing. Deor (talk) 07:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

All the relevant bits of that have been done (archives not restored, but it's all in the restored talk page history.--chaser - t 14:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

All right; tough post here.

To Roi: you've disabled your old e-mail address and not enabled any new one. So in order to communicate I have to say something where you're likely to look. It might as well be this thread. Based on the fact that we were still trading e-mails less than 24 hours before the checkuser, I regard the technical finding as correct. In 2006 and 2007 when I caught you at socking you were not a well known editor. That's changed. The community knows you now and you aren't going to be able to pursue the same interests and hide on any other account. It's very hard to break old habits, I understand, but if you continue to edit this way you'll need to resume your main account and deal with the consequences. That will probably include a user conduct request for comment, which I will certify. These things aren't necessarily bad. Treat it as an opportunity to get constructive guidance. If you reactivate your e-mail I'd like to have a frank talk about your options. The one thing I insist is that you shoot straight with me from now on.

To the community: when an editor damages his own credibility it can be difficult to decide whether to trust a claim of harassment. In this case the potential harm of not believing it could be substantial if it is actually true, and the potential harm of believing it if it is false is pretty mild. Also, knowing the details, I think this is credible on its face although I haven't verified it independently. Roi is under a lot of pressure and making unwise choices. What's happened in other borderline situations is that somebody steps forward with an aggressive block that sticks, and the blocked user becomes a habitual sockpuppeteer because they disagree with the grounds of the block and remain interested in the same area, and the community wastes a lot of time on whack-a-mole etc. So I suggest we restrict him to one account; that was a condition I had imposed when I lifted his earlier indef.

Durova^Charge! 07:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Unvanish?

Given that "in good standing" no longer applies, if it did at the time the request was made, I suggest that consideration be given to reversing the vanishing. I believe that this user's edit history is of legitimate interest to the community. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

See my comment to the community please, Ben. There's a cost-benefit to consider. Durova^Charge! 10:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to run this into the ground, but I want to understand: How exactly can an RFC be conducted if referring to his edit history is to be off limits, as you seem to imply? Deor (talk) 10:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If he stays away, let's let him vanish. If he returns, of course, he'll need to assume responsibility for his actions. Durova^Charge! 10:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I get it now. Fair enough. Deor (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In any case, there's little left to "unvanish". Reversing his username change w/o his consent would be unprecedented and pointless since the userpages are now appropriately linked. Anyway, leaving the rename in place conveniently lets us leave a username block in place and not debate whether to indefinitely block his main account for sockpuppetry. His talk page has also been restored.--chaser - t 14:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Well, if he wants to come back, the first thing has to be to stop this charade and admit his return. At that stage, we can have an RFC to deal with the problems this has caused. His old account can be restored, if he wishes; I'm sure the crats will usurp it. A ban isn't warranted, although the indefinite block until he decides which account he wishes to edit from is fine, and can be removed as "time served" for the community time wasted once he's done that. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Durova^Charge! 09:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

LGR repeatedly said before he "left" that he'd ignore any RFC "against" him. But he saw suggestions of an RFC coming from folks like me and Protonk, with whom he regularly disagreed and saw as members of the evil cabal. His reception to feedback on his behavior -- esp. if an RFC is initiated by/supported by a broader swath of the community -- might be a way for him to show good faith. --EEMIV (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I must say I'm really disappointed, given that I helped the user with some of his vanishing-related activities, and even tried to convince him to stick about. If the user in question comes clean (or if they're able to prove their innocence somehow) then I see no reason they can't be unblocked pending a full conduct RfC being filed. Given the deception involved (and the fact that, frankly, I feel as if I've been played like a chump for standing up and defending him elsewhere), I think some consequences and sanctions are in order. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC).

As the one who deleted his user talk pages following RTV I support them having been put back: I learned this had been done by User:Krimpet when I went to do it myself. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• That would still not exclude him from the possible RFC that would be filed against him for reasons stated above in AfD's, RfA's, etc. seicer | talk | contribs 11:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd say LRGdC is still welcome on the project under his main account, but only under the condition that he take responsibility for this incident (and hopefully apologize to those whose good faith he abused), and that he cooperate with the dispute resolution procedures that people have been trying to initiate with him. krimpet✽ 13:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

So here we have an editor caught with abusive socks *at least* three times already (possibly 4, see below), and you want to bring him back yet again? What good could that possibly do, aside from creating more DRAMA! before the already-inevitable final result? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've filed a new RFCU for LGRC and Testerflex, for a few reasons. First, I'm genuinely suspicious of Testerflex, and think that his first few votes of "delete" while rapidly converting to "keep per five pillars" could have been a strategy to distance the sock from the master. Second, if it is determined that LGRC was socking in preparation for his vanishing act, I think that would influence a lot of people's opinions in this matter.Kww (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Came back as unrelated.Kww (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree generally with durova and Stifle. LeGrand is most certainly not a persona non grata, should he decide to return and deal with the mess he has made. If, on the other hand, he keeps this up (especially if the testmasterflex account is linked to him), that becomes much harder to do. EEMIV is right. LeGrand is keen to view RFC's as adversarial and malicious. There is the possibility that he may not accept a community inquiry at all. But should he decide to return, accept a rename (presuming that the harassment was real, this would be prudent) and deal with the consequences, he can probably be welcomed back. Protonk (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The latest checkuser has come back as unlikely: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. For those who aren't familiar with the background, here's a quick summary--Roi socked twice when he was a new editor, then for over a hear he reformed. That is he didn't sock, he did his best to abide by site policies, and he did some pretty good content work. For instance, he was one of the people who worked on the textile arts featured portal drive. This latest incident is a throwback, and as long as he either owns up to its consequences or genuinely vanishes the path of least drama is to let him put it behind him. That's absolutely contingent on one account and honesty from here forward, and on willingness to enter dispute resolution. It isn't just the deletionists who object now. We're not getting out torches and pitchforks; we just want to set things right. Durova^Charge! 17:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep; as far as I am concerned, once he admits that it's him and he's back, he can pick one username to edit from, and the others are blocked. At that stage there will be an RFC about his conduct before and after the vanishing attempt. Stifle (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

So what account from which he (is) to notify us that he is wishing to return? seicer | talk | contribs 20:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

He's reactivated e-mail and is composing a statement about his decision. I don't know what he's going to say. Durova^Charge! 22:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the assessments by Durova and Stifle. Everyking (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hypocrisy and double standards

Extended content

Final response to this thread: If the above is really such a big deal, then why are all the below examples of those of deletionist leanings who use start over and alternate accounts okay? All the same editor according to check user and the main unblocked Doctorfluffy account has NEVER argued to keep, but while arguing to delete all the time is apparently okay, God forbid someone predominantly argues to keep: AndalusianNaugahyde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Pilotbob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Doctorfluffy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Doctorfluffytemp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Doctorfluffytemp2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Doctorfluffytemp3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Doctorfluffytemp4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Doctorfluffytemp5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) All the same editor (notice a couple indefinite blocks, but apparently it was okay for him to just start over even after abandoning Dorftrottel in dramatic fashion and continuing to edit on IPs): Tit for tat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Subversive element (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Kncyu38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) AldeBaer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Dorftrottel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Everyme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) All the same editor (weren’t some of these abandoned due to off-site harassment that for obvious reasons I will not link to?): Aranda56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jaranda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jbeach56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Secretalt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Secret (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Who knows who this single-purpose deletion only account belongs to, but I guess it can operate without being blocked and without acknowledging its main account: Tottering Blotspurs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) How nice it is to get a rename sans block log: Addhoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) PhilKnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Clearly Elisabeth Rogan was not used as a sock, just as the vanished user never actually used Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? or Horace Horatius in the same discussions, i.e. none of these accounts were actually used as socks. The first indef of the vanished account was to be honest not right because the vanished account was not actually using WHF? as a sock in AfDs. One would think that having alternate accounts so long as they are not actually used in the same discussions would be okay based on how the policy was worded at the time. But since the account was indeffed, certainly some would never give it a fair shake. Then, Cryptic who hasn’t edited since blocking the vanished account blocked it after the vanished account gave Cryptic a warning for calling the vanished account a “spoiled child.” Although like Durova’s indefinite block, this block was also undone, editors would still cite it as a reason to assume bad faith against the vanished user. Next, due to actual off-wiki harassment, the vanished user while in the hurried process of adding speedy delete templates to his userspace moved a few userfied articles out of his userspace that he believed others were working on in that he did not want to shampoo those editors’ efforts, but as he was vanishing the best thing to do seemed to be to just move them out of userspace. Instead, as has happened many times, Deor who has been fixated on the vanished account for some time automatically assumes bad faith and starts an AN thread for which BOTH editors edit warred and somehow only the vanished user who was clearly leaving at that point ends up blocked. Also, in any event AfDs are not some kind of Bible or Koran that going against results in divine retribution, i.e. aren’t we here to make an encyclopedia? And so if articles have been improved or are still being worked, who cares what some snapshot in time AfD result was. In any event, who in their right mind would ever want anything further to do with that vanished account again as it is clear that it would and will NEVER get a fair shake from certain editors no matter what it did and apparently even anyone who edits in a remotely similar fashion, like Testerflex, is going to get the same suspicion and unfair treatment. If nothing else, henceforth, the community will or should get a sense of who are the paranoid fanatics when they see certain accounts accusing others as being the vanished account and check users show otherwise. So, why is it okay for a deletionist admin (Secret) to delete user space and come back as an alternate account, which even got resysopped? Why is it okay for a deletionist account (Everyme) to have started new accounts rather than continuing on the indeffed accounts? Unless if all of these examples are also unacceptable, then trying to unvanish an account that was vanished for legitimate real world concerns and going after some new account that was clearly not used in any actual sock puppet or disruptive manner is both hypocritical and bizarre. Let us consider the larger issue: What makes it okay for some to start over at totally new accounts, even in some cases of the above having in fact deleted the old userspace and pretending not to be others, or starting over even after previous accounts were indefinitely blocked? What is one supposed to think when he/she sees the above examples tolerated? Anyone who sees all of the above being acceptable would logically conclude that such standards ought to apply to him/her. The obvious reality from this thread is that no, there is a double standard. Moreover, Deor criticized the vanished account for not having detailed and descriptive edit summaries. Elisabeth Rogan had full sentence edit summaries. Protonk criticized the vanished account for responding to everyone who argued to delete in fiction related AfDs. Elisabeth Rogan only responded to those who responded to her. So, what the hell? You would think any honest and reasonable editor would be pleased and those familiar with the reason why the vanished user vanished would not force the issues to respect someone’s real world privacy. Also, editors criticized the vanished account for having “boilerplate” or “copy and paste” keep rationales (which is always funny how they are on the reverse okay with copy and paste “per noms” and “non-notables” delete votes…). In any event, Elisabeth Rogan in fact used unique keep rationales for each AfD in which she argued to keep and spent time actively improving the articles under discussion. Stifle said, “Elisabeth Rogan is manifestly not a new user as she has gravitated very quickly to AFDs,” well check the third edit of this user. By the rationale in the above quotation, must we assume that that user is also not “new”? How about this user’s sixth edit? Actually quite a few editors in this thread seem to have gravitated toward AfDs very quickly… Do we need to check to make sure they aren’t socking? As Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles actually shows, a number of the various accounts inaccurately alleged to be the vanished account, such as Testmasterflex and ISOLA'd ELBA were not in fact that user. If you use this tool and type in any combination of the four accounts (gee, a smaller number than say Doctorfluffy or Everyme’s alternates) either confirmed or likely by a check user, you will notice that in no same AfD did any combination of these accounts ever edit. The truth is none of these accounts were used as socks of each other. Elisabeth Rogan was not used as a sock. Elisabeth Rogan made constructive and good faith edits. The vanished account and its corresponding email were abandoned due to serious real world concerns. The new account edited in a manner that addressed the concerns of its harshest critics. But apparently some would rather destroy other editors’ work and kill time here than help in the efforts to improve articles and that trumps all. And anyone who dares want to make Wikipedia a true compendium of knowledge is somehow an enemy. Really think about who is actually being dramatic here? Who actually was focused on trying to improve article content? Versus who is focused on creating some narrow-minded and limited Wikipedia and doing away with anyone who wants otherwise. So, what is more important having accounts that actually contribute to the project or going after specific editors on some vendetta? Why is it seemingly okay for some to be indeffed but just start over MULTIPLE TIMES, for admins to delete their userspace and leave and then start over? Is this all of that admin’s talk page history? If so, then why not keep the vanished account’s history deleted as well? Apparently it is okay for some to leave, delete userspace, keep some of that userpsace history deleted, but go forward anyway and in some cases as brand new accounts. Why are all of the various examples above not given the same scrutiny and feigned outrage? What actually beneficial to the project is being accomplished here that somehow supersedes what looked to be a right path had Elisabeth Rogan been given the courtesy of the above? Are we actually here focused on our primary concern being writing an encyclopedia or is it on witch hunting our opponents at all costs? How many articles have actually been improved as a result of this discussion? No articles would actually be improved as the result of some RfC either (seriously, we’re becoming too much of a compendium of discussions than articles; I would much rather have articles of questionable notability than a bunch of AfDs of no interest to anyone). So, on one hand such a thing would at least distract the more vandal-like deletionists from AfDs as they pile on against the vanished account, but on the other hand it would also distract good faith editors who come with reasonable compromises and the like and I want no part of taking up the volunteer time of those who have been friendly, helpful, and who are here to make an online encyclopedia. Allowing their time to be wasted is unacceptable to me. Therefore, I don’t care if hypocrites want to waste time continuing discussing the vanished account and claiming absurdly and dishonestly that something that never actually edited in tandem with another account is somehow a sock given all the above examples of deletionist alternate accounts and start overs that are apparently acceptable, as at least that means it is time they aren’t spending trying to delete other editors’ work, but I do not want actual good faith and worthwhile editors losing time contributing to articles and thereby improving the project on my account. THAT does bother me and is not okay. Thus, for those who are fair and reasonable and whose time is valuable, to be clear, yes, the harassment is very real and not resolved and I hope people have the decency to take that into consideration above all else--as somethings people do not joke around about. And yes, the vanished account (original and renamed) and all three allegedly related accounts are vanished. None of them will ever be used or logged onto or renamed again. Nor will any email be associated with them. Nor will I use any new account or IP to say anything further in this thread or elsewhere about these accounts. Period. Finally, I apologize for the length of this edit, but I thought it important to cover all bases. Enjoy the remainder of the summer! Au revoir, --172.131.92.163 (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that was too long for even me to read, but I must admit "Le Grand Roi des AOLs" kinda has a ring to it. —Happy editing! Sincerely, CharlotteWebb 23:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Le Grand, if you take exception to other editors having multiple accounts, then create your own good-faith account and ask for RFC. However, if you'll let me channel your favorite essay: WP:OTHERSTUFF is irrelevant; this discussion is about you. The reason folks are riled at you is that you invoked WP:RTV and numerous admins and editors went out of their way to delete user space articles, hide talk-page comments, and as much as possible erase evidence of the Le Grand account's existence and contributions. As someone who frequently invokes the importance of retaining edit history (i.e. accountability) in arguing to keep articles, you must understand that it's Kind of a Big Deal to obfuscate the origin of so many edits tied to that account. Returning, then, to Wikipedia after a negligible, if any, break and immediately returning to AfDs and offering (as someone quite aptly put it) "performance art" edit summaries to mimic a newbie understandably caught the attention of other editors, who found worrisome the return of an editor who invoked WP:RTV -- which should have been clear to you is not intended to be a mechanism to "start over". It shows remarkably bad judgment that it apparently didn't occur to you to contact an admin. off-wiki to ask for advice or input about a possible return -- certainly someone like Chaser would have at least been able to offer friendly advice. Please understand, as others have pointed out, that invoking RTV and not actually "V"ing cheapens the process for all those who need to depart. I found dubious, or at least similarly reflective of bad judgment, ongoing claims of off-site harassment when you so quickly return to Wikipedia and engage in the exact same editing patterns (down to italicizing "Wikipedia" in at least one post) -- didn't it occur to you someone would call you out? Didn't it occur to you that "Le Grand Rois" showing up again in Wikipedia text might catch the attention of whomever's causing you off-wiki grief? Did it occur to you, once someone called foul, to stop, drop, roll and contact someone off-wiki for advice? Granted, you didn't plop a lot of information into your new user page, and only you have a full grip of what these off-site dire straits are -- but, from the perspective of us here, it just looks suspicious...partially because you have among many of us previously stretched the limits of how much good faith we're willing to afford you.

As I said above, if you're interested in returning to Wikipedia, then pick a user name and stick with it (perhaps after whatever trying real-world circumstances have passed). Understand that, like it or not, there would then be an RFC -- if for no other reason then to ascertain why there is such a disconnect between your and other editors' understanding of why this kerfluffle has happened. (Remember, you're as much an RFC participant as anyone else.) And bot you and the community would be expected to abide by whatever consensus RFC settles. Now, if you find that an unacceptable prospect... then you'll just need to go. --EEMIV (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I only had to read two sentences to see you're back to attacking your attackers, and ignoring the relatively neutral parties who think your conduct is disruptive and embarrassing. You're always welcome to come back when you're ready to take responsibility. But look at what you've been reduced to: pretending you're the opposite gender just so you can rally against the "vandal-like deletionists" on a damn volunteer Internet Encyclopedia. Show some integrity. No more "they did it too". No more treating warnings as personal attacks. No more "I never got a fair shake". No more equating deletion with vandalism. No more "I swear I'm gonna quit this time because you guys are screwing up my real life." If you have to leave Wikipedia for you to stop blaming everyone else for your troubles, then do it. But if you're lying about leaving, for the 12th time, at least have the self-respect to act like an adult and face your peers. You can still have an ounce of dignity. Trying to be helpful, Randomran (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Roi really needed to get that off his chest. I won't say I agree with his choices, but fairness demands that someone mention one thing. Last year after his legitimate comeback he did get harried by a few deletionist sockpuppeteers who were later sitebanned at arbitration. For a long time, though, nobody took Roi seriously about that and those same sockpuppeteers nearly opened a conduct RFC on him; they also leveraged his own block log against him at discussions until they were banned themselves. That takes a toll on a person, especially when he's trying to rebuild an honest reputation after having socked. So although his choices this last week haven't been the best, he's human. Let's wish him well with dignity. Best, Durova^Charge! 00:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but "getting something off one's chest" doesn't seem to fit this carefully lawyered diatribe (Elizabeth Rogan is always referred to in passive voice; as we all know it's not politically prudent to actually admit guilt) to this passage:

Nor will I use any new account or IP to say anything further in this thread or elsewhere about these accounts.

Which IMHO seems not really necessary except as a legalism to give room to come back under another user account or IP that will never own up to the socking, but of course, YMMV. Aunt Entropy (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Solid points, and if the editor does return on someting other than his main account (or in an appropriately transparent and undeclared manner) then I'll consider myself obligated to follow through as appropriate. With respect, Durova^Charge! 21:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The difference is in usage, while I'm not familiar with all those cases, but the ones I am did not end up like this, because the second, third, etc. accounts in those other cases were not used deceptively (we all know who they are, else you'd be banned for outing). Its the first sentence of the sock puppetry policy: "A sock puppet is an alternative account used deceptively" - The Elisabeth Rogan account intentionally acted deceptively and you repeatedly lied about your identity until it got disruptive enough for a checkuser to be done. Starting fresh under a new account is fine, but when people realize who you are because you start editing again with the editing traits within a week of "vanishing," don't lie about it. Mr.Z-man 00:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Roi, we've gotten along well in the past and share inclusionist views, but even I have no patience for this kind of thing, so I don't think you'll find much sympathy from anyone else. The best advice I can give is to take a month or two and try to forget about Wikipedia, pour your energies into something else, maybe a Wikia. Then reflect on these events with a better perspective, and maybe you'll feel differently. Everyking (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If this is a prelude to RFC I endorse this summary. — CharlotteWebb 13:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"None of them will ever be used or logged onto or renamed again. Nor will any email be associated with them. Nor will I use any new account or IP to say anything further in this thread or elsewhere about these accounts. Period." I would ordinarily avoid dignifying the indignant ranting of a proven liar with a response, but what you said here worries me. Know this: your one and only avenue to continue editing Wikipedia is to clearly associate any new account with your past accounts. If you just create another account and feign ignorance about your history, you will be found out and ultimately blocked. The community will not abide such brazen evasion of dispute resolution. Another round of this nonsense will likely result in a ban. Many people will welcome you back if you do continue editing, but only if you choose to be honest about your history. HiDrNick! 01:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

LGRdC, I find it rather amazing that you expect any sort of sympathy here when you involved your right to vanish, and then turned up less than a week later on a sock and clearly denied that you were using a sock. Neutral parties went out of their way to help you vanish successfully and find their work cheapened when you basically betray the trust of the community by returning. The utter lack of maturity that you've demonstrated has basically lost you any such trust. If you wish to return to Wikipedia, then identify the account you wish to use, undergo a user conduct RfC, and show the maturity that you have not here. Do note that if you continue to use sockpuppets to edit, you will ultimately exhaust the community's patience and you may be banned from editing. If you are unwilling to abide by the community's decision here, then my best recommendation is for you simply to not return to Wikipedia. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess this thread should explain to outsiders why people have been complaining about his behavior for a long time. This is pretty outrageous, but the basic MO has been the same in all debates. I'll say it along with others here: act like an adult. Protonk (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I have too much more to say. I've got a lot of feelings on the matter, but they've pretty much been covered at some point in this thread. I would like to point out that a major part of this problem is Le Grand's inability to lose the assumption that he is correct. When most editors (who know what they're doing) comment at AFD, they do so in the "keep/delete for this reason" with the understanding that if someone can prove that reason faulty (such as finding a reliable secondary source where none was previously known) their opinion will change. Le Grand's arguments often boil down to "Keep because someone wrote it" or "Keep because it's Wikipedia" with no possible avenue for a change of decision. Such an attitude makes it impossible to hold any sort of meaningful discussion, and I think I see evidence of this pattern in his recent non-AFD behavior. Le Grand complains of double standards, yet has double standards of his own. When asked why he does this, his response is that he has double standards because "deletionists" do. I can only assume that his rationale for having a double standard about double standards comes from this blind assumption of correctness—"I can do this because I'm right, but you shouldn't do it because you're wrong." Pagrashtak 02:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point I think we're all beating a dead horse. Clearly the ball is in Le Grand's court. Either he'll heed the advice coming from all avenues -- leave permanently or attach himself to a single account to edit under -- or make another sock attempt. If the latter, he'll either make himself obvious like he most recently did, but perhaps he'll evaporate into the ether and find a whole other corner to edit in -- still an abuse of RTV, to be sure. Regardless, I don't think there's much point in continuing to harp on his current or older behavior; we all seem to be preaching in the same choir. --EEMIV (talk) 02:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I like straightforward behavior, and I feel the same lack of sympathy as the others who tried to help, at the way Roi tried to engage in this in the last few days. I dislike insults also. though, and I've just refactored one at the protected talk page for ER (any admin who thinks I did wrong may restore it). I would hope someone might do the same here. However, the comments Roi made about some other accounts seem at least partially justified, and it would be a very good thing for someone less involved than I to follow them up. I have made a comment on my own talk page about some of what I see as the underlying issues. I wish I could hope for better in the future from all directions. The ball is equally in the court of those who seek to delete when they could instead fix , merge, or redirect. DGG (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I know you're trying to offer some balance to this incident, but this is not an issue of what articles we keep or delete. And that's part of the problem: Elisabeth still thinks this is the attack of the deletionist cabal, rather than a neutral effort to maintain Wikipedia-wide policies and guidelines. Of course, Elisabeth isn't the first person to break a rule repeatedly. But if someone wants to come back from an indefinite block, the ball is in their court and only their court. Don't get it twisted. Randomran (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There are too many things in that screed that are misleading, bizarre or just plain wrong (especially his misunderstanding of RTV) to list, but just a couple of things might give an idea of why LGRDC is regarded as disruptive;

• Advocates ignoring XfD results (but only if they're Delete) - "...so if articles have been improved or are still being worked, who cares what some ... AfD result was." (He has previously returned articles deleted at AfD into articlespace without improving them)
• calls good-faith users vandals - "such a thing would at least distract the more vandal-like deletionists from AfDs" - and hypocrites "I don’t care if hypocrites want to waste time continuing discussing the vanished account".

Black Kite 06:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That Tottering Blotspurs account was pretty poor IMO though. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 07:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This is turning into a WP:TLDR. Any chance someone archives this as generating more heat than light? Stifle (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a question, how "likely" is "likely" in the context of the checkuser? Is it a case of "almost definitely", or "maybe, but some room for doubt". I agree that the Elisabeth Rogan account is highly suspicious, but just how likely is it that it's all just a giant coincidence?

Yes, I know I'm making a big reach here, and I remain convinced that the most plausible explanation is that it's a Le Grand sock (and lets be honest, if it is him, it's a sock - a duplicate account being used with the intent of deceiving the community), but I'd hate to lynch the guy if he really is innocent. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC).

go to the user talk page. If that's not LeGrand, I'm the King of Sweden. Protonk (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Alas, it is essentially an admitted sock--read Roi's various statements. However, I don't see it as being used disruptively in the usual sense of double voting or support for each other or insertion of material the main account would want to be associated with. Most of its edits were good. In the context of the RTV, though, it does unfortunately indicate an attempt to be less than straightforward about things. Returning so soon in this manner on such topics in such an obvious way was at best a misunderstanding of the terms of the RTV, and very different from the advice his supporters gave him DGG (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

DGG is partially right here. We are all using the word "sock" where we don't mean it. He isn't socking. Protonk (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Likely" almost certainly means "no individual IPs in common but they were both using AOL and their behavior has been described as similar". — CharlotteWebb 13:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes he is, at least insofar as the term is used on Wikipedia. His old account was made unavailable to him, so he created a false persona and used that to edit in lieu of his original account on the same range of articles. Just because he wasn't arguing with himself Mary Rosh-style doesn't make this in the least bit different. I'd like to think that even if I was ideologically inclined to support a given WP:SPADE, I'd still call it a spade. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:SOCK - "it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions". Also, per WP:RTV, "The right to vanish is not a right to a fresh start under a new identity. Vanishing means that the individual, not the account, is vanishing. There is no coming back for that individual." Black Kite 17:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm also going to take this point to reiterate that this issue has nothing to do with the disposition of content. DGG, I respect you, but the addenda "The ball is equally in the court of those who seek to delete when they could instead fix , merge, or redirect." to this discussion is not helpful. Protonk (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Protonk, you are right, I should have said "also to some extent", not "equally". DGG (talk) 05:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that the policy reads alternative account. Since he asked (and received) the disabling of his original account himself, and only began using the Elisabeth Rogan account afterwards, ER was his primary account and not an alternative. He was not operating two accounts at once, or doing any of the things we normally associate with abusive sockpuppetry. Users are entitled to let one account fall into disuse and begin using another one without disclosing the prior account, from what I understand. The only difference in this case is that he used RTV on the original account. I don't like that he wasn't forthright when questioned, but I don't think abuse of RTV is typically met with a long block and it doesn't appear he has other recent policy violations. Avruch ^T 01:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Feels good to be right and to be able to say I told you so. Everyme 02:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Avruch, I think you're applying the letter but not the spirit of the policy there. Assuming it was Le Grand here, it was an alternative account that had been set up with the intent of deceiving the community. If he had come back, stuck his hand up, and said "It is Le Grand here, and I have returned!", then I don't think many of us would have had a problem with that. Problem is, he tried and failed to trick us all, and got caught in the act. The fact that he wasn't stacking votes is not relevant, the fact is he tried to hoodwink the community, and to take advantage of those who showed him good faith in the past. If it is Le Grand, I think that such behaviour is disgraceful. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC).
• You've missed the most disruptive part of this incident. Elisabeth Rogan abused the WP:RTV to essentially delete a public record of warnings from administrators and other editors. (Warnings that included WP:GAME, WP:POINT, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:FORUMSHOPping particularly at DRV, and generally stonewalling reasonable requests and concerns.) In his defense, the new account hadn't been around long enough to see if he'd do anything worse than faking his inexperience. But the abuse of RTV fits entirely into the larger pattern of warnings against him: someone who ignores rules/consensus, ignores reminders of rules/consensus, ignores warnings to accept rules/consensus, and focuses his efforts on abusing processes that will let him get the result he wants in spite of rules/consensus against that result. Randomran (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think keeping this thread open is pretty pointless. Le Grand's alternate account has been found and blocked. There's a consensus here about an avenue for him to return, if he wants. But this looks to be degenerating into a venue to dredge up complaints for RFC and to hash out material perhaps better suited to WT:SOCK. --EEMIV (talk) 11:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, I think this should be closed, the lack of structure and reams of text are not conducive to any coordinated opinion or action. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abd misuses his user page to canvass his private RfC

Since more than three weeks, Abd misuses his user page to canvass a private RfC against Fritzpoll. At least 38 times, Abd posted invitations to take part at his private RfC ([83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120]). Also most of his recent edits are devoted to his private RfC ([121] [122] [123] [124]).

There are guidelines about what a user page may contain. Point 9 of this guideline says: "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason."

As his private RfC already takes more than three weeks, I asked Abd for a binding timetable for his RfC to make sure that this RfC is started in a timely manner [125]. However, Abd removed my request without giving an answer [126].

I recommend that Abd should be blocked for violating Wikipedia:Canvassing, for violating Wikipedia:User page, and for his persistent disruptive behaviour. Yellowbeard 14:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't violate WP:CANVASS by posting at a single page. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS is about the number of invitations and not about the number of promoted pages. Yellowbeard 14:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure I'm looking at this right, you're upset that Abd is inviting multiple editors to participate in a request for comment about himself, contained within his own userspace, that he started? It might be a bit unusual, but I don't think you'll find an admin who will block for that. - auburnpilot talk 14:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As the actual subject of the pseudo-RFC in question (as I think I understand the reams of text, Fritzpoll isn't the subject; the subject is my alleged "abuse of admin powers" in blocking Abd for his personal attacks on Fritzpoll), I have no problem with Abd using his userspace to store the draft of this for as long as he likes while he works on it. I (and I believe most others involved) will ignore any conclusions this "RFC" reaches, as long as Abd keeps it in his userspace and insists on complete control of the process and the right to remove comments he doesn't like, but I have no problem with him writing an essay about me and my evil ways, or inviting others to join in. In any case, it's been a month since his canvassing and thus far not a single person has commented; he's more than welcome to hold conversations with himself. – iridescent 15:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your intention, here, Iridescent. However, the core of the RfC isn't "reams of text." It's actually quite simple, it's at User talk:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. Standard deliberative process is being used: questions are posed; the questions can be amended if anyone wants to propose that; the goal will be to come up with Yes/No answers to well-defined questions. User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block contains the questions that were written by me, there are other questions proposed on the Talk page. The user page will be a report of the conclusions of the RfC, in my judgment, but upon advice from those who participate. There is a method to my madness. --Abd (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• D'oh, I misread this and then got distracted by some Poulenc. Sorry. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

  Correction of fact: I had already commented on Abd's RfC nearly a day earlier than Iridescent's statement above. I had requested that Abd keep me informed, and I welcomed Abd's message on my talk page reminding me to participate. My comments were about Abd's behaviour, not about anyone else's behaviour. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Abd did not canvass only on user pages. He also canvassed on other Wikipedia pages ([127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132]). Yellowbeard 19:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, give it a rest. That's not canvassing, and even if it were, then as the subject of the "RFC" I hereby give him my consent to publicise it anywhere he sees fit providing it's not disruptive. – iridescent 20:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Iridescent. Take a look at Special:Contributions/Yellowbeard. This is an account whose entire raison d'etre has been, for many months, to harass me; it was blocked for canvassing oppose !votes in my second RfA; before being involved with me, it was an SPA dedicated to AfDing articles in a narrow range based on a political agenda. It's blatantly obvious to anyone who knows the field of election methods.

Be that as it may, the RfC is indeed about my behavior; however, an analysis of my behavior could possibly point out facts that would relate to the behavior of others. If, for example, I did not do what I was warned about, nor what I was blocked for, that could imply error on the part of the admin warning and the admin blocking. However, the focus is my behavior, not theirs. Because the purpose of the RfC is to advise me, first, how to understand what happened, and second, how to proceed, it's appropriate that I control it. If I control it badly, I'll succeed in creating bad advice for myself. If, however, it is fairly conducted, it might predict what would happen if there were an RfC in WP space. If there is participation. If not, I'm simply where I started, and if I want to proceed with further dispute resolution, I'll have to make the decision myself without much advice. I have not, by the way, removed comment that "I didn't like." The only comment removed has been vandalism from User:Fredrick day; other comments have been refactored in a few instances, simply for orderly process. Nothing significant has been removed.

There is no discussion of "Iridescent's evil ways." If she thinks that is what is there, she really should look before voicing that opinion as if it were a fact. It isn't. There is only a request that, at present, boils down to "Did Abd do what he was warned about." If I did (except for the non-specific part of it that is quite subjective, i.e., creating "drama"), that's quite bad enough, I'd stop editing, voluntarily and necessarily, it would mean that I could not trust myself. If I didn't do it, it's still possible that I was properly blocked (the reasons were ostensibly different, andthe later offenses could simply fall into ordinary error on my part). So ... one step at a time. WP:DR. Those who love to take stuff to AN and AN/I should try it. It usually works, if done with sufficient patience and caution.

I'm grateful that Iridiscent supports my right to examine these issues, nondisruptively, in my user space. It's been obvious to me that she gets some things right, even lots of things (apparently we were in agreement on the substance of the problem I had been trying to work out with Fritzpoll), and, if I were to criticize her, it would be that she can jump to conclusions based on inadequate exploration of the evidence, and the application of stereotypes. My hope is that, at some point, she will re-examine what led her to block me, and remedy the damage done. So far, however, she's declined to actually look at it; but, then again, she hasn't been forced to, i.e., there is no intervention being attempted with her at this time, and, like many hard-working administrators, I'm sure she is busy. No hurry. But, if the first stage of the RfC concludes, as it looks to me like it will, that the warning was improper, that I did not "personally attack" Fritzpoll or "assume bad faith" with respect to him, nor did I "harass" him, my attention will turn to what happened next; that warning attracted a host of "Yes, I agree" comments and an atmosphere of "Somebody block this guy, please." After I had voluntarily restricted myself to my own Talk space, because of the pile of warnings, proper or not, which were coming so fast that I had edit conflict after edit conflict, she did, nevertheless, block me. To disentangle this will take orderly process. If anyone wants to know why I'm bothering -- I'm not blocked, after all -- they are welcome to ask. On my Talk page. AN doesn't need this, I did not and would not have brought this here. --Abd (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Just in case anyone wants to look, the active core of the self-RfC is at User talk:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. --Abd (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a moratorium on further threads about User:Abd. We've already wasted much too much time discussing this user's activities, ad nauseum. Jehochman ^Talk 20:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support per nom. If Abd wants to talk to someone he's perfectly capable of contacting them; if someone has a problem with Abd they're perfectly capably of contacting him. – iridescent 20:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nom. If I do something offensive, how about discussing it with me on my Talk? I make mistakes, and I appreciate notification of them. --Abd (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am now blocking Yellowbeard for harassment and disruption; this sample edit [133] is emblematic, restoring a veritable linkfarm for no apparent reason at all other than that it was Abd who removed it. This is clearly unacceptable. I invite discussion at Yellowbeard's talk page as to when this should expire. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Guy. I'll put some evidence there, but I'll abstain from advocacy as such. --Abd (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't have any particular problem with the block, but I'm curious whether or not this post by Abd constitutes outing and should be removed? - Bilby (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's open, and it is blatant, and he's acknowledged it, it's not like I'm revealing some big secret that User:RRichie is Rob Richie, Executive Director of the primary organization promoting Instant runoff voting, FairVote, and this is the editor Yellowbeard cited as supporting his edit to that article. It was relevant there to point out that the user is COI, and this has been done many times. How could we ever establish and apply WP:COI without "outing"? But it was never hidden in the first place, not since that account was created. Previously, Richie had edited abusively as IP, which I identified as being his (and he confirmed, pleading ignorance), and was blocked for it, but he has been reasonably well-behaved as a registered editor, and he should be -- and has been -- encouraged to continue. He is not responsible for Yellowbeard's abuses.--Abd (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thankyou - that clarifies the issue. :) I misread your "this user" to be Yellowbeard, not the other user referred to. Clearly it is a non issue. - Bilby (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support the block of a wasteful single purpose account. Your mainspace edits are non-existent, and your only contributions in recent memory include harassing Abd (talk · contribs) and restoring link-spam. seicer | talk | contribs 00:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the block, one way or the other, but I do want to point out, in regard to this particular remark, that Yellowbeard's mainspace edits are 20.95% of his total, while Abd's are 16.94% of his (hers?). (That says nothing about quality, of course.) Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 14:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet another Swamilive sockpuppet

Resolved

 – OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Packed Lunch (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Evidently another sockpuppet of banned user Swamilive (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser). It's the same old crap. -- Dominus (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed by checkuser. Also the following:

1. Carbuncle delicious (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Evilimaws (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. James Bay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. Carbuncle of taste (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. Dine Peril (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. James3456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
7. Packed Lunch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
8. Robert Gilford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

- Alison ^❤ 06:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Many accounts had already been blocked, but I have taken care of the last few. Risker (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, User:Swamilive is not formally banned, just indef blocked, along with all of his sockpuppets. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BAN: If no uninvolved administrator proposes unblocking a user, and the block has received due consideration by the community, the user is considered banned. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Ed, a cafe facade!)} 06:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

New Proposal to Ban All Inactive Users and/or Delete Their User Page

Resolved

 – proposal rejected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Efrym87#User:Efrym87

This discussion has brought up good points. If you don't like a user or a user page and the editor is not active, delete it?

Proposal: If a user hasn't edited in one year, the user page will be deleted. The user may also be subject to a discussion and subsequently banned, if there is a consensus during the discussion. strike out the mean sounding phrase that is already policy (ban are a result of discussion)

1. Oppose We should welcome people, not delete their user pages. As Sticky Parkin said in the Efrym87 discussion, "needless and rude". I agree. 903M (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose: Wikipedia isn't running out of space any time soon. No need to wipe it clean. seicer | talk | contribs 04:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

   I know this is already resolved, but I felt compelled to point out that because of the way MediaWiki works, as in everything is preserved in the database, even deleted userpages still take up space. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 07:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Seems like a really silly idea; if somebody goes away, they might choose to come back eventually; why ban them? *Dan T.* (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I often see mostly inactive accounts make helpful edits more than a year apart. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose MfD canvassing attempt. --erachima talk 04:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Terrible, terrible idea. Everyking (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose, utterly pointless. Brilliantine (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Strong Oppose - absolutely not. People can disappear for months - years at a time - Alison ^❤ 04:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Strong oppose - So if a long standing user takes a year long wikibreak they are subject to a ban and their userpage deleted? Wow, horrible idea. I really am not sure what this will accomplish. Tiptoety ^talk 04:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Should we hence desysop inactive admins as well? Is this supposed to be a joke? Oh, and for the record, oppose. - Mailer Diablo 18:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose Too lenient and unfair. To be equitable, this ought to apply to active editors as well. Then we'll finally get some peace and quiet around here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Strongly Oppose this as flatly ridiculous. I've seen less contrived Dexter's Laboratory plots. Also, this is very unfair to ArbComm-banned users who are given the maximum sentence of a year's enforced vacation.-Jéské ^{(v^_^v Ed, a cafe facade!)} 06:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• 903M (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has only been here a month and obviously isn't very familiar with Wikipedia history. Some of our better contributors have taken a year or more off at one time or another. I'll mark this resolved. Chick Bowen 04:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I now realize 903M wrote "oppose" above. So why put this here at all? In any case, it's still resolved. Chick Bowen 04:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Was it just me who was tempted for a minute to remove the word 'inactive' from the section heading? Brilliantine (talk) 04:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I was more amused by the use of the word "ban" (=social construct) as opposed to "block". This boils down to "If you don't edit for a year, don't bother coming back, 'cause you won't be welcome." Hesperian 05:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Ummmmmm, surely you can find something better to do than worry about this shit? John Reaves 05:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Somers Town, London

I'd appreciate some attention to the recent edit history, both for the article and its talk page. My intention has been to undo blatant POV edits, but I have lately been accused of vandalism [134]. I do not live in England, nor am I interested in the local politics that are apparently at issue here. At one point, I did in fact not only restore an earlier version, but added an 'unsourced' tag, so as to be clear that my only interest was to see this cleaned up. Thanks, JNW (talk) 05:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I actually used to live in Somers Town, could you briefly summarize the situation on my talk page to save time interpreting the article/talk histories? At first glance it looks like the IP was simply adding personal commentary, which someone else has now reverted. Being accused of vandalism is something that happens to pretty much everyone sooner or later. Brilliantine (talk) 05:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As a side effect of looking at this, I am now amused to find that my old flat is now an art gallery... Brilliantine (talk) 05:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Good. An informed oversight will be welcome. The current soapboxing both in the article and on its discussion page [135] is apparently nothing new--a view of the edit history reveals similar wording and bias [136], [137] being inserted and reverted at least since February of this year. JNW (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I will attempt to work with the editor in question. I have no doubt that he or she means well, but is merely slightly lacking in understanding of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. To be fair, some of the points the editor is making do hold water, such as the description of the Chalton Street festival being a bit peacock-y. Brilliantine (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Improvements to this section will be welcome. Your talk page explanations are clearly and respectfully worded. Regarding the contributions of others: as can often happen, there is a vigorous inclination to value one's personal perceptions over sourced content, which guidelines and warnings may do little to dissuade. In this instance there does not seem to be any desire to respect WP:OR and WP:NPOV, nor, for that matter, to address others with civility. JNW (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Peculiar IP behaviour - bot not logged in?

165.228.204.166 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is making a series of edits to User:AlexNewArtBot's userspace. I think the bot isn't logged in (or lost its session data). ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 10:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have blocked the ip for now, so the bot would work silently for a while. I t would relogin then there will be time to post the results. Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a tip, you can add &assert=user to the end of all urls in the code. — CharlotteWebb 23:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to transwiki to commons?

Stupid question, but I crossed Gallery of the Founding Fathers of the United States while looking for expired prods, and I think that transwikying the content to Commons might be a better solution than outright deletion (tons of users worked on the gallery). I remember there used to be a wiktionary transwiki bot, but I couldn't find trace of such a thing for commons. Any ideas? (I don't know commons procedures well and commons:Commons:Transwiki does not seem to be really used) -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Put the images into a category? Stifle (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A Commons administrator can import the page with the full edit history to Commons. Ask for this at their administrators' noticeboard. If possible, merge the gallery into Founding Fathers of the United States, but gallery pages are still useful at Commons. Graham87 14:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki is  Done. The page can be seen here at Commons.--Kanonkas :  Talk  15:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Much love, thanks a lot! -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible block-evading agenda account

I've been asked on my talk page to comment on Terrawatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a LaRouch WP:SPA which started on a pattern very similar to Masai warrior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just three days after that account was blocked and right after the last of several unblock requests was declined. Early contributions indicate that this was not a new user, and the editing pattern seems to fit the usual pattern of pro-LaRouche SPAs as identified by the LaRouche RFAR, and despite the limited history of either there is article cross-correlation. I am minded to simply show this POV-warrior the door, what do others think? Guy (Help!) 18:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The accounts are indistinguishable. They are clearly here for the sole purpose of advancing a fringe POV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The complaint to JzG was initiated by John Nevard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is a real, self-acknowledged sockpuppet.[138] Both he and Will Beback (but mainly Will Beback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are presently engaged in an edit war over an external link at Lyndon LaRouche, which they want to add in defiance of WP:BLP. Will has been promoting the idea for some time that editors who disagree with him should be banned as socks, evidence or no evidence.[139] As Marvin Diode points out on JzG's talk page,[140] this is a case of attempted Use of administrator tools in disputes. --Terrawatt (talk) 00:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And get a load of this article cross-correlation -- much more interesting than with Masai Warrior. --Terrawatt (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Terrawatt, are you saying that all of the blocks of HK's other socks were invalid, that none of the LaRouche accounts have been socks? Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Herschelkrustofsky, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Herschelkrustofsky. There's a lot of evidence of previous socking in this matter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't the faintest idea whether all of the blocks of HK's other socks were invalid. I have noted, however, that you seem to see blocking your opponents in content disputes as a shortcut to dispute resolution. --Terrawatt (talk) 06:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably not a new user; probably a puppet; Certainly the account is being used to promote an agenda, and it's interfering with others' who are trying to work. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

We have previously blocked a number of SPAs related to LaRouche - Terrawatt has previously fallen below the general line of abusiveness under which we've considered doing that, but the last few days have seen a marked uptick in activity and level of problems. I am going to leave a final warning against disruption. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. I see, in addition to Will Beback, Tom Harrison is here. The two of them are long-time allies of former editor Chip Berlet, and staunch supporters of his campaign to use Wikipedia to showcase his non-notable theories and opinions. Tom Harrison is a super-vigilant enforcer of BLP at Chip Berlet, but seems to feel that Lyndon LaRouche is exempt from the BLP policy. If someone asks for enforcement of BLP at Lyndon LaRouche, that's "interfering with others'[sic] who are trying to work." Well, news flash -- the ArbCom says that the BLP policy applies even to LaRouche.[141] Georgewilliamherbert is quick to conclude that the edit war at Lyndon LaRouche is my fault, but under the BLP policy, the burden of proof is on the person who wants to add contentious material. In fact, as someone recently said, It's up to whoever wants to include the material to demonstrate the reliability of the source and the suitability of the material for the biography. Who said that? Well, I'll be damned! It was Tom Harrison![142]

There are proper approaches to disputes of this nature, including mediation and RfCs. However, there are some editors that can't be bothered with conventional dispute resolution, when it seems more expedient to summon a gang of their buddies and lobby for administrative sanctions against their opponents. The last time Will tried this approach, the following, very astute comment was made by DTobias: The meme to the effect that "everybody expressing similar opinions to a banned user should be banned too" came into play frequently in the whole Mantanmoreland vs. WordBomb saga, and one would hope it had been discredited by now. This issue needs to be pursued in a "sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander" manner with no special consideration, pro or con, being given to either side based on their having a more powerful circle of friends here.[143] --Terrawatt (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that I have already received a threat from Georgewilliamherbert, who finds my recent edits "disruptive."[144] I would like to request that other admins overrule him. WP:BLP is supposed to be one of the major policies here; for example, removal of BLP-violating material is exempt from 3RR. However, I haven't violated 3RR, or any other policy. I simply insist that BLP be enforced at the LaRouche bio, and to call this "disruptive" is a curious perversion of policy.--Terrawatt (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If I believed that you (or any of the other LaRouche regulars) were Herschelkrustofsky sockpuppets, I would have simply blocked and logged a sockpuppet, as would any of the other administrators involved. HK may well be participating, but I have no current opinion and make no current accusation regarding you or anyone else here. Terrawatt, your disruptive editing is your own account's problem. We already have significant precedent for these articles being under special attention and some special sanctions.

One cannot simply point to the BLP policy to justify deletions. If an administrator makes a BLP determination and deletes, that's one thing, but normal editors cannot violate other Wikipedia policy and then hide under the BLP policy as a shield. Doing so without forming a consensus that there is in fact a BLP violation is disruptive. Doing so eight times, and significant other behavioral disruption, is a disruptive editor. If you continue to try to use that defense, and in particular if you engage in further disruption on the articles or talk pages, there's nothing left between you and a block.

Separately from this, I am considering indefinite protection on the main LaRouche page, as has been applied to the Views of Lyndon LaRouche page. This area continues to be a focused problem for Wikipedia and wider solutions may be necessary. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Terrawatt is doing a great job of convincing me that he is indeed a disruptive single purpose account and likely block-evading sockpuppet. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This entire battle is over this external link, which has been removed 5 times by Terrawatt and restored 8 times by Will Beback. Arguments pro and con may be seen at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#BLP. Apparently if Terrawatt removes, that's "disruptive editing," whereas if Will Beback restores, that's "others' who are trying to work." Or, going by the article cross-correlation tool, they are the same person, making a total of 13 disputed edits in one week. But no matter how you slice it, these are the only edits Terrawatt has made that can be construed as "disruptive" or "abusive," so this whole thing strikes me as overkill. I might add that JzG/Guy firmly established his partisanship in this issue one year ago[145], and is presently involved in an ArbCom case where he is being warned against "use of administrator privileges in disputes as to which the administrator is, or may reasonably be perceived as being, involved in the underlying dispute." --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It only takes one topic / point of disupte and disruption. There's no requirement that someone have caused problems across a wide range of topics or articles. One point argued in a sufficiently disruptive manner is plenty. Also - as has been stated repeatedly - these LaRouche related articles are already under special sanction and special attention. Any editor working on them needs to be aware that there is less rope to hang onesself with on this topic, rather than more. A number of accounts editing these topics have had assumptions of good faith extended to at least the point they would get on other unrelated topics. Terrawatt has exceeded that threshold, on this point, at this time. An agreement to back off and stop disrupting would be helpful and avoid the need for preventive blocks. It's up to Terrawatt. If you value his contributions, it's time to talk to him and try and get him to de-escalate on his side. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that's how it is when single-purpose accounts pick fights with editors who have a much wider range of interests. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

All right. I agree to back away from the dispute at Lyndon LaRouche. I would appreciate it if I could get a straight answer to these two questions:

1. Is it the consensus of the people who participate in this noticeboard that the concept of BLP as an official policy is vastly overrated?

2. If not, is there a special caste of editors that possess a sort of "00" license to disregard BLP at their pleasure? If so, membership must be quite a disTINCtion.

Also, I would like it to be known that, all circumstantial evidence to the contrary, I am not Will Beback. --Terrawatt (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You are being excessively provocative. In this case there is legitimate dispute over the significance of the disputed content, and to invoke WP:BLP is not valid in the context of a source wihc has a known and demonstrable authority in respect of the content. Your approach would effectively discount every source critical of LaRouche on the grounds that it is critical, and that is not the purpose of WP:BLP, just as the purpose of Wikipedia is a neutral rather than a sympathetic portrayal of a subject (something with which LaRouche followers ave always had a problem). Guy (Help!) 13:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a misreading of the dispute. The use of Berlet as a source is not being contested. What is being contested is the use of his (arguably self-published) website, which contains defamatory material which would never make it past the editorial oversight of a mainstream source. No citation of Berlet in a mainstream source is being challenged. Please read the discussion at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#BLP. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The only issue in this thread is block evasion. If you'd like to discuss BLP concerns there is a separate noticeboard for that, WP:BLPN. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll assemble some additional evidence in this matter and post it tomorrow. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be also important to examine the use of the account User:John Nevard as an abusive sock. It is a matter of record that this is a secondary account, and it is presently engaged in edit warring and disruption at Lyndon LaRouche. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sanger alternate account compromised?

Resolved

Spotted a famous name on my watchlist. User:LarrySanger, which seems to have been an alternate of User:Larry Sanger (page used to be a redirect), got compromised recently, it seems. Thought it was at least worth mentioning. (For those who don't know who Larry Sanger is, see our article on him). How common is it for accounts to be compromised like that? Carcharoth (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

An account was made at another project under the name "LarrySanger" and it was automatically created locally last week. The global account in question was blocked by MaxSem.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Note how the contribution history somehow picked up some edits from 2001. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably not related (this one was probably due to the early Wikipedia software being different in 2001 - and it was very different! See UseMod), but considering global accounts in general, trans-wikis can give some strange results in contribution histories. See my contributions at the German Wikipedia for example. Only the August 2008 edit is one done "over there". The earlier ones all appear to have been transwikiied. Carcharoth (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

One way or another, a more or less harmless software glitch. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Improper and unhelpful intervention by Administrator Elonka

Resolved

 – Complaint has no merit, editor is suitably warned. Jehochman ^Talk 22:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

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

I request that a review of my personal talk page be done and it be determined if Elonka (talk · contribs) is (1) properly explaining WP policy, (2) engaging in a productive discussion of WP policy or is instead expressing her pov in regard to editorial style, (3) is claiming to be impartial, but is actually fully engaged on controversial issues.

She raises policy issues but will not then engage in discussing the issues that she raises. My understanding is that each editor may develop a personal editorial style, so long as this complies with policy and the editing improves the article for the Reader. Please decide if Administrator Elonka is directing me in regard to style - or in regard to WP policy.

In this case Extraordinary rendition by the United States has serious OR policy violations in regard to misrepresenting a memo by Dick Marty to be a report by the European Parliment. This memo itself states that it is his opinions because the European Parliment refused to issue a report. We can cite Dick Marty, but we may not claim that the opinions of Dick Marty is the opinion of the European Parliment when Dick Marty himself states that they are not. Administrator Elonka should encourage those who revert this proven false claim to not revert without a reliable source. She has not done this.

Administrator Elonka has suggested that I have not been civil to other users. I claim to have fully complied. I ask that she offer examples of this here.

I request that Administrator Elonka be banned from this article. Raggz (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see she reverted your blanking of the article, then tried to explain to you why blanking isn't the way to delete an article. I don't see how or why this needs admin action. – iridescent 22:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a giant gutting of an article with little rationale provided. You need to be much more careful with what you are removing, which included a great many third-party sources as well as primary sources. Grandmasterka 22:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thirded. Elonka is not being aggressive, unreasonable or otherwise problematic in her dealings with the editor above; she's simply pointing out the issues with his/her edits (to an article that's part of a historically contentious collection of pages that are often targeted by questionable edits), and providing options. No problems from my point of view. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yup. Dude, Elonka is absolutely right. Your editing on this article is indeed rather poor. Shape up, please. I notice this is a long-term problem, too. Moreschi (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, you blanked one article in its entirety and gutted much of another one with a hopelessly inadequate justification. You were lucky you weren't blocked. Don't do that again, please. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

By bringing this here I expect to get productive criticism like yours, and to improve as a result. There is extensive discussion of all of this on talk. You will note there my concerns about the misuse of primary sources. Both (two) editors and I have agreed that the European Parliment Report is actually not from the European Parliment, but is from Dick Marty. They however prefer to leave the recognized OR policy violations as they are, citing a lack of consensus for change. There are pages on Talk where I have tried to get consensus to cite the source correctly as Dick Marty and not the European Parliment. After fulling discussing an obvious misquote, does wp:or require that I delete the OR? The deletion of OR when it involves wp:syn violations requires deletion of reliable sources if used to violate wp:syn. Perhaps I misunderstand wp:syn, but this Administrator is not explaining policy but is directing my editorial style instead. I follow wp:bold, my goal is to improve the article, and the misquoted sources need to go as well as the text that they involve.

Here is a case where an Administrator is aware that the article is in error to attribute Dick Marty's opinions as those of the European Parliment. She is aware that two editors have reverted this clear OR without fixing the OR. My Talk page shows how she has handled this issue. Am I hearing that I should have permitted it to exist for another year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 22:59, September 15, 2008 (UTC)

First of all, please re-read WP:BOLD: Though the boldness of contributors like you is one of Wikipedia's most precious assets, it is important that contributors take care of the common good, or at least that they not edit recklessly. However, any changes you make that turn out badly can be reverted, often quite painlessly. It is important not to be insulted if your changes are reverted or edited further... Also, substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or abortion, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care.

You can assume that if someone reverts your changes, or raises an objection to it, your evaluation of OR or NPOV violation is probably also challenged. In this case, you need to discuss on the talk page and try to reach consensus with the other editors. If consensus rejects your objections, then there is little you can do (apart possibly from doing an RfC to get wider community input on the question). However, from what I can read from other editors' comments, it seems your edits are being seen as too bold (read reckless). This is not how you want to be seen by other editors.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

All good points. I'm looking forward to resolving my understanding of policies. This is the perfect example, the article has made a false claim (that the supporting cite confirms as false). Except for myself, there is consensus for leaving the false claim (and no debate but agreement that it is false). If my understanding of policy is correct, leaving important factual misrepresentation within the article for another year is my only choice, save an RfC? If there is a consensus on this here, then I am in fact in error. Raggz (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a short part of the article' talk:

Hi, just popping in as an uninvolved admin. I have no preference on the content of this article, but I did look into the charge of vandalism. However, I'm not seeing any vandalism here. See WP:VANDAL#NOT. If there's a disagreement over content, I recommend trying one of the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If there's an issue with an editor who is making changes in violation of talkpage consensus, please supply a diff of the consensus and of the violating edits, and I'll take a look. Thanks, --Elonka 03:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. The issues are not content issues, if they were, I would not make changes without consensus per wp:consensus. What we have (detailed above) are policy disputes. As an editor I'm required to address violations of wp:or, wp:syn, and wp:npov, and others. We have discussed what I consider policy violations without agreement.

For example: Our article talks about the European Parliment making claims when the cited source is not from the European Parliment, but is from a member. The committee of this body decided not to issue the claimed report or make the allegations that our article says that the European Parliment made. One member issued a memo: Our article pretends that this member represented the entire European Parliment. It is not a good thing for our article to misrepresent the facts within our citations, and this violates policy. As an editor I have deleted these misrepresentations again. Does wp:consensus mean that I cannot delete clear wp:or policy violations?

Were my questions answered, or even adressed? No. Instead I was corrected for civility, a policy that I have never violated. Raggz (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A key question is still for me unanswered, may clear original research be deleted if extended discussion on talk and fact tags do not resolve the issue? The answer here seemingly is no. Could someone just simply say, no, don't delete OR? I understand that the policies need be blended with each other, but what seems to have been said is that wp:consensus prevents the deletion of OR. What do I take away from this so that I don't do it again? I don't really get it Raggz (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that the discussion on the talk page indicates that there's debate as to whether it is original research or not. Which is, in fact, a content issue and not an administrative issue. A request for comment would perhaps be useful, or a third opinion. Elonka has not, as noted above, abused her administrative position in this situation, so there's really nothing left to do here. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Review of blocking the sock puppet brazilian

Hello. Not speak english. (translate google)

I is user:OS2Warp am a administrator of wikipedia in portuguese.

The user brazilian Vitor mazuco, asked me to come here and asks that it be done to unlock your main account User: Vitor mazuco (User: Vitor lavigne - User talk:Vitor lavigne your sock puppet).

He claims that at the time was a newbie and who learned to edit in wikipédia and thus want to edit with its unified account.

If new problems, that is done the relock.

Thanks advance. --OS2Warp (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I blocked Lavigne for 72 hours, then blocked Mazuco indefinitely as a sock after I discovered it. This was back in March. If the person wants to edit articles, why not just use the Lavigne account? I understand being a newbie, however I'm concerned about the language barrier.... if warnings are placed on Lavigne's page again will s/he be able to understand them? Does this person also have a Portuguese Wikipedia account and if so, are his edits there constructive? - eo (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The user has an SUL for his Mazuco account, which is active in Portuguese Wikipedia. The request seems to be to allow the user the full SUL right, including here.

Additionally, the Mazuco account was created nearly a week before the Lavigne account.

About the constructiveness of his edits - it would seem to me that if a Portuguese Wikipedia admin (I confirmed that the request was posted by an SUL account with administrator rights there) comes to here to ask for an unblock for him - that probably means that the admin either knows the user already as a constructive user, or checked his record to make sure that he is one. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Request

Can somebody merge Terrorcore and Gabber? They're really the same. Fclass (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No reason why you can't, merge into one and make the other redirect to it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Just make sure to stay GFDL-compliant if you do so, but linking to the merged article in your edit summary. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for admin to evaluate survey

We recently completed a brief survey in the Sarah Palin article. The survey was to find consensus on whether to delete a section called "Religious Perspective". While editors were discussing the survey, an editor deleted the section before the survey ended, on false pretenses. Regardless, I would like to get closure on the survey and need a fair minded admin with experience determining consensus to review this article and make an assessment and close the survey. (Who has not participated in the survey) Regardless of the outcome, I don't have any inclination to edit the article again anytime soon. Please see Talk:Sarah_Palin#Brief_Survey_--_Religious_Perspective.

One point I'd like to make, hopefully without biasing the assessment. I apparently wrote the intro in an unclear fashion, as the topic of the survey was the concept of that article having a seperate section for "religious perspective". (Which it did have prior to the beginning of the survey.) A number of people responding seemed to misunderstand and offered views on the content that the section has previously contained at various times, disregarding that the survey and discussion was about an editorial matter of whether a sub-topic/section based on religious perspective should be deleted, or remain in the article. The article clearly has a large number of people who believe that the section should be deleted. (It was deleted prior to completion of the survey, when one editor felt that a paragraph in the section violated BLP, and therefore deleted the entire section, and all content -- including undisputed, and non-BLP paragraphs.) Whether the final outcome is that there was a consensus to delete or not is debatable. I'd love to have an impartial eye determine that, rather than debate it further. Regardless of the outcome, there will be closure, and I can move on to other things. Thanks, Atom (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The archive bot is running at 24 hours, so that thread has been archived to Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 21#Brief Survey -- Religious Perspective. The question was worded wrongly; for a BLP the question is whether or not a consensus exists to include material, not whether or not a consensus exists to remove material. The "survey" was clearly marred by canvassing in favor of inclusion, which makes evaluation of the discussion more challenging. However, even ignoring that, I see no consensus for inclusion of the then existing section. No consensus to include had been the result in the prior discussions. It seems theoretically possible to me that a consensus might be formed for a different approach to covering the topic with different degrees of coverage, but there was not support for the then existing version which was also duplicative of two other parts of the article. Eliminate repetition within the article and define the scope better and there might be a chance. But the inappropriate approach of "anything that can be cited must be included" has been generating a significant fraction of the disputes on this article. GRBerry 03:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Miszabot archived the discussion on a 24 hour window about 2 minutes after I posted the prior message. I returned it to the article so that it can gain closure. A decision in either direction will allow it to support that position with much less discussion later. I probably did not word it correctly. Read the detail, no need to go into it here. If the section had consensus previously, then a new consensus would be needed to delete it -- that is why I worded it that way. The reason I posed the survey is because I believed that I had a consensus, and a different editor came along later and claimed that there had not been a consensus. He pointed to a discussion where several people were talking about some of the "content" of the section that had been BLP (and had been removed by me). Rather than argue with him, or delete the section based on only his word, I felt that merely asking for a brief survey would be more effective and pne way or the other, develop a consensus with many people involved. I believe that editor misunderstood what I was saying, and that I was trying to fight for the unaccepatable content that had briefly been inserted. I was not discussing content, but the need (IMO) for a seperate section for the topic of Religious perspective. This is the wrong place for this discussion, it has already been discussed ad nauseum in the article. Atom (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As for Canvassing, the admin who reviews it can comment on that -- it certainly had nothing to do with me, and I asked for the survey. The person who did the canvassing was someone who has disagreed with my position in a number of places. As I said, that is one factor that the admin who closes it can address. Atom (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You say "No consensus to include had been the result in the prior discussions." Again, I point out that the previous discussions had not been discussing whether a section on Religious Perspective should be in the article, we already had consensus for that section prior to those discussions. The discussions you refer to was whether some specific CONTENT in a similar named section was appropriate (it was not). If you actualy read the Intro, you would understand that. Indeed, much of the discussion was based on the mistaken impression that someone was trying to push biased content into the article. Clearly I rebutted and expressed that the future content of the section needed to meet all Wikipedia guidelines, and that I was not asking for a survey as to whether the CONTENT at some previous time should be deleted or not, only whether a Section titled "Religious Perspective" (with appropriate content meeting BLP and other policies) should be deleted. Indeed I made sure that there was no objectionable content to try to head off such misunderstanding. While I slept an editor slipped in some extreme biased paragpah into the section, and another editor who wanted the section deleted waited for the BLP to appear and deleted the entire section which included content that no one had objected to, and had previously not been contestes -- in fact some of it had been moved from two other sections, which is where that material has now gone back to. All based on the excuse of BLP. Would someone delete the entire political views section just because one editor added a paragraph that vilated BLP? No, only that Paragraph would have been deleted. As I said before -- this is the wrong place for this discussion. If some admin can go close the survey, I would appreciate it. Atom (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Editing Template

Hello, I'd like to make a slight modification to the country infobox template. Thing is, it's protected from lowly editors by myself (seems a bit restrictive to me, but I suppose there's some sort of history). Anyway, the upshot of the change is the move the English longform name to the top of the infobox, rather than having it buried under foreign scripts. I've experimented in the sandbox, and if an admin could simply paste the following code (open the edit page box to see) over top of the current "Names" section, it should work. Erudy (talk) 03:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. You can use {{editprotected}} for other such requests, though a post to AN/ANI is faster. This template appears to be one of many high risk templates that have been permanently protected due to its presence on many articles and the insidiousness of template vandalism.--chaser - t 04:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Bush Doctrine dispute

Hi, I have been adding to the Bush Doctrine article and trying my best to be NPOV and provide fair, balanced, properly referenced information that has validity to the doctrine itself and its practical policies. However, there are numerous edits and reverts being done, lately to the Bush Doctrine#Criticism section. Now, there has been introduced a phrase which is blatantly anti-Semitic, which I find objectionable. I understand the controversy with one of the references which was provided for showing the radical disparity between then Bush Doctrine and the Reagan Doctrine. I feel the inclusion of the sentence by MacDonald is fully objectionable, against common sense and represents a strong POV-centric message. Reverts which move around references and inadvertently (?) remove complete paragraphs seem rampant, and this is tiring in an editing process. I request - maybe not any decision - but at least some opinion on how to deal with this. User:Superflewis with rollback rights, even accused me of vandalism - when the misrepresented quote was expanded by me to at least include the full sentence. It is not in the interest of Wikipedia to NOT treat the article fairly, and there seems to be more attempts on removing content than actually providing useful contribution - sabotaging the Wikipedian effort. With the objective phrase - obviously anti-Semitic and a strong POV - I feel the quality of the article is being gravely reduced. I will withstand from any further edits on the article for the time being, as this is very tiresome to my efforts. Thanks for any comments, here or on the Talk:Bush Doctrine. Good night... Scierguy (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It is late, but it seems sanity has returned and the dispute has mellowed. Hopefully... ;-) Scierguy (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I fully admitted to the mistake on my behalf, and have subsequently agreed on removing the controversial statement in question. Apologies for the trouble --Superflewis (talk) 07:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This dispute is still evolving - and is essentially a dispute on WHAT IS the Bush Doctrine and what it IS NOT. I am adding content and references - while User:Korny O'Near basically wants to trim out content he personally deems unrelated. That is NOT the view held by international experts on philosophy, history, international relations or other authors. The accepted and shared world-view by world experts is that the Bush Doctrine is a collection of strategic decisions, ideological principles and practical policy decisions - and not simply something hastily gathered after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. This dispute is both time-consuming and detrimental to adding any improvement to the article of the Bush Doctrine. It is in need of the attention of Wikipedia administrators, but I will fill in the proper requests if it continues incessant. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Passing the buck

Hey, can someone help this guy out? I speedy-deleted his article, Venue Management Association, as blatant advertising, and he clearly doesn't understand why. Usually I try to explain things, but I'm going through a move right now, so I don't really have time to give him the helpful and thorough response I think he deserves. Probably serves me right for doing a speedying-run right before I knew I'd be busy. But anyway, if someone has some extra time, could you explain things to him? I don't mind at all if the end result is undeleting or userfying his article. Sheepish thanks. --Masamage ♫ 05:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll get this one. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:CSD and Username !backlogs!

Please remove this alert if this is taken care of.

Cheers, --mboverload@ 05:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

AWOL (rap group)

Resolved

The AfD on the above article closed as delete approximately 6 hours ago but, the article has not yet been deleted. Could an admin please do the honours. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Article is now absent (with leave). Guy (Help!) 08:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • heh. Absent with leave. Heh. Get it? Keeper ǀ 76 14:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I know it hung on delete and I noted that to the script's creator but then forgot to manually delete before going to bed. Whoops! TravellingCari 18:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"I suck at searching so let us delete this."

Resolved

 – See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 16. Chick Bowen 15:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

While the title is a bit provacative, so is the rampant deletionism based on spending two minutes looking for notability and not finding it. I am so dis-heartened that while I found an article that can be rescued, I lack the enthusiasm to create it. Perhaps someone who has been here not so long and retains their enthusiasms will do something. I'm struggling to help, but posting the below to try to stem the tide is the best I can do.

Here can be found a link to deleted Wikipedia articles that were "deleted after more than 1000 days on Wikipedia". At that link I found this deleted article which still exists at here at the spanish Wikipedia. This search yeilded this and this and other confirmations it is real and notable. I'm sure I could find more. But why try? Some people are only here to get off on making others jump thru hoops and I am tired of it. I apologize for not saying all this in a nicer way. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the article itself, but the AfD is interesting, with a consensus somehow coming to delete from the nominator's statement and one delete !vote (and one comment that essentially advocates a move). Seems like quite a questionable closure, to me. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC).

Not sure what you are after. Deletion Review is over there somewhere. People make mistakes it doesn't mean they are lazy, power hungry, or anything else. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, amazing how it's so simple finding sources to demonstrate notability in less than two minutes yet the original editor couldn't be bothered spending them. — Coren ^(talk) 12:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The AfD is not that unusual, and on the basis of the arguments (which, like WAS has done, you can spin to look bad) made there, unsourced, unsourcable, WP:V applies and off it goes, I too may have deleted it. WAS, you're entitled to go to DRV or to recreate it with sources as you see fit. Probably better to do that than throwing around alarming accusations of motive. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 12:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Or put another way, why should we care? Guy (Help!) 12:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

WAS.250, I did propose a while ago that editors who spend all their time kicking over other people's sandcastles at the beach could be construed as tendentious, but was opposed. Most of the contributors are...erm..out there contributing, so this was a pretty predictable response. I do concede I am frustrated by lack of source-hunting on both sides, anyway send it to DRV, or userfy and if impressive show the original deleter to save time.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should care because we've become awfully prodigal with other people's time and effort. The example at the top of this thread looks like an article on a notable subject, and editors certainly put a significant amount of work into it, but it was deleted on the say-so of two editors, neither of whom apparently made any effort to fix it or did any real research into the subject. It's a small thing in and of itself, but it's emblematic of a worrying trend. Way back in the olden days, there seemed to be a lot less "Ready-Fire-Aim!" around here... I think that this wastefulness and duplication of effort is part of the reason that so many productive editors become burned out. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Goody, more of the nonsense that is "Deletionists versus Inclusionists." Every day a new thread pops up that further weakens their defenses. You know why? Because we have mechanisms set in place in case an article may be erroneously deleted. It's called Deletion Review. Furthermore, after reviewing the article, I would have wiped it myself after finding that the article was not backed with any reliable sources and fails ORG. seicer | talk | contribs 13:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

...Wow. Deletionpedia is awesome. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm, every deleted article here ends there? What about personal attacks or copyvios? Or privacy breaches and so on? --Tone 14:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Like this? (hell, knock yourself out.) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as an aside, remember that the burden of evidence lies with those wishing to keep things, not those wishing to delete it--Jac16888 (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

that's challenged article content, and, even so mass challenges to material that could be easily sourced is usually considered unconstructive. . The default for lack of consensus to delete an article is that the article is kept.--consensus to delete has to be shown, not just lack of consensus to keep.. This isn't the place to formally propose it, but I think every nomination for deletion at afd, prod or speedy based on lack of sources for notability should be accompanied by a link to a preliminary search that is reasonable for the topic, or at least a statement that such a search was done. I would even suggest that before voting one might wish to carries out a search if it hasnt been already done; I generally do. I do not think the instance mentioned was a single isolated case. Yes, people should write good articles in the first place. But if they don't, and there's any chance that an acceptable article is possible, people should try to improve them. Deleting articles that could be improved is helping the encyclopedia in a very minimal way. DGG (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, well said. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 14:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As an SGpedian, I find that deletionism significantly contributes to the problem of systemic bias. Singapore-related articles are often AFDed (or speedied) by narrow-minded deletionists (usually Americans), even when notability is easily established. This creates a hostile environment on Wikipedia and discourages SGpedians from writing articles. Instead of destroying the work of others, deletionists should spend their time writing GAs. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If that's not the most blatant mischaracterization that is a borderline personal slander against administrators who do the grunt work of deleting articles. seicer | talk | contribs 14:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

My post is not about all "administrators who do the grunt work of deleting articles", only those who AFD (or speedy) Singapore-related articles without checking for notability. Of course, administrators who do lots of deletion-related work should occasionally write GAs instead (to avoid becoming like the group of deletionists my post refers to). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt very much that a generalization such as that can be a "personal" slander. I also sympathize with the poster, but sincerely doubt that there is a systemic bias against Singapore-related articles. Most probably, as a "SGpedian" you simply see more of those articles deleted, so the bias is in the sample. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 14:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There is definitely a bias against nonAmerican (and less so, nonBritish) subjects at AfD - Singapore probably doesn't get it the worst or the least worst. But to deny such a bias exists is completely at odds with reality. WilyD 14:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Listed at DRV. WAS, I'm disappointed in you, really. If an article has been deleted wrongly, we take the steps to undelete it. There's no reason at all to make a giant kerfluffle out of it. Chick Bowen 15:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Can we just close this as a rant? If this user wants to talk about how I'm basically vandalising wikipedia at AfD, I'd rather that just occur on his userspace. Protonk (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have sometimes done random article patrol. If I see an article with no references, I may tag it as unreferenced. I do not feel that I am required to spend hours finding and adding references (assuming there are any) to an article about a subject I have no interest in. It should be up to the creator and regular editors of an article to comply with the need for an encyclopedia article to be verifiable and referenced to reliable sources. Before anyone nominates an article for deletion, he should do a basic searhc to see if reliable sources are likely to exist. This could include a Google search, a Google News search, a Google Books search, or a Google Scholar search, depending on what type of subject it is. Article creators are not entitled to just write a bunch of text and expect someone else to find sources for the supposed information they have added to an encyclopedia, then complain if someone tags the article as unreferenced or nominates it for one of the forms of deletion (Speedy, Prod, AFD). Out of 2.5 million articles, there are a great many which are unencyclopedic. Only 120 or so even get nominated for AFD each day, and many of these get kept. I have spent countless hours researching and adding references for AFD articles which are salvagable, resulting in many which stayed in the encyclopedia afterwards far better referenced than they were before AFD. But article improvement is not the purpose of AFD. Meeting the basic demand of verifiability and reliable sources is an obligation of article creators and those who like the article and edit it, or who are fans of the subject area of the article. Edison (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

My experience is similar to the experience of J.L.W.S.. I live in Sweden, Northern Europe and I see that articles about things that are well known in Northern Europe but not in the US more often gets tagged for deletion than articles on similar US subjects. It is often a hard struggle to defend such articles against the scores of users who "never heard of that!". And I am talking of articles who do have proper references. Sometimes I almost feel tempted to go out on a rampage and start deleting articles on local US subjects that we Northern Europeans "never heard of!".

But I guess we have to live with it, there's probably no way around it.

Another thing I see every now and then is that one user removes the references or moves them to the "External links" section, stating "those were not references, they were only barely related". It seems this happens when that user doesn't understand the reference since it is too technical. Then another user comes along and tags the article for deletion because it lacks references...

Again, I don't think we can prevent that either, since there will always be sloppy and/or stupid editors around that does such things. Of course, a good habit is to take a look at some older versions of the article to see how they looked, before deleting it.

--David Göthberg (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Good example here - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashanthi - I was doing some AfD closes, noticed this and thought "Hang on, even I've heard of her, and I live in the UK!". The first line of the article at the time it was AfD'd even read "Ashanthi is Sri Lankan's first and only female R&B / Hip Hop artist to be signed to an International record label" - which you would've thought would prompt people to at least search for sources. I think the fact it was such a badly written spammy article that was pushing people to go for Delete, rather than any problems with notability, because it took me two minutes to find loads of refs in Sri Lankan newspapers. I'm always very careful with possible WP:CSB issues in AfDs, and tend to try and trawl for sources myself unless they're obviously NN. Black Kite 23:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why was the article ignored for 1000 days? That's close to three years! You'd think anti-abortionists should take some responsibility and be willing to look after those unwanted babies... Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm may perhaps not be popular for saying this, but there's reverse bias also. For a dubious article with questionable sources in english from sources I ought to have access to, if I have some doubts i will check. For borderline sources in another language from print publications no one in the US holds, I am much more likely to let them pass if there's a chance they might be valid. If someone claims a degree from a nonexistent US college, I can determine that pretty easily and definitively; if someone claims it from a college not in the Western academic tradition, I have a very much harder job. I can tell a US tutoring center from a US college; a real US newspaper from a US local advertising newsletter. I cannot do this as well for those in Asian countries. I have some idea of what US banks are likely to be important even if the articles are poor; not so elsewhere; I know what a notable US law firm should have as an internet presences; not so elsewhere. And so on. The more prominent the topic to the largest number of wikipedians, the sooner will nonsense be detected. Yes, some people use their limitation sas a reason for trying to delete everything unfamiliar, but many of use it as a reason for tolerance, or hoping that someone more competent will do the check. But this bias is not just language/national: WP works poorly in general for topics with only a small number of interested or competent workers, and best for those with the most attention. DGG (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

How do we get a recalcitrant editor to talk?

CarloscomB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a prolific, obviously good-faith editor of astronomy articles, who has done a large number of edits that, while well-meant, have technical errors in them (mainly linking to disambig pages). He's also uploaded many images with poor source information. All of these things have been pointed out on his talk page, which he's never edited. I blocked him for 48 hours with an instruction in the block log to answer questions on his talk page, and instead he edited anonymously (189.68.164.110, 189.68.200.29). The IPs resolve to Brazil and his English may not be great, but it's obviously good enough to create these articles. Obviously we could ban him and block his IP range but that seems excessive--the problems here create work for other editors, but they're not disruptive (and anyway I think blocking his IP range would include most of São Paulo). I'd appreciate any thoughts on a way forward. Chick Bowen 15:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have had good luck in the past through indefinitely blocking such users and leaving a note on their talk page indicating that I was willing to lift the block as soon as they contacted me to discuss the situation. Typically once they do that, I simply explain the copyright issue and ask them to agree to abide by our policies on copyright and fair use. Nandesuka (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Another technique that can be helpful (in cooperation with other editors, and carefully keeping 3RR in mind) is to revert problematic edits, and never fix them yourself. Revert his edits, and leave a description on his talk page of what his error was, and how it could be corrected. It's more time-consuming than fixing it yourself, but ultimately the editor gets the message. No one likes to see their edits erased.Kww (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think also perhaps finding someone that can talk to him on his talkpage in Portugeuse may prove helpful. I don't know of anyone that speaks/types well, but maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Brazil or Wikipedia:WikiProject Portugal may be helpful? Keeper ǀ 76 16:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

We actually have the local embassy service to help if that's the problem. Wikipedia:Local_Embassy#Portugu.C3.AAs is for Portuguese.Kww (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR does not and should not apply to removing violations of copyright policy. Babelfish is your friend, but we also have over 800 native speakers of Portuguese. Specifically the Brazilian dialect for at least 2/3 of them, I'd guess, so shop around. — CharlotteWebb 17:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

True, but it applies to technical errors ... mainly linking to disambig pages, which is where the revert while explaining technique is most useful.Kww (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Leave him be. If he's providing good content with flaws, it's much more sensible to fix the flaws than to block the provision of content. Heaven knows there are a ton of people and bots who are incapable of providing content but perfectly good at fixing these sorts of simple error. Providers of actual new material are comparatively rare and should not be discouraged, let alone blocked. And there's no rule saying that anyone has to respond to messages left on their talk page. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be delighted to come to that conclusion if an astronomy editor will vouch that by and large this is all good material. A good place to start is his list of created pages, of which there are quite a few. HD 40873 is a good example--broken image link, one short sentence of content, and a long infobox. Is this helpful to the star editors? I honestly don't know. Chick Bowen 20:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That would depends on the benefit/cost ratio, so we'd need to know how good the edits are compared to how big the flaws are; a judgement I'm willing to leave to the other editors of the astronomy pages. I have certainly blocked people in the past who appeared to be trying to contribute in good faith, but with significant flaws, and who steadfastly refused any effort at communication. It's better to have no content than flawed content, and it shouldn't be anyone's job to follow someone else around and clean up their messes because they could not, or would not, communicate. This is a collaborative effort, and we all have an obligation to take into account the opinions of other editors. --barneca (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If it really was better to have no content than flawed content, Wikipedia would have been about as successful as Nupedia. However because we have always been willing to accept flawed content and fix it we have gone far beyond that. Cost benefit does come into it and perhaps the benefit isn't big enough in this case but bear this in mind. We do not harass editors who merely fix spelling or enforce wikipolicy but are incapable of writing a decent paragraph or a coherent train of thought to save themselves. Why then should we block people who write well but whose spelling or wikipolicy knowledge aren't good. The two groups are complementary and one group remedies the other's faults. We need both groups and, as you say, this is a collaborative effort... -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly you think I'm suggesting we block someone if their spelling is poor? Or was that just a rhetorical device? I guarantee that's not what I meant, and I'm really confident that's not what I said. I am suggesting we block someone if they completely ignore efforts to communicate with them, and do not alter their behavior. --barneca (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

...especially in regards with gross violations of various image policies. seicer | talk | contribs 22:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that you're suggesting that. Neither was it a rhetorical device. I was just trying to suggest that we should treat both groups in the same courteous way because we need them both. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocking someone as a method of inducing them to talk could quite possibly backfire. We should not block someone whose contributions exceed in value the cost of fixing their mistakes. We have no right to demand that anyone talk. If someone does more damage than good, and efforts to fix the problem, with communication or otherwise, don't remedy that, we ask them to stop editing, politely at first, then as a warning, then we block if necessary.

As has been pointed out, finding good writers is difficult, finding editors who can fix errors in otherwise-good writing is easier. It's a general rule in publishing that one doesn't expect or even allow a writer to be their own editor. We do not change the laws of good sense and publishing process by demanding that writers be good editors. Some are, some aren't.

However, the question here was how we could get "a recalcitrant editor to talk." Seeking someone who can write in Portuguese was one idea, a good one as far as intention is concerned, though possibly not necessary. Asking the editor for advice would be another. If one doesn't know if an edit is proper that he made, i.e., one had tried to verify it and has failed, asking him, politely, even deferentially, for advice about it might draw him out. I.e., "I'm concerned about this edit, but because you clearly are knowledgeable in this field, could you help me find and put in sources so that anyone could verify it? Otherwise we might have to remove it." Blocking him to get him to Talk? How would you respond to that? People vary, but quite a few would simply go away. Mad. And spend their time doing something else. --Abd (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Goodness. Blocking to get people's attention? Has everyone forgotten other cases where people went silent and said nothing or refused to say something here an AN or ANI? We didn't block them for that. To be fair, the case I'm thinking of there were no edits whatsoever after a certain point. I will note one thing. The images have all been deleted, so asking him to clean that up is not really fair. Lots of editors now, for better or worse, ignore those notices and either let image specialists clean up, or just let the images be deleted. If you remove the image notices from his page (leaving a summary), there is not much left. Carcharoth (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We might have a sockpuppet...

Can someone with checkuser please see if User:Fuckme is a sock puppet to User:LanceWowlgg, by the way pardon the language, but thats the username. Thank you! HairyPerry (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you file the paperwork at WP:RFCU? There isn't a shortcut way of getting a checkuser that I'm aware of.Kww (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, don't bother. That account was indefinitely blocked in 2005. Chick Bowen 16:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BRIT shortcut nonsense

RfD is being used for the third time in two months to decide whether the redirect Wikipedia:BRIT should appear as a shortcut on Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force. RfD isn't the best place for such a discussion. The issue has received heated debate in other locations. To end this nonsense, would some kind, uninvolved, experienced admin close the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:British_Isles_Terminology_task_force#WP:BRIT with a consensus determination and the templates Template:Discussion top and Template:Discussion bottom. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 20:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

How many different noticeboards are you planning on submitting your "report", Suntag? I've read this in at least 2 places now. I recommend you stick to one noticeboard to get a comprehensive, unfragmented, result. Keeper ǀ 76 21:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Page move vandalism

It's flatly nauseating, and it's beyond time to correct this.

Especially since we encourage youths to edit here.

There are kids as young as ten that have watchlists and we are subjecting those kids to this every day.

I propose that page moves are fully protected, or there needs to be a level in between four-day old wikipedian and admin and make that a protection level point. This has gone on far enough. Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyone agrees with you about the problem, it's the solution that gets complicated. See Wikipedia:Abuse filter (and its talk page) for possible progress. Chick Bowen 22:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Odd user behaviour

I'm bringing this over from AIV because it kind of baffles me, and I'm not entirely sure how to deal with it. We have an editor, JaneGrey (talk · contribs), who has been here since November of last year; their first appearance was a request for page unprotection. Since then, the editor has seemed to do reasonable work around various spots, made some engaging arguments at AFD, stuff like that. But, they've also made edits such as this NSFW one (marked as minor) to Hillary Rodham Clinton, this and this to John McCain, and uses some rather rude edit summaries as well. In the process, the editor is regularly blanking hsi'her talk page (which is fine, I know), and telling people off for their warnings. The note on his/her talk page currently says "Nothing here will be read." I'll drop a note there about this report, anyhow, for whatever good it'll do. This all strikes me as odd (feels like a returning user, perhaps, I'm not sure), but I'm stuck as to how to best deal with it, especially the vandalism. Thoughts? Tony Fox (arf!) 22:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest starting with 24 hr blocks when the user is vandalizing. Put the warnings on the talke page also, if only for the history factor. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Simply based on the diff that replaces the article of "John McCain" with "what an asshole" is worthy of at least a 24 hour block. If he/she is not receptive on his/her talkapge, that's his/her problem, not ours. Keeper ǀ 76 22:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As an editor of the articles this user attacks, which are among the most high-profile articles in all of Wikipedia, I'd request a block now, and not waiting for the next incident. If I had to guess, this is a sock account that's part of some botched good hand/bad hand scheme, and that nothing good will ever come from letting this account continue. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive, which would be the case with a block issued 3 days adter the last case of overt vandalism. That being said, the editor has been made aware of this thread, and it should be clear to them that further vandalism will result in blocking. caknuck _° is geared up for football season 00:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

68.106.93.214

I blocked 68.106.93.214 (log) within the last hour, and said user then called my parents' house and left a phone message reiterating the same message that was left on my talk page on my parents' answering machine. The caller identified himself as Bill White. My father was inclined to call the police. Any thoughts on where we as Wikipedia should proceed from here? SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have had a similar experience, and find it best to take no action on-wiki, but instead peruse it (very hard) off-wiki as it is really the only way to deal with the issue. If the person knows that you mean business they are more likely to stop then if you simply block them. Tiptoety ^talk 00:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

My sympathies; that sucks. Off-wiki, I'd agree with Tiptoety; although it's your call, if it were me, I'd certainly consider it threatening enough to pursue it through the police (not so much the fact that there was a call, as the alleged source). On-wiki, there's not much we can actually do, except to express our support, and remind one another that this kind of thing is possible when we leave enough real-life information lying around. At the risk of looking like I'm blaming the victim, I'd be tempted to remove some of the personally identifying info from your user page. --barneca (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry man. There's always abuse@cox.net -- more info on whois. I also suggest proceeding with caution initially--this Bill White is obviously a well-known person and it's possible that it's not actually him. It's seems rather imprudent to give one's name when leaving a threatening message. On the other hand, that IP resolves to Roanoke, where he lives. justinfr (talk/contribs) 00:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Justinfr makes a good point, there's the distinct possibility of spoofing. But of course the police know how to deal with that stuff, and would be able to trace a phone call or deal with the ISP. --barneca (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I recommend calling the police. It might not be him, but it's worth calling about. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have extended the block - 68.106.93.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is now blocked for a one year duration. Reviewing the edit patterns, they clearly are a fixed IP (has been editing in the same pattern of white supremacist edits since started editing on Aug 5th). The IP geolocates to the location where Mr White lives, Roanoke VA. Regardless of whether it's him or a neighbor, the real-life call and threat to a blocking administrator is unacceptable, and the edit history is clearly unacceptable contributions as well. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Tiptoety ^talk 02:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Good plan! Checkuser shows long-term use by the same editor only, and no accounts present. Oh, and please call the police and report the incident. If things persist, they'll know exactly what to do - Alison ^❤ 08:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• If you are thinking of contacting the police, please also email Jimmy Wales and Mike Godwin just to let them know. The subject in this case is... not a nice man, so caution is indicated if he has even the most basic personal information about you. Mike and Jimmy may be able to give you some sound advice here. Guy (Help!) 11:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacey Stillman (2nd nomination)

Resolved

 – Too much civility and common sense, go make some drama instead (ie: good closure), Tiptoety ^talk 04:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I was trying to be helpful and try out closing some obvious keep AFDs. The noob that I am, I missed the relisting notice on this one and closed it as keep. I think the keep votes give good rationale for keeping the article, but I don't want to be seen as stepping on the re-listing editor's toes, User:Ron Ritzman. If I should undo the close, please let me know. justinfr (talk/contribs) 02:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking "keep" too but as an ordinary mortal I wanted a few more eyes on it first. However, your close seems ok. BTW for good advise on closing AFDs as a non admin, this essay gives some good advise. (if you haven't already read it) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This may be partially my fault. I just noticed that the script I use didn't remove this AFD's entry from the old log. I need to check for that and clean up my mess if necessary. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you two appear to be:

1. treating each other civilly
2. accepting the possibility that your own actions might not have been correct
3. trying to work out the best thing to do for the project without concern for you own egos.

I don't know where you people think you are, but you definitely don't understand how WP:AN is supposed to work. Where's the disrespect? The attacking of each other's characters and motives? The entertaining temper tantrums? Please immediately review other threads on this noticeboard, so you can better participate in WP:AN. Right now you look like rookies.

I don't do AFD, so I have no opinion on whether to relist or not (couldn't hurt, tho, right?), but that's a good example of what should be going on here; useless babble without any helpful outcome. --barneca (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The close looks fine as a keep. She does indeed seem notable. Barneca: *snerk* Tony Fox (arf!) 03:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Close looks fine. I suggest not worrying about it unless someone complains (which doesn't seem likely). Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• I would suggest that should be merged to the Survivor series article per WP:BLP. There is no hint of notability outside of Survivor and suing the show, this is just tabloid stuff. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Haha, thanks for the comments. Maybe I should have argued that two keeps is plenty enough and that I vehemently disagreed with the decision to re-list? How can any editor continue to contribute to Stacy Stillman with the prospect of deletion continuing to hang over their head!? Thanks again, all. justinfr (talk/contribs) 12:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• The threat of deletion often motivates massive improvement to pages, actually. (Nominating a page for AfD if you know its actually notable and just needs cleanup is frowned on though.) --erachima talk 12:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hovhannes Katchaznouni

User vitilsky (talk · contribs) is POV forking and persistently removing very well sourced content. I attempted to mediate the issue with him through Gb (talk · contribs). I thought it went well, but he returned with a sock/meat, which Gb promptly banned. Instead of participating in the talk page (because he has no sources to back his claims, by his admission), he created a POV fork, which we also reached a consensus to delete. He did not like that either, so now he has taken to votestacking in an attempt to once again change the consensus. (A quick look at his user page will reveal that his ideological affiliations run counter to the subject matter.) --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 08:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I blocked, the sock, rather than banned it - I would take further steps, but think I've become too involved in the dispute to act totally impartially, so suggested Adoniscik bring it here. A fresh pair of eyes would be welcomed, as mine have become somewhat jaded over the last month or so. _Gb^T/c 12:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

On.Elpeleg's indefinite ban -- review requested

For several days, I have been dealing with a particularly insistent domain-owner demanding to have his domains whitelisted:

• MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#web-app.net

After being spammed from 2006 through 2008 on this and other wikipedias, web-app.net and related domains were eventually blacklisted on Meta. A number of IPs and user names were used to spam these and to create numerous spam articles. No checkuser was done on these accounts in the past and the domain owner appears to have stuck to his On.Elpeleg account for the last several months making a checkuser investigation futile at this point. The domain-owner is based in Norway according to public domain registration record. While he claims the IPs were not his, they all traceroute to Norway. On.Elpeleg insists all of this has been a plot by his competitors to get his domains blacklisted; while I seriously doubt this I nevertheless have spent many hours trying going thorugh diffs back to 2006.

There were two accounts, Tedcambron and Monty53, which I believe to have been meatpuppets in the past; all the others I'm convinced are classic sockpuppets controlled by On.Elpeleg, formerly Webapp.

After several rounds with this guy, I finally prepared a chronological list of all these accounts' edits as well as a list of his interactions with the community:

• Editors warning one or more of these accounts:
  • Beetstra
  • George
  • cs:User:Japo
  • Jayron32
  • John 3 times
  • JonHarder 2 times
  • JudahBlaze
  • Luna Santin
  • Mike Rosoft 2 times
  • nl:User:MoiraMoira
  • MuZemike
  • Pedro
  • Robertissimo 3 times
  • Sleepyhead81
  • Ultraexactzz
  • Veinor 3 times
  • VoABot II
  • Zoe 2 times

• Admins deleting spam and/or attack pages:
  • Centrx
  • Chairboy
  • Coredesat
  • GlassCobra
  • Hu12
  • Steel
  • Zoe

• Admins blocking (or declining to unblock) one or more of these accounts:
  • FisherQueen
  • Hu12
  • Sandstein
  • Sandstein
  • Slakr
  • Ultraexactzz

• Admins blacklisting or concurring in blacklisting domains:
  • A. B./meta:User:A. B.
  • Beetstra/meta:User:Beetstra
  • Hu12/meta:User:Hu12
  • Ohnoitsjamie

Even if I only look at the On.Elpeleg and Webapp, there's a raft of article spam, incivility, personal attacks, etc. Bootleg Wikipedia IRC logs hosted on a well-known site indicate scurrilous attacks by On.Elpeleg on other editors and admins last May.

When I put it all together and finally saw just what a bane this person had been for our community, I blocked this account indefinitely.

I am bringing this to this noticeboard for others' review. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC) (Note:I will be off-line for perhaps a day)

See also: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Webapp. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• I absolutely concur with this block. At this point the spammer has two hopes of getting his site off the list: Bob Hope and no hope. And one of those is dead. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• I am going to say this again: There is clear evidence of abuse by a group of accounts. Whether or not On.Elpeleg is or is not one of the older accounts (a checkuser on this and newer accounts may give insight if the editor is using IPs in the same range, but also that is not conclusive), the link got pushed/spammed and hence has a good place on the blacklist (even if it is by others it does prevent further abuse). I suggested the editor to seek expert advice in a wikiproject to see if they deem the link useful, but the editor continues in arguing that the blacklisting was based on false reasons. The account has not produced any reason why the link is of interest to this or any other project. Hence, I concur with this block. (note: The editor is asking for unblock on his talkpage, he still seems to be busy to write his lengthy argument there). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That fellow certainly sticks to his positions: even when you present him with hard evidence to the contrary, he just keeps saying the same thing. Perhaps he should join one of the electoral campaigns underway in Canada and the U.S. (I leave it to others to speculate which one(s)).--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban. He's too clueless for Wikipedia and an unrepentant spammer. Both unblock requests have been declined. MER-C 12:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Certainly seems reasonable to me. I can't imagine ever unblocking this user after the completely abhorrent WP:COI going on here. Even if one of the accounts being used was from a competitor, I still believe there's clear evidence that a lot of it was coming from the website itself. It deserves to be blacklisted, and this editor has made his activity on Wikipedia all about the blacklist issue. I don't think any unblock request will ever be plausible after the sockpuppetry and spamming, even if he were to promise to drop this inappropriate activity, which he has not. Mangojuice^talk 12:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block Spamming, incivility, exhausting the community's patience. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block and ban. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisted title

Resolved

 – Page been moved. lifebaka++ 15:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, I'm trying to move the article RED CLIFF -Shin Sen- to the title RED CLIFF ~Shin·Sen~, but the target title is blacklisted (probably due to the tildes). The target title is preferred over the source title as the album title features tildes instead of hyphens and a bullet between the two words. Thanks! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've modified the blacklist, so you should be able to move the article now. --Conti|✉ 13:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Since admins can override the blacklist, and we need the tilde in it for grawp-related stuff, I went ahead and did the move and reset the blacklist. Happy editing. MBisanz ^talk 13:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit History correction

I have attempted to do a page move, but the edit histories are screwed up for Richard Hall and Richard Hall (footballer centre forward). Can someone straighten out the edit histories.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's done. Whew, that was sorta' a pain. Diffs (article [146] and dab [147]) look good, let me know if I left anything important out (I did leave out a vandal edit and reverting it from the dab, nothing else). Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 15:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, did miss one, adding the footballer to the dab. Fixed now. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You're going to hate me, but I think that footballer article is a hoax, or at least non-notable. The links point to a different footballer of the same name, and at least two of the incidents and games in the article never happened. Checking it out more closely now. Black Kite 17:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It was a hoax, copied and pasted from another article, with his own picture inserted and the details and dates changed. Deleted as CSD G3 (vandalism). Black Kite 18:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well hell. And I did all that work fixing the histories, too... Good catch, though. lifebaka++ 19:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Nigel McGuinness

Nigel McGuinness has been full protected for an unusually long time now — since June 23. I'd have unprotected, but way back in early December 2007 User:FCYTravis cited OTRS:#2006092210008209. Regrettably, he has been inactive since mid-July, not long after the protection of this article. Would an admin with OTRS access please review the situation and lift the protection to see if the problem has gone away? Thanks, Splash - tk 20:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The full protection was because a minority of editors wanted to put Nigel McGuinness's real name into the article (gleaned from private information). The person objected to having his real life name put in the article, and proved that he had not made it public. So, if we can get assurances that there will be no attempts to put the person's real name in the article, I see no reason not to drop the protection. If there are further attempts, then I would support the protection on there indefinitely. SirFozzie (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we obviously can't 'get' assurances and it'd be better not to go pinging the people in question anyway. We could, though, suck it and see with the oversighters at the ready. Splash - tk 20:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I stepped it down to semi-prot, please monitor for above-mentioned issues and other possible WP:BLP concerns. Cirt (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Posted a notice to WP:BLPN. Cirt (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal spam

Wikipedia talk:Notability#Rename proposal; I propose renaming WP:N to something that has less ambiguity with loaded real-world terms (i.e. does not actively give insult to those subjects who are nonetheless unambiguously not suitable encyclopaedic subjects). I hope this is a good idea, the exact title is of course open for deate but I thought Wikipedia:Inclusion guideline. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Guideline"? You're seriously suggesting that one of the major policies we have should become merely advisory? In that case, let the Ten Commandments become the Ten Suggestions. Sorry, but no. --Rodhullandemu 21:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Rename_proposal so it's unified. But as far as the name it could just be Wikipedia:Inclusion, which would avoid the problem of "guideline" in the name, if it ever changes to something else. Cirt (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, WP:N is already a guideline, as it says on the page ("It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception"). Black Kite 21:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do people get so hung-up on these distinctions? Whether it's called a "guideline" or "policy" is irrelevant anyway, since every so-called "rule", no matter what it's called, is indeed merely advisory. Remember, they're merely descriptions of what has been typically done in the past, that need not have any bearing on what we do in the present or future. Community consensus on what is best for the encyclopedia in a given situation trumps every so-called "rule" or "policy" or whatever you want to call it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As a point of information, WP:N is tagged {{guideline}} and as far as I know always has been. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right Kurt - however the problem is the phrase "community consensus" which should actually mean a reasonable sample of the community, but which too often is defined by people as "me and some other people who edit in this area, often on an obscure talkpage where little opposition is likely to surface". Black Kite 22:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Accepted, and I have given an initial response on the linked discussion page; the problem I have is that "guidelines" must of necessity here be somewhat flexible, although the same could be said about "policies", although the latter term is a little stronger. Although policies are predicated by historical consensus, there is no central repository of previous decisions such as exists in legal precedent, so the danger is that we are condemned in some ways to continue to repeat the cycle of argument; nothing wrong in that, in a sense, because we are in a continuing situation where precedent is continually open to challenge. But my point was that subprojects have their own policies or guidelines, which tend (as far as I can see) to be largely stable. --Rodhullandemu 22:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Namespace de-indexing

Please see the proposal at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Namespaces_in_Robot.txt to de-index some of the less used talk namespaces from Google. MBisanz ^talk 21:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Help getting usernames for multiple classes of 30 kids in a public middle school

I am requesting help because I am a volunteer level one systems administrator at a public middle school in San Francisco, California. As part of Software Freedom Day, we were attempting to teach kids about the power of Free Open Source Software, such as MediaWiki. We were not able to get more than 6 kids out of 30 kids to be able to create an account from this IP address. I guess that the filters disallow more than 6 accounts to be created from one IP address to avoid sock puppetry. We have another class tomorrow, 2008/9/18/08. Please let us know how we might be able to get more kids on from this IP address. We are all behind one LDAP server in a Xubuntu lab. You can read about our work here:

http://twitter.com/home

Thanks!

Christian Einfeldt einfeldt - at ^ gmail dot com

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Einfeldt (talk • contribs) 22:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)