Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please summarize. Very few people are going to read walls of text like that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Summary: User:Noclador accused user User:Romaioi of being a sock-puppet, in the course of which User:Noclador behaved uncivily towards User:Romaioi. When the sock-puppetry allegations turned out to be untrue, User:Romaioi asked for an apology and User:Noclador refused, when the whole thing could have been stopped in its tracks by a simple apology. The issue went to WP:WQA where it was not resolved. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ed Fitzgerald comment is only a synopsis of Romaiois accusations and omits facts and lots of details. Fact is: During June a series of new users began to edit WWII topics with with a POV to proof that Italian forces were good fighters in WWII. As the editors in question were obviously part of a sock circus I started a report about them at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove 2nd. I added Romaioi on June 25 at 2:22pm because "just 100 edits but these are only in Italian WWII military topics (and at that: the usual ones: Tobruk, El Alamein,...) also he copies text that Generalmesse wrote directly into other articles" and informed Romaioi 4 minutes later about it: "You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page." [1] When he went online 4 days later he could not find the link to the socketpuppetry case as in the meantime the page name had been moved and a checkuser had been requested on the socks - as soon as he informed me about that [2] I left him a note explaining were he can find the case thus defend himself and what the purpose of a checkuser is [3].
• Romaioi began to defend himself ignoring all Wikiquette rules: "I will be expecting an unreserved apology from you." "Do your homework." "Use some of that good faith that you mentioned."[4]; "Your moral and intuitive compass is upside down." [5]; "I will be contacting my Lawyer tomorrow concerning this matter. This is not a joke and its becoming very personal. Being that it should be a professional environment, there are liability issues involved." "So let me ask. Does noclador have some other agenda? I would like to know what it is."[6]; "How is the witch hunt going?"[7]; and that was just the first day! I therefore decided to not discuss with Romaioi, but to find more of the socks and more proof linking them together.
• The next day Romaioi started were he had left off the night before: "noclador has lied in his very first accusation." "I only found the correct link: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove 2nd by chance. Given the narrow and manipulative nature of by noclador’s evidence against me included on the latter page over the past day (discussed below), I would like to question if this was deliberate to mis-direct me to a page that I could not edit and not allow me to see (nor reply to) the case being presented against me." (by chance???) "noclador has persisted with his twisting arguments." (I did not respond to him to wait for the checkuser outcome... I did not persist, just did not answer) "noclador attempting to tar and feather me" "It all sounds frivilous to me." ""[8]; at this point the checkuser results came back an showed that of 13 suspected socks 10 were confirmed socks, 2 users to old to check and Romaioi was proven to be unrelated.[9]. A attempt by user:Justin A Kuntz to explain him the ceckuser process and had no effect.[10]
• Romaioi continued to insult: "that he was happy to lie just to see me implicated."[11]; and even to come to my talkpage to insult me ""[12]; as I had and have no interest to discuss with someone as him and I do not like to be bullied on my talkpage I removed his comment, which let him to reinsert it and hurl more insults at me: "stop being petty" "as you clearly have no idea" "as I do not think much of you in light of your inability to acknowledge your own mistake(s)"[13] - at this point I had enough and filed a report about his myriads of insults at WP:AN/I[14] but also decided to move on to more important work.
• Today Ed Fitzgerald informed me that there is a WP:AN/I against me... Well, as it turns out Romaioi spent the last month continuing to smear me - and now he filed a complaint against me??? "Abusive User: Noclador, his impunity and the unacknowledgement of his actions" Abusive??? I went now to check his edits over the last month to get an idea, what he is talking about and found out, that he spent the last month dragging this story on and on: on User:EdJohnstons talkpage [15]; on his own talkpage with insults and presumptions: "evidence presented against User: Romaioi was manipulative and misrepresentative." "On 2 July 2008, it was categorically shown that User: Romaioi was not a sock puppet." (categorically was not even used once on the ceckuser page!) "anyone in future to be more thorough in their examination of the evidence before stepping over that line." "No acknowledgement of his error or apology (for either the mistakes or the personal attacks) has been made by User: noclador." "The extreme prejudice by User: noclador against User: Romaioi has continued after the sock puppetry case." "and typically making false accusations of Wikipedia:Vandalism as justification for removal." "Whilst the overall cause for which User: noclador was working for was good, his treatment of an innocent contributor has been reprehensible and devoid of good faith." "The message is to remain here as a permanent reminder of the and example of abuse of authority that remains largely unacknowledged.".[16]
• and that was just on July 4th and on July 11th he continued with a brazen lie: Answering Justin talk, who pointed out that I did inform Romaioi at the very start that a checkuser is noting personal Romaioi answers: "noclador indicated nothing of the sort to me."[17]
• On July 15th Jaysweet tried to explain Romaioi the checkuser process once more and suggested he move on, but on July 16th Romaioi goes on... "I can only speculate that he may have preconceived ideas concerning my character." "that there is a slight double standard in my being sanctioned when it seems plainly obvious that the injustice was done to me in several regards yet, the purveyor of it has received no sanction."[18]
• and on July 19th, same story continues "No one has ever been able to say that I did anything more that claim that Noclador was lying and did not have a clue (and then summarize events and point out that I receieved no apology)." He wants an apology for him insulting me or what??? and he insinuates that I would be ready to harm his family "Further, to give you some background, where I live there have been incidences of people/families being been tracked down to their homes from IP addresses and being physically attacked, all over online disagreements. I know of 2 such cases. So given the disingenuous nature of the evidence being accrued against me and the talk of IP’s etc I had genuine concern that an attack on my family was becoming a real possibility."[19] WTF??? This is the worst insinuation he threw around! This is unacceptable!!! Is he thinking I will take a plane from Europe to Australia to go an club his child??? God, I haven't even thought about him for 3 weeks at this point!
• and he goes on: claiming first "I am not trying to escalate the situation." and then smears me more "Removal of this would benefit noclador more than me because there would be no record of his behaviour." "I would like a statement inserted there by an administrator stating that Noclador’s statements are misleading and inappropriate. The statement should also declare that Nocaldor’s assertions should be ignored." and he "I would also like to see it stressed ( at link), that accusers are to be polite, courteous, respectful (whatever you want to call it), are prohibited from manipulating and misrepresenting evidence, and must not make personal attacks. There should be repercussions for uncivil behaviour." So, being polite and explaining to him everything was not good enough??? Has he looked at all his insults? "uncivil behaviour" does he have some diff-links to this behaviour he complains about??? [20]
• But he is not yet finished! There is more "If he has behaved in this manner once, he can do it again. Noclador should be observed. Based on assessment of the circumstances, I do not believe this incident to be isolated. I may be the first person making the point as far as he is concerned." "Finally, I would like a statement inserted by someone with administrative authority here indicating that I am not guilty of incivility, but rather was more the victim of it." "And lets not forget how its started: from a wrongful accusation and bad manners directed at me." [21] I am speechless at the level of insinuation, twisting of facts, lying and smearing Romaioi has had the impudence to do behind my back!
• and on July 21st yet another lie: "The fact that I was being incorrectly associated with fascists by my accuser, both on the evidence page and on my talk page, compounded my concerns of the possibility of an attack."[22] I did not link him to fascists - my statements read: "Your interest in topics regarding Italy and its military in WWII and Istrian exodus - both areas were User:Brunodam and the above socks have for a long time tried to manipulate the content (towards fascist glorification and revisionism)" and "It was written by the aforementioned socks with the stated intent to glorify the Italian Army in WWII. It's not neutral and it uses various fascist claims/statement as sources and that is unacceptable for an encyclopaedia." I spoke about the socks not him!!!
• and on August 5th, he still doesn't want to move on and brings his continuing insulting behaviour to new lows: "Noclador has been able to move past it because no one has taken him to task on his abuses. He has been able to abuse his power and not be held accountable whatsoever. In fact, he was gven a pat on the back." (What pat on the back??) "Instead the victim of Noclador's abuses and insults has been taken to task for highlighting the abuse and was perversely accused of abuses he did not commit (the claim that I made personal abuses (plural) is rubbish)." (is the above all rubbish???) "You have an unethical abuser, in noclador, who now has carte blanche approval to do what he wants to whoever he wants."[23] An "unethical abuser"??? Sorry, but once more: WTF!? This is the worst collection of insults I have seen on wikipedia in over 2 years and I had the "joy" of having to deal with über-vandals like Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr more than once!
• The recent events: On August 3rd User:ITALONY and on August 5th User:Bendiksen63 surfaced and it became quickly clear that both were new incarnations of the sock circus. After I talked with User:Kirrages[24] and User:Narson [25] we reached a consensus to mass revert/take the edits by socks down! (to which a IP immediately hurled a plethora of insults against me and Romaioi returned to continue his smear campaign with insults: "Your abusive friend Noclador tried his darndest to prove that I was one of GeneralMesse's sockpuppets and hurled a lot of insults my way. You must have sparked something in him.", lies: "In deleting your inclusions Noclador has vandalised some existing "concensus" information." (the consensus was to remove the addition by the socks!) insults: "Another example of him not doing his homework properly." & "I will undo Noclador's vandalism"... but he was not content with that and in a second instant went on to increase the level of his insults
• and then he filed this WP:AN/I report - in his usual style: "During the process I was subject to a myriad of personal attacks, flippant comments and manipulative character assassinations." "It can also be speculated that there existed some kind of personal vendetta on the part of Noclador." "I have detailed how several of my contributions were deleted by Noclador (some under the pretext of claimed vandalism), only to be undone by others." (the insults on my talkpage I did revert! What else? Maybe he as a diff link to prove this???) "Even over the last few days he has deleted my cited contributions (from a couple of months ago) along with another editor’s recent addition", yet another lie: the revert of ITALONYs edits and not a single Romaioi edit in sight! and the revert of ITALONY & Bendiksen63s edits and in the last 500 edits there is not a single edit of Romaioi!!! So, which "cited contributions" of his did I delete??? I did revert the ITALONY & Bendiksen63 edits! none of Romaiois edits![26]
• and then he increases the slander even more: "Given that Noclador has been able to flout Wikipedia rules and guidelines with respect to his conduct, and has received no warning or sanction, then there is no reason for anyone else not to be allowed to do the same. After all, why should some of us have to follow the rules and live up to the Wikipedia ethos when others do not?" Where have I flouted the rules???
• Let me summarize: Romaioi doesn't do constructive work, only slander, malign and defame. He is lying, insulting and does show 0 good faith. While I have been doing 500 constructive edits in the last month alone, have contributed massively to wikipedia, have not insulted Romaioi, have not threatened him in any way and have moved on after he was proven to be not connected to the sock circus in question, he has continued for now 5 weeks a campaign to smear my spotless record on wikipeda (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Noclador). I make it now clear that I will not discuss this matter further and expect this report to be closed at once and that it will be made clear to Romaioi that any further actions of his will result in a indef ban as an "no good faith" editor. --noclador (talk) 10:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• User Noclador is undoubtedly fair and honest, his great contributions to Wikipedia surely speak for himself, and his behavior, as character of the Wikipedia community, has nothing common with these mendacious accusations against him. Flayer (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ed Fitzgerald's comments are particularly unhelpful and really do not help to resolve the situation, nor do they reflect what actually happened. The fact is that noclador was not the only editor involved in dealing with Generalmesse's sockpuppet circus, I helped out in a small way. To be brutally honest, as I have been with Romaioi, had I spotted his contribution I would have added him to the sock puppet report myself; his edits fitted the pattern of the sock puppet master and he actually restored one of his contributions. noclador withdrew from contact with Romaioi after he responded by calling him a liar and it got unpleasant; if you check Romaioi's talk page here[27], you can see the explanation and response. I have no doubt that noclador would have apologised for the accusation were it not for the personal attack and Romaioi's aggressive demand for an apology. I tried to smooth things over myself here[28]. Now I have attempted to explain at length to Romaioi that noclador's actions were not aimed at him personally but he just doesn't seem to understand how this works. I issued a Wikiquette alert after Romaioi put up another summary attacking noclador in the hope that this could be defused.

Essentially the accusations against noclador are entirely unfounded, Romaioi's responses usually fit into the TLDR category and to be honest I'm somewhat non-plussed by his inability to see that he was not targeted personally and his pursuit of noclador, with accusations of lying and abuse of power as well as unnecessary personal attacks do seem to indicate he has taken things incredibly personally. I can understand him being somewhat upset at being caught up in the sock puppet case but he has really gone the wrong way around airing a grievance to the point that his single-minded pursuit of noclador has the hallmark of stalking. Justin talk 13:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody summarize the above material, i'm too busy eating lunch, tia, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment by Noclador. I've never found him abusive of power or lying at all; he's a good wikipedian, in my view, doing useful work on national armies, among other things. While I have not examined all the facts of the case, Noclador doing such things seems to me to be extremely unlikely. Regards Buckshot06(prof) 17:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) User:Romaioi, do you wish to comment on User:Noclador's description of your conduct? If you ask for an apology but act that aggressively and belligerently, I wouldn't be surprised if someone doesn't want to bother with you again. Be civil. You asked him, he doesn't respond, don't bother him again. Assume good faith on his part for his conduct. Do not assume bad intentions from an error. What is the purpose of bringing it up again and again? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a bit of a hit for my comment earlier, perhaps justifiably, but I did think it was clear that I was responding to the request for a summary of Romaioi's claim, which I think is what I provided. I would also like to point out that it was I who notified Noclador of this thread (which I mistakenly marked as being on AN/I rather than AN). My apologies to Noclador, and I think I'll now bow out before I mess up again. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I was in a minor way involved in the SSP case that has caused this mutual rancour. While the checkuser results eventually exonerated Romaioi, his/her coincidental appearance at the same time as Generalmesse's massive sockfarm caused him/her to get accused of being one of the socks. Noclador was, as far as I am concerned, at all times acting absolutely in good faith, and did a sterling job in getting Generalmesse and all his puppets shut down. It was deeply unfortunate that Romaioi got caught up in it, but, frankly, at the time I (and, I believe, most other observers) believed him/her to be a sock. I have since apologised to Romaioi for this, and he has graciously accepted my apology. I think if he had received the same apology from Noclador then the issue would've gone away. However, for whatever reason, Noclador has decided not to apologise. Romaioi should accept that and move on. Now, Romaioi's lengthy post at the top of this thread smacks to me of a vendetta. I am sure that Romaioi as a good faith contributor will be happy at this point, having presented his/her grievances at length, to drop the issue and return to productive good faith editing, which appears to me to be Noclador's modus operandi at all times. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I can qualify Noclador as a person who is always ready to hear what others have to say (or read, anyway). He gladly takes information offered to him, as long as it comes from reliable sources. I remember how once I provided information from a reliable military review that proved to be partially incorrect. Another wikipedian corrected it. Did Noclador throw a fit and insult him? No. Noclador took the information and corrected the graphic. This concerned the Tsahal OrBat, for those who are curious.

I also am the prime witness of his works being used without giving proper credit in a printed military review. It is always a harsh blow for somebody to see his work used not only without proper credit, but actually crediting a completely different person. I warned Noclador. He contacted them. I personally find the e-mail he sent to the review in question as polite and balanced. Those interested can check my talk page.

It is 4am, I am tired, I cannot formulate long speeches in a cohesive manner. So I shall make it short: Noclador is amongst the best contributors to this whole project, a person that makes Wikipedia interesting, reliable and trustworthy and who is always ready to listen(read) what others have to say(type). Thank you for your attention Russoswiss (talk) 02:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Romaioi seems to be a sock of banned User:Brunodam. Brunodam had/has the habit to create socks wherever he goes, was massively pushing Italian nationalistic-revisionist POV in articles about the Balkans and the former Italian minorities there, liked to threat other users with lawyers, added fascist propaganda to various articles, insulted other editors and so on... Also he usually would leave very long comments and then revisit them often to change/add stuff (example: 1.2. edit). Romaioi fits nicely in this behavior - especially as Romaioi was the name to Roman people that lived in the Balkans after the partition of the Roman empire (with just 8,280 google results for Romaioi one must be quite an expert to a) know the name and b) know it is Greek). More damming proof that Romaioi and Brunodam are related: Until yesterday I never had anything to do with Brunodam, but suddenly he comes and lashes wildly and - let my say it clearly - insanely out at me. --noclador (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I said I would stay out of this, but I have a question that Noclador's supposition raises: wasn't checkuser run on Romaioi? And if he was a sock of Brunodam, wouldn't that have shown up? Or is a checkuser run more limited in scope? (I'm not being disingenuous here, I don't know the answer to these questions.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The SSP check was done against IP by Generalmesse, Brunodam is a different user. Brunodam appears to have returned but is attacking Noclador on those diffs. Now Noclador has never dealt with Brunodam, only Generalmesse. It could be that it is a deliberate attempt by a sock pupper master to create friction. Justin talk 22:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Surprise surpise, another sock puppetry accusation. This is surely getting beyond the joke. I have been tied up for weeks having to defend the previous sockpuppetry allegations and WQA/ANI. Yet again I have not been directed to an evidence page, and this time my user page has been vandalised. And there is wonderment as to why I have chosen to push the abuse case take this to the ANI level?

I won't bother with a defence of this as I did last time (I do not want to be called a fanatic again!) - lets please take it straight to checkuser. It smacks of what I have been indicating in reference to deletion of contributions and abuse. Above, Noclador claims he did not imply me to be fascist, but in the same fashion as previously he has provided "DAMMING PROOF". Seeing that he is so adamant that I am all these socks, it is clear that he believes me to be fascist - who would not take such an allegation as a deliberate affront? I will only say this, ANYONE WHO INVERSTIGATES PROPERLY WILL SEE THAT THE PATTERNS (and tone) DO NOT MATCH. Whilst, several observers believed me to be giovannegiove and/or generalmesse from the face-value evidence based on one contribution, if any of them looked into my profile, examined my edits, my citations, the number of eidts on Italian military versus the variety of different topics I have contributed to in such a short period of time, and even the fact that I simply built a user page, would see that THE PATTERNS DO NOT MATCH! However, it was not their job to do so. They believed Noclador's assertions and selective evidence on good faith. It was Noclador who did not examine it properly (which is one of the issues I have been pressing). Here, we have just been privy to a repeat.

Note that those involved in conversations at one of the diffs presented by Nocaldor in this round of concocted sockpuppetry "evidence", including AlasdairGreen27, believe that IP 72.157.177.44 (who is presumably 202.172.105.49?) is none other than GeneralMesse. This is there for Noclador to plainly observe, yet he has conveniently used it to claim that IP 72.157.177.44 = ME = User:Brunodam. In Noclador's words, WTF? Perhaps observers are now beginning to see the points I have been making concerning Noclador's manipulation and misrepresentation of evidence pertaining to me? Why would he do such a thing if he was acting in good faith? This is, as I have been stressing, how it was from the beginning - his first accusations on his GiovanneGiove sockpuppetry evidence page (where he then changed his mind and claimed that I was Generalmesse) were of this nature [29] [30], as were his ANI claims [31].

Can someone please direct me to the evidence page? Also has the checkuser process been initiated? If not can someone please offer me some guidance as to how I can do so? Better yet, can we please get a list of all the users that Noclador believes me to be and perform a checkuser on every single one of them? This way I can be vindicated yet again.

Romaioi (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In my elusive search to locate an evidence page with respect to this new sock puppetry accusation against me I have now found that we are back to square one. I have found no sockpuppetry case page. Only vandalism on my user page. Yet again I am being character assassinated as per when accusations where first raised against me. This is serving to divert attention from the case I have been trying to make in ralation to Noclador's abuse, character assassinations etc. However, it should serve as an example of the type of witch hunt that I have been subject to. The accusations are of the same manipulative and annecdotal nature as the initial accusations. Noclador is making assertions (reiterating, for example, that I am Generalmesse!!!!!) at two user talk pages, here and here, where hie is trying to convince Ed Fitzgerald of my guilt. It is startling that he is making, once again as per the previous sock accusations, baseless allegations that I have been travelling the world and having prior knowledge that I would be implicated so I moved across the country/world to subvert any possibility of being proven guilt. This has been presented as though factual and ignores that I was already proven not to be some of the implied socks. I am simply astounded that such a scenario could be conceived and a person to be automatically guilty of it. Oh yes, this is extremely fair and honest behaviour by Nuclador. I have made points concerning this at the bottom of this thread in reply to EdJohnson and Justin's posts. Forgive my apparent anger. This is more rehashing of old, dealt with topics. And quite frankly I am rather disturbed by the very low nature of it.

The person that I am supposed to be a sock of seams to change by the paragraph. So I am getting rather confused exactly who I am supposed to be and how I managed to trail blaze the planet in some big sinister plot to disrupt wikipedia, whilst I otherwise could be attending to my day job and making a living.

Can we proceed with checkuser? Or can someone guide me as to how I can instigate it?

Romaioi (talk)

I won’t read and comment the excessive accusation above; all I can say as a user and administrator of projects Noclador participates in (de.wikipedia.org, Commons) is that Noclador is a trustworthy user with valuable contributions. Please pay attention to his work and behavior, then judge. --Polarlys (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to make a few points clear before I present my view. Firstly, I am not a sysop nor checkuser. I have not been involved in this, or any related affair until this post. I have only recently become acquainted with noclador, having performed a mutual review of some of his order of battle diagrams, having never previously had contact with him nor knowledge of his edits. Similarly, I've never had contact with Romaioi, nor had knowledge of his edits. I would claim that noclador and I have just progressed from acquaintances into friendship from our recent collaboration, and he requested that I add my input to this discussion. In an attempt for impartiality, I have reviewed the pertinent pages regarding the conduct of the two users in question (not the results of the request for checkuser, because that issue is resolved), starting with the original request for checkuser on Giovanni Giove, and including the suspected sockpuppet discussion, two wikiquette alerts: 1st (archived) & 2nd (continuation of the 1st), a post to AN/I, Noclador's talk page, Romaioi's talk archive, and various bits of data scattered on several talk pages linked to above. I'd also like to note that viewing many, many diffs, I have noticed the text "(# intermediate revisions not shown.)" shown, and my assumption is that some of the data has been restricted by sysops or possibly higher.

My take on this incident is as follows: noclador, in attempting to round up the sockpuppets of a prolific vandal, made a reasonable mistake in including an innocent user who, on the surface, followed some similar conventions as the vandal/puppetmaster. He also warned Romaioi, though made a mistake in linking to the discussion page. Now, as far as I understand, this is the purpose and procedure of a checkuser case: to present the accusation and supporting evidence, allow the accused to refute evidence, and then make a conclusion based upon the evidence and an analysis of IP addresses. It seems that this procedure was followed to the letter. While noclador could have avoided the accusation by digging deeper, I don't personally feel that constitutes any sort of violation or uncivil action; after all, he was researching many accounts at the time, and fully expected that more conclusive evidence would be found before any damaging/irreversable actions could be taken, as was the case. The process was allowed to work itself out: mitigating evidence was produced, and the Romaioi was cleared of the accusation.

However, the conduct of the accused has been less than pristine. Naturally, being falsely accused would make anybody angry, adding confusion and disorientation due to his lack of understanding of the process at the time only makes the situation worse. This is not, however, justification for the persistence of this scandal, nor some of the very harsh remarks made on Romaioi's part. I can sympathize with the expectation for an apology, however, in light of the hostility the accused showed his accuser, I cannot fault nocaldor for refusing to make one. I myself would probably have done the same in his place, I'd view such an action as appeasement, which is not mandated by any policy I have ever read. Even if the accused remained civil and not taken the accusation personally, such an apology would not necessarily be mandated (though certainly appropriate) after the "innocent" verdict had been posted on the checkuser case; after all, that was vindication from all wrongdoing. I do not agree that noclador has performed any sort of slander or smearing of Romaioi's reputation, especially outside of the checkuser accusation.

I also find no fault in noclador's decision to limit his involvement in the controversy once it was determined that the accusation may have been faulty. That sort of recusement should be expected whenever a possible conflict of interest could taint further proceedings. Removing yourself from action where your presence could worsen it is totally understandable. I also applaud noclador's attempts to move past this and get on with his life. It is in that spirit that I think this notice should be closed, and Romaioi be directed to review Wikipedia's policy on harassment and ignoring personal attacks so that he may finally let the issue rest, though it is entirely within his rights to seek a forum for his grievances, and ask for appeal to the decisions (there are several possible venues for further dispute resolution: Requests for mediation, informal mediation, formal mediation, request for comment, and even the "Supreme Court of Wikipedia", the request for arbitration). I am unclear as to what Romaioi desires or expects these proceedings to produce... Administrative actions against noclador? Jimbo Wales to beat him up and force him to apologize? Unlikely, but I would ask him to further clarify on exactly what he seeks. As far as I know, no double standard exists because both have been reprimanded for thier misdeeds in this whole process.

I would also like to take this time to applaud Romaioi for being otherwise gracious and civil to other users. I would hope that you can drop this grudge and move on to more productive matters. Looking at you contributions, you've been wrapped up in this for far too long. My advice for you is to take a short wikibreak, spend some time with your family, then come back and focus on your passion for history.

Thank you for reading this huge diatribe, it took forever to articulate and type up! bahamut0013♠♣ 22:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Romaioi’s follow up comments

I have just logged on for the first time since Wednesday to find more discussion (oh and another sock puppetry accusation) than I expected on this.

However I would like to point out that User:Noclador has now accused me of being a sock of User:Brunodam (see above). He has provided more "invented proof" or should I use his words "damming proof". Dare I say the accusations concerning me are getting ridiculous. Yet again, I have not been directed to an evidence page. I was determined not to be a sock through checkuser. This is another personal attack and it is designed to distract from the evidence I have presented.

Nocaldor has been clearly prejudiced against me from the very beginning (prejudice which has been proven by a further sockpuppetry accusation). The prejudice originates from my contribution to this subsection of an Italian Military history page. (I provided the basis for my contributions on the related discussion page, here). A review of my edits will show that most of my edits were supported by verifiable non-Italian, non-fascist citations, which I described in detail here, under comments and defense. A close investigation would have shown that the patterns of my contribution to this section did not match any of the accused socks. Here is a link to the summary of my contribution history.

Even after I was PROVEN NOT TO BE A SOCK, he continued to delete my edits as though I were. While he may be gracious to most, he was clearly abusive towards me. His evidence against me above does not warrant a response. Now I have been accused of being another sock!!??!?! After I have been proven not to be a sock? And what of this vandalism of my user page with the obviously bogus accusation? I guess my totally unrelated contribution to topics on finance (see as per my contribution history summary) are damming proof of this too?

Why are those who are providing supportive comments being attacked? Ed Fitzgerald's comments have not been unhelpful. In fact, I found his summary towards the beginning of the WQA to be very apt. And here he has questioned Noclador’s motives behind his second accusation of me being a Sockpuppet. Are only pro-noclador’s opinions allowed?

Ricky81682, you wanted me to comment on Noclador’s accusations above. Well, they do not warrant a detailed rebuttal because they are nebulous and manipulative, as I have demonstrated repeatedly. I suggest that you read the source locations to see what was actually written and in which context rather than his edited version of events. You asked me for a summary. The most appropriate one (detailing how he has misrepresented information) is here. On this page I have listed Nocaldor’s abuses against me, such as referring to me as a fanatic, implying me to be fascist, snide comments, etc. To list them here would be repetitious. If you are going to do Noclador the favour of reading his assertions, then please take the time to review mine. Moreover, Noclador has repeatedly referred to me as a liar above (and has directed you somewhere unrelated to prove it on several occasions – as I said, it does not warrant a response). You can check all the links that actually do lead to my edits – I have not lied. Interestingly, I was hammered by Justin for claiming that Noclador was a lying concerning me (I actually demonstrated it) - though Justin has repeatedly overlooked Noclador's abuses. And the so-called “month of smearing him” comes from me being forced to defend WQA accusations and ANI actions. It was not smearing, there were no derogatory comments, it was highlighting his abusive pattern of behaviour towards me, the double standards associated with pulling me up for demonstrating him to be a liar, whist his more damning attacks and character assassination on me were overlooked. As you can gather, I have been a member since late May and have been harassed by all this (and now a new sock puppetry accusation) for almost the entire time. How is one supposed to be able to contibute when they attacked as such from the get go? And that is why I have instigated this ANI. Perhaps we should not lose sight of the fact that the sock puppetry accusations, the WQA and the previous ANI were directed at me. So who exactly is being smeared here?

Furthermore, Ricky81682, does the fact that I have yet again been accused of being a sockpuppet, this time of User:Brunodam, and the bogus evidence presented there not highlight just how manipulative and prejudiced Noclador has been? It is written in the same ridiculously manipulative style of all his other accusations against me. I did not know that only a handful of contributions (actually one mainly) can so convincingly tie me to being the same as multiple users. What does the checkuser check-up say?

Ricky81682, if you wish me to address each of Noclador’s points above, inform me of which are of concern and I will address each in detail. Noclador has not presented information chronologically and he has omitted relevant information.

My assertions stand – I have presented evidence to back up every one [32] [33]. And as I have continually been treated with abuse and disrespect, I have no motivation to change my position.

Whether or not Noclador has a history of being gracious to others (I wouldn’t know because I can only judge by my experience with him) does not mean that he is not capable of abusive behaviour. Nor does it mean he has not perpetrated abuses here.

I have noticed a pattern with Noclador and his wholesale deletion of consensus information simply because he “BELIEVES” it to be contributed by a sock (but even if I made the contribution then its good enough for deletion). His deletions of my contributions, post-sock puppetry case, (and assertions that my contributions were vandalism) were undone by other editors (I explained this in the summary link above). See this dif as a separate example whereby Stephen Kirrages had to undo his deletion stipulated to Noclador that “you want to take out so-called "sock edits" you'll have to do it by hand rather than using this very blunt instrument”. Rather than wholesale deletion or material that may have merit, would it not be more constructive to modify it to conform with the Wikipedia ethos? Is this not how we develop knowledge of issues and subjects?

This is among what concerns me about Noclador. He flies off the handle with accusations without the benefit of proper investigation. He makes edits of content (or deletes content) without sufficient research, often destroying verified content in the process.

I will be deleting Noclador's blatant vandalism of my user page. See this dif for evidence. I have already been proven not to be a sock. Surely this reeks of Noclador’s motives!? - Spiteful perhaps? Noclador has clearly NOT demonstrated good faith towards me from the get go (because of a contribution I made regarding Italian Military history - apparently) – obviously no prejudice there. How stylish, to defend oneself with another false accusation and some vandalism.

Romaioi (talk) 06:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. the summaries by others pertaining my motives for making my early Wikipedia member contributions pertaining to Italian involvement are off the mark. My motivation is purely historical accuracy, that’s it. Maybe I should have started with the Kokoda campaign.

PP.S. bahamut0013 I appreciate your comments. Please note that I have only been involved in this too long due to the having to deal with the WQA and ANI (which I was not informed of) issues. If there was some acknowledgment of what has transpired, it would have been dropped. I was dragged further into this because I made a statement concerning the wrongful sockpuppetry accusation on my talk page. I have only continued to this point because I feel the double standard of abuse allowed by some and not others to be a serious issue. Further, whilst I have been willing to concede ground, the opposition has not. I would also like to point out that I have not been stalking or harrassing Noclador. I have limited my comments to the areas where this issue was being discussed (often without my notification - convenient). Over the past month that has been at the WQA. I asked people not to discuss it on my talk page. It should also be noted that I have been making, on average 1 post on this topic per week - always in response to comments of others. So it has hardly been prolific - it has only been that I have had many points to make in reply. What I want is a statement(s) that Noclador went to far, either from the user himself, or an adminstrator, and I want a statement that the WQA was unwarranted. I also want Noclador to be on notice to not commit acts of wholesale deletion, and he should not go anywhere near my contributions again, nor should he ever raise any further accusations against me. I won't go as far as he has, and demand for the others banning, I do not think that is necessary. He should be simply be instructed to toe the line, assume good faith, and ensure that he investigates properly (preferrably in consultation) before stepping over the line with wrongful accusations, character assassinations and abuse again. PPP.S. You are mistaken. Nocaldor has received no reprimand.

A Final General Comment for Consideration

There seams to be an inclination to take what Noclador has stated above as factual, with no consideration of any of the evidence that I have presented. Has anybody actually read the summary of events that I have included here? Has anyone actually read and followed the links to the demonstrated abuses? Is the fact that my contributions have been deleted since the sock-puppetry investigation not significant? Why else would I take these measures if such a thing was not occurring? And a further sockpuppetry accusation, what does that say? It is an example of the continuous character assassinations that I have been in receipt of from Nocaldor since I joined Wikipedia.

Many of the comments presented against me above are rehashed. I have already addressed them elsewhere [34] [35]. I often had to do so repeatedly.

As I said, I never claimed perfection. I admitted to emotive language at first. I also think it is rather understandable to be aggrieved when you are directed to an evidence page that has not reference to you, knowing full well that you are not as accused and have just commenced (as a new user, not yet familiar with the procedures) making contributions in good faith. I have been quite frank in admitting my faults in this matter from the beginning.

I stated this elsewhere: Let me ask you all this. You are on the receiving end of an accusation such as sock puppetry (in this case). You were directed to an evidence page that made no reference to you. Then you found that the evidence being stacked up against you elsewhere was factually incorrect. On top of all that you then had to cop insults, personal attacks and snide comments along the way. What would you be thinking?

Noclador may have made an innocent mistake to begin with, but it soon turned into something different. He tried his darndest to prove that I was this user or that user (3 different ones now). The fact that I was proven not to be, reflects poorly on his deliberate attempts to misrepresent the “evidence” against me.

And to Justin, no I did not inform Noclador of this ANI. Reason: he was likely to delete it as vandalism. Yet as always, you have not considered that he did not inform me of his actions against me on two (three now) occasions. Sorry, but with respect, I believe you to be extremely biased on this issue and missing my point. It is inconceivable to me that you could believe that no personal attacks were made on me. You actually indicated that you may not have read my replies, based on your TLDR comment. If so, then how can you make a informed judgement when you have not considered all the information? However, I understand your intentions and regard them well. But I respectfully disagree. It is not a personal attack if you describe someone's behaviour/actions.

The WQA was not resolved, so I brought it here. I have been following the due process respectfully. (Note that I have mentioned the further sockpuppetry accusation on my talk page.)

As I said, I have detailed the abuses and chain of events here. His attitude towards me during and since was far from exhibitive of good faith. It has been abusive on several levels.

Do I really need to list them again here to get it considered?

Romaioi (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Evidence that Noclador's abuse against me is not an isolated case:

From RUSSOSWISS' Talk Page (with diff so that it can't be conveniently deleted like elsewhere), clearly UPSET that someone did not respond to his calls for acknowledgement:

.... Those fucking cunts!!! I wrote them and clearly explained that they can not do this! They didn't even answer me! I will write them once more and if they do not react, I will sue - this is shameless arrogant thievery! --noclador (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Romaioi (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

For context, this outburst from Noclador was due to the appropriation by a French magazine of several diagrams that he had created for Wikipedia, where the magazine gave credit to the wrong person and ignored his proposed corrections. You may want to consider if an impassioned comment by Noclador in February, 2008 on an unrelated matter has anything to do with Romaioi's complaint. I caution Romaioi that there is such a thing as disruptive editing. I urge Romaioi and Noclador to stay out of each other's way from now on and cease discussion of each other's sockpuppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I thought I would try Noclador's style for a change. He has done exactly this when trying to implicate me. I clearly demostarted that he was doing it but no one has pulled him up on it. He did just that on your own talk page, if you rememeber. The only difference is I have not edited the comments to say someting other than he said. And gee wizz, for all that has been thrown in my face regarding language that I used, all of what I have said pails into insignificance compared to this outburst, which, funnily enough was over an offence done to him. Kind of makes me feel glad that I was only called a fanatic, fascist, my contributions deleted and been having my character attacked since June 25th 2008.

But I still haven't stooped as low as trying to convince other users individually of his assertions, as he has done on [this talk page. He has interestingly, claimed that others agree with him. But in following his posts on the matter, I have not come across a user that clearly agrees. This is why I claimed to be a victim of a witch hunt early in July.

I have committed no sockpuppetry Ed. And the point of this ANI is Noclador's abuse and character assasinations towards me.

Romaioi (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I originally took this to WP:WQA to try and head off exactly this sort of confrontation. I'm not sure whether its a bit of shit stirring on the part of the sock puppet master but at least some of the edits by the sock puppets of Brunodam named Noclador, whereas Noclador has never dealt with him only Generalmesse. Some of those edits have a link to Romaioi and I guess Noclador followed them up. Its unfortunate that Noclador did it himself, it probably would have been better if he'd recused himself and asked another editor to look at it.

I can appreciate your suggestion Ed but Noclador edits on a lot of articles, where Romaioi has expressed an intention to also edit. Noclador did nothing wrong with the sock puppet report and yet, despite explaining the circumstances repeatedly to Romaioi he just doesn't seem to get it. In the main, Noclador has kept away from Romaioi, quite rightly so, but its likely they're going to butt heads soon. However, Romaioi has doggedly pursued a course of complaint against Noclador and on past performance he isn't going to let this thing drop. The way its going I can only see this ending up as a requests for arbitration. I note above that despite trying to smooth things over I'm now apparently "extremely biased on this issue" so I intend to recuse myself from further involvement. However, I have this nagging feeling it will all end in tears. Justin talk 16:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now I am begining to think that you are trying to stir the pot, even more so now that you have not read my TLDR rebuttals and have now stated what you have above. If you read my rebuttals you would find that my issue is with how I was treated, and still am treated. It was you guys who started the complaints against me (sock puppetry, then WQA, ANI) and I am now following up with due process to clear my name. I am criticized no matter what I do or say - yet your buddy has been allowed to say and do (delete) as he pleases. There is simply no middle gorund with you. Am I just supposed to lie down and allow these rediculous accusations and continual denigration of my character? Where exactly are the links between me and Brunodum? There are none - none of Nolcadors "EVIDENCE" above points to me at all. Only his say-so does. Can you clearly demonstrate where my (Romaioi's) cited contributions have been non-NPOV? Where is the evidence page? Where is the anvenue for conducting checkuser? In my elusive search for this evidence page etc, I have instead found this user talk page link Romaioi-Brunodam checkuser where Noclador is trying to convince User:Ed Fitzgerald(dif) that I travel around the world only to create socks for the expressed purpose of dusruption. HE seams to still be pressing the claim that I am Generalemesse. Who the hell has the time to do all these things that I am accussed of?

Quote:

....As Romaioi stated in one of his rants that he was in Brisbane for work I and other editors believe that while on this trip he created the socks (as Brisbane is in New South Wales) - this foresight makes me believe that the user behind Romaioi was expecting to run into trouble on wikipedia and also that this was not his first sock creation (the knowledge about checkuser and his demand to make one, point also in the direction that he already knew how checkuser works and that he knew it would turn up negative.)

CLEARLY HE MAINTAINS THAT I AM A SOCK! BRISBANE IS NOT IN NEW SOUTH WALES - CHECK A FRIGGIN MAP! Further, this is EXTREMELY presumptious and my defence in my previous sockpuppetry case has shown these sort of claims to be bogus. Yet he persists!

Quote:

....As for Brunodam - the connection doesn't seem obvious as Brunodam usually edits from Broomfield Colorado, but Brunodam had/has a habit to create socks wherever he went - so new users popped up and would support him and edit exactly the same articles like he did with the same POV, but when a checkuser was run, if Brunodam was related to them the results were that he had registered in Colorado and the socks were registered in Italy or Florida or Georgia and so on.

This guy is even trying to put forward on AlasdairGreen27's Talk page (diff) that " I am pretty sure it's him. As I understood from reading some Bruno discussions he had a habit of registering socks wherever he went... so I believe that he registered the various socks on a business trip to Australia (which would also explain, why Romaiois favourite time to edit is 4pm to 3am Perth time - or 7am to 6pm Broomfield time) " Just how many socks does he think I am? Oh and reagding my 4pm to 3qm posting times, thats a pretty big window. Heck, one of the persons making a character witness post on Noclador's behalf, above, made a post a 4am!!!! And has Noclador bothered to look at the days of the week that these posts typically occur?: Typically Friday's, Saturday and Sunday. Oh and as has been coveniently forgotten, I stated (on EdJohnson's talk page some time ago, wehere Noclador was canniving against me) that I had a newborn child. Well guess what - you tend to be up at all sorts of hours as a result. So you also tend to post sparodically over the course of a day, as a result. Like right now.

That is a hell of a lot of ANECDOTAL nothings to base a tremendous number of conclusions on.

And as to the belief that I am Brunodam based on the chronology of the posts by IP's 72.157.177.44 & 202.172.105.49. Would anyone be that silly to do such a thing, knowing a checkuser would show them up?

Where is the official sockpuppetry case page for me being the guy from Colorado? Why was my user page vandalised with no such investigation initiated? Is this what is considered professional good faith coduct here? What kind of guilty before proven innocent lunacy is this? I was already proven innocent! Every single bit of information I have put forward with sincerity, in GOOD FAITH, has been twisted in this insiduously sick and twisted manner. Hence, why should I let repeated character assassinations, repeated deletion of my contributions, and now repeated sock puppetry accusations go? Why should I let someone with such a clearly prejudiced and antagonistic view towards me and my presence here (since May 27 2008) off for this degree of harassment that I have receieved? At least I am following due process rather than moving slyly in the background, trying to rally the troops.

Given all of this and the kind of manipulation and foul language that Noclador has shown he is capable of, you expect me to remain respectful? Do as many checkuser's as is needed and leave me the alone in regards to the sock puppetry!

Romaioi (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Far too much blather, all in all. I have had no involvement with any of the issues discussed here, or with the parties in this controversy, but I hereby declare my distaste for this endless bickering and demand for apologies or for punishment of an admin who was doing much-needed work stopping sockpuppets from destroying Wikipedia. I am truly sorry that Romaioi was the subject of a checkuser request that was not substantiated. Now get on with life. Edison (talk) 06:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect Edison, the title of this ANI alone implies that this is more than a gripe over a wrongful accusation. The initial sockpuppetry accusation itself is not a big deal (yet people keep saying it is solely about this), and my surprise and reaction to it was not great – I conceded this very early on with Justin – and yet it is this aspect that is continually held against me. Yet the real issues I am trying to stress are continually glossed over or ignored. Since the case Noclador has continued to delete my contributions as though I were a sock. Whilst I have not been perfect, I have been subjected to multiple personal attacks (e.g. fanaticism, fascist) and repeated character assassinations (even on this page) of greater magnitude than my calling my accuser a liar. In fact, I have discovered that he continues to maintain that I am the sock that I was categorically proven not to be, plus I have now been once again accused of being another sock – all this is stemming from my contribution to one subsection of an article. The entire time he has insisted that I be banned for one reason or another, both before and after I was exonerated, and now here, and he has continually misrepresented information to present as evidence against me from the outset. This includes inventing elaborate allegations such as claiming that I travel around the world (which I certainly cannot even afford to contemplate) for the expressed purpose of being a disruptive sock. So I find it most unhelpful, particularly as a new user, to be exposed to this treatement and find that my calls for assistance are being dismissed (and unread) without consideration - and to be told that I should just cop the abuse because he is a "favourite son". I find it to be an astounding double standard. (I tracked the locations of the IPs in question and intend to post them later; one is in the USA the other is east coast of Australia.) I have taken the trouble to respond as thoroughly as possible and in a short time frame and provide links to all the related evidence, and defend the further sockpuppetry accusation, plus I have tried to follow due process - how is that Blather? How can you truly judge if you have not considered the facts? I stated what I want out of this above in my PP.S. Romaioi (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I can say a couple of things with certainty, if I may. Romaioi is not Brunodam. Entirely different style in his use of English from my dear old friend Bruno. What has caused noclador to see an overlap is that these are definitely Bruno Special:Contributions/72.153.151.45, Special:Contributions/72.157.177.44, with the spectacular attacks on noclador by the second of them. But it is possible to be attacked by more than one person. Otherwise, I completely agree with Edison in all of his/her remarks. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A complaint becomes "blather" when it is presented verbosely and in florid language with much repetition. It is usually best to make your case succinctly, with diffs to document the problematic edits, then wait for response, rather than repeatedly making the same argument, filling this page with about a 5000 word essay on how you have been wronged. Edison (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Point taken on the repetition. It was sparked by the second sockpuppetry allegation and the revelation that the proof of my innocence the first time around was not good enough for some, according to Nocaldor (its in the dif). I discovered the new accusations towards end of writing my initial comments here. I could not afford the time for a complete re-write, so re-edited which added some convolution. However, because my points appear to be ignored and the same evidence against are rehashed, motivate me to reiterate. Irrespective, the appropriate links and diffs have been included throughout. And it does not mean that my statements are not valid. You don't go to this much trouble if you've been guilty (or have been lying) all along. Romaioi (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet-related IP checks

Using http://www.ip2location.com/free.asp, it can be seen that IP 72.157.177.44 originates from New Orleans, Louisiana. IP 202.172.105.49 originates from Sydney, New South Wales and is a rural DragonNet ISP. IP 200.253.161.2 (also attributed to User:Brunodam – dif) is in Brazil.

The previous sock puppetry investigation showed I was on a different ISP 4000km away from the nearest sock (Perth, Western Australia, in fact) and this link indicates the REAL SOCKS were in the vicinity of Sydney, Australia.

In this second sockpuppetry accusation I am supposedly User:Brunodam who is based in Colorado difs (or Brazil? (dif) – inconsistency has been a theme) and travels the world just to make disruptive posts on Italian military history. This is based on Noclador’s so-called “evidence” (here, here, here, & his say so, here, which the accuser claims is 'damming proof that Romaioi and Brunodam are related.

Yet (in the risk of being repetitious) according to this diff Noclador asserts, still, that I am still Generalmesse, who I was cleared of being, and that Brisbane is in NSW. Brisbane is actually in QLD!!!!!!! Apparently, Noclador’s FORSIGHT makes him believe that the user behind Romaioi was expecting to run into trouble on wikipedia and also that this was not his first sock creation (the knowledge about checkuser and his demand to make one.... so I allegedly pre-emptively flew to Perth to create User:Romaioi a month earlier so that I could protest my innocence (its in the dif)????? Also, check my early defense – it is clear that I had no knowledge of checkuser nor the appropriate procedures I thought I had to disclose my identity ([36], [37].... & Noclador demonstated my lack of procedural knowledge above (dif). Even, User:Bahamut0013 saw that I did NOT know the procedures in his edit above [38].

For the record, I was in Brisbane from the 23rd to the 27th of June. I cannot be bothered checking the chronology of who posted what back then but perhaps Noclador can use this to concoct his next round of damming evidence.

It is amazing to me that these claims are not refuted by the accuser’s sound minded colleagues purely on the grounds of 1) highly non-probable, 2) highly unpractical & 3) unabashed character assassination.

Examining the chronology of edits at Talk:Military history of Italy during World War II, it is alleged that I, User:Romaioi, made an edit as IP 202.172.105.49 in Sydney (or Rural NSW), then ~6.5 hours later made an edit as himself in Perth. This is a 5 hour flight away. If you include typical travel time of 50 minutes to Sydney Airport (it would be over 2 hours if your start was from Rural NSW) and 30 minutes travel from Perth Airport (typical). Then you have a 30 minute cut-off for checking in and 30 minutes for luggage collection. Add those times together and you have 7.3 hours – i.e. the fastest time possible to get from location to location and be able to think about turning on your computer. It is likely to be longer. Then I supposedly flew to New Orleans to make an edit as IP 72.157.177.44, a bit under 2 days later (where I apparently made several offending posts). The flight time alone is about 5 + 16 hours to LA + 4 = 24 hours. Then you have likely delays between flights, check-in, and travel to and from airports. It can add up to over 36 hours. Then, if we add IP 200.253.161.2 (dif) into the mix, I then allegedly took a flight to Brazil to post the very next day. Bare in mind that my base of operations is allegedly in Broomfield, Colorado diff, so I would have commenced my travels from there to make the very first edit in NSW (> 20 hours flying time). Am I the only one who sees the implausibility of this? Who would even have the energy?

I guess my knowledge of approximate flight times will now be used as damming evidence against me.

Who does not see this as character assassination? User:Bahamut0013 seams to think it does (dif). It has been a key, yet ignored, assertion of mine since the beginning. Who else see’s the so-called damming evidence as barely anecdotal? I do.

AlasdairGreen27 has pointed out above that my writing style alone is completely different. Contrary, to Noclador’s assertion that “Romaioi fits nicely in this behaviour (here & here). He was very sure that I am Brunodam and everyone else (dif). So one contribution (THIS ONE) was enough for Noclador to tar me with the fascist label and of traveling the world creating socks?

Note that in the edit summary of the edit that catalyzed the sock accusations, I stated what I was doing and where I otained the original passage. Yet this was blatantly ignored by my accuser [39].

Thanks to the diffs that Noclador provided, I have read the comments by IP 72.157.177.44 at criticism of wikipedia. I do not know the extent of interaction between the two, but I find the comment interesting. Here, EdFitzpatrick questioned Noclador’s automatic deletion of what EdFitzpatrick sees as a genuine attempt to create balance. It remains unanswered as of this writing.

I would suggest that the tasks that Noclador has been carried out be passed on to a constructive soul who demonstrates objectivity.

I am personally astounded by the inability (or perhaps plain refusal) of Noclador to conduct an appropriately thorough investigation and his persistence in making wild claims based misrepresented/manipulative, poorly researched, anecdotal information. It reeks of extreme bias. If he did, we certainly would not be here.

I am still yet to find the official sockpuppetry report that alleges Noclador’s second sockpuppetry accusations. As I stated on my talk page after the first basless sockpuppetry accusation: It is hoped that whoever wishes to raise such accusations against anyone in future will be more thorough in their examination of the evidence before stepping over that line. Is it too much to ask? Some consistency would also help – it would have aided me in shortening my defenses. Romaioi (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoah, don't take my words out of context. My remarks to noclador on his talk page were a warning against the appearance of ad hominem, I never said that I actually thought he was doing it. I simply didn't want his concerns to dismissed at face value due to this scandal without being considered on thier own merits. I'd like to point out that this "second accusation was nothing of the sort, nobody opened a suspected sockpuppetry or request for checkuser case because you (and others) came along and refuted his concerns before it got to that point. I think you can drop the rhetoric about that so-called "second accusation" based on that; it was obvious to me that he had a good reason to be suspicious.

That's what this is all about, anyway. bahamut0013♠♣ 16:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of the record, when Romaioi refers to "Ed Fitzpatrick" above, he may be thinking of me, however his diff actually goes to a post by User:EdJohnston. As I said earlier, except for a technical question concerning checkuser, I've bowed out of this discussion. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, with no comment intended as I too have bowed out of the discussion, an "Ed Fitzpatrick" commented on the WP:WQA. Justin talk 12:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I believe that was me. I don't see any "Ed Fitzpatrick" in the WQA. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, this has gone on long enough. Romaioi, you have a clean block log. If you want to go edit and improve this encyclopedia, please do so. MastCell ^Talk 16:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have one more passage to add. Firstly, my apologies Ed Fitzgerald, yes it should say EdJohnson - I spelt your username wrong a couple of times. Sorry also to bahamut0013♠♣ for misunderstanding.

bahamut0013♠♣, I do not agree that my “rhetoric” is inappropriate. The point is no matter what proof is presented, Noclador will continue to believe (and press when he can) that I am a sock. It does not matter what checkuser or an IP check says (he has come up with a ludicrous scenario to counter it). I have demonstrated the logistical impossibility of Noclador’s assertions twice now (hypersonic travel is not commercial just yet) – but I am sure it will have no effect. I would also really love to know how posting between 4pm and & 3am Perth time is proof that I am from Broomfield, Colorado. Its beyond me (they are > 12 hours apart). It is actually evidence to the contrary – considering typical daily human activity. Does he not appreciate that these two locations are literally at opposite ends of the planet? Or is he implying that I can post from Broomfield Coloarado, and mask/disguise it as being from Perth, Western Australia (and perhaps Perth is in NSW too)? The guy talks about the “worst kind of insinuation” in another out of context comment above, about him hopping on a plane…(I did not know where he lived at the time - I just know its happened). And yet here he is pushing the same kind of jetsetting insinuations (plural), as per the diffs [40][41] I have highlighted in this section (and in the list abuses here).

I also do not agree he had reason to be suspicious of me. Beyond the superficial coincidence of my having made a contribution to, what I was unaware was, a hot topic there were no grounds for believing me to be a sock. He blatantly lied about which pages/topics that I had contributed to [42], and presented it as evidence. (My contributions have always been on display for people to see [43] – he lied about the number of contributions at the time too). And no-one thinks that one could be justifiably angry over this? This illustrates just how poorly Noclador investigated my (non)involvement. And others say he did nothing wrong?

I will be expanding the summary on my talk page concerning the sock puppetry farce (no names will be included) and I will be watching for further wholesale deletions of my contributions. Noclador's behaviour towards some is abusive, he cannot get his facts straight, makes innapropriate accusations, carries out manipulative patchwork editing for proof, and commits unconstructive wholesale deletions of article content. It does not represent good faith. I make no apologies for asserting it!

In contrast, I commend the excellent work of User:Kirrages in being constructive and contributing greatly to improving the quality of the subsection which motivated Nocaldor to label me a sock. The current format is to his credit. It has become, essentially, what I had hoped.

Romaioi (talk) 09:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Wilhelmina Will's DYK topic ban

It seems only a short time ago that we were discussing it, but the issue of Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) has to be raised again. The background to this is that Blechnic (talk · contribs) called for this ban based on discovered copyright violations, the worsening of articles to make them meet the requirements of DYK, etc. Accordingly a discussion was held here.
When Wilhelmina appeared to ignore the ban, it came up again [44], where I realised that, since WW refused to engage the community at the noticeboard, to assume good faith would be to assume that she hadn't noticed. I thus notified her, and closed the request, despite some protestations by Blechnic on my talk.
This led Abd to regard me as the "responsible party" for the ban - I accepted that I had effectively closed the discussion, and thus could be regarded as "responsible", which I did principally to give Abd a point of contact since he seems to have styled himself as WW's advocate in these matters (see her talk page and archives, and here for examples). Subsequently, Abd has decided that the community consensus was illegitimate because the evidence the community used did not exist. He consequently believes that I should overturn the topic ban. Now despite my naturally high opinion of myself [/sarcasm] I felt that I can't undo what I believe was the will of the community. I therefore invite another admin to check whether my judgement of community consensus at the first discussion was correct, although some editors here seemed to agree.
Furthermore, there is the question of when the topic ban may be overturned. I believe the consensus was along the lines of There exists a DYK ban for Wilhelmina at least until she tells us she understands and is willing to abide by copyvio rules and stop treating DYK medals as an end in themselves. I have invited, on her talkpage and through Abd for her to give me such an assurance that I could bring to the community and say "there it is", but no such assurance has yet to be received. I defer re-assessment of my closing arguments to other admins, and the latter question (once again) to the community at large, since my judgement has been repeatedly called into question on my talkpage, and for all I know, I may very well be wrong. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

From a review of the above, I would suggest that a topic ban consensus was very apparent and that the subsequent discussion was properly closed once Wilhelmina Will had been advised of the ban and invited to participate in the discussion of its implementation. I feel the argument that the ban is invalid because there is no determined time period is hollow; the editor is topic banned until such time the editor engages with the community with regard to the concerns raised - at that point the appropriate period (if any) before the editor can be allowed to contribute to DYK nominations can be determined. It appears that Abd's conclusions and requests are driven by considerations other than policy interpretation and application of the communities consensus, and are not shared by the majority. I see no reason to vary the sanctions on Wilhelmina Will's account until such time as Wilhemina Will starts a dialogue with those who have expressed concerns regarding her editing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with LHvU - until and unless Wilhelmina Will makes an assurance the poor behaviour will cease (even accepting the behaviour WAS poor would be a start), the topic ban must remain. Neıl ☄ 10:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

In fairness to Abd, he appears to now be contending that the consensus was flawed, and thus my close showed a "lack of wisdom" (or words to that effect) because there was no problem to begin with. He says that there is no evidence of copyvios and so the topic ban is an error that I should not have made. I'd paste the discussion over here, but it's pretty lengthy - it's at the bottom of my talk page. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

His is, and was then, a singular viewpoint. A lot of people apparently reviewed the evidence and concluded there was a problem. You did not make a decision, you enacted one made by the community. Perhaps Abd might consider that when they are the singular voice against the majority, then it may be them who is wrong. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be true if I were a singular voice. I'm not. I've written an extensive response, but it is sitting on another computer. This topic ban would not be sustained through an RfC or ArbComm review, I'm certain of that. What has happened is that a lot of editors did not review the evidence and came to a conclusion based on an assumption that the charges were true, and they !voted in that line, some actually stated, "if the charges are true, then a topic ban is appropriate," and I will, in a full comment, provide diffs. Fritzpoll, however, has not fairly presented my argument, though I believe it was his intention to do so. To date, no significant evidence, enough to justify a ban, has been presented for a topic ban. Therefore Fritzpoll has made a closure decision without reviewing the evidence, but, apparently, based on his own opinion outside of what was presented in the discussion, but not only without expressing that evidence, but also not expressing it later, when questioned about it (specifically, about the copyvio charges which he stated were central). He was therefore not a neutral administrator, one more flaw in this affair. At this point there is enough evidence -- but not presented here yet -- for a neutral administrator to reverse the decision, perhaps also sending it back to that community (AN/I) for review; though I would contend that this was the wrong forum in the first place for dispute resolution. AN and AN/I are not part of W:DR, which corresponds to a legal system, whereas AN/I is like calling 911. 911 makes immediate decisions for the protection of the project, but not binding or lasting ones, in the presence of significant disagreement. --Abd (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

As I indicated on my talkpage to you, I based the closing decision both on the consensus of the community and the AN/I discussion (that I have not linked here) which dealt with her copyvios and introduction of inaccurate material. You are being disingenuous in saying that I acted in a non-neutral fashion when I have already described to you how my decision was reached, and in saying that I have not responded to your request for information, which I did on my talkpage. I also invited you to ask another administrator to "close" the discussion, on the presumption that, if they disagreed, the topic ban could be overturned. I asked you to supply the proof to back up your statement that she had clearly learned her lesson, so that I could propose overturning the topic ban. I asked you to get WW to talk to me so that I could propose overturning the topic ban. Instead you decide to attack my position by disputing my neutrality or helpfulness in this matter - I have not vested interest in WW being banned from DYK (hardly an overbearing restriction in itself), and certainly not indefinitely. Perhaps you need to choose your words with greater care? Fritzpoll (talk) 10:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, Fritzpoll has failed, apparently, to understand the basis of the problem. Yes, Fritzpoll has "described" the basis of his ban. He based in on two charges. I have a detailed response at [45]. What you call, below, "the facts of his argument," have not been presented by you, or anyone at AN or AN/I, ever. My argument is that there was no evidence presented showing that the charges were anything more than Blechnic's warped and exaggerated allegations. (Which opinion, by the way, has been expressed by multiple editors at various times, before I was ever involved.) In short, there were two "facts" underlying your ban: (1) copyvio, and (2) padding an article to meet DYK 1500 words. The latter is so trivial that it's hardly worth mentioning, but you did mention it. Unless it were shown that this editor continued to do this, and more than rarely, it's not worthy of a topic ban, and the padding would disappear if it actually damaged the article, rather quickly. As it did. The first charge, though, copyvio, would be serious. How do we deal with editors who plagiarize text? Do we topic ban them? No! I don't know of any other example, though possibly there might be an odd one. We warn them, and we block them if the action is repeated after warning. Often we will warn them more than once. However, no evidence showing any pattern of copyvio, nor even a single example, as I recall, was asserted in either AN/I report filed by Blechnic -- and this is what you referred me to when claiming that you had acted based on evidence. No evidence was asserted here, either, nor did you, in bringing this here, note the very clear basis for my effort to persuade you to lift the ban, which I am required to do before proceeding with further process. The basis wasn't what you claimed. There was a consensus at AN/I. It was, however, a consensus of editors who aren't responsible for confirming the evidence, and a number, indeed, noted that they had simply assumed the charges to be true, and therefore their approval of a topic ban was conditional, and you failed to confirm the condition. And many others, I'm sure, did not look for the evidence, or were confused by the red herrings presented, the few allegedly outrageous mistakes of WW, which, however, were really only outrageous if they were repeated, particularly if repeated after warning, plus some sort of dark assumptions based on WW's "failure to respond." Which should have been irrelevant. (A positive response would be a basis for not topic banning, based on AGF, but a lack of response is never an offense, only the repetition of problem behavior after warning.)

I did not bring this report to AN, nor would I have done so, until I'd exhausted WP:DR, though there is a basis for an attempt at AN/I (I consider that the ban has seriously damaged the project and should be lifted promptly). But it's here, so I've responded. And I will go to the next step in DR, unless some admin takes a look at this and lifts the ban, which, having been discussed, could now be done without wheel-warring. Had anyone confirmed the evidence, sufficient evidence to block, it would be another matter. --Abd (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I will note, now, that I'm accused, via a warning on my Talk page, by User:Jehochman, of failing to AGF for Fritzpoll. I might have made a mistake somewhere, but I am not aware of ever questioning Fritzpoll's good faith, and I have assumed it all along. I have concluded that he erred, and I requested that he review his decision, and then questioned its correctness, but I do not believe and have never believed that he intended anything other than the welfare of the project, and I assume this, as well, of the editors who have been, the last few minutes, piling onto my Talk page to "second" the warning. It's not over, folks, until the diva sings. There is a reason why we don't make decisions based on the first few !votes that come in, they are often biased. We'll see. I'd say, given that I haven't filed any AN or ANI reports, started any RfCs, or even edit warred or maintained tendentious debate against an informed consensus, that blocking me based on my history would probably be disruptive, I'd not advise it. But, then again, maybe some good would come out of such, you never know. It was just suggested, yesterday, to me, that I go again for RfA. Last time the !vote was about 50-50, after the canvassed votes due to an SPA -- blocked for it -- were disregarded. And the reason given by most voters was that I only had something like 1400 edits at the time. Might be disruptive for me to self-nom, though. I won't do that. --Abd (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I didn't want to be accused of forcing bias in a response by not presenting the facts of his argument. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have now commented on your talkpage that Abd should bring his concerns regarding the basis on which consensus for a topic ban was created back to the community which expressed it, and not on the page of the admin that enacted it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that, LHvU Fritzpoll (talk) 10:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It may be a bit late to say it, I've been indisposed, but this is the issue of general value here. There is a view of administrative responsibility here that conflicts, certainly with my understanding of it and with that of some admins whom I respect greatly. Generally, short of ArbComm, we don't make decisions by vote. Rather, a rough consensus may -- or may not -- be expressed in some discussion. And then an administrator reviews it, reviews the arguments and evidence, and makes a decision. The administrator makes the decision. This is very clear at AfD. It's also clear when a block decision is made after a discussion. The blocking admin becomes the go-to person for unblock or unblock permission. I have never seen it be considered necessary to go back to AN/I to get an unblock if the actual blocking admin consents to it. So I assumed that a topic ban would be the same. The closing admin is the actual judge, and would never make a decision contrary to their own opinion after review of the evidence, on the idea that "the community decided, not me." I have seen quite a solid supermajority be reversed by a closing admin because he didn't accept the basis they were asserting. And because this "judge" can decide any way, the exact way that the admin decides at close is not binding on that judge, the admin can reverse it later upon consideration of new evidence or argument. Further, all that I've seen about dispute resolution guidelines indicates that, when we disagree with an admin close, the admin is where we go, first. It's disruptive to go beyond that when it might not be necessary. The closing admin can say "bug off!" That is totally within his or her discretion. And then there would be further process, each step involving slightly more fuss. --Abd (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Fritz, I also agree your reading of the consensus was entirely correct. I was considering closing that topic ban discussion myself and I would have closed it exactly the same way. As others have said, if Wilhelmina Will wants the ban overturned, she needs to engage with the community. Sarah 02:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarah. I figured my first AN/I close was probably worth checking Fritzpoll (talk) 08:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This was an obvious one. Fritzpoll divined consensus (and an overwhelming one) rightly, and until and unless WW engages with either Fritz personally, or the wider community with regards to the topic ban, it should stay. ^S._D.Jameson 14:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes although some of the way the conclusion was arrived at might be arguable, this was definitely the consensus. What I will say though is that WW herself hasn't edited in five days, and she hasn't done anything to violate or even question that ban herself in the meantime, so the 'blame' for this being made an issue again shouldn't fall on her and I hope this won't effect the outcome. I wish she would talk to the community though to discuss mentoring etc or ask for help, and hope she isn't gone for good. :( Sticky Parkin 13:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It is correct, there was a "rough consensus," but this affair shows why AN/I is the wrong venue for complex user conduct investigations and response, it is only good for ad-hoc, easily reversible decisions, made necessary by some immediate hazard. Had there been no rough consensus (and from vote count alone, it was a strong one), I'd have been advising WW to ignore it, and Fritzpoll's later comment to her I would characterize as a warning from an involved administrator. But that's not the case. Hence I've advised WW to respect the topic ban, even though I believe it to be seriously defective. It's also true that WW has not challenged the ban, not once, nor did she repeat, after warning, any of the allegedly improper behavior, not before the ban, nor after it. Mentoring would be a good idea, if it were not an utter waste of time. We propose mentoring for good editors who don't learn from their mistakes without it. Quite simply, that isn't Wilhelmina Will. She is far above average for editors. --Abd (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

When he took responsibility for the ban, Fritzpoll gave this reason for the it: The general argument was that WW was introducing copyright-violating material (despite repeated requests not to do so), and reducing the quality of articles in order to achieve a DYK nomination. As such, I interpreted the situation as a threat to the quality and integrity of the encyclopedia. In this context the community consensus for a DYK topic ban was justified.[46]

Now, the "reduction of quality" argument was based on a single incident, and, as was noted by an editor at one point, her problem was that "she didn't know how to bloviate well enough." Clearly, she made a mistake, but it was not even close to being a reason for a topic ban. Copyvio, though, would be much more serious. Indeed, it would be a shortcut to her goal, DYK nominations, to simply copy existing articles that she finds somewhere. Was she doing this?

Repeatedly, in the AN/I reports in question, requests were made for evidence, and I continued this with Fritzpoll, and evidence wasn't provided. The copyvio charges were trumped-up, I must conclude. I suspect that there was some incident, somewhere, but, since there was active request for the evidence at AN/I, and a participating editor -- tendentiously participating -- who would presumably have had access to the evidence, and who did not provide it, there must not have been much! Definitely not enough to justify a topic ban. And there was, in addition, no evidence that she had been warned and persisted beyond the warning. Topic ban, quite simply, was not justified by the evidence presented in the AN/I report, and Fritzpoll has not responded to this particular issue. Instead, he brought this matter here as if the question were the consensus at AN/I, which then produced the simple answer: there was a consensus at AN/I, something we already knew. And, since, Fritzpoll is unwilling, as closing admin, to reverse the ban without going back to AN/I, the simplest recourse is to go back to AN/I with a request to unban, which I intend to do. He shouldn't have brought this here, nor should he bring it there. Going to AN/I simply because someone criticizes something you've done is not appropriate. The reason I would go to AN/I: the project has been damaged, damage continues, and thus the matter justifies an AN/I report requesting immediate action. An unjust topic ban can be expected to drive away some productive editors, and it seems it is doing just that.--Abd (talk) 04:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, AN/I is probably not the venue for that discussion - I would suggest proposing the unban elsewhere, since AN/I is for incidents requiring immediate administrative assistance. The reason I brought it here, Abd, is that you questioned the validity of what I had done - not being so arrogant as to believe that all my words and deeds are without fault, I brought my actions here for scrutiny. Wilhelmina was on a Wikibreak, so it is hardly surprising that she hasn't been editing (look at her edit summaries for today) and she is creating new pages again. I have consistently responded to your request for information, including the original AN/I report where the copyvios were discussed. I have offered opportunities to resolve this repeatedly - that you refuse to counsel WW to engage with the community, refuse to accept my offers of compromise in the form of discussion (where I even offered, under certain conditions, to request the unban myself) and instead embark on this crusade on her behalf is bewildering to me.

You also persist in this idea that I can overturn a topic ban on my own. This is not true - administrators in these instances, as I understand it, enact the will of the community. They do not decide that will - admins are no more special in that regard than any other editor. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to recap this thread into a clear discussion, there are three elements together which brought about the DYK topic ban against Wilhelmina Will. These are discussed in detail in the threads linked to in Fritzpoll's opening paragraph, and can be summarised as follows:

• Wilhelmina Will was found to be introducing copyrighted material into DYK candidates that were being prepared.
• Wilhelmina Will has been found to edit war with others working on DYK candidates in the interest of meeting DYK minimum requirements.
• Wilhelmina Will has been found to be uncivil to others when the subject is discussed, working against the collaborative ethos.

While one of these issues on it's own would cause concern, it is the three together that have generated this situation and all three that need to be improved upon before the ban is likely to be rescinded. It is also worth bearing in mind that blocks and bans are preventative, not punitive. In this case, they are designed to prevent DYK submissions from being created that are potentially damaging, either by worsening the experience of other editors wishing to collaborate on the article or through potentially copyright infringing material being introduced. It is also why, in this instance, Wilhelmina Will has been encouraged to demonstrate an admission that these problems exist and a resolve to avoid repeating them in the future so that the topic ban can be lifted.

In addition, consensus does not equate approval without dissent. Although there are some editors who disagreed with the topic ban and felt that other measures were appropriate, the broad consensus was for a topic ban to be applied. Such a measure does not require the approval of ArbCom or an RfC to be implemented, and is a common remedy introduced by the community in response to editor concerns in a particular area while allowing them the freedom to contribute to other unrelated areas.

To conclude, I would encourage Abd and Wilhelmina Will to work constructively through this topic ban, demonstrate a willingness to contribute to lifting this through positive means and in the fullness of time rejoin the DYK contribution process with the consent of the community at large. I am concerned that any protracted argument or dispute will only cause further contributors to leave the project, which is somehting I think we can all agree is an undesirable outcome. Consensus has shown a clear way to resolve this issue, and I would humbly request in the interests of all concerned that it is followed. Many thanks, Gazimoff 14:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well, now User:Fritzpoll has been chased from the project for at least awhile. Good grief. ^S._D.Jameson 13:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. All that happened was that I questioned his close decision (made something like a week after the apparent AN/I consensus which had, however, never been closed, with no administrator taking responsibilty for a topic ban allegedly decided there). I did not call into question his editing, ever. I claimed no administrative misconduct rising to a level of bad faith, for I believed, and continue to believe, that he simply erred by not confirming the crucial copyvio claim, not that he intended to harm anyone. He was the one who brought this report here, when a simpler and more direct response, following WP:DR would have been more appropriate. He did not need to insert himself into this, he could have simply done nothing when I pointed out to him that he had warned Wilhelmina Will of a topic ban that was never properly decided. And then he could have made his decision, and continued to do nothing more. I didn't make this into a drama, he did. But, still, he had options, and continues to have options. He has taken one of them, which is, essentially, to do nothing, unless he changes his mind. It's a legitimate option: let the community sort it out. It's the option that Wilhelmina Will took; however, the paradox here is that he held it against her. I won't. No process was begun that he had any obligation to respond to, at all, with no immediate risk from silence, so I find his withdrawal puzzling. --Abd (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Part of the reason for people's reactions and the withdrawal, I think, is that it is difficult sometimes to understand exactly what it is you are saying, Abd. I say this as someone who thinks you often say some very perceptive things, and as someone who disagrees with the views that others are developing about your contributions (see your talk page section and warning). I think the problem is that to engage in a full and frank discussion with you on a topic can be rather difficult due to the length and abstractness of your responses, and the end result can be uncertain. I don't think what you do is harassment, but I can understand some people getting frustrated with the approach you take. I did ask before whether you had considered putting some of your views into an essay? Sometimes the points you are trying to make are best made in the abstract, before alighting on people as examples, if you get what I mean? For the record, I have supported Blechnic (someone you are criticising at the moment) over their flagging of copyvios in the past, so I think you both make good points, while I'm not 100% sure exactly what started this latest incident (I've been away for a few weeks). Carcharoth (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Carcharoth. It should be noted that when I have an agenda, a decision I've made and I'm trying to persuade the community to act, eventually will I take the time to boil it down to brief, effective speech. It takes a lot of time, so when I write at greater length, it is in discussion mode, it is not intended as persuasion, but rather exploration. It should also be recognized that this rewriting takes a lot of time, discussion is far easier, and that this problem is typical for writers like me. I did not file this AN/I report and am simply responding here, with information and analysis. While it could save a lot of fuss if someone looked at what I've written in the past about Blechnic, I'm not expecting that, though I've been succinct, actually, in some comments on AN/I that were simply ignored. But I've seen long-term, highly experienced administrators filing cogent reports ignored on AN/I. That's part of the problem that I really want to address. I do intend to write about "what started this incident," unless it becomes moot, in which case I may get distracted from that. Yes, I understand why some people "get frustrated." I've been seeing this for better than twenty years of on-line conferencing and communication experience. I don't hold it against them. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that I shut up when I have something I think important to say.

I develop the ideas that I might put into an essay by communicating with that part of the community that cares to read what I write, not for the tl;dr crowd. Some people read what I write, some don't. Unless I'm in action mode, which will be obvious, nobody has any obligation to read what I write, and there is no serious hazard from skipping it. Again, thanks. --Abd (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

goes beyond that doesn't it? more firmly implied by your dire threat on your talkpage that my "administrative future" might depend on reading your 11KB post. --87.114.149.224 (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Holy Shit! 87.114 is a User:Fredrick day IP. Two possibilities: Fritzpoll is Fredrick day, a banned editor, which I absolutely did not suspect, though it now does make some kind of sense, or this is Fredrick day is trying to stir up shit by pretending to be User:Fritzpoll. It's checkuser time, to clear Fritzpoll, if nothing else. (I would not argue that Fritzpoll should automatically be blocked if checkuser confirms that he is Fredrick day, but I think it is essential that we know, given what has come down here. (FYI, folks, Fredrick day was himself exposed most clearly because he apparently forgot he was logged in and edited signing his post with the sig of an identified vandal; if Fp is Fd, this, then, could be him forgetting that he was not logged in, thus revealing his IP. But it would take checkuser of Fp to verify this.--Abd (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Em.. I'm quoting the guy - doesn't the link to his statement give that away? I know you like to go on fishing trips and accusing people of being me - but your harrassement of fitzpoll should stop at this stage, you drove him away, what more do you want?--87.114.149.224 (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In the same edit, though, we have: "...until I'm sure that I can edit without feeling the dread, without waiting for you to tell me..." - I read that as Fritzpoll saying 'it's you or me and I'm not coming back until you avoid me or are gone'. I can understand that is being written under stress, but it is equally unhelpful. I have very little sympathy with people who say things are too stressful due to someone's edits, and then argue against that someone from halfway through the door while saying they are leaving. Wikipedia is a stressful place, and the balance has to be struck between reducing that stress and not skewing discussions. Take a break or reassess how you do things here (one of the lessons to learn is how to handle people like Abd, as well as how to handle departures, and, to be fair, for Abd to reassess how he does things as well), but don't use leaving as a parting shot at someone. Carcharoth (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC) For example, if Fritzpoll now says he is leaving again because of what I said, the cycle starts again. See User:NoSeptember/Leaving for more on this.

I find your characterization of Fritz's message incredibly unfair. I didn't see it as a "parting shot" at Abd, I saw it as a final response to an editor who had hounded him over the course of several days over a properly made administrative call, threatening all sorts of process-related recourses, until finally Fritz just had enough of it, and decided to take a long break (at least). If you look at Fritz's initial responses to Abd, he was accomodating in the extreme, unfailingly polite, and in no way contributed to the mess that this has currently become. Fritz is not the problem here in any way, Carch. To suggest otherwise does him and the work he's done here a great disservice. ^S._D.Jameson 17:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, Fritzpoll withdrew that comment. I was trying to make clear that I didn't think Fritzpoll intended it as a parting shot, but was trying to make the point that it could still have that effect. Until you've had it happen to you, it is difficult to communicate how powerless an editor can be when trying to refute an argument made by someone the other side of a still-swinging exit door. I will just repeat again that I appreciate the work done by Fritzpoll. The problem seems to be more social here - many editors getting heavily sidetracked and losing sight of the initial dispute and examining the evidence for that, rather than whether Abd or Fritzpoll dor other editors did the right thing along the way. See my comments below where I say that the best thing would have been to re-examine the whole thing afresh. Carcharoth (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

But it's a pattern of behaviour - if you look at Abd's user page - he's been warned off before of making those "you need to listen to me or it's trouble for you" warnings to administrators. Everyone has a right to speak but you don't get to try and force people to listen with vague threats of trouble. --87.114.149.224 (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This changes the complexion of this entirely. I had no general complaint about Fritzpoll, which is why the departure made no sense to me. However Fredrick day has bailed from attempts to persuade him to negotiate a return because he knows that I'd maintain some kind of notice of his activities, which he seems to be totally allergic to. Given what he's done in the past, some level of awareness is necessary. He has stated, elsewhere, that he had other accounts, so it would not be surprising if he is Fritzpoll, but quite surprising that he'd make the mistake of editing as him without logging in, he's usually much more careful. There remains the possibility that he is merely pretending to be Fritzpoll, but there is now strong reason to suspect Fritzpoll is a sleeper account for Fredrick day. There was very, very little hazard to Fritzpoll here, unless he persisted through much more process, starting with RfC (which would, of course, require another editor's certification, I could not do that on my own), so the strong reaction does make sense. That's how Fredrick day would react if he imagined I was harassing him. We'll see. --Abd (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty low trick - you are now trying to knobble the guy by saying out of the side of your mouth "psst.. he might be one of THEM.. he cannot be trusted" - have you no shame? --87.114.149.224 (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No such charges were made, Fredrick. I couldn't continue this not only because of the block, but because before the block I had promised to stay under voluntary house arrest, so to speak, to confine myself to my Talk on all these issues until the smoke cleared. In other words, the block actually did nothing except make it impossible for me to edit stuff irrelevant to this. And to handle archiving my own Talk page, among other nuisances. On th eother hand, I got to find out who my friends are, and who is helpful weven then they aren't my friends, so to speak. You didn't have to face this inconvenience, when your IP, the vandal "Section 31" was discovered to be Fredrick day, you just packed it in, immediately. (You'd slipped up, in a manner somewhat similar to how you made the edit that triggered this whole sock mess (but reversed: that was conclusive, this merely created a weird suspicion). When I filed a checkuser for Allemandtando, you, again, bailed immediately, before the checkuser result came in. Now, here, Fritzpoll had already -- it appeared -- bailed. I think you saw that, and saw an opportunity to stir up trouble by planting that edit. While it's possible that it was inadvertent, that you didn't intend the post to create the appearance that you obviously recognized it did, it was awfully fortuitous for your goals. I think you crafted it, practically a stroke of genius, I'd say, so that I'd see it and comment on it, and then someone else would look deeper at it and notice the exact quote and then have a reason to dispel it -- and make me look foolish. However, I never had any intention of pursuing anything against Fritzpoll. I doubt I would have filed an SSP report, or requested checkuser, because, while the suspicion was strong, I had previously had stronger suspicion about Allemandtando, said so at AN/I, and didn't file. I'd have supported checkuser but not to "get" Fritzpoll or "knobble" him, but to clear him of the suspicion you created. In the very first edit, the Holy Shit edit, I noted that this could easily be, not Fritzpoll, so to speak, thinking he was logged in and signing, thus revealing his IP, but you creating this false impression to cause disruption. That part worked. It did cause disruption. The coincidence of your edit, plus his mysterious departure with cries that he'd been harassed -- something you were known to do -- certainly raised suspicion, but it was far short of proof, which I said again and again. And Fritzpoll wasn't a disruptive editor, and I had only one reason to suspect the quality of his adminship, a single decision. Far, far from any kind of actual opinion that something should be done about him. No, I was focused on the case which he had closed. I approached him for clarity on it, asked him questions about it, and none of that could have been considered harassment. Or any editor seeking clarity on a decision would be considered to be harassing. At any time, he could have said to me, as to his Talk page discussions, stop, and I would have come to a dead stop, full brakes. Had I filed an AN report on him, likewise, before exhausting reasonable simpler remedies, it could have been considered harassment, but that wouldn't have been my next step and, in fact, as the smoke cleared, we discovered that we agreed on the next step. Big surprise: it's dispute resolution policy, involve a neutral editor to mediate or make an independent decision. But it was he who filed the AN report, and it's still beyond me why he did it. It wasn't necessary. I had acknowledged that there had been a consensus, my question was about the close and who the closing admin was, and therefore who could make decisions regarding the ban. When I discovered, after my return from a trip, that he had filed the AN report, and commented there. he resigned, and people were blaming me for it -- which remains quite mysterious to me, since I'd done nothing drastic (this was before the sock puppet flap, which was itself a mountain made from a molehill). So then you showed up with your little poison dart. Anyway, I'm back, Fredrick day. I'm pretty sure you've never been gone, and I might just get motivated enough to finish that sock discovery research. Active socks can be identified (i.e., simultaneous accounts), it should be pretty difficult to conceal them once one knows where and how to look. But, I do, in fact, have other stuff to do. Such as, even, occasionally, working on articles, but more often, children (7 ranging in ages from 5 to 40), grandchildren (5), business, and, of course, trying to change the world. Of which Wikipedia is only a small slice. --Abd (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Back on topic

Just a couple of quick words on this topic if I may. Firstly, like Abd and a number of other users, I feel the initial ban was hasty, ill-considered, and made on some pretty flimsy evidence. I also found it pretty distasteful, quite frankly, to see a 16-year-old girl pilloried the way she was at AN/I, and it therefore doesn't in the least suprise me that she might be reluctant to participate there. It also bothered me that no-one thought to notify any of the DYK regulars to see if they might have want to express an opinion, and I didn't even know about the ban until the topic had been closed.

Subsequently a second thread was started by Blechnic, in which I tried to clarify just what the nature of the ban was. It transpired that most people merely felt that she needed to acknowledge some mistakes and accept a mentor, but since no-one put up their hand to act as mentor and the discussion petered out without much response, I decided it would have to be handled ad hoc. Since then two articles by WW have been nominated on behalf of her by other users, one has been promoted and one IIRC was not.

So just for the record, I would like to say, firstly, that I personally have no problem dealing with submissions to DYK from WW provided they are on general rather than technical subjects. Secondly, I think I should add that I frequently see much worse copyvio offenders on DYK than WW (in fact I haven't actually seen a copyvio from her in spite of all the accusations), but my response has just been to disqualify the article and warn the user. So why WW has been singled out for a DYK ban I can only suppose has been due to Blechnic's persistence in frequently bringing her case before AN/I. At this point then, I think we need to make our minds up whether WW's trangressions were really so exceptional as to deserve a ban in the first place, and if so, what exactly needs to be done in order for her to have the ban overturned. Some clarification at this point would be very useful. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely, and I say that as someone who initially supported the ban. While User:Gazimoff is correct below when he states that copyvios were not the only or even the primary reason for the ban, the copyvio issue was by far the most serious issue. The rest of the issues were one inappropriate revert, one uncivil remark in an edit summary, and some statements indicating a lack of comprehension on certain topics she has been editing on, leading to some inaccurate statements in articles she creates. None of those would - or even all together - would seem to warrant any sort of ban, maybe a short term block at most, if it wasn't for the copyvio issues. And so far the only copyvio that has been uncovered is an item that is 7 months old, and apparently was a result of some misunderstanding with another user (possibly an admin). And by the way, BOTH of the articles that WW created and were nominated for DYK by other users were ultimately accepted. Rlendog (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that some important clarifications are required, in a restatement of my original response to Abd:

• As part of this thread, a temporary ban was put in place. Copvio concerns were not the only (or even the primary) reason, but civility and edit warring were heavily discussed. It was the combination of these three areas that brought about the topic ban. Stating that it is purely regarding copyvio is, regrettably, only part of the problem.
• Copyvio evidence, as has been repeatedly requested, is documented in this thread under the section 'Her existing copy vios and vandalisms that need edited'. Please note that this is not the only concern, as stated in my previous point.
• Fritzpoll intervened in this matter due to the convoluted nature of mutiple AN and ANI threads on the topic, in order to act as a single point of contact and simplify matters. Since taking up this role, the majority of discussion has been around the legitemacy or otherwise of a topic ban, and not (as was intended) progressing onwards from this point.
• User:87.114.149.224 has no contributions to wikipedia outside of this topic. The IP is used by PlusNet, an ADSL broadband provider in the United Kingdom. As such, it is exceedingly difficult to level accusations of sockpuppetry without strong, (usually checkuser based) evidence. If you have such material available I would strongly urge you to come forward with it or drop what ammounts to a fundamental accusation of bad faith.

It wouyld seem that WW is prepared to work within the guidelines set to improve the quality of DYK submissions and regain the trust of the community. I reiterate my request to Abd and WW to progress in this avenue. Constant resortion to debate and argument tends to stall progression on the isse and only perpetuates a needlessly tense situation. Many thanks, Gazimoff 18:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I thank Gazimoff for taking the time to investigate to the degree to which he has. However, it's not adequate, there are aspects to this situation which can rather easily be overlooked until one researches it depth -- or reads an RfC or other discussion that thoroughly explores it, and such doesn't exist yet, and I've been hoping the whole thing could be resolved more simply. So some corrections and points in response:

1. Yes, other matters were discussed, but Fritzpoll based his eventual closure on only two points and the rest not only wasn't considered important enough to mention, in our discussions, but I'd agree they were moot, minor faults; however, minor faults pointed out in the context of other allegations that are much more serious can add to an impression of wrongdoing, which clearly happened.
2. Fritzpoll intervened, first, without realizing what he was doing, if I AGF, which I do. There was an AN/I discussion where a clear majority supported a topic ban, but no administrator investigated it and drew a conclusion for closure. As a result, WW was not informed of the ban and made another DYK nomination. Blechnic complained, and Fritzpoll then took it upon himself to warn WW that she had (allegedly) been topic-banned. It took me a day or so to sort this out and realize the implications, so I can easily understand that others might still not get it.
3. We don't make decisions by vote. Ever. Votes represent a rough consensus, we make decisions through servants, closing administrators, trusted by the community to review not only some apparent consensus, but also the evidence and the analysis, and a closing administrator is obligated, in fact, to make his or her own decision, being informed by the community as to evidence and opinion. Part of this is a responsibility to investigate the evidence, to understand the basis for the decision. However, when Fritzpoll went to the WW Talk page to warn her, he denied that it was his decision, he essentially said, "Don't shoot the messenger," I'm just reporting the community's decision. He most explicitly did not take responsibility for the decision.
4. I raised at one point the possibility that Fritzpoll was not neutral in this affair, but that's not a point that I pursued. Rather, I acted as if he were, in fact, neutral, and thus able to properly close if he agreed with the evidence and conclusion.
5. When the community makes a decision through a polling process, there is always a close by an administrator, or sometimes another editor; when a topic ban is involved, custom is that this is an administrator, because the administrator then becomes responsible for enforcing the ban with blocks if necessary. Since there had been no close, the ban was not in effect, it was not merely that it hadn't been communicated to WW. However, when I discovered this and wrote about it (on my Talk page?) I cautioned WW to continue to assume that there was a ban, until it could be sorted out. But I also wanted to give her some hope, so that we might avoid losing her entirely. As well as, possibly, to assuage her probable hurt feelings. At least she could know that somebody was trying to sort it out!
6. So I went to Fritzpoll and pointed out that there was no close, and invited him to review the situation. I mentioned several options: He could simply not act, in which case there would be no ban, and I'd return to AN/I with that, probably, or at least to DYK (which is where most of this should have happened in the first place.) He could close the discussion, either with a ban or not. He elected to close it, to take responsibility. I considered this as progress, even though I considered the decision incorrect. Now there was a responsible administrator, and I could attempt to negotiate with him, or could ask others to do so. It never came to that, because Fritzpoll continued to insist that the decision had been the community's, not his. I asked him for the evidence of copyvio, and he provided only a diff to a former AN/I report by Blechnic, which didn't show copy vio. I'll note that copyvio evidence recently posted here, taken from Blechnic's Talk page, posted after the ban, was a single example, from many months ago, with extenuating circumstances. I understand there is another example, it's been mentioned, but I haven't seen it myself, though I've looked. It's not important. If there were a pattern of violation, worthy of a topic ban or even a warning of a topic ban, we'd have seen it by now. This has been a very productive editor, with many, many articles, and it's quite possible that going over it all with a fine-tooth comb would turn up something else. But we don't ban for this level of problem. 'Wilhelmina Will was a productive editor, with 29 DYKs to her credit and many short articles created and standing. I look now, and I see, to my relief, that she has resumed editing. She was gone for a week.
7. While I was negotiating with Fritzpoll, and then while I was traveling for three days, he took the matter to AN for review -- without necessity, it was his choice --, but he didn't present the crucial argument: the lack of copyvio evidence. Instead, he was looking for what he thought important: confirmation of the consensus at AN/I on the ban. He thought that if there was an apparent consensus, that meant that he was justified in his close. It's an error, but it is an error which, I assume, could be corrected; the appearance of a consensus was never challenged. What was challenged was the underlying arguments and evidence, or lack of same. Some !voters at the AN/I report specifically prefaced their comment with a disclaimer: "If the charges by Blechnic are true, and I see no reason why they would not be, ...."
8. Yet Blechnic was an editor, fairly new, previously blocked for harassment, who, I'd already concluded, was, indeed, harassing WW, beyond all reason, tendentiously arguing against every positive thing said about her or questioning his report. While it is proper for editors to AGF and make a prefatory remark like that, it was not proper for an administrator to consider those !votes as being effective unless the administrator personally verified the evidence. And, absent evidence to the contrary, we can assume that most !votes are, in fact, dependent upon the evidence visible when they !voted, so such verification is crucial, or, at least, when a close without personal examination of evidence is made, and challenged, it should be immediately investigated and fixed. Which Fritzpoll apparently never did. (I don't think he needed to consider the !votes at all, the matter is simpler. He should have looked at the charges de novo, and verified the evidence. If the evidence was verified, then he'd have presumably made his own decision based on it, which might or might not match the community's apparent consensus.
9. It seems that Fritzpoll had some impression in his mind that there had been copyvio problems, I've mentioned this "other" incident. But one incident can create such an impression, yet a ban should be based on a pattern of incidents, likely to be repeated. Now, lots of admins make close decisions, and then change them when aspects of the decision are questioned. There is no difference, in principle, between an AfD or an AN/I poll decision, and it is fairly common to reverse an AfD and, in fact, the standard first action, before challenging an AfD at WP:DRV is to discuss it with the administrator, who can change the result, and going back to the community (i.e., re-opening the AfD), isn't necessary, because there is simple recourse available for any member of the community who disagrees with the new admin decision.
10. Eventually, I came to question Fritzpoll's competence as an administrator, based on a series of factors that I won't review here, since it is moot now, but never his good faith, and there was no risk to Fritzpoll's admin bit unless he tendentiously opposed the community in possible ensuing process. My reference to hazard had to do with the possibility that he would do this, and I made that clear in my full comment (on my Talk page, by the way, not pushed in his face). I did not threaten that further process, I move very slowly, normally, unless pushed by circumstances. He didn't need to do anything. The fuss that ensued was caused by his report here, and then my answers to it. Further process only becomes burdensome at the RfC level, which would require quite a bit of preparation, including independent efforts to resolve the dispute. And I continued to make it clear that Fritzpoll wasn't the problem. The problem was unclear process and practice at AN/I, for which the community is responsible.
11. Yes, this is long. But quite a bit shorter than a full RfC would be. Nobody's obligated to read this. I'm not pushing for anyone to be blocked, and this is not where I'd ask for a reversal of the WW ban -- though it's once again questionable due to the departure of the closing admin, for whatever reason.
12. And I haven't provided diffs. Don't trust me? Don't worry! You won't personally be held responsible. I've been threatened with being blocked, twice today, most seriously for the sock puppet issue, so I should address that.
13. 87.114 is Fredrick day IP, the possibility that this was other than Fd would be minute, and I've read that 87.114 has acknowledged being Fd, not that this was ever in doubt. See Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day for a list of IPs, known or reasonably suspected to have been used by Fd, together with some other sock puppets. I do know what I'm talking about. As to Fritzpoll being Fd, I do not consider it proven yet, there is merely reason for suspicion, most notably since Fd did use the first person singular possessive pronoun, referring to Fritzpolls' administrative status. I'll decide later if there is reason to file checkuser, which would simply be routine at this point, it's possible that a checkuser coming across this would do it on their own. Or not. Fritzpoll was not a disruptive editor, as far as anything I've seen. It would be the community's decision as to what to do if it turns out that Fritzpoll is Fredrick day. Continuing the sysop status would be out of the question, I'd say. (If you know what Fredrick day has done, I think you would agree.) But blocking would be another matter. Wikipedia does not punish, we protect, and that is exactly what I'm doing all this work for, to ensure that the policy and guidelines are a reality. --Abd (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I'll respond to here, Abd is your last point (#13). You are not getting it and need to read your user talk, which I presume you're doing. You have completely misunderstood the "possessive pronoun" bit, and I can't find another way of explaining it to you. The IP (who admitted to being F-day), copy/pasted from Fritzpoll's talkpage, not from your talkpage. The "MY" in the post is a direct copy paste from the person who said MY, Fritzpoll. Your "suspicions" are laughably unfounded and are serving you no purpose other than to deflect from the core issues. Type less, think more. Keeper ǀ 76 21:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Two more points of note that I see in this latest missive:

• Carcharoth has just made the point (elsewhere) that it's unfair to see Fritzpoll leaving (hopefully not for long) as an exacerbating factor in re Abd, yet Abd in #6 above is directly using the tactic for their own benefit "I see, to my relief, that she has resumed editing. She was gone for a week."
• And in point #8, "Blechnic...previously blocked for harassment" which seems to elide the discussion where Blechnic's block log was subsequently modified to indicate that the blocks were unjustified.

And of course, to continue with a sockpuppet discussion of any kind, especially based on the premise of the leading two octets of an IP address (that leaves 65,000 possibilities doncha-know) somewhat strains credulity. Franamax (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Good Lord. What a mess. I'm going to ignore the sockpuppet accusations, while noting that Abd has been blocked indefintely for the accusations (see his talk page). Somewhere in those points 1-12, though, there is an important point, which is 'individual admin responsibility for their actions', versus 'actions that "enact community consensus"'. It is incredibly easy to hide behind consensus and the conclusions of previous discussions, instead of standing up for your own admin actions and examining the evidence de novo. In that sense, Abd is right: when asked to look into something, admins should examine the evidence afresh (no matter how tedious it might seem), and not just rubber-stamp previous decisions. This is similar to the way "unblock" requests are supposed to work. An admin answering an unblock request might end up agreeing with the previous decision, but they need to make clear that they have done an independent examination of the situation, and not just briefly read the previous discussion and nodded a few times. It is difficult, but that is the only way to avoid confirmation bias. Carcharoth (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

My what a wikidrama this whole thing has turned into. I have not read every single word in this tomb but I have read enough to get a sense of what has happened and who has done what. As a totally uninvolved editor here, I would say that people just need to chill out for a bit and stop being so sensitive to perceive slights and defending entrenched positions. While there are many bit payers in all of this, here are the most significant points as I see them:

1. WW appears to be a 16 year old who is enthusiastic and motivated to help create content for the project. This should be viewed as a good thing and she should be encouraged not tarred and feathered.
2. As such expecting a professional level of maturity from her is unrealistic and totally unnecessary. So being motivated to win some DYK award may seem trivial to some here, it is quite conceivably important to a 16 year old. If she has made mistakes, the can be corrected. Finding a support structure to help her improve should be the goal here, not deriding her because she is intimidated to come here to the "Hall of Authority" to defend herself and her actions before a group of much older and oft times much more uncivil authority figures.
3. As far as I am concerned Abd has done a good thing by taking up an advocate position for this user who may simply lack the assertiveness to deal with the BS that goes on here that only comes with experience and maturity beyond her years. While he may be verbose, and while some of his ways of putting things may appear as threats, his underlying premise in this case appears to be sound: an early consensus was formed simply by uninformed editors piling on (with all good intent) because they were hearing accusations of copyvio violations which is the only substantive charge I see in this whole mess, but for which I have seen essentially zero evidence given the amount of discussion space already dedicated to discussing things ... well there was that single 6 or 7 month old one liner ... which has apparently already been dealt with. This warrants a more thorough investigation whose goal should be simply to find and repair and past damage and to compile a list of example to present to WW so that she might learn to avoid similar mistakes in the future.
4. I will agree that it is important for WW to engage the community but there is no need for this to be a threatening experience for her as I am sure it must be. Simply allow Abd to continue as her advocate and adviser so that she has the structure to help her to properly engage in the experience. This would be a valuable life experience for her in the long run and as long as she embraces the changes that need to be made she promises to be a prolific contributor to the project. This is, after all, what the goal should be here, right?
5. As for Abd leveling accusations of sock puppetry, I think that things are being over blown here. His statements were hardly clear cut accusations. They were mere stream of consciousness suspicions as is Abd's way. In the end after Thatcher's post and some reflection Abd clearly acknowledged that Fritzpoll is NOT Fredrick Day and apologized for any distress that his suspicions may have caused. This is, I believe, the trigger that people were expecting to lift his ban? If so the threshold would appear to have been reached.
6. For what it's worth, I find Carcharoth and Gatoclass to be the most level headed voices of reason in all this. i found their positions and assessments to be the most compelling. Most of the pointy sticks in this discussion were based on entrenched positions and a lack of willingness to admit a rush to judgment.
7. I clearly believe that Fritzpoll was acting in good faith when he closed the original ANI imposing the DYK ban. There was a clearly stated consensus there so his actions were justified but it is also important to note that many of those voting had admitted that they had not actually looked into the matter personally and were taking the word of other editors on the charges. I have no reason to doubt the good faith intentions of those whose findings these others listened to, but I also note a distinct lack of verifiable diffs to back up all the bluster. As such, I think Abd was correct in his assertion that this ban was premature and potentially a rush to judgment that should be corrected.
8. I also believe the Blechnic was acting in good faith in his actions here and his desire to protect the project from what he saw as harm. While this is admirable I think that he is being overzealous in his pursuit of WW, especially in consideration of her age. To the extent that his actions have prevented further damage he has been vindicated, but now that the threat has been halted I would hope that he would switch his focus towards finding a positive solution to this situation which allows WW to continue to be an enthusiastic contributor to the project regardless of what motivates her to do so. There is no reason that the desire to achieve a DYK award should be considered a negative as long as his primary concerns regarding copyvios, the padding of articles just for padding's sake, and a couple of thinly veiled insults are addressed. With the exception of the copyvios, neither of these issues is worthy of a ban, IMHO. On the issue of extensive copyvio allegations I am seeing very little here in terms of actual diffs. That does not mean that they don't exist, but without them a ban is clearly premature given the number of conditional votes in the existing consensus which is all Abd is claiming, also IMHO. Even if they do exist a ban should not be the goal. Correcting them should be and WW will probably be more than willing to help in that effort as long as the process is not pursued in such an intimidating manner.

--GoRight (talk) 07:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The main problem here is that Abd, whilst claiming to have tried to follow WP:DR, seemed to lose that in a quest to be "right". As I felt was appropriate, I offered, as one means of resolving the dispute, having another administrator review the close (since I can't unilaterally overturn what I perceived as a community ban). Following Abd's block last night, I asked Carcharoth to perform this task, which will hopefully be to the satisfaction of all concerned. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think an independent review is a fine step, but I don't see that as a resolution moving forward. As I said above I believe that you were acting in good faith and given what you had before you that you were justified in your actions at the time. The question now becomes what is the best positive outcome that can be achieved here and what is the best means of effecting that? What the community has done only the community can undo, which is the core of your point, correct? So let us formulate as best we can the conditions which have to be met so that the ban can be lifted by community action. Whether the ban was right or whether it was a rush to judgment is rather moot a this point, IMHO. It is done so let's focus on moving forward and let the independent review serve as a retrospective to help everyone avoid similar problems in the future (if it is deemed a problem at all). If the independent review reveals an injustice was done in the form of a good faith rush to judgment then it should be easy enough to garner community support for the lifting of the ban. If the judgment was justified, well, then the issues identified need to be addressed by WW in a construction way for the obvious reasons.

Clearly actual participation by WW here would facilitate this process. While WP:AGF coupled with her age can explain (but not excuse) her alleged actions she will eventually have to step up and become accountable if she is to be taken seriously. More than anything I think the main complaint or uncomfort I am hearing in this whole discussion is a lack of active participation in this process by WW, which I think is fair, and this then becomes her first challenge in getting this matter resolved. I simply think that this will be most effective if Abd continues to be an advocate and an adviser but ultimately with her direct participation here. In that context I would urge Abd to encourage WW to take some responsibility and engage the process. 16 years old or not if she refuses to address the community it should be no surprise that the community will view her with suspicion and in a negative light (regardless of whether that is justified or not). It is simply the reality of the situation.

Personally I prefer to wait for the results of the independent review before formulating any next steps. This will not prevent WW from working on additional contributions as part of her DYK goal, as far as I can tell, as long as the ban on her self-nominating is respected until this is resolved. Personally I have no particular problem if others within the DYK community want to nominate her work within that process so long as the nominator takes responsibility for insuring quality concerns are properly covered before making such a nomination. Do others have any serious objections with such an arrangement? It seems she has some support from within that community so perhaps that could be a workable arrangement? --GoRight (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all of the sentiments above, and, to be explicit, I don't think it should be considered "ban evasion" (as it was once termed by an editor) if another editor nominates on her behalf, provided that editor takes the same responsibility for the nomination as if it were their own Fritzpoll (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a secondary problem here, which is that WW has apparently not been communicative with anyone in recent days and has successfully avoided addressing any concerns. It's nice to see people standing up to protect this poor frightened sixteen-year-old - except that she professes leadership such that she's unable to join in a project, she doesn't have time to read about what's happened, she's still creating technical articles and she's guessing at them. I suppose these issues are subsidiary to the big show and I won't pursue them. I'll just make my prediction that this topic will recur here, some new players, some the same old same old. I'll try to watch more quietly next time. Franamax (talk) 10:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that you raise valid points, some of which I have addressed above. On the issue of leadership and not having time to read what's happened I think the WP:AGF view of that is simply her rationalizing things so she can avoid the trip to the principal's office, as it were. This seems to make perfect sense in a 16 year old frame of mind, IMHO.

On the issue of her creating technical articles on material which she does not understand, I would suggest that Abd convey to her that this is no longer an advisable set of material for her to work on unless and until a suitable reviewer or reviewers can be identified to volunteer to vet her work. Still, if the material is sufficiently above her level of comprehension that she is writing incomprehensible gibberish then obviously this would be of no value to anyone, including herself in her quest for the DYK award. Clearly it would be best for her to confine her activities to topics that she can reasonably understand, but even on technical articles IF she is able to get things into even a 90% usable state this can be a way to make those interested in such topics much more efficient at creating new content since they would only need to help her get the last 10% completed. This is obviously only a viable option so long as suitable arrangements are made with other appropriate contributors who are capable of and willing to invest that extra 10%. Thoughts? Concerns?

I would also suggest to Abd that he convey to her that quality is just as important a goal here as quantity. In other words, 5,000 really well written articles is probably a more laudable achievement than would be 10,000 sloppy and inaccurate ones. Agreed? --GoRight (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Abd blocked

Just a quick note as the blocker; Abd was blocked solely for the de facto campaign of harassment against Fritzpoll (even after the blocking, the closest he can come to an apology is that Fritzpoll "could" be innocent. This has nothing to do with the wider issue re WW (FWIW, somewhere in the thread you'll see me actually arguing in support of WW; I'm not trying to "suppress the opposition" here). As I've said, I specifically mean "indefinite" as "undefined", not "forever". If someone genuinely thinks this was an abusive block (but note the seven warnings after the final warning), or Abd comes up with a legitimate reason to unblock, I won't oppose anyone unblocking – although having done some research through his contribs, he seems to have some very serious COI issues; as the self-declared inventor of a voting system, more than 50% of his mainspace edits are to related articles; there also seem to be some off-wiki issues, for what they're worth. – iridescent 22:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you've made the right call here. Much as I often agree with Abd on more general topics, his behaviour here was beyond the pale regarding Fritzpoll, who is an excellent contributor to mainspace. Orderinchaos 00:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone trying to resolve this mess, and to save reposting a huge chunk of diffs, the "personal attacks following final warning" on which the block was based (incidentally, despite what Abd is saying, the warning was not given by me), are listed here. Even after all that, the closest he's coming to a retraction is that "the whole thing could be a trick", a claim that I somehow cooked this up because I wanted to block him but couldn't find a reason, and a threat to take me to Arbcom for "putting him in talk page prison". – iridescent 00:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth, there is no technical evidence of a connection between Fredrick day and Fritzpoll, and substantial circumstantial evidence to actively refute a connection. Thatcher 00:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the reference to a "trick" was that Iridescent was tricking Abd. The reference seems to be that F.D. was trying to trick Abd into thinking Fritzpoll was a sock of F.D. Which apparently succeeded, although rather than being an attempted trick it was apparently a case of missing quotation marks. Rlendog (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No – read it in context. "I've seen these kind of arguments before. They come up when admins want to block someone, but need to figure out a reason. This affair has, so far, to me, all the signs of that. It's fine with me. I don't need to be able to edit Wikipedia to prepare an ArbComm case" is explicitly referring to this block being an admin conspiracy and/or a deliberate abuse by myself, and an implicit (albeit laughable) threat of an RFAR. – iridescent 13:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I made one of the last warnings, asking for input from others at the same time. I thoroughly support this block, more so now that Abd is claiming in the aftermath he was "tricked." His hints about Fritzpoll were utter smears and whether in good or bad faith, were disruption. He is clearly here to drum for his own interests, in his own meta-talk ways, far above and beyond anything else. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I see on his talk page just now what i take as a rather full apology, so the block has served its purpose. I support an unblock. DGG (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I also support an unblock as Abd has thrice made my list of wise wikipedians. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What? How silly. Iridescent, the blocking admin, also appears on your "list of wise wikipedians". So I guess really you should be neutral? Keeper ǀ 76 14:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not think either Abd or Iridescent should be blocked indefinitely. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

On his talk page Abd has clearly acknowledged that Fritzpoll is not Fredrick Day and has apologized directly to Fritzpoll for any distress this misunderstanding may have caused and they seem to have parted on friendly terms. This seems to be a significant constraint that those who supported the ban wanted from Abd. He has now provided it. I support unblocking him. --GoRight (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This is Abd's "apology" to Fritzpoll [47]: "I can also, now, apologize for my thoughts, expressed above, calling into question Fritzpolls' competence as an administrator. I still think he made some mistakes, but.... what matters is what happens next, and it looks like he's properly handling it now." Although Abd uses the term "apologize", he still claims that the mistakes were on Fritzpoll's side. Abd apologizes only because Fritzpoll "is properly handling it now". Yellowbeard 11:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowbeard (talk • contribs)

Abd has clearly apologized for the sock puppetry related suspicions and any distress those may have caused. Unless I am reading things incorrectly this was the primary motivation for his block. That now seems to be settled. That he still believes there was a rush to judgment in this case and therefore an injustice had been done is a separate matter. Both Fritzpoll and Abd seem to be in agreement that an independent review is appropriate and I suspect most people would accept that this is a good course of action at this point. The outcome of that review will set the tone for any next steps in resolving this matter. If an injustice was done then it can be easily undone. If the judgment was proper then corrective action can be put in place. The bottom line is that simple, IMHO. Either way I agree, even if Abd does not, that Fritzpoll was justified in his actions based on the consensus expressed there and the information Fritzpoll had available to him at the time.

I also believe that people may be misinterpreting Abd's position and intent. When he says that Fritzpoll made mistakes, knowing what I do about Abd, I don't believe that this is intended as an attack on Fritzpoll, per se. It is merely an observation (without prejudice or judgment) about the process that was followed, where it might have gone wrong, and therefore what should be done to fix it. I interpret Abd's comment as being a statement about the process as opposed to about Fritzpoll personally, but I can certainly see how others might interpret it differently. Abd is focused on improving the process to avoid similar issues arising in the future as far as I can tell. So in that light I think that YB's issue above takes on a whole different tone. Perhaps this is just my interpretation, though, and your mileage may vary. --GoRight (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell (I find it hard to follow 15,000 byte polemics) he hasn't provided a retraction and unconditional apology for his baseless sockpuppetry accusation. –xeno (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's as close as I'm going to get, and I have accordingly assumed good faith and accepted it on his talkpage. The block, from my vantage point was triggered by the accusation, but not the sole issue for iridescent, which is something you should probably check with him. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As I say on his talkpage, I'm neither going to endorse a block or an unblock here. I am getting very irritated at being the butt of a sub-WR level conspiracy theory that (despite never having interacted with this user or Fritzpoll in any way prior to this incident, AFAIK) I somehow engineered this situation to give myself a pretext to block him. Since, given what appears to be a totally warped view of what Wikipedia is for (this is not another Giano or Vintagekits who has had disputes with some editors but has a basically sound pattern of editing; this is a user with less than 20% of their contributions being to mainspace, more than 50% of which are on the voting system he claims on his userpage to have invented) I believe that any endorsement I make of either blocking or unblocking, he'll either see as "proof of the vendetta against him", or as a "defeat for the cabal", as appropriate. That is not to argue against an unblock – he'd hardly be the first disruptive editor given another chance – but it's a decision I want no part in taking. – iridescent 17:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but I think you should go further and say that you won't stand in the way of an unblock. Simply blocking and then sitting on the fence doesn't really help. Fritzpoll has taken an admirable and pragmatic stance and has decided to accept the apology, as far as it goes, and move on. I can understand your frustration, but really, the sockpuppet accusations and the block of Abd, and even his comments about you, are a sideshow. If we could get that cleared up and move on to how to handle (and not handle) editors producing (sometimes) problematic content with DYK as a motivation, then that would be good. We could even try and persuade Abd to take a different approach (I haven't read all he has written recently), but that is a separate issue to what you blocked him for. Carcharoth (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"If someone genuinely thinks this was an abusive block (but note the seven warnings after the final warning), or Abd comes up with a legitimate reason to unblock, I won't oppose anyone unblocking" (...) iridescent 22:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC). I suppose we are just waiting for Abd to throw up an unblock template. –xeno (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was clear but these threads are starting to get rather tangled; for the record, I will explicitly not stand in the way of, or argue against, anyone unblocking. As Xeno quotes above, if you genuinely think this was abusive – or if you think he's "served his time" – feel free to unblock. I specifically said both on the block log and the block notice that this was not "indefinite" in the sense of "forever". The point I was trying to make above is that I don't think I should be the one to make the decision on this one since after the string of attacks on me I'm not going to be unbiased. – iridescent 18:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I must protest the continuation of Abd's block at this point.

While I accept Iridescent's good faith in her making of the block, the use of an indefinite block was perhaps not the best choice. When she made the block she stated "If someone genuinely thinks this was an abusive block (but note the seven warnings after the final warning), or Abd comes up with a legitimate reason to unblock, I won't oppose anyone unblocking ..." While I agree that it was not Iridescent's original intent, I am here to claim that this block has become abusive and punitive, and as such I would ask that someone please unblock him at this point.

In looking over WP:BLOCK can someone please justify the continued blocking of User:Abd under any of the sections listed in WP:BLOCK#When_blocking_may_be_used because I am having a hard time understanding how the continuation of this block serves any of the purposes listed therein. Can someone offer a rationale here, please?

I will also note that this particular block, IMHO, has now reached a point where the first two sections of WP:BLOCK#When_blocking_may_not_be_used seem quite applicable. It is being used, for all practical purposes, to settle a dispute [48], [49], and the edit summary of [50], and for others here with the power to unblock I suspect that they see this more as WP:CDB. If this is not the case please state your rationale for allowing this to continue.

--GoRight (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Abd has not asked to be unblocked yet. I'm sure if they were to request to be unblocked and retract their comments regarding iridescent, someone would unblock them. I think even Keeper76 has offered to under these circumstances. –xeno (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Has yet to* and he's a she. Synergy 15:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

User page says his name is "Dennis". Tan ǀ 39 16:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Tan {{trout}}. I meant iridescent. Synergy 16:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed --GoRight (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed –xeno (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

But I never referenced irid with a gender-specific pronoun. –xeno (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My fault. GoRight started off by saying him, and its now corrected. /end confusions. Synergy 16:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a requirement for Abd to make such a request before an unblock can be performed. I am arguing that, as Iridescent said at the beginning of this, enough is enough. If the block is no longer justified under WP:BLOCK it should be lifted. --GoRight (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, to try and answer some of your questions: If he has not requested an unblock, there is no reason to unblock, since it was done in good faith and appropriate. Its indef only because there is currently no fixed duration (this is of course up to how Abd proceeds from here on out). When and if he chooses to request it, conversation can flow in that specific direction on his talk page (so long as its not misused and subsequently protected). I hope this helps you understand this situation a little better. Synergy 16:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

He was blocked for making baseless accusations towards Fritzpoll (which have since been resolved) but exacerbated the situation by making baseless accusations towards Iridescent. I see no reason for him to be unblocked without a retraction of the latter. –xeno (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems the cabal is out to get him and prevent him from saving wikipedia - "So, there's a task for me, write about it on the policy pages. Which is, of course, exactly what some admins, explicitly, are trying to prevent. --87.115.24.199 (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is a kind of cabal, the real kind, which is mostly virtual and informal, which is clearly out to get me, but, apparently, they aren't in firm control. Yup. I find out about cracks in policy and try to patch them, usually after someone tripped over them. There are some doozies. Anyway, folks, that's a Fredrick day IP, in case you haven't noticed. Up to his usual. You might notice I'm unblocked, now, courtesy of Xenocidic. Thanks to all who supported me through this block. It took longer than it might otherwise, I didn't put up an unblock template till today. When I put it up, unblock was denied, no big surprise, but the alleged consensus that I should continued to be blocked unravelled quickly with no further action by me. --Abd (talk) 03:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. Looking at the length of my last two posts I think you may be starting to rub off on me. :) Rlendog (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

One of the big problems is that we have a process whereby editors are encouraged to make comments that become decisions based on knee-jerk responses to incomplete analysis of situations, and often highly biased presentations of arguments that exaggerate what evidence does exist. Garbage in, garbage out. We can see, now, that the charges against WW were not based on evidence of copyvio, that evidence still hasn't shown up, so whatever exists must be minor. The other charges looked bad, except that her lack of repetition of each offense (and she had made mistakes, no doubt about it) wasn't brought out, because nobody went over the charges in a systematic way: had she done the thing (often yes but sometimes no), was she warned, did she continue after warning? If not, there was no need for any sanction, the basis warning/behavioral change process worked. I've claimed that AN/I is a terrible place to decide long-term remedies, it's great for deciding on escalating blocks, which are harmless if there is review process that will exonerate an editor who is wrongly blocked. But we actually don't have a good process on that. We have a process that usually works, but which can seriously break down, it's far too unreliable. In any case, we aren't going to fix these problems through shallow, knee-jerk responses, which can easily be very brief. If someone works a half-day to develop an opinion, sure, they can summarize the opinion, sometimes, in a few words. And then people who haven't done that research simply dismiss it as without evidence. If they put in the evidence needed, it is quite likely to be a long post. There are solutions to the problem, but Wikipedia doesn't even agree that there is a problem yet, so implementing a solution is way premature. I'm attempting to experiment with solutions in narrow environments, and even that is quite difficult. But I think we will get there. If I didn't think that, I'd abandon the project. It's far too abusive as it is. --Abd (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I came across your account as the result of a comment I made on someone else's userpage that was copied to yours. I saw you were blocked and had a look at your history. When you get past the massive massive comments that you make everywhere, you seem to be a SPA - you have some sort of voting system that you want to push and everything you do seems to be geared to getting us to adopt it and nobody is interested. Part of the reason that nobody seems to be interested is that you seem to have no interest in getting engaged in the core function of this project - to produce a quality encyclopedia. Your mainspace edits account are @ 18% but once you remove the edits to the article on your pet voting structure (which I think you claim to invented), it's actually near 9%. Would you consider becoming involved in our core function? writing and producing quality articles? --Hank Pym (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Please note that User:Hank Pym has been confirmed as a ban evading sock per checkuser. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Pym (Fredrick day) knows that if you throw enough mud, some of it sticks. But he's quite confused about this "voting structure" thing. Sure, I'm one of six independent inventors that I know of -- there are probably more -- of what I call Delegable proxy, but the article on that, which I created as Liquid democracy in 2005, I think, for that was the name from another inventor, that was, at the time, better known than my own term, I only edited at the very beginning. Later, I didn't touch it because of COI, so that isn't what Fred is talking about. Must be Instant runoff voting, which isn't exactly my "pet voting structure." For sure. But I happen to be a bit of an expert on it and on the politics of it. Delegable proxy is not a "voting structure," it's a communications structure that can be used to form and estimate consensus on a large scale, efficiently, see WP:Delegable proxy a proposal that was, of course, rejected, because, in spite of all that the creator of that page and I explained, editors considered it a voting method. And, of course, "we don't vote." Of course, when the attempt was made to actually delete the project page, and the majority of editors !voted Delete, and the closer closed with Keep as Rejected, they screamed. How dare the closer disregard the "consensus"! Such is this place. Little by little, we are either waking up or going totally mad. --Abd (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, Abd's unblock came too early. Abd succeeded in getting unblocked without having to show any insight. It is clear that Abd will interpret his unblock as a community approval of his behaviour. And it is clear that he won't change his behaviour after these events. Yellowbeard 11:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yellowbeard is an SPA that became entirely devoted to me and my associates or work, since December, 2007. He's correct. Hopefully, this discussion here will cease. Pending resolution satisfactory to me, I have taken voluntary action which largely restricts me to my own user space: [51] --Abd (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2008

So the state of play is?

I note that no-one has yet replied to my question, which was, what exactly is the state of play regarding WW and the supposed DYK ban? Hopefully I can get an answer this time. If I don't, I think I am just going to have to assume that there is no consensus and that it will be up to the DYK regulars to formulate a response for themselves. Gatoclass (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That a topic ban is currently in place, but that I have asked for it to be reviewed by a neutral administrator, who will get around to it this evening. Hope that helps Fritzpoll (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ho hum, the drama goes on. Thanks for letting me know. Gatoclass (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

One minor correction to your summary above, Gatoclass. You stated "It transpired that most people merely felt that she needed to acknowledge some mistakes and accept a mentor, but since no-one put up their hand to act as mentor..." however at least two people offered to mentor her. WW simply "archived" those offers along with anything else put on her talk page with in minutes of seeing it and did not respond to them. I, myself, am one of the ones who agreed with the bans because her reactions to them showed she didn't care at all about the guidelines and made it clear that she was her because she felt she "had" to make 10,000 articles and get a lot of DYK's to make a name for herself. I am mildly concerned that she has such an obsession at a young age, one that would daunt many older, more experienced editors.

I felt a topic ban was necessary to stop her from violating WP:COPYRIGHT (which I know she has done frequently in other topic areas, such as films and television because I was the one who went behind and corrected her and thought, mistakenly, that she had learned rather than just moved to a new area) and from violating WP:V with her inaccurate additions where she admits to not knowing what she's reading or writing about, her actually sourcing herself in some articles, etc. These are two very core policies that editors can not just be allowed to ignore because they are "young" or "inexperienced." I know another editor who is about 10 who has learned about those and come to understand both reasonably well enough that he even checks to make sure a source is WP:RS if he isn't sure himself. If a 10 year old can learn that without having to come to this extremely, sure WW should have gotten it by now? Her talk page history shows that rather than learn, she is ignoring, and that is not good. I would like to see her get turned around, as I think she does have the potential to be a good editor if she'd stop ignoring the community, policies, and guidelines, to do so. I worked with her on a few articles and it took some time but I thought she'd learned something, but it seems she hasn't learned to apply those teachings across the board, and has allowed herself to become obsessed with amassing DYKs. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

When did the copyvios that you refer to occur? The most recent copyvio that I have seen evidence of to date occurred more than 6 months ago. If you know of recent copyvios I would like to see evidence of that, because that would likely impact my current position that the ban (that I originally supported) was probably inappropriate. But if the copyvios are from a few months ago or more I do not think we should be sanctioning her for that now, as that issue would have already been addressed. The quality issue is still outstanding, but I have looked at some of her creations, and while there have been errors it has hardly been the situation that was represented at the original AN/I - that she either just copies straight from her sources (no evidence in the past 6 months that I've seen) or changes some words to avoid copyvio but doesn't care about whether the result is correct or not. Sometimes the result has been incorrect (which is a legitimate issue, but not the overwhelming one presented at AN/I), but more often than not she gets things right, and the inaccuracies are typically minor. For example, I nominated her Jillian Clare article for DYK. I had to expand the article and add references to get it to be eligible for DYK. But the only error I found in the original article as WW created it was that she referred to Star Trek IV as an "episode", rather than as a "movie". And given that it is one of now 10 movies, describing it as an episode is arguably accurate. Rlendog (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Having reviewed the various threads myself for the first time I can now comment. There was a clear community consensus to topic ban her from DYK. The most important underlying problems were concern about plagiarism and writing articles that just weren't right. The intent of topic banning her from DYK was to get her to slow down and do a better job herself, instead of depending on the rest of the community to repair her articles to an acceptable standard after the page has already been on the main page. Thus someone who quickly forwards her suggestions for DYK noms is undercutting the intent of the ban, and in the long run is likely to lead to further restrictions being placed. The community was open to mentoring - which would require the mentor to actually review her work closely - but WW did not indicate any such openness (and some evidence from her talk archives seems to indicate that she is not willing to work with or learn from anybody).

It might be possible for another editor to review her new page creations, take responsibility themselves to make sure it is a decent article, explain to her the changes that were made and why they had to be made, and then nominate the resulting article for DYK under their own name. When they stop having to make changes to her articles to get them into decent shape, then it would be time to nominate on behalf of WW. It would be most effective if each type of change was made in a single edit with appropriate edit summaries - say one edit to clean up any copyvio/plagiarism, one edit to correct the article's wording and facts, one edit to bring the referencing up to snuff, and (it appears likely to be needed) one edit to use multiple sources. This would have the effect of mentoring her, though it would work better if she were actively participating in two way communication. Given the pace at which she has been operating, this may be more than any one editor can do on their own - and given her prior attitude we may have trouble finding volunteers. It takes me a couple hours to produce a decent non-stub article - and it will probably take about as long for any reviewer to make sure that a new article from this editor is in fact not just a stub (regardless of the presence of absence of a stub template). GRBerry 14:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. I also think we should not be spending lots of editor time, just to facilitate some editor who seems more interested in racking up a new high score than in collaborating usefully with others. Anyone who actively subverts the topic ban probably needs to also be topic banned. Friday (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? What in the original topic ban or consensus thereof indicated that the ban applied to other editors nominating articles created by WW? Some supporters of the ban explicitly stated that their conditions for lifting the ban were that other editors succesfully nominate at least 5 (or maybe it was some other number) of her articles to DYK. Surely they weren't supporting a ban on other editors nominating her articles. And while that wasn't my position, the ban as I supported it was applicable only to her self-nominations.Rlendog (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

GRBerry, I was going to ask/echo "is it worth it?" when I saw Friday had said rather much the same thing. As you hint, if there are volunteers willing to help out with this, wonderful but otherwise it seems to me she isn't ready to do this on her own yet. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems is that, if you look closely at new articles (not just the ones being looked at here), lots of them have problems. That is part of the point of a wiki, after all, that people come along and improve what you have written. Where to draw the line with problems with articles and explaining this to those who start articles in a stubby state (we've all done that, I would venture to say), is tricky. I've spent time trying to find out more about Paul E. Pieris Deraniyagala, to see if WW's choice of one source over another for one date (1967, instead of 1937) was correct, but it is difficult. I agree with those that have said that an obsession with DYK is not good. The aim should be to improve as an editor overall, not rack up DYKs. Oh, and in case anyone thinks I write good stubs, List of Arctic expeditions needs attention... Carcharoth (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

So you have a verdict yet? Because I'm still not clear on what's happening. Is she barred from participating in DYK unless she accepts a mentor, and if so, who is putting their hand up for the job? Gatoclass (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

She is barred from DYK. Mentoring is a possible path to removing the bar. There are others, but they all require WW to do things she hasn't yet done - or even shown any understanding of. To put it bluntly, she is going to have to change her ways significantly for the DYK bar to be lifted, and thus far the only acknowledgment of problems I've seen is that she has admitted the need to check WP:AFC submissions for copyright issues. DGG, Tim Vickers, Fritzpoll, and S. Dean Jameson had previously offered to mentor and work with her to various degrees at various times. In late July, she did work a little with DGG. [52][53][54]. For Tim and S. Dean Jameson, she thought it was "wierd" that people were trying to help her, said that she didn't want anybody talking to her, basically said that she won't listen to anyone who thinks there is a problem with her work, and said that she'll only work with others if she is in charge. GRBerry 14:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding her "wierd" comment, I am certainly not alleging ANYTHING here on the part of those who approached her and who I recognize as being sincere in their efforts, but if you had a 16 year old daughter working on the internet today would you want her to be befriending everyone who approaches her out of the blue? From her perspective people she knows nothing about are approaching her, uninvited, and offering to be her friend. If I were her parent I would encourage her to be suspicious of such people, wouldn't you? --GoRight (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

One thing I have discovered is that this "topic ban" for WW didn't get added to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. So Abd's point that the paperwork wasn't filled out is valid, let alone the points that people are making that the original case may have been overstated. My verdict, if it helps at all, is that everyone should try and move on from the mess that resulted, and try and start again with assessing what needs to be done. ie. Restart disussion from the point of the topic ban proposal. Sorry if that isn't very helpful, but that's about as much as I can make out at the moment. Carcharoth (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the most significant factor in the original discussion which made a ban even a consideration was the accusation of wide spread copyvio on her part, and since is it impossible for us to prove that these haven't occurred, perhaps those making the charge should now be required to provide diff's in sufficient quantity and recency to justify the continuation of the ban? --GoRight (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have become focused on copyvio. I think many people joined this case during or after the argument at AN/I here, that started on 28 July, where the DYK topic ban was proposed. In deciding the way forward it would be helpful to forget the mess of accusation and counter-accusation that followed and re-read the discussion of Blechnic's original expression of concern about WW's activities on 21 July here which was not limited to copyvios, but included poor sourcing, taking articles from AfC without adequate checking, and inaccuracies caused by haste and by writing on subjects she did not understand. Mentors/nominators need to be alert to all these. JohnCD (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Even the July 21 thread is heavily focused on copyvios and plagarism. Although even there User:Blechnic concedes that she copies "cleverly" - as far as I can tell he is saying that she copies but changes the wording from her sources. Which she does. But that is no longer a copyvio. Admittedly, that could lead to different problems - i.e., her inaccuracies when revising the wording - but I'll come back to that. Another problem discussed in the July 21 thread is poor sourcing. But that is not a problem unique to WW or to DYK. That is the case with many newly created Start class articles. That is the nature of most newly created start class articles - they have a limited amount of information and are often poorly sourced. At least with a DYK we know that one item from the article was traced back to at least a plausibly reliable source. And then there are the issues from the July 28 thread - the reverting an edit to keep an article over 1500 characters, using uncivil language in the edit summary while doing so, and trying to lie about the latter. But all that at worst was worth a short block, and most likely at most a warning. Which gets us back to the inaccuracies that sometimes emerge when she tries to reword articles or journals she doesn't fully understand. That is the one issue she has that is serious and recent (unless someone can show evidence of a recent copyvio; so far no one has come up with anything more recent than 7 months ago). But even that seems to be overblown. The only topics where any evidence of significant inaccuracies have been shown are in paleontology articles, which do seem to be a particular interest of WW's. Although as User:GoRight has indicated, there don't seem to be any such issues with her paleontology articles (alneit stubs) created since this whole drama erupted. But if the genuine issue is inaccuracies in paleontology articles (far less than the accusations in the July 21 or July 28 threads that led to the topic ban) then a DYK ban is hardly an appropriate remedy. At worst that ban should be limited to paleontology articles, or better yet, allow her to nominate paleontology articles to DYK but require a 2nd opinion from another knowledgeable editor before they can be used. Rlendog (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

One last point. Much was made in the July 28 thread (and to a lesser extent the July 21 thread) of her just creating articles to hunt for DYK "medals" and reach a goal she set for herself of 5000 DYKs. People felt that was inapprorpriate (I too at first). But even here there is more than initially meets the eye. First of all, a desire for DYK trophies is in itself hadly a bad thing. The purpose of the awards must be to encourage creation of DYK articles or else they wouldn't be there. Of course, if editors get sloppy just for the purpose of collecting DYK awards then it becomes counterproductive. But what was not mentioned in those threads was that WW's other goal is 10,000 newly created articles. That means 5000 non-DYK articles. That is hardly the goal of a mere trophy collector. It means her goal is to put in the effort to create 5000 articles that she would not expect to get DYK credit for. Also, having 30 DYK articles to her credit, she is entitled to the award for 25 DYKs. As far as I can tell from her user page or from the list of DYK contributors, it does not appear that she ever collected or tried to collect this award. Strange conduct if her sole goal was (as stated in the AN/I threads) just to collect DYK medals. And even after her ban (which apparently upset her very much) she went back to creating new articles with no expectation whatsoever of them achieving DYK status -and she seems genuinely surprised on her user page that 2 of her articles were successfully nominated during her Wikibreak. I think her ambitions are a lot more complex than was represented in the AN/I threads. She seems to genuinely want to improve the encycolpedia by creating new articles, and DYKs are just one element of that goal. And she seems to respond to criticism, even if she doesn't necessarily acknowledge it immediately, as she apparently stopped generating copyvios months ago when the issue was brought to her attention. Rlendog (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Having others nominate WW's pages for DYK

Since Abd's block has removed the voice of WW's advocate from this forum, I shall attempt to fill that role during his absence. I have argued above, and Fritzpoll has concurred, that it will be acceptable for others to nominate WW's material so long as the nominator accepts responsibility for any quality concerns therein, and any such nominations shall not be considered an evasion of WW's ban. Is there any serious objection to this approach? --GoRight (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact, in the interests of time and effort, let us begin with a straw poll to gauge the level of consensus on this point.

Those in favor of allowing others to nominate WW's material for DYK per the conditions stated above:

1. --GoRight (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2. --Rlendog This is what the original topic ban was, at least as I supported it. Some other people supporting the ban explicitly stated that their conditions for lifting the ban would be that other editors successfully nominate at least 5 (or some other number) of her new articles to DYK. So I don't see how anyone can conclude that there was a consensus for the topic ban to be any more restrictive than this. And I will say that in the time since the ban I have become concerned that my support of even this version of the ban was probably hasty. I have yet to see ANY eveidence of a copyvio (the most serious infraction) from the past 6 months, so I am concerned that the discussion of copyvios in the original discussuion was a red herring. Maybe a serious issue in the past, but apparently long since addressed. The issue of accuracy remains, but even there, having looked at some of her other creations, the issue seems less prevalent than it was presented at the original AN/I. Rlendog (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
3. --Agree. Sticky Parkin 22:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
4. ---Agree. This is really standard. Nominating an article is often by other than the creator. She's not banned from creating articles. Wikipedia articles aren't expected to be perfect; DYK nomination actually results in rapid cleanup, much more often than not. If you look at what's being nominated, you'll see that a lot of pretty bad stuff is nominated. Her articles are way above the norm, so I wouldn't even think that an editor should be obsessive about checking the articles. I did one nomination for her, and I checked all the references and fixed some missing citations. I probably did a worse job of it than she would have, but others then helped some more. I don't see the reasoning behind the ban. It protects nothing. But it exists, so, in the meantime, we can avert part of the damage by simply recognizing what shouldn't have been controversial in the first place: anyone can nominate any article, and the community hasn't been banned from nominating WW's articles. --Abd (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
5. --Agree. This is similar to something I suggested on WT:DYK to remedy the situation, so of course I endorese this.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 04:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Those with different conditions:

1. Nominators need to actually review the article themselves for accuracy, copyright/plagiarism, and reliable sourcing. They should make any necessary changes before nominating the article, not merely "accept responsibility for any quality concerns". GRBerry 16:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

   FWIW, I had expected as much but thanks for the clarification. --GoRight (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

   Having just noticed it myself for the first time in a long time, I'd also be happier if they were processing User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult or Special:Newpages rather than specifically looking to get WW's contribs nominated. Not that this must be a necessary condition, but given the proxying policy, it would be a good idea. GRBerry 16:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

   Agree with GoRight. I would assume that anyone nominating an article (by WW or anyone else) would check the article for quality before nominating as a matter of course. Rlendog (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

2. Agree (including GRBerry's condition). I agree with some reluctance, because I think the focus on DYK numbers is harmful, to her and to WP, and I am concerned about her continued refusal to engage in dialogue or accept a mentor or admit that there might (have been) a problem. But perhaps article discussions with other nominators will improve things. JohnCD (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Those opposed:

Review of the Specific Allegations of copyvio

I wish to review in detail any examples of copyvio alleged against WW. Thus far I am only aware of one specific example and here is what I turned up. Are there other examples which have already been identified?

Item 1

Original report:

From User:Blechnic, [55] and [56]

Chronology:

WW identifies a page that was started in the sandbox by another user but was never created, [57], she then asks a more experienced user if she should create it, Antandrus Archive No. 26., who then indicates that it is an "unusually good for first [try] by newbies". She then creates the stub from the sandbox version, [58], and begins to wikify the stub (see her edits in the history [59]). As part of the improvement process User:Jllm06 adds references back to the original source, [60], approximately 11 days later.

User:Blechnic creates a user page section to record notes, [61], and WW replies there with an explanation, [62] some hours later.

Conclusions:

1. The actual copying of copyrighted material was done by someone other than WW. While she should have been more careful about using such a stub, this is something that could have slipped by anyone, especially a newbie. In fact, it even slipped by a more experienced editor who subsequently added the references back to the original source.
2. Given the amount of text involved here it is not clear that this is even a copyright violation under fair use standards once it was subsequently referenced back to the original source.

Comments on this review:

Review of User:Wilhelmina Will's articles

WW maintains a list of the articles she has created here, Articles I have mothered (created).

Review results:

• Today I reviewed numbers 357-374 (her latest submissions) with the following observations:
  • She has a number of scientific stubs created for various extinct animals. There is very little information on these pages but they are valuable as stubs, IMHO, as a couple of them have attracted additional user inputs. I reviewed the content and compared it to the sources she had used. I observed no copyvios and the information that is there is accurate per the sources. I can't speak to the WP:RS nature of these sources, however, but they don't appear to be alarming in any way. The images she used are from the wikimedia commons. My conclusion: no problems.
  • She has a couple of pages on wrestlers. These pages have a lot of content which are mostly referenced to a wide range of fan sites. I expect that this is the norm for this type of article, but I could be wrong. They seem well written and provide a nice overview of the subjects, IMHO. I followed a number of the references provided on each page, but not every reference, and her use of the content from these sources seems appropriate. I did not observe any direct copyvio problems in my random checks. Other users have already begun to enhance these articles. My conclusion: good articles, no problems.
  • She has a couple of BLPs on people from the entertainment industry. The content appears reasonable to me and the text is well written. I checked a reasonable subset of the information against the sources she had used and I observed no copyvios and an accurate use of the information from those sources. My conclusion: good articles, no problems.
  • On all of the pages with significant content I would randomly select significant phrases and googled for an exact match. I found no hits based on these random checks.
  • I won't claim to have vetted every word of every article but I believe I gave them a reasonably thorough look in each case, but your mileage may vary.

Extended content

--GoRight (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC) I asked again and again for copyvio evidence, and nothing was provided, except the single old example. That doesn't mean there is none, this editor has written a lot of articles, and people can make mistakes. But I'd think that with Blechnic hot on her trail, he'd have come up with more if it was as common as would justify some kind of reprimand. What I saw was a quite respectable editor, with 30 DYKs. That is not a small accomplishment in itself. She made a few mistakes, but there is no sign that she repeated them after warning. And if there was a problem, it would be in article space. The alleged problem of her DYK nomination "greed" was a total red herring. If she's creating bad articles, the quickest way for them to be exposed and corrected is to DYK nominate them. As has been pointed out, if there is a problem, it would be with DYK policy. If we don't want to motivate people to create and nominate articles, why do we give awards? So she's motivated, and then we blame her for being motivated? There was one instance where she was a few characters short of 1500, the supposed requirement. And so she reverted an otherwise-proper edit on that basis, and very naively said that was her reason. Now, if she'd been faced with a sympathetic editor -- and we really should be sympathetic with each other, the other editor might have helped find some factoid to insert. Instead, he went ballistic. --Abd (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC) I invite you, and others who care to, to go through her articles in a manner similar to what I have done (I plan to continue going through them a little each day) and do a reasonable level of checking and report what you find here as I have done above. Interested parties can select a small range of articles and reserve them here with a first level bulleted one liner saying which ones you plan to go through. That way we won't duplicate efforts. And then when you are done replace the one liner with the summary of the results as I have done above. Soon we will have a good record to judge whether there is actually a problem here, or not. --GoRight (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• I plan to next go through 340-356. --GoRight (talk) 07:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Extended content

Well, I'm not planning to do it. I don't think it is necessary. A number of editors have looked for copyvio in her edits, and little has been found. Whatever has been asserted was old, and, as you pointed out, not necessarily even copyvio when sourced. In the absence of evidence, we can assume that there is insufficient copyvio to be a basis for any remedy. If there is to be a ban of some kind, it would require other evidence. Further, the ban against DYK self-nomination, in place, is not preventative, it's apparently punitive. She can still create bad articles if she wants to or is unable to do otherwise. But that's self-punishing, she won't reach her DYK goals, which are indeed ambitious, if she creates bad articles, and if she's creating bad articles, that's a separate issue; should the net value of her contributions be less than the effort needed to fix whatever errors she makes, a remedy would be warning and block for ignoring or being unable to respond to the warnings, to protect the article space, which is, after all, what all this is about. If someone thinks her articles to be a problem, the answer is simple: watch her DYK nominations if you think DYK is the problem -- it isn't, it's actually part of the solution -- and check the articles. Might be one article per day. And fix the problems. In every case I've seen, that has involved a few edits, resulting in better articles that wouldn't have existed otherwise. Work with her, not against her. Help her, don't attempt to drag her to AN/I. Is this a difficult concept? I wouldn't think so, but apparently .... --Abd (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Both User:GoRight and User:Abd are not helpful in this thread. I recommend that they both back off and let other editors handle this matter. Jehochman Talk 14:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Please explain how reviewing her articles for the alleged violations is not helpful. Do you suggest that we instead let the unsubstantiated accusations stand, and thereby allow her DYK ban to stand based on no evidence? --GoRight (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC) The length of this thread shows signs of argumentum ad nauseum. Rather than continuing here, perhaps you could request a review by the body appointed to handle such matters. It does not seem you have had much luck convincing the community to overturn the ban. I take no position on the underlying dispute as I have not reviewed it yet. The length of this conversation indicates a problem, for sure. Jehochman Talk 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC) "I take no position on the underlying dispute as I have not reviewed it yet." - Perhaps you should before commenting further. --GoRight (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Is Jehochman actually suggesting that we go to ArbComm when there is a neutral administrator, designated by the closing admin, reviewing the case, and that this may resolve it without further ado? Has he noticed that I suggested, many times, this wasn't the place to try to resolve this, but so many editors seem to have insisted on going right ahead? That I suggested we didn't need to compile evidence on WW's edits here, that's not what AN is for? I did not come here, in fact, to overturn the ban. At all. I came to respond to the issues raised by Fritzpoll. The ban stood, even though I considered it defective in certain ways, I advised WW to respect it, then developed a way to minimize the damage pending further resolution. This was a minimally disruptive plan. And, in fact, it is still going on. I'd suggest to GoRight that if he wants to continue to search for copyvios in WW's work, something I consider unnecessary at this point -- we don't have to prove that she never made any, and, in fact, she could have created *many* articles with copyvio as long as it wasn't recent -- he should do it on a user page. It could then be used in ensuing process if it is necessary, which it may not be. We already know that, in spite of multiple requests, the copyvio charge was essentially false. I.e., there may have been an isolated incident, perhaps, but there was no ongoing pattern, hence copy vio as a basis for the ban -- and this is the main reason the closing admin gave -- was defective. What happens here is that no clear decision is made, arguments go back and forth about this or that. There is no open case for AN to decide, this whole discussion was a mistake, that's what I've been saying from the beginning. It's like someone taking an AfD decision they don't like to AN. Or, more accurately, a closing admin who is asked about his decision and who comes here to find out if he "judged the consensus right," when that wasn't the issue at all. If he wasn't clear about his decision and willing to take personal responsbility for it, he should not have closed, period. He didn't close at the time, nobody closed, so I wonder at the comment of an admin above that she was about to close "with the same decision." The discussion simply petered out and went into archive, with nobody taking responsibility for a decision. I really wish people would take the time to either (1) investigate this or (2) assume a little good faith on my part when I present the results of my investigations. In an environment like this, too many seem to want a brief conclusion, not a detailed examination, and then they will agree with it or not, not based on reviewing the evidence, but on ... what? The name of the editor? The phase of the moon? The faction they perceive the editors as belonging to? But, really, my opinion is that nobody should vote in any of our processes without investigating the evidence, which would, yes, reduce greatly the number of people voting. But we'd get better decisions. --Abd (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Kanabekobaton

It's beyond time for a Japanese-speaking editor or admin to step in here. This editor has been making dozens upon dozens of edits a day for the last couple of years, and maybe has been bothered to use the edit summary twice. The edit history on the user's talk page shows that the typical response to warnings is to delete the message without comment and continue on just as before. Kanabekobaton has been asked on countless occasions to stop this behavior or at least give account for the actions. No change or explanation has been forthcoming. The userbox on the userpage suggests that English is not this user's first language. That's not important. What is important is that the total lack of response to the inquires of other users is not acceptable. DarkAudit (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User has been banned on ja Wikipedia since 18 April and has had similar bad faith edits on other wikis, endorse indef ban here and community block. treelo _radda 18:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Editor has now switched to television-related articles after being run out of beauty pageant articles. Over 150 edits today alone. Every one tagged "minor", even the moves and redirects. And not a single explanation for why the edit was made. Something smells here. DarkAudit (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Has he been banned? His talk page at ja.wikipedia suggests that he got a UsernameBlock. —C.Fred (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

From the talk on the Korean Wiki comes implications of misconduct. he's been warned on the Simple English wiki, and it looks like there are a fair number of other warnings where he has edited. DarkAudit (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support a block if he doesn't engage with something other than a template. He's using Huggle to template anyone, experienced or not, who reverts him. Then, after editors remove the warnings from their own user talk pages, he adds them back. He's definitely disruptive and my good faith is seriously stretched for this user. KrakatoaKatie 23:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I informed user of this discussion within minutes of posting here, urging a response. None was forthcoming, yet hundreds of similar edits poured forth afterwards. I have subsequently informed them that with the evidence of a preexisting ban on another Wikipedia, continued silence could only result in further sanctions if the behavior persisted. DarkAudit (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've warned him too, when I reverted a page move he made. He's been editing since 2045 UTC without a break, with only two or three minutes between edits, and this is his typical pattern. He does this three or four times a day, like this is all he's doing with his life. If he doesn't respond or stop these edits in a few moments, I'll block him myself for disruption until he explains himself. Review of my actions is welcome. KrakatoaKatie 00:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

So he's not actually doing anything wrong? I've spot checked at least 20 different contribs at this point, and haven't seen any actual disruption. -- Ned Scott 00:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

He's been doing moves and reverts without bothering to give any reason why, and refusing to respond when challenged on the action on talk pages, even when others have had to go back and revert. He has been given final warnings on his talk page, but merely undid the edit and continued right along. Each individual edit or block of edits may not be disruptive, but the sheer quantity of them combined with the utter refusal to engage in any sort of communication with fellow editors, is disruptive. It asks the rest of us to be mindreaders, Wikipedia is not a collection of mindreaders. DarkAudit (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I've had to fix two or three things he's done in just the last few hours. He's moving pages and creating new pages and fixing dabs but he's not always doing it correctly, and nobody seems to be able to engage him in a dialogue to ask him what's going on. Some of these moves and new pages are because of punctuation, like tildes and accent marks. He's going so fast that he must be working off some type of list, first beauty pageants, then television, then athletics, then geography, and so forth. I'm bothered both by speed and variety of subjects. I won't block for now, but somebody has to watch him and I can't stay up 24/7. KrakatoaKatie 00:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It depends. Right now his edits are all compliant. At times they won't be. I've pointed the issue out before, when he was on a streak where 3 out of 4 edits did require reversion. He may be well-intentioned, but his reluctance to use edit summaries creates problems—almost to the point of it being disruptive in and of itself. Certainly, any evidence of a change-revert-revert again without discussion would warrant a block, IMO. —C.Fred (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Like Stifle I've looked through a quite a few edits here ( and some on other Wikis). The only significant issues I see are the marking of edits as minor, the lack of edit summaries and possibly the lack of community involvement. I am yet to see a pattern of poor editing and cannot see a reason for a block. I've dropped a note on his talk page about this. He seems to make lots of good edits and in this case steering the user to better community engagement and better editing practice will achieve good ends, I can't see that blocking him will - Peripitus (Talk) 00:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

looking over his contribs, I get a strong sense of, um, mechanicalness. Looie496 (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Except it looks to be manual, based on this edit. —C.Fred (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Never an edit summary, almost all edits marked as minor, clearly doesn't understand swaths of English idiom hence makes mistakes now and then, which means lots of mistakes since he makes lots of edits and unwilling to discuss. I think it's disruptive. Some editors may believe the helpful edits outweigh the worries and it's worthwhile to quietly clean up after this editor but I don't. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Here he did delete content without explanation. I was generous and gave uw-delete3 (if only because I don't want to say "will" be blocked with this discussion ongoing), but a repeat would be enough for me to block him. —C.Fred (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It may take someone posting a message to his talk page in Japanese to get his attention. DarkAudit (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

And when I tried with 妨げることができる。 答えなければならない。 (You may be blocked. You must respond. Reverse translated to It is possible to obstruct. You must answer.), he merely undid my edit. I reverted his undo. DarkAudit (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

And once again with a heading of "You must answer" and a link here. Undid the post. It's clear that this user refuses to discuss this or any other matter he finds himself involved in. That is *highly* disruptive to the process. DarkAudit (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, it is not vandalism for him to remove a message from his talk page, nor is it appropriate to keep putting it back per WP:TALK. His removal is considered a sign he has read it. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A reply of some sort would be a sign that he read it. Deleting the message is not a reply. This user has been asked on numerous occasions to account for his actions. He has not bothered to say a word in *any* language. DarkAudit (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

True, the user is not vandalizing anything. However, his unwillingness to talk about his many edits has become disruptive and I have blocked him pending discussion. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, I did notice him using a summary once, [63], where he incorrectly identified an edit as vandalism, not to mention called it minor. He edits, imo, the most random selection of pages and at a pretty quick rate. It seems like there is always something for him to change. I know that I couldn't just open up a page and be able to edit it. I'm not even sure if he is Japanese like we suspected. This is the most bizarre user I have ever seen, and in addition, he has definitely made some disruptive edits on Eurovision articles. (does he have auto minor edits checked in preferences?) Grk1011 (talk) 03:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Grk1011: Exactly. When I read that he marks almost all his edits as minor I too thought that he must have "Mark all edits minor by default" turned on in his preferences. I have now left a message on his talk page asking him to turn that setting off.

Why do we even have that setting? I can't imagine a case when we would need that setting.

--David Göthberg (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

We have it because it is very helpful for editors who contribute minor edits mainly (there are too many). -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 09:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, please unblock now. You've blocked him for not discussing his non-controversial edits? What the hell? Like David mentions above, the minor thing is probably just a setting that needs to be changed. See also User talk:Kanabekobaton/Archive 1#April 2008. Leave the poor guy alone. -- Ned Scott 04:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

He was not blocked for not discussing his non-controversial edits. Have you read this thread? Gwen Gale (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"True, the user is not vandalizing anything. However, his unwillingness to talk about his many edits has become disruptive and I have blocked him pending discussion." I guess you don't remember saying that.

The user has made a handful of mistakes, but nothing that would ever warrant a blocking like this. There is no urgency here, and your actions will only inflame the situation. -- Ned Scott 04:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

He wasn't blocked for vandalism either. He was blocked for disruption, as I said. Meanwhile, you seem to be the one who's inflaming things. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent)What disruption? You have blatantly blocked him for not discussing his edits, which he is not required to do. -- Ned Scott 04:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken about why I blocked this editor. Altogether, this mix of refusing to talk at all about marking hundreds of edits a day as minor when many are not minor, making mistaken edits and page moves which other editors must clean up (and sometimes templating these editors for vandalism when they do), along with an utter lack of edit summaries has stirred up so much worry that many editors have posted in this thread, wondering what to do about it. That is an urgent disruption of the project. Let's wait and see what he has to say. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You're already backtracking on why you've blocked him [64]. You can't weasel your way out of a bad block. I'm not going to allow you to sweep this under the rug and hope everyone just forgets about him. We've got three diffs cited in this entire discussion, none of which call for this kind of action. I'm tired of checking his contribs and not finding anything, so unless anyone has some actual diffs of disruption, this guy needs to be unblocked. -- Ned Scott 04:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You had misread my blocking statement so I made the syntax more clear. See the block log. He was blocked for disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no disruption. You've failed to show evidence of disruption. Where's the diffs? Where's the fire? KrakatoaKatie gave him a vandalism warning today for a good pave move that another editor (C.Fred) agreed with. You're all going around in circles, no one being able to actually show this user doing anything wrong except a hand full of minor mistakes. I'd rather not do something as drastic as an arbcom request, but if you're going to blatantly bullshit me like this, then I'll do just that. -- Ned Scott 05:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Look at his talk page and the archive. He has been asked over and over again to explain why he edited the way he did, to the point that he was blocked for 3RR in June, and warned to keep out of other articles. And those are just since April. Before that he just deleted all talk page messages. He edits without regard for his fellow editors, at the rate of hundreds an hour, leaving the rest of us to somehow decipher his reasoning and motives, and to clean up any damage he leaves behind. That is as disruptive as it gets. DarkAudit (talk) 05:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

How am I meant to respond to talk like that? Gwen Gale (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Are you forgetting the arena dispute from April? Where he insisted that arenas were actually stadia? Look at the logs of his talk page at all the different users asking him to say something, anything about why he was editing the way he was. There are probably three times as many requests that he summarily deleted. It doesn't take vandalism to be disruptive. Charging through Wikipedia at a hundred edits an hour, other users be damned, who cares if mistakes are made, is just as disruptive, if not worse. DarkAudit (talk) 05:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Considering I stepped though those edits one by one, I don't think I'm forgetting them. I was the only one to point out that more than one admin was ignorantly reverting him and then breaking an infobox. Everyone else just assumed he was being disruptive. -- Ned Scott 05:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    • But how the hell were we supposed to know? I kept trying to ask him about his Stansbury Hall edit, but got no reply. I see that building every single day. I should know what an old basketball *arena* looks like. The infobox was fine when I created the page. It wasn't broken when I reverted him. Continuing to revert when an unexplained edit is challenged *is* disruptive, it *is* rude, and it *is* unacceptable. Take a look at this block of edits from just yesterday regarding the Miss World pages. Warring templates without any further discussion. Communication should be at the heart of the project. This user flatly refuses to communicate with his fellow editors. If he doesn't want to give account for his actions when needed, then the block should stay. DarkAudit (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Three comments. We read above:

when I tried with 妨げることができる。 答えなければならない。 (You may be blocked. You must respond. Reverse translated to It is possible to obstruct. You must answer.), he merely undid my edit. I reverted his undo.

First, and as somebody else has pointed out, that reversion wasn't called for.

Secondly, the Japanese-language message strikes me as a curious mixture of ambiguous (the first half) and brusque (particularly the second). I don't recommend that you repost it anywhere. There could be a place for a Japanese-language message, but not this particular Japanese-language message.

And the block: The user is experienced, and can read English. If they can't fully understand the message in English, they'll be able to ask about it in English. An indefinite block is not an eternal block, and this user is free to challenge it at any time. -- Hoary (talk) 05:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I had to try something to get a reply. He wasn't responding to anything in English, so what else could I do short of going to his home and giving him a good shake? Yeah it was brusque. It had to be. We were talking about blocking the guy and he wasn't bothering to do anything to defend his position. He had to respond if he didn't want to be sanctioned. He ignored it and continued to plow ahead like nothing could touch him. That is not acceptable. DarkAudit (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason either to be ambiguous or to be brusque. If you want him to respond, you might take your cue from the ja:WP template designed for just this purpose. It's right here. Note its content: 対話拒否はやめてください。これ以上続ければ、ウィキペディアの編集ができなくなる投稿ブロックの対象となります。ご注意ください。An entirely different register from your prose, and complete with formulaic honorifics. (I shan't bother to make a literal translation, which would sound stilted and laughable.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's better than what I used... babelfish. DarkAudit (talk) 05:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I stepped away for a few hours. Ned, don't pick on Gwen for a revert I made. In the article you mention, Sardis Road ground, I interpreted from the context of the article that the word 'ground' meant an athletic ground or field. So, when I saw Sardis Road ground being moved to Sardis Road, it looked to me like a poor move, especially given the lack of communication from this editor. I reverted and left a short note. B to the R to the... nothing. That's the whole point - he won't communicate about his intent or his reaction or the price of milk in Sardinia. Not "hello", not "go to hell", nothing.

I don't see us as 'going in circles' or trying to punish him, either. I looked at every one of his last 500 edits (roughly the last 48 hours) before I made my second post here. Further, I looked at every edit he's made to both the talk space (no dialogue, just moves of talk pages with article pages that create an edit on the talk page) and user talk space (100% templates, plus reverting other users removal of his templates and other material on their own talk pages), regardless of the date. Most of his changes and moves look okay, but the ones that are not need explanation and/or discussion, especially the moves. He was making 25 to 40 edits an hour for literally hours and days on end, and the mistakes and bad decisions should have had some discussion. He was warned in April, by C.Fred, to improve his communication, so this isn't a sudden, spur-of-the-moment, 'gotcha' block.

We can't do WP:BRD, as I tried to do with Sardis Road, if someone insists on the bold without the discuss. He has not responded at all, even to this block. His talk page and archive are full of pleas, begging, even, to communicate with other editors, going back several months. He may have the potential to be a good editor/WikiGnome if he would just engage with other humans. Since he has been making hundreds of edits very quickly, I do not think it is unreasonable to block pending a short explanation from him. KrakatoaKatie 06:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ned Scott: That I have left a message on Kanabekobaton's talk page asking him to turn of the "Mark all edits minor by default" setting in his Wikipedia preferences only potentially solves one of the problems. I just wanted to report here that I thought that was the case and that I had asked him to fix it. It doesn't solve all the other problems.

I haven't personally checked up on Kanabekobaton so I should probably not say anything, but if what I read here is true then I think he should remain blocked. It is very frustrating when a user refuses to answer any messages. It makes it more or less impossible to work with that user. I think he should remain blocked until he agrees to communicate properly.

By the way, can a blocked user still edit his talk page and thus answer? Or does he have to edit as an anon user to respond?

--David Göthberg (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

He's able to edit his talk page while blocked and logged in. MBisanz ^talk 13:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• By this time of the day, he's usually already made several hundred edits. He did not see a need to respond at all to this discussion. He has not seen fit to respond to the block, as one of his edit cycles has come and gone with nothing. Assume good faith can only go so far. To continue to assume good faith in this case, if no change in behavior is forthcoming, is to ask other Wikipedia editors to develop mental skills and abilities that only exist in comic books. Mindreader is not part of the average Wikipedia editor's skill set. It may not be a requirement to use edit summaries, but when you combine a refusal to do so on such a scale (18K edits, *maybe* two summaries) with unwillingness to discuss anything with other editors, even when told that continued failure to do so jeopardizes their place in the project, you reach the state we find ourselves in now. Even after the block was in place, there was no response. No positive or negative. A big patch of nothing. That shows that this user just doesn't give a damn either way. Even after my apparently misguided attempts to engage him in Japanese (I was bold. No one else bothered.), there was no response beyond deletion of the comments. Without communication amongst editors, the whole project falls down. We cannot have editors like this who so blatantly refuse to engage his fellow editors. DarkAudit (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't try to understand what's going on in his mind, other than to say that for him, it may all be in what he sees as good faith. I don't know and I don't need to know. The outcome of his behaviour is enough to go by. Meanwhile, the only talk page posts I've been able to find from this editor are vandalism templates like this, where there was no vandalism, after someone mistakenly warned Kanabekobaton to stop vandalizing. That Kanabekobaton has disrupted the project can be clearly seen through all the posts in this thread from worried editors. If Kanabekobaton doesn't respond (which he may not) is that the end of it? How do we handle this? Should we welcome an editor who misleadingly marks all of his hundreds of edits a day as minor, with no edit summaries, who won't talk about anything at all but to throw off a mistaken vandalism template on a talk page now and then? If there is a community consensus that we should indeed welcome Kanabekobaton as he is, disruption and all, given his many helpful edits, maybe he should be unblocked straight off. Or, if the consensus is that the disruption and worry he causes makes it all not worth it, then perhaps he should stay blocked until he speaks up. I can only say that making a few (mostly) harmless edits a day, marking them all as minor with no edit summary and zero talk page participation would not be taken as disruptive by most editors. If that's what was happening, this thread never would have come up. Rather, it's the hundreds of daily edits with towering stacks of bolded ms, blank edit summaries and utter silence in response to many pleas for discussion, other than a few templated and mistaken vandalism warnings from Kanabekobaton, which have all come together to make this a tale of disruption. What shall we do? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Were this to go to RFC, I doubt that anything would change. Unless he could respond to RFC while still blocked, all I see would be a resumption of previous behavior and continued silence. He had edited via IP a few times during the arena dispute in April, so it may be safe to assume that rather than bother to reply, he's either doing it via IP or has a new name. Given that he registered the current name across all Wikis, the latter seems unlikely. DarkAudit (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is beginning to be an epidemic: it seems that in the last 12-18 months there has been a growing volume of reports about editors who decline to discuss their edits. While there is nothing wrong with an editor deleting messages on her/his Talk page, or declining to respond to some (or even most) of the messages left with her/him, the whole Wiki process will cease to work. Is it time to formulate a new policy, explaining that Wikipedians need to be willing to explain their edits -- & may be blocked if they fail to do so? -- llywrch (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Most folks are talkative, it's how we are so I have no fear Wikipedia will ever break down owing to lack of discussion. Meanwhile, there will always be a few editors who don't want to talk, no need to ask why. In itself, this is ok, so I do think one should go lightly on any editor who doesn't want to talk about their edits, so long as the edits are helpful (which is to say, not stirring up much fuss), all the more so if they're not quick to revert back when they've been reverted. With this user, it was a mix of many behaviours: No discussion, no edit summaries at all on hundreds of daily edits, reverting back when reverted (then sometimes replying with unfit vandalism templates), tipped by marking all the many edits as minor, making for a misleading and very long contrib log, with worried editors posting about it here. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Any movement starts with a few isolated individuals & grows from them, although I doubt that one day all or most Wikipedians will make their edits without ever exchanging a word with each other. But to my point, from personal experience with one of these individuals I can attest that it is very frustrating to deal with another editor -- even if it is clear she/he is acting in good faith -- who will not respond to messages. But what I find strange is that, although I read WP:AN & AN/I regularly, I don't remember ever seeing this problem before I encountered it -- yet since then these autistic editors (to give them a name) have been reported once or twice every month or two. I don't know if this is simply because I started looking for this problem -- or that new editors have decided that the best way to deal with other Wikipedians (who have a reputation for bizarre behavior) is to simply ignore us. If the latter is the reason for this development, it is not a good development. -- llywrch (talk) 05:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the block, there's been absolutely nothing. No activity at all. After two days one would expect a request for an unblock, but no. Did I stumble upon a Wikipedia otaku? DarkAudit (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Why would you expect any response when there has been little in the past. Good work and this block should remain imho. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed topic-ban

ResearchEditor (talk · contribs) aka Abuse truth (talk · contribs) aka Abuse t (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account focussing on child abuse in general and Satanic ritual abuse in particular. On the SRA article he has persistently pushed the point of view that SRA was/is "real" and continues to this day, when scholarly consensus is that SRA was nothing more than a whopping great moral panic back in the 80s. Despite blocks and multiple previous threads at FTN and ANI he has continued to cause problems for the productive editors on this page, whose mammoth patience is gradually being eroded.

I suggest that we, the community, ban ResearchEditor/Abuse truth from the SRA article, its talk page, and all closely related articles and talk pages. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

To incorrectly assume that there is no current data regarding SRA would be illegitimate at best. There have been numerous articles (Braun, Coons, Courtois, Brierre') who reinforce the notion that DID can be determined scientifically (nasal, Brain scans. The ultimate genesis of DID is long-standing trauma. There have been multiple court cases documenting SRA (napolis). To discover geneological references to SRA takes time and intelligence. Read The Franklin Cover-up; Compromised by Terry Reed and John Cummins, These are but two documented cases of "conspiracy". Illinois and California have laws against SRA. Legally and scientifically, SRA has been documented. To continue to pursue the line of skepticism, without a factual context only skews and manipulates the discussion. If RE had relevant information, then this could be taken into account. Given the pattern of responses, it is clear that RE's goal is to promote and agenda that is only propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardsdiv (talk • contribs) 00:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong venue. A user RfC is probably more appropriate. Furthermore, the "admin community" cannot create a topic ban absent a "special enforcement zone"; it would have to be the community at large. I agree with the preferred outcome, but I just don't think this is the correct venue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, AN is the right venue to suggest topic bans. RFCs aren't supposed to have any real teeth to them. I've cut the "admin" from the the proposal if that's objectionable. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wherever it ends up, here'll be my comments.

There are several books from university press that explicitly state that SRA has no credibility - here and here are verbatim quotes that conclude SRA has no mainstream support, in addition to whole books by academic publishers that focus on this idea. This has been settled by sources, and a reasonable editor not pushing a grossly overwhelming POV would have let it die. ResearchEditor's response has been to post a list of low-quality references, most of which are from before 2000, which are portrayed as supporting the idea that the scholarly majority still sees SRA as a current problem (here is one example, here is another, here is a third). I've typed my response to this list out before to no avail, so here is where my response to this list can be read in detail. Despite these sources and points existing for weeks now, ResearchEditor makes edits like this one that pushes the idea that the skeptical view is undue weight.

The other claim brought up repeatedly is that there is too much weight given to three skeptical authors, despite skepticism being the mainstream position (see here, the hidden text here, here, and here and more if I really wanted to dig). I've repeatedly said that if RE thinks the sourcing is excessive, s/he can add appropriate balancing non-skeptical sources if s/he can find them, or discuss specific citations within the page that should be removed rather than presumably randomly removing statements and citations to the books. To date, I've never seen a single suggestion or discussion, just repetition of "it's too much".

All the RFC's I've seen ended up with no real response, I'd rather it were here. WLU (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)(copy and paste if the venue changes)

Hmmm. It appears that ResearchEditor was unblocked based on a promise to behave as well as a nebulous 1-revert-per-week restriction (see discussion here). My sense from a brief skim is that ResearchEditor has resumed the behavior for which the initial block was placed - that is, single-purpose advocacy of an agenda combined with slow edit-warring. Unless I'm mistaken in this overview, I think at the very least the 1RR/week limitation proposed as a condition of his unblock should be enforced; I'd probably go a bit further and suggest that a few months away from this topic might be good for everyone, including ResearchEditor. MastCell ^Talk 17:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Say a time limit for the topic ban of six months? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

← Reinstatement of the indefinite block is entirely warranted for this tendentious editor, so if people are agreeing on a topic ban then that seems to me to be more lenience than he is entitled to expect and he should count himself lucky. Guy (Help!) 18:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have the topic ban in mind as his last chance. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Because MangoJuice was involved in RE's previous ban, I've left him a note here; his contribs are low lately, so I don't know if he'll respond but I figured he might be interested. WLU (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The following pages are connected to the satanic ritual abuse article and abuse allegations in general - Michelle Remembers, recovered memory therapy, McMartin preschool trial, false memory syndrome, dissociative identity disorder, multiple personality controversy. Though I'm not calling for a topic ban on them as well, they are other areas where RE's strong POV push has been present. User:DreamGuy, who has his own strong POV, has worked with RE on some of these pages recently. User:Jack-A-Roe would be a good example of someone with a somewhat similar POV (more so than the editors of SRA anyway; I don't know if he'd agree that he and RE have the same POV) who manages his contributions much more successfully and understands wikipedia much better. I don't know if JAR would be willing to mentor or edit by proxy, but I would definitely trust him to mediate contributions from RE in a much more reasonable way. WLU (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

ResearchEditor's reply

Below please find my reply. Note this will be long, since I believe that this is a very serious matter and should be thought out very carefully and slowly before a full decision is made.

I have tried very hard to edit from the position of following the five pillars of Wikipedia. I have edited from both sides of the debate when needed to ensure that the concepts of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV needed to be followed. As an example of this, I have deleted unsourced arguments from either side of the debate when added to pages. I have also posted both sides of an argument when needed to fairly present a reference's opinion.

In regard to my position of the page representing the possible reality of SRA, I posted these references:

here

Some of these are post 2000, which shows there is some recent support in the literature for the pro-SRA position, though these are also critiqued by another editor in this section.

I have tried using a variety of noticeboards, including WP:30, WP:RFC and WP:NPOVN as well as asking on the SRA discussion page for ideas for different ways to discuss edits before their being added to the page, but this suggestion was ignored or denied. I have tried as much as possible to discuss my edits on the talk page while making them and justified my reasoning for each edit I have made.

Below were my reasons for believing the page violates WP:UNDUE

1)Number of references given to three extremely skeptical researchers (as of last week)

Frankfurter 11

Victor 24

LaFontaine 13

48 out of 127 citations (almost 38%) have been given to three authors, all extremely skeptical about the existence of SRA. This violates WP:UNDUE. If this extremely skeptical point of view is so popular in the field, then why does the article need to cite only three authors so many times. The answer could be that "panic theory" is being given undue weight in the article.

2)Though those editing from a skeptical position state they want post year 2000 edits as evidence of pro SRA theories, they cite pre-2000 extreme skeptical researchers 92 times, probably more now - in the SRA article.

My question, unanswered on the talk page, was in essence, if extreme skepticism is the majority position on the topic of SRA, then why is there such a large reliance on a couple of researchers and pre-2000 references promoting extreme skepticism?

Though I do not necessarily agree with the tone in the SRA talk page reply below, I do agree with the ideas presented.

In reply to one of the editors promoting and editing from a skeptical position on the SRA page, it was written on the SRA talk page

"You demand that RE supply "unequivocal proof" of SRA, and yet two of your favorite sources (Victor and Frankfurter) are purely theoretical works. Why do you require such a low burden of proof from yourself, and such a high one from RE?

You call clinical accounts of treating RA patients "wishy-washy BS",and yet clinical accounts are a crucial part of psychological and psychiatric literature, and they always have been. Are you simply cleaving off a significant body of scientific literature because it contradicts your POV?

I would be crucified if I went through a select group of credible, peer-reviewed sources that took SRA seriously, and amended this article accordingly, entrenching that POV in sentence by sentence. I would be flayed alive. And yet you've done exactly this for the sceptical team, and when RE raised his concerns quite validly, and politely, you flamed him....Biaothanatoi (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The only reason that RE is the only representative of the "other side" of this debate is because editors have shit on any non-sceptic on this page since it was first written. That's why, as... notes, "one side" is dominating this page. You've cleared out everyone else . This page does not reflect the variety of opinions on the subject of SRA. Far from being "outside the mainstream", SRA has been mainstreamed to the point where it is integrated into existing literature on sexual assault, domestic violence and child protection....--Biaothanatoi (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

And a comment from a neutral voice on the SRA talk page, unfortunately the only one

I must repeat, I am not a "believer"; more accurately, I'm a "skeptic"(though some editors here might think it's funny I describe myself that way); the way I see skepticism is that I'm as skeptical of disbelieving as I am of believing. When hard science can't answer a question, it's OK for it to remain a question. That said, there certainly was a moral panic about SRA that went beyond its actual prevalence (that could have ranged from none, to some few cases, or maybe a few more than a few -but not to "many"); so the emphasis on the moral panic is appropriate in the article, though that does not mean that the still-open question of what really happened need be relegated to fringe status. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You can see a revert of my most recent edits here

here

If you check this edit that all I was trying to do was add two lines from a NYT article about the McMartin trial, add two lines about a recent research study about SRA with several thousand people, add one line about an opinion from an APA published book about SRA from a notable psychiatrist, restore two lines to the article about day care studies from reliable sources that was delete without reason and correct an interpretation of a Van Benschoten source that was changed it is now inaccurate. This was reverted totally, though this was also replied to by another editor on the talk page.

Unfortunately it is very difficult to find editors totally neutral on the SRA topic. Most of the editors above that have commented on this proposed ban I believe have skeptical or extremely skeptical views on the topic of the existence of SRA. Some of this is obvious from the SRA talk page itself. This means that their opinions on this proposed ban could possibly be colored by their views on the topic itself, providing an unfair decision in this matter.

In essence, when one chooses a jury, one does not choose people that may have a bias. What is needed is for several truly neutral editors on this topic, like Mangojuice and others to discuss this and really look over the talk page edits at SRA, as well as the actual edits made for at least the last month or so before a decision should be made. There have been several problems on the SRA talk page, including violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL that may need to be addressed or at least discussed. Also, editors' edits from the skeptical or extreme skeptical should also be looked at, as several editors working on the SRA page edit only from an extremely skeptical position.

Honestly, my opinion is that the above discussion of a topic ban is being used to limit debate on the topic of SRA as well as control the content on the SRA page itself. This only hurts wikipedia and its status as an Internet encyclopedia, for those reading the page familiar with the SRA topic will realize that the page itself now only represents one side of the field.

But, among editors at wikipedia, it appears that my view is in the minority. So though I believe that I honestly tried as hard as I could to follow all wikipedia policies and guidelines, I will agree not to edit the SRA page itself for one week, starting from now.

Hopefully more neutral editors will begin to work on the SRA page in the future, so that a truly balanced and accurate view of this field can be presented to the public. ResearchEditor (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I very much doubt that mentorship will work. For example, ResearchEditor's post above is analogous to his February post in this very the ANI board, as you can see here. Just search for the sentence "I would strongly disagree that the SRA page is currently making progress. Certain recent edits have been made without consensus...", followed by Guy's definite reply. —Cesar Tort 23:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Cesar Tort is one of the editors whose edits regularly represent an extremely skeptical position on the SRA page and other pages. At times, his edits on the SRA talk page may violate WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I also believe that at times his edits edit warred at the SRA page, simply reverting my edits in groups without explanation. I do not believe that he can be an unbiased observer in this procedure and am still hoping for a more neutral voice in this matter.ResearchEditor (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

RE, the neutral voices have spoken above and they are suggesting that a half year topic ban would be doing you a favor. In fact these non-involved voices started this very thread. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

By "extremely skeptical" RE means that I don't swallow claims of an intergenerational conspiracy (theory) of Satanic ritual abuse, bizarre child molestation acts such as necrophilia, cannibalism, infanticide, human sacrifice and even officers who covered up the evidence. All of this happening by the thousands in English-speaking countries in front of our noses... —Cesar Tort 23:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No, by "extremely skeptical" I mean those that won't allow neutral or pro stances about SRA to be allowed on the page, no matter how many reliable sources back them. ResearchEditor (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

{undent} 1) I believe every single one of the NPOV, 3O and RFC's have come down against ResearchEditor's position. The results have not been ignored, they've been followed, because they have supported the skeptical position. See Talk:Satanic_ritual_abuse#Third_opinion, Talk:Satanic_ritual_abuse#Straw_poll, Talk:Multiple_personality_controversy#Third_Opinion_2, Talk:Multiple_personality_controversy#Third_opinion

2) I can't recall a time when s/he has presented the skeptical side bar the occasional token effort that's at best a reprint of another editor's comment

3) The position that the list of sources supports anything except a fringe position is in my opinion blatantly wrong; I have never seen any evidence of any reliable source that contradicted the multiple explicit statements by university press sources that SRA is over.

4) Victor is the first, longest, and most extensive source regarding SRA as a moral panic; Frankfurter is the most recent source, and La Fontaine is a book-length discussion of actual criminal investigations of SRA in England. All are excellent sources, represent the mainstream skeptical position and are published by university and scholarly press. I believe this represents DUE weight, and to diminish their weight would be undue weight. This is also not a new argument, that has been unconvincing for months and received support only from one other editor who also believes SRA is an ongoing reality rather than historical moral panic.

5) In response to "if extreme skepticism is the majority position on the topic of SRA, then why is there such a large reliance on a couple of researchers and pre-2000 references promoting extreme skepticism?" - it's because most researchers have moved on; further, RE just complained about placing too much emphasis on Frankfurter, which was published in 2006. Because it's a historical phenomenon, it's also quite natural to rely on historical sources. Biaothanatoi is the only other editor who agrees with RE, and despite apparently doing a thesis on the subject of SRA from a credulous position, has not added any sources that credibly argue SRA is an ongoing phenomenon.

6) Jack-A-Roe admits in his post that he thinks it was a moral panic, which is how Frankfurter, Victor and La Fontaine approach the subject. Jack-A-Roe has also never commented on the quotes by five sources that the phenomenon is over, or the point that if the mainstream considers SRA a moral panic that has passed, then the idea of SRA is not a fringe subject, but the idea that it has any credibility as a real phenomenon is a fringe theory.

7) The line about the McMartin trial is undue weight. I address this idea here; the Los Angeles Times coverage was criticized by its own writers as being biased, and only 2 of 11 jurors in that decision felt that Buckey was guilty. That's undue weight if you ask me. 8)The SRA page does not require an even balance of skeptical and non-sketpical. Five sources explicitly say SRA is over and no longer of mainstream concern. This should be the tone of the page, and to do otherwise is undue weight on a tiny, fringe minority.

9) The topic to ban RE from the SRA page isn't to control content. SRA does not need it's content 'controlled' as a fair representation of the sources is to say that SRA is no longer considered credible. The page does need to be protected from RE's wholly POV position. Check out this edit; one source, which is itself heartily skeptical of the idea that there is any truth to Michelle Remembers, may mention that a minority of scholars believe it may be true; this represents one sentence in the body text, and the google books preview does not contain this assertion. Why should this end up in the lead when there are at least three sources that have discredited the book's contents? It should not, and this is classic undue weight and POV-pushing.

10) I don't think that one week off will be any help. I doubt that RE will come back after a week with any appreciation of what the policies of undue weight, neutral point of view or fringe topics actually mean and may give the other editors a week break but won't address RE's problematic approach to editing.

11) Yeah, we're less civil on the talk pages, but that's because we've been dealing with the exact same arguments and POV-pushing for months now, despite the addition of many reliable sources which all converge on the same skeptical interpretation.

12) The debate seems to be over the truth of SRA. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. It's verifiable, and has been verified in many reliable sources. SRA is done. How many sources does it take before we can conclude on this? Is one more enough? Should I stop at 7? How about 10? At what point can I stop adding random books that turn up on google book search that verify this point?

13) A topic ban is warranted, and I fully support it, because ResearchEditor has demonstrated an inability to interpret wikipedia's policies and guidelines in a way that gives appropriate weight to the appropriate sources, and has demonstrated gaming the system with slow revert wars, illegitimate interpretations and promotion of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPOV in an effort to give equal weight to a fringe point of view, an inability to admit their position has no merit, and overall an unwillingness or inability to stray from the path of WP:TRUTH, which was the original reason RE was blocked. There have been many offers to change, and all have ended in the same POV-pushing location. RE is an example of civil POV-pushing and I would really, really like it to stop. WLU (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

reply to WLU above:

1)The discussion at [here] did not take an opinion on either side of the issue and asked for a reorganization of the page. This opinion actually came down against those skeptical here The Talk:Satanic_ritual_abuse#Third_opinion here was about the deletion of a single EL, which I did not argue about after the decision was made. The "Straw Poll" only included those skeptical of the existence of SRA and myself and one neutral party who abstained. So WLU's description of these proceedings is biased and incorrect.

2)This is also false. I have presented 40 or more reliable sources on the side of SRA being a real phenomena [here. These have been erased from the page because, three skeptical researchers using theory, and not having ever worked with any SRA victims, state the whole thing is a "panic." This is only three from these extremely biased researchers. More moderate researchers have come to the comclusion that some occurrences of SRA are real (like "Memory, Trauma Treatment and the Law").

3)reply to this point is contained below

4)As I have previously stated, these three authors are overcited. Nearly 38% of the article is based on them. New accounts of SRA, such as these

1)Joan C. Golston, "Ritual Abuse", in Schulz, W. (eds) The phenomenon of torture : readings and commentary, Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press, c2007 2)Sarson, J. and L. McDonald "Ritual Abuse-Torture in Families", in Jackson, N. (ed) Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence, Routledge, 2007 3)Noblitt, James Randall, and Perskin Pamela Sue. (2000). Cult and Ritual Abuse: Its History, Anthropology, and Recent Discovery in Contemporary America. New York: Praeger 4)Noblitt, James Randall and Perskin, Pamela Sue (eds). (2008) Ritual Abuse in the Twenty-first Century: Psychological, Forensic, Social and Political Considerations Robert Reed Publishers - popular and self published - but may be RS 5)Template:Cite articlein 6)Sachs, A; Galton, G.(Eds). (2008). Forensic aspects of dissociative identity disorder. London: Karnac Books. ISBN 1-855-75596-3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) 7)Lacter, E. "Guidelines to Diagnosis of Ritual Abuse/Mind Control Traumatic Stress" (PDF). {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) in Friedrich, W.N. (1991). Casebook of sexual abuse treatment. New York: Norton. p. 1–26. 8)Pepinsky, Hal. "A struggle to inquire without becoming an un-critical non-criminologist." Critical Criminology 11(1) 2002 pp. 61-73 9)Pepinsky, Hal. "Sharing and responding to memories." American Behavioral Scientist Vol 48(10), Jun 2005. pp. 1360-1374. 10)McLeod, K. and Goddard, C. R. (2005) ‘The ritual abuse of children – A critical perspective’ Children Australia, 30 (1):27-34 11)Pepinsky, H. (2005). "A criminologist's quest for peace". Critical Justice. 1 (1). 12)Valente, S. (2000). "Controversies and challenges of ritual abuse.". J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv 38 (11): 8-17. 13)"The Satanism and Ritual Abuse Archive", by Diana Napolis, is published on the world-wide web at: [This archive contains 92 cases as of February 12, 2008.]

would be an apt reply to these three overcited skeptical authors, if they were allowed on the page.

5)This is also not true. Biaothanatoi also added several of the above source to the talk page. He apparently refuses to edit the actual page, due to fearing being attacked, like I am being attacked here.

6)But Jack-A-Roe has stated that "though that does not mean that the still-open question of what really happened need be relegated to fringe status."

7)I have shown 12 reliable source above that contradict the assertion that SRA is over. The statement I believed should be added to the page on McMartin (from the LA Times) is "Nine of 11 jurors at a press conference following the trial stated that they believed the children had been molested. These same jurors stated that they believed that the evidence did not allow them to state who had committed the abuse beyond a reasonable doubt." Note this is a balanced statement. But yet was not allowed because it backed the possibility that abuse at McMartin may have occurred.

8)As Michelle Remembers goes, look at WLU's recent edits there Use of fringe newspaper on page - Fortean Times - here

Use of self-published web page with ads on the page here

Use of a members.shaw.ca self made user page on page here

Use of a "Pagan Protection Center" page on page here

I have asked for a WP:30 on these, since I deleted them as per policy and WLU added them back. The decision was decided in WLU's favor. I will honor this decision.

The only real reason for a topic ban against me is to control content on the SRA page. Both times bans have been backed against me were also the two times the SRA page went through major changes. Only one point of view will be tolerated on the SRA page, that of extreme skepticism. Even neutral points of views from reliable sources will not be allowed.

9)I have shown WLU's approach to editing above. His edits misrepresent sources, as shown above in his view of NPOV, 3O and RFC's where they totally misinterprets them. His edits ignore and belittle sources that disagree with his extreme POV.

10)This is essentially an excuse for ignoring the policies of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA which are used as a way to intimidate nonskeptical editors into silence on the talk page.

11)WLU's edits do not even usually consider consensus as an option on many pages. He simply makes many edits on a page without any talk page comments at times and his edits resist any differences in opinion repeatedly. This is shown at the Michelle Remembers page above with his use of nonreliable sources and user built pages to back his POV. WLU's edits, as well as others on the SRA page, follow the path of truth from the extreme skeptical side. Sources that don't back this skeptical truth are attacked until found useless, well the skeptical few are barely evaluated at all, in essence, weighing out the sources on both sides in an unevenhanded manner.

Here is a quote from WLU talk page here "CT, when was the last time you, or I, wrote for the enemy? I haven't done so in months I would wager, and if I did so it was at best grudging. Since our 'enemies' are already writing for themselves, there's no real need. This is a huge problem, but it's a flaw endemic to the wiki process itself. It's not exactly legitemate to accuse others of sins we are ourselves guilty of. Editors with strong POVs are a necessary 'evil' and of necessity force the same evil on to other editors who consider the POV to be extreme."

Is WLU accusing me of a sin his edits may be guilty of? ResearchEditor (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as an uninvolved party, looking over the last few day's of edits to this page & reading the latest part of the Talk page, I feel it is clear that this matter has been gone over so many times now that the field is not only trodden to death but has been turned to dust: a consensus has emerged, right or wrong, that SRA was some form of a social fad or hysteria; a few individuals still disagree with this consensus, but instead of proving new information, they apparently continue to push the same material back into the article, although with slight variations. If the dissenters still feel a mistake has been made, they should find new sources that defend their opinion then explain on the Talk page why these sources should be included; to do anything else would be disruptive. (And if there are no other sources, well the matter has been decided, & it is time to move on to another article; with 2.5 million articles, there must be at least one other article that interests you.) -- llywrch (talk) 02:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The only question I would ask the above editor is "Have you read any of the reliable sources that are pro or neutral on the question of SRA?"

Neutrality entails a neutral view on the topic. Without a neutral view on the topic, it will be difficult to find an unbiased party to make a decision here on the proposal. Is this simply a political effort to silence an editor with a different viewpoint of the research, one that he has repeatedly backed with reliable sources here and on the talk page. ResearchEditor (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

ResearchEditor has broken WLU's reply above in such a way that the substance of WLU's arguments is diminished. These long posts by RE, unresponsive to our main concern (see e.g., WLU's last post in talk:SRA), are in line with how RE discusses in the pages: ignoring the substance of our arguments and overwhelming us with endless repetitions. If we add to this behavior the way he pushes his pov in mainspace in the several articles cited by WLU above, you have got the picture how it feels dealing every day with said editor. —Cesar Tort 20:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

RE's reply - I have fixed the above as best as I can. It was not my intent to break up the reply, but to reply to each point in sections. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This has indeed broken my reply, and I'm not going to reply to the reply. My intact response can be found here, starting from "{Undent}Comments:". A 3O has been given on Michelle Remembers (here is the comment), it was in favour of my interpretation and rejected RE's analysis. Regarding the comment "Have you read any of the reliable sources that are pro or neutral on the question of SRA?" - the page is stuffed with reliable sources. RE's comment suggests that the skeptical sources on the page are not reliable (blatantly false). WLU (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The skeptical sources on Michelle Remembers include a member.shaw.ca page as well as a Fortean Times article. I do not believe these are reliable sources, but as I stated before, I will abide by the WP:30 decision as I always have. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

RE seems ever unwilling to acknowledge WP:WEIGHT's sway within any take on WP:NPOV. I support a topic ban. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As do I. RE no longer has the good faith of the other editors in this area. He should edit articles other than those in this topic/area, so he won't be swayed by his own POV. KrakatoaKatie 22:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I support a topic ban, widely construed across any article mentioning child abuse, satanic ritual abuse, and multiple personality/dissociative identity disorder. ResearchEditor has repeatedly proven his inability to edit responsibly in these areas, and I'm amazed that he has been given (and squandered) this many second chances. I suggest this discussion be closed and the topic ban implemented, as there do not seem to be any editors opposing a topic ban. Skinwalker (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe his unblock was designed to give him a second chance in light of edit warring and POV pushing, in view of his weak understanding of Wikipedia policy. I think he has learned a lot more about Wikipedia policies since then, so the second chance has served its purpose. However, simply speaking, he is still POV pushing and apparently edit warring. I don't support a blanket block, but I do support an editing restriction. I think a topic ban is reasonable, though since his level of discourse is okay, I don't think it's unreasonable for him to be allowed to continue editing talk pages in the area. So I support Skinwalker's proposal. Mangojuice^talk 15:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. As an involved admin, I decline comment on the length of the ban. However, I think it would be helpful if there was some restriction of his talk page edits, as well. He dumped his list of "sources" on the talk page of 3 articles, WP:NPOVN, and the talk page of one of the editors he's in dispute with. Perhaps an edit adding 5K characters to a talk page should be done by creating a subpage? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree that I have been edit warring. My edits were attempts to seek compromise on a couple of changes to the SRA article, with accompanying talk page comments. However, my edits were reverted at times without comment en bloc. ResearchEditor (talk)

I am an involved editor too and therefore hesistant to post again here. Suffice it to say that, according to various editors, including some of the February blocking admins, RE does not seem to grok Wikipedia. He misses the meat of other editor's numerous complaints while at the same time he lectures us quoting policy from his own interpretation. Discussing his previous block with the admins he wrote in his user talk page when he edited under the name of AbuseTruth: "I am not sure why I keep being accused of something [pov pushing] that I have not done here, but I hope that the editors that are missing this point will be able to see this point of view. I am requesting that the block be removed immediately.... abuse t (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)" And also: "I have read [WP:POV pushing] and I do not believe I did this." Even when he is currently under re-review at this AN board for violating the terms of an unblock for POV-pushing, he continues to push. The above quotations from his talk page are almost six months old. But as recent as today in talk:SRA (01:23, 18 August 2008), AT/RE continues to believe that the WP community got it all wrong: "The NPOVN debate did not contain a neutral party, nor did the AN discussion up to this point." Since the boards do not agree with his interpretation of neutrality, RE has now complained to Jimbo. One of his sentences to Jimbo is proverbial: "I believe that I am following all of wikipedia's guidelines." I don't think that RE will get Wikipedia —ever. Cesar Tort 02:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I get wikipedia totally. CT's representation of the above is false. It is true that the NPOVN debate did not contain one neutral party, it contained primarily people editing at the SRA page. The AN discussion did not contain a neutral party either at the time I made this talk page edit.

I went to Jimbo's page asking for an evaluation of what has happened at the SRA page, because nonskeptics were at times bullied and harassed into silence and I believe that this proceeding is in essence a part of this bullying.

The term POV pushing is a term used to discredit another user. If one is called a POV pusher, one is labeled bad. It appears that opinions different than one's own are simply labeled and then ignored, using the label to discredit the user.

I do believe that the facts have not been looked at around this issue. The fact that a couple of other editors' skeptical edits at the page attacked, swore at and bullied those that did not believe in an extreme skeptical viewpoint, to the point were no one is allowed to edit from a perspective different from the extreme skeptical one.

I believe that this is an issue of the content control of several pages, especially the SRA page. NPOV with due weight for all valid sides of the issue, according to reliable sources is crucial to wikipedia's development. Different opinions of the research in a variety of fields is crucial for the pages to have a full perspective of the issues. If a topic ban is allowed to occur here, then a few editors will be allowed to do what ever they want on some of these pages, continuing to ignore other opinions on these topics.

I hope that editors will take my comments seriously and look at all of the diferent perspectives involved, fully reviewing both the talk page and its previous archive as well as the edits made in the last month. All I am asking for is a full evaluation of the issue made by an impartial party. Since this is a serious matter, I believe this is important. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding Jeffpw to Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians?

Resolved

 – Boldness is required here: declaring a two week break on this discussion. With respect for the late editor's friends and family, the best thing we can do is maintain a respectful decorum. Nothing in this matter demands our immediate attention. What the situation does demand is taste and sensitivity. Durova^Charge! 04:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

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

This thread can still be viewed via the article history.

Let's try this again

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

Perhaps this might be best discussed at Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians. –xeno (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, of that, I am sure. What I was seeking clarification on, however, was the point of using Jeff's real name (as are used in the articles). Someone who was following all the drama about that might be able to sum up policy on how it applies to my question here: when adding Jeff, do we add his real name, seeing as its commonly available? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think part of the debate really (more heat than light, for sure) is just how "commonly available" his real name really is. I see no problem with adding him to WP:DIED, and without his real name, regardless of precedence. Keeper ǀ 76 20:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "Jeff's name is "out there" widely now simply because Wikipedians released it, unfortunately." Sandy, that's not true. I don't know why Jeff would strike up a conversation about not using his name with you, but then use that of his deceased husband in a memorial page, but you certainly haven't provided any evidence of that. If you had, I don't think all the people on the LGBT project, where he was most active and well-known, would have used his real name. --David Shankbone 20:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's ask her if it's okay, presuming she is the next of kin. On a side note, BLP wouldn't matter here, right? The subject of the entry is dead. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if his sister or his mother is next of kin. And we don't seem to have our BLP policy that well fleshed out either, in terms of when BLP kicks off. In other words, I don't know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The opinions of Jeff's sister don't have anything to do with what Jeff would have wanted. Jeff used his real name as his email address to me, and far as I know, that was the email he used for everyone. He dropped all kinds of personal information into ordinary conversation, and the only reason he held anything back was so he couldn't be stalked again - now both he and Isaac are dead, it doesn't matter.

Please stop the fighting with each other and over IAR. It was that that kept driving Jeff away from Wikipedia. For one thing several of the people who think they know what Jeff thought of them are wrong, and I would rather they stop abusing an imagined relationship with him to push their point. Please don't duke it out over his grave - here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VST5W_PqXXM . Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 22:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, Dev920, we aren't talking about that right now. That conversation was archived after a fiery onslaught of bitter recrimination erupted like an bloated, angry zit, and over very little, to boot.

This conversation is about how to post an entry in Deceased Wikipedians (ie, whether to use his name and, in parentheses, username). No one wants to take the wrong step, as some concern has been voiced that doing so would possibly out his identity. Your contributions would be helpful here, as many folk are saying that his identity was secret, while others are voicing with conviction that Jeff was courageous (and ballsy) enough that he didn't care who knew who he was. It has been posted here so as to determine whether his identity was public enough to warrant inclusion of his real name. I tend to think it was. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I know that this is not the specific place to ask people to stop fighting, but I don't want to go wandering all over the wiki wherever this issue crops up. The firey onslaught, as you put it, hasn't stopped, it has simply moved elsewhere and I very much wish it would stop. Checking one's watchlist in the middle of grieving and discovering that your friend's death has become just another pawn in the wikigame is very hard to bear. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 00:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

AN page proposal

(Well we've been here before with nothing beyond discussion, but let's try again : )

What would you (plural) think about us turning WP:AN (the main page) into a (protected?) nav page, which would list all the subpages (as sort of a directory, or index, or table of contents)? It would make things easier for everyone, and I think that we'd be more likely to see the subpages more correctly ustilised.

I think that this would help with every page/subpage of AN. Better to have the main page as a directory to point everyone in the right direction, than for this page to be (as it often is) the one-stop shop.

To clarify: This page (and its history) would be moved to a sub-page. (Consensual discussion can come up with a name.) And then this page would become the navpage/directory for all the subpages.

Thoughts/concerns welcome. - jc37 23:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am no admin, but it sounds like a long-overdue move to me. Brilliantine (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually have another similar proposal for how we could work things better. We could have a number of different AN subpages, each dealing with different editorial problems. We could have Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Editors, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Content, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Admin problems (to be used when people have concerns about admin behaviour), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Meta requests and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Miscellaneous requests. This would have a few advantages, with admins able to concentrate on the areas that they have expertise in. It would also significantly reduce the size that each pages gets to. WP:AN could be an index of each of these subpages, and AN/I would no longer need to be used, or replaced with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Urgent admin intervention. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea. Cirt (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(I also have a proposal for AN/I on the talk page.)

But regardless of how we (re-)purpose the subpages, I still think we need a directory as the most likely "first stop" (here). (As you seem to agree: "WP:AN could be an index of each of these subpages...") So, at least for now, to keep this discussion sane, let's just focus on discussing this page being repuposed as a directory. A ReOrg to the subpages is a different discussion altogether. - jc37 23:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, we couldn't do away with AN altogether without additional boards - there would be too much pressure on the current boards if we did that, so I think it would be good to discuss options for complete reform. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought ANI should be known as 'User Conduct' and this one, as a subpage, could be simply 'General'. I would strenuously oppose there being an AN/Content board - for me, that would be an example of exactly what wikipedia shouldn't be about. Brilliantine (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, we get content issues brought up here all the time such as BLP concerns, off wiki legal concerns, image copyright concerns - a central place to discuss these would be good. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There is already a BLP board. The thought of yet another place begging for content disputes to be inappropriately shopped around to gives me the heebie-jeebies: keep them in talk space or as an RFC if they cover a wide range of topics, says I. Copyright etc fair enough... Brilliantine (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought we had a masterlist of noticeboards somewhere (not just admin ones), but I see that Wikipedia:Noticeboard is a redirect to something I've never heard of. I suppose Category:Wikipedia noticeboards is the closest we have. Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think it's a great concept! This board is difficult to navigate at times due to long issues. Warning, though, that if we make a Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Misc, that's the board that will get all the traffic. Nobody wants to read instructions, it seems, and if they're angry, they're even less likely to bother. KrakatoaKatie 00:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I say this every time someone suggests drastically changing how AN works - Why does it need changing? Is it broken at the moment? Not convinced ... I think the current set up works fine, particularly as it's less busy now then it was a year ago (as with Wikipedia in general). Neıl ☄ 09:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, size was one of the issues we were discussing some months ago, but there are plenty of other issues for change. I'd support almost any proposal, so long as it cleans all of the noticeboards up (and there is reason to do so). Would anyone like to provide a comprehensive list of discrepancies that might be fixed with x amount of change? Synergy 11:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I support turning AN into a navboard, but I think there would need to be somewhere to post the kind of miscellaneous notices that AN is needed for. J Milburn (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'd find it much more useful to extract all threads into subpages, one per topic, similar to the AfD logs.
  I have only been active here a couple of times, but found it very hard to follow my topic due to the noise, i.e. high number of other edits to this page. If every topic is in its own subpage I can watchlist it, and look at every diff if the discussion gets too confusing to just see at a glance which comments are new.
  There's a possibility of name clashes when creating a new topic page, but if they are prefixed with the date (e.g. WP:AN/2008 August 13/AN page proposal) that should be acceptable.
  The sub topics could then be classified however one likes, by having one or more AN pages that list or transclude all open issues.
  --Amalthea^Talk 16:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• God, yes. AN and ANI need to be reorganized like AfD or DRV's main list pages are. It would not only make it easier to track individual topics, but people could be referred directly to the old discussion when it drops off the main page, instead of having to sort through a bunch of archived pages full of stuff. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the above, this would seem to have consensus. But I'd like to give it at least another day before making the move, just to give everyone who would like to comment (for or against) that opportunity. - jc37 20:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This is no where near enough support to make such a major change. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you start by creating pages for some of the suggested redlinks above, and see what people think at that point? Cirt (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

(To Ryan) - actually the only naysayers at that point were Neil, and you had a conditional support/oppose. Everyone else appeared to support. But even so, I still would like more comment (as I noted). - jc37 07:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support and for a similar measure at Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents. seicer | talk | contribs 21:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

first things first

Not at all to interrupt what is above, but I'd think it would be good, before we dive into solutions, that we explicitly find consensus on what the problems are, if any. How about a project page? We could examine on that page what the strengths and weaknesses of the noticeboards are. We could easily make drastic changes, without understanding this clearly, first, and simply make things worse, if we don't stop and first agree on what the problems are. I can think of numerous solutions to problems that I perceive, and I perceive plenty, but ... it's like trying to decide what medicine to take when you haven't figured out what disease you've got. Sure, in desperation, we might do that. But I don't think it's a great idea. If there is a solution to some of the problems that is described above that is easy to implement, that is reversible, that does no damage, sure, we can do this simultaneously. But some of the truly major problems, I suspect, won't be solved merely by splitting up the noticeboards into subpages, unless other aspects of the process are also examined and reformed. The very purpose and function of the noticeboards should be examined. And I don't even want to go into that here, I think we should do what we should be good at: describing consensus, neutrally, on a page, that would have its own Talk page where open discussion takes place and the project page where consensus is summarized, revised, etc. Not signed, the project page is a report of the community participating on the topic. --Abd (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• I very much oppose doing away with this noticeboard and splintering discussion onto a half dozen other boards; the last thing we need is yet another noticeboard (I don't have time as it is to read the 38 pages linked on {{Editabuselinks}}). I must a agree with Neil's comment above, in that this seems to be a solution in search of a problem. The Editabuselinks templates already serves as a list of noticeboards. Doing away with WP:AN will only increase the traffic on AN/I and reduce the number of eyes on topics sent to other, less trafficked noticeboards. I also don't see any benefit to an AfD style noticeboard, with each issue created as a subpage that is then transcluded here. That's overly complicated compared the current system and creates more problems than it solves. - auburnpilot talk 23:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm also concerned that the vandals which plague this page will find it easier to vandalize several individual pages, requiring protection across a wide range of pages. Corvus cornix_talk 01:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Starting over

• The thread above is exactly why my initial proposal was (and is) merely for moving this page to a sub-page and using this location as a navpage. Nothing lost, and everything gained. Instead we have people hung up on ReOrg plans for sub-pages and the like. - jc37 07:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If there are no further comments, I'm going to archive this and start over. Perhaps with a straw poll. - jc37 01:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User:SusanPolgar and WP:NLT violation

User:SusanPolgar Special:Contributions/SusanPolgar has sued User:Sam_Sloan and others, for defamation. User:Sam_Sloan himself was blocked on 10 November 2007 by User:Viridae for a similar lawsuit: [65]. It would only be fair that User:SusanPolgar be blocked for filing suit as well. Here is proof of the lawsuit: Polgar targets national chess group, associates in lawsuit. Here is proof that User:Sam_Sloan (the same user as Sam Sloan) is a defendent in User:SusanPolgar's lawsuit: Crime and Courts, Official Records. And here is a self-attestation that User:SusanPolgar is Susan Polgar: [66]. And here is the evidence that User:Sam_Sloan is the Sam Sloan which user:SusanPolgar just sued: [67] More information on this new suit by [user:SusanPolgar] may be found at Susan Polgar#Executive board member. Although User:SusanPolgar has not been recently active, she should nonetheless be blocked per WP:NLT due to her ongoing lawsuit involving another wikipedia editor. 98.204.199.179 (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Why would we bother blocking someone who has not edited in over a year? The rationale over WP:NLT is that blocking is a means of stopping anyone from making WP a party to an action by their editing. If they are not editing then there is no reason for WP to act. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds like Sam Sloan is evading a block here. Nothing to see, move along please. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Nice try. Feel free to send me a PM for my cell# Guy and I will talk with you and confirm that I am not Sam Sloan.98.204.199.179 (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• • • Sorry, I didn't mean to snap back at you like that Guy. First, this crackpot claims I am a guy named "Greg Strong" [68] and now you're claiming I am Sam Sloan. It's enough to make a person Schizophrenic. 01:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.199.179 (talk)

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

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

Self-hating Jew - cited history is being deleted

please help!

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

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

please Help!

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

In order for an admin to look into the matter, we really need more information such as the article in question and some diffs of the edits. Thanks —Travis^talk 23:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is Self-hating Jew and the material being added is WP:OR cited to a POV source. The phrase in question (Auto-Anti-Semitism) is a neologism with 21 Google hits (including 1 from Wikipedia and 2 from Wikirage). — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 23:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Correction. Today it's up to 26 Google hits, with 2 from Wikipedia. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 23:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Pretty simple. I wrote an article of "Auto Anti Semitism". It was decided on talk page to merege it into "Self hating Jew". A supporter of this merege has asked to merge, only if the contant of "Auto Anti Semitism" is included, I've done the merging myself.

Shabaz disagrees to this decision, and he want's to eliminate what existed in "Auto Anti Semitism" for some reason, and he keeps deleting the merge i've done, as to keeping it "clean" from merge, only the way it was before "Auto Anti semitism" existed.

In addition - "Auto-Anti-Semitism" term, is cited with RS of Nativ - and he keeps deleting the citation of it as well, so you can't see that it is a relible source.

Someone responsible needs to get involved --Shevashalosh (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation of the merge discussion. One editor wrote "Merge by making the new article a redirect. No other changes necessary." Another wrote "S-h J is surely the better known term." A third wrote that "'Auto-Anti-Semitism' is hardly ever used in English", while stating that its contents should be retained. Nobody agreed with Shevashalosh's OR that Auto-Anti-Semitism is "the academic term" for the phenomenon of Jewish self-hatred, or her OR regarding its causes or history. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 23:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone take responsibilty on this guy's behavior and his deletion of the merge, history and RS by Nativ. Please. --Shevashalosh (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like Shabazz is in the correct; I don't see anything in that article to support that "'Auto-Anti-Semitism'" is even a commonly used academic term, let alone the predominant one. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I protected the page for 24 hours because there was so much reverting in the last two days. Please try to come to an agreement on the talkpage. Regards, dvdrw 00:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"Auto-Anti-Semitism" seems like a neologism, when one considers the current sources. It is only mentioned in a handful of Scholar-indexed journal articles, all of which seem to treat it as a hypothetical linguistic term rather than one that is actually in regular usage; by comparison, "self-hating jew" has astronomically more uses in academic literature; there really isn't anything to support your assertion that "Auto-Anti-Semitism" is the term used internally to the Jewish community. If you could uncover something, obviously it could be included. In any case, you're grossly in violation of 3RR, and its been protected anyway; this is an issue for consensus and the talk page. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, Shevashalosh has un-redirected Auto-Anti-Semitism and started their own article there based off the single source they had been using on the other article. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

There is a consensus to merge Auto-Anti-Semitism into Self-hating Jews.

Shevashalosh doesn't agree. Right, but he doens't give the reasons on the talk page but come here to complain when this is applied.

He has been here for 4 months, is considered highly disruptive by many editors and has already not respected 3RR rules 2 times.

It is up to you guys, but the "sysop community attitude" with Shevashalosh could be considered completely in disagreement with WP:CIVIL for other contributors who take care of content issues.

The more you wait, the stronger he feels, and the less he listens.

Personnaly, I have just received personnal attacks when I tried to discuss with him.

Ceedjee (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Speaking solely afrom experience, I had not heard of the Auto-Anti-Semitism term before this discussion--the term "Self-hating Jew" is the common term. -- Avi (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Problem with someone who just won't stop.

The content issue : There are two college societies with the same name, "Mystical Seven". They both have articles, that's not a problem. One society uses Mystical 7 as its name, and that is actually the proper form of the name for that society. Not so for the other. There is a disambiguation page for both Mystical Seven articles, and the redirect page for "Mystical 7" should go to the society that uses that as it's name, not to both societies. As one poster said, "a redirect from 'Coke' as a name should go to 'Coca-cola', not a cola disambiguation page for Coca-Cola and Pepsi."

The editor issue : There is a user who can't apparently understand this. He wants to have the redirect for Mystical 7 go to the disambiguation page for both societies. (He's given no reason why.) It went back and forth a bit. HE then asked for comment. The comments he got supported the 'it should go to the one society that uses the name, not the other' side of the argument. He still reverted to his view. I changed it back and he STILL reverts it back to his view. I have a hard time accepting that this is good faith anymore, since it has all the appearance of a profound and sullen stolidity.

So the question is this : what do you do with an editor who can't accept his own request for comment?Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is this RFC? If you mean the question he asked on the secret societies talk page, that's not exactly something official and binding that can be enforced. Not only that, but there was no consensus either way in it, in the four comments I saw. (Personally, I agree with him) --Golbez (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. Ok, these are secret societies? I've never understood how we can have Wikipedia pages on secret societies. If they're secret, then we don't know about them. If they're not secret, then they're something like "private membership" or "confidential membership." However, that violation of fundamental logic aside, we do redirects for misspellings. It's routine. Therefore, it's safe to assume that a person who has only heard the name (after all, it's secret) will type "7" sometimes and "seven" sometimes, so it would be logical to have the redirect serve as the landing point for any query. The "7" people lose nothing. After all, they're secret, so presumably they don't want people to find them quickly. Geogre (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. This is hardly a Coke and Pepsi issue, and it's extremely misleading for you to use that analogy, Thaïs. These societies have the exact same name, and people who are unfamiliar with the particular form of the word seven should not be penalized by having to dig around, looking for whichever of the two they're trying to find. Mystical Seven and Mystical 7 should both stay as they are currently. GlassCobra 14:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. These so-called secret societies can't have articles without reliable sources, so it hardly makes them secret, does it? Corvus cornix_talk 18:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"I've never understood how we can have Wikipedia pages on secret societies." Then don't comment on the articles...

"we do redirects for misspellings." That's the point, it's not a mispelling. The phrases are distinctly different.

"These societies have the exact same name" it's not the exact same name. The connotation of "Mystical 7" and "Mystical Seven" are quite distinct. Did you read the two names before making your comment?

"These so-called secret societies can't have articles without reliable sources" These societes have very reliable sources, and several of the articles are better referenced than 90% of the articles in wikipedia. Why would you make an arbitrarily dismissive comment about these articles if you understood the subject matter? Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Newcomer

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

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

Wikipedia landing page

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

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

Please disambig Nightline at Iran Air Flight 655

 Done

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

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

Portal:Indianapolis/On this day...

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

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

Admin Bot

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

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

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

Shouldn't this be at the crat noticeboard? bibliomaniac15 04:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It is sort of, but since this has to do with admins as well I thought i'd place a notice here --Chris 04:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems to me like an appropriate place to notify as well. SQL^{Query me!} 06:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

If its obvious vandalism, rather than possible content dispute or good faith poor editing, then protecting the encyclopedia from disruption is paramount. If blocking the vandal is inappropriate, if the account is ip hopping or there are too many of them then protecting the article should be considered. After taking the action it should then be brought to an admin board for a sanity check. If it is a grey area regarding vandalism, just a third opinion might suffice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're asking yourself seriously, then use the requests for page protection and hand off. This will do two important things aside from cleanse your conscience. 1. It will diffuse the "enemy" of the vandal. It won't be You vs. Him (or her) in a death roll. This is very good, because it prevents any rumor of being a fighter. 2. If the vandals are into user page defacement and such, they don't have such a clear target for their adolescent rage, if they don't have an enemy, but, instead, have the project to look to. ¶The down side is that it can be slow. However, I believe that more admins should be using it. It could certainly forestall some heated and inappropriate acts. ¶Finally, remember that protection should be used sparingly. Geogre (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There are over a thousand active admins. It should always be possible to find someone uninvolved. DGG (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask which article? And no, I am not going there to vandalize it. Thank you. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 00:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct use of Wikipedia:Editing restrictions

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

Yeah, that crap again

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

Already fixed, it seems. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 18:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, it was Template:NATO. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 18:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It is fixed, but it wasn't that template. That one was vandalized and fixed yesterday. Thanks to whoever did figure it out... Tan ǀ 39 18:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There was just a spate of vandalism by an IP: Special:Contributions/122.213.250.14. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The template vandal uses IPs that are open proxies. Please block the IP long-term and then list at WP:OP for verification. Thatcher 12:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Gadget-Twinkle.js

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

Much needed thing to be able to do - now we don't have to resort to blocking users who misuse twinkle, and since some people insisted on leaving it available as a gadget, this will be very useful. Excellent job, Animum! - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, excellent job Animum! I have found this to be a frustrating issue simply because if a user is abusing Twinkle there is (was) no way to revoke it from the user seeing as it was placed into gadgets. While I think this will do the the job just fine, I would support removing it from Gadgets all togehter. Tiptoety ^talk 19:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the implementation maybe a bit simple, adding the username "Bob" for instance would block anyone whose username started the same but wasn't longer, so users "B" or "Bo". --82.7.39.174 (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Or indeed contained within, so "MyNameIsBob" would stop user "Bob", or "NameIs" or "Name" or... --82.7.39.174 (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Aye, I was trying to work out a for() loop that would return true only if the username were contained within the pipes, but the array suggestion is superior. —Animum (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... would if(noAllow.indexOf("|" + wgUserName + "|") == -1) work out, then? This would include the delimiter in the search (though note we'd need to add delims at the start and end of the list). – Luna Santin (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a better option, or move the check for IE to be the outer check (probably should be done anyway) and then assume firefox 1.5+ and use a proper array ["username","username","username"] and indexOf against the array. Fairly easy to bypass either way, since the code gets run on the user machine... --82.7.39.174 (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to work out how to use an actual array with this, so thanks! (I always forget that indexOf can be used with arrays... *head-desks*.) —Animum (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Page hacked

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

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

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

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

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

Not likely. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

And cracking a password is about a million times more difficult than vandalizing a page using some fancy HTML. Mr.Z-man 21:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the name is somewhat grander than the ability, could be any random 5 year old. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

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

And? Wikipedia leaves it's doors and windows open to encourage anyone to edit, including IP's like me. Breaking into a house with no locks, what skill that must require. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Like walking down still hallways looking for a few unlocked doors. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a house with all of the doors and windows open. You can run in and pull out a gun and you will still be invited to stay for dinner. Paragon¹²³²¹ 22:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Although you might find yourself in a "spirited discussion" over the model number of said gun, whether it is superior to another weapon, and indeed if the gun should be left upon the table or reholstered during dinner... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

And then asked for a citation as to the superiority of the model in question. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Supercharge (band)

Supercharge (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I bring this here for a second opinion, being an involved editor. I saw this article was appallingly badly written and began to rewrite it to conform to manual of style. Two editors (possibly the same person) have changed it back to the "shit" version (for want of a better word). I have pointed both to the MOS on their talk pages, but neither has responded, and both have continued to turn the article back into a shed. Accordingly, I have fully protected the article and opened up a discussion on the talk page. Strictly I should maybe not have done this, but it is unhelpful when you have editors (neither of whom is particularly new) changing back to a worse version, and not communicating. I will notify them of this conversation now. --Rodhullandemu 22:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep to all that. I've unprotected and will try to help tidy it up. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

No meaningful sources, only MySpacey and bloggy stuff. Hence the assertions about live shows could easily be empty marketing jargon. Speedy deleted CSD A7. If someone asks I'll put a copy in their userspace pending a rewrite and some sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll do it myself. Jesus, I have better things to do... --Rodhullandemu 22:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey let me know if need be, I don't mind trying to help bands meet WP:MUSIC if there's a shred of meaningful independent coverage to cite. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Was the article deleted? --70.181.45.138 (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, although it met WP:BAND#6 & #7. There is a copy here --Rodhullandemu 01:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that #6 is most often helpfully dealt with by a redirect and #7 must be verifiable. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It would have been if I'd had half a chance to tackle it. But, foolishly, I brought it here to cover my back. Well, I won't be doing that again. WP:IAR and WP:BOLD from now on. Twelve months here, fifty articles started, 3GAs, 5DYKS, multiple Wikignoming AND vandal-fighting is all too much AND that for free. Enough insults; I quit. Best of luck to you. --Rodhullandemu 01:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

How have you not had a chance to tackle it? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Another productive good faith editor quits in frustration. I am shocked! not. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've looked into this further and commented on my talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed adminbot policy

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

Advise please

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

If you are very sure they'll remove them, what's the issue? If the user returns and continues to use images in the signature, then it becomes a problem. Right now, there is no problem. how do you turn this on 03:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

From a statement made by someone else warning another user some time ago. for it can slow down the servers, distract users from the actual text of the conversation, and be an easy target for image-related vandalism among other things (imagine what would happen if someone were to replace that image with an inappropriate one and it were to suddenly appear on every talk page on which you had ever commented). Since he/she might not return for weeks... — Realist² 03:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this edit warring?

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

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

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

Page: Elizabeth Catherine Montour

Should be: Elisabeth Couc aka Madame Montour

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

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

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

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

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

The title of the page should be the name that the subject is most well known by. The sources cited on the page suggest that the title in use is the most widespread, as does the google hits, which, while not absolute as a determining factor, are several times more numerous under the first name than the second. Redirects can be made for the others. As for making a french version of he page, you can do that at fr.wikipedia.org. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I am copying this to the article's talk page. I note that the online English-language version of the Dictionary of Canadian Biography entry spells her name "Elizabeth" and says as its second sentence The given name of this woman is not definitely known. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editorial Council

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

The admin recall process is dead

Also posted on Wikipedia talk:Administrators open to recall.

The admin recall process is dead. I suggest it would only be decent to bury the corpse. See the current version of Elonka's talkpage (permanent link lest it be archived soon), especially her much-criticized response to the recall procedure. Note especially the comments of Durova and Friday. In view of the way this case has played out, I propose that Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall and its associated categories and subsidiary pages be marked "historical". Bishonen | talk 10:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC).

• I agree. The most charitable interpretation is that this belongs to an earlier phase of Wikipedia when POV-pushers were less well organised and the stakes were lower. These days any admin who followed this process and stepped into any one of the many long-running disputes would likely be out of the door the first time they protected the wrong version - and of course all versions are wrong according to somebody. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Sadly I must agree with you, the voluntary nature of even accepting a recall as valid makes this system far to problematic. MBisanz ^talk 10:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Wow, I just remembered that I promised to place myself during the "administrators open to recall" cat during my RfA, did so, and never made a set of recall criteria. That was seven months ago. A recall process that relies upon the administrator to set the criteria cannot be enforced and has no real teeth. I strongly believe any formalized process for recall will end up being like CSN, but hey, I look forward to being wrong. That said, the current process is not the answer. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Agree/endorse - sorry, it can be gamed both ways to the point that it is rendered irrelevant...so shall we vote on this somehwere or just tally it up here? Guy summed up much of it well. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral observation The concept of recall is good, however, it is open to abuse from both directions and is the cause of criterion so stringent by several admins that those seeking to recall someone would probably never meet the criterion. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• The recall process was never meant to be enforceable, but a voluntary improvement on the total lack of accountability that exists otherwise. Admins who are not prepared to honour their promise should not add themselves to the category, and admins who deal with a lot of tag-teaming pov-pushers in particular should either set criteria they are comfortable with, or remove themselves completely from the category. But this does not make the category useless. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• In the case of Elonka it has not indeed been useless, but actively harmful, zzuuzz. Elonka drew an inappropriate advantage from the pledge she made in her third RFA to be open to recall.[69] She was a very controversial user, who had failed two RFAs, and IMO she wouldn't have been likely to squeeze through the third one without that recall pledge. (I know I would have opposed her without it.) Now it turns out that she is not prepared to honor it. Bishonen | talk 12:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC).

• Recall is not the only process available to the community. There is a concurrent RfC which Elonka has pledged to heed (or has she? I am actually not following that closely). And if that fails, there is RfAr. As there has always been for any admin. That a particular admin has not given satisfaction does not mean Recall is a complete failure, any more than it means RfC is a complete failure or RfAr is a complete failure. ++Lar: t/c 12:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• People should not have attached any weight to it in the RfA. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• AMEN! A toothless tiger only has a bite as sharp as its teeth. AOR has been and always will be a stupid idea because it is completely voluntary.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Recall only works if those who sign up to it are honest, rather than lying to pass their RFA. Recall's ineffectiveness in this case was not due to a failing of the concept; it was due to a failing of the admin. Neıl ☄ 11:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• No, the people who ask the question are asking for campaign promises. Campaign promises may be made in good faith, but are often broken as time and conditions change. If anybody puts weight in it, then that was their mistake. I have no doubt that she feels as if she made the promise in good faith and is exercising it per her standard---but as it is voluntary and she gets to interpret it as she deems---then the entire cat is useless.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• I am old enough to remember the Read my lips: no new taxes incident. Campaign promises broken carry real consequences. Jehochman ^Talk 15:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• And very little enforceability. Thus, if you are going to vote on somebody/thing, you need to do so based upon their history, not their promises. Especially when it is something like this.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• As I said years ago, I continue to believe that asking about AOR is an inappropriate question at RFA. People shouldn't use what is essentially political pressure to backdoor a process that has never had any official standing. If someone wants to resign because others ask them to (or any other set of criteria) that is their right, but pressuring people into setting criteria is divisive and inappropriate. Dragons flight (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This comes up periodically. It's almost a perennial proposal now, I'd say. The process is not dead. That some admins misuse it as a ploy to get votes, or fail to set criteria (I went round a few months ago and warned all of the then members to make sure they have criteria, and many did heed my warning) and then deservedly get run through the wringer by the community, is not a flaw of the process itself, it's a flaw of those admins. The process is voluntary. If you don't like it, don't be in it. But those calling for X, Y, or Zed, who are not actually in it... have no standing to do so as far as I am concerned. Also, this is the wrong page to be having discussion. The proper way would be to have the actual discussion at the talk page with just a pointer here. I propose to move all of this there and leave just the pointer behind... this page gets archived too fast. ++Lar: t/c 11:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Lar, the administrator's noticeboard is entirely the correct location for this discussion, as it is intended for the attention and participation of administrators. Please don't shuffle it off to an out of the way talk page. Neıl ☄ 11:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

signing in agreement with Neil: User:Ceyockey (talk to me)

• Please don't do that, Lar. I would like more previously uninvolved eyes on what's gone down. It won't be archived until 48 hours have gone by without a post. (AN isn't ANI). Bishonen | talk 11:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC).

If there's a pointer HERE to THERE, what's the harm. That page gets archived not every 48 hours, but far less frequently. ++Lar: t/c 12:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Less frequently..? Er.. oh... that's good? Bishonen | talk 12:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC).

Yes. Archives are inconvenient unless linked to well. Are you or someone else advocating staying here going to update that page with a link to the correct history version here? If not, this is not the right place. But since there seems to be opposition to my proposed move, so be it. We'll see who ends up cleaning up the loose ends though. ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Personally, I think that anyone who is an admin should be subject to recall under some minimum standard criteria set which is mandatory as part of the role. In response to this thread, I've added myself to the listing ... which particulars to be determined at a future date. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

GO DO CRITERIA. Don't put it off till later. ++Lar: t/c 12:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, Lar. A minimal statement is now present on the page. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That we allready have, it's called "arbcom" _→AzaToth 11:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

From WP:ARBCOM: "Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process–it is a last resort, only to be employed when all else has failed." I tend to agree with this; further, ArbCom is broad in scope, not focused on the admin role itself. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe WP:AOR is something like the Better Business Bureau for Wikipedia? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Some admins also choose to be answerable to a lower authority. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'll consider the recall process dead while Elonka remains a sysop. —Giggy 12:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Um, no. The process is not the last step in dispute resolution, if you do not get satisfaction from it, pursue other processes. In this case, she has an RfC, no? If that fails, file an RfAr. ++Lar: t/c 12:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • So Giggy, if she steps down or is removed another way, would you consider AOR to be alive? The fallacy of a voluntary punishment has been highlighted (although it has come under repeated fire before and previously been shown to be fallacious.) People who need to be desysoped will be. There have been several people who have been pressured enough to step down without the toothless beats AOR. AOR is simply another way to spell Drama...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Shouldn't we just have a recall process that is binding on all admins? How would one go about proposing such a policy? I think it would serve the community's interests if all admins were open to recall, and that recall was binding. Currently the system is meaningless. Alun (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • See perennial proposals. I'd oppose such a proposal ++Lar: t/c 12:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Well the decision would be by the consensus of the community, based on discussion about the merits of the idea, surely? Whether such a proposal would work would entirely depend upon whether the community was convinced that it would be fair and that it would work. On the whole the idea is sound though. I'd suggest starting by getting a consensus regarding the idea, if there is a consensus that it is a good idea then we could go on to thrash out the rules to apply, in the knowledge that this is what the community wants. If there were no consensus for the idea then it would be dead before it started. Get consensus for the idea first though, I'd say. Alun (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
      • By the way, it would be interesting to see how many admins who "support" the recall process during their nomination process under the current voluntary system, would still support a binding recall process. In theory it should be the same. Of course with regards to admins themselves, it's will be like getting turkeys to vote for Christmas. Alun (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Maybe one way to look at this is that anyone who indicates approval to the voluntary process is unlikely to actually ever have the process invoked against them. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
      • @Wobble/Alun: yes, if the community implements such a mandatory process I will either adhere to it or resign. I'm just saying it's a perennial proposal, I'd oppose it (and presumably so would many others) and it would fail again. The references section has a catalog of the various failed proposals. Those planning a new proposal might be well served by studying those to try to overcome the objections raised before. ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
        • I suspect the problem has always been that people are not happy with the proposed procedure. The thing is to get a consensus for the principle first, get a community concensus that all admins should be open to binding recall. I'll bet that most people would support the principle. Then we discuss specifics, with the knowledge that there is a community consensus for some sort of binding recall. I reckon it would be easier to get a consensus on the process if all parties knew that the community had already backed the principle. Alun (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Tagging the page historical will be a meaningless action. If admins want to enter into a recall procedure then they can do so, no matter what the status of the page is. You can't force people to keep their adminship. Hut 8.5 12:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Force people to keep their adminship? What a... strange way of putting it. Any admin who doesn't want the admin flag any more merely asks a steward to remove it. Very brisk process. Bishonen | talk 13:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC).
    • Right. My mailbox is always open for such requests. As is the page on meta. But I think the point is... if the family of pages gets deleted, you cannot force me to not be recallable. ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• What was never alive cannot now be dead. Removing the page isn't a bad idea, since it creates the misleadin' impression those admins are open to recall (which some may truly, I dunno.). Replacing it with even a voluntary binding procedure, or a mandatory one for all is not a bad idea, or just nothing. As it stands now it is really misleading, and probably not worth keeping around. WilyD 12:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep current system per Lar and Hut. My interpretation of the page Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Past requests is that, insofar as I can assume that page to be reasonably complete, there have been about 5 cases where the recall criteria were met, and in almost all of these cases the admin resigned or went through a reconfirmation process. So, I would say that the process generally works. I encourage any admins who have indicated that they're open to recall but have not gone into detail about what process they follow to consider stating that they will follow Lar's recall criteria, which I think are very well-designed. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah but read the footnote of the footnote: "if the user calling for recall is an admin, the admin must themselves have been [open to recall] for at least two weeks". Whoever said revenge is not best served through a straw? Or does this mean that you can voluntarily desysop (under a clear sky, so to speak) before requesting recall of Lar, in order to be eligible under a criterion with no personal liability, then be resysopped later by the nearest bureaucrat? Somebody should try this just to study how the criteria change. — CharlotteWebb 13:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• As everybody reserves the right to fortify their criteria at any time, the absurdity and complexity tend to increase proportionately to the likelihood of a recall request (and even in the wake thereof). I would suggest tagging this as {{humor}}, but then we'd be stuck debating at whose expense the joke should be made. The fine print wiki-lawyering is fascinating enough to encourage recall requests for sheer personal amusement. — CharlotteWebb 12:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• That is by far and away the BEST suggestion that I've ever seen... Perhaps I should add my criteria to the list as well... would something like "the apocalypse happening" and "a personal letter hand delivered by President Jeb Bush" be appropriate?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman you could offer to resign if six arbitrators in good standing ask you to... hey, wait a second! — CharlotteWebb 16:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a funny once, Majorly already tried that joke on for size. CW to your point about a quick trip through the mill to remove your bit temporarily... might fool some people, but not me. ++Lar: t/c 16:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I certainly find it difficult to recall why I ever wanted to be an admin... Thatcher 13:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Mod +1 funny. Jehochman ^Talk 13:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • LOL @ Thatcher. We obviously need a new admin recall category: Category: Admins who can still recall why they ever wanted to be one. Bishonen | talk 13:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC).
• Oathbreakers live in their own special hell. The category helps identify those who honor their words, and those who do not. Dishonoring a recall request has greater long term disadvantages than resigning. Therefore, keep. Jehochman ^Talk 13:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • You meant to link to WP:HELL. — CharlotteWebb 16:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly disagree with Bishonen's proposal. As Lar correctly pointed out: "That a particular admin has not given satisfaction does not mean Recall is a complete failure". And Jenochman correctly pointed out that "the category helps identify those who honor their words, and those who do not". Let's not underestimate this ethical dimension. I don't know what the outcome of Elonka's case will be, but it is wrong to personalize the whole issue. The important is that Elonka and any other adm open to recall are judged by the community for their adherence or violation of the principles they said they will respect. Most of us participating in this category, we have set and made official a concrete administration accountability; Elonka after her word in the RfA failed to include herself here. But we did, and I believe that most of us intend to keep our work. If we do not, then we'll be discredited and face the ethical condemnation of the Community. What worse than that, even if the "lier" typically remains sysop. That is why I think it will be a terrible mistake to get rid of this recall procedure, based on what we could call self-commitment.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• I agree the recall process is crappy, but Elonka's actions really wasn't wrong; there's now nearly twice as many people opposing rollback as endorsing, and even the initiator (Jehochman) accepts she shouldn't be recalled. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you are putting words in my mouth. Elonka was properly recalled, but she refused to resign or stand for reconfirmation. That's a valid result for our voluntary recall process. I accept that result because the process is voluntary, and I have asked people to move along in the spirit of reconciliation. Time will tell if I am being overly optimistic. Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'd compare Recall being made historical to the end of Return of the Jedi, when the people celebrate the Death Star blowing up. Fireworks and everything.--KojiDude ^(C) 14:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Death Star shrapnel doesn't bother me compared to the inevitable "prequel trilogy". — CharlotteWebb 17:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• I haven't followed this whole thing (actually this is the first I've heard of it, I guess I'm doing a good job of staying away from drama), but this looks like a good example of 2 things. 1) Why I removed myself from the recall category. And 2) Why rules based on arbitrary figures are stupid. As for the first bit, there's so much criticism, it keeps building up and it becomes very difficult to distinguish between people with valid complaints, people just jumping on the bandwagon, and people acting in bad faith. The standards for civility and personal attacks generally seem to drop as well. As for the second reason, luckily we can almost never agree on arbitrary figures for policy except in cases where we absolutely have to. Arbitrary figures are too easy to game and allow no room for discretion. In the case of Elonka's recall, after her RFA, 6 editors probably seemed like a decent idea, and in ideal circumstances (which don't happen in recalls, see previous point) it probably would be good. However in the actual circumstances, 6 doesn't make any sense. Since when do 6 users, with the exception of the arbitrators, ever get to decide on something like this? 6 users would never be able to prevent an RFA from passing, Elonka's passed with 10 times that many opposing. As it stands currently, there's almost twice as many people opposing the recall as supporting it. Do those magical six people get to override 40? That makes even less sense. While it is partially Elonka's fault for not thinking through her criteria initially or not updating them when she started working in controversial areas, the system is pretty broken. Mr.Z-man 15:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Agree/endorse. If we get rid of recall, we won't have to see those obnoxious, back door policy-pushing, how-else-are-you-going-to-answer-it questions at RfA anymore. I think the current system for removing the tools works just fine. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly support Bishonen's call to bury the dead corpse of the broken promise of admin recall. In spite of serious concerns, I did not oppose Elonka's RfA, mistakenly believing that the promise of being open to recall would encourage her to stay in line. I am a specific example of one editor who would have opposed if I didn't believe that recall had teeth. Bury it; it's already dead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on the arguments here, and the difficulties evident in the process, maybe it is best to get rid of it. Maybe then ArbCom will actually desysop people when they abuse admin tools a lil more leniently. Wizardman 16:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sadly, this experience seems to justify my comments here. For a sysop to be able to help the wikipedia process in anything but its most neutral elements, they need to be able to act without the constant fear of recall by those whom their (the sysops) decisions have gone against. In theory, recall may be a good thing, but I am afraid that in practice, its primary function is to paralyze sysops from acting decisively when necessary. What we need, in my opinion, is a quicker-responding, more efficient ArbCom, or an ArbCom-appointed subcommittee which deals solely with Admin actions (as was suggested in the June FT2 writings, IIRC). -- Avi (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Get rid of AOR. Irongargoyle was right above; the only purpose AOR serves these days is to muck up RfAs. Tan ǀ 39 16:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• This is a rather pointless discussion. Marking the page historical doesn't accomplish anything, and it doesn't address the actual problem with recall. So long as an administrator wishes to be open to recall, s/he can do so. This page does nothing more than provide a central location for a list of those admins and their criteria. If you want to "fix" recall, ensure all admins available for recall have a thorough set of instructions in place. - auburnpilot talk 16:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Mark as historical and userfy. If an admin wants to be open to recall, that's fine, but they can put the criteria in their userspace and end the illusion of this being an official process. This should hopefully stop the gaming at RfA. Kelly ^hi! 16:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't quite follow how it's an official process, Kelly... it says it's voluntary. But whatev. As for asking at RfAs... I oppose that. I think it should be spoken out against. Recall should not be a mechanism to slide through RfA when you otherwise should have failed, either. Tell you what, you or anyone else see recall being asked about on RfAs... go comment. Ping me. I'll comment too.. You or anyone else see recall being used as a way to skid through? Go comment. Ping me. I'll comment too. Because that part, to me, is a misuse. Elonka, far as I am concerned, apparently weaseled. She deserves to be called on it. But it seems every time someone weasels, people turn up calling for the recall IDEA to be ditched. Wrong focus. It doesn't always work but it does work. It reduces drama, on balance. Thus, worth saving. But whatev... you can't make me not be willing to be recalled under whatever criteria I choose. Really, you can't. To assert otherwise is trying to impose CrimeThink. ++Lar: t/c 17:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• How exactly is AoR hurting anything? It's an entirely voluntary process, yes, and I think you would be a moron not to see its obvious stated limitations. But why frag a process which can work? It relies on the good will of admins, but don't most of our processes rely on the same AGF notions? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

AOR is only used for one thing these days - strong opposes if you don't say you're going to sign up. This happens far too often. Tan ǀ 39 16:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with Auburn here, you can't stop admins from being open to recall. The only thing you're doing here is making them harder to find which I find a little pointless. If you have a problem with someone's recall process or how they ran it you just need to work it out with them (or go further into dispute resolution). In any case, I don't think marking this as historical over a single admin makes much sense. This has gotten way way too personal, and the recall process isn't to blame for that, nor is it to blame for a single recall that didn't go the way you wanted. The way through this is to make sure everyone understands that it's a voluntary process and to make sure everyone open to recall has clear and appropriate standards. (and most importantly to not freak out when someone decides not to follow through with a recall commitment). RxS (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

  It's more than a single admin - there have apparently been others. Kelly ^hi! 17:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

  Both your links refer to the same admin, Ryulong. Are you saying that he should be preventing from opening himself to recall if he decided he wanted to? RxS (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• It ultimately comes down to the integrity of the admin. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• I agree that marking it historical will achieve little or nothing really. As long as people are using it, it is not "historical" - and if anything is going to make the page misleading adding such a tag will. I don't get how its existence makes it "official" either, there a lot of things in the project space that certainly aren't official. If there is a problem with it not being clear that it is voluntary and not official than if necessary a big banner can be added to the top of the page! I am not aware of all the details of the Elonka case, but this and a few other cases should not mean the end to an entire process. AOR is not perfect, but until something better comes it works for me and many others. As for people opposing RfAs for users not joining AOR, well that is a more problem with RfA than AOR; I am not aware of many RfAs failing purely because of it, and my personal experience there makes clear that the idea that agreeing to sign up always means extra supports and less opposes is not that true. I and many other admins will quite happily stay open to recall regardless of what happens to the AOR page, if it is marked historical, deleted e.t.c the only loss will be general co-ordination and the convenience of easily finding out who is open to recall and who isn't. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete AOR: It has a divisive and destructive influence at RFA, since one can't refuse this "voluntary" process without some people assumming you are unfit to lead. As shown with Elonka and others it has a destructive influence when people attempt to use AOR as a shortcut to meaningful dispute resolution. I actually would support a well-thought out mandatory recall process that was neither easily gamed and nor easily abused, but the AOR process as it stands is bad for Wikipedia. If an inidivual admin wants to resign because of someone's request, that is their right, but the collective structure that has arisen around AOR and the unfair expectations of participation in a "voluntary" process is a bad approach that is unduely divisive and the community is better off without AOR. Dragons flight (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Agree wholly with DF. And its at CFD. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Removing the category (or marking it historical) is not going to stop admins from indicating that they are prepared to resign the bits voluntarily under certain circumstances if they wish, nor is it going to stop people from renegading on those "promises", and possibly it is not going to stop people from saying that they will be open to recall during their RfA. It may stop people from requiring a system of voluntary recall before supporting, but that is about it. In my instance, I am not open to recall - but I do comment on my talkpage that I would seriously listen to complaints brought by a couple of respected contributors and may be persuaded to set down the tools. It isn't any sort of recall process, so I am not interested in being in any such category. If the category becomes redundent, then there are those who will make record of their intent to be open to recall - and all the potential for drama that that entails - without a suitable box to put them all in. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• AOR is dead, Elonka has been recalled and is ignoring her own rules (which is not unexpected, this is quite common for her to do). Her recall process is not a matter of endorses and opposes, but endorses only. By her failing to go through with AOR she is gameing the system (again, quite common for her to do, as noted in her RfAs). Simply put, she told some fibs to get elected and when elected she is ignoring her rules. AOR is dead because no other admin wishes to enforce it, so what is the point of it? Because some admins feel better themselves for having this procedure? Is this because they know they can say "Yes, I am bound by it, but thanks to Elonka's example, I know I can safely ignore it"? There is a lot of impassionate defense of AOR above, but by people who don't seem to be asking a certain admin to follow it's rules. So until that happens, AOR is just pointless guff. Shot info (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Agree ^{ZOMG not an admin} The current status of RfA is such that we might as well consider passage through it akin to achieving tenure here (like it or lump it). The AOR process doesn't proscribe a rational course of action for the community and doesn't protect the community from the offenses it means to. Right now it makes mostly for an uncomfortable RfA question (do we say yes and risk looking like we are currying favor or say no and risk offending people who are angry at admins generally). Protonk (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly agree that AOR doesn't work. First of all, admin can remove themselves from AOR at any point, even when the recall process is happening. Second, they can change the criteria in the middle of recall to render it moot. That brings to the third point, some *cough* people *cough* made the recall criteria impossible to achieve to even start the recall process. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Not an admin myself, but Support marking AOR as historical (or deleting it outright). As it is now, the page strongly resembles an official policy, which it is not; there are no common rules or standards for admin recall, and it is entirely voluntary anyway - nobody can be forced to abide by it. Unfortunately, some commenters at WP:RFA don't seem to realise this, and there have been many cases of admin candidates being opposed simply for not signing up to WP:AOR; as a result, it's now common for candidates to declare they will be open to recall purely to help with the vote, without necessarily having any intention to go through with it. (Speculation on my part, but I'd bet the majority of admin candidates who say yes to AOR have never looked at, say, the Elonka case as an example of what such a recall might actually look like.) There is nothing to stop any admin having their own recall criteria or process, which should be listed somewhere on their userpage; but having this central page lends the recall 'system' an air of formality and certainty that simply is not appropriate. Terraxos (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's dispel the myth that recall is a voluntary process

These are the steps that led to my resignation:

1. I joined the recall category. I didn't need to; it hadn't been a pledge at my RFA.
2. The category had automatic standards at the time when I joined. After those standards got dropped--a program change that happened without notification to the category's participants--I voluntarily stated that I would abide by the original standards and articulated a procedure. Those terms are at User talk:Durova/Admin. If you're a non-admin and can't read the deleted page, take heart: neither can I.
3. A request for comment opened, per my stated procedure. Normal admin RFC lasts about three weeks, which is long enough for reasonable interaction.
4. 12 hours after the RFC opened on Thanksgiving Day it became obsolete because a member of the Arbitration Committee initiated RFAR.
5. Less than 24 hours after the case opened, ArbCom posted a proposed decision with a proposal to compel me to undergo an immediate reconfirmation RFA.
6. I requested time to present evidence. The Committee ignored the request and continued voting.
7. Two hours later five arbitrators had gone on record supporting the proposed decision. I resigned.

Whether or not you agree with that outcome, a greater precedent was broken: the Arbitration Committee itself dismantled a voluntary procedure and substituted a mandatory recall, and they constructed their mandatory process in a way that denied any reasonable opportunity for defense.

So to those who support a "voluntary" recall category: bear in mind that the Arbitration Committee has made no promise to refrain from implementing mandatory recall again. Durova^Charge! 13:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I agree with your point 2 as being entirely accurate, but as for the rest, yes, you got the rug jerked out from under you. I remember it well, since you had set up an RfC and then asked me to try to facilitate a smooth process. That itself didn't work very well, partly my fault, but it would have gotten on track I think... if you hadn't had, as I said, the rug apparently jerked out from under you. The speed setting on ArbCom cases is nothing if not wildly different for different cases, for no apparent reasons. But again, that's not a condemnation of recall so much as it is of the rug-jerkers. All THAT said, I'm not sure your conclusion follows. ArbCom always has had the power to override/overturn/abrogate/ignore various voluntary processes if it chooses to. That doesn't make the process any less voluntary. ++Lar: t/c 14:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It requires the ability to read deleted edits to fully verify point 2. And, with respect, I request that we not reframe this as an attempt to review my particular case. The broader significance is what matters here: a similar sequence could happen to other people. Durova^Charge! 19:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely accurate. Dmcdevit (talk · contribs), who brought the case, was not a member of the Arbitration Committee at that time; he had resigned in February. The committee was indeed acting quickly at the time; given the explosive nature of the situation letting it drag out for a month (which is what eventually happened) seemed an especially poor idea. We showed at least as much consideration as you did when you blandly advised people to "consult the committee" concerning your block of !! (talk · contribs), even though you'd never told us what the hell was going on. Under the circumstances I don't think members of the committee were prepared to put any trust in a voluntary and oft-abused process. The case was eventually open a month (at least); it was never what exculpatory evidence you intended to present, that would somehow justify that trainwreck of a block.

As far as adminship goes, the Committee may de-sysop anyone upon showing of cause. This is a necessary safety valve and one that's not disputed. There's little effective difference between de-sysopping and allowing one to stand at RfA without prejudice and ordering a mandatory recall; with the exception that the latter is an invitation to resign. Sorry this sounds harsh, but the tenor your statement throws all the responsibility for your actions onto those capricious dunces on the Committee. Mackensen (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Mackensen, your response appears to be predicated upon an assumption that I am subverting a discussion about the recall category to attempt self-vindication. An oft-stated supposition about the recall category is that it is fully voluntary. That made it necessary to outline how it is not, and the ways in which it is not are distinctly worse than normal desysopping. Durova^Charge! 20:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Durova: You did get the bum's rush (perhaps not undeservedly, I cannot comment on evidence I'm not knowledgeable on), but it has nothing to do with the sham of AOR. WilyD 14:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it does. Again, without judging the merits of the case, it showed that when necessary, there are means to desysop somebody quicker than AOR can operate. There have been other cases this year as well where people lost the bit faster than AOR could possibly operate. When needed, there are ways to do it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That a process is not the be all and end all doesn't in itself mean it's bad. Not all of my can openers are Swiss Army knives, after all. Recall is one of many dispute resolution mechanisms. Perhaps we should ditch Mediation because it doesn't always work? Or ArbCom? ++Lar: t/c 16:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

One of the weaknesses of our consensus system is that discussions of this type often get sidetracked. This is no bid for sympathy: it's a caution to others. A precedent could occur again and affect people who exercise reasonable foresight in setting up what they expect to be a voluntary and fair recall pledge. The Committee could have used its discretion to desysop outright; instead it created a parallel initiative that treads upon the independence of the recall category and systematically denies the opportunity for defense. And it must be noted that the very definition of prejudice is to judge prematurely. Durova^Charge! 18:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll underscore what Durova has written. We have a system that, when used according to "design," works quite efficiently, except that it breaks down as the scale increased, and because we have a substantial body of administrators (not to mention many others) who either don't understand the design or sidestep it for personal purposes. (Which includes their POV of what Wikipedia should be.) The design is brilliant, truly, and very simple. But here is where it breaks down. AN/I, for example, is a noticeboard designed to receive requests requiring immediate administrative assistance, in situations where waiting for dispute resolution to find a consensus, could allow harm to continue. As an emergency service, AN/I should never determine "guilt." It should act, immediately if any admin sees fit, to protect the project, understanding that there may not be time for the more protracted DR process to work. Hence, AN/I should never decide anything more than a temporary injunction, as is done with ArbComm. If a user is blocked, it shouldn't be indef, based on AN/I or any other nondeliberative process. (RfC is partially deliberative, Mediation is deliberative and focused on finding true consensus, ArbComm is likewise deliberative.) One of the offensive things that happens is that an emergency process can derail a deliberative process, when the latter is more likely to find more widely satisfactory solutions to problems. Durova has pointed to her own situation. The Elonka recall brings up a different one. Administrative recall was designed to avoid complicated and disruptive recall process, beginning with RfC and including ArbComm. There could be a less drastic form that might work better: Voluntary administrative suspension, pending outcome of a DR process. This could even be made mandatory, with injunctions issued by, say, ArbComm, on the basis that there is reason to believe that an administrator would no longer be supported by consensus, which is far different from a determination of blame. Suspending use of the tools would not be a black mark. The DR procedure could decide, for example, that the complaints were harassment, etc.

Consider the Elonka situation. There are, quite obviously, a significant number of admins and others who consider that she has acted improperly. I've elsewhere commented -- and that's why I'm commenting now -- that the principles behind her actions were correct, and what is at stake in her RfC is those principles, that's what the real conflict is about, not Elonka. So it's important to address those issues, and find consensus on them, and Elonka's admin bit is a detail. If the community consensus is expressed that the principles she was operating under were improper or incorrect, then, presumably, so advised, she would not follow those now-rejected principles. However, if there is fear in the community that, if she continues to act as an administrator pending resolution, then there is a basis for immediate suspension. Even if many or even if a majority of us think that she is correct. I've been noting that ordinary editors really have the same powers as administrators, but they cannot directly exercise those powers. Elonka could warn editors of problem behavior without having the tools. And she could request the block of any editor who violates those warnings; the only difference is that a small delay is introduced. We can handle that delay, the reduction in disruption from disagreement and argument over her adminship would be worth it. If, I'll note, there is no admin willing to block based on her warnings, then we would have a very clear sign that she was off-base. We should have a quick suspension process; it should be voluntary suspension not voluntary recall, and we could, regardless, have a mandatory suspension process that would be quick. We actually have a block process which is very quick, all it takes is a decision by a single admin. So, as the very simplest system, any admin could request suspension of any other admin, on the grounds of abuse of tools or other major offense, by filing an RfC, which requires certification, i.e., there must be certification by two admins that WP;DR was followed, and I'd put teeth into that. I.e., false certification would itself be a serious offense. As part of the RfC, immediate suspension could be requested, with a simple Yes/No vote in a page devoted to it. In standard deliberative process, issues like this may be non-debatable, because the very purpose is to avoid debate. We need to take some lessons from standard process. We have advantages here: for example, such a vote -- and this would really be a vote, though decision based on it would still be by standard process, but it would be a standing decision, i.e., changeable. Simple majority rule. No debate. Comment, yes, in the Talk page for the suspension page set up for this purpose. It's not the voting that is divisive and disruptive, it's all the argument about it. If editors from the anti-admin "side" pile in, fine. Should they gain a momentary advantage, suspension, voluntary or otherwise, would take effect, but that is relatively harmless and it could quickly be countered if the community desires it, and it only takes a minute to vote in something like that, it takes far longer to read debate and respond with comments.

Who would enforce this? Mostly the admin in question, who would note, in the RfC, that he or she was voluntarily refraining from tool use pending resolution of the dispute or the lifting of the suspension. Note that voting for the suspension would not be a vote against the admin, it would be entirely possible to believe that the admin acted perfectly, but that suspension was still the least disruptive path forward, pending fuller expression and review of the evidence by the community. I'm posting this, now, but I'm unwatchlisting AN because I've got other stuff to attend to, including my own limited "voluntary suspension" pending resolution of issues and the opinion of a substantial number of admins that I harassed an administrator, which is disruptive whether or not they are correct. I want to find out, and I want to take the least disruptive path, so I'm starting in my user space.--Abd (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

How can it be strictly voluntary when even as of this moment RFA nominees are being explicitly asked whether they'll add themselves if they're sysopped? It's doubtful whether anyone could get away with answering "no." Exploding Boy (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Unity

Why don't we stand by our administrators, and when they mess it up... Gosh I don't know: talk to them. Is there really a need for action immediately? NonvocalScream (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Rarely. The problem is when there are long term problems, no single incident of which is highly damning. Nothing is likely to happen in this case. As it applies to AOR, I do think it can/sometimes does lead to kneejerk recalls. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 19:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Fair point, scream, but in this case there is a definite issue: Elonka did indeed rely on recall to pass her third RfA and to fail to stand by that is a very poor show. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• In the defense of Elonka and other administrators who have been hassled with the question of, "Will you submit yourself to AoR?" and then have five or six opposes based solely on their decline of a voluntary process, AoR should be depreciated in practice and it should not be opted as a legitimate question or concern at RfA. Basing judgments solely on a question that results only in generating opposing comments merely for not submitting oneself to a voluntary process should be ignored. seicer | talk | contribs 03:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• The admin recall process is dead. Good. It was much too open to abuse. Use the RfC and RfA processes, that's what they're for. Corvus cornix_talk 20:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

An unpopular opinion

As a non-admin, now and forever, may I express the (most probably) unpopular opinion (at least in this venue) that Administrators should not be discussing the question of what an appropriate Administrator-recall process should be. They should all recuse themselves from such coversations, and the issue should be decided by non-Admins only. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

A wise man once said in 1787, "No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause; because his interest will certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity". I nominally agree with you here, Ed, but what's your proposed solution? Tan ǀ 39 20:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Forbidding people to discuss issues that directly affect them is quite absurd. I understand the rationale, but disagree with the solution. —kurykh 20:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well...not really. Assuming all the good faith in the world, all incumbent admins have a vested interest in remaining admins, and that has the far-from-insignificant possible effect of skewing their opinions on the subject. The general subject of how Wikipedia is to be adminstered is certainly of interest to admins, and, being the people who do the work of it, they obviously have important things to say about it. But on the specific issue of how admins should be recalled (and I believe it goes without saying that there should be a standard recall process, not a hodge-podge voluntary one), their personal interests should lead them to recuse themselves from the discussion.

Believe me, I understand this is not going to happen, I'm merely expressing what I believe should happen. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me revise somewhat: admins should participate in the discussion, but consensus should be based on the collective opinion of non-admins. Again, I have no idea how such a thing would be done, and on a practical level I don't expect that it would happen. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Tan: I have no particular solution, either for the admin COI problem or for what the recall process should be. As I said, I think there should be one, and it should be shaped so that obviously harrassing, trivial or misguided efforts to recall should be screened away almost immediately, and the standard of evidence for those that get through the sieve should be pretty darn high. Other than that... Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This is insightful, Ed. The fact that you and I agree about as often as France wins a war makes this even more interesting to me. Tan ǀ 39 20:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Tan, that might happen more often than you think---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 01:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

[70] bibliomaniac15 01:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I could say something about you having to go back a thousand years to find an exception - but mabe I should just figure that bodes well for Ed and I to agree on future issues ;-) Tan ǀ 39 01:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Completely off topic but the Normans while originating in what is now France (then Normandy) were never French. More accurately they were the decedents of native Gallo-Romans and their Viking conquerors. The only wars France won were when they were 'Franks' or with Napoleon who was really Coriscan. --ENAIC (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

An interesting idea, but would a vote where about 20% of active users can't participate really be a consensus? Mr.Z-man 03:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Cedjje deleting Nudve citations from article Self-hating Jew

Those are not my citation, but ratherNudve's.

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

That is not possible.

Please, see the history starting 10:35 (and sooner if you like).

I corrected a spelling mistake, I added a "/" that made the article not readable, and I added "by the political opponent".

He reverted in attacking me, and he added the "quote" at another place (again with spelling mistakes).

I left a message on his talk page.

Fed up. Ceedjee (talk) 12:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"These get reverted so fast, it's pathetic."

4chan /b/ tried to do some coordinated vandalism in weapon articles but it is already ebbing and under control by normal RC control[71] and bots[72]. Anonymous commented "These get reverted so fast, it's pathetic." Fine. --Pjacobi (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's get a little bit more complicated, as the smarter ones stopped announcing their successes and are targetting more obscure article. Perhaps we can just ignore, what is not detected by RC patrol and bots and do a search for the typical pattern in 24h. --Pjacobi (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Userpage usurpation

Is it allowed without due process? User:Avineshjose just redirected User:Avinesh's user page to his own. I reverted it and an admin reverted me. I asked him why, he didn't bother to reply. Uzhuthiran (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with that. He could probably usurp the account anyway, per Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. The account is old, has one trivial, non-copyrighted edit from more than three years ago and does not appear to be active. If he wants the redirect (is it his global account?), I'd agree that that would be perfectly reasonable. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you read the page right. The page you linked about talks about User account usurpation. You request it and it is done by 'cats. Logically, usurping a user page without usurping the account through due process is improper. In any case a user doesn't seem to have the right to hold somebody else's user page. Uzhuthiran (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Uzhuthiran - it's probably an obvious usurpation-allowed decision, but...assuming the identity of the account without assuming the actual account isn't right. If he wants it as a doppelganger account, he should apply for usurpation at WP:USURP. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion never done.

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

Why on Earth are you posting here? The closing admin's talk page is that way. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Check the log, it was deleted. It was later restored. Mr.Z-man 17:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Posting here because I didn't know where to take it, thanks for the attitude. ThuranX (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged it as a repost and added a notice on Emperor's talk page. He says in the logs that it is recreated pending a new comic series. Hopefully he is right and the article will be able to assert notability. Protonk (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest

I hope this is the right place for this. So, per this discussion which has been dead for a few days, we (3 of 6 active members of wikiproject eurovision who responded) decided that "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest" should be merged with "Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest". The Federal Republic, its legal name at the time only participated once, in 1992. We wanted to merge it with the main article because having 2 pages for Yugoslavia would be confusing, and the EBU which runs the contest, considers the 1992 entry to be the same as all past Yugoslavian entries. Sims2 merged the info and I followed suit with redirecting the page when I noticed that he took action. User:Imbris is completely against the merge and keeps claiming that the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) is not the "Holy Bible" and has no right to decide the name [73]. In my opinion, they have every right since it is their contest (his responses to me). Its sort of like how all Macedonia related article about Eurovision are "FYR Macedonia" [74] since that is how the EBU acknowledges them. I know that my way of redirecting was a little bold, but was it right? I didn't want to revert him without on outside opinion. There seemed to be plenty of factors backing me up. Grk1011 (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

After looking at his talk page and reviewing some of his edits, he seems to be doing the same thing to other pages like the Olympics. Grk1011 (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I please get some help, now he's editing the pages to reflect his views. Where is everybody? Grk1011 (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally uses the common and practical names for articles. Wikipedia usually does not take sides of a political dispute. Another example in the world is the question of who is China, the People's Republic of China or the Republic of China (Taiwan). Wikipedia tends to be neutral. Therefore, trying to please one side or other should be avoided. I have given some advice for guidance but have not declared that one or the other use is preferred. Spevw (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I hoped to acomplish was neutrality. It would be biased to add the appearance of Yugoslavia in ESC 1992 to both Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and to Serbia and Montenegro. This is mainly of the fact that Bosnian and Herzegovinian participants competed in the contest. That local contest elected the representant of three nations of the former SFRY as the representative for the ESC 1992. Despite that fact and due to lots of reasons the representative of SFRY became the representative of FRY (MNE+SRB) but it couldn't have represented the FRY only because it represented Bosnia and Herzegovina also. This is why this article exists and it would be biased to merge it to both the articles Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest and the Serbia and Montenegro in the Eurovision Song Contest. The Olympic editors agreed to simmilar position and in other cases there is no attempts to continue the heritage of SFRY by any of the successor nations. Even if FIFA and UEFA have on their respective web-sites the notion of succession of SFRY by the FRY and beyond. -- Imbris (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

My problem is that he is going against the source, the EBU which runs the contest, because he does not believe it is right. Since when do we put aside sources that we don't agree with, especially when the source is the official site. Grk1011 (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Your problem is not the source but the interpretation of that source, since the EBU website shows that appearance under the flag with the red star when we both know (and the crowd in the Eurosong project definately know) that it appeared under the flag without the red star. -- Imbris (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Need help straightening out The Bugle

Resolved

 – Hopefully, anyway. Semi-protected for a while.

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

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

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

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

Shabazz is deletig my ref of "self hating jew" from New Historians and Post-Zionism

Please help!

--Shevashalosh (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, adding a "See also" reference to Self-hating Jew to those articles — especially New Historians, which names living people — raises serious WP:BLP issues. The fact that Shevashalosh needs to include a footnote next to the "See also" entry indicates the spurious and politically-motivated nature of this issue.

I would ask that administrators please look at Shevashalosh's edit history. She is a persistent POV-pushing edit warrior who has turned every article she touches into a battleground. She has referred to editors with whom she disagrees as self-hating Jews. She has made no constructive contribution to the project. Within the past 24 hours she has made complaints here, at AN/I, and at OTRS. She is a problem editor, and the sooner somebody intervenes the better.

Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 19:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

PS — You may notice that Shevashalosh reported a conflict with me on this page a few days ago. Rather than seek consensus on an article's Talk page, where consensus always goes against her, she runs to other forums such as those mentioned above, the Village Pump, and the Israel and Judaism WikiProjects. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 19:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: After Shevashalosh's previous dispute with Ceedjee spilled over into my talk page[75], I tried to talk to her and explain how disputes should be resolved[76]. Her reply seemed positive[77], but now it looks like she's back at it. I believe she's operating in good faith, but an administrator should have a talk with her and perhaps mentor her. -- Nudve (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that Shevashlosh appears to be having some difficulty understanding the concept of undue weight. A mentor would no doubt be of benefit to all, but need not I think be an admin. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Calton (again)

Resolved. Blanked & protected, please observe WP:DFTT ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for bringing this here again, but I've got serious concerns about the behaviour of calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Incivility concerns (amongst other things) were brought up not so long ago here, and he was given a 0RR restriction for edit warring. Now, his incivility has continued, and I think we need to consider putting Calton under a civility parole. Recently, Calton removed an editors leaving Ramble[78] - not really sure why to be honest, many users who are upset on leaving leave a message similar to this on their userpage. He then proceeded to slow edit war on the page to keep his empty version live [79] (forgot to log in), [80], [81], [82]. Now, I consider the next bit the serious aspect - He was clearly baiting Folksong with this edit; "Poor baby. Would you like a tissue?". After I and Tiptoety had warn him about this, his flippant attitude continued in threads here and here. Now please note - I did also warn Folksong here for making threats after Calton had left his nasty talk page comment, but the fact of the matter is that we would never had users making threats if Calton hadn't continued his uncivil attitude. I really believe it's time for a civility restriction at the very least, or some other community based sanction that will help Calton be a lot more collaborative. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Before anyone automatically leaps to the defense of a fellow admin -- the default position around here -- some actual facts. "Flippant" apparently means "not regarding admin buttons as some sort of tin Sheriff's badge" -- or, more specifically, not automatically standing up and saluting when Ryan Postlethwaite barks orders -- as Ryan Postlethwaite once again is under the delusion that unquestioning obedience to his authorityis required. As for his false claims of baiting, he conveniently leaves off that my message was a response to this -- and also conveniently leaves off Folksong's vandalism and Folksong's threat of violence. His response to this unacceptable behavior? Soothing words to the ones making the threats. I'd say the latter shows he's less interested improving the encyclopedia and more interested in exercising petty authority and enacting petty vengeance, and is the LAST person whose judgment should be trusted in this matter. --Calton | Talk 21:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Christ, someone should block you for that post alone. Tan ǀ 39 21:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? And that would be because of what, exactly? Questioning Ryan's self-proclaimed authority? Responding to false or overstated charges? Noting Ryan's double standard regarding users who level threats of violence? Help me out here. --Calton | Talk 21:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

They weren't soothing words - I told him that he'd usually be blocked in that situation, it was a final warning for him to cut out the attacks. But the point stands that this wouldn't have been an issue if you hadn't have gone around blanking his userpage. Note, I didn't see the diff that Folksong posted to your talk page, so I apologise, but there was still no need for any of the previous actions, or the baiting after. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Responding to vandalism and threats of violence with rationalizations and "just chill out dude" doesn't strike mena as much of a warning -- certainly not on the same scale as left on MY page. --Calton | Talk 21:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think this is resolved. I believe that Ryan and Calton might justly now be characterised as being in dispute, and I feel it would be best for Ryan to distance himself from Calton and vice-versa. It is clear to me that both are committed to the encyclopaedia and not here to advance an agenda or pursue personal aggrandisement, so I would advocate disengagement at least for a while, please. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Fine by me. Easy enough, since I never cross his path, he always crosses mine, in search of some new way to exercise his self-proclaimed authority. --Calton | Talk 21:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think concern about Calton's actions makes me in dispute with him - the only reason why I spotted this was because I was reverting vandalism from Calton's userpage, and went to investigate the guy who did it further only to come across this situation. Maybe Calton doesn't like me, fair enough, I don't think he's so bad personally and appreciate the work he does here, especially relating to anti-spam efforts. Calton slating me when I bring up concerns doesn't mean I'm holding a grudge against the guy - the only time I've ever looked at his contributions has been when I've been doing work at UAA (I think there were a couple of concerns I've had there)), and in this instance when I reverted vandalism from his userpage. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Based on your interactions with me -- from your complete unwillingness to do more than issue orders without the slightest justification or actual explanation, your quick resort to threats, your automatic assumptions of bad faith, and your latest attempts to force me to kowtow to your personal authority -- I'd say that I have very good reason to doubt your claims of not holding a grudge here. --Calton | Talk 21:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, meant resolved w/r/t the Calton/Folksong debacle. As for the Calton/Ryan P. clash, yes, some distance would be useful. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, it's not, since the actual page in question -- User:Folksong, not User talk:Folksong -- remains. --Calton | Talk 21:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• So does User:J.A.McCoy. WP:MFD is always open. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ryan: I think clicking here would make most of your troubles and concerns presented here fade away. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Since Calton basically went on a short wikibreak during the last thread about him, things pretty much just tapered off. Is he under 0RR or not? Someone needs to inform him if this is the case. –xeno (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If a non-admin did what Jehochman did, that could be called vandalism....New proposal.

I just made a proposal. Jehochman deleted the thread here. If someone deleted content, they may be accused of vandalism.

Jehochman asked me a question which brought to mind a past event. The details are not important (if curious, an admin didn't like a user name and blocked it without even asking to change it. The name seems to be permitted by the rules). Since Jehochman brought up an old question, I thought of this proposal.

Proposal:

Administrators must be accountable. There is a long debate over the ineffectiveness of the recall system.

I propose a point system. Any kind of bad decision or act unbecoming of an administrator would yield one point. Have five points in a calender year and you lose your sysop tools for a year. Since some dislike repeat RFA's, you get the tools back automatically in a year. Over time, a list of examples of conduct that causes a point would be listed.

If someone did something extremely bad, the usual channels could be followed for immediate recall or loss of tools.

This system would allow admin to make mistakes since they could have 5 instances of bad conduct and they could become more cautious once they get 2-3 points.

What causes one to get a point? The community would decide examples of bad behavior causing one to earn a point. Over time, we would form a list. At first, nothing would earn a point. If there was bad behavior, then we would add that to the list so initially, we would only have 1 or 2 things that would cause one to earn a point.

HRCC (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, just to humor you, I'll weigh in - I think this is a poor idea. We'll have the same level of discussion, committees, and arguments regarding what constitutes "a bad decision", whether or not a "point" was merited, etc. Tan ǀ 39 21:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, it won't solve anything. HRCC, you just have to accept that administrators are never in the wrong, and even when they are, they rarely admit it. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

HRCC, would you award Jehochman a point for the action you complain about above? Just curious. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No, because that was not an established offense. Admin are not suppose to block to win a edit dispute. That could be worked on as the first thing admin should not do. Say if an admin does so. ArbCom is not going to do anything. Neither is a recall. However, the community may see the offense is clear. So (if that is added to the list) the next time anyone does it, they get 1 point. 1 point is not serious. Do it 5 times and you can lose sysop tools for 1 year but you get it back. This is less drama, not more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HRCC (talk • contribs) 21:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Malleus. I decided that HRCC should not be blocked despite the tendentiousness and attacks, but I think I may well have been wrong. I'm perfectly happy to correct my mistake, if others agree. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This proposal is interesting but doomed to failure for two reasons. 1) It has could have been written in a more neutral and polite way. 2) Administrators are unlikely to agree on further restrictions on themselves.

In theory, this is a good proposal since it encourages good use of the tools without resorting to the drastic measures currently in place (Arbitration Committee, recall, and the very confrontational Request for Comment). The proposal, if enacted, results in no immediate action for anyone. A wrong action results in 1 point but nothing is done until 5 points have been reached in a year. That's more permissive than the 3-strikes law in some parts of the U.S. I think this proposal is worth a look. Loss of adminship for 1 year doesn't have to be the result. It could be counseling or mentorship or whatever we decide. Spevw (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Eww, no. Arbitrary figures == bad. This will have the same problems as recall anyway. Someone doesn't like an admin, so they wait for the admin to do something that could be construed as wrong, then start an ANI thread to give the admin a point. Or on the other hand, admins could game the system. People could just treat it as 4 free passes to do whatever they want. A (marginally) better system would use a system that used something like a hundred points before desysopping, and different actions were worth different point values depending on what the discussion decides. That solves some of the gaming problems but still has the arbitrary figures problem and the problems Tan noted. Also, this is a heck of a lot of overhead for what's arguably a minor problem. We have what, 1-2 admin recalls a year? There are far bigger problems. And removing content does not automatically mean vandalism. Please read WP:VAND before making accusations, thanks. Mr.Z-man 03:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, that would be a poor system that would only lead to further conflicts, endless discussions and... oh hell, I've described RfC and AOR and similar forms of dispute resolution.

In seriousness, it would allow any editor or administrator with a grudge to dock points from an administrator. The process could be possibly gamed or the canvassed in opposition to the administrator in question. Arbitrary figures could always be questioned -- is Action A really constitute an action unbecoming of an administrator that it warrants a subtraction in points? seicer | talk | contribs 03:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Multiple sockpuppetry results

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

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

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

There was a fair bit of following things where they led with this one, and Moreschi did a lot of researching contribs and tagging as we went... although I got to use the shiny new "block multiple accounts" CU functionality. The case has been updated with a list. I think we got them all, but I might be wrong. Please advise if you spot odd things. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 00:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice work guys, but I think we might've missed a few. Specifically, the following usernames: Outparcels/Forestgomp/Stuffla/Glidesclear

They're all refugees from the Africoid page. Note in particular the use of 'Reversed' in the edit summaries of Outparcels and the confirmed sockpuppet Cobracommanderp7. I'd be really surprised if it's not the same person. Soupforone (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Those were checked. Block on behaviour if you feel that's appropriate. However I did not announce a technical connection. I choose to say no more. ++Lar: t/c 01:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks again for your help. Best, Soupforone (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

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

Privatemusings restriction lifted and placed under mentorship

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

User:National Library of Wales

It would be good to have some more eyes on what's going on with image uploads from User:Telor Roberts and User:Paul Bevan. They're working for the National Library of Wales and are uploading images from their archives. They believe they have the rights to those images but they're not uploading them under free licenses, instead relying on fair-use rationales. That seems a bit peculiar to me. There's already a threadlet at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use#National_Library_of_Wales. Haukur (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

NOINDEX template question

What is the allowed usage of the Template:NOINDEX functionality, that I just noticed is live? No article pages are included, but I see some article talk pages here. Why would those be NOINDEX? rootology (T) 02:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It works in any non-content namespace, which is defined as anything other than the article space. Anyone can add it, and for some controversial discussions, like at BLP talk pages, etc, it may be desirable to use it. No policy as of yet, but that might be something to work on. MBisanz ^talk 02:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I found out that the functionality itself was live, but is it supposed to be on by default today for say Talk:Bible? Thats all I was wondering--the template is linked there, apparently transcluded through one of the many templates already on that talk page, and it seemed odd that only those certain random talk pages had it. rootology (T) 02:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to use {{NOINDEX}} for ease of tracking. Jehochman ^Talk 02:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured for that. It looks like what we're seeing on those talk pages is the inclusion of Template:Checkuser which is causing it. rootology (T) 02:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) That didn't make the tracking much easier for me, tho, I don't think I would've found where in Talk:Bible the template is used without Special:ExpandTemplates. Anyhow, seems the NOINDEX template is used at Template:Checkuser, which doesn't seem like the best idea to me. Whenever someone uses that template on a talk or discussion page, the entire page will be blocked from Google searches. That seems.. kinda random to me. --Conti|✉ 02:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That does seem improper. I've taken NOINDEX out of the template. Jehochman ^Talk 02:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

All the templates including are here for the curious. rootology (T) 02:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps just wrap the usages with noinclude so they don't get put onto the pages they're transcluded onto. –xeno (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Protecting the main page

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

Done. My question to him though is why the heck did he reduce the move protection? Wizardman 03:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, assuming that he wasn't aware the article was on the main page, he probably also wondered why the article would require move protection? Gary King (talk) 03:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)