Addition: After starting of the report here, the correction is done:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Religious_violence_in_India&diff=200771751&oldid=200758831]. Unfortunately, Wikipedia keeps history.--[[User_talk:Anupamsr|talk]] 21:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Addition: After starting of the report here, the correction is done:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Religious_violence_in_India&diff=200771751&oldid=200758831]. Unfortunately, Wikipedia keeps history.--[[User_talk:Anupamsr|talk]] 21:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
:* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious harmony in India|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious harmony in India]]. --'''[[User:Harjk|<span style="color:00CC33">Tomb of the Unknown Warrior</span>]]''' '''<small>[[User talk:Harjk|<span style="color:#6666CC">tomb</span>]]</small>''' 06:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
:* I think you guys missed [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious harmony in India|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious harmony in India]]. --'''[[User:Harjk|<span style="color:00CC33">Tomb of the Unknown Warrior</span>]]''' '''<small>[[User talk:Harjk|<span style="color:#6666CC">tomb</span>]]</small>''' 06:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
There's been a bit of an edit war, past few days, at User:Vintagekits. User is banned; some users want to blank the userpage and others do not, I'm not aware of any efforts to discuss at this time. That being the case, I've protected for three days and will encourage participating users to comment here. If a (preferably uninvolved) admin feels consensus is achieved regarding blanking/not, or that protection is harmful in this case, feel free to do as is appropriate. Maybe worth noting that the page was indefinitely semi-protected, prior to this current protection. – Luna Santin (talk)09:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason at all for the page to be completely blanked. The user contributed and wrote a great many useful pages concerned with boxing etc. I re-instated the page - a move endorsed by Alison [1], until Rockpocket came along [2]. Rockpocket can never resist an opportunity to comment on VK, now he is a banned use this is beginning to look like corpse kicking - whatever. By all means - have the page protected for ever, but it is useful to have it in all its glory, if only for people to be able to check the editor out in regard to his many thousands of very valuable edits. Having the page blanked when the editor is already banished, with his talk page permanently protected, and his hands cuffed behind his back looks more than a little unnecessary and extreme. The page as it now stands is as left by Rockpocket - so where is the harm now? Giano (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with what Giano says above no need for this page to be blanked. Vin has created numerous articles and seems a bit vindictive to just blank it. BigDunc (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:User page, they are used to facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia. If an editor has been permanently banned from being a participant in the project, what further need is there to "facilitate communication"? — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 15:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing the talk page with the user page. We are talking here of the user page. Also hiding facts is always a slightly odd thing to want to do, anywhere any place at anytime. Giano (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not confusing anything here. Certainly the user talk page is for frequent two-way communication between editors, but the user page has elements of communication too:
it is a way of organizing the work that you are doing on the articles in Wikipedia, and also a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they are working
they help you to use Wikipedia more effectively: to list "to do" information, works in progress, reminders, useful links, and so forth
Whatever, this is something for you Admins to decide, the pointless and needless kicking corpses has never been one of my interests. Giano (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your actions don't appear consistent with what you claim here, Giano. If my edit - or "corpse kicking" as you so kindly represent it - was the problem here, why did you revert back to that version? [3] All I did was remove one factually incorrect sentence that you had previously added (Vk is not "still standing" after twenty blocks and, even if he was, his user page is not the place to celebrate his record of poor behaviour), leaving the record of his many thousands of valuable edits. I have no problem with that, in fact it makes it easier to find his shower of sock puppets when all his favorite articles are linked on one place. Rockpocket17:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted back to your version Rockpocket, to keep you quiet, anything for a quiet life, and to keep VK's page alight. No other reason, I assure you. Why you, and your friends, can't just leave him and his page alone, God only knows. Why the Arbcom could not follow my advice during the Troubles Arbcase and ban VK from Irish pages, and why VK can't behave himself, I don't know either. I do know though that you have some obsesion with VK which does not help the problems here - he is gone - a banned editor - what more do you want of him? And while you are being so bloody snide Rockpocket you might just note that Alison endorsed the version of the page I reverted to!Giano (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not being snide, Giano. I made a single edit to correct a factual inaccuracy that you made, and made no effort to get further involved when the usual suspects started posturing. You have some gall lecturing anyone about obsessive behaviour. Please go and wage your anti-Arbcom campaign under a different proxy, because this horse is dead and you are the one still waving the stick. Rockpocket23:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've no particular opinion on the matter either way, but note that both Giano and Rockpocket are manipulating the page for their own largely personal reasons. Both sides have a fair point, however I'd like to see the community decide this one. And all the while, BTW, Vintagekits is happily socking away - Alison❤23:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a side, Alison. Like you, I don't particularly care whether the page remains as it is or gets blanked, which is why I didn't revert-war over it. Rockpocket23:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly care about what happens to this particular user page, but I can say that typically, user pages of blocked or banned users consist of only the appropriate ban/block and/or sockpuppet(eer) templates, and nothing else. —Kurykh23:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Finally someone mentions that. And my question is: why? Userpages are useful guides, even when the sockpuppeteer is banned. Unless there's a particularly pressing reason, or the userpage is an obvious soapbox, in which why can't they be MfDed like normal? Relata refero (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the real reason myself, but I would speculate that usually, user pages were indeed used as soapboxes by banned users. In an effort to eliminate this situation, we blank the page to deny them a voice on Wikipedia, leaving only the relevant block/ban/sock templates. The page history will contain any useful (and useless) content previously on the page. —Kurykh02:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There could be a constructive purpose in leaving the page in situ. Namely that it might be helpful to Alison in spotting the socks. So my question for her is: "Is it helpful in this way?" If not, why keep it? In any event it would be good to form a general policy at the village pump. - Kittybrewster ☎11:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest that an eye be kept on this bot? It sometimes seems to delete interlanguage links for no apparent reason, for example recently at Gmina Brzeg Dolny and Brzeg Dolny. I've left a note at the owner's Italian talk page (from where it appears that there have been similar problems in the past, involving blocks being placed).--Kotniski (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Following brief discussion with the bot owner (he replied at my talk page, I at his), he claims this behaviour is intentional, i.e. the bot is apparetnly deleting interlanguage links which it finds on more than one page. I have serious doubts as to: (a) how a bot is supposed to be capable of deciding which of duplicate links is most correct, and (b) whether there is anything wrong with having such duplicate links anyway (in some cases they would seem to be highly desirable). --Kotniski (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the main problem I see with this is that it is often the desired behavior. There is not going to be a bijection between the topics in one Wikipedia and the topics in another. For instance our biography of Isaac Newton spans many pages, but it seems to me that they should all link to the (lone) Isaac Newton page existing in most other Wikipedias. Christopher Parham(talk)17:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You make an excellent point. I don't think the bot, or rather, the bot "operating in manual mode" as Piped would have it, should be going around removing interwiki links in situations of the type you describe. - Neparis (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to answer the questions of Kotniski. (a) The bot is operating in manual mode, and I (the bot owner) am deciding, which of duplicate links is most correct, not the bot itself. (b) Accordingly to Help:Interlanguage links, "Interlanguage links are links from any page (most notably articles) in one Wikipedia language to the same subject in another Wikipedia language", and "interlanguage links are only put from an article to an article covering the same subject, not more and not less". --Pipep (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a stupid policy. It seems like it was placed specifically to make it "easy" for interwiki bots to operate. Well, this is an encyclopedia for humans, not for bots. —Random832 (contribs) 13:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
– John254 over-reacting again, there is discussion on the talk page, nobody is threatening to climb the Reichstag. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This looks to be an edit war more than anything--I've full-protected the article until this can be resolved on the talk page. Blueboy9620:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals... Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.
The removal of inadequately referenced controversial information concerning living people is administratively favored. John25420:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but the comments still come in, and are welcome. I've since removed the archival templates that were used to wrap the discussion, so that these editors may still continue, as they have done so. I don't think the resolved template is needed here, as ther eis nothing real to resolve. It's a discussion. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don Murphy DRV
Just a reminder that an unusually contentious DRV, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Don Murphy, is coming up for closure within the next hour. It looks to me like it's an overturn verdict by a large majority, but I gather the subject of the article is rather "difficult" to deal with. Any uninvolved admins want to grasp this particular nettle? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the result is to overturn, and so should it be if that is consensus, however I can't help but notice a rather bloodthristy tone in the rationale used to justify a DRV process, wich seems quite unconstructive. - Caribbean~H.Q.00:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on the merits of the deletion or undeletion. However, heads up that any administrator who closes this DRV with an "overturn" result may be subject to threats of real-life harassment organized on an external site. Any admin whose life circumstances would leave him or her vulnerable to such harassment should leave the closing to someone else. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that if the article is undeleted, I hope people will be watching it. I gather there have been problems with it before - let's avoid that happening again. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I might point out the Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks - while a block wouldn't apply in this case, the admins on that list are there because they either are protected from or don't care about the possible issues of harassment. If there is a need for immediate closure, it may be a good idea to contact one of those admins.
As for the later comment (darn edit conflicts), several comments I noticed in my brief skimming of the discussion seemed to favor indefinite full protection. Hersfold(t/a/c)01:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any valid reason for indefinite full protection - not for mainspace articles. It's certainly not something that I can see covered by Wikipedia:Protection policy. Are there any comparable examples of mainspeace articles being indefinitely fully protected? Semi-protection would seem not unreasonable, though. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Afd is not on the basis of consensus as far as the talk page indicates and seems to be a very small number of interested parties pushing for deletion. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Don Murphy AFD
I've requested speedy closure. Thank you to all who participated; the community has spoken. Would a thoroughly uninvolved administrator please review the discussion? As nominator I think it's highly unlikely to yield any other outcome than keep, but some Wikipedians disagree and would like this to run its course. Please select whatever course is most likely to minimize the drama quotient and explain it enough to address concerns. Respectfully, DurovaCharge!17:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, from the lack of comments opposing the lifting of the topic ban, that it can be inferred that the ban is now indeed null and void? —Kurykh04:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the ban instead turns into a probationary period, which would likely elevate back into a ban should he devolve back into his initial habits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone look at what happened here. There are tags as old as early as April 06, but the earliest edit is Aug 07 with a edit summary of (non-vio). I think it might be a botched undelete.--BirgitteSB15:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see there was an article called od (Unix) which was deleted (with "prod"). Could somebody please copy the content somewhere where I can take a look at it, for example User:Alan012/od (Unix), so I can see if there is anything that can usefully be incorporated into an article? Many thanks. — Alan✉23:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: after I saw the content, I asked for the prod-ded article to be restored, so I'm about to request speedy deletion of the userfied version. This means that if you see a redlink above, the original request is still effectively resolved. — Alan✉12:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hierarchy
I am a new user, after test editing I decided to try and figure out how things are run around here. I have learned about Admins and Crats and followed the discussion boards. I have watched the founders page, and learned from arb com and the foundation. It seems the more I explore the site the more I get confused as to how things are done around here. My basic question is: Who is in charge around here? Sometimes it seems that the inmates are running the asylum and sometimes it seems that things are well run. Maybe it will all of a sudden become clear, but for now it is ponderous. -- Preceding unsigned commentadd to03:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Think of Wikipedia like a Wild West cattle drive. Except you have about 5 million cattle (editors) being herded by about 1400 cowboys (admins). And the drive is being made from L.A to New York. And oh, there's no map of the route but each cowboy is fairly sure they know where we're all supposed to end up. Tabercil (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for hierarchy isn't so helpful. I think of it as an adhocracy or a do-ocracy: it's really run by whomever does the work. A real-world analog is the unconference, and a direct influence is the world of open-source software. Basically, you are in charge to the extent that you work hard and play well with others. Another way to think of it is like a party. The Foundation is hosting, and we admins clean up spills and throw out the occasional troublemaker. But as far as creating the fun goes, it's all up to the attendees. William Pietri (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't have a true hierarchy. Some users have the ability to do more than others, but follow certain rules while doing so. Most admin actions are done on the request of users with no more power than you, who understand the underlying rules. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu07:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For most decisions, no one is in charge; anyone can make an edit; anyone can revert an edit. In case of a dispute, whoever has the time and/or friends can make "their" edit stick - temporarily. You gain friends by doing things that help build the encyclopedia and community. It's a highly social game of "Let's write an encyclopedia" with Karma points earned and lost depending on others' perceptions of whether you are helping or hurting the project. The object is to have fun and create a really great free gift for all mankind in the form of an encyclopedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 07:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:LasikFraud has been indefinitely blocked for making legal threats
"I certainly hope, and will request that the victim add in Wikipedia editors as defendants."
"I will send all of this material over to one of the victim's attorneys so that the victim can also sue Wikipedia's editors for defamation."
All this excitement after only four edits on Wikipedia. The editor appears to have a crusade against Glenn Hagele, who is the director of this Council. The article on the Council has been the scene of BLP-related controversy before. (For example, see this link to Bearian's archives, or do a Whatlinkshere on the Council's article to see all the noticeboard discussions). I welcome review of this block by other admins. Feel free to modify or undo my actions in this case. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The complete overhaul of the db- series of CSD templates has just caused a large number of User-talk: pages to appear on CAT:CSD which had previously been tagged for months or even years without being categorised. Just a reminder to be careful with these as many of them shouldn't be deleted if they contain useful discussion in the history. Happy‑melon12:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the fact that this user appears to be an administrator [9], his act is very unprofessional. He keeps removing justified tags from the articles missing citations [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18], and from the articles needing expansion [19].
He's been following me around for the past few days, harassing me on my talk page, including reverting edits in my user space, calling me a troll [20], and assuming bad faith in general [21].
Someone who has the time should keep an eye on him so he doesn't do the same to any other contributing editor, since someone who is new might get easily discouraged to make further contributions by such tactics as User:Tone employs here. Gooddays (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A commment from my side: while this user's intents seem good at first glance, he is in fact using inappropriate tagging several times. Besides, he is reverting my edits without explanation, as can be seen from the evidences above. Any attempts to begin a constructive debate have failed so far and have been met either by blanking the comments of the talkpage (including in a really innovative way, check the history) or writing answers that I don't consider constructive (but this is in fact my opinion). Regarding stalking, I feel it is my duty as an admin to act in such cases. Since my attempts to have a civilised debate have failed (including asking a neutral user for opinion), it may really be the best way to clear things here. I can't WP:AGF here anymore. Thank you for your attention. --Tone15:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably mention that I am already the third user that Goddays reported here, instead of contacting them on talkpages in the first place. While I have no problems with the templates, this is clear exaggerating. --Tone15:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – In Tone’s defense – Tone had asked me to look at several of the articles in question, regarding tagging of the articles for Clean-up – Maintenance – Citations and other tags placed by Gooddays. Where some of the tags justified, yes. However, a good many were asking for inline citations on one-sentence stubs, where the articles were referenced. Others were placed on well-referenced pieces, where the tags were not necessary. I also reviewed Gooddays Talk Page and saw no incivility from Tone comments. On the other hand, I found Gooddays comments boarding on Lawyering. I believe Gooddays is a new – extremely eager editor, that may have just taking the job of tagging a bit overboard. Thanks. ShoesssSTalk15:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything that I'd call an attack from Tone, but I do disagree with the removal of most of the tags in the provided diffs. (one line stubs don't need an inline ref) Inline references might not be a "must", but they are certainly preferred, and I don't see any good reason for removing the tags when they're valid. --Onorem♠Dil15:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, footnotes are certainly preferred, when they make sense. In case of diffs mentioned above, the articles are mostly written on one to three sources and since there are no sentences that would need footnotes more than other, the user in question should probably tell where he wants to have them. Maybe an interesting thing to point out, all the users reported and almost all the articles tagged are connected to Slovenia. Just a curious remark. --Tone16:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the above first comment by User:Tone, I would suggest checking the links in my first post first. For example, I have never reverted anyone's edits, while he has done so to me, which is clearly evident from the links above, and other anonymous users several times [22][23][24][25][26], and even threatening them and calling them vandals [27].
As for my talk page, I have never removed a message from any administrator. I have only removed old messages when I have considered the matter closed. However, User:Tone obviously had other plans, first by preventing me to manage my own user space by reverting me yet again, and then starting a dispute after I have requested on MfD for the archive to be deleted. Gooddays (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The anonymous user that I warned as a vandal blanked a talkpage of a registered user (what qualifies as vandalism - unless this is the same user, not logged in - in that case he was also reverting my edits what is in direct opposition with the claim above). For every edit I reverted, I provided an edit summary explaining my actions. I don't think I went into any kind of dispute regarding the MFD. For further info, removing comments from the talkpage by means of deleting them is not preferred with exception of vandalism, which comments of User:Andrejj were not. --Tone16:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After I reminded him that he should not delete comments by other users, he archieved it and made a request to delete (that was granted here). What was there before were questions about his edits by other users (namely AndrejJ and Kaktus999) - with no answer. --Tone16:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the policy is on these things, but such attitude from the Wikipedia administrators shouldn't be taken so lightly. I wish you all a good day, especially to the rest of the Wikipedia contributors who have to put up with stuff like this, which seems to be normal around here. Gooddays (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have never interacted with Tone before and I explained to you politely on your talk page about the practice regarding talk pages. It should never have been deleted to begin with, however, the deleting admin would not have known not to delete it because the page was moved to a the title "old" and not "archive". Seraphim♥Whipp23:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I mark this resolved? 06:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
On the page Central Europe, some Romanian users are seeing to it that their preferred version of the page is the only one displayed. Their actions include removing fact tags without providing sources and removing any sources inserted by other users that they don't agree with. Based on one single source, a report by the NATO, they have monopolised the article to include Romania in Central Europe. While I don't dispute the source, it's completely opposite to many other sources. To take two relatively respected sources, the CIA Factbook and the United Nations, both place Romania in Eastern Europe. In other words, it's rather obvious we're dealing with conflicting sources. Instead of respecting that, the Romanian users repeatedly delete all allusions to other interpretations of Central Europe than their preferred one. Because of their activity, they can keep the page in the way they want and only today they have repeatedly deleted all fact tags and mentioning of the United Nations and build the page on this single source. Efforts to point out the existance of other sources on the talk page come to nothing. I'd prefer if someone would look into this, it's a pretty classic example of a Wikipedia fault - a small group of dedicated users can in fact hijack a page to edit out all other sources they don't agree with. JdeJ (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note, requests seem to be backing up at the Arbitration Enforcement queue. These often don't require actual arbitrators or clerks, they just require an "uninvolved admin" to examine the complaint and determine whether or not a breach of sanctions has occurred, and if so, implement the remedy as indicated. If any admins here have time, it would be helpful to address a complaint or two, since some of the normal admins monitoring that page seem to be on break. Thanks, Elonka19:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Racism and vandalism, no response from admins
Resolved
– User blocked for 1 week
Today has been the most bizarre day I've seen at Wikipedia, as some admins (notable ÐeadΣyeДrrow)) have come pretty close to giving a blanket excuse for extensive racism and vandalism. The user Marc KJH came off a block today and has been involved in multiple events. These include
Repeatedly making highly racist remarks, calling Romas "gypises", the rough European equivalent of calling Afro-Americans "niggers". The user even moved the article Roma people to "gypsies". [37]
Going to WP:AIV to delete a report on himself [38]
Changing other editor's comments on talk pages. [39]
Deleting tags placed by other users without providing any sources [40], [41]
These are just some of the actions of the user during one single day, the first after coming off a block. Other users have accused him of harassing them, I'm not the one to make that call. Many users have also drawn attention to all this on AIV and his actions don't surprise me all that much, actions like these are commonplace. What surprises me all the more is that admins such as ÐeadΣyeДrrow appear to be happy to view all this as just a common "content dispute". Would DeadEyeArrow or any other admin please explain how racist abuse, deleting reports and changing other editor's comments amount to "content dispute"? I will be direct and say that I find DeadEyeArrow highly unsuitable to be an administrator. I can't know if he didn't bother to check the actions of the user or if he seriously consider all of this a content dispute. Whichever the case, he should perhaps consider paying more attention to how he uses his administrator tools in the future. JdeJ (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The use of Gypsy is hardly considered a term on par with the n-word. Certainly a less preferred term, but not offensive as that. The correct American analogy is the use of the term "Indian" in place of "Native American"... Other than that, I don't see any massively eggregious violations here. Certainly some borderline disruption, such as the removing of the tags, and the page move itself is probably a bad idea. He may well deserve another block for being generally disruptive, but I see nothing that could be charactized as "racist abuse".--Jayron32.talk.contribs20:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree with Jayron32, Gypsy is used by the media and by encyclopedic sources, there are many music bands from this ethnic group calling themselves gypsies, e.g. "Gypsy Kings' .. the word gypsy is definettly not a racist word Rezistenta (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, he was definately rude in places(such as talking in all caps, and being confrontational in tone), but I don't see any real personal attacks. If you could provide specific diffs, we could judge for ourselves what he has done wrong. However, when I look at his last 20 or so contribs, they look to be in good faith and I don't see directly what the problem is. Again, a recent diff showing the specific problem would go a LONG way towards convincing admins that action is needed here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs20:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He is harassing User:Cordless Larry by calling him a vandal when he's actually the one vandalising. I gave him a only warning to stop because he was already on a final warning. He responded by leaving me this message on my talk page. I took this as a personal attack on my character. In any case, this will be my last word on the subject as im now going offline. Thank you TheProf | Talk21:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its blockable when you consider he was already on a final warning. And im not the only person he was doing it to. And he has been distruptive all day. Okay, now im going to watch the rest of Air Crash Investigation. Be back online later! TheProf | Talk21:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfullt disagree with the idea of Gypsy not being racist, or at least derogatory. Yes, it is sometimes used by the Romas themselves as in the case of Gypsy Kings, and there are many African-Americans rappers using the n-word. JdeJ (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would an ordinary English speaker know that the term "gypsy" is regarded this way? Is this view universal? If not, is blocking a user a good way to make a [[[WP:POINT|point]] about how language should be used? Similarly, it should be noted that most people today would prefer the term "African-American" rather than "Afro-American", but this doesn't make a person who uses the out-of-date term an automatic vandal. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The IP duplicated the sections on the page and then corrected itself. So, when you tried to revert, there was nothing to fix, and thus no revision would be saved. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two weeks ago this editor used the Alfadog account to evade a weeklong block on Justanother. Arguably, he may also have been using the Alfadog account to tread the margins of an arbitration remedy. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS placed all Scientology-related articles on parole. In rejecting his unblock request, a reviewing administrator cited his use of IP addresses as possibly gaming the arbitration ruling.
I have had conflicts with Justanother before and was recently warned to tread lightly. So I ask for an uninvolved administrator to review this situation and determine whether additional remedies are appropriate at this time. It is my desire to adhere strictly to site standards, so please inform me if anything I've done here is questionable. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the result was "Confirmed - Hulk is Alfadog. Justanother hasn't edited at all recently, but if those IPs are known Justanother IP ranges, then yyes. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 04:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)"
I recommend banning Justallofthem. Justanother has caused more than their fair share of trouble around this wiki, and I think this socking shows that our good faith has been gamed. JehochmanTalk11:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Justanother posted 5 separate unblock requests for the block that he evaded on the Alfadog account.[42][43][44][45][46] In some of those diffs you'll see he's calling administrators idiots. That is in keeping with his general conduct. Here's a condescending post he made during the same block, where he explains the fine points of a crude insult he had posted in January: Durova dear, you are misintepreting (again). I called WikiNews a crack whore, not Cirt. Surely that should be clear from the title of the post "WikiNews is a crack whore". How you twist that around to me comparing Cirt to a crack whore is beyond me.[47] Well, maybe I had been persuaded by another of Justanother's IPs where he made the connection Are you on drugs, Cirt?[48] I consider this conduct to be highly disruptive and wasteful of good volunteers' time. Cirt is one of the site's most productive content contributors; he's one of only two editors who have earned the Alexander the Great edition triple crown (15 DYKs, 15GAs, 15 pieces of featured content). Justanother's positive contributions have been minimal. I hear that he was helpful at a mediation about a year ago. He has contributed no DYKs, no GAs, no featured content, was one of the principal reasons why Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS couldn't be resolved at the community level and had to go to arbitration, and appears to have abandoned his main account in favor of sockpuppets. I tried to help mentor him for a DYK recently and he just didn't follow through with it. His main account user space claims to be on Wikibreak for personal reasons, but clearly that is not true. He's actively using the undisclosed Alfadog account plus IP addresses.[49][50] 9 IPs were listed at the checkuser; it is unknown how many others he may also have used. I'll recuse myself from any opinion about a ban, but suggest at minimum that he be restricted to one account. It's cumbersome to track so many socks, and the checkuser makes it definite that he has not been acting in good faith. DurovaCharge!17:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping you would provide the backstory, Durova. Justanother has been bothering Cirt for a long time. We should put a firm stop to this behavior. Now that socks have been used, there is no point in further attempts at mentorship. JehochmanTalk19:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was the admin who threw that weeklong block on Justanother (my first major admin act, I think). Looking at that Checkuser, it's time to end this foolishness. Past time, actually. Endorsing Jehochman's proposal. Blueboy9620:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JH
If you and Durova insist on continuing with this community ban silliness
that will only lead to my filing an arb case and everyone wasting more time,
would you at least please have the common courtesy to unblock my Alfadog
account so that I can try to save all of us the bother by addressing this
now at AN.
Barring that, then please post this request at AN in the thread.
Thanks
JA
Clarification regarding Justanother's statement: I have not requested or endorsed a community ban on Justanother; I have recused myself from that aspect of the discussion. All I have asked is that he be restricted to one account. His main account has not been blocked and he offers no rationale for declining to use it, other than the false rationale that he's on break. DurovaCharge!20:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response from Justanother
First, I am not evading a block. Justanother is not blocked and I have the right to create an account and to edit. I am going to keep this short. For the TL;DR version please see User talk:Alfadog#Unblock. My User:Alfadog account is a legitimate account in accordance with WP:SOCK. There was no breach of policy (other than a minor issue of (4) innocuous edits three weeks ago that played no part in the checkuser request) and the checkuser should have been declined. Once the connection was made no sanction was warranted other than perhaps a warning about the incident three weeks ago. End of story. If you want more data please look at the talk page thread I link to above. If someone wants to community ban me (without providing one diff or evidence of previous WP:DR, I see) then we can have a more extensive discussion. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restrictions placed
As an uninvolved administrator in this matter, I have placed Justanother/Justallofthem/whatever, under the following restrictions:
Identify all accounts you have operated or continue to operate
Choose one of those accounts to edit from
All other accounts are to be indefinitely blocked
If other cases of sockpuppetry are found, that account is indefinitely blocked, and the primary account is to be blocked for a finite period of time
If you want a wikilink to an article that is named in the singular form, place that word in brackets, and put the suffix after. For example, in this particular case, all that was needed was to change [[cannons]] to [[cannon]]s. Not sure I've explained this all that well; hopefully I made sense. GlassCobra06:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the rights and wrong of the edit war itself, those wanting removal have right on their side: Wikipedia:Non-free content - Policy section, point #9 Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace... As this is a template (not userspace, but not also not an article), I've removed the image. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 10:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The three revert rule does not apply to removing blatant copyright violations, which includes non free images outside the mainspace. J Milburn (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Going over three undos, especially with experienced users tends to result in unplesantness, I think it's better to have a neutral figure like REDVEЯS to make the edit from what can be seen on all sides as a place of objectivity Fasach Nua (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vote tampering and canvassing
Can somebody take an appropriate action against User:Harjk. He called for a vote to remove the "Background" section on article Religious violence in India and then canvassed other users to influence the voting (see [51][52]).
Once voting started, he modified a comment against the vote into a vote for removal of the Background section (see [53]).
Now he claims that he has a consensus when the fact is that 2 users have opposed the voting process itself and 1 user wants the entire article to be deleted. Please see Talk:Religious_violence_in_India#Voting_commenced_.28Background_section.29. This is a new user who has indulged in such activities continuously.
Additionally User:Harjk has also used fowl language aginst other editors (see [54])
This is User:Harjk. It is all baseless allegations and disrupting. The issue has been already discussed at the talk page of the article. It all started when User:Desione is pushing pov forks and inappropriate stuff to the article with no reason given. Please check the history also (near to 3RR vio), he is acting against consensus and disrupting others. --Tomb of the Unknown Warriortomb10:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see there is anything wrong in this. Harjk did not change the comment of the other editor, he only changed the format which he described in his edit summary "added comment list-wise". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was my comment. It was not a "vote" "for" the straw poll. Calling it a change is format is just plain lying. It was border line vandalism and it was when I decided the user is a troll.
I am busy these days, so I cannot provide all the diffs right now, nor arrange them nicely. I have tried to list the important ones here.
But there is no doubt that vote canvassing and trolling is all that is being done by User:Harjk. Here are some relevant ones:
Here is the discussion that I wanted to have. [55] Please note that I started the discussion and my edit is 13th of March, 22:50 pm - already almost 14th of March. Also note the amount of "discussion" in that section. I think one can say that it is null. Also note that "Background" section was added on 15th of march by User:Desione.
When I return on 17th of march, a straw poll has been started by Harjk.[56] at 6:47 am of 17th of March.
Then Harjk goes on to recruit favorable votes.[57][58][59] But as the guy who started the vote, no message is given to me. The canvassing is removed later, but the message has been sent.
When I object to voting process, and add a comment against "vote for deletion of text by User:Ubardak because he didn't like the way it was written,[60] and strongly highlighting of that fact that voting is not a way for resolving content dipute per WP:VOTE and WP:PSD, I am reverted with summary "vandalism".[61]
When I give a warning (please note that I use warning templates - just to avoid being harassed over choice of words),[62] I am told that I am a "sneaky vandal",[63] and that voting is still ok and necessary, per (behold!) WP:VOTE and WP:PSD. To me, it looks like a petty attempt to mock me.
Then I am given the reason for poll: violation of 3RR. (I haven't even touched the article until now!) [64]
While "formatting", my comment is "formatted" into a vote for deletion. [65] I didn't notice it until I was notified by User:Desione.(See User_talk:Anupamsr - history was deleted so only administrators can see it).
I clearly state that I reject this poll because Wikipedia is not a democracy, and that a discussion is the way to resolve conflict.[66] In reply I am warned for disrupting the voting process.[67] Notice how from the guy who started the section for discussion, I am now repeatedly being accused of "causing disruption" and "vandalism". The whole scenario is enough to tell you that neither User:Otolemur_crassicaudatus nor User:Harjk want to discuss anything. They just want to rule over the article for their POV pushing.
After I got to know that my comment was changed into a vote "for", I arrive at the conclusion that the user is just a troll - it has all the classic signs: 1) no attempt to discuss (beside calling it a "POV fork". Please some one tell me what does it mean. What is a "POV fork"?) 2) random "formatting" for misrepresentation 3) name calling assholebrainless 4) trying to entice retroactive name-calling by baseless allegations of vandalism/disruption/accusing "established editors" again I simply don't have time for this!
At the end, the voting is conveniently closed without discussion, with my vote added as "for deletion", [70] even though I have clearly stated before that "it is a rejection of poll". The only discussion that happened in the whole procedure was 'whether polling should happen or not', and the guy with most comments wins.
I tagged a couple of talkpages as G8 candidates and was surprised to see that such regular maintenance was taking so long to process. Then I discovered that the template was apparently not placing the tagged page into Category:Candidates for speedy deletion or any other speedy-delete category, which means that no administrator will ever be alerted.
Mmm, there's some weird syntax going on here... I have removed the delaying code for now, if someone has the time to look into it... -- lucasbfrtalk12:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that the parameter in question is supposed to be filled in by another template with subst... I've never heard of a delay applying to G8 though (I've seen various makeshift solutions around C1 templates). —Random832 (contribs) 14:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was introduced in the CSD-template overhaul; clearly it wasn't tested thoroughly enough. It's supposed to be an optional seven-day time delay - if the current timestamp is passed as the first unnamed parameter, it introduced a seven-day delay. If not, it should categorise immediately. As you say, it clearly wasn't working. Hmn..... Happy‑melon17:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Phillipines radio stations - bad names, cut-and-paste, possible COI
User:Pinoybandwagon had created a series of articles on radio stations, using their brand names as article titles rather than the call letters. I moved some of these to the proper titles, explaining why both in the edit summary and in a note on the editor's talk page. Instead of responding to me in any way, PBW's simply blanked the articles under their proper names and done a cut-and-paste to the old names, with no explanation or justification under the edit summary. Example: Campus Radio General Santos alias DXCJ. It is possible that Bandwagon works for the owning company, as all of the stations involved seem to be part of the same network of station ownership. --Orange Mike | Talk12:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have previously reported this user here for ongoing incivilty and disruption, particularly regarding anything having to do with Foo Fighters, Dave Grohl or any music article related to this band. IPs used (to my knowledge) are listed again below, and there may be more (the IP at the bottom of the list is the most recent). Something needs to be done here - a range block was placed on these IPs before which put a band-aid on the situation but the belligerent behavior started right back up again when the block expired. Myself and several other editors have been dealing with this person for months now, it would be nice to get a few more fresh pairs of eyes on this situation if possible. Please and thank you in advance.
There are many examples and diffs in my prior incident entry, but below are some of the newest examples of disruption (see both edit summaries and comments on article Talk Pages). - eo (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright.
Our concern was based on the rickross.com's copyright disclaimer:
Some of the material hosted on rickross.com is for sale online by the legitimate owners.
Religion News Blog has been mentioned as a similar case; in particular, this subpagewas proposed on the Prem Rawat talk page as a suitable external link. Here too it seems that copyright owners' permission is not routinely sought:
Here are my thoughts on the matter, for what they are worth.
The evidence connecting Davenbelle/Moby Dick to Jack Merridew is fairly strong and coherent. The chances there being 2 separate editors from Bali whose contributions fit so well together? Not high. Dmcdevit has described this one as being "the likely side of possible". Moby Dick is a banned user: ergo, Davenbelle is banned, ergo, any future sockpuppets should be blocked under policy.
However, Davenbelle though he may be, Jack Merridew seems to have conducted himself in a restrained manner. He has not been blocked during his time here, has acted in good faith and civilly, and his interactions with White Cat have not been unrestrainedly hostile (and White Cat certainly can be infuriating, not to mention outright disruptive). If this is Davenbelle, it is a Davenbelle who has behaved far better than his previous incarnations. There may well be a case for saying "Ok, fine, you're Davenbelle, but if you keep behaving yourself we can handle you. Just to stick to this one account and we'll let bygones be bygones".
Ok jokes aside, from what I understand this will affect all MediaWiki projects, what will happen when a admin tries to create a global account but his user name is already taken in other Wikis? - Caribbean~H.Q.22:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've got that edit through.... hehe... thanks devs, this is awesome! Own up then, who's forgotten passwords on obscure wikis? It took me five minutes to remember mine on http://test.wikipedia.org ("aaa" for future reference... :D) Happy‑melon23:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<sob> No-one is answering my question at the WP:VPT discussion. Everyone is making silly comments here. And I tried to find a (free) picture of hell freezing over and failed. Obscure passwords? Mine were all the same anyway, or I hadn't bothered to register other accounts. Hang on. Is that serious discussion? I meant to say THANK YOU DEVELOPERS! Carcharoth (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Signpost story said: "It will be enabled for all users at a later date, but in order to work out any bugs in the system, and roll the system out slowly, developers decided to limit the number of users who have initial access to it.". Carcharoth (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Important note
Just a note, if you are merging accounts, they all need to have the same username. If you need to have an account renamed, do so before merging your accounts as it is currently not possible for bureaucrats to rename an account to a name reserved by a global account. Mr.Z-man23:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a serious comment. I'm copying it to the place for serious discussion (though it is important enough to leave here as well). Carcharoth (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that where the account has made edits, the stewards are only able to perform requests where the wiki has no local bureaucrats or local crats haven't responded to requests after a reasonable period of time. WjBscribe23:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could some kind person point me towards the usurption request pages at Commons and fr-Wikipedia and (if possible) a translation of the French Wikipedia one, if that exists? And do I need to attempt usurption on both Commons and fr or just Commons? (I have a differently named account on Commons, but no account on fr, and both Commons and fr have an account with the same name). Carcharoth (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it looks like the French Wikipedia doesn't offer usurption. From the page on renaming: "Il n’est pas possible de prendre un nom de compte déjà utilisé," translation: "It isn't possible to take the name of an account that's already been used." No mention on any exceptions to this. --Infophile(Talk)(Contribs)03:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think (but don't quote me on this) that ordinary usurping when you don't have any edits you want to claim, just involves renaming the other account to another name, taking the edits with them, and then you gaining that user name. I think that can happen after creating the global account. What can't happen is for you to have previously registered an account and want to rename that to a "global account name", and that can't be done (yet, and it may take a long time to happen), which is why renaming (to credit edits to your name) needs to take place before the global account is created. eg. I need to get my Commons:User:Carcharoth (Commons) edits renamed to Commons:User:Carcharoth, which involves a usurption request. Only then should I create the global account. But a straightforward usurption of the name, with no edits to rename to the name, is less of a problem. eg. I request fr:User:Carcharoth to be renamed after I create the global account, and then I can automatically login as Carcharoth on the French Wikipedia. I think. The Commons account is a problem for me, in that the passwords of en-Wikipedia Carcharoth will match the Commons one (I could change this to avoid confusing the system), but the usernames won't match, though a match for usernames will be found (but different passwords). Did that last bit make any sense? Carcharoth (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The implementation of Unified Login may mean that bureaucrats should agree to perform renames in circumstances where our practice is currently to decline them. I have created the above page in an attempt to get a feel for community consensus on SUL and how far bureaucrats should go to accommodate SUL-based rename requests. Input from all welcome and appreciated. WjBscribe01:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be facetious, but there is a rather glaring typo in the page name. Will add a more useful comment at the page if I can get in there before someone jumps in and moves it. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I just moved the page Novak Djokovic, because it was listed in the backlog at WP:RM. As you can see at Talk:Novak Djokovic, this was a controversial move proposal, and an editor has requested that I get review on this decision from other admins. I can comment on my reasons for closing as I did, but in order not to prejudice the review, I'll hold off on that. I'll be back in 4 hours. -GTBacchus(talk)01:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked as an obvious sockpuppet of Catgnat, the evidence linking the two would be the name (obviously) and the creation of Asshole Fish, which is now protected from creation. Cheers, Spebi (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
