Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive162

Huge lag?
Anyone else having problems with some huge lag? Like, on the order of 6374 seconds? Is someone deleting the main page or something like that? Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 19:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see . Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 19:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh... I'd just gone over there and found it too.  Silly me for not checking both boards before posting.  At least I can see stuff from after 14:30 UTC now.  It's headed down, so it'll be gone eventually.  Cheers.  lifebaka++ 19:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage
Could someone take care of this Thanks! — Navy  Blue  21:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hardly a huge backlog. If it gets over 24 hours, bring it here, but I will look at it now. -- Rodhull andemu  22:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They are all ✅ Tiptoety  talk 22:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Valentino movie spammer - heads up
Heads up! Please keep an eye on User talk:206.252.134.18. Pushing their company's product, as they say they have a movie coming out this year. I deleted their article Valentino Movie - "Valentino: The Last Emperor (2008) as G12-Copyright infringement, and then found this request on my page wich reads: "I am writing directly from the production company so that we may be able to establish this page on wikipedia". I also reverted their many very spammy edits to Valentino Garavani (an article about somebody I have never heard of before). I warned them accordingly and put them in my watchlist, but another set of eyes would be good since I don't think they are done yet. -- Alexf42 23:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that this is probably the same person as, which was blocked as a promotional username. - Icewedge (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Likely. WP:RFCU will be helpful.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Gene Poole is adding "sock warnings" to my user page
Three times, Gene Poole added to my user page  , although he didn't give any explanation why he believes that I might be a sockpuppet. I asked Gene Poole to stop adding that template to my user page, but he continues to do so. Adam233 (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Queried the accuser here. I suppose I should also notify him of this thread ;-) Tan      39  01:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Crown Dependency of Forvik for the reasoning of Adam233 being a sockpuppet. You might also want to check that account's edit history, too. Adam233 has created an account strictly for the prosecution of the Crown Dependency of Forvik article. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 01:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So what? IP's can't create AfD's; it's not unreasonable that an IP editor saw an article he wanted to nominate for deletion, and created an account so he could do it.  In any case, an SPA isn't the same as a sock puppet.  If you can prove sockpuppetry, do it, but right now you're edit warring to keep the tag on his page, and in my opinion, you and Gene are flirting with 3RR. --barneca (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Gene has already breached 3RR and is assuming bad faith without proving that Adam233 is an sockpuppet. IMO if Gene thought that Adam233 is a sockpuppet then he should have taken it to WP:SSP then to tag. Bidgee (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And this looks like gaming the system to me. --barneca (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. We should probably wait until the accuser can speak his piece before we get the blowtorches out, tho... Tan      39  01:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Adam233 is an obvious single-purpose sock account, deliberately created to subvert the consensus process concerning Crown Dependency of Forvik. He has made no edits whatsoever beyond nominating this article for deletion. Multiple editors support the contention that the account is disruptive sock, and have asked for a permanent block to be applied. I suggest you do so as a matter of urgency, as the account's continued disruption of WP is both inappropriate and abusive. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In what way has Adam233 been disruptive? Bidgee (talk) 01:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You need evidence, diffs, some sort of cohesive report, Gene, if you are going to try to get this user blocked. Right now, this just looks bad on your part. Tan      39  01:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * More than sufficient evidence is in plain sight. I suggest you review it, rather than attacking those responsible for bringing the matter to notice. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You're just making yourself bad ATM WP:BITE "# Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet". If a lot of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary. # Think hard before calling newcomers Single-purpose account" Bidgee (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * By multiple people, I assume you mean you and the other two people you canvassed? I've never understood the theory that a new account, created with the obvious purpose of nominating an article for AfD, is wrong; how else is an IP supposed to nominate an article for deletion?  Or is it your position that an IP editor isn't supposed to be able to nominate an article for deletion?  And an AfD, by definition, is not an attempt to circumvent consensus.  I have absolutely no opinion on that article, and for all I know you have secret evidence that actually proves it is a sockpuppet of someone.  But if all you've got is three fans of that article labelling opponents SPA's and socks because, well, the three of you all agree, then I don't buy it. --barneca (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You may consider it gaming, but I would have acted the same even if Onecanadasquarebishopsgate and Gene Poole hadn't written any of that. They both knew that I was following the article and AfD and it's been blatantly obvious from the beginning where my support was. I originally thought that the guy who started the merge proposal was puppetmaster, but I'm thinking now that it may be someone else inspired by that failed proposal. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 02:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to concede that it might not be a sock puppet account (although I do still feel it is). However it's quite obvious to be a single-purpose account with a disruptive agenda. (And I hope this doesn't take five or six attempts to post again, edit conflicts are lame.) --coldacid (talk|contrib) 02:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:BITE "Think hard before calling newcomers Single-purpose account" and assume good faith. Bidgee (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I did think hard. The facts line up, S.P.A. Had Adam233 also contributed in any meaningful way outside the AfD, I could assume good faith, even despite him not doing so with the AfD. I normally assume good faith, but watching the behaviour of others turns assumptions in different ways. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 02:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For all we know is that Adam233 may have edited with an IP in the past and thought to get an account who may or may not make vauled contributions in the future. Bidgee (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's true, but without being an admin I'll never know because I don't get to see what IPs Adam233 is editing from. Which likewise makes it hard to gather evidence supporting or dismissing the sockpuppet theory, without reverting to nothing but circumstantial evidence. If Adam233 turns out to be contributing in a helpful way in the future, then my SPA opinion would hold no merit; but until that happens, I'm sticking to my opinion as so far all I've seen is the AfD, the accusations, and the arguments.
 * TBH, this whole thing is just disgusting me. But being tangled up in it now (and having a couple accusations fired my way for my troubles!) it's not like I can just pull out until the whole issue is resolved. And I just wanted to work on my own articles! --coldacid (talk|contrib) 03:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Adam is innocent until proven guilty. Bidgee (talk) 06:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The lesson here is that if you have evidence of sock puppetry, real evidence, file a suspected sock puppet report. If it's an obvious sock, somebody will come along and tag the account, and maybe block it too. There is no rush. Jehochman Talk 02:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The only "gaming" being perpetrated here is that of the sock account. And if by "canvassed" you mean "other editors - including several editors who have actually taken the oppposing view in the AfD discussion" - who all just happen to share the opinion that an account with the following characterustics is not editing in good faith: (a) appears at the conclusion of a spirited merge discussion, the consensus of which was not to merge, and immediately nominates the article in question for deletion. (b) makes no other edits to WP unrelated to that AfD, before or since. Then I'm afraid you need to wake up and smell the roses. --Gene_poole (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's not how it works. Here is how it will go down: You will either file a suspected sock report and let the administrators do the work, or this will be closed down and you'll just have to live with it. Your poor attitude here at ANI and your relentless application of a disputed and non-discussed tag to a userpage is not a desirable trait.
 * The ball is in your court, but if you refuse to point out specific infractions, or refuse to file an SSP report, then there is not much that we can (or will) do. A single purpose account is not always necessarily bad, although I personally frown upon it; the user may have been editing from an IP address prior, but there is no way for us to determine it unless you do some of the legwork for us. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  02:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard
Does this violate WP:OUTING? Corvus cornix talk  06:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


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

Can I get a second opinion?
Can I get a second opinion on this? (BHG is away at the moment so won't be in a position to comment). Legitimate request or start-of-a-spammer? – iride  scent  20:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If it was completely unsolicited, as it appears at first glance, I would say this is most definitely spam. Tan      39  20:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * N.B. I've deliberately not notified Aignacio09 of this thread; if it's considered a legitimate request, there doesn't seem a need to WP:BITE a new account by the first thread on their talkpage being an ANI-notice; they can always be advised later if The Consensus thinks there's a concern. – iride  scent  20:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Without any evidence of prior communication, this feels and reads like spam. No need to make a big deal about it if Aignacio09 doesn't edit again, though.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's spam. Likely a test. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wiktionary still broken ?
Hi. I raised an issue Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive158 a couple of weeks ago about the automatic Wikipedia -> Wiktionary transwiki process being possibly broken - I can't see any change in the situation - is there anything that can be done, or is it all dependent on the bot's owner fixing it ? CultureDrone (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the talk message didn't work, I sent him an email. I'm sorry this is taking so long, but without the bot operator's help we can't get anywhere on this.  Cheers.  lifebaka++ 12:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This one has been going nowhere for a long time. :) I've posted about it here and at village pump. I wrote Connel about it in May. On May 24th, he told me that CopyToWiktionaryBot had been disabled until a false positives situation with Special:Import could be fixed. He noted that Wiktionary sysops can manually import a couple of articles, if they seem important. At the time I noticed it, there were about 30 days worth of backlog. I rather imagine that's compounded dramatically by now, though I haven't looked. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, there's nothing wrong with the bot - the problem seems to be with Special:Import - which fails in at least 2 out of 5 attempts..(see bug #9911 ) I ran the import process manually a few times to check if the problem still exists, and it does.. The bot can't run as long as Special:Import is flaky. I'll work on doing the imports manually (this requires +sysop on Wiktionary, which I have). -- Versa  geek  13:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

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

I recently had a similar case like this on my talk page (a user tried to move an article but was told that the target was protected against creation even though there was nothing in the log; when I tried to do it with my non-sysop sock, it worked just fine). So in the interest of a sanity check/identifying any potential bugs, I thought I'd ask here in the hopes that someone knows something I don't. -- jonny - m t  08:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Protection logs stay with the title that was protected so you need to look for a record of page moves in the page history. The second situation was probably due to a temporary error in the title blacklist. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) The article was moved a couple of times, and the protection log doesn't move with it. See . That's probably a bug. If I knew how bugzilla worked I'd report it. Neıl   ☄   08:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, that make a good deal of sense. I was doubly confused because I didn't see anything in the move log for the page, either.  I also came to the conclusion that the MediaWiki blacklist was to blame for the second case, but I was wondering about two such cases happening in close proximity.  I'll take a closer look later on and submit a bug report.  Thanks! -- jonny - m  t  08:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Updating the protection/deletion logs with every page-move would cause more confusion than it would prevent. If this happened it would appear that (or at least be indistinguishable from a situation where) the title was protected from creation before anything was moved to it, and for deletion logs changing this behavior would make it harder to find any still-deleted edits. On the other hand a new type of "movedto" log entry would be much more helpful. Currently if A is moved to B, there is a move log entry associated with A saying "so-and-so moved A to B" but nothing in the log for B, so fixing this is probably the best approach. — CharlotteWebb 16:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sanjao sam san...
I noticed that this article title was blacklisted. This is the title of Montenegrin singer Sako Polumenta newest album. AFAIK, the article for the album never existed. I request that this article be removed from the blacklist as I plan to add much about this album. Thank you. --Prevalis (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Any reason why this got blacklisted in the first place? If nothing controversial, I see no problem with removing. --Tone 22:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sanjao sam san... is not salted. Go ahead and create the article, there is nothing to unprotect. EdJohnston (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you try to create it you get a Titleblacklist warning. I would guess it's the line ".*[^\p{L}\d ]{3}.* # Disallows three consecutive characters that are not letters (in any script), numbers, or (normal) spaces" catching the ... at the end of the title. Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 22:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

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


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

Caitlin202
A new user,, is making some seemingly uninformed moves and edits. None of it appears to be intentional vandalism, but the fact that she created an article with the advert template included in the initial revision is a bit weird. So far, the majority of her edits had to be cleaned up by others, and she doesn't appear very responsive. Not sure what should be done here, but I'd appreciate an admin taking a quick look over her contribs. user:Everyme 05:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Block unresponsive, uninformed moves and edits with poor edit summaries. --ENAIC (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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


 * I thought at first there was a possibility that this was an experienced user putting up a front of cluelessness as a mask, but after looking into her edits more thoroughly, I doubt that now. I concur that this is most probably a inexperienced young editor needing some guidance. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  07:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Echo that. I believe she is genuinely inexperienced and probably of relatively young age, but she's well-intentioned throughout, and not uncivil or anything. But she clearly needs some guideance and we should keep an eye on her contribs and offer her feedback, at least for a little while. (I believe admins are generally more suited to the task of mentoring, maybe one of you guys could offer her mentorship, or rather: adoption?) user:Everyme 14:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are familiar enough with RFA to know that admins aren't as a rule "better suited" for anything. — CharlotteWebb 16:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but I personally hold them to higher standards nevertheless. user:Everyme 17:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Totally lost, need help
I know I may come off annoying, constantly asking for help, because it is not a pressing matter, it's just that I am new. Yes, I have read the basics of Wikipedia, I just need guidance. This is a big encyclopedia, much bigger than a paper-based one, since this is the internet and there are no bounds, so it will take quite a while to adjust to the vastness of it. Again, please forgive my pestering. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 09:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest the adopt a user scheme. You'll be 'adopted' by an experienced user where they'll teach you the ropes. Or you can insert the tag followed by a question and someone will be along to respond :) ——RyanLupin • (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * When you use, make sure you place it on your talk page, otherwise you may not get a response. Cheers,  caknuck  °  is not used to being the voice of reason  16:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikisports
I have come across a new wiki project wikisports, which currently has four pages, the main page, the community portal, my user page and a page I will nominate for deletion entitled "Dolphins". I did some work on Wikiversity but I am excited by the prospect of a new project. I am bringing this to the attention of the admins on wikipedia because I would like some help from people with experience to help me promote this project so more people will join and discuss a plan of action for getting it off the ground. I would appreciate any advice and assistance that people may offer. Signing off, Donek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.184.10.72 (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not a Wikimedia wiki. John Reaves 20:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Who owns it? Can we get a wikimedia one? 79.184.31.4 (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the administrator's noticeboard for the English Wikipedia. It's here to provide a place for discussions which may be of interest to the administrators of this project.
 * For Wikipedia's general sports project, see WikiProject Sports.
 * For general information about what you can do to promote a website, you might try the reference desk. --Onorem♠Dil 20:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

LessHeard Van U
Why is it that I always end up with a Wikipedia Reviewer on my page? LessHeard is restoring a comment that was made post-archive after I removed it. The comment adds nothing to the discussion. When I removed the post-archived comment again, I end up with LessHeard on my Talk page threatening to block, so that he can restore the post-archive, non-substantive comment. -- David  Shankbone  19:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just drop it. Others added to the thread after it was archived. No-one is helped by this bickering. DuncanHill (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody added after User:MZMcBride archived, and if anybody is keeping this alive at this point, it is LessHeard, who is warning to block me and encouraging the User to rejigger his post. That's not dropping it, which I had done.  And I agree - nobody is enjoying this, and that includes me. -- David  Shankbone  19:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how my participating on Wikipedia Review has anything to do with the matter, unless it is a pre-emptive attempt to make my actions appear in a unfavourable light - or is simply a personal attack based on your own bias'. You do seem incapable of conducting yourself with any discernable degree of civility.
 * However, back to the matter regarding my warning; you removed a good faith edit (expressing some distaste toward your conduct) that was made a minute after MZMcBride archived the discussion - which the editor may not have been aware of. Moreover, you removed the edit with a tool (which one uses "popups"?) which is supposed to be only for vandalism. This is bad faith taken to extreme, so I reverted the inappropriate edit, warned you for the bad faith, and invited the other editor to remove or amend their edit. I notice that you have not had the manners to comment to the other editor regarding the matter, but then this seems to be habit with you since I have not yet received notice from you regarding this thread either.
 * Now, other than the fact I post on a board that has been frequented by you in the recent past, please advise me where I acted against policy or guidelines? Don't let your unfamiliarity with the detail hold you back. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have been having a discussion with the other editor on his talk page. Regarding the Wikipedia Review reference, it is simply curious that every time there is an issue, one of you guys end up on my talk page.  I mean, there's what, 1500 admins and how millions of Users, the vast majority of whom don't frequent that site?  Never mind.  As I told Tom, Sandy said some pretty horrible things about what was a heartfelt memorial of someone who had been a good friend, but with whom I had a falling out but expected to be friends with again.  My ire with Sandy is more than justified, and yes, almost any interaction the two of us have will more than devolve.  I have existed, and made friends, on this project for years, so regarding your personal attack that "You do seem incapable of conducting yourself with any discernable degree of civility", it's a bit difficult when the Wikipedia Review crowd is always on my talk page, nit-picking, most recently in defense of Gretab, the same user who spread pedophilia rumors on the Wikipedia Review about a Wikimedian, amongst other atrocities.  Yes, it's difficult to be civil when we have admins defending people like that on my Talk page and on ANI, over nit-picky issues.  -- David  Shankbone  20:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your discussion with the other editor is after I initially contacted them about their edit - a little late in the day, and no comment about using an anti-vandalism tool to revert them. As regards civility, it seems that I have previously taken exception to your manner of interacting with editors; I once blocked you for a week (quickly enough lifted by a third party) for referring to an editor as a cunt. I really don't care for the way you decide when and if you are going to abide by the same rules as everyone else on the basis of with which you are friends. As for your continuing harping on about my presence on Wikipedia Review, if how you conduct yourself with some people is the basis on how you judge the suitability of other websites then WR is manifestly a better place to gain your approbation.
 * Again, as against your conduct today and (as exampled above) in the past, please can you show where I have abused my position as an admin as regards the rules, policies and guidelines. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, LessHeard, I think the animosity and group pile-on of the Wikipedia Review folks have been more than demonstrated in the past (Uh, SlimVirgin, JzG, Durova, JoshuaZ, etc. etc. etc.), and I take your words in that light, and I imagine most other people in the know do as well. Calling someone with Merkin in their user name a cunt hardly seems beyond the bounds of reason, but whatever.  -- David  Shankbone  20:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see Shankbone managed to work in again, on yet another thread, 1) my name, and 2) a link to his blog that reveals private correspondence.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're so fascinated by yourself, it's the easiest way to get you to take notice. You're like Bloody Mary that way, except nobody has to turn off the lights, and they simply have to casually reference you.  I'll be posting a link to my memorial on my Talk page, as well.  -- David  Shankbone  20:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is Shankbone exempt from WP:NPA? He's got quite a few on me alone in just a couple of days.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is Sandy exempt from personal attacks? She's made some pretty horrible ones in the past few days.  -- David  Shankbone  21:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Can Sandy and David both stop please? You are both making yourselves look bad, and I am sure that you are upsetting and hurting a lot of other editors by your current choice of argument. DuncanHill (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * AGree with DH (shit, that's like twice today!). Get a room, you two.  AN is not the venue for either of you.  Tell each other to fuck off via email, eh?  Maybe make a subpage that no one else knows about?  You're both better than this.   Keeper    76  21:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems clear to me that both Sandy and David need to move away from the issue of jeffpw, and move away from each other, or be forcibly pulled apart. Wily D 21:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In a situation where Sandy has said she plans to contact a deceased person's sister to trash me, I don't know what anyone else expect. I loved Jeffpw, and we were very good friends for a long time, and had a ridiculously stupid falling out over something dumb like Santa Claus (I realize that never happens to anyone else on Wikipedia).  But, if anyone really thinks that I'm not going to vehemently defend myself in reference to someone I admired and respected, who passed away, when I have someone who has only popped into my wiki life to talk about my "unnecessary photos", and that person is now going to write that deceased person's sister?!  Sandy has offended me beyond belief, and I have Debbie's e-mail as well.  It is Sandy who sparked this.  -- David  Shankbone  21:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly frank, starting is not what is interesting. You're both escalating this conflict, and I would be loath to see either (or both) of you try to drag his sister into it.
 * Look, Sandy disagreed with your action, strongly, but it wasn't a Personal Attack by the standards we usually use - she did comment on the action, not the actor. I don't see why she was offended, but that's neither here nor there.  And the two of you barking at each other won't do anything but hurt more feelings and escalate things more. Go do something that doesn't involve Sandy or Jeff.  Sandy needs to do the same.  You have offended Sandy.  She has offended you.  Nobody wants to sort the two of you out because neither of you it at your best.
 * No punishments is a principle we've all agreed to stick to. So guilt isn't the issue.  Current behaviour is.  If you drop this and Sandy doesn't, then something can be done.  But now, there's nothing. Wily D  21:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm closing my participation in this matter down - David Shankbone is as incapable of giving example of how I might have misinterpreted policy as he is admitting that he is wrong in any matter in which he has ignored or violated WP rules and guidelines. I feel that it paints a fairly wretched picture of a fairly wretched individual. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Right back at you, Wikipedia Review guy. -- David  Shankbone  21:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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 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    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.

Sandy Georgia (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.  Sandy Georgia  (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.) Sandy Georgia  (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)

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)

Please disambig Nightline at Iran Air Flight 655
✅

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


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

Admin Bot
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? Hers fold  (t/a/c) 04:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Shouldn't this be at the crat noticeboard?  bibliomaniac 1  5  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 <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  06:10, 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! <b style="font-family:Neuropol; color:#003366;">HoosierState</b><sup style="font-family:Latha; color:#003366;">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)

Correct use of Editing restrictions
I've started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions. Could admins and others interested comment over there? Carcharoth (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia landing page
✅ The wikipedia landing page still reflects 2.49 M articles although we hit 2.5 a couple days ago. Someone might want to take a look at the counter.--Kumioko (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Now updated. Thanks, The   Helpful   One  (Review) 19:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Using admin powers to prevent vandalism on a page admin is involved in heavily?
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? --M ASEM 13:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If its obvious vandalism, rather than possible content dispute or good faith poor editing, then protecting the encyclopedia from disruption is paramount. If blocking the vandal is inappropriate, if the account is ip hopping or there are too many of them then protecting the article should be considered. After taking the action it should then be brought to an admin board for a sanity check. If it is a grey area regarding vandalism, just a third opinion might suffice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


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


 * There are over a thousand active admins. It should always be possible to find someone uninvolved. DGG (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can I ask which article? And no, I am not going there to vandalize it. Thank you. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 00:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Gadget-Twinkle.js
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 <tt>noAllow</tt> variable. The specifics can be found on MediaWiki:Gadget-Twinkle.js. Thanks, —<b style="color:#002BB8">Animum</b> (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 <tt>for</tt> loop that would return <tt>true</tt> only if the username were contained within the pipes, but the array suggestion is superior. —<b style="color:#002BB8">Animum</b> (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm... would  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! [[Image:Face-smile.svg|25px]] (I always forget that indexOf can be used with arrays... *head-desks*.) —<b style="color:#002BB8">Animum</b> (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? —<b style="color:#002BB8">Animum</b> (talk) 00:17, 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? — Realist  2  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... —  Realist  2  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)

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)

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? — Realist  2  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... —  Realist  2  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)

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)

Yeah, that crap again
Anyone wanna give me a hand with this Zodiac crap? I can't seem to find the compromised template. Tan     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      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)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  19:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The template vandal uses IPs that are open proxies. Please block the IP long-term and then list at WP:OP for verification. Thatcher 12:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Cedjje deleting Nudve citations from article Self-hating Jew
Those are not my citation, but ratherNudve's.

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


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

Self-hating Jew - cited history is being deleted
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). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction. Today it's up to 26 Google hits, with 2 from Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * It looks to me like Shabazz is in the correct; I don't see anything in that article to support that "'Auto-Anti-Semitism'" is even a commonly used academic term, let alone the predominant one. <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">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.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">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. <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  01:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * There is a consensus to merge Auto-Anti-Semitism into Self-hating Jews.
 * Shevashalosh doesn't agree. Right, but he doens't give the reasons on the talk page but come here to complain when this is applied.
 * He has been here for 4 months, is considered highly disruptive by many editors and has already not respected 3RR rules 2 times.
 * It is up to you guys, but the "sysop community attitude" with Shevashalosh could be considered completely in disagreement with WP:CIVIL for other contributors who take care of content issues.
 * The more you wait, the stronger he feels, and the less he listens.
 * Personnaly, I have just received personnal attacks when I tried to discuss with him.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


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

Erronous Title on a page - editing do not allow to correct
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.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">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 <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:00, 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). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction. Today it's up to 26 Google hits, with 2 from Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * It looks to me like Shabazz is in the correct; I don't see anything in that article to support that "'Auto-Anti-Semitism'" is even a commonly used academic term, let alone the predominant one. <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">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.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">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. <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  01:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * There is a consensus to merge Auto-Anti-Semitism into Self-hating Jews.
 * Shevashalosh doesn't agree. Right, but he doens't give the reasons on the talk page but come here to complain when this is applied.
 * He has been here for 4 months, is considered highly disruptive by many editors and has already not respected 3RR rules 2 times.
 * It is up to you guys, but the "sysop community attitude" with Shevashalosh could be considered completely in disagreement with WP:CIVIL for other contributors who take care of content issues.
 * The more you wait, the stronger he feels, and the less he listens.
 * Personnaly, I have just received personnal attacks when I tried to discuss with him.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


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

Page hacked
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. Paragon  12321  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)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">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. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 19:24, 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.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">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 <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion never done.
Articles_for_deletion/Terror_Titans ended a month ago; the article was never deleted. Please follow up? Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why on Earth are you posting here? The closing admin's talk page is that way. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Check the log, it was deleted. It was later restored. Mr.Z-man 17:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


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


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

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

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

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


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

Backlog at 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, ' 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: Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 00:14, 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:. 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:. And here is the evidence that User:Sam_Sloan is the Sam Sloan which user:SusanPolgar just sued: More information on this new suit by [user:SusanPolgar] may be found at Susan Polgar. 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"  and now you're claiming I am Sam Sloan. It's enough to make a person Schizophrenic. 01:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.199.179 (talk)

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

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


 * Nothing to see here: Susan Polgar is not editing, it doesn't matter. Mango juice talk 05:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


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

Multiple sockpuppetry results
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 :)

The first sockfarm consists of, , and. 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. The full list of his socks will shortly be posted at 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,, for six months. Comments are welcome. Best, Moreschi (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a fair bit of following things where they led with this one, and Moreschi did a lot of researching contribs and tagging as we went... although I got to use the shiny new "block multiple accounts" CU functionality. The case has been updated with a list. I think we got them all, but I might be wrong. Please advise if you spot odd things. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 00:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice work guys, but I think we might've missed a few. Specifically, the following usernames: Outparcels/Forestgomp/Stuffla/Glidesclear
 * They're all refugees from the Africoid page. Note in particular the use of 'Reversed' in the edit summaries of Outparcels and the confirmed sockpuppet Cobracommanderp7. I'd be really surprised if it's not the same person. Soupforone (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Those were checked. Block on behaviour if you feel that's appropriate. However I did not announce a technical connection. I choose to say no more. ++Lar: t/c 01:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks again for your help. Best, Soupforone (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've blocked Outparcels on behaviour pattern. He's stale, but so are Stuffla/Forestgomp/Glidesclear. If any of these start editing again, let me know and I'll block. Moreschi (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Protecting the main page
Someone undo this please; the article is on the main page. Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( 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 <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 03:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've notified him of your unprotection at any rate, Wizardman. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 10:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

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 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." 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  I left him a note explaining were he can find the case thus defend himself and what the purpose of a checkuser is.
 * 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."; "Your moral and intuitive compass is upside down." ; "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."; "How is the witch hunt going?"; 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: 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." ""; 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.. A attempt by user:Justin A Kuntz to explain him the ceckuser process and had no effect.
 * Romaioi continued to insult: "that he was happy to lie just to see me implicated."; and even to come to my talkpage to insult me ""; 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)" - at this point I had enough and filed a report about his myriads of insults at WP:AN/I 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 ; 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 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.".
 * 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."
 * 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."
 * 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." 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???
 * 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." 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." 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." 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 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 and User:Narson 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!
 * 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, 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.  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 , as were his ANI claims.


 * 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. 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 . 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:

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:
 * 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:
 * 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 (, .... & Noclador demonstated my lack of procedural knowledge above (dif). Even, User:Bahamut0013''' saw that I did NOT know the procedures in his edit above.
 * 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.

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 User:Bahamut0013 for misunderstanding.
 * User: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  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, and presented it as evidence. (My contributions have always been on display for people to see – 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! He is not performing a valuable service if he continues to target innocent users!


 * 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.


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


 * One more thing. It's really annoying, at least to me, that you copy my whole signature when referring to me by name. I understand that it's simply a copy and paste job because I have some code that could be complicated to those no familiar with it. It would be more appropriate to simply copy and paste User:Bahamut0013 from now on. Other than that, I think I've said all that I reasonably can. Thanks.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣   11:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed topic-ban

 * Per the consensus below and as noted at WP:RESTRICT, ResearchEditor is banned from Satanic ritual abuse, closely related articles, and their respective talkpages... there is no consensus for any other editing restrictions. With the timeframe of the restrictions not being discussed, I am implementing the ban for Moreschi's suggested duration of six months. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap"><big style="color:#900">east718 //  talk  //  email  // 12:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

aka aka  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)

small>
 * 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.  &mdash; 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, Talk:Satanic_ritual_abuse, Talk:Multiple_personality_controversy, Talk:Multiple_personality_controversy

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 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)in 6) 7) in 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) 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. Krakatoa  Katie  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. Mango juice 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?  &mdash; 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)


 * You have to understand that if this is a judgement to be made by someone impartial, they may not be able to understand all the facts in the level of detail you might want. You seem to want a judge to arbitrate the article, having failed to convince other interested

editors to agree to the changes you want. Well, WP:ARBCOM can review your topic ban but they won't make a ruling on the article. FYI, I consider myself neutral to this dispute and here is why I'm concluding that you are still POV pushing. (1) Excepting, possibly, some unrelated edits, your main goal is to support the theory that SRA is real. You say this is to balance the article but POV pushers often say similar things. You are firmly on a particular side of the issue and you want the balance to change in that direction. This shows that you favor one POV. (2) There is a lot of history here, but from the recent events, I can gather that you have raised similar issues over and over again and have failed to get consensus behind them. You may be coming up with new ways of making similar arguments, but from what I see, you are just being very persistent in pursuing your goal. (3) You've tried conflict resolution (eg NPOVN) but when the result isn't what you want you dismiss the process. (4) I don't believe this is a case of a special-interest cabal blocking legitimate balancing, because you are the only editor heavily involved here who seems to have a single-minded focus, and many of those opposing you are involved in many areas of Wikipedia. I assume good faith of those opposing you, as a group, given a lack of any reason to believe otherwise. What this all adds up to is that you have an agenda and you are pushing to achieve it, and pushing more and more when you fail. That is exactly what POV pushing is, which is why you need to be stopped. You may have thought that by wearing down the editors of the article, you might get your way: in fact, when the community loses its collective patience with you, you will typically get banned, particuarly when there is a POV pushing issue involved. I think that if you want a better analysis than this from neutral parties, you will have to try appealing to arbcom. Mango juice talk 05:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Help needed at CAT:CSD
There are around 100 pages at CAT:CSD, and I haven't been able to catch up. Please come help there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * CSD is, for a few moments at least, totally empty. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Idiopathic inflammatory diseases
Can someone help me figure out the status of this article and what to do with it? It's linked to an AFD for a separate but similar article, which closed as delete. At the moment I'm inclined to create a new AFD for it and go from there. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone got there already. I had a convo with User:DRosenbach during the AFD (on my talkpage, now archived here), and offered to userfy the article if it ended up deleted, and he wanted to attempt to salvage a viable article out of it.  Would anyone be opposed to a temporary userfication?   Keeper    76  15:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like no one objects, and I patiently waited, like 25 minutes! :-) Userfied at User:DRosenbach/Idiopathic inflammatory diseases.   Keeper    76  16:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Unuserfied. Don't ask :-)  I should've waited 26 minutes.  But hey, I got a barnstar outta all this :-)    Keeper    76  16:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Supercharge (band)
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. -- Rodhull andemu  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... -- Rodhull andemu  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 -- Rodhull andemu  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. -- Rodhull andemu  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)

If the main Supercharge page was deleted, surely The Best Of Supercharge (album) should be deleted as well? Glass  Cobra  22:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible occulted spam in interwiki starting from en.wiki
Hi, I am an user and sysop in it.wiki. Rarely I write in en.wiki, mainly to update links to interwiki. I hope the adminship of en.wiki will check about a possible spam in progress starting from en.wiki and moving in other wikipedias.

Late June Korazim registered in en.wiki. In his user page I read that he's an Israelian contributor and in his contributions I see he's working on pharmacology and medicine articles related.

Some important references: (*) articles created by Korazim
 * history of Femarelle (DT56a)(*)
 * history of Selective estrogen receptor modulator
 * history of Hot flash
 * history of Phytoserm (*)

In these articles he wrote about Femarelle, a new drug and posted many references derived from same authors which work in medical/scientific institutes in Israel. About the drug I read only positive effects and not bad effects. I read also the dosage of drug (1 capsule, twice daily; can be taken with or without food) and the commercial names. Note that the title is "Femarelle (DT56a)" (commercial name + scientific name) and not "DT56a" (only the scientific name). What's the difference with the instructions of commercial kits? (in Italy we tell bugiardino or foglietto illustrativo, sorry for my bad English). If the contest stop here well, I could be too souspicious, but I found that after some events in other Wikipedias.

From July to August the new articles and edits of Korazim was propagated in the same mode to pt.wiki, fr.wiki (some articles removed here) and it.wiki by an user recently registered as Marbahur in those wikipedias. Other contributes, in the same time, are in he.wiki but I don't know if they derived from the same source. Marbahur is not able to speak in Italian but is able to translate from English to Portuguese, Italian, and French and from Portuguese to Italian. I think all that's very strange... So, in it.wiki we've put the main article (about the drug Femarelle) in simple deletion procedure in 15th of August. 18 hours later a new user was registered as Neutral6: he speak correctly Italian and supports the edits of Marbahub and done new articles or edits translated from pt.wiki about same topics. We are started a check user because I think they are the same person.

Also: please note that Femarelle was launched early 2008 in Italy and Israel, I don't know about other countries.

I think all that is very dangerous for the neutrality of Wikipedia, so I suggest to check the neutrality of those recent edits in en.wiki.

Thanks for your attention. Greetings --gian_d —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm note sure what the problem is with this editor. At .en, there's not problem with articles on pharmaceuticals. None of the articles you mentioned have any obvious spam problems from what I can see. Unless there's an obvious COI problem -- I don't see any allegations of this editor either working for the pharm company who created this drug or writing any of the scientific papers that were cited -- then no admin action is needed here. Cheers,  caknuck <sub style="color:black;">°  is not used to being the voice of reason  19:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. We have a more restrictive policy about pharmaceutical articles, thanks :-) --gian_d (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Osm agha
can you protect my own page and talk page from editing by anonymous users, this ip address 41.234.227.103 insulted me using some vulgar words in arabic like خول - اهبل - حيوان --Osm agha (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you translate that for us non-Arabic speakers? Google Translate is giving me “Authorized - Hubble - Zoo” and I don’t recognize anything vulgar in those words. — Travis talk  15:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Userpage semi-protected indefinitely as we do this normally on request. The talk page hasn't had significant recent vandalism (or indeed many edits at all) so I'm leaving that alone for the time being. Stifle (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

أهبل means stupid or asshole حيوان means animal خول means immoral. use babylon search engine --Osm agha (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

my page is still unprotected, and i hope that you ban this ip because of his repetitive offensive behavior --Osm agha (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

oh, you have protected only my own page. i hope someone protect my talk page either --Osm agha (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the vandal came back, on yet another IP address, to vandalize your talk page again after your first post here, I've semi-protected your talk page for 2 weeks. --barneca (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

thank you and i hope this will stop the vandalism --Osm agha (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

FC Barcelona article showing a red lock icon instead of grey even though it is semi-p
I just noticed that FC Barcelona is showing a red lock icon instead of a grey one, even though it is semi'd and shown with:  . The template has the proper icon, so no clue why I see it in red here. Anyone know, or is it my browser cache? -- Alexf42 19:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Same here. What's more, when I edit and preview the article, the grey lock appears for a second, and then it turns into a red lock. Very odd. - Face 20:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the fully protected transcluded templates has not properly noincluded the lock icon. – xeno  ( talk ) 20:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oddly, this only seems to affect FC Barcelona. Other semi-protected pages display the correct icon. So what does FC Barcelona has which others do not have? Cheers, Face 20:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said above, FC Barcelona is transcluding a fully protected template that has not properly supressing the pp-template from being transcluded. There's so many of them transcluded that it's tough to find which one it is. – xeno  ( talk ) 20:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Got it! It was Template:Famous players which had a pp-template for some reason. Fixed. Cheers, Face 20:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Nice work, I was too lazy busy to find it myself =) – xeno  ( talk ) 20:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)