User talk:JBW/Archive 59

Archive 55

←

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

→

Archive 65

Buckshot06 making an accusation of bad faith

Disruptive editing fits my issue, so here goes. In unblocking User:Lihaas, you have just rewarded someone who lied twice in their edit summary about an edit on a contentious topic. Can you explain your thinking as to why you wish to assist people who lie about their edits? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: Would you like to rephrase that as a polite message explaining why you think that I was mistaken? Assuming bad faith to the extent of accusinmg me of "wish[ing] to assist people who lie about their edits" is not a constructive approach. If you would like to ask me civilly, assuming good faith, I will be perfectly willing to "explain my thinking": there are several things I can say about it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, you may not have been completely aware of the nature of the edit that I blocked him for. It's plain and simple - he said it was unreferenced and it had an in-line citation right in the middle of it. With that in mind, would be very interested to learn more about your philosophy of working with difficult editors. I am not intending to impune you or accuse you of bad faith, I am interested in the way you think these things through. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Buckshot06:Having read your latest message, I set out to write an answer, setting out some of my thoughts on the matter. As I was drafting my message, I periodically checked various aspects of the relevant editing history, to check that I got my facts right, and didn't inadvertently say things that weren't quite right. In the course of doing so, I found facts which I had not been aware of, which materially changed my view of the case. A consequence of this is that the later parts of my message are written from a very different point of view than the earlier parts. However, it took me a considerable time to research and draft the message, and I am unwilling to spend yet more time on it, so the following is that message, as it emerged.

OK, I accept that you don't wish to accuse me of bad faith, and presumably you responded hastily when you suggested that I "wish to assist people who lie about their edits".

Normally, as you are no doubt aware, it is not considered acceptable to block an editor for one disputed edit: in the first instance, one uses other approaches, such as reverting the edit, explaining to the editor what one thinks is wrong with that edit, etc. Many times I have seen editors giving blatant and unambiguous lies in edit summaries to try to hide the nature of their editing. On such occasions, I have posted messages to the editors' talk pages warning them about it. So, we have to consider the particular circumstances of this case, to see whether there is any justification for treating it differently. Looking at the situation, I did indeed find reasons for treating this case differently from typical examples of "blatant and unambiguous lies in edit summaries". The first thing I noticed was that the supposed citation is not formatted in the accepted way for Wikipedia references, and in itself is incomplete, consisting as it does of just a surname and some numbers, which look like a year of publication and a couple of page numbers. I searched through all the other references to see if there is a complete reference to the same work, so that the one involved here is implicitly an "op cit". I found six other references that mention Holliday, but none of them gives enough information to be able to identify the work referenced. Eventually, I discovered that below the very long reference list in the article there is a section listing three works used as references, including one by Holliday. It would have been a matter of a couple of seconds' work to find that if I had had any reason to expect there to be such a section listing referenced works, separate from the citation list, but since that is not the usual way of dealing with references on Wikipedia, it was not what I immediately looked for, and it took me a while to find it. Without that section, the content that Lihaas removed would indeed have been "unsourced", as the source would not have been identified in theh article, so is it possible that the edit summary was not a lie, but a good faith mistake? An easy way to find out: ask Lihaas. (It is also possible that Lihaas had some other reason for regarding the content as unsourced, such as that the work cited does not say quite what the content of the article said. If so, the edit summary was very poor, as just "unsourced" does not adequately explain the reason, but again, one can ask.) So I conclude that at worst we have one deliberately misleading edit summary, and at best we have one good faith mistake: even the "at worst" case justifies a warning, not an immediate block.

Jim Cartar has drawn attention to the editor's block log in defence of your block. The editor had five previous blocks, not counting one that was reversed as a mistake. Certainly, an editor with a long history of blocks is likely, other things being equal, to be given less leeway than an editor who has never been blocked: for example, Lihaas has three times been blocked for edit warring, so at the slightest beginning of an edit warring it would, in my opinion, be reasonable to slap an immediate long-term block, without any further warning or discussion. However, none of the reasons given for earlier blocks has any connection, as far as I can see, with the reason given for the block in this case, so they are of little if any relevance. One edit, which was unrelated to reasons for previous blocks, and which may have been good faith, does not bring us even to the borderline for an immediate block without discussion, so we are not in the area where giving more or less leeway comes into effect.

With this edit you gave the edit summary "Remove indistinct material which covers state of war, not effect on army - quasi vandalism", but in fact the main effect of the edit was to add a substantial amount of material. (The edit increased the length of the article by 4032 characters.) Are we to conclude that you were "lying", and that it would have been reasonable for any administrator noticing the edit to immediately block you? Or should we assume that it was a good faith edit in which you took a little less care over what you put in the edit summary than you might ideally have done? If we are to assume good faith in that seriously misleading edit summary, is it not reasonable to extend the same assumption of good faith to another editor who gives a misleading edit summary?

However, what disturbs me most about this whole affair is that, following your request for me to explain my thinking, I did further checking of the history of the article, and I discovered that the content which you removed had first been placed in the article by you: [1], and that you had already at least twice restored the content after it had been removed by other editors: [2], [3], and following the block which you placed, you restored the content again: [4]. That is a clear and totally unambiguous violation of WP:INVOLVED. There is absolutely no circumstance whatever in which an administrator should use the administrative tools to gain an advantage over another editor in a dispute over content inserted by that administrator, even if the administrator is convinced that he or she is right in the dispute. The correct thing to do is to seek an independent second opinion, either by taking the case to ANI or by consulting an individual uninvolved administrator. You did not do that, but the editor you blocked did, quite properly, request a review by another administrator here, and I made that independent review. In the course of investigating the history to make the review, I also noticed that you had a significant history of blocking editors over edits to articles where you had been active in editing. As you know, I assumed good faith, and gave you what was intended to be a friendly warning (I hope it came over that way) "to be careful, to avoid giving the impression that you are using blocks to protect your own preferred versions of articles". Following your request for me to explain my thinking on the matter, I looked yet further into the history, and I discovered not only the fact that, at least in this case, you were not just "giving the impression" of doing that, but you were actually doing it. I have also come across several examples of misleading edit summaries in your editing (I have given one example above), some of them with far less room, as far as I can see, for thinking they may be good faith errors than there is in the one single edit summary which you described as "lying", and which you used as justification for blocking an editor who had reverted you. When I posted on your talk page I sincerely thought that you had acted hastily but in good faith, and my message to you was a good faith attempt to help you realise that you needed to think more carefully about such blocks. In the light of what I have now seen, I am less confident that I was right in reading the situation in that way. I have not yet checked the history of the other cases I saw where you blocked editors over edits to articles where you were involved, so I don't know whether there were similar problems there, but even in the present case, I can envisage some administrators regarding your action as being enough to justify blocking you for admin abuse. I would be interested to learn what you think of this issue. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing - here we go again!

Good afternoon, JBW -- You may recall, a month ago, blocking the IP address 74.135.53.96 for disruptive editing. (He also had at least two socks, 98.28.115.67 and 74.135.63.65.) No sooner has that block expired than he is back at it -- making the same edits to the same article, Jeff Smith (chef). I guess he needs a longer block, since he has ignored every message that I (and others) have left for him -- but that's obviously your call. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

In the hour or two since the message above, he has also re-vandalized other articles that he has disrupted in the past -- contrib list is here. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@DoctorJoeE: I've blocked 74.135.53.96 for 3 months, and also updated the block on 98.28.115.67 to finish at the same time. 74.135.63.65 has not edited for over four months, and I can't see any evidence that this editor has used any other IP addresses. If you see any more of the same, either via block evasion by another IP address or by the same IP addresses after the block ends, please let me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 12:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Mail call

You've got some. Worm^TT(talk) 11:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Still nothing I'm afraid though I've had 2-3 emails from other sources in the mean time. Worm^TT(talk) 14:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson, did you get my further reply? Also, do you have any issue with me passing the information you provided on to Arbcom? Cheers Worm^TT(talk) 07:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: Certainly you can pass the info on to ArbCom. I was assuming that you would do so, though I suppose I should have explicitly said so. However, I think that an ArbCom member has already unblocked the account. Even so, it may be worth letting the members know what my thinking on the matter was. If you do want to investigate the matter any further, I would suggest looking at edit summaries, including those about what is "allowed" (sometimes with spelling errors). The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll pass that on. Worm^TT(talk) 07:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Di Virgilio

Dear James,

Sorry to bother you. My name is Larry Cohen, and like you I am a professor of mathematics - http://www.lead411.com/Lawrence_Cohenphd_11497776.html

I was working on Joseph Di Virgilio' page as I am an avid follower of this individual. In my view he is worthy of a page and I was hoping that someone other than me would help elaborate given his accomplishments. I admit that he manages a portion of my assets and he is an incredible person given the capital markets predictions he has made and so forth. I am new to Wikipedia (frankly I find it a bit complicated) and from time to time I check the page to see if anyone added to my content, and recently noticed you deleted it. I hereby ask, is there any chance you can restore it? I will do my best to update it and then submit for review. Please advice at your convenience.

Thank you in advance and best regards, Larry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larrycohen745 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The page that you created was ostensibly an "articles for creation" draft, and if that page were the only thing involved, I would happily restore it for you to edit, though I would also give you a warning that in view of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, you are probably not the right person to be writing it. However, that page is not the only issue. It is merely one of a string of pages that have been created over the years about this person, and looking at the history of the various pages concerned and the accounts that created them, it is clear that there has been a persistent attempt to have a page on the subject in order to publicise and promote him, despite the fact that it has repeatedly been decided that the subject is unsuitable. You created a page about Di Virgilio a few months short of two years ago, and in that time no attempt has been made to submit the draft for review as a potential article. In conjunction with the history of the other attempts to get pages about him, this looked very much as though it had been decided that leaving the page indefinitely as an "Articles for creation" draft was a way of evading the inevitable deletion which would once again happen if it were posted as an article. Whether or not that was your intention, the effect was to use an "Articles for creation" draft as a way of keeping a rejected article indefinitely, which is not the purpose of "Articles for creation". The draft is so very closely similar to at least one of the earlier attempts to create a Wikipedia page on this subject that it is unambiguously clear that you are either the same person who made that earlier attempt or someone working in collaboration with that person. You must therefore have been aware that essentially the same page that you created had already been deleted. The page, in its various incarnations, was clearly promotional in character (some incarnations more so than others), which is in itself sufficient to make it unacceptable as a page on Wikipedia. However, while promotional character of a page can be corrected by rewriting, there is another problem which cannot be corrected by any amount of rewriting. There is no evidence whatever, either in the various versions of the page that have been created on Wikipedia nor, as far as my searches indicate, anywhere else, that Joseph Di Virgilio comes anywhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. As such, no page about him, no matter how it may be written, can be suitable as a Wikipedia article. Using pages which are ostensibly drafts for articles, but which are never actually submitted for moving into article space, and which would never be accepted if they were submitted, amounts to using Wikipedia as a free web host, to host pages unsuitable for the encyclopaedia, whether that is the intention or not. At least one earlier version of the page was deleted by an administrator who regarded it as abuse of Wikipedia by using it as a web host, and at least one was deleted by an administrator who regarded it as unambiguous use of Wikipedia for promotion; I concur with both those assessments. Attempts have been made since 2007 to get a page about this person on Wikipedia: it is time to accept that Wikipedia is not the place to promote him, and that you should do so somewhere else. If, after you have had the issues spelled out to you in this much detail, you or anyone else working with you persists in trying to use Wikipedia to host a promotional page on this person who does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards, it is possible that you may be blocked from editing, since it will look as though your only purpose is to use Wikipedia to promote him. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

T–Team F.C.

I see you declined the speedy deletion of T–Team F.C.. I think what Streambsm was saying in their speedy deletion nomination was that the article was no longer needed because they just cut and pasted the content to a new name, T-Team F.C., a difference in a dash. I converted that back to the redirect. GB fan 12:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@GB fan: Thanks a lot for the clarification. The copy paste move was unacceptable, so I will delete it and explain to the editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@GB fan: I see that you have already told the editor that copy-paste moves are unacceptable. I should have checked first. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Streambsm has also made a number of other cut-and-paste moves, including Khairul Ramadhan Zauwawi to Khairul Ramadhan, Nazmi Faiz Mansor to Nazmi Mansor, Ahmad Azlan Zainal to Azlan Zainal, Wan Zack Haikal Wan Noor to Wan Zack Haikal and Mohd Aidil Zafuan Abdul Radzak to Aidil Zafuan. Thomas.W ^talk 13:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

And we both starting cleaning them up. GB fan 13:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Lol

Bobsy345 (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a worse thing wiki can do

How can you delete the company page simply with no reference., no issues of our presence at wiki., u guys don't deserve us with your bad thing of just deleting a page without any confirmation.

Regrets, Richards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.187.43.38 (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "confirmation"? Do you mean that the reason given for deletion was insufficient? If so, I can't possibly comment, as I don't know what page you are talking about. If you tell me what page you are referring to, I will give you what information I can. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Di Virgilio

Dear Mr. Watson. Thank you for your reply. I confirm that I tried to put the page together a couple of years ago with a friend (Mr. Abramov) who I gave up once the page was deleted back then. Anyhow, you make a good case. Not sure how to answer aside the fact that I will do my best to keep updating it only if you feel that it is worth restoring the page. I assumed that since as a hedge fund manager, Mr.Di Virgilio has made some meaningful macro-economic predictions and because he was a leading candidate for the Italian Parliament, these were relevant enough for Wikipedia. Can you please advise? Once again, thank you and best regards. Larrycohen745 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larrycohen745 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Taffe316

Hi. Could you have a look at possibly blocking User:Taffe316 as doesn't seem to contributing positively i.e. not explaining multiple times why he is reverting me. On Jamal Crawford, he has been edit warring, and despite my attempts to reason with him on the matter that he doesn't seem to care about, he continues to revert my edits, and based on the three revert rule, a block is a possibility. What do you think? DaHuzyBru (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

He seems to only care about contributing effectively to baseball articles. DaHuzyBru (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem is, the content that this user has been adding is not official and I think he knows that by know. Even from his edit summaries, it's clear he doesn't care. You can't block me for trying to keep that incorrect content out of an article – it's not like it's an edit war on two differing opinions. But yes, I know I was, thats why I gave in eventually. But whatever, just thought I'd bring it to your attention. DaHuzyBru (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@DaHuzyBru: Edit warring is edit warring, whether you are convinced that your edits are "right" or not. It is indeed "an edit war on two differing opinions", the fact that you personally consider one of the two opinions as unreasonable notwithstanding. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Please restore deleted page Anukriti Gusain.

Hi, I will appreciate if you restore deleted page Anukriti Gusain, now she is participating Miss Asia Pacific world 2014 from India. Let people have add more information. GKCH (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

If you can provide evidence that she now satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines then I suggest you take it up with the administrator who closed the AfD discussion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arvind_Iyer

Security concerns ( China ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeshbm (talk • contribs) 12:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

What security concerns? What does China have to do with it? Is there any information there which is not already publicly available? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes.Confidential security concerns.He is the maker of a film on Tibet.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapchi_(film)

deletion of Winona Lake History Center

i helped make the website for this class i am in, i understand you not lifting the block and not submitting ibut please i updated my email information would you please email me the content i am getting a grade for this please understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanfox01 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is no question of my sending content which I know full well is illegally copied, as I have explained on your talk page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not illegal holy crap man, i helped make the website, all i need is a simple preview to show my professor that is all, not asking anything more, i live in winona lake, i go to college here, all i need is to just see a preview — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanfox01 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The web site says "Copyright © 2001–2014 Grace College & Theological Seminary". Unfortunately, we get hundreds of people coming to Wikipedia and making false claims of being copyright holders, so we can't take the unsubstantiated word of someone who chooses to make a Wikipedia account. However, I suppose the part of the content that is at winonahistorycenter.com/about is available to you anyway, and the rest of it is not a copyright infringement, so I will email you a copy. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Bracket

This maybe minor, but you forgot to close bracket on this post.[5] I also wanted to thank you for making some of the very nice decisions on Wikipedia including the recent one, where you had unblocked Lihaas. OccultZone (Talk) 03:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: Thanks for reminding me about the bracket. Thanks also for your thanks: it's nice to occasionally get confirmation that at least some people appreciate my efforts. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Vaselineeeee

Vaselineeeee (talk · contribs) and Vaselineee (talk · contribs)

I only just spotted that the former is a sock of the indef-blocked latter - I failed to count the "e"s. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Boing!. I have upped the block to indef. Haven't heard from you for some time. No chance of a trip to Manchester on the 18th, I suppose? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Can't make it, I'm afraid - I'm pretty much housebound with family commitments at the moment. But I hope I'll be able to get to a meet or two later in the year. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vito Latora

Hello JamesBWatson,

I have noticed a comment of yours in the Talk page of Kevin Rutherford. I am writing you because I have some issues with one article I proposed for creation, and I believe that you could help me solving them.

The article for creation is about a scientist (link), and after its first submission thanks to the suggestions of Kevin I have improved it, properly following the guidelines. However, when I resubmitted the article for review, Kevin commented:

-- I'm not so convinced about the prize because it is not notable, but you are welcome to submit it again to see what others think, as I am mixed on this one. Good luck! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC) --

(link to Kevin talk page)

In the light of that, I have decided to ask for suggestions/review of another editor. Checking your profile, I found that you are a mathematician so, maybe, you have more insight regarding how to discriminate the notability of a scientist. Could you please be so kind to have a look at the page and provide me with some comments?

Also, I wish to remark that I think the page might respect the notability guidelines not only because of the mentioned prize but also because of the high number of citations of the scientist (his physics reports article is the second most cited and downloaded article in the history of the journal). Indeed, there are other scientist less cited (easy to check on Google Scholar, for example) than Vito Latora that have their own page in wikipedia like, for example: José FF Mendez, Anna Nagurney, Ernesto Estrada, or Vincent Blondel [6]. It is not a criticism, but rather a way to gauge the notability of Vito Latora.

Thanks in advance,

Spariggio82 (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@Spariggio82:

There is no doubt whatever that there are many articles on Wikipedia on subjects less notable than Vito Latora. However, that is not a guarantee that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, as there are many articles that shouldn't be there, and that may well be deleted if someone notices them and decides to act. You may like to see WP:OTHERSTUFF for further comments about this. That is written in the context of comments about arguments used in deletion discussions, but the same principal applies to draft articles for creation.

I agree with you that the number of citations suggests notability, but nothing else in the article gives significant evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I have searched for information about Vito Latora, and have failed to find anything convincing. I have also made several searches for information about the Giovan Pietro Grimaldi prize, and have found nothing to suggest that the prize is significant enough to confer notability. For example, a Google search for "Giovan Pietro Grimaldi Prize" produced a mirror site with a copy of your draft Wikipedia article, and nothing else. A Google search for "Premio Giovan Pietro Grimaldi" produced 8 hits, including again the mirror of your draft, obviously insignificant sites such as facebook, sources which are obviously not independent sources, such as what appeared to be a press release, and the Fondazione Grimaldi's web site. Any really significant prize would have produced thousands of hits, including substantial coverage in major publications unrelated to the organisation offering the prize. If it weren't for the high citation count, I would say "forget it, because the subject clearly does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and if the page is launched as an article it will certainly be deleted." The citation count is just enough for me to be a little less discouraging. If you decide to go ahead and launch this as an article, I will not personally nominate it for deletion, and my guess is that there is a reasonable chance nobody else will do so either. However, if it is nominated for a deletion discussion, I certainly can't promise that it will survive, as the evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines is truly marginal. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson:

Thank you very much for your answer and your work. I totally agree with your conclusions, but I cannot change reality. I believe he is notable (because in the field of complex networks he is), thus I will mantain the submission and ... keep the finger crossed. Anyway, thank you again for your insight, it is always a pleasure to have such constructive discussions. Spariggio82 (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Tsogo Sun Deletion

Hi JamesBWatson, please see response on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KLMuller#Promotional_editing

hoping you can help — Preceding unsigned comment added by KLMuller (talk • contribs) 19:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Insolent-fuka likely a Sock of Banned Editor Irongron

Could you please look into this new editor Special:Contributions/Insolent-fuka (name says it all) who has began editing the Lockheed A-12 article where User talk:IRoNGRoN was banned here:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IRoNGRoN&direction=next&oldid=605223465#Unblock_request Irongron was banned as a result of uncivil behavior and also displayed an attitude of owning the Lockheed A-12 article that eventually led to the ban. An IP check may indicate the same Optusinternet out of NSW Australia that was banned here User talk:220.236.1.216 another banned sock of Irongron. Here is IP location: http://www.iplocationtools.com/220.236.1.216.html Plug in the IP in the web address and it will show where and what company. Irongron's socks have all appeared on Optus internet in NSW Australia but have constantly changed IP's. I have left the newest edits alone but in the past Irongron directly copied material so some copy right issues may return. Thanks for your time. 172.56.11.141 (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@172.56.11.141: You may be right, but at present I can't see any similarity between Insolent-fuka's editing and editing by Irongron and the block-evading IPs. It may be best at this stage to wait, keep a watch, and see whether Insolent-fuka starts doing anything more self-incriminating. I can't check Insolent-fuka's IP address, as I am not a CheckUser, and in any case CheckUser's don't make checks without much more substantial evidence. I could place a username block on Insolent-fuka, but that would do nothing to stop him/her making another account and carrying on in the same way. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It becomes kind of pointless as one can keep creating accounts as fast as one creates new email addresses and changes IP's. I think there is way to many coincidences and the name is mocking the reason for the ban but waiting is best if an checkuser cannot be performed. The similarity is a new account going right back where Irongron was banned, the style of referencing, and of course the mocking name. 172.56.11.141 (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I have thought again about this, and decided that the evidence of sockpuppetry is just about enough to justify making a block for the username, but instead of a standard username block, which allows account creation or a request for change of username, blocking those options, so I have made the block. Of course, any blocked editor can evade the block by getting a new IP address and creating a new account, and some really persistent sockpuppeteers repeatedly do that. However, in practice blocking is far more often effective than one would be likely to expect, for various reasons. If he/she keeps coming back and editing the same article, another option is to semi-protect the article, which would make it more difficult for the editor to keep coming back and editing it. In practice very few disruptive editors continue if they find they have to keep going to the trouble of getting a new IP address, creating a new account, getting the account autoconfirmed (which takes several days), only to see the new account blocked and all its edits reverted, so that they have to start all over again. However, semi-protecting an article stops legitimate IP editors too, so you may like to consider creating an account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for your time again. I have considered an account before but have decided against it (partially due to stubborness I suspect). If I cannot edit an article I am sure wikipedia will survive without me. Due to my IP changing outside of my control (WiFi Hotspot) I do not have to deal with vandals, hooligans, etc. I do like to add to the community and if someone has a better idea, great reedit my edit. Again your time is appreciated. 172.56.11.88 (talk) 09:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Courtsey Vanishing

Just saw that you have blocked Bazaan. Although I had one question, What you meant by "editors in good standing"? I have seen the use of that term in number of noticeboards, does it means Zero block for last one year, or 100% clear block history? OccultZone (Talk) 19:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't need to be 100% clear block history: an editor with past problems that have long since been over does not have to be blighted for ever. Exactly what counts as "in good standing" is a matter to consider case by case, and if you are willing to put loads of time into searching through the archives of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents you will no doubt find the issue debated at great length. However, in this case we have an editor who has just been deliberately vandalising and trolling, both from an account and anonymously, with the express purpose of provoking some administrator into blocking him. There is no question of that being an editor "in good standing", so I had need to consider the issue any further. Also, Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing explicitly states that the courtesy may not be extended to editors who are blocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The Wiggly Finger Catalyst

Recently, I posted a message entitled "Irrelevant Edit History" on Talk:The Wiggly Finger Catalyst, the talk page of an article I created. There have been no replies there, but I have since stumbled upon WP:Revision deletion and think it may apply here. Could you please take a look at the problem and reply (here, on the article's talk page, on my talk page etc)? Bilorv (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Bilorv: In my opinion, Revision deletion would not be ideal here, as the deleted versions would still remain in the article history, but just not be readable by most users, but since they are, as you rightly said, irrelevant to the history of the article, it is better to delete them completely. I have therefore deleted the article, and then restored only those versions which are relevant, leaving the rest deleted. I also moved the article back to your sandbox first, so that the deleted versions are in the deletion history of that page, rather than in the deletion history of the article. (For most purposes that makes no difference at all, but occasionally it can cause confusion to have irrelevant stuff in the deletion history of a page, if an administrator needs to check the deletion record for some reason, or if one day the old edits are restored for some reason.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Banach Journal of Mathematical Analysis

Hi, I saw you deleted this as a recreation after an AFD. However, since then the journal has been indexed in significant databases and gotten an impact factor, which generally is regarded as definitive proof of notability. Perhaps you can restore the article (or, if you don't object, I can do it myself). I'll then add an independent reference for the impact factor. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Randykitty:  Done The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Sock of Sayan Basu back at Jalpaiguri

Please check, I guess User:Sanyukta Agarwal is a sock of Sayan Basu. Please block the sock and if possible fully protect Jalpaiguri for 3-4 months. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 04:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

@Amartyabag: Thanks for telling me about this. I have blocked the account, deleted a whole load of pages created by the sockpuppet, reverted other edits, and protected a couple of pages. Fully protecting the article Jalpaiguri for several months would be a rather extreme measure, so for now I have compromised on two months. I will be willing to review the situation after those two months are up. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Another sock detected, User:Ally Walters. Passes the duck test. Can we go for a range block on new account creation? Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 16:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@Amartyabag: It would be necessary to consult a CheckUser over that, as only a CheckUser can know what IP addresses were used by the accounts in question. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

La Malquerida

Hi, you can restore the article: (La Malquerida). The telenovela premiered on June 2.--GeorgeMilan / talk 16:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

(Presumably you mean "will premier".) Is the source you give any better than those that were taken into consideration at the AfD? It isn't clear to me that it is a significant reliable source. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

No, see this: Presentan los primeros promocionales de 'La Malquerida' in spanish. The telenovela premiered on June 2, falls into speculative. And the item can remain in Wikipedia.--GeorgeMilan / talk 17:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at EagerToddler39's talk page.
Message added 01:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

EagerToddler39 (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of copyright infringing text

You deleted an entire episode list page for "copyright infringement"? That is absolutely ridiculous. For a start, episode synopses tend to be standardised by the broadcaster so of course they matched with other websites. That was really stupid. 81.108.170.242 (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

If an entire list of episode summaries is copied from another web site, then the entire list infringes copyright. I am not sure what you mean by "standardised by the broadcaster", but unless you can show that the broadcaster has either released the content into the public domain or licensed it for re-use under terms compatible with Wikipedia's terms of use, then it is unacceptable. I don't recommend using words such as "stupid", as it could be read as uncivil, perhaps even as a personal attack. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

User Bazaan

The person's behavior is obviously troubling. He got himself blocked intentionally, and in several instances expressed stress and paranoia. He is someone going through an incredibly difficult period in life. If anything happens to him, Wikipedia may face repercussions. I am serious. So please cut some slack in this case.--Uck22 (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Uck22:, you've signed in after months, just for blanking the page of Bazaan? You know that you are not allowed to blank or edit his talk page, unless the edit is general, or removing some kind of personal attack, copyright violation. OccultZone (Talk) 03:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Calling someone a vandal and troll is a bit too far, for someone who has been an editor in good standing for quite some time. I am not saying anything James B Watson, he is right in his attitude. But this case is different.--Uck22 (talk) 11:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Uck22: This is unambiguous vandalism. This, this, this, and this are unambiguously trolling, and arguably vandalism too. (The edit summaries on the first two of those are trolling, as well as the edit content.) Other edits, such as this, are at the very least very close to vandalism and trolling. I see no way of seeing this as anything other than vandalism. When someone has been making edits like those, he or she has been vandalising and trolling, and referring to that person as a vandal and a troll is a simple statement of verifiable fact, and is not "a bit too far". The fact that he or she "has been an editor in good standing for quite some time" does not somehow make such editing acceptable, or make it not vandalism and trolling. I have zero sympathy for the remarkably widespread view that just because an editor has in the past made a lot of constructive edits, that makes it more acceptable for him or her to start deliberately editing disruptively than it would be for a newer editor. It also looks very much as though your disruptive removal of other editors' talk page posts is done in order to help the editor who has been vandalising and trolling to get at least part of what he or she has been trying to get, in terms of what he/she calls "vanishing". If that is so, you are assisting a blocked editor to evade the effects of his/her block, in violation of Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Edits by and on behalf of blocked editors, and perhaps also of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppetry. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I explained very well the reason for this behavior. If despite these clear issues, you continue with this hard line, it is unfortunate. People do not deserve to be defamed in such fashion.--Uck22 (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"Defamed"??? All I have done is state what he quite visibly and openly did. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Manchester meeup venue

Hi, thanks for signing up to the Manchester meetup on the 18th. However, due to unforeseen curcumstances (that really should have been foreseen) we're going to have to move the venue, but hopefully the meetup will still be going ahead. I have tentatively suggested the Jolly Angler on Ducie Street as the new venue, but I'm open to suggestions. Hope you can still make it though. See the meetup's talk page. Cheers, Bazonka (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you have a look at this and let me know your thoughts please! Bazonka (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

John Graden (Martial Artist)

Hello, You were credited with the deletion of my bio page. Everything on the page was accurate. I didn't create it but I certainly want it back up. Please drop me a note at johngraden@mac.com to help me get this back up. Thank you.

John Graden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.27.187 (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Considering the reason why the article was deleted, it is difficult to believe you are not joking. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Trampolinewala

I do not know that user, but if any modification required in topics please help. I am Khushvinder Singh Siddhu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trampolinewala (talk • contribs) 09:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

That's OK, I just wondered. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

AIV spamming report

Hello JBW. Got your point but just want to mention that to the best of my memory my previous such reports (w/o warning the user) were addressed or I have seen admins blocking obvious vandals/spammers w/o following the regular warning process. -- SMS ^Talk 13:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Smsarmad: OK, I wrote "There is rarely any point ..." but "rarely" does not mean never. There are situations where I accept AIV reports and block without prior warning, but they are exceptional. It is entirely possible that your previous reports have all fallen into the category of cases where there are grounds for making an exception; if so, such exceptions are not rare for you, even though they are rare overall. In the present case, we are dealing with an editor who is here for the purpose of using Wikipedia to attract visitors to a particular web site, but many people without experience of editing Wikipedia sincerely think that is a legitimate purpose, and until he or she has been told that it isn't acceptable, you can't blame him or her for doing so. There are, however, forms of spam which are clearly not done in good faith, and that is a different matter. For example, I take a very different line for been sneaky spam, clearly using techniques to hide the spamminess, or for editing that appears to be done by a spambot. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Jahangirnagar University debate Organization

Hello I have recently noticed that you have deleted a page named Jahangirnagar University debate Organization, a central debate club of Jahangirnagar University, Bangladesh. You deleted it 12 sep 2012. I was not aware of that. Will you please explain proper region for that? I can provide reference for this page. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuvroju (talk • contribs) 10:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not delete it, and never even edited it. The deletion date was 28 August 2012, not 12 August, and the deletion was done by Nyttend. Both of those pieces of information, together with the reason for deletion are given in the block log entry, which you will see if you click here. However, for what it may be worth to you, I fully agree with the reason for the deletion. Very few university clubs come anywhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and I can see no evidence whatever to suggest that this one does. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok i agree with you. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuvroju (talk • contribs) 19:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Robert Castillo Notable School of Visual Arts Alumni

I have some links that Robert Castillo is a Notable SVA Computer Arts Alumni below.

http://mfaca.sva.edu/node/415/default.htm

And also a Storyboard Artist on Feature Films.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1453591/

please let me know if you need more information. hope i did this right first time on here.

(Robcast (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC))

Evidently you have come to me in the belief that I deleted your article. In fact, what I deleted was another article, about a completely different person called "Robert Castillo". Nevertheless, in the hope of helping you, I have had a look at the history of your article, and the following is what I concluded.

Unfortunately, it looks to me as though, like many people, you have probably come to Wikipedia in good faith, thinking that it would be a perfect place to have a page to tell the world about yourself, but without realising that for several reasons what you have in mind does not conform to Wikipedia standards. My advice is that you would be better off posting your page about yourself either on a social networking site or on a web hosting service: Wikipedia is neither of those. In the hope of helping you understand why I say that, I will list some of the issues involved.

1. "... is a Notable ..."? Do you mean "... am a Notable ..."? If not, then your username is deceptive, and you need to change it.
2. Neither of the links you provide goes anywhere towards showing that you/he satisfy/satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. A glowingly promotional IMDb page does nothing whatever to show notability, as anyone with the remotest connection to the film industry can write themselves one of those. Nor does a page on a college's web site listing the career history of one of its student establish notability.
3. You should not be writing an article about yourself. Wikipedia articles should be written by neutral, third party, editors.
4. Prompted by this message, I looked at your editing history, and was led to your user page. It seems that it was originally created as an article, and moved to your user space because it was grossly unsuitable as an article. In fact, the editor who moved it was being remarkably generous, as it is equally unsuitable as a user page. The first thing that struck me was that it was clearly a piece of pure promotion. Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion, and any promotional page may be speedily deleted without notice. The second thing that struck me was that it is nothing whatever about work on the encyclopaedia, as a user page should be, and appears to constitute use of the Wikipedia servers as a free web host to hold a personal web page. That too, on its own, is sufficient grounds for speedy deletion. Looking further, I found that the page is a verbatim copy of http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1453591/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bth_nm meaning that there is copyright infringement, which again would on its own be sufficient grounds for speedy deletion. With three separate reasons, any one of which would be grounds for speedy deletion, I'm afraid the page really must be deleted.
5. The article that you created was deleted because it was a copyright infringement of a page at www.indiepixfilms.com. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Non-block

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Gogo Dodo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Seen. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

QxOrm

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Bozo614's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Seen. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

APPA

This is a new team in a national U-20 soccer league with the majority here on Wiki with articles.

How is that not relevant? I want to create this page, but not get deleted again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mexicomountie (talk • contribs) 01:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

After some searching, I concluded that this must refer to deletion of the article APPA Aguilas. It was apparently about a local, largely amateur, youth sports team, with no indication whatever that it is any more significant than most such teams. If there are articles about other teams in the same league then they should probably be deleted too. However, a quick search failed to turn up any articles devoted to such teams, though I did find mentions of such teams in articles about professional clubs that also have junior teams. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for finally resolving Wondering55. I hope they learn to work well with others, after a WP:GAB-compliant request. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 11:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Bozo614's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Thanks for your advice earlier with the page on sertoli cell tumors. Appreciated. Cheers AlanWolfe (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

List of Teen Titans Go! episodes

Hello JamesBWatson. You recently deleted the page List of Teen Titans Go! episodes as unambiguous copyright infringement. User:23W just alerted me to the fact that it's been recreated, with much of the same content (including the infringing material), only this time split across three articles: List of Teen Titans Go! episodes, Teen Titans Go! (season 1), and Teen Titans Go! (season 2). The only substantial contributors to these new articles are the new users User:Fwpilotfan and User:Fwpilotfan51. This seems rather suspicious. For one thing, the similarity in user names leads me to supect that the two accounts are operated by the same individual. For another, the fact that they reposted much of the exact text of the deleted page leads me to suspect that this person is the same person who contributed it to the original incarnation of List of Teen Titans Go! episodes. (It may be one of the users who was persistently removing the copyvio template from the original article, and/or even User:Vlad4, whose CCI was the reason the page was discovered to be a copyvio.) However, as I'm not an administrator I don't have access to the deleted page history to see if it supports these suspicions. Perhaps you could have a look? If not, do you think this would be worth filing an WP:SPI for someone else to investigate? In the meantime I've blanked the pages with the {{copyvio}} template, and will let User:MER-C know about this post, since they opened the CCI. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Summichum

Concerning your recent actions, you should inform on this page. Thanks OccultZone (Talk) 11:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

About the Nutripedia, I am impressed that you could identify the copyright infringement. I had added a specific warning to the User's talk page, concerning such violation. Knowing that it is very serious concern. OccultZone (Talk) 12:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

re. John Johnstone Smith (talk · contribs). I was about to start an RFC/U. Jeh (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Userfication

Hello. I am requesting userfication of "Exchange 2.0" to my userspace for potential improvement. I have found additional sources and references for it which appeared as the program developed over the months, since its deletion in November 2013, such as [7] and [8], among others. Thank you. --BiH (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The article was nothing but an advertisement, which has no place whatever on Wikipedia. In the unlikely event that there exists evidence that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria, perhaps someone can write a good, balanced, non-promotional article about it, but that article will have nothing in common with the blatant spam that you posted, and restoring the deleted content would do nothing whatever to benefit the encyclopaedia. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

pls. protect my page

Hi, i'm a new user here and i don't want my user page to be vandalized. Being a admin, you have been given the right to protect pages. can you please protect my user page so only registered users can edit my page? have a nice day! TheDyslexicWikipedian (talk) 09:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

No. Your user page will likely not be vandalized. Even if it is, there's an undo button. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 03:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey now, that is a little unfair regarding a reasonable request. Per WP:UPROT it is permitted to protect user pages by request of that user. Elizium23 (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I semi-protected the page when TheDyslexicWikipedian asked me to. Ver likely to be unnecessary, but it does no harm at all, so why not, if the editor wants it? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 06:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledgement of response to help request

d57, d'oh ;) --Dave Rave (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Range contribs

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at HelloAnnyong's talk page.
Message added 00:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tsogo Sun

Hi James, thanks for your feedback on the Tsogo Sun wiki. We are currently editing it and will post new content by Friday 30 May. We are keen to get it right and look forward to your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlisonM321 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Lloyd Bancaire

I can't put my finger on it, but I think there is something funny going on with Lloyd Bancaire. You deleted a version for copyright violations then someone created a very-poorly-wiki-markup'd version that may have been copied from a personal backup. It's not the same as the copyvio'd version but it raises eyebrows. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Davidwr: Page is gone again. OccultZone (Talk) 23:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Bazaan and User:Uck22

Can a blocked editor continue to use his/her undeclared second account and pretend to be someone else? If not, I can make a very strong checkuser case. Very strong indeed. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Aditya Kabir: Nothing can stop you from doing that. You can open a report anytime you want, don't forget to add your evidence whenever you will file a report on WP:SPI. OccultZone (Talk) 17:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

What sock puppetry are you talking about?--Uck22 (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)You consistently edit User:Bazaan's page. And you have admitted to at least meat puppetry. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 00:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@Origamite: Uck22 is very active since Bazaan got indeffed. OccultZone (Talk) 01:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: @Origamite: @OccultZone: There is a considerable amount of similarity between the editing of the two accounts, but I have seen no one thing that clearly shows sockpuppetry. If anyone thinks they can see reasonable evidence, they should file a report at WP:SPI, and request a checkuser. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I have already opened a case - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bazaan. But, it may not have been done very properly. Please let me know what else I could add there. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You opened it below mine. I have fixed the formatting so that Uck22 doesn't have a double case. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 11:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@Origamite: I am not going to edit you post on the SPI, but you have to explain how User:Uck22 kept reverting JamesBWatson on the talk page of Bazaan, and admin needed to protect the page. You can also provide the diffs from Bangladesh' page that would match with any other edit of Bazaan. But don't make it too long. OccultZone (Talk) 12:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Repaupo and Rileyville Renaming

Some of your recent edits removed state names from articles for Repaupo, New Jersey and Rileyville, Virginia, with edit summaries noting that no disambiguation was needed. This may well be the case, but the relevant guideline at WP:USPLACE specifies a naming convention of "placename, state". As such, I have reverted the Repaupo article back to its previous name and it would appear that the same should be done for Rileyville. Do you have a different interpretation of this policy or is there something that I'm missing? Alansohn (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't, so I have moved the article back. In all the years I have been editing Wikipedia, as far as I recall I have never had cause to edit US place names, so I had never read that section out of all the innumerable policies, guidelines, MOS pages, etc etc that this project is encumbered with. Thanks for putting me right. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Reinstate a page

I'm asking you to reinstate a page and you remove my posts? You should be more professional than that. You made a mistake and just own up to it and fix it. I am being as nice as I can be right now. Koala15 (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not aware of having made a mistake. I will happily explain my reasons to you, and discuss your concerns, if you like. However, unfortunately I do not have time to do so now, and I shall be unable to edit Wikipedia for about a week. I hope you can manage to wait that long. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you give just reinstate White Poeple Party Music. You obviously made a mistake. It was notable page that you deleted cause a blocked user created it. Koala15 (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

There are several issues here. I shall try to deal with some of them.

Between the last version from the blocked editor who created the article and the version which I deleted, there were a number of edits. However, the changes were largely concerned with details such as track listing and timings, and adding of references. The speedy deletion criterion involved requires that there have been no "substantial" additions to the article from other editors. I tend to think of the kind of details that were changed here as not substantial, so I deleted the article. However, what "substantial" means is open to various interpretations, and, after Koala15's posts above, I thought again, and decided that it was perfectly possible to regard a large number of changes, each insubstantial in itself, as adding up to substantial editing, so I decided to restore the article. Unfortunately, though, for personal reasons it was very difficult for me to have access to editing Wikipedia for a while, and before I was able to do so Amatulic had already restored it. I still regard my original view as a reasonable interpretation of "substantial", but if someone else expresses a different view which is also reasonable, I am willing to take that in consideration, as well as my own view.

Amatulic restored only the versions of the article from the first time that it was edited by someone other than the editor who created it. However, that was a mistake, as the first version of the article that Amatulic restored contained substantial content by the creator of the article. The earlier versions have to be restored too, for attribution purposes, so I have restored the whole editing history of the article. Restoring an article only from a point somewhere in its history is acceptable only if at that point it was completely rewritten from scratch (apart from a few special situations such as where all edits up to and including the first restored version were by one editor).

Koala15 considers me to have been "unprofessional" because I removed his or her first posts to this page without responding. However, I suggest that he or she may find it helpful to look back at those posts, and consider how "professional" they were. I also suggest that it may be worth considering whether that approach was the one most likely to achieve the result he/she wished for. If the initial approach had been civil, I would have checked the history right away, carefully thought about the issue, and more likely than not restored the article immediately. Even if one thinks someone else has acted unreasonably, and is undeserving of respect, very often the most effective way of getting cooperation is to treat them with respect. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

And I informed Koala15 at WP:REFUND that his personal concerns about any Wikipedia article do not have priority over how we administrators, as volunteers, choose to spend our valuable time. It's best not to piss off those from whom you want a favor by adopting an attitude of entitlement. That's a sure way to get your request placed at the bottom of my list of things to do on Wikipedia. Civility goes a long way. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I apologize if i offended you i was just very confused and frustrated at the time. And Amatulic there is no need to get snippy, if you have better things to do off the internet then do it. If an admin makes a mistake i just expect them to fix it in a timely manner. Koala15 (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

This wiki-kitten is there to say "thank you" for your hard admin and wiki-gnoming work. Also, because it is my sincere belief that positive reinforcement is a key to running collective intelligence projects like our 'pedia. Cheers!

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Block on User:Viewfinder

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Regarding this block. Sorry to dig up ancient history but I was on a wikibreak myself for several months when this all went down. Viewfinder is a well respected and extremely valuable editor on Wikipedia. He has knowledge and access to large amounts of data that come in very handy for mountain related articles which often suffer from lack of reliable sourcing. We are very lucky to have him aboard. Regardless of whether you may or may not have had good reason to issue the block, I believe he deserved to be treated better than he was. He has indicated that he is still a little miffed.

This particular comment is most concerning. I hope you are not editing too many articles with that kind of attitude in mind. Try adding or subtracting a little over 1% of Mount Everest's elevation in the article, or to Usain Bolt's world record 100 m time for example and see how far you get. A difference of 61 meters is huge with any mountains elevation and I would hope all editors would feel it would be worth discussing and yes arguing over such a difference.

Thanks for your time and when you get back I will be sending you my address so you may kindly send me 1.1% of whatever is in your bank account. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 12:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@Racerx11: He was blocked for edit warring, not disruptive editing. Clear enough that there is no need to assess how important or knowledgeable the editor is, especially when you are questioning about the block. I believe that it is not productive to talk about the things that happened long ago, and they cannot be undone. Happy editing. OccultZone (Talk) 04:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect OccultZone I did not break 3RR, unlike two other editors at Mount Damavand, one of them an experienced editor who knew perfectly well what he was doing. I am not going to contest the issue further but I would like to inform admin that I still feel bad and upset about it. Viewfinder (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Viewfinder: I addressed the issue because admin won't be here till May 30th. I feel like I should offer you advice that feeling bad about something has no special impact, it is incomplete, you also have to regret. You won't learn from the mistakes you make unless you regret them. OccultZone (Talk) 12:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I regret not handling the case better but I don't regret vigorously contesting it. Damavand was measured in 2007 by an experienced and reliable GPS surveyor who writes "all references to Damavand 5671 should be changed, this is absolutely wrong". His evidence was accepted by his peers. The US government sources cited by the Persian editors are outdated and ultimately rooted in what was no more than a rough estimate. One of them, while insisting 5671 is correct, goes on to claim to have measured Damavand and obtained GPS readings of 5630-5645 with an error margin of +/-15. Viewfinder (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Who said that your block had to do something with the quality of content? It had to do with WP:EW. No matter, even if you have touched the same content 3 times during the edit dispute with other editor, it is considered as edit war. OccultZone (Talk) 15:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@User:OccultZone. Viewfinder made exactly 5 edits during the dispute:

One revert on January 5

One revert on February 9

Three reverts on [9], [10], [11] on February 12.

Your words:

"No matter, even if you have touched the same content 3 times during the edit dispute with other editor, it is considered as edit war."

Sorry but I have never heard that verbage before. WP:3RR states "...more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." This is boldly highlighted within the policy and it is the rule of thumb thrown out into the community for users to follow; and quite frankly your statement sounds like something spuriously made up to cover for a mistake.

Viewfinder did not 'game the system' or wait until just after the 24 hours to make a fourth revert. He simply reverted 3 times and stopped per the policy. You are putting a rule out there, a user abides by it, and then you pull the rug out from under him, tell him he should have known better and hit him with a block to teach him a lesson.

I will wait until Mr. Watson returns before getting into my other complaints. I bought this up now because as explained, it was the first I heard of it. Your may think bringing something up from a couple months ago is unproductive, but if Mr. Watson believes he handled this situation well, or if he still thinks arguing over 61 meters is a waste of time, then we will continue those discussions. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 06:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@Racerx11: You mean verbiage? I am sure that even if that is not specifically stated on the guideline page, still it applies. For more learning you may want to check another case and decline reason. OccultZone (Talk) 06:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks yes, verbiage. Sorry there are several typos in my above post.

But you said, "He was blocked for edit warring, not disruptive editing. Clear enough that there is no need to assess how important or knowledgeable the editor is..." If 3 reverts in one day is "clear enough" to ignore all other circumstances, then why doesn't the policy state that?

In the link your provided, I wonder why Mr. Watson is "astonished" by the large number of users who believe they are allowed 3 reverts per 24 hours, since that is precisely what the policy states. If 3 reverts per 24 hours = block; or if you don't want editors reverting 3 times per day, then the policy should state that. The situation reminds of what we call in my line work, an "error trap". A poorly designed or confusing environment which tends to lead to human error. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 07:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh and I guess I misused the word "verbiage". I do suffer from a touch of illiteracy which embarrasses me on occasion RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 07:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I have already said that I should have handled the case better. But, unlike another experienced editor who knew perfectly well what he was doing, I did not breach 3RR. Yet JBW - an editor who made an ill informed and provocative remark about a 1% error in a mountain height - blocked me and not him. Not only I am deeply upset about that, but time is not healing that sentiment. A block remains on a user's block log, to the detriment of his reputation, for ever. Viewfinder (talk) 09:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It never ceases to surprise me how many editors manage to read the edit warring policy as saying that it is acceptable to edit war as long as you don't break the so-called "three revert rule". The policy clearly and unambiguously states that that is not so. The block was for edit warring, not for breaking the "three revert rule".

The case came to my attention because Viewfinder made a report on the case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. That shows unambiguously that he/she was (a) aware that the case was an edit war, and (b) aware that edit warring is against policy. He/she could therefore not reasonably object to being blocked for taking part in the edit war. It may be that he/she was under the mistaken impression that there was a rule that the first person to make four reverts gets blocked, and the other party to the edit war doesn't, so that the second person to start reverting effectively "wins" the edit war, but if so he/she was mistaken, and what is more, if there were such a rule enabling the second person who starts reverting to "win", then it would be a grossly unreasonable rule.

It is difficult to know what to say about the fact that an editor can be "deeply upset" about a 48 hour block, and still be so several months later. However, I do suggest that Viewfinder may like to think carefully about that.

As OccultZone has already pointed out, how "important or knowledgeable the editor is" is irrelevant, as is whether the edits were "right" or not: the block was for edit warring, and neither being "right" nor being a constructive and useful editor justifies edit warring. Indeed, if I had taken into consideration assessments of how right or wrong the editor was, I would have been abusing my administrative position, as I would have been using that position to further my own view of what the article should say.

I'm afraid I have to disappoint Racerx11 when he/she says "I hope you are not editing too many articles with that kind of attitude in mind". I have indeed for years edited with the attitude that if someone else is stubborn enough to persist in repeatedly trying to impose their own view on some trivial aspect of an article, it is very often better to move on and do other things, rather than to waste my time on quarrelling over it, even if I am convinced they are wrong. There are millions of articles on Wikipedia, and if I spend time successfully making 50 improvements to articles, rather than spending the same amount of time battling to make one very small improvement to one article, I think I have spent my time more productively. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, and I appreciate you adressing an old issue, I think it would be better if you paid attention to the red flags that should be going off in your head, that something is wrong with the rule itself or the way you are enforcing it, rather than being amazed by the astonishing number of editors that are confused by it. It is an "error trap". What is your interpretation of the purpose of the 3 revert rule? It is tripping people up and setting them up for failure. RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 14:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I fully understand what you mean. Although the policy quite clearly states that edit warring is not synonymous with the three revert rule if you read it carefully, the fact that so many people manage to misread it certainly means that there is something wrong with the way it is expressed. A considerable time ago I successfully proposed a change to the wording of the policy to put greater emphasis on the fact that edit warring is not restricted to three revert rule breaches, with the hope of reducing the number of people who misread what it says, but the change has had little impact on that. For some time I have been thinking about proposing a much more drastic change to the policy, to make it clearer, and to remove any risk of the same misreading. However, the kind of change I have in mind would require considerable care, and would no doubt involve a good deal of discussion, and I am still at the stage of thinking out how best to do it.

Perhaps it is worth mentioning that there are numerous reasons why taking the edit warring policy to simply apply the three revert rule would not be helpful. It would make the policy unreasonably rigid, without ability to take account of circumstances. For example, it is reasonable to allow leeway to a new editor who is likely to be unaware of the policy; as I said above, it would give an automatic advantage to the second editor to start reverting; it would play into the hands of editors who try to game the system by waiting 24 hours and one minute (that happens all the time, with many editors even openly stating that is what they are doing); it would mean that a disruptive editor who keeps coming back every few days or weeks and repeating the same edit over a period of months or years would get away with it (that too happens reasonably frequently, though less often than the wait-just-over-24-hours trick); and so on and so on... The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Good to hear you are considering changes to that rule. Less emphasis on the 3 revert rule would be a good idea. Maybe removing the pink box highlighting the rule would be a good start, and not so drastic of a change. It seems your understanding of the policy exceeds what would be reasonably expected for typical editor to gather from that page. I would say that your explanation in your first post would make more sense to an editor who, after reading the policy, remembers better the language outside of that pink box, rather than what is inside it.

You wouldn't appreciate being changed a late fee for paying a bill on the day it was due, or getting a speeding ticket for going exactly the posted speed limit. I expect I would feel similarly if I were in Viewfinder's shoes.

If/when you do make an effort to make more drastic changes to the policy, give me a heads up if you remember, so I can add my two cents to the discussion.

To address some other issues: I guess I am not so much disappointed in the way you choose to handle controversial edits, but rather accept it as but one choice of editing styles. I ask that you similarly accept that many editors choose to firmly defend their positions and debate with others over topics that may appear trivial to others. There are benefits to those discussions and to that style of editing, and sometimes they are quite necessary. For the record, I believe a difference of 61 meters for a mountain's elevation as far from being trivial. I feel the comment you left about arguing over 1% of a mountains height was uncalled for and the overall tone the entire post was harsh. I was compelled mostly by that comment alone to post here in the first place. VF did not deserve that imo.

Funny you mention the slow edit warring that sometimes takes place over weeks or months. I vaguely recall thinking to myself on more than one occasion, "I could let the change stand and come back a few months later and sneak my version back in after the user has moved on or lost interest". Only problem is, after a couple months, I have either forgot about the whole thing myself or can't remember what page or even what the issue was about. I ask you: Is that a good thing or a bad thing, that I never followed up on what I believed was right? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 23:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You say you feel a comment I left was "uncalled for and the overall tone the entire post was harsh". I am sorry that I expressed myself in a way that came over that way, which was certainly not my intention. What I was trying to convey was that when there are disagreements, rather than edit warring, it's better to discuss the disagreement, and also that it is worth first considering whether the issue is important enough to be worth pursuing or not. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The dispute was at Mount Damavand and with respect, I think that Racerx11 and I, who take a specific interest in topographic issues, both know more about the importance of the disputed issue than you do. The claim that Damavand is 5610 metres high, not 5671, had stood for almost a decade and had therefore become established. It was User:Farhoudk who made the challenging edit. When I reverted him, the onus was surely on him to apply WP:BRD and go for dispute resolution before continuing to enforce his change. You say that 3RR gave me an advantage over him which I was playing on, but I don't think that was an entirely unfair advantage. Blocking neither of us and telling us to pursue dispute resolution instead would have been reasonable, but blocking me alone was a mockery of 3RR. Farhoudk was just as aware as me that he was edit warring. I have pointed out in the article infobox that the height is disputed and linked it to a modern GPS report which disproves 5671, I can accept that for now, but in the long run I am still determined to eradicate 5671. Persians, including Farhoud, have made and published their own GPS measurements and these too disprove 5671. Viewfinder (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

1. You seem to have failed to grasp two points: (1) you were blocked for edit warring, not for being wrong, so arguing that your edits were justified is missing the point; (2) you were blocked for edit warring, not for breaking the "three revert rule".
2. I did not say that the "three revert rule" gave you an advantage, nor that you were "playing on it". Having pointed out that the edit warring policy is not a simple matter of mechanically applying the "three revert rule", I tried to show that there are good reasons why if we were to have a policy which worked in that way it would cause problems: I said nothing whatever in that context about your edit warring.
3. You suggest "Blocking neither of us and telling us to pursue dispute resolution instead", but you were the one who requested administrative action on the edit war. You can't ask for administrative action as long as the action is taken against the other editor, but dispute resolution if the action is likely to be taken against you.
4. I see no evidence that Farhoud was aware of the edit warring policy until I informed him of it. Once he was told about it, he never edit warred again on the article. You, on the other hand, had previously been blocked for edit warring, and you yourself reported the edit war, so you were clearly aware of the policy.
5. Most of what I have just written constitutes repeating things which have already been said, and which for some reason you seem to be unable to hear. I do not expect to spend any more of my time on this unless some new and significant point is raised. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

If I were to revert 5670 to 5610, would Farhoud revert it back, assuming you do not get there first? And would he continue to do so until I gave up or got blocked again? Probably. And he was aware that he was in breach of WP policy, see [12]. Perhaps that was not the appropriate way of informing him, but he would certainly have seen my warning. And he was insisting that 5671 was based on laser scan without supplying evidence: when the source of 5671 came to light, it turned out to be a rough estimate by a glacial surveyor in the 1930's. I was blocked in 2006 for a specific breach of 3RR and unblocked on request. Viewfinder (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Viewfinder: Guess what? I've written 9 articles and made over 3000 other edits in last 36 hours. Patrolled more than 100 pages. While you are still bothering about certain block. I hope you got what I am saying. Thank you. OccultZone (Talk) 13:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

And in case you think I am a full time Wikipedia troll with nothing better to do, let me tell you that in the same time I have created thousands more square kilometres of new digital elevation data. I don't do much Wikipedia these days but I still do what I can to doggedly defend its accuracy against nationalist POV pushers who persist in pursuing inflated claims about their national high points that have been disproved by modern measurements. Persia's highest point is lower than Europe's highest point. Thank you for your help. Viewfinder (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok then, most of the time I wasn't even on my computer or laptop. Your story is not as shocking as you are treating. In my opinion, repeating same non-productive argument is misuse of editing privilege. You agree? You asked something and you got the answer. Now move on, nothing has to be done. OccultZone (Talk) 02:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey OccultZone, sorry to keep coming back, but I could not resist the urge to check your user contributions for the 36 hours ending 13:28, June 3. There was near enough continuous activity for about 75% of that time. Are you trying to smash the edit count records? Viewfinder (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deutsche Standard

New sources will be added within 2 weeks, as i did not have time due to a new job. 172.56.17.79 (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Another sock

User:Muraad Kahn has been "logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address" (WP:SOCK) for a very long time now, driving a single point agenda. I have put some details here. If it is not too much of a bother, would you please take a look? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) How problematic. For 4 years, you guys have been questioning the page, if it is encyclopedic or not. @Aditya Kabir: You are an experienced user, we need more people like you. But I think it would have been better if you had posted that whole investigation to WP:SPI. You can remove it from the talk page because it has to do nothing the improvement of article. OccultZone (Talk) 12:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: @OccultZone: There may be two editors involved, as some of the IP addresses are from California, and some from Japan. On the other hand, it may be one editor from California who lived in Japan for a while. In any case, it is clear that 108.0.207.107 is the latest IP address used by a long-term disruptive editor who has been blocked at least twice before, so I have blocked the IP address, and you can see my further comments at User talk:108.0.207.107. Please feel welcome to contact me again if you see more of the same. I agree with OccultZone that the content you posted does not belong in the article talk page, Aditya, so I have taken the liberty of moving it to User:Aditya Kabir/Muraad Kahn. Since that is in your user space, please let me know if you don't want it there, and I can either move it to another place or just delete it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Shall post the evidence to SPI? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's really any point in doing that. There is nothing that could be done at SPI that I can't do. Checkusers don't normally reveal evidence about IP socks, and in any case the account and all of the IP addresses except one have not edited for too long for the checkuser evidence to be still on record. In the first instance, WP:ANI would have been a better place for your report than the article talk page, but contacting me was very likely a quicker way of dealing with it than ANI, and in any case there is nothing more that ANI would be likely to achieve now that I have blocked the IP address. I suggest just leaving it as it is for now, with the information in your userspace, ready to be referred to if and when you ever need to report it again. I shall also post a note of what I have done to that userspace page, so that the information is all together in one place. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

See this PROD

This article is pretty different than other PRODED articles because it is not only promotional but violation of copyright guidelines. OccultZone (Talk) 09:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

...and totally unsuitable as an article for several other reason, too. However, there is nothing unusual about articles which are both promotional and copyright infringements: they come up in the list of speedy deletion candidates all the time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You answer through emails? If you do, please send me an email, got something to discuss. OccultZone (Talk) 09:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: Why don't you just send me an email then? If you do, it will be best to drop a note here telling me you have done so, as I suffer from attention deficit disorder, and am perfectly capable of not checking my email for days, without realising that I haven't. (If it seems to you that nobody could possibly not know they haven't checked their email for a few days, then you have about as little idea as most people what ADD is like.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Was confirming, if you are active there. I have sent an email. OccultZone (Talk) 09:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

re User:Nado158 unblock request

I thought I might bring a little background on this to your attention. First, the edit that Nado158 made to Vukovar - which really seemed to have provoked Joy's block - was not substantially different from what had been agreed upon on the Vukovar talk page - a discussion that Joy himself took part in. Joy has since restored Nado158's edit and added the footnote that they thought necessary, or at least a first version of it. The matter had also been discussed earlier on the WP:Croatia talk page and had reached a similar conclusion. So, really it looks poor Nado158 is being punished for re-opening this can of worms, even though most editors seem to agree that it is the right thing to do - including Joy. Brianyoumans (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Brianyoumans: Thank you very much for calling my attention to this, and prompting me to look back at the case. I have noticed certain facts which I had not noticed before, which have led me to change my mind about it. You can see part of the result of my changed view at User talk:Nado158, and when I have had time to think things out a bit more and do a bit more checking of history, you will be able to see more at User talk:Joy. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! - The not-so-identity-concealed Brianyoumans (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Watchenthusiast

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Watchenthusiast's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replied there. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Joy's talk page.
Message added 08:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Short of time right now, but if you want a fuller explanation of the unblock let me know, and I'll elucidate my reasoning as soon as I can. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Another talkback for the same page. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

DRN and legal threats

Hi! I am the DRN volunteer working on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Global warming conspiracy theory. A situation has come up at User talk:71.74.249.0#Prelude to continued editing - must purge legal threats which I believe can only be handled by an administrator (the actual legal threat is in the collapsed "Word of Apology, Explanation, and Legal Violations" farther up on the page). Could you look into this, please?

Regarding the DRN case itself, I think that if I can just get the participants to stop getting into fights elsewhere, there is a chance that I can educate the IP user about our verifiability and sourcing policies, and if I can get him to not be so disruptive, I assume that the other editors will dial back the aggression. It isn't the most likely outcome, but if possible I want to try. Of course none of this will happen if the IP is making legal threats -- we both know where that story ends if you can't persuade him to stop. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

James, FYI.... here's a summary as I see it... except as noted this is all at the IP's usertalk

(A) The IP on his talk page made what I think are legal threats; these involve use of the specific tort named "libel" combined with general discussion of the IP's legal right to sue

(B) Another user mentioned such threats are no-no

(C) I asked the IP to remove "libel" and the general discussion of the matter

(D) The IP and I talked more about it

(E) Ultimately, I informed the IP that I intend to file a formal ANI compelling removal of these legal threats if the IP starts editing anywhere beyond his own talk page.

(F) At that point, Guy posted to my usertalk asking me to hold off on (E) until you chime in.

(G) I'm posting my reply to Guy right here.... Guy, that sounds reasonable within reason, but I reserve the option of filing the ANI prior to James' input if the unfolding of unknowable future circumstances makes such an ANI complaint seem appropriate at the time. For one thing, as far as I know, James could be heading out the door on a 4 week scuba trip to the Galapagos (you lucky dog). For another thing, I have no idea where or what or to what extent the IP might start posting. So I can't in good faith just make a blanket promise.

As of right now, the IP has not posted beyond his usertalk, so I'm happy with doing nothing for the time being, in the hopes that the IP decides (or is persuaded) that fostering a collaborative environment requires removal of that material. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: @NewsAndEventsGuy: OK, I'm looking into it. I'll contact you both again when I come to some sort of conclusion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 06:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: @NewsAndEventsGuy: OK, I've looked into it. First, I looked at the legal threat issue, then I turned to the dispute resolution case. There is unambiguously a legal threat within the meaning of that term defined at Wikipedia:No legal threats. What is more, the editor has persistently insisted that he or she will not withdraw the threat, and indeed has effectively re-iterated it repeatedly, after being alerted to the policy and asked to remove it. There is every justification there for a WP:NLT block. However, before blocking it is always worth considering the question "Although there are sufficient grounds for a block, would it be more constructive to hold back for now?" NewsAndEventsGuy has made strenuous efforts to explain the situation, and tried to get the IP editor to change tack, but to no avail. In other editing too, including in the dispute resolution page, the IP editor has a history of WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND, and experience suggests that he or she is unable and/or unwilling to listen to or consider attempts at reconciliation. At times he or she shows a limited ability to follow logic. (To give just one example, he/she seems unable to see that "some serious scientists think that the uncertainties in the parameters of the present climate change are so great as to make accurate predictions impossible" is not the same as "nobody is suggesting that the whole issue of climate change is a conspiracy" - roughly speaking.) He/she cannot or will not see other editors as having good faith disagreements with him/her: anyone who expresses any disagreement with his/her view, or indicates disagreement with the way he/she acts must be maliciously attacking and libelling him/her, and if more than one person does so, they must be part of a conspiracy against him/her. All credit to Guy for being willing to try to "educate the IP user about our verifiability and sourcing policies", etc, but with the best will in the world the way I see it is that explaining and trying to educate have been tried already, at Talk:Global warming conspiracy theory, at User talk:71.74.249.0, and at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, and the IP editor persists in not hearing it. I see no realistic prospect there. I have blocked the IP address under the NLT policy. Instead of just posting a standard block message, I have taken the trouble to write a fairly long explanation of why the block is there, to try to give the editor the maximum opportunity to understand, despite the doubts about his/her ability to do so. If he or she is willing and able to accept that Wikipedia pages are not the places for legal notifications, then he or she will be able to return, and it will be possible to try to communicate with him or her in the way that Guy proposes, but I'm afraid I really really see no prospect of that as long as the IP editor is still insisting on his right to threaten legal action against the wicked libellous conspirators. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you really understood why I care. Thanks, James. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, Good decision. If he is educable, then he will stop making legal threats and one would hope that he would also be educable during the DRN case. If he refuses to stop making legal threats, then he isn't educable, he can never be unblocked, and thus it is a self-solving problem.

NewsAndEventsGuy, have you ever considered becoming a DRN volunteer? I think you might be quite good at it. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

(A) Guy, I will be unsatisfied with a promise to stop adding legal related text in the future. I need to see the existing text go away.

(B) And thanks for the vote of confidence! I'll stick to trying to head off the need for outside help at articles on my watchlist. However, I'd like to return the compliment from the real world, where I have some experience with Restorative_justice#Victim-offender_mediation. You would be good at that! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

AfC

Do you regard your role in deleting G13 as entirely mechanical, just putting whatever the bot finds into effect with looking at the article?

Of the recent batch,

• I have restored Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/William Freeman Twaddell, which I have also accepted as meeting WP:PROF. Since there may have been some copypaste, I've stubbified it, but the stub is sufficient to show notability. :
• I have restored Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chromatoid body ‎ and accepted it . It's a satisfactory stub article, tho it could use considerable expansion.
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Èmile Durkheim had the most absurd deletion reason I have recently encountered; but the article is of course already present in WP. To avoid confusing anyone who looks at it, I restored it, and then deleted correctly as a duplicate
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yasmine Mohamed Rostom was another decline reason: she is unquestionably notable, and merely the fact she competed is enough for a valid stub. Since there was already an article under another form of the name, I restored it, and changed it to a redirect.

Personally, I will not delete a g13 when the decline reason is irrelevant, and there is an reasonable chance of acceptability, because it needs a chance for a proper review. But in checking what others have done usually I restore only the clearest mistakes, because there are so many and it's too hard to look at them.

I became an admin primarily to examine and rescue incorrectly deleted articles, and said so at my RfA Usually I'm too busy deleting the impossible junk, but I'm glad to still have the occasional opportunity. DGG ( talk ) 09:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Very nice @DGG:, how many articles you review on a single day? These days, patrolling articles can be pretty hard when it is about investigating the notability and aim. Because google search hasn't been updated for long. Some people use bing search, but bing takes a while. Which search engine you prefer? OccultZone (Talk) 10:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@DGG: No, I don't regard my role as purely mechanical. I sometimes decline G13s, and even when I delete them, I fairly frequently give a different deletion rationale, either instead of or in addition to the G13. Clearly I couldn't do that unless I had looked at the submission. (Incidentally, you refer to "just putting whatever the bot finds into effect with [presumably should be "without"] looking at the article", but if I am not mistaken none of the submissions you mention were nominated for deletion by a bot.) How much checking of a proposed article I do varies considerably, for reasons I explain below, and I accept that occasionally I make mistakes. However, perhaps you may like to read an account of some of my thoughts on the matter.

On Èmile Durkheim I assume by "absurd deletion reason" you mean "absurd reason for declining the AfC submission". Your objection seems to be that the reason given by the editor who declined it as an AfC submission was poor, not that you think the article should not have been deleted. Since that reason would be invisible unless an administrator had cause to examine its history sometime, I am not sure that the process you went through, rather than just deleting it, was worth while. In any case, you agree with me that it should be deleted. On "Yasmine Mohamed Rostom", I cannot see what purpose was served by restoring the history of the AfC submission. It contained nothing of value: indeed, it seems to me that you probably agree with that, since my guess is that if you had thought otherwise you would have added it to the article Yasmine Rostom. I am not convinced by the notability of William Freeman Twaddell, but evidently you are. I agree with you on Chromatoid body, and your restoration of it was clearly the right thing to do.

With all administrative actions, including deleting, undeleting, blocking, unblocking, protecting pages, closing SPI cases, etc etc, ideally one should make really thorough checks of all the relevant history before acting. In practice, there are always far more administrative tasks waiting to be done than there is time to do, and there are therefore always backlogs of admin tasks that need to be dealt with and aren't being dealt with. Granted that one cannot do everything perfectly, balances have to be struck. When CSD G13 was first introduced, I used to spend a great deal of time carefully checking them. However, it soon became clear to me that this was not the most productive possible way of spending time. There were frequently backlogs of huge numbers of pending G13s, frequently running into triple figures. Time spent on dealing with those is time taken away from dealing with other matters. In the overwhelming majority of cases, an AfC submission which has been untouched for six months is not going to go anywhere (which is, of course, the essential reason why CSD G13 was introduced). Time spent carefully checking a hundred submissions because it might save two acceptable but not particularly good potential articles is time lost that might have been more productively used elsewhere, and so spending that time may well produce a net negative effect on the project. Consequently, after a while I took to assessing submissions in a more summary way. How carefully I check them depends on how many there are to check. If, as was the case today, there is a queue in the order of a couple of hundred pages waiting at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, I do less checking than I do if there are only a handful. I am aware that that will sometimes result in deleting pages that might have been kept, but, as I have tried to make clear, I am by no means convinced that accepting that risk in exchange for more productive work elsewhere is on balance a bad thing.

Having said all that, I do see that on this occasion, of the hundred CSD G13s I have dealt with today, certainly one would have been better kept, and possibly one other. I also accept that at least one of the pages I deleted would not have been deleted if I had spent more time checking, as I used to. In view of that, I will try to spend a little more time checking G13s in future, and I am grateful to you for prompting me to think again about this issue. However, you may like to re-read your message above, and consider whether you expressed your concerns in the best possible way. My first draft of this reply was very different from the version you can see, because the first impression that your message made on me was that you were being rather aggressive, and my immediate impulse was to respond in kind. As I was writing my reply, I had time to consider what you were saying, rather than how you said it, and reconsidered my response. I have had enough experience of you over the years to be sure you did not intend to be aggressive or unconstructive, but impressions matter, and, as I have said, you may like to think about how you expressed yourself. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

you are correct that I am getting somewhat impatient about AfC in general, and this is probably affecting my tone. If it is affecting it too much, I apologize. I do not ask others to spend time carefully assessing 100 solutions to rescue 2; but I have done so and will continue to (tho it is more of a quick scan than a careful assessment) --I only ask others to not delete in a way that will interfere with this. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I do accept, DGG, that on this occasion I was too hasty, and I really do intend to be more careful about G13s in future. Although your tone may not have been ideal, you were right to draw my attention to this, and I was perfectly sincere when I wrote above "I am grateful to you for prompting me to think again about this issue". It is clear that in some respects you and I have different attitudes to various aspects of Wikipedia, but I think it is substantially a difference of emphasis, attaching different degrees of priority to particular desirables, rather than any fundamental disagreement. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we have the same purposes: trying to get good articles into WP, and removing the impossible. There are more than one approach to it, and I would expect every one of us involved to do it differently; indeed, I hope we do, because all the different approaches are complementary. I know my own approach can lead to errors, and I assume this is likely with others also. I know I actively and emphatically want to be told of my errors, and I think this is also true of you. I also know that I can get frustrated, and lose patience, and speak in too preemptive a fashion-- and when I do this, I need to be told so (usually I will at least partially have realised it, but sometimes I can be totally unaware) -- and I must rely on others to tell me. I know this has left me with a greater degree of self-awareness, for which I thank you. DGG ( talk ) 08:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@DGG: It was a coincidence that I assessed the article "William Freeman Twaddell", I thought that I have read it somewhere and I found that I had read it here, after I searched. You can check the article now,[13] it was pretty easy to expand, though it may have been written effortlessly but it is at least not a stub article now. OccultZone (Talk) 11:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

OccultZone, thanks for the work. The purpose of my temporarily rescuing articles is to permit just the sort of improvement you've made, , since one person is not going to be deal with them all. Now, if we only had a way to do this for AfCs and other drafts in some systematic fashion.... DGG ( talk ) 12:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome! See, I think I can help you and others in this regard. But what I like to have is, I look for the list. If you maintain a list of what to do it will be easier. Inform me anytime. OccultZone (Talk) 12:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@DGG: @OccultZone:Over the years, there have been a number of attempts to encourage editors to come in and improve new and not very well made articles, in the way that OccultZone has done here. For example, the Article incubator was for very much that purpose, and Requests for feedback was for a closely related purpose. At a more basic level, such simple things as tagging articles as stubs is intended to encourage other editors to expand articles. Unfortunately, none of these methods has been very successful, for the simple reason that the number of editors who have been willing to put time into improving new and not very good articles is always too low to cope with the number of editors who focus on writing new articles without enough experience to do a good job of it. There has been a similar problem with AfC, with the number of editors producing new drafts, far larger than the number of editors willing to review them, leading to long backlogs. Quite often, editors have raised the question "how can we encourage more editors to spend time on this sort of task?" However, another question, equally valid in my opinion, is "would it necessarily be a good thing to encourage more editors to spend time on this sort of task, granted that they would be taken away from other work?" There is, of course, no objectively correct answer to that question, and we all have to make our own decisions as to what to spend our time on. As far as AfC is concerned, I am not convinced that CSD G13 is actually helpful. Does it hurt to have thousands of abandoned drafts around? Possibly the worst that can happen is that nobody takes any notice of them. The main effect of CSD G13, as far as I can see, is to overload the speedy deletion queue with pages that don't do any harm, taking admin time away from other, more productive work. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It a fact that new editors don't know the coding/writing standards of wikipedia, so they cannot make article as perfectly as most of the regular editors expect. A thorough check is required, so we cannot lose productive articles. Today, not only Rfc, but GA has backlog. OccultZone (Talk) 16:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I feel a certain responsibility for the G13 situation, for i was one of those who originally suggested a G-13 like process. I never intended it to be this quick , or drastic, but rather to go slowly and over the period of a year or two or three, to remove the old and hopeless submissions. WP is in the habit of doing nothing about a problem for years, and then trying to solve it without sufficient thoughtfulness.

The number of editors who want to work improving articles is in fact fairly large, though most of them prefer to do only minor improvements--which is also a necessary process. But I am not alone in wanting to primarily help users. I mention for example Anne Delong and Kudpung, and there are others. A few more like them would really make a difference. Of course, as you say, there will not be many who are prepared to do this to the extent that I do, but I think most experienced editors will find it very satisfactory to do a little of this as a complement to their other activities. However. there are a good many experienced editors who like to remove the junk. Unless they confine themselves to the sort of utter junk where it is obviously fruitless to give advice or attempt rescue, to remove or decline articles or article drafts from good-faith contributors without making a sincere effort to help the inexperienced editors can be a net disservice to WP, in costing us their future services. It's also unfair to them, as the ones who don;t just go away keep saying. Anyone prepared to judge another human being or their work must be prepared to do it with carefulness and compassion. It is very easy to lose compassion here, in working with material about which a negative decision must be made, especially if one does a lot of it. Keeping the right tone does not come easily to me, though I usually manage it--but as my first comment in this thread shows, I don;t always live up to my expectations. DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Your email

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Joy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

If you have the time...

Based on the bangup job you did with a recent AfD, I wanted to ask if you would be willing to look at another AfD, for Fakir-u-llah Bakoti. I didn't nominate it but I've started looking in to it and it seems like a tough case. There are a lot of legitimate-looking sources which I haven't checked yet, but as I mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fakir-u-llah Bakoti, there is a lot of fishiness with the article. I will continue looking at it but an eye like yours could likely be a big source of help. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It is breach of 3rr?

Check[14], both experienced may have broken 3rr. I am not even involved, just had the page added to watchlist, have a view. OccultZone (Talk) 03:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see there has been no breach of the "3 revert rule", but that rule is, in my opinion, a complete waste of time anyway, and a more useful question is "has there been edit warring?" to which the answer is "yes". However, neither editor has edited the page since it was taken to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 9, so I don't see that there is any need to do anything about it now. If the edit war restarts, then that will be a different matter. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

May end up with a protection then. OccultZone (Talk) 08:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It may well do, yes. However, for now I think it's just a question of waiting to see what comes up at the RfD discussion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Just like there was edit war on the page, Mufaddal Saifuddin. Even though he is off the mainstream news, some people may still want to wage edit war on the page. No doubt that the page is still protected. OccultZone (Talk) 08:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

If you are still online, you may want to have a look at Parivartan sandesh foundation, don't know how many times this article has been deleted but the creator is not going to give up. OccultZone (Talk) 08:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

abusive edit summary

here are some edit summaries which are quite abusive. Request to remove them all. Thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Durga_Vahini&action=history 117.199.0.242 (Talk) 18:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Identifying sockpuppets

Hi! I believe I might be dealing with a sockpuppet again, but I would rather not make an accusation until I am certain. What can mere mortals do to ascertain this when the suspects are both registered users? Locating IP does the trick when dealing with anonymous users, but I don't see how I can make use of that in this case. Surtsicna (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Surprisingly often, sockpuppets give themselves away in various little ways, if you look carefully enough at their history. Often there are various points, no one of them damning evidence, but all put together making just too many coincidences. At other times, though, there are just one or two things which make it look likely, but not enough to come to any conclusion. Most of us don't have access to IP addresses and other information about suspected sockpuppets' internet connections, but CheckUsers do. However, CheckUsers won't run checks unless you have definite evidence, rather than just vague suspicion, so when there is just enough evidence to have a definite suspicion, but not enough evidence to make a real case, it can be frustrating, as there is usually nothing that can be done. If you want to, you are welcome to email me the details, and I'll have a look and let you know what I think. Most likely it will be just a question of a second opinion on the same evidence that you can see, but it is possible that there may also be evidence in deleted edits, which you can't see, but I, as an administrator, can. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what I gathered reading our correspondence on my talk page! I even tried to mimick your detective skills :D I'll send you the e-mail; hopefully, you will at least make me feel a bit less paranoid. Surtsicna (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't remember what I had said on your talk page about a month ago, but looking back now I see that some of what I have said above duplicates some of what I said then. I haven't received your email yet. If you have sent it and it hasn't arrived, try again, and post a note here saying that you have sent it. A while ago I did have an experience where the Wikipedia email service wasn't sending my emails to another editor, for some reason. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, wonderful. I did send it. Hopefully I'll find time later on to recompose it, but the matter is not all that urgent anymore. Still curious though. Surtsicna (talk) 09:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Please see the new page created in your honor by User:Wizardo00000. Perhaps you may have an idea who the creator is a sock of (assuming it is someone who has reason to object to your actions here)? Dwpaul ^Talk 04:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dwpaul: Thanks for letting me know. I wonder why Jenks24, who deleted the page, didn't also block the account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Unclear whether the editor was talking about you or not, user never linked.. It is not even your real name. OccultZone (Talk) 11:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, the account's only editing has been to post personal attacks on someone, whether it was me or not. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

True, that's why deleted as 'Negative unsourced BLP', after one more offense, account can be blocked, or if there have been more than once, they shall need a warning first.. These are few procedures, though I am sure that it is probably someone who you may have blocked or revoked talk page access. OccultZone (Talk) 11:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You are right to assume good faith, and to believe in giving editors warnings before taking action, but in my opinion you often take those principle too far. "Assume" good faith is actually a misnomer: it should be "presume" good faith. That is to say, we should assume good faith in the absence of sufficient evidence to make it reasonably certain that there is bad faith. When an editor's actions make it clear beyond all reasonable doubt that there is bad faith, continuing to assume good faith becomes unreasonable, and unhelpful. To suppose that this editor (a) has a different person named James B. Watson in mind, (b) chooses to refer to him by first name + middle initial + surname, rather than as "James Watson", "James Brian Watson", "Jimmy Watson", or some other variation, (c) chooses to write the name in the form "JamesBWatson", rather than "James B. Watson" or "James B Watson", (d) posts personal attacks on him on a website where one of the most active administrators is known as "JamesBWatson", is to suppose a surprising number of remarkable chance coincidences. As for warnings, how likely do you think it is that this person has not already been at least warned, if not warned and blocked? If we waited for the standard of proof you seem to require, virtually all blocked editors would be perfectly free to evade their blocks without fear that their sockpuppets would be blocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably we would've many on the line, if I had reported this incident to a WP:AIV, I would've been told that "user is not appropriately warned". I had warned the user, just saw after a minute that it has been blocked by other admin. If the page has been re-created, a checkuser can be used. OccultZone (Talk) 11:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me who Wizardo00000 is a sockpuppet of - George Abela.--Launchballer 11:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You may be right, but apart form being an attack on an administrator, the page Wizardo00000 created does not bear much resemblance to any of the pages that George Abela created. Also, George Abela last edited nearly four years ago, and Wizardo00000 has not repeated any of the attacks that George Abela made on other administrators. I really think that, unless you have some reason that I haven't thought of, you are making the opposite mistake to the one that OccultZone is making, namely coming to a conclusion with too little evidence. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Doesn't matter who he is. Blocked per WP:NOTHERE. JohnCD (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

My evidence is that both created a negative BLP at the same page. That is all. Point taken.--Launchballer 12:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, when all is said and done, the only important point is the one that JohnCD has made. We don't need to know who it is, who it was they were attacking, whether they have been warned, or anything else; we just need to know that it's someone who is not here to contribute constructively to the encyclopaedia. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

089baby rangeblock

Could you please reinstate the rangeblock against 36.37.192.0/20? Within three days of it coming out of effect, 089baby has resumed using an IP from this range, namely 36.37.246.57 (talk · contribs), to evade his block. Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik: That IP address is actually outside the blocked range. Maybe 089baby didn't know that the range block didn't cover that IP address, and unnecessarily waited until the block expired. Anyway, I have restored the range block, and also blocked 36.37.240.0/20, which does cover the range you mention. There are two nearby /20 ranges from the same ISP, which I am not blocking, as 089baby has not yet used them, as far as I can see. One of those ranges has not been used at all this year, and when it was last used it was used for vandalism, so I will have no hesitation in blocking it for several months if 089baby turns up there. However, the other range has a number of edits scattered over recent months, some of them vandalism but some of them constructive, so if 089baby turns up there it may be a question of blocking individual IP addresses, or at the most shortish range blocks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

As involved editors, I would like to invite @Mark Arsten:, @Someguy1221:, and @GiantSnowman: to participate in this discussion. It seems that 089baby has access to more IP's well outside of the blocked ranges. 111.118.136.161 (talk · contribs) and 111.118.136.73 (talk · contribs) look suspiciously like sockpuppets to me. While new blocks will obviously take care of these two (if deemed appropriate), it begs the question as to whether there is actually stop him if he can even get around range blocks. And at what point do we risk completely compromising his subject of interest? I worry that any new editor with an interest in Cambodian football will be mistaken for new sock and be blocked despite having done nothing wrong. I'd appreciate input from all of you on this. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Sock block

Hi James, thanks for blocking Lanaelle007.[15] I suppose I could have applied the duck test more forcefully there. Is it an undisclosed paid editor, do you think?  —SMALLJIM  10:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it is either an undisclosed paid editor who uses multiple sockpuppets, or a whole nest of connected undisclosed paid editors. On the whole, I am more inclined to think one editor, but it doesn't make a lot of difference. I also think that he/she has recently started using a lot of single use accounts, each of which just creates one article, making it much more difficult to find enough evidence about any one of them to reach a conclusion. I suppose the thing to do is to ask a CheckUser to look at it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Usually, I hate to allege people without any evidence. I like to discuss these matters only if there is some evidence. Checkuser would be best idea, once there is enough evidence. OccultZone (Talk) 10:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

JBW seems to have dealt with this comprehensively - I don't think there's any need for a CU at the moment. I'll keep an eye on the topics of interest for a while.  —SMALLJIM  08:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Ibsiadkgneoeb

the reason the Ibsiadkgneoeb username was blocked is explained here (from the Usernames for administrator attention page, prior to Yunshui's block). I have to wonder at the characterization "does have personal meaning" in the unblock request, given what the deciphered name means. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Apparently, once I followed the instructions, it spells "Bidgee is a knob". I wouldn't have gotten it, but... who knows. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 01:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Right Origamite, I hope that is a common observation. I also find it interesting that so much time was spent on the WP:UAA, and finally the user was unblocked. I appreciate that the user tried to solve the doubts. As usual, Launchballer did a good job by addressing the policies. OccultZone (Talk) 02:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You seriously think that a username that decodes to "Bidgee is a knob" (take every second letter), who has been editing in the same area as User:Bidgee, is seriously not a sockpuppet or someone that is here to make productive contributions? I strongly urge you to quickly reconsider your unblock. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC).

@Lankiveil: What??? When and where have I ever said anything that might possibly be taken as meaning that? All that I said was that it wasn't obvious to me why the username was regarded as offensive, but there might be a good reason I didn't know about. Almost twelve hours later I saw a link to a discussion where the reason was explained, so now I do know the reason. And yes, I am reconsidering the unblock, but at present I am in the midst of dealing with another case involving a persistent serial sockpuppeteer. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. But it did certainly seem from your message on their talk page that you didn't see the insult, and you invited them to continue under a new user name. The unblock reason is clearly untrue, the chances of randomly coming across that insult are pretty slim ;). In this case I think a hardblock is definitely justified (and to do full disclosure, I *may* have run into Bidgee in person before and do correspond with him off-wiki, but he hasn't asked me to pursue this), but if you're reconsidering I'll leave it in your hands. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC).

Noticed this little red icon next to my name, I've been every busy with Uni and had very little time on Wiki, so I haven't taken any notice. Looking at the blocked editor's history, it wouldn't surprise me if it's Mo7838 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), both have the same interest in Australian and British public transport, I also have been in conflict with Mo7838 in the past. Bidgee (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• I have restored the block, and given the editor a message making it clear (I hope) that their behaviour is totally unacceptable. Thanks to all who gave me information on this. I suppose I should have checked Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention before unblocking, but it didn't occur to me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• • Much appreciated, thankyou for your consideration. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC).

De-prod

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Akisha Albert, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Mr. Guye (talk)

(talk page stalker) @Mr. Guye: Why you consider some public forum post to be reliable source? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: Ok, well I'll put it into AfD. Mr. Guye (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mr. Guye: I got no ping from you.. I find it surprising as usual. Anyways, don't put it to Afd, just revert back to the version of JamesBWatson. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Might be of interest

Hi James, just FYI, there's a meetup in Leeds on Saturday. No idea if it's anywhere near your neck of the woods, but thought I'd let yo know. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Thanks for letting me know, Harry. Leeds is not a million miles from where I live, and going to a meetup there sometime is a possibility, but this weekend family arrangements preclude it. Have fun without me, and see you some other time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Need protection on Potential superpower

Just check the edit history of the page, article currently allows autoconfirmed users to edit. But now it is clear that even this kind of protection is not going to work. I had informed the admin[16] and he is not online for more than 30 hours. Rollanotherblunt is making the controversial and unsourced edits, he refuses to discuss. Thanks, and have a view. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Since it is just one editor doing the disruptive editing, blocking that editor is a better method than protecting the article, which would affect other editors too. Since the editor in question is autoconfirmed, only full protection would work, which would stop all editing by anyone other than administrators, which would be a serious over-reaction in this case. I have blocked the editor for a while, and given him/her a message about the edit-warring policy. I would have been a little happier about blocking if he or she had been warned about edit warring policy earlier, but I decided that his/her editing was a clear enough violation of what he/she had been told about unsourced content to justify the block. However, for future reference, it is generally best to make sure that an editor is warned when you revert. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope it will work. I didn't bothered about full protection because this article has surpassed the stage of WP:RECENTISM, it has become a common theory or belief among authors and observers. But lets see, non-admins will still have talk page. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

FK Trepča

Hi! Do you can please moved the page of FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica to FK Trepča? Someone created the article long time ago and misunderstand some things. The club still exist since 1932 and never changed its name ore anything. Thank you!--Nado158 (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain why? Looking at the article's history, it is not clear to me what the situation is, but it looks like an attempt to change an article on one subject into an article about another subject, rather than just a change of title. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I explained above. See the sources (there you can see the club, name, club colors, the kit ect). This club exist since 1932 and based in the northern part ov Kosovska Mitrovica. You can see this in the sources. The played for excample 2 months ago a friendly match against Red Star Belgrad but these club plays curretly in the 4th league of the Serbian football system. In the FK Trepča the club Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica was integrated in 2010, but the FK Trepca still the same club, this is not an another club or something, the club PKM dont exist anymore. I tryed to move the page, but its not possible of technical problems, because of this i asked you.--Nado158 (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nado158: I don't understand. The fact that a club no longer exists is not a justification for turning an article about it into an article about another club. Winston Churchill no longer exists, but we still have an article about him. What's more, if for some reason we wanted to get rid of the article Winston Churchill we would delete it, not convert it into an article about someone else, and then change its title. Can you clarify this, please, because I really don't understand what you are trying to say. I also see that your changes to the article were reverted, and you then edited it back. I am sure you know enough by now to be aware that edit warring is unacceptable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Nado158 seems to be changing articles across the project on subjects in the Kosovo region from Albanian to Serbian. He was previously banned per WP:ARBMAC and WP:ARBKOS last year and is causing problems, again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear, Ryulong, I change nothing, the club plays in Serbia. I told you have noooooooo knowledge but plays here the big player. My sources are from 2014, please looked the source and let the edit war without arguments and sources.You revert an unsoruced version, check it.--Nado158 (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

So what, Croatian and Albanian userd lead to this ban, and you think because of this all is NPOV what i do. This is so....Man check the sources man--Nado158 (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

No, the side was from the start wrong. Someone write the article like the history of FK Trepca, but the name, the lemma what he used was Partizan KM, but this was wrong, it was from the start wrong. This is not a turning an article into an article about another club, this is an correctur, turn back in the right version. The article about the FK Partizan KM we can creat new, but this club was a small small club, no since, but the version and of corus this here is the right version. I know all, but i hate it because i am blame everything for stupied things from peole who nothing know about the history of these clubs. I add many sources and the guy revert me without sources and all what i get is bla bla , hate and blame.--Nado158 (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nado158: I really really can't make sense of what you are trying to say.

1. Does FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica exist? You seem to be saying it does. (OR has existed: whether it still exists is irrelevant.
2. You are also clearly saying that FK Trepča exists.
3. You appear to be saying that FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica and FK Trepča are not the same thing.

Are you saying those three things? If not, then you have totally failed to express yourself, you seem to be saying those things. If, on the other hand, you are saying those three things, then rewriting the article FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica to make it about FK Trepča is changing an article about one subject into one about another subject. Your English is in places difficult to understand, but you seem to be saying that the original article, supposedly about FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica, was full of mistaken information, not accurate about FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica. If that is so, then it is a reason for editing the article to make it a correct account of FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica, not for changing it into a correct account of another club. That seems to me to be the situation, but I am trying to give you every opportunity toi correct me if I have misunderstood you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I have something snout full of accusations and propaganda from the others, mostly NPOV users the made rela NPOV, but nobody ban these users (we not his problem, is since years the case), the truth has become a lie, and the lie to the truth, where are we, what is this for a world? Immediately I am attacked, although I have added a lot of sources. I have the snout full, does what you want with me, but this injustice make me totaly ill. This club plays since 1932 and plays in the 4th League today, which I "occupied" this article with sources from 2013 and 2014, but still you attecked me and makes a Serbian club to an Albanian without source and knowledge, an also an existing club to a non existing club, all without arguments and soruces, but I am the POV user right, the nationalistic POV user. The FIFA and UEFA dont accept this, but the user here without arguments and sources are indeed the big acceptors. You reverted a article with source, not me, and I am warned? for what? Do what you want, ban me again 5 years, tell me I am nationalistic because i want to remove the nationalistic and fashistic edits here and to help WP to be what he reale is, ahhh man you understand nothing. Yes I am bad and eat people and i am the NPOV user of the year, man it makes me ill, really.Nado158 (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

That kind of diatribe is unlikely to help your case. I have been making a good faith attempt to try to understand what you are saying, and your response is that attack on me. If you get blocked indefinitely, please think about what is likely to be the effect posting personal attacks on people who are trying to help. I am also completely unaware of ever having reverted edits you have ever made to any article. In fact, I am unable to find any record of my ever having even edited any article you have ever edited, reverting or not. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah my ENglish. I dont mean you James, i meand the other guy. Woudl i come to you with my porblems?Nado158 (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see now that you didn't mean me. However, I would still like to see your answer to the query I made above, under where I wrote "I really really can't make sense of what you are trying to say". The way things look at present, you appear to be being quite disruptive, but I am really really trying to give you every chance I can to explain yourself. You have edit-warred to do what looks on the face of it like hijacking an article on one club to turn it into an article on another club. If that is not what you did, then please explain why not, because, in view of your history, and in conjunction with other recent editing, the alternative is likely to be a long block. I have made several requests for clarification, but things are still no clearer. This is likely to be my last try. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@James. I tried to explain again, I hope you will understand me know. This side must be called FK Trepca not FK Partizan KM. The PKM merged in th FK Trepca and was integrated in the club, which was foudned in 1932. This was in 2010. The FK Trepca continue to exist of course with the whole tradition ect. The old version was not right in both cases, as a PKM version and in the version as FK Trepca article with the wrong name, the FK PKM. So i tried to improve. The guy who create this article make a big mistake i think. So, you said - but you seem to be saying that the original article, supposedly about FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica, was full of mistaken information, not accurate about FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica. If that is so, then it is a reason for editing the article to make it a correct account of FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica, not for changing it into a correct account of another club. That seems to me to be the situation - Thats right James. This is also a way to do the rigth way or things, but i thought before, the PKM is a small club, much too small, I thought the relevance for WP is not enough (an article i can creat i think only for PKM, because of the "weak" history of the club and infos and sources - i think?). Because of this I wanted before to improve the half FK Trepca/FKPKM article and move the article to FK Trepca, because this club was in the Yugoslav First League, have more relevance ect. and to create also a link about FK Partizan KM to FK Trepca. Thats all. Becaue of this , I added also many sources and use also the diskussion side, but the guy came an blame me because of the same users who blame me 1 year ago, but he dont knwo the background of the story than, also the background of the users, their plans, type of working, and the trap they set for me, thus he blame me so fast and revert and revert and revert for totaly another things, and i told him please see the sources, look on the dres, the kits, i explained, but he always blame me for the same stuf and wrong accusations. He sitting in Miami and will explain me the rigth things infront my window. So i lost my nervs, because is ever the same think. If i realy want to fake something, did i contact you??? I am also only a human.--Nado158 (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@James. I respect your opinion and i am thankfull for your help. I tried to explain again. The other think is, if you think i am bad or i am nationalistic POV pusher, you can block me (I hope not, but i know i am right and I am not nationalistic or do anything in my life wrong, so nobody can change this, not the users here also not the admins and also not WP, infront of the great God i am clean), but trust me, i am in conflicts here and was banned becaue of other strong nationalistic Users who have here more power and are better organizied and have also support and are much more, and I am allone. I am than the "stuppied". But I tell you, the truth have nothing to do with the number of people who are convinced of it. If i revert or remove the nationalistic or fashistic edits of an another user, or the POV, i am the nationalistic user, the bad ect. Least year becaues of croatian User Joy I was banned mostly. Now, he is Admin, "respect on WP", and in Vukovar have support of many Croatians users and I was allone, because I want the same rights for all. The rules for Vukovar are not the same like for city of Novi Sad. Becaue I want to remove double moral and double standards. But no changes, I am again the idiot ect. and the onother side enjoys their support, but I am nationalisitc. Because of this I have my Edit-History, so i will be ban, and the other continue and grow. So again the same like everytime. Double moral continues on WP and this side (WP) lost every day more and more of his vision and faith. So thats all from me bro. So, your hands are free.Nado158 (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) JamesBWatson.. I think Nado158 believes that you can undo every action that has been taken against his will. Nado158 should realize that his history hardly mattered when you had unblocked him. He was unblocked because he had served one of the most common block period for edit warring and blocking admin was involved.

Nado158 has clearly escalated these issues for no special reason, he could have contributed with other editors, but he seems to be finding ways for pushing his own point of view. I am not saying that he is should be blocked or banned for it, but he has to understand before its too late. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

No my friend, I dont think so, the truth is maybe more, that every action that has been taken from my side is taken in the bad Serb NPOV direction and light. If I use soruces, its wrong, if i try to explain, wrong, if try to start a conversion, wrong. For what we have rules, if he can revert me although I add 5 sources and he have nothing? I told you, their hands are free. I know i do nothing wrong form the first day on WP, no one abuse.--Nado158 (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I hope you understand me now, but fort this they want ban me for 1 year in all topics related with Serbia ect...Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nado158...hey come one, thats absolut not right and ok.Nado158 (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for Adminship nomination

Hi, I'm A.Minkowiski. I'm fighting against vandalism and my main focus is to revert vandal edits and reporting them. I would be very happy if I become an admin to fight against vandals directly. First I was an long term IP editor and now, few months before I created my account and started fighting against vandalism. I have requested same message to others if some one look at my work. I hope to hear from you soon. Plus, I'm familiar with blocking policy and other policies too. Thank you. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 17:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's generally advised not to start an RfA until you have about 3,000-5,000 edits, and you have just over 1,000. Why not come back later? Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 17:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@Origamite: I was an IP editor first, wherever I had time I looked for fighting against vandalism. Yes my edits are fewer in my account but I want to fight against vandals directly and it will keep my time even more useful.I have no problem to come later, but I'm looking for some admin rights to fight against vandals. This is my major focus in WP. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 17:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you link to the contribs of your IP accounts, if they were static? We can't see what you did then--you could have been vandalizing away. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 17:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

IP were not static, because I don't have one PC or laptop to work on one place. Wherever and whenever I had time, I flighted against vandalism. But if you think I'm eligible for this criteria to become an admin, so I will not request anymore and will keep on doing same as I'm fighting against vandalism right now. Thank you. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 17:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I probably shouldn't jump in here, but I have nothing better to do, so A.Minkowiski, going up for an RfA after having had your account for two months, with a total of a bit over a thousand edits, is inviting disaster: they'll tear you apart. Go read some previous RfAs and see how many edits and how much experience they had before trying, and you'll find that you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing. Thomas.W ^talk 17:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm doing for WP not for my own purpose. Becoming an admin doesn't mean that I'm superior than all and I'll do whatever I want to do. I was just looking for some one to have a look at my account and if he/she can find something useful then put my nomination. If I get success I will fight for WP. I am doing same (Fighting against vandalism). A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 17:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @A.Minkowiski: Who you want to block? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Not now, but surely will block the user if he/she vandalizes WP. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 18:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

...and that's actually the wrong answer, by the way. Blocking is the last resort the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I just chanced up on this, but I have to agree that you are unlikely to get an RfA pass now, and indeed for some time after that. You need to have a solid track record of understanding the policies and being able to work in difficult situations. You may be asked to mediate in a dispute over the Armenian / Georgian conflict, and settle it while withstanding calls of being a racist from either side. Is that something that really appeals to you? Granted, not all admin work is like that, but it can be, and at an RfA, you'll be expected to be able to handle it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• If you actually have to ask someone to nominate you for adminship, then you're not ready to become one. If you're really admin material, at some point around a year and 5,000+ edits, and having spent appropriate time in admin-y areas, some sage and respected person will say "hey, are you willing to put yourself through the painful meat grinder known as WP:RFA?" Going through RFA too early will make your next time even harder. the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

  Your comments and suggestions are appreciable. Thank you all. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 12:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if this is a ridiculous question, but...

I'm just curious to know if I can make a page that describes my profile that is on where you would be visiting my profile (and the talk page for the user). I am asking because I am worried that the profile page will get taken down. Thanks. -DLindsley — Preceding unsigned comment added by DLindsley (talk • contribs) 02:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess you mean a page about yourself. If so, you can create a "user page" at User:DLindsley. In principal, a user page is for writing about yourself as a Wikipedia editor, not stuff about your outside life, unrelated to work on the encyclopaedia. I say "in principal", because in practice a good deal of leeway is allowed, and nobody is likely to object to a little bit of information about who you are and what you do away from Wikipedia, together with a bit about your experience as a Wikipedia editor. Just make sure that it doesn't read like a résumé, and avoid anything that looks like self-promotion, and you should be OK. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 06:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Unblock of Tsogo Sun

Hi James, I have revised content ready to post on Tsogo Sun - how can I go about getting it to you for your consideration? Can you possibly unblock the page so we may update it with new content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlisonM321 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you post it to your userspace, say at User:AlisonM321/Tsogo Sun, and then drop me a note here, so that I can have a look at it. If it seems OK, it can be moved to Tsogo Sun, and if not I can offer you suggestions about what, if anything, can be done to improve it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi James. Thank you very much for your response. The revised content has been posted for your review. We appreciate your input. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AlisonM321/Tsogo_Sun — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlisonM321 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi James, have you managed to take a look at the revised Tsogo Sun article yet? Please let us know your feedback. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlisonM321 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your detailed response. We understand and a very interesting point about the resources that we will definitely look into. If you search for Tsogo Sun in Google under News, you will find resources: https://www.google.co.za/?gws_rd=ssl#q=tsogo+sun&tbm=nws, will these be helpful to use? Not to point fingers at all, but we have looked at Hilton Hotels as an example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilton_hotel. Can you please let us know what they have done right compared to us? Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlisonM321 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi James. We would like to move the article into the "article space". I've looked at a few different hotels like Hilton and Covent Garden Hotel in London (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covent_Garden_Hotel) as examples. If you think some of our "news references" could assist us (https://www.google.co.za/?gws_rd=ssl#q=tsogo+sun&tbm=nw) please let us know so that I can adjust the article. Thank you so much for your input so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlisonM321 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid nothing you have said has changed my impression. You are free to move the page back to Tsogo Sun if you like, but I think that doing so may well result in deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hitansh Kataria

As you have deleted the page "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitansh_Kataria" under section A7 for creating autobiography, so it's my request to disable the same link too. i be thankful to you. please delete the link as above mentioned. Hitanshk (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Hitanshk

@Hitanshk: If you mean that you want Wikipedia to stop showing a notice stating that the article has been deleted, then there is no way of doing that. However, if your concern is that people will see that if they make web searches for you, within a fairly short while the page will drop off the search listings for such facilities as Google, Yahoo, etc. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

question about a block

You just indeffed EditorialExpert, and your note didn't cite violation of the terms of use, which forbid undisclosed paid editing. Just curious... was the omission on purpose? I ask because I am very curious how admins will handle violations of the new ToU and I think that your indef was one of the first where it could have maybe been used as a basis. Jytdog (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog: You are perfectly right: I could well have cited violation of the terms of use. Because the term of use involved is new, I am not used to thinking of it when I consider blocking, so I didn't think of it. Perhaps, now that you have pointed it out, I may be more likely to think of it in future. There are very often several possible reasons that could be given for a block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I reckoned that was it. :) Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't let someone else take the credit...

...for your well expressed thoughts here :) --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

David Allan Jones

Did you close the AfD yet? Bearian (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

089baby rangeblock (2)

Could I trouble you to impose a broader rangeblock against this guy? It seems he has access to more IP's than originally thought. Most recently, he used ‎36.37.231.14 (talk · contribs) to evade his block. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no time to look into this now. I will try to remember to do so when I can. If I haven't commented further by say 12 houra or so from now, please feel welcome to remind me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Someone impersonating you?

I don't think you'd use "NAC" in your own thread closure (aside from the fact that the thread closure doesn't make sense). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Appears to be 183.219.58.106 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The signature is confusing, though. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 01:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

They then went back and corrected it [17]. My guess? Bjeli. Editor Interaction Utility tells me they've both been on Bosnian War. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 01:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Another sock. Have requested semi-protection of the template. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

183.219.58.106 is an open proxy, and I have blocked it and three other open proxies. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The decision to impersonate me has backfired, as it prompted me to investigate, and I found that this was clearly BjeliRabac, who has recently used a number of proxies to make disruptive IP-sockpuppet edits, so I have blocked BjeliRabac indefinitely. Thanks to Mendaliv for calling this to my attention, and to Origamite for pointing me to the editor who was using the IP sockpuppets. I also semi-protected the article on which NeilN asked for protection. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Message from Kinfoll77 about a block

Hi, this is Kinfoll77 (talk) 02:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC). I just want to edit a few pages, but my last account here was blocked because of "vandalism: block evasion", although I was not vandalizing or evading blocks. I'm concerned that this might happen again, although I guarantee that I will not do anything to vandalize any page. If I was vandalizing according to Wiki standards, then I did not intend to. I have not been a user before. My concern is on my talk page; please answer if you have the time. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinfoll77 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Since you have posted a message about this on your talk page, I have answered there. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

User Smoestatebusinesstoday

This user is keep on adding spam links to Patta , here and there, didn't seem to get point after bundle of warnings. I friendly gave suggestion but user is evading warnings. I being almost 24-hours active vandal fighter can't block this user, I'm not an admin but reported at AIV. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 08:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked already, by someone else. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

RE: Cleaning up the Peter Gunn article

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Msmarmalade's talk page.
Message added 06:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Response

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Stephen B at USDA's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen B at USDA (talk • contribs) 00:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Instructions to Close Account

Good day, James. How are you? I would like to know how (if I wanted) to close my Wikipedia account.—BDE1982 (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@BDE1982: You can simply stop editing if you want to quit wikipedia. If you want your account to be vanished, check WP:RTV. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@BDE1982: Here is a rather more complete answer. There is no way of closing an account as such. The simplest thing, if you want to stop using your account, is to just abandon it. However, there are a few things you can do if you want a clearer break than that. You can get an administrator to delete your user page and sandbox, if you like. User talk pages are not normally deleted, as there may in the future be a need to check past messages, but you are perfectly free to blank the page, or replace its contents with a {{retired}} notice or something of the sort. If you really want to hide your history, for some reason, you can look at Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing. That describes a process whereby your username is changed (typically to something like VanishedUser173014) so that it is less obvious what username you used when you edited. However, it usually only takes a tiny amount of effort to find out, for example by looking at signatures on posts you made before your username was changed. Personally, I find it difficult to imagine why anyone would want to bother with courtesy vanishing, but some people do. Also, please note that courtesy vanishing is for editors who intend to leave, and never edit again, not for anyone who wants to hide their past edits and carry on editing under a new username. If anyone finds that an editor has used a "courtesy vanishing" and then continued editing with another account, the "courtesy vanishing" may be reverted, the original account restored to its original state, and the new account blocked. If the new account is not blocked, the link between the two accounts is likely to be posted on both the old and new user pages. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, James and OccultZone. I appreciate it.—BDE1982 (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

IP 216.80.122.223

Yeah, if it had been an account I'd have indeffed it as NOTHERE. Unfortunately it's a dynamic IP. Still, considering developments after the block, it may not be very dynamic, so we shall see if more/longer blocks turn out to be needed. Bishonen | talk 10:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Yes, "dynamic" IP addresses vary enormously in how likely they are to change in practice. The editing history of the IP range 216.80.0.0/16 looks like numerous odd editors who each do a little editing for a short time (in most cases just one edit, in a minority of cases a few edits over a very short time). I see no evidence of any single editor shifting from one IP address to another, and certainly no evidence of the editor involved in this block editing via any other IP address in the range. (Of course, she or he may, for all I can tell, be editing via some completely different IP address, not in the same range, but if so then she or he is doing so on completely different pages from those edited via this IP address.) In many ways it looks to me most likely it's someone who just started editing Wikipedia, suffered from the all too common "I'M RIGHT, AND ANYONE WHO CAN'T SEE THAT IS A FOOL" syndrome, was blocked, was pissed off at being blocked, and will quite likely never return. The one thing that gives me some doubt about that view is that she/he used expressions such as SPA and SPI, and did a little bit of wikilawyering about policies, suggesting an experienced editor. Any way, we will see whether there is any more from what seems to be the same person. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Using those expressions incompetently and getting them mixed up, mind you. But still, I know what you mean. And indeed, we'll just have to keep an eye out. I hope Ian.thomson or MONGO etc will alert one of us if they notice something on the 9/11 articles. Bishonen | talk 10:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Yes, using the expressions incompetently and getting them mixed up is the main reason why I only said that the use of those expressions etc "gives me some doubt", not that it convinces me. My best guess is still that this was a new editor, and that we have seen the last of them. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

089baby rangeblock

• Old messages repeated here: see User talk:JamesBWatson/Archive 59#089baby rangeblock (2).

Could I trouble you to impose a broader rangeblock against this guy? It seems he has access to more IP's than originally thought. Most recently, he used 36.37.231.14 (talk · contribs) to evade his block. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no time to look into this now. I will try to remember to do so when I can. If I haven't commented further by say 12 hours or so from now, please feel welcome to remind me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm reposting this as a reminder like you suggested. It seems I forgot about it as well. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Sir Sputnik: Usually range blocks are beneficial, but today they are easy to evade. You can surrender your internet connection under 1 month, and buy a new one. Mobile internet is also popular these days and they have got millions of users. Collateral damage is possibly higher. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik: Sorry I forgot to deal with this. I have now blocked the range 36.37.224.0/20, which covers the IP address you mention. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: I never place a range block without first checking the history of edits from the IP range, and if there is a significant amount of constructive editing then I don't block the range, or at the most I do so for only a very short time. It is always clear whether it is a mobile IP address or not, and range blocks on those are scarcely ever worth while, but very few of the persistent seriously disruptive editors use mobile editing for much of their editing anyway. How easy it is to change to another range varies considerably, depending on what ISP is used, what kind of contract one has, etc. How effective range blocks are varies considerably: sometimes it is totally ineffective, but very often it is very effective. Only a tiny handful of really obsessive disruptive editors are willing to go to the kind of trouble you mention, giving up an internet account and buying a new one, just to be able to disrupt Wikipedia; many editors will either stop altogether or edit only very rarely if the ranges they had easy access to are all blocked. Obviously it is necessary to make judgements as to how likely a block is to get results, and balance that against a judgement as to how likely collateral damage is, but overall the case for using range blocks is nowhere near as negative as you suggest. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, some editors are really obsessed, many of them have been mentioned on WP:LTA. I am waiting on a few, but mostly HarveyCarter, range blocked this month. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)