Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

IheartWWF and Emico

(This has been moved from WP:AN by LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)})

This user above likes to personally attack Lbmixpro and myself just for telling him to stop trying to insult others intelligence. Here are some examples of his bad deeds:

1. His signature - First off his signature is offensive. His signiture is :

IheartWWF^{wwf (wrestling for gays)}.

2. First Conflict - He first insults Lbmixpro as an anon user on the talk page of the Iglesia ni Cristo article claiming of his low intelligance level and his knowledge of nothing. Which just isn't true. He is a great and respected user.

3. My response to this conflict - His IP address is 168.243.84.113. See his talk page for the message I left the IP address. I got involved here because Lbmixpro was gaining stress because of him and I was trying to help out a bit.

4. Second Conflict with Lbmixpro and me - Now I'm no genius but it looks like the anon user above created the IheartWWF account also. He left a very rude message to Lbmixpro on his talk page.

I am just now reporting this to someone. He obviously created this account just to vandalize and/or make personal attacks to other users. IheartWWf and 168.243.84.113 should both have a permanent block. There is no room on Wikipedia for a person that just likes to make a fuss. Please can anyone do anything about this? User:SWD316 I also just recently discovered his editing to the Iglesia ni Cristo as another anon, 213.55.89.8. He should also be blocked as well.

I feel that this has a connection to User:Emico, who has been banned from editing the Iglesia ni Cristo until August 2006 as per ruling by the ArbCom. Although this user's attitude is more aggressive and defiant than Emico's, his edit pattern is very similar. If this is the same person, I belive he has returned the the same editing attitude as he had when he first joined Wikipedia. I have sent notifications to User:TheoClarke, who has been the sysop covering the issues at the article, as well as posted my feelings at WP:EA's stress page, which brought SWD316 into the situation. I suggest those interested in this see Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo which documents the argument and potential edit-war we're facing. Until I can prove this isn't Emico or someone acting for him, I cannot RFC him. I suggest the sysops pay close attention to this article, and possibly issue a WP:RFAr/AER. Theo only posts to WP on a sporatic basis. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 08:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

TheoClarke just returned from a long wiki-break, and is now limiting his level of contribution. It's entirely possible he won't have time to handle the situation, which is unfortunate, as he's a first-rate sysop.--Scïmïłar ^parley 17:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand that, but things have escalated since I wrote this. I've been talking to both User:Fred Bauder and User:Woohookitty about them and Woohookitty told me to post the situation on WP:ANI. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 10:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I also want to let you know that the conduct of IHeartWWF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is red-category vandalism, according to WP:CVU#Vandalism severity. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 10:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

After putting the article up for protection for five days, an anon IP at Iglesia ni Cristo has been aggressively reverting the article in the style of Emico. No matter what we have tried to do, Emico is trying to circumvent bans and unleash vicious personal attacks on both DJ Clayworth, who he has attacked in the past as well as Jondel. Something needs to be done about him. I propose a ban on anonymous edits to the Iglesia ni Cristo articles.--Ironbrew 06:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

After already going a through long Arbitration process I will be blocking suspected socks of Emico which are listed below. --Jondel 11:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

User:24.199.136.150, User:193.194.84.195 also vandalized User:M.C. Brown Shoes with 'aka some huge faggot who sucks a lot of cock for cash or just plain pleasure, ' ,

Possible Scottfisher socks

160.91.231.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a potential sockpuppet of Scottfisher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have blocked for 1 week accordingly. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Verified. I'm also blocking his other IP sock. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Editing again as 160.91.231.73. Andy Mabbett 22:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

24.183.224.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (part of a block registered to Charter Communications, 24.176.0.0 - 24.183.255.255) has mostly edited pages previsouly edited by Scottfisher; note removal of cleanup tag (despite no cleaning up); addition of image, another image addition and abusive comment. Andy Mabbett 17:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#160.91.231.73, below. Andy Mabbett 09:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

This IP contacted me on my user talk page asking about being unblocked. Since i've been kinda mentoring him by email for a while, I have to assume it's him. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmm chicken)} 23:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Who unblocked him? Andy Mabbett 17:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Assuming you were talking about 24.183.224.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), block log shows that his one week block simply expired. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 17:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I was asking about User:Scottfisher, forgetting that he can still edit his talk page while blocked. Sorry about that. Andy Mabbett 18:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Editing again as USer:160.91.231.73 (an article previously edited frequently by User:Scottfisher. Andy Mabbett 19:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Leonig Mig

Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been vandalizing the Leonig Mig userpage over the past couple of days, and he just vandalized it again less than an hour ago. Can someone block him and/or protect the page? (It was protected from the end of September, up until a week or so ago, but as soon as it was unprotected the vandalism appears to have began again (check the history for User:Leonig Mig). Thanks! --Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 10:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I have vandalised nothing. False acusations of vandalism constitute a personal attack. Desist. Andy Mabbett 10:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Uh... removing content from other peoples userpage, after various people have told you to stop, that's the definition of vandalism. So no, I won't be "desisting" anytime soon. Why don't you desist with the vandalism? --Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 10:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

He vandalized User:Leonig Mig's userpage again... --Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 13:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• The content which is being removed: "I left because of a user called Pigsonthewing. If he frustrates you too, my heart goes out to you." is clearly not constructive and helps create a hostile atmosphere. IMO there's a good case for removing it, although Pigsonwings probably shouldn't do it himself. - 82.172.14.108 13:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Two administrators have already intervened to stop the removal of that content (one by protected the page for almost two months, the other by reverting it multiple times), so if there were a good case for removing it, you'd think they'd have done it. Personally, if another user drove me off, I'd like to think I could leave a parting note on my user page indicating why I quit... --Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 14:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that what POTW is trying to remove from Leonig Mig's userpage is far from a "personal attack". It's a, IMO, rather sad statement saying that he feels bad for others that POTW has harrased. POTW, you'd best just forget about, and move on: it's not that big of a deal.--Sean|Black 18:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, then it should also be noted that it isn't strictly true... Leonig Mig has NOT left, he just changed user names. Another significant fact not mentioned here is that this situation is the mirror image of a previous dispute where Leonig Mig kept removing a statement about himself from Pigsonthewing's user page. Neither action (posting negative comments about another user and removing such comments from someone else's user page) is particularly helpful, but am I the only one finding it odd that in both cases there were official complaints filed about Pigsonthewing's actions... and not Leonig Mig's essentially identical behaviour? --CBDunkerson 09:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps. However, Leonig, is obviously deeply hurt by what's happened. Anyways, everybody involved should remeber what I said: It's not that big of a deal.--Sean|Black 03:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

In what seems related to this, Locke Cole and POTW have been having a revert war on User talk:Pigsonthewing over a vandalism warning left by Locke Cole. I've blocked Locke Cole for 3 hours for disruption; 6+ reverts to someone's talk page is bordering on harrassment. android79 12:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I've also protected User:Leonig Mig. android79 14:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good case for protection of the userpage of Leonard Mig--such unconstructive statements, particularly from departed editors who have decided not to continue contributing, cannot be intended to further the task of writing the encyclopedia. Mr Mig should write his message on his website or blog if he wants to publicise his grievance. Whether the statement should be removed is an editing matter and should be decided by the community. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

If Mr. Mig were still about there would be little doubt about him keeping this fairly innocuous statement on his user page. To play the devil's advocate, how long does someone need to be gone before their user page becomes "community" property? We have several active admins who have at one time or another "left the project", I note. - brenneman^(t)(c) 04:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Leonig Mig is still editing under another username, just so you know. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

What's "fairly innocuous", about a blatant falsehood? Andy Mabbett 10:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

So why don't you remove it, then? Andy Mabbett 12:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing just vandalized the page again. Locke Cole 10:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

And again. Locke Cole 12:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Third time now. Locke Cole 12:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Cease making false accusations of vandalism. Andy Mabbett 12:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Removing content from others' user pages is generally frowned upon, unless it is a blatant personal attack. Leonig Mig is simply stating his reason for leaving. Others have done the same thing — when Redwolf24 left for a little while, he posted on his user page why he left; RickK did the same. The only difference is Leonig Mig's reason for leaving is a user, not an issue or an abstract "them". POTW, if a user pissed you off to such an extent that you decided to leave the project, wouldn't you appreciate the right to state calmly on your own user page that you left because of them? I know I would. Please just leave his user page alone and move on. We need to be building an encyclopedia here, not revert-warring over a user page that (comparatively) very few people will see. Hermione1980 12:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Leonig Mig is simply stating his reason for leaving.: Not only has he not left; but the reasons he gives for supposedly having done so are false. Andy Mabbett 23:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

POTW, if a user pissed you off to such an extent that you decided to leave the project, wouldn't you appreciate the right to state calmly on your own user page that you left because of them?

But I think it's a disputable point whether it gives an objectively true reason to anyone who reads it. I've no doubt that Leonig Mig was upset, but it seems open to interpretation whether he was unreasonably hassled, or had a hissy fit because he wouldn't accept that all his work needed editing to conform to WP:NPOV and WP:MOS. I believe the latter to be nearer the truth. Tearlach 19:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. If that was the case, why did Leonig Mig create another account and continue to provide edits? Why not remain with the Leonig Mig account? Most likely answer: because Pigsonthewing harassed him until he simply could not stand log in. Pigsonthewing habitually skirts WP:NPA and WP:3RR (often gaming the system) to get his POV on edits.

Besides, when a user leaves, I think it's highly disrespectful to subsequently edit their userpage because you disagree with why they left. If you believe it to be an attack, get an admin to make the change for you (assuming they can be convinced), don't do it yourself. Locke Cole 20:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Most likely answer: because Pigsonthewing harassed him until he simply could not stand log in.: That's neither likely, nor true. I have harassed nobody; to claim otherwise would be a lie. As to beng disrespectful, how respctful was this? Andy Mabbett 23:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing is currently under a personal attack parole due to the Request for Arbitration against him: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing#Temporary_injunctions. Locke Cole 12:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I have made no personal attacks. The so-called "parole" is without foundation. Andy Mabbett 13:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Not only has he not left; but the reasons he gives for supposedly having done so are false. Andy Mabbett 13:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

They're not false as you were blocked previously for this before. Desist vandalizing other users pages immediately. Locke Cole 12:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Cease making false accusations of vandalism. Andy Mabbett 13:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yoo hoo! Andy! Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pigsonthewing! Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing! Still waiting for you! Perfect place to respond! --Calton | Talk 13:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. I've updated the Evidence of his RFAr with these latest vandalisms. Locke Cole 13:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Cease making false accusations of vandalism. Andy Mabbett 14:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

This would be fascinating... if they were false. Locke Cole 15:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, i'd like to point out that when I protected Andy's userpage over the mirror incident, I got it unprotected after 8 hours, with an agreement from Leonig not to do it; and he never did. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 13:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The difference being, that what is on my user page is neither a lie, nor a personal attack. Andy Mabbett 23:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

RFAr. Answer it. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 23:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yuber

In accordance with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber#Procedure_for_banning_in_probation_for_Yuber and Wikipedia:Probation, Yuber has been banned from editing Syria for one month for continuing to remove properly sourced and relevant material. [1] I wrote to him about this on November 16 and November 17, formally warned him on November 19 and gave him a final warning on November 20, but he went ahead and removed it again anyway. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• You clearly and politely stated your point on his talk page User talk:Yuber#Arbitration ruling. I don't see why you need to put this to the scrutiny of your fellow admins. If you checked with the arbcom as you said, there's no way anyone could say you were wrong in doing this. Or is there another reason you are putting this up here? - Mgm|^(talk) 23:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, one of the provisions of Wikipedia:Probation is that a banning should be announced on the ANI for review. Looks fine to me, btw. Dmcdevit·t 23:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks Mgm and McD. It's the first time I've done one of these, so I put it up here just to make sure I'd gone through all the steps correctly. I've also e-mailed Yuber and offered to reduce the ban to a week if he undertakes not to delete that same passage again. No agreement so far. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Yuber has also been fond of sockpuppetry and is absolutely certain he's far smarter than anyone else here. If new users show up and strangely start making the same edits ... - David Gerard 14:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Harassment_by_BrandonYusufToropov.2FYUBER_super-sockpuppet...... --Chaosfeary 13:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Nixer again

Izehar (talk · contribs) suggested I post this here for review (see User_talk:Dbachmann#Nixer.27s_block, User_talk:Izehar#Nixer) : I blocked Nixer for 48h, for repeat 3RRvio, this time he reverted six times in 24h before being blocked. I do not consider myself involved in a dispute with Nixer: I consider my reverts of Nixer's edits mere cleanup work. He may be editing in 'good faith', but his command of English, and the confused content of his edits, makes it impossible to be sure, so that fapp, his edits are equivalent to those of a troll. Policy may force us to treat Nixer as an "editor in good standing" in spite of his shortcomings, but if this is the case, it is a strong example of Wikipedia's "anti-expertise" and "pro-trolls" bias (what are the minimal cognitive faculties required of an editor to be considered "in good standing" and capable of being in dispute about anything?). In any case, feel free to reset my block to something shorter if you disagree with any of this. dab (ᛏ) 13:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE: I am a member of WP:AMA and Nixer (talk · contribs) recently e-mailed me about this (he was also complaining about m reverting him, but I'll leave that out for now). He has been blocked for 48 hours for violating the 3RR (Block log), and the block is due to expire at 10:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC) (tomorrow) (Blocked usernames). According to WP:3RR: after your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. Nixer has been blocked for 48 hours - the sysop who blocked him wasn't authorised to block him for that long. He has already been blocked for roughly 24 hours (he was blocked 24 hours ago), so could someone please remove the block. You can say "he has served the maximum sentence". Izehar 10:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll unblock him. I had not realized 24h was the maximum penalty at the time of issuing the block, and I didn't declare the block to be for anything except repeated 3RRvio (the 48h were intended as a cumulation for repeat offences. Note that Nixer managed to get himself blocked for 3RRvios seven times in three months. Also note that the first block I issued for 3RRvio was for 2 hours only). Not that it'll do any good, Nixer very obviously still hasn't learned why we have the policy, and he'll just keep banging his head against the wall. In the future, I will block him for 24h for any 3RRvio (including "aren't-I-clever" 4 reverts in 27 hours) without further comment. Nixer should really be dragged before the arbcom, but I can't be bothered with the bureaucracy involved, since ignoring him is much easier at this point (but I'll commend and support anybody who takes upon themselves to get Nixer before the arbcom). dab (ᛏ) 14:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, dab. This must seem like terrible wikilawyering and bureaucracy to an uninvolved party, but from Nixer's point of view they are not. I have heard both sides of the story (from your comments here and on my talk page and from Nixer's e-mails). Nixer seems to think that you're out to get him, revert every edit he makes and block him for the most trivial of reasons for as long as possible; you seem to think of Nixer as a blatant troll who abuses the system (the 4 reverts in 27 hours). Now I don't know who's right and who's wrong here - it is perfectly clear though that you two need some sorting out to do between yourselves; you should consider Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Izehar 15:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Anybody! Please unblock my IP address 213.135.64.212 ! --213.135.74.30 15:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep, that's Nixer all right. A Russian IP. Izehar 15:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Izehar, you also reverted Nixer. Does this mean that "you should consider [[Wikipedia:Resolving disputes]" too? +MATIA ☎ 15:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

he just reminded me of sticking to the letter of policy, that doesn't mean he cannot agree that Nixer's edits needed to be reverted. Izehar is being detached, as, I hope, I am too. Also, we know Nixer will be back and continue to behave like a jerk, so what does it matter if he does so now, or in another 20 hours. dab (ᛏ) 16:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Izehar just e-mailed me this in his letter:

I have checked your edits on "Proto-World language" again, and they appear to not be vandalism - I apologise to you for reverting you and suggesting that you were vandalising the article. I shouldn't have got involved.

And please, anybody, unblock my IP--Nixer 16:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

who said it was "vandalism"? You were blocked for 3RRvio, and your edits were reverted because they were bad, not because they were vandalism in the narrow WP sense. dab (ᛏ) 09:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

160.91.231.73

160.91.231.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Scottfisher (talk · contribs). I have blocked the IP indefinitely, but the IP made an edit today...do indef. blocks on IP's not work? Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 01:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

You should never block an IP indefinitely, and Scottfisher is not a banned user. You just blocked him indefinitely in what was a rather harsh move anyway. -Splash^talk 01:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Unless another administrator chooses to unblock him, I consider him to be banned, as the block has not been removed by anyone else, but has been reviewed by several administrators. The user has also been e-mailing administrators asking to be unblocked (see his talk page), and none have been willing to do so. If you feel my blocking of him was in error, I encourage you to review the case (I posted links to the discussions in question on his user page), and you feel feel unblocking is in order, feel free to do so, and the case can be placed on RfC or RfArb. I have endeavoured to be open and communicative to the administrative community with my actions in this case, and if others wish to re-examine the issue, I take no offense at that. As far as an indefinite block on an IP, Blocking policy states: Administrators are permitted and encouraged to IP-block anonymous proxies indefinitely, so there are cases where indefinite blocks on IP's are appropriate. Whether this IP is an open proxy is not something I'm technically proficient enough to address, but evidence has suggested that this IP has only been used by Scottfisher, and therefore I don't feel as bad blocking it. I also noted on the IP's talk page why it was blocked, and encouraged any anonymous contributors that were not Scottfisher to feel free to use the e-mail function to contact me. As far as it being a govt IP, Pigsonthewings mentioned it's connected with Oak Ridge Labaratories. Personally, I'm doubtful that collateral damage will be an issue. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention its a govt IP (sharedip), I was bout to unblock it myself. «»Who?¿?^meta 01:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

To which effect I have reduced the block to 24 hours....as soon as the servers wake up. -Splash^talk 01:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

For banned users see WP:BU. And Splash/Who are correct, never ever block an IP indefinitely. Dynamic = collateral damage. Static = lifetime ban. Both are bad things, so don't do it ;-) Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 01:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure WP:BU is a definitive list of all banned users. How about Category:Wikipedia:Indefinitely blocked users? Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

See also User:24.183.224.210 (details above). Andy Mabbett 09:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked doesn't mean banned! I've explained this way too many times... Indefinite block applies to accounts. Being banned applies to people. Indef blocked people are welcome to create another account and be good, banned users not as much so. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 02:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right, it doesn't, but I assert that in Scottfisher's particular case, it does, and I've provided links to evidence that I feel that opinion is justified, and I welcome discussion of the issue if that assertion is disputed. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 06:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, take a look at the evidence I present at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence and note the contribs Scott seemed to be making. I think he's trying to improve, so maybe you should give him a break. Besides, if he's contributing as a logged in user it's a lot easier to keep track of what he's up to than to keep track of which IP's he's using. —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 06:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

IP lookups

BTW, for those of you who want a quick way to do IP lookups, I added an ARIN tab to my monobook.js awhile back, feel free to steal it. «»Who?¿?^meta 01:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey Who! Look over there! *Yoink* I'll be taking that... Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 01:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Wha, what was that.. you thief you :) Let me know if you have any probs getting it to work. Also, I just copy the IP when I have to look it up on APNIC or RIPE, since the link is provided on the ARIN page. «»Who?¿?^meta 02:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Your javascipt is crufty and instruction creep. KISS! Feel free to add the specific part to my book. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 02:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hehe.. simple. . I'm not sure that is in my vocab. Okies.. I'll add it 4 ya. «»Who?¿?^meta 02:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Can I have it too? :) Titoxd^(?!?) 02:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

User:203.82.183.147

This IP address has over 100 edits. A strange mix of pointless one-liner vandalism, formatting fixes and the occasional really useful content-boosting edit. I believe it is shared, so obviously care should be taken when blocking etc. I suggested they should sign up for accounts to avoid being associated with vandalism.

Because a one-liner is easy enough to revert, practically no one has bothered to put warning tags on the Talk page. But just looking through their latest contribs, I found a dozen odd vandalous edits.

This is not an urgent issue, but if it's possible to "watch" a user or their contribs, that would be great. This kind of slow drip-drip vandalism really shits me. Thanks --pfctdayelise 01:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a dial-up user pool... Sasquatcht|c 07:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

And that means... we are hesitant to do anything unless serious vandalism occurs? pfctdayelise 14:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Because it's shared by many users, blocking this type of IP for long periods of time means we risk alienating other good faith contributors who could end up becoming regular Wikipedia contributors. · Katefan0^(scribble) 06:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Remington&therattlesnakes

Is cut-and-paste moving pages in a manner similar to Willy on Wheels. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Indef blocked --Doc ^ask? 10:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

That's the North Carolina vandal. His most recent active account was Luanne platter is really cute (talk · contribs), which mostly stayed in the sandbox, though he also returned to one of the talk pages of his numerous banned accounts last night ( A Man For The Glen (talk · contribs) ) ([2]). If he starts making multiple sockpuppets as he did here [3], you can shut him down by blocking 63.19.128.0/17. This guy's been around for a long time. Antandrus (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

He's rather active tonight. New accounts (blocked already) include

• Jake_Remington (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jake_Remington. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jake_Remington! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jake_Remington!! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and an old sockpuppet woke up:

• Dark Lord Farley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

And, not surprisingly -- have a look at the IP address of the anon demanding an unblock on Jake Remington, and denying association between him and "Remington and the Rattlesnakes": [4] Antandrus (talk) 06:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not the "North Carolina vandal". I am a completely different person. I am also not RATR. Until you gave that ridiculous block summary "north carolina vandal" to RATR, I had never even heard of the NC vandal.Jake Remington!! 15:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Duck test. Since you are vandalising again both by sockpuppet and IP, I blocked you for the day. I am yet to see a single edit from that IP range which doesn't have a distinctive "quack." Antandrus (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

And of course, as soon as the block expired, he was back making more sockpuppets, vandalising the usual things, including elitism and elitist:

• RRG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mudaguin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If you follow the edits of this pair, they lead you to a number of other sockpuppets and vandals he was evidently proud to be, within the last couple months (e.g. "Regara"). Apparently he was even more prolific a vandal than we have realized. I blocked 63.19.128.0/17 for 48 hours this time. And check out [5] -- I'm pretty good at guessing IPs without checkuser, hey? Antandrus (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

User:193.112.229.150 vandalizing again

This user again vandalized James and James Handcock. According to the talk page, he's been blocked repeatedly... can someone block him? Thanks. - grubber 17:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania again

User:68.85.127.72 has edited Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania in a way seemingly designed to reignite a recently cooled-off edit war and provoke User:Boothy443, who has duly removed the offending (incorrect) content. Should this user decide to revert back, it would be good if someone other than User:Boothy443 revert back, as he has a tendency to be baited into 3RR situations, and the possibility exists that User:68.85.127.72 is a sockpuppet of a participant in the previous edit war (insufficient evidence as of now to make an accusation or run a checkuser). --CComMack 01:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Jason Gastrich indefinitely blocked (by IP) by User:Karmafist

Karmafist (talk · contribs) has apparently indefinitely blocked Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs) by IP [6] for sockpuppetry. I have previously investigated and verified that Jason is in fact using sockpuppets; however, his use of sockpuppets is not clearly a violation of policy. Jason emailed me to complain about this. This is, in my opinion, an inappropriate block, as indefinite blocks for IPs for any reason other than open proxy are completely against the blocking policy.

Jason has admitted the use of sockpuppets but as of yet his use of sockpuppets has not violated policy (see his talk page for further discussion). Further, he has agreed not to use sockpuppets anymore, and we should take him on his word on this issue. Jason is, as far as I can tell, a POV pusher and something of an edit warrior, but neither of these things is enough for Jason to have earned a life ban from Wikipedia, and especially without public comment or even the slightest bit of attention to dispute resolution. That this punishment was imposed without even any public comment (that I can find) makes it that much more reprehensible.

I have had Jason's main IP unblocked and will be checking to see if Karmafist has blocked any of Jason's other IPs. I would strongly advise Karmafist (if he's even remotely interested in keeping his adminship) to leave Jason alone henceforth, and to try a lot harder at following blocking policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

When you say you had it unblocked it sounds like I'm your sock, or a cabalmeister ;-) but point is I warned Karma on his talk page. Well, both of them screwed up, both probably learned their lesson (karmafist hasn't gotten back to me yet). Although Karma messed up and he's an admin, I think we shouldn't treat him too badly, both were in the wrong and I believe Karma was in his mind trying to do what's best. I don't think he's done anything remotely close to as bad as the 6 or 7 users who were forcedly desysopped. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 06:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

any admin who has no clear idea of the difference of the job of an admin and the job of the arbcom should not be an admin in the first place. Everybody makes mistakes, but it is necessary to recognize them, and apologize where necessary. If Karmafist doesn't publicly recognize that an admin may not unilaterally permaban editors (as opposed to throw-away accounts), I say he turned rogue. I'm sorry, but what is it with all the vigilantism in the face of policy, recently? We can change policy if we feel it necessary that admins can permablock users, but we'll have to change it first and permaban later. I am not calling for the "defrocking" of anybody who in the heat of the moment permablocks an account (it is easily enough reverted, no harm done). I do call for the defrocking of anyone who does that, and afterwards refuses to admit it was a mistake. So yeah, let's wait for karma's statement. dab (ᛏ) 08:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I've permablocked an editor. No one complained (well one person sort of complained but that didn't go very far and the person blocked complained to the point of createing a webpage about how evil we all were). I think the person tried to appeal to jimbo but I don't belive it worked out. I do fell the amount of time I'm seeing people call on IAR is worrying though.Geni 11:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think the main problem is that at times, people are confused as to what policy really is. For instance, admins do on occasion permablock users (e.g. trolls, or legal threateners). So I think that DAB's vision on the situation is overly harsh. The mistakes here seem to be 1) indefinitely blocking an IP address that is not an open proxy, and 2) forgetting that sockpuppets are legal if they're not abused. Radiant_>|< 12:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • am I being overly harsh? I insist that it is important that admins feel obliged to exemplary behaviour, and that implies regard for both spirit and letter of policy. Admins have a lot of leeway for sane judgement, but there is policy, which no admin should thwart knowingly. Specifically, there is the 'disruption' clause, and I am in full agreement that admins should be allowed to intelligently interpret "disruption", and I fully expect that different admins may come to different conclusions. That is not the problem at all. It is my understanding that we may block indefinitely:
    • open proxies
    • throwaway vandal accounts
    • impersonators
    • socks of arbcom- or Jimbo-banned users
  • that's it. Not for vandalism, not for trolling, not for personal attacks, and not for being stupid or for being a jerk. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother to block trolls 24h at a time for 3RR, either [see further up on this page]. Extremely annoying people may be blocked by admins, as ultima ratio for one month. I'm sorry, that's simply what Wikipedia:Blocking says, and I marvel that I should be required to spell this out to my fellow admins. Any admin permablocking editors for reasons other than those mentioned above is outside policy, should reduce the block to one month at most, and should admit that they have made a mistake. dab (ᛏ) 14:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

well your free to hold that positon but despite my block technicaly being under review for three months no one has really complained yet. The block was farly well publicised (an/i and the mailing list).Geni 15:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, the second point you mention (throwaway vandal accounts) allows for permablocking for vandalism, trolling and personal attacks, provided that the user has no serious contributions. That's what makes it throwaway, I suppose. Radiant_>|< 15:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Karmafist has "forgotten" anything, he's quite capable of quoting policy until the cows come home. He is, not to put too fine a point on it, drunk with power. There's a really unhealthy tendency among many admins to see bending the rules and allowing exceptions for other admins, not as something to be done rarely when common sense absolutely dictates it, but as something to be done as a matter of course. He has banned another user (Pigsonthewing) basically for continuing to annoy him while there's an RfA outstanding - an RfA in which he is himself the main complainant (the block was revoked and reimposed by Bishonen shortly afterwards, following offline discussion with Karmafist). See here for details. Karmafist has unsuccessfully applied twice now to be a mediator, and his notion of "mediation" is to decide which side of an argument is the right one, and clobber the other side into submission - not a definition of mediation I recognise (and I've worked with professional mediators). He is now applying to join the arbitration committee, presumably with the intention of applying the same sense of fair play and sticking to policy. Frankly, as someone who has watched his spat with Pigsonthewing from the sidelines, this has made me feel there ought to be an easier way of removing admin powers from users, and Karmafist ought to be first in line. --Brumburger 14:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

If the remark about offline (?) discussion is meant to imply something about my role, I wish you'd spell it out. I undid Karmafist's block of Pigsonthewing because I know (from many a thread on this noticeboard) that they're in conflict and then I blocked POTW for harrassing several editors—I'd just been reading some of his edits. Bishonen | talk 22:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

"Please come back to IRC, I'd like to speak with you" - if that's not an indication that the matter was discussed offline, what is it? And below that, Karmafist observes that he has asked repeatedly on IRC for PoTW to be blocked. One of the cornerstones of justice is transparency, and conducting this sort of business on IRC does not give me any confidence that it is being done fairly. Talk pages (including this one) are there for a purpose - if there's a reason for blocking someone, as CBD says below, it needs to be discussed and done in public and somewhere where there is a permanent record, not on IRC. --Brumburger 12:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Bishonen, can you tell me who they were? None of the various block messages left for Pigsonthewing or block log edit summaries identifies the "several editors" he was blocked for harassing. That's information he should have if he is supposed to avoid harassing them in the future. --CBD ^T _C ^@ 00:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

She can't, because I haven't harrassed anybody. Andy Mabbett 16:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I can. I'm sorry for the delay, I've been away. Please see my reply to Andy's query here. To Brumburger: Rhetoric is a fine thing, but do you really take it to be the norm that issues involving a third party are discussed on talk pages? I believe wiki e-mail is used extensively for that. Sorry I didn't realize that IRC was referred to as being "offline", it seems a curious usage. Anyway, yes, I needed to speak with Karmafist in Real Time, and quickly, to discuss his block of POTW, ask his reasons, and tell him, as the blocking admin, that I meant to unblock. IMO that's courtesy, and avoidance of block wars. If secrecy rather than speed had been my object, I would hardly have put a note on Karmafist's talkpage and then used the main channel of #wikipedia, with its 200 lurkers and nobody knows how many loggers. There is wiki e-mail, after all. I had nothing to hide, though. Bishonen | talk 19:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• If you believe so, please open an RFC on Karmafist and cite evidence and diffs of his repeated abuse of admin powers. Admin abuse is a serious issue, but allegations aren't going to cut it unless backed with substantial evidence. Radiant_>|< 15:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Radiant, Brumburger gives his opinion, and is being fully on-topic to the case at hand. To ask im to open a full-blown rfc or shut up is legalistic and unconstructive. I tend to agree with Brumburger's take, although not necessarily as clear-cut as he makes it. There is a problem with "tough gun" admins, and Karmafist is close to the line, if not across it. There is a balance to be kept: on one hand, we don't want admins who block first and ask questions later (if at all), as autocrats, but on the other hand, we don't want endless indulgence to the point of ridicule either. This board is precisely the place where we exchange opinions about whether the balance is kept, or tilting. Karmafist now has a few opinions here that he may be too close to the line, and he is free take them into consideration -- or not. If the problem gets worse, or if Karamfist takes a confrontational rather than a conciliatory course in the face of criticism, of course the natural continuation of this discussion will be on an rfc. dab (ᛏ) 15:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't write "...or shut up", please don't put words in my mouth. Brumburger just said that Karmafist should have his adminship revoked, which is a serious matter and certainly grounds a "full-blown" RFC. I'm asking him to please provide evidence; I do not consider it legalistic to ask someone to back up their claims. Radiant_>|< 15:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
      • A good place to look would be CBDunkerson's evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing. Also as someone on the sidelines, I'm fairly dismayed by the sheer abuse of process that's going on there. Karmafist appears to be openly ignoring the principle of WP:NPA#A misguided notion: "Kicking them while they are down": for instance, in deliberately using "Pigs" as a nickname for the user Pigsonthewing, in the stated knowledge that it annoys. Naturally it escalates the situation, and then he can then point with howls of glee to the reaction as further evidence of POTW's unreasonableness. Tearlach 20:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Workshop; it appears that the ArbCom is already informed of this unfriendly behavior. Radiant_>|< 22:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks Radiant, anyone reading this thread might also want to see the conversation continue on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Workshop. And Tearlach, what you're talking about is exactly one of the problems that i'm talking about below, and I ultimately did it to prove a point mostly; POTW has done this hundreds of times throughout his wiki-career, and what's happened? Nothing. He continues to intimidate and kick others while they're down, yet he has whined and complained to this page time and time again when the same thing is percieved to have been done to him. You can see on that page that at the advice of Tony Sidaway I stopped, and what happened? Nothing. The harrassment only intensified. However, he does this because he knows there's no retribution for his actions, just like his time at USENET.

Like I said below, someone had to step in and be proactive in stopping POTW's rampage. Fortunately, since yesterday it looks like i'm not alone anymore. Unfortunately, it took what is being perceived by some people above as an IAR -- despite what Tearlach might think, this situation has brought me anything but joy, but this is my responsibility as an Admin and a Wikipedian. Karmafist 23:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

What rampage? The only "rampage" I can see was when you began provoking him. Until this started, POTW has always struck me an editor who was predominantly rational, and mostly got into conflicts with editors who were doing something fairly egregious anyway.

For instance, I'm tired of your repetition of Leonig Mig's whines about being metaphorically murdered: he came to Wikipedia with fixed and inappropriate ideas: that it was a place to "publish his local history work" [7], and the view that no-one could teach him anything about writing ([8] "I am a skilled writer and have attempted to treat things with a certain flair to create interest in things which prima facie are actually quite dull to most people. In your obession with conciseness you have just deleted many of the important subtlties and downgraded a lot of text to your own clumsy prose"). A punctured ego and refusal to learn are his only problems.

In any case, alleged abuse against Wikipedia rules doesn't make it acceptable to breach those rules in retaliation. As to "Pigs", I'm sure you'd be quick enough to block me if I started calling you "Fisterboy" and encouraged others to do so. Tearlach 03:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

What rampage?: It would appear that Karmafst has chosen not to answer this; in fact, he has a history of making bogus accusations, then failing to proveide evidence (in the form of diffs), when challenged. Andy Mabbett 18:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Why should he respond here? The evidence of you seek is readily available at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence. And hey, you can even respond yourself to these "false allegations". Locke Cole 19:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Why should he respond here?: He's used this page to make an allegation. It's been pointed out that it's false (not the first thime taht that's happened to his allegations). He can either prove Tearlach and me wrong, by showing evidence to suport his allegation, or not do so, and prove us right, and himself to be lying. His call. Andy Mabbett 23:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you do us all a favor and just respond to the damn ArbCom case, so you can prove your point to us all?! *STEAM* Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 23:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Karmafist Responds

This is typical of what's wrong nowadays with Wikipedia in my opinion -- people flying off the handle without knowing what's going on or not doing anything with full well knowledge of what's going on.

First off, I never blocked user:Jason Gastrich[9], I blocked the accounts here now seeing that Kelly Martin convinced Jason not to use them anymore.

He misunderstood as a newbie, fearing that his contreversial status outside Wikipedia would make him a target, thus necessitating the need for sockpuppets. I told him that sockpuppetry would only make things worse for him and said they sockpuppets aren't acceptable under this situation, but since he was new, it was a WP:BITE situation and he could continue to edit under that name since he didn't understand that before. At some point in the future, he may feel the need to use those sockpuppets again, and my goal was to assist him going cold turkey on socks if he saw himself in that position in the future.

I'll put any other discussion on discussion of my views on sockpuppets at Wikipedia talk:Sock puppet to save space here, but needless to say, in my opinion, sockpuppets are never acceptable under any circumstance other than personal threats towards the original user, such as in the case of Leonig Mig

Who, speaking of which, was driven from his primary user account of fear from that user account by continuous abuse from Pigsonthewing. Was this behavior reprimanded? No. This is in my opinion the largest of his policy violations, but definately not the only one. Yet, despite an rfc and weeks of an rfar, POTW continues his casual edit wars and talk page abuse unabated. Thumbing his nose at the arbcom and not even responding to his rfar since he sees them as powerless. Unfortunately, so far he's been right.

Yesterday, I made a template to use in cases where he had badmouthed me elsewhere(he badmouths just about anyone who disagrees with him in any way), and he basically tried to sabotage even that. That was the last straw. I had not blocked him time and time again because of the rfar, waiting for the arbcom to do something to stem his behavior. However, my faith in the arbcom's unwillingness to do anything despite over 100 pieces of evidence showing his behavior had diminished to the point where I felt that I was the only person left who would do what is necessary to curb his behavior.

I respect Kelly Martin and a few of the other arbcommers i've met individually, but as a whole, right now the arbcom itself as a whole is impotent and overworked. Something needs to be done about this endemic problem, and I often feel like i'm the only one who's willing to sacrifice their reputation in order to do it.

Feel free to martyr me if you'd like. I'd gladly give up my adminship if I could help users like Leonig Mig can edit free from fear of intimidators like Pigsonthewing or make users like Jason Bauder out there know that there is a force out there that will help you if you feel like you're being assaulted by a "cabal". However, as long as i'm an admin, I'll do what I need to do in order to make sure what needs to be done regarding problem users is done. Karmafist 18:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

personal threats towards the original user, such as in the case of Leonig Mig. Who, speaking of which, was driven from his primary user account of fear from that user account by continuous abuse from Pigsonthewing.: I challenge you to provide diffs to susport your malicious and false allegation. Andy Mabbett 12:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Just check your rfar, it's all there. For those of you who don't know Pigsonthewing, you can learn more about hostile allegations such as this one at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing.karmafist 20:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I challenge you to provide diffs to susport your malicious and false allegation. And you fail to do so. Again. Andy Mabbett 21:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Both of you two, cool it. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

While remaining perefectly calm and civil, let alone cool, I'm not prepared to let false allegations go unchallenged. Would you? Andy Mabbett 22:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I've got this crazy idea, but it just might work: why not respond to these "false allegations" on the pages of your very own RfC and/or RfAr? I mean, they even have space set aside for your personal use. I'm sure that Kelly Martin, as a member of ArbCom, will pay strict attention to whatever you have to say there.--Calton | Talk 00:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Gastrich Responds

You actually blocked my IP address. I use the same IP address for Jason Gastrich and any socks. When I tried to post/edit with User:Jason Gastrich, I was forbidden.

Incidentally, Karmafist brought this issue to this very page on Nov. 22. If you read up, you'll see that two administrators essentially told her she shouldn't ban me. She apparently didn't care what they thought or said.

It certainly was opinion when you said, "in my opinion, sockpuppets are never acceptable under any circumstance other than personal threats". This certainly isn't what the Wiki rules say about sockpuppets. The rules mention several valid reasons for their usage.

When you banned my IP, I was in the middle of seeking a 3rd party admin to discuss my future use of socks. The discussion can be seen on my talk page. In fact, I have left it there and I've been waiting. It seems that your opinion on this subject doesn't match Wiki's rules and it also seems that I was using them correctly.

At any rate, it would be wise to apologize for the hasty/unnecessary ban and seek ammends with the others you've offended. I haven't been using sockpuppets lately because I'd like to get the consensus on my/their usage. I'd like to follow the rules concerning them, but I don't feel that you're a good representative of (at least in this case and the ban, which is all I know of you) Wiki policy.--Jason Gastrich 23:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• • And yet you know full well you tried to astroturf the vote in the deletion of the "Jason Gastrich" page. Or what's called "meatpuppets" here I understand. That's why there were so many one off comments and votes, most not even bothering to create an account. Most also showed up at an incorrect page because you broadcast an erroneous link in your little mailing didn't you? Mark K. Bilbo 00:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Back to indefinitely blocking accounts (not anons)

I agree with Geni and Radiant that there are occasions where we can use our common sense on certain editors. Ignore all Rules is there when we're trying to make things better, and of course some people do abuse IAR, but don't just have the arbcom do everything that may be controversial. There's a clause in the blocking policy (oh, we DID edit the policy afterall) stating some editors are just so bad that none of the 670 admins will bother to unblock. Of course, this is abusable on low-profile editors, but on editors like BigDaddy777 and Rainbowwarrior1977 and to some extent, -Ril-, this has been handy. -Ril- did finally get unblocked, and got better, which is a good thing. BigDaddy pissed off pretty much everyone, and had it coming with all the things he did wrong, a monkey could see he wasn't helping us out. Rainbowwarrior1977 also kept within the rules, but he was annoying a lot of editors, and that's when I blocked him indefinitely (I later talked to him through e-mail, he admitted he was trolling). If someone's misblocking, then undo the block, talk to them about it. But don't tell everyone to not get rid of obvious trolls and to wait for the arbcom to sort everything out. They do enough and they're overworked enough. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 02:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

We should not, I repeat, should not have a "can't block until ArbComm tells me to" blocking policy. It is simply detrimental to Wikipedia. I do not believe in "shoot first, ask questions later" as something that admins should use, but it is simply necessary in cases of obvious abuse. That's what this page's for, to review those kinds of things. If I recall correctly, {{indefblockeduser}} reads, "This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, per ruling of administrators, Jimbo Wales and/or the Arbitration committee." The ArbComm might ask us to have some common sense, as they have already. Besides, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and having to go through one for every single egregious offense of Wikipedia policy is simply giving too much respect to vandals, trolls and malactors, while slapping in the face those who are here to write an encyclopedia and who actually need the support to continue doing what they need to do. Does that sound familiar? Titoxd^(?!?) 07:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I very much agree with what you say. We just need to make that clear in policy, and have some mechanism of review to prevent abuse (partisan blocking by involved admins over escalating content disputes). We could call it "indefinite community bans", and do a subpage of AN dedicated to them, where admins are required to list their blocks, and their reasons, so we can easily check which users at a given moment are "banned on basis of common sense". Unblocking admins can give their reasons, and only if there is no consensus among admins does it need to be taken to a more bureaucratic level. Yes, common sense should come first. We just need a way to keep things in the open, so every case isn't dragged here with shouts of admin abuse. But note that blocks for one month are almost never issued: it's either a couple of days, or indefinite. For practical purposes, a month's ban is pretty much identical to an indefinite ban, because any self-respecting pov-pusher will be back with a sock army long before the month is over. In clear [common sense] cases, I would just block for a month. if the user is back after a month, and hasn't reformed, it's cheap to block him for another month. dab (ᛏ) 07:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea to me. One way to make it less controversial might be if admins put up an initial block for just a couple of days to stop ongoing disruption and then inform the blocked user and the noticeboard (or subpage as you suggest) of intent to extend it to an indefinite block. That leaves a window for commentary if anyone disagrees with the action. --CBD ^T _C ^@ 10:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, we do have a much-neglected Account suspensions page... as for a short block, it gives the blocked user too much of an incentive to "wait out" the block. A long block can be done, which is then shortened by other admins if they disagree. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandal reverting userpage, etc.

Winnermario left Wiki after getting into arguments with some weird people. Now, some other weirdo (user:malber) is reverting her user- and talkpage. I have reverted back and asked if he's a dumbass, but he gave me no reply. Instead, he went to revert her talkpage, again.

History of the talkpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Winnermario&action=history

History of the userpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Winnermario&action=history

Can someone stop him please? --Anittas 06:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• In general user pages and talk pages should not be blanked, but kept as a historical record. I'm not opposed to having the talk page in it's filled state. But whatever Winnermario did to his userpage should be left alone. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Inexhaustible vandalism from the UK Internet for Learning: range block warranted?

These IPs (and surely others that I haven't come across, and indeed the whole range) are registered to the UK Internet for Learning, according to notes on several of the talkpages:

• 62.171.194.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.171.194.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.171.194.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.171.194.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.171.194.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.171.194.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.171.194.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.171.194.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.171.194.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

From them flows a steady, deep, inexhaustible river of childish vandalism into the encyclopedia. After quite some time spent sampling, I haven't found one single good edit from any of them, though I can't swear that one isn't hiding out somewhere, obviously. All the warnings posted on all the talkpages by all the ambitious Wikipedians have an air of pathos, if you read them all together. Don't we have enough to do? If the range is indeed static, and the sole purview of enthusiastically scrawling children, can it be blocked wholesale, by someone who understands the art of range blocking? Or can somebody who's better than me at navigating the intarweb find their way to someone in a position of responsibility at the UK Internet for Learning? Or, does anybody have any other suggestions? Please? --Bishonen | talk 17:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

My thought is to block all of these and then wait for some feedback from any legitimate users. It seems to be a network which would go to all primary schools in the UK when it is built out. Fred Bauder 17:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

From whois "All abuse reports should be sent to abuse at ifl.net Fred Bauder 17:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

There may be a handful of good edits in there - see the recent [10] by User:62.171.194.12. Which is not to say that I object to massive blockage. FreplySpang (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Further to Fred Bauder, the whois indicates that Research Machines have sub-allocated 62.171.194.0/23 to ifl.net. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Ahh... I ... see. (Not.) Could somebody get on it, please? Bishonen | talk 18:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

See Classless Inter-Domain Routing. 62.171.194.0/23 is a range of 512 IP addresses from 62.171.194.0 to 62.171.195.255. It's also the format that you use for range blocking on the block page. Personally, I would like to see a greater consensus here before we take action to indef block such a large range. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Do it. Just make sure the blocking admin has an email set and send a complaint at the same time.Geni 18:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I blocked 62.171.194.0/23 indefinitely. I sent an email to their abuse desk advising them of the block and the reasons that it was implemented. I also asked them if they subnet in any way that would enable us to reduce the size of the block and if they had any additional comments. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

:-) Outstanding. Thanks! Bishonen | talk 00:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Make sure that indefinitely means indefinitely and not infinitely! Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 05:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Collateral damage

I received an email indicating that this block is also affecting some libraries in the UK. I still haven't heard back from the ISP and I asked the user that mailed me to try and get the IPs of the library computers to see if I can work round that range with the block. Is this worth maintaining if we're going to cause collateral damage? --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds promising. They must divide that block of addresses up. Fred Bauder 20:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

If we can get the library range (i.e. if the vandal fonts are, indeed, static), we can except them, but we need to be aware of the fact that libraries may be one of the sites of vandalism, and the only thing denied them now is the ability to edit. We're still good for researching on. The amount of spew the range was producing was truly staggering. Geogre 14:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm taking a wikibreak, so I removed the block on this range. Feel free to re-block it. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

User: 86.11.18.61

This user has been making repeated unsigned comments on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Graeme_Lawton which is concerning a page he created. More seriously though, he made this offensive edit, altering the signature of Logophile to Paedophile. I have left a warning on his talk page but I am not sure if this behaviour calls for a straight ban as disruption. --Spondoolicks 17:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

It has tampered with both other user's comments and their signatures and is generally not good company. I've blocked it for 5 days — the duration of an AfD. The other IPs don't appear, yet, to have misbehaved, although the 216.xxxx is not a Cambridge Uni address (131.111.) as it claims in one post. -Splash^talk 17:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master blocked for personal attacks

I have blocked Zen-master (talk · contribs) for an escalating series of personal attacks. In the process of reverting the Conspiracy theory article over a dozen times, he referred to the numerous people he was reverting as "the POV pushing bot-esque gang", "the POV bot gang" "POV bots", "bad faithed gang of POV pushers" etc. (e.g. [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]). I warned him that if he continued he would be blocked for 24 hours[16], but he nevertheless continued making personal attacks in his next two comments (e.g. "you and your POV aligned buddies" [17], "your POV aligned gang" [18]). Jayjg ^(talk) 19:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure what we should do with him. He tried to discuss this with me on IRC on the 26th and apparently he's become convinced that "bots" are used to debate on Wikipedia...either that or these users are all "brainwashed" by "a foreign group". I'm not kidding. Not sure what to do with him, but I'm not sure just a 24 hour block will do. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 20:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe he's been spending too much time on the conspiracy theory articles. ;) Seriously though, this is a tough one because ZM is basically a good editor that seems to have this ironclad belief that everything is a conspiracy (here and outside of Wikipedia). It seems to me like it's a case of conspiracism. The fact that his opinions have been opposed by the vast majority of editors and that he's been blocked for his disruption probably only solidify his convictions. I do think that when his behavior reaches the point of making accusations and personal attacks against editors, additional dispute resolution steps are necessary. Carbonite | Talk 20:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if you are aware of this, but he recently had an arbcom case against him. He's on probation. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am on probation for race and intelligence and related articles and have temporarily voluntarily refrained from editing them since Jimbo Wales said via email he was going to look into the issue. I accept that many editors of some articles disagree with me on content but the recent incident on conspiracy theory was a case of the majority censoring the existence of a dispute, in my interpretation. I can agree to disagree as far as content is concerned but wikipedia's NPOV policy generally requires signifying the existence of a dispute by adding the {npov} template to the disputed article which is why I was so flabbergasted and got so riled up at the repeated removal of the {npov} template. And I am still waiting for someone to explain how my past comments were "personal attacks" exactly but I plan to move forward regardless. If you feel I have violated wikipedia policy then by all means file a request for arbitration (or explain your specific concerns to me directly). zen master T 07:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Bulk vending and 1.800.Vending Legal threats

I just received this via email:

Hello

I have repeatedly deleted false and misleading information on our company from the article for 1.800.VENDING. You have repeatedly put the information back on. A lawsuit will be filed in U.S. District Court, District of Utah during the second week in December against Wikipedia and The Wikimedia Foundation. If Wikipedia takes responsibility for your actions as an administrator no legal action will be taken against you personally. If they indicate that they have given you authority to make decisions independent of their company and attempt to place the blame on you we will have no choice but to subpoena your contact information from Wikipedia and file a suit against you directly.

Wikipedia (and/or you personally) are responsible for the false and misleading statments made against our company. It is not our responsibility to sort through the statements to guide you in what is accurate and what is not. We have deleted the information. You have overidden the deletion which make you liable for the information. I would recommend that you delete the entire article. A suit for damages will still be filed against Wikipedia/Wikimedia but no action will be taken against you directly.

Please email any response to the email address listed below.

Jeff Marsh Vice-President, Operations 1.800.VENDING <email removed>

The IP address 65.105.237.226 (talk · contribs) was removing large sections of text which were critical of the company without edit summaries and I (along with others) reverted them as vandalism. He was asked to comment for his reasons for removing the text before a block was implemented. As this is a legal threat, I have no intention of replying to the email. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's a possible solution: Since most of the critical info is on their previous business, Turnkey Vending, move that info to a separate article, but still include links and a brief explanation in the 1.800.Vending article. ^BlankVerse 20:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any stake in the articles. The only times I have edited them was to revert what looked like simple vandalism. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Someday Wikipedia contributors will be sued personally for their actions on Wikipedia, whether or not such suits have a valid foundation. I hope that day is not today and that the contributor is not GraemeL, but Wikipedia has become too successful to ignore the fact that some people and organizations will attempt to use the legal process to manipulate what is written here. Sigh. The sadder truth is that the Wikimedia Foundation, if it relies on its previous position as a forum provider rather than an information provider, would neccesary claim that they are not responsible for what is written here and such lawsuits would tend to fall on the contributors personally. On the plus side, since truth is an absolute defense against libel in the US, adherence to NPOV and other content policies should allow for a fairly strong defense in general. (P.S. I am not commenting on and have not considered the merits of this particular case.) Dragons flight 21:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Having a look at the article, I agree that we need more on what the company sells, how big it is, etc rather than what laws they may or may not have broken. Reducing the size of the critical section would therefore take back the suggestion that the article is biased against the company, which even if every sentence is worded NPOV, the overall tone of the article is not great. It attacks the company in too much detail without giving in similar detail precisely what they do. In this case, I would suggest that the other company is split off as above and we ask Mr Marsh for information about his company. — Dunc|☺ 21:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Dragons flight has a good point, truth is an absolute defense against libel. But as long as we adhere to WP:NOR, we should be fine too, because even if we publish libelous material, we can't be held responsible as long as the sources we use for the basis of the claim is credible. -Greg Asche (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd like some clarification from a lawyer here. Truth is an absolute defense. If someone (maliciously or negligently) posts libellous falsehoods, they might (quite rightly) be liable in law (perhaps a warning to this effect should be placed at the bottom of the edit window). But where would an admin stand who reverted a deletion of the liable, or worse still protected the libellous version? Could the admin be held liable in law, what if he or she acted negligently (not checking the edit history)? And to complicate matters, what law governs? Florida, law of the injured party, law of the admin's location? --Doc ^ask? 23:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, what a tangled web this weaves... what law applies depends on two factors:

First, the law of conflicts of law followed in Utah. Some states apply the law of the place where the "wrong" occurred (either in Florida, or in the home state of the admin doing the reversion/protecting at issue) or in the state where the "injury" occurred (which, for things posted on the internet, could be anywhere), and some states just apply their own law no matter what. Utah appears to follow the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Law (see Jeffs v. Stubbs, No. 960454 (Utah 1998)), which would use a balancing test to determine which contacts with which states were most significant, which would probably designate Florida as the place of choice.

Second, will a Utah court constitutionally be able to exercise jurisdiction over this case? For internet defamation cases in particular, courts apply the "Zippo" test, which examines what type of website the material is posted on, and the level of control exercised by the owner over posting. Wikipedia is fully interactive, but sells very little (certainly the purpose of the site is not to sell goods for a profit). I think the expectant plaintiff in this case is confusing the role of administrator with an employed agent of Wikipedia (the latter would likely make Wikipedia liable, and would allow the plaintiff to extract the admin's contact info from Wikipedia). However, admins are not agents of Wikipedia - they have no power to bind Wikipedia to anything, and have no power that is not accorded to them by their fellow editors (who are also unpaid, and can be anyone). If history is to be any guide, this Utah case is likely to meet swift dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction over any of the defendants.

That's the best opinion I can render without doing any particularly intensive legal research. Cheers! BDAbramson T 00:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Having looked at GraemeL's userpage it appears he is located in Scotland. This would presumably make things even more complicated as it would need to involve international coordination? I believe that English law is very different to US law when it comes to Libel, and that Scottish law is similar to English law in this regard - would this come into play? Thryduulf 03:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Not if the lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court, as the threat alleges. FCYTravis 03:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

As someone who used to receive multiple legal threats per day on a near-daily basis, I wouldn't worry about any legal threats that don't come from an actual, honest-to-Bob lawyer. In this case, I wouldn't worry about it even if the threat came from a lawyer, but I certainly wouldn't waste much neural activity on it until that point. Email is cheap. (IANAL, but I play one at work.) → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 19:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/68.225.248.40

It'll be nice if an admin keeps an eye on this IP user, it keeps on spamming several articles with links to probably his own website trying to sell some graphics/artworks. See also Air Artworks, already marked for deletion. --Denniss 21:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I've warned him using the {{spam}} template on his talk page. He can be blocked if he continues to do this. -Greg Asche (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley 13

William M. Connolley: Six-month revert parole on certain articles violation on Global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

• Reverted to:

Revision as of 14:04, 5 October 2005

• Violation:

Revision as of 17:58, 5 October 2005

• User did not supply adequate talk page comment. User has a requirement that "Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate". Violations of this order should be treated as WP:3RR violations. Although AN/I states 3RR should not be reported here, it has been suggested to me that such parole violations should be reported here. (SEWilco 03:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC))

• I see you've got as far back in time as October 5, SEWilco. I don't see any advice in the responses to your reports 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 on WP:AN/3RR to go bother WP:AN/I instead, I only see comments like these: "The arbcom refused to acknowledge your calls for action on these same things, and you keep spamming every available forum" (User:Guettarda). " I still do not think that issuing extremely retroactive punitive blocks is useful, for anyone" (User:Splash). "SEWilco is acting like a spoiled child" (User:Nandesuka). "This is petty stalking and nothing else. ... Could you please stop spamming this page with the results of your crusade-inspired painstaking detective work?" (User:Asbestos). "Now that it's becoming fairly established that WMC is not going to be blocked for episodes you're digging up from a month ago, why continue to disrupt this page?" (User:Cleared as filed). "Please reconsider before proceding with further such antique reports, after being repeatedly asked not to" (User:Alai). I ask you to please not follow up this thread with User:William M. Connolley 14, 15, 16, etc on this page instead. If for no other reason than WP:AN/I being much busier than WP:AN/3RR, that would be a really bad idea. Considering how indifferent you've been to all pleas to desist on WP:AN/3RR, I'll add that if you do post further ancient violation reports here, I'll remove any of them I see, and I hope others will do the same. Bishonen | talk 04:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked SEWilco for 24 hours for posting #13. I warned him after #12 that I'd block him if he posted an old one again. I'm in touch with him by e-mail and if he undertakes to stop, I'll happily unblock him early. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Bishonen, SlimVirgin issued the invitation in my Talk page, and then blocked me for doing so. Apparently SlimVirgin forgot this is not WP:AN/3RR. Part of the discussion there is based upon an assumption that 3RR will be reported soon after the event. SlimVirgin brought that assumption over here and applied it without discussion. Clarification from the ArbComm has been requested. (SEWilco 16:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC))

Let's look at some highlights from the "invitation", shall we?

SEW, you've now reported user:William M. Connolley 11 times since November 15 for alleged 3RR violations, some of which are over a month old. This is starting to look like malicious reporting, and you may be blocked for disruption if it continues, though by all means report a new violation if you see one.

...violations should be reported sooner. In future, you should probably either report them within a day or two, or let it be.

Your reading of the plain English of her post seems conveniently selective. --Calton | Talk 06:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

SEW has a user RFC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SEWilco. Its regrettable that he is still spamming here rather than finding the time to answer there. He was notified of it [19] at 2005-11-24 23:50:40. William M. Connolley 18:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC).

Could someone please ban 70.176.62.225 (talk · contribs)

This anonymous user has been vandalizing pages , revert warring and commiting ethnic personal attacks on wikipedia editors. Thanks --CltFn 05:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Blocked by Jpgordon for one month. Seventh block on this IP. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Leonigmig

Leonigmig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing User:Pigsonthewing's user page. He's blocked already. Sunfazer 11:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

What is this with trying to appoint a Cabal this year?

What is Jimbo doing? First he tries to appoint a cabal, now we are only allowed to know what candidates think of themselves, not what other people think of them. Imagine your a random user, and vote, youll end up choosing Sam Spade.

See also User talk:Simon Chartres#Endorsements and disendorsements

Simon Chartres 14:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• While I don't particularly care for Simon's way of putting it, he does make a good point. There has been considerable criticism against having the next Arbitration Committee appointed rather than elected, because many people don't like BackRoomDecisions and fear that this may appoint a candidate with friends in the right places in favor of a more capable one. It also seems that public faith in the ArbCom has been dropping, and faith would likely be improved by having a fair election. Finally, neither Jimbo nor the ArbCom have (to my knowledge) been willing to comment on this situation, or give reasons for their not wanting an election. I must say I find this troubling. Radiant_>|< 16:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Not haveing an endorsements/dissendorsements page is a decision that predates Jimbo's announcement. I assume that people will find way around this. However it all appears pretty academic at the moment.Geni 16:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but there seems to be a fair bit of confusion and of course this is my fault. My suggestion that the methods of creating arbcom members needs to change does not in any way have anything to do with appointing a cabal, and in fact my motivation is primarily the opposite, in the sense that I feel that one of the major problems with last year's process is that only one type of user was favored in the election, which is famous users who are well-connected politically in the community (i.e. a cabal!).

Now, we ended up with absolutely excellent arbitrators of course but the committee needs to grow, and we need to consider the dangers of having a committee which is too scared of popular votes. There's a delicate balance which needs to be struck between judicial independence and community feedback and control. Nothing radical is happening or is likely to happen.--Jimbo Wales 17:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

How are you planning to apply this to the French and German wikipedias? If you wanted to change the system why didn't you join the refome discusion like anyone else? What evidence do you have that arbcom has ever been afraid of the popular vote? If it is only a suggestion can we ignore it this time round becuase we really need to start the vote this week so we don't really have time for last minute amendments?Geni 17:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone could always create a summary Wikipedia activity page for the candidates that includes links to any RFC, RFM, RFAr and/or RFA (failed or approved). That would certainly indicate that a number of individuals needed closer scutiny. ^BlankVerse 17:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm I did consider at one point of putting together a list of which candidates I'd blocked.Geni 17:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• I concur with Radiant. This seems like slightly over-zealous self-censorship. Jimbo is not a delicate flower. He can handle it if the community disagrees with him. Nandesuka 18:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • As Geni said, discussion regarding endorsements and disendorsements dates all the way back to the 2004 election, after which more-or-less everyone concluded doing it again was an inherently stupid idea - which is why it was explicetely stated that none would be created this year. Raul654 18:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, but that is missing my point. I agree that (dis)endorsements are a bad idea. However, I also think that refusing to hold elections and not bothering to inform the community why, is a bad idea. At present, the impression is that without having the proper connections, one cannot become an arb. Radiant_>|< 19:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but who said anything about 'refusing to hold elections'? That's a rather odd way to put it. --Jimbo Wales 17:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Without commenting on your concerns about the change in procedure (I've voiced my opinion on it in private) -- that is an unrelated issue and irrelavant to this discussion. Raul654 19:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
        • (to Raul) Okay, if you think it's irrelevant in this discussion let me ask again in a new discussion. Radiant_>|< 19:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm a little confused. Are the elections cancelled? Is Jimbo appointing arbitrators? None of this is mentioned on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005. Rhobite 19:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes. The elections are cancelled, for reasons unknown. As far as I know (since there is little news about it), Jimbo intends to hand-pick arbitrators, regardless of community opinion of those people. Radiant_>|< 19:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Elections are not cancelled. The process is changing, and the exact details are to be worked out and discussed, and by all means let's discuss it! But be very clear on this point: elections are not cancelled.

• • • • • • What Jimbo has described is a two step procedure -- Jimbo, with advice from the current arbitration committee, selects a set of would-be appointees. The community then has an approval vote on them. Would-be appointees recieving greater than 50% approval will be appointed. Raul654 19:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

So logicaly going by past results that would result in an arbcom of one. well at least it would be able to come to descissions quickly.Geni 19:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• See, that is already more information than was previously available. Does the community vote on each individual candidate, or on the group? And what will happen if a candidate gets insufficient support, does Jimbo have spare candidates? Do we get to know in advance who they are? Does he start with 15 candidates for 12 seats? Or do we get an ArbCom with less people? Wouldn't it be easier to have Jimbo handpick e.g. 18 candidates and install the 12 that get the most community support? Radiant_>|< 20:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

my understandoing is that it will be each invidual. I am not aware of any comment on what happens if a candidate fails. What I'm vaguely woundering is how jimbo intents to apply this to wikipedias in other languages.Geni 20:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Could Someone Privileged Enough to have been privy to these discussions, no doubt announced widely on-Wiki, please tell me where the discussions and/or announcements are? -Splash^talk 20:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I mean for the details as given above by Raul654 rather than the single-sentence Jimbo announcement of the principle of enthronement. -Splash^talk 20:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• There have been no announcements (except a partial note to the ArbCom election page), everything has been done entirely through BackRoomDecisions. Most discussion can be found here. Radiant_>|< 20:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Jimbo's announcement
• As for discussions, they've been going on a lot of places. On the mailing list, the straw poll, this noticeboard, 'etc. Raul654 20:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

however the man himself has been silent rendering all such disscusssion pretty academic.Geni 21:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• (bit of a promo here, hope you don't mind! :-) ) For those who are unaware, the Wikipedia Signpost has covered major news and events on Wikipedia since the beginning of this year, and we are currently doing a special series on the ArbCom elections. All the news above were covered in the respective week's issue; the paper is published every Monday. We even have a special subscription so that the paper is delivered straight to your user page. So start reading today! (/promo) Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration policy ratification vote is still open, so the arbcom can be voted out of power if this appointment issue causes it to lose the community's trust. It will always need 66% support for RfAr to stay open. Guanaco 04:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not hold an election?

Can someone official, e.g. ArbCom or Jimbo or related, please indicate the reasoning behind not having an election for the next arbitration committee? I find it worrying that neither has so far been willing to comment on this. At present, the impression is that without having the proper connections, one cannot become an arb. There has been considerable opposition to appointing an ArbCom rather than electing one, and ignoring this without bothering to comment on it will likely decrease community support for the ArbCom as a whole. Radiant_>|< 19:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

For those unfamiliar with ArbCom, answers to the following questions would also be helpful:

1. Has ArbCom been elected or appointed in the past?
2. Has ArbCom been doing a good or a bad job in the past, and how this is related to the change of election/appointment procedure?
3. How long are ArbCom cadencies?
4. Is it possible to remove somebody from ArbCom? If so, how?

A possible solution might be to have ArbCom appointed one year and elected another. After several years we should be able to judge which method is better.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

1.a mixture of apointements and elections at various times.

2.Imposible to objectively judge. Only one descission has been rejected by the community

3. in thoery 1 to 3 years. In practice untill they quit which tends to be a lot shorter

4.It could probably be done through getting the other arbcom memebers to vote them off or a descission by the board. It would not be easy. It hasn't come up yet though.Geni 21:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• • I should point out in relation to (2), that criticism of Arbs and the ArbCom has increased significantly since Jimbo's recent appointements. But the situation is more complex than that, it's certainly not a straight "post hoc ergo propter hoc". The answer to (4) is almost certainly "no", given that it's already next-to-impossible to get deadminned. Radiant_>|< 23:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I think 4 would just about be posible. Apointments would make it harder bit still doable. It would be likely to involve a fair bit of damage to wikipedia in the process though.Geni 23:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The AC cannot comment on this with any authority because we don't know what the procedure will be. All I can say without wild speculation is that if you'd like to be considered, you should probably put a statement on the candidate statements page. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Once again, that is more information than was previously known, so thanks. So who does know? Only Jimbo? The board? Some hidden discussion someplace? Since this affects the entire community, I think it's patently unreasonable to keep the entire community in the dark on this. I've seen several candidates withdrawing because of the uncertainty; it gives the appearance that most people putting up candidate statements will not actually be considered at all, with no reasons given. Radiant_>|< 23:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

A very slight clarification of geni's comment, which I think bears explaining - the Committee has never been directly elected. There have been two times (out of five total) when Jimbo was appointing people to it where he asked the community to use the "voting" software to suggest who he should appoint; both times, he happened to appoint along the same lines as the "vote" suggested, but it wasn't an election per se.

James F. (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• And has this system produced any undesirable results, apart from the infamous "disendorsements" page that everybody agrees should not be started this year? Radiant_>|< 23:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, out of all the arbitrators elected last time, only three served out the full first year of their terms. That's a bit of a botch there. Phil Sandifer 23:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I am aware of that. Do you believe that arbiters appointed by Jimbo would be less subject to burnout? If so, why? Radiant_>|< 23:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Radiant - Please check out User talk:Simon Chartres (... not everyone agrees to your common sense point) Raul654 23:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, but I think we can ignore that sock, and anyway that wasn't my point. I ask again, "has this system produced any undesirable results"? Radiant_>|< 23:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Hello to you all. I think we can assume good faith for Jimbo :) Besides that I 'd like to point out, a part of his statement "with the appointments made in consultation with the existing and former ArbCom members and the community at large, followed by confirmation votes from the community requiring some supermajority". +MATIA ☎ 23:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
      • assumeing good faith is one thing. Assumeing correct judgement is another.Geni 23:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Current suggestion is 50%, which is not really a supermajority. To my best knowledge, no consultation of the community at large has occured. Radiant_>|< 23:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
        • If this wasn't clear - the steps I described above (where I mentioned the 50% number) is only my best guess. Jimbo has described the process informally several times, and if memory serves, he used supermajority in one description and majority in another. Raul654 23:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
          • So even Jimbo hasn't decided what's being done, then? A little keeping-the-community-in-the-loop would be really, genuinely helpful. I wonder where he is planning to conduct the consultation with the community before announcing his choices, for example? Can the ArbCom tell us what discussions they have so far had (the message from MATIA implies some), and who they are recommending? -Splash^talk 02:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• I second Splash's request. I should also point out that most of the questions in this section and the previous have not in fact been answered by the Powers That Be. Radiant_>|< 16:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Splash too (and I must note that the message I've cited was given in the previous section by Raul654). Reading that message (and unless or until something else is announced) I think that Jimbo will select some candidates (from the volunteers that would go for an election), and then a second selection will be done by JW, ArbCom and the community in general (that's what I understand, perhaps I'm wrong). I also think that within the next days some announcement will be made that will clarify the things better (WP is not a crystal ball, am I? ) +MATIA ☎ 18:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

the statement was made on the 20th of october. we've been waiting for some form of clarification for some time.Geni 18:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, at least here, we 've shown that there are good reasons for the clarifications to be given and there's a consensus (or something like it) among many editors asking for them. +MATIA ☎ 18:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I we had managed to establish that about two weeks ago.Geni 19:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Now if only a consensus on the part of the community that Jimbo should say something had particular meaning. Phil Sandifer 19:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we should probably avoid elections for arbitrators altogether. They're just a bunch of people who make commonsense decisions when the normal dispute resolution process has failed. There aren't that many people both capable of and willing to do the job. Jimbo should just name some names of people that he would be happy with acting on his behalf, and we can forget about it for the next few months. The elections have been unnecessary and, in my opinion, probably only made things worse within the community. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

They're just a bunch of people who make what they may claim and even believe are commonsense decisions. But their idea of common sense may not be the same as mine or yours. Why should you or I or anyone submit to arbitrarily selected arbiters of what's "common sense"? I know that WP is not a democracy, but I hope decisions aren't made by a self-perpetuating oligarchy. -- Hoary 09:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Straw poll? There's a large (and growing) consensus for direct elections; it'd be a disaster to carry forward with Jimbo only giving us his choices (and what happens if his choices don't get the majority vote needed; will he renominate them again or reconsider those he passed over, or will he leave that seat unfilled?). The worst part is that the details of how this election will proceed are virtually unknown to anyone except Jimbo. And the election is next month! —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 09:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I think some people are forgetting that we are all here because Jimbo lets us be here. Electing arbitrators is not a right conferred to us by our citizenry in Wikipedia land. It's times like this that we should be thanking him for creating and maintaining Wikipedia, not making bold demands about how he should exercise his rightful authority over it. That said, I would like to echo Tony Sidaway's point. Given the trainwreck that was the last elections, I don't see the need for a repeat. Let Jimbo appoint some trustworthy folks so we can all move past the Wiki-politics and write an encyclopedia. :-) --Ryan Delaney ^talk 10:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

we are here because Jimbo lets us and because readers and community members donate money for the servers. I would definitely prefer some transparency here. If I began to feel WP was becoming a "self-perpetuating oligarchy" I would be less enthusiastic about investing time and content. If enough people felt like that, the project would be damaged (WP is, after all, about content). dab (ᛏ) 10:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm another who feels just like that. As noted above elsewhere, I've withdrawn from the process because I refuse to be part of something that has not been explained, never mind justified. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought we were here as volunteers (and I don't overlook neither Jimbo's contributions - including that he is the founder, nor donations - most of them are perhaps by volunteers). +MATIA ☎ 11:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Put another way, I think Wikipedia editors should not feel that their contributions to Wikipedia (monetary or otherwise) entitle them to a "Republican form of government" or anything else. Like MATIA said, we are volunteers, and donations are donations; they aren't payment for services. When someone donates to the foundation, she does not think she is purchasing a vote in a bureaucracy. If public elections for arbitrators are manifestly harmful, because they waste time and are highly contentious for no beneficial reason but that people tend to feel strongly about the Wikipolitics, then I would greatly appreciate it if Jimbo would "cut through the bullshit" as it were and just make appointments. I think these are the real questions in this disagreement:

• Are we "owed" anything by the WikiMedia foundation, in particular a vote in elections of officers? Why?
• Given the high cost, what would be gained by public elections of arbitrators, anyway?

--Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Well said. We're not owed particapation in selecting Arbcom membership and I still maintain that the projectable level of debate (where ever it occurs) will do more harm than good. Rx StrangeLove 06:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. First and foremost I'm here to help write an encyclopedia. Regardless of what I've contributed, this isn't my website and I'm not owed anything. If Jimbo wants to make appointments, so be it. --Kbdank71 18:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

What to do about very persistent anon vandalism?

I'm a bit at a loss to know what to do about the persistent vandalism of Bagrationi - see the history of that article. It's the work of a Georgian ultranationalist, User:Levzur, who the Arbitration Committee members may recall from an (uncompleted) arbitration last year. He appears to be unhappy with the current version of the article and has evidently decided that if he can't impose his version, he will blank it, vandalise it or move it to a nonsense page name. As his user account is blocked for an extensive period, he's exploiting his ISP's proxy server to avoid blocks.

This has been going on now for several weeks. We can't protect the article indefinitely, obviously; there's little point in blocking individual IP addresses, as he will simply log on again and get another; we could block his ISP's /16 but that would cause collateral damage to other users; other than having a lot of people watching the article and reverting when it gets hit, is there anything more that we can do?

This sort of thing really highlights why we need to be able to block individual users or IPs from editing individual articles. If it were possible, I'd simply block 213.157.0.0/16 from blocking Bagrationi, and that would put an end to it. -- ChrisO 21:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a similar problem going on on the George W. Bush article. There's nothing much you can do, except keeping an eye on it and constant reverting. Nothing works - people have proposed using the "protected" template as a discouraging bluff, but it didn't work; nothing works. Izehar 21:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too worried if his range had to blocked for a while, as we have (to my knowledge, and I keep a watch on most of this area) only the one notable editor in Tbilisi (User:D.Papuashvili). As long as Papuashvili isn't blocked, I can't see overly great harm in rangeblocking Levzur. Ambi 04:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

EddieSegoura

User:EddieSegoura has been spamming Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exicornt with sockpuppet keep or merge votes (All keep and all-but-one merge votes for this neologism are from brand-new users and suspected sockpuppets), and has now [20] "closed" the AfD as a Merge. (The closure was quickly reverted of course; it hasn't been a week yet, anyway.) Quite a few users have attempted various dialogues with this user; no real progress. This AfD edit strikes me as disruptive enough to possibly merit a block. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought pages could be closed 5 days after they were opened. I didn't mean any harm, no please drop this. -- EddieSegoura 23:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it hasn't been 5 days, and no-one, admin or not, should close an AfD that they were involved with. Don't worry, though- I don't think this is disruptive enough to call for a block, at the moment.--Sean|Black 23:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I reopened it and left a note on Eddie's talk page. I think the premature closure was a simple misunderstanding. (Off-by-one error? He did it after four days, almost to the minute!) The rest of his misbehavior is annoying, and I can't tell whether it's from ignorance or malice. FreplySpang (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

In addition, the result of the AfD was Delete, see: [[21]]. Throughout the AFD, Eddie kept insisting the outcome would be "keep and redirect" to Crossover (rail) and now an IP has restarted the Exicornt page with a redirect to Crossover (rail). A number of us have tried to reason with Eddie but to no avail. Sarah Ewart 12:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

That IP (64.12.116.135 (talk · contribs) is Eddie. See [22] for proof. --Calton | Talk 12:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted it and also Excornt from User:198.22.123.104 and Excornts from User:152.163.100.135 CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Anglican Bishophoric moves

Bessarion (talk • contribs) has taken it upon himself to apparently rename every single Anglican Bishophoric in the UK. For example, he moved Bishop of Salisbury to Bishop of Salisbury, England (Anglican). He is using that style on all of them. I'm an admin. I'd block him myself but I wanted others to look at it to make sure we have just cause. He *has* been warned on his talk page. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

He is very much in the wrong. These page moves and forks are out of order. Firstly, to say that the Church of England is not catholic is POV (and, in my opinion, demonstrably wrong). Secondly, to say that there is a need to disambiguate between two things which are actually the same thing is false. Thirdly, why do we need to have "England" in the title? I am still searching for this other city called Salisbury that has a cathedral. Fourthly, it is certainly some people's opinion that the Reformation, in legal terms, actually was a non-event. It was only Henry VIII working out he had certain rights, and making Parliament tell everyone that (well, that was his POV, anyway). This whole thing is so full of PoV and potential misunderstanding that a debate should have been held first. I would go and revert them all, but my revert button seems to be broken and I haven't the time to do each manually via dial up. I hope someone else does. [[Sam Korn]] 19:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Unless someone objects, I think I'm going to undo the moves tonight. He was less than civil in the only talk interaction he's had so far. Duncharris and myself have both tried to talk to him. Maybe someone else should try? If he ignores us, then yes, I think we should revert his changes. If anything else, it would set REALLY bad precedent if we let a new user make a massive # of moves (I believe he's over 40 now) without discussing it anywhere first. And yes I agree with Sam, this isn't a cut and dry case. Any other thoughts would be appreciated. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 20:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

This seems a fine question to put to Ann, if someone hasn't already. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

While I can't speak for the quality of the moves, making such massive changes without discussion is highly inappropriate.--Sean|Black 21:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Sean that it's highly inappropriate to make these changes without prior discussion. I find, though, that I'm getting confused by the whole thing. For example, I saw a message on Bessarion's talk page saying that "we only disambiguate when we have to (such as for the Bishop of Liverpool, because there are simultaneously CofE and Catholic Bishops of Liverpool", but when I clicked on Bishop of Liverpool, I was taken straight to the page on the Anglican Bishop, with no mention of or link to the (Roman) Catholic Bishop. I don't know if there is an article on him or not. Also, Bishop of Bangor, Wales (Catholic) is now redirecting to Bishop of Bangor, which is an article about the Anglican office, belonging to the category "Anglican bishops by diocese".

I also agree with Sam that it's POV to say that the Church of England is not catholic. I don't personally use the term "Roman Catholic", partly because the Catholic Church doesn't officially call her self "Roman Catholic" (note that we have a Catechism of the Catholic Church, not a Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church), and partly because it excludes Eastern Catholics (e.g. Byzantine Rite) who are in union with the pope. However, I have no objection when others say "Roman Catholic", and I'm quite happy to go along with Wikipedia policy. However, I think all the articles about bishops should make it very clear (near the top of the article, though not necessarily in the title) whether it's a (Roman) Catholic or and Anglican bishop. I'd support undoing the moves, and, where necessarily, making the article clearer. If Bessarion wants them moved, let's have a proper discussion first. (And by the way, shouldn't the Bishop of Bangor, Wales (Catholic) be deleted rather than redirected to Bishop of Bangor?) AnnH ^(talk) 09:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

A lot of these edits are counter-intuitive. Bessarion (talk · contribs) seems to be creating seperate Anglican/Catholic pages for every bishop in England and Wales. In most instances, there is no modern Catholic bishop in that see, so the mediaeval history of the see (before the creation of an indepenent Church of England) is seperated from its modern history. If there are two or more bishops of different churches in the same see, then it is appropriate to disambiguate. However, the man who was Catholic bishop of a diocese at the time of the split with Rome, would, in many cases, be the Anglican bishop after it: the lucky fellow gets two Wikipedia pages. The approach of this user is simply wrong, and is a clear case of WP:POINT. --Gareth Hughes 13:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the move backs. Here is my work. If someone who does alot of moves could double check my work, that would be most helpful. Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 13:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

OK NOW it's working. :) With the help of RussBlau (thanks Russ!), we figured out that they were all reverted yesterday but that all they did was create double redirs. Anyway, I had to restore about 20 pages and revert back to the version before they were moved yesterday. They should all look ok now. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 20:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-Polonism

Hello, could somebody please review what is going on at Talk:Anti-Polonism#Concept_vs._reality and clarify if Molobo's massive edits inside his co-debaters' (Thorsten1/Axl-pl) previous posts are legitimate per the "personal attack" policy? --80.145.60.115 21:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus

It seems that the numbers people are always quick to cite as being "consensus" on RFA, AFD, etc, were originally added by Mirv to Wikipedia:Consensus to make a point about how ridiculous our definition of "consensus" is. His exact words are:

I added the numbers as part of a series of edits meant to point out how bizarre the definitions of consensus used on Wikipedia really were. I am doubly appalled to find out that people are actually citing these numbers as The One True Official Meaning of consensus; I am triply appalled when I realize that this is probably because my description of the weird definitions was dead on.

Instead of being reverted, since his additions were never discussed, they remained. Now, attempts to remove them until being discussed are being halted, only by Philip Baird Shearer, who is going against all the discussion on the talk page and the opinions of at least 5 others.

I believe that the supermajority numbers for RFA, AFD, RM, if they do indeed exist, should be detailed at RFA, AFD, RM, and not on a page about consensus. This only makes people think consensus = supermajority. Policy information about RFA, AFD, and RM belong on their respective policy pages, not on a different policy page.

So, please voice your own opinion. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 00:17

Speedying pre-deleted content.

List of sexual slang contains all material from Body parts slang, which was deleted at WP:AFD with the deletion endorsed at WP:VFU. A speedy tag, which I admit was questionably applied, was removed. Can this article be speedy-deleted or not? Either way, could someone please try explaining to the responsible editor why combining two massive lists, one of which has been deleted in full compliance with process, to create a 150 kilobyte list is unacceptable? I'm apparently not doing a good job of being convincing, or concilliatory, or whatever it is I need to be. The Literate Engineer 03:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the revisions containing the deleted content. I have to go to bed now, or I'd be more helpful on the conciliatory side of things too. -Splash^talk 03:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

AFD can't determine the editorial content of all future versions of all articles by voting to delete then not voting to undelete. However, good editorial sense (which admins will probably have at least a little of given the RFA process) says "if it's crap, treat it as such" - David Gerard 01:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Kathywimmer

Most, if not all, of Kathywimmer (talk · contribs)'s edits seem to be questionable. Would someone like to keep an eye on her? TacoDeposit 04:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Request for participation from anyone interested in psychiatry

Just a little while ago, I protected an article about an American psychiatrist, E. Fuller Torrey, on the request of a user involved in an edit war that has escalated quite a bit over the past day. The user who requested the protection is a member of an anti-psychiatry group, User:Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC, who has been edit warring with an anon user of a more traditional opinion. I have a feeling that protection won't work, and that when it's lifted the edit warring will resume, since soon after protection the anon declared "As soon as it is uprotected, I will restore NPOV. I can wait" [23] (m:The Wrong Version) This subject is far beyond my personal knowledge -- if anybody's familiar with this stuff and has a minute to pop by to at least lend another opinion to the mix, it'd be welcome. · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Ha ha ha some dude

I just blocked this user for 24 hours due to some major attacks on User:Francs2000. Should the block have been longer? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Pete the Cunctator I just blocked this user for the same edits as above. However, they also did the same to my pages. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

User:I'm back! Same as the other two and now hitting User:Redvers and User:Chaosfeary as well. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

User:86.134.207.110 (contribs) is him too: From my talk page (left about User:Francs2000, I had warned about vandalism done on CambridgeBayWeather who'd also vandalised this guy's page - Did not know at the time who Francs2000 even was heh) --Chaosfeary 14:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

"With regards to the above its best not to get involved. see I know Francs2000 aka XXX - he lives near me and i know that hes a butt fucking queer who gives aids to kiddies. he lives in XXXXXXX and its a personal thing that we have between us, bvest not to get involved. ok?" (left by User:86.134.207.110 (contribs))

The block on the user account should have been infinite, since it was evidently created exclusively to harass Francs2000. dab (ᛏ) 14:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm really wishing vandals could come up with better insults than butt fucking queer. Perhaps it's just me, but I want some creativity, like "dim-witted ruffian", or "tottering scurvy-valiant joithead". Ral315 (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please delete the edits by User:Chaosfeary containing my personal address details from this page? I tried to do it myself but there were far too many edits in the history (thousands) that would have to be selected to be restored in order to do that. Many thanks. -- Francs2000 15:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to wait for a dev, an admin deleting and restoring this page with such a large history might cause database troubles like when VFD was briefly deleted. the wub "?!" 15:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Persistent vandal (Ashida Kim?)

This user seems to be back, with a different IP each time, see Jimmy Wales (like this diff [24]) and the pages Shuriken, Chokuto, Ninjatō, etcetera. I vprotected those martial arts pages, but what else can we do? --JoanneB 15:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

They vandalised Francs2000's page too, claiming that Wikipedia needs to "REMOVE THE FALSE MATERIAL FROM KIM ARTICLE OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES" or something like that... Crazy people.. --Chaosfeary 15:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, this gentleman has been making the rounds of Internet for years. He used to espouse his virtues (and attacked his detractors) at rec.martial-arts with great frequency. I think it's safe to just treat him as a vandal and deal with him (and his IPs) as such. --Deathphoenix 16:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Just block him. We've all dealt with him[25] before.--Sean|Black 19:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems Ashida Kim has finally degenerated from being a fraudulent martial arts scammer to a petty Wikipedia vandal. His newest batch of vandalism no longer included the insane ramblings about conspiracy between Jimbo and bullshido.com website, but instead just penis images. See 220.247.250.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 222.165.176.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). It is too bad we cannot delete his article because he clearly is a notable person. He seems to have some IP mobility, making blocks less effective. jni 13:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Teapot

...is being vandalised multiple times by multiple users and I'm getting fed up reverting all the time. Can someone with more know-how please help? 217.41.241.203 17:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I blocked the two vandals, whose contrib history is exclusively vandalism to this article. What a tempest in a... · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Marcperkel

The above user is upset that an article he wrote on a church he founded was deleted back in June, and when he recreated the same article a few days it was speedied as such, and he also lost a VfU despite enlishing a number of meatpuppets from a mailing list. He's decided that I'm apparently to blame for all of this (he calls it "censorship") though all I did was point out he was recreating deleted content (I didn't actually do the deleting, though he doesn't seem to understand this). He's also apparently posted a note to a mailing list telling his users to spam my talk page and has since threatened other users with a similar action. Now I'm not going to block him since I'm somewhat involved in this, but I'd appreciate if someone else would decide whether or not his behavior here has warranted a brief blocking. --Fastfission 19:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it does - he's been threatening User:Splash with simmilar. See [26]. I'm ready to block him for blatent disruption and threats, but what do others think? --Doc ^ask? 22:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Too late, pals [27]. :).--Sean|Black 22:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I've no complaints there - good on Dunc --Doc ^ask? 22:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

University of South Carolina and Clemson University

69.164.62.134 (talk · contribs) and I have been engaged in some discussion on both of these articles Talk pages. User has added information to both articles which has sometimes been in my opinion very POV and biased, which I have deleted, and recently added copyrighted material to University of South Carolina, which I removed, and I am attempting to explain that copyedited material cannot be accepted. User is objecting rather heavily. USC and Clemson are rivals, and hence both articles have been subject to vandalism from various sources, so I keep an eye on both, attempting to maintain NPOV and factual accuracy on both articles. As disclosure, I attended Clemson University. I would be greatful for participation on the Talk page of the articles from other editors and administrators. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 20:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

hardcore spammer or spambot

Some 30 articles or so were hit by User:68.51.133.149 to put in advertising links. IT'd be nice if somebody could roll those all back to get them all at once instead of having to delete them one by one. DreamGuy 03:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 03:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Much appreciated. DreamGuy 18:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Foosher

Could someone who enjoys tracing sock puppets take a look at User:Foosher's contributions. They seem to be involved in many VfD and controversial page moves. Even the normal edits mostly look contentious or have been reverted. I don't know who they might be a sock of, but that is probably where the fun in tracing a sock lies. -- Solipsist 08:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm now sure this user is a sock and related to User:Foogol and User:169.157.229.67. The Foogol and Foosher accounts were both created on 7 November 2005 and have been engaged in VfDs, controversial page moves and probably trolling generally (see for example History on Boatswain).

This user moved the page Cat flap against concensus last night and all three of these accounts were also involved in the voting there whilst also deleting previous votes. Despite warnings, they have just moved the page again.

I already have a vested interest, so could another admin take action. -- Solipsist 21:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Cat flap has now been reinstated to its pre-move form. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

MARMOT and User:Dublin Beers

I blocked indef blocked Dublin Beers earlier as a new account created ony to redirect articles to Dublin. However, the user claims that it was some type of publicity stunt that MARMOT put him up to [28]. I'm not sure what the significance is, and whether to unblock this account. Opinions? --Doc ^ask? 14:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

My advice would be

1. Do not block for the moment; this stupidity has been going on for days now.
2. Ask MARMOT for input.
3. Maybe get someone with the power to compare the two user IPs?

I hope it wasn't MARMOT, I really do. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Dublin Beers is already indef blocked as a 'vandalism only account'. I have notified MARMOT and invited him to comment but, to be clear, at tis stage I am not accusing him of any wrong-doing.--Doc ^ask? 15:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

OK the Dublin vandal is still at it see DublinDan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and doubtless more - this probably has nothing to do with MARMOT. --Doc ^ask? 15:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

A few days ago I blocked Dublin_Runningman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the same reason. I only used 24 hours at the time, although he presumably didn't realise that fact. Given that the modus operandi(ae) are identical, I've extended that to an indef block. -Splash^talk 15:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I've created a page similar to the Willy on Wheels vandalism report, from my userpage. It can be found at the link:[29]] and you can use it to report his incarnations as they come.

I am setting up some for other vandals soon. Hope this helps. --Sunfazer 15:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"What's his IP address?" MARMOT 21:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Maladministered servers showing CPanel

CPanel is an admin tool for web servers. If you look at http://69.16.200.85 and http://209.123.8.125 , you'll see a good example of the dangers of default installs. Both are now blocked as open proxies ... If you go to an IP and see a screen like that, {{Blocked proxy}} is the appropriate action - David Gerard 15:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom: Jimbo is aware of concerns

(this is so off-topic for this page)

The AC caught Jimbo's attention that actual sensible people, not just past and future defendants, were extremely upset about the lack of a decision on the procedure for the next AC. He's looking now and I expect something would come forth in reasonable order (presumably a day or two, given his schedule) - David Gerard 18:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Also see this diff (from this page) and this diff, this and this from Jimbo's talk page. -Splash^talk 18:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, excellent! - David Gerard 01:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

MiRRoRMaN

MiRRoRMaN (talk · contribs) vandalised the AfD debate of a non-notable website twice today, so I got fed up and blocked him for 1 week. This is one of the most annoying vandals I've encountered in a while. After the article is deleted and his block expires, I fully expect him to recreate it, but then we just need to speedy delete it and block him for a longer time. — JIP | Talk 18:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Hmm, a week is probably a bit over the top. I would recommend a max of 24 hours per offense on the first go, and only start lengthening if he keeps at it. That said, you did an adequate job of warning him before hand, so he's only got himself to blame. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Moolobo

Moolobo (talk · contribs) does vandal edits. He uses nick which can be easily mistaken with the nick of another user Molobo. Alx-pl D 19:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked him indefinitely. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 12:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor blocked Duncharris again

Ed Poor (talk • contribs) has blocked Duncharris (talk • contribs), apparently over a disagreement with one of Duncharris's edit summaries (see User talk:Duncharris). The block was quickly undone, but this is not the first inappropriate block I've seen recently from Ed Poor. Ed, I know you've stated before that you will never give up your sysop privileges, so I won't bother asking you to consider that. However, I'd really like it if you'd agree to not use the block function anymore, as you seem to be having trouble knowing when it is or is not appropriate. Friday (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think everyone should wait to hear Ed's side of the story before jumping to conclusions. Izehar 20:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

He explained his reasons for the blocking at User_talk:Duncharris. Friday (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't quite see how the case comes under the dissruoption clause and I can come up with some pretty imaginative interpritations.Geni 20:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, according to WP:BLOCK:

Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses or usernames that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia. Such disruption may include changing other users' signed comments, making deliberately misleading edits, and excessive personal attacks.

It seems a valid block - however, before we enter the realm of Wikilaywering, and start pointing out that an edit summary is technically not an edit, remember: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and we have rules such as WP:IAR in order to avoid bureaucracy. It all comes down to one simple question: was Duncharris being disruptive? If yes, then the block was justified - if no, then it was not. This question stems from this question: is writing misleading edit summaries which contain straightforward lies about other users disruptive? If yes, then the block was justified. Izehar 20:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Blocks for disruption are almost always controversial and Duncharris's edit summary barely qualifies as borderline disruption. It certainly should have been discussed here before a block was made. There's no way the block should have been for 24 hours. Furthermore, Ed is way too involved with Duncharris to making blocks like this. No matter what Ed's reasons were, it looks like a revenge block. Carbonite | Talk 20:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The key phrase is "disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia". One false edit summery does not really have a noticable effect on the normal functioning of wikipedia.Geni 20:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Got to agree with Carbonite and Geni - I know I wouldn't block anyone for such a reason, especially if I had a past history with them. violet/riga (t) 20:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

me too. dab (ᛏ) 20:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I also intend never to do this. Thryduulf 22:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Given all the comments here and elsewhere, and the obvious implication that discussion with Ed on his talk page is not working, that the next step in the dispute resolution process should be taken - namely starting an RfC. I suggest that in addition to linking it on user talk:Ed Poor you also note it here and at Duncharris' RfC. Thryduulf 22:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Just for context - this is Ed's third block against someone with whom he was in conflict in 9 days. He said he was wrong to do so in Dunc's RFC, then did it again to JoshuaSchroeder, and now Dunc. Guettarda 22:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of Ed blocking someone who he was in conflict with (or not, I can't really say), that has got to be one of the most absurd reasons for blocking I've ever heard.--Sean|Black 00:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Certainly deliberately claiming to have the support of other editors for something when you do not is disruptive. On the other hand, to assume that the action is deliberate is an unfortunate assumption of bad faith on Ed's part. Phil Sandifer 00:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe. But 24 hours? And only leaving a message on his talk after the block was inplace? Come on.--Sean|Black 00:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

No matter what the situation, considering that Ed has a history with Duncharris he should have gone to another administrator who was uninvolved. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

As time goes by, I am losing more and more respect for Ed. He is seeming more of a liability than an asset. Ed should not block people he is in a dispute with period. That he has admitted this and yet continues to do so calls into question either his integrity or his stability or both. Paul August ☎ 04:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

A feeling I share entirely. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor has indicated on his talk page and mine that he is looking to modify his behavior and will be more receptive to others' comments—a very good sign, in my opinion (I'm always an optimist). — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Based on the number of similar promises Ed has made in the past, I'd say masochist would be a more appropriate term. Nandesuka 15:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposal regarding blocking editors in conflict

Thank goodness! I'm glad to see that this message is coming through loud and clear: Administrators must not block editors they are in a conflict with. I've put up a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy; I'd appreciate it if people who've observed this recent unpleasantness would comment there.

(No, it doesn't say "de-admin Ed Poor". It clarifies the existing policy and offers alternatives.) --FOo 04:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this proposal. Disruptive users often claim that an admin who acts against them is biased and "involved," which by definition becomes a "conflict." This proposal would strengthen the hand of trolls and bad editors. Admins should not block users when they are involved in a content dispute with them, which is what the policy already says. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Handcuffing admins just leads to good admins like Doc glasgow leaving. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 14:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

We depend heavily on human judgement in all editors, admins certainly included. As long as people are reasonable, we don't need extra rules that, as pointed out, could be helpful to disruptive editors. When inappropriate blocks are made, there's usually no shortage of editors willing to tell the blocker that the block was wrong. Any reasonably responsible admin will take such statements to heart and be more conservative in the future.

Personally, I think blocking is a big enough deal that anyone repeatedly abusing the block function should lose the ability to do it. The software doesn't currently support such a thing (AFAIK), but there's no reason the community could not implement such a policy. We'd be depending on the offender to voluntarily refrain from blocking, but if that didn't work out, we'd just continue through the dispute resolution process. Friday (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If we don't trust an administrator not to abuse administrative functions, wouldn't it be reasonable to remove their administrative access entirely? --FOo 07:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I still think we should wait to hear Ed's side of the story to the specific issues raised here before making our minds up that he's a reincarnation of the devil or something. Ed's been here for years - he knows what he's doing. Izehar 16:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

We've heard "Ed's side of the story" -- it is expressed in his talk comments, his conduct on the AfDs about his fork articles, his remarks to other editors. His side of the story is a matter of public record. If I recall correctly, it involves such high points as claiming that nominating his articles for deletion was grounds for being blocked as a POV-pusher; and celebrating having driven a "subversive" [sic!] editor away from the project. --FOo 07:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a Banned Editor

Not_a_Banned_Editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing Freemasonry and Anti-Freemasonry. They may not live up to their name. Susvolans ⇔ 14:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yup. You should block this latest sock of Lightbringer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); I've verified it's him with CheckUser. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Alright, blocked indefinitely. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Overzealous blocking? (165.138.120.151)

I wonder if I can get some input on this block. To me, blocking any IP for a month, when their only warning is a test1, looks quite drastic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I would agree. Long-term vandalism is a valid reason, but at least a test3 should have been stuck in before blocking, IMO. --Deathphoenix 16:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be a valid reason if there were any long-term vandalism going on. Before today, the IP had 3 edits, 1 of them good. Just one of those 3 was in last 6 months. Today, the IP vandalized 3 pages, and restored one of them back to its original state. So what we have here is an IP vandalizing 1 page two weeks ago and 2 pages today. Blocking them for a month is completely out of proportion. Zocky 16:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I've unblocked because I don't think the IP was warned sufficiently and there's no evidence this is a long-term "problem"; the IP is a shared school IP. Those shouldn't be blocked for a month. Demi ^T/_C 17:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• To update, brian0918 contacted me on IRC; the IP vandalized China again. In the course of the conversation I reverted another vandalism on Great Wall of China and blocked for three hours. Demi ^T/_C 20:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

For clearly long-term vandals, even from shared IPs (not AOL-level of "sharing" but, say, a middle school), I don't even bother with warning because their talk page is already flooded with warnings. I had found several such IPs today, and this one got lost in the mix. I didn't check all of the IP's edits for vandalism. That said, I still would have blocked for 24 hours. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-30 20:16

George W. Bush protection

# 12:00, November 30, 2005 Golbez unprotected George W. Bush (to protect)
# 23:32, November 29, 2005 Redwolf24 protected George W. Bush (To whoever unprotected - you forgot to protect from moves)
# 23:20, November 29, 2005 Titoxd unprotected George W. Bush (hopefully latest vandal wave stopped now)
# 21:34, November 29, 2005 Jtkiefer protected George W. Bush (vandalism)
# 21:34, November 29, 2005 Redwolf24 protected George W. Bush (Some sockpuppet master having fun, will undo soon)
# 21:33, November 29, 2005 Redwolf24 unprotected George W. Bush (gonna temp. full protect)
# 21:29, November 29, 2005 Ral315 protected George W. Bush (Reprotect from Moves.)
# 21:28, November 29, 2005 Ral315 unprotected George W. Bush (Bad edit summary removed; can be unprotected now.)
# 21:22, November 29, 2005 Ral315 protected George W. Bush (Protecting fully)
# 21:22, November 29, 2005 Ral315 unprotected George W. Bush (Unprotecting for full protect.)
# 16:38, November 29, 2005 Splash protected George W. Bush (moves only)
# 16:38, November 29, 2005 Splash unprotected George W. Bush (profoundly wrong to protect this)
# 15:31, November 29, 2005 Golbez protected George W. Bush (what the hell, splash?)
# 14:44, November 29, 2005 Splash unprotected George W. Bush (no point)
# 13:15, November 29, 2005 Hall Monitor protected George W. Bush ({vprotect}} due to vandalism, see history; please remove and protect from moves only when appropriate) 

Perhaps we can have a somewhat neutral party look at this? This is by far the most vandalized article on Wikipedia. Two things cause damage to our reputation - having a vandalized article, and preventing editing. In the case of this article, which someone estimated to be in a vandalized state 8% of the time, I say the vandalism damages our reputation far more than preventing the "wiki way". You may note that all of these are in the last 24 hours, so there's somewhat of a wheel war going on. --Golbez 17:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Constant vandalism and reversion of that vandalism does prevent productive editing when it reaches the level of the Bush article. There's usually hundreds of edits per day to that article, the vast majority of which are vandalism or reverts. I don't think there's anything wrong with treating the handful of articles that are constantly vandalized a little differently than we do the other 800,000+ articles. Carbonite | Talk 17:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not really a wheel war, more like separate severe vandalism attacks occuring within hours of one another. There already is discussion about how we can deal with this. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 17:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather it be vandalized 8% of the time than uneditable 100% of the time. -Splash^talk 18:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

To clarify...my protection was to calm things down so that Brion could easily edit a few edit summaries that contained Jimbo Wales' personal information. I don't know about the others, but I do agree that protecting the article should be avoided. Ral315 (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Look at Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. Btw, this "vandalism is better than..." stuff bothers me. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that at present a significant part of our anti vandalism sratergies rely on on us know which are articles are likey to get hit. Take that away and you increase the pressure on RC patrol.Geni 12:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The nut

Conversation moved to conversation in progress at Wikipedia talk:Semi-protection policy · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Brockville, Ontario vandalism

Our Brockville, Ontario article is undergoing a (rather tame, really) vandalism attack eminating from Queen's University in Canada. It's not a big deal, and several editors have the problem well under control. This edit, however, goes some way to explaining the cause - that editor insinuates that the vandalism is at the instigation of a professor. The pattern of the vandalism (changing statistics to wildly incorrect values) would tend to support, circumstantially, that assertion. This isn't the first time I've seen a similar claim (I forget the previous instance, but I believe it was a college in the US), and I was wondering of those among you who have better understanding of tertiary education in North America might have some ideas about how we might deal with such institutionalised miscreancy. I can't help but wonder whether the same ethics codes that proscribe plagiarism and cheating would also take a rather dim view of an academic organising a concerted assault on what is, after all, an educational charity.

I'm not, really, suggesting we fire off a blazing complaint to said body's ethics committee (we don't really have enough evidence, and that, at least in this case, would be severe overreaction), but vandalising Wikipedia articles to prove that it can be done is rather akin to pushing old ladies over in the street to prove how fragile their bones are.

Can anyone think of a (constructive, ideally) way we can persuade this institution to regard Wikipedia as something to protect, rather than victimise?

(Can I ask, incidentally, that other admins not protect the page: better they try to prove their point on that article, where they can be noticed and reverted, than force them off into other articles.)

Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Isn't there some kind of guide to educators and schools? I've stumbled upon it in the past but can't remember where. Perhaps a page/paragraph could be added regarding this? Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Schools' FAQ is the closest thing I could find.--Sean|Black 01:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you thinking of Wikipedia:School and university projects? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

That's the one. I assume the previous incident is the Indiana Unviversity project with this guy encouraging students to create patent nonsence on Wiki and claiming it was not nonesence anymore because it is in encyclopedia :> I would strongly suggest that we send some letters to the Queens university explaining that Wikipedia is considered by many a proper source of academic information and whoever gave this lecture is responsible for vandalism encouragment, and thus should rein in his students and issue an apology.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Update: I sent them a following message through their contact page. There is little point in sending them more copies of it, but some 'enquires for their responce from concerned citizens' may be useful. It would be nice if they can get to the individuals responsible :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Sirs,

I am one of the administrators of the Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.

It has came to our attention* that our article on Brockville, Ontario ** "was briefly mentioned in a political sciences lecture in Queen's university on November 29th as an example of how wikipedia can be tampered with, and therefore is not a scholarly source for citing purposes." and is now a target of vandalism, originating from your IP addresses***.

We are assuming that the vandals are some of your students attempting to 'prove the point'. We don't know if your lecturer encouraged students to actively vandalise Wiki, but we would appreciate it if you could kindly inform him or her that Wikipedia is not only a source cited in many academic publications****, but that he can observe how efficently we deal with vandalism by seeing that all falsified information entered into this article is removed within few minutes.

In addition, we would appreciate it if you could inform the individuals engaged in vandalising our site that their behaviour is not acceptable and goes against any recongnized codes of academic conduct, as their actions are unethical and causing harm to the society.

We invite all of your faculty and students interesting in Wikipedia, the largest encyclopedia in the world, to familiarize themselves with how we work**** and ask questions*****.

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Brockville.2C_Ontario_vandalism

 ** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brockville%2C_Ontario

 ***http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brockville%2C_Ontario&action=history

 ****http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents

 *****http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk

Your sincerely

Piotr Konieczny

Administrator of English Wikipedia

User:Piotrus

Piotr meant to say the University of South Florida project. The Indiana University project is a good one. (I'm coordinating it btw.) --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 16:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

If it really is a school project, I think it might be more interesting to report it to the campus newspaper and then let the student journalists sink their teeth into the issue. ^BlankVerse 18:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

EK Parole

Could someone look into whether the conversation on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Xed 2/Evidence is a violation of the ruling against Everyking? Specifically the rule that "Everyking is prohibited from making comments on non-editorial actions taken by other administrators other than on the administrator's talk page, a Request for comment, or a Request for arbitration." Thanks. Phil Sandifer 04:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I would opine that strictly speaking Everyking's remarks do fall within those permitted by the ruling (full text at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3); talk pages of an RfArb would fall within the criteria listed.

I suspect that this sort of commentary isn't what the ArbCom intended to allow Everyking to engage in, but I can't and won't try to read minds. I might suggest that Everyking could more helpfully contribute to the arbitration by actually presenting evidence to support Xed's claims rather than arguing with Snowspinner on a talk page.

A request for clarification at RFArb would provide a definitive answer as well as giving the ArbCom members an opportunity–should they so desire–to clarify their intent. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This is about me, so I'm allowed to respond to it, right? I just want to say that what Snowspinner's saying here is pretty good evidence in favor of the point I was making on that page. Everyking 04:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Erm, what? He politely asks other admins to review something that he felt may have been in violation of the ArbCom's ruling, and that's proof that he's a "bully"? Or that the ArbCom is biased towards Phil, or something? That makes no sense whatsoever.--Sean|Black 05:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

As per TenOfAllTrades: strictly speaking I'd say, yes, this was allowed... but it skates perilously close to the intent. Cut it out, both of you, or take it to each other's talk pages; your input isn't helping the case at hand. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I probably ought not have responded - I apologize. Phil Sandifer 05:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you're prohibited except for posting notice of your own actions. Phil Sandifer 05:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this is another point that should be clarified with the ArbCom. Given that we're explicitly discussing Everyking's actions here, I think that he is–or is meant to be–allowed to comment on those actions. That the discussion of Everyking's actions was actually started by another editor shouldn't bar him from posting.

On the other hand, Everyking's response above seems technically over the line of the ArbCom remedy—he is editorializing about Snowspinner's actions in a forum that is not prescribed by the remedy.

Frankly, I think everyone here would be happiest of we could all get a quiet night's sleep, and any further discussion of this matter (that is, clarifications of what is and is not covered under the remedy) be taken to WP:RFArb. Otherwise I am concerned that this thread will descend back into the unproductive back-and-forth bickering that prompted the arbitration case in the first place. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur with all of this. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Ha, I was holding my breath when I clicked the edit button...pleasantly surprised...anyway, I think everybody already knows what I think about the ArbCom decision, and about Snowspinner's complaint here by extension. Let's hope Jimbo repeals at least part of my restrictions—those of you who are critical of me should hope for that too, because nobody knows when they're gonna get stuck in a position where they're in trouble for holding a dissenting view about something, and it's better for all of us if we can be comfortable about our discussions. I hope my case does not set a precedent for anything. Everyking 07:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you can rest assured that arbcom is not bound by precedents, but rather it actually considers the situation at hand. But also, rest assured that no other soul will face an arbitration for expressing dissenting views here incivilly, as long as they don't express dissenting views here incivilly. I, for one, have no qualms about dissenting here, and plenty of others have been able to do so without ending up before arbcom. Now, I think this thread has probably outlived it's usefulness. Isn't there an encyclopedia somewhere around here...? Dmcdevit·t 08:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The complicating factor is that it was basically determined that the ruling wasn't about incivility. I apologized for incivility in the past and hadn't done it in a good while. Actually the ruling was about the ArbCom's view that my views were "ignorant" (they say I didn't read evidence, which is untrue), and their view (or at least Raul's view) that my views were not "rational" enough for me to have a right to make them heard. Which is really kinda scary, because if my views are crazy all of us must be crazy—broadly speaking, I don't think we differ on very many points here, just a few particularly contentious issues. Everyking 08:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Same difference. Replace my "incivility" with your "ignorance" and read it again. This isn't the place to be disputing, or really even discussion, the arbcom case. It was a question of proper enforcement. And I think this thread really should die now. Dmcdevit·t 08:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

That isn't remotely the same. There is no policy against ignorance, but there is a policy against incivility. Everyking 08:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Who said anything about policy? I was talking about reality. Dmcdevit·t 09:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

What's the point you're trying to make? Everyking 09:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a violation of the spirit, not sure about the letter. That said, I think your response deals with the problem conclusively, and no action is needed as yet: "I'm not sure there's basis to say that the committee is biased in favor of me - the bulk of the evidence presented against me was by John Gohde, who's evidence mostly consisted of personal attacks. Netoholic managed to scrounge up some edits to other people's user pages... Lir had a block to complain about... there was a bit of stuff in the Anthony case... but nobody has ever assembled a body of evidence of abusive behavior on my part. The only block-related evidence I can find that's been submitted was by Lir. You have caught yourself in a Catch-22 - nobody submits evidence against me because the arbcom has never been willing to sanction me, and they've been unwilling to sanction me because nobody has presented them with a shred of evidence. Barely a shred of User:Mirv/Snowy or User:Orthogonal/Snowspinner has ever been presented as evidence. Absent any presentation of evidence, ever, how was the arbcom supposed to rule against me? Phil Sandifer 04:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)" - David Gerard 14:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Allegation of child abuse, with address and telephone no

Some asshole is back again posting an allegation that United States president and Jimbo engage in child abuse. To use the raping of children as a 'joke' is distasteful. Giving what may be a real address and telephone for more supposed information, is outrageous[30]. This has been done in the edit summary of the GWB page. I have also immediately blocked the perpetrator. The same user has put in this information frequently of late. Variants on the message were entered 5 times on 29 November[31]. Should such information, when it contains an address and telephone (real or made up) be deleted from WP records? And should be user be banned on sight every time they do it? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 13:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe the same thing happened on GWB yesterday, and the affected revisions were deleted from the database. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you've done the right thing. This is a very horrible form of personal attack, and it is clearly not a cry for help (which I assumed from this section heading). I'm sure the details can be removed from the page history, by a dev if necessary. --Gareth Hughes 13:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

(after two edit conflicts) The phone number and address are offical contact info for Wikimedia, so besides being obnoxious, there is no real privacy concern. So, I'd say just revert, block the troll, and move on. Dragons flight 13:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Can I just add that the same thing happened to me a few days ago, on this very page, though trying to find a developer to delete the offending edits from the database is proving a very stressful and frustrating experience. -- Francs2000 14:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there a bug open for being able to remove revs without deleting the whole page and restoring all but one? - David Gerard 14:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

David, that still leaves the edit summary visible to regular users, through Special:Undelete. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 15:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You mean the edit summary which contains the address and phone number of Wikimedia? Locke Cole 15:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

...the one that accuses jimbo and the president of abusing children together... --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 15:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, bleh, thought you were thinking the address was private. You're right, it'd be nice if there were a way to permanently purge deleted edits. Locke Cole 15:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

In talking to brion, he told me that there's code half-finished to allow admins to make edits "invisible" or something of the sort, without having to delete the edits themselves. Ral315 (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not difficult to do it without this function. Delete all revisions, undelete the existing ones, move them to /delete or something, then undelete the other versions, then revert behind the redirect, then delete the /delete page. Easy, see? (Just don't forget to unselect "Move talk page", else you pull an fvw and delete Jimbo's talk page) [[Sam Korn]] 18:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

When this happened the other night, I poked brion on IRC until he changed the edit summary. Just a thought :) Ral315 (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism article moves

Without going into the full history of the dispute, I wanted to make other admins aware of issues that have been created by moves of an article on American terrorism/Terrorism in the US. The full edit history is currently located at American Terror. However, this is now a redirect to American Terrorism, which itself is a cut-and-paste copy. It appears that an editor wanted to move it to American terrorism (small "t"), but that is currently a protected redirect. I've lost my patience and interest in trying to clean up these moves, so could some other admins please take a look at this situation? Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 15:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I second this call. I closed the AFD on American terrorism and would like to limit my participation in this controversy as a disinterested unofficial mediator. I placed the article on RFC (not that it would help much), and have been trying to get both sides to tone down their belligerent rhetoric. Can we get some cooler heads in here? Johnleemk | Talk 15:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to make it clear how desperate we are, American terrorism was moved to Terrorism by United States of America. Some people then made cut and paste moves back and forth. Then Terrorism by United States of America was cut and paste moved to American Terror which was then cut and pasted to American Terrorism. (And I haven't even gotten to the talk pages.) And all the articles involved each have unique content, which makes them all bitches to fix up. In short, I haven't got the time or nerves for this and I hope somebody else does. Johnleemk | Talk 15:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The page has yet again been moved without discussion, this time to American Terror. Please restore to American terrorism, which is the starting point for any discussion about this article. BrandonYusufToropov

'The "full history of the dispute" to which User:Carbonite refers involves his own failed attempt to delete this article.BrandonYusufToropov

(after edit conflict with Brandon:) OK, I reverted the cut&paste move; the article is now at American Terror, with the edit history attached. I have no opinion as to what the correct page title is. I have just reverted to the last full page at that name; I have not included further updates which seem to have been made at American Terrorism and possibly American terrorism. The histories of both those pages are still visible.

As there was a revert war at American terrorism because of a previous cut&paste move, I have protected the redirect at American Terrorism, to prevent another improper move being done. As a proper move will have to be done by an admin anyway, I do not feel that this is a problem.

I've left the talk pages as an exercise for the reader.Eugene van der Pijll 16:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Admin Ramallite requested [[32]] a cooling down period during which this sort of thing would not take place. You ignored that. BrandonYusufToropov 16:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

If you're talking about me: I ignored that because I did not see that. I did not look at the article(s) or at the talk page(s) before I moved the page, I only looked at the edit histories. The full history of the page was at American Terror, therefore that is where the article should be. If one wants the article to be at another place, the edit history has to be moved too. Eugene van der Pijll 16:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Maintaining the integrity of the page history is highest priority, as otherwise we can get in hot soup over copyrights. The cooling off period can take place at any version of the name; it won't hurt if the article is kept at the "wrong" name for a few days while we sort this mess out. Johnleemk | Talk 19:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well said. Maintaining the page history was precisely how I became involved with the whole page move affair (asking an editor not to do a cut-and-paste restore). It seems to make perfect sense to keep it at one location until some sort of consensus is reached. Carbonite | Talk 19:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

E4strategies (talk • contribs)

This user created a page advertising a product and website. After I asked them (politely I thought) not to, they created a page of abuse obviously aimed at me (which I deleted - you can probably deduce from my delete log which page it was). I'm signing off now, so cannot continue to monitor - could someone keep an eye on this user please? They might be persistent, as I notice that they have just recreated the advertisement page which I originally deleted. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just noticed that I posted the message on their user page, not talk page. Rectified. I really do need to sign off and take a break, don't I? Still keep an eye on things, though, please. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

193.13.57.225 (talk • contribs)

Strongly suspect that this is a sockpuppet of 80.217.152.161 (talk • contribs), who is currently blocked for 48 hours for violating WP:3RR. Both IPs are in Sweden and are making identical edits to Darod & Hawiye. I don't want to block him myself as I'm involved in an ongoing dispute. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Asshole on sandbox

Some ass has been putting Jessica Simpson crap on the sandbox!McBeer 19:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Advice on University IP vandalism requested

168.8.169.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been on a bit of a spree since yesterday, mostly with the Fidel Castro article, but recently has expanded their interest to Cool (song). They received a final warning, but I am hesistant to block, as the IP is registered to the University of Georgia. I realize that blocking University IPs has been discussed a million times, but WP:BP seems to me a little fuzzy on what an appropriate length of time might be. I'm seeking advice. Jkelly 20:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

hit them with a short block so the person gets the block message. Beyond that contacting the university is the best bet if becomes a long term problem.

Permanent protection of George W. Bush

At present, there are a set of admins who are effectively seeking to permanently protect George W. Bush. Should it be permanently protected? Yes, or no? No daydreaming about semiprotection or other non-existent MediaWiki features. The article has been protected for most of the last 24 hours and is reprotected every few edits. If you can't edit pages in a Wiki, it's not a Wiki is my personal feeling. Should I just be leaving this page protected until 2009? It's a yes or a no. -Splash^talk 21:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we unprotect Template:In the News? If you can't edit pages in a wiki...? Even if someone slaps a penis on there a few times a day? I say we leave it protected til the Devs give us a better option. It's not a daydream, it's a requirement. --Golbez 21:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

That's the main page of a high-profile website. There is no analogy. But I read your answer as a yes to 2009. Semiprotection is a requirement that is firmly in daydream territory, and I'm trying to deal with right now. The Devs have never implemented a major new software feature overnight just because some people wanted them to. -Splash^talk 21:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The proper analogy would be to one of the articles on the main page, linked from the FA, ITN, or DYK. They are never protected, precisely because they are so high traffic. And with good reason. (There is no reason anyone viditing the main page would ever really end up at the ITN template page, btw.) Dmcdevit·t 21:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

A particularly good example of that analogy would be a few weeks back when Cheese was our main-page article. That gets silly amounts of vandalism as it is, and it was more than a little ridiculous that day. But we lived to tell the tale, without protection I think. -Splash^talk 21:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Splash, almost everyone agreed that George W. Bush should not be fully protected until 2009. However, that isn't what is being proposed on that talk page. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 22:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The import of the talk page is that it will be protected whenever vandals hit it. Which will be until sometime in 2009. The good-edit-per-24-hours idea was discarded very quickly by Jtdirl in reprotecting it, and there's no other offer. -Splash^talk 22:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

No other offer? We're trying to draft something to show the devs there. It will never be implemented if nothing is agreed on to implement. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 22:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

That emphatically doesn't deal with what to do with the article today. Or until the devs implement something they aren't to our knowledge working on. Can you point out to me the last time that a comletely new mediawiki feature was added and how long it took between request and provision? This is why I deliberately asked for "no daydreaming". -Splash^talk 22:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

What admins are advocating a permanant protection? Phil Sandifer 21:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

A group acting together, but the protection log show frequent protection by Hall Monitor in particular, Golbez more recently and at least several editors on Wikipedia talk:Semi-protection policy. All this suggests I should see the numbers in favour and let it slide, but I dont think they are right. I deliberately said effectively, since whenever I point out 2009, someone says "well then until the devs invent something", which is basically indefinitely far in the future, and certainly not within any sensible timescale. -Splash^talk 21:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Although semi-protection seems to me useful (Though misplaced - don't we have a place for feature requests?), permanant protection seems to me an express violation of policy. Phil Sandifer 21:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Until this becomes "the encyclopedia that only admins can edit", then no, it shouldn't be permanently protected. --Kbdank71 21:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe it should remain unprotected (except for page moves). For one thing, it's an article that needs regular updates since the topic itself is dynamic, and we can't reasonably restrict editing ability only to admins. Yes, the vandalism there is a nuisance, but one we can live with. Antandrus (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think permanent protection is necessary, I agree with Antandrus here. But I'd encourage anybody who took a minute to think about this particular request to head to Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy with an open mind and take a look at the proposal. · Katefan0^(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 21:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree with those who oppose protection: vandalism is just bothersome, protecting the page would undermine a crucial goal. One represents temporary damage to the encyclopdia, the other represents useful contributions permanently lost. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

As before, I think we should leave this page unprotected and continue reverting vandalism. It's so high-profile that lots and lots of admins and editors have it on their watchlist, and no vandalism is going to stay there for long. —Cleared as filed. 22:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

In a sick sort of way, the vandalism is actually good for us. The very reason (most) people write crap in there is because they don't believe the "anyone can edit" thing. The vandalism is annoying, but it will lead to more good contributions in the long run.--Sean|Black 22:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I am going to float an idea, which may just be crazy (and don't be afraid to say so), but how about some form of psuedo-protection. For example, protect the GWB page, but create a GWB/temp page that is an open copy of the page and have admins frequently incorporate the useful changes into the real GWB page. This wouldn't accomplish very much (since vandals might just as well attack the temp page), but it would ensure that the main GWB page consistently presents a good face to the world. Thoughts? Dragons flight 22:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem with such an idea is that it already was tried, and it was quickly shot down. Also, there is a similar proposal, Requests for publication, that wants to do that. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 22:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Specifically, the idea was to have a protected "good version" that admins would routinely add the useful changes to. That created the eqivalent of a copy-and-paste move, thus violating the GFDL.--Sean|Black 22:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

No permanent protection. Just absolutely, HELL NO. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 22:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Offer an alternate solution then. Just saying no to the offered one isn't good enough anymore. --Golbez 22:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Why isn't it good enough anymore? I know it's bad to have vandalism on such a highly visible article, but permanent protection would be worse. If you are tired of reverting, drop the page from your watchlist and let us revert it. No one is forcing you to revert it. There are plenty of others waiting in the wings. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

We don't have an alternative, adn we've to decide what to do or not with the tools that are available to us, as well as pestering for new ones. -Splash^talk 22:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

LV, all this talk about permanent protection, with all due respect to Splash, is a little diversionary. The real proposal is at Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. I doubt anyone is seriously advocating permanently protecting the article, or if they are are they're a serious minority. Unfortunately, this is distracting from more discussions on a policy that has more support. · Katefan0^(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 22:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it's no distraction. The article is spending an increasing proportion of the time protected, and I think the majority of the last 24. It has been protected numerously many times over the same period. Deciding how to handle the problem, here and now with what we've got is as important and more important than thinking of new MediaWiki features to do the job better. -Splash^talk 23:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)