Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sortan (talk | contribs) at 16:57, 7 December 2005 (→‎Jon Garrett removing references to Common Era). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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



    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)[reply]

    Verified. I'm also blocking his other IP sock. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Editing again as 160.91.231.73. Andy Mabbett 22:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

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

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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

    And as User:160.91.90.103. Andy Mabbett 10:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    I have vandalised nothing. False acusations of vandalism constitute a personal attack. Desist. Andy Mabbett 10:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    He vandalized User:Leonig Mig's userpage again... --Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 13:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Leonig Mig is still editing under another username, just so you know. Titoxd(?!?) 04:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    What's "fairly innocuous", about a blatant falsehood? Andy Mabbett 10:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    So why don't you remove it, then? Andy Mabbett 12:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

    And again. Locke Cole 12:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Third time now. Locke Cole 12:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Cease making false accusations of vandalism. Andy Mabbett 12:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I have made no personal attacks. The so-called "parole" is without foundation. Andy Mabbett 13:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Cease making false accusations of vandalism. Andy Mabbett 13:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Good idea. I've updated the Evidence of his RFAr with these latest vandalisms. Locke Cole 13:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Cease making false accusations of vandalism. Andy Mabbett 14:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be fascinating... if they were false. Locke Cole 15:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

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

    Karmafist (talk · contribs) has apparently indefinitely blocked Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs) by IP [1] 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)[reply]

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

    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" [2], and the view that no-one could teach him anything about writing ([3] "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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[4], 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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

      • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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:

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    From whois "All abuse reports should be sent to abuse at ifl.net Fred Bauder 17:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    There may be a handful of good edits in there - see the recent [5] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Ahh... I ... see. (Not.) Could somebody get on it, please? Bishonen | talk 18:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    :-) Outstanding. Thanks! Bishonen | talk 00:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Make sure that indefinitely means indefinitely and not infinitely! Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 05:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]


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


    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)[reply]

    Recent activity

    In order to try to get a handle on what these folks have been up to, I've documented the contributions from all the IP addresses in this range (addresses with no contributions are not shown):

    Activity since 1 Dec
    Address Vandalisms Other
    62.171.194.6 [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]
    62.171.194.7 [19] [20] [21] [22]
    62.171.194.8 [23] [24] [25] [26]
    62.171.194.9 [27] [28] [29]
    62.171.194.4 [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] (revert) [44] [45] (revert) [46] (revert) [47] (revert) [48] (revert) [49] (revert)
    62.171.194.10 [50] [51] [52] [53]
    62.171.194.11 [54]
    62.171.194.12 [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] (questionable)
    62.171.194.13 [61]
    62.171.194.37 [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] (revert)
    62.171.194.38 [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] (new) [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] (revert)
    62.171.194.40 [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102]
    62.171.194.42 [103] [104] (revert) [105] (revert)
    62.171.194.43 [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114]
    62.171.194.44 [115] [116]

    The "other" edits are good-faith attempts to create content, or at least, aren't clear vandalism (some of them have been reverted, some have not). Many of them are reversions of other edits from this range. The overall pattern seems to me that of schoolkids teasing each other using Wikipedia, and some other people (older students?) reverting them and sometimes adding content. The vandalism seems to come in short spates, and I'm guessing the IPs might correspond to workstations in a computer lab or school library. My gut feeling is not to re-block the IP range, but since the vandalism doesn't come very fast, to block the individual IPs as needed for short periods (but without separate warning). Demi T/C 08:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
      • Radiant - Please check out User talk:Simon Chartres (... not everyone agrees to your common sense point) Raul654 23:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • assumeing good faith is one thing. Assumeing correct judgement is another.Geni 23:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
              • 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? -Splashtalk 02:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I we had managed to establish that about two weeks ago.Geni 19:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    I think this thread is getting off topic a bit, the only real point of the election IMO is to select people who will make the arbcom into something into something users feel will be authoritative enough to trust regarding enforcing/interpreting policy in disputes, much like a court(if people didn't respect the authority of courts, they'd be ignored, as some users do regarding the arbcom). If this happens via election or appointment, i'm happy, but I think the outcry here is it'll only happen through election and Jimbo stays on the sidelines as an advisor rather than any kind of participant. karmafist 22:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    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" [117] (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)[reply]

    Hmm. User:Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC has clearly been making anti-psychiatry POV pushing without a great deal of regard for NPOV whatsoever; the character of the text inserted, and the nature of the prose, is strongly suggestive to me of a Church of Scientology connected advocate of some description, from my experience as having once been one. E. Fuller Torrey has been a Scientology foe in the past, although I can't quite remember why; a connection with the NIMH I think was one reason. Note also digging through the history some past Scientology-related editors have made edits (User:AI for example, who was banned by the arbcom for pro-Scientology POV editing, although admittedly he made only one named edit. Possibly the anon before looks like him). The page, as it stands, has got the definite mark of an anti-psychiatry slant, and although I hate to whine about m:The Wrong Version I think it might be wise to either revert to a version before Francesca Allen had anything to do with it, or rewrite it manually; I'd rather not touch it myself, though, due to neutrality issues. If there's any way I can help out, please do ask. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    • You can always put a {{deletedpage}} template on the page and protect it. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    I think everyone should wait to hear Ed's side of the story before jumping to conclusions. Izehar 20:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    He explained his reasons for the blocking at User_talk:Duncharris. Friday (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    me too. dab (ᛏ) 20:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I also intend never to do this. Thryduulf 22:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    No matter what the situation, considering that Ed has a history with Duncharris he should have gone to another administrator who was uninvolved. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    A feeling I share entirely. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    After some interesting and (I hope) productive discussion at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy, there is now a small approval poll there to gauge consensus on the proposal(s). Please take a look. --FOo 08:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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

    1. 12:00, November 30, 2005 Golbez unprotected George W. Bush (to protect)
    2. 23:32, November 29, 2005 Redwolf24 protected George W. Bush (To whoever unprotected - you forgot to protect from moves)
    3. 23:20, November 29, 2005 Titoxd unprotected George W. Bush (hopefully latest vandal wave stopped now)
    4. 21:34, November 29, 2005 Jtkiefer protected George W. Bush (vandalism)
    5. 21:34, November 29, 2005 Redwolf24 protected George W. Bush (Some sockpuppet master having fun, will undo soon)
    6. 21:33, November 29, 2005 Redwolf24 unprotected George W. Bush (gonna temp. full protect)
    7. 21:29, November 29, 2005 Ral315 protected George W. Bush (Reprotect from Moves.)
    8. 21:28, November 29, 2005 Ral315 unprotected George W. Bush (Bad edit summary removed; can be unprotected now.)
    9. 21:22, November 29, 2005 Ral315 protected George W. Bush (Protecting fully)
    10. 21:22, November 29, 2005 Ral315 unprotected George W. Bush (Unprotecting for full protect.)
    11. 16:38, November 29, 2005 Splash protected George W. Bush (moves only)
    12. 16:38, November 29, 2005 Splash unprotected George W. Bush (profoundly wrong to protect this)
    13. 15:31, November 29, 2005 Golbez protected George W. Bush (what the hell, splash?)
    14. 14:44, November 29, 2005 Splash unprotected George W. Bush (no point)
    15. 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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

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

    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)[reply]

    The nut

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Schools' FAQ is the closest thing I could find.--Sean|Black 01:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you thinking of Wikipedia:School and university projects? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the one. I assume the previous incident is the University of South Florida] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    That's a good one. I will get righ to it :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am sorry for the wrong quotation - South Florida, not Indiana. Great job, Kzollman. Go Indiana!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I probably ought not have responded - I apologize. Phil Sandifer 05:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, you're prohibited except for posting notice of your own actions. Phil Sandifer 05:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I concur with all of this. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Who said anything about policy? I was talking about reality. Dmcdevit·t 09:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the point you're trying to make? Everyking 09:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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[118]. 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[119]. 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    You mean the edit summary which contains the address and phone number of Wikimedia? Locke Cole 15:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    ...the one that accuses jimbo and the president of abusing children together... --Phroziac . o º O (mmmmm chocolate!) 15:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Sounds cool! Locke Cole 02:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    I don't understand IRC hence don't generally like going on there. I tend to get ignored anyway because I'm completely unaware of the etiquette or whatnot. But if it's still not done soon I might be tempted to hunt down a dev whichever way I can and nag them incessantly... -- Francs2000 23:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Admin Ramallite requested [[120]] a cooling down period during which this sort of thing would not take place. You ignored that. BrandonYusufToropov 16:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Asshole on sandbox

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

    • I can't open the sandbox right now, but it's meant for tests and experimentation. If there's any objectionabe material there, just revert it or clean the sandbox. - Mgm|(talk) 23:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    McBeer is the North Carolina Vandal. See above under User:Remington&therattlesnakes. Look at his edit history; it's obvious. He must have found a way around the block on 63.19.128.0/17. You can see three of his aliases in the edit history to the article (now up for deletion) here: [121]. Sandbox... King of the Hill... Luanne Platter ... I didn't delete this nonsense redirect yet, so you can have a look -- [122] ... etc. Antandrus (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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. -Splashtalk 21:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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. -Splashtalk 21:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. -Splashtalk 21:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. -Splashtalk 22:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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". -Splashtalk 22:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    What admins are advocating a permanant protection? Phil Sandifer 21:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    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. -Splashtalk 21:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Seconded. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    No permanent protection. Just absolutely, HELL NO. --Phroziac . o º O (mmmmm chocolate!) 22:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Offer an alternate solution then. Just saying no to the offered one isn't good enough anymore. --Golbez 22:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. -Splashtalk 22:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. -Splashtalk 23:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a distraction to frame this issue in the alarmist way it's being framed. Nobody, that I know of at least, has proposed permanently protecting this article. You're suggesting that it's being protected for longer periods, but that's not the same thing. · Katefan0(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 23:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    As I understand the options, they are
    1. Protect until the vandals go away
    2. Protect until the devs invent semi-protection
    That sounds pretty permanent indefinite to me. -Splashtalk 23:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize you're suggesting that certain folks' actions on the page in effect mean they are pushing for permanent protection. (I'm not sure they'd agree with that, but that's for them to say.) My point is that the way this thread is being framed is so alarmist as to be distracting. Nobody has said the article should be permanently protected, at least not that I've seen (I'm willing to be proven wrong), yet this thread rattles on, while discussion on a real policy proposal gets lost in the hubbub. · Katefan0(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 23:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protection as suggested above, is quite a good idea as it opens up editing to pages in more of a wiki-manner to pages that were fully closed before. There's a few things to iron out, though.
    1. A certain type of protection could give someone an advantage in an edit war. One person can be locked out with the other continuing their editing. You can punish an admin for editing a protected article during an edit war they are involved in, but it's harder to block someone for editing an article someone else protected while you were unaware.
    2. The tabs still doesn't show whether an article is fully protected or just protected from moves. If we were to make more levels of protection, one need to be easily able to see how an article was protected without slugging through logs and stuff.
    Mgm|(talk) 23:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that it's obvious that permanent protection is fundamentally un-wiki. That is all that needs be said against the idea. James F. (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe anyone here is lobbying for permanent protection. What has been said is that the current protection model is broken, and that some sort of "semi-protection" is needed. Hall Monitor 00:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    More specifically, what has been said is that this article should remain protected until that happens. — this is a call for permanent (indefinite, if you like) protection of the article. -Splashtalk 00:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, then let's end the confusion. No. George W. Bush should not be protected indefinitely, we should keep doing what we're doing (which is leaving it move-protected with temporary full protection during vandal attack waves), until we decide on the semi-protection policy. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 01:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    That said, semi-protection is a completely separate issue that should be discussed post-haste, since the current situation isn't pretty. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 01:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm adding another "Hell no" vote to permanent protection. Permanent protection is worse than vandalism. The current situation isn't great, but permanent protection cures the disease by killing the patient. --Ryan Delaney talk 22:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    At this point, the article is protected without as much as a "protected" template. This is not acceptable. If you protect it, say it is "temporarily proctected due to vandalism". If the vandals persist, "temorarily" may mean "for a longish time", but that's still temporary. It's just Wikipedia as usual. I agree with permanent protection of the Main Page, since that's a special case, but there is no reason to extend this to individual articles. so, "hell, no", from me too. Semi-protection may be useful, but articles will also be semi-protected temporarily, at least in principle. dab (ᛏ) 11:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    At that particualr moment in time, it was only protected against moves, for which we have no template. -Splashtalk 13:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear, I shouldn't have interferred if I didn't know what I was doing, then. my apologies :( I don't suppose there will be a need to move the article anytime soon. dab (ᛏ) 14:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to chip in my two cents here, I am adamently against any type of protection at all. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    What about implementing a fairly simple technical solution in mediawiki: protection from anon edits? Just as we had eventually introduced protection from moves, this would be another useful solution. Technical note: make sure the page can be protected in several different ways at the same time.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I think almost everyone agrees that having such tools would be useful. The main disagreement is over what to do until the developers give us this option, which is likely some time away. - SimonP 15:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I strongly oppose permanent protection. --Ixfd64 03:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Wc3forum.tk

    I have deleted this article twice. It is an anti-Semitic, homophobic attack page about an Internet forum. User:Iopq has now re-created it for a third time. I would appreciate another administrator having a word with that user. Jkelly 02:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Jimmy Wales

    Ugh. I've scraped the junk with Jimbo's personal info off of Talk:Jimmy Wales, but have been informed that there is still lots in Jimmy Wales. Can somebody take a look? Specifically the edits by 220.247.227.44 (talk · contribs), 220.247.255.86 (talk · contribs), 222.165.171.139 (talk · contribs), 222.165.171.39 (talk · contribs), 222.165.169.8 (talk · contribs), 220.247.246.63 (talk · contribs) and 222.165.174.207 (talk · contribs). Thanks.--Sean|Black 03:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I deleted Jimbo. Wow. I feel powerful. :P I restored the last two versions by Jimbo, and I'm restoring the page's history as we speak. However, I need help... I still have 800 diffs to restore! Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 03:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I know. Why do you think I asked someone else to do it? :).--Sean|Black 03:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm doing all the nasty grunt work at the beginning of the page's history. Do you mind looking at the affected edits and starting from the end downwards? Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 03:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You got all the edits by the IP's I mentioned. I'll take a look at the beginning of the history, though.--Sean|Black 04:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks all clear to me. Jimbo is safe from internet kooks once again!--Sean|Black 04:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly, I have to leave, so I need some backup restoring the old versions of the page history (between August and 25 November). Anything else should be reviewed diff-by-diff. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 04:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I restored a whole bunch of revisions. Should be all clear.--Sean|Black 04:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks better. That said, I don't know if others think the same, but the vandalism edits you left out (not the ones with Jimbo's personal info) might be in violation of the GFDL. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 06:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    (unindenting..) I thought of that, but I only left out vandalism, rollbacks and reverts, thus the attribution of the content doesn't gets lost. But if I'm totally wrong, I invite anyone with the proper knowledge to fix it (and I apologize if that's the case).--Sean|Black 06:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks guys - I know that is a lot of work - and I can't do any of it. Unfortunately this info is still on the website of the poster(s) - I don't know what can be done about that since they don't have any rules. Since it is much less popular - the risk of someone bad finding it is less. Trödel|talk 10:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Brutus Sanchez

    I went and blocked Brutus_Sanchez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinately. Looks to me as a rather obvious sockpupet of the already banned Dvirgueza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), userpages where near identical (see [123] [124]), and all his contributions where to re-upload the images he had on his userpage that where deleted. Just letting you all know because, well I guess it's a bit unusual to ban someone indefenately without warning them first (though I understand it's allowable for sockpupets), pluss it's my first use of the block user feature (I'm not the biggest vandal fighter, and I'm a fairly "fresh" admin), so if anyone want to review the case I won't mind. --Sherool (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    No protest here. · Katefan0(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 20:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Candidate statements/Jayjg

    There's quite a mess at Jayjg's ArbCom election candidate page. Some users have been adding "questions" that are completely irrelevant or borderline personal attacks. Some of the more inappropriate question were moved to the talk page. Here an example of one of the "questions":

    "Is it true that when faced with criticism, your first reaction is to lash out at your critics, and that when you can't do that you withdraw and are unable to function normally?"

    Jayjg has wisely decided not to answer these "Are you still beating your wife?" type questions. I've already posted a question on that page, so I feel I'm involved and thus won't take action. However, this page was already protected once and there doesn't appear to be any end to this childish behavior. A review of the situation by other admins would be appreciated. Carbonite | Talk 19:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Ugh. Things seem to have cooled for now, but frankly, the behavior of some editors there sickens me. Bleh.--Sean|Black 22:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thing is, there is only one possible response, and we're not supposed to suggest that other editors do anatomically impossible acts. Bad witiquette, even when well deserved. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    RK is using a sockpuppet account

    RK was restricted from making more than one revert per day to articles related to judaism, he is currently using a sockpuppet account on chabad and perhaps other pages as well, to evade this restriction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.155.200.129 Please look into this. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Ken Mehlman, vandalism and editing patterns

    All -- User:Flavius Aetius and User:Brian Brockman (who have unusually similar opinions and editing patterns) are repeatedly removing a talk page thread at Talk:Ken Mehlman because, they reason, it was copied from another user's talk page and so should be excised. (It's true that it was copied from a user's talk page, but only because that discussion bears on discussions currently occuring at Talk:Ken Mehlman. Additionally, the same editors involved in the copied discussion are also actively participating in discussions on the Ken Mehlman page.) Flavius Aetius has violated 3RR (which I've reported), but Brian Brockman continues to remove the thread of several editors' discussions. I personally consider this vandalism, but because we've been engaged in a content conflict on that article, I can't take any action. I report it here for others' consideration. · Katefan0(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 20:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Karl Meier, Cool Cat, Kurdistan

    I warned Cool Cat a few days ago about his unprovoked attack on Karl Meier as the latter edited Kurdistan and Kurdistan Workers Party. Cool Cat was blocked by another administrator over the same incident. Karl Meier engaged in edit warring and I warned them both off.

    The situation is complex. Meier is subject to a warning not to continue stalking Cool Cat, but in this instance it was Cool Cat who engaged in aggressive behavior.

    More recently, Cool Cat has started moving material from the Kurdistan article to the talk page and questioning its presence; this is in my opinion acceptable, but not advisable. Other editors have resisted this. Meanwhile Cool Cat and Karl Meier have resumed their edit war on Kurdistan. Both are ignoring advice given by the arbitration committee and specific warnings given by me over recent behavior.

    I have blocked both of them from editing for twelve hours.

    See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle_and_Stereotek/mentorship. Karl Meier is the editor formerly known as Stereotek.

    Cool Cat's behavior is of particular concern and as one of his mentors I am taking this case to his other mentors and may recommend that Cool Cat be banned for a while from Kurdistan and Kurdistan Workers Party. Meanwhile I subject my actions with respect to Karl Meier to review. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't reviewed the case/incidents thoroughly, but if you, as an ArbCom assigned mentor, feel that a block was needed and warranted, then it should be fine. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It is necesary to point out that User:Karl Meier has been involved with too many revert wars. on this page a few sections below yet another revert war is visible. Karl Meier in my view is tricking people to violating 3rr and getting blocked. WP:Point does not apply as he isn't even proving a point. --Cool CatTalk|@ 19:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Gaybastard

    A user, Bondigan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been spamming this into articles. I have no idea who created it but could someone investigate. --Sunfazer 21:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes: he created it himself on 17:35, 2 December 2005. – ClockworkSoul 21:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Deleted it as a template useful only for vandalism. - Nunh-huh 21:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Email regaring hoax article.

    Hello all I just received this email:

    Hi Kevin,
    I'm writing to you from the Political Science department at the University of Rochester.
    I'm hoping you can help me locate an original article that has been deleted from Wikipedia.
    I'm presently in receipt of the deletion review but would really like to obtain the original entry and :author's name.
    If there's a way for me to obtain this from Wikipedia can you let me know? I'm new to the site.
    Brent Henry Waddington is the subject of the article and he's a student of ours--We'd like the article :for his records.
    Thank you for any help you can give me regarding this matter.

    UofR's webpage confirms the identity of the sender. Regarding the article, it was a hoax article created by an otherwise legitimate user. The hoax was extensive and even involved amazon.com. Here is the missing article and its AfD. My guess is that someone complained to them and they are trying to deal with it. But, I have no idea what the appropriate policy is. Am I allowed to email them deleted article? Should I? My inclination is to send it to them, but I thought I should ask. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no idea what he means "in receipt of the Deletion Review", but if the sender is from the University, as you assert, and they want it for internal procedures, there is no reason to deny the request. In fact, it should probably be temporarily undeleted in its entirety and protected, so they can see the edit history for themselves. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 22:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    She actually. I assume this means the AfD. If I do undelete it, I'll certainly move it somewhere where outside of the main namespace. But that's not a bad idea.--best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the emailer a professor at the university? Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    She's an administrative assistant to the head of the department. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    There was more than one article involved in the hoax that wound up being deleted, Paradox Foundation (Kevin, I forget, did the Trout book have it's own page as well? I thought so but can find no evidence now). Should the request be viewed as implicitly including this article as well? Pete.Hurd 04:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I am very wary of granting this request - I see little benefit in Wikipedia creating a precedent of "turning in" contributors where the bulk of their contributions are good. That he made a stupid hoax is stupid, but does not in and of itself constitute reason to help him be punished outside of Wikipedia. I also note that his name is not on the article, nor is it his username, nor does he give more than his first page on his userpage, so the information being asked for isn't really available. Phil Sandifer 19:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I actually don't know why they want the information. I didn't send any complaints to anyone, nor did User:Pete.Hurd (for exactly the reason you stated). But either way, if he's been "turned in" its already happened. Do you think it would be now appropriate to refuse their request? Here's my worry: we are increasingly sending complaints to ISP regarding persistant vandals. If they have some disciplinary process that they want our help in carrying out, is it a good policy for wikipedia to be uncooperative? Can we then legitimately ask their help in enforcing our bans in future? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt a Dept'l chairs' Admin Assistant would chase down information based on some complaint from the internet about a hoax. I would assume that there is some process afoot at UofR dealing withan issue of importance to them. If they bother to initiate an active investigation, I would expect it to be for academic misconduct, or something else they feel is serious. I very much doubt that whatever it is, it has this sillness at it's focus (or that they are at liberty to discuss the details with us). Pete.Hurd 23:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the balance of the opinions seem to be in favor of granting the request, I have undeleted the article and moved it to User:Kzollman/Brent Henry Waddington and protected it. I have deleted the remaining redirect. After they have looked at the article I will move it back and delete it again so that the record is preserved. Thank you everyone who chimed in! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    User:84.92.58.111 inserting spam links

    This user has some few-dozen contribs, and after seeing just a few of them I'm willing to bet they're all the same - inserting an ext link to some football website. It's not really vandalism in progress, because they've stopped for now, but it appears no one else has bothered to check it out or warn them. Well, I just warned them, but is there a quick way to revert their changes rather than manually checking each one? Thanks, pfctdayelise 22:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it's bot rollback, and I've done so now. You have to be an admin to do it, though. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 22:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, is this the right place to make posts like this? Because it's quite unclear to me and I'd like to do it in the right place the first time is possible. pfctdayelise 04:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, here's fine. There's also WP:AIAV, but this kind of thing usually gets reported here. -Splashtalk 18:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:WivesMuhammad

    I'm looking for help with a situation at the above. Zeno of Elea (talk · contribs) and Karl Meier (talk · contribs) have been reverting since August over whether the text of this template should call the women listed "wives," "consorts," or "wives and slaves," because the status of one of them, Maria al-Qibtiyya, is disputed, which the template makes clear. The consensus among editors is that they should be called "wives," which I believe is the mainstream position among Islamic scholars. However, Zeno and Karl seem to want to emphasize that Muhammad had sex with slaves. Could an uninvolved admin have a word with them? They're opposed on the page by Grenavitar, Zora, Yuber, Irishpunktom, and myself. It has gone on for so long that I believe it amounts to disruption. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Zeno just violated 3RR on that template. I gave him a 24 hour block for that. Nandesuka 15:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the help, Nandesuka, and thanks to Mark too. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Another Lightbringer sockpuppet?

    I noticed User:Decembre 3 reverting to an earlier edit tagged as being by a lightbringer sockpuppet. I guess this user needs to be blocked? --pgk(talk) 18:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chooserr and date eras

    Chooserr (talk · contribs) has started an anti-BCE/CE drive, and has started removing this era on a number of pages. In some places, the user's statement that the article started out with BC/AD is true. However, I found this user trying the same argument on articles for which it isn't true — Al-Hirah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Keep an eye on this account's edits so that we don't have another jguk to deal with. --Gareth Hughes 18:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Chooserr. --Gareth Hughes 21:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    And there are just as many (if not more) article which originally used BCE/CE, yet now use BC/AD. It is far better to leave article as they currently stand, and if a change is desired, obtain consensus on the talk page. Sortan 21:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep an eye also on 212.134.22.141, who just went on a short anti-BCE/CE drive. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, I paroled Chooserr from his 24-hour 3RR block on the condition that he not make any changes to date system for those 24 hours. If, before that period expires, he breaks his promise, the 24-hour 3RR block should be immediately reinstated. -- SCZenz 22:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I also think it might be an oversight that policy does not explicitly state articles should be left as they currently are. If it did say this, we could treat all such problems as simple vandalism after a warning. -- SCZenz 22:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    It does already (well, the style guide does say they should be left as started) and actually, you still can't per blocking policy - David Gerard 19:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The style guide doesn't seem to say that about dates, that I've found—if it does, can you tell me where? Anyway, the problem with Chooserr is that he's changing pages that originally used AD and BC, which he feels is justified by the "left as started" clause. I think "status quo" would be a more sensible thing. Finally, you're absolutely right about blocking policy—saying that was a newbie admin error, and I should have realized that was a mistake. -- SCZenz 19:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Then, until the policy is changed (and given it's a hot issue it's unlikely just changing the page will pass unnoticed) he's actually acting according to policy, rather than doing anything wrong at all? - David Gerard 19:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, he violated 3RR, but aside from that... The policy, as I said, doesn't seem to say either way how a disputed decision should be made. Thus I would expect consensus to be sought to change from the current version. But of course, there are many ways to seek consensus. He's not acting explicitly according to policy, but he's only doing something wrong (aside from 3RR) if edit warring is "something wrong". Which is is, in the sense that it is not the best way to make decisions, but not in the sense that it requires administrator intervention. -- SCZenz 19:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    No, User:Jguk was banned from changing date styles for the exact same type of behavior, so you can't say he's acting according to policy. Sortan 19:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    jguk was banned from changing date styles for persistent and destructive edit-warring, a level that has most certainly not yet been reached. By the way, an Arbitration Committee decision does not policy make. On the other hand, he certainly has broken policy, the 3RR. [[Sam Korn]] 20:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not suggesting we let it reach Jguk levels with a 1,000+ reverts before doing anything about it, are you? Sortan 20:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not at all. I'm just saying the level of the behaviour is nothing like that of jguk's yet, and should be treated as such. That said, this does taste like a role account. [[Sam Korn]] 21:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is similar to AE and BE spelling, both are equally correct, so changing them is useless. Besides, they still refer to the same year 0 so using one over the other isn't more NPOV and removing them alltogether fails the policy we should use the most common name for anything we write about. - Mgm|(talk) 11:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this a sockpuppet of User:Jguk by any chance? --Victim of signature fascism 12:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Not as far as I can tell. Oddly enough, not everyone who thinks BCE is American academics' wankery is jguk - David Gerard 19:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, because an encyclopedia should by no means have any bearing on academics. Sortan 19:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Problem is that even the academic databases I cheacked favoured BC/AD.Geni 20:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it's not a sockpuppet of mine. However, MacGyverMagic is wrong, it's not a case of AE v BE - ArbCom OK'd wholesale unilateral changes to BCE and CE notation (à la Sortan et al.) and condemned reverting these changes. With AE and BE, each have equal status and changes from one form to another may be reverted without penalty, jguk 20:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    "changes from one form to another may be reverted without penalty" (!) No. It is not a free-for-all and edit warring is always bad. You don't get any "free" reverts. Dmcdevit·t 20:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is one of the reasons you were sanctioned.... you don't have an inalienable "right" to 3 reverts per day. Sortan 20:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Hardly - you were reverting far more than me and against many editors, making aggressive edits, changing notation to your preferred form in articles that had previously been stable in another form and hide behind a sockpuppet role account. If the objection was to pure volume of reverts, you'd have been sanctioned too. It's more a case of ArbCom preferring the BCE/CE notation style (or maybe mostly Fred) and tuning its decision to meet that objective. They even refused to let me defend the accusations laid against me (which to this day, I haven't even read, let alone responded to), though, to be fair to Fred, he did make it clear that he would ignore anything I said on the matter anyway. It happens in real-life judging all over the Western world - it's just unfortunate that it's happened here, jguk 20:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    You have a rather curious interpretation of the facts.... but then again I suppose most trolls who are sanctioned by the arbcom do. Sortan 20:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's necessary to call jguk a troll. His behaviour, while occasionally, perhaps often, regrettable, has certainly not been of the level of the worst trolls, such as CheeseDreams, Lir, and Wik. [[Sam Korn]] 20:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    In which case, please tell us what other Wikipedia accounts you have to disprove the allegation that you are hiding behind a sockpuppet role account, jguk 20:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Hang on, Jon, has Sortan ever admitted to using other WP accounts? If not, please don't make provocative and (as far as I can see) unprovoked demands. [[Sam Korn]] 20:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    All this business about sockpuppets is a red-herring intended to distract from the fact that it is you who is proficient in their use and experienced in hiding behind anon ips. ([125] ring a bell? how about User:SmokeDog? User:Jongarrettuk? who knows how many others...) Sortan 21:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think either of you needs to be making provocative and inflammatory remarks, especially when it is quite clear that they will lead nowhere. Incidentally, Sortan, Jongarretuk is not a sockpuppet but a previous account of jguk's, just like Smoddy is a previous account of mine. [[Sam Korn]] 21:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The User:Jongarrettuk account has been used after the User:Jguk account was created, however you are correct that it is not a classic sockpuppet account. However he has still used various anon ips (as well as another account) to try to mask (and evade responsibility for) his edits. Sortan 21:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    So what? I don't consider that disruptive. The username redirects to the correct one. That ain't disruptive. May I advise you to leave off this unprofitable conversation? [[Sam Korn]] 21:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you must be the only one who doesn't consider hiding behind anon ips to edit and evade the notice of the arbcom disruptive. Sortan 21:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Mea culpa. I didn't mean use of anon ips to evade ArbCom sanction. I meant the use of the other usernames. As to the IPs, I don't know enough to comment. [[Sam Korn]] 22:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Sam, it is crystal clear from his edits that Sortan is a sockpuppet account of a very prolific WP editor (possibly an admin). A number of other editors commented on this before me, and it prompted David Gerard to do a sockpuppet check, although, as often is the case, it came up without results. Sortan regularly reverts me very quickly when I make an edit other than of a cricket or featured list nature, and has done so now over a number of months. He has also very quickly commented on WP:AN/I after I first referred to Sortan on there (without logging in so he couldn't see it in my user contributions). In the role account's early days, Sortan also has displayed knowledge of WP practice far exceeding his WP experience. There is no reasonable doubt that Sortan is a sockpuppet role account. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then in all probability, it's a duck!

    I am probably most aware of this is that Sortan wikistalks me - the majority of Sortan's edits merely revert me, usually coupled with some personal attack. The only way I could be called a troll is in the technical sense that by making a non-cricket edit to the main namespace, regardless of what it is, Sortan will invariably revert it. Thankfully very few WPians have ever been wikistalked - it's not nice, and I don't recommend it. By the way, the only reason he knows under what other accounts I have edited because I have freely stated the fact - interestingly, he has repeatedly refused to come clean himself :) jguk 21:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    It is rather hard to make paranoid conspiracy theorists listen to reason. I suppose it's my mistake for even trying. Sortan 21:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Jon, I used to agree with you. You can see that from the workshop page of your second arbitration case. There is no conclusive evidence, so I am assuming Sortan's good faith. I also agree that the amount Sortan reverts you is troubling. However, I don't think this conversation is going to get anyone anywhere, other than upset. [[Sam Korn]] 21:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest that your time might be better spent trying to mentor Jguk, rather than trying to defend him. He is also (again) violating the MOS to favor his preferences (see Talk:ROC local elections, 2005), and his unilateral page moves, leaving a lot of work for other editors to clean up after. Sortan 22:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Something tells me Jon might not be too keen on the idea of mentorship... Look, Sortan, jguk's actions are by no means perfect. Nonetheless, he is, in my view, acting in good faith, and that deserves to be remembered. He can be foolish, but so can you, and so can I. [[Sam Korn]] 22:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I truly find Jguk most perplexing. Good faith can be extended once, twice, and perhaps a third time, but it is foolish to continue to assume it despite all evidence to the contrary. I admit that I've made mistakes, but I've done my best to learn from them and move on, whereas Jguk was warned more than a year ago that using "consistency" as an excuse to change articles to his preferred date style was disruptive, yet it took more than a thousand reverts, hundreds of revert wars, dozens of editors, two arbcom case, and a direct banning by the arbcom before he stopped. Is that really reasonable behavior? He still fails to acknowledge any personal culpability, choosing instead to blame his banning on a conspiracy involving the arbcom. Reasonable? Sane? He has written volumes about how I've unilaterally changed date styles, but has failed to provide even one single diff showing where. He has accused me of wikistalking him, yet it is he who has constantly harassed me (for example, see my edit at Smyrna [126] changing one inconsistent AD to CE and jguk's subsequent edit [127] changing all fourteen instances of BCE/CE to BC/AD, with a dishonest edit summary of "rv"). Incidentally, I do regret making the first edit, which while it was supported by the Manual of Style, I found was still disruptive (mostly due to jguk). I've learned from my mistake and have never done anything similar. It took me all of one day to realize this and to stop. Jguk, on the other hand, still hasn't realized this after more than a year. Incidentally you will note that it was jguk who initially started making personal attacks at me in his edit summaries. Another instance of him harassing me is here, where he states that all my edits should be "revert[ed] on sight".
    It is most troubling that he continues in the same pattern of behavior regarding other issues, including the ROC/Taiwan issue, US vs U.S. (which is again more than a year old, and which the MOS unambiguously states should be U.S.), American English vs British English, styles for royalty, etc. In the past, it seems, others let him have his way because of his tenaciousness and constant revert warring, but I don't believe things are the same now, and this type of behavior is sure to land him before the arbcom again. In addition, he is testing the limits of his ban by continuing to remove references to Common Era from articles, as well as continuing to indulge in conspiracy fantasies despite all evidence to the contrary. Some form of mentoring seems to be a perfect way to help him resolve conflicts amicably in the future without resorting to revert warring and name calling. Sortan 00:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Sam, thank you for your comment. Incidentally, I have never had time to read through the arb case, so am unaware of the comments - ArbCom closed it before I'd even read what I was accused of, let alone made a defence, but there goes.

    There is a difference between "conclusive" and "beyond reasonable doubt". "Conclusive" implies 100% certainty, and absent Sortan admitting what his other accounts are, we're never going to get it. However, it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that Sortan is a sockpuppet role account used mostly for fighting this cause (interestingly he has never brought himself to deny that, although admittedly I wouldn't believe him if he did). Mind you having just looked at his user contributions again, it appears that he has become more concerned with hounding Chooserr than me for now. But let me assure you of one thing, Sam, Sortan is a bad faith account, jguk 21:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Likewise you are "beyond a reasonable doubt" trolling. Edits such as [128] designed just to remove references to Common Era, and to change American English to British English fit the definition perfectly. Do you really consider yourself acting in "good faith"? Sortan 21:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Sortan, an analysis of my edits will show that I have no fewer than six featured articles and am responsible for more featured lists than any other editor - indeed, I think there are only half a dozen or so editors with more featured material. It was me that helped spark the introduction of the portal namespace, and who has co-created the cricket portal, which has attracted many favourable comments. I am one of the two WPians responsible for promoting and failing featured list candidates; it was me who changed AfD from being shown by week to being shown by day (to the great relief of our servers). I have also copyedited a number of articles and been a strong advocate that articles, regardless of their subject, should use clear language, as free as possible of jargon, and as open to an international audience as possible. Notably, I greated improved the article on the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, which was far, far too long, into a comprehensible, smaller version, supported by sub-articles. Remarkably for such a major edit to such a controversial page, it was accepted, and indeed welcomed (though, of course, later improved by others). The edit you cite is yet another example of my changing an article to make it simpler - ie more intellgible to more people. Yes, one part of this was to remove the reference to "Common Era", which is a little understood term, certainly by the worldwide general public, and therefore should be avoided, where possible, on those grounds. However, there were other failings - for instance, the rather irrelevant comment about millennia and the lack of explanation as to why some people think the 21st century began in 2000 and others in 2001. I also added a clarification that the century began on 1 January, and will end on 31 December (which avoids the possible misunderstanding that by saying it begins in 2000, it is meant to say it begins at the end of 2000). It's a good copyedit, which I expect to stand (subject to further future improvements).
    By contrast, looking at the edits of your Sortan account, it is difficult to find anything there of any real benefit to the encyclopaedia. It's mostly full of reverts, not only of me, but of many other editors, of which Chooserr seems, somewhat unfortunately, to be your latest favourite revert victim. Your edit summaries have also frequently included the use of personal attacks, which coupled with your unwillingness to reveal what your main WP account is, have merely served to embitter the atmosphere (as if WP is not a bitter enough place as it is). Anyone reviewing your contributions will soon see that there are no significant contributions there: none that we can really say have made WP a better place. You live on reverts and talk pages, yet have never contributed a decent article since the account was created, jguk 19:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't it funny that with your overinflated ego of yourself, that you're still not an admin.... whereas people half your age, with a third of your time here, and with 1/20th of your edits are admins? Have you ever considered why that is? You have an inability to work with others, and due to your overinflated ego coupled with an arrogant attitude, cannot admit when you are wrong. Perhaps you should try working on that a bit more. Sortan 21:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Not funny at all. I've never stood, jguk 21:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you're still waiting for all of the U.S. to be asleep [129]? Or perhaps you should try running for arbcom again? With your extraordinary list of accomplishments, perhaps you could even replace Jimbo Wales... Quite frankly, outside of indulging an obsession with cricket, you've been far, far more destructive than constructive. Sortan 21:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    On the contrary. Besides, what do you list as your achievements to improving WP? As far as I can see you've been nothing but trouble, with no substantive improvements at all, and by refusing to say what your main WP account is, have merely poisoned the situation and denied any responsibility at all for your edits. All your edits, almost without exception, have been in bad faith, jguk 22:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    How about containing POV pushing trolls? Sortan 22:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Is that what you yourself consider to be your only achievement? jguk 22:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    A note to Sortan and Jguk: Stop this petty squabbling, or at the very least take it elsewhere: It's nothelping anything. If you continue much longer, I'll consider it disruption.--Sean|Black 22:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    My apologies... I should have know better, and not been provoked. Sortan 22:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Century pages

    An anon with rotating IP addresses is editing each of the century articles -- 21st century, 22nd century, etc., to change the years that the centuries cover. Since each edit is by a different address, I can't contact the person and ask that they stop. I've been going around behind them and changing each article, but I can't keep this up if they continue to make changes to every year. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    If the anon keeps it up and can't be blocked due to changing IP's than an admin should probably lock the articles for awhile until the anon gives up. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 05:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Romanians

    There is a continuing edit war going on on the Romanians page considering the numbers of Romanians in each country in the world. I have no idea which numbers are correct, but I'm about to start banning people if they don't start discussing it on the Talk page instead of repeatedly reverting and calling names. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Ward Churchill

    I'm curious as to whether Ward Churchill should be unprotected now, since what I saw from the talk page and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ward Churchill made it pretty clear that Keetoowah was the disruptive influence there. After asking him to cooperate in trying to resolve the dispute in some way or another (even inventing a more structured form of article rfc based on user rfcs), he denounced the attempt to cooperate towards a consensus version, thus retroactively activating the arbcom's PAP ruling on him in my opinion, which was at 3 days for an attack and I counted 20 on the talk page of Ward Churchill since that case closed. Thus, I blocked him for 60 days. This might seem harsh, but from what i've seen of him so far, he has done nothing constructive on Wikipedia, and 60 days is "short" in my definition since his behavior to this point from what i've seen and heard indicates that he should be blocked for several years, if not forever. karmafist 09:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    If the sole/primary disruptive influence has been banned then I think the page should definately be unprotected. Thryduulf 11:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, thanks for the outside view point Thryduulf. I'll unprotect it and remove it from the protection list now. karmafist 19:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Haham hanuka once again filling his page with spam to inflate ranking

    This is a very long, tedious story. Short version: This user used to be on the Hebrew Wikipedia, but was permanently banned for filling his user page with tons of Hebrew words and characters, so that if you searched Google for anything in Hebrew, his user page would be ranked highly. From talking with the admins on Hebrew Wikipedia, I found that they also blocked him for pornography-related content as well.

    Anyways, he moved over to the English Wikipedia, and did the same thing here. He was found out, the hebrew spam was removed from his user page, and an RFC was brought against him, though I'm not sure whatever happened in this case (back in May).

    Several months later, and I check his user page to find that he has once again filled it with the same Hebrew spam, only he's made the text ultra-small, and colored it white so that it will be as unnoticeable as possible. I've removed the content and indefinitely blocked him. If anyone else would like to handle this, feel free to do what you consider best. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-4 18:53

    I think you did the right thing. He's been questioned in the past about his behavior (I remember participating in his RFC, which he appeared to ignore). Granted, I will admit that I don't seem to be as tolerant of those who abuse their privledges as editors as others... Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 21:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    He has apologized repeatedly, and has enough good edits that I'll unblock him, but he's already made the same mistake 3 times. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-7 15:53
    "Mistake"? When a puppy pees on the rug,that's a mistake. When a human pees on the rug, it's either a sign of sickness or a malicious act; in either case, it's something that needs to be stopped. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Alleged sockpuppetry

    It is now being claimed on the 3RR page that Chooserr is using a sockpuppet to evade his 3RR block. Can someone look into this, and while they're at it explain to me what the appropriate procedure is for handling such a claim? Thanks. -- SCZenz 00:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to know what the appropriate procedure is for making such a claim. I was unable to find an appropriate page on which to list such infractions (which is why I added my observations to the existing 3RR entry). —Lifeisunfair 01:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this falls into the category of "blocked users evading blocks," so I suppose that this is the correct venue. I'm surprised that there isn't a dedicated page for reporting such infractions. —Lifeisunfair 01:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


    • According to WP:SOCK you could add {{Sockpuppet|1=SOCKPUPPETEER|evidence=[[EVIDENCE]]}} to the userpage of the suspected sock puppet account. Sock puppetry per se is not against wikipedia rules. However, if you can convince an admin that a sock is being used to evade a block, then the sock account can be blocked and the original users block reset. JeremyA 02:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    As you mentioned, sock puppetry is not the actual offense. Therefore, I doubt that the tag's insertion would attract administrative intervention. Evidently, this page is the proper venue for reporting block evasion, so hopefully something will come of this discussion. —Lifeisunfair 03:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


    Thawa added links to the Scots language Wikipedia at The Light that Failed and Nestlé Smarties. Chooserr resides in Scotland. Please see the 3RR discussion for the remainder of the overwhelming sock puppetry evidence. —Lifeisunfair 02:25/09:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

    The similarities are unacanny, particularly in the very new Thawa's awareness of the 3RR (as implied in edit summaries). I'd like another admin's opinion on this... -- SCZenz 05:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking through the edits of both users I would say that if Thawa is almost certainly a sock puppet of Chooserr. JeremyA 05:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thawa showed up at Timeline of Eastern philosophers and reverted the dates from BCE/CE to Chooserr's BC/AD version. Thawa also changed BCE to BC at Zhuangzi. Can something please be done? —Lifeisunfair 09:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    In a fit of utter optimism, I left a friendly note on User talk:Thawa#Multiple accounts? advising against the use of multiple accounts, and explaning that many people think (with good evidence) that they're the same editor. Don't know if this will help or hurt- he may cut it out, or he may insist he's not a sock and continue what he's doing. But, at least, even if he gets blocked for block evasion, he can't say he wasn't warned. Friday (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Thawa (talk · contribs) has created a large number of accounts in the past few days:
    One of IP addresses used to edit by Thawa was used 32 minutes later by Chooserr (talk · contribs) to edit User talk:Chooserr. This is suggestive that they are the same editor. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It's quite obvious that Thawa and Chooserr are also the same editor, once you look at their edit histories. Jayjg (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that it now is appropriate to reset Chooserr's block, and block all of the sock puppets listed above. —Lifeisunfair 23:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur, but would like a more experienced admin to double-check and take care of it. (I'm afraid I might make an error.) I apologize for the delay. -- SCZenz 23:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that this editor is now making anonymous edits, from a dynamic dialup (resolving to dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net). Unfortunately, this is a large dialup network and blocking all of it would block a substantial population of editors. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


    Is anything going to be done in response to Chooserr's successful block evasion? —Lifeisunfair 14:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    North Carolina Vandal

    His latest incarnation was McBeer (talk · contribs). Have a look at the contribution history of this account, and you can see all his usual obsessions. In addition, he began a page to brag about himself: Wikipedia:Most persistent vandals, which I have left as is for now. I shut down 63.19.128.0/17 for 48 hours again, which stops him, at least until he can get himself a new IP range. Occasionally he makes valid edits (about one out of every ten or twenty), and it is characteristic of him to squeal like a stuck pig when one of those is either deleted or reverted. By the way, have a look at the deleted Six words you are never supposed to say for another example of the type of stuff he adds. Antandrus (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CltFn and Image:Nazislam.jpg

    This user continues to remove the IfD tag from this image, replacing it with increasingly bizarre claims about Iranian copyright law. First he tried to claim that it was "fallen into the commons domain". I pointed out that it was in fact a wire service photo (from AFP) and hence probably a copyright violation. He tried to claim that Iran has no copyright laws regarding photographs, which is nonsense; Iran does in fact have copyright laws which cover photographs, and in any case the photograph is copyrighted elsewhere. I said, and still say, that this claim is BS. He then tried to claim that "All pictures taken in the Islamic Republic of Iran belong to its sovereign power", again unsupported by any authority—only the assertion that "Anyone who knows anything about Islam could tell you that they [the copyright laws which I cited] are unislamic", and hence the laws I linked to did not apply. I'm having a great deal of trouble assuming good faith on this one; I believe his behavior to be either egregious foolishness or outright mendacity. Can someone else take a look? —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Also edit-warring at Islamonazism, currently at WP:DRV. Seems problematic.--Sean|Black 04:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Iran is one of a small number of countries that is not signatory to the Berne Convention on copyright. As a result, many works published in Iran are not protected by US copyright laws, and Iran does not recognize protections for most works published outside Iran. The copyright laws that do exists in Iran also have a number of significant differences from US laws. However, it is official policy of the Wikimedia foundation to honor the copyright laws of Iran as best as we are able even though we may be under no legal obligation to do so. All of which is irrelevant if it is an AFP photo since the US certainly does recognize the IP rights of France. Dragons flight 04:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Users who dont get Fair Use AGAIN

    See {{Template:User ps}}. The copyrighted logo of Adobe's Photoshop product is on the box... I tried reverting it and the user who created the template reverted back. I do not want to start a revert war over this, but this is CLEARLY against our policies.

    1. (cur) (last) 01:31, 5 December 2005 Ewok Slayer (Its Fair Use. There is a link right next to the image to Adobe Photoshop. The logo is illustrating a product. Thats okay. Next time put a note on my talk page before you mess up my user boxes.)
    2. (cur) (last) 01:27, 5 December 2005 Alkivar (you cannot use a COPYRIGHTED LOGO in a userpage template!)

    Someone else sort this out... If I have to deal with this rockheaded user I will probably start screaming.  ALKIVAR™ 06:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like theres more too.... [130] User:Ewok Slayer needs to be educated as to what Fair Use means.  ALKIVAR™ 06:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a WP policy or guidelines page that specifically states that copyrighted logos cannot be placed on userpage templates? I think it would be helpful if we could put a link to it in the edit summaries when we do remove them. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Not AFAIK, but all fair use images cannot be placed in any templates - it should be somewhere in wikipedia:fair use. Johnleemk | Talk 20:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It's near the end of Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy and begins with the admonition that fair use material is only to be used in the article namespace. -- DS1953 20:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Cool Cat seven day ban from Kurdistan and Kurdistan Workers Party

    Cool Cat is banned from editing the abovementioned two articles from 1000 UTC December 5, 2005 to 1000 UTC December 12, 2005. The ban is enforceable by blocking by any administrator, subject to review and possible adjustment or annulment by the mentors, under the terms of the Mentorship set up by the Arbitration Committee:

    This is not a punishment, but is a preventive measure taken to prevent possible further disruption on those articles due to his actions or those of third parties. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    This ban does not affect Cool Cat's ability to edit on the talk pages of those articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocks under this banning should be reasonable in length. A maximum period of three days is specified under the arbitration decision, but as a rule of thumb I would suggest that a block with a one-day maximum is less likely to be adjusted by review. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    two spammers blocked indefinitely

    I've blocked Erectile99 (talk · contribs) and Breast99 (talk · contribs) indefinitely for spamming and using inappropriate usernames. From what I had seen, the spam links appeared to be added by a bot. Other administrators might want to watch the user creation log for possible sock puppets. Notice how their names both end with the same characters. --Ixfd64 10:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    OldhamNeil blocked for 24 hours

    I blocked this account for 24 hours for a disruptive AFD nomination of George W. Bush. I suspect that this is a sockpuppet. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    another spammer sock blocked

    I've just blocked Asthma99 (talk · contribs) indefinitely for spamming. If I find any more socks, I'll list them here. --Ixfd64 11:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Add Bulimia99 (talk · contribs) to the list. --Ixfd64 11:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mr.Treason on the Run

    I've blocked him indef. for bad faith nominations for Afd: Rowan Atkinson and George W.Bush --Lectonar 12:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, after consulting the block-log, it wasn't me, but he's been blocked by 3 admins now :))) Lectonar 12:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    That and the fact that his username is parodying two banned users... Phil Sandifer 15:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    better one: User:Mr.Treason on the Run on wheels! --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Marsden

    Marsden (talk · contribs) continues to make personal attacks on Jayjg. This has been going on for weeks, most recently at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Candidate statements/Jayjg and on the talk page, which Marsden has posted several attacks to, and for which he's been blocked by Raul654. Marsden has now posted this personal attack [131] to his talk page. I've left him a note asking him to rewrite it. [132] If he doesn't, I intend to delete it, and if he restores it, I'm going to block him for disruption. I intend to do that from now with every clear example of a personal attack from him, because he has been editing disruptively for some time. Unfortunately the edit counter is down, but when I last checked, he had made very few edits to the encyclopedia; most of his edits appear to be conflict-related, and he has been blocked four times for disruption and personal attacks. If anyone can help me keep an eye on the situation, that would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked Marsden for 24 hours for suggesting in the guise of a question on Jay's nomination page that he is paid to edit Wikipedia [133], an allegation Marsden has made before. He was warned that he might be blocked for further attacks, though he's deleted the warnings from his talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw the comment, and agree that this is a blockable violation of WP:NPA. This user has been harrassing Jayjg, most recently on this ArbCom candidacy page, and has refused to tone down inflammatory "questions" (which are statements). JFW | T@lk 20:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    While, having reviewed some of Marsden's edits, I can understand why there was a block, I think it's a shame that SlimVirgin was the one to block him as she has been involved in disputes with Marsden in the recent past (at least on the page in question). I'd also question whether SV has been entirely fair on Marsden, for example, with this edit [134]. Many of Marsden's edits may have been objectionable - but going overboard on the guy is also objectionable, and no doubt contributes to him going on the offence as a kind of defence mechanism, jguk 20:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Posting counter-questions certainly did attract attention to the fact that this editor had a score to settle with Jayjg. Any admin could have blocked Marsden, and probably would have in the view of his harassment. JFW | T@lk 21:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Jguk, far from going overboard with Marsden, this is the first admin action I've taken against him and it's long overdue. I'm not involved in any content dispute with him except in trying to keep that page free of NPA violations and disruption. Marsden has been involved in attacks against a range of editors since he arrived at Wikipedia. Several people have tried to reason with him but it made no difference, so people started warning, which also made no difference, then applying blocks. He has so far been blocked five times by five different admins, each time for the same type of behavior. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Marsden contacted me during the block and we exchanged e-mails in which I tried to persuade him not to post any similar attacks in future. He then posted our correspondence without my consent on his talk page, [135] which had the effect of repeating the attacks he was blocked for in the first place. I've deleted the posts and protected his talk page for the duration of the block, which I now intend to extend by 24 hours. If anyone has any thoughts about this, I'd appreciate hearing them. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ewok Slayer

    This user is blocked for a week by Jtkiefer (talk/contribs) for a week for personal attacks (correctly in my view), which was prompted by the removal of certain images that he declared to be fair use on his user page. Now he is "revoking" the licences of the images he has uploaded (see User:Ewok Slayer/Images). This has now resulted in two legal threats [136] and [137]. Should he be blocked indefinitely until these threats are withdrawn? [[Sam Korn]] 21:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    User has a history of being disruptive. I wouldn't object.--Sean|Black 21:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    If he thinks he can remove his licence, the answer is 'no'. Once licenced the images aren't his any more. As such he cannot claim ownership again. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, they are still his. Just anyone can use them under GFDL restrictions. [[Sam Korn]] 21:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    As I recall, the Upload screen did not state that the user is releasing their own work under the GFDL for a period of time recently. Did this user release them under the GFDL by tagging them in that way? Jkelly 21:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    They contained the GFDL-self tag, so yes. [[Sam Korn]] 21:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Speaking of legal threats *sigh* this was posted on my talk page by someone called User:FakeName. The user was attempting to put a propagandistic article in place of the current article at Alan Dershowitz. In his rewrite Dershowitz was credited with everything except inventing a cure for cancer, a cure for AIDS and ending global warming in a single afternoon. He didn't like my reversion (twice) and posted the following:

    You are now on notice that your biography of Alan Dershowitz is false in several regard and defamatory.

    I deleted it from my page. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am in the process of reverting all those images back to the former version with his original GFDL licensing statements JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 21:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


    • I have blocked for 1 month for legal threats since he clearly continues to threaten us with legal actions despite being warned and being told how pointless it would be. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary ban on Copperchair editing

    1) As Copperchair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued to edit war on a number of articles pending resolution of this matter, he is banned from editing any pages other then these Arbitration pages and his own user and talk page. He may be briefly blocked should he edit any other page, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Copperchair/Proposed_decision#Temporary_ban_on_Copperchair_editing. Fred Bauder 21:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    As this is very new and he has just received notice on his talk page, take it a bit easy. Like block him for a few minutes first time. Fred Bauder 21:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Pigsonthewing harassing other editors

    Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) has been following Karmafist and reverting all of his posts with the edit summary of "Revert abuse". [138] [139], even modifying his statements in one talk page [140]. Since this is in my opinion harassment of Karmafist, I've blocked him for a week. This is also very close to gaming his preliminary injunction. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 22:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Very close, indeed. I fully support the block.--Sean|Black 22:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    First - it is untrue that Pigsonthewing was reverting "all" of Karmafist's edits. He was reverting edits about himself that he considered to be personal attacks. Some of them look to me like they qualify... which is a no-no given that Karmafist is under 'personal attack parole' at the moment.
    Second - if we are talking about reverting people's edits you might want to reverse the names in question here -> [141] [142] [143] [144].
    Pigsonthewing keeps getting blocked for harassment... whenever he complains about and reverts ongoing harassment against himself. Can I really be the only person who finds this odd? --CBD ✉ 22:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I don't see how article reversions are at all alike to talk page reversions.. —Locke Cole 22:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    They aren't. Reversions of personal attacks on talk pages are allowed... only the definition of 'personal attack' is open to interpretation. Following someone around and reverting their article submissions without discussion and regardless of merit on the other hand... that's called stalking and WP:HA. --CBD ✉ 22:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. Except those weren't personal attacks. —Locke Cole 22:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You are misreading what I wrote. The edits he reverted, he reverted all with the edit summary "rm abuse". As for reverting edits, the edits that led me to give him the block were the edits in the User talk namespace. No user has any business amending other users' comments, and the diff that did it for me was the one at Aaron Brenneman's talk page. By the way, that is exactly what made me block, seeing that another user complained about Pigsonthewing harassing him [145]. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 22:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, WP:RPA specifically says that you SHOULD 'amend other users' comments' to just remove the portion which is an attack. Again, what this comes down to is that you blocked Pigsonthewing because you did not agree with his assesment that Karmafist calling him 'troll', 'bully', et cetera were 'personal attacks'. If those were personal attacks he is allowed to remove them. If they weren't... well then he's blocked for a week. --CBD ✉ 23:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you read the top of WP:RPA? Over-extending the applicability of WP:RPA is one of the big complaints about Pigsonthewing. -- SCZenz 23:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't dispute that he uses it alot and takes a wide definition of 'personal attack' in doing so. However, I do not see how it is possible for Pigsonthewing's reversions of Karmafist calling him 'troll', 'bully', et cetera to be so pervasive as to rise to the level of "harassment" worthy of a week long ban... while simultaneously those original comments by Karmafist do not rise to the level of harassment against Pigsonthewing. If the one is harassment then so is the other... especially when you toss in Karmafist going about reverting Pigsonthewing's perfectly valid article edits. This all started between them when Karmafist put a 24 hour block on Pigsonthewing after falsely accusing him of violating 3RR... but not blocking G-man (an admin) who had reverted out the same text four times in a day. In my opinion admins should be held to a higher standard than regular editors. The guidelines don't read that way... so be it. However, the guidelines certainly don't say that admins should be held to a lower standard, but that has seemed to be the practice in this case. I don't disagree that alot of the things Pigsonthewing does are borderline abusive. I'm saying that he probably wouldn't be doing them if blatant ongoing abuse against him weren't ignored (and thereby encouraged) as a matter of course. --CBD ✉ 00:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with much of what you say, especially about admins being held to a high standard. However, the overall problem started because Pigsonthewing is unfailingly curt and impolite to anyone who edits in a way he dislikes or tries to offer him suggestions on how to work with other editors. I think a week-long block is excessive, and I would strongly support removing it if he showed any humility whatsoever or aknowledged the legitimate issues against him. Until he does that, I don't know what can be done about any of these problems. That being said, Karmafist should stay as far away from him as possible. -- SCZenz 00:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    In my own experience this ("unfailingly") isn't accurate. I contested his edits and we worked out a compromise. I called him a "pain in the ass" (amongst other, nicer, things) and he said thank you. That's humility enough for me. He gets 'difficult' when people are rude to him. That's not a good thing, but it's understandable. Nobody should have to put up with someone reverting their edits as a "better safe than sorry" "gut reaction"... nor be blocked for getting upset and objecting to that and similar treatment. --CBD ✉ 02:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Having read all of the above, I still find a seven-day block completely unjustifiable and, in the circumstances of an ongoing arbitration case in which Pigsonthewing should be encouraged to participate, counter-productive. I am replacing this with a two-day block, reduced in duration to run from the time of the original seven day block. This is justifiable under the personal attack injunction, since in my opinion the interference with Karmafist's edits constitutes a personal attack.

    After the expiry of the two-day block, all administrators are encouraged to monitor Pigsonthewing's conduct and ensure that he does not resume this problematic conduct.

    I will address Karmafist's conduct separately (I haven't yet examined it). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't object to the reduction of the block. I was going to block for 72 hours originally, but after seeing he was a repeat offender, I decided to increase the length of the block. That said, Pigsonthewing has been asked repeatedly to answer his RFC (and then his RFAr), which he continues to refuse to do. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 05:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    To illustrate my concerns, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing) had already been blocked for thirty-six hours recently. Adding another week-long block to that would leave him very little opportunity to change his mind and contribute evidence in the case and participate in the workshop. This isn't to say that we should let him run loose, but I think shorter blocks (*much* shorter blocks, if timed correctly) are likely to be just as effective.

    There are also extenuating circumstances, too. This in my opinion violates the personal attack injunction on Karmafist, as does this. I don't think a block is yet merited in Karmafist's case, but I shall be warning him not to engage in this kind of accusation again. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    And here's another example: [146]. This ought to be posted back as evidence for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Workshop#Karmafist restricted with respect to Pigsonthewing. I have to agree with CBD that the current situation is being exacerbated by Karmafist continuing to post snipes against POTW, then citing POTW's reaction as harassment. The afd on Tim Tolkien doesn't look in terribly good faith either. Tearlach 07:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, the state that Tim Tolkien was in when he nominated it for AfD would have lead me to nominate it as well. It was only after it was nominated that he began adding content that indicated the notability of the subject. In so far as Karmafist exacerbating things; I don't believe what he posted constitutes a personal attack. If we can't even define what someones behavior seems to be, how on Earth are we supposed to suggest they be brought up for RFAr or RfC? Next thing you know we'll have people deleting comments such as "So and so is misbehaving, you should do something".. oh right, that's precisely what he did. —Locke Cole 07:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If we can't even define what someones behavior seems to be is not the point. Karmafist has been enjoined to back off and not interact with POTW, but is still picking at it. Posting ad hominem comments encouraging other editors to discount POTW's edits and treat them as troublemaking looks to me well into the territory of personal atack, especially when unjustified. For instance, the Phoenix Park edit history shows POTW and Demiurge supporting a long-standing consensus against an anonymous reverter. There was no trouble until Karmafist waded in and automatically reverted to the nonconsensus version simply because POTW supported it (so I decided to go see what he was up to and went with a "better safe than sorry" approach when I saw reverts by him). Tearlach 08:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Karmafist has been enjoined? Since when? I look here and I only see temporary injunctions enacted against Pigsonthewing. One of his "ad hominen" comments (which I also dispute) were directed at a user who left a note on his talk page. There's nothing unjustified about suggesting POTW is a troll, he may very well be. But let me guess: if a police officer pulls you over and says you were speeding, you take that as a personal attack too, right? So now making accusations is a personal attack? I bet the whole RFAr is a personal attack: maybe he can blank that too, because it seems to me that's where you're headed. *sigh* I mean honestly, look at the examples given at WP:NPA. Nothing karmafist has done (with any frequency anyways, if at all) rises to that level. I'm trying to assume good faith here and assume you really believe what you're saying, but these assertions are really pushing it. —Locke Cole 08:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, this has got so convoluted that I'm mistaken on that point. On rereading, I see the injunction is against Karmafist making personal attacks; the no-interaction-whatsoever is at the proposal stage. It's not bad advice, though. Do you really think the Phoenix Park edits help the situation? Or these edits to Sutton Park, which look equally bad faith?
    Your analogy is inaccurate anyway. This is equivalent to that same police officer, after having caught you speeding, turning up and saying "this guy was caught speeding, you know" to suggest you're untrustworthy in all sorts of situations where that's irrelevant.
    I'm not the only one to view Karmafist's edits as personal attacks (see [147]). Tearlach 09:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    To clarify, a statement can be a personal attack even if it's true. Describing someone's interactions on Wikipedia as "bullying" and "trolling" is a personal attack, even if the person involved is a bully and a troll. We do things differently on Wikipedia. If we have a difference with someone, we seek ways of resolving it, not ways of marginalizing that person. Karmafist is under an injunction because he had earlier described Pigsonthewing as "the scum of Wikipedia" and made repeated pig-related swipes at him. Now he's stopped calling Pigsonthewing a pig, but he hasn't stopped attacking him. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I was just telling Pigsonthewing the same thing about using terms like 'lies' and 'liar'. Whether something is true or not is irrelevant to whether it is an attack or not. Further, estimations of 'truth' are often subjective. I don't think 'troll' or 'bully' are accurate descriptions of Pigsonthewing because both terms imply intent (to provoke hostility / harass for amusement) which I have seen no evidence of. In any case, they are clearly 'attacks'... that is, statements made to portray the person negatively. Though again, estimations of 'severity' of personal attacks are highly subjective. Which, in my opinion, is a significant problem... subjective definitions of what is and is not a 'personal attack' and 'harassment' inherently leads to unequal application of blocks for such. Which inevitably breeds resentment. --CBD ✉ 13:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Since none of the examples at WP:NPA seemed to apply to what karmafist (or even POTW) have been doing, I've expanded WP:NPA. [148] Obviously if it needs rewording, go for it. —Locke Cole 18:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NPA is very enlightening as it stands. Whatever the precise definition of "attack", WP:NPA is explicit that ad hominem arguments are against policy: Comment on content, not on the contributor ... Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party ... Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is. And that is what is going on. For instance: SaltyWater says he doesn't like some Pigsonthewing edits [149]; Karmafist replies telling him Pigsonthewing has bullied people in the past [150]. Tearlach 19:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly, we had better rework the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism page, since in its very first sentence it describes editors of pages as being "vandals," and since this might be considered an ad hominem attack, violates WP:NPA.
    Look, Wikipedia has bad editors. It is not always a personal attack to say "Jane is a bad editor." It can be a personal attack. But it is not necessarily an attack.
    "WillyOnWheels is a troll and a vandal." Did I just violate WP:NPA? If so, then the policy is wrong, and needs to be fixed. Nandesuka 21:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I rewrote that clause as follows, in an attempt to more closely circumscribe it: "Accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll", or "Jane is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom." Nandesuka 21:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:RPA is disputed, after all

    I'd like to take a moment to point out to all that RPA is not policy, and it is disputed, and there is not consensus for the removal of personal attack comments. Some people seem to feel that it's policy and their duty to remove personal attacks from others, this is not so. Personally, I think editing other user's comments is generally a bad thing...if an attack is made, refute the attack, but keep in mind that anyone who chooses to engage in such behavior risks a loss of reputation and risks incurring consequences (I for one won't hesistate to place a block on a user engaging in repeated personal attacks). As far as this case goes, if there is a personal attack on either Pigsonthewings or Karmafist's part, an immediate block is warranted. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 02:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed ... mostly. Personal attacks are unacceptable. But it's also no good to alter other people's signed comments; that's forgery ... and frequently, it's also a form of bullying or personal attack in itself. It's particularly egregious when it's done in response to allegations of wrongdoing. "You accused me of doing something wrong. I take that as a personal attack, and so I shall now strike out your words. Your accusation is now besmirched, without my bothering to respond to its substance." That sort of malicious application of RPA cropped up on WP:RFC/Duncharris in the beginning of the recent administrative malfeasance unpleasantness.
    Nonetheless, it should be perfectly acceptable to remove or revert whole posts (not just individual words) that are composed of pure abuse. This is simply a corollary of the vandalism policy. Removing a whole post avoids the alteration or besmirching of another person's words, and is less likely to be done in any case where the words have any value at all. There is no value to retaining a talk comment that is solely composed of the words "fuck you" repeated a hundred times, or racial slurs, or other patent nonsense. --FOo 08:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Block on Karmafist

    I have blocked Karmafist (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for violating his personal attack parole, for this edit. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd just like to note that, unless I'm missing something, there is no PAP against Karmafist currently enacted. Whoever marked it as "Enacted" miscounted as there's only four arbcom support votes and a majority of five is required for a proposal to pass. Further, no announcement that such a PAP had been enacted appears to have been given to Karmafist, and finally, no temporary injunction appears here. (this was also posted on Karmafist's talk page) —Locke Cole 05:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It only takes four Arbitrators to enact an injunction. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    On the Proposed Decision page, it reads On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and 2 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority.. Is there a Complete Idiots Guide to Wikipedia Arbitration someplace to bring me up to speed, or is the 5 votes are a majority wrong? =) —Locke Cole 05:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Injunctions follow different rules than final decisions. See the Arbitration policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, edit conflict, (because I'm, slow) but the policy says: "An Injunction is considered to have passed when four or more Arbitrators have voted in favour of it, where a vote in opposition negates a vote in support." Dmcdevit·t 07:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clearing that up; you guys might want to add a little note about the votes needed on temporary injunctions in your templates for arbitrations (like in the proposed temporary injunction section in the Proposed decision subpage). —Locke Cole 10:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It's already there. --CBD ✉ 12:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted a response on Karmafist's Talk page, prior to seeing this response from Kelly Martin. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like Karmafist is taking the liberty of shortening his own block and unblocking himself [151] --Ryan Delaney talk 14:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know any of the history of this situation, but as an outsider, there's nothing in the diff provided that looks to me like an obvious personal attack. IMO, if you're going to call it a blockable offence, the personal attack should be pretty clear. Friday (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that this seems harsh. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a poor taste joke. Last night when it first happened, and Karmafist was complaining on IRC about it, I consulted an arbcom member on IRC, and they said it violated the spirit of the injunction. Anyway, Karmafist 1) probably needs to take a break for a few hours, 2) shouldn't unblock himself, no matter how wrong the block is, as mentioned on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Ipblocklist&action=unblock --Phroziac . o º O (mmmmm chocolate!) 15:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be a shame to lose a good editor because of the POTW situation, which is what will happen if this dynamic continues. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand why the "don't unblock yourself" convention exists. But, I have a hard time bringing myself to disagree with someone unblocking themselves when no plausible reason for the block has been given. Situations like this frequently escalate unneccessarily, because then someone else can come along and say "unblocking yourself?!? that's not right, I'm going to re-block". To me this situation should have been handled with a note on the talk page, not a block. Also, maybe it's just me, but I don't like to see on-wiki consequences for off-wiki actions. If a solid reason for a block cannot be found on the wiki, the block should not happen. Friday (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The other half of this dispute (Pigsonthewing) was recently blocked for a week for 'offenses' seemingly no more serious than this one. I suspect Evilphoenix imposed this block because of an ongoing pattern of harassment of which the linked edit was only the most recent example. Several others can be found in the paragraphs preceding this one. At that, we are presently a few hours away from an arbitration going into effect (24 hours after motion to close) which will bar Karmafist from interacting with Pigsonthewing in any way. So it's not like this is 'out of the blue' with no justification. I don't want to see Karmafist quit over this either, but frankly I feel that the fact that he HASN'T been blocked before this demonstrates a ludicrous imbalance in the standards imposed on admins vs those on regular editors. --CBD ✉ 15:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Karmafist was blocked for a post [152] on Wikipedia , Friday, not something offsite, but the question remains whether it counts as a personal attack. I would say not, though I'd also say Karmafist would do well to avoid POTW entirely. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand, but it sounded like the explanation above was saying that this is a personal attack when viewed through the lens of a conversation that happened on IRC. If it's a personal attack when viewed through the lens of an ongoing pattern of wiki activity, that's another story. And I'll admit I'm not familiar with the history, I just wanted to point out that the diff provided doesn't look like a blockable personal attack to outsider eyes. Friday (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    From Wikipedia:Blocking_policy: Sysops are technically able to unblock themselves by following this procedure but should absolutely not do so, except if they were autoblocked as a result of a block on some other user (or bot) that they share an IP with. Otherwise, if an admin feels they were not blocked for a valid reason, the safest course is to contact the blocking admin, another admin, or the mailing list and ask to be unblocked. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Karmafist's action was not acceptable and he knows that. I know it's tempting as administrators to all pat one another on the back, but when we do that it in a case like this it looks bad. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    As an outsider to this incident, I am a little confused as to how the diff in question was a personal attack. However, I agree that he shouldn't unblock himself. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Bonaparte

    Bonaparte (talk · contribs) is being disruptive and uncivil. He is constantly in a state of edit warring with a number of editors over any article related to things Romanian. See, in particular, Talk:Moldovan language. Please could some other admins keep an eye on him, and try to encourage him to be constructive. --Gareth Hughes 23:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not disruptive and uncivil. In fact I didn't even edit the Moldovan language page since 23 days. And all that I edit after so many days was to revert the edits of a user that was already blocked by Gareth Hughes for edit war like here (16:21, 5 December 19:28, 5 December 21:50, 5 December 23:36, 5 December). In fact I proposed many arguments like the one of Gr. Ureche, M. Costin, D. Cantemir and other arguments as well. -- Bonaparte talk 11:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he said on the talkpage. --Node 12:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    This user: Node is the one who made so many days the revert war and he was already blocked by Gareth Hughes for edit war like here (16:21, 5 December 19:28, 5 December 21:50, 5 December 23:36, 5 December). I posted first on the talk page so that any person can agree with the version. So is fairplay. -- Bonaparte talk 13:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    User:All in

    All_in (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is committing serious page move vandalism. See Harvard Yard. All kinds of crap in his contributions. Chick Bowen 02:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    The user hasn't been sufficiently warned to justify administrative action. Also, block requests should go to WP:AIV in the future. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I wasn't requesting a block. I was on the phone and was hoping someone could look through his contribs. Chick Bowen 03:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    The Article "BORED"

    Dear fellow wikipedians, i myself have been a law abiding wikipedian.. but currently i have created a new article on "BORED", an organization that i founded with my fellow peers. It is an organization of 100 members worldwide, in cities such as LA, new York, Vancouver, Paris, London, Liverpool, Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Sydney. But the user Shreshth91 keeps on deleting. Please give me permission to post it and protect it from deltion. Thankyou - --Larryau 10:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    The place you need to bring this up is Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thryduulf 10:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Having just looked at the deleted versions, however, I do not think that you have much chance of it being undeleted. There is a high-bar of notability required for student organisations and one that has been in existence less than one month does not meet that standard. There is a small chance that some people might consider it worth a full hearing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, but I personally cannot see it surviving this. Thryduulf 10:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Alkivar

    The admin Alkivar has gone over the top in the abuse of his power. If you look at his edit history, you will see that he blocked a guy named CapnCrack without warning despite Crack's vandalism being relatively minor. I think a warning explaining to Crack the proper way to use edit summaries would have been plenty.

    Next, Alkivar reverted the Oklahoma Christian University page and then page-protected it. If page protection is not an edorsement of the current state of a page, why did he revert a page that was not vandalized and then protect it? I don't know how to reach any other conclusion other than that he did not personally appreciate the the most recent edits.

    Thirdly, Alkivar simply labels everyone a vandal who tries to talk with him about this matter, and he claims any argument regarding the matter to be vandalism. Look at his talk page. Any time someone brings up the Oklahoma Christian University article on his talk page, he just reverts it or claims it is a personal attack. At one point, Alkivar was simply reminded of the official policy at Wikipedia and how he was presently violating it. Alkivar's response was to remove that comment as "vandalism". (Are the Wikipedia policies really vandalism? Alkivar also removed one comment claiming that the conversation is over. However, the page-protection sign clearly states that the page is protected until a resolution can be reached. How can a resolution be reached if the conversation is over?

    I don't want to have to go through whatever the process is here to resolve a dispute. I just don't have the time. I like to edit Wikipedia, and I like to read at Wikipedia. But I won't have time for a couple of weeks to be able to spend a ton of time trying to reason with someone through some bureaucratic process. Is there anyway he can be convinced to cool it and to restore the pages and parties he has offended? I can't see how anyone who is behaving like he is can be considered within the scope of appropriate behavior.

    68.97.36.194 11:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Oklahoma_Christian_University for essentially the same complaint. Note the "me too!" agreement with the complaint by Beisnj (talk · contribs) -- a contributor with total of 5 edits. I'm finding this whole complaint and its circumstances very suspicious. --Calton | Talk 11:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it very suspicious, too. A guy with 5 edits is evidence that weighs heavily against a guy reverting acceptable edits, protecting pages to "win" fights, deleting user comments, blocking minor vandals indefinitely without warning, and referring to the official policy as vandalism. Thanks for bringing this error in my reasoning to my attention. 68.97.36.194 12:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude, there was nothing in that last paragraph that resembled what most people call "reasoning"; rather, it resembled the output of a Sarcast-o-Bot: "Yes, <repeat what other person said>, <add own, unrelated complaint>." Two words for you: Matthew 7:3. --Calton | Talk 13:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, let me slow this down for you then. Here's the reasoning I used. I like to call it a "balancing test". The evidence you presented - one possibly controversial fact. Here is the evidence I presented - five facts that went uncontested that show poor judgment on the part of an administrator.
    Now, in the backwards world that I come from, that's reasoning. I've tried to tell the people I know so many times that this whole idea of making solid arguments backed with facts and logic, refuting opposing arguments, and then defending the original constructive arguments is getting outdated, but they won't listen to me. Now, here I am, being shamed into defeat because I took the advice of all those wack-jobs who thought that was the way to win an argument.
    Thanks for this really enlightening experience. I needed the nuances of argumentation cleared up for me. 68.97.36.194 02:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


    Miaoww -- CatWoman 13:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC) ( comment actually by 84.69.21.169 (talk · contribs))[reply]

    Find-a-grave links

    Some closer review is needed of the links being added by newcomer RustySpear (talk · contribs) from biographical articles to the findagrave.com web site. We do have an effort underway to use findagrave's list to identify missing articles, and that, er, undertaking does involve a courtesy link to findagrave.com for newly created articles created as a result of the find-a-grave list, a usage that I would still question since findagrave.com is at best a secondary source. But I have more serious opposition to the addition of links from hundreds of existing biographical articles to find-a-grave. In an attempt to centralize discussion, I encourage interested editors to comment at Wikipedia talk:Find-A-Grave famous people. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    While I have commented more fully on the project talk page, I disagree with Uninvited Company and believe that at the very least an External link to Find A Grave is equally useful to those of IMBD, which has now been accepted as a 'standard' External link here. Doc 15:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockcheck User:Cbaus

    John Lott was doing just fine ignoring the John Lott Sock and Meat puppets, but now it's just over the top. Please Sockcheck User:Cbaus and the other new users who show up just to revert John Lott and take appropriate action. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:198.209.24.254

    Is someone going to enact the block that was warned about a few hours ago? --LV (Dark Mark) 19:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Unless I'm mistaken, the user hasn't made any edits since the warning was given. --Kbdank71 19:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I count 9 edits (all vandalism). 7 to Republican Party (United States), and one a piece to List of socialists and Zikan. Unless this is a completely different user at this IP address. If so, I guess I'll go add a new warning. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Dynamic IP vandalizing multiple articles

    I had originally received this request from Bonaparte. He wanted me to protect 4 pages that a pro Nazi anon has been hitting hard. The trouble is that this anon is using a dynamic IP based out of Hungary, so protection isn't the best option. The IPs that have been used are 81.182.194.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 81.182.104.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 81.182.195.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 81.182.20.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 81.182.194.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). He's been spewing really awful hate literature type stuff. I'm not an expert at dynamic IPs. Hopefully someone else on here is (I'm going to cross post this on ViP as well). Any help would be appreciated.

    The articles in question are:

    --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 19:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC) Unless you want to block every IP of this person for a long time, I think protecting is the best thing you can do. - Mgm|(talk) 09:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war Shiloh Shepherd Dog

    There is an edit/revert war going on at Shiloh Shepherd Dog. I'm seeing that the user Shiloh lover has tried discussion with one or more anonymous editors to no avail on the talk page. Turning on protection on the page may be a good idea to encourage actual discussion. - Trysha (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Instantnood probation

    User:Instantnood is on WP:Probation from inappropriate editing on Chinese topics [153]. He has been engaging in slow revert wars. Slow revert wars are "inappropriate editing".

    • on Hong Kong-style western cuisine. 6 reverts betwen 28 Nov and 2 Dec, when it was quiet, then out of the blue he reverted again today [154] with the same edit summary he's used twice before and no talk page discussion.

    Regardless of whether these edits are "right"; since he is under probation, the onus is on Instantnood to not engage in these behaviors. SchmuckyTheCat 21:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal Info in Edit Summery

    On this page, in the edit summery of the second deelted edit, the personal identity and employment info of a wikipedia user is revealed. This revision was delted specifically to get this information out of the history at the poster's request. Is there any way to remove this edit summery from what is visible to non-admins who click on the history tab? DES (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Islam writer Zora http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zora belittlingly edited and destroyed portions of a Christian article unfavorably in favor of historic Muslim figure with the same name Aisha. Left sarcastic, libellous, inappropriate edit note.

    Proceeded to go to the web site link provided in the article she improperly edited and left inappropriate, insulting email message.

    Wolf Blitzer wheel war

    Wolf Blitzer has now been protected 4 times and unprotected 3 times in the course of an hour, log. The issue seems to be that the article was mentioned on CNN, and has gotten a lot of attention. Danny decided to protect because of the potential for vandalism, because of its new visibility. Pharos unprotected it, and they each repeated three times. This is disgraceful behavior. More importantly (currently) the article remains protected "because the article has achieved wide public notice." This is explicitly not in our protection policy, and for good reason. It goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. In fact, high visibility articles like those on the main page should remain unprotected to display what Wikipedia is to new visitors. In fact, there was minimal vandalism before the protection, and I suspect most were simply tests. This should be unprotected as soon as possible (though I'm not going to indulge and join the wheel war). Dmcdevit·t 00:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, and would also observe the addition of two new parts of the protection policy: "Corrections" and "notability". -Splashtalk 00:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I think someone is misinterpreting what Jimbo said on CNN. We do protect articles when they're on TV, while they're on TV. But we do not protect articles merely because they are "widely noticed". Kelly Martin (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Jon Garrett removing references to Common Era

    This editor, who is banned from removing referrences to Common Era and replacing them with AD or BCE has done that in this [155] and other edits recently, this time as User:Jguk. CDThieme 00:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    69.141.246.127 (talk · contribs)'s only contributions are doing the above, but only twice. Very recent, but I have no way of knowing if it is related. Jkelly 03:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't believe that ip is Jguk... Jguk edits from the UK, usually with the range 195.40.200.0/10 (belonging to www.easynet.co.uk). Sortan 16:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    This might not be technically against his arbcom prohibition, but I do believe it very clearly violates the spirit, and is gaming the system (much like him making four reverts in 25 hours). The arbcom prohibition against jguk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) states:

    Jguk banned from changing BCE to BC or CE to AD
    1) Jguk is indefinitely prohibited from changing BCE to BC or CE to AD in any article, for any reason.

    Furthermore, there is a finding of fact which states:

    Jguk's campaign
    1) Jguk has changed the era notation on hundreds of articles which he does not usually edit to reflect his preferred usage BC AD, see for example his edits to Khazars: [156], [157], [158].

    This is the exact type of editing he has continued to do recent edits (most specifically here [159], as well as the aforementioned Olmec article). Is this allowed editing? Some sort of clarification would be most appreciated.

    In my opinion, not only do his edits violate the arbcom prohibition, but in his quest to remove BCE/CE notation he introduces inaccuracies into articles. For example changing 3500 BCE to 5500 years ago (which is awkward phrasing, and might be correct today, but not so in 20 years), as wells as changing start of the Common Era to 1 BC and 1 AD (which changes general and vague phrasing to a specific date, which implies a precision that is not there).

    Finally the arbcom case states:

    Enforcement by ban
    1) Jguk may be briefly banned, up to a week in the case of repeated offenses, should he attempt to change the era notation in any article.

    Sortan 16:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • My opinion is that these edits (Changing "beginning of the Common Era" to "1 AD" [160] and changing "500 CE" to "500" [161]) are clear attempts to game the ruling and follow the letter of the law while violating the spirit. However, I am both a very new administrator as well as someone with a personal preference for BCE/CE notation in his own editing, so I'd ask someone else to have a look and perform a block in accordance with the arbcom ruling. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changing "AD 500" or "500 CE" to plain "500" may actually be wise. I recommend that in cases where the discussion does not include BC[E] dates. dab (ᛏ) 16:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wise or not, jguk of all people should not be doing this. Personally I think that "AD 500" or "500 CE" look and read better than a plain "500" (and linking dates like "500" to make them stand out / look like dates is not an improvement as dates are far too over linked- there was a discussion on this at the MOS). Sortan 16:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 68.20.16.164 (talk · contribs) has been doing the opposite. Is the ceasefire breaking down? dab (ᛏ) 16:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's hope not. As it is, I am blocking jguk for three hours as the edit certainly does contravene the arbcom ruling. I am also leaving a note on his talk page telling him not to be stupid and get himself banned over this. [[Sam Korn]] 16:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2004-12-29T22:45Z

    2004-12-29T22:45Z (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I have blocked this user for two weeks for willfully violating established consensus and again attempting to publish unverifiable personal details about a porn star (in this case, Tawnee Stone). I have also deleted those items from the article.

    For background see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive44#Jordon_Capri and related items.

    Brief Summary: This user, who does in fact make useful contributions to the encyclopedia, seems to enjoy stalking porn stars. By doing "research" on obscure web forums, college directories, blogs and other sites, he claims to have discerned the real identity of several porn stars whose professional work appears exclusively under a psuedonym. (For example, in the case of Tawnee Stone his primary line of evidence is a forum post where someone claims to have known her when she was a waitress at IHOP and offers a real name.) Nor does he stop at identifying a porn star's name, but proceeds to include details on their family, hometown, current place of residence, current place of employment, etc. All very stalkerish.

    Sometime ago (see above AN/I link), it was decided this was a Bad Thing and the unverifiable information was deleted from several articles. 2004-12-29T22:45Z was well aware of this and apparently decided to see whether he could come back months later and sneak some of it in again.

    The message I left on his talk page said I would unblock him if he promises to stop doing this. Dragons flight 03:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible Sockpuppet: User:Ayn Rand

    This user has 3 edits as of this writing: 2 to his/her user page and 1 to User talk:Fred Bauder saying: "Why in your profile does it say retired lawyer? Your a censured lawyer you know that?" [162] This seems odd behavior for a new user. Can someone run a sockcheck? Firebug 03:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like they got blocked in line with the username policy (a move I was about to do myself). Ral315 (talk) 07:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Gregory Lauder-Frost (part 2) and "Legal Action"

    I tried to keep an eye on this page as per the last notice here, but I was (I gather now, quite mistakingly) on the lookout for simple vandalism portraying Mr. Lauder-Frost as exhibiting Nazi sympathies. I haven't followed the actual content dispute closely. The legal action notice is here. El_C 10:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I decided to protect the page for now. El_C 15:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=30483963"