Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

IheartWWF and Emico

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

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

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

IheartWWF^{wwf (wrestling for gays)}.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible Scottfisher socks

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block wars

I've no idea who is in the right or wrong here. fiBut, this [1] dies not look good. --Doc ^ask? 00:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, that certainly puts the previous issue in perspective, doesn't it? I wonder what the admin abuse was? Probably unblocking himself *snigger*. Rex^(talk) 00:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it, I can't find what he did. On his talk page he is being acccused of admin abuse, but no one is telling him what he did. Rex^(talk) 00:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Seems to be the gdanskzig dispute. Ouch. Wasn't there an Arb case on this? (Molobo is accused of removing double names, and was blocked for breaking WP:V; Wiglaf is accused of admin abuse by blocking Molobo). Radiant_>|< 00:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

While having no idea who's in the right, or the wrong, note that Piotrus unblocked Molobo a total of 4 separate times, removing blocks by 2 different admins. Ral315 (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The original block appears to have been in error, since administrators do not have the privilege of blocking editors with whom they are personally in conflict. I think this is getting to be a repeating theme of recent: All administrators really do need to keep in mind that their access is for specific and limited purposes only. It isn't to allow them to seize control of articles. It isn't even to settle disputes by fiat -- even though it might seem like a good idea at the time, administrative fiat is not part of dispute resolution here.

An administrator who gets into a dispute with another editor and then misuses administrator powers to "settle" that dispute thereby cedes the moral and intellectual high ground, by choosing to stifle the discussion rather than seek consensus. We need to recognize that. Whenever an administrator blocks someone they're in conflict with, or reverts and protects an article that they've been edit-warring on, that action is in itself an admission of being wrong. It's saying, "I can't argue the point or get others to agree with me, so I'm going to stop you from speaking."

And that's unacceptable conduct for any Wikipedia editor.

Come on, people. It's not hard, when you get into a conflict with someone whom you think is breaking the rules, to call for an outside opinion. Rather than reaching for the block button when you get fed up with someone, bring others in to take a less-biased look at the situation. If someone you're arguing with violates 3RR, that'll be clear to anyone else who looks at the situation: you don't need to break the rules yourself by blocking someone you're in conflict with. --FOo 03:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This is so basic that is getting increasingly difficult to assume good faith in admins who don't ask for an outside opinion. The janitors need to have clean hands and to be seen to have clean hands. There are ways and means to get things sorted out, blocking someone you're in dispute with or protecting pages you're involved with are not among them. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This is utterly uninspiring. And as far as I can tell, this was the first time this has been brought up, after 4 unblocks. I can't imagine any reason why anyone who would use their admin powers with such disregard would deserve our confidence. I'm going to ask Piotrus and Chris73 to comment in case they don't know about this thread. Dmcdevit·t 09:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Most accusations of "involvement" on the part of the administrator are frivolous. It's often the only way the party that didn't get their way can dispute the decision. Frequently, and I'm not just talking about myself here, an admin will get accused of involvement merely on the basis that he or she performed an administrative action at all -- because "if you weren't taking sides with the evildoers, why would you act againtst my clearly correct position"? That said, admin revert wars are very bad for the Wiki and should not be engaged in under any circumstances. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I find just silently reverting each other's [un]blocks without entering a discussion is rather undignified for both sides. With "both sides" I mean Piotrus and Wiglaf. Molobo is clearly a nationalist troll. I find it very disconcerting that we have an admin going around, reverting blocks of other admins (Chris 73, Wiglaf), apparently because he is in league with the user in a content dispute. While the 'disruption' block may have been arguable, Piotrus' revert of Wiglaf's 3RRvio block is highly questionable. We should strongly encourage both parties to bring matters regarding Molobo to the attention of uninvolved admins in the future. Warring admins are poison for the community. dab (ᛏ) 13:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

As FOo mentioned, my unblocking was due to the fact that I think Wiglaf (supported by admins Shauri and Nightbeast) abused his admin powers by 1) violating the Blocking Policy (Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute) in blocking Molobo (not for the first time) as they were involved in the content dispute (not a naming dispute!) with him, and 2) not stating any reasons for their block on his user page (at least not until I asked him to explain his actions). Btw, is there a clear rule that a user should be notified with reasons for his block? I thought that it was but cannot find it today :/

In addition, the sides involve admins on one side and non-admins on the other (at least until I stepped in, which I do very rarely, since I don't like to get involved in nationality-based disputed, as most of involved parties should know), so this presents additonal problem. The first case I used my admin powers to unblock Molobo, about half month ago, involved the German_4th_Panzer_Division#War_Crimes section in this article and after lenghty discussion Wiglaf and his side conceded that Molobo was right (or at least stopped reverting his additions, allowing the section to remain in the article, which I think is the same as admiting he was right). The block reason Wilglaf used in that case was listed as 'disruption of Wikipedia', a reason described on our Blocking Policy as controversial, and Wiglaf failed to present evidence of Molobo's disruption other then Molobo disagreeing with their side. See User_talk:Wiglaf_archive_7#Abuse_of_blocking_rights, User_talk:Piotrus#Blocking, Talk:German 4th Panzer Division and User_talk:Wiglaf#German_4th_Panzer_Division for more information on this case.

In the last unblocking I admit I didn't look sufficiently at Molobo's edit history and I assumed the block was related to the Kulturkampf content edit war that those parties are involved again (note I did not unblock Space Cadet, who is a common and clear case of revert warrior). See where again references provided by Molobo are targeted and note that Molobo seems to use talk pages extensively, unlike many of his opponents (Talk:Kulturkampf). However, after studing the history of this recent conflict (block war) I see that it relates to Molobo removal of comments at Talk:Zygmunt Bauman, which indeed means Molobo acted both in a clearly disruptive way and broke the 3RR rule, and that Wilglaf was right in blocking him this time. This might have been avoided if Wilgaf posted info why he blocked Molobo on his user page. I still think that if an admin is involved with a user in dispute A, and dispute B, and the user breaks a 3RR rule on B, but makes good case for A, that the admin should ask somebody else to enforce the block (conflict of interests here). This said, I apologise here to Wilgaf for accusing him of abuse of admin rights, which - this time - was not the case (I thought Molobo was blocked for edits on Kulturkampf).

I have advocated to both parties and will repeat it here that since they cannot reach an agreement and their conflicts are repeated again and again, that they should use RfC or even RfA. So far my advice seem to be ignored and various revert wars continue - please consider it now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

"Molobo seems to use talk pages extensively, unlike many of his opponents." One thing needs pointing out: he uses talk pages to badger, to argue and for the purpose of emotional pleading. His participation here is one of constant friction with dozens of editors (check his talk). His four reverts were repeatedly calling a talk post a personal attack, which is a favourite tactic of his. The other I always like is when he calls you a bigot or xenophobe for no reason. The user is a troll and I can only assume he's avoided an RFC or RFArb to this point because people are so tired of dealing with him. Sorry if this seems like an out of nowhere comment, but it needs pointing out. Marskell 16:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Please Marskell give links to me calling somebody xenophobe or bigot. If they are any I will gladly erase them out of hand, although I do not recall calling people such names. --Molobo 00:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The way I see it, there are no reasonable grounds for blocking Molobo, or if there are, Wiglaf is concealing them very well. I can't find any policy which Molobo has violated (I may be wrong of course). Therefore, the block must have been based upon "administrative discretion", which is all very well if a good reason for the block is found. So far, Wiglaf has not even attempted to justify it (as far as I can see). Does anyone know if Wiglaf has been at odds with Molobo, because if he has, then I'd presume admin abuse. If there isn't, but Wiglaf still can't produce a valid reason for blocking Molobo, then I'd presume incompetence and seriously flawed judgement. Rex^(talk) 17:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

As stated by Piotrus, the 4 reverts were on Talk:Zygmunt Bauman. User:Nightbeast placed a notice and Wiglaf obviously noticed. Seems a valid block. Marskell 18:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Right, so the only thing that went wrong here was Wiglaf's failure to place a formal notice of the existence, duration and reasons for the block. No wonder I couldn't find anything on Molobo's talk page. My sincere apologies to Wiglaf for implying that he was acting unfairly. Rex^(talk) 18:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

If you disagree with someone's block, the proper way to deal with that is not to instantly unblock, but to bring it to the community's attention. Talk to the admin, come here, file an RFC, but certainly don't unblock when you yourself are involved, that's just as bad. And not four times. I still fail to see how you can have unblockede first without full investigation (there was a valid 3RR filed). I think whether or not Molobo is a good person is tangential to the issue. Repeated unblocks when involved, without bringing it to the community's attention, and without full investigation are always wrong. Blocking people you are personally involved with, without asking another admin's aid or bringing it to the community's attention first is always wrong. Nothing Piotrus has said explains away those facts, nor will anything the other admins involved say. As far as I'm concerned, this is childish behavior from people we expect to know better. Dmcdevit·t 18:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

1) It was four times over the period of a month. 2) I was justified in my first two unblockings, and I think that Rex description of Wilgaf misdoings is applicable to them. 3) I was not correct in my last unblocking, but my mistake was caused by the lack of explanation for Wiglaf action on Molobo's talk page (i.e. I looked at Molobo's contribs on the day of the blocking, not earlier, since I didn't now I had to look that far back). I will definetly bring this to the community next time to avoid any confusion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This is simple: Do not unblock without notifying the blocking administrator on his/her talk page AND notifying the rest of us here. The only way to stop block wars is for people to talk about the problem. I am officially disappointed in the administrators involved. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll remember that. I had so far very little experience with either blocking or unblocking. But it may be good to expand the blocking policy to clearly state how to unblock a user and where to post the info.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added an appropriate sentence to Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I was just about to add something different to BP, and it's how I'd respond to Piotrus here. You said "where to post the info." I'm afraid to me that's entirely the wong mindset. You should bring the disputed block to the community's attention beforehand, and in almost all cases, only unblock with the consent of other administrators. We have to remember these are admins we are talking about. That's not to say they are always virtuous, but we give them discretion with blocking and a little button to use all by themselves for a reason. If you think they did something wrong, you better be prepared to ask around first, present evidence, and even follow through with an RFC or whatever is called for. Administrative abuse is not to be taken lightly, but also not to be concluded so easily, from a trusted member of our community, to (nearly) ever warrant a unilateral unblock without discussion beforehand. Dmcdevit·t 22:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know if Wiglaf has been at odds with Molobo, because if he has, then I'd presume admin abuse

Sadly, this is the case. Wiglaf has been very emotional about my contributions to Wiki, including reverting them without any reasons. He did block me before and he couldn't point to any Wiki policy for doing so[2].This was during his attempts to stop putting information on war crimes comitted by German units in WW2[3]. The problem is that certain users on Wiki are very emotional towards mentioning war crimes made by German units or persecution of ethnic minorities by German state, and oppose such informations very aggressively, often calling editors who contribute such information as nationalists, trolls,liers etc. I am always ready to discuss my edits on talk pages, and serve with sources backing me up. --Molobo 21:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Honestly Molobo, I don't recall many editors (if any at all) who are more "emotional" than you. At the same time, "emotional" seems to be your favorite invective against the many editors you have alienated so far. But even if you were right in all of the disputes you have been involved in, the fact remains that we are discussing a clear 3RR violation here. Also, the case in question had *nothing* to do with German war crimes. You reverted another user's longish reply to your question on the dubious account of a "personal attack". He restored, asked you not to do this, you deleted the entire statement again. Another user restored, you reverted 4 times, always repeating the "personal attack" accusation. This *may* be slander, it almost certainly is bad manners, and it is a 3RR violation without any doubt. No lamenting about WP's pro-German bias can change this. Your sentence "I am always ready to discuss my edits on talk pages" sounds great but at least in the present case you were *not* ready to discuss: [4]. 80.145.37.35 22:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Gee, yet another mysterious anon. That IP address belongs to Deutsche Telekom AG. Hmmm... Rex^(talk) 23:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You are taking my words out of context, please don't do that. In addition to my previous statement, I also said: I can't find any policy which Molobo has violated. My statement which you quoted was on the understanding that there was no valid reason for Wiglaf blocking you. Now I know that you had violated the "Three Revert Rule". It is common knowledge that four or more reverts within the same twenty four hour period automatically carries a twenty four hour block. Therefore Wiglaf had a valid reason for blocking you. Whether he was in the mental condition of the "gleeful hangman" or not is irrelevant. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time! Rex^(talk) 21:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's not confuse two cases. Molobo has now violated the 3RR and was blocked for it, I don't dispute that and I admit I unblocked him wrongly. But previously (about 3 weeks ago) Molobo was blocked unfairly, and he refers to that case. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course, if an administrator blocks someone for no apparent reason and when prompted to explain himself, fails to do so and it emerges that the administrator in question has something personal against whoever he is blocking, then one may, without violating Wikipedia:Assume good faith, draw the reasonable inference that this is a case of abuse of power and should be dealt with accordingly. Let's not jump to conclusions though, let's give Wiglaf a chance to explain himself; Wikipedia:Assume good faith always applies. Rex^(talk) 22:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Your sentence "I am always ready to discuss my edits on talk pages" sounds great but at least in the present case you were *not* ready to discuss: [5] I am ready to discuss edits at talk pages.What I am not ready to do is to discuss my personal life, person or merits of my personality on talk pages, as such things are irrelevant to the articles edited.--Molobo 23:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC) 'Whether he was in the mental condition of the "gleeful hangman" or not is irrelevant.' What I was pointing out was that the admin in question is in dispute with me and I thought this is violation of policy on neutral admins enforcing blocks. --Molobo 23:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

While there's no specific policy or rule against an administrator blocking someone who he/she is in dispute with, it is generally considered inappropriate. As I've said, if there is no good reason for him blocking you in every instance, then there's a good chance of "admin abuse". Rex^(talk) 23:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

There most certainly is specific written policy against blocking someone you're in dispute with. (And even if there weren't, I think the above discussion shows that it is widely considered wrong -- and Wikipedia policy stems from consensus such as this.)

Wikipedia:Blocking: "Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute ... [is] specifically prohibited"

Wikipedia:Administrators: "[A]dministrators do not have any special power over other users other than applying decisions made by all users." That is to say, admins don't get to "resolve" their personal disputes by using admin powers; in a dispute, an admin is constrained to act as just another editor.

For other examples of the general underlying principle -- that administrators must not use their various powers to advance their own edits or point of view -- see, e.g., Wikipedia:Protection policy: "Admins must not protect pages they are engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism." (Emphasis in original.)

There are only a handful of defensible reasons for blocking. Any of them is cast into doubt when the blocker and the blockee have been at odds. --FOo 04:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

As to the page that I was blocked for reverting-I deleted the comment because it didn't answer my question and contained several remarks about me which I considered a personall attacks, and seeing them as such I thought they aren't under the 3RR rule: This included remarks such as : [6] '? Of course, this may mean that you'll have to pick up a book instead of having Google do your "work" for you, which probably isn't quite up your street. Worse, you might even need to visit an archive. No pain, no gain!' --Molobo 23:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

As an aside, I suspect Molobo of using a variety of sockpuppets to impersonate me (e.g., User:Ярославль). Can somebody check this user's IP and compare it with his? For several days I couldn't contribute a single new article, trying to fend off Molobo's attacks. I'm quite bewildered at Piotrus' persevering to resuscitate this odious troll. --Ghirlandajo 10:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't speak Russian Ghirlandajo. Why do you call me a troll ? Is it because I changed the name of three Soviet leaders from East Slavic leaders to Soviet leaders[7] or is it that i questioned an opinion that there is some conspiracy against Orthodox believers by the western media[8] ? ;) Cheers.--Molobo 10:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This accusation appears to be spurious, and as far as I can tell without foundation. Please don't ask for sock checks without some evidence that suggests that a sock check is necessary. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Although Wilgaf has yet to find time to reply to the concerns raised here, he has used this incident to label me a part of 'network of admins pushing a nationalist POV, with the power of unblocking each other and Molobo'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I must say (from my possibly ill-informed point of view), that Wiglaf seems to be spending too much time making accusations and not producing enough evidence. According to the famous (some would say infamous) Kate's tool Molobo has made c. 765 edits to articles and c. 819 edits to talk pages (both article and user). By selecting a random talk page and a random edit, you can see that Molobo is clearly not trolling like Wiglaf has suggested. Wiglaf has been calling for Molobo to be banned and has made a personal attack against Molobo and some other Polish users. Quote: Unfortunately he receives support from some Polish users who appear to use him like a kind of pet troll. My first message to Wiglaf would be There is no cabal, and I would suggest caution before making a RFAr. Arbitration is another of those discretionary processes, where whoever makes the best impression "wins". The old equitable maxim that used to guide the Court of Chancery was: he who comes to equity must come with clean hands. As far as I can see, there are serious allegations of Wiglaf blocking Molobo for no apparent reason. The Arb. case, if accepted may reach an unfavourable conclusion from your point of view as well. If they take the view that you have abused your administrative privileges, you may even be "defrocked". IMHO, Arbitration should be put off for as long as possible, make a RFC against him if you must. What I want to know is: do you have any evidence over your claims about Molobo and did you have a good reason every time you blocked him (which I think should have been left to another admin)? Rex^(talk) 16:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand that I may have been too personally involved in this issue and I will henceforth let other administrators deal with him. Note that I have asked Dbachmann to look into the issue, instead of me. I deeply apologize for any mishandling of this case, and I have learnt something for the future.--Wiglaf 18:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do not have the time to "look into" extended trolling over months and dozens of articles just like that. If Molobo is so bad, why hasn't there been a WP:RFC about him? Does no one follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution any more? I am concerned enough by the reaction of Wiglaf and others to the user to be prepared to give it some attention: both Wiglaf and Ghirlandajo are very good and respected users, but apart from that they hardly form a tag team. If they agree that a user is an "odious troll", I am inclined to take that seriously. But I'd really need one of the involved parties to collect evidence. Since the problem doesn't seem to go away by itself, now would be a good time to start a clean RFC. I realize this is what Rex just said: I tend to skip his comments, because I consider him a troll (and as opposed to Molobo, I do have some previous experience with Rex). So fwiiw, I am prepared to believe Molobo is a serious problem user, but I really cannot wade through his history myself. dab (ᛏ) 08:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Now isn't that apt, you tend to skip my comments because you think I'm a troll. Well I've got news for you Dbachmann, it doesn't make any difference what you think. If you're one of these users who think that they are head and shoulders above everybody else, should inform you that you are sadly mistaken. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, the two basic requirements are: knowledge of English and Internet access. In other words, you will have to put up and listen to everyone who fulfils those requirements, so stop making personal attacks. Rex^(talk) 08:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not an admin here (I just play one on TV:) but Piotrus and Wiglaf have asked me, as someone with a knowledge of English and internet access, my opinion on this dispute. So for what it's worth (inserts 5 cents): Both acted according to what they felt was fair (in the case of Piotrus) and right (in the case of Wiglaf) in their role as admins. Both were mistaken. Both have admitted to and apologized for their mistakes and called in other parties to help resolve this dispute. In this they have both acted properly and honorably. Now all that is left for them to do is to shake hands, like the true gentlemen, scholars and great Wikipedians they both are, and let this dispute pass. Next, we need to decide what needs to be done about Molobo.

Rex, you are not helping matters. Mistakes were made, caught, and addressed. Calling for a longtime and highly respected admin and contributor to be DEFROCKED is, if not trolling, then blowing things WAAAAY out of proportion. Admins are HUMAN afterall, dammit. If we defrocked everyone for every little mistake there would be none left. It would be anarchy..dogs and cats living together...or much worse, vandals and trolls roaming freely about and ruining the entire project.:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex, I have yet to see anything useful contributed by you. I am not obliged to read what I consider trolling, and I am entitled to have varying amounts of respect for different editors. As RDH says, you are not helping matters one little bit, and this isn't even about you, and the Molobo case would be difficult enough without your little asides. I realize you can edit wikipedia just because you have internet access and could find the edit button, so what? You will earn respect by doing work, not by spreading rants wherever you go.

The way we have to go now is to address the Molobo case. He has clearly stirred up tempers more than enough to warrant an RfC. This RfC will probably be a nightmare, but it will be the only way to get this case in the open, and thus assessable by people not directly involved. I encourage involved editors, therefore, to open an RfC page on Molobo, detailing as succinctly as they can the history of Molobo's interactions on Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 10:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

If you had taken the time to read what I had actually written, you would notice that I was discouraging a RFAr in favour of a RFC on the basis that Wiglaf may be not that clean himself and their decision may not be what he expected. I am not calling for him to be defrocked or anything, I have emphasised the fact that I may not know everything and I am describing things as they appear to me superficially. There is a little thing called WP:AGF, which I try to abide with, especially considering that I do not know Wiglaf or Molobo. An interesting issue it that your baseless accusations of trolling are in fact personal attacks and you are assuming bad faith. In my post above (which you interpreted as trolling), I am advising against RFAr, which is what Wiglaf proposed on Dbachmann's user talk page. Molobo contacted me about it and I left a post here saying that it may be better to make a RFC as arbitration might be displeased with Wiglaf IF it emerged that he has been abusing admin privileges (they result may be defrocking). As for Molobo, evidence please? This could all be a fairy tale, I cannot find incidents of trolling ANYWHERE in his contributions. You are assuming bad faith and should stop it. Wikipedia:Trolling is a deliberate attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. No one has done that! IMO Molobo has been POV pushing, NOT trolling. There is a distinction, as trolls don't care about the issues. Rex^(talk) 11:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

As this conversation shows every sign of descending into a kind of namecalling farce, I'd suggest that everybody involved just walk away for 24 hours to gain some perspective. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a good idea Filiocht, I second the emotion...let's all chill childrens:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 01:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Molobo was also blocked by me some time ago twice for disrupting wikipedia. There is a long standing dispute related to the naming of Gdansk, for which i started a major vote regarding the naming of related places Talk:Gdansk/Vote. The outcome was a large majority for double naming. Molobo disputes this vote on technicalities (i.e. anon votes must be counted because there is no rule that says otherwise), and has been removing double naming in literally hundreds of instances. After repeated warnings i finally decided to block him for going against consensus and disrupting wikipedia. While block for disruptions are controversial, I think a more than 70% majority is a pretty strong argument, and ignoring such a majority quickly leads to anarchy. (On other instances, such a block has been confirmed by another admin). Piotrus unblocked him under the mistaken assumption that disruption blocks are not a policy. To my disappointment Piotrus did not leave me a message on my talk page about the unblock. Nevertheless i respect Piotrus and occasionally ask him for feedback by mail. I still strongly believe my blocks were valid. Other than enforcing the vote I have no interest to edit articles related to Poland and its history.
Molobo is in my opinion not a troll, I think he believes he is making a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. However, I find him to be highly POV and consensus-resistant. He has upset a large number of other users and admins, and is frequently involved in revert wars. He also often misrepresents and distorts facts related to Wikipedia policy. Regarding users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in an article editing conflict, i am only enforcing the Gdansk vote, and otherwise have not reverted or blocked Molobo, even though I am suspicious of many of his edits and have been asked by others to block him. Recently, he has followed the double naming vote, and there was no need for me to interact. I hope it stays that way. -- Chris 73 [[User talk:Chris 73|Talk]] 08:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

'Molobo disputes this vote on technicalities (i.e. anon votes must be counted because there is no rule that says otherwise), and has been removing double naming in literally hundreds of instances.' In some cases have been trying to give neutral names(for example latin versions) to avoid POVs.You blocked me during one such attempt, and as I recall it didn't touch the double naming issue as it was latin name not Polish or German.Also as I pointed out the Gdansk vote is flawed as currently it gives possibilty to name all locations in Poland with German versions(just one of the flaws). I do believe that it should be only applied in clear historical contexts(and Olessi-a German contributor whom I do respect shared that opinion[9]) However I decided to disengage from edititng those articles until a correction to the vote will be made(and you know that other admins and contributors are pointing out that it is flawed in its formulation in certain aspects).

'Other than enforcing the vote I have no interest to edit articles related to Poland and its history.'

Chris with respect, your negative comments about Polish culture and people as seen here: [10] in which you asked a contributor to enjoy a hair disorder as example of Polish culture made me look sceptical towards your contributions and disputes with editors from Poland. I hope that clears it a bit. --Molobo 00:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Molobo is an explosive mixture of unshakeable conviction of knowing The Truth (TM), stoic disregard for anything in his way, and an extreme sensitivity of anything that may be interpreted as criticism of his person, or his views about the sanctity of the Polish nation. Imho, he has a fundamental incompatibility for everything related to wikiquette or npov policy. But that doesn't make him a troll, it just makes him a very difficult editor, and, empirically, a liability to the community. There will be nothing but to tread the course of Dispute resolution. The reason this hasn't happened yet is that every involved editor appears to abhor the prospect of trudging through an rfc with Molobo, and hopes that others will take that upon themselves. The problem is not likely to go away, but it is nothing WP cannot deal with. dab (ᛏ) 12:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC) ' Molobo is an explosive mixture of unshakeable conviction of knowing The Truth (TM), stoic disregard for anything in his way' Why such harsh words Dab ? I contacted you on your talk page asking for issues you believe need correcting, and edits that are wrong. Please I would like to see your responce. Right now I think your accusation is a bit hard, since I am ready to discuss any problems with any edit. However you didn't point any of my edits that you believe are wrong.As I said-if you believe one to be inaccurat I would be more then happy to serve with resources, references, books if needed. or his views about the sanctity of the Polish nationWhat made you say that ? I do not believe in sanctity of Polish nations, as it had many flaws-and I am not even a full Pole in the first place, with many of my ancestors of different ethnic background. 'The problem is not likely to go away, but it is nothing WP cannot deal with.' Please Dbachmann I asked you already to contact me on any edits, articles you believe are incorrect-if you could show them I would gladly work together with you on solution to a problem you see.But again I ask you to show me what do you have in mind, since right now I don't now what article or edit you are talking about.Thank you and have good day. --Molobo 22:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

WoW takeover

• SuperDude115 has falsely been occused of making a bogus edit on an article whose title is initialed with Willy's initials. Since he would honestly never make an edit like that, and that the article is initialed with Willy's initials; It is likely that Willy has taken over his username hence the creation of my username. Other users may be targets; but beware of him. --Nintendude 03:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Why haven't you changed your password? Dmcdevit·t 03:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Just what the hell are you doing? IP evidence shows that SuperDude115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Nintendude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and SuperLucky 6.915 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are all the same person (SuperDude115 and Nintendude both edited the same article from the same dialup IP within ten minutes of one another, and the same IP address that created Nintendude created Lucky6.915 within a six minute window). SuperDude115 hasn't been used by any IP address that is inconsistent with being used by Nintendude (same ISP, same dialup range, same city). I don't know what shit you're trying to pull here, but I'm reasonably certain it's not something you should be doing. Either your computer has been compromised, in which case GET IT THE HELL OFF THE INTERNET, or you're feeding us a line of BS. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's hear it for CheckUser! Carbonite | Talk 13:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Kelly Martin, I am extremely displeased with the tone of your above comment. I feel that that was extremely uncivil, and entirely unbecoming of an Administrator and Arbitrator. Regardless of the actions of other users, there is no reason to lose your cool and use such a hostile tone. As someone holding a trusted and important position on Wikipedia, you of all people should be an example of civility and professionalism. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 00:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

What's incivil in telling someone with an infected computer to get it off the Internet as quickly as possible? Kelly Martin (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggesting removing a potentially infected computer from the Internet is not incivil, and that is not what I object to, I object to your choice of words. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

He was probably referring to the line of BS comment. Although I may just agree with Kelly over the uselessness of this posting. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I was indeed referring to the "line of BS", and "what the hell are you doing?" and "what shit you're trying to pull here". The facts themselves speak loudly enough in this case, there's no need for such an aggressive word choice. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. If User:RandomUser came to WPANI and made a contribution with that content, they would reap the fire. Let's try and set an example, eh? - brenneman^(t)(c) 03:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it *was* a line of BS. The most likely interpretation of said user's behavior is user made an illconsidered edit (no big deal, we all have), it was reverted, and then he concocted a big sham to explain how it wasn't really him making that edit, including posting ridiculous nonsense all over the place to "explain" it. I called bullshit. Sorry if you don't like the use of foul language, but frankly I don't care for it when people waste my time investigating spurious, or in this case fabricated, claims that someone is "taking over accounts". I'm not a diplomat; I'm a sysadmin. You wanted a diplomat, you hired the wrong BOFH. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Administrators should be diplomats, or at least be able to conduct themselves diplomatically; they should calm conflicts rather than exacerbate them. We routinely reject administrator candidates for their lack of courtesy, even if it is directed at vandals and trolls. I don't believe the rude language you used above is ever appropriate on Wikipeida. Especially as you are an arbitrator, in my opinion you should be able to conduct yourself with civility. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'm not certian I understand the purpose of the CheckUser investigation. We already knew that Nintendude and SuperDude115 were the same person as he indirectly stated it here and explicitly on his talk page. And I would think it would be obvious from the choice of usernames. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it could be that SuperDude115 (talk · contribs), who is perhaps autistic, has concluded that his account has been taken over (by WoW) after someone makes a comment about WoW to him. He then proceeds to create SuperLucky 6.915 (talk · contribs), which is promptly blocked. Then Nintendude (talk · contribs) is created, and he proceeds to try to warn people about WoW taking over his old account. Someone tells him to post over here [11] to get help, which he then proceeds to do. However, instead of getting helped he gets yelled at. Whatever the case may be- and however misguided he may be- I would think this situation would require more patience than screaming. I don't know if its a regional thing or if I'm just misreading, but most of your posts, Kelly, seem unnecessarily abrasive and patronizing. Sortan 07:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree, and I find the self-defense bits equally worrying. For instance, I don't like the use of the word bullshit above, not because I care about foul language (I don't) but because I care about WP:CIVIL and WP:AFG. It's not really that admins need to be diplomats, but they need to be considered in their approachs to other users. But it's easier to imply that your critics are censors whose time and energy is clearly less valuable that your own than to actually stop and consider what they have to say and consider if there is anything in your behaviour that would benefit from moderating. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yet another example of the misuse of the "assume good faith" policy. AGF does not require that one continue to continue to assume good faith when there is clear evidence of bad faith; I am tired of people insisting that it does. This editor's actions were clearly in bad faith; he concocted an elaborate and disruptive ruse to cover for his own ill-considered actions. AGF does not require us to stupidly ignore that or pretend that it did not happen. As to the use of CheckUser: if his account had been taken over, as he alleges, then the alleged edit would have originated from an IP different than his usual addresses; this was not the case. I used CheckUser to investigate an alleged security breach and found no evidence to support the allegation. I disagree that patience is called for in this situation. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Being civil with users you respect is so easy as to be, in a sense, trivial. Being civil with those you do not respect is more difficult, but much more important. There are a number of reasons for this. One is that you might just be wrong. Another is that if you are right, it is important not to replicate disruptive behaviour in the name of dealing with it. A building in which the janitors are routinely rude and abrasive will soon become impossible for the rest of the workforce. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

What "clear evidence of bad faith" is there? I don't expect you to have a deep understanding of SuperDude's history on Wikipedia, Kelly, but this RfC may be illuminating. In short, SuperDude is autistic and knows well the consequences of sockpuppeteering. I think you are seeing malice where there is only confusion on SuperDude's part. Granted, he could have handled the situation much better, but a bit more civility would have gone a long way here. android79 14:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It is always better to be civil, most especially for admins and arbitrators. Kelly do you really disagree with that? Paul August ☎ 14:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to express my opinion that administrators (and especially arbitrators) are considered experts in Wikipedia policy by the vast majority of the community and they should behave accordingly. That means that petty personal attacks should be avoided when possible (except perhaps under severe provocation). Administrators should set an example. If they are rude, how will the newbies behave? Rex^(talk) 14:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion there are times where a firm hand is necessary. Some people need to be yelled at. This case involved a deliberate attempt at deception. The RfC that Android79 linked to illustrates that this editor has a history of deceptive of this sort, which makes my yelling at him all that more justified. Furthermore, I'm quite tired of speculation as to whether random editors are autistic. If there's an admission by Superdude115 et al. that he's autistic, I haven't seen it (it's not in the linked RFC), and it is high hubris, not to mention extremely rude, for lay people to attempt to diagnose mental illness through the Internet. In any case, autism is no excuse for deception. My actions were not and are not a "petty personal attack". Kelly Martin (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think we've wrung this one out enough. Civility also means knowing when to leave well enough alone. Me, I think this is a tempest in a teapot. Should people in positions of power hold themselves to higher standards? Yes. Could Kelly's language have been gentler? Yes. Am I offended? No. The end result is what's important here, and personally I think both sides' points have been made. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

If there's an admission by Superdude115 et al. that he's autistic, I haven't seen it – It's on the RfC's talk page under "IMPORTANT development". SuperDude was roundly criticized for sockpuppetry and more-or-less apologized for it. I would not expect him to attempt such deceptive behavior again, which is why I think assumptions of bad faith are unfounded.

No attempt was made to diagnose anything. Indeed, that's why I wrote up the RfC in the first place, rather than "accusing" SuperDude of autism, which would have indeed been rude and rather stupid. I'm not a psychiatrist and anyone who is ought not to be making remote diagnoses such as this. I agree that autism is no excuse for disruptive behavior, and I don't think you were making personal attacks, but this was not a deliberate attempt at deception, AFAICT.

Of course, there's no way for Kelly to immediately know and understand SuperDude's past history. We can't fault her for that. However, a firm hand does not always require rude words. android79 16:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Here you go [12]. If claims he's autistic, if others find his actions consistent with autism, then perhaps you should extend him the benefit of the doubt? I don't think anyone is faulting you for not knowing the intricate details of each case, only that your "tone" is inappropriate. You may intend to be "firm" and "blunt", but you come across (at least to me) as "patronizing" and "abrasive". Your manner may be entirely appropriate and normal among your peers, but there is a completely different audience here- not all of them are from the same region, and not all speak English very well- so some consideration and tact would be useful. Your form of "bluntness" is more likely to inflame a volatile situation rather than defuse it. Please take this the way it was intended, as a constructive criticism, and not as a personal attack. Sortan 16:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The thing that's bothering me here Kelly is that you do not seem to understand the difference between a strong reprimand and an uncivil one. It's one thing to say to a user: "evidence has demonstrated that your account and this account are from the same IP's, which is strong evidence that you are engaging in sockpuppetry, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy. " and something like "what is this shit you are pulling?". You seem to be confusing content with tone. If you spent a lot of time investigating a user which turned out to be a sock, by all means, feel free to state that, but state it calmly and rationally, and not using fierce invective. If the evidence is clear a user is making innapropriate edits, then say the user is making innapropriate edits, but don't cuss them out. There's a way to indicate displeasure and objection to another user's actions without resorting to incivility, and it is extremely important for you to understand that and employ that, as an Administrator and Arbitrator. Your statement "You wanted a diplomat, you hired the wrong BOFH. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)" is particularly disturbing to me, considering the meaning of BOFH, which I just had to look up to even understand. If you feel you can't be diplomatic as an admin and arbitrator, then perhaps you should reconsider holding those positions. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 20:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

An uncivil reprimand would be "You fucking moron! You are such an idiot! I'm going to fucking block you so hard up the ass that you'll need a proctologist to ever edit again! Stupid!" I do know the difference. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that a mountain is being made out of a molehill here. I mean Kelly didn't insult his mother or something. It wasn't that bad! And a bit rudeness never hurt anyone as long as it's not overdone. You cannot say that Nintendude wasn't asking for it. I mean didn't he know that if he brings up the subject 'sockpuppet' then the IP check is certainly on the cards? I sometimes wonder why he even bothered. Rex^(talk) 23:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

KJelly martin I think you should apologize for being so uncivil with all the profanity. it is entirely unbecoming of an adminsitortaor on here and even a member of Arb Committeee. If yuou do not apologize I am serioulsly thinking about doing a Rrequest for comment on this "D.S." and also having you removed from the Arobitratino Com. This is totally wrongWiki brah 04:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, Kelly's going to get removed from the Arbcom Committee because a troll like you demands it. Hardly. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• Based on my extensive experience with SuperDude, I have every reason to believe that he really is autistic and admitted to being so. He has settles down and has become a valued member of the community. His learning curve may be a bit different than what we may expect, but he eventually comes around. I have learned to assume good faith with him and I'm somewhat flattered that he'd name a sockpuppet after me.  :) That having been said, we may in fact be blowing this out of proportion. As for Kelly Martin's reaction, it's the reaction of someone who cares about the project. While we should try and be civil at all times, there are other times when the gloves have to come off. We all spend a great deal of time and effort improving this site. When someone dumps in the nest, as it were, some firmness tempered with civility may well be called for. - Lucky 6.9 05:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I never even though Wikipedia would ever have a password change feature. Alot of people have contradicted my theory about my other username SD115 making an edit on an article titled with Willy's initials even baffled me. --Nintendude 05:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Leonig Mig

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Linkspamming on Nobel laureates

Some anonymous user has been adding links on Nobel laureates to geocities (or similar) pages mirroring the official Nobel autobiographies or Nobel lectures (which are all available on the http://nobelprize.org site). See for instance 81.28.182.81 (talk · contribs), 81.28.174.222 (talk · contribs), 81.28.188.31 (talk · contribs). The uer comes back and frequently adds several links (linking to the same page or to pages with identical text). I just removed two links to this site added at various occasions to the Tjalling Koopmans page[13], both completely redundant as the same text on the official site was already linked. Tupsharru 17:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I've warned those IPs woth {{spam}}, for now, and I'd like to note that it's a very ineffective spam technique to link to a free website :).--Sean|Black 18:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The spammer is back, now posting as 81.28.182.24 (talk · contribs). It is a Russian ISP.[14] I copied your warning (but with my signature) to that user talkpage. Tupsharru 12:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It's going right on, so I've added a "Last warning", and will block to get the person's attention if that doesn't help either. --Bishonen | talk 12:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

S/he did stop posting after my warning. Well, stopped posting from 81.28.182.24, that is. Bishonen | talk 01:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems to have been going on since (at least) sometime this summer in short bursts, every time from a different IP in the same 81.28.x.x range (another one is 81.28.188.27 (talk · contribs)). The pages linked to are on at least three different free webspace providers. Tupsharru 09:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom ban evasion

User:Robert Blair, banned by the Arbitration Committee, is back, and (happily) admits it.[15]

He is now User:Reggie Legsmith.

Can someone please block? Jakew 21:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

By your command. Phil Sandifer 21:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Kevin baas - copyvio, deceptive edit summaries

Kevin Baas is revert warring in 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities. He refuses to accept other people's changes to the article, he has even reverted spelling corrections, replaced broken links, and re-inserted copyright violations into the article. Kevin's reverts: [16], [17]. The section "Government Accountability Office" is copied word for word from a Wired News article: [18]. The section "GAO confirms election violatility in Ohio" is copied word for word from a Rock River Times article: [19]. Kevin replaced several broken links in the "Third party candidates" section. He also replaces this unsourced text, which appears to be fabricated: 'Numerous Republican members of Congress called ... the objectors "loonies"'. When asked to cite his source for the "loonies" comment, Kevin refused.

He also seems to be pretending that his edits aren't reverts. Both edits almost exactly duplicate the content of Kevin's edit from November 18, 2005: [20]. However these are the deceptive edit summaries he used: "added some info, more direct sources, fixed some wording" and "work towards compromise, keep positive changes, revert loss of info or changes from fact to misleading statements."

I would like it if someone blocked him for repeatedly adding copyrighted text to articles and for using misleading edit summaries. Rhobite 23:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Was Kevin informed of the fact these texts were copyvios? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, and he reverted after being notified. There was also discussion on the talk page, which he decided not to participate in initially. Jtdirl has blocked Kevin for this incident. Rhobite 02:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Supervised/George W. Bush

I've deleted this article, which was an experimental "protected" version of George W. Bush. The premise behind this idea, presumably, was to offer a vandalism-free version of the article to show how it could be done; however, with no page history, it was probably in violation of GFDL, and in any event, violates our policy on forks. I welcome any comments on this. Ral315 (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep it deleted, I already know that is the consensus. I deleted the template as well. Anti-vandal measures always fail, even Semi-protect, I'll just go back to reverting and hoping nobody saw the vandalized version.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 01:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Anon vandal

Can someone urgently block the whole range containing 81.173.238.18 (talk • contribs • page moves • block • block log), 81.173.158.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 81.173.156.254 (talk • contribs • page moves • block • block log). I don't know how to block the whole range. They are currenly putting penises and orgasms all over Wikipedia. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Jason's socks

Jason Gastrich has been pushing his vanity (see wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Gastrich and wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Christ Saves Ministries.

Anyway, they've been deleted but found their way to user:Jason Gastrich (they're very spammy and do not even approach NPOV but don't violate any rules; they're better there than in the main namespace).

Anyway, as he admits there;

Mr. Gastrich has been a Wikipedia user and contributor for some time. In order to avoid letting his critics discover all of his contributions at once, he often posts under different user names.

which can be found at Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Jason Gastrich.

I don't want to block them since

1. I am one of his "critics"
2. He's not being overly disruptive (nothing we can't handle)

I also don't want to RFC because he won't pay any attention to it.

But I think someone on the outside should consider whether they should be blocked. — Dunc|☺ 13:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich does indeed have several socks he's using; I won't confirm whether Duncharris' list is complete or accurate, however, because I don't see enough evidence of disruption at this time to justify any action. He does not appear to be using multiple accounts to appear to be more than one person for the purpose of swaying policy, and he doesn't appear to be that abusive of an editor. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yet again he made The Skeptic's Annotated Bible point to his "please-don't-edit" User: page. Is this abuse? -- Perfecto  02:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh he has used multiple accounts to sway policy, including what I believe around here is called "meat puppets?" That is, if you take a look over here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jason_Gastrich

"Uncle Davey" is a sycophant of Gastrich's that follows him around various forums on the Internet to do exactly what he did here, back Gastrich up. I see Gastrich also drug John Wolf into this one. And "Vera Six," a long suspected Usenet sock puppet of "Uncle Davey" made an appearance or two (they're at least friends if not the same person). Not to mention, if you go through the edits that were pro-Gastrich, you'll find several IPs that appear solely for the purpose of backing him up and at least one that came through an open proxy (on what appeared to be an exploited machine no less). Gastrich does have a small mailing list, most of the identifiable people who showed up to comment on his page are identifiable as "the usual suspects" if you've been around him a while.

It'd be interesting for someone to compare the IPs he's coming in on. Particularly with his "Big Daddy" sock with which he went to some lengths to refer to himself in third person. Since proxies (a favorite tactic of his, he went after a site I was hosting with one) are largely blocked here, his IP choices are more limited.

In any case, your Wikipedia is under assault from a spammer. He's done this to other sites. And given the attention the Wikipedia is getting these days, he'll be trying just about everything to wedge his links in. It's a fun ride. One many of us on the 'Net have been through. Especially when he doesn't get his way. And only his way, no compromise is acceptable. You'll all be accused of hating him because of Jesus (you devils you!).

Mark K. Bilbo 04:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

We've dealt with this sort of thing before. It's no big deal. --Carnildo 08:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yuber

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

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

User:Bobby Lou

Hi. How do I report a user who keeps on adding material about a person and this person's book on various pages? He never adds HTML links, so I can't call it link-spamming. He has never contributed anything else. I suspect this user and this book author is the same person. Also, what warning can I give? (I'm sorry I didn't make his username a wikilink -- I don't want to be traced so easily.) -- Perfecto  01:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh wait. Bobby Lou is one of Jason's socks (see above). -- Perfecto  02:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Islamofascism

I don't believe that protecting the article and redirecting (or vice versa, whichever came first) was a correct action. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamofascism does not clearly show that it should have been a redirect. I am not stating anything about the content, incidently. I am only deciding based on what I can see of the AFD. From what I understand, the redirect issue was being hashed out on the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I feel that this was an incorrect admin action, please someone unprotect and remove the redirect. This article went through the AfD process and received 26 votes to keep, 22 votes to redirect, and 8 votes to delete. The closing admin closed it as a Keep. During subsequent talkpage discussions some revert warring took place between leaving the article and changing it to redirect. The article was in its full, non-redirect form when an admin reverted to the redirect and protected the page, saying in his edit summary "There was a clear consensus to redirect". I respect and appreciate that the admin felt strongly that the arguments for redirect were strong; indeed, the admin had voted for redirect himself. However, I don't think a "clear consensus for redirect" can be said to exist if the closing admin ruled to keep the article. So, unless I am missing something, I would much appreciate it if the protection is lifted. Thank you. Babajobu 09:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Just to note, I unprotected following the request at WP:RFPP. I'd appreciate if there wasn't a revert war until it is discussed, but I think considering the protecting admin also reverted beforehand, he probably shouldn't have protected himself. (Haven't investigated this much deeper though, about to go to sleep.) Dmcdevit·t 09:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I was approached about an edit war resulting from the recreation of Islamofascism after it had been made redirect following consensus on the Talk page (not the AfD, though the participants had also misunderstood that, and were appealing to an incorrect set of voting figures; Babajobu (talk · contribs) is still doing it, I see. the correct breakdown is: Delete: 8, redirect (or delete): 23, keep: 22, sock-puppets, vague, etc.: 6; see User talk:Mel Etitis/Afd-Islamofascism). I explained more than once that I wasn't referring to consensus at the AfD but at the Talk page, but as the AfD seemed to support their position they've continued to ignore me. I think that that intellectual dishonesty says a lot about the sort of debate we have here.

I thought that two things needed doing: first, the earlier consensus should be followed until it was determined whether a new consensus justified reversing it; secondly, the article needed protecting in order to try to cool off the edit war and get people talking sensibly (and perhaps finding a new consensus). Unfortunately the result was the arrival of Klonimus (talk · contribs), with the inevitable hysterics, propaganda, and rehashing of old battles.

I should say that I think that the article is a steaming pile of racist... er, nonsense, but that that's not the issue; if Wikipedia consensus is to reverse the earlier decision to make it a redirect, then OK, but until then we don't normally think that such a consensus be overturnable by just one editor with a different idea, even when subsequently supported by trolls who were active in arguing against the former consensus.

I should stress that I have no quarrel with Ta bu shi da yu, who acted properly according to his understanding of the situation. I just think that he was misled by the tactics of those who desperately want the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The absurd, naked partisanship over this issue has reached a point where I, or any other admitted Muslim, am likely to begin a round of insults and recrimination simply by agreeing with someone else's post. I neverthless want to express my strong support of Mel's position, above. BrandonYusufToropov 13:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

BYT, I don't think that's really the case. No one begrudges you or any other editor (of any religion) the right to have a position or argue a point on this issue. The biggest source of contention recently has not been anything intrinsic to the topic, but rather frustration at what seemed to some of us as the invoking of a nonexistent consensus in order to freeze the page as a redirect. That's not about partisanship, and there's no reason anyone should resent you for it. Babajobu 13:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I share BYT's general impression of "naked partisanship". whatever happened to "writing for the enemy"? The happenings on Islam-related articles over the past months are most unwikilike, and are poison to the community. "good faith" has gone down the drain. "Leagues" have been formed with the sole purpose of pushing political propaganda. It is sometimes hard to remember what wikipedia is about in the face of all this political mudslinging. dab (ᛏ) 13:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

"I explained more than once that I wasn't referring to consensus at the AfD but at the Talk page". The talk page is littered with my requests that you explain where "a clear consensus to redirect" was formed. The only response I received were AfD figures slightly revised from those used by the closing admin. Not once did Mel explain that this consensus was formed in a talkpage discussion rather than in the AfD. Had I and the other keep voters been pointed toward that discussion, this process mightn't have been necessary. I'm happy, however, that you are now engaging the issue a bit. Can you please provide a link to the talkpage discussion where a consensus to redirect was formed? Is it on the AfD talkpage? An archived discussion in the Islamofascism or Neofascism and religion talk page? Please provide the link so that I and others can take a look at it. Also, Mel, I would ask that you retire once and for all the accusations of intellectual dishonesty, of our being hate-filled Islamophobes, and so on. By and large I do not think this sort of talk has advanced the conversation much. Regards, Babajobu 10:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Assuming that the numbers reported in the above discussion are accurate, I cannot see how anybody can claim that there is any consensus at all with respect to this article. Even, or nearly even, splits in opinion, as seen above, are indicative of a lack of consensus. Consensus cannot exist when there is substantial dissent and it appears that there is, in fact, substantial dissent here. You don't have consensus here to do anything; continue talking until you reach a compromise solution. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Kelly, just like to point out that I never once claimed that a consensus existed. Mel invoked a "clear consensus to redirect" as justification for changing to redirect and protecting the page. I and other keep voters have been arguing for three days that there is no consensus one way or another. Our only claim was that *the AfD was closed as keep*. Thanks. Babajobu 12:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

There are several points I would like to make here: firstly, categorising Babajou as intellectual dishonest is an unfortunate thing to do, as I feel that this is grossly unfair. I can see several reasons (as pointed out to me by Babajou) why this article should not be redirected. I have read the talk page, and can see that discussion was still progressing. I think that the best point made was by SlimVirgin: "the reason editors are wary of having an Islamofascism page is that the opposing "ideological group," as you put it, will use it as an excuse to attack Islam. I'm fairly certain that, if everyone could be assured that the article would be encyclopedic, and would discuss the origins and use of the term in an intelligent way with good references, then no one would oppose it." I see absolutely no reason why we can't in fact do this. Babajou has pointed out to me that this article is currently quite large and may not fit entirely into an umbrella article on Neofascism and religion. That some folks are using the term in undeniable: I would, personally, would like the opportunity to read a much battled out, working towards NPOV article on such a topic, should the need arise. From my brief understanding, I would agree with Mel that the term itself is a loaded steaming pile of crap, but I also see no reason why we can't document why this might in fact be (with the presumption that we don't hold that position, of course).

One problem I see here is the assumption that Klonimus is a troll. I'm not rightly sure I can agree with Mel on this one. For instance, this comment appears to me to be a perfectly reasonable, rational and reasoned argument:

---

The problem is that the "Islamofascism" became a grab-bag for all sorts of nonsense that had nothing whatsoever to do with fascism and very little to do with Islam as it practised by 99.9 percent of the Muslim world. --Lee Hunter 01:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I know that and agree with you 100%. However as I have explained previously at great length. Our personal opinions about the subject do not matter. If people use the concept, it deserves coverage in wikipedia, even if you think the concept it's self is dumb. I think Juan Cole is dumb, but I support him having a wikipedia article. If you can't contain your revulsion towards this topic, perhaps you ought recuse yourself from editing it.

Islamofascsim is just an extensivly used neologism to describe a totalitarian Islamic ideology that uses violence to further it's goals of replacing western civilization with Islamic Civilization. In that respect it is similar to the behaior of historical fascist movments. It's also promulgates an interpretation of Islam which supports its activities. And it so happens that alot of people are affected/concerned by the 0.1% of muslims who do support Islamofascism. Klonimus 03:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Unless further evidence can be provided, I would hesitate to believe that this article is troll infested. The talk page, as far as I can read, has some very robust discussion underway. I believe this is normal and healthy, and will lead to a decent article. I cannot see consensus to redirect.

Ta bu shi da yu 12:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

this stuff moved from my comment! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The content of the article has precisely nothing to do with whether it should be deleted. This is something peolpe just don't understand about AfD. If the content of the article is bad, fix it! In an AfD, you are voting on whether the article should exist at all in any form whatsoever. Consider whether you would vote to keep a perferct article on the topic, and if you would, then vote keep, mark the article with a {{cleanup}} or disputed tag, and move on. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 16:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

"Gee, I could swear I've had this conversation with you before" department: Are we speaking English here? Does the word "fascist" have any discernable meaning beyond "that which right-wing ideologues find objectionable"? Yup. Lo and behold! It does. Please produce a single example of an Islamic activist anywhere on earth promoting corporatism. BrandonYusufToropov 14:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

If it is a term used by others, let's document it and if necessary eviscerate it. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm inlclined ot agree that this will sort itself out. There is a value to having the page as distinct from Neofascism and Religion. What perhaps needs more though is where the religious relationships with classical fascism fit. Fascism and religion rediteccts fto Nazi mysticism, eliding the relationships of the major religions adn their instituions with the fascist parties an their ideologies, and the interplay of those forces in the WWII and pre -WWII West. Rich Farmbrough 13:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I really don't know why this is continuing on and on like this. I'm going to lay out a simple program as I understand it.

1. Islamofascism is neologism used to refer to some abstract "concept".

1. The concept that it is refering are Islamic Ideologoies that seek to replace Western/Secular civilizations with Islamic civiliations and advocate and use violence to futher their goals.

1. Since 9/11 the term has entered the poltical discoruce in the US and western world. Since its use by POTUS in a major political speech it has entered normative political discourse in the United States, and is commonly used in the political blogoshere.

1. Because none of us invented this word, speculations as to use of the term fascism are meaningless because the the concept this word refers to does not have a deep connection with fascism (aside from sharing a totalitarian ideology). People who constantly bring this up are being counter productive because no one claims that than Islamic Civilization under sharia law would share all aspects of a classical fascist society.

Really, all this editwarring is counterproductive and if we could all focus on limiting ourselves to just describing the what Islamofascism means and how it's used in public discourse that would be just fine. Klonimus 19:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Some responses

Babajobu: "Had I and the other keep voters been pointed toward that discussion, this process mightn't have been necessary."

In a message on your own Talk page I pointed out that the discussion at talk:Islamofascism was more important to my actions than the AfD [22]. In my explanation at [[Talk:Islamofascism I not only repeated this, but linked to the relevant archive [23].

To all those who argue that the mere existence of a word is sufficient grounds for an article, I think that a refresher course on basic Wikipedia policy would be useful (as well as a glance at synonym).

To those who object to my reference to intellectual dishonesty, I simply point to the fact that I explained the AfD breakdown (and my actual reliance on the Talk page discussion) on Talk:Islamofascism, that no-one (so far as I can see) rejected or argued against my analysis, but that the original incorrect set of figures were resurrected for the complaints here (together with the claim that I'd not mentioned the real locus of consensus, for which see above). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Mel, on my talk page you simply said that, along with the vote count, talk page discussions and the quality of arguments play a role in closing AfDs. You did not explain that you thought the AfD had simply been superseded by a subsequent talk page discussion. And as for the talkpage archive, you only claimed that this offered "more discussion of the issue"; you did not say that in the linked discussion you had arrived at a consensus to dismiss the results of the AfD. And when I repeatedly asked you to elaborate on your brief comments, there was only silence. In any case, no such consensus exists on the linked talkpage. Editors have been roughly split down the middle on this from the very beginning. If there was a "consensus", it was a uniquely fractious and disputed consensus. Anyway, the article is once again a going concern. I can't stop you from continuing to accuse us of intellectual dishonesty, trolling, Islamophobia, et cetera, but I hope you will also work to improve the article and make it NPOV. Thanks. Babajobu 01:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing to believe that that's how you read what I wrote on your Talk page; I'd thought that, especially in the context of your question to me, I'd made myself clear, but if I didn't I apologise. With regard to the Talk page archive, I gave the link; I accept that I left it up to you to follow it and read what was there, but that seemed reasonable to me.

Note, though, that the consensus to make the article a redirect wasn't to set aside the AfD; the Afd produced no consensus, so consensus had to be found on the Talk page. To put it another way: if achieving consensus is to set aside a no-consensus AfD result, then yes, it was set aside, and a good thing too, surely. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is academic now. Irishpunktom put the article back up for AfD, so we'll soon have new results to parse. Babajobu 10:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot. Ryan Delaney points out: "The content of the article has precisely nothing to do with whether it should be deleted. This is something peolpe just don't understand about AfD. If the content of the article is bad, fix it! In an AfD, you are voting on whether the article should exist at all in any form whatsoever." Unfortunately, however, this isn't generally agreed upon (see, for example, the recent fuss when I deleted Contingent work on the basis that it had been deleted after a valid AfD. The argument was that, as the text was different this time, the article shouldn't be affected by the AfD; my view was the same as --Ryan Delaney's. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

More "Robust discussion"

(And again, forgive me for going over the same ground, but there's a quote on my userpage about obvious things and moral obligations...) BrandonYusufToropov 14:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Karmafist's threat on British Sea Power

User:Karmafist uses threat of revert on British Sea Power if he doesn't get his way elsewhere. Andy Mabbett 15:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 16:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. For those of you who don't know POTW's sordid history, please check Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing for more information. He's basically a content bully who's coming here yet again to try and gain some outside sympathy. Karmafist 16:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

What is this doing on the Administrators' noticeboard? "Threat of revert"? We really should get better about removing posts just used as attacks. Will remove this soon if no one else objects. Dmcdevit·t 19:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Have you read the post concerned? Andy Mabbett 22:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Calling If you don't believe me, check it out for yourself! The Ostrich Method (sticking your head in the sand and believing something isn't there so you can say so), isn't working even though you think it is a "threat of revert" is a flat misreading of English. But it does bring up a question for User:Pigsonthewing: And have you even read your own RfC or RfAr? --Calton | Talk 23:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You've only read half of his edit: the wrong half. Try: If you promise to put all your future talk page entries into POTW Archive, i'll (sic) make this my last revert of your interview cruft. Andy Mabbett 23:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right, I only read the top half. However, your whinging is still bogus, merely for a different reason. Oh, have you read your RfC or RfAr? Perhaps you could make your complaint there. --Calton | Talk 01:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not for AN/I. This is not for AN either. In fact, I'd like it if during the arbcom case you get banned from whining about karmafist, and vice versa. This bickering is getting annoying <_< Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 00:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Andy, I went to your RFC page and didn't see the edit you're talking about. Can you comment there and add it? Thanks! Nandesuka 00:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

:Andy has made NO edits (zip, zero, nil, nada) to either his RfC or RfAr, hence Karmafist's "Ostrich Method" comment. --Calton | Talk 01:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

RFAr knows about this now. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Lightbringer sockpuppetry

Lightbringer (talk · contribs) is using sockpuppets to evade an ArbCom temporary injunction; please see the enforcement request on WP:AER. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Apologies

My apologies, the image update caused me some problems and caused a blanking there. Thanks to Dunc for pointing this out. Karmafist 19:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

User:R0e1t2s3i4n5a

I recently left {{test4}} on User talk:R0e1t2s3i4n5a. Something to be aware of. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Am watching user's contribs. Hermione1980 20:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Coincidence? Where's The Chosen One when you need him? :-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Big Lover, and others

It appears that user:Jason Gastrich is making sockpuppets to push an Christian Evangelical agenda, as seen by this edit summary here where one of the socks says that he is Jason Gastrich. I'm putting a notice to stop using the alternate accounts on Jason's talk page now, and if he continues to use them, an indef block on all of them seems appropriate. Karmafist 21:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This is old news. Jason's harmless because he's not being disruptive and he's not subtle enough to use his half dozen sockpuppets properly. — Dunc|☺ 21:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Proper or not, disruptive or not, sockpuppets are against policy. This is basically just a notice that if he does anything outside of one account, i'll block them all. Karmafist 18:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are not against policy. Abuse of sockpuppets is. See WP:SOCK. --Carnildo 20:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Endless recreation of Random insanity

Random insanity is constantly being recreated, in spite of its being deleted via AfD. The "article" is apparently being used as a sandbox by multiple users: see edit history for examples. Can someone please delete it and lock it from being recreated, and let me know the magic spell for doing so for future reference? -- The Anome 01:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I've done it for you, but all you have to do is delete, then add {{deletedpage}} and then protect it. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

User:165.21.154.113

Could someone have a quick look at ArunKR. It looks like attack/nonsense to me but as the contributor vandalised my talke page [24] I don't really want it to look like I'm out for revenge. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks like attack / nonsense to me too. User vandalized Jim Wales user page too. Hu 07:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Nixer again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Izehar just e-mailed me this in his letter:

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

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

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

List of Presidential gaffes

This was speedy deleted. It should have gone through AfD. Have made a note to the admin and I am informing all that I have restored the article. Anyone should feel free to take it to AfD if they want. I'll probably vote keep, but that's beside the point. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Grace Note

Grace Note made several personal attacks against other users on two different RfAs. On Halibutt's RfA he opposed, with the reason "No, he's a fucking arsehole" [25] On Sherurcij's RfA he replied to User:Marskell oppose vote with "I feel you would have found any excuse. Just another arsehole. So it goes." [26]. I blocked him for three hours to cool him off and received this lovely email:

"Why have you blocked my IP, you cunt? It's typical of the way you operate, that you block those who disagree with you. You're not man enough to discuss it, so you hide behind your admin privileges, you fucking arsehole."

For those unfamiliar with Grace Note, he was formerly User:Dr Zen who left the goodbye message of "Fuck Off Cunt Die" Read the contributions up. I'm not asking for anything in particular, but I do think admins should be aware of the behavior of this rather uncivil editor. Carbonite | Talk 14:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I am going to block for one week since obviously if he's continuing this behavior even after being blocked 3 hours is getting off light. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 17:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I have observed ongoing civility issues with this editor (Grace Note) and I support the block. In general the remarks have been milder than those listed above, and spaced out among useful edits so as to make a block questionable. Apparently Dr Zen/Grace Note's conduct has slid further. Hopefully the block will get his attention; I'm getting royally annoyed by the lack of civility among a number of our long standing contributors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

a week seems a bit harsh to me, but whatever. yep, something's in the air, I've been feeling grumpy myself lately. It may be my subjective impression, but working on WP has been getting a more annoying experience lately. We may need policies to better protect the hard-working contributors. dab (ᛏ) 19:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I second dab on this issue. There seem to appear a kind of users whose only mission is to follow your contibutions and to provoke you to unflattering comments. Currently, there is no difference between an editor who made 25,000 edits and the one who made zero. A more experienced editor has to spend hours explaining to a newbie some elementary things or fending off obvious speculations or original research. --Ghirlandajo 11:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd say I'm more disturbed by the readiness of people to use the sort of blocks that were formerly reserved for long-term trolls and vandals. I also don't understand the rationale for the extended block - was there further activity after Carbonite's block expired? I only see 5 contributions this month, and they all appear to be before the block. I don't see any evidence to suggest that GN has continued to misbehave after the block. Guettarda 19:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Dr Zen/Gracenote *is* a troll, and anyone who has followed his edits can testify to. And don't let his user contributions fool you - he has intentionally been editing while logged out so as to evade detection [27]. The week-long block was totally justified (and should have come sooner). Raul654 19:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, in response to "I don't see any evidence to suggest that GN has continued to misbehave after the block.", then you need to read the above comments more carefully -- "I blocked him for three hours to cool him off and received this lovely email: 'Why have you blocked my IP, you cunt? It's typical of the way you operate, that you block those who disagree with you. You're not man enough to discuss it, so you hide behind your admin privileges, you fucking arsehole.'" Raul654 19:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Raul. Guettarda 19:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't have probably even have commented not to mention extending the block if it hadn't been for that uncivil email after the block. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I am very angry that this guy published my private correspondence, even if it was uncivil. That some other guy has "punished" me for something I didn't even do on Wikipedia is a bit scary. Jtkiefer, I called some kids cunts in the street the other night (they damaged my building). Perhaps you should give me another week for that? I was also a bit rude to my mother in 1982. Perhaps I should be hardbanned for that? It has nothing to do with anyone here what I write to Carbonite in an email. Also, I didn't say "fuck off cunt die" anywhere on Wikipedia. That's quite simply a lie. One thing I'm sad about on Wikipedia is that if you are labelled a troll by Raul or the like, it's acceptable not only for you to be treated to a standard that other editors are held to but an editor who is "in" can lie about you without being challenged. And Raul, as I've explained to others before, sometimes I just don't bother logging in but comment if I see something I've been directed to. No one is obliged to. I'm not hiding because, as you noted, it's plain who it is.

I apologise unreservedly to Halibutt and Marskell for the uncharacteristic aberration. TenofAllTrades, I don't know what you're on, mate, because I don't think I've ever come across you, and I've certainly never been uncivil to you, and rarely anything but civil to anyone else. --GN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.87.165 (talk • contribs) 23:15, November 23, 2005 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point. You sent an aggressive email to somebody in relation to something he did to you in WP. I think the block is fully warranted. Oh, I forgot, it stopped being YOUR private correspondence when you sent it to him. It's his as well to do as he pleases. The best way to avoid compromising words to be used against you is not saying/writing them. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 23:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

There was nothing private about your email to me. You had absolutely no reason to assume that it would remain unseen when it was simply a venomous attack. I also find it rather strange that you deny your "goodbye message". Are you seriously contending that these last four edits were a coincidence? If you don't wish to be labeled a troll then shape up and start treating other editors with some respect, civility and courtesy. Carbonite | Talk 00:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned you have no right to privacy if you abuse the fact that you can email other users, also harassing users via email is in no way more acceptable then harassing them on the wiki, thus the extension on the block. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Replying to Grace Note. No, I haven't interacted directly with you, but you have participated in a lot of visible processes on Wikipedia. Several of your remarks on WP:RFA have definitely stretched the limits of WP:CIV before now; the comments that earned your recent block crossed well beyond the limits of WP:NPA. With respect to the publication of your 'private correspondence', you were asking for it with your remarks. Claiming that using the 'email this user' function to contact an admin about a Wikipedia block (and using such abusive terms in the process) isn't something you've done on Wikipedia...is disingenuous. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I hate to admit it but I'm amused by Dr.Zen's goodbye message. That's pretty clever. And legitimate edits, even! But abusive emails and RfA comments are not OK. That said, when did we start allowing admins to block for things other than vandalism? The enforcement proposal clause for Wikipedia:No personal attacks failed, no? So why the shift? Not necessarily saying I oppose the new atmosphere, but last I knew there was a huge taboo against "vigilante admins". Where did that go? - Isomorphic 06:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we decided it at the last cabal meeting, I'm kidding, for all of those who think there is a cabal there really isn't... seriously. Anyway to answer your question no it isn't officially policy however I think it is a commonly accepted principle that people can't just go around saying fuck you to each other whenever one editor gets annoyed at another since everyone would be getting into huge fights with each other all the time if that were allowed and we'd never get an encyclopedia written which is the real goal behind this after all. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 07:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

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. - Wikipedia:Blocking policy Raul654 09:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

User:70.94.229.160 bot

70.94.229.160 (talk · contribs) has apparently been running a bot updating referencing[28], however as I am assuming a bot run off an anon ip has not been approved at Wikipedia:Bots, I blocked the IP and left a note asking the user to register and submit the bot there. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 15:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Apparently it's User:SEWilcoBot. I unblocked and left a note asking user to run bot only while logged in. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 15:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

jguk impostor

I've just blocked Jguk. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (note the '.') as a probably impostor of User:Jguk. The account was created today, and first edited at 23:32 UTC - making controversial edits to BCE-BC. I then noted that the real jguk appears to have earlier requested that an alternative account of his be renamed as jguk. (with the dot). [29]. Possible explanations? jguk has created a self-impostor to make illegal date changes (unlikely – he’s not stupid) –or someone else has seen his request, and created an account to smear him (much more plausible). I'm thoroughly confused, but someone is up to mischief. Can a check user be done on jguk. (that's with the dot) to see who is operating this? --Doc ^ask? 00:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

All of Jguk.'s edits were legit. Changing 'BCE' to BC is not an illegal date change. BCE=Before common era, a politically correct way to say BC (Before Christ). Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 00:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Redwolf, you're missing my point. The legitimacy of BC or BCE is not the point, jguk is not allowed to make such changes (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/jguk_2#Temporary_injunction). But I don't think he has done, I think someone is out to cause trouble. --Doc ^ask? 00:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Would have liked that link on the first comment =P Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 00:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Redwolf, please read what we've written in the previous Arbitration decisions. Changing BCE to BC may violate the Manual of Style and is not acceptable under just any circumstances. The policy here follows the same principle as AE/BE: use whichever was there first, except where using one or the other is manifestly inappropriate. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

jguk. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits from Rochester, Minnesota. jguk (talk · contribs) is well-known to edit from the United Kingdom. It's unlikely that the two are the same. The "jguk." sock should be blocked as an imposter, in any case. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that's as I suspected. The imposter account was blocked from the moment I saw it, and remains so. --Doc ^ask? 01:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

As all imposter accounts should be. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

160.91.231.73

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IP lookups

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:203.82.183.147

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Remington&therattlesnakes

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

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

That's the North Carolina vandal. His most recent active account was Luanne platter is really cute (talk · contribs), which mostly stayed in the sandbox, though he also returned to one of the talk pages of his numerous banned accounts last night ( A Man For The Glen (talk · contribs) ) ([30]). If he starts making multiple sockpuppets as he did here [31], you can shut him down by blocking 63.19.128.0/17. This guy's been around for a long time. Antandrus (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

and an old sockpuppet woke up:

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

And, not surprisingly -- have a look at the IP address of the anon demanding an unblock on Jake Remington, and denying association between him and "Remington and the Rattlesnakes": [32] Antandrus (talk) 06:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

If you follow the edits of this pair, they lead you to a number of other sockpuppets and vandals he was evidently proud to be, within the last couple months (e.g. "Regara"). Apparently he was even more prolific a vandal than we have realized. I blocked 63.19.128.0/17 for 48 hours this time. And check out [33] -- I'm pretty good at guessing IPs without checkuser, hey? Antandrus (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

User:193.112.229.150 vandalizing again

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

Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania again

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

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

Karmafist (talk · contribs) has apparently indefinitely blocked Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs) by IP [34] for sockpuppetry. I have previously investigated and verified that Jason is in fact using sockpuppets; however, his use of sockpuppets is not clearly a violation of policy. Jason emailed me to complain about this. This is, in my opinion, an inappropriate block, as indefinite blocks for IPs for any reason other than open proxy are completely against the blocking policy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

For instance, I'm tired of your repetition of Leonig Mig's whines about being metaphorically murdered: he came to Wikipedia with fixed and inappropriate ideas: that it was a place to "publish his local history work" [35], and the view that no-one could teach him anything about writing ([36] "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)

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[37], 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)

Gastrich Responds

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to indefinitely blocking accounts (not anons)

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

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

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

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

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

Vandal reverting userpage, etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There may be a handful of good edits in there - see the recent [38] by User:62.171.194.12. Which is not to say that I object to massive blockage. FreplySpang (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User: 86.11.18.61

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

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

Zen-master blocked for personal attacks

I have blocked Zen-master (talk · contribs) for an escalating series of personal attacks. In the process of reverting the Conspiracy theory article over a dozen times, he referred to the numerous people he was reverting as "the POV pushing bot-esque gang", "the POV bot gang" "POV bots", "bad faithed gang of POV pushers" etc. (e.g. [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]). I warned him that if he continued he would be blocked for 24 hours[44], but he nevertheless continued making personal attacks in his next two comments (e.g. "you and your POV aligned buddies" [45], "your POV aligned gang" [46]). Jayjg ^(talk) 19:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Bulk vending and 1.800.Vending Legal threats

I just received this via email:

Hello

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

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

Please email any response to the email address listed below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special:Contributions/68.225.248.40

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

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

User:William M. Connolley 13

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

• Reverted to:

Revision as of 14:04, 5 October 2005

• Violation:

Revision as of 17:58, 5 October 2005

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

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

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

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

SEW has a user RFC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SEWilco. Its regrettable that he is still spamming here rather than finding the time to answer there. He was notified of it [47] at 2005-11-24 23:50:40. William M. Connolley 18:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC).

Could someone please ban 70.176.62.225 (talk · contribs)

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

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

User:Leonigmig

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

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

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

See also User talk:Simon Chartres#Endorsements and disendorsements

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

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

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

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

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

• I concur with Radiant. This seems like slightly over-zealous self-censorship. Jimbo is not a delicate flower. He can handle it if the community disagrees with him. Nandesuka 18:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • As Geni said, discussion regarding endorsements and disendorsements dates all the way back to the 2004 election, after which more-or-less everyone concluded doing it again was an inherently stupid idea - which is why it was explicetely stated that none would be created this year. Raul654 18:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, but that is missing my point. I agree that (dis)endorsements are a bad idea. However, I also think that refusing to hold elections and not bothering to inform the community why, is a bad idea. At present, the impression is that without having the proper connections, one cannot become an arb. Radiant_>|< 19:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Without commenting on your concerns about the change in procedure (I've voiced my opinion on it in private) -- that is an unrelated issue and irrelavant to this discussion. Raul654 19:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
        • (to Raul) Okay, if you think it's irrelevant in this discussion let me ask again in a new discussion. Radiant_>|< 19:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm a little confused. Are the elections cancelled? Is Jimbo appointing arbitrators? None of this is mentioned on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005. Rhobite 19:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes. The elections are cancelled, for reasons unknown. As far as I know (since there is little news about it), Jimbo intends to hand-pick arbitrators, regardless of community opinion of those people. Radiant_>|< 19:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
          • What Jimbo has described is a two step procedure -- Jimbo, with advice from the current arbitration committee, selects a set of would-be appointees. The community then has an approval vote on them. Would-be appointees recieving greater than 50% approval will be appointed. Raul654 19:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why not hold an election?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What to do about very persistent anon vandalism?

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

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

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

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

EddieSegoura

User:EddieSegoura has been spamming Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exicornt with sockpuppet keep or merge votes (All keep and all-but-one merge votes for this neologism are from brand-new users and suspected sockpuppets), and has now [48] "closed" the AfD as a Merge. (The closure was quickly reverted of course; it hasn't been a week yet, anyway.) Quite a few users have attempted various dialogues with this user; no real progress. This AfD edit strikes me as disruptive enough to possibly merit a block. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Anglican Bishophoric moves

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Anti-Polonism

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

Wikipedia:Consensus

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

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

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

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

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

Speedying pre-deleted content.

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

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

User:Kathywimmer

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

Request for participation from anyone interested in psychiatry

Just a little while ago, I protected an article about an American psychiatrist, E. Fuller Torrey, on the request of a user involved in an edit war that has escalated quite a bit over the past day. The user who requested the protection is a member of an anti-psychiatry group, User:Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC, who has been edit warring with an anon user of a more traditional opinion. I have a feeling that protection won't work, and that when it's lifted the edit warring will resume, since soon after protection the anon declared "As soon as it is uprotected, I will restore NPOV. I can wait" [49] (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)