Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive50

Abuse of admin powers by Karmafist

User:Karmafist recently blocked me, on a false allegation of vandalism. He continues to defend his actions, on this page (above) and various talk pages, adding further false allegations and ad hominem attacks. He reverted Coleshill, Warwickshire, a page on which we disagreed, and which he had previously protected, to an old edit which included redundant links, having previously claimed that his suggested text was an agreed consensus, despite no such consesnus existing and despite me having sugegested a more accurate alternative; and he did so with personal abuse in his edit suammry. He further falsely accused me of breaching 3RR, but took no action against the efitor who actually did so. He has also falseley accused me of sending him threatening e-mail. Andy Mabbett 11:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

A simple analysis of the article's Talk Page and its discussion leads me to believe otherwise, Andy. Karmafist treated you and the other involved part friendly and with respect, which unfortunately you didn't. You agreed yourself to the solution that was achieved through his mediation. You were fairly warned of breaking said consensus after engaging in an edit war and breaking 3RR. Most likely, I would have done the same as he did, given the situation.

In my humble opinion, you've chosen the wrong approach. I'm positive that you believe your contributions to be correct, so there are other ways in which this matter can be solved. Gather a couple of sources to endorse your view, quote them and reference them at the article. That will strengthen you opinion. Talk with the parts involved; discuss and debate are positive. If you need help, I even offer myself to mediate between you and G-Man, and to achieve a more solid consensus. The whole issue isn't that serious to get so upset, dear. Karma has acted correctly as an admin, and I beg you, don't even think he has a personal dislike of you. It's all in the manner we propose our contributions that an agreement can be reached, and I know that sometimes we can all feel frustrated and get angry; we're only human. Calm down, relax, take a deep breath and let's build together. That's what we're all here for. Hugs, Shauri smile! 13:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

leads me to believe otherwise Then please cite the edit summary where I committed the vandalism of which he accsues me.

Karmafist treated you and the other involved part friendly and with respect, which unfortunately you didn't. Untrue.

You agreed yourself to the solution that was achieved through his mediation. I most certainly did not.

You were fairly warned of breaking said consensus There was no consesnus.

after engaging in an edit war and breaking 3RR. I did not breach 3RR. G-Man did, but no action has been taken.

Most likely, I would have done the same as he did, given the situation Then you, too, would have been abusing yoru powers.

The whole issue isn't that serious to get so upset Wait to see how you feel, if ever you're falsely accused of vandalism on WP.

dear. !!!

Andy Mabbett 08:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Karmafist has now reverted Coleshill, Warwickshire to his preferred version, then protedcted it - a further abuse of his admin powers. Andy Mabbett 08:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Karmafist is now threatening to block me indefinately. Andy Mabbett 22:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

See also this breach of civility and assume-good-faith policies. Andy Mabbett 22:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• sigh*... look. Karmafist hasn't down a single thing that is against policy. You, however, continue to assert that you are a victim, despite your abusive edit summaries. You still have yet to answer this, and until you do, it will make you look like a troll instead of a confused and unhappy editor. We can not help you until you help yourself. Linuxbeak | Talk 01:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

*sigh*... look. Karmafist hasn't down (sic) a single thing that is against policy. Then please cite the edit summary where I committed the vandalism of which he accuses me. Please cite my supposed "abusive edit summaries." Andy Mabbett 07:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Karmafist has also recently made a number of personal atatcks, also in breach of the policies he claims to enforce. Andy Mabbett 12:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It almost seems to me that you have it in for Karmafist, rather than the other way round. I'm afraid I dont see any personal attacks at the other end of those links you provided. As far as I can see, Karmafist has acted within policy. I attempted to mediate between you two and even then you were unco-operative. Also, please stop assuming everyone here is out to get you. Neither Shauri, nor Linuxbeak, Karmafist, or myself is trying to make you angry. Another thing, continuessly italasizing other people's comments and typos is considered impolite, and is exactly what one of your complaints of Karmafist were. Banes 13:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It almost seems to me that you have it in for Karmafist I'm sorry to see that you're so unable to grasp the facts of the matter.

rather than the other way round Intersting you dshould say that, as I've never claimed that he "has it in for me".

I'm afraid I dont see any personal attacks at the other end of those links you provided. As far as I can see, Karmafist has acted within policy. I'm sorry to see that you're so unable to grasp the facts of the matter.

I attempted to mediate between you two and even then you were unco-operative. Your evidence for this remarkably ludicrous assertion would be..?

Also, please stop assuming everyone here is out to get you. Please stop misrepresenting me.

Another thing, continuessly italasizing other people's comments and typos is considered impolite,. Indeed. Where have I done it?

Meanwhile, perhaps you could cite the vandalism for which he claims to have blocked me; and the policy which allowed him to do so?

Andy Mabbett 14:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Karmafist called your editing "vandalism" once, here. This was wrong, but incidentally: the only reason the word "vandalism" was included was that it is an automatic part of the standard {{test5}} block template. Karmafist also continued calling you "Pigs" despite your wish to be called Andy Mabbett. You are reacting with aggression that is way out of proportion to such a tiny thing. In every other action Karmafist has been exemplary. silsor 14:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#Threat and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing. Andy Mabbett 20:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

He's at it again! (breach of Wikipedia:Username#Changing inappropriate usernames and Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Usernames) Andy Mabbett 23:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I've had it. Pigsonthewing, I'm going to be frank. You need to answer the RFC or else no one will even heed you any attention. If you don't answer it, don't come crying to the Administrators' noticboard if and when an RFAr is opened against you. Linuxbeak | Talk 15:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfair ban

User:RhiannonH was banned for adding information to the Bogdanov Affair when she has no part in the external controversy in any way. She is here to edit Wikipedia, not the Bogdanov Affair. All she did was add some stuff about radio stations in the UK and their reaction to it. I find this 48 hour block of her unfair and politely ask that you unblock her. Colbrook 13:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

User:RhiannonH has 100% (1 of 1) edits on Bogdanov Affair, and so the ban per temporary injunction takes effect. --Pjacobi 13:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The block was in line. Zach (Sound Off) 19:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Why was the block in line? This is what the user in question added to the article:

Controversy

+ Radio presenter Sophie Bruce on Cambridgeshire radio station Q103 accused the Bogdanovs of being hoaxers and even called them quacks on air. This was in September 2005.

+ Dan Mills on Oxfordshire radio station Fox FM said the situation was one big joke and made Big Bang jokes on air about it on his show 1-4pm in October 2005.

Why does that deserve a ban? I would like to know that. --Anittas 20:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

DotSix and AOL

Seeing as how DotSix (banned from editing outside his arbitration case) is now editing atheism, theism, and other of his favorite articles quite frequently, from AOL IPs, why doesn't somebody get in touch with AOL's abuse department? ~~ N (t/c) 17:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Worth a try, but I'm not sure if he's violated any of AOL's TOS. Sure, he's currently banned from Wikipedia but will AOL do anything about that? Currently I am blocking his IPs and protecting articles as necessary. Hopefully this will encourage him to give up. Rhobite 17:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

As with all banned users who try to edit Wikipedia, he is violating laws forbidding "unauthorised access to computer systems", which is a criminal offence in a great many places (I'm almost certain that this is so in the US, for instance; in the UK it is covered by the Computer Misuse Act 1992) - the fact that there aren't any technical measures in place to prevent this does not mean that it isn't such an access. Use of an ISP to aid criminal activities is absolutely not going to be within the AUP of an ISP ('cos otherwise they might be held liable).

James F. (talk) 09:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I have a feeling, though, that any attempt to actually prosecute somebody criminally for editing or vandalizing Wikipedia would run into great difficulty given that the site is frequently promoted as one that "anyone can edit"; this would likely make judges and juries reluctant to find any editing of it to actually constitute "unauthorized access". *Dan T.* 11:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Úbeda

The discussion over the title of the Úbeda article is deadlocked, but one or more users are trying to change the article themselves. They are probably just disgruntled at the way the discussion has been handled. Anyway, I've reverted and blocked Craticidi for violating the 3RR (or 7RR in this case!). Now a new user (Ozrag) is doing exactly the same -- I suspect pupetry. I might be in violation of the 3RR myself if I revert again, as I'm not sure whether this counts as simple vandalism -- it's actually POV, but it's working against the establishment of consensus. Either, help me out with maintaining the status quo here, or tell me that I wouldn't be violating 3RR. --Gareth Hughes 17:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked Craticidi and Ozrag for 3RR violations. Today, I've blocked Orgaz and Ragoz for being very likely sock puppets of Ozrag (and variations on my name). The blocks are all 24h, and I would like to hear some opinion on this. --Gareth Hughes 17:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't spotted the anagrams (slow) but, with that, you were correct to block, IMHO. It's not really deadlocked, not with a 14 to 6 vote, but as one of the participants in the debate I'm not going to move it -- I'd rather leave the job to an outsider. This revert warring on the intro is, I think, independent of where the article ends up: Craticidi/Ozrag/Orgaz's arguments (same person as Kolokol?) seem to be with how to word the article's introduction, not its location (he/she/they haven't bothered voting). And until the whole diacrit question is settled, we can look forward to two, three, many such Việt Nams. Years of fun. –Hajor 18:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I, too, would like this article to be renamed with the diacritic. However, I am fed up with this user's tactic. I've just blocked Groaz. Could someone fill me in on the technical aspects of blocking, and how this user might be evading the block. --Gareth Hughes 18:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I've just done another one (Jahro): this is getting silly. Is there any chance that this vandal is 203.29.88.193, who left a particularly horrible personal attack on my user page? --Gareth Hughes 19:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

While I think diacritics in English article titles are almost always unhelpful, I'm indifferent to this place name having one in its WP title if consensus swings that way. For me the problem is wholly with the tactics of the anagram socks, which should be resolved before the article is re-named (given the apparent consensus to do so). Wyss 19:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Our puppeteer has now decided to use your name Wyss. It seems the most effective way to stop this is to protect the page until the decision has been made. Very reluctantly, I've protected it. --Gareth Hughes 19:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The atrocious tactics of this vandal notwithstanding, it is long past time to rename the article back to Úbeda. Note, this was in fact the original title until March 2005, when a five-day WP:RM vote was held with 6-3 in favor of renaming to Ubeda. The current vote has now lasted more than ten days and is currently 12-7 in favor of renaming back to the original title (and note, one of the original voters in the March WP:RM has changed his vote). The basis for moving the page back to its original title is thus at least as solid as the basis for moving it to the current title seven months ago, and there is little point letting the situtation fester. Could some admin kindly close the WP:RM and move the page without too much further delay.

It should be pointed out as well that not long after the original WP:RM vote a survey was held at long-running survey on diacritic use, and after 3 1/2 months there was a 70%-30% majority in favor of diacritics. The voting has continued and the majority is now just under 60%. There have been more than a hundred votes, plenty of discussion, and the survey has run more than six months. The goal of the survey was to establish some kind of global policy that would obviate the need for case-by-case voting at individual articles. Unfortunately, the existence of the prior WP:RM vote was claimed by some to overrule the global survey and a new WP:RM vote was demanded before renaming the page back to its original name. That WP:RM has now been held and is now running overtime well past its normal duration.

Meanwhile, I would strongly suggest that Checkuser be run on the recent sockpuppets in the article history. -- Curps 20:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I have unprotected Ubeda/Úbeda and carried out the move. –Hajor 14:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

User:333222 unblocked

Back in July I indefinitely blocked this user for spamming porn images on articles to which they had no relation. They just politely requested unblocking which I just did. I'll remind them about the image uploading and placement policies, but I'd appreciate someone keeping an eye on this user while I'm away. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Federal Street

Federal Street has been labelled a {{sockpuppet}} of User:rktect; and he is certainly expressing a very similar PoV in similar articles. If he is a sockpuppet, he is violating Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rktect#Remedies; if he is not, he should be vindicated and the tag removed. Septentrionalis 23:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rktect/Evidence you will find furter proof that this is a sockpuppet of Rktect. If you ask me by email, I can provide you with further proof (which also reveals the identitiy of Rktect, thus the email). Rktect aka. Federal_Street has made a number of very significant edits since his ban [1], including [2] [3] [4] [5]. Can someone please make this stop? -- Egil 02:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Rktect and User:Federal Street blocked for 48 hours. --Carnildo 06:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Federal Street is not only doing the same sorts of edits as Rktect, they're using the same ISP in the same city — presumably he reconnected to get a different IP. It looks like a sock from here - David Gerard 08:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Skyring range block

I have blocked 203.51.0.0/18, the IP range that Skyring seems to be using most, for 3 hours. I hope this inconveniences him some - but it won't stop him, as he has several other ranges. ~~ N (t/c) 01:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

139.168.157.0/24 and 139.168.158.0/24 now. ~~ N (t/c) 02:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Those are Telstra ranges for Canberra, and Telstra is the largest ISP in Australia - admins blocking ranges to stop Skyring should be sure to stay on hand in case of collateral damage - David Gerard 08:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't be *too* worried about collateral damage; these addresses have been blocked before, and I've never heard any complaints from anyone from Canberra; I suspect we don't have many (if any at all) Telstra users. At the same time, though, we should be careful of accidentally blocking any new users. Ambi 14:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Why do we continue to fight this battle? What is the point? Even if we succeed all we'll have done is prevented the guy from making good edits. Everyking 14:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect, these IP addresses have continued the stalking and harassment that earned Skyring his one-year block in the first place. Demiurge 15:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, he has used IPs and phoney sockpuppet usernames to harrass one female user, accusing her of travelling to his house, stand outside and stalk him. (A complete fiction which upset the user.) He has posted personal attacks on over twenty talk pages on the basis that the victim of his attacks (me) had edited the pages. (He was originally banned for a year for stalking me.) He has also deleted a copyright violation notice, which could have had repercussions for wikipedia if his action meant that a potentially illegal image survived on wikipedia and left us open to a breach of copyright legal case. He has also used people's email links to spam users with unwanted messages.

Secondly, under Wikipedia rules a banned user cannot edit here. They are not allowed to so much a correct a spelling mistake. If bullyboy actions and threats allowed him to in effect overrule the arbcom ruling, and Jimbo who at one stage personally blocked him, then the arbcom would lose any power it has to control vandals and stalkers. You would be inviting a free-for-all in which people could vandalise what they want and stalk whomever they want in the knowledge that if they make themselves enough of a nuisance they'll be allowed to get away with it. The bottom line is simple: since September 2005 Skyring is persona non grata on Wikipedia and every edit he makes under any identity will be removed, without exception. Wikipedia has had to deal with similar assholes before, from User:DW to a host of others who have threatened the use of law, stalked people, abused people and vandalised articles. The DW case was a classic example. Everything he touched under his various identities was reverted or deleted, including a large number of articles. Eventually he got the message that he was banned and no longer welcome on Wikipedia, and left. We owe it to the hundreds of honourable Wikipedians who aren't vandals and stalkers to protect them from the small number that are. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 16:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I have a lot less sympathy for this argument when I recall that this "stalking" and "harassment" basically amounted to frequently correcting your spelling mistakes. Everyking 17:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Would Jimbo have banned someone for correcting typos? I think not. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 18:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

That is not what the arbcom found, not Jimbo's views, and contradicted by others, who reported threats, abusive edit summaries, obnoxious abuse, spamming of users, stalking of Nixie and others, attacks on Wikipedia users on off-wikipedia sites and abuse on the wikilist that led him to be banned from the list. While everyone else makes it quite clear the contempt they hold him in you never stop defending your "pal" while attacking admins every chance you get. Some things never change: your attacks on me and your attempts to defend Skyring on every occasion and promote the myth of his victimhood. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Our Lady of Good Counsel High School

Delete this page, it has been a problem since it started. Full of rants of who is better at full ball, etc. V/ M
02:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

{{cleanup}}. Zach (Sound Off) 02:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I did it, but I am quite certain they will rant about football or such. V/M !
02:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Alright, then what we can do is issue block and try to NPOV the article, since the page will be kept if placed at AFD, since in the immortal words of Kappa "It's a school." Zach (Sound Off) 03:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm keeping my eye on it too. The current wording regarding football is better than what's been repeatedly added, altho it could still be improved... --Mairi 03:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I've added it to my watch list too. A user that added nonsense to it also added nonsense to Lake Braddock Secondary School, not sure if they are related in some way. chowells 00:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I've also added it to my watch list... as I had several friends attend the school, I think I know enough about the actual school to spot nonsense quickly.  ALKIVAR™ 20:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Block of 155.247.166.29

155.247.166.29 (talk · contribs) is reported by a user to be the IP address of the proxy server for the main Temple University library. (ARIN confirms Temple University.) The block seems a bit out of line.

• There were six edits on 18 October over a period of six hours. These edits are the basis for the block.
• The IP was warned and blocked at one stroke (there were no edits by this IP between the sole warning and the block being placed).
• The address was blocked for one week
• Another user asked quite nicely on 20 October on wikien-l [6] for the address to be unblocked
• The only response to the e-mail was: "See [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal]]" [7]
• Four days later, no admin has cared to act. The IP is still blocked.

Could someone please consider unblocking this address? More importantly, could we try to be less Draconian about these blocks in the first place? --Tabor 18:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

done--Duk 19:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Unblocked. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 19:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

"Commercial" user names

I just came across User:Walt Disney World. Although the new user could just be a fan, the account could also be used to imply some sort of official connection to Walt Disney World. There is nothing at Wikipedia:Username#No deliberately confusing usernames, although I think that something probably should be added. BlankVerse ∅ 20:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Unblock of proxy 64.241.37.140

I unblocked 64.241.37.140 (talk · contribs) today so I could edit from Panera Bread, a local restaurant with a WiFi hotspot. I don't know what User:OwenX specifically blocked this IP for, but I'd ask admins in the future to be careful blocking this IP. I eat lunch at Panera two or three times a week and I often edit over lunch. It's mildly annoying to have to unblock before I can edit. I'll add the {{sharedip}} tag to the user talk page. Kelly Martin 21:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

OceanSplash

OceanSplash (talk · contribs) is a new and difficult user, who appears to be Ali Sina (to judge by the distinctive writing style and editing pattern), an anti-Islam activist who runs an arguably Islamophobic website, faithfreedom.org. [8] He's been inserting his own strong opinions into Ali Sina and Islamophobia by putting them in quotation marks and attributing them to Ali Sina, linking to his own website as the source. Ali Sina is also a pseudonym, so we're dealing with multi-layered anonymity, which is why we can't use him as a source, except in the article about him and even then with caution. I protected Islamophobia to stop a revert war, but OceanSplash has accused me of a conflict of interest because I've nominated for adminship one of the editors who opposes him on that page. I've therefore unprotected it. Could another admin please keep an eye on it, and consider reprotecting if he starts reverting again? Things should be quiet for the next 24 hours because Freestylefrappe has blocked him for disruption, after he started calling everyone who disagreed with him an Islamist despot, accused the Muslim editors of engaging in jihad while their "brothers" engage in terrorism, and made comments like "Muslims work in gang and support each other no matter what. The reason is that they have pack mentality." [9] Thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Trollderella

[10] Please review urgently. Get someone other than David Gerard to do the checkuser. --redstucco 08:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• I don't have access to the checkuser facility, but the evidence in the sock-tag looks rather insufficient to me. Trollderella and Tony Sidaway agreeing on deletion policy doesn't mean they are the same person. With that type of evidence one could easily conclude that Snowspinner is a sockpuppet of Tony Sidaway. Anything else which makes you suspect sockpuppetry here? Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree. No real evidence that I can see. Everyking 09:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oh well, I guess you go without - David Gerard 10:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Lest there be any doubt: no, Trollderella is not my sock. Long ago, I used a benign sock called WikiWikiWiki (talk · contribs) to perform some NPOV cleanups on an article that had been created by some usenet trolls without alerting them to my precise identity. When the article was deleted, with relief I quietly unmasked the sock and stopped using it. It is the only time I have ever edited this wiki from a user other than Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) or its predecessor Minority Report (talk · contribs). --Tony Sidaway^Talk 11:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh Tony - you would say that, wouldn't you?! You're so busted. I guess you'll have to find a new sockpuppet from now on! Trollderella 16:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The real question is whose sock is RedStucco, and is it being used to vote twice in VfD? Any user including David Gerrard should feel free to do the checkuser. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Rudolf Hess

Would someone please protect Rudolf Hess? It's getting spillover vandalism and propaganda (multiple reverts by the the same anon) from Prussian Blue (American duo) which is now protected. Thanks. Wyss 10:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The edits all come from 12.75.*.* IPs, such as 12.75.233.178, 12.75.246.230 and 12.75.235.31. They use an edit message similar to "Added Final War Song edited out by biased zionists". Unfortunately the IP seems relatively dyanmic so I'm not convinced that there can be much done apart from protecting and watiting until the people on the Prussian Blue forum get bored [11]. chowells 11:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

User:RESTUREN

Can someone investigate this bot (see block log for info) - it seems to have been adding tags to articles without explanation. --Hoddle 10:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

In case anyone missed it, Hoddle himself is a sock of the vandal. [12] -- Curps 15:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a known vandal. Blocked indefinitely by me at 09:48 (UTC). Lupo 10:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Lupo, this is a vandalbot, right?? On the user page it said it was run by User:Pasboudin but the page has been edited to say it's run by Willy on Wheels. What do we do about auto vandalbot scripts?? --Hoddle 10:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know or care who it is, just as I don't know who you are. In any case it seems to be someone who doesn't like User:Pasboudin. This kind of vandalism has been going on for quite some time; see e.g. the history of the Girls Aloud article. BTW, how did you find this page on your first edit? Lupo 10:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Because the following were created in one hit? Bloodoak; Blacksocks; Cropblade; Drive-by shooting is fun!; Jewel Green; Hoddle; Solyock. Both they and the vandalbot are being operated from UK universities, though different ones in this case - David Gerard 11:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

One of the vandals is about to get a pile of usernames blocked, and you'll recognise some of the names from higher on this page - David Gerard 11:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Check the logs for "Hotrocks vandal". You'll see a Metric Shitload of usernames, most of which have been quite knowledgeably trolling Wikipedia for quite some time. The usage pattern of the IP also goes back to late 2004, so even though it looks dynamic it doesn't seem to be in practice. I fully expect this hard-working vandalbotting dickhead to pop up elsewhere, of course, and e.g. might block their university in its entirely if that'll catch said institution's attention - David Gerard 11:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

That wouldn't be appropiate, would it. - brenneman^(t)(c) 12:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a major vandalbotter that's been attacking us for a year. I urge you to become better informed before adding an opinion, in the interests of quality communication - David Gerard 12:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Which university? Any idea on the amount of collateral damage that would result? android79 12:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Liverpool John Moores University (http://www.jmu.ac.uk/), but we've known that for some time, eg: some contributions and [13]. Contact info is at the latter URL... all those who wish to contact the university and its network admins are certainly free to do so, I don't think you need permission from anyone, but I don't know how long they keep log files. The university uses the range 150.204.0.0/16. -- Curps 14:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I presume that we will make a good-faith effort to contact the University's sysadmins. If that doesn't work then yes, we may need to take more drastic action. Running vandalbots and actively vandalizing Wikipedia for a year is not exactly a minor thing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I say hold off on the contact yet. I think the vandal will give up if we just block the IP for 2/3 weeks - then they'll give up. --A1x 12:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Another first-time poster, posting here. Didn't you already "promise" to give up three weeks ago? [14]. -- Curps 14:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

A1x is coming in from jmu.ac.uk. Gosh! etc - David Gerard 14:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we don't block User:82.42.151.164 as that IP, like some anon IPs that post on here, make good contributions sometimes. Anon IPs can make good contributions sometimes. --Craig Whitford 13:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

No, it's definitely the same guy, all the way through, back to late 2004. The areas of interest are consistent. And this person has been doing Willyish vandalism, stored-up accounts and all, not just adding "on Wheels" to his name. This is a bad one, who's been stupid just enough to get caught. Who's Chris Chubbs, by the way? - David Gerard 14:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

No idea, but let's just see if there's any more vandalism over the next few days. --195.188.50.200 14:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Yowch, JMU is a pretty big university with nearly 25,000 students. This is bound to cause some collateral. I think we should contact the uni sysadmins first, but if that's fruitless then I'm not opposed to blocking the lot. Which university were the other attacks traced to? the wub "?!" 17:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

More on Sleeper Trolls

Ok, calm down everyone!! I didn't mean that a plot is imminent, or that even one is fully planned. I just wanted to alert everyone that the people are getting in place to disrupt Wikipedia from their admin positions. The discussions that I saw involved a coordinated attack with blocking and re-blocking admins, massive file and image deletion, confusing page merges and vandalizing and locking the main pages. But nonetheless, even if this attack is still in the planning stages, these sleepers are still subtly disrupting Wikipedia by opposing obviously good young admin candidates, closing out AfD's against consensus, and defending/unblocking obvious trolls and disruptive editors.

I would also keep a close eye on the upcoming Arbcom elections this fall, especially on the newer faces in the race. Just a tip.Wikiphilosopher 13:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could give names of disruptive admins, examples of disruption, or other evidence by with you came to this conclusion. ~~ N (t/c) 13:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure you might understand that I'm not a complete turncoat or snitch. That's not honorable nor is it in my nature. You are all intelligent people and I know that you can think of examples of exactly about what I'm talking on your own. Especially in the last few months. Wikiphilosopher 14:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing honorable about protecting people who intend to destroy Wikipedia. Though, for security reasons (per David Gerard below), I suggest that if you do want to give more specific evidence you email it to the Foundation instead of posting it publicly. I can think of some examples of disruptive admin conduct in the last few months, but no evidence of an organized pattern of bad faith. ~~ N (t/c) 17:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

YHBT. HAND. Ahem.

It occurs to me that one of the more effective trolling tactics would be to accuse some unspecified population of admins of being sleeper trolls and vandals, and then letting the rest of us argue over it. Please don't feed the Wikiphilosopher. Until he demonstrates that he has something useful to say, I recommend giving him just as much attention as his comments deserve: none. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, if there is something to it it would be nice to know. ~~ N (t/c) 17:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but the role account/sock Wikiphilosopher doesn't seem to want to tell us. The idea that someone could deliberately earn our trust in order to set up a later betrayal is not exactly an original or novel concept. If he has evidence he could email it to David Gerard or some other trustworthy individual for confidential investigation; it would, in fact, be very helpful and I encourage him to do so. Posting "Somehow, somewhere, someone is out to get us" messages on WP:AN/I doesn't serve any useful purpose—we already know that there are trolls and vandals who are out to get us. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not naming names because I very very very much want to bust them. But I do know of cases where assiduous good usernames angling for admin are strongly suspected of being operated by banned users who have been bragging elsewhere about how easy it is to game the Wikipedia system. This might be teenage bragging, but it's eminently plausible — look at what some of our admins do already and tell me adminship is a big deal. And bored teenagers can work very hard at fucking up shit in spectacular ways - David Gerard 14:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikiphilosopher, are all your friends quite so honorable? Infiltration is a two-way street. Not to mention, fundraising would raise a financial reward for any information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone responsible for such an attack. The post-9/11 security overreaction to anything resembling sleeper cells and carefully planned coordinated large-scale attacks is likely to be severe. The hypothetical attack you're describing would certainly get the attention of law enforcement and you'd be surprised how quickly chat transcripts and e-mails would be produced as if by magic. Honor tends to go up in smoke at the plea-bargaining table. -- Curps 14:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I wish the stakes were sufficient - it's hard enough getting ISPs to listen to us: "Oh, you're from a website anyone can edit. And you say our user's editing you. Uhhhhh-huh." ;-) - David Gerard 15:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

In the aftermath of this hypothetical massive attack, the stakes would indeed be sufficient. Not only ISPs but law enforcement would take an interest. The "anyone can edit" shouldn't be a problem, it's not unique to Wikipedia, it also applies to most message forum sites and is not a license for vandal behavior. The terms of service of most ISPs would apply, for instance AOL's Rules of Conduct mentions "abusive", "harassing" and "deceptive" posts and "impersonat[ing] any person or entity". -- Curps 16:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Abuse, harrassment, deception, and impersonation are definitely NOT Homeland Security matters - the worst we could do to someone is have their Internet connection terminated. ~~ N (t/c) 17:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Obviously I agree, they're not. Please don't misconstrue what I wrote: see my reply to Wikiphilosopher below to understand what I was referring to.

By the way, the threat of loss of Internet connection can be a surprisingly effective deterrent. Most vandals use their ISP for other non-vandal activities and having to change e-mail address or explain to family members why the "Internet stopped working" (or worse yet, having to explain themselves to their school or employer) is not worth their while. In the case of anonymous IP vandals who use an IP range, ToSsing the vandal (reporting Terms of Service violation) is a viable option that should be tried a little more often and more systematically. I have an idea in mind for this: write a little script to extract contribution history and prepare a nicely formatted evidence page with all IPs and timestamps converted to the ISP's local timezone and display the ISP's abuse contact phone and e-mail (from ARIN or RIPE or APNIC), and then any user who's sufficiently motivated or annoyed by the vandal's conduct can take it upon themselves to contact the ISP and provide them with a link to the evidence page. I have a test case in mind. -- Curps 01:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Curps, please dont let this rub you wrong, but get a grip! Comparing what we're talking about to 9/11 is almost sickening. And your suggestion that the Department of Homeland Security would take any interest whatsoever in the possible hi-jinks of rouge editors and admins on Wikipedia is one sign that you perhaps need to re-evaluate your perceptions of the importance of this site. And David Gerard is right. Teenage/College-age bored computer kids will spend no small amount of time on here to acheive their prankster goals. (Not that it takes that much time, I mean, a good "sleeper" will have 10 edits a day, and over weeks that adds up. It should only take 30 mins a day, and even less with a high speed internet connection, which most college campuses offer now).Wikiphilosopher 17:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikiphilosopher, my apologies for expressing myself poorly. I am in no way comparing the gravity and tragedy of 9/11 with vandalism of Wikipedia. Here's what I'm saying: post-9/11, there is a tendency among law enforcement to overreact to any perceived threat ("not on my watch" syndrome). Nowadays, people who crack jokes about having a bomb in their luggage at the airport aren't just removed from flights, in a few cases some have actually served short prison sentences... for cracking a joke.

Anything to do with sleeper cells waking up to conduct coordinated mass attacks (reminiscent of al-Qaeda tactics) will automatically involve great suspicion... law enforcement would find it hard to believe that so many months of planning and effort and preparation would go into merely disrupting Wikipedia, and would probably consider that it was a dress rehearsal for attacks on far more vital computing infrastructure. They would spend a lot of time and effort investigating, and they hate to do that and walk away empty-handed. Even if they found there was nothing to it but vandalizing Wikipedia, they would file charges for something, make a big case out of it and make it stick.

Since Wikipedia is based in the US, American prosecutors and law enforcement would get involved. If anyone's unfamiliar with the American system, district attorneys (prosecutors), attorneys general, and even the local sheriff's office are very often elected positions, and are stepping stones for higher political office (consider Rudy Giuliani and Eliot Spitzer). For such people, a high-profile case can be a godsend, a golden opportunity to be seized, a chance to get camera time and media exposure at press conferences and establish a reputation for expertise in new emerging areas such as cyberspace. There are a lot of excessively ambitious type-A personalities out there looking for their big break, something that could advance their career or make their career.

A hypothetical massive attack on Wikipedia that resulted in more than a few days' downtime would be very widely discussed in the blogosphere. There's a relatively new phenomenon of blogs keeping a story alive and reviving it after it's been forgotten or ignored by the traditional media (consider the political downfall of Trent Lott), and that would apply here. Also, I guarantee you that a five-figure reward would be raised for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the culprits, which would generate more buzz in its own right. News producers for the mainstream media are always looking for a story, law enforcement and prosecutorial officers are always looking for a high-profile case, and if one or more take the bait you'd be surprised how fast the thing could snowball under the right circumstances. If criminal records result from silly youthful pranks that perhaps didn't merit it, well, it wouldn't be the first time that's happened.

I'm just outlining a possible scenario which is by no means a sure thing but is considerably more plausible than you may realize. -- Curps 21:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Very widely discussed by <0.001% of the world's population, you say? Do tell! silsor 21:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Seemingly minor things can easily get blown up into very major things when someone stands to gain financially, politically or careerwise. Plenty of real life examples. Here's to all of this remaining hypothetical. -- Curps 00:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I just hate it when people use the word "blogosphere" in a serious context. silsor 15:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Anyone interested in this phenomenon may find the material at User:UninvitedCompany/notes to be insightful. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Uninvited, I looked at the material. What exactly should I infer from it? Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Oy vey. I notice there are very few active m:stewards, whose intervention (or a developer's, ideally, as they could lock the site as well) would be needed to deal with this type of incident. More would be nice. ~~ N (t/c) 18:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

all I can see here is Wikiphilosopher trying to make himself seem important or interesting. This is all childish. So some kids try to damage wikipedia. How is that new? Rogue admins will be de-adminned quickly. If we get admins who are not really rogues but just turn out to be generally trollish, we'll need a de-admining procedure to de-admin people with whom the community is fed up. Nickptar is right, we may need bureaucrats to be able to de-admin, so hypothetical vandal-admins can be quickly dealt with. How the sybillic comments of Wikiphilosopher have any bearing on this is beyond me. Anyone can create an account and claim to be in the know about serious complots. For all you know, I may be Wikiphilosopher, making it all up as I go along. Be prepared. Don't pay attention to breathless oracles. 81.63.114.127 21:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Rogue admins will be de-adminned quickly. Do tell? Precedent suggests quite the opposite. --RougeHand 23:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

An admin who starts deleting and vandalizing? I think they'd be desysopped within a few minutes. Everyking 02:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

No, they would be desysopped the next time a steward or developer checked his/her mail. We don't have many stewards or developers, so it might even take an hour. Other admins could and would hold off major destruction for a while, but it would be a constant battle. ~~ N (t/c) 12:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You forget IRC.Geni 17:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we should take heed of what David Gerard said. He knows this site and its characters better than just about anyone. Anyway, I should tell more about the "sleeper troll" admins that I know of. Just look for admins that:

• whose accounts are about 6 months old
• are between 17-20 years old or so
• whose vast majority of edits have been to talk pages and Wikipedia non-article space
• who lack substantial article contributions, or whose article contributions mostly consist of minor edits

Contributions of this kind allow the user to keep a high edit count and get his name known through community interaction without actually having to contribute much time or substance to Wikipedia. Like I said, 10 edits a day over a few months adds up...Wikiphilosopher 13:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh-oh. I fit that profile perfectly. ~~ N (t/c) 13:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Aha! You're one of them commie mutant traitors, aren't you?! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 13:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikiphilosopher you claim to know details of a plan for a highly harmful attack on wikipedia. You wont hand over these detials. This means you are either trolling or aiding those who wish to harm us. Either way can you explain why I shouldn't block you?Geni 17:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Settle down. Making threats like that is just feeding the trolls. I'm trying to help. Why shouldn't I block you for being so rude and uncivil to a fellow editor?Wikiphilosopher 18:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

If you were trying to help you would give names. Thus it appears the only troll here is you. In answer two your second question; A because you can't; B becuase personal attacks are not a blockerble offence. I don't play games. For you it is put up or shut up time. Comprehend?Geni 18:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Blockerble? Nothing I've done is "blockerble" either. So stop trying to bully people and grow up please.Wikiphilosopher 18:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Wikiphilosopher has been blocked infinitey for trolling/impersination/dissruptive sock.Geni 18:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Prosecuting Wikipedia Trolls and Vandals

Besides, no-one is going to be impressed by a prosecutor "chasing vandals" on a website "anyone can edit." In real life they would probably laugh at him for wasting the resources and time of his office. I simply think that you have to take a step back and really reconsider how important you think Wikipedia is in society. Plus, you're confusing Federal and State jurisdictions. Sorry.Wikiphilosopher 15:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• I suggest you single them out by placing this tag {{Sleeper_troll}} on their user pages once you suspect them, we can compile a list at [[category:Know Sleeper Trolls]] and [[Category:Suspected Sleeper Trolls]], what do you think of such an idea?--64.12.116.5 18:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

64.12.166.*, please stop placing {{sleeper troll}} templates on various pages. Your suggestion is unhelpful.

Wikiphilosopher, you are right that Wikipedia does not (yet?) have the importance that many of us hope it will have in the future, and I have a realistic understanding of this. It's not the importance of the target, it's the alleged tactics that would get attention. This would be the equivalent of TPing the school principal's house, except then you find out that the vandals rented office space, trucks, and a warehouse full of industrial supplies and conducted months of reconnaissance and preparation, got jobs in the local police department, etc. You'd wonder, why the implausibly elaborate planning and more importantly, if they're willing to go that far, what else are they planning in the future? Your "step back and reconsider how important" advice would best apply to anyone who would spend months of their lives to plan such a scheme with nothing to gain. -- Curps 20:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, now that I've been labeled a "sleeper troll", I suppose I should go out and start using my admin powers to delete hundreds of images or something like that. Oh, wait, I already have ;-). --Carnildo 22:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, no, lets not go overboard. It would be like perhaps doing reconnaisance for months but nothing more. Like I said before, it doesn't take that much time to become an admin on here, especially considering the people who we're dealing with (bored teens.) And it doesn't take any financial committment at all, so its not like "renting trucks, office space," etc. What does everyone else think of this idea?Wikiphilosopher 20:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Blocking of IPs more than 24 hours is impossible?

Over the last month, User:129.15.120.186 has been blocked a number of times by various admins (See [15]. On October 17, I placed a one month block on this user for continued vandalism after three other blocks had no effect. Despite the one month block, the user was still able to conduct edits on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NickBush24, User:Redwolf24, User:NickBush24, User:Durin, User talk:Drini and User talk:NickBush24, most of which were additional vandalism. Following these edits, User:Drini and User:Essjay both blocked him, the last of which is an additional 1 month block. At this point, it appears the blocking is having no effect. I asked Drini about this [16], and he does not know why the blocks are not having an effect either. Reviewing Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Effects_of_being_blocked, I find this puzzling passage: "There is an internal autoblock expiry time variable, which is set to 24 hours, meaning that when a username is blocked indefinitely, their IP will be automatically unblocked 24 hours after they last accessed a page" Curious. So, any block against an IP of more than 24 hour duration is in reality just a 24 hour block? Would someone please explain this? --Durin 15:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea why the IP wouldn't be staying blocked, but the passage you quoted says when a username is blocked indefinitely, the IP autoblock associated with its username will only stay blocked for 24 hours. Whether that applies to when an IP is blocked indefinitely or not still seems an open question though. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone who knows the deeper working of MediaWiki bugs may be more help, but I've noticed a few anecdotal comments about a double block bug. These, from memory appeared to indicate an occasional need to lift all such blocks if they have been doubled up on, and then re-block just once. -Splash^talk 18:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Aside: do we want to put such an extensive block on an IP address shared by thousands of people? (This IP is in the CIDR block 129.15.0.0/16 used by the University of Oklahoma.) Mindmatrix 18:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• From my own experience IPs that are blocked should stay blocked for the specified duration. The 24 hour thing is only for IP autoblocks associated with blocks on usernames. My guess would be it's a doubleblock bug, or perhaps they were somehow unblocked... - Mgm|^(talk) 18:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not a double block problem; the user was blocked for 1 month, and made edits after that point (as noted above) before Drini placed the second, 24 hour block. --Durin 20:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• I compared the IP's contributions and block log, and found that in every case but two, the IP has not edited before the expiry of the block. In the first case, he/she made two edits to the IP's talk page; the software permits blocked IPs and users to do this, so it's nothing to worry about. The second case involves the 1-month block. It seems that at some point shortly before or after the IP was blocked, a user logged in from the same IP, was blocked, and triggered the autoblocker on his IP. When the autoblock expired after 24 hours, the 1-month block expired as well, since at the conclusion of the shortest block, all other blocks are always cleared. Everything appears to be working as intended. — Dan | Talk 20:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

That particular IP has been problematic, harrassing NickBush24, who attends the same university. I discussed it with Nick, who blieves he may know who the vandal is. My guess is that Nick (and any other legit contributor from that university) probably is assigned that IP on occasion, and that is tripping up our blocks. I'm monitoring it, as Nick's page is a pretty frequent target of vandalism, so if I see any problems, I'll clear out the blocks and set a new one. -- Essjay · Talk 21:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

So a blocked IP can log into a registered account, access a page, and trip the 24 autoblock on his IP thus clearing a longer duration block? This seems a bit of a flaw, and if a person knows how to do this can prevent being blocked for more than 24 hours under their IP. --Durin 13:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

User:EEEE and nosource image tags

This user's only edits are the addition of nosource tags to a handful of images. These are in nearly all cases images where the source is implicit from the tags, the nature of the image, or the commentary accompanying the image. Since there is a project underway to delete unsourced images, this is of particular concern. Though administrators participating in the unsourced image deletion project are being careful, there is at least the potential for mistakes, and bot-generated notification messages are being sent to uploaders of the affected images.

I have asked User:EEEE for an explanation, though I doubt that one, if forthcoming at all, will be illuminative since EEEE is clearly a sock. Newbies don't just show up and start adding image tags.

Please be on the lookout for bogus additions of the nosource tag, just as you would watch for bogus additions of speedy deletion tags. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

SUPER COOL and 83.92.*.*

Just added to User:SuperTroll by me:

There is a user running the same variety of MediaWiki vandalbot software, often at similar times, based in Denmark. This vandalbot comes in from the range 83.92.128.0/17. User names include Programmer X and Programmer-X. Non-vandalbot posts include the brag that they are the creator of the SUPER COOL bot (the text appears to be English translated into Dutch by Babelfish or similar).

83.92.*.* is where the SuperTroll-like vandal in Denmark comes in from. They use the same vandalbot software as SuperTroll, but ST is based in the UK - David Gerard 19:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

linkscamming

Here's a new wrinkle I've not seen before, and one that is clearly dishonest (although I'm not quite sure what they scammer is trying to achieve). 207.112.87.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) changed a link on Tera Patrick from "terapatrick.com" (which is owned by an adult movie company associated with the actress) to "terapatricks.com", which whois shows to be owned by "monicker.com". Visit it with your browser (not worksafe) and you'll not notice - you're just redirected to the former name. But a check with wget shows what's really going on:

--20:00:33--  http://www.terapatricks.com/
           => `index.html'
Resolving www.terapatricks.com... 66.197.34.230
Connecting to www.terapatricks.com[66.197.34.230]:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found
Location: http://refer.ccbill.com/cgi-bin/clicks.cgi?CA=902638-0000&PA=573890&HTML=http://www.terapatrick.com [following]
--20:00:33--  http://refer.ccbill.com/cgi-bin/clicks.cgi?CA=902638-0000&PA=573890&HTML=http://www.terapatrick.com
           => `clicks.cgi@CA=902638-0000&PA=573890&HTML=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.terapatrick.com'
Resolving refer.ccbill.com... 64.38.240.20
Connecting to refer.ccbill.com[64.38.240.20]:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found
Location: http://www.terapatrick.com [following]
--20:00:34--  http://www.terapatrick.com/
           => `index.html'
Resolving www.terapatrick.com... 64.38.205.102
Connecting to www.terapatrick.com[64.38.205.102]:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found
Location: http://www.yourworstenemy.com [following]
--20:00:34--  http://www.yourworstenemy.com/
           => `index.html'
Resolving www.yourworstenemy.com... failed: Host not found.

So I think this is some kind of clickfarming, as (despite its name) ccbill.com doesn't appear to be concerned with credit card billing. I'd recommend folks seeing similar domain-name changes do a dig/whois to see if the old name and the new one really are operated by the same folks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

CCbill is, I think a company that does billing for various vendors of erotica, handling online checks, bell to telephone numbers, and possibly soem credit card billing also. If they also sell ads or click-farms it is new to me. DES ^(talk) 20:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I've got the impression from elsewhere that they are doing pay per click referrals, though I'm not 100% sure. chowells 01:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

CCbill do provide an affiliate/referral service CCbill affiliate program. Looks like this was a good catch by Finlay. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Trollbot?

I've permanently blocked Quickie smalls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account which has been used only to inject the same bizarre threat-rant on a seemingly random selection of talk pages. The fact that it's the same each time, and the apparent randomness of its postings leads me to believe it's a bot, and the antagonistic-yet-meaningless nature of the posts is classic trolling. I've a nasty feeling he'll be back. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• You will confined to him, he will be exposed, and the conspiratory nature will not prevail, the esperanza-gate incidents will be avendged soon by you--Solchak Von Nostrum 22:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Would a bot thumb its nose at you in such a direct manner? :-) — Dan | Talk 23:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Jtdirl vs. Skyring

Jtdirl (talk · contribs) has been fighting with alleged Skyring sockpuppets again. When Violetriga (talk · contribs) left him a message on his talk page asking him to consider his actions, he removed it without comment and vprotected the page, although a glance at the history finds no recent vandalism. I have no dog in this feud between him and Skyring (except to express annoyance at a very lame revert war on Avengers (comics)), but I think that Jtdirl is using his admin powers a tad inappropriately in this vprotect situation. I merely bring it to your attention; do as thou wilt. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

That is not what happened. skyring targeted my page for repeat attacks. A host of users were involved in reverting the attacks. At one stage 18 sockpuppets attacks in 2 hours. I appreciated all the defence. I thought however that it was wrong to put users constantly in the position of protecting my page from Skyring attacks. After discussing it with Wikipedians off Wikipedia (discussions on Wikipedia are invariably gatecrashed by Skyring and his sockpuppet family — at one stage he was using a sockpuppet to defend himself, then reponding openly as himself —) I decided to protect it to take the pressure of users. Re Violetriga's comments, I replied privately by email and as the communications were private I removed the comment of my page, and explained to her the reasons why. Because she did not know what the page was protected I added in the vprotected template. It was not intended in any way to suggest that I was either censoring her comments or that her edit was vandalism, and she understands that. Users who have been at the receiving end of Skyring's stalking — and his behaviour has driven some people from Wikipedia. He level of nuttiness can be seen in the fact that he picked on an innocent user, began harrassing her and accused her of physically stalking outside his house and stalking him! — understand exactly what has been going on. Khaosworks clearly doesn't. Maybe unlike many others he never noticed. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I obviously misread the situation, then, regarding the vprotect - mea maxima culpa. It simply looked like that to me. That being said, if it leads to a resolution to this constant back and forth between Jtdirl and Skyring, perhaps it was a mistake worth making. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

These "repeat attacks" were me placing a message on your talk page, asking for your assistance in resolving our differences. OK, it was wrong of me to persevere if you didn't want to discuss those issues, and from this day forward I won't raise them again, despite how upset I was at the time. I won't ask you to forgive and forget, but can you find it in your heart to move forward on this? I like making edits to improve Wikipedia, and it is very frustrating when you revert them. --Skyring, under the name of GatherTogether 19:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Skyring is being a major scourge, has many years' practice being an incredible pain in the arse on every internet community he's been on, and Jtdirl is his main target here. Those criticising should possibly try taking over Skyring watch - David Gerard 23:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not criticizing his handling of Skyring. I agree that Skyring is a cancer that should be excised. However, what I question is removing a comment, and then vprotecting his page, implying that Violetriga (talk · contribs) is a vandal. Surely that's inappropriate? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Page protection exists for a limited set of purposes. The protection policy lists only three for temporary protection: edit wars, persistent vandalism, and software bugs. It moreover cautions that "[t]alk pages and user talk pages are not protected as a rule, except in extreme circumstances." There doesn't seem to be any discussion anywhere I can find about extending page protection to authorize administrators to protect their own user talk pages at will. So yes, this seems to be a use of admin powers for a purpose beyond administrator duties. --FOo 02:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I will take over Skyring watch. What will this entail? Will I rubberstamp his good edits, or what? Everyking 02:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

While it is true that Skyring, while banned, is not allowed to do any editing on Wikipedia, it should be pointed out that if he just made a few spelling corrections while editing from an IP address, nobody would know that it was Skyring, and nobody would go back and revert them. The problem is that he's not content to make just a few spelling corrections – it's his behaviour towards Jtdirl that identifies him. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 02:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You will need to revert all of his edits and make them yourself (which should keep you busy enough anyway); merely rubberstamping isn't good enough since his edits may not stand. Otherwise we have to fight over whether a banned user's edits can or cannot be reverted on an edit-by-edit basis. Then, you'll have to work out whether each of his IPs is an open proxy, as many are, and indefintely block each of them. You will at times need to apply range blocks to non-open proxies to prevent him editing in the first place. You'll also need to determine which new accounts are his, block them, revert their edits and make them yourself. You'll need to tolerate the stalking and threats that come with doing all thist. Etc etc etc. -Splash^talk 02:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

jtdirl has helpfully provided a list of sockpuppets at User:Skyring, though on checking, at least two of these are incorrect, unless Skyring is also SuperTroll (user:62.24.143.171) or is posting from Ireland (user:AULDBITCH LOVES YOU) --02:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC) Oooops! --ForestStag 02:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Everyking might start by examing this ↑ highly knowledegable new editor who has so far about 20 edits with a pattern of contributions of helpfully copyediting articles. And who has forged their signature since they are really User:ForestStag. -Splash^talk 02:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Drat! I'm uncovered. Well done. Perhaps you could also provide an example of that "stalking and threats", hmmmm? --ForestStag 03:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, if somebody was to leave me in charge, I'd say if someone's making good contributions, or even if only 2/3rds of their contributions are good, let them edit and ignore the suspicions. I suppose that's a radical philosophy. I'm only concerned with what helps improve the encyclopedia. "Stalking" somebody by following their edits and making edits after them is only a bad thing if the "stalker" edits are harmful. I honestly do not understand why someone would object to having a "stalker" follow them around doing helpful cleanup. Everyking 07:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It flabbergasts me that you can constantly rail against admins as wild vigilantes taking harmful actions that trample over others' rights with no regard for decency and propriety on the one hand, and then trumpet Skyring's nastiness (would *you* like uninvited individuals following you around in real life "amending" your errors because you're clearly not capable of it yourself?) as being beneficial and helpful on the other hand. How is it that admins are always being flagrant rule-breakers who sneer at due process, and Skyring is a poor maligned helpful soul? Why so one-eyed? Slac speak up! 07:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where you get this idea about me and other admins, but I don't think Skyring has a perfect record, I just think if somebody wants to improve articles, copyedit and such, they should be allowed to do so. Everyking 08:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

But that is not his intent, Everyking. It is his malice which identifies him and which belies any claim that he simply wants to make "good edits". If he truly wanted, he could edit Wikipedia and we would be none the wiser. However, he wants blood: he edits here not because he has Wikipedia’s interests at heart, but because he wants to hit back at those who he deems responsible for his sanction by the ArbCom. Essentially, he refuses to accept responsibility for the actions that saw him punished. He is incapable of recognising his own faults, and thus seeks to invent or exaggerate those of others. Skyring is a bully and should not be tolerated. Indeed, in any other community, he would not be.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 11:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

(indent reset) I don't see how you can bully someone by correcting spelling. Now, if Skyring were to correct spelling and explicitly harass Jtdirl, he should be blocked & the harassment reverted & his ban reset, but I see no reason to damage the articles by reverting the spelling corrections, or to take the exceedingly pointless action of reverting the corrections and then making them yourself. ~~ N (t/c) 12:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that it would set a bad precedent allowing a hard-banned contributor to continue to edit "constructively" without modification of the ban (I understand that the infamous Michael managed to rehabilitate himself but there was a long carefully-managed process to it). As to whether you can bully someone by "correcting spelling", you want to read some of the "wikistalking" complaints that appear on WP:RFC and WP:RFAr. Phil | Talk 15:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of "bad precedents" if you look for them. When you get down to bedrock, Wikipedia is a website with a bunch of people wondering how to cope with the demand and build for the future and while they are doing that, newcomers are laying down avenues, planting trees, raising barns, consecrating cathedrals and marking out circles in the sand for the two guys who are fighting over where to put the bull-ring. It's being built faster than it's being planned. The whole lot is jerry-built and it's a testament to co-operation that we've managed to get this far.

Forget the rules. Ignore all rules. It's just a website, not a religion, not a government, not a court of law. It's a website that allows anyone to edit.

What works is consensus. This community talks about issues, explores options, tries solutions and finds mechanisms that work. Common sense eventually prevails, even if it takes a few rounds in the bull-ring for the crowd to see who is in the right, rather than who has the bigger balls.

What's more important to Wikipedia? Encouraging constructive edits or enforcing website rules? Because when you get down to it, there is no "hard-banning". Wikipedia allows anybody to edit, and the world is full of Internet cafes. --SummeryWarm 16:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The chief problem is not that Skyring keeps coming back to fix typos. Quite frankly, if he did take the opportunity to accept a clean slate and contribute productively, most people probably wouldn't be troubled by that. Further, nobody here–save for David Gerard–would have any way of knowing it was him again.

The problem is that Skyring was banned for harrassing stalking other editors (primarily Jtdirl). By following Jtdirl around and editing articles immediately after Jtdirl does, each new Skyring account is announcing "I'm still here; you can't get rid of me; I'll follow you around as much as I like and you can't do anything about it." In other words, it was the stalking which got Skyring banned in the first place, and it is the continued stalking that identifies each new Skyring sock.

Simply put, Skyring would be welcome if he were to use Special:Randompage–or practically any other method besides Jtdirl's contributions list–to find articles with typos. While he continues to follow Jtdirl, he and his edits are barred. To do otherwise is to announce "As long as you're making productive edits, it's okay to harrass our other editors, ignore the ArbCom, and be an asshole." TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the evidence, Skyring is using Random Page (or some other idiosyncratic method) to find articles to edit. jtdirl then comes along, reverts a good edit and blocks the account. Look at jtdirl's contributions and examine the history of the articles he's revert-warring. His edits follow Skyring's. You are surely not suggesting that the following list of articles have anything to do with jtdirl's usual interests?

• Wallflower
• Mezmerize
• Avengers (comics)
• National-Louis University
• Kirby Award
• Bill Campbell (CEO)
• Fustanella
• DiscJuggler
• Sustanon
• Kiev
• Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra
• Wynnedale, Indiana
• and so on, all taken from jtdirl's contributions. --SummeryWarm 17:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to correct something here, Jtdirl's talk page was protected before my comments there. violet/riga (t) 17:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

If Skyring truly wanted to make helpful contributions to Wikipedia, he would hit "Random Article" and correct it, without even bothering about Jtdirl anymore and no one would bother him. However, the stalking that TenOfAllTrades describes is completely unacceptable behavior, which got him banned by the ArbCom. If Skyring would just forget about the whole deal and edit, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Titoxd^(?!?) 17:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's a list of the contributions of a Skyring sock. They look pretty random to me. --SummeryWarm 17:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the articles to which TheOneGirl has contributed, I see articles like Kirby Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Mezmerize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), National-Louis University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Avengers (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and so forth. A very brief glance at those articles' histories will show that all of them involved edits by a succession of Skyring socks: Truetoform (talk · contribs), Safeground (talk · contribs), DungareeDoll (talk · contribs), Aroundtheworld (talk · contribs), Onlyapapermoon (talk · contribs), RunningFree (talk · contribs), and TheOneGirl (talk · contribs). If anyone can't see why Skyring was banned based on those article histories....TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain it, as this evidence shows your comments above to be incorrect. In each case an article untouched by jtdirl was randomly selected, a good edit was made, and jtdirl then came along, reverted the edits, blocked the account and sparked an edit war over multiple accounts. In several cases he vprotected an article when it is clear that no vandalism had in fact occurred. --GatherTogether 18:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if we could have a sock check on SummeryWarm (talk · contribs), too, as he sure looks a lot like another Skyring incarnation. I'd like to be able to assume good faith, but it takes most users more than fourteen edits and twenty-four hours to find their way to WP:AN/I and start a Skyring argument. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't consider it necessary. The edits may look random to SummeryWarm, but SummeryWarm doesn't look random to me. The user page is classic Skyring. I've blocked for being a banned user. --Michael Snow 18:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Whoever it is, it sounds commendably sane compared to most of the arguments I hear about this topic. Everyking 18:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I see that jtdirl has commenced editing for his usual session. Before this degenerates into yet another lame edit war (and I admit my obsessive behaviour is no better than anyone else's) can I ask that we both put aside our differences and find some way of co-existing that allows us both to make productive edits?

I would like to make a public apology to jtdirl for causing him distress. He is a good editor and this foolish conflict is a waste of his time. And mine, for what it's worth. I admit to being a pedantic prick, but I fancy that there is room for me to make good edits here, and I would like more than anything else here to find a solution. Can we at least try to find this? --Skyring, trading as GatherTogether 19:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

That's a start, I think. But if you want to be able to edit legitimately again, I recommend that you contact Jimbo Wales or the Arbitration Committee, as they're the ones with the authority to lift your ban. Discuss the matter with them (privately over email is probably best), and maybe an appropriate resolution can be reached. --Michael Snow 19:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I've actually done both over the past day or two. Neither Jimbo or David suggested I apologise to jtdirl. That came from a third party whose advice I sought. I considered his advice carefully, and decided to take it, despite a considerable cost to my pride. --Skyring, as GatherTogether 19:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

There are many other people who should also be apologised to for what they were put through. Your comments about Nixie were uncalled for, as were comments accusing Nickptar of being part of a "crusade of hatred" against you. Other users too suffered personal abuse and villification. Users left Wikipedia because of their experiences. I am perfectly willing to accept your apology. Please respect the decision of the arbcom. They alone can decide your status on here. They can ban and unban. Please respect their decision on behalf of the community. And when you are back, whether in the short term or after the year ban (whichever their decision is), respect other users and don't engage in the sort of conduct that led to your ban. You clearly have a lot of ability. Show that ability, and not scorn, to the Wikipedia community. To show good faith, please don't edit any more articles until either the ban ends or it is ended. That, more than words, would show that you want to work with, and not against, the Wikipedia community. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. On that note, may I ask you to unprotect my talk page, please? --Skyring, under the name of GatherTogether 20:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I did that earlier tonight. However remember that what was imposed by the arbcom was a ban, not a block. (Bans are implemented by blocks, but operate under different rules.) A standard block for, for example breaching 3RR, means that a user is blocked from editing articles for the duration of the block. They may however access their talk page and edit it, a decision taken after a debate on the issue some time ago. A ban however is a ban from the website, which means that for the duration of a ban no part of the website, and that includes one's own talk page, can be edited. Edits of a banned user's talk page by the banned user itself amounts to a breach of the ban and so triggers its renewal. It is of course open to the arbcom either to recind the ban, or to rephrase it to allow you to edit the talk page though that is problematical as a talk page is technically the property of the account so if the account is banned from use for a set period technically the talk page is too. But I'm sure it is an option that can be considered by them.

Banned and blocked users are explicitly prohibited from editing pages using secondary accounts because that act is seen as circumventing the ban or block imposed and so implicitly undermining the principles behind bans and blocks. In the case of bans (or what used to be called hard bans) longstanding precedent is that all edits by a secondary accounts are reverted on sight, because irrespective of quality their existence breaches a ban. In one case of a user hard banned, when he created a large number of new articles (all lists) they were all instantly deleted without debate by admins at the time, and his edits weren't simply reverted but in some cases deleted from the records. That was the reason for the reversions of your edits. It wasn't because they were by you, but that they were by a banned user who by definition was breaching the ban imposed by the arbcom by every edit. The same has been done to other secondary accounts of blocked or banned users. Such actions do not indicate that the edit is factually bad, but that the edit itself is invalid because it breaches the terms of the block or ban. If reverts aren't made it sends the message that a blocked user isn't really blocked and a ban by Jimbo or the arbcom isn't really a ban.

BTW the use of a secondary account is perfectly OK under Wikipedia rules under two conditions:

1. they are not being used to circumvent a block or ban (ie, the user with the secondary account is not banned or blocked)
2. they are not used to distort (ie, not used by a user to have multiple votes, etc).

By the way, you seem convinced that I was using a secondary user account.I never have done so deliberately. I only ever used another name once and that was by accident; my flatmate at the time also used my computer to edit Wikipedia. He had logged me off and logged himself in once, then left the computer. I came back, did edits as what I thought was myself and then discovered I was in as him. That was two years ago.

To edit on Wikipedia you'll need to get the clearance of the arbcom. Only they or Jimbo can vary or recind the existing one year ban. The chances of doing so would be increased if until that happens to obey the ban they imposed. They were extremely annoyed at the breaches of the ban and said so quite plainly in various places. You need to reassure them that you are genuine in your desire to come back and work as part of the community rather than war with it. If they are satisfied with your bona fides I certainly won't stand in the way. But I won't pretend to be happy at the treatment you gave me, the comments you made about me, or your treatment of other honorable users like Nixie.

Thom, aka FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Re:User:JJ.Johnson

Hey, just wanted an opinion on this JJ.Johnson (talk · contribs). He immediately railed against Bushytails for what was a good judgement call regarding a suspiciously new user account after the block of Biggie.P (talk · contribs) regarding a page the two have been active in. There were then a few irregularities on his user page including...

• Threats against various people and groups, including a "hitlist"

and

• Several Barnstars awarded to himself by himself apparently(5 out of the 6 barnstar awarders have no edits, the 6th is on his "hit list")

Can someone please check this out?I think he's violated WP:CIVIL and WP:SOCK, but since it's a tense situation, i'm willing to wait a bit. Karmafist 17:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Considering this edit, I'd think he's violated a lot more than just WP:CIVIL... Kirill Lokshin 17:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Very troubling indeed, if taken at face value. Comments on his user page certainly violate the essence of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and also violate the spirit of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. The "in my crosshairs" comment appears a direct violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. That said, the editor may just be accustomed to using violent language. I'll attempt to counsel him. --Durin 18:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd be willing to wager IHOP.yummy (talk · contribs) is the same user as well. Bushytails 20:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, this is odd. His user page says (well, said) I gave him a barnstar, which I didn't. I'm not sure what to make of this situation. We'll see.--Sean Black | Talk 20:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Also threatened to ban users for editing a page [17] chowells 22:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[18] He says he's sticking to one username now. I gave him a message, should be sorted out, hopefully.--Sean Black | Talk 05:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Old Dominion University

The article at Old Dominion University has been undergoing heavy vandalism lately and I would like to request it be protected for a bit to help the situation. I have had to revert identical vandalism coming from multiple IP addresses and sometimes registered users many times each day for the past week and a half at a minimum. I apologize if this is the wrong place for such a request, or if my request is some way out of line. I'm still a Wikipedia neophyte and just learning the ropes. Any help in this matter would be appreciated. TheChief (PowWow) 04:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I've added the article to the watchlist of the Counter-Vandalism Unit. Cheers! Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 01:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Repeated re-creations of deleted template

Fairly trivial, but could people please keep an eye on Template:Support? It's already been deleted five times by four different admins following a TfD vote in June that reached a 44-9 majority in favour of deletion [19], but User:Halibutt doesn't seem to want to accept the outcome. He migrated the template to the Commons a few weeks ago in an apparent attempt to get around the deletion vote, and is now migrating it back to en: and possibly other language wikis as well.

I've run into this issue a few times over the last few days in working on the deletion queue. If a user keeps recreating a deleted article or template, what is the best response? -- ChrisO 07:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

If something is deleted, and then reappears in exactly the same form, I think it should be a candidate for speedy deletion. However, if someone recreates something in a different format, perhaps we should run it through the vot again. --Gareth Hughes 08:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The criteria for speedy deletion do not specify how long does it take after the voting before the issue can be discussed again. I decided that, since more than 4 months have passed and most of the arguments against the template were proved absurd since then, recreation of the template is no harm to wikipedia. Especially that several wikipedians find the template useful and nice, and I don't see a reason why not to let them use it. Also, at the talk page of the template I explained why it is not eligible for speedy deletion. Halibutt 10:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, Chris' allegations that I migrated the template to the commons in order to circumvent the voting are both wrong and offensive since they assume my bad will. I believe an apology would be in place. In reality the template was created in commons in May by User:OldakQuill and, as can be seen in history section, I had no influence over it whatsoever. Moreover, the usage of this template in voting on commons' FPC is obligatory. Halibutt 10:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

If I'm wrong about why the template was migrated, then of course I apologise and I retract the allegation. But it should certainly stay deleted! -- ChrisO 00:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Policy is quite clear on this. If something is substantially identically recreated, under any title, it is a speedy. It remains a speedy unless a)it is not, in fact substantially identical (note the word substantially, not verbatim) or b)Deletion review has reversed the deletion. There's no statute of limitations, at least not by any precedent I can locate. DRV will generally allow a re-run of the AfD on an article is much time has passed and something has happened in the intervening period to make a difference to the deletion. In the case of this template, I don't see how any length of time will make a difference. So, if you want it to survive, try to get approval for a request at WP:DRV. -Splash^talk 10:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

A significan time has passed and I don't see how the arguments you use cannot be used to prove my point as well. Anyway, the criteria for speedy deletion do not mention such situation, in which case the vote should be repeated if someone really want it to be deleted or believes that wikipedia can only benefit from not allowing its users to use this template. Take note of what I wrote on the talk page. Halibutt 12:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus to delete a template identical to the one you have repeatedly re-created under the same name only 4 months ago. What links here only lists a handful of pages that refer to it, mostly discussions on whether it should exist or not. If you think the consensus has changed, you should bring it up at WP:VFU. Otherwise, it is a speedy delete, IMHO. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The CSD most certainly do mention such a situation: WP:CSD#G4 (note that the G's apply to templates as stated in the Templates section) reads, and I quote:

4. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy...

And anyway, rather than trying legalese means of not having it re-deleted, you would have a much higher chance of success (though still close to zero) if you followed the usual process of a listing at WP:DRV. We (not DRV, Wikipedia) do not undelete things just because there hasn't been a re-run of a debate. We undelete them to allow to be re-debated. Until you try WP:DRV and unless and until it approves the undeletion, the template and all its reincarnations are speedies, I'm afraid. -Splash^talk 12:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

And you have recreated it three times in the last 24 hours:

• 13:24, 27 October 2005 . . Halibutt (reinserted the template after someone deleted it against the [[WP:CFSD)
• 11:07, 27 October 2005 . . Halibutt (migrated from commons)
• 01:59, 27 October 2005 . . Halibutt (reinserted the template after User:ChrisO vandalized it.)

which looks to me like a breach of WP:3RR. User:Ulayiti has quite correctly added {{deletedpage}} and protected it. As I said above, go to WP:VFU (or whatever it calls itself these days) if you want it back. ALoan (Talk) 12:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Wasn't it proven it was just as much a server hog as templated signatures? - Mgm|^(talk) 18:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

In fact it was proven to the contrary, check the previous TfD discussion for details. Halibutt 14:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

email spamming

User:Muwaffaq is spamming users via the email function, re WP:RFA#Anonymous_editor, complaining his comments were removed there, and concluding

This pair [AE and Slimvirgin] is known for misusing wikipedia policies and admin powers in the past, for example, with reference to the Islamophobia article. Kindly look into the past credentials of User:Anonymous editor, and cast your vote.

this is not what I set the email thing up for. Also, with 30 oppose votes, there is no way AE's RfA is going to succeed now, so why bother? But this guy Muwaffaq appears to be such an obvious troll, and an embarassement to all editors critically editing Islam articles in good faith, that I must say I am surprised he is still with us (File:Antifundamentalism.gif should be deleted as trolling. A struck-out Turkish flag is for 'Antifundamentalism'? wth?). Baad 09:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

After a pile of requests I just went through the oppose votes on Anonymous editor's RFA. Muwaffaq = Deeptrivia, and I've blocked the former indefinitely as a sock used abusively and the latter for a week for using a sock on an admin poll.

There were not in fact any others I nailed. There's a few I'm wondering about but I'd need to know more about how often the networks in question change dynamic IPs. I probably won't chase it for the moment because none have used the socks for duplicate votes on the RFA that I could see.

I haven't looked through the 'support' votes and probably won't without a request from someone who isn't an abusive sockpuppet. - David Gerard 15:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I've been LJ commented with the message :\ — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yuber sockpuppets

Amren and Gerhist. The latter is a sleeper account, the former is the user I was referring to above — the "good" account. Going through records concerning Heraclius as possible match now. - David Gerard 16:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Help! We've been hax0red!

I tried to access wikipedia servers only to find this message waiting for me. The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties .it looks like some one has hax0red our server space, can somebody look into this--Lapsed canadian 21:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Or we could have been experiencing technical difficulties! Did you consider that possibility? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

We're having technical difficulties every day now... sadly, it's nothing new. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you should get bigger servers--Lapsed canadian 21:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yep. feel free to click on the donations link on the navigation pane. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you feel free to click on the donations link--Lapsed Canadian 21:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you I will. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's conclusive then - Wikipedia has been pwned! I for one welcome our new hax0r overlords - (it'll make a change from the God-King, anyway... -- ChrisO 21:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought the NPOV-compliant title was Deity-Monarch... Thryduulf 22:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Lol. encephalon 21:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

If we were hax0red, you wouldn't be typing that message. Go home. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

... please don't tell me that this was a real conversation. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Insane volume of page moves

THB (talk · contribs) seems to be moving an aweful lot of articles without any explanation or anything, even seems to be an almost brand new user so it seems a little odd--205.188.116.5 23:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

THB (talk • contribs • page moves • block • block log)

He appears to be changing capitalization and standardizing titles. Is there any specific pagemove you object to? -- Curps 23:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Nothing in particular, it just seems odd when someone makes hundreds of edits, all of them pagemoves--205.188.116.5 00:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

They look excellent to me. THB is being a good janitor and shouldn't end up here. All the titles I have seen needed changing. Well done THB, SqueakBox 00:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Somebody dumped a bunch of junky articles (that do have potential) into the nursing category. I created a subcategory "Nursing care plans" to clean up the "Nursing" category and am correcting the titles, adding a see also and changing the category, sorry, I thought it was obvious that the titles did not meet Wikipedia standards. The first guy who left me a message has a generic AOL user ID so I couldn't respond. Thanks! THB 00:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

PS it's only about 45-50 not "hundreds"!00:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It's curious that they were submitted by different users from different IPs (69.71.70.211 (talk · contribs) and 70.48.100.251 (talk · contribs) at least), but all clearly working together. I can't immediately find a source for them, but it's not unreasonable for us to query the copyright status of so many articles. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

According to Nursing care plan for skin infections, the text comes from "the International Biopharmaceutical Association copyright free materials". -- ChrisO 00:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Almost all of them refer to that. Interesting. They're not at all commercial except for the link and it's not a very commercial organization to begin with.00:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

BigDaddy, again, damnit

68.122.180.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), just follow the trail of random pages with the word Cindy in them, is there anything more permanent that can be done to about this troll--152.163.100.5 00:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Btw, since I obviously can't block anyone, someone might want to formalize that block I gave him, before I realizes he can still edit--152.163.100.5 00:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. -Greg Asche (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Blocked for a week. This user has said stuff along the lines of a master plan to take away wikipedia funding, which may just be ban worthy. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    • ^^Typed before GregAsche came in, but an edit conflict and a food run slowed me down ;-) Redwolf24 (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)^^^

Ah, well your block was first (didn't notice it when I went to block), and mine was shorter (only 24h) so you might want to re-block if you want your week one to stick. -Greg Asche (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable saying that the "master plan to take away wikipedia's funding" is ban worthy, since such an assertion is patently ludicrous. But certainly the user's other behavior more than makes it. Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 16:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

And using a sockpuppet or IP address to evade a ban issued by an admin is blockworthy too, right? Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 16:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandal bots

I blocked 152.163.100.0/24 for 24 hrs due to vandal bot. He's running on other ranges as well though. Feel free to do whatever you want. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-28 03:42

That's an AOL-range. I'm sure you'll get complaints about this in your inbox...

And I do think you are being overly agressive in your blocking. You block people with very few edits and without any warning at all. Shanes 04:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

That tends to be how I work. Read Wikipedia:Blocking policy. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-28 04:39

Vandalbots from AOL ranges are a "DANGER DANGER" thing and warrant the resulting collateral damage. A TOS violation complaint should also be made to AOL. Let the devs know too, on #wikimedia-tech or Wikitech-L — AOL-sourced vandalbots are a small degree of Doomsday scenario, owing to their stupidly broad proxy network - David Gerard 09:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

FARC incident

Hi all - not quite sure what to do with this one (it's not an area I've ever dealt with) but hopefully someone here will know. User:Hoary left a note on my user talk page mentioning problems on the FARC of Sicilian Baroque. Could someone have a look at it and see what needs doing? Thanks. Grutness...wha? 06:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Erin Zu controversy

There seems to be an active conflict over a group of inter-related articles: Erin Zhu, Min Zhu, Larvatus, Blixa Bargeld and WebEx that is a spill-over from other Internet sites and from real life. User:Maschina, who could be Erin Zhu herself, is trying to systematically remove information from Wikipedia but the other side, User:Larvatus, seems to have an agenda to push also. I reverted Maschina's edits because she removed other people's signed comments, category tags etc. perfectly normal material. Could someone please review this matter, I have to log out soon. jni 08:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

What a mess. I've slaped totaly totallydisputed on everything in sight. I suspect this may take some digging to get to the bottem of.Geni 10:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

User:AndriyK

His edits consist of nothing but endless spelling reverts, often anachronistic and grammatically incorrect. Many valuable editors have to stop working on new articles, for it takes time to follow his contributions and to clean up the mess he keeps introducing. Those who oppose him he calls "mafia" and "nazis", both on talk pages and external websites. Today he repeatedly vandalized St Volodymyr's Cathedral by deleting valuable and neutral-worded stuff. Please advise how to keep him at bay. --Ghirlandajo 15:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

In fact, my corrections conforme with the spelling used in Encyclopaedia Britannica. See, for instance, Chernihiv. My corrections also conforms the Wikipedia guidelaines for the geografic names that do not have common English spelling. They should be transliterated from the local language.

This was user Ghirlandajo who blamed me for nationalism just because I corrected spelling.

The stuff, I deleted from St Volodymyr's Cathedral article does not conform the Wikipedia Verifiability policy: none of the cited sources containe the deleted information. Inserting such kind of information is a typical example of using WP as a propaganda machine. I explained the deletion on the corresponding talk page.--AndriyK 18:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the problem is deeper. User:AndriyK came to Wikipedia recently and immediately started the crusade to rename things from names they are known in English to the modern Ukrainian names. While a couple of renames he made were correct, the rest weren't and were reverted by consensus. He persistently reintroduces them antagonizing everyone at Wikipedia. He was spared by me from 3RR ban (now I regret that). Most disgustingly, he continued his crusade outside wikipedia at internet forums where he started an unspeakable campaign of slander and smear against established users and seaking for more hands to help him in reverts wars. The latter resulted, so far, in two sockpuppet accounts already (user:Geminifromukraine and user:MaryMaidan ). For more, check his and my talk pages as well as his contributions. --Irpen 17:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

In fact, I do not change the name that are known in English. (There was only one such my mistake concerning Chernyakhov culture, but after normal discussion with another user I agreed with him when he provided creadible references. There was no conflict related to this my mistake.) Other my corrections either conform with creadible sources (like Encyclopaedia Britannica) or are not famouse enough to have common English names. All my corrections conform the WP guidelines concerning geographic names.

I have no connection to any sockpuppet accounts. User Irpen lies.

I indeed used forum to urge people to joint Wikipedia team to improve Ukraine-related content of the resource and to make the information more neutral and balanced.

There is a groop of users that tries to use Wikipedia as propaganda machine by inserting information to articles that is not confirmed by any sources and serves etirely for propaganda purposes. I indeed informed the forum readers about such facts and provided detailed examples of unverified information and propaganda. I believe, I have a right to fight agains abuse of Wikipedia in such a way.

There was no slander frome my side. All what I wrote at the forum can be confirmed by analysis of article histories.

In contrast, user Irpen tried several times to misinform other users and admins. I can provide examples.

I contributed to Wikipedia by writing a new article about Volhynians, by expandig essentially the section Origin in the article Ukrainian language, and section De-Russification in the article Ukrainization. I also corrected a lot of factural mistakes that were continuosly reinserted by Irpen.

The reason why users Ghirlandajo and Irpen started this campaign against me is that I became an obstacle for their attempts to use WP as a propaganda maichine. --AndriyK 19:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I let others judge by taking time to review edit histories. The question is whether time-consuming RfC and/or arbitration are the only venues to pin the rogue user... Thanks! --Irpen 19:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

User:AndriyK moved my articles on Mikhail of Chernigov and Oleg of Chernigov to Mikhail of Chernihiv and Oleg of Chernihiv, respectively. See Talk:Mikhail of Chernihiv, Talk:Oleg of Chernihiv, Talk:Igor Svyatoslavych for details. --Ghirlandajo 10:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

In fact, both moves were done legally, using the "move" button. Than User:Ghirlandajo tried to move one of the articles by cut&paste. (See below).--AndriyK 10:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Ghirlandajo vandalize the articles by inserting there inaccurate, unvarifiable or simply wrong information. See, for instance, Novgorod (disambiguation). User:Ghirlandajo intentionally distorted the information there (see [20]). In fact, Novhorod-Siverskyi is not a "border town". It is "45 km south from the Russian border". In my opinion, this kind of vandalism is more dangerous than the simple distruction of text. Such subtle mistakes are difficult to find and fix.--AndriyK 09:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

You were blocked yesterday for persistant reverting. Now back, turning all the Ukrainian-related articles into a mess. Don;t you find it strange that *all* of your edits have been reverted by about a dozen editors now, some of them neither Russian nor Ukrainian? --Ghirlandajo 11:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Ghirlandajo moved the article Mikhail of Chernihiv to Mikhail of Chernigov by "cut&paste". This is already fixed. But Admin's reaction will be needed if he continues. He vandalize the articles by inserting there inaccurate, unvarifiable or simply wrong information. See, for instance, Novgorod (disambiguation). User:Ghirlandajo intentionally distorted the information there (see [21]). In fact, Novhorod-Siverskyi is not a "border town". It is "45 km south from the Russian border". In my opinion, this kind of vandalism is more dangerous than the simple distruction of text. Such subtle mistakes are difficult to find and fix.--AndriyK 09:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Huh, you forget to mention that it was me who started and wrote Novhorod-Siverskyi, just like St Volodymyr's Cathedral, Mikhail of Chernigov, Oleg of Chernigov and numerous other articles. And it was me who said in the article that it was "45 km south from the Russian border". Your edits, on the other hand, are limited to wrecking the pages I and other users created. --Ghirlandajo 11:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

While the "Russian Architecture" thingie is a blatant POV, the problem of Chernihiv/Chernigov is rather a case of meritorical dispute and, IMHO, should be taken to normal dispute resolution procedure if this can't be solved on a talk page. Halibutt 10:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

We tried to discuss it on Portal talk:Ukraine/New article announcements, but he takes no heed and vandalized 60 pages after the discussion started. --Ghirlandajo 11:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

What, if anything, is the administrative action being asked for here? Most of this looks like normal content dispute. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

He was 48-h blocked for massive disruption (check log). The block already expired by now. As for normality, check his Friday contributions. Hopefully, the issue is over and no further action would be necessary as now the user is editing articles as a normal person. --Irpen 04:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Large-scale edit war

The user:AndriyK made a mess in no time he spent on Wikipedia: multiple violations of 3RR (1, 2), frivolous renamings of the articles (see log) and inside the articles (his contibutions), icluding multiple moves by cut and paste, unspeakable attacks on other users are only part of his actions. See his talk, his contibutions, his log, Irpen's talk, etc.

Today, user:AndriyK continued his edit war which includes hundreds of articles now. In his first hour of editing today, he vandalized more than 60 pages. Like yesterday, his edits will be gradually reverted by other users, but it takes infinite time and ruins history records for pages in question. He refuses to discuss the problem at Portal talk:Ukraine/New article announcements.

For instance, it took me infinite pains to write Russian architecture. Without any explanation, the vandal repeatedly moved it today to Architecture of Rus, although the page treats Imperial Russia and Muscovy. Now, there are two identical articles. I need your advise how to stop this nightmare. --Ghirlandajo 10:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

48 hours break to consider discussion with others and to read the manual of style - David Gerard 12:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion with others? Wasn't it tried??? See his talk, his contibutions, his log, Irpen's talk, etc. He is now carefully one step under 3RR at several articles. And his moving articles is a total disaster and a huge waste of time, because takes time, effort, several editors to undo. Check again his talk! --Irpen 14:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hope springs eternal in my heart that he will learn to work with others, despite the "I was robbed" email I just got from him - David Gerard 15:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

NAKEDNED and NakedNed2

NAKEDNED (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and NakedNed2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): did anyone else notice a pattern here? They've both been temporarily blocked; should these users be blocked permanently (blatant vandal accounts and sockpuppets of each other), or do we give them another chance? Newbie admin speaking. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• It seems that admins have different opinions on the matter. Some would block an account indefinitely right away if the only edits are vandalism. Others admins would give the account a second chance (especially if they suspect that the user is either a child who does not know any better or someone who might have a mental/physical disability)... but only a second chance. I personally go on a case by case basis. In this particular case, because this person created a sock puppet and blatantly vandalised user pages with attack messages, I would lean towards infinite blocks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Judge the person:

1. Has this editor done absolutely nothing that isn't clear, solid, absolute vandalism?
2. Or is this editor an absolutely solid waterproof sock of such a vandal?

If there's any doubt, don't ever block indefinitely.

If it's an IP (and I erred considerably on this myself in the early days) never block indefinitely without solid evidence. A few minutes is enough to stop most vandals, and the few really determined vandals will use proxies anyway. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

War at Prussian Blue

Well, Prussian Blue (American duo) has been unlocked, and user:ThompsJohn and user:hipocrite have already engaged each other in mortal combat. There are 3RRs filed or to be filed shortly, and I can't imagine things cooling down on their own. Just thinking someone might wanna head on over there now... and beat the rush.

Fox1 (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

No need yet.Geni 18:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I am happy to work with any reasonable editor to reach any reasonable compromise on the article in question. Please review the edit histories of the parties in question. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, except you are the revert-warring (against 3 editors) person here (Hipocrite's initial edit). ThompsJohn 21:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no controversy over Lynx being fucking hot though :-)!!!!Purpleavenger 06:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

corrupted article

guy fawkes > gunpowder plot seems to have been hacked. rshuey@rgv.rr.com

• It usually isn't too hard to hack a Wiki. m4d hax0r sk1llz!--Scimitar ^parley 20:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

rIPping (and ToSsing) vandals

Take a look at the sad history of Sealand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (and Empire of Atlantium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)). They're protected. A vandalbot lies in wait for them to be unprotected, and then as soon as that happens (within a very short time) it reverts to an earlier version, using a throwaway username. We've been through this cycle quite a few times already.

As a taunting gesture, the throwaway usernames are usually anagrams of any user who reverts it. Similar tactics have been used at a few other articles.

There is little doubt that this is a bot (its reaction times are too quick).

Unless we are willing to settle for these articles to be permanently protected (and any other articles the vandalbot takes a fancy to), we should take a more proactive approach.

Accordingly, I am hereby asking David Gerard to publicly reveal the IP addresses used by the vandalbot sockpuppets for all edits to Sealand within the past week or so.

According to Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy, data in the server logs can be released under certain circumstances, including (item 5):

Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targetting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers

So this would be entirely in accordance with the existing privacy policy.

This option (publicly revealing IP or rIPping a vandal) should not be used lightly, but should be available as an option in cases of the most disruptive vandalism that threatens the foundation of how Wikipedia works (and causing articles to be permanently protected certainly qualifies). This would serve as an alternative (or perhaps a supplement) to the earlier controversial proposal to give more users checkUser privilege, but with the crucial difference that the privacy of ordinary users (and even garden-variety vandals) would be as secure as before. Also see some earlier discussion).

As provided for in the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy, the IP information could serve as the basis for "ToSsing" the vandal (report a Terms of Service violation to the vandal's ISP). As things currently stand, this can only be done by David Gerard or developers, and they are often overworked and have little time to do the grunt work of drawing up an evidence page with links and timestamps and IP addresses and liaising with ISP's abuse contacts. If the IPs are public, however, this grunt work can be delegated to a "ToS committee" consisting of ordinary users (without checkuser privilege).

I believe that rIPping and ToSsing vandals can be a useful tool in deterring some persistent vandals. Note we would not be asking the ISPs to reveal the identity of the vandal — the worst consequence would be being dropped as a customer by the ISP, and that would be at the ISP's discretion. The ISP could also simply choose to issue a notification or warning to their customer. Note that many vandals use also their ISP accounts for everyday non-vandal Internet use, and the threat of potentially losing a longstanding e-mail address or having to explain loss of Internet connection to family members can be an effective deterrent.

Note, the above applies to disruptive vandals who use sockpuppets. However, in the case of vandals who use an anonymous IP range, the "rIP" part isn't necessary, the IP information is already publicly available and we can proceed directly to the "ToSs". I have a test case in mind, a "censorship" vandal who has been deleting sections from model-related articles on an almost daily basis since May and has ignored (and deleted) HMTL comments inserted into the articles warning him to stop and threatening to report him to his ISP. Since he has called the bluff, it seems necessary to followup.

-- Curps 20:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly endorse the above suggestion, but am not sure what an "anonymous IP range" is. ~~ N (t/c) 20:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC) Sorry for the confusion, I edited the paragraph to clarify. -- Curps 21:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

A range of anonymous IP addresses, like for instance 69.235.128.0 to 69.235.255.255. In the case of disruptive logged-in sockpuppets, we'd need the IPs to be revealed (rIP) in order to do effective ToS followup; however, in the case of disruptive vandals who use anonymous IP, we already have the publicly available IP information. So even while the "rIP" proposal is being debated we can go ahead and do the "ToS" part for anonymous IP vandals. -- Curps 20:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right, actually IMO - if it's an actual bot, it's so thoroughly sodomising the site policies it has no reasonable expectation of privacy. I'll see what I can find - David Gerard 20:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Curps, I've checked the addresses: 145.253.87.106 and 203.130.225.34. And they're going to do you no good at all, because they're open proxies (which I've just blocked as such), because this is Wik again, obsessing over country boxes. Bah! You'll see 'em in the block list ;-) - David Gerard 22:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the overall idea is "vandal accountability", and sometimes that should mean stepping outside the sphere of Mediawiki software functionality and into the real-world sphere. Even if we can't cover all the bases yet, we should at least take some readily attainable steps.

By the way, if it's Wik, he's escalating. Supposedly, he limited his earlier vandalism to admin-related pages in the Wikipedia space, which some claimed was a (warped?) way of showing his concern for Wikipedia and trying to get it to change its policies according to his prescriptions. But now he's using vandalbots for petty editwarring and reverting, not any kind of grand principles.

Sometimes I'm a bit concerned that the highest levels at Wikipedia are not a little more involved in day-to-day operational issues and preserving the basis of how Wikipedia operates and the integrity of its contents. It doesn't do much good to be guardians of abstract philosophical principles when those principles can be circumvented without consequences.

Can we contract a third-party open-proxy blocking service? Surely Wikipedia isn't the first or only website to cope with this issue. Nearly all online forums that allow users to post comments have to deal with the growing issue of comment spam, and open proxies for comment spam are part of the same issue as open relays for e-mail spam. -- Curps 01:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, we had Fvw's POPBot for a while, which worked really well. Unfortunately, he gave up and ordered his bot to unblock everyone it had blocked (I already reblocked three of these IPs after they vandalized). He indicated on his talk page that he would be willing to give the lists if someone else wants to take over (so, if you got his bot and started it again, it could be very useful). --cesarb 02:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

MKD location

Could someone please do something about the article Macedonian denar. Someone keeps redirecting it to silly locations. Macedonian denar is the name of this currency. What more does he want. Could someone please lock the page. REX 12:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect. As can plainly be ascertained by anybody, Macedonian can refer to a number of different countries/regions/peoples, so "Macedonian denar" is inappropriate and misleading. The name of the article should be the name of the specific country in question, followed by the name of the currency, so as to avoid any confusion. Similarly, we have United States dollar rather than American dollar. I don't see why this case should be any different.--Theathenae 12:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Lie! Search Google for Macedonian denar and then for FYROM denar. You'll see the difference. WP:NOR remember, you cannot rename a currency simply because you don't like it. REX 12:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Not really, we have Swiss Franc rather than Swiss Confederation Franc, we used to have Greek drachma rather than Hellenic Republic dreachma. Anyway, the CIA World Factbook calls it Macedonian denar as does the World Bank. Macedonian denar is this currency's name. This article should be at Macedonian denar. It is its real name. REX 12:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact remains that Wikipedia does not call this country (simply) Macedonia, because that is the name of a region spanning several countries - of which the denar is the currency of only one. The reason that we have United States dollar rather than American dollar is that there are other countries that can and do call themselves American. The same disambiguation should apply here.--Theathenae 12:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The World Bank would appear to disagree with you Theathenae. Macedonian denar is this currency's name. Why don't we move Euro to EU Euro? There are other countries in Europe without the Euro. I advise you to read Wikipedia:Naming conflict, where you will see that Macedonian denar is the appropriate name. REX 13:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

All reading this will be unsurprised I gave REX and Theathenae 24-hour blocks for 3RR violation for their move-wars on this page. If 3RR doesn't mention page moves, it probably should. I also protected the article from moves, pending something resembling consensus over where to put it - David Gerard 16:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• FYROM denar is now on RM. And looking at the move log, the article was originally Macedonian denar but Theathenae was the first one who arbitrarily decided to rename it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't tell you how little I care what it's called ;-) - David Gerard 19:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

When one of the options is obviously right, and the other wrong, the accuracy of the encyclopedia should come into the game, just a little bit, right? ;) Pcb21| Pete 10:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes. But not for administrative purposes! - David Gerard 11:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Well I'd like it to not be arbitrarily moved around, so I nominated it on WP:RM. Looks like a good call. It got massive support and was moved back to it original location. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It is completely ridiculous to accept any other name than the official for the Macedonian denar. Wikipedia should not allow the Greek POV pushers to take another hostage and push their assimilative POV. Macedonian^(talk) 01:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master (talk · contribs) banned from conspiracy theory

Zen-master is currently on probation after an arbcom ruling. After breaking the 3RR on conspiracy theory, and being uncivil, I have banned him from the article for a month following the proscribed guidelines. Since there is no block involved, and it's only one article, I guess we're going to need the admins to be aware and enforce the ban with a block afterwards if he violates it. Note that he may still use the talk page. If any admin feels this was improper, or would like to change the length of time, I would be happy to discuss it. I've never done this before (and in fact, I can't find evidence that the relatively new probation guidelines have ever gone into effect). Dmcdevit·t 18:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I mentioned this to Kelly Martin on #wikipedia just now and she said "that probation measure was a good call", so you appear to be on the right track ;-) - David Gerard 19:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Is Zen Master on probation for all articles, or just those that relate to "race and intelligence"? It isn't clear from the arbitration ruling. But since two arbitrators seem to agree with the enforcement, I guess ZM's current ban is OK. Rhobite 00:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master placed on probation

1) Zen-master (talk · contribs) is placed on probation for one year, and during that time may be banned from any article which relates to race and intelligence if in the opinion of any administrator his editing is disruptive. This may include the talk page of race and intelligence, see Wikipedia:Probation.

Passed 4 to 1 at 16:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

As Conspiracy theory (unless Zen-master has somehow converted it into one) has nothing to do with race and intelligence, the ban is not based on the authority of the decision. Perhaps it was the right thing to do, but it is not authorized. I wrote Wikipedia:Probation and after some refinement and discussion among the arbitrators we began using it. (to respond to (and in fact, I can't find evidence that the relatively new probation guidelines have ever gone into effect).) Fred Bauder 00:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hm :) Guess this makes me a rouge admin. In all honesty, I looked at the admin enforcement requests page for Zen-master and and found: "Should any sysop feel that it is necessary that Zen-master be banned from an article where they are engaged in edit warring," and so assumed it was for any article. I'm quite surprised that Zen-master didn't contest it or point me to that decision. If anyone feels it was improper, I guess we should lift the ban, whatever, I'd like some more admin input now. But I do think going back to apply a 3RR block would be improper now, as Zen-master has stopped edit warring, thinking he was banned from the article. (And my "ever gone into effect" was meant to mean I can't see that a banning from an article has ever been done. Has it?) Dmcdevit·t 01:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, ZM has participated in edit warring in Conspiracy theory-related articles. (See also AIDS conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)). I also note that he seems to mostly engage in talk-page arguments and rarely makes any substantive edits to articles. -Willmcw 01:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

That may be, but we shouldn't arbitrarily (if accidentally, in this case) extend ArbCom rulings. The phrasing of the ruling is very clear. A new Arbitration case can always be brought. -Splash^talk 01:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it may look like edit warring I admit, but when I try to make changes/improvements I am often thwarted. My talk page discussion points are misdirected away from or ignored. No one has justified the recent (1-2 weeks ago) massive changes to Conspiracy theory and no one has responded to my challenge to explain what I interpret to be a highly biasing and unscientific method of presentation of race and intelligence. Do I interpret correctly that I am in limbo as to whether I can edit Conspiracy theory currently or is the block lifted? zen master T 01:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess right now, there are no editing restrictions on you. Sorry for the confusion. You may edit the article. If however, you chose to go back and revert again (since I think your last revert was reverted since then) I will be convince that a 3RR block is necessary. Right now, I'm going to assume good faith and wait and see. Dmcdevit·t 03:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

What to do with a possible sockpuppet?

PlayersPlace (talk · contribs) looks a bit too much like a sockpuppet of Hogeye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): first edit is just after Hogeye came back from a long pause in edit warringediting, and is a revert to Hogeye's prefered version, complete with edit summaries; all edits are to either Anarchism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) or Talk:Anarchism (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Anarchism|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); and the edits to the talk page are to show support to Hogeye's side.

Should the account be indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet? If it should, I'd prefer if someone else did the block, because I might be considered a bit biased about this user. --cesarb 21:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Never indefinitely block a possible sockpuppet after a few edits, plus sockpuppets are allowed unless they're used to game systems like RfA, AfD, 3RR... Hogeye isn't banned, just blocked. For people who ARE prohibited from sockpuppets, see WP:BU. Redwolf24 (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hogeye isn't blocked, his 1-month block expired a few months ago. If the sockpuppet should not be indefinitely blocked, should both the user and the sockpuppet be blocked for 3RR? Or is the evidence insufficient? --cesarb 21:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Repeated wholesale removal of info from St. Volodymyr's Cathedral

user:Andrew Alexander and user:AndriyK (recently sanctioned) repeatedly remove large chunks from St. Volodymyr's Cathedral. I urge a neutral admin to look at the issue. If the articles needs protection, please make sure the inclusive version is protected because it is not a dispute between two version but between a version and nothing. I leave it up to others, whether the user:Andrew Alexander needs to hear from the third party or be sanctioned. --Irpen 01:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• I am second to request somebody neutral to look onto this issue. User:Andrew Alexander is quite annoying in his quest to censor others by just blanking the section, whithout any alternative suggestions. IMHO the article should be protected for a while. abakharev 01:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Although the exact facts were contradictory we have manadged to downscale them to a point where we all agree on. Nevertheless the behaivour of the user is shocking, as he repeatedly removed compleate paragraphs of facts, facts that after much editing became a true representation of Neutral events. I feel this is unacceptable for a respected international encyclopedia. Kuban kazak 11:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

In fact, the above users did not provide any creadible sources confirming what they claim in the article. (They refer to the site, where everybody can publsi anything s/he whant.) Moreover, user:Andrew Alexander provided plenty of references dispriving the claim.

The paragraph is formulated in propaganda style, pushing fundamentalistic Russian-Orthodox POV, instead of NPOV.

There is still going discussion whether this paragraph belongs to the scope of the article. The article is about the Cathedral, not about controvercies and inter-Church relations in Ukraine.--AndriyK 16:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice if somebody of experienced and respectable users would explain Irpen and Kuban kazak, that it is extremely important to base the Wikipedia articles on creadible sources and to avoid any propaganda issues.--AndriyK 16:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

36, 36 times this article was vandalized by the people mentioned, credible sources have been provided, from both parts of the conflict, yet these two users seem to focus all of their energy on barbaric deletions of paragraphs. Moreover, one should also notice some of the expressions that they have allowed themselves to use in the discussion page of the article. I think that it is time that administrators fully intervene and bring this to the attention of the whole board of wikipedia authors. Kuban kazak 21:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

To this I would like to add that user:Andrew Alexander who vandalized the article for dozens of times, every time makes small sneaky changes in the article to avoid 3RR when no content change is done at all. This is a typical example. --Irpen 21:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Admins, please have a look at the article on St Volodymyr's Cathedral. Less than two weeks ago this was a nicely-written article about the Cathedral, about the architecture, mosaics, frescoes, the history how the Cathedral was built etc. (see the last version of 00:03, 20 October 2005 by Mzajac [22])

At 15:06, 22 October 2005 User:Kuban kazak decided to use this preaty neutral and nice article to push his POV that is far from being neutral (see his contribution [23]). This stared a long-lasting edit war.

Even if his insertion were neutral (this was definitelly not the case) this is a serious question whether it is legal to use architecture, art, music etc. articles for advertising (or bringing attention to) political issues. Does it improve the Wikipedia content? Does it make the work of editors more productive? Is it not an abuse of Wikipedia for propaganda purposes?

It looks like this is a more broad issue. Inserting political stuff into initially quite neutral, nice and polpular articles is quite common in Wikipedia. I admit that the question is not simple. Sometimes political stuff is important and the article looks incomplete without it. But in most cases the politiocal stuff is irrelevant and just force the reader to spend time for reading the information s/he was not actually looking for. In my opinion, a serious discussion is needed.

Irpen proposed to lock the article. It would be indeed nice to protect the article in its politics-free form until the discussion is over.

On the other hand, if User:Kuban kazak and Irpen consider the political stuff important they can write a separate article on the subject. Is it not a reasonable compromize? It would be however nice if somebody of experienced and respectable users would explain Irpen and Kuban kazak, that it is extremely important to base the Wikipedia articles on creadible sources and to avoid any propaganda issues.--AndriyK 07:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes I did originally wrote the article in hope that someone would water it down, which is what happened. Next since when can articles about buildings and structures cannot have references to events which proved quite important in later development in history, in our case the religious situation in Ukraine. The sources provided by me and Irpen, as well as a few others were based on research projects and on eyewitness accounts from BOTH SIDES of the conflict. Kuban kazak 12:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

In fact, Kuban kazak did not wrote the article. One can easily check it. What he did, he inserted a propaganda paragraph.

The mentioned event was of no importance. Sabodan (pro-Moscow Church leader) gathered a crowd. They went to the Cathedral, saw the police guiding it and went back. That's all story. There is no reason to devote to this unimprotant forteen-year-old event 30% of the article on more that hundred-years-old building. There are dozens of such kind of events every year in every large city.

If Kuban kazak is interested in "religious situation in Ukraine" why not to suggest him to write an article on this, instead of spoiling existing articles by irrelevant stuff?--AndriyK 13:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

In case you guys haven't gotten it, yet, you need to take this through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Not to administrator's noticeboard, and not to vandalism in progress. This is a content dispute. You guys need to work together to achieve WP:NPOV.

This argument does not belong here.

And let me add that as a one time visitor to the beautiful country of Ukraine, I look forward to having more and better articles about it here, fairly representing all points of view. Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 14:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buis

On the above forum a thread has been started encouraging forum users to come to Wikipedia and vote to keep this article. I dare say this hasn't been as successful as the poster dared hope, as comments left there include (paraphrasing) "why bother" however I did find the comment "small forum brings down Wikipedia" rather amusing. One that's worth watching, I feel. -- Francs2000 11:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Agriculture = User:TheChief

I've blocked TheChief indefinitely as an attack sockpuppet of Agriculture and blocked the latter for 48 hours. Any edits by TheChief are edits by Agriculture - David Gerard 15:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• I see no evidence of recent personal attacks made by TheChief (talk · contribs), and to the best of my knowledge it is legitimate to have multiple accounts. I've unblocked Agriculture for this reason. Radiant_>|< 15:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I am not TheChief. But actions like this prove Wikipedia is run by the trolls and vandals and their best friends. I am being targeted for my support for an RfAr on Tony Sidaway, and this is the last straw. I'm solving the problem by leaving. Agriculture 16:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    • i.e., you are upset you were caught - David Gerard 00:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Agriculture was blocked for creating a sockpuppet in order to (a) evade a negative reputation earned through repeated uncivil behavior (his contribution history is full of it, including plastering "FUCK YOU" and "SCREW YOU" in 30 point bold across his user page, and that's just for starters) and (b) create a false appearance of community support for sanctions against another editor in an RfC. These are both impermissible uses of multiple accounts. Radiant!, it was inappropriate of you to unblock Agriculture in this case without first consulting with David Gerard. Please refrain from abusing your administrative authority in the future. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I disagree with the first point, and so does our sockpuppet policy - if someone has a bad reputation and wishes to start fresh, that would hardly be an inappropriate reason for a new account. The second point is moot since it is not actually possible to get sanctions in a request for comment. Radiant_>|< 16:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
        • It may not actually be possible to get sanctions in an RFC, but the email you sent today seems to imply otherwise - David Gerard 00:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Radiant!, the sockpuppet policy in no way supports the use of sockpuppets to escape a negative reputation, although it does not explicitly forbid it. However, it does explicitly forbid using sockpuppets "for purposes of deception, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position." Which is exactly what Agriculture did on Tony's RfC. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC) (answered at the bottom - Radiant_>|< 19:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC))
    • Agriculture: are you seriously objecting to Radiant unblocking you? --- Charles Stewart 16:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The fact that User:TheChief was the same editor was cogent information to reader's of that accounts output, and the accounts relationship was not explained before it was discovered by DG, which is classic sockpuppet behaviour. The intent was clearly to amplify Agriculture's voice more loudly that could be achieved with honestly signed edits. I'd say the ban was richly deserved. --- Charles Stewart 16:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I have not objected to the ban (or technically, permablock) on TheChief. Radiant_>|< 16:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I've no objection to either block (if the allegation is true). Whatever the rules say, sockpuppetry on an RfC is detestible, and in any case since the Agriculture account was still active, this would not be not an example of a 'fresh start'. However, what is the evidence for sockpuppetry? Agriculture denies it, and without evidence we should 'assume good faith'. Was a checkuser perfomed? And if so, why, given that the User:TheChief has neither vandalised not AFAIK been disruptive. I'd hate to think this was a fishing exercise because he was involved in a contravertial RfC? --Doc (?) 18:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Welcome to CheckUser. It's a developer level function, for maintaining the integrity of the site. The issue is what information is revealed (per privacy policy), not whether anyone's looking. Agriculture doesn't get to say "but you didn't touch third base" - David Gerard 00:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• I do see some editing similarities, but given the severity of the sanctions, and the fact that agriculture seems to have left the project, I do think that all relevant evidence of sockpuppetry must be made public by David. Editing similarities CAN happen by coincidence - certainly, many of the pages on Chief's contribs are ones to which I've also made edits. Fawcett5 18:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I hope you realise that making public "all relevant evidence of sockpuppetry" would in fact be a comprehensive violation of the Wikimedia privacy policy. You can't seriously expect that no-one will ever look at the logs of your activity, but you can expect that they won't be revealed except as necessary - David Gerard 00:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I am willing to contemplate that possibility that TheChief is a meatpuppet, rather than a sockpuppet, recruited and directed by Agriculture to bolster his case against Tony. However, the use of meatpuppets to accomplish a goal which would prohibited if accomplished by sockpuppets is also prohibited by the sockpuppet policy Radiant! so kindly linked earlier. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• I am aware that WP:SOCK forbids sockpuppets "for purposes of deception, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position." However, the only place on the RFC where this "illusion of broader support" occurs is that they both endorsed the "Outside view by Friday". That is all. Does that warrant those blocks? I think not.

  Plus edits in support of Agriculture in many other places. The intent was not ballot stuffing, but "to create the illusion of broader support for a position", for which disciplinary measures are explicitly prescribed. If the claim is that the blocks are unwarranted because the length of the blocks are too harsh (I do not think so), that is something else. --- Charles Stewart 19:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• David Gerard says (on the RFC) that he did an IP check. Doc Glasgow raises a good point though when he asks why, since I have not seen vandalism, personal attacks or disruption from User:TheChief. Radiant_>|< 19:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Why not? Signing an RFC twice is not acceptable. I don't see a fifth-amendment right to be secure in your abusive sockpuppets writen on the wall somewhere. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Because it's circular reasoning. Sockchecks should only be made with valid cause before the check, and that the RFC was signed twice by the same person is only apparent after the check. The reason I'm somewhat skeptical here is that in an unrelated case less than two weeks ago, somebody accused David of sockchecking without proper cause. I'm not saying that there's truth to that accusation because I don't know, but in these two cases I would appreciate it if David would explain his view. Radiant_>|< 22:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Why should sockchecks only be made with valid cause before the check? If the check turns out bad behavior, dosen't that verify the check? Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
        • And if the check doesn't turn up bad behaviour, all David has to do is fail to disclose the fact that he checked, and nobody ever knows- in other words, you're advocating that he should have the ability to check any of our IP addresses for no reason whatsoever.--Scimitar ^parley 23:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
          • You got it. Do you have something to hide? Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
            • There are serious problems with that way of doing things. It can be safely assumed, for instance, that a certain percentage of sockpuppets do get through the checks and manage post to RFC/AfD/RFA-style debates. Now, catching those people would be good; but if we create a relatively small group of users and empower them to perform checks based entirely on their own judgement, then that will have a lopsided effect on debates that those users are involved in. Users are human; when involved in a contentious debate, even the most careful person is naturally going to be faster to spot signs of sockpuppetry from people they disagree with. This becomes even more problematic when combined with the risk of false positives. I've had several nasty run-ins with sockpuppeteers myself, and I certainly think there needs to be policies in place to catch them, but there also needs to be transparency in enforcing those policies. At the very least, there should be a requirement that users be informed when they've been checkuser'd, with the name of whoever checkusered them and the complete justification for the check, just like with blocking. This is only fair, since it gives them a chance to take issue with it if they feel it was inapproprate; possibly there could even be a requirement to inform them beforehand. There should probably also be public checkuser logs of some form, if there aren't already. But most importantly, there needs to be firmer policies indicating when a sockpuppet check is approprate. The only explaination I've heard from David Gerard so far is that an ArbCom member requested it; while that is enough to satisfy the bare minimum of our privacy policy, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of allowing ArbCom to request IP checks outside of their normal duties in resolving cases, at least without providing any warning or explaination. They were appointed and elected to serve as a final court of appeal, not a vigilante. Maybe we do want them to serve as a vigilante (to some extent, admins are already supposed to do that, and it does seem to work out); but there should be more discussion of it first. --Aquillion 00:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
              • See m:Talk:Proposed CheckUser Policy. There are damn good reasons not to notify people they've been checked, basically as if no information is revealed then their privacy is not in fact violated. You can't seriously expect that sysadmins charged with running a site will never look at what you do on that site - David Gerard 00:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I check wherever I see a need to. I don't break the privacy policy. Next question? - David Gerard 00:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not yet convinced that David actually has the goods. He admits on his talk page that the IPs DIDN'T match [24], but rather claims that because they are from the same city (!), that one was from work and another from home. Seems like quite a leap to me as the basis for applying an indefinite and 48 hr ban and labelling a long time contributor as employing a sock. Fawcett5 20:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • For obvious reasons I cannot in fact set out the details. At this point you get a take it or leave it - David Gerard 00:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • m:We sincerely hope that you will refrain from being a penis. Thanks, The Management Phil Sandifer 00:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Can you set out non-specific details that would lay some doubts to rest? Obviously you can't say which city the IPs originate from, but how large (to the nearest million, or the nearest hundred thousand if less than a million) is it? If both IPs are from Toronto or London, for example, that doesn't say as much; if both are from Parma, Ohio, then it's a bit more suspicious. Again it's obvious that you can't say exactly where the IPs came from, but was one from somewhere (corporate office, institution, whatever) that's probably a workplace and the other from an ISP that provides home service? None of this is personally identifiable data, so there should be no problem with releasing it.
    • I have yet to see evidence that CheckUser has been abused, here or elsewhere, but the fact of conflict between the checker and the checkee in this case indicates a need for greater scrutiny, in my opinion. —Charles P. (Mirv) 01:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Er, what conflict between the checker and the checkee? I had thankfully very little interaction with Agriculture before this. What did you have in mind? - David Gerard 14:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
      • It seems to me that two contributors with near-identical edit patterns from the same city, one coming through a home ISP the other through a work ISP is kind of a slam-dunk case regardless of the city. Phil Sandifer 01:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes indeed, but the main overlap between their contributions relates to a conflict with Tony Sidaway—and just look at how many people have commented on that. If the city is a large one, it's quite conceivable that two people from it could both take similar positions on an issue; that's why I'm asking. (And, to be clear, my doubts about sockpuppetry are not strong, but I do want to see a little bit more evidence before making a decision one way or another.) —Charles P. (Mirv) 01:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
          • You're not going to get any more evidence. The privacy policy forbids me telling you any such information - David Gerard 14:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
          • No, actually, that's not the main overlap. There is substantial overlap between the topics edited by Agriculture and by his sock puppet, TheChief. They both seem to concentrate on articles related to the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, and other topics relevant to that region of Illinois. And the style of their edits and especially their edit summaries is very similar. And the edit times notch rather nicely (Agriculture mainly edits in the morning and evening, and TheChief during the day). Kelly Martin (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
            • The former indicates nothing; if they do live in the same area (I'm assuming that it's the Springfield area, but I don't know for sure), it's not the least bit surprising that they'd both edit topics related to it. However, I agree that the timing of their edits is suspicious, and if they are both editing from the Springfield area (as I assume they are), then if one's not a sockpuppet of the other then they probably know each other from outside Wikipedia. —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
            • Kelly, you come from Illinois yourself. Are you sure those aren’t just the edits youv’e noticed? Susvolans ⇔ 14:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
              • I've examined the contribution histories of both editors in detail. I don't edit, or even look at, articles related to Illinois on any regular basis (with the exception of Chicago, Illinois, Galesburg, Illinois, and Quincy, Illinois, all of which I have watchlisted), and I discovered this pattern because I was already suspicious of TheChief for reasons unrelated to his edit pattern. Basically, I had a hunch. Turns out that hunch was right. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• I have every confidence that if David has user checkuser, he will have done so for good reason and in good faith. However, this underlines for me the importance of having a clear policy on checkuser, particularly if the number of people with the facility gets increased. --Doc (?) 22:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Basically, they won't be setting out their working, if that's what you're asking for - David Gerard 00:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • No, I'm not looking for that - if folk are entrusted with this tool then they are trusted (as we do you). But the above discussion shows doubt as to what would or would not be a legitimate use. I think that we need a clear policy to avoid doubt (are fishing trip OK as per Hipocrit?)- and then we trust that it will be followed. --Doc (?) 01:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Okay, since TheChief was putting together on a request for arbitration, I can understand that the ArbCom would have had reasons to call for a sockcheck, and that there is plausible evidence to show that this was, in fact, sockpuppetry. However, I do believe this underlines the principle that we should have two or three additional sockcheckers, because that would allow people to get a second opinion on the matter. Quis Custodiet Ipso Custodes. Radiant_>|< 12:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I can tell you now that there is no way on earth additional checkers will have the time or the inclination to routinely rerun checks - David Gerard 14:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is everybody so sensitive about IPs? Who except vandals and trolls would have concerns about people knowing their IP? Here is mine: 81.63.114.184 what will happen now? Will you come and kick in my door? As WP guidelines say: If you have real-life disadvantages to fear as a consequence of your editing (such as, you live in China, or edit on company time) --- consider refraining from editing altogether. We will not be liable if your IP leaks (e.g. because you get logged out due to server lag. Every regular contributor will have made accidentially logged-out edits at some point), anyway. Baad 12:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

IPs are powerfully sensitive information because of the possibility of harassing an editor, e.g. via their employer if they dare edit from work - David Gerard 13:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I have been emailed by TheChief and asked to post his response to this debate. This link leads to his talk page. I'm not going to venture an opinion either way right now.--Scimitar ^parley 15:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• This issue is bigger than just the current kerfuffle about Agriculture and the Chief. What frustrates me about this whole situation is how the current system lets one person act as judge, jury, and executioner in what amounts to a secret court. There is no transparency, no accountability, and no way to ensure that consensus is really being upheld. Many users apparently trust David, and that is fine, I have no particular reason not to myself. However, the fact that David had staked out an opposite position to Agri/Chief in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 2 prior to blocking them, calling the whole Rfc "ridiculous" has, on the face of it, the appearance of a potential conflict of intrest. This is especially true insofar as David seems to have bent his normal policy of only running checkuser on users subject to Arbcom review. Please note that I'm not suggesting that there was any actual wrongdoing, or that David shouldn't have done what he did, I'm just saying it looks really bad, even if there is substantial merit to his claims. This is the opposite of the openness that should characterise wikipedia, and it leaves a bad taste in everyones mouth when pronouncements are made to 'take it or leave it'. Why at the very least are other members of the arbcom not allowed the same checkuser privilege? Regards, Fawcett5 16:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• • I actually tend to agree with this statement. I immediately got a bad vibe about this block specifically because of David Gerard's involvement in Tony's RFC; upon reviewing the evidence, I tend to agree the block is justified. It just looks really bad.--Scimitar ^parley 16:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • I don't have any answers as to what to do about it, since I do think that the checkuser function is something that should be closely guarded, but I do agree with Fawcett5 and Scimitar that although the block seems valid, David's participation is Tony's RFC makes me wish someone else had been able to do the checking and blocking. -- DS1953 ^talk 17:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Double-checking DG

Regarding David Gerard's comment on his talk page: "Several emails from people wondering about this new and poisonous user, IPs from the same city. Looks like one was work and one was home - David Gerard 17:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)"

I took a glance at both users' edits and this edit shows that they are not likely to be work and home of the same person:

• (cur) (last) 01:04, 23 October 2005 Agriculture (→My 2 cents)
• (cur) (last) 00:59, 23 October 2005 TheChief (→My 2 cents)

Five minute difference between both users edits on the same page. (Tony's talk page.) In case this was a pattern using two connections I checked for any other similar "talk to myself" discussions on tony's page and found none. At most these two users communicate by phone, email, or IM. At least... they don't know each other. - Tεxτurε 19:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Texture wrote: In case this was a pattern using two connections I checked for any other similar "talk to myself" discussions on tony's page and found none. What does this mean? --- Charles Stewart 19:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it’s time to unblock. The sockpuppetry charge looks distinctly threadbare. Susvolans ⇔ 08:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Just looking at this one. Crikey, I didn't spot that. One IP is a broadband account, the other is a university account. You may be correct. - David Gerard 12:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that I can edit through my work access (which may, under certain circumstances, appear to be in Los Angeles or Dallas as well as downtown Chicago) and through my home broadband access (which will appear to be in suburban Chicago), at the same time. If I can manipulate such circumstances, there's no reason to believe that others might not be able to do so as well. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

VPN, yeah. But I don't feel safe in this one any more myself. See bottom - David Gerard 12:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Doubting pupsocketry allegations

• It seems to me that the right way to check the claims is for those who doubt DG's word to nominate their local friendly admin to go over the case with him. I have full confidence in him, I think this is just the next installement of the Get Tony soap opera, so I won't nominate anyone, but User:The Cunctator has a good track record with taking up some similar cases, and has/used to have the ear of our imperious leader. --- Charles Stewart 17:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone really doubts David's word- it's just (I think) fairly obvious that he's slightly biased, and at first glance this looked like cabalism. Subsequent research seems to confirm that his block of TheChief was justified, but not everybody bothers doing subsequent research. Until I did, I was worried myself, and I'm an admin involved in the RfC.--Scimitar ^parley 17:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• As I understand it, the evidence amounts to 1) they do not have the same IP, but their IPs indicate that they are comming from connections in the same city; 2) they have edited a number of the same topics; 3) their style of edit summery is similar; 4) their log in times typcicall correspond in that one typically logs in during the day, and the other during the evening, in the area that their IPs indicate ther location to be; 5) both have taken strong issue with Tony Sideway and many of his actions and attitudes. As against this, 1) a city is not a small place and there are otehr wikipedia users in that general area; 2) editing on topics related to the area one resides is not all thst unusual; 3) TheChief has denied being a sockpuppet; 4) The two IDs took ratehr differetn attitudesa during Tony's RfC. -- All that sounds to me look good grounds for suspicion, but hardly a well-proved case. Since David G has not claimed that the IPs are identical, having soemone else check would hardly strengthen the case -- one can belive that everything he has said is strictly truthful (as i do) and that he acted in complete good faith (as I presume) and still feel that the above is not sufficient evidence to finally conclude that TheChief is a sockpuppet. DES ^(talk) 18:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • You missed grounds (6): TheChief's edits consisted of nothing but amplification of claims made by Agriculture. This is not normal behaviour of real editors. Furthermore, the defence claim #3 of not being a sockpuppet was made by Agriculture who claimed that he was not a sockpuppet of TheChief: a strange way of wording it, but one that appeals to the barracks-room-lawyer mentality of sockpuppetteers, who then later claim that what they said *was* true, it was TheChief that was the sockpuppet of Agriculture. It sounds daft, but sockpuppetteers really do this sort of thing. I am convinced that (i) the public evidence shows that TheChief is not a legitimate editor, and (ii) DG's claims cements the connection to Agriculture. --- Charles Stewart 18:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • On User Talk:TheChief there is a denial which seems to be made by the person logged in with the ID of TheChief. For what that is worth. So each has denied being a sockpuppet, which of course deosn't prove that either statement is true. DES ^(talk) 19:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• • While the evidence is wholly circumstantial, I would point out two similarities that I believe are fairly convincing that at least some direct connection exists between the two editors:

(1) On August 14, 2005 User:Agriculture created Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. state capitols. On August 17, 2005 User:TheChief made his first edit on Wikipedia. The following day, August 18, as his 12th edit on Wikipedia, User:TheChief joined Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. state capitols. To date, there are only three members of that project, so it is very odd that two of them are User:Agriculture and User:TheChief.

(2) Both edited extensively at Old Dominion University which User:Agriculture described as "a school of low academic standing." [25]. Since that university is geographically far removed from Champaign-Urbana, it is very odd that two editors based there would independently take such interest in "a school of low academic standing."

DS1953 ^talk 18:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Policy on use of checkuser, and logs

• I do think there should be a clearer policy on when people are and are not supposed to use the checkuser tool. Current policy is rather vague. Some sort of public log would IMO be a good idea also, but we need to be careful or the log would be a worse problem than the thing it logs, as it could violate privicy if too much info were logged. DES ^(talk) 18:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • A log that says something like: "User:Checkerdude checks the IP address of User:PossibleSock"?--Scimitar ^parley 18:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think a log is really neccessary - we trust David, and we must trust anyone subsequently given this power. A log may prejudice innocent parties, especially if the result is a 'not-proven' verdict. However, I would like a policy on the use of checkuser, so that when the checkinguser is challanged as to why he checked, he can point to the policy, and say 'User:X did action Y (e.g. filing an RfAr - getting blocked for vandalism, editing simmilar to a banned user), and under section Z of the policy that entitles me to check'. Also, it would enable innocent people to know that they would not be checked unless they were doing certain things.Doc (?) 18:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
      • We trust admins to delete pages and even images, we trust beaurcrats to promote admins, but in each case there is a log. Trust, but verify. I don't quite see what prejudice a log such as User:Scimitar suggests would do that staements on talk pages such as "I think User:Foo is a sock of User:Bar." don't already do. There is no policy against making such statements as far as i know, (people certianly make them often enough) and the log entry merely shows that User:Checkerdude thought such a claim worth looking into. But in iny case I agree with User:Doc glasgow there there should be a policy on when this tool should, and should not, be used, and that use outside of situations covered in the policy should not be considered acceptable. DES ^(talk) 19:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Two additional points: having such a log would improve transparency, which isn't a bad thing, as long as the IP addresses aren't being revealed. My second point has to do with the future- at some point (if not already) Wikipedia will be too big to limit the checkuser function to David Gerard. At that point, it's perfectly conceivable that we'd have a few select people using checkuser on a relatively constant basis, and having the log would make it easier to implement this should it become neccessary.--Scimitar ^parley 19:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, the wikiway of approaching this would be to gain consensus for running a checkuser with a "Votes for checkuser" page that would gather preliminary evidence that would suggest whether or not such a check is justified. If, following a period, a consensus exists that checkuser is justified, then it should be run, but not otherwise. A report about the general results would then be made. Rather like a grand jury returning an indictment. This would prevent fishing expeditions. There should be objective criteria that must be met before a user is even "nominatable" for Vfcu, and these should be stringent to avoid overwhelming those entrusted with running such a labour intensive chore. Fawcett5 19:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'm a little worried such a page would be far more acrimonious than AfD is now, and I'm also concerned about creating more red tape. As I've read elsewhere, we're an encyclopedia first and a wiki second; I think yielding to our wiki side on this issue would be counterproductive. JMO. --Scimitar ^parley 19:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree here. My first thought when I read Fawcett's suggestion is that it would be a good adjunct, but I wouldn't want to see it replace someone like David's judgment, not the least of the reasons why being the sheer amount of hoops it'd create. Of course the corollary here is that when someone is enabled to use judgment with the thought that it is useful not to get bogged down in overly cumbersome rules, there is generally also an expectation of transparency, which is, in this case, where the idea of a checkuser log comes in. I'd support that idea. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think a discussion and vote on each use of checkuser is a bit over-the-top, myself, but a log, perhaps limited to admins, could be used after the fact. The log should include a reason why the check is being made in general terms ("possible sock", "track vandal" or the like). If after the fact it seems that checkuser was used without "probable cause", then that might be grounds for removing the person who did this from the list of users permitted to use checkuser. Presumably the most common case will be vandal tracking, and the next most common checking if obviously disruptive users are socks, in which cases a vote or a public discussion seems over the top to me. In an RfC or de-checkuser discussion, issues of proper use can be raised when there is an actual case for them. DES ^(talk) 19:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Another concern about a publicly accessible log of Checkuser usage is that it would be helpful to trolls and vandals. They could see if Dave was 'on to them', as it were. I gather that in some cases Dave follows a vandal/sock user for an extended period of time, collecting evidence and building a case. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, couldn't this be fixed by making it only viewable by admins? · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I am categorically opposed to giving admins (AKA Users With Extra Buttons) a secret communiation space on wikipedia. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a communication space; it would be similar to deletion logs, just showing who's IP's have been checked. Admins would still need to communicate with each other here or on talk pages or whatever, as they do now.--Scimitar ^parley 20:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

A. That's what you say, but I can't see it, so why should I believe you (not you personally, but you generally) and B. Adminstrators are not cleared via the privacy policy to know the IP of any user - if David checked me and then 127.0.0.1 immediately following, you could reasonable assume I used 127.0.0.1, which would violate the PP. and C. Special:Log/delete is readable by me, and I'm so totally never going to be an admin. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I understand your concerns but I don't think anybody here has ever suggested that proposed checkuser logs should actually show IP addresses of checkees, so that I think is a moot point. On the rest -- as I understand it, the concern over gaming of these sorts of logs is anchored in their immediacy. Given that, maybe the logs could be released on a monthly basis for anybody to see, but only admins would have access to them real-time. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

If it's good enough for me to read on a monthly basis, it's good enough for you to read on a monthly basis. Admins currently have no special access to information. I would not like to see that change. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

well, trolls are reading AN/I anyway, so the log is really no different from posting requests of "David, please check user X". The log will only show that he actually acted on the request. Regarding the 'vote for sockcheck' proposal, hell no. That's procedure creep. Don't vote on everything. The "wiki way" is: everything is in the open. I understand that many people edit from work, so yes, IPs should not be public, since public IPs would keep people from editing on company time, thus damaging the project. A "Userchecker" rank with three or four trusted holders will be fine. Viewing the log could be restricted to admins to reduce bitching about "why did you" or "why didn't you", but it will not contain any sensitive information. I really think a solution along these lines will be the best approach. dab 83.79.181.171 20:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Voting for checkuser - is not the 'wikiway' unless the 'wikiway' is bureaucratic acrimony (like afD}. Besides which, it has the makings of a witch-trial. If someone says 'I think Doc is a sockpuppet of User:Tony Sidaway let's check'. Do I get to comment? And if I do, I'm dammed either way. If I resist it, then I've obviously got something to hide - and so the check will be justified. If I suport the check, then what's the point in the vote? 'If she drowns she's not a witch - but if she floats - burn her'. --Doc (?) 22:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

you realize, of course, that this is what I said? 83.79.181.171 23:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Albert Einstein

Can some admin find the last unvandalized version and protect it? There have been two blanking vandalisms in the past hour and several other vandalisms in the past two hours, which is about 10-20 times normal rate for this page. While I your attention, I think this article should be protected indefinitely (in a good version) until Wikipedia has more stringent editing policies or a much more efficient vandalism prevention policies in place. CH (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

No way are you going to get indefinate protection. Our vandalism prevention policies appear to have worked just fine. We revert them. I'll add the page to my watchlist, I urge others to do likewise. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it too. Unless something radically changes though there is no way that you'll ever get indefinite protection on an article just because that goes against the nature and the spirit of a wiki. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Jtdirl persistently adding copyvio images to templates

According to the policies at Wikipedia:Fair use and discussions at various locations, images under "fair use" and other non-free licenses should never be used outside of article-space. This means they can't be used on user pages, talk pages, or templates. Most of these images used on templates are used for decorative purposes only, and so do not qualify for fair use under either Wikipedia policies or US copyright law. I've been going through a list of templates using non-free images at User:Gmaxwell/query fairusemediaintemplates and removing the images.

However, for templates containing images of crowns (Template:Crown Jewels, Template:Crowns, Template:Types of Crowns, Template:UK-royal-stub), User:Jtdirl is persistently reverting my changes, re-inserting non-free images. Could someone take a look at this? --Carnildo 00:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

What has actually been happening is that Carnildo has been unilaterally dumping images without explanation. He has already pissed off Australian wikipedians with similar behaviour there and they are up in arms over it, as he talk page shows. Users have told him

your unilateral action is making a lot of people very angry

Please do NOT remove Australian photos without consulting Australian Wikipedians. We have gone through a long process to get a formula for these photos which clears them for use and which has been approved by Mr Wales. I suggest you visit Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board and raise any concerns you have before taking action which will make a lot of people angry.

The genesis of this comment seems to be Carnildo's deletions from Template:Prime Ministers of Australia, which has twenty-five thumbnails (of widely varying dimensions) of past PMs. Copyright questions aside, I have to ask, "What is the point of all those pictures?" --Calton | Talk 01:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

If you look at his "contributions" (Special:Contributions/Carnildo) you'll see he's been doing this to a lot of templates lately where it's quite clear (IMO) fair-use allows the images to be used. And yes, it's very unilateral: as far as I can tell he's acting nearly independently, and reverts edits back without any (or very little) discussion or consensus (see: Template:Donkey Kong series).

It might help if Carnildo showed either a modicum of understanding of the law (he clearly is no lawyer) or bothered to communicate with people. I reverted to try to get him to break what seems to be his habit here and actually explain his behaviour. Other users are throughly fed up of his unilateral behavour without explanation. Catholics may well believe in the infallibility of the pope but no-one seems to be convinced of the infallibility of Carnildo (except himself). With such clearly self-proclaimed legal knowledge, it is a wonder Bush didn't appoint Carnildo to the Supreme Court!FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not claiming to be infalliable with regards to the law, or even to be an expert in it. I am claiming to have read and understood Wikipedia:Fair use, and to have followed discussions on this matter on Wikipedia talk:Fair use, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use, and on the mailing list. Wikipedia:Fair use is pretty straightforward on this subject:

The material should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. Because "fair use" material is not copyright infringement on Wikipedia only when used for strictly encyclopedic reasons, their use in other contexts is likely copyright infringement.

--Carnildo 00:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Right, then. Since neither of you have seen fit to discuss this on the talk pages of the templates, commented on each other's talk pages, or brought the matter up on RFC or the Village Pump, how is this an AN/I matter? Did you want us to block both of you for revert warring? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit warring is perfectly valid on Wikipedia once the 3RR is not breached. I didn't bring it here. I have raised it elsewhere as a general principle and did not bring Carnildo's name into it. He raised it here. His behaviour has pissed off a lot of people on this issue. He is also wrong in law. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

He is also wrong in law. I do not believe you have presented your legal credentials, either. Nevertheless, it appears that your problem isn't with Carnildo, but with Wikipedia:Fair use. Do you dispute the policy's underpinnigs? --Calton | Talk 01:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

"Edit warring is perfectly valid on Wikipedia once the 3RR is not breached." What?! I am speechless... Dmcdevit·t 00:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Er, no, that's the opposite of the intent of the 3RR - it's not a right to revert three times, it's an electric fence. Reverting is almost always stupid and bad. See WP:3RR - David Gerard 00:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Just adding here that the use of unlicensed media in templates is not acceptable and is a copyright infringement. If you have an "agreement" with Jimbo contrary to this, I'd love to see it, since the current campaign to minimize the use of unlicensed media on Wikipedia is the direct result of heavy prodding from Jimbo. I fully support Carnildo's efforts to reduce the legal exposure of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. Finally, I would like to add my utter bewilderment at Jtdirl's outrageous assertion that edit warring is a perfectly valid strategy on Wikipedia. Edit warring is never acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. Do not edit war. Period. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

And by the way this is exactly the wrong way to use the administrative rollback button. Dmcdevit·t 01:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It must be said, it's an interesting point - a template as it occurs on a clutch of articles might well suffice for a Fair Use claim of using an image that unites said articles. However, does the template exist as a page in-and-of itself? (Similar to whether the File: namespace pages exist as uses of the image - in which case they don't have claims to Fair Use, and we'd need to have a different means to use, store, and display images that are Fair Use - or are merely back-end views and so do not count as to whether or not a Fair Use argument for the image exists.) Certainly, I can't remember this point being settled (as opposed to abandoned ;-)), so for policy to say that so explicitly, as if it has, is... intruiging.

OTOH, indeed, edit warring is evil and the 3RR is certainly not an entitlement. I'm pretty sure I've written a couple of Arbitration rulings points that included that.

James F. (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • No. The images are used to illustrate templates, they are not used in analysis, commentary, or criticism. There is no fair use rationale for purely decorative uses of images. --Fastfission 16:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

What Kelly said, to a T. On the issue of Carnildo's legal credentials and/or his "understanding of the law," the only laws he is required to understand and follow are Wikipedia's. If there is a conflict between those rules, in particular WP:Copyrights, and the law of the land applicable to the images in question, it should be taken up with the appropriate folks and a solution reached thereat. If there is indeed a special circumstance with Australian images, this should be noted in an appropriate policy document. Carnildo should not be rebuked for following the rules as they presently stand. encephalon 16:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Balkan nationalism

I would like to report the nationalistic behaviour of the User:Theathenae. His contributions are clearly of nationalistic character and all his presence on Wikipedia is motivated by denying the existance of the Macedonian ethnicity.

His lattest try for a POV push was the following edit: [| Taken from the history of the page 'Republic of Macedonia']. Without any proofs and sources he accuses this country for not recognising the Bulgarian and Greek minority. As a matter of fact, these 2 minorities are extremely little. Another fact is that anyone can clearly write his own nationality on a blank field on the Macedonian census. This census counts even the minorities with only 1 member (like my wife is, who is the only Mexican in Republic of Macedonia).

This accusations by User:Theathenae are clear reaction to the revealing of the poor treatment that the Macedonian minority has in Bulgaria and Greece, which is confirmed by any relevant human rights organizations in the world, also by the European Court for Human Rights.

As I already mentioned, this is not the first incident of this kind by User:Theathenae. For similar incidents like this, User:Theathenae's account was already banned for life on the Swedish Wikipedia for "Spreading of Greek propaganda", as explained by the administrators.

I think that is about time the English Wikipedia checks his edits and react at his provocations. I will be glad to help in any kind of investigations of this kind. Macedonian^(talk) 01:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I refer you to the above user's purely chauvinistic attempt to extinguish any reference to the Bulgarian and Greek minorities in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: [26], [27]. He even disputes the fact that 51% of geographical Macedonia belongs to Greece[28]. Selective denial of the mere existence of ethnic minorities in his country, thinly-veiled irredentism against a neighbouring country, and an obsession with using a disputed ethnonym and national flag to identify himself. Who is the nationalist here?--Theathenae 12:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

yawn, why was it obvious User:i sterbinski and his team of human rights researchers would be back so soon. this is not the place for content disputes. You had an opportunity to learn how WP operates, and how the community reacts to your editing style in your previous incarnation, Sterbinski, so why do you have to start over now? Your username and sig are just trolling at this point (is anybody else getting tired of all the flags people sport in their sigs these days, official, hisorical, inofficial and fantastic?). dab 19:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Why can't someone use their flag in their signature? Many users do it, are they also trolling? I don't think so. Rex^(talk) 11:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

In the case of you and the aforementioned user, absolutamente.--Theathenae 11:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I highly doubt that. There are even administrators who use their national flags in their sig. Rex^(talk) 11:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

it should be discouraged already on performance grounds. it was a nice idea when whoever came up with it started it, but now it is getting annoying. And that's just the aesthetics and technical part. You two are the only case of flag-signers engaged in nationalist edit wars. That alone shows that you are both out of line. dab (ᛏ) 18:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

User:63.41.192.123 with contribs

I am not sure what term and expression we would use to classify these ironic messages by a few sockpuppets (SP as they know a lot about what's happening in WP) inserting those kinds of materials all over WP articles related to Islam. -- Svest 03:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

203.33.110.33 spambot

I have blocked 203.33.110.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 48 hours for apparently running a spambot. I warned at first, but realized the changes were flowing in so fast they had to be coming from a program. Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 03:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Boothy443 including official transit maps when a suitable free version has been created

Boothy is re-adding the official (and thus fair use) SEPTA maps to Norristown High Speed Line and SEPTA Suburban Trolley Lines despite my creation of a free alternative. While the official maps show every stop, and mine only show the major points, I think this is something that's unnecessary on the map, but should instead be listed in the text. Bitch slap requested. --SPUI (talk) 05:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• nn delete spuey cruft. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• • nn keep humongous penis. --SPUI (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• *smacks SPUI upside his head* Done. WP:AN/I is not the place for content disputes.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the suggestion. I removed this section and was immediately reverted and blocked. --SPUI (talk) 05:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Although I did talk to Boothy about it, Boothy makes a strong point about how the new image isn't up to par with the official image, so SPUI it'd be nice if you DID add in every stop. And TenOfAllTrades is right, this is not the place for this. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Alakon and Brent Henry Waddington

It is becoming increasingly clear at the AfD that Alakon (talk • contribs) intentionally created an article with false information. It is beyond doubt that the original version of the article contained falsehoods, including a fake link to a CNN article. It is also very likely that this person is entirely made up, as is the book and publishing company. A cursory glance over his contributions appear to suggest that he has made some legitimate contributions, although I have not looked in exceeding detail. What should be done in this case? Supposing that we are able to verify his other contributions, I'm inclined to say a stiff warning from an admin and several of us keeping a close eye on him would probably be sufficient. But I'm interested in what others have to say. Thanks! --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 17:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit Summery Vandalism on Judith Krug

User:24.225.240.212 hs been posting personal identifing information about User:Dcs47 in the edit summeries on Judith Krug. Soecifically this edit. User:Dcs47 complainsed about this on the Help desk in this edit. I am not sure what the proepr steps to take in such a case are. DES ^(talk) 21:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

First thing is to remove the personal info. I deleted the article, and then undeleted all edits except that one. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I strongly suspected that was the only solution, but I wasn't quite ready to be that bold without advice. I will do this on my own should such a case occur again. Thanks. I already warned the anon IP not to do that, but somehow I doubt the effectiveness of such a warning. DES ^(talk) 22:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Your comments on the help desk seem to indicate you feel it is technically difficult. It isn't. When you undelete you just tick in the box next to all the edits you want to restore, then click undelete. Morally is is IMO a no brainer. Editors have a right to expect privacy. I've added a warning of my own to the Anons page in the vain hope that more warnings means he take them more seriously. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thak you. I have never yet done a selctive undelete, and I guess my impressions were derived from what I had read at the page about fixing cut&paste moves. Aslo when i wrote the talk page note, i hadn't yet looked at the article -- indeed i didn't yet know what article it was, and the phrase "personal attacks" made me think it might be a matter of stuff like "reverted edits by moron editor" or PoV satemetns in the summery. I guess I was overly hesitant about thsi. Anotehr time I will act more directly. Thanks again for pointers -- this is twice you have advised me helpfully in how to use admin functions. DES ^(talk) 23:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Wait a minute... doesn't the new undelete page show the history (though not page contents) to even non-admins? ~~ N (t/c) 23:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh my, yes it does, although you ahve to dig deeper to see it. DES ^(talk) 23:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I just logged out and took a look, and yes it does. Which is a bit crap to say the least. I guess no one thought of that. Come to think of it what about copyvios? They will still be visible through the history too. Are we going to start getting floods of takedown notices? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Copy vios will only be visible to admins except for what ever is in the summery. I doubt many copyright holders will know or care enough to look there when google doesn't index such pages. The personal info is more of a problem, as are really nasty attaks in edit summeries. I think this would take direct database alteration to fix -- i hope i'm wrong. DES ^(talk) 23:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right, actually. I had to ask Tim Starling to do this for a vandal on a user page. Question: Could a dev possibly remove or disable the ability for non-admins to view deleted edits until a way is created for admins or bureaucrats to manually edit deleted Edit Summaries? Ral315 (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I would oppose that. I think the ability to view the history of delted pages is very valuabel, and the very few cases in which this has come up are not worth removing that ability. However, providing some way for soemone to edit such abusive dummeries should be seen as an urgent item. DES ^(talk) 18:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

MAIN PAGE

Someone accidentally moved the main page. I tried to fix it but as a not-admin, I can't effect the protection. Do something! Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Now fixed. Kirill Lokshin 22:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt

There's been some tag-team blanking of this page after it was unprotected earlier by Canderson. It didn't take long for it to draw attention. I'll leave it alone for a little while and leave notes for some of the involved admins. If people can help us out and keep an eye on it I'll unprotect it again, or if someone has some ideas on how to treat this. Rx StrangeLove 22:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I unprotected this page. We'll have to see if it gets left alone. Rx StrangeLove 16:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Israel and West Bank

We could use a hand over at Israel and West Bank, where a single editor under several different identities has been pasting the same highly POV and barely literate paragraph for a day or two now. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

St Michael's Grammar School

I've come looking for some help dealing with a case of vandalism. A small group of vandals continue to try to post an attack on the school ([29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] - all the same, and there might be more from the past), and have taken to berating me on the talk page for continually reverting. I can't handle the pressure of this daily fight any longer, and am looking for some assistance from an admin. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Harro5 07:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars episode edit wars between User:The Wookieepedian and User:Copperchair

• The Wookieepedian (talk · contribs)
• Copperchair (talk · contribs)

These two chaps have been heavily edit warring on the six Star Wars episode articles:

The articles have been protected for two days now, but there doesn't seem to be any ongoing move towards resolving the underlying differences.

• Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Copperchair is also undergoing an arbitration case, apparently in relation to his George Lucas-related edits:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Copperchair

I think we can all agree that this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs, where a difference between two editors holds up all editing.

My idea is to unprotect these articles after warning both editors that if they continue to edit war on them they will be blocked for disruption. I envision short blocks sufficient to get the point across and obviate the need for reprotection. I've asked the administrator who protected the articles whether he'd mind if I did this. I'd also like to submit this plan, which is a bit unusual, for further review. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 09:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your response. Blocking, other than for vandalism, is bad, but protecting is worse. I think we could do with a speedy method of serving temporary injunctions on edit warriors banning them from certain articles for a week - perhaps on the agreement of three disinterested admins. Protection on popular articles is too blunt a tool. --Doc (?) 10:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I like Tony's idea, and think it should be used more widely, with careful dispensing of brief blocks. It is unfortunate when all editors must be prevented from editing for the dubious behaviour of a very small number. I also like Doc's idea, although it would need consultation with the Arbitrators. At present it takes infinitely long to get a simple temporary injunction, whereas quickly formed and quickly disbanded mini-groups of neutral admins could do the job more effectively. OTOH, Tony's single-admin approach, with consultation seems likely to work here, so perhaps there's no need to bureaucratise the process. I'm interested to hear how it works out, but will watchlist the articles. -Splash^talk 13:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

As I say, I think Tony's approach is good - and posting it here allows for any admin objections. But if this tool were to become widely used (and it has potential) we'd need a simply policy and workable check and balance (can't post them all here). I'd propose an 'Admin's injunction page' any disinterested admin can propose an injunction for edit warring (as an alternative to protecting the page). If seconded, it may be served (with a template on the user page). It stands for one week, or unless any two other admins call for it to be rescinded. Violations lead to an automatic 24 hr block.--Doc (?) 17:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The original protecting administrator, TheCoffee (talk · contribs), also agreed with this and has unprotected. Please place the articles on your watchlists and be prepared to warn or block if disruptive behavior resumes. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC) Copperchair is at it again.. see this. Linuxbeak | Talk 01:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Misuse of fair-use images

Whenever I se a fair-use image being used outisde its fair use conditions, I remove it with an edit summary explaining my action. Most editors understand and accept this, but one (BGC (talk · contribs) insists on adding fair-use images of album covers to articles on other albums — e.g.:

• L.A. (Light Album)
• Love You
• Keepin' the Summer Alive
• The Beach Boys (album)
• Made in U.S.A.
• Still Cruisin'

There are many others. This isn't just one misuse, but multiple misuses of each cover (the infobox style is also against the album Wikiproject, and has been criticised by many editors on the basis of its misuse of the images and its rather bloated appearance). BGC refuses to back down, and merely reverts my removal of the images, describing my edits as "vandalous". I've tried (as have others) explaining the situation, but he simply refuses to pay attention, simply claiming that he's using a template that has survived a TfD, and so the use of the images has been sanctioned. A TfD result doesn't alter copyright law, however, and I'd guess that the large number of articles to which he's addign this template would cause problems for any print-or disk-based version of Wikipedia (if not for the on-line version). Could someone else try to reason with him? he's not very amenable to reason, being prone to aggression (under this name and his previous identioty, PetSounds (talk · contribs)), but something needs to be done. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

A bit borderline, I think. I'd like to see Kelly Martin's view of this. From sampling some of the above examples, the pictures seem to be over links to articles about the relevant albums, and only appear in articles about the group where the albums shown chronologically precede and follow the album written about in the current article. This certainly seems to be well within the spirit, if not the letter, of fair use principles. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I reviewed this back when Mel and BGC got started with one another. I believe Mel's correct; the use of unlicensed images as a navigational tool is outside our fair use guidelines. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

For those not familiar with this, Template_talk:Album_infobox_2 has links to the numerous discussions on this issue - of which fair use is only one part. -- grm_wnr Esc 13:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Tussle over evolution polls

User:Ed_Poor was the author of the evolution poll page more than a year ago which was successfully deleted in October. Then, a few days after this occurred, User:Ed_Poor recreated the page without going through the usual process under the title Creation-evolution poll and subsequently redirected from the old Evolution poll article. The only reason he was able to do this is because he had admin privileges since he preserved the edit history for the article. This article has now been deleted a second time, but I'm concerned that the user will simply go on undeleting the article whenever he pleases. His actions seem to be in violation of Wikipedia policy surrounding deletion of articles and I think this issue needs to be addressed. Joshuaschroeder 13:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I might call this questionable judgement, but I wish the word "abuse" was not thrown around so casually. I brought the re-deletion to his attention on his talk page and I notice he didn't rush over and undelete it again. The thing I find most troubling is not the use (or "abuse") of admin abilities, it's the apparent desire to create a POV fork of creation-evolution controversy. More than one editor pointed out in the original Afd (which Ed actively took part in) that whatever information was relevant and verifiable should be merged there, rather than staying in its own article. Breaking deletion/undeletion policy isn't that big a deal to me, but NPOV is a fundamental editorial policy which must not be disregarded. Friday (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

If we're going to cite policy, then how about this, from POV fork?

But simplistically calling for its deletion is commonly referred to as "m:deletionism" — a misapplication of deletion process, often to enforce a POV rather than to enforce NPOV"

There was nothing simplistic about the rationale for deleting the article. There is no reason to preserve the namespace. Joshuaschroeder 18:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Joshua's two deletions -- evolution poll and its revival as creation-evolution poll are a misapplication of deletion process and -- still worse -- appear to have been done to enforce a POV rather than to enforce NPOV. Thank you, Friday, for pointing out this policy page: it supports the correctness of my action. Uncle Ed 18:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll echo what Friday said. I'll also note that most people probably wouldn't mind if the article (under whatever title) was undeleted, merged (with appropriate citation intact), and redirected to someplace appropriate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The subject of the article is covered in creation-evolution controversy. There is a section about survey of beliefs on that page. Why can't User:Ed_Poor join the community and work on the pages already in existence as we asked him to do many times? Joshuaschroeder

Well, if "most people wouldn't mind" then clearly it's not against consensus to undelete, merge and redirect. Which is what I'm asking for.

We already deleted the page for reasons that are clear. If you want to include the information that you find relevent and well-cited, include it on the appropriate creation-evolution controversy page. Unilaterally remaking pages that went through the AfD process is pretty poor form it seems. Joshuaschroeder 18:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what a POV fork is, but (1) I am not the author of evolution poll. It is / was one of the oldest articles at Wikipedia, was vetted by arch-atheist user:Lee Crocker and survived a deletion campaign more than 2 years ago.

I think Joshua is pushing a POV and using "the rules" to censor information that he doesn't want our readers to know about. Specifically, that a lot fewer people support "evolution" (and its teaching in American public schools) than he and his fellows want to make Wikipedia say.

Would be true if the information were not already in creation-evolution controversy. Add your information there, don't undelete. Please. (This is especially concerning because users that are not admins cannot of their own accord undelete).

If User:Ed_Poor wants to undelete an article, why not nominate it for undeletion? Joshuaschroeder 18:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

He has also gotten my disambig article (that one *is* mine) deleted, for the same reason: suppressing the fact that very few Americans believe in evolution as opposed to creationism.

Note that I am not pushing the POV that Creationism is true: I only want this encyclopedia to report accurately on the percentage of Americans who believe in it / want it taught in schools, which by the way is 79% according to People For the American Way. Uncle Ed 18:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The part of this statement that conforms to verifiable fact is addressed appropriately on the Creation-evolution controversy page. Your page is indeed a POV fork from that page. Include the appropriate material there, don't recreate a page that was already deleted. Please. Joshuaschroeder 18:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

In case anyone is confused about the 79% figure presented above, PFAW found that "Among the majority of Americans favoring evolution (83%), 20% say schools should teach only evolution, with no mention of creationism; 17% say schools should teach only evolution in science class, but would permit religious explanations for the origins of humankind to be covered in another, non-science class; and 29% would allow creationism to be discussed along with evolution in science class, but it should be made clear that evolution is scientific theory while creationism is a belief, not science." [35]. POV explanation of why some belive 79% needs fuller explanation at [36].

Ed, I'm a bit confused by your comments. What I meant specifically was, the poll article was a POV fork and, as such, is undesirable. It was validly deleted via Afd. Your undeletion makes it look to me like you want a POV fork, and this is not a good thing. Reliably sourced info from polls belongs in creation-evolution controversy. Friday (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I glanced at the guideline page about "POV forks", and I assure you I have no intention of pushing any POV. Anyone accusing me of doing so is giving me a great insult. I am Wikipedia's foremost defender of NPOV.

I am not the one pushing a POV. I am trying to defend an article worked on by multiple contributors which Joshua suddenly deleted when I mentioned it during a discussion on the ambiguity of the word "evolution". He seems to be trying to censor from Wikipedia any mention of the idea that "evolution" can mean different things to people, depending on what side of the creation-evolution controversy they're on.

If the information had been properly merged, with a REDIRECT to it, there would be no problem. But Joshua has gotten two different articles about the ambiguity problem deleted. So I created a third one (see Terms used in the evolution debate).

All of the information in this article is well-discussed in creation-evolution controversy, an article User:Ed_Poor seems to have avoided looking at before creating these new articles. Joshuaschroeder 03:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Once again, let me emphasize: I am not asserting ANY POINT OF VIEW on this controversy. I am not pushing anything, and I request that Joshua stop accusing me of this. I am only reporting what pollsters say. If pushers of the POV that evolution occurs without supernatural guidance keep trying to censor the opposite side, they are abusing the community processes of Wikipedia.

There is a lot of confusion in the debate, and I am trying to write articles that make it clear. It is not a "POV fork" to create a sidebar article which treats one aspect of a controversy. Uncle Ed 21:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Ed, I have some issues with what you've done here and some questions. First of all, you restored an article deleted by consensus:

17:36, 1 November 2005 Ed Poor restored "Evolution poll

20:10, 6 October 2005 Jtkiefer deleted "Evolution poll" (as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution poll)

After restoring it you moved it:

17:37, 1 November 2005 . . Ed Poor (Evolution poll moved to Creation-evolution poll: Was deleted in part because misnamed: "it is not a poll on evolution but rather a poll about the creation-evolution controversy")

That was not the outcome of the AfD. If you wanted to create a new article called "Creation-evolution poll" you should have done so. You should not unilaterally buck consensus and undelete an article properly deleted.

Second, What is a "sidebar article"? You tried linking to the term earlier but it was a red link. Is this an accepted Wikipedia concept? Is it discussed somewhere? I'd like to read what you are referring to in order to better understand your statement.

Last, your new article is sadly POV despite your claims. I could see Terms used in the evolution debate being a useful article so I don't disagree that it should exist but it and Creation-evolution poll are skewed not in wording (which I think you avoided) but in content. I feel that Creation-evolution poll is beyond NPOV recovery but could be incorporated somewhere else with some heavy criticism. Terms used in the evolution debate can be restored if we can take it out of a creationist view trying to be PC in front of evolutionists. Both articles are clear PC versions of a creationist view based on chosen wording (in the poll itself) and explanatory content in the articles. (I'll discuss it more at Talk:Terms used in the evolution debate). - Tεxτurε 21:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I over-emphasize the value of keeping all articles' revision history. I hate to start fresh, without crediting other writers' work.

It also irks me that a small group of POV-pushing Wikipedians can go against the principles of this web site and (1) refer to their tyranny as "consensus" merely on the basis of winning a majority vote on on obscure issue; and (2) delete information that allows the reader to see that their POV is not necessarily correct.

It is particulary galling in light of the fact that there are other Definitions articles (as for music, Palestine, terrorism).

An encyclopedia should bring clarity. It should enable the reader to understand things quickly and easily. Obscuring knowledge by deleting links to it is anti-Wikipedian, even if the "rules" literally allow it. Uncle Ed 12:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ed, is this response directed at me? If so, what are you asking or stating in response to my comment? Am I the tyranny? - Tεxτurε 15:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Arvanitic language

Albanian nationalist User:REX, who has an arbitration case pending against him at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/REX, is attempting to move Arvanitic language to Arvanitic (linguistics) in order to deny the basic right of the Arvanites, who identify nationally as Greeks, to have their language called a "language" separate from Albanian. Regardless of the politics of the situation, it is Wikipedia policy to use the word language in the names of such articles. For example, we have Bosnian language, Croatian language, Macedonian language, Moldovan language, Montenegrin language, etc. despite their disputed status. After having his recent unilateral and arbitrary page move to Arvanitika reversed by neutral administrators, User:REX has now called a straw poll at Talk:Arvanitic language, and all the usual suspects (who have all had a bone to pick with Greeks in the past) have come to his aid. This is clearly not how such content disputes should be resolved on Wikipedia.--Theathenae 13:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

That is not true. Arvanitic is a dialect according to UNESCO, Britannica, Encarta, Ethnologue, University of Ohio and every other source on the planet. There are NO sources which deny the fact that Arvanitic is a seperate language from Albanian. This is one of Theathenae's POV-pushing tactics. I also think that I should inform you that the Arvanites of Northwestern Greece DO call themselves Albanians. It is only in Southern Greece where they say that it isn't. I am proposing the page move so that it can be like Flemish (linguistics), Mandarin (linguistics), Cantonese (linguistics) etc. Where the status of a language is not clear you shouldn't prescribe what it should be. Wikipedia should be neutral. Calling it a language contradicts every single source we have (see WP:V). Arvanitic (linguistics) is neutral as it doesn't take sides and doesn't exclude either possibility. it is the neutral way to do things. Theathenae has not provided a single source which says that it is not an ALbanian dialect (because none exists). It has nothing to do with nationalism, it is to do with facts. Theathenae's views are false, no scientific establishment supports his views. Is he saying that UNESCO, Britannica, the Uni of Ohio are trying to deny the basic right of the Arvanites, who identify nationally as Greeks, to have their language called a "language" separate from Albanian? I don't think that that's possible. This is just a tactic of his. Are the Flemings of Belgium being denied their right to be Belgian if their language is called a dialect of Dutch (which is what Britannica and every linguist on earth), or are the Swiss Germans by the Swiss German being called a dialect of German? He is POV-pushing and using dishonest tactics. Why don't you find some sources Theathenae? REX 14:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Both of you please review the paragraph at the top of the page which reads (emphasis added)

Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. We have a dispute resolution procedure which we recommend you follow. Please take such disputes to mediation, requests for comment, or requests for arbitration rather than here. Please do not post slurs of any kind on this page, and note that any messages that egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be removed.

This page isn't the place for content disputes. Use a request for comments if you need additional review of a dispute. Also, please remain civil in your posts here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Scottfisher, Part II

User:Scottfisher previously was discussed here for issues dealing with potential copyright problems with images that he uploaded. (Discussion here. User:Fvw previously placed an indefinite block on Scottfisher, which I removed in order to give the user a chance to work on resolving the issues. I warned the user not to add images to articles that had disputed copyright status, or risk, being re-blocked. User did make some progress in dealing with said issues, however has recently added images with disputed status to an article [37]. I have reinstated the block. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 15:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Lightbringer

Lightbringer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is busy filling up his own talk page with long rants, many copyrighted, against Freemasonry and Wikipedia. I would appreciate some help in policing it, and would be best if someone else blocked him — I'm an arbiter and he is an arbitration case before me. ➥the Epopt 17:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• I've warned him once more. If he does it again I will block.--Scimitar ^parley 19:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 48 hours. He's a troll, and not worth the time.--Scimitar ^parley 19:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    • IMO he's not a "troll" as such ... but he is someone with a strong POV who is on a mission and clearly has no grasp whatsoever of NPOV. It's a real pity, as the subject is obviously his obsession and he has ridiculous amounts of info about it - David Gerard 12:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• I don't want to be Captain Obvious here, but blocking him won't be any use if he's adding crap to his own talk page. android79 19:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a really good point. . . . anyway, he did it again, and continued with the incivility, so I blocked him indefinitely and protected his talk page.--Scimitar ^parley 21:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, but you forgot to undue the old blocks so the new indef. block would have expired after 48 hours, I took the liberty of fixing it. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What does this mean for arbitration? (ie, was that a banning by the community, or just until the arbcom makes a decision?) Dmcdevit·t 02:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure an indefinite block is a good idea. You may want to ask for an AC injunction against him editing Wikipedia at all while the case is in progress. Also, he's got a suspected sock or two already - David Gerard 12:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
      • If anyone would like to shorten/remove the block, I don't have a problem with that. It won't be me, though, because as far as I'm concerned his negative contributions/attitude outweigh whatever good he could do by a large margin.--Scïmïłar ^parley 14:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
        • There is already a preliminary injunction against Lightbringer (supported by five Arbitrators, which is enough to make it enforceable). I've proposed a broader prelimiary injunction in the case. Admin assistance in enforcing these injunctions is requested. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Here's the link [38]. Just to clarify, does this mean that when he posts freemasonry related material on his talk page, he's violating the injunction?--Scïmïłar ^parley 15:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)