Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive54

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Request for participation from anyone interested in psychiatry[edit]

Just a little while ago, I protected an article about an American psychiatrist, E. Fuller Torrey, on the request of a user involved in an edit war that has escalated quite a bit over the past day. The user who requested the protection is a member of an anti-psychiatry group, User:Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC, who has been edit warring with an anon user of a more traditional opinion. I have a feeling that protection won't work, and that when it's lifted the edit warring will resume, since soon after protection the anon declared "As soon as it is uprotected, I will restore NPOV. I can wait" [1] (m:The Wrong Version) This subject is far beyond my personal knowledge -- if anybody's familiar with this stuff and has a minute to pop by to at least lend another opinion to the mix, it'd be welcome. · Katefan0(scribble) 04:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

Ed Poor blocked Duncharris again[edit]

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

I think everyone should wait to hear Ed's side of the story before jumping to conclusions. Izehar 20:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
He explained his reasons for the blocking at User_talk:Duncharris. Friday (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't quite see how the case comes under the dissruoption clause and I can come up with some pretty imaginative interpritations.Geni 20:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, according to WP:BLOCK:
Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses or usernames that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia. Such disruption may include changing other users' signed comments, making deliberately misleading edits, and excessive personal attacks.

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

Blocks for disruption are almost always controversial and Duncharris's edit summary barely qualifies as borderline disruption. It certainly should have been discussed here before a block was made. There's no way the block should have been for 24 hours. Furthermore, Ed is way too involved with Duncharris to making blocks like this. No matter what Ed's reasons were, it looks like a revenge block. Carbonite | Talk 20:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The key phrase is "disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia". One false edit summery does not really have a noticable effect on the normal functioning of wikipedia.Geni 20:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Got to agree with Carbonite and Geni - I know I wouldn't block anyone for such a reason, especially if I had a past history with them. violet/riga (t) 20:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
me too. dab () 20:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I also intend never to do this. Thryduulf 22:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Maybe. But 24 hours? And only leaving a message on his talk after the block was inplace? Come on.--Sean|Black 00:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
No matter what the situation, considering that Ed has a history with Duncharris he should have gone to another administrator who was uninvolved. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
As time goes by, I am losing more and more respect for Ed. He is seeming more of a liability than an asset. Ed should not block people he is in a dispute with period. That he has admitted this and yet continues to do so calls into question either his integrity or his stability or both. Paul August 04:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
A feeling I share entirely. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Proposal regarding blocking editors in conflict[edit]

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

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

I strongly disagree with this proposal. Disruptive users often claim that an admin who acts against them is biased and "involved," which by definition becomes a "conflict." This proposal would strengthen the hand of trolls and bad editors. Admins should not block users when they are involved in a content dispute with them, which is what the policy already says. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Handcuffing admins just leads to good admins like Doc glasgow leaving. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 14:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
We depend heavily on human judgement in all editors, admins certainly included. As long as people are reasonable, we don't need extra rules that, as pointed out, could be helpful to disruptive editors. When inappropriate blocks are made, there's usually no shortage of editors willing to tell the blocker that the block was wrong. Any reasonably responsible admin will take such statements to heart and be more conservative in the future.
Personally, I think blocking is a big enough deal that anyone repeatedly abusing the block function should lose the ability to do it. The software doesn't currently support such a thing (AFAIK), but there's no reason the community could not implement such a policy. We'd be depending on the offender to voluntarily refrain from blocking, but if that didn't work out, we'd just continue through the dispute resolution process. Friday (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
If we don't trust an administrator not to abuse administrative functions, wouldn't it be reasonable to remove their administrative access entirely? --FOo 07:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Brutus Sanchez[edit]

I went and blocked Brutus_Sanchez (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) indefinately. Looks to me as a rather obvious sockpupet of the already banned Dvirgueza (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), userpages where near identical (see [2] [3]), and all his contributions where to re-upload the images he had on his userpage that where deleted. Just letting you all know because, well I guess it's a bit unusual to ban someone indefenately without warning them first (though I understand it's allowable for sockpupets), pluss it's my first use of the block user feature (I'm not the biggest vandal fighter, and I'm a fairly "fresh" admin), so if anyone want to review the case I won't mind. --Sherool (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Candidate statements/Jayjg[edit]

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

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

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

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

RK is using a sockpuppet account[edit]

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

Ken Mehlman, vandalism and editing patterns[edit]

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

Template:Gaybastard[edit]

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

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

Karl Meier, Cool Cat, Kurdistan[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:84.92.58.111 inserting spam links[edit]

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

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

Template:WivesMuhammad[edit]

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

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

Another Lightbringer sockpuppet?[edit]

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

Century pages[edit]

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

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

Possible Scottfisher socks[edit]

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

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

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

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#160.91.231.73, below. Andy Mabbett 09:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
This IP contacted me on my user talk page asking about being unblocked. Since i've been kinda mentoring him by email for a while, I have to assume it's him. --Phroziac . o º O (mmm chicken) 23:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

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

Assuming you were talking about 24.183.224.210 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), block log shows that his one week block simply expired. --Phroziac . o º O (mmmmm chocolate!) 17:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
No, I was asking about User:Scottfisher, forgetting that he can still edit his talk page while blocked. Sorry about that. Andy Mabbett 18:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Email regaring hoax article.[edit]

Hello all I just received this email:

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

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

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

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

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

Ward Churchill[edit]

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

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

North Carolina Vandal[edit]

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

User:CltFn and Image:Nazislam.jpg[edit]

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

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

Cool Cat seven day ban from Kurdistan and Kurdistan Workers Party[edit]

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

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

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

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

two spammers blocked indefinitely[edit]

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

OldhamNeil blocked for 24 hours[edit]

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

another spammer sock blocked[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

My thought is to block all of these and then wait for some feedback from any legitimate users. It seems to be a network which would go to all primary schools in the UK when it is built out. Fred Bauder 17:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
From whois "All abuse reports should be sent to abuse at ifl.net Fred Bauder 17:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
There may be a handful of good edits in there - see the recent [4] by User:62.171.194.12. Which is not to say that I object to massive blockage. FreplySpang (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Further to Fred Bauder, the whois indicates that Research Machines have sub-allocated 62.171.194.0/23 to ifl.net. --GraemeL (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Ahh... I ... see. (Not.) Could somebody get on it, please? Bishonen | talk 18:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
See Classless Inter-Domain Routing. 62.171.194.0/23 is a range of 512 IP addresses from 62.171.194.0 to 62.171.195.255. It's also the format that you use for range blocking on the block page. Personally, I would like to see a greater consensus here before we take action to indef block such a large range. --GraemeL (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Do it. Just make sure the blocking admin has an email set and send a complaint at the same time.Geni 18:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, I blocked 62.171.194.0/23 indefinitely. I sent an email to their abuse desk advising them of the block and the reasons that it was implemented. I also asked them if they subnet in any way that would enable us to reduce the size of the block and if they had any additional comments. --GraemeL (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 :-) Outstanding. Thanks! Bishonen | talk 00:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Make sure that indefinitely means indefinitely and not infinitely! Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 05:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Collateral damage[edit]

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


Sounds promising. They must divide that block of addresses up. Fred Bauder 20:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
If we can get the library range (i.e. if the vandal fonts are, indeed, static), we can except them, but we need to be aware of the fact that libraries may be one of the sites of vandalism, and the only thing denied them now is the ability to edit. We're still good for researching on. The amount of spew the range was producing was truly staggering. Geogre 14:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


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

Recent activity[edit]

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

Activity since 1 Dec
Address Vandalisms Other
62.171.194.6 [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]
62.171.194.7 [18] [19] [20] [21]
62.171.194.8 [22] [23] [24] [25]
62.171.194.9 [26] [27] [28]
62.171.194.4 [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] (revert) [43] [44] (revert) [45] (revert) [46] (revert) [47] (revert) [48] (revert)
62.171.194.10 [49] [50] [51] [52]
62.171.194.11 [53]
62.171.194.12 [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] (questionable)
62.171.194.13 [60]
62.171.194.37 [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] (revert)
62.171.194.38 [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] (new) [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] (revert)
62.171.194.40 [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101]
62.171.194.42 [102] [103] (revert) [104] (revert)
62.171.194.43 [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113]
62.171.194.44 [114] [115]

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

Why not hold an election?[edit]

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

For those unfamiliar with ArbCom, answers to the following questions would also be helpful:
  1. Has ArbCom been elected or appointed in the past?
  2. Has ArbCom been doing a good or a bad job in the past, and how this is related to the change of election/appointment procedure?
  3. How long are ArbCom cadencies?
  4. Is it possible to remove somebody from ArbCom? If so, how?

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

1.a mixture of apointements and elections at various times.
2.Imposible to objectively judge. Only one descission has been rejected by the community
3. in thoery 1 to 3 years. In practice untill they quit which tends to be a lot shorter
4.It could probably be done through getting the other arbcom memebers to vote them off or a descission by the board. It would not be easy. It hasn't come up yet though.Geni 21:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I should point out in relation to (2), that criticism of Arbs and the ArbCom has increased significantly since Jimbo's recent appointements. But the situation is more complex than that, it's certainly not a straight "post hoc ergo propter hoc". The answer to (4) is almost certainly "no", given that it's already next-to-impossible to get deadminned. Radiant_>|< 23:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I think 4 would just about be posible. Apointments would make it harder bit still doable. It would be likely to involve a fair bit of damage to wikipedia in the process though.Geni 23:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
The AC cannot comment on this with any authority because we don't know what the procedure will be. All I can say without wild speculation is that if you'd like to be considered, you should probably put a statement on the candidate statements page. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Once again, that is more information than was previously known, so thanks. So who does know? Only Jimbo? The board? Some hidden discussion someplace? Since this affects the entire community, I think it's patently unreasonable to keep the entire community in the dark on this. I've seen several candidates withdrawing because of the uncertainty; it gives the appearance that most people putting up candidate statements will not actually be considered at all, with no reasons given. Radiant_>|< 23:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
A very slight clarification of geni's comment, which I think bears explaining - the Committee has never been directly elected. There have been two times (out of five total) when Jimbo was appointing people to it where he asked the community to use the "voting" software to suggest who he should appoint; both times, he happened to appoint along the same lines as the "vote" suggested, but it wasn't an election per se.
James F. (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • And has this system produced any undesirable results, apart from the infamous "disendorsements" page that everybody agrees should not be started this year? Radiant_>|< 23:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, out of all the arbitrators elected last time, only three served out the full first year of their terms. That's a bit of a botch there. Phil Sandifer 23:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I am aware of that. Do you believe that arbiters appointed by Jimbo would be less subject to burnout? If so, why? Radiant_>|< 23:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Radiant - Please check out User talk:Simon Chartres (... not everyone agrees to your common sense point) Raul654 23:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, but I think we can ignore that sock, and anyway that wasn't my point. I ask again, "has this system produced any undesirable results"? Radiant_>|< 23:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Hello to you all. I think we can assume good faith for Jimbo :) Besides that I 'd like to point out, a part of his statement "with the appointments made in consultation with the existing and former ArbCom members and the community at large, followed by confirmation votes from the community requiring some supermajority". +MATIA 23:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
        • assumeing good faith is one thing. Assumeing correct judgement is another.Geni 23:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Current suggestion is 50%, which is not really a supermajority. To my best knowledge, no consultation of the community at large has occured. Radiant_>|< 23:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
          • If this wasn't clear - the steps I described above (where I mentioned the 50% number) is only my best guess. Jimbo has described the process informally several times, and if memory serves, he used supermajority in one description and majority in another. Raul654 23:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
            • So even Jimbo hasn't decided what's being done, then? A little keeping-the-community-in-the-loop would be really, genuinely helpful. I wonder where he is planning to conduct the consultation with the community before announcing his choices, for example? Can the ArbCom tell us what discussions they have so far had (the message from MATIA implies some), and who they are recommending? -Splashtalk 02:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I second Splash's request. I should also point out that most of the questions in this section and the previous have not in fact been answered by the Powers That Be. Radiant_>|< 16:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with Splash too (and I must note that the message I've cited was given in the previous section by Raul654). Reading that message (and unless or until something else is announced) I think that Jimbo will select some candidates (from the volunteers that would go for an election), and then a second selection will be done by JW, ArbCom and the community in general (that's what I understand, perhaps I'm wrong). I also think that within the next days some announcement will be made that will clarify the things better (WP is not a crystal ball, am I? ) +MATIA 18:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
the statement was made on the 20th of october. we've been waiting for some form of clarification for some time.Geni 18:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, at least here, we 've shown that there are good reasons for the clarifications to be given and there's a consensus (or something like it) among many editors asking for them. +MATIA 18:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I we had managed to establish that about two weeks ago.Geni 19:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Now if only a consensus on the part of the community that Jimbo should say something had particular meaning. Phil Sandifer 19:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

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

They're just a bunch of people who make what they may claim and even believe are commonsense decisions. But their idea of common sense may not be the same as mine or yours. Why should you or I or anyone submit to arbitrarily selected arbiters of what's "common sense"? I know that WP is not a democracy, but I hope decisions aren't made by a self-perpetuating oligarchy. -- Hoary 09:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Have you read Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Straw poll? There's a large (and growing) consensus for direct elections; it'd be a disaster to carry forward with Jimbo only giving us his choices (and what happens if his choices don't get the majority vote needed; will he renominate them again or reconsider those he passed over, or will he leave that seat unfilled?). The worst part is that the details of how this election will proceed are virtually unknown to anyone except Jimbo. And the election is next month! —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 09:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

I'm another who feels just like that. As noted above elsewhere, I've withdrawn from the process because I refuse to be part of something that has not been explained, never mind justified. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I thought we were here as volunteers (and I don't overlook neither Jimbo's contributions - including that he is the founder, nor donations - most of them are perhaps by volunteers). +MATIA 11:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Well said. We're not owed particapation in selecting Arbcom membership and I still maintain that the projectable level of debate (where ever it occurs) will do more harm than good. Rx StrangeLove 06:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. First and foremost I'm here to help write an encyclopedia. Regardless of what I've contributed, this isn't my website and I'm not owed anything. If Jimbo wants to make appointments, so be it. --Kbdank71 18:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

User:Chooserr and date eras[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hang on, Jon, has Sortan ever admitted to using other WP accounts? If not, please don't make provocative and (as far as I can see) unprovoked demands. [[Sam Korn]] 20:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
All this business about sockpuppets is a red-herring intended to distract from the fact that it is you who is proficient in their use and experienced in hiding behind anon ips. ([116] ring a bell? how about User:SmokeDog? User:Jongarrettuk? who knows how many others...) Sortan 21:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think either of you needs to be making provocative and inflammatory remarks, especially when it is quite clear that they will lead nowhere. Incidentally, Sortan, Jongarretuk is not a sockpuppet but a previous account of jguk's, just like Smoddy is a previous account of mine. [[Sam Korn]] 21:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The User:Jongarrettuk account has been used after the User:Jguk account was created, however you are correct that it is not a classic sockpuppet account. However he has still used various anon ips (as well as another account) to try to mask (and evade responsibility for) his edits. Sortan 21:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
So what? I don't consider that disruptive. The username redirects to the correct one. That ain't disruptive. May I advise you to leave off this unprofitable conversation? [[Sam Korn]] 21:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Well you must be the only one who doesn't consider hiding behind anon ips to edit and evade the notice of the arbcom disruptive. Sortan 21:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Mea culpa. I didn't mean use of anon ips to evade ArbCom sanction. I meant the use of the other usernames. As to the IPs, I don't know enough to comment. [[Sam Korn]] 22:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

It is rather hard to make paranoid conspiracy theorists listen to reason. I suppose it's my mistake for even trying. Sortan 21:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Jon, I used to agree with you. You can see that from the workshop page of your second arbitration case. There is no conclusive evidence, so I am assuming Sortan's good faith. I also agree that the amount Sortan reverts you is troubling. However, I don't think this conversation is going to get anyone anywhere, other than upset. [[Sam Korn]] 21:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I would suggest that your time might be better spent trying to mentor Jguk, rather than trying to defend him. He is also (again) violating the MOS to favor his preferences (see Talk:ROC local elections, 2005), and his unilateral page moves, leaving a lot of work for other editors to clean up after. Sortan 22:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Something tells me Jon might not be too keen on the idea of mentorship... Look, Sortan, jguk's actions are by no means perfect. Nonetheless, he is, in my view, acting in good faith, and that deserves to be remembered. He can be foolish, but so can you, and so can I. [[Sam Korn]] 22:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I truly find Jguk most perplexing. Good faith can be extended once, twice, and perhaps a third time, but it is foolish to continue to assume it despite all evidence to the contrary. I admit that I've made mistakes, but I've done my best to learn from them and move on, whereas Jguk was warned more than a year ago that using "consistency" as an excuse to change articles to his preferred date style was disruptive, yet it took more than a thousand reverts, hundreds of revert wars, dozens of editors, two arbcom case, and a direct banning by the arbcom before he stopped. Is that really reasonable behavior? He still fails to acknowledge any personal culpability, choosing instead to blame his banning on a conspiracy involving the arbcom. Reasonable? Sane? He has written volumes about how I've unilaterally changed date styles, but has failed to provide even one single diff showing where. He has accused me of wikistalking him, yet it is he who has constantly harassed me (for example, see my edit at Smyrna [117] changing one inconsistent AD to CE and jguk's subsequent edit [118] changing all fourteen instances of BCE/CE to BC/AD, with a dishonest edit summary of "rv"). Incidentally, I do regret making the first edit, which while it was supported by the Manual of Style, I found was still disruptive (mostly due to jguk). I've learned from my mistake and have never done anything similar. It took me all of one day to realize this and to stop. Jguk, on the other hand, still hasn't realized this after more than a year. Incidentally you will note that it was jguk who initially started making personal attacks at me in his edit summaries. Another instance of him harassing me is here, where he states that all my edits should be "revert[ed] on sight".
It is most troubling that he continues in the same pattern of behavior regarding other issues, including the ROC/Taiwan issue, US vs U.S. (which is again more than a year old, and which the MOS unambiguously states should be U.S.), American English vs British English, styles for royalty, etc. In the past, it seems, others let him have his way because of his tenaciousness and constant revert warring, but I don't believe things are the same now, and this type of behavior is sure to land him before the arbcom again. In addition, he is testing the limits of his ban by continuing to remove references to Common Era from articles, as well as continuing to indulge in conspiracy fantasies despite all evidence to the contrary. Some form of mentoring seems to be a perfect way to help him resolve conflicts amicably in the future without resorting to revert warring and name calling. Sortan 00:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Likewise you are "beyond a reasonable doubt" trolling. Edits such as [119] designed just to remove references to Common Era, and to change American English to British English fit the definition perfectly. Do you really consider yourself acting in "good faith"? Sortan 21:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Not funny at all. I've never stood, jguk 21:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I guess you're still waiting for all of the U.S. to be asleep [120]? Or perhaps you should try running for arbcom again? With your extraordinary list of accomplishments, perhaps you could even replace Jimbo Wales... Quite frankly, outside of indulging an obsession with cricket, you've been far, far more destructive than constructive. Sortan 21:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Alleged sockpuppetry[edit]

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


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

Users who dont get Fair Use AGAIN[edit]

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

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

Someone else sort this out... If I have to deal with this rockheaded user I will probably start screaming.  ALKIVARRadioactivity symbol.png 06:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like theres more too.... [121] User:Ewok Slayer needs to be educated as to what Fair Use means.  ALKIVARRadioactivity symbol.png 06:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Is there a WP policy or guidelines page that specifically states that copyrighted logos cannot be placed on userpage templates? I think it would be helpful if we could put a link to it in the edit summaries when we do remove them. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Not AFAIK, but all fair use images cannot be placed in any templates - it should be somewhere in wikipedia:fair use. Johnleemk | Talk 20:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
It's near the end of Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy and begins with the admonition that fair use material is only to be used in the article namespace. -- DS1953 20:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Temporary ban on Copperchair editing[edit]

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

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

User:All in[edit]

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

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

The Article "BORED"[edit]

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

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

User:Mr.Treason on the Run[edit]

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

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

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

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

Alkivar[edit]

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

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

Thirdly, Alkivar simply labels everyone a vandal who tries to talk with him about this matter, and he claims any argument regarding the matter to be vandalism. Look at his talk page. Any time someone brings up the Oklahoma Christian University article on his talk page, he just reverts it or claims it