Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Tasks

The following backlogs require the attention of one or more editors.
NPOV disputes, Images on Commons, Overpopulated categories and Copyright Problems.

General

Protection of user talk pages

The protection policy says: "User talk pages should only be protected in cases of persistent vandalism". But I see that some admins protect the talk pages of banned users to prevent them from editing them, even when they are not writing anything which is objectionable in itself. Good idea? Bad idea? Haukur 18:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

He's complaining about me protecting User talk:Dschor. In this case, the banned user is continuing to edit his talk page (with Huakurth's encouragement) in direct violation of his ban. This has resulted in the ban being reset for, now, the 3rd time. Dschor is banned, and as Dmcdevit has clarified, this includes a ban from his talk page. Non-objectionably in this case appears to include complaining about the ban, a favourite topic of bannees, and one which often gets their ban extended. My protection here follows protection by arbitrator Dmcdevit who protected because the banned user was using it, which was peculiarly reversed by Haukurth. I have reprotected it for Dschor's own good: he cannot now extend his ban by editing it. For reference see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#Log of blocks and bans, and in particular [1], [2]. -Splash^talk 18:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested in the general issue, not just this particular case. If people generally want to have a policy that says the talk pages of banned users are protected then I'll certainly abide by that. Then it should be codified and applied consistently, which is not the situation now. I notice, for example, that SPUI commented extensively on his talk page during his ban and yet the page was not protected and the ban was not extended (both of which I'm fine with). Haukur 18:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

My take would be that normally, such pages should not be protected, as protection prevents other people adding notes to them. If the ban is short, those notes and questions may be important. Protection is always a last resort, and should never happen as a matter of course. However, if a banned user is using his page to troll, carry on the dispute, or continue to fight the case, then protection may be better than extending the ban. --Doc ^ask? 18:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

(indent) A ban need not mean the protection of banned users' talk pages. It can, for instance, just mean a blanket revert of any and all edits that banned users make to their own talk pages, regardless of value or content. --Deathphoenix 16:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Why revert all edits, regardless of value or content? Isn't the point of banning a user to prevent contributions that lack value and content? Protecting a banned user's talk page does not help build an encyclopedia, does it? --67.168.241.139 03:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Dschor is not only blocked, he's banned--forbidden to edit Wikipedia. This is why he is not permitted to edit Wikipedia for the duration of the ban, which was instituted by the arbitration commiteee. Not any part of it. --Tony Sidaway 04:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Political userbox undeletion vote statistics

I compiled the number of article edits and date of first edit for those who are voting on the undeletion of political userboxes at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates. There are probably mistakes in my tally, feel free to correct.

Undelete

1. Piotrus - 13147 - 2004/04/10
2. Halibutt - 10669 - 2003/11/27
3. The Tom - 7067 - 2003/06/01
4. Enochlau - 4610 - 2004/01/04
5. CesarB - 3948 - 2003/02/13
6. Revolución - 3456 - 2005/05/21
7. Radagast - 3244 - 2001/12/13
8. Thryduulf - 3211 - 2004/12/26
9. Mike Rosoft - 3127 - 2004/06/11
10. Ombudsman - 2743 - 2005/02/26
11. Ynhockey - 2619 - 2004/11/08
12. Siva1979 - 2081 - 2006/01/06
13. Karmafist - 2058 - 2004/08/09
14. D-Day - 2001 - 2005/07/21
15. JDoorjam - 1734 - 2005/07/04
16. Locke Cole - 1608 - 2005/09/25
17. E._Brown - 1281 - 2005/01/10
18. Palm_dogg - 1130 - 2005/10/11
19. RadioKirk - 1026 - 2005/06/14
20. Cuivienen - 1021 - 2005/11/15
21. StuffOfInterest - 991 - 2005/05/24
22. Cynical - 690 - 2004/05/22
23. SushiGeek - 651 - 2005/09/04
24. Blu Aardvark - 655 - 2005/07/08
25. Ian13 - 576 - 2005/10/30
26. Ian3055 - 533 - 2005/10/27
27. Mike McGregor (Can) - 485 - 2005/10/11
28. Rogue 9 - 433 - 2005/09/01
29. Weatherman90 - 371 - 2005/10/01
30. Hossen27 - 355 - 2005/11/09
31. Pjetër Bogdani - 349 - 2005/12/24
32. MiraLuka - 346 - 2005/09/18
33. Dtasripin - 343 - 2005/04/15
34. Keithgreer - 340 - 2005/06/16
35. JSIN - 336 - 2005/04/02
36. Guðsþegn - 260 - 2005/06/15
37. Sjeraj - 151 - 2005/12/28
38. Colle - 181 - 2006/01/21
39. God of War - 156 - 2005/12/03
40. Mostlyharmless - 83 - 2005/12/26
41. The Ungovernable Force - 65 - 2006/01/01
42. AlbertW - 25 - 2006/02/10
43. Fkmd - 7 - 2006/01/26

Keep deleted

1. Bkonrad - 19790 - 2004/02/13
2. Tony Sidaway - 7449 - 2004/11/26
3. MONGO - 5784 - 2005/01/18
4. MarkSweep - 4893 - 2004/04/09
5. Doc_glasgow - 4399 - 2005/04/11
6. JWSchmidt - 2214 - 2003/02/27
7. Dalbury - 1870 - 2005/08/09
8. Cyde - 1645 - 2002/12/22
9. Improv - 1046 - 2004/10/28
10. Trödel - 944 - 2005/01/17

Those who want to have political userboxes have been cast as a crowd of n00bs with almost no article edits. This is not supported by the facts. I don't personally feel that political userboxes are useful, I just want to remind everyone that there are many experienced productive Wikipedians who think they are and we should be careful to respect them. Hopefully we are about to reach a compromise. Haukur 12:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Mostly what you've done here is give an excellent example of why voting is evil and stupid. NPOV and root aren't up for votes either. Just because a polling mechanism exists doesn't oblige anyone to use it or take notice of it when its results are irrelevant - David Gerard 12:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I like me some root! Can I vote me some root? :) Haukur 12:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Saying that to an Australian may be inadvisable, shurely? Shimgray | talk | 21:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that they haven't just made hundreds upon hundreds of edits adding and modifying their userboxes? ;-) Kjkolb 13:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

:-) This is why I counted only article edits. By the way - anyone who votes to give me root will also get root once I've got root. ;) Haukur 13:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I vote to give you a carrot and a yam. Potatoes, the other hand are stem tubers, not root tubers. Guettarda 16:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

*grr* This happened to me the other day too. I was going to buy crisps at the shop but noticed that they were selling variants made from other root vegetables and I decided to get adventurous. It tasted horrible. su potato for me, please. Haukur 19:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

What this really shows is that most people reallize there's an encyclopedia to write and didn't bother to show up for the poll. Per David, you can't vote out NPOV. - Taxman ^Talk 00:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This was exactly the kind of rhetoric I was trying to counter; i.e. dismissing the views of people who have hundreds or thousands of article edits with a facile soundbite argument ("you can't vote out NPOV") while implying that they're a bunch of wankers who don't "reallize there's an encyclopedia to write". Haukur 23:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What you've done is wallop hell out of a straw man. See Greg Maxwell's meta-analysis for a more complete picture of the demographic breakdown of those supporting regulation of userboxes and those opposing it. --Tony Sidaway 14:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Link for said analysis? (Forgive me if it's staring me right in the face; morning coffee has yet to kick in.) android79 15:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll#Results, so far has a link to it. --cesarb 15:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Greg's analysis is indeed more complete and quite interesting. Haukur 09:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Cutting and pasting

User:Tnikkel has raised on my talk page an ongoing issue he's been dealing with, regarding frequent cut-and-paste moves done by the following users:

• User:Mackintosh Blues
• User:Cockadoodle
• User:Good vs. Bad
• User:Blackbone 5000
• User:Jumbo Juice
• User:Li'l Bean
• User:The Arc of Fame

It's not entirely clear whether this is deliberate vandalism or simply a lack of awareness of Wikipedia's rules regarding page moves. Tnikkel has raised the issue with them, but the editors never acknowledge his talk page posts, and mostly seem to stop editing after his post (at which time a new one starts doing the same thing). Based on this editing pattern and the fact that all of their edits pertain to cartoons (every single one of them has made edits to some combination of Curious George, The Fairly OddParents, SpongeBob Squarepants and/or The Pink Panther), Tnikkel suspects that it's the same person editing under multiple usernames. But other than the ongoing cut-and-paste problem, their edits tend to be valid and legitimate. And even the moves are legitimate disambiguation (i.e. this isn't a Willy on Wheels scenario); they just use the wrong procedure and then fail to acknowledge any discussion about it.

Any assistance in figuring out what can be done about this would be helpful. Bearcat 18:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This user appears to be currently in another editing session, this time as User:Railroad Runners. I again left them a message, they have edited since the message, but no response yet. Tnikkel 23:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried blocking one of the accounts for a short period (e.g. 15 mins) and then making the warning? - this would fire off autoblocks for any additional accounts. That way you may be able to get them to talk somewhere, and they probably wouldn't realise that the block was released so quickly unless they actually read what you wrote. --Victim of signature fascism | Do people who don't think Jesus existed exist? 00:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't because I'm not an admin. Tnikkel 00:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Railroad Runners is still making edits, so if someone wants to try that now they could, but so far that user account hasn't made any cut-and-paste moves, so that account hasn't done anything wrong, but if I'm right, they are the same person. Tnikkel 05:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe this person is back and editing right now and now using the account User:Floodwall. Tnikkel 00:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

And again I believe the same person is now using User:Kingdom Wealthy. Tnikkel 03:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If there is an admin who wants to try a short block to try to get this user's attention then right now I believe this person is editing with the account User:USA 5000. Tnikkel 23:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

And now I think this person has moved on to the account User:The 100% Grand Guy. Tnikkel 21:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

And now its User:Claws 'n' Jaws. Could an admin do a temp block to try to get this users attention? It's getting tiring looking through the hundreds and hundreds of edits this user makes looking for the few bad ones to undo. Tnikkel 23:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Email confirmation - IMPORTANT

(copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Mail server blacklisted by SpamCop --cesarb 04:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC))

For some lovely reason our new mail server has been blacklisted by SpamCop, allegedly for sending mail to spamtrap addresses. (They provide no details by policy, of course, so there's no way to verify it.)

Since there's a tiny possibility that the user-to-user email feature actually could be abused, I've gone ahead and enabled the e-mail confirmation requirement for using email features. This is a bit annoying for the moment since you have to do it separately on each wiki.

I've disputed the listing, so hopefully we'll get it removed soonish and those who aren't getting email will, uh, start getting it again. --Brion 22:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

---

What this means for most users: You must go to Special:Confirmemail and tell it to email you a confirmation code. If you don't, you will not receive Wikipedia email. You have to do it with all your accounts, if you have more than one. --cesarb 04:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC) (link changed. Superm401 - Talk 06:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC))

---

Confirmation has worked for me on every wiki except Meta and Wikisource, even though I tried twice and waited a day for the emails. I tried again today with the same results. Is there a problem with those sites? I could not find anything about it on Meta or Wikisource, but I am not very familiar with them. -- Kjkolb 11:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Copperchair violating ArbCom ban

User:Copperchair has edited Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi today despite being banned by ArbCom (see his talk page) from editing any articles related to Star Wars. This user has already been blocked four times since the ban was enacted. While the edit does not necessarily appear to be in bad faith, it is still a violation of his ban. --BinaryTed 18:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

And he still is. The second edit appears to be a valid statistical correction, however, so it need not be reverted. Septentrionalis 20:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought that after long dragged out experiences with other problem editors (in which they should have been banned much sooner than they did; I think you guys know what I'm talking about) that it was settled that Arbcom sanctions on editing a class of articles were irregardless of the merits of any particular edit. I'm tempted to read it rigidly since Copperchair keeps reverting his user talk (which is very annoying, but not covered under the Arbcom decision)- but I will hold off on the year block until I get some feedback here. --maru (talk) contribs 22:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The ArbCom decision says he's banned from editing Star Wars articles; there is no distinction made as to whether "meritorious" edits are allowed, so I'd have to say they're not. He was actually blocked just two days ago for making basically the same edit he made today. --BinaryTed 21:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, I was the one who did that ban, so it's probably not a good precedent. --maru (talk) contribs 22:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Understandable. Is there another admin who would like to take a look at this, or do we actually have to wait for a "bad faith" edit? --BinaryTed 18:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

We could ask Nufy8 or A Man In Black to take a look. --maru (talk) contribs 18:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That was fairly obviously just violating the ban on purpose, so I blocked for a week. The enforcement says for up to a year, but that's not required. I'd suggest a month or more for the next one though. - Taxman ^Talk 05:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'd like an explanation for why this user's talk page was being reverted and why it is protected. User's have the right to edit their talk pages and blank them if they like. They can't remove vandalism warnings, etc, but everything else is fair game. I'm unprotecting unless some really good policy points are brought up that I'm missing. - Taxman ^Talk 21:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Fully-banned users are not entitled to edit anything at all, talk pages included. If he's only banned from Star Wars articles, then he can of course edit his own talk page. -Splash^talk 21:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think his motive, in reverting to the "welcome to wikipedia" version, is to make his condition less evident to any johnny-come-lately users that with whom he might find himself in conflict. The fewer people aware of his restrictions, the more likely a couple violations thereof will slip through the cracks, especially if four out of ten mistake him for a clueless newbie. — Mar. 7, '06 [21:28] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Of course that's his intent, but don't kid yourself that many people are fooled by it. The first links on what links here is the arbcom decision. You could interpret the arbcom decision as a warning that needs to stay, but the rest he can change as he wants. Really there's so many people watching his edits that he's not going to get any vandalism in just because his talk page looks clean. Please stop reverting the talk page unless to replace the arbcom warning. - Taxman ^Talk 16:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

210.11.188.13 and 210.11.188.16

Multiple warnings, I issued a last warning after reverting an article twice, he vandalized again. Last vandalism on Bayeux Tapestry. The IP is registered to a school so they can be only temporarily blocked. This is also why it seems to be multiple IPs. Thanks. Raintaster 03:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I blocked the first IP for 48 hours. But if there are multiple Ip's involved a range block may be needed. --Ragib 03:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Now with semi-protection available, I generally prefer to semi-protect articles rather than to impose a range block. Obviously, range blocks may still be necessary if more than one or a few articles are being targeted. --Nlu (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed U2 criteria from CSD

I removed a criteria from CSD: U2: Recycling IP pages. User talk pages of non-logged in users where the message is no longer relevant. This is to avoid confusing new users who happen to edit with that same IP address. since there was no need for deleting the whole page to achieve such effect. The suggested procedure is just blanking the page (as agreed on csd talk page) and not deleting it, so the old versions get archived on the history. The complete deletion was uncalled for. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't blanking a talk page cause the system to treat it as a new edit to the talk page, and so bring up the "You have a new message" dialogue? Shimgray | talk | 00:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If so, perhaps a template could be made explaining that the page is just being blanked should be made to avoid confusion. After blanking the page, the template would be placed on it before saving. -- Kjkolb 10:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

CAT:CSD and Wikipedia:Hangman

This game is still obviously on-going, I can't find any reason why Hangman is in the CSD category. Anyone else? NSLE _(T+C) at 04:30 UTC (2006-03-05)

There is no reason for speedy deletion when the game is still on-going. Can't Wikipedia games just stay on the project? --Terence Ong 04:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it is in the category either. There certainly isn't a deletion tag on the page, and I can't find anything that would be causing it to appear in this category. Not that I'm a wiki code expert or anything, but from the look of it the page shouldn't be appearing in the category. Raven4x4x 06:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. When I took out an extra period, it took it out of CSD for me. Odd. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 06:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Strange case. It seems to have manifested itself sometime around February 14, based on these diffs ([3], [4]) with a comment between the two ([5]). No clue what happened, but figured I'd point that out in case someone wanted to try to track down the glitch. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that a template got tagged with the deletion template, and due to caching issues, and not using noinclude tags on it, the page appeared to be in the category (just a guess...) Ral315 (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bambenek (2nd nomination)

I think there is a lot of ballot stuffing, both for and against, this AfD. Hoardes of anons, with 1 or 2 or zero prior edits, are flocking together to vote, with a lot of personal attacks. The subject has complained on of being accused of sockpuppetry (which he denies), (and also linked the afd in his blog). With this type of acrimonious comments flowing back and forth, I suggest others to take a look at it. Thanks. --Ragib 01:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it, plus it's not something we should be posting to AN. The closing admin will take into account any sockpuppetry and the weight of the votes. Mike _{(T C)} 01:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Appropriateness of posting it here, I don't mind a pointer to anything that might become disruptive.
brenneman^{T}{L} 01:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a pretty extreme case; I've just done a count, and the figures for genuine versus fake or dubious contributions to the discussion (omitting those marked "comment") are:

• Keep
  • Definitely genuine: 0
  • Fake or dubious: 5
• Delete
  • Definitely genuine: 5
  • Fake or dubious: 8

Most of the "fake or dubious" are in fact pretty clearly fake, being editor's second, third, or only edit. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Closed as a "delete" now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets on Macedonia (region)

Recently there have been some POV pushing sockpuppets on the above article.

• Macedonian876 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Andropolus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Andropolus recently admitted to being Macedonian876. Macedonian876 has been blocked but only for 24 hours and that was on February 3. Could someone review thier edits and see if these 2 need to be blocked for being abusive sockpuppets of each other? Moe ε 03:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The Andropolus account, leaving aside some weirdness about the choice of the account name, seems to mostly be devoted to agreeing with the Macedonian876 account on Talk pages. It does not seem to have been used to evade WP:3RR. WP:SOCK does prohibit the use of multiple accounts "to create the illusion of broader support for a position", which is what seems to be happening here. I am going to leave a note at User talk:Macedonian876. Jkelly 23:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Range block

I've just tried my first range block, woth the help of user:Gnetwerker, who seems to know about these things. I read through m:Range blocks, and I think that I'm OK — but following the advice there, I'm posting waht I've done here so that it can be checked. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

11:55, 6 March 2006 Mel Etitis blocked "80.138.128.0/18 (contribs)" with an expiry time of
1 week (persistent vandalism from rotating IPs within this range; decalration on 
Talk:Asian fetish of determination to continue.) 

It's a pretty large block. And a week is a long time for a rangeblock. You may get some collateral damage. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

That resolves to *.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. In other words, this is the dialup pool of Deutsche Telekom, the largest internet provider in Germany. 82.26.165.46 16:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

We generally like IP bans to be 24 hours because of the risk of collateral damage. A block of a week on a single dynamic IP address is too much - a block of them much more so. Secretlondon 16:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Too many innocent bystanders are going to be hit by this block. It needs to be lifted within 24 hours at the most. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If bystanders are hit I'm sure they'll let Mel know in no uncertain terms! I wonder how many Deutsche Telekom customers actually edit the english wikipedia. I wonder if a semiprotect of the article may be a better option. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ir didn't seem that any of the addresses had been used for anything except vandalism of this article. The week was because the editor (or editors) in question have been doing this for some considederable time, ignoring blocks. The article was protected and then sem-protected for a while, but they just came back. I hoped that the week-long block might be enough to make them lose interest... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Move this to 24 hour block if not less, you have just blocked 16,382 IP addresses. Mike _{(T C)} 17:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

18!!!!!! Good God, use 24 only if you must, preferably 26+ if you can. A rule of thumb: If you 24 does not do it, then don't range block (and I have even recieved a SourceForge email to undo a 24-range block for unplugging 1/3 of a city). Another rule: if you are not sure how to get the range block right, then don't do it. Range blocks get out of hand very easily, so just be careful.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 22:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well how is he ever to be sure how to do one if he never tries? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not wish to meddle in the affairs of wizards, but I have detailed all of this vandal's activities on this page: User:Gnetwerker/My Notes/Asian fetish vandal, including going through all of the edit summaries to determine whether anyone else was using that IP range. There were not. The IP range that defines the vandal is 80.138.128.0/18 (i.e. a netmask of 255.255.192.0). I don't know how these things work, but I also don't want Mel to get in trouble for something I researched. -- Gnetwerker 23:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I will risk one question -- what is wrong with a /18 block on a German ISP's dial-in lines, with no record of non-offending use and no complaints? -- Gnetwerker 23:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there may be registered users editing from that /18. If you believe that not to be the case, at the very least ask someone with CheckUser privileges to confirm it before blocking such a huge range for any significant time. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong is you take out 16,000 IP addresses who many belong to registered users. You could wipe out whole ISP's, heck even whole cities with that range!!! A /24 takes out 254 IP addresses. Look at http://www.intermapper.com/docs/imhelp/07-troubleshooting/ipaddressing.html#subnets Mike _{(T C)} 05:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There may. No doubt they will email the mailing list if that's the case. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

A lot of users don't know how to access the mailing list. Blocking a /24 is a lot, but blocking a whole /18 is ridiclious. Mike _{(T C)} 19:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I would certainly agree if it were a ISP of an english speaking country. I do wonder however if a german isp would have that many editors if this wiki. I dunno. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people from non-english-speaking countries edit this wiki. Some even are administrators. --cesarb 21:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You are allowed to speak english if you live in a non-english-speaking country. Plus the largest american hospital outside of the states is in germany, plus a lot of north americans work/teach/study in europe, plus english is the language of business these days meaning a lot more people learning english. Range blocks should not be treated lightly, especially when its anything above a /24. Just be careful is all, when in doubt as for advice on the AN or from one of your admin friends. Mike _{(T C)} 03:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I defer to the wisdom of the more experienced editors and admins: how does one deal with a persistent vandal originating from a /18 set of dial-in IP addresses? It would appear that the answer is you can't. -- Gnetwerker 07:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Put the page on your watch list. Consider semi protecting if necessary. Secretlondon 11:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That is probably the best/only way, blocking it is just ridiclious IMO. Mike _{(T C)} 17:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Anon edit war on Taking Sides

Can someone protect and split this to prevent the revert war over which band the article is about? Alphax ^τεχ 01:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Split. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else appreciating the irony here? KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL --KimvdLinde 02:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Shared IPs

My brother complained to me today that he was blocked from editing Wikipedia. It turns out he was editing from one of 7 indefinitely blocked OzEmail proxies. This prompted me to take a closer look at blocked shared IPs on Wikipedia. I compiled a list of long-term blocked IPs with the {{SharedIP}} template on their user talk page. I then searched for attempted saves in the last approximately 24 hours of logs. Three sets of IPs stood out:

• The aforementioned OzEmail IPs (203.166.96.234 - 203.166.96.240)
• Two proxies from Saudi Arabia's national NetNanny (212.138.47.15 and 212.138.47.24) -- we were probably blocking everyone in that country
• A proxy from TPG Internet (220.245.178.132)

I've added all three sets to the trusted XFF list now, so they shouldn't be a problem in the future. The point I want to make is: please don't block ISPs or entire countries indefinitely without researching the alternatives. I'm all for blocking non-compliant ISPs like AOL, but we shouldn't block well-behaved internet citizens for no good reason. If you're having trouble with an ISP proxy, come and talk to me about it on #wikimedia-tech and I'll see if it's eligible for a trusted XFF listing. Blocking whole countries is especially poor form, imagine what the media would do with it if they found someone willing to allege that our Saudi Arabia article was biased. -- Tim Starling 03:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the KSA situation was more to do with the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. NSLE _(T+C) at 04:00 UTC (2006-03-07)

I see. Well, you're free to range-block the entire Islamic world if you feel that would solve the problem more completely. I'll compile a list of IPs for you. -- Tim Starling 04:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

How about we just range-block 0.0.0.0/0 and be done with it? --Carnildo 04:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Some of those proxies mentioned above (including one of the Saudi ones) were involved in "SQUIDWARD" vandalism. Lately, we've been getting several dozen SQUIDWARD vandalizing IPs every day, and we block them. When we block these, we block indefinitely, because when we tried blocking for 24 hours the same IP usually comes back the next day for more. "Researching alternatives" is not a particularly helpful suggestion. If you can work some "XFF" magic, it would be better to do so proactively and systematically, before a particular ISP proxy becomes a problem. -- Curps 04:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Has anyone done any work on identifying these squidward IPs? I'm running a few portscans myself, I'll see if I can turn anything up. -- Tim Starling 04:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Squidward, some of the IPs in question are listed there. Offhand, I recall some are definitely well-known open proxies widely listed on various proxy lists, some appear to be ISP proxies, some may be botnet zombies. The range 203.186.238.128/25 (now unblocked) is a Hong Kong ISP, see User_talk:Rayleung2709#helpme, they may use AOL-like IP address jumping. -- Curps 05:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

In general though, we need a better solution to the problem of IP blocks and autoblocks causing collective punishment, a practice more closely associated with <godwin>Nazis</godwin> than free encyclopedias. There's no other message board or forum site in the world where established users and even moderators or administrators get blocked because of the actions of some hit-and-run third party. Many school IPs are very frequently blocked by necessity, which is bound to permanently discourage many of our most promising young would-be contributors (and in many cases is likely the result of school bullies harassing nerds by effectively creating a denial-of-service situation).

One suggestion would be to create a database flag that gives a user immunity from all IP-based blocks and autoblocks: such users could only be blockable explicitly by username. Maybe this flag could be settable by anyone who places blocks, ie administrators. When you get an e-mail from some legitimate user complaining about being autoblocked, it would be nice to be able to check their contribution history, verify that it's not some throwaway account or vandal, and then turn on the flag and give them the good news that the problem won't recur. -- Curps 05:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocking everyone who hasn't been verified by an administrator seems unnecessarily restrictive to me. After all, how does one get verified, if one has never edited wikipedia before and is never likely to in the future because their entire country is blocked? Would you have joined Wikipedia if the only way to do so was to plead with someone by email? I'd prefer it if blocking code were developed in a direction which as much as possible does not favour established users over newbies. The complaints of regular users give us insight into the effect our blocking patterns are having on new users, and that will be lost if implement a whitelist.

None of the IPs I listed above appear to be open proxies. There was some squidward vandalism from them, but as far as I can tell, it came from ordinary residential computers using those ISPs -- probably a zombie network. -- Tim Starling 05:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You make it sound like "Blocking everyone" is something I'm advocating, when in fact it's merely an accurate description of the existing status quo. Surely it would be better to have an escape hatch where we can avoid blocking everyone who is forced to use the same IP.

Blocking will always affect users unevenly: some users must share a proxy with a million other users, while some vandals have /16 ranges to play with. Given this reality, blocking by IP address can never be democratic. The only democratic and fair thing to do is to judge users by their own merits, make them accountable only for their own actions and not those of any third party, avoid collective punishment... the only way to do that is to let good users bypass all IP-based blocks and autoblocks.

Many users already have de facto immunity from all IP-based blocks and autoblocks! (ie, with trivial effort they can evade the ones they themselves caused, and in practice they never encounter the ones caused by any other user). Only this is not based on any kind of merit, but mere random accidents of geography and ISP. And good users who are second-class citizens (many students, AOL users, residents of certain countries, etc) currently have no opportunity to earn the same status that is the birthright of even some vandals. The current blocking code has consequences which are perverse and simply insane.

Yes, what I'm suggesting would treat anons and very new accounts differently than more established users, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Treating all users exactly the same sounds good in theory, but in fact it's repeatedly been shown to be a source of failure in social software: see Clay Shirky: A group is its own worst enemy. Established users are a little more equal than newbies, but that's OK if becoming established is readily attainable.

Wikipedia is still an experiment in progress: it is still possible that history's ultimate verdict will be that it was a failure. Consider what Usenet was in the late 1980s... arguably it was the Wikipedia of its era... today it's largely a spam-ridden sideshow.

-- Curps 07:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

PS,

If someone has never edited Wikipedia before, there are still various ways we could get them verified... all we really need is some demonstration of non-bot human effort, to prove that it's not a throwaway account. Ask them to go perform a quest... tell them to go look up the names of the spouses of the Finance Ministers of half a dozen European Union countries, for instance, or ask them to wikify three pages from the {{wikify}} category and post the result to their talk page. Maybe something that combines useful work with a demonstration of their ability (literacy, etc) to usefully contribute to Wikipedia (research and editing skills).

This would only really be needed in extreme cases (eg, a campus where we truly need to keep the proxy IP permanently blocked 24/7, to pick one real-life example). In most cases, users can still edit some of the time, so they'd be able to build up a portfolio of contributions in the intervals between blocks and autoblocks. -- Curps 07:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I really like the idea of the immunity flag if it is workable. That would at least create a tool to undo additional collateral damage. It's related to the infamous bug 550, speaking of which, can anyone explain why that one is taking so long? I thought I heard patches have been submitted. - Taxman ^Talk 22:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's taking so long because there's no consensus as to which of the many proposed solutions should be used. --cesarb 23:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Please add 203.166.99.233 - 203.166.99.252 to the XFF list. These are also Australian high school proxies. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#NSW/Ozemail proxies. Rhobite 23:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu case closed

A final decision has been reached in this case and it has been closed.

The full details are in the case at the link above.

The remedies are:

• On Danteferno (talk · contribs)
  • Revert parole
  • Warned not to engage in incivility or personal attacks
• On Leyasu (talk · contribs)
  • Revert parole
  • Probation
  • Personal attack parole

Enforcement of paroles and probations is by blocking.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 19:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Semi-protected user and user talk pages

...is very full of 110 semi-protected user talk pages. Many of these have been protected in a vandal flurry and forgotten about. Since we have at least a couple of anon vandal fighters and it's entirely reasonable that an anon may have legitimate cause to edit the page, including if it is 'theirs', I would ask that admin please i)remember to reverse their own protections and ii)take a look through their own protection log and see what needs doing. Thanks. -Splash^talk 21:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

A what if..

I found myself pondering this one day, what would happen if it was confirmed that someone who has a long valued history of positive contributions, under one user name, were in fact one of the more despised, and long hated running vandals?? And this could be confirmed to beyond a shadow of a doubt?? Would they be blocked on sight, or would their +s be allowed to be balanced against their -s?

A second but related what-if, suppose that one day Jimmy Whales woke up only to find that he had a nervous breakdown, and was in fact out of his mind, and decided to use his own account to move pages to completly random titles with the words "cheese" or "on wheels" in them? Is there anything that could be done, or would wikipedia as we know it simply collapse under the mad emperor, page-moving as wikipedia burns...

These two questions seem like two potentially interesting loopholes in established disciplinary practices--Whistle blower 22:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

In the first situation, I would welcome them with open arms, but some people might not be so forgiving. In the few cases this has happened (Wik), the person was discovered because he started exhibiting the same behavior that got him banned in the first place, even though he'd clocked up thousands of legitimate edits in the meantime. If they've completely avoided the old fights and have shown themselves to be good editors, I see no reason why they should not be welcomed.

For the second one, we'd be SOL until a developer could maybe lock down the system. However, that's as likely as Tampa being destroyed by a hurricane, so.. .. .. ok, maybe less likely. --Golbez 23:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo's actions can be overridden by the Board, so he's not a SPOF. A developer going insane would be far more damaging (since they have root), but that's even more unlikely IMO. --cesarb 23:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You could ask the same question in any situation. I'm a teacher--what would my university do if I went nuts and suddenly started failing all of my students and destroying their exams so no one could go back and grade them? The answer is, of course, that I wouldn't. What's the point of speculating? Chick Bowen 00:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

And if you did, something would be worked out. Let's "cross that bridge when we come to it". --kingboyk 00:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, the data is more or less backed up from time to time, and anyone can save a copy (and modify it per the GFDL), so, just like wiki-vandalism, it doesn't really matter how hard any single person tries, they can't really impact the existing information. --Interiot 00:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, more subtle degradation over time is still problematic, as you'd then have tradeoffs between accepting a more comprehensive up to date work, or a crappier work, with the alternative of a merge being impossibly time-intensive. --maru (talk) contribs 00:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This discussion violates WP:BEANS, please close it. — Mar. 8, '06 [10:09] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Nonsense Secretlondon 11:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

User:TheBobT

This user vandalized twice, and was blocked indefinately by Curps. I wonder why? He sent me an apologetic email so i reblocked him but only for 3 hours. If he vandalizes again then reblock him, but what's with this indefinite blocking business? — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

(PS: Prevent blocking wars. I won't unblock again if he is reblocked but please be careful — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC))

According to Kate's Tool he has one deleted edit, so he probably created a page which, no doubt, had something bad enough on it for Curps to block him. Too bad we can't browse deleted edits anymore. Chick Bowen 02:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[This] was his deleted edit. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 13:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to recall nearly two weeks later what the circumstances were. It's also worth pointing out that no genuine newbie starts out his Wikipedia career by vandalizing another user's userpage, so this could be a sockpuppet of some returning troublemaker, perhaps circumventing an earlier block. It's likely there were some deleted articles, so perhaps the userpage vandalism could have been misguided retaliation for speedy deletion of his article(s). Who knows, perhaps I mistook a genuine misguided newbie for a throwaway sockpuppet account created for the sole purpose of vandalism. Anyways, go ahead and unblock. -- Curps 03:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, cool. Let's keep an eye on him and hope he turns into a good contributor :) — Ilyanep (Talk) 04:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If anything, TheBobT should thank Vegaswikian for deleting his article: it had his full name, those of his immediate family, his birthday, his address, and nothing else. —Cryptic (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like anything too horrendous though. How did you find the deleted article? — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I normally indicate on the User's Talk page what deleted article I am talking about when I request they not vandalize or add nonsense. That way, when somebody comes back and says, "What are you talking about?" I can look at the article title I put on the user's page and go look at the deleted article to see what my concern was. Sometimes I forget to do this, but I do try to remember. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet another edit war, complete with possible sockpuppets

Someone emailed OTRS saying that the article Juice Games was biased; on investigation, there appears to have been an edit war between SNAFCUK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Bobbins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10]). Now, despite the fact that this all happened back in September, there also appears to have been personal information posted on the user and talk pages of Bobbins; to top it off, an IRC log posted on the talk page of SNAFCUK appear to indicate that this is a sockpuppet of banned user Irate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Can someone investigate further and let me know what's going on here? Thanks, Alphax ^τεχ 04:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether sock puppet or not, shouldn't SNAFCUK be blocked as an inappropriate user name? --Nlu (talk) 07:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Lohan lindsay 350x.jpg

This image was uploaded as a {{promophoto}}. I believe this tag is incorrect as the image is of a paid advertisement by, according to answers.com, "a joint project of The Milk Processor Education Program (MilkPEP) in Washington, D.C., and of Dairy Management Inc., Chicago." Am I correct in calling this a copyvio? RadioKirk talk to me 06:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It could qualify as both but either way we can conceivably claim fair use on it. 155.43.145.84 14:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

First off, it's orphaned, so fair use doesn't apply as currently, there is no use, and thus the whole question of whether is might be "fair" is moot. Secondly, it just might be fair use in an article on that advertising campaign, if that article discussed the campaign in some detail. It would not be fair use in Lindsay Lohan; and is not needed there. Now off to check the license claims of the images that are used there. Lupo 14:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Lupo! It's orphaned because I reverted its inclusion in Lindsay Lohan immediately prior to this notification. As for the other images in the article, they should be up to snuff per the article's successful WP:FAC. :) RadioKirk talk to me 15:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are. Indeed exemplary application of "fair use". I only wonder whether the last image is really necessary. Lupo 08:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

User:TruthCrusader

This user has violated WP:HAR in several cases by claiming that my real name is "Chad Bryant" in his edit summaries (see his contributions) and in his actual edits. As stated in WP:HAR:

Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether the information is actually correct) is almost always harassment. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media.

I request that this user be dealt with accordingly for repeatedly violating this rule, in spite of several warnings. Master Of RSPW 08:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

He has been stating he believes you might be a sockpuppet of User:ChadBryant, and if your complaint here is that he is "outing" personal information, this is awfully strong evidence that you are a sockpuppet of ChadBryant. If you are not a sockpuppet, you have no complaint to make regarding personal information. I fail to see what you hope to accomplish by this complaint. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I was dealing with this dispute for a while, and I'm exhausted. Every user involved in it, including Chadbryant, deserves a long timeout. There are personal attacks on both sides. They do nothing but put sockpuppet tags on each other's userpages, and attempt to get each other blocked by gaming the 3RR. These are grown men involved in a years-long dispute about a pro wrestling newsgroup. Rhobite 02:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've seen an almost identical comment from another admin, so it looks like they are going through admins. I arrived in this by blocking ChadBryant and TruthCrusader for 3RR a couple of days ago. The puppy is baring her teeth; I'm going to try riding herd on this and see where it goes. I have placed a notice on Talk:Rec.sport.pro-wrestling which is a lot more absolute than I usually like to be, basically giving a no-tolerance heads-up. I plan to lecture, and block for infractions without further warning, until they learn to play nice, or the article goes to dispute resolution (which I heartily reccomend against, the amount of accusations in edit summaries alone is excessive, I don't want to think about what they'd do in an Rfc or mediation.) I welcome advice and if you want to keep an eye on me please do; I would prefer other admins were aware of the progress of this attempt. Please let me know if you have suggestions or input - thanks! KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Advise needed

I would like to have some advise in how to deal with a user at Natural selection who does not really participates in the discussion, and after consensus is reached about changes, goes his one way and makes changes to that version resulting in bad english and factuall errors (an anom came along and edited his text with the edit summary: Read a biology book!). The old page was not good, and several attempts have been made to improve the page, generally ending in the withdrawl of most editors. At the moment, it is not edit warring, but he does change about twice a day now, the content back to his preferred version. I have invited him again to come to the talk page and discuss proposed changes there, but until now, most discussion takes place in the edit summaries, and I do expect it will be different this time. --KimvdLinde 10:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This is marcosantezana (talk · contribs). He reverted 4 times in just over 24 hours, I blocked him for 24 hours for this infraction [11] [12] [13] [14]. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have mentioned that I previously warned him about exactly this edit war and he responded basically by claiming the rule didn't apply to him because he was "right". --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I have posted a question on the Natrula selection talk page whether there are other editors who want to make this a good page. If not, I am going to leave it, and in that case, he has the effective ownership of the page. --KimvdLinde 06:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Today two evasions of the block: 69.222.248.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) revert [15] and 128.135.104.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) revert [16] both at Natural selection page. IP of this afternoon was blocked as a result of the violation, and block was reset. IP of this evening has resulted in semiprotection of the Natural selection as it was a dynamic IP. --KimvdLinde 04:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Bugger off

I have blocked this as an inappropriate User name Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 12:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images in sigs

I have been notified by Mushroom (talk · contribs) that fair use images are not supposed to used in sigs. The citation provided by the user appears to bear this out. However, the user appears to be in the early stages of removing the image from all my previous posts. Is this proper? RadioKirk talk to me 17:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. You don't own your sig, and it's perfectly appropriate for others to edit instances of it if it contains a fair use image. Chick Bowen 17:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If a copyrighted image is being used in a manner not consistent with fair use, then that particular use of the image ought to be removed ASAP. I don't see why your signature should be immune to that. android79 17:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for your time. :) RadioKirk talk to me 18:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Monobook.js page

I recieved an email from Haza-w, who has damaged his monobook.js page, and needs it reverting to the last version titled "unbeta". Unfortunately, not being an admin, I can't edit another user's .js page, so could an admin please carry out the revert. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 18:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hehe...I remember when I skrewed up my monobook with a redirect trigger on every page, even the page it was redirecting to because I forgot to put in a valid "if". Anyway, I reverted it.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 18:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks VoA. Much appreciated. haz _(user talk)^e 19:09, 8 March 2006

Trick for next time: append ?useskin=standard (or some other skin internal name) to any page. This is what the option of previewing a skin on your preferences does, and, unless you have broken user javascript for every single skin, is a way of avoiding the issue long enough to either change to a working skin or revert the broken change. --cesarb 23:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Cheers! haz _(user talk)^e 10:55, 10 March 2006

64.141.95.17 (talk · contribs) tried to hack my account

I just got like 25 automated e-mails saying that this IP has requested my password. Anything I can do about this? --Ixfd64 20:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That user is currently blocked, so they can't edit here anyway, but you might want to change your password just in case, and also possibly e-mail abuse@bigpipeinc.com (the company to which that IP belongs) and let them know the details. Chick Bowen 20:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hum, that's not really hacking--64.12.116.200 21:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The only actual effect is that you get a lot of annoying emails. :-S FreplySpang (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Except information is sent in cleartext by e-mail, where it could be sniffed (of course, all logins are non-SSL, so that particular horse has long since left the barn). And apparently that information remains valid indefinitely (it never expires). And there's no preferences setting to turn off this nonsense, short of disabling e-mail altogether. -- Curps 21:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You mean turning off all email on the internet?--64.12.116.200 00:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No, disabling it on Wikipedia. ~MDD4696 23:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hah! — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I liked 64.12.116.200's idea better :( — User:Adrian/zap2.js 08:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

FourthAve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've made this edit on the talk page of User:FourthAve. The tone is strong. I am very concerned that such edits are being misguidedly accepted as genuine attempts to write an encyclopedia article. I believe that the editor knows what he's doing when he enters the word "corruptly" into a sentence describing a political officer-holder, or makes frequent references to adultery, and what he does has the effect of bringing Wikipedia into disrepute.

I propose to watch this editor, having sternly warned him, and give him short blocks in the hope of deterring him, One to three hours, perhaps. Many of his other edits are of relatively poor quality, but useful. Comments welcome. --Tony Sidaway 06:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

For this edit to University_of_Dubuque, I have blocked him for one hour. --Tony Sidaway 08:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I have lengthened this block to 24 hours. One hour is far too lenient, but good work from Tony for not over-reacting. On the other hand, I will not tolerate (nor would any other admin) these sorts of edits: [17] [18]. Harro5 08:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh he was just trolling a bit. I still think the shorter block was better. If he doesn't cooperate, a longer block is always possible. --Tony Sidaway 09:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

24 hours would be appropriate given the guy's history. Stifle 13:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

In any event,the second block didn't take (when my initial block expired he was free to edit again). He has continued with the personal attacks, but his article edits since then are not vandalistic in nature. I think that in this case it's better to encourage the improvement in article editing. I really don't mind being called silly names, for now, as long as the articles are improving. Of course his personal attacks will have to be addressed, but first things first. --Tony Sidaway 20:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

He's back at it. My announcement of a three hour block for more vandalism on Jim Nussle and abuse of the talk page. --Tony Sidaway 13:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Bad usernames? User:Assmuncher

What is the policy/procedure for a user with a potentially offensive username? I'm looking at User:Assmuncher here. Is there a template or other automated mechanism to flag such a user for an admin to review? The account also seems to have so far been vandalism-only, but it remains to be seen if that will continue to be the case. Ryanjunk 15:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

We do have a policy against inappropriate usernames, and since this one is potentially offensive and the account has been used only to vandalize articles, I have indefinitely blocked the user. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 15:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

PS, you mentioned templates: {{indef-user}} is the only one I know of, which is to be placed on the User page after blocking. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 15:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You can report other instances to WP:AIV, where an administrator will see it and block. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 15:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The main template to be used in something like this is {{Usernameblock}}. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 21:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Can I create a template that will add a userpage into a bad usernames for blocking category. A while ago I reported a User:Nazi Vandal here. A template could make reporting these names a little easier.--God Ω War 23:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If you do so, please let me know what the template is; the CVU channel has a bot that watches for additions of certain templates ({{unblock}}, for example), and this would be a good one to add to the list. (The bot is the same framework that the Bootcamp channel uses to track {{helpme}}). Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 02:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have made a template {{PUB}}
--God Ω War 19:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Administrators' noticeboard", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you.

Unblock Bonaparte

Regarding the unblock of Bonaparte his blocking was a mistake. It was user:Uapatriot, http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FAlex_Bakharev_2&diff=40083793&oldid=40080624, that made vandalism as impersonator of Bonaparte. Also, Bonaparte was the victim of User:Mikkalai who has Anti-Romanian feelings. Yes, User:Mikkalai was blocked for Anti-Romanian discrimination. Please see [19]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.248.136.26 (talk • contribs) .

Bonaparte was indefinitely blocked by Jtkiefer, not Mikkalai. See log. Chick Bowen 17:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Mikkalai was blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR apparently. Are the Romanian nationalists happy now they've got rid of the Moldovan Wikipedia? I can't see your main man being unblocked any time soon. Secretlondon 17:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Mikkalai made a lot of Anti-Romanian edits. A sick man that makes sick vandalism on other countries's pages. Sick Anti-Romanian vandal. His father had died in Romania in WW II. This explains his Anti-Romanian feelings. Sick person.

Bonny, go away. Your recent trolling here or here was one of the worst nightmares Wikipedia experienced this year. You'd better find some helpful activity outside Wiki. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Civil as all get-out. w00t! Is there no honour amongst administrators? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't parse this at all, sorry. Secretlondon 12:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Romanian discrimination edits by User:Mikkalai

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Moldova&diff=42998819&oldid=42987259

Why is that so? Why did User:Mikkalai made harassments on Bonaparte? Why was not blocked Mikkalai?

Personal attack made by user:Goethean against user:Andries

user:Goethean is making a personal attack against me on his user page by linking to a webpage "Andries bias" www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/sathya-sai-baba-wikipedia-bias.html that contains defamatory comments about me.
--Andries 19:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I have requested user:Goethean to remove the link to the defamatory webpage.
--Andries 19:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Even if there is a legitimate beef here (which i doubt), what about it calls for Admin attn? Shouldn't Andries be seeking intervention with Goethean, by someone interested in the matter he feels defamed about, and pursuing an RfC if that fails? Should this section just be archived without further consideration?
--Jerzy•t 13:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Very few people who know about this area will want to get involved.Geni 13:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Geni is right. Who else is interested in a personal attack against me apart from me? Nobody, I guess. What is the normal procedure in such a case? Andries

Temporary ban from Shiloh Shepherd Dog

This temporary injunction has been passed in the Shiloh arbitration:

1) Until the resolution of this case, Tina M. Barber (talk · contribs) and ShenandoahShilohs (talk · contribs) are banned from Shiloh Shepherd Dog.

This injunction has received the requisite four net support votes. If breached, it can be enforced by a short block. The ban does not apply to edits on Talk:Shiloh Shepherd Dog.

Enacted on 20:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 21:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Fix Redirect Please

Hi a user decided to be bold and redirected Liza Powell to Liza Powel. This would be fine any other day, except Liza Powell was nominated for deletion. Per the guide for deletion, I would ask that an admin reverse the move to allow the discussion to finsih. Mike _{(T C)} 05:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't need an admin - [20]. --kingboyk 05:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry thought he used the move button to move it, not adding a redirect, my bad! Mike _{(T C)} 06:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if he'd used the move button, it would not have prevented the discussion from finishing. Changing an article, even so drastically as to redirect it, in the middle of an AfD discussion is entirely appropriate. Think about the purpose of the notice, not just the boilerplate "please do not remove this notice" text. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

April Fools Day

April 1 is coming up. This year, are we going to be screwing around with the Main Page again, or are we going to be showing a modicum of academic restraint? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Screw around! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 08:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Showing academic restraint. We're here to build an encyclopedia. Boring but true. --kingboyk 08:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this (restraint). K1Bond007 08:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Screw around academically! --Carnildo 08:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup, screw around. It's April Fools Day we're talking about, plenty of businessess do stuff, can't see why we can't have fun too! _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 08:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind a bit of fun, but admins should remember this:

1. Don't mess with the Featured Article. Tons of users worked hard on that article to bring it to featured status, and it's a slap in the face to keep it off the Main Page.

I agree with this completely. In part because its true, and in part because an FA I wrote looks like it'll be main page'd that day. Ahem --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Do something original. "Wikipaedia" logos have already been done; come up with something that no one else has.

3. Don't do something that will embarrass Wikipedia should it be reported in the news media.

4. Whatever you do, don't wheel war. If your hoax is reverted, leave it be.

Ral315 (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps all the rogue admins should get together and work something out. (Sorry, I'm not an admin... but I do like April Fool's Day...) Perhaps changing all the news, DYK and anniversaries to made-up stuff? I'd love to turn on my computer and read that a street worker in Angola succeeded in building the world's first nuclear fusion reactor! haz _(user talk)^e 10:52, 10 March 2006

You b*****d! you just wasted all the work i have done off-line on Luanda tokamak.
--Jerzy•t 12:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[wink]

Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page, although we have people who don't think we should do anything, and there are those who believe if we do something for April Fool's, we should do something for every single holiday out there. For those who think this proposal goes against everything Wikipedia stands for, I also propose that we just make Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch a featured article and discuss the other parts of the proposal for next year (it would probably take that long to come to any sort of consensus). --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that, (not your second suggestion in my opinion) is the only way it should be done. Putting factual innacuracies that will be mirrored across the entire internet in the name of humor is just dumb. We're an encyclopedia, and we should respect that. Vandalizing the main page in the name of a joke is still vandalism, and is subject to blocking. Keep your April fools jokes outside of Wikipedia. There's this whole other world out there to saran wrap toilets and play other jokes on. - Taxman ^Talk 13:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Not everybody likes / gets April Fool's Day jokes. Please include a link on the April Fool's Main Page for people who don't appreciate the jokes to click and get back the regular (boring) Main Page. -- PFHLai 17:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, April 1st is a Saturday this year. Forget DYK. It is supposed to be replaced by POTD on weekends. See Wikipedia:Picture of the day/April 1, 2006. -- PFHLai 17:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be keen if it was, you know, actually a featured picture. —Cryptic (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My two cents regarding April Fools jokes on the main page and elsewhere:

1. Nobody actually thinks they're funny except you.

2. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and under no circumstances should false information be featured anywhere, especially on the main page.

3. Wikipedia has reached the point of notability that depending on what is done it could quite possibly receive press attention. We run the risk of coming off as a childish joke project pretending to be "a real encyclopedia", or as a propagator of lies and misinformation. This could considerably compound other PR issues.

4. April Fools jokes are viewed in a negative light by many other Wikipedians, so you're really just asking for trouble.

Considering how Wikipedia is still struggling to be viewed as a serious academic source, I don't think excessive April Fools jokes are a path that we want to go down right now. That being said Wikipedia isn't run by robots, and I don't think it would go amiss to feature Exploding whale that day or do something of the sort. Whatever's done though, don't wheel war. Canderson7 ^(talk) 20:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Nobody actually thinks they're funny except you. This statement makes no sense. If the "you" is addressed to an individual, then it's plainly false; if it's addressed to you-plural ("y'all", as they say in the American South), then it's meaningless.

And considering that major and respected news media, to give a major example, have no problem with the concept (witness the BBC's "Swiss Spaghetti Harvest" of 1957, Sports Illustrated's "Sidd Finch" story, and NPR reporting the sale of Arizona to Canada -- complete with actual interviews with Arizona's governor and Canada's foreign minister. This whole hypersensitive concern with Wikipedia's image is misplace, in my opinion. --Calton | Talk 00:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The "you" refers to the person making that particular April Fools joke. It is true of jokes in general that what one person and perhaps more than one finds very funny will appeal little to a wider audience. "Major and respected news media." Wikipedia is certainly major, but in the vast majority of academic circles it is not yet respected. At the time of their April Fools jokes, those organizations you mention were not struggling with the image crisis that Wikipedia is at the moment. Far from hypersensitive, my concern with Wikipedia's image is a result of current perception (that it's a joke reference source that no one should really take seriously). As I said though, this does not mean that April Fools day should not be devoid of humor, merely that a thought be given to the wider scheme of things and Wikipedia's role as an encyclopedia. Canderson7 ^(talk) 03:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I do hope that, regardless of whatever shenanigans they may be carrying on themselves, admins will also be manning new page patrol on that day to deal with the enormous number of nihilartikels we're likely to get. Some of the April 1 hoaxes from last time were still showing up at AfD in the fall. I'd also remind everyone that April 1st in wiki time lasts nearly 48 hours, from midnight on the 1st in New Zealand to midnight on the 2nd in Hawaii. Chick Bowen 04:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Question about a possible mistake I just made.

I was looking at the article "Brian mccann" expanding it, and I realized that the last name was not capitalized, which irritates me. So I created a new page, telling myself I'd just redirect the old page, and then went to redirect and realized I could've moved it and saved the hassle and that I did exactly what is asked not to do. So if anybody could fix this without me having the smackdown laid upon me, I'd really appreciate it. I'm not good with the technicalities and stuff of Wikipedia yet, I'm working on it though. AdmiralTreyDavid 08:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The article already exists, at Brian McCann. --Golbez 08:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does, and putting a rdr on top of it as you did is not exactly a cut&paste move but more like a c&p merge, which looks enuf like such a move that IMO it should be avoided just to keep from setting a bad example, and from inducing repetitive checks against something having gotten lost under the rdr. I'm remedying that.
--Jerzy•t 11:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There was in fact material under the Rdr that appears (to this non-expert) not to have been treated in Brian McCann. See talk:Brian McCann
--Jerzy•t 12:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Since no information was merged, I'm really failing to see why the hassle of a history merge was necessary here.
--Golbez 16:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

1. No info was merged, but there is info there re trading strategy that doesn't appear to be in the older article (the one at the proper name). I did not merge it (bcz i know too little abt the game to know whether or how to add it), but i left a substantial note abt it on the talk page.
2. If there had been no content worth merging there, the history would need eventual merging anyway (by someone), lest editors who are more concerned than you about this double-check for it in an endless stream. Nothing but rdrs should in the long run be left anywhere in the main namespace with an rdr at the top of the history.
3. I don't really think it's my business as an editor, to set priorities for other editors, and IMO my use of "you" in my first cmt in this section might suggest i was criticizing you for doing half (or 10% of) the job i would have done. I regret that suggestion (and to the extent that that notion was influencing my mind at the time, i'm embarrassed by my slip). I should have more clearly confined myself to pointing out that in such situations, there is another job left to be done, by someone moved to do so. Especially so since admins doing both jobs when they do the rdr part is far from sufficient; those of us aware and concerned abt the problem need to specifically turn over the rdr "rocks" (to see what content "crawls out") -- more often than i do. But perhaps there could be a bot-built list of rdrs with non-rdr versions below them, for us to hack away at, instead of our searching "what links here" pages for rdr's & displaying their histories.

--Jerzy•t 17:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking glitch for User:Aiden

Would an admin please check out Aiden's comments at User Talk:Aiden and see if they can help him? He was blocked for 3RR, served his time, became unblocked, but when logging in from home he apparently is still blocked. I'm thinking it might be the autoblocker bug that extends the time if a blocked user even *looks* at a Wikipedia page. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 10:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I see that there's some discussion about the block on his user talk page, but just to clarify: the autoblocker does not block if you only read Wikipedia; it blocks if you attempt to edit, including clicking on red links (which is interpreted as an attempt to edit and create a new article). Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I Just Can't Believe it, Someone hacked onto wikipedia

From other posts I learned quite a bit. ADMINISTATOR'S HACKED ON WIKIPEDIA TO GIVE THEMSELVES ADVANTAGES!!! Some person said that the founder of wikipedia left wikipedia empty, so then somebody must have hacked on wikipedia to change the main page so that only admins can edit it, and make an administrator an official position. I am not accusing anybody but I want to know if this hypothesis is wrong. I am not saying the hacking was bad, but I mean, is there anyone out there who could actually hack on to this site. I am not mad, but impressed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crowbaaa (talk • contribs) .

Uh... yeah. Admins are all l33t h4x0rzzz. android79 14:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Umm... What? --lightdarkness ^(talk) 14:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

See Leet, and also Sarcasm. ;-) android79 14:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I know :D I was refering my comments to Crowbaaa --lightdarkness ^(talk) 15:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Some person was wrong. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Friend, the Front Page has been protected as long as I've been here. As for your statement that "the founder of wikipedia left wikipedia empty", again there's been content here as long as I've been here. But I am often impressed, too, at the fact anyone can hack edit the content of Wikipedia, which has been the case as long as I've been here. HTH HAND. -- llywrch 21:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Memorial for deceased Wikipedians

I wonder if there is any interest in having a memorial page for deceased Wikipedians. I thought of this after reading that User:Caroline Thompson had passed away. If this has already been done, please point me to the correct page. If it hasn't been done, perhaps we could create such a page. The main reason I bring this up is that Wikipedia is a long-term project which will see, over the coming years, more of us hitting this great inevitable fact of life.

If there is interest in doing this, any thoughts on where it should be?--Alabamaboy 14:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, as a subpage of Wikipedia:Wikipedians. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree - subpage of Wikipedia:Wikipedians seems appropriate. Johntex\^talk 20:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert war between Bobblewik and Ambi

There seems to be a revert war between User:Bobblewik (contributions) and User:Ambi (contributions) that is spinning out of control; Bobblewik changed about 1000 articles today, and Ambi used vandal rollback (inappropriately, in my view) on all or nearly all of those changes. My impression is that their tiff centers around the removal of wikilinks for dates (which, of course, is the most important thing possible that these editors could be working on), but it also seems to center around other stylistic issues (eg micrometre vs. micron). "In theory" I am on a wikibreak starting this morning, so I don't really have time to look into this properly. Can someone take a look at the issue and have a chat with these users? I'd appreciate it. Nandesuka 14:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Bobblewik is using a bot (or editing at bot-speed) to make changes remove "over-linked" dates and other items. A poll at Wikipedia talk:Bots indicates that Bobblewik does not have sufficient support for doing this with a semi-automated process, yet s/he continues. android79 14:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

He is using javascript, see User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/dates.js. Martin 15:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not really a revert war if Bobblewik is just doing the changes and the only one reverting is Ambi. It takes two to war. What Bobblewik is doing is well within policy, specifically, WP:DATE. --Cyde Weys 16:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:DATE is a guideline. android79 16:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting that the most recent entry in Bobblewik's block log is an unblock based on a promise from Bobblewik to stop doing precisely what he's started doing again. Mass changes that are at all controversial should be undertaken with extreme caution, and more than the usual measure of communication and courtesy, one would think. I guess it's the fact that whether or not dates are linked is the most important thing in the world that makes it necessary to flout the opinions of other editors. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't have a problem with editing articles to bring them in line with the MoS, but there's been strong objection to a) Bobblewik's interpretation of the MoS and b) Bobblewik using a semi-automated process to make these changes at high speeds. android79 17:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Following the MoS is great. Once you know that there's a controversial interpretation, basic civility requires stepping lightly. Just because the MoS says something, doesn't mean "do it like a hurricane". It's probably best if nobody on the Wiki does anything like a hurricane. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ambi seems to be making a point of some sort; I certainly can't see any other reason to mass-rollback edits, as Bobblewik isn't banned. —Kirill Lokshin 16:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Bobblewik has been told multiple times that he has no consensus support for his actions, but he continues to do them. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That's no reason to mass-revert everything. The objections have been centered on the fact that some linking of years is appropriate; I don't see how Ambi, doing 20+ reverts per minute, could possibly determine that all of Bobblewik's edits were faulty in this regard. —Kirill Lokshin 18:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That's no reason to mass-revert everything. That's precisely a reason to mass-revert everything, analogous to New York City's zero-tolerance program for subway grafitti, where cars were immediately pulled out of service and scrubbed when ANY grafitti was discovered: it makes the action pointless. And it's not Ambi's job to verify that Bobblewik isn't screwing up, it's Bobblewik's to provide some minimal assurance that Bobblewik is paying some sort of attention. And, as I understand it, there's evidence that Bobblewik isn't, despite Bobblewik's assertions to the contrary. --Calton | Talk 00:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. Wikipedia's bot policy is not optional. Withdrawing a request then running the bot anyway is not on. I have blocked him until he explains himself. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

*Sigh* he's not running a bot. --Cyde Weys 17:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

He's using a semi-automated process to make edits at bot speed. That still requires approval. android79 18:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Err, there's no requirement that everybody making high-speed edits get approval. —Kirill Lokshin 18:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm misreading or misunderstanding some nuance in WP:BOT, but I'd say that covers anyone making high-speed edits with an automated or semi-automated process. That's all really beside the point; the fact is, there's significant opposition to Bobblewik making these changes in this way. android79 18:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've always interpreted that as meaning actual bots, not merely manually-invoked user javascript (otherwise things like popups and auto-whatever buttons and whatnot would need approval). In any case, you're correct that there's opposition to (at least some) of Bobblewik's edits; but we don't usually hand out indefinite blocks just because of that, do we? —Kirill Lokshin 18:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Bobblewik appears to be a little reluctant to get the hint from his previous blocks that, at present, policy, guideline, or other thing aside, his edits are not going to stick. They lack the kind of support that is needed for such massive scale changes, whether you do them semi-automatically, automatically or manually. If you encounter resistance, you do not go and do another 1000 after promising to stop. He shouldn't be surprised that he's gotten blocked again. He clearly hasn't learnt the lessons of earlier blocks and so a temporarily-indefinite block until he indicates that he's going to stop it is probably reasonable. THe intention is not a community ban, or a premanent prevention from editing, but a block that he has, absolutely, to take notice of and respond to. -Splash^talk 19:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

(ec with Splash) Obviously there's some inconsistency in policy that concerns script-assisted editing and bots, and it needs to be clarified. I think that someone who repeatedly goes against consensus in this manner (this is not the first time this has happened) ought to be blocked; an indefinite block pending an explanation sounds fine to me. android79 19:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Making a thousand edits in rapid succession is disruptive. I'm willing to forgive Ambi for using rollback here, as these edits are questionable and whether "semi-automated" or "automated", should not be done. Bobblewik has promised not to make these edits, and has done so. This should not be taken lightly. Ral315 (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

"The most important thing possible"

Both Nandesuka and GTBacchus used this phrase up above. I like it. Do we have a page on it yet, along the lines of Meta:The Wrong Version?

Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Wikipedia depends on volunteer editors to improve it. Wikipedia depends on you to improve it. Therefore, whatever you are working on right now is the most important thing possible.

Sometimes, other editors who are not as quick-thinking as you may not immediately realize the value and importance of what you are working on. They may try to drag in irrelevant concepts such as "consensus" or "verifiability" or "NPOV". They may even, misguidedly, revert some of your edits. This is an unavoidable occurrence, and nothing to be concerned about. Simply rerevert the changes, and proceed -- after all, you are working on the most important thing possible.

Because of the importance of your work, Wikipedia gives you a number of powerful tools which will help you perform your work speedily. You are encouraged to be bold. You are free to ignore all rules. It is much more important to improve the encyclopedia than to slavishly follow policy, and what improvement could be more important than yours, which is the most important thing possible?

Don't let anyone tell you that your work is not important. Some editors place an undue emphasis on actual, verified facts, but factual content is worthless unless it is properly presented. Readers will be badly confused if some articles use British spelling and some use American, or if some section headings use All Capitalized Words while others capitalize Only the initial word. Ensuring consistency of these vital details is not only important, it is the most important thing possible.

Proper article titles are also extremely important. Articles are referred to, and can only be found or linked to, by their titles. A wrongly-titled article might never be found, or worse: the false implications of its wrong title might give a reader dangerously wrong impressions. For example, if the topic of an article is occasionally referred to by a more popular name, it is permissible to have a redirect stub under the popular name pointing at the correct name, but the real article must, obviously, always have the strictly correct name. Remember, correctness is not a popularity contest. The content of an article may be important, but ensuring that the article has the correct title is the most important thing possible.

Sometimes, you may become disheartened at the progress of your important work. It may seem as if every other idiotic editor on the project is ganging up on you, all simultaneously unable to appreciate the importance of your work. Do not lose heart, however: you are carrying on a sacred tradition; you are not alone. In fact, there is a special gallery erected to commemorate and celebrate the valiant efforts of unsung heroes like you who were willing to work, despite the costs, on the most important thing possible.

—Steve Summit (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The corollary to this then should be: If you feel something is wrong, you are likely not the only person to see that it is wrong. If you cannot fix it, you can take comfort that you are not the single point of failure. Either some other editor will eventually correct it, or some other editor may eventually convince you that it was not wrong. --Syrthiss 20:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to work out whether this is serious or satire. Or, more precisely, I'm wondering how many people would think what's written above is actually quite sensible advice. Talrias (t | e | c) 02:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

New Username

Hello all. My username has been changed over to User:Phil Sandifer. Thus when you see User:Phil Sandifer running around, please recognize that he is not an evil Snowspinner imposter, but is, in fact, Snowspinner. Thanks. :) Phil Sandifer 16:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that you're not an imposter of yourself, or that yourself is not an imposter of you? :-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a devious imposter trying to convince us that he's not one! ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 16:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I never understood what "snowspinner" meant anyway... :D -- Netoholic @ 16:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Easy! That's obviously someone who plays cricket with snowballs. If you want a name that's difficult to understand try something like, say, "Phil Sandifer". Now what the heck does that mean ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was somebody in a light-bodied vehicle that lacks studded tires. — Mar. 11, '06 [07:17] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

wasn't there an upper limit on the number of edits you could get reasighned? On the pluss side the traditional RFC won't require a number next time.Geni 18:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The short form is "yes but I asked nicely and sat around for six months and then woke up with a new username" Phil Sandifer 18:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Last time I looked at WP:CHU it allowed only users with 6800 edits or fewer to be renamed. That limit appears to have been lifted [21] all the way to 20,000 edits which the slacker-formerly-known-as-Snowspinner didn't get around to making yet. -Splash^talk 19:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Really?!?! Oh crap, this means we now need to take care of the old requests. What is the point of an upper limit anyways? Reduce db stress? — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Jimbos personal address

Someone posted Jimbos home address on Talk:Jimmy Wales this seems a bit dodgy to me, not the sort of info we should have lieing about. I removed the address, but it might be wise to delete from the page history. --Salix alba (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If it's the address from the Wikimedia foundation's bylaws, the trolls already know it. It's public information, no need to erase it from page histories. Rhobite 23:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Policy pages

Since key templates and legal pages are protected, it follows that perhaps policy pages should be protected as well. People should not be able to vandalize policy pages as it can create confusion to new users, just like a comprimised template (like "flux"), possible worse. I also see no need for policy pages to be openly editable, as there is almost nothing to update (unlike an article); there is almost never a serious reason to edit them. I wonder if this could be considered policy, since permanent protection policy does not yet mention policy pages. Perhaps we could avoid things like this [22] from happening. Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 12:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you're forgetting that this is a Wiki. Big changes to policy pages should usually be reverted and then discussed, and vandalism obviously should be prevented, but there's nothing wrong with clarifying and fixing typos and other errors on policy pages, whether it be by anonymous users or established registered editors. android79 17:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What typos? Beyond the fact that anyone can request that they be fixed, and there are none unless someone adds them, edit should be discussed first anyway (which would iron spelling errors). And I definetely do not think that this is not a wiki. In that case, why not just make all legal pages, license templates, and major hight traffic templates open to edit, even if there is nothing to gain, and things to lose (confusion, complaints, WP:Office...)?Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 17:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to tell me that there are no typos or errors in Wikipedia policy pages anywhere? No reason for someone to clarify a confusing sentence? No reason to do a little bit of reformatting? There are legal reasons to protect licensing templates and legal pages. There are technical reasons to protect high-traffic templates. What reason is there to protect policy pages? We do lose benefits if we protect them. android79 18:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said, even if there are some now, one can point them out, I am sure that an "ti" instead of an "is" not as bad as "GMDOS{FMS COMMUNISM" as the whole article. People should discuss changes, even breifly, and then have them implemented. "Clarifications" are often not seen as just that by others, so it better to just discuss in the first place. I never said that there was "no reason to change anything", but that people can discuss it first, just to repeat for the third time, I do not think that the pages are perfect and can not be improved. I think that 1) discussion is better (and often needed anyway), 2)there is far less need to update than articles (like changing events) and 3)vandalism is not worth it. I would hate to se an S-Pro'ed page and go to the policy pages only to find a large penis, and for a policy page too. I would no want to tell a new user to read NPOV when it say "WIKI IS COMMUNISM...-WoW". It is just not worth it, and edits can be made easily through actual discussion antway.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 18:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You could use that same argument to propose protection of every single page. Are policy pages undergoing a spate of vandalism I haven't noticed? android79 18:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I would protect legal/HTF templates and policy. Other articles need IPs, as there is a lot to say about and add to an actual article. Many need modifications, so some vandals are worth the cost. I can not stress this enough...articles need to be updates...many are not NPOV or wikified right and these are simple things that anyone can do without consensus. Policy pages have no such need for all of these edits, there are fairly stable and require consensus support. There are no "current event policy pages" or anything of the sort. So no, my argument only works on the trio, not every type of page, such as articles. If we semied every articles, we would loss a lot of good potential edits. If we semied(or full-pro's) a policy page, we would stop some vandalism, maybe 1 minor edit a month that was not specifically uncontructive.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 18:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This editor spoke my mind between reading the question and hiting edit.
--Jerzy•t 17:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Why start using protection specifically pre-emptively to specifically exclude anons from editing some particular pages? What benefit does this yield? It sends the wrong message: "you can edit anything apart from These Important Things because We don't trust you to do that yet". Semi-protection is bad enough when it is applied indefinitely to a certain high-profile article, but applying it to documents we often refer newbies to, either in templates or messages would not benefit the Wiki at large whilst giving an unfortunate first impression. -Splash^talk 19:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What he said. android79 19:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I supposed a vandalized "policy" page gives a great impression...better yet, why don't I just unrprotect the main page right now, since we don't want to look untrustworthy?Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 20:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

because the main page gets millions of hits per day. Can you say the same for any policy page? —Charles P._(Mirv) 20:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Having non-editable policy pages gives new users a worse impression than an occasionally vandalized policy page would. It's an extreme solution to what's basically a nonexistent problem. I can appreciate that you're trying to help by suggesting this, but there's no immediate need for this course of action, and it goes against the concept of page protection being an exceptional measure.

— User:Adrian/zap2.js 20:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFCA proposal

See WP:VPR#Requests_for_continuing_adminship_.28WP:RFCA.29 - SoM 19:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict - with myself ?!

What is going on ? Another malfunction ? Martial Law 21:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC) :(

Normaly happens to me when I click save page twice.Geni 23:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It can also happen if you do a Save, then click on the Back arrow, make another change and try to Save it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It happens to me when I click save, press the "stop" button, make a change, and then click save again. --M@thwiz2020 02:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

What's happend is that your save actually commited, although your browser had not reloaded it, hitting stop made your browser think you were on the same version number, so when you hit save again, the wiki noticed there was a more recent (yours) version number already committed, and let you know. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 03:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Wonderfool unblocked

Wonderfool has provided a list of the Nihilartikles he created and apologized for it. This means he has fufilled the terms set forth in the arbitration committee's emergency injunction, and thus he is allowed to edit again. I have unblocked him. Raul654 23:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Où est la liste? -Splash^talk 00:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Je ne sais pas...Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 00:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

He expression contrition for his actions at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raul654#My_block_2

The list was provided in a private email. In his own words:

---

Main link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive18#Wonderfool - Where it all happened

Section 1

These are some pages I created, but I think the other users misunderstood. Maybe I misunderstood what a nihilartikel was, because these subjects are real, but just not very notable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Javanais, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spyguard, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hot_Puppies,

Others

The final nihilartikel was "Broken Manika" , as noted on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nightsleeper. Strangely, the band broke up about 1 week after their page on Wikipedia was deleted. Very strange. But probably not related.

There was one "nihilartikel" of mine that I still reckon was unfairly deleted, it was Gwenn ha Du (newspaper), which exists on the French Wikipedia at http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwenn_ha_du%2C_journal_nationaliste_breton.

I spoke to HappyCamper about this at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HappyCamper.

And, well, I got no more time to fish thru my other sockpuppets' edits. Hope all is well, Wonderfool

---

Raul654 00:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

KDRGibby: Soft ban on editing Cuba

Because KDRGibby has been removing well sourced statements from Cuba on the stated grounds that they are "original research" [23] [24], I'm banning him from editing that article under Remedy 2 (probation) of his arbitration case.

This is a soft ban, I add the proviso that it can be overturned by any administrator at any time. I'm adding it to the list of bans at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby#Log_of_blocks_and_bans, and I'm submitting it for review on this forum. Administrators, please comment, modify or rescind. --Tony Sidaway 23:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Tony that material was clearly original research the way it was used in the [[Cuba[[ page. IT was implying something that was NOT cited. It was claiming that the statement above was wrong based on cited information. The statement above these sources claimed that Cuba runs a two tiered segregated healthcare system. The statement that was deleted was als pov and said something to the effect "Clearly this ignores data which suggests the Cuban healthcare system is one of the best in the world" and cites ciafactbook as source. CIA factbook sources rank life expectancy and child mortality rates, 1. niether of which tell us that the healthcare system is great, 2. neither of which tell us that the segregated healthcare system doesnt exist.

The way the citations are used is Original Research!

This is ORIGINAL RESEARCH, i therefore have a right to do delete it, especially since I had explained it in the page. And while you are at it, especially if you don't unblock me there, please block Slizor from Classical Liberalism you can CLEARLY see he has done that dozens of times. Thanks (Gibby 23:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

Slizor does not have an ArbCom ruling against him and cannot as such be banned from an article. Stifle 02:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh so having no arb com ruling against someone means they have a right to delete anything they want, but if I have an arb com ruling I can't delete violations of wiki rules? Interesting (Gibby 05:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

• Gibby's right on this one. It was indeed OR, and he was correct to remove it. I'd say rescind. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Whether or not he had a point (which I chose not to argue and revert over following his explanation), his conduct on that article has been disruptive and markedly uncollegial. He seems unable to refrain from offtopic polemics and offering precise explanations, instead. El_C 05:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I refrained from replacing the tag to edit the pov and original research I found in the article...I'm going to eventually have a case against it based on your revert actions to keep such simple material in. Essentially, you will end up proving my point for me. If anything, right now you are off topic, the ban was based on my deletion of sourced material, nothing else. Please stay on topic. (Gibby 05:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

Feel free to take whatever measures you see fit. The topic, as far as I'm concerned, is your disruptive conduct in that article. El_C 05:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it was clearly deleting sourced information. Tony did not see the complaint only the immediate fact of deleting information, he like most administrators jumps to conclusions before properly examining the circumstances. You are still off track. (Gibby 06:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

I move to give KDRGibby a 1RR limitation. I initially supported probation on KDRGibby, but now it seems that being lenient brings more risks than the benefit of the snowball's chance in hell that KDRGibby's behaviour will improve. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no explicit provision in the remedies to impose a 1RR limitation. The existing remedies ought to be enough. If one interprets multiple reverts as disruption, however, he may be blocked by any administrator. However I'd like to see KDRGibby given a chance to develop a way of working with other editors, and this does mean that we must sometimes be prepared to stand back and let him edit. --Tony Sidaway 21:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on this case, but I thought that admins were not allowed to make this type of ban. See this discussion. -- Kjkolb 22:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby, which Tony linked to in his initial post.--Sean Black ^(talk) 22:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely and completely recognise User:Kjkolb's concerns. No, I would never, ever invoke an arbitration ruling as a justification for an inappropriate action. In this case (as others have pointed out), I took action under a very specific ruling. And even then I posited that I would permit myself to be overruled. And I was. The system works.. --Tony Sidaway 04:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Wik sockpuppets, again

Wik is back yet again, with sockpuppets (some anagrammatic eg Riveraz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and its anagrams, some not). This was reported earlier as well, here.

He's resorting to personal attacks (everyone else is a moron or an idiot, see for instance Talk:Andorra#WW2) and rampant sockpuppetry. Just a reminder of the obvious: as a banned user, any of his edits can be reverted on sight (I believe that even includes talk page comments), and his sockpuppets can be blocked indefinitely. -- Curps 01:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I just blocked a bunch of these. I'd be perfectly happy if someone removed the non-substantive parts of his talk page comments: frankly it's hard to see how it benefits the process to keep (for example) comments addressing another contributor as "scum". -- Jmabel | Talk 04:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible linkspam, looking for opinions

Possible linkspam, looking for opinions, especially from anyone who reads French fluently. All contributions from User:86.203.203.165 are links to a single site, and all contributions from User:Adrienne93 are either links to that same site or vague defenses of links to that site. My quick impression of the site in question: poorly laid out, and it reads like historical fiction, though my French is not good enough for me to quickly ascertain whether I am correct about the latter.

I've been trying to get a clearer explanation from User:Adrienne93 as to why she thinks we should preserve these links; again, an informed opinion of the links would be much more useful than a response from a possible spammer. - Jmabel | Talk 05:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Its an unencyclopedic link to fictional narratives / character studies of various figures in French history. I've removed any links to the site that I found. We'd be better off sending our readers to Peter Weiss and George Bernard Shaw. Jkelly 01:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Adrienne responded to me at Talk:Charlotte_Corday#Recently_linked. I reproduce her response here:

[begin copied text]

Thank you very much, Jmabel to allow me to present these articles to you. Excuse me by advance, I do not write English very well. Let to me very introduce to abort the author of these articles to you: it acts of Gilles Marchal who is a very talented French artist years 1970; It does not sing any more but on the other hand, it writes very good texts on various events of the French history. These texts are not fictionalized, insofar as all that he writes true, is checked thanks to very precise research with the public records.

However, Gilles Marchal introduced there a new element: humour. All that is told true, and is often ignored of the public, but simply treated with much humour. By the French wikipédia, there were many people who adhered to this style of writing, in particular a club of professor of history and librarian of the university of Grenoble, which take for pretexte the texts of Gilles Marchal to feed their debates. I add that there is no financial aspect with these presentations. The site is completely free access. I think sincerely that these bonds, not only do not withdraw anything with quality articles, but can give a new and different approach to the manner of approaching them.

With regard to the aspect of the page (that you find very ugly), I am quite sorry, I am not very gifted in design, however, the texts can be read on a file pdf created to more easily print the accounts suggested. I thank you by advance for again considering with benevolence the maintenance of these bonds in the English wikipédia. In a friendly way. Adrienne93 16:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[end copied text]

Nothing here changes my view that these don't belong, but I personally won't delete these links myself, since I've said my piece. Instead, I've brought the issue here to let others work out what to do. If you want to follow up where these links have been placed, just look up the user contributions for User:86.203.203.165 and User:Adrienne93. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE

I've just blocked a known vandal who has returned on an anon IP. The whois lookup says "ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE". Can anyone tell me what this means? Does it mean it's a fixed (not shared) IP? 207.195.243.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --kingboyk 05:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I just google group'd it : "It means that the IP addresses stay with this assigned block; they do not get subdelegated ("SWIP") and transported with customers. I *think* that means that all addresses throughout that specific non-portable address range will all use the same autonomous system number, hence routing will be the same." Has nothing to do with the end user, ignore it for the purposes of Wikipedia. Mike _{(T C)} 05:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, cheers. --kingboyk 05:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

They can be sub-delegated, but it means the delegate can't take the IP addresses and move them to another provider. Say BigTelco gives 256 IP addresses to SmithCorporation. They might read in WHOIS as being delegated to SmithCorporation, rather than BigTelco. But, if SmithCorporation decides to change internet providers, they have to get a new bunch of IP addresses. Whether SmithCorporation uses them statically or dynamically - you can't tell. Though if the vandal comes back on the same IP, just keep making the block for longer amounts of time. They will get bored. SchmuckyTheCat 07:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Please unblock Rookiee

Please could someone unblock Rookiee? He has been blocked for "pedophile trolling". However, he wasn't trolling. He was just objecting to a previous block, which was groundless, and also objecting to the vandalism of an article he'd contributed which he'd spent some time researching. I think anyone would object to being treated like that. I think it is clear that the block was really just on the grounds of his sexual orientation. I hope that everyone here agrees that blocking a contributor for their sexual orientation is every bit as abhorrent as blocking them for their race, sex, age or any other aspect of their human nature. For the same reason, you might want to look into taking away the administrative powers of his blocker, Neutrality. Thank you. -- 205.188.116.200 06:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I, and many others, do not view pedophilia as a "sexual orientation." I fully support Neutrality's block. El_C 06:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahem - "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics." [25]. It's clear from this statement that the Foundation considers sexual orientation to be a legally protected characteristic; pedophilia is not a legally protected characteristic in any jurisdiction, and therefore it follows cannot be construed as a sexual orientation (as defined by the Foundation). Raul654 06:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That's backwards logic in every sense! Paedophilia is defined in terms of the portion of the population to whom one is sexually attracted, and is thus a sexual orientation by definition. So thank you. You have just informed me that discriminating against paedophiles is prohibited by the Wikimedia Foundation. -- 205.188.116.200 06:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Technically Raul654 is right. Even if he wasn't, who the hell gives damn? As Tony Sideway said "I am going to write a fucking article". Lets not forget that this is an encyclopedia and not a pathetic drama soapbox.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 07:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

As long as his desires are not acted upon (Wikipedia is not totally neutral, things like murder, theft and pedophilia are assumed to be wrong), all that counts are his contributions. In at least two instances, he has made large deletions of content with no explanation in the edit summary or talk page, see sex offender and child grooming. -- Kjkolb 07:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. To be honest, I wasn't aware of his edits of sex offender or child grooming. However, looking at them now, they look like honest attempts to improve the article. Of the edits you link to, the first is indeed a reversion with no explanation in the edit summary or talk page, but it is by Willmcw, not Rookiee. Willmcw's reversion was later undone by another user, 24ip, with the explanation that the material that Willmcw tried to re-add was a duplication of that at child sexual abuse. The current article bears much more resemblance to Rookiee's version than to Willmcw's, suggesting that the Wikipedia community at large prefers Rookiee's version. The edit to the child grooming article that you link to is uncommented, true, but is not a "large deletion of content". Rookiee added much more than he removed, and what he added covers much the same ground as what he removed. So you are again mistaken. In any case, neither of the articles you mention has been edited by Rookiee since last November, so clearly they have nothing to do with the recent ban. If that's the evidence for the prosecution, there is no case to answer. -- 195.93.21.102 02:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, he wasn't blocked for his desires, fetishes or whatever, but basically being a trollish revert warrior. Now, if he was a cooperative user who wasn't screaming "cabal", I think things would be much different. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I agree that his manner could be improved, but I haven't seen these trollish reversions you mention. I've just checked through all of Rookiee's article edits for this year (there are very few), and can't see anything wrong with them. In fact, his user contributions show not a single edit to any article at all between the expiry of Jimbo's temporary block and the commencement of Neutrality's indefinite one. All he did was complain on Talk:Justin Berry, and edit his own user page. Were there any article reversions in the same period that have since been expunged from his user contribution page? If you could present some evidence that Rookiee has been acting as a "trollish revert warrior", that might be helpful. It still wouldn't convince me that trolling was the sole reason for the ban, though, because then the block reason would just be "trolling", not "pedophile trolling". After all, if you saw someone block a user for "gay trolling" or "Jewish trolling", would you not be suspicious of the blocker's motives? -- 195.93.21.102 02:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see some firmer justification for this block given (diffs etc). I've examined his edits briefly, but it's not obvious to me that he was trolling. Equally, neither was it obvious that he wasn't trolling, but when admins indefinitely ban a user, and delete (not just blank) his userpage, it should be very obvious as to why. (We don't want people to think he was banned just for being a pedophile, of course). — Matt Crypto 21:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It looks to me like he was blocked because he protested his not being allowed to edit Justin Berry on the talk page. Jimbo did block him for a short period of time for this, but it certainly isn't worth an indefinite block. I'm trying hard to WP:AGF, but I can't help but think he was blocked because he's a pedophile. --Rory096 22:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

My cursory examination of his contributions doesn't reveal anything obviously worth a permanent block but of course I may be missing something and I'm probably more lenient than most. Could the people who are more familiar with the situation provide a couple of annotated diffs with the most clear-cut examples of trolling - just to satisfy us skeptics? :) Haukur 22:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom recently found that (in the context of pedophiles):

10.2) ("Wikipedia is open to all") It is not an accepted practice to ban users from editing Wikipedia unless they are actively disrupting, endangering, or otherwise harming the project. Such bannings usually require either broad community consensus, an action from the Arbitration Committee, or an action from Jimbo Wales (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#Wikipedia is open to all).

Rookiee believes that he was blocked because of anti-pedophile discrimination[26]. It either needs to be made clear that he was blocked for trolling, else we should reconsider the block. — Matt Crypto 11:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I too find no trolling worthy of an indefinite block on Rookiee's part. Regarding the links provided above, it is true he deleted a large portion of Sex offender with this series of edits, but that wasn't trolling: he was breaking it out to create a new article Child sex offender out of a redirect. These actions was reverted by User:Willmcw with the rollback button as if they were vandalism. At Child grooming, he added a bunch of information, which while not entirely NPOV was certainly not vandalism or trolling, but User:Willmcw rolled it back, too. (All of this took place on November 1, making it ancient history by now.) I don't want to get into a semantic argument over whether pedophilia is a sexual orientation, a paraphilia, a mental illness, or what, but while having sex with children is illegal, declaring a sexual attraction to them in and of itself is not illegal. I thinking labeling him a troll and vandal and blocking him indefinitely without so much as an RfC, let alone an ArbCom decision, is supremely unfair. Angr/talk 16:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Are we getting to the part where somebody unblocks him, or what? Do we really have to spend days arguing whether someone should undo a hysterical, out-of-policy block where the victim was a obviously good faith contributer? If someone wants this enforced then they're the ones who'll need consensus. TrueMirror 02:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I also find it hard to support the block. If somebody is to be blocked indefinitely over such a controversial issue, it should be an Arbcom matter not a unilateral act. --kingboyk 02:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This block is an explicit policy violation on several points.

(- Rookiee's edit history) Since 9th March, all of User:Rookiee's edits have been to Talk:Justin Berry and his own talk page. If the justification for his ban existed (which it does not), it would be on one of those. He has not edited Child grooming or child sexual abuse since November, and I can find no censure of him by admin for his statements on those talk pages. In other words, don't change the subject.

Talk:Justin Berry and Talk:Rookiee are the only two pages relevant to this ban, and neither of them contains any trolling. This is an abuse of moderating power per WP:NOT, WP:No personal attacks, and sections 5.2 and 5.6 of Wikipedia:Blocking policy.

1.) The user has not posted any Wikipedia policy violations.

2.) The block was motivated by User:Neutrality's personal opinion of the user.

Rookiee is a pedophile, and this was referenced in the reason for the block. Regardless of whether pedophilia constitutes a sexual orientation or not it is still an aspect of the user as opposed to the content he provided.

3.) From Wikipedia:Blocking policy, section 5.2: "However, indefinite blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of disruption from IP addresses nor against user accounts that make a mixture of disruptive and useful edits."

4.) From Wikipedia:Blocking policy, section 5.6: "Once you are convinced that a block is warranted, the recommended procedure for controversial blocks is:

1. Check the facts with care.

2. Reread appropriate parts of Wikipedia:Blocking policy.

3. If possible, contact other administrators informally to be sure there are others who agree with your reasoning. The administrators' noticeboard, IRC and email are effective tools for this.

I have no knowledge of whether this has been done offsite, but there is an entry on User Talk: Neutrality indicating that another admin has emailed Neutrality with concerns about this matter and has not received a reply.

4. Place the block, exercising due care in the wording of the "reason" message, and include a link to the user page of the user being blocked.

I suppose 'pedophile trolling' is due care?

5. Place a notice of the block on the talk page of the affected user, with additional rationale, outlining the facts and the part of the blocking policy you feel applies.

This was NOT done - User Talk:Rookiee

6. Be willing to discuss the block with other Wikipedians.

A review of Neutrality's edit log shows that as of this edit he has made no posts (not even those explicitly required by policy) about the blocking of User:Rookiee anywhere on Wikipedia, even in response to another admin's concerns on User talk: Neutrality.

HolokittyNX 04:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 04:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a million. Have some fudge. HolokittyNX 05:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I have also unprotected, undeleted, and restored his user page. — Matt Crypto 08:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys. Rookiee, here. I just wanted to make everyone here aware of a new post on my blog regarding this, and would invite everyone and anyone to take a gander. In short, thank you for viewing me as an equal citizen in Wikipedia. I am very grateful. --Rookiee Revolyob 08:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Sujith (edit | [[Talk:User:Sujith|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reclaiming Original Username

I am the original owner of the username Sujith. On 7 Dec, 2005 user Sujithk acquired this username. I was never notified and would like my username back. I haven't signed most of my edits but can give evidence of activity (about 50 edits last year) on request. Tried to settle this between us, but no response has been forthcoming. Please advise. I apologise if this isn't the right forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.52.10 (talk • contribs) .

This was on RfPP, so I moved it here.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 09:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, all that happened is that Sujithk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) moved his user page to User:Sujith. He didn't actually hijack the account. I moved it back and deleted the redirect. Sujith should be able to log on as himself and make his own edits, including editing his own user page. Chick Bowen 18:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII Banned from AN & AN/I

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug#RJII placed on probation as clarified on RfAr Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#RJII probation, I have banned RJII (talk · contribs) from posting to the Administrators Noticeboard or Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents, or the talk pages thereof, for a period of three months. Also, given Dmcdevit's suggestion, I am opening a dialogue (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RJII_Banned_from_AN_.26_AN.2FI) on a full ban under the general probation clause, for a period of not less than one month. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 09:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That doesnt sound appropriate. What are your reasons? The Administrator noticeboard is a way to inform admins of abuses, if he's not allowed to it most of you admins certainly won't know half the story (as most of you don't take the time to learn it anyway). This is an unfair ruling (Gibby 11:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

It's part of his arbitration ruling, if he hadn't committed offences in the first place this wouldn't be needed. NSLE _(T+C) at 11:36 UTC (2006-03-11)

There are plenty of other avenues open if a genuine abuse occurs. He can email the involved admin or use the admin's talk page (or any admin's talk page, for that matter). He can still post to the Wikipedia mailing list (wikien-l). Request for comment and arbitration are still open to him.

What he cannot do is post to WP:AN and WP:AN/I because he has made a vexatious nuisance of himself there, and his editing of those pages has been restricted because of his past history of unproductive behaviour. If you shout fire in a crowded theatre too often, you shouldn't be surprised to find yourself banned from the theatre. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Like how my arb com apparently no longer allows me to delete original research...right again, abusive Admins. (Gibby 11:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

Your ban was imposed by me. I explicitly made it subject to review (I didn't have to) and invited other admins to comment and, if necessary, rescind. Which one admin did. So much for abusive admins. --Tony Sidaway 21:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking for a Vancouver-area admin

I'm looking for an admin from the Greater Vancouver area to help back me up on something. In the stub types for deletion page, several people are trying to get several of WikiProject Vancouver's stubs deleted. The problem is, this would veto the agreement made collectively by the WikiProject's participants. Here's the situation...

If you're from the area, you would know this already, but there is a distinction between Vancouver proper and Greater Vancouver (or the GVRD) made by those in the area. Both "Greater Vancouver" and "GVRD" are common names for the area. However, the guys who want the stubs deleted cannot seem to comprehend that and are proposing that the GVRD stubs be merged with the ones for Vancouver proper. However, the participants of the WikiProject had found this problematic, because of the distinction between the GVRD and Vancouver proper, and had beforehand reached an overwhelming consensus on creating a different GVRD stub category for non-Vancouver proper articles (all but 3 people agreed; it was pretty much a landslide).

Now they are arguing that "GVRD" cannot possibly be the common name for the area, despite the fact that those guys are not residents of Greater Vancouver (and, by the sounds of it, have little concept of how municipalities are laid out here). The reason why I want a Vancouver-area admin is because I'd like to have someone back me up on this, because the other WikiProject participants seem to be staying out of this, and because I'm now fighting alone, those guys are threatening to veto an overwhelming decision that was made by the participants for the sake of stub categorization and what they seem to be expendable. Even if you don't agree completely with my point, there's no disregarding this threat -- that a few people can effectively overrule a decision made by many, and by those who understand the region best because, well, we live here.

I'd appreciate if any admins from the Vancouver area are willing to support this. Even if you're not from the area but have a thorough understanding of the GVRD, I'd love to see you too. Thanks. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 02:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

For one thing, {{gvrd-stub}} isn't even listed for deletion; at present it's some side discussion. Secondly, I can't find any mention of {{gvrd-stub}} on the WikiProject talk page (aside from mention 2 days ago of the present SFD discussions); is there something I'm missing? Should {{gvrd-stub}} come up for deletion (currently it sounds like there's more of an inclination to just rename it and the oddly-named category), if there really is that much support from the other WikiProject participants, then a few of them could voice their opinion on SFD. This doesn't seem like an admin issue at this point. Mairi 03:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Things have shifted a bit in the past hour or so, so an admin isn't really need anymore. Thanks anyways. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 03:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

203.25.67.14

Dear psy-Guy (??) Thankyou for your email that Steven Fay has forwarded to me. Given examples you have provided I am quite happy for you to deny editing access for 203.25.67.14. If students really want to contribute to Wikpaedia they may do so from home For any further communication re this issue please comminicate with me at this email address or call me on +61 7 407634144 or +61 7 38345242 regards Jeremy Connell 60.240.190.233 04:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Context of this: User:Psy guy has already blocked 203.25.67.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) indefinitely, with an indication of pending confirmation, which I guess this is. Chick Bowen 04:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, Psy guy deserves major kudos as an admin on this subject; the other night, he phoned (at his own cost) a school in Australia to discuss persistent vandalism from thier IPs. (Hence the above.) I say major kudos because Psy guy lives in the US, and made an international phone call to help keep Wikipedia clean. Stop by his talk page, or find him on IRC, and tell him we appreciate him. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 14:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Radak

I have blocked Radak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 1 week for reverting Justin Berry and putting nasty personal attacks on his user page. As I made clear in my note on his talk page, I will discuss it with him if he so chooses, but this seems like clear disruption. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Eclectick and "the security of our forces"

User:Eclectick, who seems to be reasonably new to Wikipedia, apparently believes some of the articles that I originated to be threats to national security. He removed large chunks of natural circulation and S8G reactor and claims to have sent "a formal request sent to the Wiki administration to remove the aspects of the information that is restricted from public release." (I'm not sure what he thinks the "Wiki administration" is; the ArbComm has heard nothing from him.) I have warned him twice now that his deletions will be considered vandalism and he will be blocked if he continues. I admit that the articles do not cite sources and doing so will remove any suspicion that the info is not "restricted"; I will correct that fault within 24 hours. Anyone with any questions about this developing situation should not hesitate to contact me. ➥the Epopt 05:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds similar to User:PeterZed, though different targets. --Golbez 05:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added some quickly-located sources (one from a —gasp— Belorussian site); more will follow. ➥the Epopt 06:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

"I will also file a formal report with the appropriate authorities as to the security leak." is terribly close to violating WP:LEGAL. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Finlay, but as I am the threatened one, I would prefer that someone else apply the cluebat. In addition, please permit me to call attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural circulation. I will assume good faith, but doing so requires me to also assume abject ignorance. ➥the Epopt 18:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

personalinfo to delete

An unwarry user added all sort of personal contact info at Talk:Indian White-rumped Vulture, which, IIRC, would need deletion from page istory, right? Circeus 19:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If he'd posted personal info about someone else, sure. But he's posted info about himself, and he's clearly an adult he knows what he's doing. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Doug Stanhope

I'm not sure this really belongs on Wikipedia. You be the judge.

Image:Dougstanhopephoto.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.254.148.73 (talk • contribs) .

Given that it's actually discussed in the article, there's a much better fair use claim to be made for it than most of our fair use images. Or was that not what you meant? Chick Bowen 21:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not the image belongs in Wikipedia, but I don't agree with its addition to the article. It appears to be there mainly for the shock value. Joyous | Talk 21:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

We can at least find a better pic of him as the lead-in pic and then move this further down in the article next to the relevant section. --Cyde Weys 22:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted by Zscout370. No great loss, clearly. Chick Bowen 22:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the photo, and some of the various things surrounding it, I noticed the picture was added with some people objecting, and the uploader of the photo, from what I chcked, uploaded similar NSFW content, and it was slated for deletion once for it being not used at all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 23:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Block/unblock notices automatically on the user talk page?

Could we not put a notice on the user talk page telling users when they are blocked? Could we do it when the user is unblocked? Currently the only way to find out if you are unblocked is to keep trying to edit. It might be nice to know who did the unblocking. bobblewik 22:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Not the only way, you can quite easily find all active blocks on any account or IP address by simply going to Special:Ipblocklist. --cesarb 22:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. Let me be more specific about my question. A user finds out about a new message just by opening an article page. They see:

• a banner on any page that they open
• a link in the banner to the new information

That has some advantages. For a start, reading pages is what people do when using Wikipedia for its primary purpose. What would be involved in giving these advantages to users that are blocked or unblocked? bobblewik 11:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that people just browsing (for example, AOL IPs) might be blocked accidentally, and then they wonder why they're blocked; they didn't do anything. While we obviously need to tell them they're blocked if they try to edit, there's no need for them to know while they're just browsing. The less newbies know about things that don't affect them at all, the better. Ral315 (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Censorship

There seems to be a bit of an edit war going on at Wikipedia talk:Censorship. -- Kjkolb 01:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Appropriateness of the name "User:Halliburton Shill"

I was going to suggest User:Halliburton Shill change his username because, as his user page explicitly states, the name is meant to imply some sort of collusion between Halliburton and Dick Cheney. In fact, some other user had already nominated his user page for deletion. Howerver, having had (very minor) disagreements with this editor over some links he wanted put into the Dick Cheney and Halliburton articles, I decided that it would be best to avoid any appearance that I was simply making him change user names out of some sort of petty squabble. I was hoping some admin(s) with more experience than I have in deciding what is and is not appropriate to use as a user name could look into the matter. Thanks, JDoorjam Talk 01:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Concentrate on defending NPOV in articles, not user names. alteripse 02:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, now that you mention it, he's adding links to Political Friendster, which is how I noticed him, for one. Mackensen (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Please note, there is another discussion thread started on this topic - below. Johntex\^talk 20:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Rattlerbrat

User:Rattlerbrat has behaved disruptively at Wikipedia talk:Censorship with abusive language and generic attacks on others. Gerard Foley has tried to contain the problem without success. I myself am uncertain whether its best to just let it go or not. WAS 4.250 02:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I hate that Rattlerbrat. What a jerk. How dare she refuse to take crap from other Wikipedians just because she's new. She doesn't have any business expressing her opinion or standing her ground. I hope she gets banned. Jennifer 19:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This edit of yours says a lot about you. WAS 4.250 20:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

In the words of Grandpa Simpson: Oh, biiiiitch, biiiiitch, biiiiiitch." = Jennifer 22:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Her past few edits have been nothing but incivility and also included forging someone else's signature on a derisive comment. android79 22:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

After the block, we got this lovely tirade. I don't see this ending well. android79 03:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam.

Most of the edits by O.perrin (contribs) consist of adding links to the sites http://usabirds.free.fr and/or http://perrin.olivier.free.fr to articles on New York and San Francisco, and their landmarks/regions. I don't have the time to go through all their contributions and revert/remove the links as necessary. I've done a few.--Drat (Talk) 03:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've taken care of the rest. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There has to be a better way to deal with these persistant linkspammers Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 04:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I can think of one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's got much better ways... --Carnildo 04:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Even ones that don't involve death... Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 13:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

But some that still involve a suitable amount of pain. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

But wouldn't this violate our policy? Physically? Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

anti-romanian edits of mikkalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This person has anti-romanian edits. Admins should watch him and ban him.

Articles:

• Moldova
• Anti-Romanian
• Transnistria
• all romania/moldova related articles.

Block this anti-romanian guy.

I found one anti-romanian edit made today here.

vandalism on my user page!

Mikkalai vandalized my user page. Stefan cel Mare 20:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be a real problem these days [27] [28]. Respected admins vandalising userpages, just awful. --Sean Black ^(talk) 21:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not vandalism, it is part of the procedure to tag sock puppets or suspected sock puppets. We will wait and see what CheckUser says. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 00:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. And if you have problems with another user, you can always take him/her to WP:RFC. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Block him and ban him for good.

Yeah. Someone has to clean up after him like here: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACommunist_Romania&diff=29995545&oldid=29932893

There are so many acts of vandalism, anti-romanian acts. Block him.

Please sign your posts. Mikkalai will not get banned or blocked without first an RfC and then an RFAr. That's not how things work. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2 bug fix

I'm pretty sure I know exactly what the problem was with Tawkerbot2.

When the database gets overloaded for some reason, existing pages can sometimes display incorrectly. When this happens (say for Jimmy Wales):

• In the regular (non "edit page") view: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales , the page appears not to exist even though it does: you get the Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name message. In other words, it appears to be either a deleted page or a never-created page.

• In the "edit page" view: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&action=edit , the same page appears to be blank even though it isn't: you get an empty textarea. In other words, it appears to be an existing page that is blank (or has been blanked), which is not the same as a non-existent (deleted, or never-created) page.

I have actually observed the above behavior (often, it's lasted only a minute or two, however this time it lasted a good deal longer). The problem is, the second view above (the "edit page" view) is completely indistinguishable from a truly blank page (eg, a page that has been blanked by a vandal).

I'm pretty sure Tawkerbot2, like many other Wikipedia bots, examines the "edit page" view rather than the regular view, because then it can extract the Wiki markup directly from the textarea (the alternative would be to try to parse the raw HTML source). But in doing so, it becomes vulnerable to the database-overload glitch mentioned above: suddenly, edits can look like they've just blanked a page. Tawkerbot2 reverts what it believes are blankings, but actually aren't.

Note, this only applies to complete blankings... if the page is replaced by any text (no matter how small, even only a few characters like "POOP!!!"), there are no false positives.

To avoid false positives, when the edit-view textarea shows an apparent blanking, the bot must load the page again, but this time in the regular non-"edit page" view, and examine the raw HTML source to verify that it truly does represent a blank page.

This can be a bit tricky because it's not good enough merely to look for the tell-tale Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name which reveals that it is a false positive, because the database overload condition might have gone away in the interval between the first "edit page" view load and the second non-"edit page" view load. Also, one difficulty with parsing the raw HTML source of a page is that it can be randomly changed by developers at any time (including the exact wording of the Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name message), as opposed to Wiki markup which isn't subject to random change in this way.

Bottom line: to make Tawkerbot2 safe, you should:

• Temporarily turn off reverting for total page blankings (100% size reduction) but keep it turned on for partial or merely near-total page blankings (any size reduction less than a full 100%). In this mode, you could restart Tawkerbot2 immediately.
• Implement the workaround described earlier (a second verification of raw HTML source of the non "edit page" view, to check for false positives). Once this is in place, Tawkerbot2 could safely revert total page blankings as well.
• As mentioned above, the glitches only occur when the database gets into an unusual state and Wikipedia pages display falsely.

Ultimately this is the fault of the Wikimedia code... it shouldn't falsely report a page's status, even under unusual conditions of database overload. There's a workaround as described above, but at the extra time-and-bandwidth cost of reloading the page a second time in the regular (non-edit-page) view.

-- Curps 15:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This thing is making errors besides the DB problems. Just prior to the DB problems the bot made this revert. The edit by 131.107.0.86 was valid. I have reverted the bot and the warning it left on the users talk page. If the bot is making this sort of error it should only run while being monitored. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it is the DB problems. Please read what I wrote above: the DB problems cause the page to appear falsely: it causes the page to appear to be blanked, and that throws the bot off. The DB problems started some time before the DB was locked for maintenance. -- Curps 16:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)]

The bot log reports it to be a "content blanked" revert, which leads me to believe its the db at fault. This has happened a few times in the past (once every thousand reverts aprox) and we were scratching our heads as to why this was happening but this makes sense. The bot has had these errors in the past but as the db was only having problems for a short peorid of time, only one edit was involved which complicated debuging. As for monitoring, the bot does report to a (password protected for fairly obvious reasons) website which shows the reverts and reasons (as well as reports for all actions the bot checked with an user / quick contrib/block links) If anyone wants access send me an email and I'll give you the auth. -- Tawker 21:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

From what I can see, the DB problems started as early as 14:02 UTC. For instance, my own monitoring showed this edit and this edit as page blankings, although they obviously aren't. However, at that time it was only a few isolated cases... some time later, every single article started appearing blank or non-existent, in the "edit page" and non-"edit page" modes, respectively. I think the DB wasn't locked until some time later (14:47 or so). -- Curps 16:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

My comments here follow from Curps' first "to be safe" bullet above. Even before today I was already thinking that the bot maybe should do something with 100% blankings besides reverting them. Mostly because of the cases where someone improperly handles a copy-vio. These cases need a little more finesse than the bot has. Add to that the problems today and less frequently earlier with false positives of blankings, and it becomes more important. My idea is that, instead of reverting 100% blankings, the bot log them to a subpage in it's user space. Then anyone who wants to patrol blankings can Watch that subpage. Enough people Watch it, and we'll have blankings reverted fairly quickly. And because it'll be humans doing the reverting, you'll have human judgement of when to warn, when to direct people how to correctly handle copy-vios, and when we have false positives. - TexasAndroid 16:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Why would you replace a copyvio with a 100% blanking though? It's very easy to take this to be vandalism. There should always be a copyvio tag on it... even non-admins who handle copyvios should be aware of this. And note obviously that there will sometimes be a valid pre-copyvio version, which should simply be reverted to, without any copyvio tagging. -- Curps 16:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is those that are not aware of this. These are good faith edits to handle copy-vios. Yes, they are handled incorrectly, but the fact that they are well intentioned, not vandalism, is why they need a bit more finesse than the "vandalism" message that Tawkerbot2 slaps on the page. The person who did the blanking needs to be directed to instructions for how to properly handle copy-vios, not bit by a vandalism warning. It's really an issue of the warning rather than the revert in this case, and more specifically the wording of the warning.

That all said, I had thought there were a couple of examples on the bot's page of people complaining of this. However, going looking for them now, the only thing close I can find is an example of the DB glitch bug having causes the bot to undo a well-done copy-vio edit. So this may all be moot if this has not actually happened. - TexasAndroid 17:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Bot's status

Ok, I've killed the bot for now pending the fixes, sorry about my delay, this happened during my 5 hours of sleep and seeing as the bot was running with basically no problems I left it on overnight. I'll disable blanking for now and put it back up, it should be able to catch the mass bot attacks and most of the "gibberish" pending a fix on the blanking problem. I'll look into having it check the main article page and if it reports a blank page first, maybe that will fix it.

As for the "mis-redirects" and copyvio's without the copyvio tag, I'm still at a loss for how to handle those, the bot can't account for every single human error. If anyone wants they can have a look at the code, it's on a password protected wiki and I can send you the password. I'll have a look and see what I can do and report it back here. Sorry for any inconvience this may have caused, this was something that was pretty hard to check during QA. -- Tawker 19:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Bot status update: I was just talking to the lead dev on the bot (who has done most of the modifications and is a far better python programer than I) and he applied a patch that should stop this error from occuring, as such the bot was unblocked by freakofnurture per my request so we can test this new patch (any edit / flag it makes shows up on a web browser output as all of the logging is mysql based) - if it acts up again please reblock and let me know, I'm monitoring it but things can happen that take me away from the computer. -- Tawker 20:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What was the fix? This bug would explain why OrphanBot blanked its own talk page eight times between 14:03 and 14:31 today. --Carnildo 23:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I grabbed the latest code from CVS for pywikipediabot. I believe it misreports the page occasionally by not properly trapping and raising an exception in response to a specific error from wikipedia. joshbuddy^talk 22:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The RJII Project

Recently-banned user RJII frequently refers to himself as the "RJII Project,"[29] and has implied that he is paid to edit Wikipedia. As of November 2004, he has made over 20,000 edits, or over 40 a day, averaging 22 per page. His contribution tree shows a clear focus to his edits. While such activity should be commended -- he has, after all, contributed greatly to the encyclopaedia -- I feel that his motivations are a cause for concern. He has implied that the goal of his "project" has been to shape a new "reality" with regard to certain things. I fear that much of this "shaping" probably involves a great deal of original research.[30] We are presented with a couple of evident possibilities: (1) that a partisan person/organization, with funding, has been shaping the encyclopaedia to fit a particular POV; or (2) that a partisan person/organization is using the encyclopaedia to present its own research. There are also other disconcerting possibilities that I'm sure I don't need to list. The question is, what can we do? Do we just hope that, if these edits are against Wikipedia policy in some way, they will be corrected by other editors over time? The implications are unsettling -- can any well-funded person/organization mount such a focused campaign, and how will that effect the encyclopaedia as a whole? --AaronS 18:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Any comments? --AaronS 21:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Absent any concrete evidence to the contrary, we have to assume that editors are acting in good faith and represent the (unpaid and otherwise uncompensated) will of a single person. It's an unfortunate drawback of allowing anonymous editing. android79 21:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Aren't all of his bans evidence of bad faith? --AaronS 23:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm more-or-less unfamiliar with RJII's case, and was speaking in general terms anyway – that's where I thought you wanted to go with this discussion. If you want to discuss RJII in particular, well, I'll need some particulars. :-) android79 23:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no problem, misunderstanding understood. :) For the sake of discussion, assume that the editor was acting in bad faith. What to do? We're talking about 20,000 edits. Comments? --AaronS 23:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think RJII is slowly exhausting good faith per his talk page and the arbcom decision, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug and bans documneted since therein, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug#Documentation of bans and also actions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:RJII violating probation. Happy editing! Steve block talk 23:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Halliburton Shill

Could I please get some feedback about Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Halliburton Shill? Am I somehow in the wrong here? User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• In the sense that the page is inappropriate, of course you are right. But of course whether or not a page is approproate is not what determines whether or not it is kept. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Err, why hasn't he gotten a {{usernameblock}} yet? Wikipedia:Username suggests quite clearly that "a username should not be used to defame other people, companies or groups, regardless of whether they edit Wikipedia". —Kirill Lokshin 19:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Kirill is right - this deserves {{usernameblock}}. Johntex\^talk 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

User:EnforcerOfNeutrality

Per WP:U: "Names that include commonly used Wikipedia software or community terms, or imply an official position on Wikipedia . (eg, terms such as recent changes, Administrator or the now-blocked name NPOVenforcer)." Justin Eiler 21:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked as {{usernameblock}}. Stifle 21:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Batchimeg Tuvshintugs

Any idea what suddenly happened to this article? It definitely existed and was the subject of a minor edit war. It's suddenly disappeared and there's no deletion log entry for it. Its talk page Talk:Batchimeg_Tuvshintugs and edit history [31] are still there. Although, I have to say I'm fine with it being gone. The person is semi-notable at best (a Mongolian-born chess player who placed 27th out of 32 in one section of the US championship last week, though causing a stir by beating several grandmasters unexpectedly) but one of the usual annoying wiki editors insisted on making an article full of half-baked spin that had to be fixed. Hm, it looks like the most recent edit has simply vanished, but older ones are there. Software issue that the devs should check out? Phr 22:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems to be having a series of fits; I've just edited one section of an article (simply changing the heading), only to find on saving it that the whole article had gone except for that section. Similarly, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship recently disaappeared, though the History was there as normal; I had to go to the latest version in the History and make a minor edit in order to bring it back. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

A lot of talk pages have disappeared, too. I suspect some new users are going to show up very confused about what happened to them. Chick Bowen 23:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirects to Jonathan Bowers

Hello! I wonder if I can get a second opinion on this matter. User:DecadeZone has been adding a list of redirects to the article Jonathan Bowers. All of them seem to be vocabulary for large numbers which was coined by the group Bowers is associated with. Should these redirects be left alone, or should they be nominated for deletion? There are quite a few of these redirects, and they seem to be vocabulary that is not widely known in the mathematical community. I have not seen this before on Wikipedia, but something does not feel quite right at the moment. What are your thoughts? --HappyCamper 23:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps requests for comment (and, if necessary, redirects for deletion) would be the best venue for this question? My personal opinion is that they're useless redirects, but I can't bring myself to get worked up to the point that I'd consider them particularly harmful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet that User:DecadeZone is another in a long list of sockpuppets created by a single user. See my post to RFCU. Compare DecadeZone's contributions to those of User:StarTrek. It seems to be getting ignored as an RFCU, but I believe that this editor is harmful to Wikipedia so I was considering moving it to the long-term abuse page. I believe that there are now well over 100 redirect pages to Jonathan Bowers, which seems ludicrous. -Big Smooth 01:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite a bit of history to this. Jonathan Bowers page existed before for as he is notable for his work on Polychoron. Other names of large numbers got deleted through AfD. This contained a table which included Bower's names. The table was cut and pasted into the Bowers page by an anon. I and the anon did quite a bit of work cleaning up the table. I suspect the anon User:64.192.107.242 and User:DecadeZone are one and the same, but doubt they are Bowers so not "vanity", not technically "OR" as the page reports on original research. Bowers work is quite sound mathematically, with a notation not far removed to some very distinguished mathematicians Conway chained arrow notation, I'd probably say notable, as they are probably the largest numbers every described, but don't think they are notable enough to warrant individual redirects. I'd say the user has behaved faily well on the Jonathan Bowers, a few gentle hints could bring this user into line. --Salix alba (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If this "amature" mathematician is so good, what would explain the lack of hits for his name in Google Scholar or in Google Books? I smell a rat. --Calton | Talk 04:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hm...after some thought, this appears to look more like a content dispute. Some of those redirects I think should be nominated for deletion - I don't think they can be substantiated to be completely attributable to Jonathan Bowers - quick internet searches show that some of them are like neologisms or even protologisms. I have an inclination to delete them via Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. In the meantime, perhaps we can politely ask these editors not to add more redirects? I will do this right after this post. The length of these posts is indicative that this situation is sort of in a grey area, so personally I'd feel more comfortable taking a bit longer to resolve everything, even at the expense of having these redirects present on the site for a longer time. I will nominate some of them for deletion in a few days, if no-one else has done so. I haven't talked to any of these editors yet, so let's assume that they really think that these are encyclopedic links - perhaps this is also an opportunity to tell these editors about our "best practises" on Wikipedia, and hopefully we can come to some sort of mutual understanding about this material. In any case, can I suggest that we move further discussions over to Talk:Jonathan Bowers? Probably the better place for it now. --HappyCamper 05:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2007/Discussion

The page for discussing the next arbcom elections. Lets see if we can sort this one out before the last 5 mins leading up to midnight.Geni 00:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I made a few little changes. Chick Bowen 00:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ha. -Splash^talk 01:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wiki logo copyright

Hi, I'm not entirely sure where to take this so I guess we start here, has anyone noticed that BrethrenPedia uses the copyrighted wiki jigsaw-globe logo? Deizio 02:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks to report license violations. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont think this is the proper place either, this should be forwarded to the legal dept since the logo is copyrighted. From the logo page, "Notwithstanding any other statement on this page this image has not been licensed under the GFDL.

© & ™ All rights reserved, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.." Mike _{(T C)} 02:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I found an admin on their site, and have informed him of the copyright status of their logo and advised them to change it to avoid future legal trouble if the foundation decides to act on it. Mike _{(T C)} 02:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The foundation-l list is also a good place to report these things; the Board members and the legal team watch that list. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 09:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It's apparently already caught one of their eyes (I think, user claims to be wikipedia's lawyer). "I am a lawyer. In fact, I'm Wikipedia's lawyer. Your use of the copyrighted logo of the Wikimedia Foundation is improper. I'm sure there are interested individuals associated with this project who can do a better job of creating a new logo for you. Friendly word of advice, you need to get your 'About' and 'Disclaimer' pages updated, too. Thanks. User:BradPatrick, Brad Patrick, Tampa, FL". Mike _{(T C)} 18:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Brad is Wikipedia's outside counsel. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 11:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Update: they have an image of wine and bread now. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

They changed it the day after, probably thanks a lot to Brad. Mike _{(T C)} 00:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Licorne

I've blanked and protected this talk page. The user was blocked for making a series of serious anti-Semitic remarks, and continued to do so on his talk page after he was blocked. He is also about to be banned for a year by the ArbCom (see the proposed decision). If this is inappropriate, please feel free to undo it – but look at the Talk page's history first. –Joke 02:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Notability Question

I have a quick question and would like some feedback. Would a professional who was mentioned in the mainstream press about a dozen times with one of those being in the New York Times for his research be considered notable enough for an article? -- Alpha269 04:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe yes and maybe no. Write the article and lets find out. WAS 4.250 05:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This issue has been posted here because an article was AfD and delted and is now at deletion review here Wikipedia:Deletion_Review#John_Bambenek. Mike _{(T C)} 05:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess we found out. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This gives the appearance of venue shopping to me (especially since the question was asked without giving context that it had already been asked and answered on AfD...), but I would prefer to assume it is perfectly innocent. ++Lar: t/c 15:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

We'll skip past the AfD were Mike deleted positive comments. As the deletion review says, the guy is probably in the reporters rolodex for sources in computer security. If he is used as a source in an article that was run in front of a global audience on computer security, someone explain to me how that's notable? Once you are done, explain to me how to complete disregard for notability criteria in an AfD is NOT grounds for a Deletion Review. -- Alpha269 23:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? I deleted positive comments?? Please provide diffs on this. Mike _{(T C)} 01:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, it was Mel Ettis. [32]. Point stands, this AfD and review is being attacked because it was predetermined the subject should be deleted. People are seriously arguing that being used as a reference for the New York Times makes one not notable in his field. Even the famed deletionist Tony Sidaway sees this as patently absurd. -- Alpha269 22:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

First off this is not the venue to argue this, wikipedia is run by concencious and not of the opinions of one person. So if an article is deleted it was discussed and the community deleted it, end of story. It is currently at deletion review, which is the place to gripe about this. The WP:AN is not a venue for this read dispute resolution at the top of this page please. Mike _{(T C)} 23:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean consensus, but that's besides the point. You completely ignored notability guidelines that were decided on by consensus, disregarding a process decided by consensus, to come to a result not warranted by the facts. I'm sorry you don't like people not lying down about it. -- Alpha269 23:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

RFC on the issue has been started. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Bambenek -- Alpha269 00:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Alpha269 just recreated the article, which I re-deleted. -Will Beback 22:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I also mentioned yet another major media outlet interviewed him for his expertise, but apparently the fact that the major media thinks he's notable in his field, that only makes him less notable here. Apparently when I challenge Will Beback's divine notions of what wikipedia should and should not have by using the appropriate appeal processes, I get accused of forum shopping. I request that Will Beback recuse himself from any futher action in this matter. -- Alpha269 00:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no conflict with the person John Bambenek or the editor User:Jbamb. As I've said on your Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Bambenek, many experts are quoted by the Washington Post, experts with greater qualifications than Bambenek's, and none have Wikipedia articles. Your re-creation of the article did not reflect the consensus of the community which has decided to delete it twice recently. The promotion of Bambenek across Wikipedia by several usernames and IPs is disruptive and may come to reflect poorly on the subject. -Will Beback 01:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What does User:Jbamb have to do with this? I suggested that the solution to notable people not having articles is creating them. Your original research as to who is more qualified is irrelvant, Bambenek was notable enough to be searched out by two major media outlets as an expert in computer security. Bambenek meets WP:BIO, you are free to state otherwise in the RFC that another sysop in this thread told me to start. Now, anyone who supports John Bambenek is instantly a meat puppet. Anyone who disagrees with you is disrupting wikipedia. There is a process, there are guidelines, and you are insisting that they don't exist and that you get your way. I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. Unless you honestly think User: Tony Sidaway is a sockpuppet for John Bambenek. -- Alpha269 01:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

User: Tony Sidaway is a sockpuppet for John Bambenek. Well, you have to admit it would explain a lot of things. :) But seriously, I'm not aware of any appeal process from deletion review. If Sidaway proposes using RfC for that then perhaps we should establish a special "Deletion review RfC" page. They are not like article RfCs, nor like user RfCs. -Will Beback 01:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't Sidaway that proposed it, it was User:Onthost on my talk page. WP:DR seems to agree, we have a dispute here, let's just get down to resolving it and get back to making an encyclopedia instead of fighting about whether or not the TPS reports have the right letterhead. -- Alpha269 01:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

And Onthost is not an admin, as you claim. You are wrong about the relevance of John Bambenek, and you are wrong about the use of RfC here. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are of the opinion that the RfC process should not be used to handle disputes. I'm intrigued by this idea that WP:BIO doesn't apply in this case and how someone sought out by major media outlets as an expert and notable in his field is not notable here. Luckily we have guidelines to help us with these vexing questions. -- Alpha269 01:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You are about to brake your last straw here (although your AfD for The New York Times should have done that): If an article fails AfD and DRV, then it simply doesn't matter what WP:BIO says, or any other standard. Chill out. If you keep this up, you are going to get blocked for disruption. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting the heart of the matter, that this is a to-hell-with-the-policies and guidelines and if you don't like it, you get banned. Thank you for demonstrating more eloquently than I could that this isn't about notability, this is about attack and dissent will not be tolerated. -- Alpha269 02:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I was just notified that Alpha269 was blocked by a rogue sysop. After reading the conditions on which he was blocked, namely Jeffrey came in flaming the world and the blocked when any resistance was made, it's clear that he intends Wikipedia to be Gustafsonpedia. Please block me as well. -- Jbamb 02:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Help needed with image uploads from one user

I need help cleaning up the huge mess Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) has caused with his image uploads. He has uploaded lots of images; most are just ripped off other web sites, and then arbitrarily tagged as {{cc-by-2.5}} of {{gfdl}}, even if the source sites clearly claim copyright and do not give the slightest indication that they'd really license their images under a free license (see e.g. Image:HeLa.jpg). He sometimes also claims a "Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) early aviator collection" as the source, yet I've found such images on the web (e.g. at the Smithsonian, see e.g. Image:MatildeMoisant.jpg). This image is an interesting case anyway, because it was originally uploaded by User:JillandJack, who, unless I've missed something, was permablocked as a sockpuppet of User:DW, who was banned for continued copyright violations that followed exactly this pattern. If this "Richard Arthur Norton" continues with this behaviour, I will block him indefinitely. Lupo 10:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, I really wish we had a way to block people from uploading, but still allow editing. The article work of this person is not bad, but their continued lying about copyrights is most troublesome. Lupo 10:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that this incident is an argument for denying upload permissions by default, then granting them to certain people based on a "requests for upload" discussion, in which the person asking for upload rights must convince everyone that he understands the basics of copyright law and Wikipedia's image use policy. --Carnildo 18:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) was extensively involved in the discussion of fair use that came out of Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu 2, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu 2, and elsewhere.

I think I may have butted heads with him a bit on that subject, so I wouldn't feel it appropriate to get involved in an adminnish sort of capacity. Nevertheless, this editor is definitely aware of copyright concerns on Wikipedia. Knowingly uploading a large number of images under an illegitimate Creative Commons license tag just isn't kosher, and is the sort of thing that I expect would draw the wrath of Jimbo.

If Norton can't substantiate his copyright claims–fast–then the images should be deleted and Norton censured. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo sez: [33]. android79 15:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Thanks for that link, but that wasn't the question. I already was certain that I could ban him if he continued, which Jimbo's statement confirms. I'd even do it without that statement; being sure that Jimbo would back me up after the fact if needed. Not having interacted with this user until I discovered his spurious license claims, I can handle the blocking issue myself. It's very simple: he uploads one more image that is, IMO, intentionally mis-tagged, and he'll get a loooong block. But I need help cleaning up his uploads; even if it's "just" deleting them.

I have silver halide images of over 500 photos of early aviators and early movie stars. The aviator images were distributed or sold by the hundreds at each air meet, and collected by a family member who died in 1940. The ones I have posted are now in my possession. The movie star images come from the same collection. Very few of the images that remain are labelled or autographed. The ones I have posted are from matches I have been able to find at: aviation web sites; or where someone has helped identify the aviator from a posting; or where a duplicate in the collection was labelled. The bulk of the identified collection, and the original personal effects were split between the University of Texas; the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum; and other family members. If your not comfortable with me releasing them using "cc-by-2.5" as coming from my early avation archive, I will release them under a "publicity" license. No image is intentionally mistagged nor are claims "spurious". Does that seem agreeable? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the connection with JillandJack and DW might be a coincidence. As far as I can make out, DW/Angélique/JillandJack/... got banned over Québec-related POV-pushing; not copyvios as I thought I remembered. Do we have a list of currently active hard-bans somewhere, giving the reasons? I'm sure I remember someone who got banned over persistent copyvio'ing. (Someone other than MutterErde...) Lupo 15:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

And I've just discovered that he also was/is active on the commons as commons:User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), so those uploads need checking, too. Furthermore, some of his incorrectly tagged uploads have been migrated to the commons by others, e.g. Image:Brice Goldsborough.jpg. Thus we may also need an admin on the commons. Lupo 16:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Commons admin here. I notice most of his uploads of are people we have no license to reproduce the images, nor telling us where they came from. I am going to delete them. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 18:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

His standard response is to just slap {{publicity}} on the contested images, however, I do wonder if that is applicable in all cases... Lupo 16:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

DW is legendary for his lack of civility, but his ultimate undoing was an absolute refusal to establish copyright on images he was uploading. When repeatedly requested to do so, and repeatedly refusing, he was ultimately permanently banned. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If anyone wants, I can stick OrphanBot on his uploads, removing either every image he's ever uploaded, or limiting it to only those tagged with certain templates. --Carnildo 18:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead run the bot, I am tempted to block the user for a few days. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 18:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Screw it, indef block it is. I notice now that all he is using the Commons for is that he is building a family archive (which WP and the Commons are not the place for). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 18:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot's working on it, and should be done with his uploads on the English Wikipedia in about two hours. --Carnildo 19:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Users from other-language Wikipedias will download from the English Wikipedia, and upload to their own language Wikipeia, citing the English Wikipedia as the source. I very often see images deleted from the English Wikipedia for copyright violations, but continue to live on in other Wikipedia's. -- Stbalbach 19:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

For example, OrphanBot deleted the Hunter S. Thompson image [34], but it still lives at Netherlands and Russia. -- Stbalbach 19:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

And, as is usual for these special requests, something goes wrong. In this case, the problem is that many of these images are scans of newspaper clippings, linked inline using [[Media:]]. I'll have to modify OrphanBot to deal with them. --Carnildo 20:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The images that were deleted from General Slocum were most likely in the public domain. The event occured in 1904, and copyright has lapsed. The removed images were labelled as PD, although with an obsolete tag. I understand what you are trying to do, but isn't there a process to deal with alleged copyright violations. Shouldn't that process be followed? Ydorb 01:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The standard process works just fine as long as the volume is low. Dumping 500 images on WP:CP in a single day will clog it up for weeks. --Carnildo 05:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I reverted OrphanBot in the General Slocum article as those images are clearly PD per US law anything published in the US before 1923 = PD --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Some other images of his are in PD apparently, I'm going to do close checkups of the images that were removed and move the acual PD images to commons. I will need help. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, some of the images are in the public domain for one reason or another, but I found many that were copyvios. A side discussion is taking place at User_talk:Zscout370#Richard_Norton. To make it simple: I will probably have to be away from this comp in a little bit, and if you wish to unblock this user, once you feel satisified that he will stop with the image uploads, go ahead and do it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 05:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I see things have moved quickly since I quit yesterday. (Can't be around 24/7.) I think running OrphanBot on Richard's uploads to automatically {{subst:nld}}{{subst:nsd}} all those that are under a CC or GFDL tag is an excellent idea. Once nsd/nld'ed, he (and we) would have 7 days to properly tag them. (Outright deletion, OTOH, is panicking: many of these images could be useable, sometimes because they actually are PD, in a few cases maybe under "fair use"—though I would object to just "fair using" them all. Especially those old aviator images fall in this "maybe useable" category. Images like Image:HeLa.jpg are a different kind altogether. The big problem is that things like the HeLa image or those Meadows Foundation houses' images have damaged his credibility so much that I'm reluctant to accept this person's say-so on the subject of the aviator images.) Lupo 08:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I must say, however, that I am surprised to find out that indeed he has been blocked indefinitely. There was no hurry to do that: I have always, here and on his talk page, said that I'd do so if he continued to upload images and falsely tag them as being under a free license. He has not done that anymore after my (admittedly very stern) warning, so I don't see the need for an indef block at this stage. A block would make only sense if it were needed to stop the inacceptable behavior; but in this case, it seems the warning was sufficient to get the point across. (The discussion at User_talk:Zscout370#Richard_Norton seems to agree with that.) Lupo 08:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Lupo, the block was reduced by another user to a week (including time served). However, I think the user may have left the project over this (he blanked his talk page and I blanked his userpage, on request). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 21:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I know. But I don't believe it yet, he apparently still sent an e-mail through the OTRS. Lupo 12:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

He's not shy about who is his or how to contact him, if anyone gives a damn about driving away a 47 year old research scientist with a geneology hobby.

<personal information removed>WAS 4.250 21:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't post other people's personal information. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, properly cleaning up the mess he's left us with takes an awful lot of time. I still need help. It's slow going, even with the help of Düsi's excellent tool because one has to try to track them all down. I'd really appreciate it if other people would use that tool to see whether we can actually use some of the now orphaned images. To WAS 4.250: nobody wants to drive him away. If he leaves, it's his problem. He has brought this about. But he's equally free and welcome to continue working on Wikipedia, as long as he doesn't do such things again. And I'd prefer not to see any more verbatim copying of text, either. Lupo 12:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Not checked for 30 mins. Anyone looking at this? Funky Monkey 15:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

On it now. android79 15:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

clear. --Syrthiss 16:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

anti-romanian edits of mikkalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This person has anti-romanian edits. Admins should watch him and ban him.

Articles:

• Moldova
• Anti-Romanian
• Transnistria
• all romania/moldova related articles.

Block this anti-romanian guy.

I found one anti-romanian edit made today here.

vandalism on my user page!

Mikkalai vandalized my user page. Stefan cel Mare 20:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be a real problem these days [35] [36]. Respected admins vandalising userpages, just awful. --Sean Black ^(talk) 21:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not vandalism, it is part of the procedure to tag sock puppets or suspected sock puppets. We will wait and see what CheckUser says. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 00:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. And if you have problems with another user, you can always take him/her to WP:RFC. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Block him and ban him for good.

Yeah. Someone has to clean up after him like here: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACommunist_Romania&diff=29995545&oldid=29932893

There are so many acts of vandalism, anti-romanian acts. Block him.

Please sign your posts. Mikkalai will not get banned or blocked without first an RfC and then an RFAr. That's not how things work. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/ Anti-Romanianvandalism of mikkalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

another anti-romanian vandalism of mikkalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Moldova&diff=43596332&oldid=43588621

User:Mikkalai is anti-romanian --209.124.97.107 16:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The above username does not exist. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 17:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

New user created as attack page

User:DufferI is pretty obvious creation of new user to utilize userpage as an attack page against User:Duffer1... check the history for the original content before blanking of the personal info on the page by the AfD nominator. I councilled a Speedy nom as attack page. If an admin could look at the speedy nom, I'm sure it would be appreciated.--Isotope23 19:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (wikilinks by CobaltBlueTony 19:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

User:TheEmoEater

This user had a fair use image, racial slur, and derogatory commentary on his user page: [37]. Based on my reading of WP:UP and past actions I've seen taken with offensive content on user pages, I asked the user politely to remove it: [38]. He complied – sort of: [39] and after I complained that he did not remove enough, he left this comment for me: [40]. I then removed all of the offensive content; he then vandalized both my user and user talk pages: [41] [42]. User:Flamingspinach then restored the offensive content: [43]. Later, Flamingspinach indicated that he may have misjudged the situation: [44], though I would still like input on the matter.TheEmoEater then listed me on his user page as a vandal: [45]. Removal of offensive content, a block of TheEmoEater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and review of my actions are requested. android79 20:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, your actions in this case were correct. it appears Bishonen has the other stuff in hand. Keep up the good work :-) Alhutch 20:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Supported per my comment on Flamingspinach's talk page. --Syrthiss 20:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for review

Ted_Wilkes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been wikilawyering and harrassing me at my talk page because of the block I gave him. He has begun challenging the copyright of images I've uploaded to commons on entirely baseless grounds (the images were painted in the United States before 1923, so are clearly public domain), as some kind of revenge. I ask administrators to review the block I gave him and the current situation and take appropriate action. Thank you. Chick Bowen 21:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have most certainly not been wikilawyering and harrassing anyone. Chick Bowen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made claims on Image copyright that were false and after someone posted the "copright violation" notice at Wikimedia Commons, Chick Bowen removed it. I suggested he read the Scope of Licensing section and sub: For a picture of artwork at Commons:Licensing that states a painting is not PD-US pre 1923 as rights belong to the painter and the photographer of the painting. - Ted Wilkes 22:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, never mind, I have no time for this. I'm taking off for a while--it's a long time coming, actually. Details are on my user page. Take care, all. Chick Bowen 00:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go. But note that some of your image uploads to the commons are questionable, e.g. the Anita Malfatti paintings. Lupo 16:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: "created before 1923" is not "published before 1923". See WP:PD#Artworks. But that's no big deal, a lot of people make that mistake. Lupo 16:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In the U.S., if the photograph is merely a reproduction of the work of art, the photographer has no copyright because it lacks originality. Therefore, only the painter's copyright would matter. See this and this.-- Kjkolb 09:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Attempts to change my password

User:203.217.8.30 has been attempting to log-in as me, by requesting that Wikipedia send a new password. I have received 63 emails from wiki@wikimedia.org stating that "Someone (probably you, from IP address 203.217.8.30) requested that we send you a new Wikipedia login password for en.wikipedia.org." Thus my password has changed 63 times this morning. I have blocked the user. Is there any way of stopping this kind of thing happening. Cnwb 01:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I also get these all the time; the vandal just has to try to log in as you and click on "password reminder" (or whatever the button is labeled). You can safely ignore these e-mails, though it's nice that it gives you the originating IP, so you know who is responsible. Antandrus (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't block him, its harmless, more annoying, plus blocking will just make it worse! Mike _{(T C)} 03:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This was happening to me last week. I reported the ip to their isp's abuse contact. The anon was unhappy apparently that I had blocked them for 2 more months after they vandalized 1 day out of the previous 2 month block. --Syrthiss 13:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal info in history of biography article

Hello,

Mr. Schuyler Rice has contacted me for some assistance with his biography entry but I'm not sure what to do. It seems that someone added in Mr. Rice's email address to the article, which Mr. Rice removed, but he is concerned that it can still be discovered in the page history. Is it possible to remove his personal info from the page history as well? Triddle 01:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Jkelly 04:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Mike Church

I've gone and blocked him indefinitely, see [46]. He has a long, long, long history of petty vandalism, sockpuppetry, and personal-attack verbal incontinence and is simply irredeemable. -- Curps 07:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

One less "anti-cabal" raving lunatic. I reverted his rant too.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 07:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't ban for the attack, just because banning for the vandalism is so much easier. It makes that political decision less relevant. :) --Golbez 08:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, the stealth and hoax vandalism is the whole point. We had another user recently who was blocked indefinitely for nihilartikel creation (and asked to fully reveal these prior to unblocking), and that was the precedent here. The second sentence in my original message above was just me ranting. -- Curps 08:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Before I forget, in a related vein, this should probably be looked into, as a clear threat. It's a sockpuppet making the same blanking edit as a prior edit by Mike Church: see history and [47]. It's certainly possible that the sockpuppet isn't Mike but someone trying to discredit him. -- Curps 09:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

USERBOXES

Dear Administrators, In recent days I have noticed that some userboxes referring to the views on regional policy were removed. They include the supporters of: independent Chechnya, Kurdistan, Montenegro, Kosovo and Metohija and many others. I do not know the reason, I can only suspect that they have to do with NPoV. In my opinion NPoV should refer only to articles, not to userboxes put on the pages of the users. But even if one accepts the rule that it should also refer to userboxes, then all the userboxes referring to unity/separatist movements of possibly generally referring to regional policy (or maybe politics in general) should be removed. I cannot see the reason why Independent Kosovo and Metohija userbox should be banned, while the one This user opposes the independence of Kosovo and Metohija should be kept (which is the case now). Why Independent Chechnya is banned while Independent Quebec or Independent Basque Country is OK. I ask you to either restore all the userboxes or remove all of those supporting either unification or separatist movements or the opposition to them. I think a serious discussion should be made on the use of userboxes in the context of NpoV. The following questions should be answered:

1) Should (and to which) extent NPoV refer also to Userpages? 2) If the answer is yes then it should be defined what issues should and what issues should not be displayed. If any issue should not be displayed it should be the whole issue.

Regards and thank you in advance, Jasra 11:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• You would be interested in Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes. - Mailer Diablo 18:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Jasra, I think what was and wasn't kept is somewhat random due to the mass deletions and undeletions, although the more popular userboxes might have fared better than others. This is just my guess, as I haven't followed it that closely. -- Kjkolb 09:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Insulting behaviour by User Nohat

I had asked a simple question to one user Nohat at this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_English_words_of_Tamil_origin "What is your level of knowledge regarding Dravidian Languages."

He terms this as "a stupid question" (Nohat 04:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

My request to other administrators is to kindly tell whether the above question is vandalism. How can some one term my straight forward question as "stupid". I asked this question because he was editing a lot of matter in that page and he was contradicting all the known texts. If he is qualified, he should say his qualification. If he is not qualified, he should say that he is not qualified Does an administrator in Wikipedia automatically gets rights to call others by insulting terms and also brand a question asking for academic credentials ("level of knowledge regarding Dravidian Languages") as "stupid"

To whom should we report this. What is Wikipedia and other admins going to do for such high handed behaviour. What is the solution for this.Doctor Bruno 12:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia welcomes all contributors who can work constructively within the various policies and guidelines. Since research skills are generic, it doesn't really matter if a person does not have academic credentials in a particular subject area, they can still contribute. Wikipedians are judged primarily by the quality of their contributions, and it is not necessary to have any formal qualification to be a valuable contributor. --bainer (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Any one can contribute or edit or verify. As I have repeatedly told, the contention is not about the etymology of one word. It is about insulting remarks being made. I can edit a page on Nuclear weapons, but I should not pass opinions that "this technology has been lost", this theory "is pure speculation" or this question "is stupid". My concern is such irresponsible behaviour. What to do for such things.Doctor Bruno 13:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say his remarks are uncivil, but not vandalism. Nevertheless, as long as he's basing his edits on verifiable sources like etymological dictionaries, and citing them, his personal expertise in Dravidian linguistics is irrelevant. Angr/talk 12:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I never said that his behaviour was vandalism. I have no problem with his edits, as long as they are meaningful (most of which, i am afraid, are not) I just asked your opinion as to whether my question "What is your level of knowledge regarding Dravidian Languages." was vandalism that it attracts such a scathing remark

Which Etymological dictionary says that the /l/ of 'four' which has been lost in Tamil

Which etymological dictionary gives him the right to call my question as "stupid" Doctor Bruno 13:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread your original question; I thought you were asking whether his answer could be construed as vandalism. I don't think your question about his level of knowledge is vandalism, but I do know that he his a trained linguist and I trust his ability to use reliable sources and accurately reflect what they have to say. Angr/talk 13:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

He may be a trained linguist, but what are his qualifications as far as Dravidian Languages are concerned. he seems to be making a lot of baseless allegations. He blatantly says that tamil does not have the word naal. Without even basic knowledge of Dravidian languages, how can he tell that such word does not exist in Tamil. We are happy if he contributes or edits the page, but he should limit his work to THE LANGUAGES IN WHICH HE IS TRAINED and not IN LANGUAGES ABOUT WHICH HE KNOWS nothing.

By the way, being a linguist or an Administrator in Wikipedia does not confer him a right to call others insulting names. Doctor Bruno 16:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE READ the above disclaimer about Dispute resolution, this is not the venue. Mike _{(T C)} 16:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Request for comments is the correct place for content and user behaviour disputes. - Mailer Diablo 18:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Reporting abuse of shared IPs

I recently blocked an anonymous user for vandalism (talk, contribs). Should such instances be reported to the organization or business which controls that network?

On the one hand, we'd like this kind of abuse to stop. On the other hand, I'd rather not do anything that would cause the loss of anonymity to the user, no matter how extreme that user's edits may be. Given that this particular user is edting from a university, such actions may have other ramifications too. Any thoughts? Mindmatrix 18:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• That'll also depend on the disciplinary action taken by the education institution - For a university, it is not impossible for them to decide tracking down the user and send him/her a warning/cut off access/both, provided that they do take our complaint seriously. - Mailer Diablo 18:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

One thing to note: A phone call will be taken much more seriously than an email. I've emailed plenty of schools, and have never received a response, or noticed a decline in vandalism. I know of another admin who has phoned schools and recieved a good response. I'd suggest calling the school and speaking to the IT department (or if it is a grade school, to the principal/headmaster) and see if that doesn't get better results. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 19:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think it is only worth the effort to contact them if they have been warned repeatedly and don't stop or if they did something that was particularly damaging. If it was a single, minor incident, it might not be a good idea to get the person in trouble, lest they vandalize Wikipedia again in revenge. They might be deterred from doing this by the possibility of getting caught again, but they could access the Internet from home or another location instead of school or work. For cases that are worth pursuing, I think Essjay's suggestion is good. A letter would probably also work better than an email, but a phone call would probably be the best. -- Kjkolb 08:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-Molasses

What is going on ? Server down ? Makes Dial-up look speedy. Martial Law 19:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC) :o

seems to come and go for me. --Syrthiss 19:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia will always have its slow periods. If it's much slower than usual for an extended period of time, ask at WP:VP technical, not here. android79 19:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* inappropriate username?

Seal Clubber (talk · contribs)?

I'm reasonably sure I know the answer, but wanted to (1) get a 2nd opinion and (2) I'm about to leave work so if I didn't get to blocking them I wanted to make sure it gets done. Thanks! --Syrthiss 19:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm torn on the username, but the category he's created (Category:Canadian Heroes and Heroines) indicates he needs to read WP:POV. android79 19:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a tough one since it isn't blatantly a violation but it falls past some of the Wikipedia:Username guidelines. I'd suggest first asking this person to change their name at this while we determine whether the name is blockable or not. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 20:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Seal clubbing is a legal occupation as are many others in the meat and fur industries. Perhaps since humans are being killed instead of merely cute seals, "marine", "soldier" and "gun manufacturer" should be off limits also? WAS 4.250 20:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Marine Killer (talk · contribs) would probably be asked to change their name. --Syrthiss 12:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This is true, seal clubbing is a valid profession in Canada, as horriable as it is. Mike _{(T C)} 23:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that Wikipedia is overly sensitive about usernames, but I don't think the fact that it is a legal occupation in some places makes it an appropriate username according to policy. Prostitution is legal in some places, but someone with "hooker" or "whore" in her username would probably be blocked. Whether a username has a high potential to be offensive or disruptive is probably the most important factor in deciding whether to block it. I believe that this name falls under the inflammatory username section of the username policy, which bans "Names that promote or refer to violent or otherwise illegal real-world actions." It only has to be violent to fit the criteria, though seal clubbing is illegal in many countries. -- Kjkolb 08:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's inappropriate. It's divisive and will offend some editors (it semi-offends me, for a start). Letting the name stay harms the project because of the potential for conflict, blocking it does not. It's the project that counts. --kingboyk 08:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

He isn't editing our articles on seal culling so I don't see a problem. Blocking everyone would sort out all conflict problems. Should we do that? Anyone who is going to have problems with the name Seal Clubber isn't going to last long on wikipedia anyway.Geni 10:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me put this another way. We're here to build an encyclopedia, it's not a game or a chat forum. What is the likelihood that Mr Seal Clubber is going to contribute wonderful NPOV prose to our project? About zero, I'd say. --kingboyk 08:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Why? Has he even made any edits in relation to seal culling?Geni 10:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Geni here. I see nothing wrong with the user's contributions and banning a name like that seems pretty rigid. Would you ban User:Whaler? Or User:Butcher? Or even User:Poacher? But feel free to ask him or her to change the name if it offends or annoys you. Haukur 10:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Besides, maybe it's just someone who likes to go clubbing to the music of Seal. :-) Angr/talk 11:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

That already came to mind. He might also be a furry whose fursona is a seal raver. ;) --Syrthiss 12:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I say we WP:AGF here. It's a considerably less controversial username IMO than User:Yuckfoo, who is nevertheless a valuable contributor and not a troll. Angr/talk 12:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Username blocks are not only for the "protection" of other Wikipedians; they are often for the "protection" of the user. This user is certainly welcome to contribute under this name, but should not be suprised in the least if other Wikipedians are offended and take a defensive stance towards them. Using a questionable username is an individual decision, but it requires the user to realize and accept that they will offend some contributors and that their experience here will be harmed for that. With all the other reasons that contributors have an unpleasant stay here (check the history of this page, RfC, and RfAr for suggestions of other reasons that a contributor's stay might be unpleasant), is it really worth adding an inflammatory username to the pile? I for one don't want to see what Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Seal Clubber will look like.

With that said, has anyone talked to this user, or even told them they were being discussed here? Perhaps they could offer some insight into thier choice, or, if they haven't realized it might be offensive, would be willing to make a voluntary namechange? Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 14:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't brought it up with the user, but I will do so now. I was wanting to see the feedback I got here before taking a further step (be it blocking which seems to have been ruled out or approaching them). :) --Syrthiss 14:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

abusive sock puppets and articles on large numbers

It seems Robot32 (talk · contribs), Facts&moreFacts (talk · contribs), Foosher (talk · contribs), Fzgoogolplexian (talk · contribs), and Tooth Fairy (talk · contribs) are all sock puppets of the same person. Several of them have been used to edit pages related to very large numbers. For example, see Jonathan Bowers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other names of large numbers. However, they have all been blocked for page-move vandalism. I suspect they they were trying to get blocked on purpose. I wonder what's going on with this user. --Ixfd64 22:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

People are strange. Don't unblock. — Mar. 16, '06 [18:13] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Monobook preview

I noticed that this is still down. The css seems to work though. Are any devs working on this?Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 23:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, help?

I've been sort of out of it on Wikipedia lately. (Lost (TV series) stole my brain instead.) Anyway, got this email. Was this something I did or is this guy randomly appealing to admins via email? Totally befuddled. Thanks, jengod 01:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

From: Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill@yahoo.com>	Mailed-By: bounce.secureserver.net
To: ***@###.com
Date: Mar 15, 2006 11:17 AM
Subject: Wikipedia - Blocking Policy violation
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Add sender to Contacts list | Delete this message | Report phishing | Show original | Message text garbled?

Please unblock this disruptive block.  Blocker not interested in resolution.

Block Log
http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Halliburton_Shill

User contributions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Halliburton_Shill

User's response
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Halliburton_Shill#Inappropriate_usernames_-_and_why_Halliburton_Shill_is_not

Unblock user
http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Ipblocklist&action=unblock  

Administrators noticeboard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Appropriateness_of_the_name_.22User:Halliburton_Shill.22 

I haven't received it, but the user was blocked for a bad username, and shouldn't be unblocked. Ral315 (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have received it, so apparently it's a sort of mass-mailing. Joyous | Talk 02:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I received it as well. He used his talk page as an attack page as well, btw. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This user was also using his user page for POV and personal attacks. It was put on MFD. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Cassia Riley

Subject of the article is objecting to a picture with a CC licence. Geni 11:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that she objects to the photo being there (she shouldn't have allowed it to be taken then), that she believes the photo is a copyvio (use {{imagevio}}, or that she feels CC licence images (which this is not, it's marked copyrighted and available for any purpose) should not be allowed? Stifle 17:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I presume this is connected to publicity rights. Secretlondon 19:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Help - Objectivity

When searching wiki for "objectivity" you are taken to "objectivity (philosophy)". It should go to "objectivity (disambiguation)". How do you correct this?Amerindianarts 12:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Objectivity itself shouldn't be a redirect at all, should it? Shouldn't either Objectivity (philosophy) or Objectivity (disambiguation) be renamed Objectivity? Angr/talk 12:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No. "Objectivity" in philosophy is not the same as, e.g. journalism. It is technical to the discipline. Extraneous, non-philosophical bull has already been removed to their pertinent disciplines and a search for "objectivity" needs to go to the disambiguation page. So, do you know how to make the change??Amerindianarts 13:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've now made Objectivity an overview page, refereing to main articles for the different topics. Objectivity (philosophy) has been cut down a little to refer specifically to the philosophical aspects. BTW, this is not strictly something which really needs to be of notice to Administrators. --Salix alba (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Good job.Amerindianarts 13:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

poorly watched featured articles

Can administrators try to make it a priority to watch featured articles? There was a piece of very blatant vandalism that remained on there for almost half an hour, and everybody ignored it. This sounds like a rather trivial issue, but I suspect some aren't watching it due to systemic bias. Well, anyway. It just aggravates me further because my connection is unusually slow today. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 14:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to featured articles in general, or the FA on the main page? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The user who posted had, just before they posted, reverted some vandalism to the main page featured article, their contrib history shows. They must mean that. I'd counter by saying it doesn't take an admin to monitor for and revert vandalism. There's a limited number of us and we do the best we can! (I, for example, have the featured article The Beatles on my watchlist, as that's an interest of mine, and I've reverted vandalism within the last few minutes). --kingboyk 15:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It's probably just chance on how fast vandalism gets reverted; it depends on who's watching, at what time. Vandalism on the main page FA is usually reverted relatively quickly. Another possibility is that the people who helped write this and nominate this FA (Johnleemk, if my memory serves me correctly) probably aren't logged on at this time, due to time zone differences. Again, though, most FA vandalism is reverted extremely quickly, regardless of the article. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I know we watchlist all of the FA's in the CVU IRC channel, but perhaps we should make it a habbit to keep them on watch even after they've left the main page. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 16:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It may be appropriate to point out that for those interested in guarding FAs, this is a useful tool, and it's accessible by anyone. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Self promotion spam

User:Ati3414 has been warned repeatedly to stop posting links to his own work all over relativity and physics pages. He will not stop his self promotion even after being blocked due to it once already. I have taken the time to remove all his spam before and so has other users, but he keeps adding it back. Here is some info about one of his previous boughts of spam: [48]

Any help or suggestions on how to handle this would be much welcomed. Thank you Gregory9 17:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Create an RfC or similar to build a consensus against their actions if need be. That was done mostly successfully here in a somewhat similar case. If it's even more obvious just keep extending the block each time it is done, after giving very clear, polite warnings. - Taxman ^Talk 18:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

One time the complaints about link spam from User:Ati3414 boiled over into a mediation request [49]. However mediation never took place for as one commented "It looks like this is one person against a number of others, and that everyone has said everything that they could say on the subject. If this is the case, what would you like achieved in mediation? If this is a binary decision, and neither side is going to change their mind, I'm not sure that a mediation would be sucessful."

This is exactly the same thing again, but on a wider scale involing many physics and relativity pages. It appears that a consensus has already been made. People continue to remove his spam, yet he refuses to accept the consensus and have the links to his pages be taken down... he sees it as a personal attack. Also I'm not an admin, so I can't block as you suggested. Is that really the only option? It seemed counterproductive last time as it only enraged him. Gregory9 19:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Try a WP:RFAR then. Blocking because we don't really agree with him is to be avoided. Stifle 21:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but if it's not a question of agreeing with the guy, but him violating Wikipedia policy, it is blockable. If there is a clear consensus against the actions, and there is a clear and polite warning to stop, then continuing is simple disruption and any admin can block for that. WP:RFC is more useful in this case than RFAR because it can establish or clarify a consensus, and that should be done before wasting time at RFAR. If there is already a very clear consensus that wouldn't be needed, but having it all in one collected space is helpful for enforcement. And no it's not the only option, listening to the consensus is a good one, but it the user refuses to do that and continues to be disruptive they are choosing that option. There is also m:Spam blacklist that can be used if needed. - Taxman ^Talk 22:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, please set up an RFC, formal or informal, but include a concise description of the problem, the pages he is linking to, and specific diffs as evidence of his edits and requests to stop. Don't make it an attack piece, just make a neutral discussion to get to the bottom of the issue and establish consensus to allow moving on. He doesn't appear willing to listen to others at all from what I can see. There appears to be more than a self promotion problem here, as he is editing quite fast, and all of his recent edits should be checked. - Taxman ^Talk 23:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

SQUIDWARD attack

We just had a stream of a couple of hundred vandal attacks in the space of less than a minute. All had the Edit comment "SQUIDWARD!!" and replaced the entire article content with [[Image:Squid.jpg|left]]. See, for example Army Men (game). Most worrying, the edits were done by a wide range of anonymous IPs. Some posted this several times, some just once. I'd guess that at least 30 separate IPs were used. This has all the hallmarks of a co-ordinated bot attack. Needs further investigation? This same bot could be used for something more malicious. Gwernol 17:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL I'm sorry I have to do this *moves rock that was ontop of Gwernol*. All jokin aside, the squidward bot has been plagueing the wiki for about a month now, there is an incidient page regarding this bot. Ill find it for you. Mike _{(T C)} 17:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Mike, I'd been wondering what that sharp pain on top of my skull was. A rock, huh :-) I didn't know about the SQUIDWARD bot; glad its a known phenomenon. I should have researched a little more. Thanks. Gwernol 17:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As promiced the link to the incident page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/Squidward , thanks for keeping an eye out and sorry I poked fun at you. Mike _{(T C)} 17:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Mike is confused; neither Squidward nor Gwernol live under a rock: that's Patrick Starfish. ;-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Damnit a taste of my own medicine, tu che!! Mike _{(T C)} 19:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to remind newer admins and those who rarely focus on dealing with vandalism, (only when it affects their favorite article, for example), that any IP addresses used for "SQUIDWARD!!" vandalism should be blocked indefinitely rather than 24 hours, as these are all open proxies or zombie computers (otherwise nobody could have access to such a variety of unrelated IPs), and blocking for any shorter duration will result in the IP being re-used in the next attack, because the shorter block always takes preference. Note that "indefinite" does not mean "forever" and that if any legitimate users are affected by this phenomenon, they can have be unblocked once a system administrator confirms that the gaping hole in their network security has been fixed, and blah blah blah... — Mar. 16, '06 [18:10] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Falkland Islands

A straw poll of editors showed > 2:1 in favour of the wording as I left it (which was Falkland Islands (Spanish: Islas Malvinas) or some such). A couple of POV warriors seem to think this endorses the Argentine claim, which is nonsense, so are rewording the lead rather than achieveing consensus on Talk first. Current veriosn as I left it was the result of a decently rational debate, I thought, but what do I know? I am English and therefore apparently not neutral (you have to be Gibraltarian to be neutral, I think). CIA World Factbook and Britannica both have Malvinas in the lead. I've had enough edit wars for one night. Just zis Guy you know? 00:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)